Make sure to bring in your Ground Superiority Fighter if you ever have the horrible wish of playing top tier
6 Likes
I play both :) so far, pretty fun, working and challenging
Again, don’t make statements for me, as it shows how disingenuous you are about actually discussing things, as has been obvious to me the entire time you’ve been harping on in this manner.
It’s the fact that you don’t have to die to spawn an SPAA, and the fact you choose to not take inititaive and spawn things that are needed, when they are, makes it clear you’re not looking for any solutions, other than your own precious mode that you mention everywhere, as is the same as your precious SBMM…
That alone is a tiresome problem with you feeding the whinge of every issue possible to further put forth your ‘solution’.
The ‘can’t fight my way out of the paper bag, so it has to be wettened more’ is just straight up victim stance, espcially when the solutions are already there. You don’t need to avoid parts of the game because you can’t handle them, as it’s not the game needing to change.
If you can’t accept that what MotorollaCro put out was a blatant lie, then you’re definitely just moaning for the sake of it…
I don’t mind GRB being combined arms. I just want CAS BR’s to be balanced for the separate game modes, and SPAA gaps to be filled.
1 Like
CAP can shutdown all enemy CAS.
It should be atleast as expensive as it’s able to give one team free reign whilst completely barring the other.
Of which there might not be any of.
ok?
ok? So you pay 700sp+ for ARH missiles, get no targets and that’s your reaction?
Unlike air rb you can’t even J out at the airfield to swap loadouts.
1 Like
Then just wait for enemy CAS to spawn.
Which AGAIN, may not happen at all for an entire match.
You took a gamble with your SP, and it didn’t pay off. Should CAS cost be lowered because sometimes you die before you’re even within range to attack?
But can’t be using both at the same time.
If You actually read what he was discussing You will find out that he didn’t
As I have said in later comment:
That is the issue with balance
4 Likes
That’s so simple to understand but yet they fail to do so.
Also, even devs themselves admitted CAS is dumb strong higher up, so spawning AA is futile against someone that has more than a single braincell.
4 Likes
Many (if not most) maps’ sides are so clear as to be subject to return fire almost immediately…and the principle that a heavier anti-flanker can turn up right ahead of you (thus making it a frontal engagement) makes this talk about LoS quite strange.
An M18 can make it out to a little hard cover out on the side of the map long before some flanking Panther or whatever…but that won’t matter very much when the heavier vehicle is bearing down upon it.
I don’t see it as being terribly imperative…sounds more like a snag of top tier (as is usual there).
It sounded like you were talking as though aircraft were newer than their GFs peers…but now it seems like you are/were talking about this higher bit from a BR perspective.
The devs spoke about aircraft efficiency at top tier and also noted upcoming changes to it…however, TO and other similar means were not mentioned.
Overall, this just vindicates my declination to comment on that high BR area (as lower BR vehicles were not mentioned as problematic).
Tech elements in top tier vehicles like that breed imbalance.
All a matter of relativism. (In SIAM, SPAAs may have the opposite conditions (vast ranges and few foes nearby).
Actually, in the case of many aircraft (especially at top tier), changing the map sizes would have a direct and immediate effect on their usability.
Putting aside the fact that this predicates the implementation of multi-spawns into RB AFs, which is not something that has been promised, that’s just not what vehicles having the same BR or different SP costs mean.
After all, a 3.X tank like the Panzer IV G (or even the 3.7 Wirbelwind) can wipe out numerous tanks on one ammo load while a 3.7 fighter like the BV 155 has hardly an anti-tank capability…yet the BV 155 is still vastly more expensive. The claim that SP costs/BR directly reflect capability beside peers is incorrect.
Perhaps you don’t see the reason…but TO just hasn’t materialized in 10 years and the many exoduses we’ve been told about (threatened with) have never come to pass. Therefore, the best odds of seeing lay with a trigger queue approach (which would allow it to piggyback alongside RB GFs as-is and allow players to ‘opt-in’ as they wish).
Different modes have different needs and it’s not improper or unequal to acknowledge this. You don’t use a fork when you need a knife, even as “they’re both silverware,” so why try forcing different things here?
I asked before but did not get a response that I noticed…could you tell me what your experience and recency with RB AFs is? I think you have misunderstood the mode.
I have no real fondness for either of them personally and, as I mentioned, seldom encounter them. I class those things as more of top tier’s mess (though I guess you could see helicopters touch what could now be called “high mid-tier” too).
