DisconnecT83

[server] [update]
Update 14.02.2017 (Server Update)

78 posts in this topic

Wait, didn't you guys just ask for feedback on the economy yesterday? And today you updated? Guess you really didn't want any feedback huh?

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DisconnecT83 said:

 

The above mentioned changes have been implemented in order to avoid extremely short game sessions, where heavy bombers quickly destroy bases and airfields and to increase the role of the ground units, thus increasing the role of the attackers.

 

You are very wrong about that!!

 

In ARCADE AIR BATTLE the shortests games of my life are when the ground units are hitten. The game is over in 5 minutes... if you climb you may not be able to hit anyone and the game will end.

In arcade battle some times there are like 30 tanks and there is a single player that can kill 20+ alone... in 5 minutes... it's so easy to finish a game on arcade with ground troops (most maps).

 

The games that takes more times to finish are the games that the airfield is lost... it's always 15+ minutes. So it's not fair to reduce the bases to 7% only... most of bombers are killed before being able to drop a single bomb by the climbers (usually that one hit kill yak 9 planes). They start at 4km and the yaks at 3km... they need less than a minute to climb for 4k and bombers need 2-5 minutes to reach their targets... no one cares about bomber scorting on arcade and it's a bad idea as 3 bases will count only 21% and it's rare when a airfield is gone before ground troops.

 

The kind of game that most of times get in a 2 sides loss are the domination battle where we have 2 airfields. You should avoid to have a pair number of airfields or give the victory to the team with more points... 2 sides loss is a joke...

 

For bombers:

They should start at least 2km higher than fighters... its so easy for the hunters to reach then that half of bombers didn't drop any bomb and another half didn't drop bombs twice. For example, b-17g60 its 6.0br(I don't know why it's not 5.0 or 5.3... it's not as good as that japanese bomber with a lot of twin 20mm guns), you fight with jets but you fly at 400km/h... you have 12mm guns and they have 30/37mm+ cannons... If you try to go to bomb the bases you will be dead in less than 1 minute, if you try to run they will kill you in 2-3 min... if you dive to the airfield, they can kill you and try to flee the AA (half of the times they can flee) or they can leave you on the airfield, until you repair and climb, the game will be over before you can drop a single bomb... what we should do? Use bombers as if they are dive bombers? That doesn't make any sense. If you fly in a straight line the fighters will snipe you at 1km if you try to evade then you will miss the shoots with the gunner and you will die the same way.

When you don't repair your planes and let it be repaired... you will need several months to upgrade that bomber... 

 

For AA tanks.

Just make the AA cars that die by fighter dive be counted as "crash" instead of killing the AA, it doesn't make any sense in real life that a bomber or a fighter like Yak suicide himself to destroy a truck with 4 7mm MGs. Stop rewarding that kind of stupid behavior... or remove the damage from that suicide planes...

 

Thank you

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I LOVE Gaijin. This is what we always wanted. Longer T4 matches <3 Now we can finally enjoy BR 5.0+ again. And The BR adjustments are excellent for the most part. Definetly a step in the right direction.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, yes...I knew you guys were listening, downgrading the M4A3E2 Jumbo wasn't what I was expecting....but with the current DM and fire power or "lack of", would best describe it... it really desrved that.

 

But rather, changing DM and load out would have been preferable, granted it is historically accurate.

 

But downgrading the IS 2...come on guys....now the 76 and 75 in 4.7 have even a bigger threat and at 200mm of explosive pen right from the get go...you gotta be kidding

 

Edited by Oldtimer1955
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I general I like this changes but ... 

There is always "but".

Soviets KV-1E now have a 4.0BR ( ok I'm fine with this new BR )  but German KV1-B still have a BR 4,3 ( its this same tank ).

And another thing what I don't like.

All Tiger's I ( including a Porsche models ) have BR from 5,3 up to 5,7, IS2 and IS2mod44 now have a little bit lower BR ( and again I'm ok with this changes )  but British Black Prince is still at BR 6.0 after all this nerfs to the sabots rounds in last several months , and I cant get why American Jumbo with 76mm gun still sitting at 6.0 BR

..... This is just a few samples changes forgotten by God and the world ....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  .Instead of increasing Tiger 2 P to 6.7 and tiger 2 H to 7.0 gaijin is instead decreasing most tanks brs. 

  .T-34-85 FINALLY got the br increased......FINALLY. BUUUUUUT you reduce the is-1 to 5.3, seriously? now kv-85 and is-1 have the same br, while is-1 have waaaay better reverse (main difference between them) and obviously kv-85 can't be reduced to 5.0, they both should be 5.7.

