What is going on Warthunder?

Game Discussion General Discussion
21

Firstly, just because of lack of competition does not mean that we do not have to hold the game to a standard.

There is the Wargaming VS Gaijin argument - I am one of the many players that originally left Wargaming in favor of Gaijin and what Gaijin presented at the time with War Thunder.

Yet, competition or not -

  1. WoW brought back WoW Classic (and had to revert some money changes to preserve the classic experience).
  2. CoD Brought back Verdansk Hype.
  3. BF2042 brought back skill-based accuracy along with some other major changes they reverted to be closer to the older games.
  4. Destiny 2 had to revert sunsetting weapons.
  5. SWB 2 reverted LB and pay to unlock (P2W) mechanics.
  6. GT7 reverted reward balance and economy.
  7. Diablo reverted build nerf and cosmetic charge.
  8. WoT reverted decisions on premium ammo and damage handling.
  9. World of Warships still ongoing with the post-anime ignorance and still reworking some changes.

That is just the first ones that come to mind. Comparing decisions to other titles like Arma (who said sorry, but we promised something we can not do) and Warframe that implements changes best suited to maintain balance between game design intent and player “fun” the contrast is a bit stark on what should be-, what can be- and what is- happening.
Right now in WT it appears that linear play is encouraged, wallet spam to grind is encouraged, lack of team play is encouraged and vehicle design, immersion and indoc is ignored in favor of (again) pushing linear play.

3 Likes
22

I’m on here complaining with everyone else, i’m not saying the game can’t be held to standards, but the reality is warthunder has no real competition for its realistic battles which are seen as the main game mode by most. You could say WoT is s competitor for arcade, WoWS for naval arcade, and DCS/IL2 is s competitor for sim, but there is absolutely nothing competiting with realistic battles.

WoW has plenty of competition in the MMO space, I quit classic to go play archage relaunch for example. CoD and BF compete with esch other, path of exile is slaughtering diablo and forcing blizzards hand, destiny and warframe are direct compeitors… WT has nothing for realistic battles so gaijin can get away with murder here.

1 Like
23

The problem with Gaijin is that they have so much potential on their hands with War Thunder but they absolutely refuse to act upon it.

Back in the day we had historical events and historical EC’s which absolutely encouraged teamwork and were always packed with players. I remember the P-51 vs Me262 battle where the Mustangs had to protect a bomber stream from Ze Germans. Great fun.

With all of the assets this game has you could recreate the battles in the Pacific. You could also increase the rewards for said game modes and just like that you have a ton of players.

Gaijin, the grind cannot be the core aspect of the game. The gameplay is.
Also fix the darn bugs. In SB we still have dead AI planes having fits on the runways and lets just say it doesn’t exactly scream quality… its been years now!

1 Like
24

That didnt age very well…

The only concerns that we have, is if the Topic stays on topic… other concerns are if it is about MM / BR / Balancing etc etc… then that feedback can go in existing topics…

Otherwise I do not think we have a problem with this topic

2 Likes
25

Much like The Soviet Union keeping capitalists in check and forcing them to actually raise wages (look at what happened to wages and inflation when the SU was illegaly dissolved wink wink), I think Gaijin would benefit from having a competitor pushing them to be the very best they can be.

A lot of people here dont work in games or fields close to it and seem to think everyone at Gaijin is lobotomized which is naive and childish, you dont build such a complex game by being incompetent, however you might stagnate after a while when no one pushes you to continuously refine your work, which is what i believe has happened to Gaijin.

2 Likes
26

Long time not seen, hope you are well!

Regarding your reply:

Mhm - i am not really sure that we have a common understanding about what the OP is referring to. From my pov he addresses exactly those 3 topics you mentioned - as all are connected.

So whilst i am happy that you assess that there is no need to lock this thread i’d like to share a thread talking about (almost) the same issues with the usual outcome:

Feedback for Gaijin

So i generally agree that predictions (especially regarding the future😎) have usually a rather low confidence level. But - if they are based on long term observations they became often reality!

Have a good one!

27

Totally agree.

But - Your example regarding capitalism (wages) is one of the worst analogies to pick. Technically seen it is imho wrong at least from a holistic perspective wages are irrelevant if the state (which represents the people as a whole) owns the employing entity.

Regarding competition:

It is imho a matter of actually existing entry barriers - as wt was able to connect and Air, Land & Sea warfare it is extremely unique and has no real competition until several specialized games would merge or at least offer combined warfare.

28

While true, the identity of shareholders makes a significant impact.

Companies where shareholders happen to be the engineers, designers, quality control/assurance workers, maintenance crews and researchers have very different approaches, priorities and perspectives. If you add the local community as a stakeholder, it all changes again.

You can observe this differences in both gaming, general software and non-gaming companies (pharma companies jump to my mind mainly, but applies generally) alike. The starkest shifts are noticable when an initially engineer/designer/QC/MC/R ran company gains outside shareholders or non-productive parts of the company get outsized influence. Runescape’s story in the early 2000s is a very loud example for gaming companies. But like, think of sims/management games and compare the small studio projects versus mainstream ones.

