That’s like ignoring that I also said: I DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT HE IS TRYING TO SAY
What I’m saying that we can apply “but team can take care of it” argument to anything.
What is the point of balancing anything if we can always say “oh team can take care of it”. Going by that logic we can even say that Tiger H1 can be on 1.0 because someone from the team can flank it and kill it or bomb it.
2 Likes
No worries, I just tried to explain.
Using “teamwork” as an excuse/argument for something in a game in which you can queue 10.0 battles with a 10.0 plane and 1.0 ground units is just hilarious.
Game that relies on true teamwork should never let this happen. Until this gets changed, “teamwork” and “roles” arguments is just grasping at straws.
5 Likes
“Team” argument would be proper only if we had skill based matchmaking
2 Likes
Well, is more like that Gaijin can’t decide if WT shoud be a game with a more tactical gameplay, and thus leaned more to teamwork and to the combined arms side of things or if should it be a COD-ish experience, where despite the 16vs16 lobby what is rewarded still is the individual performance.
My argument of teamwork isn’t invalidated, but you are saying that hardly WT can be considered “strong” on the teamwork department.
The big thing about chess versus Warthunder is…
Chess is 1 vs 1.
All the pieces are managed by a single player who has equal access to everything to their opponent.
These two things make the difference.
- In war thunder, you need to grind out air and ground separately
- In war thunder, you need to grind out SPAA and your main line up separately
- In war thunder, you might not have access to equal-capability SPAA as your opponent (britain 7.7 with a 5.3 SPAA versus germany)
- In war thunder, you control a SINGLE piece.
Now, Dota 2 also only has you control a SINGLE piece (barring meepo and lone druid and the like). However, its matchmaker makes up for it
- Elo system. Similarly skilled and motivated players are matched together into a team, and against each other. Playing ranked in Dota 2, you can be confident your pos 1 knows what they have to do and is able to execute it as a pos 5. At least, able to do so to the standards you can execute your duties as a pos 5. Same for the pos 1 - you might be defenceless for the first 30 minutes, but you can be confident your pos 2 and pos 3 will create the space you need to go online for the late-mid and late game.
In warthunder, you can go one match where your whole team throws 5 minutes in and you’re now fighting a 1vs8 battle and vice versa. - Reward system. In Dota 2, victory is the most important. Individual performance matters only as far as it helps your win rates. K/D is irrelevant. KDA is important. Ward score is important. XP/min and Gold/min is important. Objective timings and damage is important.
In warthunder, being around teammates can deny you your rewards (skill bonus only rewards kills, so if you’re using a APDS/solid shot tank near a one-hit-kill APHE vehicle there’s a good chance your kill gets “stolen”)
There’s no real benefit to winning in war thunder either.
There’s no fixed roles with specific measures for those roles - SPAA are scored the same as tanks and planes. Sometimes the mere presence of SPAA can mean empty skies, so you achieved your task/goal, but get no reward for it - there should probably be a reward for “no enemy planes over the battlefield” similar to air superiority objectives in air sim. - Full access to the roster upon matchmaking, ability to use whatever pieces is necessary to win without having to unlock it. Do we need a Nature Spirit to rat the enemy because their end-game is too strong? You can pick nature spirit. Do we need Spectre to out-farm and crush late-game as the enemy early game is too strong for an early win? You got it. Do we need a dark seer suicide lane to bully the enemy pos-1 to delay their end-game to give us space in mid-game? You got it.
The only place I can reasonably find teamwork is in air sim EC at lower prop brackets (3-5 BRs)
Why?
- People there mostly play for fun rather than grinding (outside of events). People don’t mind goofing around flying in formation as escort fighters despite there being no reward for such. Respawns are cheap at 3k SL so you don’t even have the issue rank 4+ give where you must stay alive for 30 minutes scoring consistently high just to make a bare minimum profit after paying 15k just to spawn in.
- Matches are longer, so there’s time to coordinate and chat up your teammates and organize.
- Winning makes a major impact on your rewards due to how it’s a percentage bonus, and that percentage gets pretty significant for a 2-3 hour game. It can make a difference of 50 000 silver lions!
So no, ground RB cannot be compared to chess.
It lacks incentives for teamwork, it lacks equal access to vehicles/tools to do the job
3 Likes
Because it is like that unfortunately. Teamwork rarely happens outside squadron battles or tournaments.
This is what I wrote above:
“Random battle means games include random players with random lineups within BR bracket, random game preferences and random game expectations.”
Add language barrier to all above and result is. Teamwork as rare as unicorn.
2 Likes
Sorry, but do you guys even try to call to the team, or just blindly assume this every match you’re in that the team isn’t there…
I find calling to the team gets responses, so your statement really doesn’t sound true at all.
It’s only true if you don’t bother.
