Installer Steam
connexion
|
langue
简体中文 (chinois simplifié)
繁體中文 (chinois traditionnel)
日本語 (japonais)
한국어 (coréen)
ไทย (thaï)
Български (bulgare)
Čeština (tchèque)
Dansk (danois)
Deutsch (allemand)
English (anglais)
Español - España (espagnol castillan)
Español - Latinoamérica (espagnol d'Amérique latine)
Ελληνικά (grec)
Italiano (italien)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonésien)
Magyar (hongrois)
Nederlands (néerlandais)
Norsk (norvégien)
Polski (polonais)
Português (portugais du Portugal)
Português - Brasil (portugais du Brésil)
Română (roumain)
Русский (russe)
Suomi (finnois)
Svenska (suédois)
Türkçe (turc)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamien)
Українська (ukrainien)
Signaler un problème de traduction
Procédures à suivre et règles des discussions
Signaler ce message
winrates depend on the tank or the users ? you can have all of these tanks be the best tanker , and get the most abysmal team going and lose every game , those stats are worthless in the way your trying to use them. cough.
If you’re implying a difference in skill somehow makes something P2W, that doesn’t make sense, because you can’t buy a better person at the keyboard. The premium either is behind a paywall and dominates (makes games extremely easy and able to be won, which again, the stats are on par or worse than non-premiums at 8.7) and that makes it P2W, or they perform about the same, just provide better earnings (which is pay to advance faster and completely different).
Its called an overall average. Of course there is individual skill and wwhat not but that all falls under these statistics regardless, there is an overall stat.
For good measure, before baseless claims like this are made:
LOOK a free way to access all Japanese ships! :Pikachu shocked face:
Every few days a few more ships will be released for research too. For... you guessed it, FREE.
https://warthunder.com/en/news/6219-news-become-a-tester-of-the-japanese-fleet-en
Not quite as immersive as VR, but it works without the performance Penalty of VR.
[quote=Arigato Macchiato;1642038749312973146...snip
I would like to emphasis this btw, often times people play these FREE TO PLAY games expecting 100 percent benefits. But it's free to play. The developers are not a charity. In fact they balance free to play pretty well but at the same time they wanna make money anf rightfully so. It's a cycle. NOW, if it was a 60 dollar title like from EA with these types of models then that's a different story but its important to consider these things. [/quote]
SO? DCS is free to play too..........costs you nothing unless you buy a module, yeah it's between 40-90 Bucks a module.........but those modules come with a fully developed Flight model, damage model and further support.
IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad Premium Edition 90 Dollars same of every other addon. No further costs.
All that for a flat one time fee.......might seem much at first but 90 Dollars is 7.5 Dollars a month, can WT compete with that?
Also all Premium vehicles according to this post is 8000 Dollars, and that is not counting premium account costs.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/bltmwq/i_counted_how_much_would_every_premium_vehicle/
For the Record..........only Train Simulator has a similar ammount of DLC on steam*, with 8044,67 Dollars worth of DLC.
Which has accumulated over the time span of 10 years, although the series itself started in 2006. Same as FSX.
Also, unlike WT it also has no addtional life cycle costs.
*with further third party addons availlable elsewhere, whose worth doubles or triples the ammount. Still even that is nothing compared to what is out for FSX.
Let us be honest Gaijin is going the F2P route because it is damn profitable.
I have no problem with charging a set ammount for organized Multiplayer, I mean it costs and it has to pay for development as well, it's just the ammount.
We have 8k for vehicles and monthly fees, we're talking about an ammount that his higher , about four times, than for all the DLCs in iracing, without discounts*...............and the latter has a much better organization of the Multiplayer with organized events, and a usually pretty fair "balancing"/Balance of Power, with is rather important in GT racing for example.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ut7tvEOptCd_xlF7Bqpzm9mhURVBpjTsoUA787niQhk/edit#gid=1051368876
*buy 3 pieces of content 10% off etc. sales etc.
Both DCS and IL-2 don't even have that ammount of DLC in money's worth.
DCS with all DLC (including the 3 on pre-order) ammounts to 2037.36 bucks without discounts, and if you have all that in the cart the price is discounted to 2011.36.
And you would get a bonus of 310 Dollars, which is enough to buy 3 F-14 Licenses, for a Friend as RIO and a second crew of wingmen.
