One compelling reason why War Thunder should address the issue of players leaving after one death or shortly after the match starts, especially at higher ranks, is to enhance the overall gaming experience and player retention. When matches end prematurely due to early exits, it leads to several negative consequences:
Decreased Enjoyment and Engagement: Players who are committed to the match find it less enjoyable when the team dynamics are disrupted by early leavers. This significantly diminishes the strategic depth and excitement that comes with a full, balanced team, leading to frustration and dissatisfaction.
Negative Impact on Game Balance: When players leave early, the balance of the match is thrown off. The remaining players are often left in an unwinnable situation, facing uneven odds that reduce the fairness and competitive integrity of the game. This can discourage skilled players from continuing to engage with the game.
Hindered Progression and Reward Systems: War Thunder’s progression and reward systems are designed around the assumption of full-length matches. Early exits can make it difficult for players to achieve meaningful progress, earn rewards, and fully utilize boosters. This can demotivate players from investing time and potentially money into the game.
Community and Reputation: Consistent issues with early leavers can tarnish the game’s reputation within the broader gaming community. New players may be discouraged from joining or staying, while existing players might seek out other games with more stable and rewarding match experiences. Addressing this issue can improve community sentiment and foster a more positive reputation.
Economic Considerations: From a business perspective, player retention is crucial for the longevity and financial success of any game. By fixing the issue of early exits, War Thunder can ensure a more consistent and satisfying experience, encouraging players to stay longer, invest in in-game purchases, and recommend the game to others.
By implementing measures to reduce early exits and ensure longer, more engaging matches, War Thunder can enhance the overall player experience, maintain game balance, and support a thriving, loyal player base.
Why would anybody stay past first death when Gaijin have allowed GRB to become helicopter and plane spading mode ?
Constant uptiers on certain BR’s are direct result of Gaijin’s " don’t care" attitude
Playing certain BR;s be it in planes or tanks means that majority of matches you will have your spawn overrun by wheelie boys in grb or jets that should be at least 2 br’s up.
Once upon a time i loved top tier RB …now wouldn’t play it if you paid me,same goes with low tier where certain nation that shall remain nameless gets hesh at 3.0 or thereabouts
Well, good then that it isn’t, so you should stop doing it.
You do realize that you can get more rewards out of long matches with worse performance than from a quick match with good performance? Time, i.e., the match length, is a huge multiplier. I had matches where I got more rewards out of a 15-20 minute match with only 2-3 kills and maybe 1-2 assists than out of a 5-10 minute match where I had 6-8 kills with 1-2 captures and some assists.
That, plus what I already listed in the original post, especially number 3.
While it can be frustrating that GRB (Ground Realistic Battles) at top ranks have become heavily influenced by helicopters and planes, there are several reasons why players might choose to stay past their first death:
Strategic Advantage: Staying in the game allows players to contribute to their team’s overall strategy. Ground battles often require coordinated efforts to capture and defend points, which can turn the tide of the match.
Reward System: War Thunder’s reward system is often based on overall match performance rather than just individual kills or deaths. Longer participation in a match, including capturing points, assisting teammates, and damaging enemy vehicles, can result in higher rewards.
Skill Improvement: Continuous play, even after being taken out once, provides valuable experience. Players can learn to better counter aerial threats and improve their situational awareness and tactical decision-making.
Team Play: Leaving after the first death can negatively impact the team’s morale and chances of winning. Staying engaged shows commitment to the team and can encourage others to do the same.
Vehicle Variety: Many players have invested time in spading (fully upgrading) a variety of vehicles, not just helicopters and planes. They might want to utilize their upgraded tanks and other ground vehicles throughout the match.
Enjoyment and Challenge: For many players, the challenge of overcoming difficult situations and adapting to a dynamic battlefield is part of the enjoyment. Staying in the match can provide a more fulfilling and engaging experience.
While the presence of helicopters and planes can be daunting, many players find value in staying engaged and contributing to the match beyond their first death.
I take my favorite premium tank. I go to the battle. I mess up, got rekt.
