There are zero fighters with a bomb sight.
Takes way more skill than pointing your nose at them and clicking.
Which again, like others have pointed out, means the -4B is UNABLE to engage competent air threats for as long as it keeps those rockets. The 9K never has to ditch its 29rds of 45mm APHE.
Russia gets some of the best SPAAs at these BRs.
Yeah, I guess. It’ll be a lot nicer for people to make reasonable counter-arguments like this fella rather than asking what drugs I use.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
The game should not be as enjoyable for the loser as for the winner. War thunder is a competitive game. There should be a large incentive for people to win. One of the main reasons why I was and am still against anything that increases rewards for losing games.
A lot more than with bombs. Bombs you can toss and drop while maneuvering, and from longer ranges. Strafing requires you to point DIRECTLY at someone. If you need to be directly on top of something to bomb it effectively you are horrible at bombing.
The 4b is very competent in engaging other planes with ordnance on in grb.
Competitive requires both sides having an equal chance at victory using appropriate tactics at the same BR bracket. CAS by default removes that - there’s nothing you can do in a tank against aircraft. Having to spawn a fighter of your own does not qualify because you’re no longer playing a tank. SPAA barely qualifies - SPAA would be justifiable if we had role queue and skill-based matchmaking - then it’d fulfil a similar role as supports in Dota and League. However, as we have neither role queue nor SBMM - SPAA is again on thin ice for satisfying the requirement for a competitive game.
Spitfire Mk Vb vs Bf109F4 is a competitive scenario.
F6F-5 vs Bf109F4 is a competitive scenario.
Yak-3 vs Bf109G14 is a competitive scenario
P-51D30 vs Bf109K4 is a competitive scenario
Also insert tank pair of choice. I won’t name tanks because I’m not as confident in what the theoretical “right” approach is.
Notice the commonality though? The match-ups listed are all asymmetrical. If one side plays into the other’s strength, they lose. if one side plays into their strength, they either win or the engagement gets reset (enemy realizes they’re being baited and disengages to try and force their advantage). This creates engaging gameplay where you know you failed because of skill issue (you made the wrong decision 5 minutes ago, you couldn’t ride the edge of your plane’s performance as well without killing yourself, you got baited/greedy, you mismanaged your engine) rather than get punished for daring to exist (as is the case with all tanks and CAS). With CAS vs tank, there is nothing you could’ve done to threaten the plane in your comet/centurion/tiger/IS/etc. In the plane example, there might be one side that’s favored in the example match-ups for skill-floor or skill ceiling performance, but that’s the same as Meepo having a very high skill ceiling and phantom assassin being braindead - this doesn’t make meepo bad or PA good.
Claiming CAS vs tanks is “competitive” in a game without role queue and SBMM is the same as claiming Ariete (plane) is competitive vs the Horten. They’re not, and that’s why Ariete is 9.3/9.3/9.0 and Horten is 6.7/7.0/7.7.
Flawed logic.
If losing is not enjoyable, then why attempt a comeback against an opponent superior to you? In fact, why bother fighting an unfair fight (IE: uptiers) to begin with if the prospect is just going to be painful?
You just don’t want people to be rewarded for losing, which is also ridiculous in its own way. But generally, good competitive games aren’t balanced so one side is allowed a functional power fantasy over the other, and the side with the odds stacked against them is up for an experience that is not enjoyable. In fact, that’s actually a terrible way to make a game competitive. It’s poison to competition. You literally believe that poison to competion makes competitive games better.
The incentive to winning is being able to receive additonal rewards over the losing side, which should be enough. Many players also agree that players showing “valiant resistance” despite being on the losing side should be rewarded for fighting until the end and performing well, even though they’re ultimately let down by their team’s poor performance.
Both sides have an equal chance of winning using appropriate tactics. Spaa should ALWAYS lose against air. Why? Because it’s a less expensive vehicle to spawn in. To properly counter a more expensive unit you need to spawn more cheap units or a more expensive unit. Like all games that rely on some sort of spawn/production cost work like this. What does spawning a plane not qualify you for??? There are things you can do in a tank versus planes. Wtf is meep or pa? I never claimed cas vs tanks is competitive, stop putting words in my mouth. Your entire last paragraph is irrelevant because you go off on something I never said.
