[Feedback] War Thunder Changes Roadmap

[Mean_Leader_3 0]

At a glance, this is what many have been asking for!

excellent job.

[brambo97 69]

Overall all of this sounds really promising, the only concern I have right now, and somebody else has already pointed that out, is the rework and reduction of some "key location" in pretty much all maps. It seems that most of the players are afraid of long range fights, preferring close range combat, the problem with this is that some tanks doesn't work properly in close range, due to the longer reload time or the poor agility of the unit. Forcing all the tanks into close range will make some of these units rather unplayable compared to most of the opponents, a small and nimble light tank is way more advantaged inside a city than a big and slow tank destroyer, and I'm afraid that this is the direction that we are going right now.

In general thinking about "correct" the maps by removing some locations instead of acknowledge and fight for the control of those, being it an hill or any other particular spot, is way more lazy than productive in my opinion, and this will only make the game increasingly boring to play.

Now, I agree that there are some places in some maps which are way to broken in some way, maybe because those places are only reachable by one team giving it an unfair advantage over the other (I'm looking at you Berlin) but as I have already pointed out, I'm afraid that correctly fixing some broken locations will lead in the future to the removal of other non broken ones, making some  normal hills unaccessible or some other key points unreachable only because of complaints of people who just wasn't paying enough attention to such places.

If my units gets destroyed while I was crossing a field without checking the surroundings the faults is entirely mine, not of the map design, and maybe I should have been more focused on what I had around me.

In conclusion, considering that most of these locations are accessible by both sides of the maps in almost the same time, i would suggest to be careful with the rework of such locations, trying to actively understand if a particular place or spot is actually one sided rather than usable by both teams.

Edited June 13, 2023 by brambo97

[Thug Shaker Actual 225]

46 minutes ago, Umbra___KV__ said:

Pretty much everything here is perfect. Except for one thing, remove the "hatespeech" clause. Its too vauge of a term and can be easily abused by bad actors claiming that they're offended by innocuous jokes. And has bad connotations of just having a practical definition of "something I don't like at that moment".

 

• "Making it easier to report hate speech in a chat, adding a separate category of complaints, as well as showing the chat log that is attached to the complaint. Summer updates 2023.

I think this would be okay if they somewhere just simply provided a clear definition of what's "hate speech". Even if it's a pop up after you click on the "hate speech" option

[Bruce_R1 2,118]

2 hours ago, lizardmech said:

Overall the changes seem great. But please, urgent action is required in naval RB, the mode is infested with hordes of exploiters using bots, on average around 70% of the players are bots using an aimbot and automation hack

Take a look at the repair costs on the most common bots ships now. Under the changes they'll lose more SL than they make. Nice added bonus there.

[Njordstar 12]

2 hours ago, Marlo3D said:

Please don't forget about people who don't like close quarter tank maps... I understand there is a playerbase for this but also there is one for the larger maps. Please consider us too. Vote up if you agree.

Map size should be driven primarily by BR. Modern vehicles, specifically with laser range finder, require larger maps. Low tier vehicles need small maps, most often because of speed and low muzzle velocity.

I would like to see "dynamic maps" where the size changes by parameters of the enrolled teams. Also this could result in new game modes (like one team assault, other team defend) with "right-sized" map dimensions.

[LeChance 926]

A good deal of information to ingest . . . lol. But, after going over most of it, I have to give proper respect to the game developers for 1) Reading all that feedback, listening to the players and 2) Acting on some of the main concerns it seems many players have/had. This is very encouraging, positive and a step in the right direction. The vast amount of changes, all seemingly to benefit the players, is very impressive in and of itself. Implementing some very quickly(tomorrow it seems) with this Update, also . . . impressive(and might just explain a bit of the delay . . . lol). I am very interested to see the actual numbers in game from some of these changes and I truly hope this eases some of the player base's angst and frustration. If all goes well, I would love to see these changes make a more enjoyable game for all players, and in turn . .  maybe some to open up their wallets and show support for the game . .  again, or even for the first time. In a perfect world, happy players should equal better customers. Something I have always advocated - "Make a great game and the money will follow". I know, I know . . that goes against most everything game companies out there do in their quest to generate revenue, but we can hope. I am almost giddy about these changes, even tho most of them do not affect me or what I normally do directly or very much, but . . . . Seeing so many "happy" players and turning around so much of the negativity we have seen lately . . .  that just makes everything WT related more enjoyable . . . to me anyway . . .
 

Edited June 13, 2023 by LeChance

[Bruce_R1 2,118]

1 hour ago, gozer said:

even with horrible win rate & barely 1 kill per 100 battles they can now be sure they won't lose any SL

They don't lose any now. The score just for death earns them more SL than they lose on the premiums they use. The new costs would change that.

 

Of course if they pay for premium and get the insurance they won't lose as much. But they could have done that now by paying premium too.

