That’s funny, coming from someone that’s repeating every whiner line of argument ever heard over years and years of the game’s existence. This ain’t the WT Player Union subreddit, bud.
Maybe it could, maybe it couldn’t, either way they have no reason to risk it when the current model is profitable for them. Companies exist to make money.
Plenty of players are happy with the current MM, judging by the amount of people who play the game every day. Of course those who are happy don’t come join the forum to write about it, which is why you’re mistaking an echo chamber for an actual consensus.
Your arguments are not original; but their repetitive nature does not mean “everyone” says them. Hop on to the game at any time and see how many people are online, then compare it to how many people post actively here, and see what “conclusions” you can draw from the numbers.
You can find undertiered vehicles in every single tech tree. Just to stick with your Spitfire example, remember that the Mk 24 going down to 6.7 all started because Gaijin refused to uptier the F104 and instead lowered the BR of some of the jets it had been clubbing, which in turn meant the mk 24 could now fight them in a full uptier to 8.0.
The P-51 H is also one of the most undertiered planes in the game and it ain’t Russian.
You can pick what you want at the self delusion store, but don’t call me a shill for not buying into this bs.
Right, that is if you see them first, or if they’re stupid enough to face you without precaution.
You’re focusing on an entirely different point. Of course you can destroy them, but facing them is simply unfair (Would you make the Sherman face the Maus just because it can destroy it?). Not to mention immersion which has been gone for years in the game.
The point of heavy tanks is essentially armour, and you really can’t rely on it, so what’s the point?
I am not taking singular cases either. This is 1500 matches over 6 months at 7.0 - 8.0 with a 6.7 heavy, positive WR and K/D above 3, tells me all I need to know - these heavies do just fine against anything they are likely to face. Please understand, you can’t just argue these numbers away. It can be achieved by playing normally. If you can do well in a Tiger II against these more modern vehicles, then it’s not unfair for you to face them on the virtual battlefield.
Bro, we fight in CQC without infantry, and we have cameras on the tips of our barrels. But SPGs and postwar light tanks is where you draw the immersion line?
Not all heavies are created equal. That may be true of a Churchill, but the Tiger II is not as crippingly dependent on its armour, because it has a formidable gun with a great reload that remains very competitive in the whole bracket.
This point is completely invalid for balance, because again, a Stuart can kill a Leopard; Is that match fair to you? And the fact that you can do good doesn’t mean it’s fair in any way. How many times have I been mogged by a Ratel or [Insert X] SPG
The are many immersion-related aspects I’d like to see changed, but to me the current matchmaking is the most immediate matter. One thing does not remove the other.
Already happened once, why do you think the STRV 103 went up to 8.0. Fighting a Strv 103 in a Königstiger isn’t fun. Nor when the IKV 91 was at 7.7 too, LRF and like, 400mm of pen from a 90mm infantry support gun.
A Stuart can occasionally destroy a Leopard. But can you play 1500 matches in the Stuart at 8.0 and get a positive W/R and K/D with it? Again, you are being deliberately misleading, because I’m not showing you freak occurrences. I’m showing you the results of six months of play.
So play better. Ratels are the size of a bus, wheeled, and die to even your own MGs.
Quiet literally is a school bus. I remember when it was added someone made a video on it and the intro was literally ‘The magic school bus’. Seriously, the armor can be penetrated by small arms fire.
Alot of words but yet no reason the yak with better global stats than most stayed at 5.7 while the spits moved.
The flankers with epic global stats all stay 13 3, while the kfir that is seen once in 50 games goes 13.3, many more examplles all.pointing at one nation again… the pattern is obvious
US props all.have terrible stats… as if you dont play passive which most players havnt the patience for they get smoked by turn fighters. In the US prop case what metric can they use to increase the BR other than feelings?
I know, but they could at least tweak things to make them a bit more realistic; it doesn’t necessarily have to be a simulator.
Another thing I’m wondering is: If this is a game that doesn’t aim for realism, why on earth are the developers asking for official data and reliable sources to change things? Couldn’t they just make it all fantasy and be done with it? Why are they only using realism when it suits them, to benefit some countries and harm others?
Of course it’s simple. If the bullet failure primarily affects all bullets except APHE rounds, then just apply the APHE damage to all bullets and remove the kill sphere. It would be like what they do by cutting and pasting 3D vehicle models for other nations.
So you’re saying that better separating the BR to reduce imbalance would cause hundreds of thousands of players to be lost?
Okay, so if you make better and more balanced maps, hundreds of thousands of players will be lost.