In your first paragraph you answer your own question. In your second one, which side has an advantage over the other? Please explain what you mean by power fantasy because you are throwing it around willy nilly and with very little context. By the way, uptiers are really not unbalanced at all, or in theory are not. You also seem to like putting words in my mouth. I said losing should not be AS enjoyable as winning, not that losing should not be enjoyable at all like you imply.
You should read the entire thread instead of cherrypicking one line to disagree with. I’m not going to spoonfeed you the context behind the imbalance that would be called a power fantasy.
Which is the current reality of the game, and if it gets worse as you want it to be, it will end up in the extremes I describe. You want to poison the competitiveness of the game. That is not going to make players want to fight anything other than a fight stacked so far in their favor that it’d be impossible to lose.
I did. Which is why I ask. You do realise that the current economy rewards losing almost as much as winning right? Due to a horrible player convincing the majority of the other horrible players that they will NEVER be good enough to consistently win, and thus voting so losing would give more rewards and winning less.
A model where losing gets less rewards than now would literally increase competitiveness, because there would be a larger difference between winning and losing and thus a larger incentive to win. This is basic logic. Once again, what team is so stacked against the other that it would be impossible to win. You can also just keep dodging the main questions like you did now though, as there isn’t any team that is overwhelmingly stacked against the other.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
How the economy works:
Relevant parts:
Key take-away:
Win: Play time x activity x coefficient x RP multiplier x 2
Defeat : Play time x activity x coefficient x RP multiplier x 1.34
What do we observe looking at the screenshots and the above formula?
The game significantly rewards staying alive without respawning and maintaining ~1500 RP/15 minutes in ARB perspective (and something comparable for GRB).
Staying alive until end of match , getting 9 kills for Skill Bonus (or 4 for air RB) and winning is where the bulk of your income comes from. Rather notably, as one can see from the formula - skill bonus is multiplicative with win/loss. To claim " “rewards losing as much as winning” is to be grossly uninformed on how the rewards system works. Now, it is true that the way the economy works and the way probabilities stack up (can you get a 70 to 90% activity on a second respawn 5 minutes in? 10 minutes in? 15 minutes in? 20 minutes in?), there are scenarios where respawning to try and force a match win provides lesser rewards than ODLing and going next without risking a low activity period due to how much of your RP gain/battle it makes up (1 kill is worth 47 RP in RB, plus change for crits/hits. That’s equivalent to staying alive for 50 seconds at 100% activity if you lose the match, 33 seconds if you win)
The only game mode where winning/losing THE MATCH makes no significant difference is in air simulator battles, as you only get a small SL bonus for winning with no change to RP gain. This makes sense given ASB is rewarded in a 15 minute cycle and you can join/leave ongoing matches without limitation. On the flipside, as you pay silver lions to spawn (not repair), and you only receive 80% of the reward for surviving the full 15 minute cycle and must return and land to gain full reward - ASB massively enforces winning to maintain a positive silver lion income… but also shafts winning very hard (2 kills is worth the same as 8 kills due to being paid by the minute rather than individual actions). This has the nasty consequence that you have dead BR brackets where spawn cost is 18k, max possible reward is 19.7k - meaning you need to survive and get 2 kills/15 minutes twice (30 minutes) and land both times to afford to respawn a second time. This occurs at 7.0-8.0 with likes of horten, shooting star and meteors.
I will concede that if you have a premium account, the skill bonus’s benefit is significantly reduced as the 100% acts on the base income rather than premium income, leading to scenarios where it only increases your total reward by a measly amount (something like 1/4? I cant remember how shafted you get) if using both a premium vehicle and a premium account.
Looking at the aforementioned 7.0-8.0 dead BR zone in SB. Do you know what happens?
People spawn in their planes and are in -18K SL in debt. You have people fly to objectives and compete. It’s a 3 hour game mode with respawns.
