See nobody ever thinks about alternate ways to balance the game.1 tiger vs 3 T34s. Certain amount of SP to spend and your tactical decision to make.
2 Likes
Exactly - unbalanced teams… even more unbalanced than now I mean 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
but WT players generally don’t seem to be able to think past equal sides and only 1 vehicle per player (more or less)
1 Like
Oh imagine the shambles Gaijin would make of it.
Oh Imagine the whining from the balance obsessed whiners who cant see further than the end of their noses.Do them good to play Atari Tank pong where we did have pure balance :)
2 Likes
I understand your point about realism and immersion breaking match-ups, but here’s what i’ve noticed: the people who care about the “realism,” are willing to leak classified documents, and possibly serve jail time, are not doing so from a point of genuine passion about immersion, but rather making their vehicle more viable/opposing vehicles less “OP.”
Most of these vehicles which are in BR’s that largely contain vehicles serviced 20, 30, 40 years before their introduction are there for 1 of 2 reasons:
-
The Tech Tree simply does not have enough viable vehicles which line up with the mean date of introduction into service for other vehicles at its BR. (I.E. the first half of the Swedish Tech Tree.)
-
The vehicle itself would simply be outclassed by contemporaries in other Tech Trees, or even their own, if moved up (Most prevalent in lightly armored HEAT slingers with poor post-pen damage, I.E. the
PT-76, Object 211, Concept 3, Jpz 4-5.)
Both of these are, in my opinion, completely reasonable for balancing purposes. the Concept 3 has a fantastic top speed and gun for its BR, but will melt under 50 Cals, has a gun which takes multiple seconds to settle (a real death sentence at these lower BRs,) poor traction, no post-pen damage, an obnoxiously loud engine, and mediocre acceleration. Almost every time i’ve been killed by a Concept 3 it is the result of not only reckless on my end, but a person level 80+ piloting the vehicle, a player who is more than wise enough to understand how to play glass cannon HEAT slingers with their limitations in mind.
The idea that these tanks (and the Concept 3 in particular, as a high gratification speed demon in the hands of a skilled player, are somehow “unfair” may very well simply be a product of the people controlling them are extraordinarily competent, the poor post-pen damage warding away newer players.
A side remark to your point about facing 1970s SPAA in a WW2 prop, let’s take for example the Ystervark and Bosvark, fellow South African Tech Tree vehicles who are “undertiered” in terms of their introduction date compared to the mean introduction dates of their opposition. These are quick and feature high velocity guns with extremely rapid fire rates, but also can be sniped with any MG from a prop on account of having 0 armor, have poor mag capacity, and fairly low crew count, which multiplies the susceptibility to MG fire.
If your real concern is over immersion breaking, what should one do about the lend-lease vehicles, many of which who were given to various countries at much later dates than they were first fielded and developed in their native nations. The Chinese M42 Duster was first serviced in 1958. Does it seem fair to place it, a vehicle sporting only dual 40mm Bofors cannons, at 8.0+? If you say “all lend lease vehicles should share the same BR,” then that also breaks immersion for people who REALLY CARE.
I think your point is drawn from an emotional perspective of being killed by high level Concept 3 players who flank and wait for vulnerable WW2 vehicles they can pick apart, and the frustration of being on the receiving end. That much I sympathize with. but your idea about historical matchmaking, and your other proposals such as numerically superior tanks against a numerically inferior but much better gunned and armored vehicle, are simply ridiculous.
TLDR: Your idea of prioritizing immersion over balance in a game that pits Cold War tanks against one another in Stalingrad is, with all due respect, completely absurd.
2 Likes
That is a gross over generalisation ffs!
I would prefer more realism and see no reason to leak anything (not that I have access anyway), and in my case it would completely involve having some vehicles OP vs their opponents (eg Tiger vs Sherman) but I’d have other balancing factors like unequal team sizes.
1 Like
I think its actually about game play.We still have so many in game wondering how the hell they got hit so hard early on. Well that will be post war speed in a WW2 game essentially.There is always that feeling you get when you are smashed by the post war time traveler. Maybe I cant define it.Its not a feeling of being outclassed by a better player,more a feeling of being cheated.
It certainly baffled me early on.I think you sense an out of time vehicle because you get that WTF feeling if you play often enough at a certain BR and I took my time with this game, partially because I had no modern top tier destination and partially to get better as a player as I was struggling on the old Xbox.
I believe the relationship between the WTF moment you are describing and the time travelling vehicles to be a fallacy. If you would please indulge me in a throwback to 2015.
I am accutely aware of the feeling you are describing, the old memories are still very raw and have shaped the way I play war thunder as a result. I came into this game after about 3 years of World of Tanks, I distincly remember getting my Tiger H1 in 2015 and had only recently switched to realistic battles and my experience was exclusively WTF moments you describe.
I mentioned Wot because I was crap at it and played in such a way that chaffed against the ingame style of play. War Thunder matched many of my instincts and assumptions by comparison as I was trained as a tanker at 18.
