Leaderboard

Dear players, Firstly, we would like to extend our sincerest apologies to each and every one of you. We deeply regret the fact that our actions have let you down, and that we have failed to adequately address the concerns you have voiced over time. We share your passion for the game, and it pains us that our decisions have not lived up to your expectations. Over the past week, we've been diligently analyzing the feedback you've provided. We acknowledge and agree with your concerns regarding the balance of the economy (Silver Lions and Research Points), as well as modification research. We have therefore prioritized addressing these issues as our immediate concern. We are in the process of creating a plan to tackle these problems. While we have made some initial progress in understanding the scope of these issues and potential solutions, we anticipate providing a more detailed roadmap by the 14th of June. We understand the urgency you feel for changes to be implemented, and we assure you, we share your eagerness. However, given the scale and complexity of a project like War Thunder, some time is required to ensure that any changes we make are both effective and beneficial to the player experience. We are also continually reviewing the vast array of other feedback and suggestions we receive. Rest assured, these are important to us and will be addressed, but at this moment, our first priority remains the game's economics and progression. We are truly sorry for the disappointment and frustration that we have caused. We commit to you that we are doing everything we can to improve the game, and regain your trust. Thank you for your understanding and patience during this time. We value your continued support and your dedication to the game we all love.

Dear players! We see that you have many questions and observations about how the economy and progression work in War Thunder. Kirill Yudintsev, creative director of Gaiijn, is best suited to explain all of this:. Player progression is essential. You can't give a player everything at once, because it will overwhelm and make the game very difficult for them and they will just leave it either immediately or almost immediately. This has been tested by us many times in different ways. When applied to our game, later vehicles are almost always more difficult to learn and play tactically, in the controls and with its capabilities. Progression provides opportunities for gradual learning and engaging the players. Without it, the game will lose players right from the start. In addition, progression serves as one of the basics of how a game makes money (basically players pay for acceleration of progression). The fundamental difference between paid games and fair play free-2-play games is that you don't have to pay to play free games, and most players don't actually pay. Most War Thunder players - about 80% - have never paid a dime into a game, whilst playing for months or years. Many of those players who have paid for something in the game don't pay every month (and sometimes not every year) either. Nevertheless, all of the maintenance to the game, all of its development, servers, and support, is provided by those players who pay. In any game players play only when they have fun. But in a f2p game, players only pay if the game really entertains them. The player is already playing, already having fun, and pays if they want to support the game, or try something new, which is, at the same time, not necessary to enjoy the game (otherwise they would just quit playing and not pay at all). Hence the unobvious conclusion: the less you have to pay to play the game, the more differently priced paid options it should have, so that those who can afford it can spend more, and those who can't or don't want to can play for free and have fun. There are many progression and economy options in F2P games. Not all of them are suitable for our game, because War Thunder is about real combat vehicles, which are not equal, differing in power and capabilities. To quickly and roughly summarize, the general principles of economy and progression in our game: vehicles should be unlocked gradually, from simpler and older to more complex and later the total time to get the first "top" vehicle should be a balanced (not too long not too short) number of game hours the player should at the beginning of the game route (while mastering the game) get new in-game equipment often enough The game has to earn money, otherwise it will be closed. And it must make money without a pay wall, so you can play indefinitely without paying anything (so there is no deception that the game is "free" when in fact it is not). Income should provide everyone the opportunity to play a multiplayer game with multiple modes and features Progression and economy should, as far as possible, provide a variety of vehicles encountered in battle, otherwise it's just boring. I.e. there should not be too many "farming" vehicles, and especially if they are statistically stronger in battles (otherwise only the same popular vehicles will appear in battle). In a game with so many vehicles and modes it's impossible to manually adjust the in-game economy (it's important that it obeys specific rules, and manual changes to them would skew a vehicle’s effectiveness, making some vehicles "bad" and others much better than average, and thus affecting their occurrence in battles). On the basis of these theses the economy is “adjusted” (algorithmically based on statistics). About once every couple of years we revise it globally, as new vehicles are added to the current trees, and the rest of the time, to a lesser degree, "correct" the economy, using accumulated statistics. The current progression and economy system is not the only possible system for game economy principles. There are also, for example, systems based on randomness or on the exchange of virtual objects between players. However, without even considering the limitations on different platforms associated with these options, any such significant changes are unlikely to be well received. After all, our community is formed of people who accept the current economy and progression in basic principles, or rather they may even like it in general. So it turns out that the main key parameter that we can change without significant harm to the game and players is a revision of the total time to reach the top and get the whole line (with some smaller tweaks like modification research speed, balance of repair\gain and so on). We have already done this kind of revision three times, and it's probably time for the next one. This work takes many weeks, so we will probably show the planned changes in the second half of the summer. We are no doubt open to other suggestions (and we have many of our own), but we doubt that a complete transformation of the progression into something completely new will be accepted by many players, no matter how much we would like to do it ourselves. We'll still try to come up with something new in the progression, and we'll definitely consider all of your suggestions. https://xkcd.com/1172/ Separately, a few words about review bombing as a method of communication Separately, a few words about review bombing as a method of communication. As many of our players know - we've repeatedly reverted both planned and already released large and small changes (including in the economy and progression). Due to threads on reddit (where much of the western English-speaking community communicates) and with threads on the forums and comments to articles on the site. We value our players and our game, not our updates and changes. If we know that the majority of the community doesn't want an update, we cancel or revert it immediately. Even if some part supports and some part opposes - we prefer conservatively the "do no harm" principle - keeping the current status quo. Of course, a review on Steam is also a platform for expression. However, the majority of new players just look at the score evaluation, and do not read the text of reviews and do not go into what they were left for. So review bombing does damage to the game in that new players simply won't try it, while it doesn't raise their awareness of the problems you've noticed. If your goal is not to hurt the game, please use other, less destructive ways. For example, leave feedback in our forum, and suggestions specifically about the economy we are inviting in the feedback form. Also, review bombing will not cause modifying or nullifying in-game prices - if the game is shut down, no one wins. Radical, revolutionary changes in games that have been around for years are always very difficult to make, because they will almost certainly break gameplay for a significant part of the players. We try to proceed according to the principle "do no harm" and change the game carefully. However, if a topic receives a lot of support from the community - we do everything possible to support the players. We commit to follow the feedback even more carefully in the future and take it into account when defining our plans for the development of the game. If you still have questions - ask in the comments, and in the future we will try to clarify all unclear points.