One side beats the other. The winning side has barely offset their debt. The other side now asks the question: Do I double my debt, or do I quit and go to next lobby hoping the enemies are worse than me?
The losing side makes the logical choice (not double their debt) and now the lobby is dead without enemies to fight with.
That’s the outcome you desire.
At prop BRs where spawn cost is 3K and max income is ~9K, or even spawn cost of 10K and max income of 18K or so - this occurs less consistently. Statpadders will still ditch lobbies if the enemy can threaten them, but others will stay and fight to the bitter end (or exhaustion/boredom. Or the teams got too unbalanced and you’ve no desire to fight 6 vs 12) and there’s actual competition and a chance at improving your piloting.
Turns out, where losing doesn’t punish you as much, people stay in the game and fight to improve and it’s actually competitive rather than “stomp once and enemies give up.”
Tell me how a comet can kill a yak-9k or a F4U-4.
Tell me how a centurion Mk 3 can kill a P-51H.
For planes, you can pick 2 fighters within a 1.0 BR step (that aren’t seriously under/over-tiered) and find a legitimate way to force a victory for one side. Maybe it’s something boring and requires strict discipline like “BnZ the japs in your mustang and keep your energy high at all times.” Maybe it’s something more fun like “spiral climb the spitfire in your messerschmitt” or “drag the yak into a spiral descent in your hellcat” or force one-circle/two-circle. There’s a plethora of options, some more fun than others, some easier than others but they exist.
Tell me how a comet can kill a yak-9k or a F4U-4.
Tell me how a centurion Mk 3 can kill a P-51H.
Even if the F4U-4 has massive skill issues, you’re not killing it in your comet. Okay, maybe if the F4U-4 decides to land in an open field or flies with gear & flaps out at 100 meters altitude. Just for sake of covering all bases - yes, there exist scenarios where a tank can get kill credit on a plane but those scenarios are rather contrived and more of a freak accident.
You grind planes by playing AAB/ARB/ASB. Planes use entirely different controls and playstyle to tanks. To expect players to play planes is absurd. Even if someone really enjoys playing planes, maybe they don’t enjoy the same bracket as they play tanks in or maybe they don’t enjoy the game mode (either they only want to play planes in arcade or sim but like GRB for tanks (or play GRB because GSB doesn’t let you play whatever tank whenever)).
Expecting plane use when you want to use a tank is a non-justified argument.
And Expecting SPAA per…
This requires teamwork.
Which requires role queue (in Dota 2, I queue for pos 5 and my team is guaranteed to have a hard support. I queue for pos 1 and my team is guaranteed to have a hard carry and so forth.).
We have no such thing for Warthunder.
Teamwork also requires SBMM. Imagine trying to play Dota as at 3K MMR equivalent when your pos 1 is at 1500 MMR equivalent. Or imagine trying to play Dota at 3K MMR equivalent when the enemy pos 3 is a 6000 equivalent.
You can’t.
Using SPAA to hit planes is significantly harder than planes to hit planes.
SPAA are on a 2D plane shooting at a vehicle in a 3D plane. SPAA are stationary, planes fly at 350-550 km/h at prop tiers. SPAA are always shooting with significant altitude difference. Planes don’t.
In a plane, you can neutralize speed differences with maneuvering and aligning your fuselage with the enemy plane’s and getting on their six. In a plane, you’re almost always shooting at the same altitude. In a plane you control your distance for shooting. And in SB, in a plane you have gunsights that tell you how much to lead and give an estimation of distance. Oh, and in planes you have vertical targettting and convergence that allow you to put the enemy dead-center of your gunsight, pull the trigger and boom goes the yak/ki-84 even if you’re using the fridge launcher.
OK. yeah, I mean that’s true, since you get 100% more RP and 50% more SL for winning, I think. But here’s the catch: If you want a game that only rewards the winner, then the grind will be 5-60% harder since you will get NO RP and SL for losing. AND there will be more no-skill premiums that pays to near-garauntee a win (since Gaijin will add OP stuff IF that’s how the game works).
