Ah yes, when people say War Thunder was better back then. I came in 2017 and this was still when 2015 was still primarily in effect. Some things changed but much didn’t.
So as someone who came around that year, I rather not go back and deal with prices that left you bankrupt most of the time.
The answer is simple, Gaijin only cares about making profits. Seeing the market in a downward trend, they’re thinking in the short term about how to make quick cash and not how to improve the game and increase player retention for the long term. Similar company like WG has followed a similar business approach, no surprises there.
Prop planes still exist if you want slower paced dogfights and did you ever really use all 60 minutes before? Not counting hunting space climbing bombers humping the edges of the map of course. Do we really want to go back to air maps like Norway where one side had a pretty much safe path to their base targets and the other didn’t even have a starting airfield? Kursk was really only fun if you were in a Tiger or a Panther.
One thing they should bring back is there being targets on ground maps that are outside the tank combat zone for planes to destroy.
Another thing to bring back would be not removing whole sections of a map because some player got there and no one knew how to counter him. Players need to learn to use the WHOLE MAP not just a very narrow portion of it. Got flanked and spanked? Next time flank the flankers.
Reminds me of the old spawn system throwing your tank on top of a house or boulder. Or when GRB had friendly fire.
Idk. I think WT only gets better with time.
The biggest problem is that changes are very slow but after the community backlash Gaijin seems to focus more on improving the game instead of just adding more vehicles to grind and spent money on.
Obviously there’s a lot of room for improvements but I don’t think the game used to be any better than it’s now.
Since I never played any air or ground above 8.0, I can’t really say how it looks up there.
They listen to the opinions of noob players and constantly shrink the map
Volumetric fixed dozens of issues, which included pixel hunting.
Conqueror became a far more armored tank after the change.
RealShatter fixed damage simulation and everyone loves it currently. The only people that currently hate RealShatter don’t like people killing them in one shot.
Compression is the least its ever been though there are still ares that need attention.
@SneedSellsFeed
Bonus changes for for win-loss change nothing unless you perform better in one over the other.
I as with many others tend to perform better on losses.
Finnish sub-tree is not copy-paste. Here’s a list of unique vehicles in Finland without models/loadouts in other tech trees [especially at time of release]: T-72M1 [which the other T-72M1s added later on have no relation to in model], T-55M, Leo 2A6, BT-42, Leopard 2A4, Vickers MkE, B239, Pyorremyrsky, Fokker DXXI, Morko Morane, Ar 196 A-5
Israel is barely copy-paste… Essentially no ground copy-paste as the only copy-paste Magachs are 1 & 2,
Aviation you have Kurnass 2000, Barak II, Shahak, Kfir Canard, C2, C7, Ayit, Sa’ar, Meteor NF13, Spitfire Mk9CW, A-4H… all vehicles not in other tech trees.
IDK why you’d make such obviously incorrect claims.
The biggest issue with volumetric is that they have yet to change all the vehicles to have volumetric armor.
That’s a different issue though.
Over-lapping plates also screwed up pixel shots just less realistically cause bullets aren’t a pixel in diameter.
At least today if a Tiger turret eats a round, that’s far more realistic than back then.
Volumetric benefits heavy armor, and makes the game more accurate, which makes balancing vehicles’ BRs more accurate.
Yeah, this is what I mean. That is why I said “volumetric” and not “volumetric shells”. If gaijin finishes updating armor models, I think it would fix the only major issue.
I have to agree, the increase premium tanks is ridiculous. Plsyers who just want to research are severly disadvantaged against premium vehicles. But then that leads the ridiculously broken BR system, they have enough players now that they can restrict it to 1 br above and below. Oh hold it this has been problem for over 10 years Gaigin do not care, because chey are all about making money and not player satisfaction.
Well, if the majority of the playerbase are noobs…
Not a fan but what can be done.
Maybe instead of an option for night battles, there just should be an option for close range maps.
That has nothing to do with realShatter. RealShatter is just a mechanic that changed the behaviour of fragments from a 360° sphere to random direction generated fragments.
People like it now because they made planes get shot to pieces by explosive rounds now, simply by increasing the damage inflicted to the structure.
