Low BR games are slow and do not favor long range gameplay. Forcing attrition gameplay compounds this effect three fold and results in 90% of spawn camping situations due to static fighting not suiting efficient flanking.
Battle has multiple methods of play, but the biggest being you have to decide at the outset, are you attacking or are you defending…
Your second spawn in this mode will be vital.
Calling for it to be disabled isn’t the path to go for.
3 Likes
I don’t mind the game mode at high tier where dynamic play is possible. I do mind it at low tier which is static and becomes a drag.
Not disabled, just restricted.
They already do this with specific maps.
Nah, you specifically said disable, and man, you do this EVERY THREAD…
You say one thing, then someone comes in to counter, and you come back with ‘Oh but’…
1 Like
Yeah, we need more variety, not less. Removing two-spawn is really not a good idea.
6.7 “Battles” are my Jagdtiger sweet spots. In fact, lots of slow lumbering monsters at and around that BR are perfectly suited for Battle, probably for the same reason why the average player hates these missions. It pays to find a good position and lock down areas. I would be, let us say, somewhat miffed if this option was taken away from us. Already as it is, most combinations of maps, caps, and mission types greatly favour mobility or flanking over long range fighting. Do we really need to make this lopsidedness happen “100% of the time” as opposed to “90% of the time?” Give us a break already.
I do agree with you that not all BRs are suitable for it, however. Tentatively I’d say 3.7 or 4.3 is where you start to see enough good long range options and defensive specialists that it can work effectively. Maybe for lower BRs than that it could indeed be restricted, it sounds reasonable to me.
EDIT: static gameplay is not inherently worse than mobile gameplay, in any case. If you play Sniper Elite you don’t expect to be running around blasting full auto. War Thunder is not Sniper Elite, but it’s not Call Of Duty either. It’s perfectly fine to have some missions centered on mobility, and others centered on marksmanship.
You must be kidding. Low tier is what this game is made for, I always forget how fun low tier is and am always surprised when I’m on vacation from my T-80s and Abramses back to WW2 again.
If we need to decide what to “disable” (stupid proposition in the fist place tbh) I would rather disable everything post cold war.
Your inability to read and understand the English language is not my problem.
Yes and it’s boring.
That style of gameplay takes a 15 minute match and stretches it to 25 minutes.
It’s boring.
This is specifically why high tier is more dynamic and entertaining than low tier.
Sitting 2000 meters away inaccurately bouncing a 75mm shell isn’t “fun”. It’s boring.
Still let me disable gamemodes I do not want to play
Nothing in this thread discusses disabling low tier. This change would improve low tier by restricting a game mode for which its vehicles are not suited. Similarly how EC is not allowed in lower BRs for Air RB, Battle should not be enabled for lower BRs in War Thunder.
For you.
Which makes some battle games a true stress test of endurance, with on more than one occasion, incredibly tense “do or die” final moments where your expectations are crushed, or you save the day.
Sure it is. For you.
Sure it is. If it aligns with your preference.
My favourite BR is 6.7, and I have no interest in playing past 7.7, which I only play because of the WW2 and WW2-style Korean War tanks you can find there.
For you.
On Winter Poland, the large version, I nailed an American T34’s lower front plate at 2000 metres with the JT. On Fire Arc, I guesstimated, and one-hit killed, a T26E5 at 2750m.
These are personal highlights for me.
I enjoyed every minute of the nuke I got with JT on Mozdok battle in an uptier. Like I’m sure you enjoy every minute of a 7-min match in “conquest” mode.
I would never ask for that mission type to be removed just because it bores me, because I’m not selfish and having fun is not a zero sum game.
Please respect my wishes (and that of players like me) just like I respect yours. We’re already getting the short end of the straw anyway.
I’m sorry you enjoy wasting your time.
It’s a video game. It is made to cater to an audience. The size of the audience will vary, but it’s fair to say it will usually be larger than one.
Do you only play games you enjoy 100%? You’ve never been into a game that has flaws?
I love the plot and characters of Mass Effect 1, even though its side quests are atrocious. I love Darkest Dungeon 1, even though it’s grindy as hell, and I love Darkest Dungeon 2 even though I don’t normally play roguelites.
For MMOs the issue is even more complicated as there will always be many moving parts to this game. If I hated Conquest missions so much that the negatives of playing them outweighed the benefits of playing Battle, then I would just uninstall, and move on with my life. There are other games. Other hobbies.
Instead, I really like this game on the whole, and I have the humility to understand that it needs to cater to the experience of many different players who may have different tastes, but like me, also love the game. I want them to love the game, just like I love the game. The point is to have fun together, or else I wouldn’t be in an MMO.
Doubly so on a game so technical and deep, with so many vehicles, so much to learn, such a high skill ceiling… I’m even on this forum, talking about it! You’re on this forum, talking about it! What does that tell you?
I get Conquest maps. I get Battle maps. Both are part of the test of skills that the game puts me and the other players through. We will all enjoy them to varying degrees, and that’s fine.
If you agree that the mechanic is flawed then why are you arguing elsewise?
I would like to see them resolve its flaws and provide the best possible experience for their players.
This forum is here to provide feedback for the developers, that’s what I’m doing. I want them to change this mechanic which I believe is flawed so that it is more enjoyable.
Flaws are subjective. As a case in point, I would like to see a lot more Battle missions, and a lot more maps based around sniping, to breathe life into vehicles that are “not meta”. You will diametrically disagree with me about this and argue that WT has the opposite flaw. That’s not the point though, if we’re speaking about personal enjoyment. I enjoy WT even though it’s way too close-quarters-y for my tastes, just like I enjoy other videogames that have things I dislike or wish were done different. If I didn’t enjoy it, I wouldn’t be here.
Why are you here?
To provide feedback to the developers.
Maybe we should allow selection of game modes then.
I meant in-game. I like long range, drawn out battles, you like fast-paced battles. I keep playing the game because the slight annoyance I feel at the over-representation of mobility and CQC is not enough to cancel out the overall enjoyment I get out of the game, and while I’d like a more balanced spread, I want other players to enjoy the game too, even if they like different things. After all, you literally can’t play this game on your own.
I assume that if you keep playing, it’s also for similar reasons.
There are lots of on-paper good ideas like this one, another famous example of course is map selection; if I had the option to weigh my own matchmaker heavily in favour of certain map types, I would, even if it meant a slightly longer wait before finding a match.
But all these proposals risk impacting queue times, and so, they are extremely unlikely to be taken under serious consideration. At least imho.
Why should your opinion define what others are allowed to play?
This seems like you’re trying to superimpose what you want onto other people and it’s disgusting.
1 Like