The bombings wont stop until the changes are implemented

Dear players, We heard your recent feedback on the changes planned to the economy of War Thunder and, as you already know, have decided to cancel them. This has been our first step in addressing your concerns, and it will not be the last. We regret that our actions to balance the economy are often poorly explained and not transparent to you. In the future, we will try our best to talk about the changes we plan to do earlier, in more detail and more clearly, as well as listen to the feedback that you offer more carefully. We are going to revise the economy in a dedicated update planned for mid to late summer (this will be a huge amount of work). In order for your feedback to be taken into account, please provide it using the special form on our website before May 25th (unfortunately, we do not have the ability to track all posts on external sites and we may miss something important there). We have already received and are analyzing many constructive proposals, and we sincerely thank their authors! We will announce the content of the dedicated economy update in advance, explain in detail the essence of all changes and collect feedback on them before we implement them in the game. If necessary, we will discuss the economy separately on streams, in the format of questions and answers on the site, or in any other way - the main thing is that you clearly understand what is planned and why. We have one common goal: to make War Thunder better and make players happy and the game more popular. Therefore, we will do everything possible so that we understand and support each other on the way to this goal.

We have Commonwealth Nations Vehicle already in-game C2A1 and M1A1 AIM to its orignal developer Country which is Germany and US Adding T-90S to British TT is completely inconsistent. If you look at the Commonwealth relationship, Even Australia and Canada have much closer relationship with UK than India Also India has much closer relationship with Russia than UK. That is why India imports and operates Russian weapons. +Not only It is very awkward to give a Russian-designed tank to Britain, which is pivotal in the NATO/Western world, also the characteristics and uniqueness between Tech Trees disappear. Giving T-90S to British TT is Nonsense What are you even thinking Developers. Please listen to our opinions

1) I gave two polite and constructive opinions under your newest article: https://warthunder.com/en/news/8260-how-progression-and-economy-is-built-in-f2p-games-and-war-thunder-in-particular-en 4h later still didn't show up. Giving feedback can be very frustrating. 2) The forum is very strictly moderated, with many subforums that are attended by active "few". Personally if I will pop in here, I would read just general discussion. I would rather play in my free time than spend an hour on forum. Closed and moved topics in "general" are norm. All that seems to be not a problem on Reddit. 3) You receive regular feedback about the Heavy grind and "crazy" events, even on premium accounts, from paying players and its getting only worse - clear signal that you are not listing enough. My perception is that feedback is only slowing down the "degradation". The biggest win perhaps is when you cancelled plans for "premium" vehicle modifications based on feedback. I get it is F2P game, but at least reward and ease up the grind for already paying players in more significant way. Premium time feels like standard time, or less. Negative* Reviews are just the next step for tired and frustrated fans to express disappointment. The article suggest that it is unfair and you are misunderstood, but I don't think this is the case, I think it is you who don't understand your long standing player base. *Edited to rectify incorrect use of "Review bombing"

You are completely right. We should just continue with what we did over the last 2 years. Because that did something.... did it? People are complaining since years and gaijin doesn't give a single F. Two days of steam reviews, and we get 2 posts and the promise of an economy rework this summer. Figure out yourself what works and what doesn't.

