Yes we need way bigger maps in toptier grb, i think no one actually enjoys small cramped maps at toptier.
I would love to have a grb ec mode
1 Like
More like ignored and used to vilify the player base
8 Likes
So, they’re not planning to improve helicopter PvE, but they’re not going to touch the XP cost of helicopter modules.
These devs don’t deserve even 0.50€.
2 Likes
So according to Viacheslav Bulannikov the game is perfect everything is balanced
4 Likes
The questions were taken directly from the community and some of the most upvoted and popular examples: https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxxejXIidTUau70r8vQnlOX70lLHZVfNwW
So, do you still have plans to balance the game? Currently, some Russian vehicles and the French Rafale have become extremely overpowered, and this has been going on for several months. The win rates in top-tier are now quite frustrating. If this issue isn’t resolved in the next update, it will be a disaster for gameplay. No one would want to play any vehicles other than the overpowered ones.Merely adding new content while leaving existing vehicles overlooked is not a good approach.
I think they have exaggerated, but it is also easy to understand as some of the explanations for the answers seem to have logical fallacies.
For example, in the discussion of different gameplay modes other than point capture, BVVD says “Players want point capture, that’s what they are playing,” seemingly ignoring that it’s the only option being presented. Of course that’s what players will play if it’s the most common mode. But discounting player feedback asking for more modes because players are currently playing the available modes seems shortsighted at best and disingenuous at worst. BVVD asserts that other modes would be too complex for players to manage, but there are plenty of modes no more complicated than the existing ones that could be visualized.
I understand that developers have a creative vision for the game that will not always align with the players. But this Q&A seems to be more evidence of a antagonistic relationship between the developers and the players, where the developers feel that the most important thing they can do is blame the unpopular decisions they have made on player behavior, instead of exploring new and different ways the game could expand.
I am a player who enjoys the game and I’m grateful for the work of both the developers who make it and of the forum staff who allow us to keep discussing it! But it’s very clear that the development staff need to reassess how they interact with the concept of the game and how to modify that concept as development continues.
10 Likes
According to the new leak images, Germany will not receive any new additions aside from the phased-array Typhoon. Moreover, I don’t think Gaijin will introduce new helicopters for Germany. This update will focus on phased-array aircraft for the air forces, as well as air defense systems for Japan and Sweden. Gaijin capacity is just that limited.
Never once have I seen people asking for smaller maps, especially ones where spawn trapping is the norm. Infact there have been countless requests for larger maps and for the spawn trapping issues to be resolved. Does the fact that that question was a very popular one not raise any alarm bells that maybe the players want bigger maps?
And the argument that “players play small maps more this means they want smaller maps” is terrible. People are playing smaller maps because you keep only adding smaller maps and taking away from larger maps to turn them into COD sized TDM matches. It’s essentially like saying “my kid likes eating his vegetable” when all you feed them is broccoli and sprouts while the kid cries at the table.
And the devs have the cheek to ask for players to vote for the for the “Labour of Love” Steam Award.
11 Likes
I wanna see the source on “democratic voting” in relation to the maps
3 Likes
Same with the BR spread and player frustration with queue times. I have never seen a player complain about queue times besides maybe with the introduction of night battles. But there have been plenty of players frustrated with up-tiers that put them in a complete disadvantage against an enemy vehicle. The WW2 brackets are riddled with this issue and its not fun in the slightest. They would have had a better argument if a feedback system existed or they tested a mode where the .7 spread was implemented.
1 Like
I’m not familiar with the internal development and vision of this project, so I can’t fully understand and therefore disagree with some of his statements, for example, regarding matchmaking filters and waiting times. He mentioned multiple times that matchmaking must be fast and that allowing players to remove more maps from the search could increase queue times. I think it should be up to the players to decide whether they want to wait longer to get what they prefer, rather than getting anything, not enjoying it or leaving and receiving a 5 minute penalty. And if players would get frustrated with waiting then they just reduce their filter restrictions until they are satisfied with queue times.
Personally I mostly play GRB and I prefer single capture point missions because that’s where I have the most fun, battles are often intense and focused around a single objective, unlike triple point missions that dilute teamplay by spreading everyone across the map, or the “capture the enemy point” missions, which are often located near spawns resulting in spawncamping.
I would love to have an option to ban all maps except single point capture (and maybe some triple points arranged in a row). Or at least a toggle that lets me choose which mission types I want to play, instead of accepting whatever random mission is loaded.
I kinda knew what kind of answer we would get but to be honest gaslighting was not on my radar.
I could write a bunch of paragraphs explaining why about things like map bans, bigger maps (or better yet, map design), heli pve, new PERMANENT game mode, br range etc and etc have to change but its already been said. Have been said for years in fact.
1 Like
The answer about amount of players on +1 BR is literally not an answer to the question. As well about map bans. As well as helicopter PvE. The answer about squadron battles is horrible.
1 Like
Just going to say this too.
The most appropriate response a Community Manager can give here is to either offer a further explanation of BVVD’s responses (if they have the answer and some of us do understand if you do not), or to assure players they are listening to the comments here and will take them back to either to BVVD or the dev team in general for further clarification or to revisit a stance with new information. A Youtube Comment section to one video is not the same population as your own forum. There might be some overlap sure, but best to not assume they are the same people.
If you don’t like bad assumptions on player takeaways from the video, do not insinuate an equally bad assumption that players didn’t watch it.
5 Likes
lmfao the response at 18:37 is jure pure ignorance and to be honest pure lack of understanding of the BIGGER ISSUE.
So explain to me how MI28 with DIRCM sitting in multipath attitude is somehow “balanced” or justified when SLM/IR guided systems cannot engage it because over performing DIRCM, it often sits tree top level avoiding SAMs with ARH missiles that love to just nose dive into the ground because hey look gaijin cant give rotatory blades proper radar cross sections (which is funny af tbh)
Oh while giving them LMURs to dump out by constantly sitting at helipad re-arming every 2/3 minutes and having some insane firing angles that they almost always result in a 1 hit because top down approach on MBTs with shocker… not ERA on the top.
That Q&A is legit the worst thing ive listened too
5 Likes
Amazing, 24.45 minutes of
Q: We have have a problem
A: no you don’t
This level of avoiding to answers is pure art
1 Like
At some point in the future, its possible a Revenge class may indeed appear in the British Naval tree. But its too soon to mention specifics at this stage.
Our intention is not to have ships be too similar, or directly identical across multiple trees. Whereas the answer here was referring to vehicles that are directly identical. No sister ship of Arkhangelsk/ HMS Royal Sovereign is going to be identical, and as mentioned above, we prefer ships to have at least some differences. So our focus has been on other unique ships for the British tree currently. But a Revenge class remains possible for the future, simply it was not the contextual focal point of the question you are referring too (which was on tanks like M44, M55, not capital ships).
1 Like
@Smin1080p_WT Can we get a better response on FnF munitions namely LMURs and Helis re-arming with almost constant immunity. that response simply is not good enough to the issues at top tier and blatantly ignores MANY issues
1 Like
Naturally we are always keeping the flow of information going back to the developers from reactions to feedback on all subjects. However the answers provided were the most detailed and comprehensive that can be given, directly from BVV himself.
Unfortunately we cannot keep posting a Q&A of a Q&A around and around again with follow ups to the same question over and over again when the main factor has already been answered in full detail. Of course if there are separate questions that are largely expressed in the community that may be on other aspects not already answered, then they could of course be possible for future Q&As or news subjects.