WAR THUNDER Mk5 -- Tanks open beta test now! - Games

Can we just agree that pretty much all the tank maps in right now are shit? Ash River is redeemable, Jungle, Karelia, and Kuban are way too small and end up with you dying within 30 seconds of spawning, and Kursk is boring as hell.

the map selection is the main thing bringing this down for me right now but its beta so w/e its not even finished

Also what about that spotting system eh fellas

Can we just agree to never get in dumb arguments like this again? It's okay to disagree and to post about it, but don't go back and forth.

i'm sorry, i'm shitting up the thread as usual, didn't mean for this to happen.

I don't post much in this thread but it's enjoyable to read about what's going on in war thunder, not personal arguments. The map selection is bumming me out as well, most of them just plain suck and are repeated often :/ I'm definitely looking forward to some new urban maps and more spaced out maps with terrain and cover that make sense

[QUOTE=Doom14;45044438]Can we stop stupid bickering shit? Take it to the PMs or something. Christ, I hover around here because that's all /wtg/ ever does. Also new special: [t]http://warthunder.com/upload/image/News/polikarpov_kozhedub/po-2nw.jpg[/t] [URL="http://warthunder.com/en/news/648-SPECIAL-Birthdays-of-Nikolai-Polikarpov-and-Ivan-Kozhedub-en"]From 15.00 GMT on June 9th, 2014 to 15.00 GMT on June 10th, 2014 20% discount on the purchase of: I-185 (M-71), La-7, La-7B-20, La-9[/URL][/QUOTE] I can't be the only one who read the lettering on the side of that Po-2 as "you cunt"

I'm increasingly convinced that for all points to the contrary, my Ki-84 actually has less armor than my zeroes Even with 50 vitality, which is 10-15 points higher than I've got on all my other planes, I get pilot-shot about 3-4x as often, while fighting the same planes, and getting shot about the same amount in total Granted, the times where I die and don't get pilot-shot or clipped by a focke-wulfs stupid level of 30mm, I've managed to take some truly ludicrous amounts of damage, but it seems for every time that happens I get clipped by 1 50-cal and gibbed instantly 2-3 times Granted, it's still nice to have a plane with some actual climbing ability and speed and real guns to start with so I guess it balances out a bit

[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;45044927]I can't be the only one who read the lettering on the side of that Po-2 as "you cunt"[/QUOTE] The exact reason I downloaded it. I have a "downloading skins" problem.

My core issue with things you people are implying is that you are saying that OPEN maps are the answer, and hailing Kursk as the second coming of Whittman. Meanwhile, you are actually contradicting yourself. Kursk, as a map, does indeed ensure you will live for longer than 10 seconds (as long as a JagdPanther isn't camping your spawn but that's besides the point), however, it's just and purely because of the size. The open-ness doesn't help it anyhow, it only balances (and hurts) the survivability time closer to the norm of other maps. The two most important defining factors of how the gameplay on the map goes are the map's size and the map's complexity (amount of cover, heigh variance, etcetera). The bigger the map and the more complex the map, the longer will the lifetime be but the slower paced the gameplay will be as well. Small, open map, would be the fastest, with engagements almost immediately possible between all participants. Ignoring historical babble which, in my honest opinion is absolutely irrelevant because the game is wasn't, isn't, and won't ever be realistic in completely crucial aspects of ground force combat, to set the pace of the game we have to seek equilibrium somewhere on the square which could be described as two dimensional field of two values, Complexity and Size. Kursk would be very far low on complexity and very far high on size. Jungle would be fairly complex (mainly in case of Simulator where the foliage acts as real cover) and very small. You could practically draw a some sort of curvy function on his graph, diagonally, and equate the lines alongside which the half-life of a tank is the same, even if you are trading complexity for size and so. The issue I have with rhetoric of you and other people is that you are saying that one approach to balancing out the gameplay is only valid in one way and that smaller, more complex maps are irredeemable and undesirable, and that's something I categorically disagree with. I have played this game an unhealthy lot, I have played a ton of matches on Kursk, and I have had some enjoyable matches on all of the maps. Some were generally more enjoyable, some less, but what I definitely know that Kursk isn't some godsent miracle. It's fine, but it gets really, really boring. There's only one or two legit paths you can take with each vehicle and the outcome depends mostly on who you meet rather than how you play. There's so much shit to explore. We need cities, we need villages, we need big hills that are taller than 20 meter, more Z action, more bridges and river crossings, more bushes and constant foilage and forests and there's so so fucking much that can be done here. What needs systematic focus is the spotting system, naturally. That's a big issue, I would say almost integral issue, that will shape up how will further development of the maps be headed, but still. Not another Kursk. Kursk is boring, bland, unimaginative, and once you spend a few hours on it in a vehicle that doesn't have issues engaging targets at the distances the "cover" is spaced at, you feel like you don't need to play it ever again. I agree we need a lot of big, massive maps, but Kursk isn't a good map. There has to be cover. There has to be more direction to the map. Kursk is a bland demo of what does a big map you don't put enough effort into look like.