As I mentioned before, I don’t endorse those things…but I do see the logic/justification on how Gaijin could have added them with a simple drop-in.
Eh? If you’re complaining about the matters at hand, that’s fine…but my analysis of how Gaijin justified the addition (or rather, how they didn’t (per your claim), I don’t see how your reply makes any sense.
I was essentially agreeing with you…but acknowledging how Gaijin might have rationalized the move.
The same visual models…that’s about it.
Physics, damage modelling and matchmaking are only a few of the things that differ between AB/RB. (The same is true with GFs too).
My remark there isn’t really a summation of the conditions involved…I simply said I was (am) open to entertaining the matter so long as the players wished for it to proceed. I’m not going to give a firm “no” if there is popular interest, so we’d have to wait to see…
I mean…they’ve dragged on both quite substantially, so that comment is sort of testing how literal you want to look at “stopped” in this matter.
I believe there were recent forum topics on page 1 for both of those modes on spawncamping in the past few days, so…it’s certainly on some players’ minds…
I don’t necessarily disagree–but SIAM/MS is still further out of left field than those things are (drones/helicopters are still aircraft, which fit with RB GFs mode description).
I was going by rough chunks of the tree (like fourths/eighths), not formal labels. As I said, I see the exact definition as varying between players…as well as the historical TT placement (9.X used to be top tier outright).
That’d be a needless aggravation to the Air mode players for what is, so far (without a discussion) an unsolicited and alien change to their mode. It’d just be stirring up a hornet’s nest…and for what? To upset AF players?
So moving to essentially help them with ignoring players’ wishes is how you figure you might slow/stop/change that?
I’ll keep watching for what goes on, but at this point I can plainly say I’m “unconvinced” of a problem with what I’ve seen so far. Still, I will acknowledge that mileage may vary.
I really don’t think you’re understanding what players in RB AFs focus on or why…and how that doesn’t bode well for the SIAM idea.
In its basic form, I like the general concept of SIAM (due to its similarities to the CA idea I had), but you cannot try to shoehorn it into the game by rigging the match to centralize them…you have to massage it in and make it fit as would be proper.
Put the SPAAs in charge of guarding an objective or defending a town the enemy has to attack–something like that…don’t quash the maps to try forcing matters, that’s just bad and uninteresting game design.
RB AFs’ retreat from objectives centered on GFs’ part was a mistake and it has led to imbalance…but reversing the trend (with or without SIAM) would work wonders to fix this.
As for the map size…there’s a massive difference for aircraft between 10km by 10km maps and 100km by 100km maps. (Ironically, GFs have less of an issue with this because either is a huge drive.)
I encourage you to explore the idea by pitching it to the playerbase and seeing the feedback you get.
Public pitching of ideas like this is how user-generated proposals get their start…though not all get accepted, much less implemented.
Despawn points for vehicles in RB GFs would probably be a far more modest mechanic to realize that getting SIAM working. (SP rebates might take more tuning.)
I think you’d still see consternation and upset players turn up even with that…defeat itself angers a lot of people.
Back in the day (including 2017, when CAS was really hyped), I actually encouraged enemy players to think their attacks were out of my elevation range. I’d intentionally fire my MG and/or main cannon low at the incoming aircraft to lull them into thinking I couldn’t reach them…then I’d blast them when they got in to a comfy range. I scored many kills that way.
1 Like
Absolute bulldust…
You are NOT forced to DIE to spawn SPAA.
Stop lying, in order to keep maintaining your ignorance.
But you are? You cannot swap vehicles without dying.
3 Likes
You have when Your first spawn is a tank which was being discussed.
Read before replying (Especially that tank being talked about is Na-To).
Not to mention that my reply to You even joked about what You are talking about. The solution You are proposing for people wanting to play tanks is that they should play SPAA instead ;).
4 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
5 Likes
Yes, M18 will take his spot behind hard cover shooting at enemies from the sides. In order for a Panther to counter that he has to push that position aggressively, and we all know defending something is much easier than attacking it, which is even more emphasized by the lack of stabilization whatsoever.
If aircraft stayed at 13.7 it would mean that you’ll have a “special” tier of battles where people that have those planes in their loadout will be able to play each other exclusively, as people with only 12.0 ground units for example wouldn’t be able to see 13.7.
