Markers issue

[ammoRACK 185]

How am I supposed to fight against KVs and T-34 in a PzII ? Simple, through tactics (ambushing/flanking and so on).
But how am I supposed to apply those tactics when I have a MARKER on my head?

It's about common sense.

 

So what I'm trying to talk about is this: the asymmetrical gameplay is really interesting, I think it's a step in the right direction,

BUT

having an asymmetrical fight means that the disadvantaged team have to be smart and flank, trying to create a situation where the numbers doesn't count. You can't do it when the enemy knows where you're heading to.

 

I really hope that Gaijin will really listen to its community by deleting the markers... just on the Devblog there are countless comments about this general concern, and I'm not even counting the complains here in the WWM General Discussion and even those on Reddit or on Youtube.

Edited May 15, 2019 by ammoRACK

[Pat_McGherkin 2,074]

21 minutes ago, ammoRACK said:

How am I supposed to fight against KVs and T-34 in a PzII ? Simple, through tactics (ambushing/flanking and so on).
But how am I supposed to apply those tactics when I have a MARKER on my head?

It's about common sense.

 

So what I'm trying to talk about is this: the asymmetrical gameplay is really interesting, I think it's a step in the right direction,

BUT

having an asymmetrical fight means that the disadvantaged team have to be smart and flank, trying to create a situation where the numbers doesn't count. You can't do it when the enemy knows where you're heading to.

 

I really hope that Gaijin will really listen to its community by deleting the markers... just on the Devblog there are countless comments about this general concern, and I'm not even counting the complains here in the WWM General Discussion and even those on Reddit or on Youtube.

Firstly, I don't know what Reddit and Youtube has to do with anything. Have you checked Facebook and Instagram too? How about Twitter? Clutching at straws to force home an argument by the looks of it.

It's not the entire community that is against the markers. It's not the entire community that want markers changed before anything else. Even though I'm an AB player i'm kinda indifferent about the markers either way. But as is typical with war thunder, players demanding changes to the non-urgent things always do their best to drown the real issues in the game just because it suits their own agenda. Developers' time can be employed so much better than wasting it on worrying about markers right now.

 

Besides, I'm seeing far more complaints about unbalanced teams as most do not see it as 'interesting' they just see it as one side smashing the other, which it always will be - with or without markers.

 

It's true, you should see what they're saying about it on MySpace..

[ammoRACK 185]

@Pat_McGherkin Dude, you missed the whole point of my statement.

Edited May 15, 2019 by ammoRACK

[coder-2010@psn 1,537]

6 minutes ago, Pat_McGherkin said:

Firstly, I don't know what Reddit and Youtube has to do with anything. Have you checked Facebook and Instagram too? How about Twitter? Clutching at straws to force home an argument by the looks of it.

It's not the entire community that is against the markers. It's not the entire community that want markers changed before anything else. Even though I'm an AB player i'm kinda indifferent about the markers either way. But as is typical with war thunder, players demanding changes to the non-urgent things always do their best to drown the real issues in the game just because it suits their own agenda. Developers' time can be employed so much better than wasting it on worrying about markers right now.

 

Besides, I'm seeing far more complaints about unbalanced teams as most do not see it as 'interesting' they just see it as one side smashing the other, which it always will be - with or without markers.

 

It's true, you should see what they're saying about it on MySpace..

 

If you are an AB player then you will not understand what the OP is talking about. No markers at all completely changes the game. The unbalance now is mostly caused by the markers because you have no way to even get close to the enemy or surprise them. 

 

[Pat_McGherkin 2,074]

19 minutes ago, ammoRACK said:

@Pat_McGherkin Dude, you missed the whole point of my statement.

 

No, I did not. And not only did I not miss your point at all I responded to your statement in full. As with your OP, just saying something doesn't make it true, which is exactly what you have attempted to do with your reply.

 

More people care about the balance than the markers. Let's deal with one thing at a time, in order of importance..

 

18 minutes ago, *coder-2010 said:

 

If you are an AB player then you will not understand what the OP is talking about. No markers at all completely changes the game. The unbalance now is mostly caused by the markers because you have no way to even get close to the enemy or surprise them. 

