Skills are learned and developed. You can play the guitar poorly and still be more skilled than someone who cant play. You can’t learn and developed twitch reflexes, there is a biological limitation.
I played football well but you dont see me in the NFL
Skills are learned and developed.
So why then did you claim that early on when you first joined, you got 55% win rate in AB, but you would “today, totally get 65% win rate” if you think that AB is based on skillls that are “not learnable”?
Because I don’t actively play AB, nor did I much in the betas. I was here for RB and focused on that. I have to take a line from Gladiator, I wasnt good in WoT because I killed quickly, I was good because the crowd loved me. I OUTPLAYED and tricked my opponents to expose themselves. I would do the same in AB.
When I played the USSR tree I wanted to brawl and focus on knife fighting, when I switched to the French tree I focused more on just kills. You can see just by a simple gameplay change the disparity in efficiency.
The point is, how I play and the conscious decisions to do something are directly effect my performance. If I want to boost a win rate of a tank, I focus on that and boost it, if I wasd a 2-3:1 KD in my french tanks I do it. If I want 65% win rate in AB, I would do it.
Right but why would that matter, if the relevant skill is “unlearnable”? No amount of practice makes “unlearnable” skills better.
You responded before my edit:
I have to take a line from Gladiator, I wasnt good in WoT because I killed quickly (twitch), I was good because the crowd loved me. I OUTPLAYED and tricked my opponents to expose themselves, took advantage of map terrain, reload speeds, etc. I would do the same in AB.
You COULDN’T do the same in AB, if the mode doesn’t allow for learnable skills. Whereas if it does, then your earlier objection of “It’s just pointing and clicking dude” is by definition incorrect, then.
In reality, you were right this second time: All modes, AB included, are very chess-like and about strategy, not twitch reflexes. Mainly because tanks are just slow as shit, even in AB, it’s nothing like CS:GO, it doesn’t move as fast as your mouse. If you notice a guy out of the corner of your eye peeking you, and you weren’t already read for him, it’s too late. In any mode.
So they’re actually very similar.
AB you know where everyone is, but you have to guess where they might LIKELY be going 30 seconds from now.
in RB/SB, you are guessing where they might LIKELY be right now (assuming you can’t hear them, if you can then it’s just the same as AB in that case)
But basically the same, one step removed in time.
May 30th 2017, that is when i started playing this game, “invisible” tanks existed long before easy anti chat was ever added.
First life: no differently, the Panther II would have spotted you 3-4 times on your approach (basically whenever the name fills in fully red on the replay, if they have maxxed out crew), and been lining up a shot expecting you down that rail line. But that’s what already happened here, and you were aiming at him too, so seems the same to me. Then you just shot back and forth at each other, and best aim/knowledge of weak points/number of teammates helping out won, same as any mode. The aim indicators usually don’t matter, honestly, because you need to get the first shot off, and you can’t waste time hunting around for green crosshairs, you just need to KNOW. So also not really different. It does make a big difference in situations like when one person is in a KV-1E and there’s random-ass little weak spots in between the side armor that nobody really remembers, then the crosshairs help out, but not in a case like this.
Second life: Ferindand, same, you didn’t shoot at each other until you saw each other anyway, so wouldn’t have been different really. Flank shooting people going to A point: They probably wouldn’t be paying attention to pings way on the other side of the map in AB either. Chance of you getting ganked by someone spawning to your left: very much higher, but it’s easy to remedy that, you’d just camp with a pile of pipes to your left or something to protect against that risk ahead of time if it was AB.
Then once you’re completely behind their team, it wouldn’t play out very differently, because AB spotting is not automatic, someone has to actually be looking in your direction. If nobody on the team is, then you’re just as invisible as in SB. Again, the risk is someone spawning and spotting you and the guy you’re hunting seeing you by radio relay, so you’d have to be way more attentive to their spawn. But that’s not a huge adjustment in habit. You’d again either put hard cover to your left, and/or constantly flick your camera left to keep tabs
For awhile you were hanging out exposed to like 5 different view angles standing far off from a corner in a yard, very visible except for bushes and concrete destructible walls. Which would instantly get you killed in AB, but you could have just hung out hugging a corner 5 meters away, so again not a big adjustment in habit. Basically HARD cover is real cover in AB, concealment is more like open air.
LeKpz doesn’t see youa nd you don’t see him for ages, but again, that’s just “equal disadvantages for both sides.” In AB, you’d both instantly have spotted one another, but you’d probably react faster, much like you did here.
At this point you continue for quite some time to just hang out in the same exposed yeard, which breaks my brain. You’d be so so so dead, but of course I get why it works here. I’m surprised you didn’t get revenge bombed though.
A wiesel would have spotted you when you spotted it, probably, and instead of it blithely driving by and getting shot, you would have had some sort of standoff with one another on either side of the silos, with someone having to push first and try to rely on a stabilizer or some other advantage. I’d put my money on the wiesel, since it could probably peek a few millimeters out, track you, and then be fast enough to make you committ to aiming at one side while it zipped around the other and side shot you. You’d have had to have noticed him earlier on to have the advantage. Maybe you would have maybe, not, hard to say.
