The singular biggest problem of top tier ground is that Gaijin’s utmost priority is that every tree has to have a tank at the very last BR, no matter how terrible it is. The only chance to ever get rid of some compression at top tier is for Gaijin to accept and acknowledge that not every tree has a last BR worthy tank, nor does it need to have one.
But then some players (that dont know about toptier imbalance) might have less incentive to buy a prem to grind out a tree and we can’t have that.
I would like to note your so-called consideration of the opinion of the community
Last two Changes
F-5C 10.7 → 11.0 → 10.7
Mig-21bis 11.0 → 11.3 → 11.0
J-35XS
Why didn’t you listen to the community in the beginning ? You made a mistake and then corrected it. Why didn’t you listen to the community’s suggestions?
Before this patch you could sacrifice your special russian 10.0 BR (because everyone was sitting at 10.3) to take strela which is pretty good AA. Right now you can sit at that special BR or do the same as before and sacrifice your BR and take 2S6. Looks like this patch once again russian buff
What!? Are you insinuating that Italy’s glorious Ariete AMV isn’t cut out for peak 12.0 status!?
This. My review has been the same (negative/don’t recommend) largely since even before the major review bombing. War Thunder has all the right ingredients but for some reason they cannot cook a W. And the fact that monkey-pawing is such a common move for them is wild.
Players: Hey, 16v16 for top tier air battles is just too chaotic. The gameplay isn’t fun. Theres too many missiles, not enough flares, and everything turns into a fireball.
Gaijin: Silence for the longest time…”Okay, here is an option to make it 12v12 but you will never see that because it’s only an option”.
Players: Hey, here’s 2,000+ comments with reasons A-Z on how the bonus research mechanic doesn’t feel useful at all. And it took you 14 months to come up with it?
Gaijin: We changed B and Q by a little bit. Here you go.
If you’re development cycle doesn’t allow for community managers and say a handful of devs to spend a few hours addressing a few comments, then…your development process has a major problem. What I think adds insult to injury is being able to see that sort of communication not be an issue for other studios of comparable size. I have no reason to think ArrowHead, makers of Helldivers 2, is all that much bigger or smaller than Gaijin. And yet you can regularly see both the CEO and the CCO engage with players and the community on issues.
And they aren’t afraid to say things like “Hey, we think this missed the bar too. Something must have fallen through the cracks on the development process and I definitely plan to bring these concerns up to the dev team”. I want to say the last time we heard from War Thunder’s CCO was during the review bombing with that tone deaf response of “Hey, you people are idiots who don’t understand how F2P games work”.
Since you mentioned AH, I don’t think I can put into words how much faith and hope this 30 minute patch note restored, not just in me, but evidently in the entire playerbase.
They basically flipped their entire balance philosophy on it’s head and started over. I would like Gaijin to do the same.
You forgot to move the sea harrier FRS1 down in sim
It’s clearly on par with a 2A7.
I asked to have a Q&A with the devs once a month where they spend 10 minutes on answering some collected questions here on the forum, but I was told they were too busy with developing the game that they could not spare 10 minutes a month to engage with the community they develop the game for.
You moved the sea harrier FRS1 down in ARB but apparently consider it 100% equal in performance to be the mig 23MLD in Sim
Also, the hunter F6 (France) moved up to 9.3 in ARB, but stayed at 9.0 in sim. Meanwhile the Hunter FGA9 is still 9.7 in sim.
F4J(UK) is worse than the FGR2/FG1 but is 0.7 BRs higher than them in sim with no justification at all.
I could go on
If nothing else, you guys clearly only scan read suggestions and skipped over multiple…some of these issues are reported time and time again and never addressed. Able to comment on the above then?
Why the sea harrier FRS1 did not move down in sim, but the MLD, the strongest aircraft at 11.7 in sim, moved down to 11.3? Why the French Hunter F6 is considered equal to the hunter F1 in sim? And the FGA9 is considered so OP? And why the F4JUNK is so over BRed?
Wild when so much of the changes recently have been mostly copy and paste and just adding a lot of out-of-bounds sections to maps in order to bandaid spawn camping instead of just fixing/editing the map.
The drivers right arm and left leg are gonna be so swoll
It has been answered previously, an i assume the same answer still stands so there really wouldn’t be a need to repeat it.
(how i feel about the vehicle and its BR isn’t relevant here, i just wanted to point out that it has indeed been answered)
In fairness. What they said was basically
“We know the community wants it to move up, but instead, we are going to try to address some of the issues with it by trying out new internal modules instead, so we’ll add those to it first and see what happens”
But 6? Months on and the community opinion hasnt changed it seemed, if anything it’s gotten stronger with the infinite ammo thing
Thats from april.
Thats not even relevant anymore.
Quite some time passed since the addition of the new internals and the 2s38 even got a buff with it as well.
Even then compared with puma s1 , kf41 namer ifv etc.
People still believe it should be raised becsuse its performance is so strong even after the changes. Nothing has been explained by the devs. Its performance is still steong
“Mom, can we get good community engagement?”
“We have community engagement at home.”
The community engagement:
https://youtu.be/liSstdLqjRM?si=wFOYwom4o1Ge4eGx
(I apparently don’t know how to share links :P)
One more round of totally pointless BR changes if you even dare to think about playing naval.
How long is it going to take them until they start giving ships BRs based on their performance and not put all same class ships to same BRs.
We have WW2 Era battleships at same BR as WW1 Dreadnought’s.
We have US destroyers with actual armor and superior firepower at same BR as other nations DDs that lack many cases firepower and armor. We have Japanese destroyers that have BRs only based on fact that “In theory they can kill any ship if they land torpedo”, but in reality they get their ass handed to them by pretty much every other destroyer.
Even if that is the case, it isn’t “ignoring” it.
An answer you do not like is still an answer.
That is a fair point.
But i also think that with the new modules the don’t just need to reevaluate the 2s38 but basically all light vehicles, and since many of them got their internals later i am assuming that they are looking at the efficiency off all of those vehicles before making bigger changes to any single one of them.
Sure, it has been a while and changes has been made since that comment, but they have not “ignored” it as it has been looked at and increased in BR together with several other light vehicles around that BR.
runs sale on A5C
sale ends
immediately moved to a BR where it now faces more than 2x the amount of newer generation SARHs
And why is this justified? Because of two short range, rear aspect missiles.
J35XS, F5C, now the F1C, same treatment. Always tends to come directly after a sale too.
Following up with a “Hey, we know this is still a point of contention for many of you. We want to assure you that we are still monitoring the performance of this vehicle following the changes we have implemented. Should we see anything change, we will communicate that with you. We ask that you continue to be patient” costs the devs and CMs nothing.
