I think it is also fair to say that it is the forum Hitlers who have destroyed this game and removed the freedom of choice from it in so many ways.
It’s a shame the Devs listen to them.
You’re probably right, although do you really think this is the kind of discussion that leads to changes in game? (good or bad) I feel like it’s been petty bickering for the last 80 or so comments, and any merits to the discussion have been kinda lost.
It’s odd because so many of us remember War Thunder’s founder Anton Yudintsev quite clearly stating that his passion as far as this game was concerned was the amount of player freedom and tactical choice that was available.If the rules said it was legal you could do it.
It took me a while to get good enough to understand what he meant and now I am somewhere near good enough that choice is disappearing fast.I feel a bit cheated like I missed the golden era.
I wonder how Anton feels about it all now.
I think this is an interesting point but I’m not sure what you mean say you feel like your choices are disappearing, could you please elaborate. In the context of this discussion do you think that it’s the ‘complainers’ manipulating the game to the point where only one style of play is feasible? (for example)
Personally, I think the freedom of choice is still there, it’s just that only a few choices lead to successful outcomes in battle (again this depends on what you want to get out of the battle, points, fun, progression etc.)
In the realm of rules, games and choices I hear a useful chess analogy thrown around a lot. Chess is a game, chess has rules and limitations but within the framework of the restrictions you still have freedom of expression. What you can’t do is change the rules and still be playing chess. Now because actions in war thunder are limited to what the game engine allows, it’s quite difficult to break the game as it were. However, I still believe there’s room to try new strategies and develop new techniques.
If you exchange moves for strategies, that is exactly what’s supposed to happen. Eventually you are going to discard the tactics that don’t work if that’s 20% so be it.
The development of strategy is narrowing down the available options into the ones with the highest likelihood of success.
I argue that we have the freedom to choose any strategy we want, moves if you will, but we’re not guaranteed that any of them will work.
So you admit that if everyones goes by J-out and Crash each time they started to get targeted it will be a waste of time to play the game?
Thank you,…
What emotion? I’m coldly trying to tell you what is wrong by doing/allowing such kind of “pro-choice/pro-move”, because it will be reproduced by the main part of the community before long.
So last night someone took this to a new level - I was lining up a shot on a guy shooting down my bombers (in Sim EC) and another guy came in from off-screen rammed into the guy I was about to shoot and the IL-2 they both were aiming at - giant fireball and a fresh pair of blue balls for me.
It was like something out of a Ryan Johnson movie.
Not really ,reduction of open map space limits strategy greatly and the choices you had in terms of positioning three years compared to now were far less limited.You could use cover to snipe if you found a good spot ,now any good spot is reported and removed.
Soft cover was removed and made the use of open SP guns less attractive which was a bit of a blow if that was your favoured method of play.Saying the game is not a sniping game is unwelcome news to a sniper just like nerfing CAS is bad news to a flyer.
Why would I stay stick and stay alive if fire and forget munitions have been lobbed at me and there’s absolutely nothing I can do about it do on big open maps? Maybe gaijin needs to design better maps until then I’ll just take the smarter option
