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.

The bombings wont stop until the changes are implemented

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

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.

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.

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).

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. ?

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

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

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.

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

Hi all! Lately we have received a huge amount of feedback from players and have been hard at work analyzing, processing and preparing to answer your questions. The most heated discussion came from questions on the economy, and we will definitely answer these too once we’ve had time to look through them all! In addition to dozens of thousands of feedback messages from players, we received a long list of questions from our War Thunder content creators from YouTube, Twitch and other platforms. While we are still analyzing requests and suggestions from players, today we’ll answer some questions from our creators, maybe you’ll find answers to your questions here too. Let’s go! Vehicles Q.We are concerned about the comparatively low efficiency of the post-penetration effect of low-caliber HEAT rounds, for example on such vehicles as Ru 251, AUBL 74, leKPz M41, AML-90, PT-76, T92, etc. We’re planning to rework certain aspects of shaped-charge jets for lower caliber rounds. These rounds do have a very narrow post-penetration jet, and there are lots of real world examples of instances where lightly armored vehicles remained mobile and even in fighting condition after taking a hit from HEAT. Because of this we don’t plan on making these particular munitions overly powerful, but in regards to destroying modules and incapacitating crew in the path of the jet we are planning some changes that will make their damage more consistent. Q. Light vehicles might be very die-hard, being able to absorb 3-4 rounds, because fuses are unable to arm. This is a big topic for players and a common talking point inside our team as well. There are several possibilities we’re considering but they will take some time to develop. We're keenly aware of this issue though and will introduce a solution if and when we can. Q. Is it possible to make 3D decorations physical so that they can detach from vehicles when hit? Great idea! We’ll look into how complicated this would be to implement, and if it is indeed possible we’ll aim to make them destructible and prone to catching fire as well. Q. Is it possible to refine the reloading mechanics, when the loader is knocked out during a gun misfire, then the reload cycle starts again? Absolutely, it’s a good point to bring up, especially for vehicles with a very long load time. We have a solution in mind for this one - we can try to save the reload progress after a certain percentage of the reload cycle is reached, say 80% for example. At this stage the round is already in the breach so there’ll be no need to start the entire process over. Also for two-part ammunition, the loading process could be split into two stages, so the cycle won’t reset to the start if one part of the projectile has been prepared and the loader gets knocked out. Q. Do you plan to increase the mobility of heavy tanks and slow SPGs in the RB mode, like it is in the Arcade? No this one isn’t in our plans. RB is where vehicles should behave as authentically as possible, low mobility is just a real-world drawback these kinds of vehicles have. Q. Do you like the idea of giving free back-ups when purchasing top-tier Premium vehicles? We do! We’ll consider including an initial amount of free backups with high tier premiums in the future to incentivise players to stay in battle. Q. There are still turret desync bugs. It’s a complicated issue to solve but an important one, we’re currently working on a fix. Q. Is it possible to get rid of the desync of server and client? Unfortunately in any network model, including ours, desynchronization between the server and client is sadly inevitable. This is a con for sure. The pro however is that these desyncs usually do not affect the gameplay for all players which is important. The War Thunder networking model (State Sync) was chosen to be the most cheater-proof (in contrast to lag-compensation models like in CS), and, more importantly, it allows us to implement relatively realistic physical interactions. The shortcoming of our model is that there is the possibility of minor (and more rarely major) desyncs, as all clients see the ‘possible present’ of other players, instead of recordings of the past. The lower a player’s ping, the less often desyncs happen, but they will still happen anyway. Q. Any chance to fix the bugged spotting, when vehicles are invisible for no reason? This issue comes from the server’s anti-cheat algorithms. We do our best to sync them with the game render, but in a dynamic environment with huge open spaces and various client pings, it’s unfortunately impossible to maintain perfect synchronization. Q. Damage by excessive pressure needs more calibration, and also damage of high caliber shells of ground vehicles needs to be increased. For improvements like these we need some more precise examples as there’s a lot of factors involved here, often issues in this area are not reliably reproducible, so we’d appreciate any replays or recordings of issues you’ve found so we can investigate them more effectively. It’s easiest to do this in the hangar. Q. Please fix the bug that doesn’t allow you to turn over the tank if it’s turned upside down and lies on top of the turret. Ah yes, it's very rare but annoying when it occurs, we’ll look into a fix. Q. Do you have plans to create a tutorial on mechanics of top tier vehicles, such as anti-aircraft missile systems, drones, etc - with an option to customize controls for such mechanics? Yes we do! We’re planning various tutorial elements for our more modern systems. Q. Due to the difference in the vehicle generations, there are big problems on Rank V, particularly on BR 7.0-8.0, where there are tanks with APFSDS and stabilizers and without them. Indeed, the technology jump in this BR range is problematically abrupt, we’ll pay special attention to this area in particular and come up with some solutions. Q. The Killer-Hunter feature is toxic and requires a 2-3 sec delay to make it possible for the commander to take over or react somehow. A delay here would make sense, we’ll consider this. Q. Currently graphics can noticeably influence player skill: for example, an enemy tank can be almost invisible in deep shadow until it fires. Locations are full of decorative elements that overload players’ attention. Is it possible to brighten up the shadows and lose some greenery and decorations on the locations? It’s a tough question that requires more complex solutions and precise fixes rather than a sort of ‘global update’ to the graphics. The thing is, we can’t just make a game where pro players have their own minimalistic graphics mode, while more casual players have a different one (since that’s just not fair). Dumbing down the game graphically so it’s purely structured around competitive gaming also isn’t an option - our game has and always will be oriented towards a wide spectrum of players with different tastes and preferences, so on this one we’ll have to look at more specific elements that could be improved. Q. Upgrading helicopters through PvE is too long and hard, and their stock versions are often almost unplayable in other modes. We’re currently trying to figure out what to do with the mode, we’ll announce our decisions at a later time. Q. Remove volumetric damage. It makes certain tanks too well-defended, track fenders and side skirts absorb hits. Volumetric damage brings many tanks closer to their correct level of protection (Tigers and Panthers for example), and this can’t be achieved without maintaining our current realistic armor model. However, as with every complex system it’s hard to perfect across the board. We need your reports here - you can send us your replays or record anomalies in the hangar. In all cases where volumetric (and every other damage system) isn’t working correctly, we will fix it - or at least we’ll do our best to. We appreciate that volumetric was a big adjustment to tank battles as it wasn’t present from the start of the game and thus required some adaptation, but we believe this more realistic armor model adds to War Thunder, so we’ll work hard on improving it as much as possible. Q. Decrease the numbers of all convoy AAA in EC and/or give them less accuracy. We’ve fixed this one - already in production. Q. For Air sim float plane spawns. Instead of spawning all the way back on the map and taking 25 mins to get to the battle, have it be able to spawn at any AF or spawn on the fleet with your float planes. Suggesting when spawning on any AF of course you spawn in the air, and if you spawn on your fleet have it spawn you on the water next to your carrier. We’ll think about this one, the current system was chosen based on player requests. However there are not many floatplanes and they’re almost universally slow, so it probably won’t negatively impact immersion too much if they spawn in the air closer to the action. Q. I would like to see if WT naval arcade could be made a bit more arcadey to attract more people to the mode, mainly by making rangefinding faster so it might be more fun to play. Maybe also add what ammo to shoot at which target so people have more of an Idea when to use AP or HE and SAP. We agree here - We’ll try to do something to make the mode more approachable, and will likely start with rangefinding. Q. The attack drones should be removed, they don't bring anything new to the table (helicopters and planes do the same) except that they are much harder to hit/kill. With that there aren't really counters against them except hightier AAs. We’ve spent a lot of time gathering examples and analyzing feedback regarding drones, we’re going to move them up to a higher BR where they can be more easily countered by advanced AA systems. Q. Suggestion to stop helicopters (and other aircraft) from firing their weapons after they are considered ‘dead’ by the game, as it’s not enjoyable to die to a player you’ve already beaten. In reality, ‘destroying’ an aircraft (in terms of inflicting damage that makes the aircraft uncontrollable) doesn’t make it harmless. We do like this ‘last chance’ aspect to gameplay (There's a beast deep inside you, it will not die.. It will fight back!) It’s a system that goes both ways, firstly it is realistically possible - and it might make a player's day to get a kill with a doomed aircraft. However we do see the issues it brings, especially with misleading kill messages. We need to do a bit more thinking on this one. Q. Suggestion to allow phasing through teammates at the start of the match to prevent blocking, in the same way air realistic has after just taking off. We can’t see a way to do this one for ground vehicles - players inevitably will exploit it (when spawning, players will deliberately try to drive through each other to end the cooldown while taking up the same space, which will cause a lot of issues unfortunately). Other Q.Add the ability to report racists, homophobes and similar to customer support Good idea, we’ll add an easier way to report such instances. Each in-game report already has a chat log attached. Creating an automatic screenshot or something along those lines though is much harder and can introduce difficulties. We’ll try to show the chat log to the user submitting a report to streamline the process. Matchmaking Q. Please add more maps to the top tier Air RB (12.0 BR). Even smaller maps. Some maps are very rare. Currently we have 10 maps at this BR. Certain maps will appear more rarely if players have them banned. We’ll aim to add more maps at this rating. For smaller maps though, players often request less of this for top tier jets (usually words like ‘claustrophobic’ are used). Q. For me, the big problem is the size of the maps on the Air RB. It happens that prop planes are thrown on a simulation map. Please remove large maps from Air RB on low and medium tiers. Agreed - big maps can become boring sometimes when populated with slower aircraft with a lot of downtime between engagements. When we implement a way of displaying which maps appear at which BRs (see below) we’ll adjust the appearance of large maps at the lower tiers. Regarding smaller maps for top tiers though - see the request above. We’re trying not to add smaller maps to fast jet battles and will try to introduce less instances of this, however currently many players do still ask for them. Q. I’d like you to increase the chances of going into battle on a vehicle of maximum available for this battle BR. I once performed an experiment and found out that I got into battles using the highest BR vehicles only in 11-14% of cases. Sure, overcoming hardship is valuable, but not that often: it’s demoralizing. Ultimately, the session consists of players within your BR spread who are currently in the queue, there’s no additional factors that directly put you at a certain battle rating. On top of this regarding ‘full uptiers’, only 4 players on each team have the possibility of being at the top BR, so even if you are at a lower BR relatively in a match, you won’t be fighting a team entirely comprised of vehicles more advanced than yours. Q. Add an unlimited amount of bans/5 bans. The problem with this one is that we already have situations with the current one ban system, where some maps are rarely ever played. Adding additional bans (5 bans for sure) will lead to situations where all available maps are banned from the current queue, meaning matches won’t be able to start at all, or only after significant waiting times. Q. Add some way to vote for map/map preferences. This is something we want to think about more. We are willing to have some kind of voting system in place, but at the same time it’s important for players to have a variety of maps too, especially as certain vehicles are inevitably more suitable for certain styles of map. Q. Add BR limitations for each map and show it to players. Good idea - showing the BR range for a map in the map preferences window would be very useful, we’ll try to implement it. Q. My biggest and worst problem in WT is maps in Ground RB is that I don't want to play small maps in top tier battles (things like Berlin - Finland - Cargo Port - Alaska - Small Fulda - Small Maginot Line... etc). We also don’t like all of the maps at high ranks as well, although players’ opinions differ (Many players like Finland or Berlin at high ranks, but at the same time many also don’t), but as suggested above we’ll introduce a way to show the BR limitations for maps. The enjoyment a map brings is often very subjective, but in instances where a particular map is noticeably widely disliked we will pay it extra attention. Missions and locations Q. In Tank RB we often get Battle mode with points already captured, and that demotivates the players from moving. I think this mode should go. These scenarios can foster a more sedentary style of gameplay, we’ll probably reduce the chance of these maps appearing in the rotation, and likely remove some of them. Q. I’d like the developers to manage the maps in a way so that modern vehicles won’t appear in WWII locations like Berlin. We partially agree on Berlin (and maybe Rhine too) but not generally. We’ll try to remove the most obvious elements from maps that specifically relate to a certain timeframe to make them more universal, and we’ll think about introducing a modern version of Berlin too, that could be interesting. Q. Do you plan to exclude night missions from rotation in case the player doesn’t have night vision and thermal sight modules, or maybe introduce an option to disable those missions? We have decided to make night battles optionally available, we’ll announce exactly how this will be implemented a bit later. Q. Collision models of various obstacles, garbage and other things should be either removed, replaced or reworked. We’re working on it! Collision with even small objects can be jarring sometimes in certain circumstances, any examples you have of such issues with screenshots and descriptions will really help us improve this area as quickly as possible. Q. It would be great to increase the duration of session creation to increase the number of players in battles and make them more intense. I think that waiting for 20 more seconds in the hangar and not ending up in an 8v8 battle on a large map is worth it. We’ll think about this one - Unfortunately there’s no universal solution regarding a bracket of queue time that would apply to every situation, but some additional matchmaking options could improve the situation. Q. Are there any plans to additionally reward the top 5 players at the end of the battle? We do have plans along these lines for sure, but we’re just not sure if rewarding the top positions is the healthiest way to go: it’s tempting and a good reward, but it creates unhealthy competition for those 5 places (meaning that players may be compelled to grief or get the way of those in the lead). Q. European Province: The city part is done well because it is separate small location. The open terrain around can be shot through the hills and there is also the possibility of shooting from one spawn to another. Indeed, we’re aware of the problems here. We will aim to fix the instances where it’s possible to engage from spawn to spawn in some of the higher BRs. Q. Surroundings of Volokolamsk: Very large location with a huge unused space. If your flank is clean then you are either too lazy or don't have enough time to react to the other one. I think it is necessary to leave only a small version of it. It’s certainly a large location with a lot of empty space - we’ve already changed the rotation settings for this map, now it’s only available in ground RB and only from the session rank of 9.7 - also please note, a session rank of 9.7 means that these are battles for vehicles between the ratings of 8.7 - 9.7. Q. Red Desert: Huge spaces with shots from covers on the top of rocks. Maybe you will remove this location from the rotation? At the moment this map is only available from 9.7 and above so the huge spaces can be crossed relatively quickly by the faster vehicles at this tier, Red Desert is also still in the top 5 most liked locations from our map “like” system. However we will keep an eye on its overall popularity among players. Q. El Alamein: Positions on the tops of the cliffs make it difficult to play. Line A and line 8 You’re right, we’ll fix them. Q. Battle of Hürtgen Forest: Now in the rotation we have the larger version where the activity of the players is lower than before. I propose to return the old version with 3 city capture points. We don’t see a decrease in activity in this arrangement, but the capture points really do need to be redone, we’ll improve them. Q. Mozdok [Battle]: The location is either for the fast tanks which can take up positions at the beginning or about “standing at one point” as the respawn points are located opposite each other and are shot through. There is no goal to capture the point, no goal to leave the position. Can this mission be removed? It’s possible, we will yes. The mobility of the tanks that see this map do make its layout quite unsuitable. Q. Fields of Poland: the situation here is better than with the “European Province” although the expansion doesn't look justified everywhere. Perhaps we can remove the forests around the edges of the map and replace them with fields to deter players from focusing on the outskirts. Q. Port Novorossiysk [Domination]: the teams capture their points being fully defended, and then meet up in front of a huge open area that makes them afraid to advance, so they just stick to the corridors. We need a full rework of the central point, with safer passages from both sides. The fact that you can effectively fire from across the river also contributes to the stalemate, making the players stay on line 7 with zero kills. We see your points, but have to disagree on this one - from our data and heatmaps (and also personal experience!), the map has a good intensity of action, it often only takes one or two tanks from either team to funnel in behind enemy lines to break defenses. We’d also highly recommend some smoke shells for this map too if your tank carries them, as the sightlines are quite narrow it’s possible to block one entirely with a single shell, allowing your team time to advance. Q. Sinai: a great map, but positions on spawn points on A1-A2 get in the way: it’s hard to get to the player who camps there. Would like for those positions to be removed on Sands of Sinai as well. Thank you for bringing this one up, we’ll look into it. Q. Ardennes: there’s a lot of excess space from А1 to С3, same as in the opposite corner on G8 It may seem like empty space, but we see these routes are often utilized by players. Q. Poland, Abandoned Factory and Eastern Europe: examples of good maps. I’d like to see a new location in the future update that is similar in size and junction layout to these maps and hear the player feedback. We’ll try to introduce a map along these lines in one of our next updates, probably at the end of the year. We’re actually working on something quite similar to what you’ve described at the moment. Q. Vietnam: have you considered partially draining the swamp on point A? Many players avoid it since it’s so hard to move around there. Yes this is possible, that’s a good point. Leave your comments here! We’d like to thank all of our players and creators who’ve submitted comments and suggestions for the development of the game. In this text we’ve responded to the feedback we managed to sort and take into account, we appreciate everything you’ve sent us - even if it hasn’t directly appeared in this text. We’d also like to remind you that this is only the beginning, and we have a lot of work ahead of us! We plan on continuing to promptly share our upcoming plans with all of you, along with regularly answering your questions. The War Thunder Team

