Air Domination the most misunderstood game mode in War Thunder

[Shanina 1,735]

ripsnorter...I had to Google that. funny word.

[Ezz777 1,493]

ripsnorter...I had to Google that. funny word.

Sorry, aussie yank (who knew - always thought it was 'strayan) slang creeping in.

 

As you obsreve, it's also probably worth noting that given the attrition nature of AD, having as many slots as you can makes sense.

 

And fwiw i have all the SS from the AD battles the other day - sadly i didn't crack 10 in any of them. But i'm blaming that on being in a stock tempest and mk 22 most of the time... :) In fact not one bit of the line up was fully spaded but a few at least had their engine upgrades sorted, so contesting top was viable.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Ezz777

[Shanina 1,735]

I don't like the unlimited amount of slots...and backup planes either. We were crumbling because of the many respawns, not because of the quality of the enemy I think.

 

But since people pay for slots and backups, Gaijin can't put a limit on it. When people pay for something, they must be able to use it. But it can give an unfair advantage.

 

Wasn't much of an issue until AD I think.

[Ezz777 1,493]

Wasn't much of an issue until AD I think.

Sekrit P2W working as intended comrade...

 

And i'll have to ask, just so the chaps can say nah nah ezz was wrong and all that, but do you recall where Valdemar was operating? The time a fellow racked up 19 he was pretty much dominating the lower alts by himself. I typically try to loiter above it looking for opportunities but it was impressive to see him go to work.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Ezz777

[Shanina 1,735]

I'll have to watch the replay for that...seen him high, but not sure where he was mostly.

 

I'll check

Edited May 19, 2015 by Shanina

[ColonelPete 1,513]

If you need too many planes, the quality of the planes suffers and you are at a disadvantage.
The better players win normaly. It is a rare occurance thay inferior players win because of slots.

[PeachyKeenM8 1,226]

I don't like the unlimited amount of slots...and backup planes either. We were crumbling because of the many respawns, not because of the quality of the enemy I think.

 

But since people pay for slots and backups, Gaijin can't put a limit on it. When people pay for something, they must be able to use it. But it can give an unfair advantage.

 

Wasn't much of an issue until AD I think.

It's certainly nice... although I don't remember ever losing more than 5 planes in a game... lol  If i'm dying that much, the game's already lost and not worth spawning in just to lose more planes.  The -NAT0- folks I fly with don't seem to mind burning through 8-9 planes in a match, though.  

 

If you need too many planes, the quality of the planes suffers and you are at a disadvantage.

Not this lineup^ :salute:

Edited May 19, 2015 by PeachyKeenM8

[Ezz777 1,493]

If you need too many planes, the quality of the planes suffers and you are at a disadvantage.
The better players win normaly. It is a rare occurance thay inferior players win because of slots.

That's certainly true, but there are some mighty fine line ups you can build at some BRs with some nations (ninja'd by peachy)

 

In fact one thing this mode certainly highlights is the breadth of talent in AB. The 19 kill fellow had only 3 deaths. Also in that fight there was a fellow with 9 (!) deaths for one assist.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Ezz777

[Shanina 1,735]

I'll have to watch the replay for that...seen him high, but not sure where he was mostly.
 
I'll check

A mixed bag, some high,some boom and zoom and some low when chasing down or after being forced down.

That was the nature of this game...both sides fought hard to gain the altitude advantage.

Not just a few players, but most were involved. There wasn't a furball treetop fight. Most took place between 1000 and 2500 metres.

Those who went low did that to avoid death. Many still died low, because they were chased or boom and zoomed.

Not much turnfighting there. Those who did were the...let's say...cannonfodder guys.

I also watched the enemy 12 kills guy...same story, my own game...same story also Edited May 19, 2015 by Shanina

[Ezz777 1,493]

A mixed bag, some high,some boom and zoom and some low when chasing down or after being forced down.

That was the nature of this game...both sides fought hard to gain the altitude advantage.

Not just a few players, but most were involved. There wasn't a furball treetop fight. Most took place between 1000 and 2500 metres.

Those who went low did that to avoid death. Many still died low, because they were chased or boom and zoomed.

Not much turnfighting there. Those who did were the...let's say...cannonfodder guys.

