Takes a lot more than a week, the average player isn’t GE’ing or grinding out and spading a new vehicle in a week.
Day 1 statistics are wildly unreliable and subject to change.
1 Like
At present, 128 km X 128 km it not enough for aircraft 11.7 ~ 13.7 & higher and modern strategic bomber in Air RB
You expect Air EC map 256 km X 256 km or 320 km X 320 km
Add new AI modern carrier 1990’s ~ present
2 Likes
UK TT is going to face the same problem very soon.
The aircraft tracking system in the game, that’s the whole basic problem, guys.
Let’s imagine…
AB - hellish reflex furball with all the tags, OK
SIM - its players would definitely know what needs to be improved, but as far as the tags are concerned, it’s basically OK.
RB - dynamic game, which is more inclined to the AB side, precisely with those markers
A few days ago, a bug appeared in the tracking system, the red team players were not illuminated at a distance of +10 km…
For a while I thought that Gaijin had stepped over his own shadow and finally, especially on the high tier, where there are already a lot of radars and other more complicated things, he started doing something with markers…
Well, it didn’t happen…
However, RB could be an intermediate level in terms of markers…
AB-markers for everyone
RB-display of enemies up to 10 km or higher, only own team’s markers
SIM-no markers
-At that moment, in connection with the enlarged maps on the high tier, a 16 vs 16 set would be more positive…
-For now, the reason for larger maps would disappear, at least until they added heavy jet bombers…
-Much higher utilization for planes that are at a low level of br in battle
-The newly added stealth plane would make more sense in the game
-The reason to learn to use radar, I don’t think it’s very useful in RB yet…
Installation of AI ships… yes, there are a lot of planes in the game, for reconnaissance/patrol activities, which don’t fit into any mode and since they are renewing bases, there could be emerging AI ships, I assume with the strength of defensive armament, corresponding to the accompanying corvette, armed cargo ship…
I liked using AI aircraft carriers and due to the adjustment of the test flight, there is an opportunity to practice takeoff and landing, finally, I like to use the test flight option for each new plane… Sometimes I also did a “test reconnaissance” of the most remote places on the map, it is interesting to see what Gaijin has modeled on the maps and what narrow section of the map is used, whether in the game or in the test flight…
It could to discuss more things, but we can’t forget that WT is not a classic simulator, but a commercial mass game, with a simplified model of using military equipment…
But even so, I think that adding content is necessary for an online game, but the maps should be more diverse, at least at higher tiers…
A map with a predominance of land elements, with a balance of coastal elements, with a predominance of sea elements (for example, only an island and aircraft carriers…)
Hm, I played and sometimes I will play them again, all game modes, land, sea, air… but in the end I always end up in ARB …
Blockquote
Carrier Rework - This is a long thing coming, vehicles which operate from carriers like the F/A-18, J-15, SU-33, Rafale and MiG-29K need aircraft carriers to serve a purpose, a new role should be added in War Thunder named “Carrier Vehicle” which allow only these vehicles baring such name to spawn on them.
Blockquote
Maybe could helicopter PVE also recive helicopter carriers?
And all harriers jets, yak-38, yak-141 and su-39 should also be able to spawn on carriers right?
2 Likes
I prayed for it, but gaijin decided it was a bug…
Apparently sim still has a mechanical spotting system that makes keen eye and awareness relevant. Planes can phase out of reality while flying in a straight line and being observed.
Even worse, if you see two dots and one of them disappears - it means that one was the enemy. This is a cheat-IFF and shouldn’t happen.
video of it:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WarthunderSim/comments/1gvbc0y/now_i_understand_exactly_why_i_sometimes_lose/
3 Likes
Alr i guess, enjoy your longer grind cycle.
Takes a lot more than a week, the average player isn’t GE’ing or grinding out and spading a new vehicle in a week
I don’t think you understand, I’m saying that teams can be balanced through the introduction of new ordinances not entirely new vehicles.
At present, 128 km X 128 km it not enough for aircraft 11.7 ~ 13.7 & higher and modern strategic bomber in Air RB - Add new AI modern carrier 1990’s ~ present
I’ve changed the map scale from like 120km between each airfield spawn to 300km - 350km as per recommendation and a small section for new AI carriers from the year 1990s to present day has also been added, thanks for the response.
1 Like
Not sure if your claim “far more dynamic” and “far less predictable” holds any water regarding axis vs allies MM.
-
I mean at prop BRs you could decide between outclimb everyone in a 109 - or getting outclimbed by a 109. The few Spitfires at high alt got swarmed or took head-ons vs 190s.