Now i have 2 options:
respawn in some other tank (maybe not aced, maybe without upgraded engine, maybe with stock ammo), drive again couple minutes into battle while my teammates are having fun. I got angry and now i feel like “i need to get even, i need to get frags to make up for my previous death”. And now i am not getting fun, because the grind feels more important
just shrug if off, quit, and start again on blank slate, new battle, new chance. I saved time wasted on being angry in first battle. I play my favorite premium tank. I go together with my team, i am not chasing them from spawn.
Yeah, i value my time and my playing experience more than “teamplay”, especially this game is a “single player game” tbh
1.In MMO where everybody plays their own game …strategy largely left the room somewhere around 2017/18
Reward system is not fit for purpose as long as game doesn’t add up your assists,you can literally set tank on fire three times and other player repairs each time then once killed by somebody else you don’t even get assist .
There is no skill to improve when you are constantly fighting vehicles that can kill you if they only look at you whilst you must look for that 5cm weak point from 1 km away.
This game is not about team play anymore ,you will rarely have somebody help you repair ,let alone pull you out of fire or god forbid park in front of you to tank hits…as it used to be.
nothing to add to that except to say that spawning plane or tank after rushing cap point has been number one reason why so many left game or leave after first match.
6.No challenge where two nations get all benefits of biased development and others must grin and bear it .
I don’t enjoy matches where result has been determined before match even started.
I made a post in February, four months ago now, which did include a discussion about ODL as well. However, ODL was not the main topic of that post but just one of the many things listed in between, and it was very poorly ordered / written. Additionally, it is now several months old and cannot be deleted by me personally.
Furthermore, this post is not an exact copy of any ODL threat. It presents entirely different listed reasons and is better formulated.
I don’t see anything wrong with using ChatGPT to correct spelling mistakes, grammar, or to have it write down reasons in a better, more understandable way.
Gaijin needs to give something to players to stay. This could include bonus modifiers once ur teams tickets fall below a certain %, or a reduction in SP cost once your teams tickets fall below a %, or AI reinforcements, or even just an end of the match bonus when you lose if ur still in a vehicle.
That is not the point. Point is you do not have to create another thread about same issue. You can just post reply with your concerns in existing thread. All these threads are about same topic and it is ODL.
I can only speak for myself here at the probable causes:
Economy - while astronomical repairs are mostly a thing of the past, some machines are still ridiculous (looking at you F-82E), thus if you die in them and the match isn’t a guaranteed victory it’s best to cut losses and leave.
THE MAPS - Once the survivors of the initial wave have pitched their tents, particularly on larger maps, it is often not worth spawning in to potentially drive 5+min only to be shot by a rolling bush. This is why large maps get so much hate - its not the first spawn that is intolerable but rather the subsequent ones. Most maps, large and small, are very campy, thus it is frequently an uphill battle just to get out of spawn on quite a few of them, ranging from classics like Karelia and Ash River to more modern examples.
I may be only spading one tank and thus have nothing left to bother using.
I am uptiered and my uptier insurance just was taken out.
As far as I’m concerned, economy can be fiddled with to address issues with remaining outlier planes. Point 3 can never be “solved” per se as it would harm sales of high tier premiums. Point 4 would only be solvable by either reducing BR spread of the matchmaker, expanding BRs to at least 20.0, or other means.
The “large map debate” and thus the “enemies have taken all the good spots, WT is a defensive game, and thus unless I get lucky and a teammate CAS’s the guy out of their camping hole I can’t move far” have a possible solution - borrow Naval EC-style objectives. Caps double as spawns for teams controlling them, and vice versa. Then larger maps are allowed without automatically meaning tons of meaningless drive time on second spawns.
Guess i can ask chatgpt for counter points towards everything you said and we can have an argument between 2 bots because this forum was clearly made for ai only interactions
You could, but none of them are good or even make sense, as I have already checked that. They actually support the points above, add more to them, or discuss the difficulties of implementing a system that is fair and effective in preventing early exits.
Here are the eight Counter-Points ChatGPT listed :
Player Autonomy and Freedom:
Forcing players to stay in a match can feel restrictive and diminish the overall enjoyment for those who might have valid reasons to leave early, such as real-life obligations or technical issues. Players should have the autonomy to decide when to leave a game.