Plus, first off, no one becomes a villain overnight, okay? There is a rationale. China has been the most deprived WT nation back then and is still somewhat lagging behind as of now compared to its real life potential. Let me tell you these: -last nation to get radar SPAA -last nation to get top tier MBTs -last nation to get a helicopter tech tree -no IFVs until now apart from a BMP1 copy (QN506 is not researchable) -one of the last nations to get guided munitions -one of the last nations to get proper BVR fighters -not a single export vehicle until now (VT, VN series) -the cold war MBT lineup is still severely lacking (ZTZ79, ZTZ59-2, etc) although this is getting better now -one of the smallest tech trees despite it being a global superpower -one of the most common victims of artificial nerfs. (PL8 was introduced late, some MBTs are proven to have underperforming armor, aim speeds, etc) -lastly, China was castrated for years under a consultant who deliberately sabotaged the research procedures for expanding the tree. It took community effort to address that problem. Let the facts speak for you.

Because your comments on the form they set up for our thoughts on the economics last week go into the ether and you can't resubmit or change them, now that I've mulled it over a bit more I wanted to offer here the six things I think Gaijin could do to help players struggling in War Thunder that would not require very much work on their part, and could help restore community trust. Offered as friendly suggestions. Day 1: Improve Convertible RP. Improve the GE exchange rate on convertible RP from the current 1 GE to activate 45 CRP to 100 per GE. Right now it's just simply not a good deal. At the same time, offer a pro-rated conversion of CRP to SL to help those who are struggling. Players could exchange some or all of their CRP at a 1:20 or 1:10 exchange rate for SL. If people's holdings are very large this could be pro-rated so the first million exchanged was at a 1:10 rate and the rate got worse for more exchanges after that. Day 2: Put a minimum SL value to achievements. New players get a lot of their SL from achievements, but many don't reward much, or only reward CRP. Put a minimum SL reward on all achievements of 1,000 SL. When you're just starting out and you're earning achievements fast that can really help. Day 3: 100 GE for 100 days. Put a little something extra in the 100 days consecutive login awards, which are currently just one extra booster. Reward people for still coming back that much with 100 GE each time they get another 100, 200, 1000, etc. days in. Day 4: Mod reductions for naval and helos. Halve the research costs of high-tier naval parts and FPE mods. At the same time, also halve the 1st rank research costs of helos, which are currently probably the hardest vehicles to spade. Day 5: Wager/order conversion. Give the option to convert any wagers or orders you have for 500 SL each, again giving players an option about whether to keep them or expend them for something they need more. Day 6: Prestige Levels. Finally, increase the player level cap to 200. Any player at level 101 or higher gets a 5% increase (or more) on RP and SL in all battle results, calculated end battle same ways as premium account modifiers are now. Throw in another million SL prize or equivalent for reaching level 200. Put a little gold border around the player pic or restart the rank titles with a star after them if you want to get fancy. Anyway, that's what I'd do. As suggested by the "days" above, I'd stagger out announcements like this for a week in June, so people get a little something new each day. Then on Day 7, I'd reinstate the economic changes that had been planned with one exception: just stop with the normalizing stuff and just give us the full effect all at once of what we voted for in 2021, with a commitment to revisit the economics again every three months (no more one year delays). I'm sure there were a lot of good little changes in there, but I'm not qualified to talk about major changes to the game economics, and I don't think many of us are. The above economics tweaks are just little things Gaijin could change, mostly within existing mechanics and without any major changes to game systems, to help make us feel we were heard and get the dialogue back on track here. There are other tweaks like this, but these would be the six I would pick as being the most unobjectionable to all concerned. Cheers.

I have to say that all sides of this discussion are toxic as hell. Gaijin and its arrogance, condescension, willful blindness to issues that are significantly important to the player base and an utter lack of interest in meaningful dialogue with a devoted player base isn't the kind of behavior that inspires people to buy in and support the game. You reap what you sow. This community is toxic too. Everything anyone ever has to say is bitching and whining. Whaaa, Gaijin didn't implement my favorite vehicle. OMFG, this tank is 0.3 BR too low, the game is unplayable!!! Boo hoo, I can't just fail my way to top tier because there is actually a progression check in the form of the economy. I've been here since 2012. Back then I was playing World of Tanks. A clanmate suggested we check out this great new airplane game. Back then this game didn't have ranks or battle ratings. The only boats and planes were ai controlled fodder for player bombers. It was just planes. 20 levels spanning biplanes to Me-262's. There was no matchmaker. Whoever was in queue, no matter what level they were, was who got put into the game. I vividly remember my P-40 getting boom and zoomed by an Me-262. Problems aside, one of the things that stood out to me about Gaijin, back at the beginning, was that it was everything that Wargaming wasn't. There were two starter packs. The US and the Japanese Pacific Campaigns. There was a premium vehicle, some GE, premium time. At a very reasonable price. We had double experience first battles of the day. We had x2 weekends. We even had some x5 events. Even back then Wargaming was starting to gouge people. Gaijin seemed different. Premium vehicles cost a few hundred GE. I think the most expensive premium back then was the La-5FN and it was like 1200 GE. This community was everything that Wargaming's wasn't. It was friendly and fun. There was healthy interaction between Dev and player. I remember being floored at how much information the community had and was willing to contribute...for free. Helping to create accurate flight models (yes, that was a thing), etc. Now it's worse. Way worse. Both sides have contributed to this state of affairs. I don't know who started it. At this point, it doesn't matter. No meaningful change can occur if both sides remain at each others throats. Gaijin refuses to listen. Community refuses to stop screaming. When you've been unsuccessfully begging for attention for years, sometimes you have to act out to get someone's attention. I think its obvious that the Steam reviews over the past few days did that. Now that we have their attention, what are we going to do with it? Keep ranting and raving? Great, then they stick their fingers back in their ears and nothing changes. Now that Gaijin has seen that the players of this game aren't powerless, are they going to try and have some good faith conversations? Are the players going to calm down and communicate or just revel in the flames? My own experience is that I played for free for a few weeks and liked what I saw, so I invested. I bought the 2 starter packs. I did that because I was having fun. Not because I was having trouble progressing. It's been sad to see the shift from the fun economy to the frustration economy. With 150,000 people logged in at peek hours every single day, even during the week, I imagine there is a ton of opportunity to make money that doesn't involving alienating the players Gaijin needs to keep the bills paid and profits coming in. Most of us want this game to be successful. We love playing it. Despite my frustrations, I love playing it. I hope Gaijin loves making it. I know they used to. If its not successful financially, it goes away. If people stop playing because they feel Gaijin is a bunch of predatory hacks, it goes away. Both sides need each other, but we're too busy screaming at the guys with their fingers in their ears screaming muttering "La, La, La, La, I can't hear you, I can't hear you." This feels like a Saturday night with a bunch of 7 year olds. Where have all the adults gone?

we have done enough the review bombings should stop in my opinion we have already gotten the attention of the snail and recently they removed steam from there website please lets not accidentally kill the game we love the devs have heard our outcry and they've seen our response to the recent tone deaf response they gave to us. but now there listening its our time to make a change lets hopefully not have a repeat of the 2019 situation lets think about what changes we all want and make sure its actually what we want lets not have an apex legends situation. To clarify i think that we've taken the bombings to a level that has the potential to end or ruin the game.

