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.
1 Like
ODL is a symptom of other problems.
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.
4 Likes
You’re using chatgpt for everything.
No, not everything. I use it for what I said I use it for, and I don’t see anything wrong with that.
It doesn’t change a single thing whether I wrote it all out personally or if I have ChatGPT do it; the points remain exactly the same.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
This could be solved by giving light vehicles (or squad leaders) the ability to build rally points for your squad to spawn into, this would solve spawn camping to an extent as there will be more places to spawn from and give more depth to GRB, it also removes some of the tediousness that is driving on big maps.
Gaijin could also add additional spawnable cap points near the mid-section of big maps to cut driving times when you die and keep the momentum going. Tiny things like that could help with player retention.
For grinding, I guess I can understand that. For having fun? I think it’s more engaging to move onto a match where you have a higher probability of performing better, than to spend more time on a match that you aren’t getting any enjoyment from.
1 Like
And how can you be certain that a bad match won’t turn enjoyable?
Personally, in my 3,000 matches so far, the best ones were those where I initially felt like quitting but decided to stick to it. There were times I respawned up to seven times. But how can you be sure that the rest of the match will continue to be garbage if you leave immediately?
When you are capable of staying alive for a long time and notices the match is close to ending or done for it is understandable to leave at this point.
However, it’s often when the enemy is about to win that they make mistakes. I’ve been in matches where, despite being outnumbered (four against more than ten) and with our spawn already swarmed, we managed to turn the tide.
We killed like four enemies while in Spawn Protection, reached the Capture Point, and held it as every enemy blindly rushed toward our position, then managed to get the other Objectives. Ultimately, we won the heavily outnumbered, over 20-minute match, and it was immensely enjoyable.
I would have missed out on that if I had left on impulse after my first or second death, both of which happened within the first two minutes and were quite annoying, because it really wasn’t fun until then and they were already Helis and Enemies sniping into our Spawn, but I stuck to it and voilà, turned an utter garbage Match to one of the most enjoyable I ever had.
The same principle applies in real life. Past negative experiences often cloud your perception of the future, and you automatically assume the worst when, in reality, you cannot predict what will happen.
I don’t see how it is ‘engaging’ either to jump from one Match to another without finishing any because you automatically assume the entire Match is going to be bad because of the first few Minutes, which also ruins the fun for everyone else on your Team who y’know…actually want an engaging experience and balanced Match. And so what if it continues to suck? That’s part of Gaming.
Some battles you lose, some battles you win.
When has it become so common to just leave mid-Match in Multiplayer Games? This was definitely not the case years ago; people joined in and stuck to it, tried their best or played for fun but remained in the Match regardless if it was a loss or not. If I’m being honest, it really sounds more like an ego/sensitivity issue to do this in an MP game. And from my experience with dozens of other MP games I’m playing from all across the board, be it RTS, shooters, beat 'em up, etc., that is also always the case…
That + the Points i have already listed above in my other Comment(s) / Original Post.
2 Likes
Spawn your premium vehicle once, die, leave before you get spawcamped, waste time playing TT vehicles, get revenge bombed, flanked, your team leaves and a plethora of nonsense.
Imagine trying to play the game and be rewarded with this.
https://new.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/1da25w5/hope_everyones_grind_is_going_better_than_mine/
2 Likes
I get what you mean here, and I share mostly the same thoughts as you do.
The problem I can think of here, is that you can only play the vehicle you want to play a maximum of two times. This is especially the case if you do not have a good lineup to support those vehicles, nor if you are trying to grind a new tech tree with a premium vehicle. Crew levels also affect the enjoyment, as why would you want to play another tank with level 1 crew, if you can simply leave the match and play with a better one?
If there was a way to play a vehicle you want to play as many times as you want in a match, I think there would definitely be more engagement in matches.
Large amount of what the ai said is buzzwords. Everyone knows early exits are bad. Not much will be done about it in a while (check the roadmap).
I remember day when I used lineups and I do not miss those painful scenarios. Having just one tank lineup have more pros than cons for me so there is no reason why to move back to lineups.
Pros
- I do not have to deal with CAS
- I do not have to deal with spawncampers
- I do not have to play maps I do not like for long - just yolo rush, die and move to next battle
- I do not have to witness teams throwing games away often by pushing spawn and getting wiped out
- I do not have to upgrade multiple crew slots
- I do not have to play tech tree variant of premium vehicle I own at all as why to even bother stock grinding it
- I no longer care about victories that decreased frustration from game
Cons
- Making mistake on maps I like sometimes stings
- I had to reroll some battle pass task as they are not good for ODL
- When I play with friends, where I use lineups for them, other crew slots are not that good - fortunately I play mostly solo
- Some vehicles are not useful on all maps so it can get tricky to play them
Simple fact, that with one tank lineup I do not have to care about CAS and spawncampers outweighs any cons. I have much more fun playing game with one tank lineup than I had with full lineups as I can get only bombed once per battle and not multiple times.
4 Likes
Yeah I think that’s accurate.
I mean I personally use lineups and stay to the end of matches unless being spawncamped, but seeing how 99 out of a 100 times it’s a waste of time I don’t know why I bother anyways.
I don’t blame anyone for doing it either because it’s how the game is designed, it’s the optimal way to play and that exact same playstyle is what they’re selling in the store and what has ruined large parts of the game.
