Would choosing lineup AFTER joining game be a good change?

That’s just gunna make nations with a huge amount of adaptability even more OP than they are currently. A nation that has lots of options can tailor their loadout perfectly for the map. At higher tiers, some nations have 0 options to pick and choose like that and so this mechanic is totally pointless for them. It would just further force people into playing the already limited number of playable nations

1 Like

i was thinking something like this:
choose a lineup at a BR, search for game.
when in loading screen during the first 20 seconds before game start you would get to change your lineup to vehicles at or below (maybe a limit on how low under?) chosen BR and only within the same type (SPG for SPG, light for light, etc).
once the 20 seconds (maybe increase to 30-45 for planing? not sure) are up the lineup gets locked and you cannot change during the battle.

it is mainly intended to give an option to change for those with vehicles with very specific purpose. not the entire lineup, so not a lot of time needed. like if you have CV9040C and get a long range map you can change to a CV9040 BILL so that you have ATGM and vice versa.

this is a VERY good point, i did not think of this. thanks.

1 Like

This is such a nothing-burger. The whole point of lineups is they let you bring a balanced mix of vehicles for any situation. Intentionally only bringing only big fat slow heavies in the hopes of getting a city map should carry the risk of getting open fields maps. You just want to min-max to inflate your stats, even stating most people aren’t going to change their lineup anyway.

1 Like

Fair enough. But even so winrates are very poor examples of stats. Since they are almost entirely reliant on other people. And thunderskill is quite often laughed out of war thunder discussions because of innacuracy.

Which is fair and balanced. If you had the oppurtunity to shift out poor vehicles for that specific map to a tank that excels on that map then thered be very little variation in which tanks are played on which maps.

i agree with your point, but then it is weird to get punished for something i cannot control.
what i mean is, when i have played the entire time and been active to the point of getting to the stage where i only have one vehicle left to spawn in, i then have to bad options, spawn in and almost certainly only lose SL and my team tickets. and if i don’t spawn in and cause negative results for both me and my team i get crew locked if i leave, or i have to just sit and stare at the screen being afk for the remainder of the match if i don’t want that crew lock.
Don’t get me wrong, crew lock is a good thing, it should be there to deter ODL and other such behaviour. but why punish honest players?

The only vehicles that helpless are some SPAA, which honestly aren’t even worth being in a lineup when a fighter in that slot does the job better. Saying a tank isn’t meant for a map and spawning it is just a detriment to the team at the end of a battle is just a personal issue of playstyle

oh, i did not know that. thanks.
i was just trying to show that my issue did not stem from being a bad player.

this is true, but i would argue that this is more true to life than what we have now since in real life they choose vehicle type after terrain when planning attack/defence. i highly doubt that the military would send in Strf 103C’s into urban combat.
if complete reality is something good or bad to aim for is another discussion entirely.

Now I would ask you on how that would be possible, that average players kill 2-3 players per death on average. Not sure if the math works out ;-)

You got to kill the right tanks that are a bigger threat to your team. How often do I see that 3 tanks really ignore tanks in a good position. That is the reason why my K/D is at 1.5 “only”. I go to flanks where nobody else go and intercept those nasty light tanks which are a big threat in the beginning of a match. After that I focus on the flanks and try to cap where it is possible.
I often lack patience and misjudge situations but I never run into a situation where my tank lineup failed me … to come back to the topic.
My lineup depends a bit on the rank. Rank 3 has always two SPAA, one or two light tanks plus a medium or tankdestroyer.
There is always something you can do with a tank. Even with SPAA I do scouting, doesn’t matter to me if I don’t get points for this but it helps to bring in the wins.

Ive been playing since 2017 so my perception of what an average/good player is comes from playing with the old school tankers. Back when war thunder was niche with an average of 40k-60k players a day.

Things have changed though, with so many new players saying tanks like the maus are trash despite old school tankers having 5.0 k/ds in it, and buying top tier premiums and having 0.3 to 0.5 k/ds on a tank like the puma ifv.

Im better than a lot of newer players but i will never try to compare myself to people like oddbawz, spookston, and phlydaily, justinplays, and much less the 4v4 tournament tankers and 1v1 pilots.

My point is that an average player will have a k/d of one. If you have more, others need to have less. We can’t all have 2k/d on average. It is just impossible.

1 Like

While technically true, if you have an abundance of very poor players then the formely average players will appear better than they actually are. If this was 2017 id likely have a 1.0 k/d because the average player back then was far better.

I havent changed and neither have the war thunder pros which only leaves the below average players.

Lets say back in 2017 of the 40k players active you had 10k pros, 15k average, and 15k below average.

And in 2023 of the 120k active players you got 20k pros, 30k average players, and 70k below average players.

If youve got a massive influx of 80k or more new players who got stay very long and often use money to get through the tree youll see a massive shift in perceived player skill.

so, the definition of average is middle.
you being average back then and still having the same skill now does not make you still average.
average is measured with the current player base. even if those players joining after that time are a majority worse than you. it still moves you up in the list making you above average. even if you didn’t get better, the new players were, on average, worse.
this is literally what average means.

compare to iq measurements. the average is 100. by default. if the general population gets smarter that number adjusts so that the average is always 100. this can be seen when comparing iq tests done in the early 1900’s. an average iq test back then with a score of 100 would in todays measurements land around 80-90 just counting score on the exact same test. because the general populations curve has shifted.

Yes it does. Just because a ton of people have joined who are below average doesnt make me above average it makes them all below average.

Its like running a business if youve got items thats are best sellers, your regular items, and then items that hardly sell.

Adding a ton more items that get no sales will not push your regular items into best seller territory.

All it does is increase the amount of bad products you have.

you do realize that this is contradictive right. the word average in this context literally means “middle of the group of measured people”. since the group of measured people has changed, you are no longer in the middle.
“Average: a number expressing the central or typical value in a set of data, in particular the mode, median, or (most commonly) the mean, which is calculated by dividing the sum of the values in the set by their number.”

this is not at all a good analogy. “best sellers” is measured by taking the top x amount of most sold items. like your top ten wont stop being your top ten just because you add more bad selling things. but your average number of sales per item in shop will change.

Fair enough i couldve explained myself better.

Essentially what i was trying to say is.

Its like if you have a large group of athletes and you want the average ones to stand out more. So you artificially inflate the numbers by pushing in 80k poorly trained athletes. That doesnt magically make the original average athletes better. All it does is increase the amount of bad players. All of the original athletes are still only able to perform the way they did before. But because they are and always were better than the athletes at the bottom of the rung their abilities suddenly stand out more.

Those athletes are still average in performance. Your not going to just give them higher awards for the same performance.

i agree with everything up until the last sentence.

They are by definition no longer average.

and artificially inflating numbers is one thing. Naturally increasing numbers is another.
you are right in the fact that back then average players are not necessarily better now. but they are going to be above average because of the influx of new worse playing players… they won’t be any closer to the top of the range because of it, its just that the line for average shifts downwards.

its like if you are standing in a room with 20 people between 170cm and 180cm in height an you are 175cm (average for that room). then suddenly 20 more people join and they are all 150cm tall. you didn’t grow in height, but you are now definitely above the average height for that room.

and about the awarding of performance. think of it in reverse, the top players leave permanently:
lets say you are barely in the top 25% of players. the top 24% all suddenly leave.
you are still playing at the same skill-level but are now by chance one of the best players in the world (that is still active in the game). you are by default going to be invited to teams, play at tournaments, get sponsorships and start get paid for it. so you will get rewarded for being closer to the top even if it isn’t your skill that got you there.