Teams aren't playing the objective

That is PVP gaming unfortunately.You are playing with kids (ok that sounded wrong) ,drunks,people of varying IQs and nationalities not to mention the BR system and Battle pass.You have so many players with different agendas and play styles.

The idea of choice has mostly been removed so maybe the game is easier for a newbie then it used to be.

Ultimately you have to define the word “Objective”.

3 Likes

That would possibly make artillery vehicles usable in their original role

I think that a Fire Mission System should exist, based upon the same method as aircraft selecting points on the minimap. FCSless arty pieces can get a firing solution slowly and slightly inaccurately, FCSful arty pieces can get it much faster akin to laser rangefinding and more accurately.

Within minimum indirect range, it converts to direct fire.

It’d be niche, but not useless.
Capable, but not OP.

It’d make drones and recon vehicles far more useful.

1 Like

Chat timers are going down from 10 seconds to 2 seconds. Yippee!!!

1 Like

Team is just an enemy in blue color that You can’t get rid of, nothing else mostly.

4 Likes

Id just like to say in regards to playing the objective, that there is one other major factor as to why you might NOT want to fight over the objectives directly:

That reason is map control. This is something I find is very rarely understood in War Thunder. In essence, gaining map control is the act of being able to take and hold positions that provide the strongest advantage over the largest portion of the map possible, giving you the best firing lines and ability to cover as many areas as possible with the least amount of movement or relocating.

These positions are not always where the caps themselves are. In fact they are rarely on a cap, sometimes they can be around a specific cap, but not always. ESPECIALLY on the single cap maps.

These are positions that you absolutely WANT to take and hold. Some of them are so strong that a single tank there can win the entire game, and a lot of these positions are not actually on cap points, some arent even close to any of the caps.

Not all maps have positions like this, but many do.

For example: flanders, most people like to go C. But Map control is earned from the areas around B, from the areas around B cap you get free side shots into EVERYONE fighting over C, while they will struggle to get return fire on to you because of the cover you can get from B cap. It also allows you supporting fire into A, and if you can push through B onto the enemy side of the map you can basically pin down anyone coming out of both of their spawns. You WANT to take this position even if its a single cap mode with only the C cap in play.

Another example: Maginot. Again on the single cap mode where the only cap is in the city, I dont even go there. I flank around and go to where B would be. Taking this position allows you free side shots from cover into the giant open ground that the enemy has the cross to get from their spawn to the cap at A. Even if the enemy caps A initially, they wont be able to reinforce it because they are pinned down before even getting to the city, allowing your team to cap it back and win.

On the 3 cap version of Maginot I find the C cap provides the best map control if you can push past it into their side and get below their ridges, allowing you to cover 2/3 of the entire map.

On the flip side to this, you need to pay attention to the areas that DONT provide map control. Normally these are areas that are physically seperated from the rest of the map, providing limited ability to effect other caps without having to drive around. Things like A cap on Finland, the C cap on Tunsinia (in the town), or as mentioned before, the C cap on Flanders.

Many of these areas dont allow you to effect other areas of the map, and you must drive through choke points to get to those other areas that can be easily supressed.

Again, not every map has these positions. Mainly maps that have all their caps physically seperated from each other, sweden and Alaska for example are two maps that have limited abilities for map control, so all three caps are fairly equally important.

1 Like

this is a “its war thunder” moment

I think half the problem to get players playing the objective, could be cured by raising the objective rewards of SL and RP.

One option could be to double (X2) the amount of SL and RP when the player takes a zone. If they take a second zone, then the SL and RP double again, and so on. Also, if an enemy attacks a zone and you kill him and get a base defender award, that should be X2 as well. (note: I said “could be”, it doesn’t neccessarily mean that’s what I want but would be a good start.)

If players are to play the objective and capture and hold the zones, then you have to make the rewards for taking the zones and defending them worth doing.

You should get more SL and RP for taking 2 zones than getting 2 kills. Silmply because, that without the objective zones captured and held, it’s impossible to win. A kill while defending a zone should also be worth X2 more than killing a player nowhere near a zone, a “normal kill”.

It’s simple. Make the objectives more valuable than just ambling about the map just looking for kills. I have even thought of making snipers more effective if they want to sit back. Just make sure you can see the zone because killing an enemy approaching the zone from any distance should get more SL and RP than a “normal kill”. Proper snipers (which is not many when compared with the entire playerbase) that know what they are doing normally cover zones anyway, so it wouldn’t effect their gameplay much but they will get more points for their effort.

1 Like

Russians and Americans (some Germans as well) stop playing objectives at around 5.7

After that it is just “swarm spawn point”

After playing a long time I’m pretty good at knowing it I’m on a losing team in the first minute or so of the game based on where my team is going. One of the marks of a losing team is running for the shiny objects in a group and not playing for map control (as mentioned above) Yes there are exceptions of course but in general maps have key positions and controlling those locations generally means a win when time is up.

1 Like

I made a post in suggestions about a new game mode which would make this game a lil bit more fun but it is pending allready for 48 hours and no attention :/ Maybe that gamemode would make people play obj better ^^

The game has become trash with gajin allowing anyone to buy into premiums at any lvl! The whole game is on a downward spiral! I give it less than 3 years before its obsolete!

I was really fortunate last week and had a series of matches in Sim Ground that were the ‘Battle mode’ with 2 caps.

With most of the video game UI elements stripped away it became very clear to me that war thunder ground RB is almost two separate games in one.

When the ‘video game’ objectives are stripped away, the game becomes navigating the map, using cover, hunting down enemies, patiently observing enemy movements and ambushing opponents. I find this to be quite satisfying.

When you start playing the objective, you stop considering the map from a tactical perspective and start looking for opportunities to drive out of cover across exposed regions of the map to sit in a circle with a giant beacon on it alerting everyone to your presence.

I think war thunders cap system should be entire regions. The challenge would then be eliminating the enemy players that are ‘somewhere’ within a 1km^2 region

3 Likes

Because conquest is a flawed gamemode, the objective is to move around the map and deny people their ability to leave spawn, that’s it. Single cap maps or 2 cap maps need to be reworked, like @LukavMineav said. Single point objectives need to be removed, and instead they should be areas of the map players have to hold and clear of enemies to drain tickets.

1 Like

It’s called Lemmings. I see it all the time.