  .IS-2  and is-2-1944 was fine on their br's, the problem is not them, it is the tiger 2 being op.  .With the kv-1 zis-5 on 4.3, the "german" Kv-1b should either be 4.0 or have a better ammo, with both of those kv's on the same br, they are clearly not equal (kv-1b have way worse shells)

  . The first kv-1 (3.7) feels too strong on this br, sure it have bad penetration but many tanks around 3.0 just cannot pen it at all, a 4.0 br should fit it better 

  .T-44-100 is borderline OP, just as panther 2 was on 6.7, so please keep an eye on it. 

  . T32 now is borderline op too, if t54 and is3 go to 7.7, t32 could surely be a 7.3 tank

 . Tiger E was actually fine on 6.0, now it have the same br as the tiger h, but the E is indeed better (better mantlet armor and tracks on lower hull)

  . No way a jagdpanther is as good as asu-85 or su-100, either decrease those td's br or change back jagdpanther to 6.7 (for me it is better than ferdinand, ferdinand have 80mm cheek weakspot and jagdpanther have a really nice slope and superior mobility (just not reverse) )

  . light tanks in AB are pointless, waaaaaaay underpowered. (didnt think about them ALL, but surely at least most of the are underpowered)

  . M56 on AB have no place in the game, please think what it can be done about it, in AB it is THE worst tank of the game.

 

 

Most importantly, they are the most critical change that the game need in balance:

 . T29 AND Tiger 2 (p and h) are still the most op tanks in the game.

 . T54 and IS3 on 7.3 dominates when top br, tanks 6.3 and even many 6.7 simply cannot penetrate them frontally. If you want to separate them from others 7.7, bump those 7.7 to 8.0, 8.0 to 8.3 and so on, but t54 and is3 CANNOT stay on 7.3                

 

 

 

That is my feedback, please take in consideration. If there is another topic that the tank br feedback is taken into consideration ( i mean, the most oficial, the main one), please direct me there (forum can be tricky)

Edited by Rokrar
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is the jumbo sherman 76 still on 6.0 br? if the tiger E was reduced to be same as the tiger h1, why hasn't the jumbo been reduced to lower br? the regular jumbo is what 4.7? that's 1.3 br difference between 2 super similar tanks.Just doesn't make any sence to me..

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Senio said:

 

 

You are wrong, The feeback has been gathered, sumamrized and passed to the devs

 

Not entirely wrong TBH. All feedback about FW-190 A5/U2 in AB seems to be ignored unfortunately.

 

This got BR copy/pasted from A5/U12 with gunpods. But it doesn't have any and 6.0 is beyond ridiculous.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesnt t34 85E deserve a "premium battle rating"? Just like premium panzer H. Otherwise what is the point of purchasing it? I think you Dec should do that. 

Leutnant_Erica (Posted )

It's a Pz.IV J, not H.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was 10,000 rp away from the kugelblitz, now I'm 160,000 rp away, and I haven't even started the 120,000 rp to get the coelion that's now required to get the kugelblitz... Did you not think of the players who were spending time to get the vehicles that you just moved. It will now take me at least a month to get the kugelblitz, if I'm lucky with rp (which has been apparently been cut in half, because even getting 5 kills in a leopard would only get me 900 rp for the game at maximum.) The grinding for some tanks has gotten out of hand.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I reviewed the economy changes when they were announced a few days ago and had issue with some of the changes though they didn't really affect me as I don't play those vehicles much. On the list of changes, the Hunter F. 1 did not have any change in repair cost for Realistic Battles. Yesterday the economy and BR changes were put into action... I didn't really notice anything until this morning. I received a ping on Discord from my squadron second in command. He had posted 2 pictures. One was the stat card for the Hunter F. 1 and the other was the Hunter F. 1's entry in the economy changes sheet... I have attached both of these. It was claimed that the repair cost was staying 21000 for the stock Hunter, but in-game the game said the Hunter now had a 41560 silver lion repair cost and my almost spaded Hunter had a 52390 silver lion repair cost. 

I believe an explanation or a fix is in order.

StockHunter.png

HunterActualCost.PNG

HunterEconomyChanges.PNG

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BOTJackyEternity said:

Doesnt t34 85E deserve a "premium battle rating"? Just like premium panzer H. Otherwise what is the point of purchasing it? I think you Dec should do that. 

:008::):DD:lol::016:
"premium battle rating"...
1st. T-34-85 in AB is fine at 5.7,
2nd. Reason for premium is SL and EXP income and "collectible" (if someone "WANT IT!!"), I have it and it is still useful at 5.7. Btw. premium pz 4 is different than H version
 
and finally GJ resolved "85" spam :good:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, slinkywinkyeye said:

The armor is quite thick though.