BACK TO THE TIGER IN 2015
The WTF moments were there, there was no Puma, and no Concept 3. It was T-34-85s and T-34-100s which would occupy the exact same parts of the map and snipe at unsuspecting players like myself thinking the battle was to be fought over the capture points.
Talking to you has been very useful in clarifying what it is I’m trying to say when I say the Concept 3 is not the problem.
The playstyle that is shooting unsuspecting tankers from a position they expect to be unoccupied by the enemy is a staple for many tankers. I work on the assumption that at various BR’s players are going to assume the terrain they’re progressing through is safe and aren’t playing in a particularly alert frame of mind. I find that players in WW2 tanks are generally switched off until they’re about 85% of the way to the CAP from SPAWN, so if I’m in a fast tank, or a puma-esque scout it’s very easy for me to exploit this. It’s quite possible to achieve in a tank capable of 35km/h provided I don’t run into any trouble on the way.
The Concept 3 is currently the best tool for the job at it’s battle rating. The framework for the playstyle already exists and players are simply going to gravitate to the role. If the Concept 3 didn’t exist, players would either uptier the AC. Mk.II 6 pounder, or the Avenger.
I don’t want you to take this the wrong way, but the way you descripe how you think world war 2 tanks should be allowed to play, sounds a lot like old 19th century generals in the 1890’s talking about how battles should be fought with well dressed neatly arranged ranks of infantry that take turns at charging each other in a gentlemenly fashion.
The idea of a ‘WW2 tank playstyle’ to me sounds as irrelevant to me in war thunder as a cavalry charge.
1 Like
Fair enough, my apologies on the over generalizations made against top tier realism enthusiasts. However, the rest of my points still stand. Like LukavMineav has laid out, and i mentioned earlier, the Concept 3 is far less a problem of fairness in its relation to historical accuracy, but rather in its usage as an apparatus for seal-clubbers, an issue which frankly cannot be addressed.
We are on the same side here, I don’t know if EddieVanHalo has any other refutes, but as somebody with less than a year of playtime, seal-clubbing is something i’ve suffered a great deal from fairly recently. As a result, it’s a matter i’m always eager to discuss.
2 Likes
That is a pretty interesting way to describe it.
I think he wants to play a full historical sim but cant because those games have such a small audience.
He also has this strange black/white logic of “if the game cant have 100% historical mm, than why cant we have x-wings?”
It also helps if people dont try to see it as a historical re-enactment and more of a tankery game.
3 Likes
I don’t think that’s fair, I don’t think Eddie is rigid in his thinking, I feel like he’s pining for a certain experience and just not finding it in war thunder.
One thing I was going to suggest if your PC will run it, is Gates of Hell Ostfront. It’s functionally Identical to the Men of War Franchise except they go the extra step and give you first person control of infantry, equipment and vehicles. The tanks aren’t modelled nearly to the same detail as war thunder but as a hollistic WW2 experience it’s second to none in capturing the feel of a complete battle and you can use tanks in their intnded capacity to fight tanks, support infantry and attack fixed defenses and breakthrough.
1 Like
If I can build on other discussion points I’ve made talking to you. It seems to me you have problem with how people are playing the game. It also seems like you are pointing to modern tanks and modern ammunition to be symptoms of a problem that you would like fixed in the forms of a rebalance of vehicles.
I would strongly argue that it is not the job of the developer to manipulate the way gamers choose to play. I think it is a bad idea to try and manipulate the mechanical and technical elements of a game to force a gameplay or style of play agenda onto the players.
War Thunder is a vehicle simulator first and foremost, it is not a re-enactment simulator, it is not a scenario based game in the typical realistic battles. I think trying to dictate the gameplay to players will destroy the game not improve it.
My argument against players complaining about HEAT-FS is partly a skill issue argument but hear me out. I think the people complaining are either deliberately ignoring an important fact or deluding themselves.
The kind of player who complains about being a victim of HEAT-FS, is the kind of player that would otherwise get wiped out by the next most effective tank available to players
If it’s not a Jackson firing heat, it’ll be a hellcat, or jackson with APHE killing you. If it’s not the M51 Israeli Sherman, it’s going to be the 90mm Sherman or a T25 that is going to wipe you out.
Even if you guys got the changes you are lobbying for, the next best tank will step up to start the process over again. There is no scenario of a fair battle between tanks because a better player is going to be able to wreck you so long as they have access to shell that can pen you at 500m.
P.S.
I’ll point to a situation in real life for a comparison. In the Iran vs. Iraq air war, F-14s were destroying Iraqi veteren fighters with beyond line of sight air to air missiles. Some of the Iraqi losses were initially notched up to mechanical losses as in most situations the Iraqi fighters being shot down were not aware that they were under attack.
I believe the above is a great example of a situation where a technological advantage posed an insurmountable threat.
A tanker firing a fin stabilised chemical explosive in a static map. A map that is predictable, from less than 1km, out of a gun that still shoots conventional ammo is not an insurmountable threat. Neither is a light tank on wheels that can aggressively push to new and unfamiar ambush points an insurmountable threat.
