sigh
Alright, lets get into it.
No, for a multitude of reasons. Heavies shouldnt be invincible, and moving every cold war tank up would screw over the minor nations.
Yes. Especially in air AB, a lot of it is tied to the skill booster- we really need better progression in AB, and a rebalancing of GAB.
Economy still sucks, perfectly fine to complain about it.
Cant comment on top tier.
Agreed.
Actually somewhat good post overall minus #2.
Honestly I think that most of the time you have some interesting and cogent points, even when I don’t agree with them. As for specifics, I personally don’t care for things like The MAUS fighting cold war Soviet tanks, and the M109 (which without true indirect fire, really seems pretty stupid) alongside Sherman’s. If I wanted make believe, hand waving silly stuff like that, I would play WoT. So I disagree that all things are equal through the eyes of game balance, because that has been twisted into multiple arguments of convenience. And your references to Content creators positions regarding same, and without citation gives me pause. So I think he had some good points.
I agree that the M109s existence (along with other artillery platforms) doesn’t make a bunch of sense in game. Especially when they have aluminium armor that allows standard shells of that br range to overpen because of the fragility.
I generally don’t like to discuss the MAUS and it’s viability as a useful vehicle because it isn’t available to everyone and is one of the most rediculous designs in history IMO. I see it as an extreme outlyer for this issue. The amount of armor it has mixed with the powerful main gun (and less powerful, but quite useful secondary gun), puts it in a difficult spot balance wise. Down and further and it is invincible, up any further and l round tech nullifies the armor more.
As much as I dislike seeing crazy matchups like the Su-25k (before uptier to 10.0) fighting Sabres with all aspect heatseekers, I understand that balance is what makes the game fun and allows most vehicles to be viable most of the time. I will also say that I by no means think the game is perfectly balanced, and that decompression is needed very, very badly. It does give some weird matchups, but not every military progressed at the same rate with similar design goals and Gaijin is trying to take all that and make it into a cohesive fun game.
I understand, allow me to fix that. Here are some videos from the heavy hitters. There are some from Ash and some more minor CCs, but I figured this would suffice.
Spookston: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OUjjuNcXptk&pp=ygUhd2FydGh1bmRlciBoaXN0b3JpY2FsIG1hdGNobWFraW5n
The Europeian Canadian: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-H37Brzb9U&pp=ygUhd2FydGh1bmRlciBoaXN0b3JpY2FsIG1hdGNobWFraW5n
PhylDaily: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NIJPyEtxyF0&pp=ygUhd2FydGh1bmRlciBoaXN0b3JpY2FsIG1hdGNobWFraW5n
I believe he has a few good points, and I didn’t respond with then because I agreed. While I don’t think Warthunder is perfect, I also think the playerbase could improve overall to understand how/why things may be the way they are. Point 7, 8, the fairly well balanced section of 5, and partially point 6 I agree with. The part about point 6 is a loaded thing because I know alot of people don’t want to go that far into the information about every vehicle or tactics and just want a vehicle on vehicle game for fun and blowing stuff up.
One thing I would like to add, even though a bit off topic, is that most of us on the forums are quite passionate about what we want Wathunder to be. That causes some FIERCE disagreements. We all want whats best for the game we enjoy (I think most of us enjoy it), but everyone’s opinion of what’s best is different. The discussion of ideas is how we can all improve the ideas that go into making Warthunder a better place for all.
They are sectors that work independently, so requiring the addition of new vehicles is not an obstacle for other sectors.
If that’s the case, why are we still playing game modes designed over a decade ago primarily for propeller driven aircraft? Why are we shooting at the same pillboxes in Gen 4 and 5 aircraft we were shooting at in 1940’s aircraft? What has the team responsible for THAT been doing the last handful of years?
Can you kindly explain or elaborate on why there has been no proactive improvements in game and objective design for Air RB outside of swapping out some AI damage models and throwing in some airborne targets? I love the recent attempts at open communication between the Dev team and playerbase, but the core game design of Air RB has grown increasingly stale year after year and sorely needs to be addressed. There are no shortage of topics on this forum begging for Gaijin to create a more engaging and dynamic gameplay enviroment for all of these beautiful vehicles. Live. Die. Repeat in under 10 minutes ain’t it.
i agree on most things however the BR separation should not be a hard border, it will make things like Maus and IS3 damn near unkillable whilst centurion mk3s which were made in 1946 wouldn’t be able to face the things it was designed to fight, instead seeing everything that was made to make it look like a pea shooter.