 

 

Let's not get all elitest about game modes. It'll get everyone nowhere, even if either side had a leg to stand on - which they don't.

 

So may I say, I fully understand what the OP is talking about, completely and utterly and to state otherwise is a nonsense. You don't know me, so don't speak for me. I could even even agree to some extent if your only solution is flank and surprise. Markers for me just aren't an issue and if they were there are still far more bigger fish to fry. It's about tactics and how you employ them. People manage in arcade, why can't you? But the bigger issue is the balancing and even that itself may not be the first thing that requires developer attention to make this mode something that people look forward to playing.

[SvenTheFree 1,745]

7 minutes ago, Pat_McGherkin said:

 

No, I did not. And not only did I not miss your point at all I responded to your statement in full. As with your OP, just saying something doesn't make it true, which is exactly what you have attempted to do with your reply.

 

More people care about the balance than the markers. Let's deal with one thing at a time, in order of importance..

 

 

Let's not get all elitest about game modes. It'll get everyone nowhere, even if either side had a leg to stand on - which they don't.

 

So may I say, I fully understand what the OP is talking about, completely and utterly and to state otherwise is a nonsense. You don't know me, so don't speak for me. I could even even agree to some extent if your only solution is flank and surprise. Markers for me just aren't an issue and if they were there are still far more bigger fish to fry. It's about tactics and how you employ them. People manage in arcade, why can't you? But the bigger issue is the balancing and even that itself may not be the first thing that requires developer attention to make this mode something that people look forward to playing.

 

Arcade is different from Realistic, we need World War mode Arcade and World War mode Realistic.  Some like marks some don't.

 

Why a Arcade player must play without marks?   

Why a Realistic player must play with marks?

 

We have to be all the same? And if yes like who?  

 

 

[ammoRACK 185]

18 minutes ago, Pat_McGherkin said:

It's about tactics and how you employ them. People manage in arcade

You can't apply tactics when the enemy knows every move you make. They will always make a countermove.
And you can't manage it in AB. Markers only benefits heavy armoured vehicles. 
Just as we've seen it in WWM with the KVs. It's objective, you can't deny this.

 

18 minutes ago, Pat_McGherkin said:

But the bigger issue is the balancing and even that itself may not be the first thing that requires developer attention to make this mode something that people look forward to playing.

And for the record, the actual balance that you constantly claim could be reached even by removing these markers, so that the disadvantaged team have a card to play.

 

6 minutes ago, SvenTheFree said:

we need World War mode Arcade and World War mode Realistic.  Some like marks some don't. 

 THIS ^

Edited May 15, 2019 by ammoRACK

[Pat_McGherkin 2,074]

9 minutes ago, ammoRACK said:

You can't apply tactics when the enemy knows every move you make. They will always make a countermove.
And you can't manage it in AB. Markers only benefits heavy armoured vehicles. 
Just as we've seen it in WWM with the KVs. It's objective, you can't deny this.

 

People use tactics all the time in AB. If the enemy can see you move, you can see them move (which neither side can do 100% of the time anyway). If I know where a heavy is and I'm at a disadvantage I'm setting up my attack accordingly. Swings & roundabouts, horses for courses, you pays your money and you takes your choice. i.e. There is no right or wrong.

 

As for it solely being markings for the reason why the KV-1's were invincible, you seem to assume that your average player will use the perfect tactics, set up the optimum ambush and execute the perfect take-down. In my experience, no way, not ever, just not happening. You're talking about maybe 3% of the player base and that's being exceedingly generous.

 

Oh, and by the way, that would be actually be a much smaller slice of the player database because not 100% of players play RB. You'd find arcade players approach it differently, again, in accordance with their relevant skill levels.

 

But you don't seem to care much for arcade players anyway but they have every right to be part of WWM just like anyone else. It's just not enough for you that we have slow tanks, unnecessarily big maps on which to use those slow tanks and the other trappings of RB that are the reason why many do not play RB in the first place.

 

So it's not your way or nothing. There has to be some compromise. Right now, I don't believe they have the right compromise for me and if they never do I won't play it. Simple as that. I'm not going to sit around demanding they build the game to suit my needs alone. I don't have that right and neither do you. By all means try but don't hold your breath.

