Don’t think I’ve ever seen a post by you that wasn’t a call for help
4 Likes
I’ve never seen a coherent post out of a single person on this thread other than kvetching. Karma circle jerking with the other copers, many such cases.
My turn to say “so what”. Sometimes you have preferences that line up with the majority, sometimes you don’t. This is a fact of life.
It’s perfectly understandable for a company to follow the majority preference, they’re here to make money.
That said, it is equally understandable to point out that we have 2500+ vehicles in the game and not all of them are suitable to the COD meta, and that is a shame. Long range accuracy is also a skill that is no longer being tested.
All of that said, you are moving the goalposts. You made a specific claim:
You were given concrete examples of engagement ranges shortening and of maps having small sizes and so you switched to “it doesn’t matter”. Sure thing, bro.
For gameplay the majority likes.
I think I’m doing alright. Just because one aspect of competition is being eliminated to please the CODers doesn’t mean that I refuse to play the aspects that do survive.
Bro, War Thunder is a videogame. If I didn’t already enjoy it, I would not be playing at all, and I would be using my free time for something else, what kind of take is this lmao
1 Like
This is realistic game mode. It should encourage using realistic tactics rather than CoD gameplay.
In air modes, using realistic tactics in realistic battles is viable (WW2 brackets). You may need a somewhat cooperative team but the team that employs proper doctrine for their aircraft will win over people who play it like air quake. Unfortunately tankers make finding a cooperative team at ARB without squadding very difficult. However a squad of hellcats or mustangs can still become terrifying presences with proper disciplined flying.
There is no option in grb for proper disciplined doctrine-appropriate usage of vehicles like the nashorn or breda or yags or other long distance ambush vehicles with the codification. Not even with a squad do you get the option to use these things as they were meant to be used.
Arcade exists for cod gameplay. Dont butcher realistic until it is nothing more than markerless arcade.
11 Likes
Still mad that players complained about sniping positions and Gaijin listened to players.
Gaijin should’ve ignored the complaints and stuck to their beliefs about vertical places.
2 Likes
I’ve explained so many times that I am getting tired of repeating it, REALISTIC has nothing to do with realism in the sense that the battles setting or anything else is REAL. It just refers to the level of realism COMPARED to ARCADE. This is not a SIMULATION that is based on real events and you drive tanks and fly planes in THIRD PERSON. This entire argument is moronic on so many levels. You want to go LARP as a tanker go play GHPC stop trying to make this game a cringe IRL sim that clearly no one but you 4-5 forum chuds want.
ok so why do you keep complaining then? Some people like pushing the rock up the mountain i guess, this isnt the hill to die on.
Which i agree with because, as i have explained before. Smaller maps are better. I didnt say it didnt matter, I said that YOUR OPINION DOESNT MATTER.
yes now you get it
You have played thousands of games in like 6.7 have not touched a vast majority of the game, and seemingly only played german TD’s lmao. With terrible win rates I might add, suggesting that you have almost 0 impact and you just camp. If i were you I’d expand my understanding and try something else.
So you complain on the forums, instead of playing?
Warthunder is literally Il2: birds of steel but made into an MMO with MMO mechanics (including some “RPG progression systems” we all know and hate). They also added Instructor/Mouse aim to increase accessibility.
Early on, you could barely distinguish the two as well. Same graphics, same flight models, same mechanics. It’s diverged since but the lineage is undeniable.
The reason we started playing Warthunder over World of Tanks is because it promised to deliver a realistic, authentic and immersive world war 2 tank warfare experience when it comes to ground gameplay.
For air gameplay, appeal was an accessible flight sim with large playercounts and a matchmaker. Watching CCs from 9-12 years ago, you see Il2 veterans legitimately praise Warthunder’s efforts (Sheriff’s Sim Shack, Enigma).
11 Likes
Heh simulation my ass
it just Gaijin incompetent at this point nothing more.
Correct.
At the same time though, vehicles optimised for sniping are present in the game. Connection to reality or no, they will shine at range anyway. And they fit the meta less so than they did a year ago.
To me that’s a balance issue. Without need for tank LARPing.
