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
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.
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
What you, I or someone else might class or call certain BRs is up to personal choice on exactly how/why it’s framed that way–hence the notation of the BRs as stated.
You may disagree with classing 9.X and up as top tier–but that’s simply one opinion on the matter, not the take. (Some people call everything below 7.0 as ‘low tier’ so there you go…)
Helicopters have always had a ‘problematic’ history with balance and the issues related to the food chain they deal with, including new radar SPAAs shooing away fighters that might have poached the helicopters when they debuted is only one such example.
As sayings go, air power tends to be decisive and a dominating factor in the modern battlefield.
How one can achieve a reasonable balancing of aircraft without an undue burden/inhibition of their capabilities is certainly a conversation worth having…but one that’ll probably invite a bloodbath.
That he states it poses no difference to his performance suggests there is no reason to select ULQ settings other than the rather odd choice to seemingly have the game uglier.
I certainly cannot imagine such a choice as coming from restraint.
There’s no need to bloat the thread with replies like that…you’re free to PM me. I’m just going by what you’ve said and written.
The use of ULQ is not the only aspect of that video that renders it unrepresentative of the norm–your participation does too. By your contention (saying ‘ULQ changes nothing’), your unique qualities of being a veteran player with lots of time are what put that experience outside the norm.
Even excluding the graphics setting matter (and age of the footage), it doesn’t speak to the typical norms or results.
There is no way to verify that.
What makes Your day, have a good one!
Good thing that this is a game and not a real war, balance is important here.
This is why we need something to play in peace until that balance is established. CAS dominance is going rampant for years now and there’s no signs of stopping.
It might not.
One can perform pretty much the same at 80 and 140 fps but he might choose the latter because it feels better.
I understand it as a game that has been allowed to keep its plane only mode since the beginning
Given that those modes were the basis for the rest of the game and have always had a bloc of players in them…of course they have.
Why wouldn’t that continue? (That remark wasn’t for you either.)
I agree, hence my other comment (including the bloodbath acknowledgement).
The ‘trigger queue’ concept seems the best avenue toward TO, but it (and TO at large) seem neglected/abandoned as a pitch nowadays.
Outside of solitary posts, I haven’t seen any serious movement.
I’m dubious about it…
ATP it’s evolved past just a balance issue for some i am sure. Myself included in this i can queue up with a lineup where i know my spaa will outshine any aircraft that try to get close to the battlefield and i just still will not have fun since i was drawn to the game by the tank gameplay. Playing against a plane just feels like a go next button, meanwhile to the comment earlier of ____ is now the reason I died is more for me like haha I’m trying to swarm a KV - 1E with some friends in crusaders and i am sure there are others who also enjoy the challenge of times like that
This is good. Giving vulnerable CAS planes a chance to survive against CAP planes makes for better balance.
Even at top tier, which is the best CAP jet BR we already have notch gate and mp. Limiting guaranteed kills to within 3km for 9m, even closer for r73…
Not to mention the lower ones. Are you willing to compete, in Target acquisition & Kill efficiency,
with a MiG9 against ShilkaM2?
with a Mig15 against Gepards (and PGZ09 xD)?
with a MiG17PF/ F3H against M247+ImpChap?
with a MiG21F /F100 against Stinger-Cannons?
with a MiG23M against Strela & OSA?
They won’t stay alive above the battlefield themselves xD
If pilot has few braincells, dodge AAs is easy… All you have to do is fly low. Rocket AAs need time to lock radar and launch missiles, missiles need time to reach target and can’t maneuver normally. AAs cannot lock target if plane is low, it’s alsy invisible for radar.
But yeah, CAS is very hard to use, we need NERF all SPAAs as soon as possible.
First of all
You know how to hide close to the ground. So does the enemy. He notches and uses MP, pops chff & flr,
And your ARH aren’t doing anything, forcing you to get closer, maybe even a 20km chase, across their af…
what gaijin needs to do is increase the airspace size (maybe even to arb levels who knows with how the sa-2s might work) and force airfield spawn
Unless the length of a GRB match was increased five or even ten fold, increasing airfield distance and forcing airfield spawn would both be extremely bad ideas.
