What connects them is a dislike towards the stereotypical dumb German main/dumb heavy tank main, who “wants to be invincible”.
I think that’s the main thing people got from these changes, it’s that German heavy tanks will be buffed by this.
They also like the modern HEAT/APDS slingers at WW2 BRs. APHE being nerfed would be a strong argument to move them up, since the main argument why they are at WW2 BRs in the first place is post-pen damage.
I don’t know the Russian CC, but Russians hating Germany is a given for me. They think everyone west of Russian borders and isn’t with them is a fascist. My take on this is biased though, since I’m Polish, but that also means I’m much more familiar with the Russian ways in politics.
It´s not that it turned to “shit”.
Is that gaijin implements things in this game quite often without taking into account how deeply they will affect the game, and how they should balance things out.
They never said the game was shit that´s just your reading of it.
That´s a really shallow reading of their concerns doe.
So your main takeaway from their opinion is that they just hate it because German mains dumb?
Also what is this reading of real world politics into the game?
You genuenily believe that there are RU CC´s out there that are voting no on the changes just for the pure fact that they think everyone west of Russia is a fascist?
Again that is just you inserting what you think into their opinions.
This is something I will always hate of this community.
“HAHA German mains noob, skill issue, want Tiger at 1.7? Lmaoooo”
“HAHA U.S mains noob, skill issue, look at this nitpick video of a newcomer Premium player missing me, they are all so bad! Lmaoooo”
“HAHA Russian mains noob, skill issue, so bad only Russian Bias can carry them, lmaoooo”
This primitive tribalism… even I have fallen into making such commentary in the past when I’ve grown fed up of it (fighting fire with fire), it’s like a toxic disease that spreads and affects so many people.
So many people hating “(X) nation mains”, and they don’t realise- others view them the exact same way they view others. At the end of the day they are all the same- people hating others for playing a different nation they for whatever reason dislike.
This constant need to feel “superior” to others by bellitling and putting them down, labelling everyone under pejorative terminology to antagonise them… even funnier considering that a good portion of players are all/multiple-nation players and still get hit with the “haha (X) main” bullcrap just when/because they get “caught” playing certain nation at a specific point.
Assuming this is not a rethorical question: Gaijin themselves.
For many CC who built their YouTube channel around Warthunder content it’s their main source of income. If (theoretically) Gaijin had threatened them with locking their WT accounts on fictitious charges of “using cheats”, they would do anything to avoid it.
The way grind works causes it. You don’t grind specific vehicles, but whole nations.
It was supposed to force you into trying out different tanks and playstyles, but ended up dividing the community into tribes. It’s also supposed to slow down the grind and annoy you into spending money of course.
No, because that wouldn’t be fun. Even if it made the grind theoretically faster it would make the grind worse in my opinion because I wouldn’t want to play as much. I also wouldn’t put the spawns 50 kilometers apart because that would be unfun, make matches longer, and increase the grind. Just because a factor is considered doesn’t mean it’s the only factor considered. See the difference? Of course you don’t…
There is no difference unless your choice is purely arbitrary, meaning you can’t have any stake in the outcome. For example, even if I really like the taste of apples and like the taste of oranges less, then I am biased towards apples if I am arguing to save the apples. To be unbiased, you literally have to have no pre-existing preferences or stake, or argue against your interest, AND you have to be able to objectively assess, determine, and argue for the ideal, which in itself doesn’t work because you can approach the issue philosophically in a number of ways. Per your example, if you are arguing against apples because you like the taste or you make money from them (i.e. a hedonist) and I am arguing for oranges because you can grow more oranges than apples (i.e. a utilitarian), then both parties are biased because they each follow different schools of thought.
Applied to War Thunder, I view game balance as being a priority over realism. That is my bias because I like gameplay and when things like this come up I argue and vote based on that. You view realism as being more important than balance (I highly doubt you actually do in all scenarios, because I assume you would actually be against permadeath, for example). That is your bias. It’s okay to have biases. You mostly play German tanks with cupolas, it makes sense for you to argue your side. I’m just not convinced it’s best for me or the community.
Completely unnecessary and useless expenditure of assets while for example spit br’s for vehicles has not been implemented fully.
These changes will make further imbalance while not fixing the problem of heavy tanks(uptiers, br compression,apfsds,atgm’s,laser rangefinder,thermal…etc).
Basically, we get an even more ruined game with more imbalance at lower tiers(weakspots becoming useless) for some propaganda pseudo-realism bs
Meanwhile, a 120mm Conqueror APDS gets stuck and deals barely any damage to a T92 light tank with a frontal hull shot. HESH ? garbage.
Gaijin wants to lengthen the time to kill, make the game more arcadey, and more importantly, more frustrating with more RNG on shells.
And when it will get implemented the mountain of issues created by a broken buggy mechanic will be ignored for many months and months.
The created Br imbalance will cause heavy tanks to go up in BR which will ruin them once and for all. Literally an anti-heavy tank change.
RN aphe is fine, its balanced. So why break the game guaranteedly in order to fix whats not broken ?
Even in the stereotype there’s always the truth. The issue isn’t so much that people are genuinely this set in stone. But there are people who are self proclaimed X mains who make absurd Y requests. There are people who play one nation because it’s not only cheaper but it’s also more logical to stick to one tree considering the nature of the game.
But I think the biggest issue with the community is that they don’t know how to take a joke, criticism or just don’t know how to handle disagreement in general.
I wouldn’t call it tribalism purely because it’s more along the lines of being uneducated, inexperienced and biased. However you yourself fuel this fire by sticking to one side of an argument and never calling out people on your side of the discussion who do this exact thing.
This constant need to feel “superior” to others by bellitling and putting them down, labelling everyone under pejorative terminology to antagonise them
This feels more like a low handed projection more than anything.
There is no objective proof on what tastes better, it’s a subjective matter, a personal preference.
A preference is what you’re supposed to base your decision on subjective matters.
Bias are other reasons you base your decision on, often malicious in their nature.
Bias exists both in objective and subjective decision making. It’s worse when it’s supposed to be an objective opinion.
In the context of the APHE changes you are supposed to base your decision on aspect like realism, fun, gameplay and balance, not what benefits your favourite vehicles.
If the decision here is purely taste, then it doesn’t matter what anyone’s biases are because the outcome is taste regardless. In fact it makes more sense for me to vote for what I like to play.
This is not true. Even when I take a stance/side, I call out when someone is being unreasonable. For example; I support Abrams fixes and improvements, but if someone starts demanding unreasonable changes, I am the very first to:
I didn’t say bias is taste, but if the poll is a question of taste then the outcome is still one of taste. There is no way to insert objectivity into a question of taste.
This is simply not true. For example; I support Abrams fixes and improvements, but if someone starts demanding unreasonable changes, I am the very first to:
I was talking more so about the people screeching in pain about “US haters” or people claiming that others have a negative bias towards the US.