Already 17 days since the first report of Sabra’s mantlet cover not moving along with the turret, today I launched the game to find they still hadn’t fixed it, I suspect they hadn’t even seen the report.
Great work gaijinx
4 Likes
so, random player rushes point, promptly Js out and spawns a plane.
while im on my second spawn not even 5 seconds after spawning in i get killed by a 2000lb bomb.
while the rest of my team (including me) are getting thrashed by cas, bearing in mind there is nothing we can realistically do about it (br 6.0) we lose and most matches i have are ruined by cas players. and generally by the end of the match there are only about 1-3 tanks on the other team, the rest are in planes denying any chance of doing anything.
like its stupid that someone can get 1 kill, then spawn a fully loaded plane and get multitudes of kills by pressing 3, its the most braindead unskillful gameplay ever. and this across all brs.
there should at least be a toggle between grb with cas and grb without.
5 Likes
you dont even need a kill. I got into a plane after 90 seconds just rushing the enemy and dying:
btw the m262 with the AP belts cost minimum 700 SP to spawn.
2 Likes
There’s a bit of a SP cost difference between grandpa’s WWII era plane with mk108 “ap belts”, which isn’t an issue in GRB at all, and 4th generation jets with thermal targeting pods and precision guided fire and forget weapons.
1 Like
It’s very difficult
4 Likes
The same crowd is still harping about combined arms fighting in a combined arms game, lmao
Here are the realities of the situation:
-
Top tier (9.x+) is a dumpster fire of imbalance with a rotating gallery of who’s whooping who that varies by the patch…not a surprise. Top tier has always been this way…power creep is inevitably a feature of that range.
-
Outside of top tier (below 9.X), CAS poses no serious balance issues at all. (If anything, SP costs and a lack of capture point influence put aircraft at a significant disadvantage as compared to GFs)
The ‘trigger queue’ idea is about the only one which has ever been floated that has made any sort of sense logically and mechanically. It provides the avenue to TO while also negating most of the shortcomings (especially population issues).
Alas, most of the people who carp about aircraft would rather continue caterwauling than actually doing anything. (From experience, I can say most of these people do not appear serious about TO. Instead, they appear to just want something (aircraft) to blame their defeats on and a supposed panacea (TO) to point to…even if that “solution” never comes.)
Some people just want an excuse to blame their defeats on. If we had TO, it’d just be ___ instead of aircraft for those folks.
3 Likes
Maybe for some but it is genuinely a detriment when i Q for ground and expect ground.
Don’t bother.
You can provide examples, You can show how game works and is unbalanced. You can even show how it is constant and can be abused. Some still will choose to ignore it.
4 Likes
The mode description states plainly that the mode is combined.
Until (unless) a TO mode is added, toggle queue or not, that is not changing. That’s just the way it is.
What I stated above is simply factual–how the mode is described and what it means. Please read before replying next time.
It’s very tragic to me that you’re still confused about all of this…PM me some time and I’ll try to explain it to you (again). I still have hope that one day you might understand the game as I do.
1 Like
The people murdered by the F4U-4B without counterplay certainly made a big mistake and are just trying to blame their faults at something. They’d have died either way.
What was their mistake you ask?
They wanted to play a tank in GRB.
4 Likes
Don’t bother
You can just watch replays of people You are replying to You and it will paint the whole story
1 Like
TANK? You wanted to play a TANK in GROUND battles?
Unacceptable
9 Likes
9.x is far from being top tier.
I certainly think medium bombers have no business in this game. Especially on certain maps where the map encourages close quarters combat, far too easy to obliterate half the team, return to base, rearm and repeat. Zero skill, far to powerful. The only
SPAA I get to attack them with is the awful Skink which they handicap with small ammo clips and fast overheat.
2 Likes
Dying to an aircraft in a combined arms game =/= an issue…aircraft are one of the two sort of vehicles you face in RB GFs. That’s what on the package…that is RB GFs.
Nobody was denied the ability to play tanks in RB GFs…they were in tanks after all. Using a vehicle–an aircraft or tank–doesn’t entitle you to live forever, free from defeat from ___.
The premise of the game is pretty simple: you’re fighting for survival while the enemy is seeking its own objectives (caps usually) and/or trying to kill you. What might wipe out your vehicle is irrelevant and because the battlefield of RB GFs is all around you, not just on the ground.