I enjoy talking about the game, and (what I perceive to be) its strengths and weaknesses.
Might as well ask yourself why you’re responding to me since "my opinion doesn’t matter’.
I started with Germany and wanted to improve as a player before moving on to the rest. I have begun spading other trees not just in GRB but also ARB and NRB.
My most played vehicles of the last 12 months have been Tigers and Panthers. And the Sla when playing 6.7. I branched out after focusing on TDs early on.
Since you want to look at stats, look properly.
I may not win any tournament any time soon, but you can easily check my monthly stats:
Which are not numbers that you would get by just camping (especially on current maps).
And you can just as easily check the vehicles I’ve been playing the most over a certain number of sessions and with what results, also by using Statshark. For example, this is for the last month:
Ergo, coming full circle, I reiterate what I’ve said before. I think I’m doing alright. I’m not going to despair at playing in CQC on Advance To The Rhine or Alaska, I’ll do it. Would I be happier if the larger Fire Arc was still part in the rotation at those BRs? Sure.
As you can see I’ve played a fair bunch over the last month. Sometimes I like to talk about the game, or watch something about the game, or read something about the game, even if I’m not playing it that very second. I assume the same must be true for you, since you’re debating here, so why is this a novel concept for you?
3 Likes
properly? You mean your tanks with less than 100 battles, and the vast majority of your games in tanks with losing win rates. Your stats are not good, you are a one trick who has not played 50% of the game other than 6.7 germany and below. Try playing a wider varitiy of tanks and maybe you wouldnt have the opinion that maps need to be catered to someone with 10k battles in a TD. LMAO
and? there are tanks not, your point? Its not like you cant snipe, just that its not catered to tanks that cant do that, its situational which is the entire point.
discarded
not what the game is now, and its far far better off for it.
I have 1500 battles in the Tiger II Sla. Overall 54% win rate. 2.5 K/D.
I have 457 battles in the VK3002. Overall 65% win rate. 2.9 K/D.
These are respectively my third and seventh most played vehicles, and together they get just shy of 2000 battles.
I also have around 60% win rate with the Panther D and the 6.0 Panthers, the least played of which (the A) I still put 264 battles in.
63% win rate in the command Porsche Tiger, 249 battles. 64% win rate in the PAK Puma, 296 battles. 57% in the Tiger E, 345 battles.
All of these tanks are up there on the service record card for you to see. Are these the stats of an exceptional player? No. Are these the stats of a camper who doesn’t influence the match? If so, I must be one hell of a lucky camper.
I showed the results from the last month because they are “live” stats, clear evidence that I’m playing the game in a certain way (i.e. not camping), but even if you look at the overall stats… yeah, no, sorry, not the stats of a player with “zero impact on the match” and if you’re intellectually honest you know this to be true.
Of course, you have been moving the goalposts pretty much all thread, so I guess I shouldn’t have expected anything else.
Just adding up the Tiger II Sla, the Jagdtiger, the JPz 4-5, the Sturer Emil, the Panthers and Tiger Is, you get well over 50% of my “battles” (technically spawns) and they’re all in the positive.
I never said they should be catered to any particular player. I have repeatedly said that map rotation should be a varied mix that makes every vehicle macro-type viable. There should be long range maps, urban maps, cqc non-urban maps, and so on - best of all are the maps that can combine all three elements in one design, like Test Site.
“Situational” still implies that there would be situations where spawning a sniper would be the meta choice over anything else, and that’s basically never the case in WT. For understandable reasons, but it creates a problem for these vehicles. Why do you think Gaijin keeps lowering their reload times?
3 Likes
not good stats though, lmao those are bad.
literally yes.
yes you are
there are situations where its advantageous, this is just cope.
Shrug you were the one who chose the term “losing win rates” and “majority of matches” which have a pretty unequivocal meaning.
Just like you were the one who claimed there were only large maps in the game. Now you’re claiming campers can get a 60% WR over 500 matches doing nothing (which if it were true, would undermine your very own objections to camping lmao, camping is a problem precisely because you don’t contribute!)