True but that shouldn´t be too much of a problem since players at that BR get used to fight Panthers anyways and it has the same weakspots. I doubt that it will influence the balance at 6.0-6.3 but it will finally drag the Coelian out of the Kugelblitz shadow.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/02/2017 at 6:22 PM, Senio said:

 

 

You are wrong, The feeback has been gathered, sumamrized and passed to the devs

 

I don't know which hamsters in wheels rolled up these numbers, mostly in the red to an economy which is already anaemic at least in the EU, but warthunder makes it hard to be excited on the soft aspects of the game. The hard aspect such as models and functions are excellent and constantly improving, but the soft aspects such as the methods you seem to handle feedback, economy, br and the likes is quite often extremely wanting and it's killing the game. It feels at least to the uninformed party like an echo chamber which listens mostly to itself, the 93% of the userbase polls which frequently wants ships over boats and frequent economy changes that leaves us scratching our heads. Popular youtubers expressing discontent at gaijin to the point of no longer even reviewing the game is also discouraging even though I know that several on the Gaijin team attempted to warm up to them, but disagreements on ethics is of particular concern at least form a western perspective. 

 

In fairness the BR changes while some aspects were wanting are not too terrible this time around, in fact I will applaud quite a few of them as they seemed well reasoned in AB, but a br change most people have wanted forever is to reduce the spread from 1.0 to 0,7. There are simply too many vehicles that because their popular counterparts are 1.0 Br's away will almost always be under-tiered and relatively un-competitive. 

 

I don't think it is too late for the "Make Warthunder Great Again" update with a focus on the soft aspects of the game, and I don't think it would be an ill move to reach out to the community, try to get open economical goals with rewards for those who participate to improve both the free and paid aspects of the game while at the same time pleasing the shareholders, and I really don't think looking at how say . . . Obsidian 'handled' it's userbase would be a bad model on reflection. This game still has a lot of love, but I do think it's relation from users to dev's, however hard and demanding that aspect may be for a global corporation, could use a makeover. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All!

I wonder what are u thinking about the M4 76 W line with this new changes. Personally for me a little bit weird that the firefly goes down to 4.7.

The 5.0 M4 seares now faces more tiger I and IS-2 and i know how to deal with them but from range its not to easy. 

The firely has more pen but it has only solid shot.

The M4 76W 's has less pen with apcr but it has apcbc but its only good in close to (maybe) mid range.

What's your opinion about this?

 

For the t34-85 it has a really bad time against tiger II H.

Edited by alomalom
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chiggi said:

True but that shouldn´t be too much of a problem since players at that BR get used to fight Panthers anyways and it has the same weakspots. I doubt that it will influence the balance at 6.0-6.3 but it will finally drag the Coelian out of the Kugelblitz shadow.

I agree, but it will need some time to get used to because you can't just hit it anywhere even with a decent gun. I think the armor will balance its poor gun penetration.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, alomalom said:

 

For the t34-85 it has a really bad time against tiger II H.

 

You mean, like any other tank at 5.7 and 6.0 br range? The problem is not all tanks is the game, the problem is the tiger 2 h that is frontally IMMUNE to many many tanks on lower br's, and even comparing to other tanks on the same br the tiger 2 performs  MUCH better (tied with the equally op T29), but they refuse to increase its br to 7.0

Edited by Rokrar
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AAaahhh!!! Little IS-2-44 couldn't go against big bad 7.7 bullies and went to play in kindergarten!!! 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/02/2017 at 0:39 AM, zSektor92 said:

did you know about the Me262a1a is getting almost 30k repair cost??? and almost the entire japan air tree is overbuffed in repair costs with some of them going over 20k??

Yep the only reason I'm not playing RB (how am I going to pay 35k for a ki84?? I'm not even a good pilot xD)

Also the pics I posted was in AB just in case missed that

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2017 at 6:52 PM, DisconnecT83 said:

 

  • The amount of the points lost after the base is destroyed has been decreased (it used to be 10% of maximum, from now on it’s 7%). It will be implemented for all game modes.

 

The above mentioned changes have been implemented in order to avoid extremely short game sessions, where heavy bombers quickly destroy bases and airfields and to increase the role of the ground units, thus increasing the role of the attackers.

No point in playing bombers anymore then. One trip is all ya gonna get before being shot down,(IF you are lucky) and you ain't gonna make that much difference anymore anyhow. Oh well, you can't please everyone I guess.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.