I’m trying to find the right words to describe it properly but I keep messing up I’m very sorry.
alright got it. So you dont wanna Skill based matchmaking you want UserspecificMatchmaking USMM. The only issue with that is, for the most parts what you mentioned like (Games won/lost, matches played, average skill for the most players in the region, etc) doesnt automatically mean the players is good/bad at the game…
- Kills (counting to skill)
- Deaths (also counting but not entirely, there are cases out there where you die bc of the experience of you teammates)
*Games won/lost (Depends mostly on the skill of your teammates and ofc your skill too, but its a teamgame and if the “team” doesnt play like a team, there is almost no chance to win, so its a autoloose) - Matches played (doesnt mean if a player has 15k matches played in total, that he is good/bad at the game. A player could played 14500 bad matches and 500 good ones or oppsite)
*Average skill for most players in the region (thats kind of interesting hahaha ngl, but I for example live in austria - its next to germany, the other german speaking country, - and when the stats from germany also counts to “my” region than it would be a mess, bc what Ive experienced, most of them are pretty awful in the game bc lack of situational awreness, lack of interest to getting “better/improve” in the game, lack of reaction and so on.) = So the really good ones in that region would be able to encounter unexperienced players bc the lack of experienced players in that “region” pulling the stats of the experienced ones.
*Routes a player takes (This depends on the vehicle the player is in and gaijin has to decide wich route is a kind of a “good/bad” descion. And its to independent to classify which “route” leads for the player to sucess.
I really like you wanna improve the player experience with teammates and enemys theyre faceing but this “issue” relays imo on the player itself. Everybody has to deside for themselves if they wanna “improve” or not.
There us a lot of writing on here for a simple shoot em up 😆
I don’t agree with that, as that will split players further, ironically hurting sim.
It basically is. There’s no real uniqueness to ground sim. The lack of markers and forced gunner sight doesn’t differentiate the mode well enough. It’s almost to the point that if they force gunner camera in RB, ground sim will nearly cease to be relevant.
As what I’m sure you observe, Sim would benefit most from QoL updates, but QoL updates are near non-existent. It’s been mostly hype about new vehicles and some aesthetic changes, nothing that would breathe life into every mode they have.
As in the current state it would, but a lot of players quit bc of the fact there isnt enough modes in the game. The players are forced to either play Arcade, Realistic or Sim. But there could be much more modes than 3.
I’m of the opinion more is not better when it comes to game modes. There are significant differences between AB and RB, but less so from RB to SB. This is bad for SB, as there is little uniqueness to it. Breaking it down even further will just split the playerbase more between game modes that have little differences. This is why QoL is going to be the more realistic option.
2 Likes
I think you didnt understand what Ive meant. Let me explain it otherwise. For example you are at a concert and over 150k people are also there. When the concert ends everybody wants to grab something to eat at the near two restaurants. The 1st restaurant gives you 3 basic meals to choose from, the second gives you the 3 basic meals + 10 different types of meals and customization options. In both of the restaurants are more than enough place for 150k people+. What would you choose and what do you think were the people will go to grab something?
PS Both have the same prices and amiente, etc.
Sorry but I’m not understanding this analogy. How I’m interpreting it is thus:
-Ground AB/RB/SB: gamemode that determines difficulty.
-Same as above but now settings are individually modified according to each mode up to ten different ways?
Almost, for sure with the 15 meals was just an example. I wanted to say there are people who like the current setting about GSB, but different variety of maps how I described now a few times already. I would rename the current Ground Simulator battle in “Realistic Battle” and create a 4th Gamemode which would be the real Simulator.
And like you can choose in GRB with the night battles you got some “sliders” where you can choose do you want to play EC Maps, CQB Maps like the current one or maybe bigger maps like Red desert. And those sliders you would have in all gamemodes.
Thats how I would implement it. So there would be different gamemodes for the people who want a real Simlation, for those who are fine with the current Sim mode as a even more realistic mode then GRB, then GRB but I would rename it to Combined Arms Core, and GAB would called Combined Arms Arcade.
So then the playerbase would split but also reunite again bc of the fact there are more possabilitys to choose from and new players would discover a whole “new” game not a lame cap point oriented game with planes, tanks and helis.
I don’t see why this would constitute a different gamemode in itself if it is strictly map related.
Sounds fine in theory but not in practice (for sim). The more filters added can and will increase queuing times or even make it impossible based on the specific brackets.
Problem with this, what is stopping new players from joining sim in the first place? The lack of popularity of sim will get worse if it is divided to a fourth mode.
