what do YOU suggest
The game is already very easy, catering to bad players is not the way to design a game.
6 Likes
It is, especially when teams are “globalized” already these days with copypasta vehicles.
There’s just no asymmetrical solutions to help a certain nation without affecting others too much.
For example, nerfing T-80 series would affect Sweden, USSR, China negatively.
Adding new CAS options to one nation would also negatively affect others, leading to power creep.
Nations are too copypasta’d for “national” specific balance changes to be effective or risk-free.
The solution is to make player’s vehicle matter less, their skill level and knowledge matter less as well. That way, every team will be more equal, and thus, solves the infamous “clickbait teams bad” problem.
For example, in MW3 (old version) of call of duty series, there were death “kill” streak; perhaps, drones can be given to the losing team for free (without the need to respawn a tank) to compensate. Less spawncampy maps etc.
I don’t think what you are proposing is possible, to make vehicles, skills and knowledge of the game matter less is to completely undermine the point of War Thunder.
I also think many players are missing the point. War Thunder battles aren’t meant to be evenly matched, they’re meant to be quick and decisive. To use your shooter analogy, war thunder is more like counter strike than Modern Warfare, wherein players are progressively eliminated from the battle and the game quickly becomes one sided.
If war thunder had any interest in long battles that were evenly matched with the tide of battle swinging back and forth between as each team rallied and regrouped after a set back, War Thunder would have a Battlefield Style ticked system, where players could spawn indefinitely until they exhausted the tickets or the match timer ran out.
Just because the game isn’t giving you what you want doesn’t mean it’s broken
4 Likes
Complaint about too difficult seems to be going everywhere with you.
Imagine having a worse time than a 0.8 KD player. Contrary, I feel the game has been made too easy.
2 Likes
Same, every other match you see a very reactive team. Though, I have to admit, playtime after “schools out” the teams do generally degrade a bunch. This is for EU and NA servers. Personally I have found the best organization in teams is usually round 8AM UTC. Least toxic chats as well.
1 Like
Yea, school holidays… The bane of any online gaming xD
You’ve always got to put out the positivity to urge the team to do better :)
4 Likes
Another fool, War Thunder, at the current state is far from a team-based game, keep this in mind, look for you own profit, the teamwork is optional.
Your team isn’t researching the vehicles for you either giving you Silver Lions.
1 Like
CS is too hard for silvers make it easier
DOTA is too hard for heralds make it easier
Tarkov is too hard for newbies make it easier
Rust is too hard for noobs make it easier
LoL is too hard for bronze players make it easier
Nah dude it’s the worst possible solution.
Repeating my self in a 3rd post if not more… ranked gameplay would solve lot’s of problems and to counter some crying dudes leave the GRD non ranked as well simple solution with top g’s playin on their own lvl making it fair and players who just want to chill and newbies would not mix with them…
Balance of teams= solved
more fun gameplay for all=solved
Wrong. I love this game, I care about it, so I make posts about it.
Haha, school holidays are just about the only time I get these days to play for over an hour in one session, but I still do fairly well.
1 Like
You see whats the difference? These games have skill based matchmaking. There is no need to equalize things.
Ironically, I see Gaijin pushing “esports” to war thunder a lot, but it lacks esports features like removal of crew skills and SBMM.
1 Like
I do not support SBMM, but I think losing teams should be given free drones (which are not very potential, considering even an Aim-7F can swat them out of sky easily). 1 minute of a scouting drone, and 2 minutes of a UAV drone (that can be controlled from the tank) would make balancing better, depending how hard the team is losing.
Tarkov and Rust got skill based matchmaking? Lolwhat?
but it lacks esports features like removal of crew skills
Can’t disagree here tho
SBMM is the only way…
if you want to play SBMM you play if you don’t want it then go play normal GRB…
like why is SBMM bad if there would be still unranked GRB?
All arguments are bad against SBMM if there would be an option play ranked or just llike now unranked would it change something for someone who does not want to play ranked? NO…
you dont like to find 70% of your team to be gone in 2 / 3 minutes leaving you alone!!??
This would have a lot of problems, i’m not sure if you mean balance by PERFORMANCE during previous battles or by levels.
If by levels, this would be a problem because waiting time for new battles would be increased in low/mid-tiers, and even slightyly at high tiers because of pack premiums would face only other pack premiums of similar levels.
And not to mention there is some significant different between someone that just got to level 100 and someone that is playing for ages and got level 100 in 2016 or before, it’s the Syndrome problem “When everyone is level 100, no one will be”
If by battle performace, this COULD work theoretically to a small deegre, but i don’t think it would work: “Why?”, battle performance is mostly inconsistant, imagine you get a very good battle and stay until the end, next match you face tons of experienced players, get a kill or two and die to CAS, and upon spawning again there is already 3 enemies spawn camping you, so you quit the battle, next you face average teams, i don’t know much about coding but i think this would make queues longer and the overhall enjoyment would be reduced.
My proposal goes to the root of the problem: “Why are we punished for staying in bad teams? and why are they not punished for being bad?”, so here it goes, people that leave early, that don’t contribute to the team and just enter the battle to get one assist and die 3 times, feeding the enemy team precious SP for them to spawn CAS, these are the problems of bad teams, and these people usually stay in the bottom half of the scoreboard, and players that try to win until the end and perform well don’t get much reward out of it compared to just leaving and going to another match to hope for a battle team.
My proposal involves Penalty and Reward: the bottom 1/3 of the team (ex: last 5 players of both teams when both have 16 players total, or last 4 players in a 12 players per team match), will receive a -50% (minus) penalty on their SL and RP income for bad performance, and the top 3 players of both teams will receive a +30% income of SL and RP for good performance, this would discourage one death leavers, bad teammates, ragequits, while encouring people to stay until the end to either escape the bad performance death pit, or getting that juicy +30% bonus by staying or securing the top 3 of the team.
An alternative way, would having a small penalty to players that make less than 800 mission points, and a bonus to those that go over 2000 mission points.
Sorry for bad english :)
1 Like
… you just posted someone thats getting more kills than they are dying and then you’re saying its their fault?. are you serious???
4 Likes
K/d is not the most important factor lmao, 31% average team position means he does almost nothing of value in these games regardless of his piss poor k/d which btw 1.1 KILLS PER SPAWN is baseline average for someone with a functioning brain. I will remind you that the server average for kills per spawn is like .9kps so rofl. Anyone can camp like a bot and get 1.0 k/ds it does not prove anything.