Didn’t know I have so much power in my hands, lmao
None of us can have everything we want. I don’t see the much-inflamed “one plane, one tank, open field” examples ULQ loves to use as worth much discussion. Woooow, one specialized vehicle class is outplayed in an area it isn’t built to specialize in! Who would’ve thunk it?
To me, it’s no different than the same plane bombing a boat/ship, a light tank outflanking a heavy tank, a light tank dying frontally to a shot that a heavy would have bounced, or an SPAA failing to pen a medium tank and being overpressured by an HE shell in return.
You pick any vehicle class, and you get its set of benefits and drawbacks.
TO debates only throw up tons of dust that obscure actual productive discussion on the real problems surrounding CAS. Even something as common sense as “why not reduce the info shown by or outright remove the kill cam,” something many TO people could get on board with, as that is often how revenge bombers find their targets, gets lost in the dust and noise from it being thrown up.
I care about the game’s overall health more than your or my own ideal “vision” for things. That overall health is why I even bothered suggesting making bad weather block use of aircraft - it makes sense with how air forces operate even today, and more importantly we already know how frequently it occurs, thus even the most stubborn TO supporters would intrinsically know how often they’d get a break from CAS.
What’s more important to you people? Getting everything you want in your exacting perfect way, or taking a decent compromise when one is actually offered?
My main concern with the whole “checkbox” idea is based on how exceedingly rare night matches are even with it checked. That the TO debate would grow much larger instead of finally shutting up so productive discussion on how to reform CAS can even be had without being derailed.
The title of this thread should be “why does any potentially productive discussion on CAS always devolve into a cyclical nonsense TO debate?”
1 Like
Honestly, I wish there was a single CAS reform thread so heavily moderated that any whisper of TO gets scrubbed from it automatically.
1 Like
But You are proposing something which will make other players angry over me proposing something that can make everyone.
The problem is no '‘compromise’ will solve the issue of unbalance.
Your replies were all your own…nobody provoked the TO hype.
As for thread bloat and the need to read before replying, let me note 85 of the current 532 replies at yours…that is bloat. Be concise and clear in posting.
1 Like
no improvements required by community → no problem shown.
As supposed “CAS-players” we agree to make concessions,… you’re not as you say those improvments would make nothing for the game.
ok, so you don’t need those improvments → then by your own logic : There is no problem of CAS in Current gamemode
– END OF TO LOBBY –
1 Like
Right…
1 Like
i told you you’re wrong about that,…
that’s normal to think that both modes can’t co-exist,…
would you play a mode on which more threats are coming to you than the other mode proposed in which the only threat is similar to you?
- that’s just simple logic, and not a fact that proves CA is wrong in the first place -
So wrong you’re that you’re unable to see basic points of Psychology
1 Like
he was saying that the only TO player that cares about TO is you and that everyone else prefers to only improves the current mode with slight CAS nerfs.
so basically, you using my quote out of context, is simply wrong, and i react to you being a troll, and not him proving you wrong.
He didn’t say that, but You can talk with him about that ;).
I wasn’t the first to start about TO hype (that people would choose it over combined mode) and I have showed it.
you have showed nothing,… but ok think that, it will make me easier to live on,…
So move on.
If You would like to discuss TO, I will be there ;).
And for changes, I will be there to discuss them too, as on forum everyone can share their opinions.
thank lord, i don’t want TO - so that will be short.
right, then come in when your opinion would be different of: “this is no use, as it doesn’t 100% solve the problem”
1 Like
If proposed change is going to be like that, this is what I’m going to say.
You and I clearly have totally different definitions of “unbalance.”
Yours appears to be “one side is far more able to kill the other than the other can kill the first in return.” Which, by the way, also exists in cases of heavy tanks being flanked by lights or mediums, heavy tanks being cross-mapped by donkey gun SPGs or HEAT or ATGM carriers, light tanks being deleted by shots which mediums/heavies would bounce or take nonlethal damage from, open-tops being vulnerable to artillery and overpressure from above with SPG VT shells or TOW-2Bs, and countless other tank-vs-tank situations. In all honesty, I fail to see how a plane bombing/rocketing/missiling/strafing a tank is in any real way different from being surprised in a tank-on-tank encounter with an unexpected opponent who plays your weaknesses. Like my IS-4M encountering an M109, me overpenning that M109, and him deleting me with a center mass shot in return.
Mine, meanwhile, regarding CAS, is rather how it can be “earned” through various game-y ways that make it difficult to counter and incredibly frustrating in ways it doesn’t need to be. Because aircraft are not available early game, even though people sprint to caps quickly and die like lemmings, few if any bother spawning SPAA/SAMs, leading to unnecessary rage on the receiving end of CAS. We aren’t even allowed to use proper counters that work.
1 Like
you said that for EVERYTHING that have been proposed so far (in 10 years)
You want every vehicle to be able to counter every vehicle, even in a TO that wont happen
3 Likes
I don’t want TO myself either. But I do want talk about it shut up so we can have productive discussion on things that really matter, like how CAS is implemented so poorly and how it can be improved.
2 Likes