Suggestion for Reworking Boosters in War Thunder

Game Discussion General Discussion
,
62

No, but you distinctly responded to MY statement regarding the post match activation, with the WG 3, and AW, with ‘etcettera’…

That’s the issue with being deceptive and making things up.

If they use the same booster system, then WT also uses the same booster system.

You’re wrong to tell me I’m wrong, and I’m correct in saying you are being deceptive and trying too hard.

You either misunderstood what was put forth to you, or you lied then got upset that you got caught up on it, and quintupled down on it so far you can’t actually bring yourself to genuinely admit it.

WG 3 to me, count as one because they’re just that bad. They use HP bars for the entire vehicle, and it’s unrealistic, no matter if the individual vehicle components here have HP, they’re not displayed and they’re not in the same realm as the click shooters that WG produce.

Directly inferior.

63

Circular logic. That’s a fallacy.

You have yet to produce one actual reason current boosters are better for anyone, including gaijin. Every single one of your posts boils down to “no i dont think it should be that way because” and then you post some logical fallacy or perform some ridiculous mental gymnastics to justify the status quo.

2 Likes
64

Agreed.

65

WG 3 to me, count as one because they’re just that bad. They use HP bars for the entire vehicle, and it’s unrealistic, no matter if the individual vehicle components here have HP, they’re not displayed and they’re not in the same realm as the click shooters that WG produce.

Click shooters that don’t even account for how tough a vehicle is supposed to be.

Tanks and warships aren’t supposed to go down in one shot, aircraft are far more fragile but some - like the A-10 and some old prop planes such as the Boeing B-17 and B-29, the A-1 Skyraider and etcetera, can take a beating and still remain in the air, completely controllable.

Hell, the B-17 was well-known for its’ abilities to take damage and keep flying, Holes in its’ wings, tail ripped to shreds, even losing half its’ vertical stabilizer! It still kept going!

In Vietnam and Korea, the Skyraider was able to take flak hits, missile impacts and still keep going.

In the modern era, the A-10 has even survived direct impacts from man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) and SAMs and made it back to base alive! An F-15 Eagle once made it back to base with an entire wing gone!

And these are not isolated incidents either.

WG respects that planes, tanks and warships are tougher than they look, and not super-fragile.

Meanwhile in this game, you take a few bullets, or a single main gun shell and your wings fall off or your ammo rack explodes. Those are some highly unrealistic damage models, pal!

Sure the HP bar is unrealistic in WG’s games and in AW, but all vehicular click shooters are just as if not more unrealistic for how utterly fragile all the vehicles are!

You’re a glass cannon in WT, no matter what vehicle you’re playing. In WG’s games, a tank is actually tanky, any warship can take a few hits, and a plane can withstand more than just a couple of shots.

Add into this the fact that there is no spawncamping in WG’s games and the closest thing you can get to unsportsmanlike conduct is a few cases of foul-mouthed chat creatures, and the evidence is clear:

WG’s games AND AW are directly and infinitely superior.

66

Until you highlight where post-match activations occcur, don’t reply to me with walls of text.

Then why are you here if they are, that good.

I didn’t say they were better, I said it’s HOW THEY WERE DESIGNED, and HOW THEY WERE INTENDED…

Just because you WANT them to be changed and I don’t AGREE with you doesn’t make my mentioning of what they are and how they are, ‘bad’…

67

Until you highlight where post-match activations occur, don’t reply to me with walls of text.

They occur in the hangar. Like all the rest.

Then why are you here if they are, that good.

As good as they are, World of Warplanes doesn’t have Cold War era or modern aircraft, or any helicopters. War Thunder does. World of Warships doesn’t have modern or cold war warships. Modern Warships does. And World of Tanks doesn’t have modern or cold war tanks. Armored Warfare does.

I’m here because I have to be, because no other game offers the planes and helicopters that War Thunder offers. I’m not here because War Thunder is somehow superior mechanics-wise, or because it has better gameplay, because it isn’t and doesn’t.

68

So you admit you were wrong in your response then?

69

I admit I misunderstood what you said.

Most of these other games I listed are simply far more generous with boosters than WT is. They also allow people to play any mode - including PvE modes - and get full effect from their boosters.