I never talk about their year of introduction as it’s obvious things are given their BRs based on their effectiveness, which is why you’ll have some newer vehicles roaming in WW2 games.
They clearly said balance is noticeably shifted towards CAS, so it’s clearly broken. It’s been like that for years.
Yes if you offer nothing more than underpowered counters from the ground.
Which wouldn’t be an issue with increased SP costs.
This can be said for many ground units as well, but that haven’t stopped Gaijin from progressing to their set goals. Following this, making maps smaller in ARB wouldn’t cause planes to drop out of the air.
No reason why ARB couldn’t be multi-spawn mode.
So can you tell me why does the BV 155 cost that much more ?
It’s clear what Gaijin wanted to achieve with increased SP costs, but blanket-applying that wasn’t the smartest idea.
That’s like you’re trying to claim BR isn’t a way to reflect vehicle capabilities just because something is wrongfully undertiered/overtiered.
But do you see a reason ?
Ground units definitely don’t need aircraft to function properly, so a mode without aircraft could exist effortlessly. Saying otherwise is ignorant.
You can check out my experience yourself, it’s publicly available.
I’ve stopped playing Air right before ARHs came out.
I doubt I’ve misunderstood the mode, as it’s clear it’s an unbalanced shit show where everyone ends up in a furball in the middle of the map with most engagements lasting a few minutes.
It’s actually sad to see game mode that has different objectives and goals turn into a few minutes long TDM where whole classes of aircraft are hilariously underpowered.
And that logic/justification is clearly flawed as seen in the game itself. Those things are vastly different than your average basic WW2 strafing machine, so game modes changed quite a bit with their addition.
Transitioning from dumb bombs and strafe runs to vehicles with guided munitions that don’t need to get close in order to kill you is a giant step, which obviously didn’t work out seeing how unbalanced it is.
Yes, aircraft in AAB are faster than in ARB, but they can still operate on smaller maps with no problem.
So you don’t see major problems with it being implemented.
Gaijin not removing multi-spawns from said modes means that the benefits outweigh the problem. In GRB, they’re also fighting the problem by giving spawn protection and marking enemies in certain areas on the map. I wouldn’t mind giving same tools to multi-spawn ARB.
I’ll have to disagree.
Multi-spawn isn’t a problem, you’ll just have more enemies to shoot at, your planes will have the same performance regardless.
Having ground-based AA also isn’t a problem, considering those things are already in the mode while also being pretty deadly at times. Ground forces in ARB aren’t an alien concept.
I’ve yet to find a person that thinks 9.0 is top tier.
T-64 isn’t a top tier tank just because it used to be one.
But whatever, discussing this is pointless.
It’s far from needless if it helps out to balance the new game mode.
Also, those changes wouldn’t be alien to the mode, as I’ve explained above.
Not to upset them, but to make their mode more playable for all aircraft.
Only ones who I see would object are spamraam/fighter abusers that don’t want the balance of power to change at all.
High/top tier ARB is probably one of the most braindead “modes” I’ve played throughout many PvP games. You go up, sling your missiles and RTB. I think a literal chimp could be taught to do just that.
For what I’ve could seen, Gaijin won’t change their MO until they’re review bombed to hell and beyond, which only happened for economy changes that affected literally every player in the game.
That being said, I don’t see other way to stop Gaijin from doing what they want.
From what I can see, you really haven’t touched AAs a lot, especially higher ones.
I suggest you to try it out sometimes, you might find it weird when your IR slinger AA won’t be able to lock a helicopter that’s well within his effective range, or when your gun-based AA won’t be able to hit anything that’s 2km+ out if it isn’t totally afk, or when you waste your missile as helicopter ducks behind cover after receiving MAW.
They’ll focus on whatever is the most practical and effective, which is mindless TDM in the current state of the game.
Yes, putting AAs around objectives which force aircraft to come closer is my idea.
Those numbers were arbitrary by the way. Limiting the map is still an artificial limit, regardless of the size in question.
I highly doubt that as despawn points would need a lot of tuning to make it fair and balanced, as it could be exploited in various ways.
Getting defeated by something you had ways to counter is not the same as getting defeated by something you could only run away from from the very start.
That’s like firing your main gun and hoping for an enemy to rush you expecting your reload is 10s, instead of 5s.
Expecting that to work against semi-decent players is naive.
Yet anytime you spawn CAS you are guaranteed to have a target, at a lower cost.
1 Like