Why don’t you elaborate on it?
Just saying ‘Doesn’t make sense’ or ‘a large amount are buzzwords’ is not explanatory.
Besides that, a lot is written by me personally. As I have already stated, I only use ChatGPT to correct spelling/grammar mistakes and to explain some points better or articulate them in a better way.
The vast majority is written by me personally. I just go to ChatGPT, copy it into it, and ask it to correct the text.
Like I already made a similar post months ago, which I wrote without ChatGPT, and you can take a look at how that looks. It’s just a mess of a giant wall of text that no one even read, and nothing came out of it.
Well, probably nothing’s going to come out of this anyway either, can discuss, suggest, criticize, or whatever anything, and nothing ever happens…feels amazing.
Many of the reasons are not tied to rewards, but this commonly overlooked thing called fun. Also, it depends on the goal of the player entering the matches.
I’ll start with the goals first. If I join a 10.0 game to grind my Bradley and I lose my Bradley then there is not necessarily a reason for me to stay in that game. Yes, I could make the most out of that game spawning my LAV-AD and watching the skies, but waiting the entire game and having the possibility for no aircraft to be present is not fun or productive. If I could spawn again in my Bradley without needing paid backups (I know they can be aquired by other means, but they aren’t SL purchasable) then maybe I would stay in a game because my goal is still attainable, progressing the vehicle I want to. Gaining 6k rp and SL (ground isn’t where I go for SL anyways) with a premium in ground doesn’t help me spade my TT vehicles and just speeds up the aquisition of other vehicles TT vehicles to spade.
Fun is tied in to the goals part a bit, but has it’s own problems. If my goal is to progress a single vehicle and I can’t do that, my level of enjoyment suffers because I cannot work toward my goal. Along with that, dying because you’re the only one on your team that spawns on one side of the map isn’t fun. Going along with 14 other players to the same side of the map to do virtually nothing because you’re not fast enough to cap the point or can’t get into position to make a kill because there are so many teammates in the area isn’t fun. Driving for long periods for a decent position to die to have to make that long drive again isn’t fun. If I can’t have fun, why would I stay in a game? For RP rewards on vehicles that don’t need rp (premiums) or to get another vehicle that I don’t quite want to play yet? Progressing singular vehicles/spading is my motivation to play, and when I can’t play a vehicle more than once or twice in a game, then I don’t want to stick around.
If course everyone’s goals and reason for playing are different, so addressing why people leave early is difficult. What makes me leave isn’t what causes everyone to leave.
Sure, i’ll use your favorite tool for this so you get the best understanding that you want.
The text above, while thorough, can be criticized for being overly verbose, filled with buzzwords, and ultimately unnecessary for a few key reasons:
- Redundancy and Over-explanation:
- Both the counter-points and the responses to them repeat the same core ideas using different words. For instance, the need for balancing player freedom with collective experience is reiterated in multiple points with slight variations. This redundancy adds length without adding substantial new information.
- Buzzwords and Jargon:
- The text is filled with buzzwords like “player autonomy,” “competitive integrity,” and “strategic depth.” While these terms sound important, they often obscure the simpler underlying arguments, making the text less accessible and more pretentious.
- Obvious Statements:
- Many points state the obvious. For instance, acknowledging that unavoidable circumstances exist or that creating a fair system is complex are self-evident truths that don’t need extensive elaboration.
- Unnecessary Complexity:
- The text introduces unnecessary complexity by suggesting intricate systems to differentiate between habitual and occasional early leavers. In reality, simpler solutions could be more effective and easier to implement, such as longer cooldown penalties or reward-based incentives without the need for complicated algorithms.
- Lack of Practical Solutions:
- Despite the lengthy discussion, the text doesn’t offer practical, straightforward solutions. Instead, it dances around ideas without committing to actionable steps. For example, it suggests a combined approach of incentives and penalties but fails to outline what specific penalties or rewards would look like.
- Circular Arguments:
- Some arguments are circular, such as suggesting that measures to prevent early exits should focus on rewarding positive behavior while simultaneously saying that these measures should not solely rely on positive reinforcement. This circular reasoning doesn’t advance the discussion.
You do realize that:
-
Is not a response to the Original Post points but to another comment which obviously repeated the points because i gave counter-points and then counter-counter points which obviously repeated itself at this point.
-
The horror of calling it ‘player autonomy’ instead of ‘player choice/freedom’ - the only word I would agree on is ‘competitive integrity,’ which sounds obscure.
-
Not really obvious… saying those are obvious kind of supports my points and is rather directed against you / Gaijin for making people point out obvious things because apparently it is not so obvious.
-
‘‘such as longer cooldown penalties’’ - this is not a simpler solution. ‘‘reward-based incentives’’ is literally one of my points.
-
That is up to Gaijin, and it already suggests practical solutions.
-
That is not really circular. Rewarding positive behavior / reward-based incentives can be implemented without solely relying on those. It just states that it shouldn’t be the only thing. How is that circular?
Because we already have all the rewards in place so all youre doing is going in circles other than making up new rewards that people don’t care about
- the ai agreed with me on everything so youre obviously wrong.
It’s funny how less of an issue this is in top tier or the moment you unlock SAMs in general, but the Su-25SM3 and the Gripen are my most hated CAS planes in the game, easily the most OP and difficult planes to deal with.