Severe damage - end of battle writeoff

[676]

At the end of a battle, all severely damaged aircraft will be considered destroyed — players in this state will receive the following message: “Written off due to severe damage”. A death in the statistics will be credited, and the player who caused the severe damage will be credited with a destroyed aircraft, where the rest of the reward will be given. This is done so that players with a severely damaged aircraft don’t try to hide and avoid combat in the hope that they’ll not be finished off.

This is the only part of the severe damage mechanic which I find absolutely ridiculous. Please give it a thought.

Hide how? Hide where? Planes with functional engines and no broken wings, perfectly capable of returning to the airfield are currently written off.

[CanucksJays]

That's some Dog s+++. I was heading back to the Airfield, and that's what I get? SMH

[magazine2]

Hi. We gave an official response to feedback about this with our reasoning:

One of the main talking points relates to severely damaged aircraft being considered destroyed at the end of a battle. When designing this, we thought about two things: there’ll be players who don’t want to be considered destroyed at the end of the battle, and players who inflicted the severe damage feeling like they should get the destruction at the end of the battle. We’ve thought about both ways, but would like to stick with the original design which rewards the “attacker” side with the destruction at the end of the battle, and brings more frags that is generally better. Even though both decisions will leave some players not satisfied, we’ve picked the design which rewards the player who caused the severe damage.

Overall we want to reward the attacker who did the damage rather the other way round.

[676]

Originally posted by magazine2:

Hi. We gave an official response to feedback about this with our reasoning:

One of the main talking points relates to severely damaged aircraft being considered destroyed at the end of a battle. When designing this, we thought about two things: there’ll be players who don’t want to be considered destroyed at the end of the battle, and players who inflicted the severe damage feeling like they should get the destruction at the end of the battle. We’ve thought about both ways, but would like to stick with the original design which rewards the “attacker” side with the destruction at the end of the battle, and brings more frags that is generally better. Even though both decisions will leave some players not satisfied, we’ve picked the design which rewards the player who caused the severe damage.

Overall we want to reward the attacker who did the damage rather the other way round.

Well, I'm okay with it happening in general at the end of the battle, the specific problems I see are:

1. Planes capable of flying indefinitely or almost indefinitely are written off, as in cases where I had no idea at all that my plane was severely damaged or where my pane was fully capable of returning to base with no major issues.

I would hope for some kind of indicator on the screen that my plane is severely damaged, as it is not always obvious (the attacker knows when the target is severely damaged, the target may have no clue due to the severe damage being so superficial).

2. Being written off 5 seconds before being repaired on the airfield. I really think it would be fair if a successful landing would cancel the severely damaged flag, without having to wait for the repair, this would also even out a bit the chances between players who have low level crews.

Also, if the plane is REALLY severely damaged (most of a wing missing, for example) and the player still manages to land it without crashing, it would be fair to reward them with not being written off after waiting 58 of 62 seconds of the repair time.

[HighSictir]

Originally posted by magazine2:

Hi. We gave an official response to feedback about this with our reasoning:

One of the main talking points relates to severely damaged aircraft being considered destroyed at the end of a battle. When designing this, we thought about two things: there’ll be players who don’t want to be considered destroyed at the end of the battle, and players who inflicted the severe damage feeling like they should get the destruction at the end of the battle. We’ve thought about both ways, but would like to stick with the original design which rewards the “attacker” side with the destruction at the end of the battle, and brings more frags that is generally better. Even though both decisions will leave some players not satisfied, we’ve picked the design which rewards the player who caused the severe damage.

Overall we want to reward the attacker who did the damage rather the other way round.

"we thought about (...) players who inflicted the severe damage feeling like they should get the destruction at the end of the battle" - I just wanted to say that you're thought here is wrong and that i was not aware a game the emphasizes on realism is now governed by player FEELINGS :))).... guess FEELINGS are coming to War Thunder this year LMAO.

i played 2 games today when i got killed automatically at the end of the battle while having perfectly functioning airplanes, capable of landing and repairing... the only problem was the battle ended while i was still flying... if the battle continued i could have landed and repair... in history the were plenty severely damaged airplanes that managed to return to the airfield and fight another day.

with this mechanic we are now forced to run back to the airfield even though we are capable of fighting just so that we don't get caught in the air with some damage by the end of the battle.

In my opinion the matter is simple you crash (hit the ground) you die, you don't you live

if you are really keen on keeping this lame mechanic maybe you could add it to another mode to the game and leave the existing ones like before... for example in addition to arcade, realistic, and simulation you could add FEELINGS a mode where players that FEEL that they should get kills get them rightly so and leave the rest of us in peace.

in conclusion this mechanic walks all over the realism this game claims to have and should be removed.

[gamerX459]

Originally posted by magazine2:

Hi. We gave an official response to feedback about this with our reasoning:

One of the main talking points relates to severely damaged aircraft being considered destroyed at the end of a battle. When designing this, we thought about two things: there’ll be players who don’t want to be considered destroyed at the end of the battle, and players who inflicted the severe damage feeling like they should get the destruction at the end of the battle. We’ve thought about both ways, but would like to stick with the original design which rewards the “attacker” side with the destruction at the end of the battle, and brings more frags that is generally better. Even though both decisions will leave some players not satisfied, we’ve picked the design which rewards the player who caused the severe damage.

Overall we want to reward the attacker who did the damage rather the other way round.

damage does not = kill
if you want to reward players for the damage they cause then start scaling the reward "hits" give based on the amount of damage caused per hit

as things stand this system is just designed to screw players over making them pay for repair bills more often and thus screams of a money grabbing tactic and nothing else

[Hotschi48]

In my view, as long as a plane flies in a controllable way it itsn't "killed" or destroyed, no matter what the ground crew will do with the airframe afterwards.

To give the attacker the reward for SEVERELY DAMAGING a plane should be more than enough, after all, it was still flying during battle. A kill is a kill, which is a plane being destroyed and not just critically or severly damaged - and not just "written off" because a ground crew has no spare parts or lacks the time or skills to repair a damn airframe.

As it is now, this mechanic is just another nerf to screw bomber play even more.

If the devs don't want ppl play bombers in their game, why don't they make them AI only? Got it, can't make money this way....