In real life it is a credible action to get the severely damaged aircraft out of danger zone and towards airfield/a safe place. Since War Thunder’s motto is “realistic combat” I think at the end of the game severely damaged aircraft should not be counted as “killed”. It does not have to be 0 or 1. There should be things in between like in real life.
1 Like
Unless this was a recent change then no you can not. They specifically removed this feature for aircraft damaged beyond a certain point as you can see here:
https://old.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/11dh6i3/why_couldnt_i_repair_my_plane/
You’re complaining a lot using assumptions made regarding a post intended to incite feedback by the community. The feature is purposefully vague because they are still developing it…
Give them actual constructive feedback and ideas instead of just whining about a feature being “inconsistent” that isn’t even out yet.
I have to make assumptions if they’re purposefully being vague about it.
It sounds really intriguing!
This can turn out really well :)
questions:
how does the severely damaged factor into the time-based repair costs?
if my plane gets severely damaged after one minute of playtime with that plane and i then fly for lets say one minute more before getting destroyed/game ending. does the repair cost amount to 2 minutes or just the one minute before getting damaged?
If i at the end of a game (after one minute of playtime) get severely damaged and manage to fly back to base and land, do i have to wait for the repair timer for it not to count as a full death if the game ends when i’m standing at airfield getting repaired? or will it be enough to land and start the repair for me to have “saved” the plane if the game ends before the repair finish?
You could ask questions about the vague parts and make suggestions on how you think the vague parts should work instead of assuming.
They could be clear in the first place and properly communicate with the community for once instead of hiding behind obscurity, I have made enough attempts trying to communicate with Gaijin employees to know that 1. they don’t care and 2. they don’t know anything and we’re just playing a game of telephone because the people who do know things refuse to spend time out of their days to communicate on the forums, something I have requested before.
i absolutely agree with you there (as a general statement).
however, when it is this kind of “what do you think about this?” post, they might not even have developed the idea further than what they have written here. which would make sense, why would they spend time and money on a feature all of the players are gonna hate? i know they have done so in the past, but it seems that they lately have moved in a better direktion by doing exactly this; asking the community first. Doing it this way (being vague and letting the community guide them and speak their mind) will not only save Gaijin money on development (players are doing it for free for them) but also lets them implement features most players will actually enjoy.
imagine if they spent months on a (what they believe to be) perfected new feature only for players to hate it and for them to need to spend again months of work changing it so that players like it. double the amount of work needed for the same end result.
instead, what they are moving towards now is a “we are thinking about implementing this vague idea, what do you guys think?” and letting the players do the first part of the work by saying what they like and how they would want it. so they themselves only need to have a concept and let the players guide them towards a better feature and in addition only half the amount of work needed compared to before.
Just like they always ask for feedback for BR changes and then do whatever anyways?
This is where we were:
1385 posts of feedback later we’re here, which is even worse than what we started with:
Just a quick peek about the opinion on the M26 changes
Oh well, anyways
Just like we go through 4000 comments on spawncamping with got us where?
imagine if they spent months on a (what they believe to be) perfected new feature only for players to hate it and for them to need to spend again months of work changing it so that players like it. double the amount of work needed for the same end result.
Wouldn’t be the first time, and why would they care this time?
instead, what they are moving towards now is a “we are thinking about implementing this vague idea, what do you guys think?” and letting the players do the first part of the work by saying what they like and how they would want it. so they themselves only need to have a concept and let the players guide them towards a better feature and in addition only half the amount of work needed compared to before.
Or they’re just checking off bits of their roadmap where they feign communication and the final implementation of this ‘concept’ will be identical to the current version that is presented here with zero change, as it tends to be.
Either way, I’m giving them my feedback am I not? I’m providing feedback on the inconsistent damage model, I’m giving them feedback on not being a fan of the reduced rewards in a game that already suffers from pitiful rewards and does not need to reduce rewards further for changing wording of a mechanic, and how it’s questionable that it’s going to require more steps for the same outcome.
I am absolutely fine with the changes concerning the airplanes. I think this might be OK, for my part.
What puzzles me is the new Setup of the nightbattles. I do not like the idea of locking nightbattles in RB to a BR of 10.0 and higher.
I think this is to restrictive. Nightbattles should be available for both RB and AB for all Vehicles that have access to some sort of night vision. But: The player should be given the decision if he wants to join a nightbattle or not.
I am convinced that everybody playing this game is old enough to decide this by him- or herself.