-
If you wanted a challenge you were forced to fly US planes - and Pacific maps were mostly a real pain with US teams; after a few minutes you were alone vs all and you had 3 J2Ms behind you and 4 Zeros behind and below you like on Wake Island. And those were one hour matches - u needed fuel for one hour on certain maps as carrier aaa and airfield aaa were far less deadly those days.
-
Whilst i do agree that axis vs allies looks tempting - imho adding nations like Sweden or Israel killed this option. Even the Chinese Air tree (as the French) consist mainly of post war purchases of planes (or captured after VE/V-J day).
If you try to see it neutral and sober:
These fantasy nation mixes we see today at prop BRs have just one reason: To push WRs of popular nations with a hell of subpar players (US & USSR) - just because gaijin’s hand holding with undertiered stuff is not enough…
1 Like
While I think that AWACS and datalink should be added I would stop playing ARB if spotting was removed.
Player number isn’t a problem. Player density is. If there were more objectives and maps were larger I wouldn’t mind more than 32 players.
Yes please.
This makes little sense to be honest. You say “realistic” but F-22 never fought a Su-57 for example. Add the insane amount of copy paste and it doesn’t really matter. Just leave it as is.
Yes please.
5 Likes
Carrier rework and ship hunting seems like the most unanimously liked section, I might make a suggestion for it whenever I get time and how’d it function with AWACS and historical teams being basically 50/50.
Least Supported
Most Liked
Let your thread cook a bit more. It’s only been 20 hours. I have a fair share of issues with ARB and follow threads like this but I saw it only now.
4 Likes
I like the removing spotting part because i always felt like war thunder had so much shit on screen to a point it becomes ugly, lot of visual trash, i would prefer if the UI elements becomes minimal.
I mean just compare how the game looks when you do CTRL+Z to hide all UI elements, it looks beautifull. But you will be forced to use 1st person because it also hides radar and etc. I hope they add customizable UI soon
1 Like
I wanted spotting removed due to the RNGness of it and how it can occasionally be bias for a team depending on which side they spawn on and the terrain advantage they have. I wanted AWACS to be a more reliable constant method which could replace spotting but most people are hesitant against change which will inevitably be cancerous for Air RB.
Stealth and the future of Air RB looks absolutely miserable if something isn’t changed and especially spotting and map size.
This is how I imagined AWACS could function in-game, spotting but more realistic and more reliable.
1 Like
Historical accuracy and competitiveness between nations must have a perfect balance, the game cannot be 100% historically accurate because otherwise it ceases to be competitive.
That’s just entirely wrong, vehicles specialises in different departments and this doesn’t require entirely perfect 100% balance whatsoever and I have no idea where you got this from.
I’m saying that teams can be balanced through the introduction of new ordinances not entirely new vehicles.
And the only way to know if new ordinances are needed is to wait and see if the new vehicles are balanced or not.
just use logic… It is an arcade sim game, which has 10 nations, 3 of these 10 nations are the greatest military powers in the world, being respectively the USA, China and Russia, none of the other 7 remaining nations have the capacity to face these 3 powers in real life, if the game is 100% historically accurate, it is impossible for a nation to defeat any of these 3 in any aspect, there is no balance of power, it would make the other nations useless and unviable, there would be no competitiveness between the “smaller nations” with the rest of the game, they would become just a useless appendix.
Let’s take other games that aim to have a historical theme or be competitive.
Let’s take the RTS game series Age of Empires as an example:
In Age of Empires II and IV, set in the Middle Ages, it would be impossible to defeat the Mongol Empire if the game were 100% historically accurate and did not preach competitiveness. The Mongol Empire was the greatest empire of continuous land extension in the history of mankind. It was the second largest empire in the history of mankind. No other empire at the time was capable of dealing with the Mongol Empire in the same time frame. But the game focuses on balancing all civilizations for the sake of competitiveness. Within a match, it is possible for Berbers to defeat the Mongols.
In Age of Empires III, which takes place in the modern age, if the game were 100% historically accurate, nothing would defeat the British Empire, which at its peak controlled 25% of the world, but in the game you can take the Aztec Empire and win a match against the British Empire.
If these games were 100% accurate, it wouldn’t be a competitive game, it wouldn’t value a player’s skill-matchup, it would be a super triumph game, in which the only thing that matters would be the status check.
Do you want WT to be a game like Super triumph, or do you want it to be a competitive game that values a player’s skill matchup?
Do you want the f15 to be invincible, scoring 206-0, or is it possible to make a match up between gripen, j10 and f15 and what will decide who will win will be the player’s skill?