One game I even shot of the wing of a Fw 190 and both wings of a P-39 with two Japanese 12.7mms.
Of course players like it when they point their gun at an enemy and he gets destroyed instead of getting hits and crits and gets shot down by someone.
You imply the balance now is better.
LUL
I don’t fully understand the benefits of volumetric as I only played with pixel shells for a few monts before it was changed. However have to disagree with volumetric benefiting heavy armor. It most benefits having many weak to medium armor with many plates overlapping. And I find it’s very frustrating to use larger caliber rounds they constantly non pen areas which they should pen like the t44s turret, sides of tiger 1s, the mg port of the jumbo, the panthers mantle. So while a 122mm round going through a 1 pixel weak spot it unrealistic I think it’s equally unrealistic when it disappears because it hits the joint of 2 10mm plates (tiger 1s side skirt). It’s just unrealistic where armor plates meet should be the weakest point not the strongest.
It’s a mixed bag isn’t it?
Simulator Battles have improved a lot since when i started in 2013.
EC is a far better mission design for SB than Operations.
Even though occasional single spawn ops eould be a nice change of pace now and then.
Missiles and the new jets are implemented far better than expected. If you asked me if homing missiles in WT were a good idea in 2016 i would be completely against it… But it turned out fine.
So air did slowly but steadily improve.
Tanks on the other hand… Well they have gotten worse.
The mission design improved from the early beta phase, in the sense that there is no laser AA killing everyone that comes near the battlefield.
But it declined in the sense that the objectives gotten worse. The first incarnation of Kursk was really interesting with PAK guns playing a huge role.
Then there were the tanks. Drove a tank with 50kph against a large tree or rock? Well they weren’t wearing seatbelts back then, half your crew is dead now. It was great, i miss that.
Sure, it’s not ideal but better than getting killed in impossible ways.
It just needs some more improvements.
At the moment it feels like shells can still penetrate in unrealistic ways, like when 1/3 of the shell hits part of the armor that it can penetrate while the 2/3 would hit a tanks turret and you end up getting the entire shell explode inside the vehicle.
But at the same time you also have instances where zero damage is inflicted because of the round hitting two jointed plates.
One fault is that theres this absolute armor penetration concept in the game.
A shell will either completely penetrate, or fail. A shell can’t break up or ricochet after perforating the armor, causing just spalling or only have some part of the shell entering.
In most instances a shell will not penetrate a plate at 70° but just breach it and then ricochet away from the plate. In-game it’s either complete penetration, fail or random riochet.
Your reply was a joke, right?
You don’t actually consider any of those clearly copy-pasted vehicles with barely any differences unique, do you?
i am consistently blown away by your staggeringly intelligent takes!
Pixel shots led to me killing a Conqueror from the front using 88mm long gun.
Shouldn’t have happened, and I’m glad I and everyone else can no longer do that.
@SneedSellsFeed Different model = not copy paste.
Different weapon system = not copy paste.
Cause by your argument, T-72AV is copy-paste of T-72A, “the only difference is gunner scope and ERA”.
It’s not a copy-paste but it is almost identical. Yet it at least makes sense that a T-72A and a T-72AV would be in the Soviet tree. The nation that made them should have as many variants of ITS OWN VEHICLE.
What difference is there between the Swedish Strv121, the Finnish Leopard 2A4 and the Finnish Leopard 2A6 compared to the German Leopard 2A4 and German Leopard 2A6?
What difference is there between the Finnish T-72M1 and the Russian T-72A other than the 16mm plate on the UFP? You post the most egregious and retarded example (T-72A and T-72AV - two vehicles that are in the same tree as the nation that BUILT THEM, and which are variants), and you think you’ve made a point?
How much time do you think it took for them to add the “Taiwanese” M60A3 TTS? Or the Taiwanese M48A1? What sets those vehicles apart?
How come they didn’t add the Taiwanese DOMESTIC BUILT CM32 and CM34?
And no - they do not “help fill out the Chinese tree”, because CHINA HAS vehicles THEY MADE that could fulfill their roles. Why have they not been added?
BECAUSE, AS I SAID:
PURE. LAZINESS.