DeltaV/Sailwind are only possible because there’s no outsized non-productive employee influence nor no external shareholders outside of the consumers participating in respectful dialogue.

1 Like
29

Well, no one’s forcing you to play games that focus on realism.

War Thunder today is the least compressed its ever been, the most balanced its ever been due to the lack of nation restrictions facing each other, maps are over double the average area of maps in the past, the in-game economy is stronger than ever, and of course far more matured PVP game modes than in the past.

Of course there are still a couple pockets of compression to fix.
There’s PVE game modes they should add.
There are some more map types that they can add.

Also “WW2 vs Cold War” has existed since game start. Sabres use to fight props, and IRL war games did that and then some.
IR seekers, radar, munitions, and IR signatures are not nerfed or buffed, those are only ever changed with documentation.
Armored doctrine involves 0 - 3000 meter engagements, real-wars aren’t fought at the extreme ranges of tanks.
You can go to YouTube to find how close tanks can get in actual combat.

Oh and if you want to challenge your brain, play on Sweden, Iberian Castle, etc. Maps with dozens of flanking routes.
Vs the 5? of Sands of Sinai, which is more than the 1 it use to be when the CQC area of the map was still around.

30

In any of the interaction I have ever had with you I am starting to have the feeling that you do not entirely read what I am talking about. I would also like to point out that in the various threads you reply your responses are often polar and contradicting.

Not once did I complain about playing a game that focuses on realism. In contrary - realism style or sim games is almost all I play. With that said - my complain with War Thunder for the past few years is that it is feeling more like a game of DOTA than a “REALISTIC” game.

I understand when things are left out for balance
I do not understand when immersion is broken in a realism game
I do not understand when design & doctrine is ignored in a realism game
I do not understand when base graphic detail is released into game without QC.
I do not understand when vehicles that are designed for range combat are constantly forced into a city.

Immersion (design, arena, doctrine), playability, freedom of movement is all I care for. Saying that “you will stick around” does not make you more elite either.

3 Likes
31

I’m going to start with I am your ally, I am everyone’s ally.
Let me help you expand your perspective, please.
Cause War Thunder is objectively realistic.

The lowest amount of “lanes” are wide open maps with low concealment, such as Sands of Sinai.
Urban maps, especially Sweden, have hundreds of “lanes”, physically cannot be anywhere close to a MOBA. Red Desert has something like 20 - 50 routing options.

Flanking is getting around an enemy, irrelevant of distance. This is done via breaking line of sight, which buildings do better than any other asset, with hills being the good ol’ 2nd best.

I had the privilege of playing racing games and Battlefield 1942 in my childhood, so I have this conditioned mind that sees all the routes instinctively.

New Euro Province, due to adding more height changes added more routes.
Arctic is an example of a map with hilarious routing options despite not being urban.

Doctrine is not ignored in War Thunder, at all. You know why tanks can’t go into cities without infantry support? Enemy infantry. What doesn’t War Thunder have? Infantry, thus tanks are secure to engage in cities. This is exactly what real war games do as well historically and usually repeatedly in the future.

Doctrine is a deeply personal thing as well, it’s not objective, it’s purely subjective. The only objective truth about tank ranges is they’re rated from 0 meters to somewhere close to 4000 meters, with some cool post-4000 meter confirmed shots by crews. Zero tanks on the planet were designed with a minimum range in mind, only maximum ranges; Go ahead, go look up tank manuals, they’ll cite maximum ranges only. Same with tank training for tank on tank combat, tho tank training is irrelevant to realism.

Open your mind, be imaginative about doctrine. Read military books from many different cultures, watch documentaries, come up with your own doctrinal ideas. Especially cause American IRL doctrine is… problematic to say the least.

Doctrine is not realism, it’s a social construct made up as a way to control units.
Realism is the physics primarily, realism is also the freedom to choose your own doctrinal decisions.

Some people think brawling tanks are sniping tanks, and more power to them.
I play SP howitzers almost exclusively as brawling tanks, despite them being best at ambush positions, not sniping though, optics and target size gets too small on sniping.

You may think your country’s military doctrine is the sole doctrine in the world and/or the correct one; clarify if you will as that is not an assumption, but an if.
There are ten-thousands of doctrines out there, and many are quick to falsely cite doctrines, or stick to the one they were told.

There is far more to tank combat than the extremely rare long-range engagements that happened IRL, it is diverse and beautiful. And War Thunder allows even more diversity thanks to the diversity of maps [that of course should be expanded].

32

Concealment does not have to be achieved with cities, defilades and other terrain variance can achieve the same effect.

None of the nations have the same design and mobilization doctrine. Some are focused on emplacements, some are focused on rolling assault lines and some are focused on aggressive “push”. With this, using USA, GB and USSR as example - USA = rolling assault, GB emplacement and USSR aggressive “push”. Vehicles are designed according to their method of attack / defence. South Africa for example relies heavily on the Rooikat for example as we excel in hit and run. Hence the speed of the vehicle even though it has been nerfed down in game. This also explains why some nations does not “need” a reverse gear.

