There are still a lot of well used tanks missing e.g. “Wespe” or the US “Priest”
2 Likes
I dont think researching modifications with another vehicle would be a good solution. But youre absolutely right, it is basically impossible to spade a stock heli in ground battles. I just think it is a good thing to actually spade the vehicle by playing it, get used to how it handles, what it can and cannot do and by training that also unlocking the modifications.
Which is what heli ec does. Training in a controlled environment. But where some helis especially in mid tiers with very limited loadouts -in general: not the russian ones- which on top are slower not only because they are stock compete with premium helis with 5 times their armament, and long range armament at that for RP. But in the end, even if you do well and can solo some objectives (Bases…impossible if you dont have the high number dumb rocket loadouts of some russian or high tier apaches) you research 10 to 20% of only one module. Its one the most tedious processes in war thunder (which says a lot, the competition is strong and most of the times it feels like they hope you will just whip out your wallet because of how long it takes and how boring it is, at which point im like: especially not now snail. I pay money for a good product and have for wt in quite big amounts but not for an annoying one wtf what kind of signal would that send?
IMO it just needs a more engaging gamemode or rework of heli pve with reasonable rewards and missions for all helis. Like how and why the f should a gazelle at 9.7 with 4 hot 2s compete in this gamemode with mi35s? or even ka50s??? Spade that thing on stream bvvd and then maybe you would catch a glimpse of why people dont play heli pve…and then tell me why in the world, after spading the gazelle, would anyone come back and play THAT with a spaded heli?
1 Like
He s Exactly correct on your bias. Situation with 2s38 and mi28nm whining proves it it’s impossible to ignore so it found it’s way into answers
nah its “longer term plans” now
i watched the whole video,… the resume can be said to be “lol, no lmao”
yes he presents arguments that only works to his way,…
but also keeps ignoring the massive list of arguments that are against the way he propose,…
the problem experienced by players (be them experienced or not) are not even looked by BVV_d,…
most of the problems he said “no” to, are easily fixable in a way that will ensure both Action and Strategical within gamemodes,…
as i also explainned what the community backbone is willing to have through this post:
as another point to explain why Bulannikov hurts the caring community:
Bulannikov spoke about the tank mode objectives, said that players still plays on the game with the current points objectives, so the problem do not come from point objective gameplay.
But that’s a fallacious take, as there is no such different thing in the game than point objectives gameplay for tanks,…
the statistical/KPI argument, he’s giving on that point clears the whole argumentation:
“until the game dies from boredom, we will not change the type of objectives in tank games” - that’s what he said cleared of all political formative “blabla”
and while i agree on some things he said on those Mains Questions,… most of the video demonstrates, from Bulannikov sayings, that him and other Devs from lead team, don’t play the game as actively as their community (1h/day for most of it)
because if they were playing it as much as us,… there would be meaningful change and argumentation in Q&A,…
i can take on stats from [DEV] squadron itself (a squadron reserved for DEV team) - they’ve barely scratched at the public side of the game.
and that’s also true, when Bulannikov is doing any Devblogs Stream, and shows the ability of X or Y aircraft/tanks/weaponnary,… he is not using the vehicules as players would be using them.
But let alone those facts, most of the argumentation Bulannikov gave us, through that video, is statistically based and clearly not taking any feedback surveys he could have asked for, as such he’s not going to get any argumentation that would be meaningful to players, and certainly not appreciated by the community side that care more about the game health on this forum,…
so let me say it one last time: MAKE SURVEYS AND FOLLOW THOSE
Following the current KPI’s don’t give any reality on what the players wants!
4 Likes
Yes always the same… players buy our prems… so we make more to satisfy… cause what players want is not killing the game no no… imagine your country does what u want, give everyone 5000 dollar per week. Who needs streets and schools if u have enough money? xD
Well, we obviously live in a parallel universe.
Mr. Viacheslav explained to us that they invest great effort in making progress with the naval part of the game. I stopped playing naval because of that “great effort”.