So why did War Thunder start with the propaganda about being a historical and realistic game? If they had said when the game was released that they were going to focus on making a World of Thunder 2.0, then I would have stuck with World of Thunder and not wasted my time and money on this deception.
And the funny thing is that even if they just fixed the damage model, that would be more than enough for it to be an acceptable game. Because let me be clear, I don’t care if the enemy kills me as many times as necessary, but I don’t accept that the game gives my deaths to other players (nor do I want the game to give me other players’ deaths). I don’t come to online games to give points to other players just because the game wants me to, which is happening because the devs can’t seem to fix the problems with the damage and penetration models. As I’ve said many times, this hardly happened 8 years ago, and it’s been happening more and more every year since then.
I already mentioned it before. It’s possible, but there’s a good chance it won’t do the correct damage, so the enemy will switch shooters and kill you.
Wow, it seems that now everything that happens to the game is either server desynchronization or a mechanic they added with bugs. Well, if this fails—which it didn’t for years—then they’ll have to change the servers and improve the volumetrics.
Sure, you can pretend that’s what I said. It would certainly be more convenient for you than what I actually said: you can find undertiered vehicles in every tree (and not just in USSR, which was your claim).
Congratulations for discovering that inexperienced players drag down the stats of good vehicles and therefore their BRs.
You are restricting where the MM can look for players to form each lobby.
They could, but it’s unclear that this would result in a better business outcome. They decide on a case by case basis, a perfectly normal approach for a company.
The illusion of realism is a USP (unique selling point) of War Thunder, and it mostly extends only to the visual models. The actual game mechanics are very arcadey and accessible. This has proven to be a formidable combination.
Bad analogy. Projectile performance will have a much bigger impact on SL/RP earnings and therefore vehicle BRs, which is why Gaijin decided to offload responsibility by having a vote about it. The community shot that vote down and now they have even less incentive than before to touch this area again.
I’m saying that, like it or not, frustration is part of WT’s incentive model for progression, and so is the “zero second MM” and both these considerations are more important to the devs than perfect game balance, which is why decompression proceeds slower than it should.
Better according to whom? The community prefers small maps with instant action and little worry about snipers and flankers. I cordially detest that this is the case and that we fight in CQC all the time, but I know when I’m in a minority opinion. The maps aren’t being standardised for fun, they’re being standardised because it’s more profitable.
Have you only now just discovered that for-profit companies conduct advertising and marketing campaigns in which they praise their product to the skies?
This is one of the most played and successful games in the world bro. I think as far as acceptability goes they’re doing just fine.
My brother. My man. My dude. In this thread, I am the guy who posted videos and screenshots and numbers from 1500 matches about how the Tiger II performs at 7.0 - 8.0, and you’re the guy who said “but I got killed by a ZSU-57-2 once!” to justify your claims of Russian bias. You do not get to demand statistics of anyone so long as you ignore statistics that disagree with your points. And you don’t get to tell others they’re all talk when they back up their opinions with evidence and you do not.
That said, if you had played the BR range in question more often, you would know for example that the Fox was incredibly undertiered when it first arrived in the game. This is a minor nation with players way ahead of the average for Germany/USSR/USA, so of course these instances are much rarer, but 1. They happen anyway and 2. Major nations being handheld for commercial reasons is a MUCH different beast from “muh Russian bias”.
The bottom line is, don’t be surprised if one day the maps change to rectangular maps 500m wide by 2km long, full of streets, since almost all players are just running the lemming train by only pressing W. Limit players to one tank at a time, since almost all players are using ODL tactics. And finally, legalize cheats, because I think they’ve already banned more people than the game currently has.
It’s clear that a game company needs to make money (that’s what the game is for), but I have two points: First, there are certain situations where developers shouldn’t blindly follow all the community’s requests, especially if those requests involve maintaining an unfair imbalance. Second, if you’re going to quit the game because the developers make four changes you don’t like, then those players weren’t in the game because they enjoyed it; they enjoyed exploiting the game’s structure, just like players who use cheats enjoy using them and leave if they can’t.
Right now, to form say a 5.7 lobby, the MM needs to draw 32 players, of which a number between 0-8 (max 4 per team) can be at 5.7, and a number between 24 and 32 can be 4.7, 5.0, and 5.3.
In your system, to form a 5.7 lobby, the MM needs to draw 32 players from 5.3 and 5.7 alone.
Narrower search band means it will likely take more time to find players. Even if it only takes more time 50% of the time, you’re still asking Gaijin to take a risk (effectively gamble) with the one most important feature of any MMO (the zero second matchmaker) without guarantee of a commercial upside.
Would you take a chance like this in your own everyday job?