 

9 minutes ago, ammoRACK said:

And for the record, the actual balance that you constantly claim could be reached even by removing these markers, so that the disadvantaged team have a card to play.

 

See above.

9 minutes ago, ammoRACK said:

 THIS ^

 

 

And where are all these extra players coming from to occupy two new game modes? You can tell that WWM is not some EC event that exists at the bottom of the tournaments tab for only the educated to find. We're not talking a few battles and a hundred or so players here and there. Gaijin have gone big with this, somewhat bizarrely I think, but big nonetheless, especially by gaijin standards. They may even see this as being the game mode update that we've all been missing for the last 7+ years of the stale game modes we've all been 'enjoying', (I have my own views on this that i'm happy to share elsewhere).

 

War thunder simply does not have the player base to support two new game modes with the player numbers that we have already dwindling.

[SvenTheFree 1,745]

3 minutes ago, Pat_McGherkin said:

......

War thunder simply does not have the player base to support two new game modes with the player numbers that we have already dwindling.

There are lots of people unhappy with this mixed mode, probably they will lose player base with this mixed mode, then they don't have player base to mixed mode. 

[coder-2010@psn 1,537]

8 minutes ago, Pat_McGherkin said:

People use tactics all the time in AB. If the enemy can see you move, you can see them move (which neither side can do 100% of the time anyway).

 

The trouble in WWM currently is the Russians are defending and Germans attacking. The Russians to not need to move much and they can see the Germans coming because the markers show them exactly where they are. It is very difficult for the Germans to get to the Russian side as they are easily picked off. If there were no markers it would at least be possible to sneak into the Russian held area without being detected.

[ammoRACK 185]

5 minutes ago, Pat_McGherkin said:

People use tactics all the time in AB. If the enemy can see you move, you can see them move (which neither side can do 100% of the time anyway). If I know where a heavy is and I'm at a disadvantage I'm setting up my attack accordingly. Swings & roundabouts, horses for courses, you pays your money and you takes your choice. i.e. There is no right or wrong.

 

As for it solely being markings for the reason why the KV-1's were invincible, you seem to assume that your average player will use the perfect tactics, set up the optimum ambush and execute the perfect take-down. In my experience, no way, not ever, just not happening. You're talking about maybe 3% of the player base and that's being exceedingly generous.

Nice contradiction!

 

So what do you want to do with WWM? Keeping this low level comparison about RB vs AB or maybe join the cause for splitting the mode?

Because the game level that Gaijin wanted to reach with this mode is not even close to AB, and what AB community usually enjoy is neither close to WWM.
 

[Pat_McGherkin 2,074]

1 minute ago, SvenTheFree said:

There are lots of people unhappy with this mixed mode, probably they will lose player base with this mixed mode, then they don't have player base to mixed mode. 

 

It is far more likely that as things are right now, players will just go back to their 'old' modes if they don't like WWM. If they do like WWM and continue to play it then queue times are going up elsewhere already. Make two modes that people like and you're losing more people from the traditional modes, simple math. Unless War thunder attracts new players (not happening at the rate required) or brings back old players (not happening at the rate required).

 

4 minutes ago, *coder-2010 said:

 

The trouble in WWM currently is the Russians are defending and Germans attacking. The Russians to not need to move much and they can see the Germans coming because the markers show them exactly where they are. It is very difficult for the Germans to get to the Russian side as they are easily picked off. If there were no markers it would at least be possible to sneak into the Russian held area without being detected.

 

I played several scenarios where the Russians were attacking but regardless. There isn't a scenario that can be described that wouldn't also happen in AB. The fact remains that both sets of players would have their own solutions.

[coder-2010@psn 1,537]

4 minutes ago, Pat_McGherkin said:

I played several scenarios where the Russians were attacking but regardless. There isn't a scenario that can be described that wouldn't also happen in AB. The fact remains that both sets of players would have their own solutions.

 

Attack and Defend mode is not the same as Random battles where both sides have the same objectives. In AB random battles both sides are even and have the same chances. You can see me and I can see you.

