Clearly GAB players are the best in the world then
/s
That relies on a big ‘if’ especially if you’re entering it on such shaky conditions as relying upon the enemy allowing you to pass them.
Simply playing well in the conventional manner is a more reliable bet, as even the Spookston acknowledges in his video.
There is no problem with the results of skillful use, period–they should be respected.
Beyond that, it’s absolutely possible for cost-effectiveness to determine successes and defeats…because that’s often exactly how things go. Conditions vary, but math doesn’t…and if you can kill a 480 SP vehicle with some mix of <480 SP vehicles, you’ve won the battle of cost-effectiveness.
What I spelled out before (a 1:5 or 1:2 exchange rate scenario for SPAAs) were essentially worst case scenarios for them…they’re generally far better, with even 1:1 being a favorable trade. If an SPAA player can yield 1:1 or higher, they’re batting at/above par regardless of anything else they do (caps, GFs kills, etc.).
You have to have a dynamic understanding of WT matches to understand all of this, it’s quite advanced.
While some people might not grasp it, it is still an important consideration and one that in-depth thought touches upon.
Incorrect…managing SP well is just another talent of a player (especially as efficiency goes) because it gives them more options on how to go about their game.
You’d be wise to start paying attention, it’d improve your results and efficiency. It’s naive to think this way of it…
1 Like
You might try to be sarcastic, but the best AB players are better than RB/SB than most of the players who are dedicated to this modes.
When You do C&F tactic, You are the one controlling the ‘If’. No one can stop You with air unit as he won’t be able to catch You before You drop bombs and if there is SPAA, You can avoid it.
Possible is a big word. If I had to choose between a fighter for 480 SP and an SPAA to deal with the air, I will always pick a fighter as it gives You much more advantage and options (that is why it costs more).
I haven’t seen anyone besides You talking about it as everyone is talking about how effective the vechicles are against each other, not how much SP they cost.
It is correct. But again, You would need to play with excellent players to begin with.
If one earns enough SP before dying, he don’t have to even think about it when it comes to spawning another vechicle. That is what excellent players really do.
Chuckled a bit.
As is commonly known and also proven in the video cited earlier, this is not true.
Let’s not kid ourselves: CnF is a gamble like anything else.
The math is what determines the possibility in that case…it’s all about the tally when the kill feed comes in.
As for your personal choices and opinions, those are you own.
As I said, it’s an advanced topic…many don’t think about such in-depth things as this.
Incorrect–what you said was simply very naive (no offense).
As an above average player myself, I can tell you considering all aspects of a match and the mechanics in it are important. It strikes me as silly that you’re contesting that.
Excellent players consider all aspects…what they earn is just one of the things along the way, they don’t have to ignore certain parts. Such ignorance is indicative of poor situational awareness and that leads to worse results.
It’s not really a laughing matter…you really should take it more seriously. You’re holding yourself back by not looking into these more advanced methods.
PM me if you’d like me to help tutor you on the bit–don’t bloat the thread with more inquiries here.
1 Like
With that said…if CAS posed such a thread, having defenses up to defend against that would validate that the threat exists. If people don’t even have the motivation to mount a defense…it’s doubtful it is as they say.
Putting up defenses means you’re not doing what you want to be doing, is playing the game and playing with tanks.
And matches are full of SPAA, they just get rekt.
Provided the SPAA players position themselves well, they can force the aircraft into their range if the AFs try to engage GFs.
You can’t position yourself well on maps that keep getting smaller and more areas get locked and everyone in a 10km radius sees your location the moment you start shooting which means you need to be covered from all angles and well out or reach of enemy tanks.
Stay away from spawn and you won’t have an issue as a plane unless your team is being spawncamped and SPAA are halfway down the map because there is no opposition.
CAS is nerfed to be very unattractive already and its getting hard to earn enough points to stay in the game after getting shot down in CAS and getting shot down is quite likely.Like everything else in this game the CAS fun has been ended by the moaners .
SP costs are irrelevant, unless you limit the amount of SP a player can spend in a game and a plane is not an SP generator it doesn’t matter.
CAS is nerfed to be very unattractive already and its getting hard to earn enough points to stay in the game after getting shot down in CAS and getting shot down is quite likely.Like everything else in this game the CAS fun has been ended by the moaners .