Changelog Update.

This really needs to stop. It doesn't matter what Gaijin thinks about what players do/don't want to do. I guarantee that MOST players do not want even more vehicles unfoldered. The grind is already bad enough, especially for new players. It's almost as if Gaijin employees don't play their own game and know how long and tedious the grind is, especially w/o a premium account/vehicle. If we (the players) do not push back on this, Gaijin will continue to unfolder more and more vehicles, thus making the grind even longer and tempting players even more to buy GE and/or premium time/vehicles to make it less miserable. And don't @ me with "it's a free game!!! what do you expect?!?!" Nobody cares and Gaijin is already making a killing off of their product (from myself as well).

We have heard You! Dear players! The recently proposed economy changes, according to calculations, were on average helpful to players as they reduced the repair costs, and the total amount of Research Points for most vehicles. We wrote more about this in our answers to your questions on the 12th of May and the overall picture is clearly visible in the table sheet with changes. We have been following the feedback closely and we see that whilst some players generally agree with us, we also see that there are players who feel that these changes are not helpful to them. For this reason, we have decided not to implement the economy changes from the 16th of May. We believe that the game and its changes should create positive emotions and that players’ emotions are more important to us than calculations and numbers. In the future we will try to better explain our actions, and their benefits for players and also encourage you to leave constructive requests and questions in the special form. Previously announced economic changes have been rolled back: The previously announced economic changes have been implemented. Free repair time in the hangar has been changed. The minimum time of free repair now depends on the economic rank (vehicle rank and its position in the tech tree). Previously, it was dependent on repair cost in Silver Lions. Cost of the “Crew replenishment” modification now depends on the economic rank (vehicle rank and its position in the tech tree). Previously it was dependent on the vehicle's rank. Repair costs of reserve vehicles have been reduced from 100 to 10 SL; other rank I vehicles have had their repair costs reduced from 100 to 40-70 SL. Repair costs of the rank VII vehicles increased from 700 to 1,000-1,100 SL. Research and purchase costs of some squadron vehicles have been changed (table). Purchase costs and RP multipliers of some Premium vehicles have been changed (table). Research, purchase costs, as well as other auxiliary parameters of some researchable vehicles have been changed (table) . The following position changes have been implemented for the research trees: M3A1 Stuart — taken out of the M3/M3A1 Stuart research group. Pz.III J — taken out of the Pz.III F/J group. Pz.IV C — moved to the position before Pz.II C. Pz.II F — taken out of the Pz.II C/F group. Pz.35(t) — moved to the position before Sd.Kfz.221 (s.Pz.B.41). Pz.38(t) A, Pz.38(t) F — moved to the position after Sd.Kfz.221 (s.Pz.B.41). Pz.38(t) F — taken out of the Pz.38(t) A/F group. 15cm sIG 33 B Sfl, Panzerjäger I, Sd.Kfz.251/9 — moved to the position before StuG III A. Т-28 — taken out of the Т-28/Т-28E group and moved to rank I. Ratel 20 — moved to rank IV to a position after Ratel 90. G6 — moved to rank V to a position after Eland 90 Mk.7. Spj fm/43-44 and Sav m/43 (1944) — switched places. PTL02 — moved to rank VI to a position after CM25. Ki-109 — moved to rank I to a position after Ki-45 tei. Ki-45 hei — taken out of the Ki-45 group. J1N1 — moved to rank II to a position after Ki-45 hei. Ki-45 otsu — moved to a position after J1N1. B6N1 Model 11 — taken out of the B6N group and moved to rank I. D4Y3 Ko — taken out of the D4Y group. P1Y1 mod. 11 — moved to rank III to a position before B7A2. H8K2 — moved to a position after Ki-49-IIa. T18B and T18B (57) — switched places and moved to rank III; the requirement to open ranks IV and V have been adjusted. R3 T20 FA-HS — BR (in RB and SB mode) has been changed from 5.0 to 5.7. The following changes to be implemented with the upcoming major update: Begleitpanzer 57 — moved to a position after the Radkampfwagen 90. PUMA — moved to a position after the Begleitpanzer 57. SIDAM 25 — moved to rank VI. The current provided changelog reflects the major changes within the game as part of this Update. Some updates, additions and fixes may not be listed in the provided notes. War Thunder is constantly improving and specific fixes may be implemented without the client being updated.

