Even if You call pointing out fact that tanks have limited angle on their mounted MGs there is nothing about people using them.
You have said that I complain about:
“people trying to use non-SPAA tanks against aircraft and complained about SPGs or whatever not downing enemy fighters”
and I have never done it.
They can see and that is why they know that You are just simply lying.
You can try to not admit it and hide it but You just simply lied and everyone can see it.
The players using them are irrelevant when you are/were talking about the vehicles facing one another collectively.
You literally just proved my point by confirming you had groused about GFs vs AFs.
As the posts show, I have been consistent, direct and honest about what I have claimed and said. No lying involved…there is no need for it.
You have been, at best, confused and meandering. Sorry.
Oh, so I haven’t complained about:
As You have said previously? Good to know.
You are the one who just admited to lying.
I haven’t been even complaining to begin with when saying that tanks have limited angle on mounted MGs as that is just how things are.
Not to mention that I have never complained about “people” as You have said.
The only one confused is the one who doesn’t want to read his own statements first ;).
You recently groused about GFs in general facing AFs. That would indeed be complaining…I’m not sure why this is such a sticking point for you now.
It is not lying on my part to observe and point out your objections about certain matters, mechanics and realities in games.
Commentary =/= lying
You’ve complained about players a great deal from a number of different angles and for a variety of reasons. Much of the time it’s been out of hand and tangential at best.
I remember what I’ve said–and it’s all been sensible and in line with what’s being discussed.
Your forgetfulness is clouding your understanding here…I think you should take a break. PM me when you’re up to it.
Again, stating how things are is not complaining to begin with, not to mention that it was not what You have said at the beginning:
Still waiting for the citation where I have complained about people to begin with.
If You can’t provide it, then there is no point in further discussion. And no, what You have already cited doesn’t talk about “people” using anything.
I have referred to the relevant matters already. You have ignored this and bloated the thread with your many posts while you’ve been…confused and forgetful about what you said.
I hope you take a step back, look over your previous posts and feel better. :)
Nothing about people using anything. This is what You have said:
Again, no point in further discussion if You are just going to lie all the time.
The only one bloating it is the one lying all the time.
Not to mention that SP costs have to be risen up and probably will be as we probably don’t want any more nerfs to weaponary that will affect other modes right?
There is no discussion…you said what you said and it is not lying to acknowledge that.
Your opinion =/= fact
As it stands, the consensus has been that there really is no justification for raising SP costs on aircraft, which are already the most expensive vehicles of the mode. If anything, we have seen a far stronger case for reducing SP costs to enable greater defensive fighter deployments presented (a la Fighters First).
While raising SP costs would arbitrarily and artificially restrict players’ freedom of choice, lowering SP costs would enable players to choose for themselves how they want to face the enemy. Those are the facts of the math.
What I have said is visible to everyone and there is no:
so yea, people can see that ;).
With who? Because when it comes to replies to this topic there was no real consensus made in first place. Only a few people with some even beliving in russian bias.
Again, I haven’t seen many people agreeing with that opinion. Not to mention that there was a strong opposition to that in first place.
You literally just acknowledged and confirmed my point…you’ve griped about non-SPAA GFs’ suitability against aircraft (which is a “wrong tools” scenario).
You previously talked about wrong tools scenarios with dismissal for such complainants. So…yeah: my point was proven.
The vibe among the general population…that’s what consensus means in this context.
As for individuals or their beliefs…what business is that of yours and what relevance do you think that has to a matter of mass consensus?
I recall it being quite different. Fighters First didn’t really encounter any serious opposition, but it didn’t have any major outspoken advocacy as-is either.
The status quo as things are now is fairly popular all in all–but FF could certainly be a way to adjust matters with only an SP cost alteration. It’d only expand vehicle access and players’ freedom of choice.
Again, nothing about people using them as this statement tells:
Thanks for proving again my point.
And I have seen much more people talking about unbalance and need of rising the cost of SP and nerfs rather than making them cheaper.
Same as I do.
I hope that one day You will create a poll to showcase the popularity of that idea. To this day we can only see how majority thinks about CAS in GB in the polls we have on forum (no matter what You think about them).
You were talking about vehicles’ suitability for a given task (non-SPAA vehicles for SPAA-esque use) and grousing about it.
