Yes, you finally get the point.
But the penetration though. That’s the same reason the Ikv103 is a problem, right?
3 Likes
Ohh, I’ve already covered that:
The part of the community that wants era splits or historical matchmaking is in the same boat as the part of the community that wants tank only modes. You guys happened to show up to Warthunder expecting it to be something different than it is, and you want to change it.
Wrong, its simulation with gameplay elements.
Hence its so detaild and not simple in its demage models and flightmodels.
Arcade adn RB are in to let steam off. The meat is Sim.
It’s not a simulation. One person cannot operate a tank alone.
Sim modes are among the smallest modes in the game by playerbase. Arcade modes are the largest modes by playerbase. Not a simulator.
1 Like
Dang, simulators don’t exist.
Simulation doesn’t mean multi-crew.
No
A funny coincidence just happened. A War Thunder ad just popped up for me, and there was this one sentence: “good graphics and sound design greatly improve immersion” (I don’t remember the exact words that were said + it was in Polish for me). Turns out immersion is one of the selling points of War Thunder, acknowledged by Gaijin itself.
So it’s fine then? Since the high pen round isn’t a problem.
1 Like
A funnier coincidence just happened. This is how Gaijin explains Warthunder on the FAQs.
“What is War Thunder?
War Thunder is the largest free-to-play multiplayer online game featuring military vehicles from a period spanning from the years before the Second World War until present time. Aviation, ground vehicles, and naval forces fight together in one game and even in one battle, just as the real-life battles were fought. The appearance and characteristics of the vehicles in War Thunder are historically accurate, and their damage models are physically based.”
Just like it says “Aviation, ground vehicles, and naval forces fight together in one game and even in one battle” (which handles the ground only crowd), it also doesn’t say the game has historical matchups (for you guys).
1 Like
dude
Read the rest of the sentence. Context matters.
I know, but it clearly implies their aim is to be close to real life.
It also doesn’t say anything about balance.
No it doesn’t.
Aviation, ground vehicles, and naval forces fight together in one game and even in one battle, just as the real-life battles were fought.
It is referencing that these vehicles can be seen on the same battlefield in game, just like how they were seen on the same battlefield in real life.
So no multiplayer online game should be balanced?
2 Likes
How come that assumption for balance is clear, when no part of this description talks about power dynamics of gameplay, but there is no assumption for historical accuracy, when phrases like this:
show up.
Because balance is expected in multiplayer video games. It has been virtually forever. It is an unspoken standard that multiplayer games be balanced so the gameplay is enjoyable for all.
We already covered this.
This describes that the appearance and characteristics of the vehicles are historically accurate and based on physical makeup instead of a health system. Historically accurate in this case meaning they are replicated as closely as possible to historical documents (manuals, pictures, ect) of how those vehicles actually existed. AKA, a Sherman is laid out like a real Sherman in terms of features, materials, weapons, ammo, crew, ect. Does not describe gameplay or matchups as historically accurate.
5 Likes
You don’t get the point. I don’t question the assumption of balance in an MMO game. What I mean is, that if phrases like these show up, it’s also safe to assume the game overall strives to be realistic and historically accurate. That’s what every potential customer would think.
Making assumptions is a dangerous thing to do. If it isn’t described as such, then it may not be as you assumed. If Warthunder had strictly historical matchups (like people assume) then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. It would seem that people assumed wrong. I also had problems with this when I started because of the Su-25K meeting subsonic fighters well before its time. Then I realised this isn’t a historical game, was never a historical game, and will never be a historical game.
I would dare ask you this: Why would Gaijin spend 10+ years making this game to be what it currently is to destroy all the work on balancing with the BR system, only to have to rebalance the entire game into segments based on era?
This can be seen in World of Tanks. The PC version stuck with WW2(ish) based vehicles. The console version split into a WW2 only mode and Cold War/Modern mode. Gaijin has more vehicles than all 3 “World of” games combined (especially when you don’t count blantantly fake vehicles), and splitting the game now would be virtually impossible. They would be more successful by releasing a new title and keeping it WW2 only than they would trying to segment Warthunder.
What you want, historical matchmaking, was never in the cards for Warthunder. If they wanted it to be like that, then it would already be like that. It is much to far to change the game so drastically now without destroying the playerbase. Check out Enlisted, they changed their game massively after a few years and it just went swimmingly for them.