[QUOTE=Doom14;45044975]"downloading skins" problem.[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.cubeupload.com/k8DawA.png[/img] Soon, it'll be bigger than the core game itself.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;45045114]My core issue with things you people are implying is that you are saying that OPEN maps are the answer, and hailing Kursk as the second coming of Whittman. Meanwhile, you are actually contradicting yourself. Kursk, as a map, does indeed ensure you will live for longer than 10 seconds (as long as a JagdPanther isn't camping your spawn but that's besides the point), however, it's just and purely because of the size. The open-ness doesn't help it anyhow, it only balances (and hurts) the survivability time closer to the norm of other maps. The two most important defining factors of how the gameplay on the map goes are the map's size and the map's complexity (amount of cover, heigh variance, etcetera). The bigger the map and the more complex the map, the longer will the lifetime be but the slower paced the gameplay will be as well. Small, open map, would be the fastest, with engagements almost immediately possible between all participants. Ignoring historical babble which, in my honest opinion is absolutely irrelevant because the game is wasn't, isn't, and won't ever be realistic in completely crucial aspects of ground force combat, to set the pace of the game we have to seek equilibrium somewhere on the square which could be described as two dimensional field of two values, Complexity and Size. Kursk would be very far low on complexity and very far high on size. Jungle would be fairly complex (mainly in case of Simulator where the foliage acts as real cover) and very small. You could practically draw a some sort of curvy function on his graph, diagonally, and equate the lines alongside which the half-life of a tank is the same, even if you are trading complexity for size and so. The issue I have with rhetoric of you and other people is that you are saying that one approach to balancing out the gameplay is only valid in one way and that smaller, more complex maps are irredeemable and undesirable, and that's something I categorically disagree with. I have played this game an unhealthy lot, I have played a ton of matches on Kursk, and I have had some enjoyable matches on all of the maps. Some were generally more enjoyable, some less, but what I definitely know that Kursk isn't some godsent miracle. It's fine, but it gets really, really boring. There's only one or two legit paths you can take with each vehicle and the outcome depends mostly on who you meet rather than how you play. There's so much shit to explore. We need cities, we need villages, we need big hills that are taller than 20 meter, more Z action, more bridges and river crossings, more bushes and constant foilage and forests and there's so so fucking much that can be done here. What needs systematic focus is the spotting system, naturally. That's a big issue, I would say almost integral issue, that will shape up how will further development of the maps be headed, but still. Not another Kursk. Kursk is boring, bland, unimaginative, and once you spend a few hours on it in a vehicle that doesn't have issues engaging targets at the distances the "cover" is spaced at, you feel like you don't need to play it ever again. I agree we need a lot of big, massive maps, but Kursk isn't a good map. There has to be cover. There has to be more direction to the map. Kursk is a bland demo of what does a big map you don't put enough effort into look like.[/QUOTE] To be completely honest, I want more maps with more viable strategies of playing it. I hated WoT's (and WT's, to an extent) maps falling into a trap of "drive to one of these three or four spots and shoot things". It would be nice to have a map with options like setting up ambushes or being able to do hit-and-run attacks.

[vid]http://a.pomf.se/hqudlj.webm[/vid] :dance: I wish Sim sopped deterring people by headache mode. It's still my favorite mode. That KingCobra kill was with mouse virtual joystick, BTW.

KV-85 is fucking terrible, I'm sorry. [B] Upsides:[/B] Bucket [B]Downsides:[/B] Crew usually all dies together. First shot almost always breaks the barrel/turret drive. All the downsides a heavy has. Not really all that fast. Awful vertical gun traverse speeds. A pretty mediocre gun considering you're usually matched with Panthers and with ally T-34-85s. Not looking forward to the IS-1. Same thing with a different hull. Not looking forward to any more heavy tanks, honestly. They serve pretty much no purpose in this game, sans the KV-1s when they get undertiered matches.