The mention of people in that wrong tools scenario was passing and irrelevant because you were talking about a vehicle matter. You’re getting hung up on irrelevant details…don’t get distracted so easily.
Complaints made while angry about defeat are neither well-balanced nor informed. Such statements are charitably described as ‘passionate’ but not necessarily well reasoned. Facts > feelings
Eh…you seem to be snagged on the limits of polls again. To clarify this to you:
Polls are not inherently reflective of the total population, they can only show the expressions of the polled. As accuracy of the representation goes, there are all sorts of variables at play (motivation, sampling, etc.) that can jaundice results and skew the data. Polls are certainly not perfect.
As I said, if I get around to putting together a formal poll on Fighters First it’ll probably be with a detailed post on the matter to do the whole concept justice.
Based on early signs, FF’d likely be a smash hit. (Who doesn’t want more freedom of choice?)
I was talking about how things are in the game, that mounted MGs have limited angle they can shot at, not complaining about it.
You are the one who said that I complained about people, not me:
And I have never done it.
Sorry but we don’t know which people are making comments based of emotions. Not to mention that again much more people were saying that things should get nerfed/costs of SP should be bigger than other way around.
Of course they are not. But probably one with around 1000 people voting on it in official forum of the game when someone only registered can vote is something that should be taken into consideration.
Can’t wait to see it then as You claim to know what You are doing.
Things are not going to be as colorfull as You try to portray them to be.
You mean fly airplanes as first spawns? They already use the freedom of choice of the mode they want to play and play one where it is possible.
You’ve groused about it previously as though it’s a fundamental issue to game balance because one sort of vehicle supposedly has ‘no’ means to handle another. (That’s not a big deal).
A “wrong tools” scenario, especially like this, doesn’t pose such an issue. It just requires good teamplay/better decisionmaking
Not really…you seemed to have latched onto a passing remark that actually referred to vehicle usage. Yeah, players use vehicles–duh.
“Should be bigger” eh? Is that your opinion leading that, or…?
Mob mentality =/= correct
We’d have to see how the conditions are to look it over. Poll quality matters…that poorly written one you showed would be greatly inferior to a concise, well organized setup.
When I get around to it, sure. I couldn’t do any worse than that messy one you referred to.
Man, if you are a clairvoyant give me the winning lottery numbers as proof.
The AFs modes are irrelevant to this RB GFs discussion…not sure why you bring them up.
As parts of RB GFs, there’s no reason not to have that choice there. Greater availability of defending fighters would allow GFs more protection from enemy aircraft later…so there’s no issue with that.
I haven’t complained about it.
I have pointed out the limitations of mounted MGs on tanks not complained about them, not even talking about people using them.
Yes, You did:
This is much different than talking about:
So please, stop making it into something different when Your first comment is clearly visible.
I have never complained about people trying to shot down aircrafts with non-SPAA tanks. They are doing the best they can do.
This is how majority thinks and what listening to it will lead to.
As long as You can’t provide anything better, it is the best we have.
I’m just pointing out what early sings show ;).
Of course they are.
Many people already pointed out that early fighters would be even bigger threat to many ground units to begin with and the nature of random teams doesn’t support balanced teams.
just get 1 kill and die u get a full loadade planes to pick 2 to 5 free kills is so dum**
You don’t even need to kill someone to be able to spawn in a plane with bombs/rockets.
Sometimes even 1 cap is enough.
iv said that so many times Planes should be a reward not a playstyle in br ground battles. but is so easy to get a planes is basicaly play as tank only to dominate with a plane
I frankly dont disagree with you man. BUT, there is few ways we can protest it.
that bush thing is kinda some bs. how did they justify letting folks keep it while closing access.
btw you could also increase the nuke’s sp from 2500 to 3000 to make it more unique as well (like increasing all sp for planes and helicopters). and why does the person who respawns nuke have to start from 0 from an airport where the enemy that respawns a few seconds later is already high in the sky in a speeding plane… Where is the balance here? So shouldn’t everyone start at the airport when someone advises against nuclear weapons?
Yes, I was shot down like that and it doesn’t really hurt me, but I guess it shouldn’t be like that. A person who has to kill about 10 enemies to spawn a nuclear weapon vs a person who makes 2 assists and spawns a plane in which he also has a much greater advantage