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!

sup, I would only speak for the battle rating between 2.0 and 8.7, because above you just need to click a button to perform a kill (nice gameplay btw) Since some updates I have the impression that the cannons, regardless of the nation, do a lot less damage and have the unfortunate habit of making 'hits' or 'crits' while before it ended in a kill for sure. Speaking of the Shvak, can we say that they are the worst guns in the game right now? No matter how much ammo you use, it always ends in a hit, or even a crit, if you’re lucky, and if you’re lucky, you spray like crazy and you get a kill, Let us not forget also the Japanese 20mm and 30mm which do less damage than the 12.7mm of the same nation, go understand why, for the moment I myself do not know anything about it. We will avoid talking about other guns for the shot because we should list them all one by one, the only ones who do not look too disgusting are the Mg151 but well we have the habit since they have been getting nervous for 5 years. I would point out that we already had a **** like this a few months ago when the cannons were really 0 damage, now I have the impression that they are the same in a little less worse, so that we make 'hits' where we should not make them. We really need to review the gun damage or the He ammunition which I think have a slight balancing and damage problem at the moment, I think it is more profitable to play a P47D or something with 50layers than to go on the big caliber, This greatly reduces the gaming experience on this "banger" that is War Thunder.

Aircraft SB [Enduring Confrontation] The accuracy of SPAA vehicles in vehicle convoys and in the fields of ground battles has been reduced. 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.

Both sides aren't equal at all. I appreciate the sentiment of your post, but you have missed the mark. Show me where Gaijin has yet to show any humility? Both official responses have been extremely condescending to the players. When their own sponsored Content Creators (CC) are blasting their last update article on YouTube, there is still a problem. Maybe if/when an adult at Gaijin actually makes a humble apology and tells us they understand no small change is good enough and they are going to roll back YEARS of economy nerfs, maybe then we will stop "screaming". And I am sorry, but responses like this that act like there isn't a decade of ignored suggestions and reasonable feedback already on this very forum, kinda **** me off. We shouldn't have to say anything now, we've been saying it for 10 years!

See this is the problem right here, you can't crumble to immature pressure like removing the game from steam. Talk about a massive developer throwing the toys out the pram. They are killing their own game and will not listen, they have never truly listened. Their definition of listening is like a haggling competition where the community in the end just accepts what change Gaijin were probably planning anyway after attempting to push it even further. Do not give them an inch is what I say, the players have the right to leave whatever reviews they would like, that's what freedom is after all. Their immense greed knows no bounds and their manipulation and gaslighting of their own fans and content partners is disgusting.

