J’ing out before you can kill em.
Not surprised, honestly. Many are just bad at Anti-Air. When you get that one AA. Planes stay the heck away. Unless in a squad.
1 Like
Gaijin idea reducing burden on moderators otherwise you need around 20 moderators for forum for every “red” flag on comments.
We have no better statistic currently.
I’m not claiming that vehicles with a couple air kills are good SPAA. I am claiming that vehicles with many air kills, many ground kills, and almost exclusively ground deaths are good SPAA.
To further prove my point, SPAA like the M19A1 have near identical K/D to other tanks if you don’t count air kills. This means that using it against planes has little to no effect on deaths in K/D recording, and thus there’s little to no deaths actually to aircraft.
That only applies to two of the vehicles shown, and I’ve already shown one of them (LAV-AD) achieving a 10.0 K/D after excluding drone kills.
Again, just because we only have these doesn’t mean they represent anything sensible.
Do You have anything to back it up or we just need to trust You on that?
Or it means that it is good against tanks and bad against aircrafts.
Again, anything to back it up?
2 Likes
Yes, I explained my reasoning. Vehicle A and vehicle B have comparable anti-tank capability.
Vehicle A has 1.5 K/D when counting all deaths, and only tank kills.
Vehicle B has 1.5 K/D when counting all deaths and only tanks kills. However, has a 2.5 K/D when counting all deaths and all kills.
Thus, you can conclude that vehicle B is a good SPAA, and that air deaths are completely negligible in statistics.
Can we 100% confirm any of this? No, Warthunder does not record the necessary data to. What we can do is draw logical conclusions based on what we do know.
I think stats discourse is going nowhere because there is no separate “death to air” stat and because stats also include uav kills, also stats dont tell how many kills were uptier/downtier/same br. And in case of deaths neither side can prove that majority/minority of those deaths were to aircraft/ground. Because there is no data to back those claims up. And samples from replay analysis may be either too small compared to all games of one person, let alone entire playerbase.
You guys probably should move on.
2 Likes
You can’t do that as vehicle B could be the one dying to air all the time while it can just sometimes fight it back.
4 battles out of how many? 39?
That’s disproven by the fact that vehicle A and vehicle B have comparable anti tank capability. Two vehicles of same or similar performance against other tanks will have same or similar deaths to tanks.
That’s just the only 4 battles I screenshot. Most battles in LAV-AD were spent waiting 15 minutes for a single Il-2 to spawn.
Anti tank capability doesn’t support anti air capability.
Not really as if one is an easy target to the air it will be more destroyed by it.
Sorry but this are just words.
Exactly.
In that case, you would be going against your earlier argument that B would have extra deaths to planes.
Every argument you have made has been fully anecdotal “Well maybeeee”, and disregarding of the truth. My arguments have included actual recorded stats and games that back up the points I made.
That is why You will never know how well vehicle perform against the air by overall K/D.
If it dies to air faster than ground, it would’t be against it.
My arguments are as logical as Yours, especially the case of vehicle “A” and “B”.
4 battles? Really?
Not to mention data that must be “trusted” because there is nothing to back it up?
Sorry but that is not really usefull here.
No, that fact that AT performance and AA performance are separated allows you a decent estimate on air K/D.
Vehicle B having better AA performance definitively means it would not die faster to air.
Additionally, making the argument that it would, would be mathematically impossible as there would be missing ground deaths.
Two vehicles of comparable AT ability would have comparable ground deaths.
No, you have not provided any logical reasoning, or any statistics to back your points. You have simply said “Well maybe (x) scenario that’s implausible” to try to disprove my points.
SPAA is boring. I don’t care to play more. 4 battles is plenty, especially considered I likely have less than a dozen with the 92Ks unlocked.
It really doesn’t as You don’t know which vehicle is being killed by air more.
Not really as many AA are fast and can deal with tanks easier than with air while being really easy to destroy by air.
By how really?
If one vehicle is dying more to the ground than air and other dies more to air than ground while also being able to destroy the air it doesn’t change anything when it comes to math. Death is death.
By what standards?
I have provided as many as You, or we again are trying to count 4 battles as statistics that prove any point?
Because You are making Your argument based on “Well maybe (y) sceario…”.
If You want to talk about how things really are You first need to provide any data to work on. 4 battles taken out of the context prove as much as “trust me bro”.
That is as good sample as none really.
1 Like
Good, spawncamping CAS users can whine harder. CAS users are so greedy jeez like “noo i cant spawncamp and get my 14th kill”
3 Likes
fr they literally buy a premium russian jet and lob ARM from outside antiair range and the only SPAA that can counter that amount of missiles is also russian xDD SPAA range is limited so you can only counter CAS with CAP but they still are hard to kill because its no longer a su25 that can barely defend itself
aand then they can just launch kh38 from the airfield without ever exposing themselves so…
1 Like
Yes you can. If they have similar AT ability, and they have similar K/D when excluding air kills, then that means air deaths are negligible.
“Many AA” are not what I’m talking about. SPAA like the Ostwind and M19A1 are well equipped for anti-air.
Similarly performing vehicles perform similarly.
You have not provided any statistics or matches to back your points. I have, but all you have done is say they’re invalid because they disagree with you.
I am making arguments based on verifiable facts, namely statistics and example matches.
“I don’t like that this person uses features provided to everyone that I personally don’t want to use so this person shouldn’t be allowed to play the game.”
Isn’t the J button provided to everyone?
Yes, and Gajin has detailed how you can and cannot use it.
Again, You are coming from the point that both die the same amount of times to the ground, but You can’t do that.
Both are open top and can be killed by rocket that doesn’t need to hit it fired from outside of their effective range.
Just because both vehicles have the same K/D doesn’t mean that both are played the same.
And did You? Again, 4 battles to prove that You have good K/D against the air because in this 4 battles You were able to kill the air out of 50?
Don’t make me laugh.
[quote=“Pangolin_Fan, post:761, topic:122092”]
I am making arguments based on verifiable facts, namely statistics and example matches.
If facts were verifiable then You would name both vehicles and show their stats in game for example on statshark etc.
If facts were verifiable then You would provide more than 4 screanshoots of 4 battles out of 50.
Then You could talk about it as verifiable. Otherwise it is just a pure speculation we are making all the time.
There is no point in further discussing.
By definition, that’s what similar AT performance means.
Only if enemy plane sees you, has rockets, has good rockets, and has good enough aim to hit you with em.
autocannons outrange WW2 rockets
Irrelevant to the point I made.
Yes. I provided my stats in numerous SPAA, aswell as some examples games that portray in average match in em.
I said nothing of such. You’re laughing at yourself, clown.
I already did that exact thing.