Rest assured - Cas mains will cope that “this is vocal minority” and “everybody loves cas”
3 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.
7 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”
8 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
9 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
Posts like that are far more useful than raging about the last death you suffered or calls for censorship.
You did it right here.
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.
You did. But you also refused to acknowledge any other interpretation than your own.
And as I previously said I will stop engaging with you because it’s just not worth it. You are a CAS apologist and nothing will change your mind.
2 Likes
It’s like calling an employee of 5 years an intern just because that is a necessary step one has to go through to become a full employee
1 Like
We have tankers who fly in WT…that’s about as close as we get to “CAS main” or whatever your billing for other players is. They used tanks to get to subsequent respawns, so they’re at least tankers if nothing else beyond that.
The reality about the game is that players are entitled to use whatever vehicles they wish to once they’ve earned enough SP to do so…it is their SP and their decision.
If a person has enough SP to spawn in whatever vehicles he wishes, it is not the place of someone else to deride or deny them that…they’re your teammates or opponents and there’s nothing illegitimate about it.
Not really…I simply adhered to what the data said while also disclosing the limitations imposed by its framing. Some crosschecking wasn’t possible because of insufficient data filtration…you couldn’t break down vehicle types well enough to inverse matters and check it from their side, you had to go to the more general macro view.
If someone has a challenge to raise about the analysis and methodology, they’re free to do so…it can be discussed at that time.
Being a tanker who flies =/= “CAS apologist”
If you had read what I said a few posts up…
…I even specified the reasoning too.
I’m open to TO, denounce the Yak-9K and acknowledge 9.X+ is fouled by issues…if anything, I’m a moderate. 😂
You had answer for than couple post earlier.
No need to double down on it.
Again:
When you take the matter of what people spawn and reactions to this down to their basic roots (freedom of choice): you’re either respectful of players’ freedom of choice or you aren’t.
Given that many argue for TO on the basis of freedom of choice (a potentially valid argument for TO), decrying other players in RB GFs as-is for harnessing their freedom of choice by using aircraft now is not a wise angle to pursue…it presents an embarrassing double standard whenever TO becomes a topic. As a person friendly to TO, I’d advise people to not fall into that pit.
All of the above is why any TO advocates interested in trying to see TO realized should be pitching TO on its own merits rather than trying to campaign it against anything else.
Again, you are wrong.
Cas mains are not tankers.
Just because you make yourself a dinner does not mean you are a chef.
Just because you put band aid on your finger if you cut yourself does not mean you are a paramedic.
Just because you write a sticky note does not mean you are a writer or novelist.
Just because you commute to work with car does not mean you are race driver.
For CAS mains, spawning a tank is a necessary evil — they don’t want to play as a tanker, they just want to fly planes. They’re "not tankers.
OMG, why do you even try to justify it with such mental gymnastics, why is this the hill you are willing to die on?
5 Likes
Spoiler
Using terminology right out of the dictionary is roughly the opposite of “mental gymnastics” lol
In its most basic form, this is about respect for players’ freedom of choice and their status as fellow WT players.
As aircraft earnings and rewards in RB GFs are worse than Air modes’ yields and the costs involved are higher (and action delayed), the suggested theory that players come into RB GFs strictly to use aircraft is also very questionable…they’d be putting themselves at a disadvantage by trying to grind this way.
A relative handful of players may try grinding aircraft in RB GFs despite the inefficiencies involved, but it is doubtful this occurs on any serious scale. The numbers just don’t work for it…certainly below 9.X+.
Again, you are wrong.
Refer to previous posts, as you were explained earlier.
2 Likes