Is it about time to start merging all of these whinge and moan threads, and finally make a stance on them?

Game Discussion General Discussion
186

Actually, the thread was about all the threads that are low effort whinge posts…

The CAS thread has been remade after a 5+ year old thread on the old forums, to bring it back to this forum, which it was always responded to with the same exact mentionings… That the air threat is part of the game, and thus it’s got counters, which players can choose to use, or choose to lose.

Then there’s the multiple same topic threads that are made by many others, and the double topics by those who also don’t think thier first topic got heard enough or supported enough so they make a second, and third to bring that up again.

187

I dunno man, this also seems like a pretty low-effort whinge post–

Not to mention, you do definitely seem fixated on the CAS defense thing, even though I havent even mentioned CAS. I feel like you might just be salty that people have opposing opinions-

2 Likes
188

Considering my stance, and the opening, this isn’t low effort.

Because this is my prime example of the threads where if you oppose it, you get abused and insulted for holding the opposing opinion…

And you’re free to feel that, and this is engagement.

If I were to tell you that you were just a low KDR player who doesn’t matter, or that your stats in a vehicle detract from any of your points, or that you were a low bar engager on the forums, that wouldn’t be alright…

That’s the point of what’s being said.

189

Who decides what is low effort and what is not? Because im pretty sure it isnt you.

What dictates if a post is low-effort or not? What is the criteria for low effort?

Because with the way you have been putting it, you seem to be equating low effort and harrassment with: “Anyone who disagrees with me”

Sure, stat-shaming might be bad, but what matters is the point being made, regardles how how said rude person might put it. It just makes you an asshole, it doesnt necessarily make you incorrect.

190

One line posts… Mere ‘remove this’ threads… Polls with only one option, literally… Threads with mere screenshots, with insinuation that it’s the vehicles modelling issues that are the reason for the ‘fix it’ stance…

There’s a lot of things that define low effort posts…

The vagueness and obtuse nature of threads that can be made into anything and everything at a whim just to blame the game or the developers for not tending to the game or the vehicles being OP, and the ‘choice’ to leave them because it’ll hit their bottom line sort of stuff even.

191

And why are these posts low effort? Why does the effort put into a post matter?

If being bad at the game doesnt make you wrong, why should putting little effort into the way you present your point make you wrong?

1 Like
192

Because the purpose of the forums is to discuss, not wind up a group of easily riled players into throwing out that their issue is the game that they want to play not working for them the way that they think it should.

You’re leaning back to the KDR statement, which is already done and dusted… ULQ is a common troll on the forums, and commonly we do have trouble between us because he merely wants to prove someone ‘wrong’ as much as they can, and I don’t care for being wrong because it’s an opinion I hold that you can’t be wrong in holding the opinion…

It’s just when you aren’t engagable, then you’re just not the right fit for a forum.

This isn’t steam, this isn’t reddit… People seem to have forgotten this… This is also where the want to coin the boycott at any stage of a thread comes into it.

Then we have the falseflagging that was prolific in the first weeks of the forums. People were flagging posts that were directly appropriate, just because they couldn’t handle the opposing opinions…

All of this detracts from the point, much the same as this revisiting of the statchecking in this thread.

If you can’t actually make a point without having to check someones stats, history, or even their level, or recent battles played, then you have no place in trying to coin that anyone is wrong.

193

This seems more based in personal distaste for certain people and topics than it does in any logic or reasoning.

I see zero reason why a person shouldnt be able to voice their distaste with a feature of the game that they are discussing simply because you believe it shouldnt be discussed, or has been discussed too much, or isnt discussed “with enough effort”.

Your proposal seems aimed at placing arguments you dont enjoy into a category where they are automatically discredited, defeating them before any discussion has taken place, which seems antithetical to the whole point of a forum hun.

2 Likes
194

Well, if a user is going to post multiple topics all of the same mantra, and want, it’s pretty clear they may be having more trouble with the game compared to the game being the issue…

But if they are always having trouble with the game, is it not possible that the issue isn’t with the game but them?

‘hun’…

https://forum.warthunder.com/t/remove-the-crew-training-costs/34347 (No idea why this isn’t linking right)

and

Removal isn’t a genuine option, and moving goalposts isn’t a thing either… But these threads are indicative of this sort of thing.

These are just the examples I’ve brough up earlier. Maybe I do dislike the OPs, but thing is there’s a point where the actual effort in posting this junk, is just sub-par…

It’s like someone posting up ‘Gaijin should get some new servers am i rite’ and being all coy about the fact they’re sitting on wifi, on a 4g connection, and wanting to desperately ignore that their connection is shit hence they are having issues because of thier setup.

195

And maybe You can just ignore his posts or ignore his account? (Don’t know if it works on this forum)

Otherwise You just want to silence people You don’t agree with because…?