 

In Attack and Defend it is different. The defenders have an advantage right from the start. The defenders just need to drive a short distance to where then can wait for the enemy markers to start showing and then shoot. The attackers have to drive across the entire map. In this case markers just make things much harder for the attacking force.

 

I am not completely apposed to the markers they have (Still don't really like them). But if they have markers then both sides need to somehow have the same chance to win. Like the defending force has 10 tanks and the attackers have 20.

[SvenTheFree 1,745]

9 minutes ago, Pat_McGherkin said:

 

It is far more likely that as things are right now, players will just go back to their 'old' modes if they don't like WWM. If they do like WWM and continue to play it then queue times are going up elsewhere already. Make two modes that people like and you're losing more people from the traditional modes, simple math. Unless War thunder attracts new players (not happening at the rate required) or brings back old players (not happening at the rate required).

 

Arcade player argumentation. Players will just go back to their 'old' modes??? More bread and butter, after waiting 5 years for world war mode??? 

[Pat_McGherkin 2,074]

6 minutes ago, ammoRACK said:

Nice contradiction!

 

So what do you want to do with WWM? Keeping this low level comparison about RB vs AB or maybe join the cause for splitting the mode?

Because the game level that Gaijin wanted to reach with this mode is not even close to AB, and what AB community usually enjoy is neither close to WWM.
 

Contradiction....huh?

 

As for joining any causes...I'm guessing you haven't been here long. So I'll just wish you good luck with your people power, you're surely not the first to try. But hey, who knows...you may be the first to succeed!

 

Just realise that this is all about compromise. You can't please all of the people all of the time. Gaijin know it and they go ahead anyway...live by the sword, etc. etc. So feel free to comment as you please, but they'll do what they want no matter what.

4 minutes ago, *coder-2010 said:

 

Attack and Defend mode is not the same as Random battles where both sides have the same objectives. In AB random battles both sides are even and have the same chances. You can see me and I can see you.

 

In Attack and Defend it is different. The defenders have an advantage right from the start. The defenders just need to drive a short distance to where then can wait for the enemy markers to start showing and then shoot. The attackers have to drive across the entire map. In this case markers just make things much harder for the attacking force.

 

I am not completely apposed to the markers they have (Still don't really like them). But if they have markers then both sides need to somehow have the same chance to win. Like the defending force has 10 tanks and the attackers have 20.

 

Read my first sentence again. I attacked in a KV-1 in WWM. Nothing fancy, drove into the cap & won. One guy even tried to ambush me, which was quite amusing. He did a good enough job in theory but died before he could get a second shot.

 

What I was saying is that good arcade players overcome markers being in the game so how can markers be at fault? Anyway, this is going round and round in circles. None of you can see the need for compromise and all of you seem to think it'll change because you want it to. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 

As for this...

8 minutes ago, SvenTheFree said:

Arcade player argumentation. Players will just go back to their 'old' modes??? More bread and butter, after waiting 5 years for world war mode??? 

 

I was by no means excited for the prospect of WWM. I understand Gaijin and have seen how things go. I spent no time at all waiting for WWM. That's precisely why I went back to my old mode.

 

Everyone seems to think WT will go on forever. Spoiler alert...

 

Thanks for the chat guys, I'm done here. Good luck with your hopes & dreams.

[Daffan 6,158]

Unhistorical Arcade markers in historical matchups is a big joke.

[tizianenel 2,124]

2 hours ago, Pat_McGherkin said:

War thunder simply does not have the player base to support two new game modes with the player numbers that we have already dwindling.

 

What's the max number of players you've seen in one instance of an Operation?

 

I'll guesstimate a bit here:

 

5 battles at same time in one Operation

10 players for each side in each battle

10 players for each side waiting on the map screen, plus the commanders.

 

That's 122 players to run one instance of an operation (but my gut says that not all of them had so many players involved). I saw 60k+ people online yesterday and well over a hundred concurrently active Operations.

 

Nobody would even notice if 30% of those Operations were removed from the list and were hidden behind a toggle that changed the game ruleset from AB to RB or vice versa. In fact, that might even reduce the lag the list of operations is causing people...

