hmmm, care to elaborate?
(but if you werent being sarcastic, i am not the best. I am pretty decent at the game, but i have a lot of things to improve, to be considered the best)
This is the best example how stupid and easy obtain is the CAS . Planes in GF need a increase cost ASAP!!!
5 Likes
Humorously, CnF failed numerous times here, despite all of that hype.
As basic math shows, aircraft are already the most expensive vehicles in RB GFs. Raising aircraft SP costs would simply be discriminatory (especially given their kill shares) and inconsistent with WT’s combined arms tenets.
Wise players know it’s good to have anti-aircraft measures in place from the start of the match to guard against later enemy aircraft.
If anything, all this proves is aircraft SP costs need to be reduced to allow Fighters First to be implemented. Let players choose fighters from the beginning, have their despawn points for their vehicles and SP rebates too.
One last inconvenient truth for CAS complainers: tank respawns are guaranteed
For all of the usual babble heard about how easy it is to get aircraft…it’s far easier to get into a 2nd/3rd spawn tank, they’re practically free!
If you’re so worried about easiness why don’t you complain about the low costs of tanks, hmm?
2 Likes
aircraft are already the most expensive vehicles in RB GFs .
Because they’re also vastly more powerful than anything else.
Wise players know it’s good to have anti-aircraft measures in place from the start of the match to guard against later enemy aircraft.
Wise players know anti-aircraft is inferior to CAS.
If anything, all this proves is aircraft SP costs need to be reduced to allow Fighters First to be implemented.
Fighters suffer from the exact same problem as SPAA, their ability to do anything relies completely on someone on the other team spawning a plane or heli., without that you’re wasting time and there is no way to back out of it.
One last inconvenient truth for CAS complainers: tank respawns are guaranteed
It also means guaranteed targets for CAS then.
5 Likes
Make thermal blankets effective for vehicles against cas (researchable or for ge). If spotted then fair game. Make scenario appropriate camo actually obscure you. Its waaay to easy to spot ground elements from the air…esp with thermals.
Not really.
While I will not bother commenting on the mess above 8.7 (where technology and individual module powercreeping destroys balancing and pushes FOTM), I must chuckle at this below that level…the suggestion that hype of aircraft is simply not true.
Below 8.7, that is certainly not the case: aircraft have a measly kill share and cannot interact with the objectives.
Not really…especially with their costs and what @JuicyKuuuuki has shown. It’s all a matter of how they are played.
Still, it is true that players ought to have expanded choices to work from for countering enemy aircraft. Ergo, Fighters First…
Hence the suggestion for safe despawn points for AF/GF vehicles and SP rebates with the implementation of Fighter First.
FF as envisioned would be an expansion of players’ freedom of choice…it’d only expand choice, not constrain it.
- There are combatants on the enemy team, not targets (how do you know that any player will be so meek as that epithet implies?)
- Nothing is guaranteed–that’s why defeatist thinking like the absurd defeatism around enemy CAS is so bad
People who convince themselves that enemy CAS will inevitably kill them die because they psych themselves out…defeatism is what ensures their loss, not the enemy’s vehicle.
2 Likes
Even people who can perform well with SPAA will agree with that.
But then, gaijin won’t change anything as some people need the air in game to actually be able to do anything.
Remember, for some people capping a zone is already too much ;)
5 Likes
The best solution here would be for Ground RB to adopt the Naval spawn system, with SP used purely for aircraft, while tanks get a fixed number of spawns (three, five, unlimited, whatever).
This would make SP much easier to balance as it would have a single function, and would have the additional bonus of reducing snowball effects and people quitting early.
Considering SP costs, that factually isn’t true from a cost-effectiveness standpoint.
An SPAA can have a terrible exchange rate of 1 kill to ~5-7 deaths and still be worth it, given that SPAAs usually cost ~70-90 SP while aircraft cost 480+ SP.
There is great variation on the matter, as well as subjective opinion.
The same could be said about people who rely upon certain graphics settings and bushes.
