Again and as always (and since years we said this) communication is still big PLUS for everyone.
The road to comming back after the big drama (last year?) is still long, but it is good to see that devs aknowledge and “try” to fix. CM are doing their job by not letting us in the void.
But… i still note that some importants questions are not asked or maybe avoided for devs. And it concerning for the balance sake.
Why Devs still want to compress at below BR instead decompress at higher BR? Mostly since players are asking for decompression now since years.
The previous BR is the typical exemple of the current compression, Old 9.0/8.7 going down, making suffer previous 7.0 to 8.3. while even worse 8.7 are still at the same place (for ex: venom, mystere IV)
At the current moment for 3 BR change with compression, we only have 1 BR change with decompression (new BR at +0.3)
If Devs want absolutely compress at below range, then why we still not have a matchmaker at 0.7 (instead of 1.0)? This could help, Balance for matchs at every BR range of the game, balance during BR change, Balance will be more suitable with compression.
Why devs still not rework their matchmaker? Games outside of War Thunder have a matchmaking which adapt to different settings. (ping, elo, mmr, etc), in the case of war thunder, why we can’t have the same system but based on BR? When matchmaker start, matchmaking at max 0.7, if matchmaking exceed 30 seconds of research, BR spread automatically switch to 1.0. Could help to have more fair match, during peak time population.
With so often BR compression (which show a problem), why devs still not rework the whole BR system once for all?
Why Naval mode and Air Sim are still let in the dust? RP rewards are just abyssal in these mode since the nerf of economy (2-3 years ago). The time based reward in sim is an issue currently.
I get that but considering the “detailed modules” got pushed forward out of nowhere when they announced the helicopter damage model improvements before ever announcing detailed modules has me questioning if its even being worked on.
Helis atm are the bane of top tier and need some serious balancing. forget detailed modules, I want helis fixed
And of course there is no way to get any answer on our English forum. Maybe on the Russian forum this matter would get answered, but unfortunately, I don’t speak the Russian language.
To be honest, I only see our English-speaking Community Managers answering easy questions that are well known from the news and other translated sources (like changelogs).
That’s why I wonder, do our English-speaking Community Managers even have a direct access to the devs? Can you ask the devs directly about some specific things that are unclear? Or can you only translate official Russian news to English and that’s all you can do?
Because if the devs only care about the feedback on the Russian forum, why translating this irrelevant part to English? I understand it looks nice, but you know, actions matter, not words.
Thank you for this post I believe this is a huge step in the right direction.
As for crew slots I personally feel that crews personal skills should be tied to that crew slot but vehicle expert or ace should just apply to all crews in that nation. Personally I feel it would help with peoples willingness to spend for expert and ace crew as it wouldnt be beholden to only one slot and you could place that vehicle several places in your lineups.
Hopefully it’s expanded modules like tanks, and they actually have gameplay effects (electronics and hydraulics being disabled, etc).
Similarly, aircraft in general also very much need to have their weapons be damageable. They’re all already modelled, but for some reason knocking out guns (and other weapons), which is a core part of tank and ship combat… is completely absent for aircraft. Even if you put a cannon shell straight through a P-47’s four MGs on one side, they’ll just keep working as if nothing happened.
This would be especially beneficial for higher tiers too (where there are more balance issues), knocking out/off external ordnance, targeting pods, etc.
Maybe you can also think about reworking aircraft ammunition.
There’s a ton of things wrong and outdated.
A 7.62mm API has both armor penetration of an AP round with a higher fire chance then other 7.7mm caliber Incendairy or Explosive rounds while dealing more damage to aircraft structures as well, that makes no sense.
And on the other end of the sprecturm there are 20mm and 30mm Incendiary rounds that do obsolutely nothing and are apparently only there so that players have a worse default belt.
There’s a huge bias towards explosive rounds and API with other types just being completely overshadowed.
realShatter fragments deals crazy amounts of damage to air frames and the same is true for just kinetic (AP) rounds in general which can just cut planes appart.
There needs to be a clear seperation of damage types:
Blast for structucal damage
Kinetic (shell fragments and penetrating rounds)
Incendiary effect (adding incendiary filler to stat card and shells)
Honestly you can just scrap your entire damage system and built a new system that bases inflicted damage on the shells stats instead of hardcoding every round.
If I report everything that’s wrong with the performance of all aircraft shell types, it would take me a year and fixing it would take 5.
@magazine2 Wait… “Daily bonuses”… is it going to be capped per day?!
I sincerely hope the devs know what kind of shitstorm that is going to cause if true… but hey WIP, one can hope they see feedback now and have the chance to change before release.
I think there could be some improvements in priority of bugfixes. there are bugs that have persisted for YEARS at this point and it pokes like a sore thumb no matter how minor they are. Same with historical accuracies.
They had some official reasoning on the old forum if i remember correctly.
Development on that was officially discontinued since destructible buildings were eating up processing power and because of gameplay problems I think.
Or something similar to that