Hi all! Lately we have received a huge amount of feedback from players and have been hard at work analyzing, processing and preparing to answer your questions. The most heated discussion came from questions on the economy, and we will definitely answer these too once we’ve had time to look through them all! In addition to dozens of thousands of feedback messages from players, we received a long list of questions from our War Thunder content creators from YouTube, Twitch and other platforms. While we are still analyzing requests and suggestions from players, today we’ll answer some questions from our creators, maybe you’ll find answers to your questions here too. Let’s go! Vehicles Q.We are concerned about the comparatively low efficiency of the post-penetration effect of low-caliber HEAT rounds, for example on such vehicles as Ru 251, AUBL 74, leKPz M41, AML-90, PT-76, T92, etc. We’re planning to rework certain aspects of shaped-charge jets for lower caliber rounds. These rounds do have a very narrow post-penetration jet, and there are lots of real world examples of instances where lightly armored vehicles remained mobile and even in fighting condition after taking a hit from HEAT. Because of this we don’t plan on making these particular munitions overly powerful, but in regards to destroying modules and incapacitating crew in the path of the jet we are planning some changes that will make their damage more consistent. Q. Light vehicles might be very die-hard, being able to absorb 3-4 rounds, because fuses are unable to arm. This is a big topic for players and a common talking point inside our team as well. There are several possibilities we’re considering but they will take some time to develop. We're keenly aware of this issue though and will introduce a solution if and when we can. Q. Is it possible to make 3D decorations physical so that they can detach from vehicles when hit? Great idea! We’ll look into how complicated this would be to implement, and if it is indeed possible we’ll aim to make them destructible and prone to catching fire as well. Q. Is it possible to refine the reloading mechanics, when the loader is knocked out during a gun misfire, then the reload cycle starts again? Absolutely, it’s a good point to bring up, especially for vehicles with a very long load time. We have a solution in mind for this one - we can try to save the reload progress after a certain percentage of the reload cycle is reached, say 80% for example. At this stage the round is already in the breach so there’ll be no need to start the entire process over. Also for two-part ammunition, the loading process could be split into two stages, so the cycle won’t reset to the start if one part of the projectile has been prepared and the loader gets knocked out. Q. Do you plan to increase the mobility of heavy tanks and slow SPGs in the RB mode, like it is in the Arcade? No this one isn’t in our plans. RB is where vehicles should behave as authentically as possible, low mobility is just a real-world drawback these kinds of vehicles have. Q. Do you like the idea of giving free back-ups when purchasing top-tier Premium vehicles? We do! We’ll consider including an initial amount of free backups with high tier premiums in the future to incentivise players to stay in battle. Q. There are still turret desync bugs. It’s a complicated issue to solve but an important one, we’re currently working on a fix. Q. Is it possible to get rid of the desync of server and client? Unfortunately in any network model, including ours, desynchronization between the server and client is sadly inevitable. This is a con for sure. The pro however is that these desyncs usually do not affect the gameplay for all players which is important. The War Thunder networking model (State Sync) was chosen to be the most cheater-proof (in contrast to lag-compensation models like in CS), and, more importantly, it allows us to implement relatively realistic physical interactions. The shortcoming of our model is that there is the possibility of minor (and more rarely major) desyncs, as all clients see the ‘possible present’ of other players, instead of recordings of the past. The lower a player’s ping, the less often desyncs happen, but they will still happen anyway. Q. Any chance to fix the bugged spotting, when vehicles are invisible for no reason? This issue comes from the server’s anti-cheat algorithms. We do our best to sync them with the game render, but in a dynamic environment with huge open spaces and various client pings, it’s unfortunately impossible to maintain perfect synchronization. Q. Damage by excessive pressure needs more calibration, and also damage of high caliber shells of ground vehicles needs to be increased. For improvements like these we need some more precise examples as there’s a lot of factors involved here, often issues in this area are not reliably reproducible, so we’d appreciate any replays or recordings of issues you’ve found so we can investigate them more effectively. It’s easiest to do this in the hangar. Q. Please fix the bug that doesn’t allow you to turn over the tank if it’s turned upside down and lies on top of the turret. Ah yes, it's very rare but annoying when it occurs, we’ll look into a fix. Q. Do you have plans to create a tutorial on mechanics of top tier vehicles, such as anti-aircraft missile systems, drones, etc - with an option to customize controls for such mechanics? Yes we do! We’re planning various tutorial elements for our more modern systems. Q. Due to the difference in the vehicle generations, there are big problems on Rank V, particularly on BR 7.0-8.0, where there are tanks with APFSDS and stabilizers and without them. Indeed, the technology jump in this BR range is problematically abrupt, we’ll pay special attention to this area in particular and come up with some solutions. Q. The Killer-Hunter feature is toxic and requires a 2-3 sec delay to make it possible for the commander to take over or react somehow. A delay here would make sense, we’ll consider this. Q. Currently graphics can noticeably influence player skill: for example, an enemy tank can be almost invisible in deep shadow until it fires. Locations are full of decorative elements that overload players’ attention. Is it possible to brighten up the shadows and lose some greenery and decorations on the locations? It’s a tough question that requires more complex solutions and precise fixes rather than a sort of ‘global update’ to the graphics. The thing is, we can’t just make a game where pro players have their own minimalistic graphics mode, while more casual players have a different one (since that’s just not fair). Dumbing down the game graphically so it’s purely structured around competitive gaming also isn’t an option - our game has and always will be oriented towards a wide spectrum of players with different tastes and preferences, so on this one we’ll have to look at more specific elements that could be improved. Q. Upgrading helicopters through PvE is too long and hard, and their stock versions are often almost unplayable in other modes. We’re currently trying to figure out what to do with the mode, we’ll announce our decisions at a later time. Q. Remove volumetric damage. It makes certain tanks too well-defended, track fenders and side skirts absorb hits. Volumetric damage brings many tanks closer to their correct level of protection (Tigers and Panthers for example), and this can’t be achieved without maintaining our current realistic armor model. However, as with every complex system it’s hard to perfect across the board. We need your reports here - you can send us your replays or record anomalies in the hangar. In all cases where volumetric (and every other damage system) isn’t working correctly, we will fix it - or at least we’ll do our best to. We appreciate that volumetric was a big adjustment to tank battles as it wasn’t present from the start of the game and thus required some adaptation, but we believe this more realistic armor model adds to War Thunder, so we’ll work hard on improving it as much as possible. Q. Decrease the numbers of all convoy AAA in EC and/or give them less accuracy. We’ve fixed this one - already in production. Q. For Air sim float plane spawns. Instead of spawning all the way back on the map and taking 25 mins to get to the battle, have it be able to spawn at any AF or spawn on the fleet with your float planes. Suggesting when spawning on any AF of course you spawn in the air, and if you spawn on your fleet have it spawn you on the water next to your carrier. We’ll think about this one, the current system was chosen based on player requests. However there are not many floatplanes and they’re almost universally slow, so it probably won’t negatively impact immersion too much if they spawn in the air closer to the action. Q. I would like to see if WT naval arcade could be made a bit more arcadey to attract more people to the mode, mainly by making rangefinding faster so it might be more fun to play. Maybe also add what ammo to shoot at which target so people have more of an Idea when to use AP or HE and SAP. We agree here - We’ll try to do something to make the mode more approachable, and will likely start with rangefinding. Q. The attack drones should be removed, they don't bring anything new to the table (helicopters and planes do the same) except that they are much harder to hit/kill. With that there aren't really counters against them except hightier AAs. We’ve spent a lot of time gathering examples and analyzing feedback regarding drones, we’re going to move them up to a higher BR where they can be more easily countered by advanced AA systems. Q. Suggestion to stop helicopters (and other aircraft) from firing their weapons after they are considered ‘dead’ by the game, as it’s not enjoyable to die to a player you’ve already beaten. In reality, ‘destroying’ an aircraft (in terms of inflicting damage that makes the aircraft uncontrollable) doesn’t make it harmless. We do like this ‘last chance’ aspect to gameplay (There's a beast deep inside you, it will not die.. It will fight back!) It’s a system that goes both ways, firstly it is realistically possible - and it might make a player's day to get a kill with a doomed aircraft. However we do see the issues it brings, especially with misleading kill messages. We need to do a bit more thinking on this one. Q. Suggestion to allow phasing through teammates at the start of the match to prevent blocking, in the same way air realistic has after just taking off. We can’t see a way to do this one for ground vehicles - players inevitably will exploit it (when spawning, players will deliberately try to drive through each other to end the cooldown while taking up the same space, which will cause a lot of issues unfortunately). Other Q.Add the ability to report racists, homophobes and similar to customer support Good idea, we’ll add an easier way to report such instances. Each in-game report already has a chat log attached. Creating an automatic screenshot or something along those lines though is much harder and can introduce difficulties. We’ll try to show the chat log to the user submitting a report to streamline the process. Matchmaking Q. Please add more maps to the top tier Air RB (12.0 BR). Even smaller maps. Some maps are very rare. Currently we have 10 maps at this BR. Certain maps will appear more rarely if players have them banned. We’ll aim to add more maps at this rating. For smaller maps though, players often request less of this for top tier jets (usually words like ‘claustrophobic’ are used). Q. For me, the big problem is the size of the maps on the Air RB. It happens that prop planes are thrown on a simulation map. Please remove large maps from Air RB on low and medium tiers. Agreed - big maps can become boring sometimes when populated with slower aircraft with a lot of downtime between engagements. When we implement a way of displaying which maps appear at which BRs (see below) we’ll adjust the appearance of large maps at the lower tiers. Regarding smaller maps for top tiers though - see the request above. We’re trying not to add smaller maps to fast jet battles and will try to introduce less instances of this, however currently many players do still ask for them. Q. I’d like you to increase the chances of going into battle on a vehicle of maximum available for this battle BR. I once performed an experiment and found out that I got into battles using the highest BR vehicles only in 11-14% of cases. Sure, overcoming hardship is valuable, but not that often: it’s demoralizing. Ultimately, the session consists of players within your BR spread who are currently in the queue, there’s no additional factors that directly put you at a certain battle rating. On top of this regarding ‘full uptiers’, only 4 players on each team have the possibility of being at the top BR, so even if you are at a lower BR relatively in a match, you won’t be fighting a team entirely comprised of vehicles more advanced than yours. Q. Add an unlimited amount of bans/5 bans. The problem with this one is that we already have situations with the current one ban system, where some maps are rarely ever played. Adding additional bans (5 bans for sure) will lead to situations where all available maps are banned from the current queue, meaning matches won’t be able to start at all, or only after significant waiting times. Q. Add some way to vote for map/map preferences. This is something we want to think about more. We are willing to have some kind of voting system in place, but at the same time it’s important for players to have a variety of maps too, especially as certain vehicles are inevitably more suitable for certain styles of map. Q. Add BR limitations for each map and show it to players. Good idea - showing the BR range for a map in the map preferences window would be very useful, we’ll try to implement it. Q. My biggest and worst problem in WT is maps in Ground RB is that I don't want to play small maps in top tier battles (things like Berlin - Finland - Cargo Port - Alaska - Small Fulda - Small Maginot Line... etc). We also don’t like all of the maps at high ranks as well, although players’ opinions differ (Many players like Finland or Berlin at high ranks, but at the same time many also don’t), but as suggested above we’ll introduce a way to show the BR limitations for maps. The enjoyment a map brings is often very subjective, but in instances where a particular map is noticeably widely disliked we will pay it extra attention. Missions and locations Q. In Tank RB we often get Battle mode with points already captured, and that demotivates the players from moving. I think this mode should go. These scenarios can foster a more sedentary style of gameplay, we’ll probably reduce the chance of these maps appearing in the rotation, and likely remove some of them. Q. I’d like the developers to manage the maps in a way so that modern vehicles won’t appear in WWII locations like Berlin. We partially agree on Berlin (and maybe Rhine too) but not generally. We’ll try to remove the most obvious elements from maps that specifically relate to a certain timeframe to make them more universal, and we’ll think about introducing a modern version of Berlin too, that could be interesting. Q. Do you plan to exclude night missions from rotation in case the player doesn’t have night vision and thermal sight modules, or maybe introduce an option to disable those missions? We have decided to make night battles optionally available, we’ll announce exactly how this will be implemented a bit later. Q. Collision models of various obstacles, garbage and other things should be either removed, replaced or reworked. We’re working on it! Collision with even small objects can be jarring sometimes in certain circumstances, any examples you have of such issues with screenshots and descriptions will really help us improve this area as quickly as possible. Q. It would be great to increase the duration of session creation to increase the number of players in battles and make them more intense. I think that waiting for 20 more seconds in the hangar and not ending up in an 8v8 battle on a large map is worth it. We’ll think about this one - Unfortunately there’s no universal solution regarding a bracket of queue time that would apply to every situation, but some additional matchmaking options could improve the situation. Q. Are there any plans to additionally reward the top 5 players at the end of the battle? We do have plans along these lines for sure, but we’re just not sure if rewarding the top positions is the healthiest way to go: it’s tempting and a good reward, but it creates unhealthy competition for those 5 places (meaning that players may be compelled to grief or get the way of those in the lead). Q. European Province: The city part is done well because it is separate small location. The open terrain around can be shot through the hills and there is also the possibility of shooting from one spawn to another. Indeed, we’re aware of the problems here. We will aim to fix the instances where it’s possible to engage from spawn to spawn in some of the higher BRs. Q. Surroundings of Volokolamsk: Very large location with a huge unused space. If your flank is clean then you are either too lazy or don't have enough time to react to the other one. I think it is necessary to leave only a small version of it. It’s certainly a large location with a lot of empty space - we’ve already changed the rotation settings for this map, now it’s only available in ground RB and only from the session rank of 9.7 - also please note, a session rank of 9.7 means that these are battles for vehicles between the ratings of 8.7 - 9.7. Q. Red Desert: Huge spaces with shots from covers on the top of rocks. Maybe you will remove this location from the rotation? At the moment this map is only available from 9.7 and above so the huge spaces can be crossed relatively quickly by the faster vehicles at this tier, Red Desert is also still in the top 5 most liked locations from our map “like” system. However we will keep an eye on its overall popularity among players. Q. El Alamein: Positions on the tops of the cliffs make it difficult to play. Line A and line 8 You’re right, we’ll fix them. Q. Battle of Hürtgen Forest: Now in the rotation we have the larger version where the activity of the players is lower than before. I propose to return the old version with 3 city capture points. We don’t see a decrease in activity in this arrangement, but the capture points really do need to be redone, we’ll improve them. Q. Mozdok [Battle]: The location is either for the fast tanks which can take up positions at the beginning or about “standing at one point” as the respawn points are located opposite each other and are shot through. There is no goal to capture the point, no goal to leave the position. Can this mission be removed? It’s possible, we will yes. The mobility of the tanks that see this map do make its layout quite unsuitable. Q. Fields of Poland: the situation here is better than with the “European Province” although the expansion doesn't look justified everywhere. Perhaps we can remove the forests around the edges of the map and replace them with fields to deter players from focusing on the outskirts. Q. Port Novorossiysk [Domination]: the teams capture their points being fully defended, and then meet up in front of a huge open area that makes them afraid to advance, so they just stick to the corridors. We need a full rework of the central point, with safer passages from both sides. The fact that you can effectively fire from across the river also contributes to the stalemate, making the players stay on line 7 with zero kills. We see your points, but have to disagree on this one - from our data and heatmaps (and also personal experience!), the map has a good intensity of action, it often only takes one or two tanks from either team to funnel in behind enemy lines to break defenses. We’d also highly recommend some smoke shells for this map too if your tank carries them, as the sightlines are quite narrow it’s possible to block one entirely with a single shell, allowing your team time to advance. Q. Sinai: a great map, but positions on spawn points on A1-A2 get in the way: it’s hard to get to the player who camps there. Would like for those positions to be removed on Sands of Sinai as well. Thank you for bringing this one up, we’ll look into it. Q. Ardennes: there’s a lot of excess space from А1 to С3, same as in the opposite corner on G8 It may seem like empty space, but we see these routes are often utilized by players. Q. Poland, Abandoned Factory and Eastern Europe: examples of good maps. I’d like to see a new location in the future update that is similar in size and junction layout to these maps and hear the player feedback. We’ll try to introduce a map along these lines in one of our next updates, probably at the end of the year. We’re actually working on something quite similar to what you’ve described at the moment. Q. Vietnam: have you considered partially draining the swamp on point A? Many players avoid it since it’s so hard to move around there. Yes this is possible, that’s a good point. We’d like to thank all of our players and creators who’ve submitted comments and suggestions for the development of the game. In this text we’ve responded to the feedback we managed to sort and take into account, we appreciate everything you’ve sent us - even if it hasn’t directly appeared in this text. We’d also like to remind you that this is only the beginning, and we have a lot of work ahead of us! We plan on continuing to promptly share our upcoming plans with all of you, along with regularly answering your questions. The War Thunder Team