From what I can garner, your approach to this is that the maps are a major problem for sim. I still don’t agree. You bring up match rules (Domination/Battle/Conquest) being stale, which is a universal problem across all modes, not too specific to sim. The issue that I can observe is Sim has nothing very unique about it for ground vehicles. The gameplay is almost completely the same to RB and considering issues that push me away from sim, it’s just overall more sensible to play RB instead.
1 Like
They don’t even need to do this, all they have to do is update the location of allies every 5 or 10 seconds, I think not knowing where your allies are is completely unrealistic. Most tanks have radios and radio operator crew, and as you go higher in the ranks, tanks get battle management systems which track the location of friendlies with GPS.
Having the map update every 5 to 10 seconds would simulate those features. Even the most hardcore simulators like ARMA and GHPC show locations of friendlies and allies, so it’s not a capital sin.
That’s my only gripe with SB, having some awareness would be a MASSIVE QoL feature.
4 Likes
Could be a cool feature. As long as you “Operator is alive or/and you have still your radio it could be like that”
I know that you cant see that, bc you are to sticked to the old system.
As I said Yes it would be in the beginning, but it should increase after time. How I see nobody is reading my post correctly…
Rotation lists, long queing times, too small squishy maps to name a few.
As I said, you dont think long term based. Currently yes, why should people play GSB when they cant play everyday to any given time their vehicles what they wanted to play.
So people tend to play GRB bc their you got it. And they ignore the fact of gaining RP/SL is in GSB much larger than GRB.
Rotation lists, long queing times, too small squishy maps to name a few.
I also mentioned this alread alot of times in my posts.
It has. It is unique. For SIMULATOR Players it isnt unique enough,
For the players who wanted to experience a Mode where the maps are way larger and EC Based, with a different difficulty settings like locked camera perspective, realistic gunner sights, realistic engines acceleration, etc. It would be this mode I described.
Devs have to do a single SIMULATOR mode which isnt divided into seperate ASB and GSB. Bc Combat/War Simulation imo is not only planes vs planes, or tanks vs tanks. It should be Tanks, helis, planes all together in a different Simulator mode. Where all that shiny uniqueness were you and the other ones like @DerGrafVonZahl are talking about.
1 Like
I dont understand why they dont mesh sim air and sim ground lobbies tbh.
When an air team in sim wins air superiority in a region, it spawns a mini bot battle below. They could instead spawn a single quadrant higher fidelity map and an attack defence game mode with reall players that were in a ground sim lobby waiting for a match.
Would be atleast worth a try imo.
Ground sim maps in general shoulsnt be on the tiny maps they commonly use though… the very few good maps are imo red desert, pradesh, and like poland/eastern europe. The rest are mostly trash, and the faft small maginot even exists is a crime against humanity
3 Likes
This is a great idea. I was thinking about including it in my original post, but thought that it’s too radical. It also creates a HUGE problem with graphics.
It’s a great idea imo, because it implements everything i expect from sim. It captures every aspect of tank combat:
-both long range engagements and occasional city combat
-traveling big distances, cutting deep into enemy lines
-breakdowns associated with driving non-stop - I’m talking about many kilometers, I don’t want a tiger to break down every 200 meters
-limited supplies, realistic loadouts - you would actually have to take full ammo and take a lot of HE for machine gun nests and stuff like that
-cooldowns instead of limited spawns - the more expensive your tank is relative to others (tiger 1 vs sherman for example), the longer the cooldown after you die, for example 2 mins for a sherman and 5 mins for a tiger, don’t take these number too seriously
-realistic terrain - in air sim terrain is made to look natural, not balanced or fun to play
-realistic cas
This would make sim what I think the majority of players want: a story about the tank you are driving. It should show how tanks were operated, almost like a movie. The down time between battles and travel time is in my opinion a very important part of tank experience. The sound of distant artillery barrages while you resupply your tank on an outpost in the middle of nowhere.
On top of that there could be campaigns instead of rotations, like it was in Enlisted. Imagine how cool it would be. For example a north africa camping, panzer 3s vs crusaders and matildas on a big air sim EC map with tropical versions of bf109s, spitfires and hurricanes. And your objective is to capture Tobruk or something, but only after you capture some smaller towns/strategic points, so you can’t just rush past the frontline, avoid all combat and capture the point, while everyone else is on the frontline 20 kms away.
