this cant be all for the roadmap of the first half of the year, this honestly isnt good enough.
what about addressing BR compression properly, what about map rotation in the matchmaker(as in implement a system that prevents a player from having to play on the same map twice or more in a row, a few lines of code at best).
what about addressing the issues of map designs in general?
like the layouts of ground targets and bases for air maps, the general layout and poor design of the majority(if not all) ground maps and i heard its a similar issue for naval too.
what about improving the gamemodes overall?
we are still pretty much having the same gamemodes we had in 2014/2015 and in fact are even missing some(the one with the dynamic D point for ground for example).
where is air RB enduring confrontation? that should be a thing at least for air RB above 7.3/7.7 and is of higher importance the higher the BR after that, while it becomes especially necessary past 10.0, where the majority of matches are solved in mere minutes because of how AAM-fights work.
this roadmap, if that really is all you are having in mind, is highly disappointing.
and if this is any indication, the roadmap for the second half of 2024 wont hold any form of work on the core problems of the game either.
And the US, and Russia. That might be why, pretty much only those 3, and China (they are trying to catch up) have big bomber after WW2. It would give an advantage but I’ll take it lol, I want my b36, b-50, b-52, b1b, b2, and one day, maybe, my b21
Seeing as there is multiple points about ground battles here that will have community voting, I am wondering if there is going to be some requirement to vote. It wouldn’t make sense for people who only plays air to vote on some ground battles matter, or someone who only uses his overtiered light tank so he can spawn a CAS aircraft and leaves if doesn’t get the chance to do so.
Another thing that doesn’t make sense is that you are making changes to fuzed ammo to make it more realistic, but changes for APHE that would make it more realistic (likely nerfing it in game) are left to a vote. Can’t help but notice there is some bias here since some nations rely on APHE up to cold war era and some don’t, and players who play these nations will vote against these change and those who play nations that rely on solid shot will vote in favor. I am afraid that this is just another Gaijin move to say “We tried to do the right thing and asked the players and this is what they chose”.
Not sure how you’re struggling.
Even with me giving expert crews to every fighter and favorite tank I’m netting income just with a premium account.
I found a screenshot I had back in the day and I was at 1.6 mil without a premium account.
A friend of mine prints SL just playing the game cause all he does is play what he likes which is 4.7 - 6.7 exclusively ground.
Dude spent over 30 mil SL on crates just cause he could.
The upcoming improvement of replenishment mechanics and reduced maximum replenishment time for ground vehicles on capture points would be great if it could also be implemented for naval, particularly for the LE Orla and even more so HMS Peacock, which will usually run out of shells even if kept on a capture point, the reload on them is just too slow/ too long.
Peacock and Orla are both very badly modelled. They’re missing another 5 knots to max speed, about another 100 rounds of main gun ammo, two GPMG’s and a few more crew members. I would like to see the Jacinto-class. Now that would be fun.
I tried posting this with a yes/no poll & it wasn’t approved by the mod team.
Seems they only want to see the game improve just enough so we keep spending money.
Please re-read our rules before you post anything else here.
If your suggestion was not approved, please send a PM to Suggestion Moderator and ask what you missed to make it better and worth approving.
PS. Random quote from your not approved suggestion:
Bit of a wall of text post, but I’m too lazy for proper formatting at times.
I’m just hoping it was passed around the office before being not approved.
Proper formatting is also linebreaks, lists & such.
Not jumping through hoops that only serve as post discouragement on an already moderated forum to filter out shitposts, that’s just censorship.
While the words I used might not have been the perfect ones, there was nothing wrong with the message & any my opinions were clearly stated.
After having found several errors, I think that gaijin should also add the review and correct the 3D models of planes and tanks, since there are quite a few cases in which errors are seen in the 3D models in the form of black areas, such as the caps that the panther G has in its ass. There is also another mistake in the Ta-152 H, where the radiator is located, the 3D model is completely undone.
Simply the 3D models of the game are falling apart, and apparently the devs either don’t realize it, or don’t want to realize it, after all that doesn’t make money.
I really hope Bonuses for Research Points on new Nations finally come in the second Major Update the Grind is SO loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong -.-
I loved everything listed, but then I realized I didn’t see any mention suggestions which some Top-Tier air players mentioned: player count, map sizes, etc. I know this wasn’t an exhaustive list so I’m still optimistic.
It was even mentioned by a Gaijin staffer how lower player counts brought more dynamic gameplay to Air RB. :)