Friends! Ten days ago we asked you to share your key suggestions and complaints about the game in a special survey. As a result, we received 14,562 player submitted entries - many of them being very constructive. It is a very impressive number! Some submissions made a few pages of well organised bullet points. We are very grateful for such active support for the project and a desire to help us make War Thunder better! It is very difficult to process such a great amount of information. But we managed to isolate most of the repeating points and are already working hard on them. Economy and progression More than 90% of feedback entries touched issues with economy and progression. The majority of them were: repair costs and the ability to pay for it by being active in battles and performing specific actions. Including rewards for assisting enemy kills, kill-to-death ratio, point capturing in a team, repair and other help to teammates plus many others. A separate layer of concern was expressed about the time needed by new players to progress all the way up to the top-tiers. About one third of players are concerned with the current BR distribution and methods of assigning BR to a vehicle. As well as about the BR ranges of vehicles in battle. At least 4% of players also paid special attention to such topics as the need to purchase modules, the possibility to have free - perhaps lengthy but free - repairs, and many suggestions in not modifying or significantly rebalancing premium vehicles. All in all, we understand these concerns and will try to encompass ideas on most of them in the upcoming economy roadmap we promised to publish by June 14th. Gameplay About 10% of players also took time to share their ideas and observations about various gameplay issues in War Thunder. We are still assembling the full picture of those thousands of points, but have already focused in some of the most repeated ones: Locations. Especially their size and how susceptible they are to being shot-through in Ground battles. It is a very important topic. We have tried to study our maps over a long time, creating special tools like ‘heatmaps’ of deadly shots together with the player system of likes and bans. With the game growing and many new vehicles added many maps demonstrated either new issues, or older ones became too significant. We are already engaged in reviewing and ‘polishing’ all locations - and it is sure to be part of the upcoming game improvements. Many of you spoke about the inconvenience of night battles. Though we already tried to make some improvements there - like lowering their appearance probability, addition of illuminating shells,- it turned out not to be enough. We will also look into new solutions here. Some other given complaints were about aviation streaks in Arcade Ground battles, ideas how to improve voting mechanics for favourite maps, and ways to improve the survivability of stock vehicles both in ground and air battles. The was a separate pool of ideas related to PvE modes and ways to improve their gameplay and attraction. Naturally we received literally thousands of ideas on specific vehicle models, modules, weapons and features. It is impossible even to list them all here. Which is actually good - since War Thunder is a game about military vehicles, so it is expected they are in the focus. We are carefully studying all feedback and will try to look at it from a fresh point of view. As mentioned, we are still in the process of analysing all of the survey entries and picking up more and more points from these worth examining and doing some extra to work on them. Currently the survey form is closed, but we will continue to make similar general broad feedback polls on the game in the future again. We will also continue to actively listen to your feedback on the forums. Our plan is to conduct such intensive ‘general questions and suggestions’ sessions at least once every 3 months. Some of your suggestions can be put in the game quite quickly - and War Thunder game design and development teams are already working on them. Some will require a more complex approach, and we will plan for them in our roadmap. We will also cover more about these in the news for the game. So since we are planning to release a large economy and progression changes roadmap by June the 14th, we hope to meet many of your wishes on abovementioned issues there. By the way, we have just published a detailed Q&A for video content creators, you might find the answers interesting and relevant to some of your points in them (link). Conclusion Once again, thank you for taking the time and effort to share your thoughts! We have always tried to pay attention to your feedback, but getting such a massive pool of information from players all over the world - is a limitless source of inspiration and motivation for us. Do not be upset if you don’t find your exact points in the summary above - it comprises the most repetitive ideas, but we do and are studying them all. We will work diligently to look at issues from various viewpoints and try to improve as much as possible to allow you to continue to enjoy War Thunder for many years to come.

As you all have seen the Su-39 is coming in the next patch as a premium, It's the most advanced variant of su-25 while they called it export and put it as premium. I suggest replacing Su-39(Su-25TM) with Su-25T that will be the tech tree version aka the baseline that the su-39 was made off Su-25TM(Su-39) modernized Su-25t

People haven't been asking for reduced traction. If anything, people want more traction since tanks right now neither have the traction nor torque to climb slopes that actual tanks easily can. Tackle the issue at its core for once: fix map exploits instead of making traction worse for everyone.

The review bombing will not stop. People are really fed up with this. I've been playing for over 6 years now and can say for sure even I'm pissed. The review I made is how i feel about the game, as for everyone else. If they actually listened to the community and made changes that would help players, then I'll change my review. Simple as that. Until that happens, theres really no end in sight

Gameplay is too fast at top tier you are encouraging toxicity with your greed. The most equitable outcome (in my view):

It really isn't though The reaction isn't to the recent econ changes, they are just a drop in the bucket. When the bucket has been slowly filling up for half a decade though it becomes a lot more reasonable.

