It’s funny to hear the people wanting the change say they want it for balance and realism at the same time. Real isn’t balanced or always fun. There are plenty of things in the game which are blatently fake- like boundaries on the map which prevent light/medium tanks from doing what they were designed to do, or 10 second repair times for everyone saying people should just learn to shoot the gun and tracks on heavy tanks which would get buffed instead of the cupola.
The buff which isn’t up to vote is realistic. So regardless of the outcome, we are getting more realistic APHE than we have in game currently.
But if you don’t want APHE to be “OP” and “unbalanced,” just make that argument.
@SPANISH_AVENGER
I imagine that if someone wants to play a sim game mode, he is willing to put up with challenging realistic matchmaking. Otherwise all that immersion is for nothing.
If there was a bracket with Pz.38 (t)s and KV-1s, the soviets would also have BT-7s in that bracket.
To make someone want to play a Pz.38 (t)s or BT-7s in that bracket, the game mode should be more advanced and maps should be bigger. There is no point in historical matchmaking, if the battles are played out in an arcade manner.
Maybe ground EC or something like that, with economy. Even in games like CS there is an economy aspect.
There is room for experiments, as ground sim is practically dead anyway, only air sim is alive. Ground sim is no way more realistic than ground rb. The only difference is gunner’s sight and always zoomed in 3rd person view.
I think a more likely explanation is that the poll is rigged.
Think about it: if they had simply announced that they would buff the APHE by adding the nose fragment, with no downsides, people would get angry.
But now they have a plausible deniability: “See, it’s not our fault, we gave you a chance to nerf the APHE, but it seems like most of you don’t like this idea. So, go on, blame those other guys, not us.”
Gaijin gets what they want and shift all the blame on some nebulous, ill-defined, group inside the playerbase itself.
They’ve learned from their previous failures when they had to concede to the playerbase what they demanded. They know that if community unites we can force them do what they don’t want to.
You are naive if you think Gaijin will let you have a voice in how they make money.
All of these sound like fun matchups if the game mode wasn’t just TDM but league of legends. Especially if you leverage the fact that M4A1s more than capable of destroying KTs considering they would typically be armed with 76s by the time the KT was a threat, Leopard Is are more than capable of destroying T-64As and T-72s are… you already know this story. The real kicker is in most of these scenarios the bigger threat is typically less numerous, plagued with problems or in a dire situation already.
Panzer 38(t)s would more often than not fight T-26s and BTs than KV tanks. But I assume your entire scenario is the current game’s modes which are completely trash as far as game modes go.
Historical game modes can be fun, RB with historical line ups? not so much.
yeah… as it should be. pvp games without balance are incredibly one-sided. would you want to always be shoved into a much, much worse tank than your opponents? historical matchup accuracies should be reserve for a dedicated milsim pve game.
Sim is already the least populated mode, would be even worse if you split the player base unevenly by making matches so one side has an unfair advantage over the other. I’d throw out a wild guess and say most people don’t want to play at a distinct disadvantage most of the time just for the sake of muh realism.
I mean, to be fair the only reason it’s like that is because it’s both neglected and extremely casualized to the point there’s no reason to play it over realistic.
If it had actual support it could probably rival other modes but since it’s a forgotten relic it’s expected to be played as such.
It’s not a choice between balance or realism, you can have a little bit of both. You can have a fairly balanced game with fairly realistic matchups. There’s no reason so many tanks with modern high pen HEAT have to fight WW2 tanks. And by WW2 tanks I don’t mean a Maus, I mean a T-34-85 or an M4A3E8.
Right now the priority ratio is 100% balance 0% realism, why can’t it be 75% balance and 25% realism.
Getting off-topic again, but tbh kinda applies to the topic too.
well at some point you just lose casuals with more and more authentic, but complicated controls. I doubt that it would rival arcade and realistic even with more support. Most people don’t come into this game expecting a milsim. and if you incorporate unfair matchmaking based on historical accuracy, it would probably look even less appealing to most players.
Nah, I don’t think they wanted this either. I think they just figured players wouldn’t ever vote for stronger APHE given a choice, so I would look like they were listening to players here at the end of the day, but didn’t count on some sheep-like behavior and some poorly informed CC’s.
There’s nothing more fundamentally more complicated about sim’s controls. it’s just a different way of utilizing them.
On top of that if the game’s developer brags about accurate representation of the vehicles, what’s the issue with having a game mode that accurately represents their usage? I would be all for a historical match up game mode, it would be fun and a break from the dogshit that is sherman vs sherman vs sherman vs sherman or T-72 vs T-72 vs T-72.
You probably weren’t there yet, or if you were, you seem not to remember very well;
But we already had 100% historical simulator battles and they were a flop.
Queues were always 0-2 for the disadvantaged team, 50+ for the advantaged team- naturally, no one wanted to play in a terrible technical disadvantage. Queue times were 10+ minutes because of this, and sometimes finding a match was straight up impossible.
Bit off-topic, so we should probably discuss this in the topic Panter linked earlier hahah.
But we already had 100% historical simulator battles and they were a flop.
By who’s standards exactly? They tested realistic enduring confrontation (the most fun I’ve ever had in this game) and they said it too was a flop. They tested a battle royal game mode, also extremely fun, but it was deemed a flop. They claim things are flops all the time, you know? Just like top tier jets past 1956? Weird how that turned out.
Not to mention the world war mode that was not only a success but often played by thousands of players when it was actually enabled.
The main issue was when the test of historical simulator battles was ongoing it was both A: during a time in which the game had significantly less players but also B: poorly advertised.
But to add insult to injury, war thunder cannot fundamentally provide a simulator game mode. It lacks too many mechanics and QoL features for it to be more than an arcade game. Ultimately if you rub shit on the wall most people is going to say it stinks, but if you actually spend the time to adequately craft a game mode that’s not only fun but also rewarding you will find a playerbase and you will find that people enjoy something that is properly implemented.
Of course arcade players won’t suddenly start playing sim. Not every change in the game has to be made to please arcade players. There are 3 different game modes to attract different people looking for different level of realism.
Currently War Thunder has grown too big to care about the sim niche. Sim players are often used at the start to get the game going and then thrown away once the game becomes popular.