[RockyB85699 27]

Markers and Interface.  These see to be the primary issues that most are complaining about.   The interface while I admit is terrible can be fixed relatively easily so I will set that aside.   As for the issue of markers I mostly hear RB players saying that they cant flank with markers.   

 

Now as someone who plays mostly AB up to this point I don't really see the issue. So I have to ask the question, what is the best way to get on an opponents flank?  And isn't the object to win the match?   So the answer to both those question is to use teamwork.   I hear a lot of RP players saying the markers do away with tactics but they seem to ignore teamwork as the solution to their problem.

 

I guess what I'm saying is go ahead and flank but use terrain to prevent him from hitting you.  First of all the markers don't show up as quickly as they do in AB.  But even if the enemy sees your maker he still has to deal with one or more threats on his flank.    Now he has to choose if he is going to turn his turret to face this new threat to his flank or continue to snipe to his front.

 

So my point is the best way to deal with over powered tanks is with team work ...  One tank fixes and another one flanks.   This was something most US tankers had to deal with when facing superior but less numerous German tanks.   

 

I will admit in a straight AB battle this kind of team work is not usually adhered to unless you play with friends and communicate effectively.   But in WWM the markers should not be as big a deal as most RB players are making them out to be ....   I just think there are bigger issues with this mode that need to be addressed other than markers.  

 

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by RockyB85699

[Hardmoor 2,196]

1 hour ago, RockyB85699 said:

I guess what I'm saying is go ahead and flank but use terrain to prevent him from hitting you.  First of all the markers don't show up as quickly as they do in AB.  But even if the enemy sees your maker he still has to deal with one or more threats on his flank.    Now he has to choose if he is going to turn his turret to face this new threat to his flank or continue to snipe to his front.

(i haven't played it myself yet and all i know is from talking to people and watching livestreams)

 

RB and SB players are aware that teamwork is the easiest way to dispose with such a threat but the problem with markers isn't that they make it impossible to fight one tank, but that they announce your position to the enemy without any effort on their part besides being lucky enough to see the manouver.

 

Let's take the opposite approach without markers:

Teamwork is still important, so the enemyteam has to be

A: vigilant to spot enemy movement (or stationary, hidden tanks that will get spotted with the current system)

B: communicate the location and movement of tanks that they observe

 

If they fail to do so, you can complain about them not using teamwork. On the other side it is still difficult to fight those tough vehicles and teamwork is still very useful in fighting them.

I for my part don't really see the point of the current markers because, in addition to the aforementioned point, that they don't help that much to actually benefit someone who is attentive anyway, and on the flipside are annoying in the setting of World War (which is personal preference).

Edited May 15, 2019 by Hardmoor

[Bloodlet 408]

Markers should go away. I have no desire to try this mode with AB mechanics.

[Daool 34]

6 hours ago, RockyB85699 said:

Now as someone who plays mostly AB up to this point I don't really see the issue...………………………………….. I guess what I'm saying is go ahead and flank but use terrain to prevent him from hitting you.  First of all the markers don't show up as quickly as they do in AB.  But even if the enemy sees your maker he still has to deal with one or more threats on his flank.    Now he has to choose if he is going to turn his turret to face this new threat to his flank or continue to snipe to his front. 

 

Sorry but I honestly think you've missed the point, and in saying above actually demonstrated the issue in its entirety.

 

The problem isn't tank X seeing a marker and turning his turret to it.  The problem is that marker is known to all and the defending team has an instant and very unrealistic (though that word gets overused....better might be strategy bypassing) ability to react to and redeploy/adjust to the threat.  No need for teamwork, good communication or tactical sense.  

 

The complaint isn't about the effect of markers on an individuals ability to react, but on the team commanders ability to have the entire side react (which in your example above the team could do even if your defending tank ignores the threat or doesn't even see the marker and just continues shooting to his front).

[chevyed20 80]

I agree, the markers need to go. Unfortunately, the dev for this mode firmly believes he's made the right choice with the marker system. I've hated it since the first game I "tested". The markers are distracting, make the game play too fast, it's unfair, and this is supposed to be a simulator game. It should be like realistic mode. It would be a lot more fun if it was.

