I belive the problem with lower tier free/cheaper CAP is that it can eaisly destroy many ground units without even anti-tank ammo.
Example is 12.7mm used on F6F for example against Pz. IVs, stugs, etc.
Not to mention open-tops.
I can already imagine how people would abuse it from day 1. But sure, if top tier can have „free” vehicles, why not all tiers.
Offtopic ends here.
As TheKnightOfZero said - if you want to discuss moderation or your issues with flag system, please send a PM to Forum Moderation.
The point of that suggestion was to provide all players a means to counter CAS - especially those that have not grinded the air trees.
My point was…
What chance? See above.
Gaijin need to make money even selling low premium verhicles in shop or in game. All tiers have free verhicles then nobody is going buy premium verhice anymore in lower tier and the starter packs are not necessary anymore since you get free verhicle in game.
By free people mean stock vehicles that can be spawned in battle. It was tested first in WWM and later added to current high tier.
It is a good idea, but that is just it. Many people simply just want to use one vehicle or don’t see any reason to spawn anymore in battle.
Your criticism of statshark doesnt support the conclusion youre making.
No one has claimed it captures every aspect of a players performance but it captures enough to make meaningful comparisons, assists, objective play and similar actions are reflected indirectly through score, leaderboard placement and, over a sufficiently large sample, win rate.
Simply listing things statshark doesnt measure directly does not invalidate the things it does measure, by your standard, no statistic, even university ones, would ever be usable because every metric omits some context.
Youre wording it as if my conclusion is based on highlight videos, but thats not true.
Im basing my opinion on ULQs long-term performance recorder on statshark, that includes including individual vehicle statistics and session history.
That means this dataset includes both good and bad games.
and were talking about sample size of 75 000 lifetime battles / some 7 500 battles since statshark became a thing.
If you believe 75 000 individual cases is not large enough sample size, im calling you out to explain why.
That explanation might account for an individual case, it is implausible when applied to the aforementioned 75 000 lifetime battles / some 7 500 battles since statshark became a thing.
Over such larhe sample size, it is statistically improbable to be running only into bad SPAA players.
ULQs performance in CAS planes remains across the dataset.
Claim that “ULQ only faces bad SPAA players” stops being convincing and becomes pure speculation without any support in evidence.
If you believe ULQ ran only into bad SPAA players 75 000 battles, YOU need to present evidence that is the case.
I already stated above that im basing my argument on his actual stats, including 75 000 lifetime games. Whatever clips and higlights ULQ posted, they merely illustrate what the long-term statistics already show.
Again, statistics do not care whenevr ULQ is showing only his good games or not. Statistics include both good and bad games.
The issue here is not whether I personally like or dislike your arguments.
The issue is that every time objective data is brought into the discussion, your response is to explain why you think it is incomplete rather than address what it actually shows.
And thats what I dislike you.
Youre putting your annecdotal experience on the same, if not higher, pedastal as 75 000 recorded games.
The issue is not whether data can be manipulated, everyone understands that statistics can be misrepresented or interpreted incorrectly.
Issue is whether the specific data being discussed has actually been manipulated or whether there is a specific methodological flaw that invalidates them.
You simply claim that “statshark data can be manipulated” is not an argument against the data presented.
My criticism of you is not that you have an opinion, you are entitled to one.
My criticism of you is because you are treating your personal experience and interpretation as inherently more reliable than objective measurements without demonstrating why those measurements are invalid.
EDIT: Should this be false flagged second time, this isnt offtopic, topic is called “how player skill with SPAA affects CAS”, im merely describing what statistics show in relation to SPAA/CAS.
That may be nerfed by sp and some other means (maybe cap on how many aircrafts can be present like cap on awp on some cs servers). But not universal sp nerfs, they should be based on performance of each aircraft. But that might be difficult for devs who play wt just to record dev blogs or showcase stuff on dev server.
It doesnt take that much skill to use them. On basic level at least. And with free vehicles for everyone average plane skill level will drop down so you will more likely face person who also just started using planes.
