They need to just move the artillery button to actual artillery pieces and let them shoot in the air lol
Not completely understanding this.
Are you saying players that check the TO trigger still might end up in a combined-arms battle?
You might end up in a TO battle. I say might cause few players would actually check the box.
The TO trigger queue would function like the night battles toggle works now: desired conditions (night/TO) when there is sufficient ‘opt-in’ population to compose a match for the toggle (night or TO battles).
If Gaijin implemented the trigger queue for TO, they’d probably want to add some option in settings to let a player decide how long they want to ‘hold’ in the queue waiting for the TO toggle to deliver before going directly to release in the general population pool. On the other hand, such a setting would attract more attention from Gaijin and they’re notoriously touchy about queue times.
1 Like
OK - so then I guess they would need to have an option for a long timer, as I can see a number of “TO” players just exiting a battle immediately if the timer runs out and they get slotted into the “regular” or combined arms battle.
1 Like
If a person leaves a match as soon as they get in, they’d be subject to crew lock (as is the case now).
The purpose behind the player-selected ‘hold’ time is to cater to what you’re saying: a certain time (perhaps 1-5 minutes) is spent in the queue waiting explicitly for TO. If that time expires, the player released into the general matchmaking pool where they could still get into a TO battle (if the MM gathers enough players) or just RB GFs as-is.
The idea sounds a little complicated when written out…but I think it’s rather simple frankly.
2 Likes
1-5 minutes seems fine. Don’t imagine a lot of people would want to wait more than 5 minutes.
You have less than 0.5 air kills per game in a lot of your mid tier AAs, even though there are a lot planes to shoot down. Meanwhile these AAs are supposed to be “easy mode”.
The M19A1 is one of the only ground vehicle in general that you perform decent-good in lol. So I’ll give you that one.
4 Likes
Guys you gotta let this stat card stuff go. It’s petty and doesn’t meaningfully contribute to the debate at hand.
Anyone who brings up the stat card of their ideological opponent makes their own position look weaker. It’s saying “I can’t attack your argument so I’m attacking you.” Cut it out.
3 Likes
Taken into account the fact that air deaths are only a small fraction of all deaths, it’s clear that SPAAs are not too weak.
Not to mention, those SPAAs have better stats than 99% of my ground vehicles. The fact that SPAAs are able to make someone as bad as me look good is a very clear sign that, again, SPAAs aren’t too weak.
I’ll never let his “counter-claim” to me calling out corsairs as highly competent dogfighters (they are: they’re fast, they got very powerful engines and basically don’t stall. In fact, without instructor and autotrim you still can’t stall them because their elevator is badly modelled and they can’t over-pull their AoA) while being oppressive CAS platforms (multiple 1000 lbs bombs and deadly rockets) being that the “wellington out-turns the french corsair.”
Which is a perspective that probably explains most of is aircraft use issues (turns in a flat circle at low speeds rather than use out of plane maneuvering)
He also keeps flagging my posts now.
Stat cards are amazing to easily spot bad faith posters as their actions don’t align with their words, which is obviously a problem.
5 Likes
The logical validity of a position should not depend on stats.
Someone with good stats should not be allowed to get away with a bad argument, and a good argument shouldnt be discounted because the person making it has bad stats.
By giving importance to stats, you distract from logic, which is a waste of time.
4 Likes
That’s like I say vehicle X is brokenly OP while having 0.3 K/D in it. That doesn’t make any sense.
If you are a bad player your POV can easily be skewed due to that, just like many Silvers in CS still think P90 is some OP weapon.
Bad players are bad because they don’t understand the game, so their opinions are automatically of less importance as they clearly can’t see the full picture.
I’m not talking about opinions, I’m talking about logical arguments.
Furthermore, even in the case of opinions it is more effective to counter with logic than stats.
Take your CS example, when a Silver claims the P90 is OP, and you counter by explaining how it is not OP, that has more impact than simply dismissing the claim because of their rank.
Do you understand what I am saying?
2 Likes
Problem is that a lot of people with bad-average level of skill (and thus game knowledge) think that they are making a logical argument, while they are just giving opinions.
Stat card is a really nice tool to show these people the truth.
Take the Russian bias crowd for example, that constantly complains about russian tanks being OP. They think they are making logical arguments, but they are just giving (bad) opinions.
3 Likes
In the modern era this may not be true
The CAS problem would not be so bad if Gaijin actually gave somewhat equal SPAAs to all nations
2 Likes
I care about WW2 more or less. Occasionally I like modern stuff as “ooh pretty!” or “let’s see if I can land X plane on a carrier with sim controls” but otherwise WW2 is a more interesting environment to me for both tanks and aircraft (korean war is up there, but korean brackets are compressed and are generally a mess of balancing for aircraft)