Not everyone is playing on their grandma’s 15 year old laptop (which is forgivable as some must use that). No, there are others who choose to play that way because they hope it’ll help them with statpadding…it’s lamentable.
But that is how it is sometimes…some people rely on crutches.
I’m surprised you’re not more concerned with tank SP costs. Considering that respawns for them are effectively free, one would think you’d worry about that…but you don’t.
Are SP costs different in WT: N64?
1 Like
Yea, we are not talking about that really.
With how SP costs go up after every spawn?
Had a nice chuckle.
1 Like
I understand it’s very cerebral but it’s entirely valid here too:
SP cost-effectiveness is certainly a viable angle to consider…it’s a part of vehicle performance and how Gaijin balances things in the macro.
Overall–but within matches too, perhaps between different players.
If you factor in hiked respawn SP costs, 2-3 SPAAs:1 aircraft would still be a favorable exchange…the SP costs for SPAAs are simply that low.
1 Like
Any ties to Naval will immediately stir controversy given that mode’s many problems.
However, there are certainly some lessons to be learned from it on the matter of its CA framing–chief among them the ‘token’ aircraft feature. If you don’t have a fighter or attack/bomber aircraft…NFs gives you a wild card to work with.
That’s something that was suggested years ago and ought to be around already.
1 Like
People don’t really care about SP. They care about how effective is the vechicle.
Of course, especially that You have to use a back-up in order to spawn in the same SPAA as many nations don’t have proper SPAA to deal with aircraft of higher B.R.?
If people didn’t care about SP costs, they wouldn’t be complaining about aircraft SP costs now would they? As I said…it’s a cerebral matter.
On kill shares, objective capture ability and SP cost-effect/efficiency, GFs vehicles are vastly more effective than AFs. The difference is so stark that it makes aircraft hype utterly laughable.
The aircraft’s BR makes no difference at all really, as 480+ SP is the basic threshold for its cost.
The cost-effectiveness and efficiency considerations require mathematical considerations…they can be described in general here (what I described above with the 1:5 or 2-3:1 exchange rates is the rule however), but more detail is needed for finer assessments.
You can PM me if you need help understanding some given scenario.
1 Like
They complain about aircraft being able to spawn too early. In order to spawn You need to gain SP. They don’t care about how much they loose SP compared to aircraft.
That are made mostly because of how mdoe works.
It does as it determines what kind of weapon it can carry and how well it can perform against SPAA.
Yep, the random aircraft for those who haven’t researched planes or simply don’t have all three types in their lineup is a fantastic QoL feature.
I’d actually love to see this element come to Ground AB (pick your own trio of planes, random if you don’t) but that’s another topic.
While I will not bother commenting on the mess above 8.7 (where technology and individual module powercreeping destroys balancing and pushes FOTM), I must chuckle at this below that level…the suggestion that hype of aircraft is simply not true.
Most players appear to be in that region above 8.7 so you can’t just pretend it does not exist.
Below 8.7, that is certainly not the case: aircraft have a measly kill share and cannot interact with the objectives.
Below 8.7 they can just ignore SPAA.
4 Likes
Because CAS brings in money and SPAA does not.
2 Likes
“Too early” is both a subjective perception and a meaningless term…if a player has the SP to use a vehicle, they have the right to do so at their leisure–gathering the SP means they earned it, regardless of others’ feelings.
I may personally say 15 seconds into the match is too early for a tanker to come back in with his second spawn after blowing up his first tank, but he may do it.
Not really…the mode doesn’t impart such a stark lean and these results contradict the hype of aircraft too. No matter which way you try it, they hype falls apart.
In the realm of SP cost-effectiveness, that is of little relevance. (If anything, it likely means the aircraft is even more costly than the 480 SP floor.)
1 Like
But this is what people are complaining about. Are You coming to the thread and talking about a problem that no one discusses here?
- The mode requires You to spawn in ground unit
- There is already a mode for planes
It is really simple to understand why kill shares are what they are.
Which no one discusses.