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.
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. 😂
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.
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+.
By that same logic the “tankers” become pilots after getting in a plane. And by spending most of their time in the plane and that being their main goal, I think it fair to call them CAS mains aka pilots.
Who said people are using it to grind? Most of these people have the stuff ground out and just play for fun. Same as me sticking to 6.0 tp 8.3 France even though I jave spaded it a long time ago. It’s just a bunch of lineups I like playing.
I already described the logic differentiating tankers and tankers who flies as:
All of this follows the same characterization…it’s consistent (and reads loosely from book definitions). Arguably, you could call a TWF a pilot…but it misses half their selections. (“CA player” might work better).
Given that a player is entitled to do whatever they wish with respawns, there’s no real purpose to anything beyond a TWF billing than making those players out as “others” in the mode and that seems wrong.
As others often tell it, ‘everyone’s out for earnings of some sort’–not fun, immersion or anything like that. In line with what I’ve said before on respect for players’ freedom of choice, I see no problems with someone playing what they like (personally, that and the realities of what it’s like at 9.X+ are why I scoff at top tier elitism).
If a player has sufficient SP, they can do whatever they want with it. As RB GFs is for aircraft as much as it is for ground units, there’s really no standing among players to be so judgmental of others’ choices.
No sorry that is disingenuine. What that situation is, is a pilot who drives a light tank into cap. They are not there to play tanks but alas they are forced to play them to get into their planes. So instead of calling rhem tankers who fly it would be more appropriate to call them pilots who are temporarily grounded
In my eyes if you use a tank just because you’re forced to in order to get in something you want to play (planes), you aren’t really a tanker.
Your use of the word if is extremely sketchy as well, since in many tiers the game literally forces you to use ground vehicles as a first spawn.
As for helicopters as a first spawn, you’re limited to dumb ordnance so your success will vary greatly. On the other hand, spawning LT will cost you much less SP, give you basically free access to SP from capping the point and to top it off, you’ll receive additional perks like scouting and possibly decreased SP cost for CAS.
Plenty of CAS aircraft don’t really blend well with Air modes as that’s a mode which has been taken over by fighters. Also, CAS gameplay in there might be boring to many, as you’re basically bombing randomly placed bases and/or AI ground targets.
In GRB you’ll end up bombing player-controlled vehicles which sounds like more fun, at least to me.
Taking the reward penalty to go from the bottom to top of the food chain is also enticing to many, which shouldn’t be taken for granted.
The distinction between a CAS main and a tanker who flies is the intent. CAS mains spawn in the cheapest fastest thing to get into a plane ASAP. tankers who fly spawn in a tank and play it. Then they die and maybe spawn in a plane, who knows.
I would describe my playstyle as what you said is a tanker who flies. I am here to play tanks. But from time to time I also hop into a plane to revenge bomb someone (I am not afraid to admit it) or if I see a big group of enemies that could use a big bomb.
I do also sometimes go the CAS main route and try to get into a plane asap. But that is rare and mostly happens in top tier because I love just spawning the rafale and keeping the sky clear. I don’t even take any bombs.
The point here is just that you are defending toxic CAS mains by making your definition too vague.
Yeah it’s quite different playing planes in GRB. I did only ever play my La-5 in ground as dedicated CAP. I don’t have a single ARB game in it. And that was fun. Less other fighters to worry about as people just focus on ground. My intent was not to spade it but just to have fun and help the team against CAS.
When you define them in this manner, I can actually agree that this is a fair characterization and distinction, particularly if you meant to refer to the goofy people who resort to cap-n-fly with the bushed up BT-5 or whatever.
Of course, I will note that the people that I see resorting to CnF with reserve vehicles and the like are generally unsuccessful and seem to be chasing hype more than anything else. Players are free to pursue CnF (per their freedom of choice), but those that I have seen don’t strike me as the brightest nor best. A good TWF doesn’t resort to wasteful CnF.
Well yes. These are usually bad players. The biggest issue is I can spawn in an AML-90 for example. Rush a cap, get 2 scouts of and get killed. I then somehow have enought to spawn a fully loaded plane in and just go ham 2 minutes into the match. Sure france has relatively weak CAS at 7.7 but still the point stands. That would be a CAS main strat imo.
If I did the same but then spawned another tank it’s a different story. The issue mainly being just that that first plane can get a couple strategic kills and be untouchable because nobody expects CAS so early. Sure it wont happen every time but the chance lf it happening is just too big.
I find it amusing that you would downplay a poll, most of which are skewed on way or another, yet…
You have readily used date that is nearly ten years old to back up your point. Data that is most likely wildly out of date due to the time period involved.
Then while calling others out for not paying attention to that 8-year-old data, instead utilizing anecdotal evidence and expressing opinion, you…
Resort to anecdotal evidence and opinion…
My questions are:
Do you really expect to lean on data that is 8 years old and most likely out of date, even if it is the most current, and portray it as accurate?
Why would you dismiss other’s anecdotal evidence and opinions yet often resort to your own when making a point?
There are obvious and valid reasons to exclude corrupted data…
A YouTube poll like that is riddled with vulnerabilities, such as the ones I specified, which cast doubt on its credibility. We cannot be sure about the nature of the voters or if they even play WT, so the entire survey is unusable. Other crippling flaws, such as potential sampling bias, also inhibit its usability…but they’re relatively minor compared to those fundamental issues.
As I have repeatedly stated and went to some length to note, the purpose of the 2017 data was to look at the nature of the matter at that time.
While I have noted similar trends in very small scale data sampling (in my own gameplay) that mirrors what was recorded in 2017, I can freely tell you the 2017 data table does not represent a 1:1 statement on current conditions.
The first two quotes only really refer to definitions of players and a respect for others’ choices…so I’m not sure why they’re included at all.
For the third, I acknowledged others’ experiences while noting mine differed and that various specific vehicles’ experiences could change the dynamics of the scenario–without excluding others’ views. Part of that is because of what I saw in 2017 (speaking to what is historical) and part of that is speaking to the present day, which has been similar for myself.
When I speak, it’s from experience…if we had better filtration on our data, all of it could be presented as it occurs easily.
a random poll on youtube is a lot more trustworthy than the laughable opinions of a few salty CAS mains on here.
and yet, they were enough to allow gaijin to pretend that CAS isnt a problem
no, some people are CAS mains and always spawn an aircraft instead of continuing the fight on the ground
Yet there is no reason to believe that the data you are currently using to make your point is any more valid than the data from the poll you have chosen to eschew as “corrupted”.
You do admit that the data you are using may, indeed, not be current or even valid in this passage:
Yet you continue to use it in a manner that suggests you think it is relevant to today, eight years after the data was presented. That is kinda like saying Biden was going to win the 2024 election based upon poll results from September of 2020.
Then you resort to anecdotal evidence (again), yet you have a history of discarding or minimizing the anecdotal evidence given by others.
Yet, they are not given as much validity as you give an eight year old data analysis which could or could not reflect current trends. You take that data and make an extrapolation based on that data yet you know that your extrapolation is only a guess. It appears you are hoping your guess is correct and are leaning into it knowing that unless the current data is made public you are able to lean on it as it is the only data.
That is intellectually dishonest.
Again, you are resorting to the very same guesses you accuse others of making.
You have leaned heavily into that data, basing much of your “argument” on what we both know is data that is only relevant to eight years ago, not today.
Tossing data up for consumption, expecting others to take is as “gospel” is not presenting fact unless those numbers are current and relevance can be proven.
