Instead of just proposing things like increasing the base reward multiplier for capturing an objective/multiple objectives, modifying the current multipliers for winning/losing, etc. You just pretend to keep punishing already low winrates and non-meta platforms, and overall, make War Thunder a sweaty and meta-chasing wasteland even further from what it can possibly be right now.
I’m sure you didn’t expected this level of backlash, as it surely sounded better on your mind.
I think I might be on the right track.
It would be the best thing for the game other than just shutting it down completely.
DO IT DO IT!!!
There will always be losers and winners, it’s just how the game works. Even if everyone are skilled.
I guess that even him will leave, if have team did because a lose is certain, then spawn and being destroyed with no reward at all means sl lose guarantee.
Actually just 1 death will be sl lose with a defeat, so try to keep you away from danger at all cost
That’s actually a good point… It’ll only encourage people to quit once they think the match is lost, further adding the psychic playerbase mindset that they know what’ll happen so they’re getting out to requeue.
Sort of sucks too with thier stats being looked at as the winrate isn’t factually tied to the player, but the team, along with the enemy team. Not just the one person.
This is only true for a single match. Winrate over time is 100% the player. (with some modifier for the nation played if rb)
A higher than 50% winrate over a large number of matches means the player is contributing more to the team on average than other players, a lower than 50% winrate means they’re contributing less.
I see a lot of people saying this sort of thing, as if they have no idea how statistics or averages work. It’s mindboggling.
Thing is it’s not just one person to a team… That’s why you can’t say that that rate is attributed to that one persons effort, or worth.
how to lose your Player Base 101:
Do they teach maths where you live? What you’re saying makes absolutely no sense at all.
Imagine you play 1000 games, and you J out at the start of every game. Do you think your win rate would be the same as if you’d killed 10 players per match?
How can someone with a functional brain think win rates have no thing to do with your performance in a battle?
This is truly baffling.
Lol, before you suggest something like that, fix these problems. 1) Create a system where a twelve-year-old old man could not fight against a one-day student. 2) All equipment should receive a fair br, and not so that in everything the best T-55 am and Tam (when it was 9.0) is constantly against 7.7-8.0 tanks that do not have scrap and ATGMs. 3) All team actions should give more rewards, especially in terms of experience, otherwise why help if you can take a point and kill enemies during this time. 4) Regardless of the effectiveness of all (except for weak ZSUs), guests from the future should leave WWII. 5) All tanks that cross the enemy’s respawn line should explode after 25-30 seconds. P.s. When you fix this, then you can cry about it, but for now the game gives more rewards for killing and taking a point, everyone will continue to ignore the team.
Instead it has to do with the performance of you and the other 15…
You are not the main character, is this where this comes from?
Also the insinuation shows you have genuine trouble in conveying your opinion, and being confronted.
Doc, you’re showing your arse here a bit. The players on each team don’t equally contribute to the victory. The point they are making is very valid
Generally speaking the difference between winning and losing is often the efforts of the 4-5 best players on the team. Sometimes it only takes 1 player to turn the tide of battle and allow a team to regain ground.
Sometimes it’s as simple as the enemy team having even worse players than yours. At the end of the day the only common variable throughout all the matches is you the player. In a world of normal distributions so long as you the player continue to improve, your outcomes will gradually get better.
No it’s not, and it’s dishonest to say that it’s down to one like they are…
It’s equally ignorant to avoid the same point that a player can sit idle in spawn and still get a win by the team…
I’m absolutely showing my arse huh… /s…
Don’t even try and validate and excuse what they are saying…
Oh so now I’m not ‘supposed’ to argue am I?
No… The winrate isn’t a metric to say that that individual is good, it’s about how good a team you end up with…
120+ posts - mainly negative and repeating the same feedback in endless loops. I saw (almost) nobody was trying to think outside the box.
Even if the OP has underestimated the backlash - his conclusions regarding the underlying reasons for playing a war game are not wrong.
You have just 2 reasons to play a war game (fun is a given):
Imagine that wt would be a full price title - meaning:
You would have just 2 reasons to play:
If you compare this to what wt is willing or able to offer, you see 2 reasons:
The ultimate end goal of winning a battle by achieving your tactical goals with skill and teamwork is outside playing in a squad (almost) impossible.
Therefore the criticism addressed in the OP (winning is meaningless for most players as influencing the outcome as solo player is very hard / impossible) is absolutely comprehensible.
But from my pov there is no chance that wt will change anything…therefore the suggestion was DoA.
Are you suggesting that a player that does as you say, who will sit in spawn and do nothing will have the same winrate as someone who captures points and gets kills?