[Falcon134 48]

Everything I have read so far looks excellent. Being honest, this is the most excited I have been to play the game in a looooong time. Gaijin, thank you for listening to players. This is huge, should I be reading the news report correctly. 
I've been around the game since the beginning, and I can't think of any time previously that such a massive improvement has been implemented.

[Njordstar 12]

56 minutes ago, Alpine_Lynx said:

BTW: One question: what is the benefit to the Gaijin side of doing this?

It seems like a great change for the users, but since this is a business, I don't see how it will only benefit them. In particular, if revenues are basically positive or the RP required for higher ranks is reduced, I think it will be a negative for the business, as people will be less likely to buy GE, if at all.

For example, if you are considering raising the price of GE or packs or changing the borderline for seasonal events to reflect this revised economy, please let me know here.
However, if this better quality economy were applied, I would still buy bundles and GEs even if the prices were raised.

The benefit? Happy customers who are more likely to invest.

Paying for FOMO is a negative experience compared to paying for positive player experience. I for instance was considering to stop investing in WT at all due to all the grind. However, if Gaijin will work on all the issues and delivers as promised, I'll gladly renew my premium account next time it is on sale!

[Ichigo_Momomiya 10]

Honestly a solid start to changes, if delivered as stated and tweaked as required this could really improve game QOL.

[Thug Shaker Actual 225]

Everything here is wonderful to come and I just want to say thank you.

 

I understand also you have not mentioned every change here, just immediate ones.

 

I can't wait to see the new RP/SL scales, wholesomely.

 

I will add, once these are all implemented, it would be nice if we could see some major helicopter and aircraft damage model updating. As well as realshatter, HE damage/overpressure, post pen damage to ammo, and an ERA rework. 

 

A big QOL improvement would be to see the exact chemical and KE protection on composites in armor/xray view 

 

Decompression is also a huge QOL improvement. I think the entire community supports a second decompression in the 5.0-8.0 range, which If I recall correctly, was mentioned will be coming in the last decompression Update.

 

Thank you guys. You've done very much and more than anticipated this time!

 

> "Therefore, please perceive this roadmap as an experimental and exploratory endeavor. In the interest of transparency: Should it turn out that the changes outlined herein, whether in part or in their entirety, cause damage to the economic well-being of War Thunder that poses a risk to the further development of the game, we may decide to modify or roll back some or all of those changes."

 

This is very important, but im glad you guys were vocal about it. What this means to us as a *community*, is that we need to ensure we stay fluid with our perception of this game. Gaijin delivered for now, and I'm going to be bold and transparent to say, it's time we consider changing some of our online reviews guys. That's the deal.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Thug Shaker Actual
Added something

[KhakiGoat139042@live 0]

Well hope you do as mentioned in the roadmap, if you manage to do these changes i think the player base will be very happy. And war Thunder have in the past prommised stuff and just waints util the players forget about it. Well if you lie like 1 more time i think war thunder will lose huge amounts of the playerbase. But still the roadmap looks very nice ?

Edited June 13, 2023 by KhakiGoat139042@live

[Njordstar 12]

56 minutes ago, Umbra___KV__ said:

Pretty much everything here is perfect. Except for one thing, remove the "hatespeech" clause. Its too vauge of a term and can be easily abused by bad actors claiming that they're offended by innocuous jokes. And has bad connotations of just having a practical definition of "something I don't like at that moment".

 

• "Making it easier to report hate speech in a chat, adding a separate category of complaints, as well as showing the chat log that is attached to the complaint. Summer updates 2023.

Interested in this as well. Does "hatespeech" also include negative comments on the whole team (e.g. "bad team.... again")?

[KhakiGoat139042@live 0]

Its a problem but i think they can fix it by removing or censoring spefic words. Or be som sort of a temporary fix

Edited June 13, 2023 by KhakiGoat139042@live

[RabidGerbil 4]

Overall, I'm impressed. it's clear you have listened to us.
 

My only point of concern is "Reworking of network logic to solve one of the problems of ghost shells (“disappearing shells”) - the favored killer mechanic (“killer advantage”). In the case of a small difference in time within the player's ping, limited, for example, by 120 ms"

 

I have no idea how you plan to fix this, but for those in Australia who regularly are forced to play with 250-300+ ping, even 1 Australian server would make a world of difference for us. If there are concerns over people from Europe etc connecting to it, put a ping limit on or something. But either way, the game is made way way more challenging when your are forced to play with such high ping and almost guaranteed to lose all close range engagements.

[Threashold 224]

1 minute ago, RabidGerbil said:

Overall, I'm impressed. it's clear you have listened to us.
 