As of the first devserver, Freccia has no commander sight whatsoever. This is clearly wrong, since the CC variant (Contro Carro, meaning anti tank, which is what we'll have in game) uses the Janus commander sights, which are also able to provide day/night imaging through a thermal sensor. Moreover, both CIO (the manufacturer of the Freccia) and Leonardo (the manufacturer of the Janus sights) clearly state that the vehicle has such a device (the latter going as far as clearly stating: "It is an upgraded version of the field-proven JANUS multi-sensor selected by the Italian Army to equip the Freccia multirole Armoured Vehicle (VBM)").

At the moment general rules of the matchmaking based on BR. The matchmaker selects the game session for the player in which the spread of the opponent’s vehicle BR will not exceed +/- 1.0 BR from the player’s vehicle. This means that the player will not meet a vehicle which exceeds the BR of his key vehicle (the one on which the matchmaker bases its search for a game session) in battle by more than 1 point of the BRITISH. But if the BR spread is 0.7, it will be easier for everyone to play. That is, when playing on a 4.0 machine, you will come across a maximum of 4.7 or 3.3, and not 5.0 and 3.0, respectively. I think that due to recent developments in the economy of the game and because of the negative reviews, we will be able to do this. Please distribute.

Updated BTR-80A needs a serious change (Implemented) It needs to be given 3UBR8 APDS rounds (the same as found on the BMP-2, BMP-2M, and BMP-3). The BTR-80A can fire these rounds IRL and allow it to remain competitive. Giving it the rounds will allow the vehicle to penetrate armor, especially heavier tanks. It needs to be moved to Rank V with a Battle Rating of 7.0-7.7 with the APDS rounds because it does not belong fighting WWII-era vehicles. If we go down this route, it will just dilute the enjoyment of playing WWII vehicles with other players in RB/SB, and set a new standard that many do not want to see (this can be said of the Type 87 RCV (P) as well). In an extreme case, you could even give it the 3UBR11 APFSDS-T rounds (which I'm pretty sure it can fire) and move it to BR 8.0 like the Type 87 RCV. It essentially fits the same role as well as you can folder the BTR-82A in the future with it. Side note, the BTR-82A features a stabilized gun, can utilize thermals, can mount a Kornet ATGM above the turret (similar to the Warrior with the Milan, etc.), and can fire the 3UBR11 APFSDS-T rounds as well. Moving it to BR 7.0-7.7 will allow it to fit in just fine since it would be armed with more powerful ammo, allowing it to penetrate many of the tanks in Rank V which already lack heavy armor due to newer munitions developed (like the Leopard 1 using light/spaced armor due to HEAT rounds, etc.) and like many vehicles around this Rank, it lacks a stabilizer so it won't be a ground-breaking move. Overall very happy to see this vehicle being added to the game as it is one of my favorite wheeled IFV's, however it needs work. Other feedback regarding vehicle implementation, etc.: If we do go down the T-90S Bhishma being added to the UK tree, I'm happy with this since it opens the door to add the Arjun and other Indian vehicles into the tree as well (however, do not forget about the other vehicles the UK has like the CVR(T)-family, AJAX, etc. that still need to be added, after all it is the UK-tree). It's also a better implementation than the T-80U and Mi-28A going to the Swedish tree. Very nice additions of the (possible) VT-4, VBM Freccia, SARC Mk. IVa,PzKpfw 38(t) n.A., Tornado ADV, Su-22M4, J-8F, AJS-37, CV9030FIN, AMX 30 AuF1, F-14B, Su-25T, and the French Navy. Still dreading the M1 KVT as it doesn't exist. The M1A1 KVT does. It’s not like making it the M1A1 KVT/ having a higher BR premium will hurt anything. We’re already on the way to higher BR premiums anyway. If anything more people would probably buy it if it was historically accurate. Very disappointed in the fact that Israel is hurting all around for vehicles (especially top rank AA) and doesn't even have Spike or Python missiles for which they developed. Especially the Spike, Italy receiving it is awesome but how does Israel who developed it not receive it? The tree would bring a lot more attention if these were taken account. Hope to see the PUMA with integrated MELLS/Spike's as well. The Su-25TM/Su-39 missing it's missiles and placed behind a paywall is disappointing. I hope it at least receives its proper missiles (along with the Mirage 2000-5F). The Su-25T/Su-25TM are not as ground breaking as people were worried about, especially since Mercury targeting pod/using the Vikhrs have a small target tracking window forcing the player to remain aiming at the target. Still pretty deadly though since you can arm A LOT of Vikhrs and other ordnance. Hoping to see the Leopard 2PSO found in the game files added to Germany this update. It's been too long since Germany has had a top MBT addition. Very nice new animations for the Konkurs, TOW, etc. Adding the wire enhances the immersion aspects. J-8F is a much needed and appreciated addition to the PLA-side of the China Air Tree. Japan NEEDS a top tank AA vehicle like the Type 81C however you have to implement it. Japan is one of the nations I will say is "suffering" and I do not use that term ever. I hope we see it in this update. Add the HOT-3 to the MEPHISTO to make it as competitive at Rank VI+ like the AFT09. The CV9030FIN along with the CV9040C, Strf. 9040 BILL and CV9040B are all missing there auto-tracking utilized through the UTAAS sight by SAAB and target-driven Man Machine Interface (MMI) system developed by BAE Land Systems. Israel, UK, France, and China need top rank light vehicles/IFV’s. They have plenty of them IRL but none have been added yet. Nice updates on aircraft models/cockpits, as well as seeing new ejection seats. Enjoy the drag bombs. I think they'll be a lot of fun and it will be fun to hit targets in alleys/streets in urban environments. Enjoying the new voices as well, they're great (and some are funny). Definitely need some work done on the VBCI 2(MCT-30) before release such as the missing stabilizer, missing 3rd-generation thermals, etc. Very nice to see a VBCI-variant!