I also watched the enemy 12 kills guy...same story, my own game...same story also

Just had a 63 to 50 fairly easy one. I tried staying around the 2 - 3k mark. Ie under their top cover and low enough to dive when necessary. It did at least lead a good K:D ratio (6:0) but in all honesty i didn't feel like i was really influencing the battle. Most of those kills were bombers who were praying their gunners would do something. So in essence i guess i was affecting the attrition aspect but not much beyond that. Noting we never actually took 'high'. They had two blokes up there most of the early piece until they dived down at our spawn once it was pretty clear their team was getting carved up. At which point neither team bothered with it.

 

Meanwhile our two leading killers (9 and 7 respectively) were below me pretty much the entire battle.

 

So i guess as far as the 'same story' goes the common thread seems to be staying active and being where you need to be. Sometimes that will be high. Sometimes in that middle alt. And sometimes in a position to dive at the stuff down low.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Ezz777

[LinkX 161]

Sometimes, yes, there is an advantage. However, there have been plenty of occasions where that was not the case. Further, a screenshot is meaningless because it doesn't tell the whole story. Some people have ten planes, some only bring one. A team of five excellent pilots in Lavochkins and Yaks often can hold off a poorly coordinated group of fifteen in a hodgepodge of poor aircraft choices. Those with the advantage in numbers may also have the monopoly on ineptitude.

[Shanina 1,735]

Just had the shortest AD I ever played.



Over and done in under 6 minutes.

I entered late because of some lag....my playing time was 2:24

Finally got the upgrade for my Ki-102 otsu that made it possible to climb with 26 m/s. Put it to use instantly....climbed to 3500m in no time and swooped down on some enemies.

We capped and no enemy plane managed to undo it.

 

So it's not always a battle till one side runs out of planes.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Shanina

[PrivateRico 102]

Just had the shortest AD I ever played.



Over and done in under 6 minutes.

I entered late because of some lag....my playing time was 2:24

Finally got the upgrade for my Ki-102 otsu that made it possible to climb with 26 m/s. Put it to use instantly....climbed to 3500m in no time and swooped down on some enemies.

We capped and no enemy plane managed to undo it.

 

So it's not always a battle till one side runs out of planes.

 

Most of the time I've found that it's not a battle of attrition but whoever gains altitude superiority, in one of my AD battles it was about 5:20 to cap out.

[_Septic_ 161]

People who whinge about AirDom should be forced to read this thread.

[Shanina 1,735]

They prolly think we're completely bonkers :lol:

[PrivateRico 102]

They prolly think we're completely bonkers :lol:

 

Yeah they do, because I used to be one of them.  I'd see guys climbing from the get go and think to myself, "What the hell are you doing dingus?"

[Shanina 1,735]

Lol, when I was new I had that also....was like:

 

"hey!? come back!! cowards! don't leave me alone with all these angry red guys here! please?...oh...never mind...I'm dead already"

 

Now I sound old :facepalm:

[Ezz777 1,493]

So it's not always a battle till one side runs out of planes.

Correct. Glad you are getting it. What was the final tally of kills?

[Shanina 1,735]

bugger off

[CannonOscopy 279]

Most of my matches run the gambit, but I would say on average they last 20-25 min's.

[Ezz777 1,493]

bugger off

Lol. A refreshingly positive attitude and you aren't even one of their squaddies. And here i thought you were trying to further discussions. But oh well.

 

All we needed was the screenshot showing kill totals of both teams. Without it it's not really all that useful to the discussion. But thanks anyway.

 

---

 

By the by, i'm beginning to think this all started when i quoted AoC. Being an internet forum AoC probably just assumed that meant i was disagreeing with his post and so went all combative. All he could find was 'central melee' so turned that into some bizarre discussion around furballs. Then his squaddies jumped on. Meanwhile i've been essentially saying the same thing over and over in hopes they'll eventually get it. Amusingly they now seem to be agreeing with what i've proposed (yet still insist 'dominating' is somehow different to winning the war of attrition, and 'influence' is somehow different to dictating the terms of the engagement). With one fellow even suggesting i edited what i was saying. Lol.

 

Meanwhile all these very unusual interpretations seem to keep popping up - such as that i suggested furballing as the means to win, or that killing all the enemy was the only way to win. Not sure where these are coming from at all. They were certainly never said by me. I didn't realise what was being said was not clear enough. But advice to any new to forums, if you don't understand what is being said, don't always assume it is wrong.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Ezz777

[LinkX 161]

Lol. A refreshingly positive attitude and you aren't even one of their squaddies. And here i thought you were trying to further discussions. But oh well.