Don’t assume I don’t know how the economy works. I don’t need an explanation from you. The multiplier for winning was higher, and for losing lower. This was changed due to SpanishAvenger’s idiotic arguments of “because I struggle to win, I should be rewarded more for my losses as I do not want to improve to win more regularly”
I never claimed that losing gives you as much as winning, but comparing rewards from a few years ago to now it’s exceptionally clear what the result is and why I stated that losing gives almost as much rewards as winning. While that may have been exaggerated I still NEVER claimed that losing gives the same rewards as winning.
A large part of your argument is about sim battles, which is the least played game mode in game and not really relevant. I was not referring to sb, as I do not care about it because it has gotten zero attention and is really only worth playing in air events to quickly finish a star.
Where I talked about both sides, I meant both TEAMS. I am unsure how this was not clear. Once again I am focusing on relevant modes, grb in this case as this is what most people play. There are two teams. Both have equal chances of winning in theory. I am going to ignore the entire paragraph as you evidently misunderstood my words.
You grind planes by using ANY game mode where planes are available in, not just air battles. Get your facts right. It isn’t absurd to expect people to play planes in a mode with them in it, especially a mode like grb where planes picked by the player are so crucial to winning due to a variety of factors.
For winning games, you need to do what is required to give your team an advantage. If you want to win, you get in a fighter of your own, or something like a tu2 that deals with other planes very well. If you want to play a tank and get in a tank after dying to air, you need to understand that you are not playing optimally and WILL be at a disadvantage to air and run the risk of getting farmed again and again.
Like I said, it is not absurd to expect people to play air in battles where air is prominent. It’s exactly the same as saying it’s absurd to expect someone to play tanks in grb. It’s an integral part of the game mode. You cannot expect someone not to use an integral part as that would be stupid.
Your point about spaa is EXACTLY right!!! A vehicle that is 70-110 sp is supposed to be less effective than a vehicle costing 480 or more sp!!! Spaa serve as an alternative to planes when you do not have the larger amount of sp to GET IN A PLANE. Spaa are not always shooting with significant altitude difference, especially in the majority of grb battle rating ranges. You’re mostly shooting between 50-400 meters in elevation, which is also the norm for planes. Last I checked most gunsights don’t tell you how much to lead? Feel free to correct me. You seem a little confused about air combat in general too as just putting your crosshair on the enemy plane if he is maneuvering will result in you missing.
I ask you to also keep your topic on war thunder. I don’t know dota so your arguments are meaningless. Use a relevant example please. Being racist in your post is also not good, please stop doing that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaWB3uAkycs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZpS0SLZJVU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yIwS_8NP68
Last I checked, only helicopters can be grinded by playing tanks. Playing planes requires using a plane. Using a plane in GRB is trolling yourself as it has far lower RP coefficients and the skill bonus is at 9, not 4.
Also flying planes is trolling yourself out of tank RP as well. You cannot grind planes with tanks. You cannot grind tanks with planes.
It is not. SPAA are obtainable by playing tanks. Planes are not obtainable by playing tanks.
And This argument especially
is ridiculous.
Should we introduce the ability to spawn up-BR vehicles in other-lineup game modes because someone got a kill-streak?
Should someone with 8 kills get to fly me-262 vs wildcats in ASB/AAB?
Should someone with 8 kills in a a destroyer at 4.7 highest BR go and spawn a battleship?
Until SBMM and role queue exist, we can only talk player versus player in pub game modes.
Reason I use Dota is because it’s a very well known, kitchen-tier know-about competitive game that’s massively successful and is the definition of a good competitive video game. If you are a gamer, or even just a random person of university age or under 30, you know about either DOTA or LoL (and through LoL, know about Dota).
Also lolwhat?
Explain, because you’re inventing things out of thin air or you grossly misunderstand terminology.
The multiplier is still higher for winning and lower for losing.
Russian CAS being dominate in low tier and high tier lmao
What russian cas dominates in 8.0 - 9.0 area?