My only point of concern is "Reworking of network logic to solve one of the problems of ghost shells (“disappearing shells”) - the favored killer mechanic (“killer advantage”). In the case of a small difference in time within the player's ping, limited, for example, by 120 ms"

 

I have no idea how you plan to fix this, but for those in Australia who regularly are forced to play with 250-300+ ping, even 1 Australian server would make a world of difference for us. If there are concerns over people from Europe etc connecting to it, put a ping limit on or something. But either way, the game is made way way more challenging when your are forced to play with such high ping and almost guaranteed to lose all close range engagements.

How dose SA work for you

[Thug Shaker Actual 225]

2 hours ago, Type10BestGirl said:

I don't want larger maps to shrink, though. I think top tier NEEDS more larger maps for tanks. Will we see more bigger maps going forward? Sick and tired of playing tiny maps with modern MBTs where the spawn to spawn distance is only 1km

This is a huge thing I noticed playing day to day. I want 4+km maps at top tier. We have the rangefinders for it.

 

At the bare minimum 3km maps with 1.5km from each spawn to the central cap, and 3km from spawn to spawn

[KhakiGoat139042@live 0]

Well i dont know much about ping and network i general so i am not sure how they can fix it

 

[Khomuna 67]

We'll have to see how some of this stuff works in practice, like the one about locking controls for critically damaged aircraft, I don't wanna get locked out of my controls for losing half a wing on an A-10.

That said, everything here looks good in theory.

 

A couple questions about the "tree completion bonus":

I have all top tier jets for Japan, USSR and Sweden. How does it work in this case?

Is the bonus cumulative for every nation where I own the designated top tier vehicle?

Like, the RP bonus for a rank VIII is 50%, if I'm researching the F-14B will I get 150% bonus for 3 battles?

Will I get 50% bonus but for 9 battles (3 for each top tier nation)?

Or will I get just 50% for 3 battles regardless of how many nations I have at top tier?

[RabidGerbil 4]

2 minutes ago, Threashold said:

How dose SA work for you

perfectly fine, better than connecting to US, EU.

Im base in QLD for reference

[Sky_King7 102]

Overall love the changes gaijin. This is VERY encouraging and I implore you, what has started here must continue in terms of clarity offered to the player base, and willingness to receive feedback. Most great games throughout history make community feedback a PILLAR of development. It only makes sense to seek input from the very people playing, and -->paying<-- for your game. At the end of the day, we are the customer and any good business model puts HUGE emphasis on understanding what the customer wants. 

A note about the economy changes. I am a SIM player mostly, while I am pleased to see the coming changes in repair costs and reward multipliers, I am worried that many of these future, and current gameplay mechanics will not make their way to SIM due to our unique "pay to play" spawn cost system, instead of the normal repair cost system that other gam modes enjoy. This has been a consistent top 3 item for most of the SIM community for awhile now. Allow me to explain how this negatively effects our gameplay. 

1) We cannot benefit from the crew repair mechanic to the level other gamemodes can. 
2) Paying to spawn in discourages players from participating in games with low ticket count
3) The upcoming "dynamic repair cost" based on lifetime wont benefit us, as we already have paid the spawn cost. 
4) removing repair costs for getting teamkilled cant benefit us, unless we are back-credited that spawn cost. 
5) we cant use backups or free repairs. 

This forum post contains a recent poll that shows just how lopsided our desire for this simple change is. Do SIM a solid, bring our gamemode back from the dead!
 

 

[Richardguy 6]

This is great, great news.

 

Please consider moving strike UAVs to a higher BR, as 10.7 means there will be 9.7 and 10.0 lineups without a sufficient counter to them.

 

Please also consider making the "free parts" more than one use, especially in naval where multiple modules can be destroyed at one time. Repairs are technically infinite in aviation modes; this should be true in ground + naval.

[你说这个谁懂啊 32]

What actually coming in tomorrow's update is minimal. How many points of improvement gaijin can be put into practice in the future update is the real issue here. Since they have a history of lying to players and force them to choose between bad and awful choices, I would keep my eyes on further announcement and get my hype under control.

[Bonrath 220]

Hello,

First off, the roadmap looks great, now let's hope it'll be implemented as such as it would bring back many players and make the game attractive to new ones too!

The one question I have is about the tech tree progression, more precisely, foldering vehicles: does that also open up options for more variants of certain vehicles ( example, an A-4 Skyhawk folder with A-4B and other, more advanced Skyhawks like the A-4F or A-4M, or for example, and F-4E folder with an early and late, expanded ordnance F-4E)? That would be a very very nice thing to have, especially to give some more appeal to the foldered vics

))

[xJohnnieRicox 0]

Actually stoked that the devs heard us. It may have taken a near strike but never too late. May this update be all we hope it is and more. Looks good so far.

 

On a side note the Chinese Q5-L has no countermeasures in game when in reality it has the countermeasure pods. Is there a particular reason it gets disrespected in game?