Nerfed how, it’s the same it was 10 years ago.
As evidenced by @JuicyKuuuuki, that’s certainly not something that can be said to apply to everyone.
Beyond that, it’s the opportunity cost of the matter and no different than any other contribution to the team’s well-being. Everything has its costs.
Squashed maps are problematic at best, there’s no denying that.
It all depends…having a surplus is a nice angle to have and good awareness/management is the avenue to that result.
1 Like
I can see it is clearly not even in 3 years its changed and its chaging daily.The whole game is in a chaotic state of flux on a daily basis.Hence why so many are just leaving and giving WT stinking reviews.
2 Likes
“Fighters First” is still CAS. A lot of vehicles are open topped or have little to no armor, it’s still CAS even if the plane carries no bombs.
Pointing out a very good SPAA player (from what I remember) is not a counterargument. On the whole, SPAA is vastly inferior in terms of firepower, mobility, ability to evade, ease of aiming, ease of fighting targets, and survivability (there are probably more factors but I can’t think of more right now).
You are confusing K/D ratios to combat/defense ability. A non-SPAA ground vehicle will have little to no ability to combat planes, whereas planes can easily take out any form of ground vehicle (they only have to press space bar or adjust using the help of their round hitting the ground). Having no way to fight back against planes easily is the issue, hence why SPAA SP costs are really low.
As for actually answering, the way to re-balance CAS without even impacting CAS imo is:
Br Changes -
- Lowering almost all SPAA by 1.0+ BR, even if it means ahistorical nerfs to ammo (for example, there is no reason that the R3 or AMX-10P should be higher than 5.3).
- Introducing the first radar SPAA at 7.0 with most nations’ first jets
- Making sure SPAA has the same, if not a better effective range than the CAS at its BR
- Move down SPAA that are just garbage, again nerfing ammo if needed (thinking of things like the SIDAM)
Sound/Visual Design -
- Adding the ability to have more position-accurate and louder plane sounds
- Make SPAA tracers more visibile in their scopes and less visible to CAS
- Making the LOD for CAS larger, especially for those who play on lower resolutions
Adding More SPAAs -
- Fill in current SPAA gaps
- Make sure there is one SPAA per 1.0 BR (so the max deficit an SPAA will face is a full uptier)
- Add proxy rounds to current Bofors-equipped SPAA without changing their BRs
- Make sure every nation has a top tier missile SPAA
Fixing Some SPAA’s Stats -
- Give Mistrals and Stingers their correct G overload
Other -
- Although I think using planes to balance planes is a dumb idea since it would mean people would need to grind out both the air and ground trees at the same time, make “Fighter First” a thing, but the fighters with only guns in their loadout have their damage turned off for ground vehicles (making it so that they can only damage CAS, rather than do CAS with their guns).
Ways to re-balance CAS through impacting CAS:
- Make unguided rockets have a minimum flight altitude, so that at least the fastest-turret-traverse SPAA can make a trade instead of having no chance to fight back
- Making the SP gains for capping the first point or getting scout assists in the first 3-5 minutes worth 50% less or more for only plane-equipped crew-slots
- Move up CAS based on armament, including planes without bombs equipped
2 Likes
As evidenced by @JuicyKuuuuki, that’s certainly not something that can be said to apply to everyone.
I don’t know who that is or what he does.
Beyond that, it’s the opportunity cost of the matter and no different than any other contribution to the team’s well-being. Everything has its costs.
Problem is that it never ends, this means you permanently have to play SPAA, the entire game, every game, every match, it doesn’t make sense.
It all depends…having a surplus is a nice angle to have and good awareness/management is the avenue to that result.
Get a kill or a cap, spawn a plane and just don’t immediately crash and waste it.
I often enough spawn a plane with all my SP, and by the time I die I have enough SP for ANOTHER plane.
While there is a theoretical possibility for such moves, the fact that the enemy team has as much capability to yield fighters for their own defense would handicap any attempts to try this.
Any clean fighter who tried this would be subject to shootdown by the enemy team…so I wouldn’t regard there being any significant threat of that posing an issue.
I understand the matter of exchange rates and abilities.