196

Again, effort should not be a factor when it comes to stating your opinions. Not only that, i find it oddly convienient that you seem to have ignored my pointing out that you’re wanting to place topics that you disagree with into a category that discredits them.

If you would like to discuss that, then that is an entirely different topic.

What you are arguing for is in the same vein as all the people arguing that they want CAS removed. You want whiny, Whingeing posts to be removed, or put into their own category (much like people who want CAS to say in plane gamemodes btw–) so why is your wish realistic, and their wish not?

2 Likes
197

Maybe that is the ultimate issue?

198

Validity is ultimately entirely subjective unfortunately, specfically when it comes to entirely opinionated topics.

199

But if you’re closed to engagement, and genuine engagement, not just a random user coming interjecting and throwing in old gone-over points, then you’re not here to actually engage, and should be dismissed.

Hell, I’ve even had the ‘You post so much’ thrown at me as a rebuttal for my contributions alone… Just low effort crap.

200

Well then, we have come to the apoapsis of your stance.

The only people who’s opinions are valid, are those whom you believe are engaging in an approriate manner.

And whom decides what the appropriate manner is? Why, you of course, and anyone who happens to agree with you.

Im sorry, but if anyone is closed to engagement here, it seems to be you, considering your desire to shut down engagement that is not satisfactory to you.

2 Likes
201

I feel you’re just fixating on my thread for lack of any other thing to latch on to… I’m sorry for your fixation, but it doesn’t lessen the point I made about the low effort threads.

After all, did you even check the threads I linked to? One of them makes threads so often that they’re merely a whinge to me because every thread is exactly the same… remove or bust, and always ‘It’s not about that’ when any opposing argument is posed.

Whilst you’ve jumped on the back of ULQs comments and subsequent throwouts, it’s merely detracting from the actual point of the thread, and thus I urge you to consider the rest of the thread rather than the tail-end as you’ve stumbled upon.

Maybe you want to consider that a bit more compared to going for someone directly, much the same as some of the threads where the opposition is handed out.

This crosses also into the sniping spots map, where peopel assume that people are snipers because they tell them how to deal with such a situation.

When in the CAS thread when you suggest for them to actually think and do more, ULQ challenges an SPAA to go one on one with their plane, which is a common lame comeback, because instead of there just being one of you, there can be multiples, which leads to a deterrent situation.

It also dismisses the methods of using SPAA, and where we have respawns and such in the game.

Maybe you only want to also prove someone wrong, but again, opinions aren’t wrong, but not listening to the advice handed out and complaining that it’ll still be a thing is wrong.

Much the same as the wifi example I handed out before. You will find people who will blame the servers, but if someones asking you about your connection, and you’re ignoring that to keep on complaining, then it’s clear you’re not looking for answers or engagement, you’re only looking for the excuse and ‘support’ in that excuse.

202

bs.

My suggestion of ‘adding little flag poles’ similar to how ships have it for tanks was not approved, and there’s no suggestion like that in decal suggestion thread.

My suggestion regarding dynamic spawns was also not approved, even though there’s no mention of such suggestion in their gameplay or maps suggestion tab.

They might not be good suggestions, but the fact that some mod can decide whether it gets out to public is not a very good system for health of the game.

203

Your adding flag poles thread may have been too vague to be clear…

I know I’d be keen for that because it was even something maybe you mentioned in passing somewhere actually, where it was like the dune flags that people have.

But also it’s an non-vital thing and more cosmetic, so it’d be further down the list of ‘priorities’

Dynamic spawns would require fleshing out as well. If you didn’t see the most recent ‘event’ where they tested the ‘assault mode’ where you pushed through a teams caps, that could easily have been a test of something along that line, so your suggestion may be along that line, but not the same, but could be on its way, literally…

They haven’t told you they aren’t good, and they may not have even cleared the queue, doesn’t mean to say that they won’t.

And if they are just left open to submit, and throw in suggestions, then suggestions made with one liners, and hyping people up to actually want things on a mere ‘OMG we need this ‘fixed’’ such as some of these threads are showingf, would become very much common place.

And that would lead to literally posts like ‘I got killed by this, and it needs fixing’ ‘OMG me too!’ ‘Needs fixing totally’ ‘Yep, I endorse this’ with no actual suggestion, just hype a group on the mere premise of doing ‘something’ about the situation, with the ‘suggestion’ being changed and made on the way…

It wouldn’t be good, honestly.

204

Mate, when you post to suggestions, you get notification saying how many of your posts are waiting to get approved. After I posted, I got a nice number ‘1’ which is the suggestion I wrote today.

205

I’m just giving possible valid reasons as to why things may not be going the way you want it.

You also have the option of PMing the suggestion moderators to even ask them.