 

All we needed was the screenshot showing kill totals of both teams. Without it it's not really all that useful to the discussion. But thanks anyway.

 

---

 

By the by, i'm beginning to think this all started when i quoted AoC. Being an internet forum AoC probably just assumed that meant i was disagreeing with his post and so went all combative. All he could find was 'central melee' so turned that into some bizarre discussion around furballs. Then his squaddies jumped on. Meanwhile i've been essentially saying the same thing over and over in hopes they'll eventually get it. Amusingly they now seem to be agreeing with what i've proposed (yet still insist 'dominating' is somehow different to winning the war of attrition, and 'influence' is somehow different to dictating the terms of the engagement). With one fellow even suggesting i edited what i was saying. Lol.

 

Meanwhile all these very unusual interpretations seem to keep popping up - such as that i suggested furballing as the means to win, or that killing all the enemy was the only way to win. Not sure where these are coming from at all. They were certainly never said by me. I didn't realise what was being said was not clear enough. But advice to any new to forums, if you don't understand what is being said, don't always assume it is wrong.

 

I assume you mean these things because otherwise what you are saying is too general to have any real meaning or importance.  Also because your terminology is ambiguous at best or simply incorrect at worst.  Example: "attrition"   Attrition generally means reducing the enemy's numbers to the point of incapacity.  However, if the enemy is inept, you don't have to bother with attrition at all.  If they don't attempt to contest the cap, then there's no need to kill them at all.  This is dull, but still possible.  

 

The main problem you are running into is you are trying to distill Air Dom into some sort of formula for outcome prediction as far as I can tell, and the most outcome-determinative thing in Air Dom is the quantity of skilled pilots who climb initially.  If your point is that killing the enemy is helpful to winning, then well, duh.  Thanks for that revelation.  But, the way you've been relentlessly telling us all we just don't understand your genius, I have to assume that's not what you mean but instead are trying to introduce us to some magical formula.  However, as someone with a background in statistical analysis and logical reasoning, I have to say your methodology is flawed.  Gathering screenshots at the end of matches doesn't tell you almost anything about what actually occurred in the match.  You need full replays of many matches viewed from multiple angles to really understand what actually occurred and why the match ended as it did.  Simply looking at the number of planes lost and killed by each side doesn't show what altitudes they were killed at, what tactics were employed, or really anything other than X number of planes died because this guy got the kill.  

 

TL;DR:  Whatever.  Play the objective.

[Ezz777 1,493]

 Also because your terminology is ambiguous at best or simply incorrect at worst.  Example: "attrition"   Attrition generally means reducing the enemy's numbers to the point of incapacity. 

What is ambiguous about that definition? It's a consistent definition that hasn't changed throughout this.

 

And yes, as you point out, you don't necessarily have to have won the attrition, and cap is still possible, but as yet the results suggest that the winning team has achieved a decisive advantage in the war of attrition - ie to the point of inCAPacity. (geddit?)

 

 

 If your point is that killing the enemy is helpful to winning, then well, duh.  Thanks for that revelation.  

Amusingly, at least one or two of the other chaps are still arguing that point. They still say it's irrelevant. (ample quotes if you need them)

 

This may be a revelation for you, but they are seemingly that clueless about AD. 

 

 However, as someone with a background in statistical analysis and logical reasoning, I have to say your methodology is flawed. 

With a similar background i can assure you i am aware of some of the gaps and have made note of them at every opportunity. If you have a better suggestion i'm all ears.

 

(i'm beginning to think you may not have actually read the threads at this point - where you're basing your views then is anyone's guess)

 

 

You need full replays of many matches viewed from multiple angles to really understand what actually occurred and why the match ended as it did.  Simply looking at the number of planes lost and killed by each side doesn't show what altitudes they were killed at, what tactics were employed, or really anything other than X number of planes died because this guy got the kill. 

As above, i've mentioned many times that we need to dig deeper into the data before making conclusions. (and again, if you haven't read the numerous threads, let me know and i'll back off and give you time). But i'll repeat, if you know of a replay parser or similar please let me know. Believe me i'd love to give data on this aspect.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Ezz777

[LinkX 161]

What is ambiguous about that definition? It's a consistent definition that hasn't changed throughout this.

 

And yes, as you point out, you don't necessarily have to have won the attrition, and cap is still possible, but as yet the results suggest that the winning team has achieved a decisive advantage in the war of attrition - ie to the point of inCAPacity. (geddit?)

