I haven’t seen that timer in a while thankfully.
We don’t need such arcade mechanics in RB.
1 Like
They can even take damage way after and the bomb will still have given them more damage along the way.
Why do you always do this “Apples and Oranges” thing if anyone has the nerve to bring up an issue with air survivability? It is common knowledge GJ has never really done a proper damage model on aircraft. It’s pretty complicated undertaking so in the mean time why not just shut down an aircraft after “target destroyed”? There are just way to many kills being taken after “Target Destroyed” happens.
2 Likes
The damage models are not the problem. The instructor is. Especially with helicopters that lost their tail control.
1 Like
Ya, when you have no real argument against, just bring up “Strawman”. There is no real common sense reason for not shutting down an aircraft after it is destroyed. It only adds to this whole issue of OP aircraft when players experience this. It’s things like this that feeds that belief.
1 Like
Sadly someone appears to be making up what others have discussed and trying to derail for some odd personal reason.
Stop making up what others have clearly said, if you don’t understand just ask and be responsible. It is not a big ask.
1 Like
Yes there is. In War Thunder players can control any vehicle type until it is fully destroyed or the crew is gone. The only exception you want is for aircraft to get the worst treatment.
The only problem is that the kill message does not appear when the aircraft is actually destroyed.
So the only sensible approach is to reward the kill only when the aircraft is resting on the ground unable to get back up.
2 Likes
Thankyou for getting past the unnecessarily charged responses.
You can blow off the tail of a helicopter and it’s still not going to stop attacking you, planes also have super sketchy damage models, having to rely on a pilot snipe to have a chance at surviving a head on attack is unbalanced.
1 Like
You mean cas mains complained?
Because their complaints seem to be the only ones that matter these days…
Again common sense is missed again. If an aircraft is destroyed it is as dead as a tank destroyed. No worse treatment, just the same treatment. Again, this whole superior attitude is what causes players to feel aircraft are OP in WT. All this does is fuel demand for TO, nerfing air weapons and gives air a negative mark in RBGF. Pilots are their worst own enemy defending ridiculous game design. You don’t see control systems damaged (hydraulics/cable controls) , onboard weapons hit and exploding or guns or bombs disabled by gun fire. As I said these are very complicated damage modelling GJ just hasn’t bothered with and understandably so.
2 Likes
You appear to miss the reality. We know why they altered it to delay a kill message, so no problem moving it to “destroyed means destroyed” because it also effects ARB making ARB ridiculous if we follow the idea “all planes destroyed because game gives message too early(which we know and know why)”.
The wonder is why are you so afraid of just simply delaying a message?
A plane is NOT dead if it has crew and can still pilot it. The reason why people then mention tanks is because rationale behind “tank dead therefore plane dead” calls for an equally harsh comparison. And of course forcing that on ground vehicles would be ridiculous.
If you pop a wing and the gun is ouf it won’t fire.
If the control linkages are destroyed good luck with fine tune drops. If the tail parts are damaged enough you will be rolling like crazy to keep aflight.
It is discussing and throwing opinions. Such a change to “early kills” will wffect ARB negatively. Wjy do you want that.
Superiority is just pure BS you made up along with all ths other odd projections and inability to admit the strawman argument you tried to enforce on my and then double down on.
Get that chip off your shoulder. I know what people are asking for and I do not agree, I feel the issue (there is an issue) can be resolved another way.
And helicopters are poorly implemented, no prizes there. But again another gave a hint at a solution.
The common sense is that we all know why the message comes too early and it is a silly reason that should be altered. Rather than making losing your plane in ARB even easier in a one spawn mode.
The data on how many kills come from this bad implementation is nowhere to be seen. Of course ai am sure lower BR SPAA users will get this the most.
I play air and ground so yeah I would rather a more sensible solution rather than engage with your tribalism.
Edit: And we all pretty much agree, the current system in place is flawed.
1 Like
Yes, you miss it completely. Tanks in the game count as destroyed when their crew is gone, or reduced to 1.
Aircraft on the other hand count as destroyed when the pilot (only one crewmember) is gone, when they are actually destroyed, or, like in the example that keeps sparking this depate, when it has been critically damaged.
So aircraft are already receiving the more “disadvantageous” treatment here.
The only acceptable fix would be to link the death message only to pilot kills, ground impacts or a total loss of every single control mechanism including weapons. Everything else is utter nonsense as the pilot can still control elements of the aircraft.
If tanks received the same treatment that you demand for aircraft any part that is shot “black” would lead to the full control of the tank being taken away and the enemy being rewarded the kill.
And ships should count as killed as soon as they take on a few liters of water or when the bridge is hit.
And yes, aircraft, unlike tanks, can have their control lines shot to pieces. ;)
And unlike tanks their fuel tanks can run out of fuel.
And unlike tanks they can not repair any damage wherever they are.
Tankers get most of the hand holding and the most arcadish game mechanics in this game, yet it is never enough.
2 Likes
Do you realize that a tank without tracks is still a formidable weapon-platform and an airplane missing a wing is not?
Do you realize that a wing is not required to drop a bomb that is not strapped to the missing part of the wing?
The same as a tank gun can still be fired regardless of the condition of the tracks.
Of course the aircraft will crash, of course it won’t be able to aim properly, but if you check that sentence closely, you will notice the future rense, which means that it hasn’t already crashed and is thus not yet destroyed.
Talk about going into the deep end with ridiculous comparisons: "The only acceptable fix would be to link the death message only to pilot kills, ground impacts or a total loss of every single control mechanism including weapons. Everything else is utter nonsense as the pilot can still control elements of the aircraft.
If tanks received the same treatment that you demand for aircraft any part that is shot “black” would lead to the full control of the tank being taken away and the enemy being rewarded the kill.
And ships should count as killed as soon as they take on a few liters of water or when the bridge is hit."
As I mentioned, if an aircraft is destroyed, treat it like a tank. If it isn’t destroyed then it isn’t. Doing this apple/orange thing gets nobody any where fast. Why does it always come down to claims of hand holding and “my Dad can beat up your Dad” BS stuff rather then looking at the issue. When an aircraft is destroyed, it isn’t, pretty simple to understand, yet we end up with a pissing match over why tanks get this or that. The solution is to removed this “Destroyed” notice and go back to the way it was. Again, this issue was brought about by pilots wanting to stop kill stealing and now ground vehicles are paying the price. I can’t see changing back gaining much traction in ARB fans. I still think aircraft bombs, rockets and ammunition should have hit boxed around them.
2 Likes
They should have hit boxes indeed. The fun bit is that they get hitboxes after being launched/dropped. That one being bs I totally agree on.
So after all that you agree with what we have been saying. 🤔🤣
What has this all been about!?
FYI I just worked out what got you triggered @barial . I am pointing out purely when it devolves into a “realism” debate, that is not the only position you might criticise the system over and was not some “gotcha” attempt.
Since the comment was otherwise about a completely different area of the discussion I think it is quite safe to assume I had no idea what you were on about at the time.
You were the one that created an argument out of nothing if you notice, though I can see where the misunderstanding came from in hindsight.
How is that a fair comparison? Do planes get shot at by large explosive shells? 50mm? 75mm? 100mm? 152mm?
Do tanks move around in a 3 dimensional plane at 700km/h?
This disadvantage is a single pilot hidden behind the entire engine, whilst not being exposed to any sort of tank shell and often bulletproof glass.