Regarding critical damage - seems nice. I am not really fan of air battles, but with my mediocre experience, it can be quite annoying to be forcefully J out, even tho I can still keep control of my plane. And it is just interesting mechanic in GRB mainly, may lead to unique situations.
Night battles is something I always liked. I am trully glad they have a comeback. However, back then, there was serious issue in this mode - illumination flares. Those illuminated battlefield to an extent, where it used to be brighter than daytime, especially tanks in such light were incredibly visible. At the same time, It denied any usage of NVD, as the moment flare popped, we’ve been literally flashbanged, therefore denying any reason to buy or use NVD upgrade in tanks w/o thermals. And I don’t really see a reason to lock them behind such high BR, since anyone can turn them off at any given moment.
My suggestion is to let lower BRs play Night battles as well. If they don’t like it/don’t have proper upgrades - they just won’t play them.
Second thing - illumination flares could be given to players. As flare guns existed even back in WWI - used to illuminate No Man’s Land to seek for enemy patrols - one flare could be given to every tank on start of the match. Moreover, some vehicles have proper armanent to use illumination flares - like STRV-103 and their 71mm Lyran mortar. That would change night battles gameplay tormendously, as key points or potential enemy approaches could be illuminated, while at the same time players will have a chance to play covert, avoid light, or set an ambush while using proper tools like NVD. Not to mention tactical factor of “where, when and if to illuminate certain area”.
1 Like
Well, also a nice idea. i like it.
The severe damage mechanic seems reasonable. Let’s see how it’s going to work in game…
Regarding night battles, what about vehicles with NVD below 10.0 BR? For example the Panther II. Since this update, all that the NVD is going to be for is raising the grind and price for spading the vehicle and raising it’s repair cost (read totally useless and annoying). Either remove it from researchable modifications or decrease the BR limit for night battles (they gonna be optional anyway, right?)…
This was 7 months ago, and was an issue for just a small time.
I could not find the changelog but you gave me the idea of searching examples on reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/172plrn/softest_ryanair_landing/
11 days ago, he can land with no wings and dead…
This one is even worse, 21 days ago:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/16twp4x/im_fine_with_this/
In these examples I wonder if these players recieved the “kill credit given to: [player]” message also or if they were just critically damaged?
Currently I have been experiencing an issue where a small portion of my wing will get shot off but I can still fly just fine and land but the kill credit has already been given and I can not land to repair it just kicks me to the hangar. I’m hoping this is one of the things Gaijin is intending to fix with the OP.
Out of all the times I’ve landed when considered dead, about 90-95% of the time I could repair. Out of those a very common scenario was a complete wing rip off (from the root) on an F84B. IIRC i also recently landed a dead hunter and was fine, as well as an IL-28. That looks like a bug. Normally, even if the game considered you fully dead and unrepairable, when landing an an airfied, you would get the popup of “too damaged for repairs” (or something along the lines of that), where the repair/rearm timer would usually be and would be allowed to sit on the runway for as long as you wanted to.
the game is fine as it is. no need to further complicate it
Its kind of bizarre to me how notorious War Thunder players are for complaining and when Gaijin attempts to fix some of those issues everyone is just like: “Nah I don’t like change keep it the same.”
Like what gives?
This change is good, but I don’t agree with the new reward mechanism.
Players who cause a Severe damage should receive a reward equal to the kill, giving the killer a reward for approaching the assist, rather than sharing it from a complete kill reward. Otherwise, the overall reward acquisition will actually decrease. If the rewards received by the player who caused the Severe damage before and the player who ultimately killed the enemy are 0.5 and 1 respectively, after the change, they will become 0.8 and 0.2 or other ratios. But a reward of 0.5 disappeared. Overall, it looks absolutely terrible. Perhaps this change will not cause much loss, but if this method is popularized to other mechanisms, how many 0.5 will players lose?
Gaijin should not forget their commitment to increase RP and SL. The ways in which RP increases are conditional, not directly increasing. These promises have not yet been fulfilled, but the overall acquisition has begun to decrease. I don’t think this is a good start.
Chances are from the way it’s written I don’t believe it should. I think they were trying to say that there were times when the person who destroyed it was credited with the kill but the plane continued to fly, managed to go back to AF and repair, and there attempting to fix that issue by stating the plane was instead severely damaged therefore go kill it. However, the one who shot first is going to get most of the reward while the one who assisted in the killing will also get something(similar to an assist). They just wrote it confusingly but can’t blame most of the Staff who are translating it aren’t native English speakers.