Back in the day I just loved to play naval, like many others. I played with over 100 ships, coastal and “big ones”. I finished researching Bismarck and Yamato, but I don´t want to play with them.
And I just can´t force myself to finish researching Iowa because the experience of playing this game mode is awful.
God help us all with your improvements to this game!
4 Likes
They also will never play the same game that we do, as i guarantee none of them are grinding literal months to get specific vehicles and then spading them.
I would love to see any of the devs stream their way from 1.0 to toptier in any TT.
4 Likes
let’s not forget that the point is to demonstrate that current DEV team don’t get what the issue truly are within the game - because the Key-Project Indicators (KPI) they’re using are telling them otherwise, despite those KPI being wrongly chosen by the Dev Team.
that’s the major point of my post, i use the experience base of DEV team within the game as secondary argument to show why the Chosen KPI are wrongly picked.
1 Like
Q1. Perfect responce. sure the ui might be clunky at times but i already have the muscle memory to find everything and when you do add new elements they dont replace existing ones
Q2. ARMs will be cool and I will only tinker with them since i dont play top tier ground. Just for the love of god dont add the R-27EP
Q3. good to see bombers getting some love after all these years. now i might go ahead and spade the german bombers line
Q4. This is one of those ques to add bigger maps to ground. Granted I agree with you that the usefullness of a overhead arty sight (like WOT for ex) wouldent work, espically with how different WOT and WTs spotting systems are
Q5. For starters you could remove ground targets form air battles so there arent useless team mates just rushing bases and dying instantly
Q6. I dont play naval so i dont have much of an opinion here but i do know that bigger maps are wanted at top tier naval
Q7. Good call. team mates smoking after 1 non pen is already enough to piss me off
Q8. wasnt my favorite map when it was removed but ill wait for it to return to see if my grudge against it still stands
Q9. you just dodge the question here. the biggest problem with top tier prems is the influx of newer players at higher brs where there is a lot going on at all times leading to a bunch of useless team mates
Q10. kinda a half baked responce. From what I understand ARB EC was around when most of the engagements were still with guns at the top BRs. Now-a-days we have missiles that can effectivly kill ppl from 20+ km away. And at least for me, I think ARB EC should be like sim where there is a seperate server selector and you can spawn in as many times as you want although this new game mode does sound intersting
Q11. reasonable responce. i just think some players are frustrated with how the game has become more top tier centric
Q12. I think the person asking the question was refering to the fact that a lot of the north holland map is red zoned. I do however completly disagree with maps games being hyper agressive on purpose. When i play ground its usually between 10.3-11.0 and at that br i want to use my MBTs for what they were designed for, that being engaging each other from KILOMETERS away, not meters away. I WANT slower and more methodical games. i want to hide hull down, I want to take deep flanks but with the current mindset of “everyone must fight head-on all the time” it makes games more 2 dimentional
Q13. eh. ppl will always complain that that a vehicle could be added to another tree then also complain that you added it to too many trees
Q14. as someone who is only in a squadron just to get squadron vehicles WWM dosent really intrest me but i might play it with my friends
Q15. I do like the newer game modes that yall are releasing now but i wish that they came more periodically rather that sporadically
Q16. yay more cool vehicles to collect
Q17. this is one thing that if you think will increase que times then let it be an opt in think like with smaller games at top tier air. however, personally i would rather take the hit to my que time if it meant that i would have more balanced games
Q18. the sub event from a while ago was cool but i dont play naval so i cant add anything here
Q19. I play WT b/c i love tanks and military aircraft, not b/c i love the game modes. I think it is disingenuous to say that the gamemodes are the only think keeping the game afloat when the reason that ppl play this game is b/c it makes vehicle combat accessible to everyone with pretty intuitave game play. Hell WT has kept me intersted in aviation so much that I decided to join my nations air force to work on fighters
Q20. as I said earlier I dont play squad battles so i dont care abt this one
Q21. Again we are back to que times, and again, i would rather take a hit to my que times if it meant that i got to play maps that i actually enjoy.
