I don’t understand why we have different icons for units on maps. Why not just put a red dot on everything and expect a player to move a mouse over it to realise that this red dot is a base, this one is a pillbox and this one is a player…
Icons are for toddlers, I would even delete these red dots, players should just naturally learn where the targets are on different maps.
Even better, there should be no map. People should just navigate naturally.
Because is a game focus in realism , and in reality, all vehicles have different icons, now you have NATO icons and URSS icons too
I wonder when did you start to play, cuz at a time, warthunder’s focus was: “realistic arcade”, where realistic plane behaviour paired with arcade controls suited “for everyone”.
Of course, I remember reading my granddad’s diaries about the war and he described how scary it was to see moving red squares above enemy positions as it indicated that they are bringing some tanks…
Why do we have them shown in-world if “icons are for toddlers”? :P
If your granddad is official he probably used tactical maps featuring symbols to identify each vehicle or unit that was stationed there.
Which are not realistic because devs made a placeholder instead of actually making them show the difference between different vehicles as they are meant irl.
You have test drive for test that
I remember him using “SPAA with radar” icon to describe wirbelwind, sure…
Your replies are childish spamming at this point. You disregard the obvious and spam replies in frustration.
Please grow up
Thats called sarcasm. And its made apparent as possible, so you realise that it is indeed a sarcasm.
Its a part of lexical means of artistic expression, as epithets, metaphors, similes, personifications, etc.
Its funny when you say that attackers should just have more reward from attacking ground targets, then say that we can discuss things, but when I tell you that just having a good reward is not enough as players should actually know that there is a good reward with some narrative - you are suddenly in denial, you say that “back in my day we learned by ourselves” and “kids these days…”, you don’t want players to do teamwork now, you want to force them to somehow learn everything at wiki and in plain texts under loadouts, while simultaneously expect your changes to make as much players participate in desired behaviour as possible…
You either want as much players to do the X, or you don’t want to tell players to do X at all, make up your mind.
Irrelevant, it’s still childish as you spam it in multiple different messages and it contributes zero value.
Such as this:
Your initial contribution, quoting that part of the initial post, was:
After which you went on a tangent about there needing to be more clear indications about specific roles a plane has and what it’s supposed to do.
Also. Not once, but twice you have twisted my words to fit your narrative and what you THINK i mean:
What i said was:
I clearly stated that there could be a section in the stat card that tells that there’s a reward multiplier for doing X thing:
See, i agreed that there should be something that tells players that their plane has better rewards for doing X thing.
I agreed with that.
I disagreed with your version of how it should be implemented.
Yeah, instead of some sort of UX design there should be a text somewhere outside the mission where you can’t even read it.
That will surely make as much people participate in teamwork activities, for sure.
There is a reason why in GRB we have a big binoculars button that show you an ability to recon others. And when you do so, you get a text what you did wrong right at the center of a screen, lol.
You either want your feature to shape players’s playstyles or want it to be a gimmick that is used by 5% of players that once read some vague descriptions somewhere in statcards.
I would genuinely assume its about GRB players, not ARB AI ground targets, lol.
And… isnt a base a ground target as well?
Pretty sure bases count as their own thing funnily enough. At least I assume so since I earn a different amount of rewards from them than ai targets.
That’s you, lol.
Strawman argument.
I’m pretty sure that 95% (probably 99%) of ARB players know what is meant when someone says “ground targets”.
But i’m glad you to see you are here to represent the remaining 1-5%.
Do you think that every player should know every game mechanic from the very first match they play? It sounds like that. Instead of people learning things as they go.
In the game right now? Sure. But he suggests a text in a statcard that should tell the player that his attacker aircraft has more reward in attacking ground AI units.
The description he provides is vague, as it does not tell which targets and in which gamemode.
Every player should know the rules of a gamemode by playing said gamemode once, yeah.
Idk where do you get these “every game mechanic”, I guess its your own “strawman argument”.
For hours we are talking about the gamemode and its rules, yet you still build your counter-argument on an assumption that I somehow want to teach players how to use radars when they fly on I-16. While all I’m saying that it is not enough to make a majority of players participate in activity X, if you just increase the reward for this activity and do nothing else.
You’re finally getting it. There’s a learning curve, not everything is needed to be known from the start. The reward multipliers being a very good example, they wouldn’t be necessary to be able to play the gamemode effectively. It is something that people could learn as they go, and my guess is that they would learn it fairly quickly too.
Even if there was a higher reward for strike fighters for taking out ground targets. People would still use other types of aircraft to do it.
What i’m proposing in the original post isn’t trying force people to use X plane to do Y thing, or even that it would contribute more towards match victory. It is about incentivizing doing so.
Making vague and hidden mechanic is not “incentivizing players to do something”