And you do the same again here:
That must be why, on Aug 20, I said,
You make very specific claims and as soon as they’re falsified you just move the goalposts. I don’t know if you’re just ragebaiting or what, but at this point, you are arguing against a fictional version of my arguments, referring to fictional stats, and the next logical step is to make you argue with a fictional interlocutor. Into the ignore list you go.
Have fun in the game!
3 Likes
never claimed that, hypocrite. There are a lot of gigantic maps in the game that are unplayable trash.
Not a single false claim left my mouth, nice cope again though. You are not good and have no idea about large portions of the game, you want the game to cater to YOUR “playstyle” and cope on the forums. I just think its funny, how being ignorant can shape such bad takes. This is pure comedy.
I hope the maps get smaller, I hope more flank routes get removed. I have a dream that one day we can play a game where you cant drive 2 seconds out of spawn and hull down snipe into the middle of the map. Forum chuds urinating into the wind as my dreams get made reality.
The game is far worse for the addition of modern vehicles and their incompatible gameplay. Korean war, maybe very early vietnam war when technology still hadn’t matured for self-guided weapons should have been the highest Warthunder had gone.
COVID and the attraction of cod kiddies can be attributed to much of Warthunder’s downfall - the redlining, reducing ARB match length, optimizing the game for people without discipline and enthusiasm in historical contexts armed only with desire to click pixel.
One can easily observe much the same in the nature of forum and reddit discussions too. Old time discussions had much greater similarity to the sort you’d find on Il2’s own forums - fawning over historical vehicles, discussion of historical doctrine and how to best implement it. These days? “Buff my nation’s plane/tank or delete it!!!”. Back then, such was mostly a wehraboo behaviour.
It’s the basis of the game, it’s also when we actually had better graphics too ironically enough. Back then, you’ve had oil splatter on cockpit canopy, bullet holes in your canopy, precipitation on canopy.
These days you get get your plane filled with holes and have no idea it happened unless you look at the HUD.
These days the only real draw Warthunder has over its competition is the lack of need for voice chat to still have functional teamwork. Can’t really do Il2: Tank Crew gameplay without voice chat due to multicrew operations, alas. Oh, and vehicle variety still makes it somewhat more attractive but it’s going downhill with copy paste “gap fillers” on opposing sides of conflicts (yay italian shermans. yay japanese shermans. yay german kvs and t-34s).
2 Likes
Hard disagree, and I’m the majority. Rare for me. You just want the game to be a slow cancer hulldown pixel hunt, no thanks. Hop on GHPC.
Wholly ignorant that someone would think the game was better 8-10 years ago than it is now.
GHPC is modern tanks. I care not for modern tanks.
Warthunder was for WW2 combat until COVID broke something in gaijin and made them violate their promises about no guided weapons.
1 Like
Even people like me who like modern tanks can’t really find enjoyment from GHPC as it’s too simulation based and not arcadey enough like WT, however WT fails to capture the realism that GHPC has. It’s a lose-lose situation.
Big thank to their incompetence.
@ARK_BOI
If you think War Thunder isn’t simulation, then there are no simulation games according to your definition.
@RunaDacino
Your 12 hour ago post was good, but your 4 hour ago post has incorrect information in it.
“COD kiddies” are not a thing in War Thunder.
ARB match length was reduced around 2016, over 3 years prior to COVID. When match length went from 60 minutes to 30 to deal with space bombers elongating matches. We also lost the in-air rearming in realistic air battles for bombers.
Redlining was feedback from the feedback form you were told to participate in, and has only occurred on a minority of maps despite that.
War Thunder added more modern ground vehicles in 2016 [Falcon, Type 74E], 2017 [Chieftain Mk10, M60A1 RISE, MBT-70, Begleitpanzer 57, AMX-30B2, AMX-13 HOT], and of course the first update of 2018 added Challenger, Leopard 2K, Abrams, T-64B… years prior to COVID.
Guided weapons were in 2018, years prior to COVID as well, which Gaijin never promised to never implement.
@NewDawnSets
My issue with GHPC is their rejection to realistic aiming systems in favor of being unrealistically clunky.
2 Likes