However in the current BRs its still awful so I completely understand the want for radical change, PhilyDailys video hasn’t helped by making people thing hard limits is a fix instead of a plaster over a stab wound. In your defence my 7.7 Britain lineup (excluding Fox) has nothing that entered service after 1956 and my CAS plane is from 1945, it will face the BMP and BTR that are from the 80s, the Gepard from 1976 and the K9 (Vidar) that is from 1999. I find that infuriating but I know only using era as your balancing method is foolish.
WT currently uses average performance of vehicles to balance them, this means that godly vehicles that dogshit players play (Vidar, every leopard 2 and every American aircraft) gets a notably lower BR than they should have, if they changed it from looking at the performance of every player with said vehicle to only the top 40% of players of each vehicle I.E the ones that actually know how to play it, things will improve, the OP HE slingers and ATGM spammers will be catapulted up in BR ignoring and punishing players for using the vehicle wrong and the worse performing vehicles will filter down to BRs where they can compete provided you are competent
at least Vidar would be in top tier where it should be…
VIDAR should go to 8.7 but no higher, the lack of stab is a real hinder above that. Like seriously, historical MM will never work. It will make a lot of tanks completely useless.
9.0 would still seem low to me as it will shred every light armoured scout tank at that BR with ease.
Its a self-propelled gun its not going to be stabilised and if you rely on one to do well then you aren’t playing to a vehicles strength, its a cross-map sniper with a laser rangefinder and an HE shell that will delete anything if you are even semi ok at aiming, it will place it with the other modern vehicles and still do incredibly well, aim at the same places but things can actually fight back easier
Those tanks also have an LRF, actual armor, and APFSDS. Derp guns have to be balanced differently then others, and I think 8.7 is fine given its small ready rack. Sweden also has a lineup at that BR, which is important. Again, not having a stab is important.
And as for anything else, well-
dies in literally most of sweden going up to 8.0 or some bs
even after the ready rack is empty the reload is faster than a lot of MBTs of that BR, and armour doesn’t matter to derp guns as you aim at the viewports or cupola anyway, its how I make the FV4005 work at top tier and if that’s doable with the inconsistency of HESH then K9 thunder style SPGs have zero excuse while being superior in every aspect
Okay so it kills it.
I can do the same with the Bkan, doesnt mean it should go to 11.7.
The VIDAR has no stab and poor gun handling, and is massive. It belongs at around 8.7, where it will still perform fine but wont be OP.
The game modes were designed 7 years ago, not a decade.
And there are systems that need updating before they can change the air modes in any drastic ways.
AI overhaul for example, so aircraft and ground vehicles actually go their correct speeds.
I get that the Battlefield game mode isn’t the most interesting for you, but it’s what we have until new systems come into the game that’ll make updating modes possible.
@Caernarvon02
VIDAR is where it should be…
Realism and balance > Wunderweapon wet dreams.
@ZendikarHaven
VIDAR is not powerful enough for 8.7, you said it yourself: It lacks a stab.
Eh. I would argue it would be fine at 8.7, but I digress. Should definitely go down to like 7.7 or 7.3 in AB, however.
8.0 is fine for it, that way it can still see ZSU-57-2 [I like fragging VIDARs using mine], and it never sees below an 8.3 match anyway since ZSU-57-2 is the only 7.0 people still play.
10,000 Bkan users cried out in anger at this statement.
Personally I would put it at 8.3, a fast HE slinger with an LRF, thermals, and a decent reload is too low for 8.0, so it should be 8.3.
If it wasn’t as fast as some light/medium tanks, or if it lacked an LRF+thermals, I would have less of an issue with it.
It cant be 8.3 due to lack of lineup, unfortunately. Normally it would be no issue, but it is a premium which has to factor in.
There are 8.0 and 8.3 tanks with laser range finders, and many of them have stabs.
Firing better anti-tank guns.
And the only flaw is they lack the thermals VIDAR has.
Imma be real
Thats a very big flaw my guy
Especially since its 3rd-gen thermals iirc