This is what i associate with an immersive experience. That’s why I’m so triggered by balance over historical accuracy when it comes to BRs. It can be both balanced and historical if you just include all aspects of tank combat. I gave up on ground rb in that regard (too many casual players), but at least sim shouldn’t have this time traveler crap.
The feeling I’m talking about is the one when you look at pictures of cards in KARDS (ww2 card game) and the music/war ambient of this game.
This idea also won’t turn War Thunder into a milsim, as long as there is no playable 1st person infantry.
Even in such small details War Thunder is changing for worse/more casual, they replaced the very cool and unique pictures of tanks in black and white (or in color, depending on how modern the tank is) for boring renders, just so they can save some time and money. These small details matter for me. They add to the overall atmosphere.
I thought about that as well, some tanks have their radios and radio operator crew modeled, it doesn’t do anything for gameplay, but it’s already there, having your comms taken out should make you blind.
I’m really crossing my fingers and hope it gets implemented like that. It would be the only reason for me to come back to the game.
1 Like
Just GSB isnt that popular so gaijin wont do anything, sadly. We can discuss here about anything to improve the game etc, but it wont get us further.
They have two options:
- They “risk” something to inprove GSB with deleting Rotation lists and scale the maps up so you dont have to play this little ones from GRB.
- They leave it like it is and mainly focus on GRB and ARB. As they do it right now
No, I come from the approach that there should not be too many game modes (difficulty modes, not rulesets). So basically, I am seeing this as an impracticable solution as you presented.
Long term won’t mean anything if in the short term it fails, to which you even say there will be matchmaker issues from the start. This would be incredibly damaging to an already frail mode. You cannot sacrifice too much of one, it sounds like you are gambling with this idea.
How it sounds to me
I strictly focused on what you discussed with me, most of it seemed focused on map selection. I have not read the thread in its entirety.
So… it’s not very unique. Literally what I typed and supported it with the next sentence. There is not enough of a difference between GRB and GSB to advocate switching over.
That’s not an accurate opinion (for war Simulation) considering planes are not always supporting ground units. But to be fair to it, let’s only focus on War Thunder’s side of it. Mythic brings up a novel point with this:
The way something like this would work, considering current limitations of the game, would be to completely erase Ground SB and merge it into Air SB, which is in line with your suggestion. This would allow people to use whatever vehicles they feel like in what is a large sandbox. It would require a large effort to revamp the objectives and spawns to streamline this process, however, and one that Gaijin may not be willing to do soon if at all. At least it’s a solution that’s a positive for both short and long term.
Planes, Tanks, and Helicopters already operate together in GSB, so that doesn’t add any uniqueness on its own. Operating the tank feels the same compared to RB, the forced parallax is honestly the only defining difficulty trait. The objectives are the same, the control is the same, the maps are the same. At least ASB has a significantly different feel than ARB, GSB lacks that.
We have to gambling. you said already failed mode, so we have to risk something to make a step further bc when you leave it how it is, its also gambling. Just without effort.
Doesnt care how it sounds to you, but its fact.
Maybe you should read it and dont cherry pick some sentences. Maybe you will understand it better. You didnt just read the back of a book and say aha cool dont understand it.
It is, but it depends from player to player. If you look closely there isnt much a difference between GAB to GRB to GSB, either. Just Horsepower, a little + which turns in colors and markers. Wow soo much difference.
Its different enough for you I guess.
Yeah I know, but a ground vehicle only mode wont be happen, suggested many times and blocked away many times so it is what it is.
Would be weird to implement especially for Tank crews battle would last 5 minutes.
I already wrote a suggestion post earlier on this day, but its pending. Where I wrote again a whole book. How to setup those modes. IF it gets accepted from a mod, then you will can read it, maybe then you understand everything.
I said frail, not failed. This gamble isn’t really necessary.
That increase in RP and SL isn’t really worth moving from RB to SB. If it was, where is everyone then? Which is why GSB is “a polished turd”.
I read everything you discussed with me, so I didn’t cherrypick. After this comment, I will filter your comments to see what you said here.
This comment is amazing on many negative levels to a point where I think you’re trolling. I refuse to believe someone actually thinks that the differences between AB and RB are that close.
This one I either wasn’t clear or you misunderstood. Ground SB would be eliminated, to which I was insinuating you have a lineup of ground vehicles with your aircraft and helicopters. You can spawn the tanks when those objective become present. This is an example, but not how it would be done verbatim. This is why I gave credence to the idea.
If it’s in suggestions then I will have to look at that topic page, I have not yet filtered your posts to find everything you typed.
–Are you referring to your post here?