So…using a hull down position for protection or a sniping spot for…sniping…is “abuse”, just because a new player can’t be bothered with learning how to play?
It is not “abuse”…it is just “use” and it is up to the map designers to offer similar opportunities to both teams.
Do we have to dumb everything down to accomodate the lowest skilled players?
It shouldn’t need to be simplified.
It doesn’t need to be simplified. And still it keeps getting dumbed down, because the average tank player expects good results from holding down ‘W’, with his view fixed straight forward and occasionally clickibg the left mouse button.
There is nothing wrong with map design that allows players to use their brains.
If you can check the tons of topics about like/disliked maps you can see how really hated maps dont suufer any changes, this is specific removal of sniping spots in all maps.
I single topic complain about a entire specifc map. And even in that topic you cand find people saying the like this map for top tiers, i dont know but i think thats is not a real “Player Feedback”.
This is a real “Player Feedback”:
Agree with this.
there are no modern tanks designed to “brawl” - the Brits just skimped on hull protection which is why they have no other option than long range and hull down - it is actually a design flaw!
Just a handful of bug reports that say otherwise:
What are you on about
I mentioned it in another post but Gaijin should take a look at Enlisted for that mechanic; in many matches once you’ve captured a point, the spawn points move up closer to them (conversely if you lose it your spawn points move further away). And it’s not instant, it takes about 30 seconds for it to happen so when you cap a point you can’t just swamp your new point with fresh spawns, and conversely, if you lose a point you still have the option to spawn in close to perhaps get it back.
Not a bad idea. But i am a bit concerned about the easy spawncamping this way.
It isn’t really a factor in Enlisted, but then again that’s mostly because Enlisted also creates a dead zone behind the points that if you are still in there after a while (as enemy) you just die. You get the opportunity to be a spawn camping goblin for a minute or so and then it moves you on.
Wouldn’t work in WT I think, so yeah that’s a valid point. Then again, it would be fair enough, since the idea is that you get a cap, and you have cleared out the enemy - if you can’t keep them away from your new spawns then so be it. I think if you have the option to still spawn on the initial spawns it would balance since you can then always opt to spawn further back so you can go clean house on the front.
Would probably be a bit confusing for people at first because “wut happen to W pew pew pew” but … yeah.
I would absolutely love a more dynamic mission design.
I don’t know if anybody here remembers “World in Conflict”, but I think, modes like “Assault” and “Tug of War” could work really well in War Thunder.
Vaguely… :D
Enlisted has a few decent modes too, that would translate quite well, forgot the exact names but one mode is basically fight over 5 points starting in the middle, whoever caps it then unlocks the next point closer to enemy spawn and so on, so it really can go both ways; whoever caps them all, wins.
What’s more interesting is the modes where one team starts with all the points (without ticket bleed, though) and plays defense, the other team plays offense and has to cap all points. You don’t get to choose your side, but I think something like that would translate decently.
Guess we can hope… :D
That type of game mode is called AAS (Advance And Secure). Lots of multiplayer games have it (maybe under a slightly different name)
No idea mate, I’ve seen it in Enlisted, and PlanetSide 2 has something similar but different, and that’s really all I play that isn’t building/survival games :D
The most similar thing we have seen in War Thunder was the assault mode from World War.
It was fun, and I’d like to see it in the game. The 14 minute mission timer made it very frantic and adrenaline inducing. It also gave a role to non meta vehicles like tank destroyers if you’re on the defensive team.
I’d like to see that in random battles, but it would need very extensive testing, because sadly what could happen - especially at different maps and BRs - is that if one side has an advantage real or perceived, let’s say the defender, then you would end up in a situation where players enter the match, see they are on the attacker side, and immediately leave…
If you can find a way to avoid that, then 100%.
It requires better balance and somewhat on-par BR spreads in tech trees. Enlisted managed to do it even though some nations get much better weaponry than their enemies (i.e. USSR has absolute batshit crazy submachine guns and gets them earlier than the Germans get theirs); but for some reason it comes out quite balanced as long as your team isn’t made up of single celled organisms.
I think Enlisted promotes team play better, though. Not sure what it is but it seems there’s just more teamwork happening. GRB used to have it, back in the days before heli’s and jet CAS. Now people are seemingly only interested in a) their k/d ratio, and b) how quickly they can spawn CAS.
So it’ll need tweaked for the uh… “community standards” as it were.
You try doing that in a Challenger then, ESPECIALLY the 10.0 Challenger MK2
Try and CQB with a T-90 or T-80 up close on a city map where they can just lol pen your hull while you have to hunt pixels for a place your shells can penetrate.
Hell even against a Leopard 2 or Abram’s that thing suffers in CQB
Which is why I said (most).
They should get a couple buffs.
Does anybody have an idea, why it is called “tanking” a shell, when it isn’t tanks that are being supposed to do that?
I think the term comes more from games like WoW where there are so-called “tanks” that take a lot of damage so that others can fight unharmed.