Or.......the next several addons.
Or to drive the overall price down to 1,669.32 Dollars.
I think we can safely lay to rest the argument that F2P is done out of a bleeding heart, it is done because it is economically viable, very viable.
Now all these comparisons, like iracing vs. WT are done without counting in the monthly subscription fees.
Where there is a difference, iracing is subscription only, WT is you can subscribe.
However, I don't think that the massive discrepancy in Addon/DLC pricing can be simply explained away by the fact that not all players pay.
If it had the same quality of development and multiplayer organization as iRacing had I would be happy to pay a similar ammount in a subscription fee.
I would have no problem with that. Hell I played MMORPGs back in the day when they were subscription only. And you had to buy the addons. So it was subscription+Addon....so it's not that I or others are unwilling to pay, I think it's the massive discrepancy between what we are asked to pay and what we get for that money in quality.
Also the Average does not tend to tell you much, what is the median winrate, aka the winrate that is happening the most?
+1
I think in that regard it has the same problem as MWO (Mechwarrior Online), where you have tons of mechs but only a very limited number of small maps that can only be played in certain ways.
After a while it gets boring, because there is not even room for tactical variations.
It's partially a game design and partially a map design issue.
For example the IL-2 Great Battle Games usually only have one map, with a seasonal variant, maybe a few smaller ones for MP.
However those maps are huge and contain multiple targets, so you can vary what happens in each mission, you can choose a different attack direction, different targets etc. and the enemy never knows what you will do at the start of the mission.
That is the problem with the "Attack Point A, B, C, D!" Map design, everyone knows after a while where the attacks will be.
The other problem, which is a game design problem, is that in WT kills count more than a completed mission.
In all combat flight sims, the goal is to complete the mission, like bomb a factory, if the mission succeeds, you succeed.
If it doesn't and the bombers are driven off, or shot down, you don't suceed, no matter how much kills you have.
So if you fool the enemy and they never show up and your escort mission is boring, you are still rewarded for completing the mission.
However in WT the goal is to get as many kills as you can, because you get more rewards aka golden eagles and XP for it.
If you do not directly help with the destruction of the target, you get next to nothing, maybe a few more points because the match was won.
Which breeds the "wrong" egotistical mindset where people are more focused on getting kills and points instead of working together, and all combat, especially air combat, hinges on teamwork.
So to fix the issues raised here, we a) need bigger maps with more variety in targets, we need a rewards system that focuses on mission completion over kills and finally we need a voice comms system for the whole team, so that you can communicate with each other via voice comms.
to deal with those people who can never set up their mikes properly you'd have to have it set up properly with an ingame dialogue that checks if there is no feedback noise or other things.
No properly set up, no voice comms.
if you can't get rid of feedback noise, no voice activation, default to Push to talk only.
How to test that, require the user to read the text while ingame sounds are played at the audio settings of the player.
The limitation of Voice comms to "Squads" is the most stupefiyng decision ever, as unlike in other flightsims we don't connect to a server with pre-made squadrons.
Oh and a 3-5 minute briefing/discussion phase for the battle, where a team can discuss the mission strategy and tactics would also help.
Because the best plan does not work if all aren't on the same page.
Firstly, nobody wants to hear some awful player who thinks he is the best in the lobby lecture for 5 minutes how everyone needs to rush the point and die. Nobody is interested in listening and nobody will follow these 'orders.' The closest I have ever seen to 'team work' in a game with groups of random people working together is Verdun, and that's only because in Verdun you are forced to advance and retreat by the game script, on pain of death.
Second, the type of gameplay Warthunder requires is completely unrealistic. I get rewarded for hiding in a ditch on the side of the road, ambushing passing players, just as much as people who rush points, and this is how it ought to be. Many historical tank battles consist of ambushes, very few, at least on the western front, follow the 'attack and riposte' style that the bogus capture point-based gameplay promotes.
I think there ought to be a battle-royal esque mode where they open up the whole air RB sized map to 64 or 128 players in tanks, and you can just mess around.
Couldn't of said it better.
This game desperately needs some form of voice communication. Why Gaijin refuses to implement such a system I'll never understand.
As for maps, this is a massive issue. The design seems to seems to follow the "League of Legends layout," where you have three lanes to choose from in order to reach the enemy. That's what I hate the most.