Citing Dec. 2023 footage of a veteran player using cheesy, manipulated settings does not help your argument nor change these facts above. Quite frankly, because of its unrepresentative conditions, that video is meaningless to balance discussions.
As most are aware, average conditions in RB GFs battles do not include players with 60k battles’ experience and Nintendo 64 graphics as the typical opponents. Those qualities of experience and graphics (thus visibility) are far more influential on battle performance than a vehicle that is as vulnerable to enemy fire as any other.
If you should be outraged about anything with that video, it should be at the intentional and unnecessary selection of cheesy graphics settings chosen to obtain undue advantages. That is a game balance issue–not aircraft.
What I said previously stands entirely firm: being a tanker that is defeated doesn’t make you a victim.
If we had TO, inevitably the same people complaining about their tanks dying to aircraft would be complaining about dying to SPGs or heavies or whatever…they’re complaining about the defeats themselves–not what defeated them.
Indeed, that video of a certain someone playing an F4U on settings resembling the Nintendo 64 spoke volumes about their confidence…to rely on ULQ is nothing to brag about.
Spoiler
Try playing the mode on higher quality settings…take off the training wheels and try to spot targets the honest way with shadows and more details to contend with. Play like I do on high settings (or close if your computer cannot handle it).
Also…not to be mean, but anyone who has time to watch others’ replays out of the blue has too much time on their hands and/or must be pretty lonely. (Maybe try a hobby?)
It’s the top quarter of the game (with the informal billing of ‘top tier’) and it’s about where technology like guided munitions and computerized aiming really comes into play. At the upper echelons, the power-creeping that is associated with ever more modern gadgets inevitably leads to significant balance swings.
I noted the BRs as I did for specificity, so there’s no reason to argue what you or I call ‘top tier’ (which is an inexact, subjective label)
1 Like
I did, nothing change. We already talked about it even on old forum.
Had my record on Do-335 B2 done in movie settings.
Again talking to You is just a repeat of older discussions, nothing new.
I have provided evidence to all I have said, some can’t do that so that is why checking their profile/replays showcases the whole picture no matter if You like it or not.
You might try to portray things as You like, I will continue to prove what I say and do even better (like 7.8 K/D in Yak-9UT done only in GRB)
2 Likes
The old forum was a long time ago and the continual appearance of the Nintendo 64 footage on your channel really casts doubts on that claim.
If there’s no difference in yields, why would you willingly keep using these awful looking settings that look like they’re from the 1990s? War Thunder is quite nice looking on proper settings.
If you’re not restrained to ULQ or trying to use it for other aims (as you insist you are not), why not stay on higher settings? Surely you must like the crisper details in those walls of bushes you often have on your tanks!
Anyway…my inbox awaits your PMs. If you want to have more back and forth on this, PM me rather than bloating this thread (which is for proposed tweaks to RB GFs).
You might try to portray things as You like, I will continue to prove what I say and do even better (like 7.8 K/D in Yak-9UT done only in GRB)
Without data filtration in service records, there is no practical way to verify that claim.
The problem of representativeness of that sample (even if true) also dogs it…it just doesn’t amount to much. Many content creators probably have footage of A7Vs killing an Abrams now…but it doesn’t mean anything in the greater context.
1 Like
That’s high tier l, I suggest you to learn how to differentiate the two.
Meanwhile 8.0 - 9.0 is filled with helicopters that can use ATGMs, so it’s safe to say that anything beyond WW2 is completely broken in terms of CAS.
In this case balance doesn’t swing, CAS has been dominant for years.
Considering how many people play 8.0+, I think it’s fair they get balanced and fair experience.
1 Like
Because people like You have problem with it and it showcases that is their only argument (not includung number of games played)
Works as it should.
Especially that it shows their lack of knowledge when it comes about the game
Again, are we going to repeat all the things again?
I have told You how many AI units I have destroyed when talking about F4U-4B in the last and provided screanshoot for that, You can check if number has changed as if I remember I haven’t played a single game in Yak-9UT back then ;)
Being restrained is quite a subjective term, as not all have the same requirements for something to be playable. I know I would personally tune down graphics down in order to jump from 60 to 100+ fps, and I’m sure many share the same opinion. Especially in a fast paced game like this one.