Take away my last point, I feel the prejudice of Westerners against China, bring out your democracy, show your justice, that xxxx was insulted against our country, we fought back, your forum administrator came forward to warn so Chinese and let go of the person who insulted Chinese, this year is not 1884, China is not the China it used to be, now we see no Europe but only the United States. I summarize to you in advance that your failure stems from the arrogance in your bones. Weakness and ignorance are not obstacles to survival, arrogance is. The truth cannot be killed, long live the truth, long live China 真理是杀不死的，真理万岁，中国万岁

For the three major countries: Leopard 2A6: DM53 with 650mm KE pen gaijin: fair F-14A: AIM-54A gaijin: ok Pantsir S1: 20km SAM gaijin: cant find a reason to say no For minors: MAW on harrier II, Mirage 2000 gaijin: too advance PL-8&Pyhton-3 in update "Wind of Change": gaijin: too competitive ...

They're buying themselves time to let the dust settle! We want a road map to this fix by the end of this week or next! We've given you plenty of ideas in the past months/years, stop giving us bad responses. You DO NOT NEED over 3 weeks to figure out a road map, that is corporate wanting everything to settle down so they can do their normal tactics of letting the players calm down. If you're truly listening they put some ACTION to those words this week!!

Ah yes, the days when the game still had a coherent identity and direction, and wasn't just based entirely around adding whatever new vehicle + top tier premium counterpart variant that would make the most money upon becoming available. I joined in February 2013. Anyway, I'd say what happened is the community has been radicalized by Gaijin. I used to be a paying player too. I bought stuff for the game because I enjoyed it and felt like things were progressing in a generally positive direction. Before they actually got added, I looked at those "Army" "Navy" and "World War Mode" tabs with hope and excitement for the future. However, by January 2018 I was fed up and vowed not to spend another cent on the game until Gaijin got their act together. Spoiler alert, they never did. There are too many broken promises by now. The community has learned over the years that Constructive Criticism and positive feedback do not work. Constructive criticism will be (selectively) mostly ignored. The ONLY way to get Gaijin to make significant changes or reverse course even if only temporarily is for the community to rise up in revolt. Maybe the community would be more willing to "stop screaming" and come to the negotiating table if there was any real expectation left for Gaijin to act in good faith. The community has always been willing to negotiate, meanwhile if Gaijin can find any possible way of getting out of this without making real and/or permanent concessions, they will do that without a second thought. Every time in the past that community backlash has managed to accomplish something, Gaijin has continued attempting to make the same hated change anyway again and again. I don't think you can reasonably say the community is equally at fault here, because Gaijin are the ones who have always had the control panels in front of them while all the community can do is ask nicely or riot. The community has been asking for things nicely for years and they have been consistently ignored and even mocked and gaslit openly by an arrogant and out of touch developer intent on waging war against its player base. All we are seeing now is the players and youtubers attempting to use the real power available to them when all other means have failed.

-Traction Nerfs Basically ruined tank mobility, especially when combined with the fact that the only kind of steering in the games that works right is clutch breaking. Take a M48 and a T-55 on the side of a hill at 0mph and do slow speed turning to see what I mean. -The damage model in general. Everything that is not APHE of some variety is a routette wheel damage wise. HEAT and APDS are especially bad, and missiles like the top attack TOW do little damage for zero reason. -High BR Russian tanks having no spall. -The absurd Russian high tier line up, to include the obscene number of premium tanks that are OP as all hell. -The excessive BR compression that just keeps getting worse. -The removal of more complex armor data because "too many sources" resulting in oversimplified penetration mechanics. For example removing high hardness armor penalties etc. -Tiny maps at high BR. Quite frankly this is one of the (MANY) things that makes high BR ground battles be unfun. Its always a grenadefight in a phone booth. Gaijin thinks players like small maps because of their typically poor grasp of how statistics work, using the extremely limited ability of players to block maps to determine what people supposedly like. The fact of the matter being that many "large" maps are not in fact large for high BR, but due to their extremely flat nature are actually even more dumb than some of the hyper small maps that are full of cover to hide behind. 10.0 and above BR needs to have very large maps to accomodate the fact that everyone can engage each other with laser (literally) accuracy at 4km and see virtually everyone instantly with their thermals. We need maps that are at least 5-6km between spawns or 3-4km with signifcant hills etc. Not 1km or smaller maps regardless of their terrain.

Dear Gaijin, to understand some of the problems with your game, please do the following: Have a GAIJIN EMPLOYEE event. Job or no job, grind 75k points per day for a period of 10 days (like the last repair factory event). Tasks for different players! Player 1: Start with level 0 crews and buy a high tier jet to do the event. Buying crew skills with the 2000 gold in the package is not allowed, buy premium instead. Player 2: Start with level 0 crews, buy a high tier tank to do the event. Buying crew skills with the 2000 gold in the package is not allowed, buy premium instead. Player 3: Play the game (air) without premium time or vehicles until you reach level 3 and enter the event (this player also starts with level 0 crews and 0 silver lions) Player 4: Play the game (ground) without premium time or vehicles until you reach level 3 and enter the event (this player also starts with level 0 crews and 0 silver lions) Player 5: Buy a premium bundle of your choice from the shop (air). Gold again to be used for premium time. Start with level 0 crews and play the event. Player 6: Buy a premium bundle of your choice from the shop (ground). Gold again to be used for premium time. Start with level 0 crews and play the event. Player 7: Start with 3 million silver lions play for free with planes above BR 9.0. Play the event. Player 8: Start with 3 million silver lions play for free with tanks above BR 9.0. Play the event. All players stream their play time to show us their progress, and above all: show us how much fun they have. I expect nothing other than your famous Gaijin smile on the employees faces while they are grinding the ‘event’! I think this will give you a good idea of how much fun your player base is having!

