Those “people” are CAS mains with huge bias. And it’s not just “a few others” even though that is their narrative.
5 Likes
DollarPlays’ polls are problematic to cite, for a few reasons:
- DollarPlays is a YouTuber who himself personally hates aircraft
- Inevitably, that could introduce potential sampling bias (respondents’ opinion versus the general population’s opinion)…“birds of a feather” and all that
- The poll is highly generalized, despite major variations between ranks
- Most critically, there is no proof voters involved are WT players at all (being on YouTube, it could well be bots too)
All of these faults taken together mean that survey doesn’t impress.…it just has too many flaws to be trusted as serious.
Having played the game extensively at 8.X and lower, I can say that’s not the case at those BRs (more than two-thirds of thr game) and the 2017 data demonstrated that point in its own time.
While I won’t bother talking about the situation of 9.X+ (that range is always a mess, somehow), the reality beneath that range is that aircraft have higher costs, lacking capture point influence and account for fewer kills.
Far from being “favored” in the mode as-is, aircraft below 9.X+ are at a considerable disadvantage as it is.
To have a proper analysis of SPAAs’ effectiveness against aircraft at scale, you’d have to have:
-
Good data filtration (better than is publicly available as-is) to check the nature of any deaths suffered and kills by type
-
Confirmation that the SPAAs analyzed were actually being used as SPAAs against aircraft
- Wannabe TD use of SPAAs has fouled data collection attempts for eons
Based on current conditions, I don’t believe we will see the relevant needs for proper analysis met any time soon.
There’s really no such thing: everyone in RB GFs is a tanker…it’s just a matter of the population comprising of ‘strict’ tankers and tankers who fly.
Tankers who fly certainly aren’t lesser for being able to handle more vehicles.
1 Like
How do you call people who spawn Bt-5/Bt7 to rush cap to spawn Yak-9K ASAP; people who spawn similar rank 1 lights for america to rush F4U-4/B, F6F-5 and similar?
6 Likes
I really think you are being disingenuous here. They may be playing GRB, but they take to the air ASAP, and continue to go back into the air whenever possible. That is what I mean by “CAS main” and pretty much everyone reading this thread understands that. These are players that have more “air time” than “ground time”.
I never mentioned “lesser” so I’m not sure why you would add that term to the discussion.
My point rests on the issue of fairness - and IMHO the mechanics are not fair when one side has a greater inherent advantage - that of being able to decide when to engage/disengage as well as have a longer range of weapons. I played mostly WWII vehicles in GRB and those spaa were owned by the CAS of that era.
By virtue of their usage of tanks, they are tankers. Using aircraft thereafter makes such people tankers who fly.
As far as what to call their tactics and what results they bring in…I see them as usually subpar and wasteful. When I see “Cap-n-Fly” happen, it is usually by people who don’t do well with any of their vehicles. They generally get few kills, often crash and leave the match after one or two spawns, depending on how their initial spawn goes. CnF’s just never impressed me.
Rushing into the battle to obtain an aircraft, especially at the cost of your initial spawn, is unnecessary when a competent TWF can get the same results after a good showing of conventional play early on.
As I have mentioned many times before, the Yak-9K situation is a modeling accuracy issue in need of correction.
By virtue of their use of tanks at any time in the match, a player in RB GFs qualifies a tanker IMO. On respawns, these are really a matter of player choice (as allowed by their SP).
I critiqued the implication of bias (and being ‘lesser’) about these people because respawn choices really are a player’s own…they have every right to do as they please with their SP. (“If you have the SP to spend, it’s yours to spend as you wish.”)
I have also played wartime BRs extensively but have reached a different conclusion.
On SPAAs, while there is variation between specific models, you can often fire volleys of ground fire off and spray it out to ranges outside what aircraft can accurately target at…so that faceoff is best described as ‘situational.’
You are moving the goal-posts and not actually addressing our issue. I am NOT (and I dont think many/any players are) saying there’s breaking of rules. That players are choosing to go into the air is not the point.
