While I’m learning my CAS planes and techniques I’ve been giving this a lot of thought. I don’t like any ideas that restrict freedoms but I think one has to protect those just wanting to play a specific mode or grind their trees.
What about using modes as the mechanism. Tank only AB or RB modes. Combined forces Tank & Air AB/RB modes. Ship only AB or RB modes combined forces ship & air AB or RB modes, etc. This way those who like to CAS can and those who feel harassed can avoid it.
At the end of the day this is all just an academic discussion anyway. The game is a flight game, that’s been evident since very early on when Tank PVE acted like it didn’t know what trees or buildings were just like air PVE but I originally thought this was limited to the AI mechanisms, I mean who would use players as just a source of defenseless live targets for CAS. I was refusing to accept reality. They introduce more aircraft with heavier bomb payloads but the only thing in the game to bomb is ground (or water) targets and they spam advertisements all over the web of the mass destruction of tanks with your new bomber so writing is kind of on the wall isn’t it. Tank players are live targets for air play.
You call me negative… You complain before you see value. Tailess cats aren’t afraid of a fight and pick their friends carefully.
I seek to turn every situation into something I can use. HOWEVER, I do have a serious problem with trying to help. My wife of 40 years accuses me of being too “considerate” (yah I’m lucking out). I disagree because I think its simply my responsibility, bad upbringing I guess. You can’t help if everything is perfect can you. Let me simplify that thought… A 3 year old walk into a busy road way, you see it and think “Look at that sweet child enjoying the outdoors” while I, sadly, can’t help but think, “OMG someone might hit that child”. You would say I only see the negative. You would be right. I see things that could go wrong that I foolishly think I can contribute to fixing.
So I’m learning from you! The world is perfect. You’re such an amazing person.
Isn’t it interesting that no matter how many times I tell you you’re right and compliment you you come back at me with defense of how knowledgeable and amazing you are and attacks.
This is just trying to put a turd in a dress. If you’re gonna call camping appropriate, stop messing around and do it!
I much prefer what I’ve seen again and again and what this forum has taught me to do, harass the enemy spawn so they can’t get a single tank out of the spawn and then we win!!
My team can suck all they want. The other team will have no spawn points, be completely unable to even go sight seeing and we win!!
its not a cut and dry topic. Camping is NOT a bad thing
Spawn camping tho. is a weee bit … douchey. Depends on the map and what the spawn camper had to go through tho… if they earned it by killing a bunch and pushing through, then its definitely less douchey.
And i think spawn camping is okay, at the end of the match.
Im not normally wishy washy, either as a person or on topics… but this one… well it has important factors that make it more of a gray area.
(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)
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