Though distinct in their own right, they are still tied in that costs can allow for certain tolerances in their use (a la cost-effectiveness despite ‘poor’ exchange rates).
…
To your list of proposed changes, I have advocated for many years hiking SPAAs’ earnings for air kills only by 400%.
SPAA guru
Reading a match is important and can help with such decisionmaking.
With that in mind, those scenarios are why despawn points also need to be implemented.
All the same, good SP awareness and management is a good practice.
1 Like
Its amazing how when someone complains about how broken the game is a legion of supporters leap to its defence yet here we have another huge list of recommendations to supposedly make this unbroken amazing game work.No wonder we are all confused in this realm of endless fixes.
3 Likes
It is not a rare occurence, getting killed by CAS only by their guns is what happens to me about 50% of the time I die to CAS.
What you suggest in itself is more theoretical, it relies on: other clean fighters being in the air, them being near enough to engage the gun-only CAS, them paying attention to engage said CAS - all the while the ground vehicles (outside of SPAA) still have little to no way to counter them.
Again, you are ignoring the actual combat capabilities of SPAA versus CAS. Generally, CAS can counter any ground vehicle whereas SPAA on the whole can only counter planes (or technically light vehicles). Ground vehicles need a good way to counter CAS and need to be able to do so easily, otherwise CAS will reign supreme. As for more specifics:
- CAS travel much faster, move in three dimensions, and generally have a shape much harder to hit, making for difficult targeting
- CAS can easily see how to adjust their guns through seeing their rounds hit the ground, SPAA cannot as they have little to no reference (especially when in the gunner’s sight) when attempting to correct errors in their aim
- CAS generally have more firepower than SPAA at their BR, meaning not only is it harder to hit them, but SPAA will have a much higher time to kill than CAS
Again, you are not addressing the massive combat capability deficit SPAAs have against CAS.
Edit: To add to the above sentence, I don’t care if a quad-0.50 cal SPAA costs 0 SP to spawn, if it’s put at top tier against 20km ATGMs it will not be able to perform well.
2 Likes
I seldom die to CAS at all, nevermind to clean fighters as you describe.
If Fighters First were implemented as proposed, one would expect both sides to deploy some amount of their own air or anti-air units to address the other side’s. While this may take a few days to iron out, it’d become just another team mixture matter in time.
With bombs/rockets, CAS has the potential to attack most enemies…though even here the matter of effective range/penetration still matters. Gun/cannon fire is even more limited.
To your other points, much of what you say is valid and some can even be flatly called ‘correct’–but SPAAs have tangible advantages too in both cost and survivability (via GFs’ repairs)
While CAS used skillfully can certainly be effective, I wouldn’t go so far as to imply it is unstoppable or anything like that.
Combat capability/viability varies greatly with the vehicle, map and MM…it difficult to work anything more than that out without specifics.
However, I will say that I don’t recommend an M16 for work at top tier…its potential there is ‘limited’ at best.
1 Like
1 Like
Gameplay should not be decided on hope, it should be decided on actual capabilities. Additionally, the change would be bad for gameplay as people would need to grind both their nation’s ground and air trees to be helpful to their team.
That’s not really true, especially with how much ammo planes have in their MGs.
Cost is not a factor that matters if you cannot shoot down planes, and once you die (because your SPAA is massively less capable of doing its job than a plane can do its own) you can’t use that crew anymore. That means you would need to dedicate more crew slots to SPAA, which both can cost actual money and/or means you need to use less-capable SPAA at a higher BR because your first was taken out.
Planes can also repair, only SPAA are immobile and defenseless when repairing (so CAS-food). Additionally, SPAA are much easier to kill than planes due to most being open-topped, having no armor, or having very light armor.
Things like turret traverse, the damage an SPAA does (and therefore its time to kill), the massive speed and maneuverability difference between SPAA and CAS, and the massive difference in ease of aim correction are factors constant to the vehicles. When looking at SPAA and CAS at the same BR (currently), a plane will have a quicker time to kill, be more maneuverable, be able to respond to and aim at enemies quicker, and have an easier time correct their aim than an SPAA.
This is not a scenario where you can just say “there needs to be more specifics” as a counterargument.
1 Like