They will be less efficient but not entirely useless.
Used p38e which is essentially your example but worse (didnt have foldered one). Put it in 3.3 lineup and got into 4.0 uptier. Full stock. Only second battle on it (in first battle I chased guy till airfield and cannons just refused to kill). You can even see that by how terrible my shots were placed. I have little experience on props in general besides corsair cas. And still I managed to backstab 2 goobers.
If I, person who jumped down to props from pretop/top jets with basically no prop experience, managed to win. Then average player should be able to win too. Especially one who plays low mid brs frequently.
There is nothing to suggest this would be the case.
Most players using CAS have built up the skill as they spaded their aircraft.
Having someone with little experience in a plane jump into an unspaded plane is just a recipe for disaster.
They will be so much less efficient as to be next to useless. Actually it’s much worse than you suggest since they will be, for most part, easy tickets for the enmy.
Unspaded prop planes are garbage compared to spaded prop planes. Everyone know is honest will admit it.
You have a lot more experience in air combat than the players that will be using free air units will have (if they had experience they’d be using their spaded air units). Don’t see that as a relevant comparison.
This will be the case, just like in case of free pantsir. Average player skill level dropped thanks to people using it as free vehicle with no experience using it. And its just as efficient as spaded variant.
Skill built up on base bombing mostly.
Its either enemy that will at least mess with cas and distract it from ground pounding. Or nothing at all like right now. Even if person is willing to kill plane, said person cant cross barrier of air tree grind.
It will be much worse than spaded aircraft of same class. But still better than cas plane. Even twin motor lightning which feels quite heavy smokes cas.
Most of my experience is high/top tier cas in grb. And trees were grinded via air top tier sim cas mostly. It has no effect on my low tier prop skills I assure you. Entirely different things.
In the end of the day I see no reason to reject this addition. It will have some flaws thanks to gaijin being gaijin yes. But at least it will make people bit more equal. And give wee bit more of variety.
In the end of the day, everything depends on player skill with SPAA to which I had proven over time many times.
Took some months off war thunder, was nice break, gonna pick up again soon.
I will argue with that as no matter what skill You have with 6.3 SPAA if 7.3 albatros (Japan) with CCIP and Zuni targets You and doesn’t make a mistake, You will be dead.
The fact of the matter is; nobody’s asking for combined arms modes to be removed.
People are asking for single type modes to put it on parity with air, which has had an aircraft only mode as core since Warthunder’s inception.
Even to this day, you cannot spawn other vehicles types in AAB or ARB, only aircraft.
But god forbid the ground or naval players want a mode with similar parity, the only ones that complain about these modes being suggested seem to be the air mains.
‘realism’ is not an excuse for these modes not to exist.
No, aircraft are not overpowered. It’s just really annoying with how they’re implemented in other modes.
Imagine a single fix that would balance the whole combined gamemode and allow to make it something better.
God forbid that!
I don’t read sarcasm very well and I assume this is sarcasm.
I admit that there’s problems with the combined arms modes, everyone knows there’s problems with it.
But I personally wouldn’t know the solution to fixing it, nor will I attempt to act like I do. Yes, better map layouts would help. So would a lot of other things.
People are asking for three new gamemodes, TO GRB, TO GAB, and TO GSB for a matchmaker that’s already being spread thin.
What relevance do air battles have to ground battles?
168k players in game earlier today on the hangar screen.
You answered your own question simply by asking it.
That means nothing.
Yes, they have no relevance to eachother. Air battles having a feature doesn’t mean ground battles should have that feature.
Why? Because you say so?
That means a lot. That’s a very big population for a game as ‘old’ as warthunder.
You have not given a reason that a feature in one gamemode means it should be in another. The burden of proof is not on me.
“that’s a very big population” again means nothing. There’s already BRs where queuing can take multiple minutes. You want to add three new game modes, each with 12 BRs, in a game that already forces matches to end in under 10 minutes just to keep the matchmaker alive.