Both researchable and Premium versions of the advanced Su-25 attack aircraft are to be added in the upcoming La Royale major update. Pre-order now to get special bonuses! Su-25T, strike aircraft, USSR, rank VII. Su-39, strike aircraft, USSR, rank VII. Premium pack offer. Features: 16 Vikhr ATGMs Expanded arsenal Directional infrared countermeasures Night sight The Su-25T project was an attempt to create an anti-tank aircraft that would be able to operate both during the daytime and at night, equipped with targeting systems and guided munitions to defeat armored vehicles. The list of equipment for the future aircraft was formalized in 1979, it was based on the Shkval targeting and navigation system and the Mercury television sight. The prototype passed the factory tests in 1987, by 1990 the project was prepared for mass production but due to the collapse of the USSR it did not start. A small batch of completed aircraft took part in the Chechen War in 1996. After the transfer of the production base from Tbilisi, Georgia to Ulan-Ude, Russia, the project was re-focused for export. An export version with slightly different avionics was designated the Su-39. In total, three attack aircraft of this configuration were built. Due to lack of funding, the project was closed. Su-39 with pre-order bonuses Download Wallpaper:1920x1080 2560x1440 3840x2160 Pre-order - Su-39 Pack The Kit Includes: Su-39 (Rank 7, USSR) 2500 Golden Eagles Premium account for 20 days Pre-order bonus: unique "Sergey Strikes Back!" title Pre-order bonus: "The Legend" decal Pre-order bonus: experimental tricolor camouflage with insignia of the Russian Air Force 69.99 Store The close combat Su-25 daredevil turns into an elegant tool with high-precision weapons! Meet the new Su-25T and Su-39 attack aircraft, which significantly expand the tactic capabilities of the series thanks to modern electronics and new weapons! "The Legend" decal The Su-25T and the Premium Su-39 received a major upgrade to the electronics. The targeting system with the Mercury camera pod allows pilots to aim guided munitions at an operational distance at daytime, and at a distance of about 4 km at night. The directional infrared countermeasure system in the aircraft’s tail helps to protect the aircraft from missiles with infrared seekers. Thanks to more advanced targeting equipment, the attack aircraft received new guided weapons. Probably the most noticeable set will be a set of 16 Vikhr ATGMs, which are familiar to you from top-tier Soviet helicopters. The Su-25T and Su-39 can also carry KAB-500Kr guided bombs, and in addition to the Kh-29L and Kh-25ML missiles, which pilots know from the previous versions of Su-25, “fire and forget” Kh-29T missiles appeared. New aircraft are also capable of carrying a pair of R-60M - excellent maneuverable short-range air-to-air missiles. The choice of unguided weapons from the early versions of the Su-25 was also preserved on the new attack aircraft - bombs and unguided rockets in various calibers, incendiary tanks and cannon containers with 23-mm cannons. There will also be available the 250 and 500 kg retarded bombs, a new feature of the La Royale major update. Dropping and firing the unguided munitions are easy and fun thanks to ballistic computers. The advanced Su-25T and Su-39 attack aircraft will appear in the game with the release of the La Royale major update. Don't miss the chance to pre-order the menacing Su-39 to get special bonuses and become the first pilots of the most advanced Russian fire support aircraft in War Thunder!

it's proofs for c2and c7 kfir have python3 and Netz Block 10.please added python 3 for Kfir c7 it's unplayable aircraft on 11.3 with 4 aim9g.

I mean really... How is it unrealistic at this point?

Germany: We need a new top tier MBT! We're behind everyone else! Gaijin: Here, have another Su-22 no one asked for Israel: We need a top tier SPAA! Gaijin: 2 more Magachs you say?, You got it!

Holy moly guys. They just put out an apologetic statement and gave you a SET DATE. It takes time to go through all the feedback, work it all between all the different departments, layers of management and game designers, brainstorm exactly what and how they are going to change it to satisfy the most people while keeping the game in a healthy state (because you will NEVER satisfy everyone and frankly plenty of the demands people have made in this whole thing widely range from logical to completely rediculous) and then build a roadmap around that plan. This stuff all takes time and careful planning and consideration. You cant get it done in a week. Not at this scale. They said they would do better, they pledged to fix it and they gave an exact deadline for when they promise to give more information. At this stage that is good enough for me, and if its not good enough for you then you're just ranting for the sake of ranting. If that june 14 date passes with no words from them, THEN its fair to start ranting again, but right now the people still complaining are acting a bit like spoilt children. Disagree with me if you want, I dont care. But its getting rediculous now, even though I am fully in agreement with the complaints about the economy.

The French 155mm Au F.1 SPG built on the chassis of the AMX-30 main battle tank and features an autoloader with 36 round mechanized ammo rack! Au F.1, SPG, France, rank V Features: Timed fuse shells Huge automated ammo rack High rate of fire High profile Mediocre protection History The development of a new self-propelled gun for the French army to replace the obsolete AMX Mk61 and AMX F3 began in the end of the 1960s. One of the main requirements for the project was an automated ammunition rack and an autoloader, which would significantly increase the rate of fire. The first prototype on the chassis of the AMX 30 tank was built by 1972, in the following years several more experimental units were built, which were successfully tested. For financial reasons, the French army deferred the order for the new self-propelled guns, so Saudi Arabia became the first major customer for the Au F.1 series SPG, followed by Iraq. New SPG began to enter service with the French army only in 1983. Since then, the Au F.1 self-propelled guns received several upgrades, but the army authorities abandoned the Au F.2 project. The Au F.1 vehicles are still in service with the armies of France, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. In the La Royale update, the Au F.1 self-propelled gun will become a new French vehicle at research rank V. The huge turret accommodates a long 155 mm gun with an autoloader and mechanized ammo rack for 36 (sic!) rounds, which provides a rate of fire of just 7.5 seconds per shot! The Au F.1 lacks armor-piercing shells and the player starts researching the vehicle with high-explosive fragmentation rounds that contain 6.8 kg of TNT. This is a quite effective weapon that often leads to the destruction of the crew by the overpressure and almost always heavily damages enemy modules. However, after researching the time fuse shells the Au F.1 reveals new combat opportunities. These rounds feature more powerful explosives and detonate above the roof of the tower or engine compartment of enemy vehicles, which are always protected much weaker than the front and sides. The rangefinder is of great use here, it is time to master it, if you haven’t before. Download Wallpaper: 1920x1080 2560x1440 3840x2160 Au F.1 is built on the chassis of the AMX 30 tank and has good speed characteristics for its dimensions, but if we talk about survivability, then these same dimensions become the main drawback of the vehicle. The massive breech of the gun, a huge ammo rack for large-caliber shells, the autoloader and crew seats require a lot of space. The Au F.1's turret is truly gigantic, while being protected only from shrapnel and partly from autocannon fire. The Au F.1 is difficult to hide and very difficult to survive under enemy fire. You can research the charismatic and dangerous Au F.1 self-propelled gun in the next major War Thunder update called La Royale. In the meantime, we will continue to introduce you to the most interesting news of the upcoming update. See you soon! You can greatly speed up the research on this vehicle with: Somua SM Pack The Kit Includes: Somua SM, France, Rank IV 1000 Golden Eagles Premium account for 7 days 39.99 Store

The playerbase are overreacting like hell tbh.

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.

