Yes, some of that is intentional. Modern tech has simply stretched existing problems well beyond their breaking points, in addition to introducing more problems specific to that tech.
Unfortunately, neither you nor I know what are Gaijin’s thresholds for changing the BR of a given AA vehicle. I would advocate for raising those thresholds considerably, if I knew what they are.
Yes I do understand, but only increasing map sizes is something that can hope to address that. Artificially neutering SPAAGs to make it less obvious that map sizes and objective designs are trash is literally punishing the shark for the stupidity of the seal.
All but a few of them from 3.0 onwards have a lot of latent AT potential. German AAs from the Whirbelwind onwards. American and other nations AAs from the M19A1 onwards.
To a significant extent, the proposed short range arcade lead marker would help alleviate this by quite a lot. For a bone-stock crew, you get a lead marker on planes you visually see from 0-1000m away. If you fully upgrade Rangefinding and Commander Leadership for that crew, out to 1250m. If you Expert that crew, out to 1400m. If you Ace that crew, 1500m is the absolute limit. Even the ZSU-57/2 would now have at least a shit’s chance in hell of hitting planes now that it sees where to aim when they are close enough to bother trying.
But first and foremost I would need to know what the threshold values on vehicular performance statistics are for moving them up or down in BR, and then suggest they be changed to give AAs more room.
The same can be said for any flanking party. Even if you can see or hear them coming you may not be able to get behind something in time or turn your tank so their shot bounces (if it has any armor to bounce with).
Every vehicle cannot counter every other vehicle, is that not expected from a game with various vehicle classes that specialize in different jobs?
Yes, and there is a lot more this game has not tried to actually balance things beyond “flipping the table” by adding a totally separate game mode.
They haven’t given non-radar AAs a lead indicator at short ranges to teach average joes where and WHEN to shoot. They haven’t given us Naval-style default planes in our decks. They haven’t expanded the default AA feature to all BRs, itself inspired by the Naval default plane concept. They haven’t lowered the SP costs of fighters without air-to-ground weaponry. There is so much they have not tried in the slightest.
Most of the chatter is done by the same handful of people if you pay attention long enough. The same arguments cycle over and over and over, apparently a suggestion was written and passed to devs years ago on the old forum, and because of that no new suggestions have been accepted for debate since. With a case like that, what I cannot quite grasp is how long will you and other TO supporters take to recognize its a lost cause and instead push for what IS practical to change?
For example, we both have our own ideas on the direction the mode should go, but we both completely agree the kill camera is stupid and enables rage-inducing revenge bombing. Imagine if all the people who support TO instead piled their support behind the things that “CAS Reformers” (for lack of a better moniker) like myself also call for.
So then what is your recourse if continuing to call for TO looks like a lost cause?
And the majority of players are unbelievable idiots who barely know how to drive their tanks. If you put something well-armored in a tough spot with room to go hull down, people will shout how “OP” it is first long before they will stop to think what they themselves did wrong and could possibly change about their own behavior or tank choice.
It is indeed a frame shift in how balancing would be performed. But I have no other ideas on how to permanently resolve a lot of the complaining without endless cycles of screaming and appeasement. That is why I arrived at the conclusions I did.
Recent observations of how that screaming about CAS “mysteriously vanishes” when people get their hands on working counters fit for what WT gameplay demands in sufficient quantities to be effective appear to be evidence in favor of what I propose. Including the free AA inspiring this topic.
TO could help some things, I will admit. But adding a new game mode does not directly address the problems with the existing one - it only serves as a means to ignore the problems of the existing one.
I don’t see why we can’t pursue both routes, but will always feel that we gotta address the CAS implementation problems first. None of us actually know how many people would still support TO mode if all of the things making people angry at CAS were properly dealt with.
I already proposed that in prior CAS argument threads as what snail would likely do if they ever added TO mode. I would not mind seeing Artillery Support be vastly increased in lethality, nevermind also diversified between nations.
Increase the gun caliber so the shells have much more significant splash radii, increase the number of shells per bombardment (with bigger gun sizes the number of rounds would go down proportionally), and having gun caliber increase with BR so they remain effective no matter how heavily armored your tanks are.
Things could get as massive as the 800mm Schwerer Gustav Railway Gun Germany used against the Soviets, which fired 7-ton shells. Or perhaps a Soviet-specific option could be a multi-minute Katyusha barrage on a specific location.
This could also help alleviate part of the CAS problems too if it were added to the Combined Arms mode we already have as well. These artillery targets would be physically present on the tank map, and every AI unit eating a piece of ordinance means one less angry player who ate that piece of ordinance.