Realistically, the only reason those positions are viable for tanks like the Concept 3, the hellcat, the puma, etc. Is that there are large numbers of players who simply refuse to adapt.
All it takes is for one or two people to be paying attention and a Concept 3 is useless.
2 Likes
No I have no desire to play another game only to make this one all that it should be.
If I wanted to play sim I would play sim and I have never played sim on here.
In fact I dont even expect change ,I am simply talking about opportunity lost and the baffling decision to purposely make an unrealistic game while spending so much time making the playing pieces so realistic.Its like spending hours hand carving amazing chess pieces only to play draughts with them.
The best way for me to explain myself is that a few years ago we had two main Soccer games. Pro Evolution and Fifa .Pro ev ,many said was a better football game once you got onto the pitch but Fifa had the licenses. It had the proper leagues ,it had the proper teams and the porper players and even the stadiums.So due to it’s " realism" it became the dominating game by a mile. That is pretty much my stand point. War Thunder at one point could have had what both those soccer teams had ,the game play and the realism but it elected to go with …well I don’t know what.Laziness? Silliness? Desperation bad direction? You tell me why we have such a jumbled mix of eras and inappropriate maps.
I took a liberty with the editing but this is so true and we are all caught napping killed and react with a tirade of expletives and angry fist shaking : )
I think the issue is that you cant blame a vehicle for being a time traveler if ti isn’t one.
I pdnt think you can feel a sense of injustice from being flanked by an M18 when you are in a Tiger 2 like you might if you are taken out by a IKV 103 with 400mm of pen or an artillery piece which ignores your armour.
See ,its not even about BR and its not even about the Concept 3, I think in a game that loves to celebrate detail all round the game play field should continue that detail on the game play field.
I think you are correct. My WTF moments are 3 years old and I am over it just the same as I am over CAS and all that is wrong with it.People do sleepwalk in this game or they habitually throw it on even if in reality they are not really in the mood.They do badly ,the game is shit and they may jump on to complain.
Similarly they are bright and alert,using the binoculars etc and getting top 3 etc and its the suddenly the best game in the world.Im aware of what you mean.
All I can say is up to 3BR I had no issue really.It was mostly WW2 vs WW2 on mostly WW2 maps and the game was never better.As I progressed it started to unravel for me a little and obviously not just me.I think this why so many go back down to that BR.
I think similarly there are those who are perplexed by Biplanes at top tier or the M22 at 10BR.
Its not even a great vehicle but dont think the 77mm was cruising the battle fields of WW2 at 50mph ,and yes on a map with metaled roads that abnormal speed will brake the game even in small way. You will encounter that at 3.3 BR remember,history or no history ,that is not fair balancing,not if we are talking good players.It gets worse as you progress up the tiers as you know.
How can anybody talk balance when a vehicle can play in 3 BR levels ,one below and one above? None of us can really. In short gap fillers spoiled the game not necessarily the Concept 3.
That is the point pretty much ,Im the kind of guy who spotted the T34 dressed as a Tiger in Saving private Ryan or the bad tactics in Fury.It’s pedantic but that is why I was drawn to this game and in the first 3 BRs the game held up to scrutiny.It only unraveled a little around 4BR and a lt around 6-7.Not a disaster but a real shame certainly.
They seem to be pretty much hated by British mains not just becuse they are SA but ill fitting and ugly and there when British alternative are available. Saracen would still be post war but a much better fit.I’m certainly not the only one with that view.
No I am long over that just as I am over being wiped by the Pe8,it was news 3 years ago not now .Its a fair assumption but not the right assumption.I agree there is too much raged induced belly aching on here : )
Like I said with the football game analogy.You could have Real Madrid from 1955 play Barcelona from 2012 for a bit of silly fun but would it appease the purists if they were in the same division for the main game? I suspect not.
Because it is tankery and not historical.
People build a map for the tanks to play on, the teams pick the tanks they want to use (within the limits), and the match starts.
It takes place in modern day. It is completely within the realm of realism for someone to build a tiger tank and have it fight a cold war tank.
You can say it is not historical, which i agree, but it is realistic for the modern day. We have the tech to build all of these vehicles.
2 Likes
Then why bother to recreate a vehicle " as it was " . What are you basing it on if not history? Old documentation. Do you see WW2 British tanks firing APHE? Do you see them with much needed roof mounted MGs? Why not? I would love to have them in our fantasy tank game.
Some people like historical material in ahistorical, yet realistic, settings.
2 Likes
Some of us just want the game maker to decide on fact or fantasy.This isn’t Fallout 4 Bro
It isnt black or white. You seem stuck in that mindset and are unable to see anything else
2 Likes
You just seem to want to kiss Gaijin ass and guard all that is wrong with the game.Sorry but you are sounding like Alvis Wisla’s alternative account here : ) .
Trust me, they do things i dont like. I have been complaining about that chaparral bug for months, for example.
Now that is just an awful thing to say :(
2 Likes
Ok Marki that was plain wrong and I apologise : ) That was low : )
1 Like
All good
That dude is crazy. I once agreed with him and he tried to argue.
1 Like