I’m here with popcorn and a lounge chair waiting for someone to arrive.
1 Like
If the ability to spawn vehicle back to back is removed, what make suicide bombing an issue?
People suicide bomb for a multitude of reasons, it can be because they need to destroy a gray zone tank suppressing their team and return to the ground, it can be because they have low skill in flying a plane and can’t aim the bomb, but mostly because they can spawn another plane a few seconds after they intentionally crashed the current one.
By removing the ability to spawn vehicle back to back, what’s left is people suicide bombing because they need to progress an otherwise stagnant match or because they’re terrible at bombing. I do think getting suicide bombed is annoying, but I don’t see these two tactics as a problem.
1 Like
You do only think and dont know because you are probably the suicide-revenge-bomber, am i right? 
1 Like
Go check out my replay at your own leisure and feel free to report how many times I suicide bombed in the last 100 games.
The thing is, i guess the problem is not players playing vehicles they wish (and how often they wish and payed for) but how they abuse the vehicles (only planes).
1 Like
Yes the degeneracy in the forum is real where mods need to post a reminder for people to be civil in the news section. People get into an argument having the equivalence of a public freakout for even the slightest difference in opinion.
It’s not my original idea, it’s from one of the point raised by the Open letter to the dev by EVA_Gladitor.
I don’t know if the wind have changed, but I made a comment in support for forcing one infantry squad between spawning vehicles and it was well received.
Sounds gay.
1 Like
Most EVA clan members are huge pro-infantry trolls. Literally routinely insult and mock players who enjoy playing vehicles.
And this anti vehicle agenda was main reason why I haven’t supported their initiative.
Question of perspective maybe…
I see them as an issue. We established those doing it are often bad players, but that’s not a problem per say… what really is, is those just waste precious tickets. I’ve been in a match with the rocketman3, and God is he bad… we were the ATTACKING team. Good thing our enemies were almost all bots, because rocketman even failed to destroy tanks while doing suicide bombing at times… 
There’s better ways to take out grey zoning vehicles, too. Less wasteful ways.
With engineers or AT guys. You spawn the squad, and once the tank is out, you don’t kill all your soldiers for no reason, you go towards the cap, build rallies and make friends along the way.
Same for a spawned counter tank. You don’t just suicide your tank once the enemy one is gone, you support the team…
So why would it be acceptable doing so with planes? It’s just wasteful. Plus, players won’t become better pilots doing it…
1 Like
Now I understand your point.
1 Like
I do want something to prevent or at least dissuade players from doing that…
But I don’t want an absurd penalty either that would restrict gameplay for everyone… It’s a toughy, probably why all what devs found is to push plane spawns a lil furter…
In a perfect Utopian world, we would have sorts of airfields where planes should take off from. A lil bit like carriers in Pacific. But that would require quite a big deal of work from the devs creating them all for every maps, and where to place them 
I wonder what devs will come up with.
They shouldnt have ever even allowed to rotate vehicles only.
do it once, copy / paste to rest of maps.
1 Like
…removed…
just like you said
perspective problem
All fighting methods have certain opportunities for mistakes.
Using engineers and anti-tank troops also requires different risks and interceptions.
For example, armor-piercing ability, survivability deep into enemy territory, gray zone distance, attack timing
from a realistic perspective
For the current environment,
A small number of serious players must bear the vast majority of support and attack
so
Rather than spending time building turrets on the ground and targeting tanks, or going deep behind to attack high-value units and reinforcements further back,
It is more practical to use aircraft that most enemies are too lazy to resist to carry out high-speed strikes and then quickly replace different units.
Wasted cost?
From a practical and practical point of view
As long as the goal can be truly achieved
(Including but not limited to suppressing firepower points, intercepting reinforcements, destroying rebirth points, and annihilating high-value targets)
Then there is nothing wrong with appropriate overhead
(Personally, I think destroying a fire point or ground vehicle unit 2 to 3 times is worthwhile.
Because the regeneration cost of these units against passive friendly forces that refuse to counterattack is much higher than the cost of the aircraft)
Continuously wasting money with a clear advantage
From a personal perspective, there is no problem
Not much pressure anyway
As long as they don’t continue to carry out ineffective strikes when the ground is stalemate, there is actually nothing to say.
The latter behavior is the same type of waste as the long-term occupation of a vehicle for ineffective attacks or the behavior of passive ground units being shot voluntarily.
Can you elaborate on the clear criteria for what constitutes a bad player versus a bad pilot?
Or is this just a prejudice based on personal subjective morality?
In addition, I have a small question
Compared to players who passively fight and refuse to fight the things that are killing them, or players who occupy vehicles for long periods of time to engage in ineffective strikes.
Which is worse
Pilot who crash are not pilots.
If you cant do anything with a plane but crashing you suck and should not even use planes.
5 Likes
Why?
They all fly planes to destroy tanks, intercept reinforcements, destroy high-value targets, and intercept enemy aircraft.
It’s just that they chose tactics that are more suitable for the current environment.
Or do you think there is something wrong with the definition of efficiency mentioned at the end of my last article?
according to you
Passive players are unwilling to even basic teamwork and fight back against what is killing them
Should those passive players also not play PVP games?
And a good pilot does not need to crash it.
Which is…
- be a defender.
- be a whale (or just wait like 1.5 years or so to get enougb gold from the BP to buy one)
When I tried to watch glorious Rocket Man show, I came quick to realize that the Rocket Man show is only on when Rocket Man defends and if it is not Confrontation or Conquest.
In other words, this errr “tactic” is useless for Attackers because they cant afford FLAGGOT crashing his plane 15 times to get four kills because they would lose a lot of tickets. And only applies to defenders because of exploit.
Amd getting roughly four kills per death is pretty bad and inefficient.
It only works in three modes (not counting train) and only for defenders.
Neither efficient or applicable. Just lazy exploit because not crashing is for skilled people and people without slots.
Yours also sounds like it requires a lot of teamwork. But only if you defend ofc.
According to you no.
4 Likes
pov: grayzone tanks dont exist 
Thats a fakt and pretty disturbing for any atackerteam.
Furthermore compared to real life wast of a plane to kill a single tank or group of infanterist would never happen thats a miscarriage developed by enlistedplayers how want the enemy tickets to drop while they dont need to watch theire own tickets since beeing deffender. Evenworser playing against america as atacker when they havarcrash everyone on the map. Even in Pazificwar the japs traded off theire kamikazepilots for whole ships!