[Dominator48 408]

19 hours ago, Pat_McGherkin said:

I'm seeing far more complaints about unbalanced teams as most do not see it as 'interesting' they just see it as one side smashing the other, which it always will be - with or without markers.

 

This is World War Mode. From the beginning it's main assumption was to represent historical clashes. That's why the opposing sides most of the time will be unbalanced just like it was in history. Otherwise we will have just another tournament, not a WWM.

 

Now the most exciting thing for a player is, that being in a team, which is inferior in numbers and/or in quality of tanks(planes), there is still a chance to beat the odds by using tactics, by playing own strenghts against enemy weaknesses. This is what should distinguish this mode from the others - having unbalanced teams "by definition", bring balance by your superior wits.

 

But with neon sign above your head it's very difficult to attack with 4 Pz IV F1 against two defending KV-1. If you are not lucky and have only Pz-38 or Pz II you can surrender on the start - you will not surprise them with anything because all your cunning sneaking under concealment will be wasted by the "system".

 

Yes, I'm not the Dev, I do not speak on behalf of any group of players, but this is my opinion: if you want mode with historical battles - remove the markers. If not, then you will have nothing close to "historical".

 

One more thing:

17 hours ago, Pat_McGherkin said:

People use tactics all the time in AB. If the enemy can see you move, you can see them move (which neither side can do 100% of the time anyway). If I know where a heavy is and I'm at a disadvantage I'm setting up my attack accordingly

In AB (and RB) opposing forces are mostly even in numbers and with vehicles of almost similar BR. And that is the clue, that's why BR was used and that's why value of BR for each vehicle is under constant evaluation - just to bring balance. This means that you won't face enemy you can't destroy by your main gun (SPAA are the exception that proves the rule).

 

In WWM that's not the case - no matter if you can't destroy your opponent. If your side of conflict used Pz IIs, PZ-38s, Pz III Es and faced T-34s and KVs - so will you. I saw what happened in WWM when it was tested with AB-like markers. No, thank you, it had nothing in common with historical battles. It was just a shooting range.

 

Another example - can you hold a defensive positions with 2 Nashorns against 20 Shermans in AB? Let me note, that pure defending of cap point is one of the scenarios available in WWM.

No, you can't. If you see them - they see you also, so you can kill few, but the rest will kill you. Just because they know exactly where you are. And this I have also experienced in WWM with "full" markers - no chance for open-topped, lightly armoured, turretless vehicles.

 

On the contrary - during the last test in one of the battles with "reduced" markers, defending german team succeeded and two Nashorns destroyed 18 enemy assaulting tanks without dying. Rest of the german team destroyed about 10 other allied vehicles. You may say it was unbalanced and you will be right, it was! But the attackers only assaulted frontally, only two or three guys thought about flanking. They had a choice, they picked the wrong tactical solution. And that's the "beauty" of historical battles, but we can experience it only when "enviroment" of battle is realistic. Markers are not.

[TinyTinkerTank 170]

9 hours ago, Daool said:

The problem isn't tank X seeing a marker and turning his turret to it.  The problem is that marker is known to all and the defending team has an instant and very unrealistic (though that word gets overused....better might be strategy bypassing) ability to react to and redeploy/adjust to the threat. No need for teamwork, good communication or tactical sense. 

I'm pretty sure this is false. I just checked a recording of a match to be sure. Markers are not known to all. I only see markers of vehicles that my crew can actually see and this is what the developer said if I remember correctly and if it didn't get changed. Also there is a great need of teamplay, communication and tactical sense. Did you even play the mode?

Spoiler

 

This is the best footage that I have so far. One friendly player is south east of the block I'm driving around (see map). I know from the sounds that there are enemies there and I'm flanking them. If his markers would be broadcasted to me, I would see them much sooner through the buildings but I can only see markers as soon as the tanks are clearly visible to me. If you watch the map you can also see that my crew sees a tank behind me which I sadly missed.

 

10 hours ago, Daool said:

The complaint isn't about the effect of markers on an individuals ability to react, but on the team commanders ability to have the entire side react (which in your example above the team could do even if your defending tank ignores the threat or doesn't even see the marker and just continues shooting to his front).