You died by getting pincered, which is equally game over in any mode. Broad scale positioning thing, not details based.
I ran out of time to watch at this point
It is (in part) an anti cheat feature, but it’s an in-house one.
The concept is very simple: if you literally just don’t send packets of data about a tank to a client, then no possible hacking software clientside can ever reveal where the tank is. You can theoretically afford to do this in any situation where the player PROBABLY wouldn’t have seen the enemy anyway (with sufficient junk in between them and distance, and lack of movement etc). Which is what all the multipliers are meant to estimate.
Or this one, walked right up to 3 tanks and killed them from point blank behind before bagging 11 kills.
https://warthunder.com/en/tournament/replay/page/133427943645762890
So I’ll concede that I would not have been able to do this in AB since everyone and their mom would have seen me but there also needs to be credit to the ability to patiently and tactically position on a flank using sound and engine shutdown to your advantage.
The thing, is I physically spot them but generally dont respond if its not an immediate threat or I need position. The ferdi is a good example, I physically saw him but was a matter of getting LOS with the gun but would be the same in all modes. I saw the M41 but he was moving away.
The end in the final stand is much like the courtyard area, I kill like 5 or 6 tanks next to B near the water tanks.
So I think it’s not about less skill more skill, less difficult, more difficult. It’s just different skill, different difficult. Fair points.
Fair enough.
Do we actually have any evidence from datamining to suggest its crew skill based and not the extremely common phenomenon of asset culling being aggressive?
Or it somehow being anti-cheat. Which makes no sense.
Anti cheat makes perfectly good sense, it’s pretty much the objectively best way to make an anti-cheat against xray wall hacking. If you send zero packets of information over the internet to the client at all about the existence of a tank, then no possible clientside hacking program can xray view that tank through a wall. Because the data just doesn’t exist on your computer, there’s nothing TO hack.
In order to know when to not send data packets, the system has to estimate when the player wouldn’t be able to reasonably see that tank, but without rendering the entire scene for every player serverside (which would require warehouses full of GPUs). So they try to do that by rules of thumb and shortcuts like “if there’s a bunch of fences and crap and smoke and bad weather, and long distances, then you probably can’t see the tank. So now we can safely stop sending packets of data about it, and stop wall hackers from seeing it when players couldn’t anyway”
Ta da! A cheat system is foiled.
…Assuming you configure it well, which they did a “meh” job of
…And assuming you don’t add in some random P2W nonsense as one of the multipliers like crew skill to make a quick buck, which they couldn’t resist.
But the core concept makes good sense.
I won’t post links here, because it’s against the ToS, but I’ve seen many videos on youtube before of people unabashedly cheating on War Thunder, including with wall hacks, and you can actually see that the system works quite well at neutering wall hacks pretty aggressively. They will see outlines of an enemy tank here and there briefly, sure, and gain a bit of advantage, but like 90% of the enemy team is NOT showing up on their wallhacker at any given moment, because of packets not being sent about them due to this system.
Posting Number 46
It might help mitigate some cross map cheating, but it mostly just sounds like good netcode and saving server resources.
Because as evidenced by the occasionall wacky long range movements of vehicles we dont get as many updates to vehicle position.
Its just good netcode. And as far as cheating is concerned it just decreases reliability of extreme range shots. It doesn’t really stop it in any way.
Edit: its more a case of good netcode having some extra perks.
We weren’t talking about low-res movement of jittery tanks. We were talking about INVISIBLE tanks, as per the title. No data at all, not low-res data.
And I’m pretty sure they have directly stated it was anti cheat before on the old forums.
And every time ive seen it happen its classic asset culling.
I mention long range movements in how Warthunder handles far away objects because thats also, like not sending data, a way to reduce load.
“Invisible tanks” As far as im concerned untill dataminers can say otherwise its just unfortunate side effect of optimized netcode and an optimized game engine (+ map optimization) doing stuff to reduce load
It happens in every game ever, and while Warthunder is pretty good at it. There will be slip ups
“Source just trust me bro”. I grant you I don’t have the source I remember seeing from before where I thought they said it was anti-cheat, either, but 1) The OP of the thread also remembers that ^ 2) I’m happy to agree to “We have no clue” instead anyway.
It happens in every game ever
Having some super complicated vision estimating system just to not send like a couple of doubles to the client, when no cheating concerns exist, is not “in every game ever” no. That sounds like completely out of control premature optimization to me if you remove the cheating concern.
Literally a core feature of basically every modern game engine ever. Asset culling that is. And since it runs locally and can be implemented in a map editor where needed, pretty darn nice.
Heck, even old game engine like the source engine used in TF2 has asset culling. And you can see where manual asset culling is done in the hammer editor.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/HPJJ2YtABSjF
I mean asset culling is a thing they address in bug fixes.
So while i can plausibly see other explanations, i will just default the most common thing in the world that causes pop-in. And that is asset culling, in this case also possibly being aided by optimized netcode.