1 Like
I always do, but as I said, answer is as rare as unicorn.
One battle I marked Tiger in ambush at least 3 times, wrote it in chat and that Tiger got 7 kills because players went one by one in front of his gun.
The same as I got 10 kills with Chi To without even moving as tanks just rolled in front of me.
Or when a guy ask for my help as 2 planes are on him. I join to help him and as soon they turned on me he bailed out. Great teamwork.
3 Likes
The “team” would only be able to “take care of it” if there are vehicles on that BR bracket that can match it
Thus we can’t say it; the Tiger I at 1.0 won’t have any vehicle that can match it, even on a flank. If the Su-39 were to get the R-77 and R-27ER1, it would go the most close possible to the BRs were the FOX-3 populates.
Balancing, as I understand, asks: “what kind of vehicle this is”. Thus the kind tells the flaws and strengths of the vehicle, and with the flaws and strengths you can know in what BR it can perform good enough with also being able to be neutralised.
For your team to be able to take care of it, they also need vehicle that can match it, that is the conclusion.
A 1.0 Do 17 E-1 can destroy any tank with 250kg bombs it has.
Bt-5 can kill Tiger H1 by penning its side.
Most if not all of the tanks can be taken out by bombs of around 250kg, meaning most of them are not balanced against it.
1.0 TBD-1 with 1000 lbs bomb can deal with all ground units, meaning a Tiger H1 wouldn’t be a threat as team can use such plane and kill it or BT-5 to destroy it from its side.
3 Likes
This bullshit is your reasoning? “dur, this thing can kill this other, mighty, thing”. You can also show me a Do 17 E-1 winning a match at 11.7 without being a burden to it’s teammates.
1 Like
But it’s clear Tiger I at 1.0 would still be able to get countered by both ground and air units.
1 Like
Can someone on gods green earth tell me exactly why exactly loading your top tier jet with ARH missiles(pure A2A) makes it cost just as much as one fully loaded for CAS? the SP requirements may have gone up slightly as well from 712 to 800
You say you always do, but I doubt it…
But why it has to win a match at 11.7? It has its teammates of course ~ This is where Your reasoning brings us, someone always can say “but team” argument.
But again, tell me plese why we can’t apply Your reasoning to the Tiger H1 being at 1.0 while in this case team still can take care of it.
1 Like
And thats only your opinion.
Pretty sure it’d be pretty easy to prove…
In the role of anti-flanker, speed often makes little difference. It doesn’t matter where the head to head faceoff is, as long as it’s frontal. The light vehicles that go onto the sides to avoid frontal engagements do not fare well in such engagements no matter where they are on the map (ex. only running into the anti-flanking heavy far into enemy turf). I played the Tiger IIs, Ferdinand and Panthers in this role extensively and it worked well…
As gun handling goes, I’d have to say the advantage is with the Panthers and not the M18…the M18 bounces around such that its gun handling is terrible IMO. The 76mm is a bit of a letdown too, I’d rather have the 90mm of the M36 (a la the Super Hellcat). Personally, I prefer the M36s over the M18s for those reasons.
Bending the Air modes strictly to contort them to the very different setup of the GFs modes is needless.
There are differences between the modes (such as distances) that make them different; the Air modes are entitled to their own sovereignty, they don’t have to conform to what goes on in GFs nor vice versa.
It’s an interesting thought experiment…but I don’t see it selling with the playerbase or, more pointedly, to Gaijin. I don’t think they’d see the under-over as “worth it” for them, despite any merits it may have.
The distances involved in the Air modes make any respawn idea (GF or AF) a much harder sale than what is the case in the GFs modes.
…for a limited selection of vehicles as-is. If you introduced them to other vehicles, it could raise balance implications…while also being perhaps uninfluential (air spawns can be still subject to camping or disadvantage). Air spawns are certainly not a panacea in themselves.
I’d have to disagree…I think the hype of aircraft is generally unjustified.
I will say that I’m not commenting on top tier (9.0+)–less because of aircraft and more because it’s always a chaotic mess of one thing (vehicle/weapon/etc) one-upping another.
In most cases, bombs/rockets only become available to the aircraft at a later time…by definition, this means those weapons are not inherent to that vehicle. They may later become part of the aircraft’s tools, but they are not always so (nor are they included in its original costs, a la internal cannon aircraft (which usually pay an SP surcharge on ammo)).
As far as the relationship between tank lethality and certain shells goes, it’s entirely factual and reasonable to say this varies at times. In many cases, it is simply true that tanks’ lethality is directly affected by the ammunition selected.
For instance: see the PT-76…it’s stock APCR round is awful while the HEAT-FS shell is very respectable. The APCR will struggle to do much of anything (it was outright useless years ago when I was grinding the tank) while the HEAT-FS shell is serviceable.