What we are saying is the status quo is not acceptable. There need to be significant changes to CAS to make this mode viable to many or… GIVE US A TO MODE.
Why not have both modes and let the players pick?
If you can’t address that question without going off on a tangent you and I have nothing more to discuss.
2 Likes
Above 9.X+, there might be (and probably is) an issue with balance due to the ever churning quagmire of messes that the reliance on new technology (often locked behind module upgrades no less) brings to both air and ground units.
Below 9.X, I haven’t seen anything that suggests any sort of major changes are needed, much less urgently so.
As I stated earlier:
Rest assured - Cas mains will cope that “this is vocal minority” and “everybody loves cas”
4 Likes
I’ve already seen the reply saying the poll is basically fake news , I play, I don’t watch warthunder youtubers, i still say let people have the choice and yes me and my friends will still and always will find cas annoying.
Pro choice tank players ;)
1 Like
Skipped from reply 3 to here. Anything happen during that or is it mainly cas people and tank people not agreeing on anything?
It’s mostly one CAS main spewing his opinions and everyone else stupidly trying to get through to him.
2 Likes
It is telling that you’re expressing derision here for the very concept of what forums are for…discourse. Discussion is what forums are for and yet here you are complaining about people not buying into groupthink just because it’s in fashion. That is very revealing and not a good look.
Rather than yearning for an echo chamber, why don’t you follow the example myself and some others have set by pressing for informed, productive discussions with sober analyses and factual histories?
Posts like that are far more useful than raging about the last death you suffered or calls for censorship.
Those people play tanks just because they are forced to do so by the game itself. Calling them tankers is a massive stretch.
8 Likes
Where did I ever rage about my death and called for censorship? I just said people should stop engaging with your bad faith arguments and bad data interpretation.
3 Likes
Cas mains logic: “I have a sandwich, therefore no one else is hungry”
9 Likes
It’s pretty straightforward in my view…if you use a tank, you’re a tanker. If you use a tank and then, at some point later, use an aircraft you are a tanker who flies. (First spawn helicopters do put a slight wrinkle into this…but that’s only at a certain, narrower range in the midst of the whole mode)
Given the inferiority of rewards for aircraft in RB GFs (as compared to other modes), it is extremely doubtful that many players come to RB GFs strictly to become tankers who fly. That topic was recently the subject of its own thread.
I never accused you specifically of either thing (though trying to exclude anyone from discussions is unimpressive). A person (or group) who can defend their stances don’t resort to abandoning the matter and laying in ignorance, they can argue the point and validate their claims.
I must scoff at this talk of “bad data interpretation”…I invited others to raise problems they found (nothing yet) and freely noted limitations (lack of specificity about vehicle types) that kept the analysis from being even more specific. The analysis posted was fair, in-depth and reasonable. The invitation remains–open-ended–if you have a critique, let’s hear it.
The main complaint about the analysis was that it disproved the CAS hype of 2017 and some people want to keep that myth alive…regardless of the data.
I have no time for bad faith argumentation either…that’s beneath me and I don’t bother with it. People who insist on claiming they’re for balance while insisting on biased and draconian handling of aircraft for being aircraft…those are the folks you’re looking for.
That’s what you took away from that? Lmao, you might be hungry because you’re definitely not reading too well. What’s so hard about calling a player who uses a tank a tanker?
If you stand in garage, you’re a car
10 Likes
It’s a tad bizarre to say someone is a car for standing in a garage, but in this day and age…I guess anything is possible. My comment was based on something far more sensible and straightforward:
Spoiler
Most players who use tanks call themselves “tankers”…reinforcing the suitability of this billing.
I’m not sure why calling a tanker a tanker is such a sticking point…perhaps some people just want arguments.
Just like its bizzarre to call cas mains “tankers”, especially when their biggest dream is to be able to sawn a plane without even bothering to use tank.
4 Likes