Q22. heli PvE still gets played mostly b/c there are a bunch of helis that are nearly useless when stock b/c of the lack of ATGMs and even in heli battles the aa guns and SAMs still out range early helis and makes it very difficult to stock grind
Q23. Good idea but i would like to know if the random vehicles are gonna be from the players selected nation, the nations of the teams composition, or any nation
Q24. I would say that the new long range heli-launched FnF missiles are more unfair than droping a bomb with no ccip b/c with the bomb toy actually have to aim and predict where the enemy is gonna be by the time the bomb explodes. with FnF missiles you just fire a missile and wait for the kill
Q25. Yes pls add regenerative steering. it would be a realstic mechanic that would actually be good for the game
Q26. for the 3rd time now, I would rather have more balanced games games if it meant i took a hit to que times
Q27. i do like that you gave a bit more insight to how BRs are decided. however what if a dev dosent understand how to play a particular vehicle and they decide to keep it at a lower br it vise versa, where a dev perfectly understands how to play a vehicle but the server stats show that its lacking behind despite it being under br’d (looking at you 2s38). also if your already having meetings abt why vehicles are moving it would be nice to hear your reason why said vehicles are moving
Q28. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE ADD GRB EC. you literally said that maps are kept artifically small on purpose and you got rid of the One truely big ground map when you reworked Tunisia (RIP big Tunisia, gone but not forgotten) and that was my favorrite map when playing my MBTs. As I said earliet I want slower and more methodical gameplay for my MBTs not small city thunderdomes
Q29.
sorry for any typos im too lazy to go back and fix them
3 Likes
They are also nonsense vs. nearly all planes - when I am playing WW2 props - to be killed by a guided missile from 8km is ridicoulos. planes are either nerfed to uselessness in naval, bots shooting with laserguided cannons
Su-25K even, I dont recall the names of everything
I cant tell if you are calling me bias or not lol
Which is why we get jets going mach now in naval ec matches with mostly ww2 ships. Makes sense? no? But very immersive having ai jets going around 1000 kph flying over the english channel that you can’t catch in 95% of playable planes when on the water some dreadnoughts are duking it out. That increase of br for playable jets and ai targets made absolutely no sense except for…no really on a second though it doesnt make any sense at all.
Those same teammates will just charge forward and die instantly anyways. At least give them something to do. You can’t force everyone to PvP. Blame Gaijin for not adding alternative game modes for people to use strike aircraft and bombers in to spade them.
1 Like
But but but think about the que time
But lets and more que time for naval wiht 3 mode.
I hope i dont look to hostile about it Mod
Just proving how utterly out of touch Gaijin is. Literally WHO is asking for smaller maps. There’s loads of WW2 missing still and just vehicles in general. Heli PvE is in a terrible state so yeah no wonder nobody plays it.
You could have done loads of UI work years ago. You still can, one piece at a time. This is more just, our code already melts if we do anything to the game so nah.
10 Likes
I am sick and tired of the WoT brain bashing on these stupidly small maps for GRB top tier.
Weapons designed to operate at extreme ranges with tactics employed. Forced into thrird person corner peaks and sub 100m combat constantly.
This video proves they have no desire to improve the situation for grb.
I’d like to see the data proving the fact that their players prefer the short cqb they claim.
3 Likes
It’s not just Gaijin, this is a “corporate” mentality about almost everything.
They market/merchandize their products in such a way that consumers end up having little to no “choice” and end up being led by their noses a great deal of the time . .
Example:
“Plain potato chips are our #1 seller!! . . by a great margin!!”
This is extremely common, and when all they do is look at numbers and do not fully
communicate with their “customers” . . . well . . . . .
Things could be done better, and not just by corporations/businesses, but also by consumers
It is a two way street after all
1 Like