The War Thunder Roadmap for Spring to Summer 2024

Fingers crossed 🤞

But I’d not put it passed them for that to come in a later update, If at all

1 Like

or forgetting entirely…

I just realised there is a new road map… the news had to not show up on the launcher or I messed it somehow.

Although the are couple of nice changes planned, it seems that most needed reworks for Air mode, both RB and SB are completely ignored.

The community almost begs Gaijin to adjust and rework Air RB for high BR (around 9.0 and above). It is so much mess that its hard to believe it was omitted.

Air RB and SB suffer from core problems while most of the points on road map are “nice to have’s”.

Why?

2 Likes

Could we maybe see some improvements to encourage more teamplay?
Ever since the “Kill = skill” update the game has devolved even faster into just bum-rushing the enemy spawn to stack that RP multiplier as high as possible.
That multiplier should (imo) only be available from playing around objectives & helping teammates and also should continue being subjected to hard cutoff points.
Do you only want to kill enemy tanks? Defend a cap enough and get 33% rp multiplier
Do you genuinely enjoy playing a rapid response rat tank (think autocannon wiesel) and help repair friendlies? do it enough & get 33% research multiplier (bigger issue here is how commonly you get 1shot, might be difficult to find a balance that the average player is comfortable with)
Do you enjoy bringing fighter planes to shoot down enemy CAS? 33% multiplier
Do you enjoy using CAS? 33% multiplier
Destroy enough enemy CAS? Multiplier reward
Did a wave of enemy CAS spawn in & you recognize it as a very real threat that has to be dealt with so you pop a “AAA” order & everyone that kills a plane during the order gains a smaller bonus % multiplier for the entire match because they did what the order asks you to.

This is the core of my argument and the percentages i’ve given are completely arbitrary and I don’t consider them anything other than placeholder just for the sake of (attempting) to make a better argument.

3 Likes

A more static/regulated players per game size would seem in order, and an option for players to select what size games they wish to play in.
8 v 8
12 v 12
16 v 16
Any/All
these 4 options and player selects the ones they want to participate in
Then the MM’er would only be able to make games of these sizes and not have to mess with Squad
splitting or any of that kinda thing. It would make for more uniform/standard game sizes and give players more control over what they get to play without hampering the MM’er to any large degree.
Just an idea I have had for a long time now . . . .

When I think about it, I don’t suppose that they really used survey results in planning this roadmap.
Honestly it’s really hard to believe that majority of players given chance to ask for One think to improve next year, would name one of 80% of the goals on the list…

1 Like

I hardly believe that 30% of those survey bring this point of having lower MM number → would be more around 2% to 3% (from my PoV)

Mostly because the game itself is based on having high rate of people, and because most of you want such a reduction that half of the prizes are unobtainnable -->> destroying many Daily Tasks along that change.

Flares/chaffs separated launch, have been asked since Jets have access to Flares/chaffs, and is obviously for a Game of aircrafts that this feature should be done.

I think the main reason they haven’t addressed the player size per game is maybe the servers they have can’t handle it.

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.

2 Likes

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

1 Like

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”.

2 Likes

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.

1 Like

I’m more interested in new dagor engine update. 7.0?

2 Likes

Cool but where is first major update and why haven’t devblogs started?

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.

Only the crew count has been acknowledged, the extra MGs and extra ammo were both rejected and labelled not a bug :/

Crew count was acknowledged 6 months ago…

W roadmap

1 Like

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.

1 Like