Just a handful of bug reports that say otherwise:
2 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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)
1 Like
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%.
1 Like
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
1 Like
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?
1 Like
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.
Hmm…makes sense
I bet the T-80 players who enjoy city garbage just use 3rd person the whole time holding w.
2 Likes
Confrontation. Both teams have 2 caps and 1 neutral and it’s a tug of war.
The other modes in Enlisted are just awful in comparison.
I find the one with the set the bombs/disarm the bombs reasonably entertaining…
I find the gray zone camping to be insane on those maps! It’s like they took WT design and shrunk all map by 50% but gave 1 team extra space!
There are a multitude of compromises which resolve CQC player’s tastes and sniper’s tastes.
Maps should offer dynamic gameplay that suits multiple approaches. Making a map that is solely CQC or solely sniping is bad. There should be room for flankers to move in and room for snipers to engage long flanks and areas. There are a number of maps ingame which already accomplish this.
Fulda offers you flanks on the sides with CQC gameplay in the middle.
European Province offers flanks on the side with spots of trees and buildings for small CQC engagements while the center is dedicated CQC.
Golden Quarry has a heavy CQC focus but still offers the right flank with hills and areas for longer range sniping while heavily catering to CQC players.
Maginot Line although not a perfect example when it is not in conquest gives players the choice of the wide open hills to the right, the center for mid range engagements, and the city for straight CQC.
CQC and sniping is possible. CQC and sniping is fun.
CQC only is not fun.
Sniping only is not fun.
Good map design supports both and Gaijin has already shown ingame that both is possible.
6 Likes