just want to voice my support that, recent coordinated slander by westerners on gaijin is unfounded i will keep supporting this game because this game is the best. ?

Widen your eyes to see what this is? The J-8D can play PL11, the J-10 can play PL11, that is, the J-8F in the middle can't play PL11, right? Your logic is like a clown！ Could it be that PLAAF is so advanced and powerful that it hurts your Russian pride that you want to do it? Anyone who knows about radar knows that all active radar shells can be used as semi-active missiles, so you think that the J-12F, which is allowed to fire PL12, is not capable of launching PL11? 1473 that's a pulsed Doppler radar! What disease did PLAAF make them deliberately cancel the PL11 guidance capability of the 1473 radar??? The contemporary F8IIM even allowed the launch of the R27, but if you think about it, you won't think that the J8F can't use PL11

For other countries: m1kvt for US which not even exists gaijin: good! r27er for mig29 in German which not exists gaijin: for fair play f16aj for Japan which not even exists gaiji n: ok For CN: PL11 for J8f gaijin: not exist! PL-8 for j7e and j8b: gaijin: too competitive! well play well play, another reason dont play this game for next two weeks

The bombing shouldn't stop until significant changes are made to the economy, and the devs at least attempt some form of genuine community engagement (in a place where they cannot censor comments preferably).

There is not a single person here that wants to see the game fail, but everyone here is just frustrated at the constant punishment that gaijin has put us all through so we are all looking for change. Everyone wants this game to improve, and so far the only way we have been able to get gaijin to respond to us is through the review bombings

You're acting like you don't understand why it's happening, but then proceed to explain why people are wrong. The change wasn't the cause, it only triggered a response that was a long overdue. People are just fed up with the current system, fed up of Gaijin making the grind worse and worse every year, this was just the last straw. And Gaijin's respond to this mess was just terrible. Instead of going like "Ok, you don't like it, we'll think about it and try to be better" they just shifted the blame on their players. "We'll do the same thing, but try to be more convincing next time so you won't complain" The last two articles were so hypocritical and out of touch, it's just insulting. Though I can't complain about the SL gain, I played with and on premiums, it is a problem, it hurts the player experience. The RP grind is just terrible. Despite constantly paying for this game, I got fed up and burned out before I could reach any of the top tiers. It's just insane amount of time you have to spend to reach it, even if you shoved your whole wallet into this game. And the thing is, you won't get a bigger reward for trying harder. The RP gain is too small for the amount you need to research a new vehicle on its own, but there's still a cap on how much you can get for some unknown reason. You work harder, you get less reward for each of your actions. Its like for an average good game in GRB you get 60k sl and 8k RP, for a crazy good one you get 120k+ SL and... 9k RP. That's just terrible.

Su-39 should swap places with Su-25T or be replaced with Su-25TK (export version of su25t) as the Su-39 is the most advanced su25 version and it was not export variant

or they should just make those two in tree, not premium, since they already have SU-25K as premium.

As we all know the Russian Top-tier aircraft are lacking proper IR missiles. Since no-one is using the R27T because of it unreliable flare ressistance and low turning and little energy we are stuck with R27ER(Which are great for BVR and Radar engagements) and R60s. The addition of the first type of R73 from the first Apex Predators Dev server is needed.