 

 

Amusingly, at least one or two of the other chaps are still arguing that point. They still say it's irrelevant. (ample quotes if you need them)

 

This may be a revelation for you, but they are seemingly that clueless about AD. 

 

With a similar background i can assure you i am aware of some of the gaps and have made note of them at every opportunity. If you have a better suggestion i'm all ears.

 

(i'm beginning to think you may not have actually read the threads at this point - where you're basing your views then is anyone's guess)

 

 

As above, i've mentioned many times that we need to dig deeper into the data before making conclusions. (and again, if you haven't read the numerous threads, let me know and i'll back off and give you time). But i'll repeat, if you know of a replay parser or similar please let me know. Believe me i'd love to give data on this aspect.

 

You certainly read what I said, but you missed my main point, which was basically a giant shrug of "so what?"   Let's say your conclusion (yes, you've stated one, even if you admit that you have insufficient data) is correct and the war of attrition is super important (my statement is that while it certainly doesn't hurt to have decisively removed enemy's aircraft, it is not necessarily outcome-determinative while capturing the cap point is in fact outcome determinative), so what?  That's what most people are trying to do anyway.  There's never been a shortage of people who go all guns blazing into the fray to kill the enemy.  What Air Dom has suffered from is a shortage of people familiar with the mechanics enough to actually engage the enemy where it is important to do so.  This is also the data that is missing from your methodology.  While it helps to know who was killed, it's far more important to know where they were killed and how.  Without that information, your assertions, while seemingly in the right ballpark, don't have the benefit of actual supporting data.  Even my own experience of the situations that counter your assertion are themselves anecdotal.  But, so are the ones you are basing your theory on.  Simply put, you've dedicated an argument across multiple threads that is entirely based upon anecdotal evidence and conjecture which even if proven would not radically alter the way in which the game is currently played.

 

As to your contention that I have not read through ALL of the threads, you are correct.  I have not.  Why?  Because, as you admit, there are multiple threads, which is itself a problem.  One thread would be sufficient.  Instead, you've honestly derailed four different conversations in pursuit of railroading a theory into the arena that doesn't actually matter one whit.  

 

instead of trying to convince the world of intractable WT players that they should just be trying to kill kill kill, it would be far better to instill into the player base the understanding of where to kill. 

 

So, chalk that up however you want.  

[Ezz777 1,493]

 Let's say your conclusion (yes, you've stated one, even if you admit that you have insufficient data) 

I've been very careful not to conclude but instead say that this is what the data suggests.

 

 

 so what?

So what? There have been pages and pages of people saying that this is wrong. If they keep saying i'm wrong, i'll keep repeating the fact that the data suggests i'm not.

 

 

 While it helps to know who was killed, it's far more important to know where they were killed and how.  

Exactly what i'd love to know. And one of the key reasons i've stuck to general correlation rather than causation.

 

 

Without that information, your assertions, while seemingly in the right ballpark, don't have the benefit of actual supporting data. 

The assertion i made was that you should aim to influence the central melee / primary engagement / (or in their terminology) the furball if you want to help your team win. This related to the assertion that winning the war of attrition would help your team win. And there is data to support that.

 

And at least you acknowledge i'm in the right ballpark. The others are still clinging to the notion that i'm completely wrong.

 

 

Even my own experience of the situations that counter your assertion are themselves anecdotal. 

Which is why i've been asking for post battle SS showing both team kills. Turns anecdotes into data in a flash! I'll even do the counts. The only really grey area is how we define a decisive advantage in the war of attrition. I've used an arbitrary 10 kill advantage as a starter, but happy discuss other options as long as they are reasonable.

 

 

 Simply put, you've dedicated an argument across multiple threads that is entirely based upon anecdotal evidence and conjecture.

No, we've moved beyond anecdotes. As above, we are onto the data stage w.r.t. the attrition discussion.

 

 

 One thread would be sufficient.  Instead, you've honestly derailed four different conversations in pursuit of railroading a theory into the arena that doesn't actually matter one whit.  

The counter to that would be to argue i've been doing my best to dispel the misinformation others are spreading vis. the irrelevance of certain elements of AD.

 

 

instead of trying to convince the world of intractable WT players that they should just be trying to kill kill kill, it would be far better to instill into the player base the understanding of where to kill. 

Again, probably lost in the many threads but there is a key list of suggestions that addresses exactly that.