For MBT 500m average is point blank.

Independent “side lines” does not account for map lane design.

In terms of maps - VARIATION, VARIATION, VARIATION.

Background : I grew up in a military family, on a military base. I was destined to take the same route but medical said no. I have fired main guns before down range and have also flown and driven in some of the vehicles in game. I have also been in trouble for having too realistic milsim manuals for some of the games I play. I read manuals for fun.

1 Like
33

That’s a lovely perspective, and I thank you for sharing it.

I had the misfortune of experiencing the milsim community, specifically 4 groups of rejected military applicants… all of them were strict and forced their doctrine, and punished anyone that dare attempt to negotiate better positions they’re more suited for.
Not fun.
I became a doctrinal rebel after that. I still seek out ways outside of strict doctrine to play vehicles cause it’s fun to challenge my mind.

You know what a real veteran told me? Doctrine only matters when you’re a soldier, if you’re not a soldier, or you are in control of your story, make up your own doctrine within the limitations of the equipment you’re using. He stopped playing in milsim groups for similar reasons as well.

As for maps… there is a reason why my favorite maps include Sweden, Red Desert, Breslau, Pradesh, standard Sinai, and so forth.
It is far more fun to play maps with routing options than to play Sands of Sinai, tho I do enjoy the wide open long-distance brawling Sands of Sinai offers sometimes. That is what sniping is after all… long distance brawling.

1 Like
34

Design doctrine and doctrine is not the same. Also, sorry to hear about your experience. Some milsim communities are not “it” and can not distinct between life and book.

In WT where it matters is allowing each nation and vehicle type to excel in their design doctrine. Basically, sometimes small maps, sometimes large maps, sometimes urban maps, sometimes jungle / rocky maps. Variation is key without masking half the map in red zones.

35

Well yes the identity of the shareholders matter, they shape the direction in which a company moves in. Hopefully they push warthunder in a manner that guarantees growth in terms of player base and stays relevant on the market for many years to come. This requires updates in many spheres of the game, we already saw a teaser trailer whit actual infantry involved. I am not the infantry guy, prefer the armor but a new mechanic might come up in which we are no longer required to capture a small area of the map like point A, B or C.

With the addition of infantry we could potentially see the addition of new maps and new mechanics. This is all hypothetical of course but are things that can completely change the game.

36

It could be a lot worse, we at least get multiple major updates a year. Its the gameplay side of things that is suffering and being squandered.

There are a lot of game devs much worse than gaijin.

1 Like
37

Due to how claustrophobic maps have become, this image perfectly describes the T-10M/IS-7 experience: the lack of any meaningful or valid flank routes always leads to spawn camping.

T-10M

2 Likes
38

Oh absolutely but there’s a lot better as well. We have ancient glaring bugs like the Airfield defender bug I mentioned that literally stare you in the face as you join a match which they won’t fix. Yet they’ll proudly proclaim they’ve “fixed” the amount of cannon rounds from an aircraft from 700 rounds to 710 rounds.

The sad thing is that Gaijin would probably make more money by making one big gameplay/bugfix patch that’d attract even more players to the game. People like shiny new vehicles but at the same time we’ve lost players due to sheer boredom and neglect. We’ve got less gameplay options now than what we had years back. The Historical EC’s are gone, operations are gone, historical events are gone etc etc.

Even map sizes for tanks are getting shrunk making the gameplay feel like CoD, spawn in… go forwards…die.

39

Well you touched upon Red Desert which is probably the best top tier map but many people don’t recognize it, allows for players to use binoculars, commanders sight and get tactical awareness on the map. We now have range finders in comparison to lets say 2019-2020 where we had to range find and set guns to the exact distance by that time most players were already gone. You can easily move between the points without being detected by those snipping from the rocks above. I have outmaneuvered and gotten a few campers that way, the so called “muheeehe” moments loved them a lot. But we no longer see the creation of such maps , why? It is frustrating not to to see maps that offer that kind of game play. Its a map seen once in a full moon.

Another map that offers the ability for players to maneuver Vietnam hills, so many options and ways to move around the map using binoculars and 3rd person movement, outflanked plenty of opponents that way. Yet it is the only one of its kind, we need more maps like it.

Please can some one tell me what do players find attractive in Abandoned factory, Advanced to Rihne, Ash River, Japan, Berlin, American desert maps. Yes city buildings offer massive protection but there are too many places in which players specifically hide around the corner just to get easy kills. There is no way to spot them cause buildings are preventing you from doing so.

40

Abandon Factory has routing.
Berlin is a nice change of pace.
Japan has hill management.
I’m learning to love American Desert’s routing system.
Ash River’s also a nice variety.
IDK why people like Advance to the Rhine… I like it cause neat legacy map.