Having tried a couple of wheeled vehicles in the dev server since this change, it is aggressively bad. The traction loss is far too great, even on lower gradients, and it makes it feel like you are driving on ice. If you get one side of the tank caught on a slope then you are just sucked down that slope with little hope of recovering. You did this previously with tanks as well instead of fixing the maps/ adding out of bounds areas and it was a bad change all around, please do not keep these changes and fix the maps instead.

Guys, after the today's live, i doubt that does new J8 strong enough to be at 12.0? The new PL11 just looks like Aspide1A which old J8B already have and its rwr has only four directions. The loadout of new J8 is 2*PL11, 2*PL8 and 2*PL5 or 4*PL8 and 2*PL5, which is poor in br 12.0. Unless PL8 is "poweroverwheling" with the help of new HMD and new radar, i dont think that new J8 can match with other jets in 12.0.

The thing that Gaijin doesn't understand is that we don't NEED the game to live happy lives, but people who work for Gaijin Need Gaijin so that they can have a home, have money, have food to eat, etc. If Gaijin dies, then its not the players that will be hurt, but its also not the Player's job to keep Gaijin afloat, and on steam I'd definitely say the loudest you can be is in a review and If Gaijin doesn't want review bombing to be a thing then they should DO something to change that i.e. listen to the biggest number of complaints and confront the problem. I can slightly see that they want to improve things, and yeah I hope that Gaijin can make it past this PR nightmare, but I mean its also not very surprising that this has happened, this was just the straw that broke the camel's back, and now people are fed up.

This should be a thing anyway so players can enjoy actually trying the vehicles and provide feedback on bug issues, etc.

I’m reposting this from my previous comment in the Update Discussion page just in-case since this is a focused topic. The BTR-80A needs a serious change: It needs to be given 3UBR8 APDS rounds (the same as found on the BMP-2, BMP-2M, and BMP-3). The BTR-80A can fire these rounds IRL and allow it to remain competitive. Giving it the rounds will allow the vehicle to penetrate armor, especially heavier tanks. It needs to be moved to Rank V with a Battle Rating of 7.0-7.7 with the APDS rounds because it does not belong fighting WWII-era vehicles. If we go down this route, it will just dilute the enjoyment of playing WWII vehicles with other players in RB/SB, and set a new standard that many do not want to see (this can be said of the Type 87 RCV (P) as well). In an extreme case, you could even give it the 3UBR11 APFSDS-T rounds (which I'm pretty sure it can fire) and move it to BR 8.0 like the Type 87 RCV. It essentially fits the same role as well as you can folder the BTR-82A in the future with it. Side note, the BTR-82A features a stabilized gun, can utilize thermals, can mount a Kornet ATGM above the turret (similar to the Warrior with the Milan, etc.), and can fire the 3UBR11 APFSDS-T rounds as well. Moving it to BR 7.0-7.7 will allow it to fit in just fine since it would be armed with more powerful ammo, allowing it to penetrate many of the tanks in Rank V which already lack heavy armor due to newer munitions developed (like the Leopard 1 using light/spaced armor due to HEAT rounds, etc.) and like many vehicles around this Rank, it lacks a stabilizer so it won't be a ground-breaking move. Overall very happy to see this vehicle being added to the game as it is one of my favorite wheeled IFV's, however it needs work.

你们不觉得现在的经济系统就是一坨吗？，就掠夺者那东西都能两万维修费195%的收益，怎么他是9.3挂了八个牛D？更别提现在开低级车不开高涨完全做不到收益为正的，哪怕你有高账如果你做不到KD为正你的收益也是负数，我反正是彻底忍不下去了，以前砍砍砍就忍了，现在都给砍成这样了，哪怕在站不起来的也忍不了了吧，而且最主要的是，凭什么那些BMP2M和Su25k没有涨维修费降维修，BVM也是，就公羊那玩意什么德行我猜大家伙都知道，公羊都涨维修了凭什么BVM不涨维修费，凭什么你那么逆天的BMP2M都不涨维修费，上一个这么干的游戏是逃离塔克夫，现在变成什么样了哪怕我这个完全不了解也不玩那个游戏的都知道了，我觉得大家伙也都知道。

Hey, remember the good days when we just had USA, Germany, USSR, UK and Japan? I think we should bring that back but keep Italy and France since they have way too many unique vehicles. playing RB tanks felt good back then because every team had different vehicles, the Tiger and Panther fought the M18 and Shermans and and T34s. Nowadays it is Sherman vs Sherman and Tiger and every team has the M18 and it just feels like Arcade battles overall because every team has the same vehicles. Too much copy paste vehicles.

