Stop. Removing. Sniper. Positions. From. Long. Range. Maps

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
801

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
802

not good stats though, lmao those are bad.

literally yes.

yes you are

there are situations where its advantageous, this is just cope.

803

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
804

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.

805

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
806

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.

807

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.

808

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.

809

Big thank to their incompetence.

810

@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