70

FINALLY… After ALL that…

It’s not inferior then…

Nothing to do with what we were even conversing about.

71

It’s not inferior then…

Given the fact that if it wasn’t for this one aspect, I’d be playing those other games, I’d say it is in fact inferior. Just because it’s better in one aspect, that does not override nearly a hundred other aspects.

Nothing to do with what we were even conversing about.

But plenty to do with the thread’s topic.

72

No, Nothing at all to do with our topic, and our conversation. You rammed that down as ‘reasons’ you had for not being wrong, you demanded I was wrong, and you were ignoring the entire point.

You were actually wrong, all along, and your points were very much misguided, and erroeneous considering you just admitted that from the outset, YOU MISUNDERSTOOD what was put forth to you, and what you had responded to.

So I wonder how much of your entire tirade, was incorrect and inherently wrong.

So you’d still be playing the dead game AW? lol… That’s pretty bold of you to claim that. No-one even streams it at all now, that’s how goneburger it is.

73

So you’d still be playing the dead game AW? lol… That’s pretty bold of you to claim that. No-one even streams it at all now, that’s how goneburger it is.

Just because nobody streams it, that doesn’t mean people don’t enjoy it. It’s not “goneburger” at all - it still has a good number of fans and a dedicated playerbase, including myself. It also has more people online and in battles simultaneously than WT, if only just barely. (WT has a little more than two thousand battles going on simultaneously. Last time I played AW, it had three thousand going on simultaneously.) AW isn’t dead at all, though the player count has dropped significantly from its’ heyday.

And actually, according to current numbers (which I just stated,) WT is actually more dead than AW!

You were actually wrong, all along, and your points were very much misguided, and erroneous
(fixed it for you)

No, they were not erroneous. All my points were valid regarding WG’s games.

No, Nothing at all to do with our topic, and our conversation

Thread’s topic was on a booster rework.

74

Which I responded as to why I didn’t think it was a good thing, you came at me with all this whatabout nonsense, on the back of you misunderstanding things to demand I was wrong, and this leaves us with you continuing it…

Good to see you’re not backing down on the fact, that you were actually wrong.

And, no…

How deceptive or delusional are you…

Pretty dead bruh.

75

How deceptive or delusional are you…

Not deceptive or delusional at all.

Pretty dead bruh.

Steam charts alone are not a good representation of a game’s current player count, especially when the vast majority of players go through the game’s standalone launcher, as is the case with Armored Warfare.

The YouTuber Death of a Game found that out the hard way when he tried the same deceptive/delusional tactics with one of my favorite games, Star Trek Online. It also uses a standalone launcher, and far more players play through that launcher than through Steam.

With at least three thousand consecutive battles for Armored Warfare versus a little under 2,100 for War Thunder (WT was more like 2,063 simultaneously when I edited last night), War Thunder is more dead than Armored Warfare.

76

Dude, it’s a dead game, players play only to avoid the harder games, and end up sitting in there with everything they have got because they couldn’t get it anywhere else.

I remember when the splinter group from here were saying it was going to be the death knell for War Thunder, and yet here we are… It’s pretty obvious it wasn’t and that it’s definitely not doing well considering the change of ownership and directions it’s had over time.

77

And all of this is beside the point that you demanded I was wrong, yet YOU were the one who was wrong.

78

Dude, it’s a dead game,

With at least three thousand consecutive battles for Armored Warfare versus a little under 2,100 for War Thunder (WT was more like 2,063 simultaneously when I edited last night), War Thunder is more dead than Armored Warfare.

79

PvE games are likely included, so theoretically, they can easily be double dipping, and matches not being the same size, also likely play a part…

Your arguments are so flimsy.

80

We were both wrong.

My points were valid to the thread but unrelated to what you stated.

Meanwhile you insist that I was wrong about boosters and the thread.

We were both wrong.

1 Like
81

Nah, none of this both sides nonsense… I wasn’t the one calling on someone to be wrong, you were… I told you many times why I wasn’t yet you ignored the point that YOU had misunderstood, and had replied to MY statement…

Now, you’ve admitted you ‘misunderstood’ yet you’re still keeping it going…

YOU WERE WRONG.