Unavoidable Circumstances:
Early exits can be due to factors beyond a player’s control, such as connectivity problems, emergencies, or unexpected interruptions. Penalizing players for these issues could unfairly punish those who are not at fault.
Natural Part of Competitive Gaming:
Early exits are a common occurrence in many competitive games and can add an element of unpredictability. This unpredictability can sometimes make matches more dynamic and interesting, as remaining players must adapt and overcome new challenges.
Potential for Toxicity:
Measures to reduce early exits might inadvertently foster a toxic environment where players are pressured to stay in hopeless situations, leading to increased frustration and potentially toxic behavior towards those who might have valid reasons for leaving.
Negative Impact on Casual Players:
Implementing strict measures against early exits could alienate casual players who play the game for fun and might not always be able to commit to full matches. This could reduce the overall player base, especially among those who play more casually.
Complexity of Implementation:
Creating a fair and effective system to address early exits without penalizing innocent players is complex and resource-intensive. The development and maintenance of such systems could divert resources from other important aspects of the game.
Player Agency in Match Dynamics:
The strategic depth and excitement of the game can come from the players’ ability to adapt to changing circumstances, including early exits. Remaining players might find satisfaction in overcoming the odds and securing a victory despite being outnumbered.
Focus on Positive Reinforcement:
Instead of penalizing early leavers, the game could focus on positive reinforcement for those who stay, such as offering additional rewards for completing matches or implementing systems that recognize and reward teamwork and perseverance.
By considering these counter-points, it becomes clear that addressing the issue of early exits in War Thunder is not straightforward and requires a balanced approach that respects player freedom while enhancing the overall gaming experience.
And here are the counter-points to the counter-points that actually make sense.
Player Autonomy and Freedom:
While player autonomy is important, the collective experience of all players in a match should take precedence. Allowing early exits without consequences disrupts the enjoyment and investment of the remaining players, leading to an overall poorer gaming experience. Implementing reasonable penalties or incentives can balance individual freedom with communal enjoyment.
Unavoidable Circumstances:
Systems can be designed to distinguish between unavoidable circumstances and habitual early exits. For instance, occasional disconnections could be treated leniently, whereas repeated early exits might result in escalating penalties. This approach ensures that players facing genuine issues are not unfairly punished while discouraging habitual early leavers.
Natural Part of Competitive Gaming:
While early exits add unpredictability, they often result in unbalanced and less competitive matches, undermining the integrity of the game. Ensuring more stable team compositions fosters a fairer and more enjoyable competitive environment, which outweighs the minor benefits of unpredictability.
Potential for Toxicity:
Toxicity can be mitigated through well-designed systems that encourage positive behavior rather than simply punishing negative actions. For example, offering substantial rewards for completing matches can motivate players to stay without fostering a toxic environment. Furthermore, a system that takes into account the context of early exits can minimize unwarranted pressure on players.
Negative Impact on Casual Players:
Casual players can be accommodated with flexible solutions, such as separate casual and ranked modes. Casual modes could have lenient policies on early exits, while ranked modes implement stricter measures to preserve competitive integrity. This way, casual players are not alienated, and the game’s core competitive experience remains intact.
Complexity of Implementation:
While developing and maintaining such systems might be complex, the long-term benefits of increased player retention and enhanced game balance justify the investment. Prioritizing the creation of fair and effective systems to manage early exits can ultimately lead to a more stable and rewarding game environment.
Player Agency in Match Dynamics:
The need for players to adapt to early exits often results in frustration rather than strategic satisfaction. Ensuring stable team compositions allows players to fully engage with the intended strategic depth of the game, leading to a more fulfilling and less chaotic gaming experience.
Focus on Positive Reinforcement:
Positive reinforcement should complement, not replace, measures to prevent early exits. While rewarding players for completing matches is beneficial, it does not address the root issue of habitual early leavers. A combined approach of incentives and penalties is more effective in ensuring consistent match participation.
By considering these arguments, it is evident that addressing early exits in War Thunder requires a multifaceted approach that balances individual freedoms with the overall quality and fairness of the gaming experience.
tl;dr The original post is right, and the AI agrees as well.