Certainly you must say the PT-76’s lethality varies with the rounds equipped…the same (especially regarding anti-GFs work) applies for aircraft.
If there was official polling done, I’m not aware of it offhand.
I do know that maps such as Kursk and other larger, opener maps have been cut down or tossed as size has been hemmed in. At least some of that is likely responsive to player feedback (though perhaps not seen in English-speaking venues).
In many cases (particularly jet BRs), that’s simply not reasonable mechanically. When Gaijin similarly stuffed Arcade maps into RB under that auspice, it generated an uproar…if anything, the fury would likely be even hotter today.
If someone (Gaijin included) wanted to propose cutting the size of Air modes’ maps down, they’d have to take it to the Air modes’ players…their mode means its really their choice to weigh upon.
As far as queue times go, Gaijin might emphasize queue times–but players’ regard for their importance is substantially different.
To change a mode without consulting its players would be to deprive these players of their rightful input.
While you might say your changes make matters “more balanced,” that is perhaps subjective and certainly subject to discussion. It’s only after a consensus from the players that any such proclamations can really have a mandate.
You have to consult the Air mode playerbase when working on the Air modes…it’s just necessary and proper.
By diverting development/oversight from the Air modes’ “budget” to SIAM, the idea would indeed be a hijacking of the Air modes if that mode’s players did not wish for its implementation.
Foisting something into a place that does not want it and where that something diverts resources could reasonably be called a “hijacking”…whether that’s true or not for SIAM would be determined by its reception.
Personally, I’m open to the idea (an even wider view actually, with my fuller CA idea) but the wider reaction is what has to be gauged for a matter like this.
Overhauls are certainly needed, but that’s quite different from ‘blowing it all up’ to clean house.
It’s not pointless at all–it’s just an acknowledgement of the potential measures and countermeasures all can take into battle.
Unless players are restricted from using SPAAs (they aren’t), SPAAs exist available for use as potential countermeasues to enemy aircraft. Now, nobody is required to use SPAAs–but they may do so if they wish.
A well-rounded team will have these things (or have the presence of mind to consider them), but none of this is required…only incentivized by heightened odds of success (surviving/winning). One could propose a more formal or forceful requirement of these things…but I doubt the playerbase would be receptive of this–absent, perhaps, a “ranked” mode sort of setup.
As it stands, I encourage the implementation of despawn points (and even SP rebates) to facilitate easier, freer SPAA usage…but that’s something that’d be subject to more stringent discussions on details in a more thorough discussion.
Eh…I don’t even run when I’m in my tanks and aircraft are around. Most of the time you can safely ignore aircraft and see no ill effects…the threat is usually that slim in my experience.
Deliberate or unconscious inaction–playing possum you could say–is usually enough to avoid attention and attack. (A lot of tankers who fly do not have the visibility (due to screen size, settings or focus) to see enemies that aren’t moving…simply sitting still is enough to throw them off.)
I mention the Lvkv 42 scenario that occurred because it’s an example of responsibility…I was in that position because of my own handling of it–not because the B-25 was all-powerful or anything like that.
At some point, we’ve got to take responsibility for how we’ve handled ourselves and what results.
Unless we go with something like out and out health bars, I don’t see that working…there are limits to every vehicle that vary between them all due to their characteristics.
Aircraft are no strangers to these relations either–look at the many “clean” fighters with no meaningful anti-armor capabilities.
I’d agree with that broadly–though that’s why a smart ‘spawncamper’ will take spawn protection out of the equation altogether by waiting a few moments for a new spawn’s departure. (That’s one tell of how proficient the camper is.)
Death is death…the manner and specifics may vary, but the end result is the same.
Generally reload rates aren’t too much…while obviously any time in a competitive scene is costly, most SPAAs have only a moment or two to wait. In the case of the Tiger H1 shot I was referring to there, I was well inside my side of the map and shooting at a Pe-8 that was flying further into our side’s airspace.
If you’re inside enemy turf, you’d be well advised to focus more on the surface for enemies (odds of an encounter are likelier) and to not incur a reload shooting at any aircraft you do see.
The vulnerability of aircraft to pilot sniping (which is an insta-death for the aircraft) is no different than open top vehicles’ vulnerability to wounding from aircraft/artillery/etc. Both are matters of vulnerability that are baggage which come with the vehicle, which is the point I was making there.
As pilot sniping goes, the ease of that (by AF/GFs alike) has been a saga all its own for eons. How that works is ‘chaotic’ and often incongruent with what everything suggests it ought to be (often detrimentally so for the aircraft involved).
1 Like
I don’t agree at all. every day I cooperate with strangers in games. we go around together, we do pincer maneuvers to surround an enemy, I use the drone to ping enemies who have destroyed themselves, etc etc.
so I don’t know if you play a lot but teamwork happens quite often
2 Likes