Guys, stop asking for a topic lockdown

I don't want to start a war here so guys calm down, here some points. 1.If gaijin doesn't want to post BVRAAM, they have many other options, such as J-8PP, J-8H and F-8IIM all of them can carry 4x PL-8 and 2x PL-11/R-27R, they is no reason that gaijin choose J-8F and give it no radar missile. 2.It is undoubtedly absurd to release an air superiority top fighter with only IR missiles in the current version, and I try not to see it as an insult. 3.We assume that Gaijin initially did not know that the J-8F could not use PL-11, and they should now take remedial measures instead of donating the so-called 6x PL-8 (which J-8F deserves) 4.Gaijin should not refuse to remedy J-8F errors based on so-called historical accuracy, but they used to have flexible standards. Therefore, I propose several remedial measures that are in line with Gaijin's historical accuracy.I hope that Gaijin takes this seriously. Today is the beginning of the player strike, and I hope that Gaijin will not push players against each other again. 1. Remove J-8F and give us J-8H which can carry 4x PL-8 and 2x PL-11 and 100% meets historical accuracy. 2. Give PL-11 to J-8F directly, Gaijin actually does not have a conclusive source indicating that the J-8F cannot use PL-11, otherwise I believe they would not have chosen the J-8F from the beginning. This is not entirely in line with historical accuracy, but they can remove PL-11 when PL-12 arrives. 3. Change the J-8F to J-8H but still use the model of J-8F(Their differences are limited to radar in fact), mainly change the radar from 1492 to 1491 so that it get the ability to use PL-11, and they can remove PL-11 and change the radar back when PL-12 arrives. Imo i support this method best, this method undoubtedly strikes a balance between historical accuracy and game balance. @Smin1080p The response on the Chinese forum was quite intense and I hope this conflict can be mediated. I hope that Gaijin can give us a good result, which is beneficial for both parties. For better J-8F, for better Warthunder. A player. Thanks.

get a grip over yourself, you know full well that if they added it with pl11 you would be complaining how trash pl11 is and begging for pl12.

now my blood is boiling. more reasons for us to join the two-week boycott campaign!

The new J-8F is an upgraded version of the famous Chinese jet fighter, equipped with helmet-mounted sight and advanced weapons! Meet one of the champions of the upcoming La Royale update! J-8F, jet fighter, China, rank VIII Features: New fire control system High max speed and climb rate Deadly all-aspect PL-8 missiles Drains energy in turn-fighting History In 2000, a new modification of the J-8F jet fighter made its maiden flight. The aircraft was equipped with a new power plant, updated radar and fire control system, which included a pilot's helmet-mounted sight and an HUD on the windshield. The new PLA combat aircraft was armed with new advanced missiles to destroy air, ground and sea targets. In 2003, the fighter entered service with the army, and a year later, the PL-12 beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile was successfully tested. The modern J-8F jet fighter will become China's new top-tier aircraft, which will be available in the upcoming La Royale major update. Today we will tell you about this wonderful aircraft, and also reveal the plans of the War Thunder development team for long-range air combat missiles. So, the new J-8 series aircraft comes as a remedy for those imperfections the previous model the J-8B had. The J-8F received modern avionics - a new, more reliable and sensitive radar, as well as a new fire control system, which includes not only the HUD, but also the pilot's visor. From the previous model, the new J-8F receives very good PL-5B missiles, however, the new all-aspect PL-8 with a launch range of up to 18 km will become the main weapon for air combat. The high G-tolerance of the PL-8 missiles, combined with convenient sight via a helmet-mounted targeting system, make the J-8F one of the best interceptors in War Thunder. Download Wallpaper: 1920x1080 2560x1440 3840x2160 The J-8F is known to carry the PL-12 BVRAAMs (beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles), but adding them to the game would mean the J-8F has a significant advantage over all opponents on the battlefield. Our team also had the idea to equip the fighter with PL-11 missiles as a placeholder, but such missiles could not be used on the J-8F due to lack of the target illumination radar. Therefore, we decided to introduce a set of 6 PL-8 missiles for the J-8F, which make the aircraft an excellent duellist at medium and close distances. The PL-12 missiles, same as other medium-range active seeker missiles for fighters of other game nations, will appear in War Thunder at the same time in one of the future game updates. The J-8F is also equipped with new engines with slightly better thrust ratings. The fast fighter becomes a little faster - now its maximum speed at high altitude is about 2350 km/h (~M 2.25). In the La Royale update, both J-8 aircraft will also receive differential elevator deflection, which significantly improves roll speed. Excellent maneuverability for its weight, one of the distinguishing features of the series, has become even better! It is worth remembering however that the aircraft tends to bleed speed quickly in sharp turns, so altitude and speed are still the key to success for the J-8F. Despite its primary purpose as an interceptor, the J-8F can also be used in mixed battles. To kill armored vehicles, the fighter is equipped with new high drag bombs and Type 90-1 HEAT rocket pods. As usual, the weapon configurator will help the pilot to configure the aircraft for any combat mission! The J-8F fighter, nicknamed “Handsome Sky Lad” in China, will be added to rank VIII of the Chinese aviation tech tree in the La Royale update, which is almost ready. We can’t wait, just like you!

So why is the first post allowed then? Blaming "westerners" not only sounds racist as it is unfair, and seems to me rule breaking since if may offend other players, and start a flame war. I'm a "westerner" and I never reviewed the game and I'm sure that many non "westerners" did reviewed it as it was told on this thread. In my opinion of 8 years in this forum you should never even allowed this thread to stay open or at minimum force the OP to rephrase it's initial post. People are free to have their opinions as long as they are respectful, blaming "westerners" not only is a lie but also disrespectful, as allowing this in your case. I don't even want to think about doing it to manipulate opinions here, I'm sure it's not.

New changes marked in blue. Open Dev server is prolonged till 07:00 gmt 25th of may

imagine essentially rewriting the bible just to do it in a language 90% of this thread wont understand

I was rather excited seeing the Mirage 2000-5F in the teaser (the 2000C FM is still my favourite FM in the game in terms of how it handles overall) but since the plane only gets the exact same loadout as the 2000C S5 it is quite disappointing. In fact the 2000C will be a better Air RB plane compared to the current implementation of the 2000-5, since the only difference for Air RB between them at the moment is that the 2000-5 is around 200kg heavier. My first 2 points of complaint are most likely stuff that will get fixed anyway; The radar currently is a copy paste of the old Mirage 2000C S5 radar (only the name is different), while it should be the RDY radar. Really my only point of complaint about the current M2K radar (its quite the good radar) is that it only has high prf PD, so it cant lock targets flying away from you in PD mode, which the F16 and MiG-29 can, and being able to rear-aspect radar missile people reliably is quite a big feat. The 2nd thing is that the 2000-5 supposedly has HMD that it does NOT have on the dev server currently. However, the 3rd point is the "kill potential" of the jet. The missiles on the plane are plenty capable, but a total of 4 missiles along with DEFAs with relatively limited ammo is really not comparable anymore to the F16 and Mig-29s capabilities. I do understand that MICA at the moment would either have to come in a severely nerfed form (I do think that people really overestimate how deadly Fox 3s will be in this game anyway though; because of how ANY radar guided missile is rather easy to avoid - but thats another topic) or not come at all. Now that everythign important is mentioned, I'd make my 2 suggestions: add MICA RF in a severely nerfed form to allow the plane a loadout of 4x gimped MICA + 2x Magic 2 and then buff MICA whenever we get comparable missiles or give the Mirage 2000-5F 2 "unhistorical" Magic 2 hardpoints where it would normally mount the 2 front fuselage MICA missiles; this would bring the plane up to 4x Magic 2 + 2x Super 530D and thus put it somewhat in line with the amrament the F16 and Mig-29 carry (granted, Magic 2s are than the R60M, the plane as much as I like the flight model is definitely vastly inferior to the MiG-29). This would not require the addition of any new missiles, and also wouldn't break the game in any way, while making the 2000-5F a worthwhile upgrade over the 2000C S5. Essentially like this (excuse the bad Photoshop job) where the 2 extra Magics sit on hard points that are normally used by the MICAs. This unhistorical loadout could then easily be removed whenever the MICA is added.

The western world practices capitalism. This is what capitalism is. You do something as a company your customers do not like, they use their voice and wallets to fight back. You can call it review bomb, boycott, canceling, whatever term you want the fact remains WT dev team caused it. No one woke up and decided to leave poor reviews on Monday "just because." Its not for a meme. Its not an april fools joke. Its not some 4chan stunt. Its just customers of a company using their voice and wallets to get change. Thats how Capitalism works. I know for a Russian company this may come as a shock, but in the West we do things a bit different. You cant force me to play your game or spend money on it.

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.