The "entire team" can also react to someone placing a marker on the map in RB and SB.

[Pat_McGherkin 2,074]

25 minutes ago, Dominator48 said:

 

This is World War Mode. From the beginning it's main assumption was to represent historical clashes. That's why the opposing sides most of the time will be unbalanced just like it was in history. Otherwise we will have just another tournament, not a WWM.

 

Now the most exciting thing for a player is, that being in a team, which is inferior in numbers and/or in quality of tanks(planes), there is still a chance to beat the odds by using tactics, by playing own strenghts against enemy weaknesses. This is what should distinguish this mode from the others - having unbalanced teams "by definition", bring balance by your superior wits.

 

But with neon sign above your head it's very difficult to attack with 4 Pz IV F1 against two defending KV-1. If you are not lucky and have only Pz-38 or Pz II you can surrender on the start - you will not surprise them with anything because all your cunning sneaking under concealment will be wasted by the "system".

 

Yes, I'm not the Dev, I do not speak on behalf of any group of players, but this is my opinion: if you want mode with historical battles - remove the markers. If not, then you will have nothing close to "historical".

 

And this has nothing to do with markers, see below.

As for historical,not for this thread,  see below.

As for unbalanced - a different topic for a different thread. But I don't want unblanced, see below

25 minutes ago, Dominator48 said:

One more thing:

In WWM that's not the case - no matter if you can't destroy your opponent. If your side of conflict used Pz IIs, PZ-38s, Pz III Es and faced T-34s and KVs - so will you. I saw what happened in WWM when it was tested with AB-like markers. No, thank you, it had nothing in common with historical battles. It was just a shooting range.

 

Another example - can you hold a defensive positions with 2 Nashorns against 20 Shermans in AB? Let me note, that pure defending of cap point is one of the scenarios available in WWM.

No, you can't. If you see them - they see you also, so you can kill few, but the rest will kill you. Just because they know exactly where you are. And this I have also experienced in WWM with "full" markers - no chance for open-topped, lightly armoured, turretless vehicles.

 

On the contrary - during the last test in one of the battles with "reduced" markers, defending german team succeeded and two Nashorns destroyed 18 enemy assaulting tanks without dying. Rest of the german team destroyed about 10 other allied vehicles. You may say it was unbalanced and you will be right, it was! But the attackers only assaulted frontally, only two or three guys thought about flanking. They had a choice, they picked the wrong tactical solution. And that's the "beauty" of historical battles, but we can experience it only when "enviroment" of battle is realistic. Markers are not.

Still not markers. You even say if you can't destroy your opponent, blah, blah, blah. Not a marker issue.

 

As like others before you, you seem to think that RB is the only realm where there are tactics used. You also seem to assume that every RB player knows how to and will employ those tactics. Nonsense! The level of war thunder player is demonstrated in your scenario with the Nashorns. That had nothing to do with markers either. You even supply a case scenario where the odds were overcome with WWM markers when everyone and you are trying to tell me odds can only be overcome without them?

 

I went through this last night and won't be dragged back again when those that are trying to pick apart my statements to prove their points are unable, unwilling or otherwise too blinded by their own beliefs to prove that what I have said is incorrect. If you just want no markers, say so and that's it. Nothing more is needed and often more as we have seen does little to help an aurgument.

 

And please, don't bring anything historical related into the debate. War thunder isn't historical in any way other than their being a graphical similarity in how the machinery looks when compared to their real-life counterparts. If you believe there's more to it, that's fine. If you must discuss all things historical do it elsewhere where i'm not involved. I don't care about Historical, I care about good gaming. This thread is about markers.

 

If you want historical you want an historical outcome too. This is a game, not a Sim. You're not proving history could have been changed if things were done differently. Not even close to proving that.

 

What the comments in this thread prove, and only prove, is that RB players want everything RB and are unwilling to compromise on... anything?, but mainly markers. Personally, as stated, my perfect scenario would be Arcade everything too. Shocking huh? But I'd be happy without any markers if the rest were arcade. It's not the lack of markers that puts me off RB, well maybe a little, but mainly it's everything else.

 

As also stated previously, you can't please all of the people all of the time and thank goodness for that.