Hello! Today we will tell you about a new type of weapon that will appear in the game in the next major War Thunder update! With the further development of more effective air defense systems, the only safe window for delivering bombs became ultra-low altitude, where aircraft remained outside of the detection zone of anti-aircraft radars. However, tree-top bombing is risky due to the chances of hitting the carrier aircraft with fragments of its own bombs. This is how retarded bombs first appeared - the bombs are equipped with an aerodynamic brake, or chute, to provide a low-speed fall. Retarded bombs will appear in our game as part of the upcoming major War Thunder update. As experienced pilots know, you may already set the fuse delay on conventional bombs, which allows pilots to get out of the danger zone of fragmentation spray and the blast wave while dive bombing or performing tree-top bomb attacks. However, conventional bombs have a flat fall trajectory, which makes it very difficult to hit targets on the city streets, behind cover, or on locations with large terrain elevations. In addition, conventional air bombs fall too quickly and you can’t drop bombs on a sudden enemy, they will fly too far ahead. Download Wallpaper: 1920x1080 2560x1440 3840x2160 Retarded bombs are perfect for strafe bombing, which is one of the most frequent bombing scenarios in mixed battles. Thanks to the parachute, these bombs slow down when dropped and smoothly fall almost vertically down. Retarded bombs can be carefully dropped in between houses, in a ravine or behind a rock! Aircraft retarded bombs will have the full range of physical qualities of regular bombs - for example, they can be shot down in flight, so do not drop retarded bombs from a high altitude, as they can become easy prey for well-aimed anti-aircraft gunners. For aircraft equipped with ballistic computers, the drop area of retarded bombs will also be adjusted according to their specific trajectory. We plan to equip a lot of aircraft of all gaming nations with the retarded bombs right when the update goes live. In the future, we will definitely add new retarded bombs of different calibers and different nations. Stay tuned to the news!

I don't care what no one says there should be a major fine for those who leave the match either because they don't like the map or they get hit one time and run back to the hangar! And not this time penalty where they can't use their tanks for a specific time, but a Silver Lions Fine and a major one at that! By players leaving the match because, as stated previously, it ruins the whole match for those who stay and play and the odds are those players who stayed lose the match! Fines should be anywhere form 50,000 to 100,000 Silver Lions for individuals who ruin the match for others!! Why start a match or even play the game if you are going to run back to the hangar for dislike of a map or you get killed one time and run back to the hangar crying? Stop ruining everyone else's enjoyment of the game and Gaijin take notice that a "Fine" in monetary and not just a slap on the wrist with absurd time out! They should also lose any research points or experience points for that vehicle played and I mean all points so they will have to start again if researching for the next vehicle!

Nobody ever asked for even less traction. We asked for more traction, since the in-game traction is currently too low. If anything, block off areas you don't want players to go. Or, my favorite, don't block them off unless there is an imbalance between the two teams on a certain map. There are certainly broken parts that should be blocked, but overall a more interesting three dimensional battlefield is more interesting than a two dimensional flat map. So please look at these map issues on a case by case basis and alter the maps if needed, don't change the games physics for worse... Edit: If this is really just a fix to suspension mechanics to make them more realistic, please consider increasing traction alongside it for the same reason.

Potential players want to know how the game is. We are simply telling the truth we know. That is all.

The players are definitely overreacting, as are the YouTubers, who are unfortunately the ones leading this charge for a large number of people. It's obvious that whatever real issues some players feel exist have been blown out of proportion, first by YouTubers, and then by the momentum of community action. The fact that all the YouTubers are all uploading their own "critical" videos to get on the bandwagon and get more views shows how genuine their support is.

Waiting for a "Staline photo disparition" meme edit :

Sadly all tech trees become gender neutral...

Another update ,gajin stopped advertising that they are using steam

Of course it will, it's even the only thing that can push them to listen to the community once and for all

Review bombing on steam is the most dumbest and childish thing to do, It's like it won't make the devs make actual changes come to the game.

Yeah nations that aren't russia can't have nice armor at top tier.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes ... for years Gaijin tried to push the annoyance based economy juuuust a bit more and then again juuuust a bit more and then lets try yet again and look it worked so let's tighten the screws juuust a little more and have a good laugh. So now when they finally pushed playerbase too far there isn't much goodwill left. Or better said, none at all, especially after that unbelievably tone deaf response from Gaijin.

Hello We have no plans to remove these nations. All of them have their own unique and domestic vehicles and many players are interested and invested in these induvial nations. We will continue to expand their vehicle rosters to include even more domestic vehicles.

+1 SU-39 should be in the technology tree and su-25t as premium. The radar in the SU-39 and later the a2a radar missiles is something the SU-25T will not have and therefore should be as a premium