So yeah, guided bombs in 8.0-9.0 battles is absolutley horrific. What the horse is going on!?
No AA in the world at that tier can do anything about it and so far they seem to guidesnipe people just spawning in on their home airfields. Absolutley horrendous!
Make it stop at once! Worst player experience I’ve had so far. Why snail, why?
#goodnight
7 Likes
Becuase snails cannot design a gameplay other than “hey, guys, do something to entertain yourself”.
This is typical MMO game without good PVE to have immersive and interesting gameplay.
2 Likes
Gaijin couldn’t care less about sim. Ground sim is in an abysmal state.
4 Likes
Lots of things are “in an abysmal state” in this game, IMO… Gaijin would do well to take an entire year for themselves and revamp the entire game from A to Z. No vehicles additions, no silly gimmick, just a massive overhaul, consolidation and revamp of the game, starting with the outdated gameplay and maps that were made with WW2 vehicles in mind.
This isn’t ground sim, this is air sim, and no anti-air in air sim can hit the F-117 even at the top BRs.
@Arghail
You have zero idea how game development works.
The vehicle production team can not work on anything else, and Gaijin is constantly working on overhauls to the game.
The gameplay wasn’t made with WW2 in mind BTW.
Also the AI overhaul they’re working on can take years, not one year, years.
Chill mate. That was more of a cynical remark.
And yes, I know all about Gaijin’s “different teams working on different things, preparing months in advance content that will be released much later and so on, blah blah”, I’ve been on this forum long enough to hear that from mods every time someone ask for a vehicle. Don’t patronize me please.
And no, I don’t buy it. Live service game are enslaved to a constant necessity for “content” to get players attention, and the most lucrative element of this system is the “shiny new toy” part.
The air maps and gameplay of this game weren’t made for BVR engagements, nore were the small ground maps made for mach 5 going APFSDS, 20km CAS weapons and F&F ATGMS . I do admit that efforts have been made in the last years and the game has somewhat adapted to squeeze them in, but that’s all they did, squeeze it in an already tired core concept. And it did so at the cost of many years of conflict that can still be seen today across all game modes, especially the ones that are much less tweaked, such as Naval, Heli EC and, obviously, Sim ground RB (although you’re right that we’re in the wrong place).
So yes, I do believe a patch per month or 2 months is detrimental to the overall quality of the development of this game (or any live service game, really), and for most games, it is not sustainable in the long run. It kinda works for Gaijin because there’s no competition, but the moment it appears, you can bet your butt their model would kill them. IMO, a much longer time between patch notes would greatly improve the quality of the content we get. Some events here and there, as well as a much more generous and interesting battle pass would do the job meanwhile to keep player retention.
4 Likes
War Thunder’s primary directive is to complete a grand vision.
The vehicles are a funding mechanism for things that can’t fund the game: AI overhaul, sensor vision in replays, rewindable replays, etc.
It is a time clock as they near the end of vehicle additions, money will flow less and they need to have their big money sinks finished around that same time.
The grand vision BTW? PVPVE with all vehicle types in grand battles. Air, sea, and ground. This was stated in the early days, not repeated often but we get hints of it as they develop the game.
Also War Thunder doesn’t do a major update per month, they do 5 a year which they don’t develop content FOR but release content that’s gold, which is less major updates per year than DCS [War Thunder’s direct competitor].
And to clarify on the 5 updates a year thing further: They don’t develop things FOR an update outside the theme of the update. In the Chinese tech tree update, the only things developed FOR that update were the Chinese vehicles which were in development for years. The themes aren’t finalized until the development of the theme is finished, and this is deduced purely from looking in from the outside.
War Thunder has countless competition, which is why they develop so quickly compared to their competition.
Oh, and the average map size for ground today is larger than the largest ground map in 2015. Ground maps have grown in size. Old maps have had their airspace updated to the 80x80km standard that new ground maps are based on.
I do agree with you with the efforts that have been made with maps, as I said, they’ve done the work. However, I don’t believe at all in that “grand vision” as you call it. The core gameplay has barely changed in a decade, while always more modern vehicles have been added much faster than any significant gameplay evolutions. It all seems much too cynical to me.
And to be honest, you only need spend a few matches at top tier ground RB to know that the vast majority of the maps you’ll get will be the 2015 smallest maps in fact, like Berlin, Cologne and any smaller stuff in between. I blame the frustrating grind which pushes players to pick the smallest maps.
The best representation of that PVPVE vision you talk about was probably the World War mode and the events they did, which they promptly threw out the window in favor of the endless “40k rp a day for an event vehicle” endless grind.
So excuse me if I don’t really believe it.
1 Like
For PVP, there’s literally nothing to change. They have conquest and team death match. Called domination and battle.
For PVE they need their new AI to use all vehicles within their limitations as well as use all weapons.
Right now AI is its own model, and it needs to not be that.
They aren’t constantly telling us they’re working on it, but they’ve told us on 4 occasions now that they are.
More recently they’ve not only told us but shown us AI using ATGMs from tanks, a test more than likely.
Cause right now the AI is bad, it’s from 2009 and was developed for an air-only game of chronically subsonic aircraft.
They’re building a new AI from the ground up effectively, and their competitor took 3 years to overhaul their own AI.
Said AI is needed for all PVE modes; EC, World War, etc. Gaijin cannot change those modes in any way with the current AI.
Also the grind pushes players to run larger maps as the longer the matches the more RP per minute you get, which is why Asia picks larger maps.
Small maps are ironically the lowest rewards per minute.
1 Like
They could also improve interactions targets have with the various types of stores, currently there is no reason for a Bomber or a Strike aircraft to carry anything but what gives them either the most releases or largest throw weight of TNT depending on if they go after AI targets or Bases.
Fire bombs are only useful in edge cases, where the quantity of conventional ordnance isless than would be needed to take down a Base, or in the early stages of unlocking modules.
AP bombs are effectively redundant outside Naval, and even then only a tiny number of Battleships with sufficiently armored decks actually make a noticeable difference.
High-Drag ordnance still isn’t able to be dynamically selected by the pilot, and without meaningful Air defenses, or options for Air dropped mines there really isn’t much of a need.
Small Caliber rockets Lack a use case as targets are handled more reliably by bombs, and larger ones are rare (the fact that alternate HE warheads are missing is also an oddity) Also inconstant damage is an issue.
Torpedoes have similar issues to Rockets and seem to entirely vanish past about 6.0 for no known reason (might be guidance related).
Mines, are in a similar boat, where they are an edge case of edge cases and only really used for their comparatively high fill ratio vs GPHE or to protect a Capture point / Choke point.
Guided Ordnance has its own string of issues, but in general tend to be undermodeled, missing features, and suddenly become available for most nations at higher BRs even though relevant systems are well within scope for additions (e.g. VB-1 & -2, VB-3 & -4 and VB-13, ASM-N-2 etc.) due to counterparts having already been implemented.
It would be great, but even current capabilities are enough to create challenging missions.
If ones plays Su-25, the majority of players cannot complete even fist phase of my mission in SB regime.
Some players cannot complete even phase 2 playing it in RB mode.
or this mission