[QUOTE=Doom14;45045781]KV-85 is fucking terrible, I'm sorry. [B] Upsides:[/B] Bucket [B]Downsides:[/B] Crew usually all dies together. First shot almost always breaks the barrel/turret drive. All the downsides a heavy has. Not really all that fast. Awful vertical gun traverse speeds. A pretty mediocre gun considering you're usually matched with Panthers and with ally T-34-85s. Not looking forward to the IS-1. Same thing with a different hull. Not looking forward to any more heavy tanks, honestly. They serve pretty much no purpose in this game, sans the KV-1s when they get undertiered matches.[/QUOTE] "mediocre gun" That's gun I make King Tigers cry with. Don't shittalk the 85mm. It's beastly.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;45046181]"mediocre gun" That's gun I make King Tigers cry with. Don't shittalk the 85mm. It's beastly.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, the 85mm that literally can't do anything to Tiger/Panthers facing you (Lite-Brite spotting ensures that's 95% of the time) unless you're in a tiny rinky-dink Arcade map? This one don't get no APCR. It has 115mm pen at 10m distance. Hate to say, but couple it with a shit chassis fighting double-spawn Panthers and -it's not good.- I'm in a pretty shit mood just trying to get my doubles out of Ground Forces because the game becomes so god damn fucking terrible at 4.0 and later. Couple that with the game handing me complete deadweights, useless cunts who leave after their one plane dies, and every single match having me at the bottom of a 1.0 spread and you got a recipe for a shit game. Let me put it another way. The KV-85 is 4.0. The Panther Ausf D is 5.0 [B]I have not had a SINGLE match without at least 3 (so actually 6, with two spawns) enemy Panthers.[/B] I'm about to just return to hanger the second I smell a shit match. I really can't decide which is less painful. Arcade scapes the bottom of the barrel and has drop indicators, but at least I'm not waiting 7 minutes for yet-another overtiered match of Panther faggots and has mixed teams. Realistic just fucking matches me up against shit I should only be seeing in a blue moon, every match, and is extremely unfun to play, but gets far better rewards. I think this is the game's revenge for me pulling a 98% W/R out of grinding battles with the Wirraway for that event.

[QUOTE=Doom14;45046333]I'm sorry, the 85mm that literally can't do anything to Tiger/Panthers facing you (Lite-Brite spotting ensures that's 95% of the time) unless you're in a tiny rinky-dink Arcade map? This one don't get no APCR. It has 115mm pen at 10m distance. Hate to say, but couple it with a shit chassis fighting double-spawn Panthers and -it's not good.- I'm in a pretty shit mood just trying to get my doubles out of Ground Forces because the game becomes so god damn fucking terrible at 4.0 and later. Couple that with the game handing me complete deadweights, useless cunts who leave after their one plane dies, and every single match having me at the bottom of a 1.0 spread and you got a recipe for a shit game. Let me put it another way. The KV-85 is 4.0. The Panther Ausf D is 5.0 [b]I have not had a SINGLE match without at least 3 (so actually 6, with two spawns) enemy Panthers.[/b] I'm about to just return to hanger the second I smell a shit match.[/QUOTE] Kursk is the one single map where the range is a problem. I very rarely ever use APCR even on T-34-85 and that's 1.0 above your KV-85. I agree that KV-85 is not a pinnacle of perfection, I don't like it either, but it's definitely not the gun's fault.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;45046447]I agree that KV-85 is not a pinnacle of perfection, I don't like it either.[/QUOTE] Try to ace it and get back to me. If your blood pressure doesn't call for medication I'll give you $20. [QUOTE=Azaz3l;45046492]Aim for the turret?[/QUOTE] I can usually (50/50) hurt a Tiger doing this, but Panthers are some other kind of magic I tell you what.

[QUOTE=Doom14;45046333]I'm sorry, the 85mm that literally can't do anything to Tiger/Panthers facing you (Lite-Brite spotting ensures that's 95% of the time) unless you're in a tiny rinky-dink Arcade map?[/QUOTE] Aim for the turret?

I think my safest bet is to just quit RB until it's not terrible. In Arcade, people are stupid enough that you might pull a team. That won't work in RB when it's another 5 v 5 match and three of your teammates quit because the 109s got shot down. Added bonus is I won't have to wait as long between drooling teams. Sorry for raging all. I'm use to winning a little more than half my matches. So when the game hands me the most fucking inept anchor potatoes you can imagine 12+ matches in a row, it does somethin' to me. [editline]9th June 2014[/editline] Let me just end by saying that, while not an inherently violent person, I would really love to strangle the people who got behind the idea of "Parts" and "FPE" being upgrades.

[QUOTE=Doom14;45046570] Let me just end by saying that, while not an inherently violent person, I would really love to strangle the people who got behind the idea of "Parts" and "FPE" being upgrades.[/QUOTE] Amen, brother.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;45046447]Kursk is the one single map where the range is a problem. I very rarely ever use APCR even on T-34-85 and that's 1.0 above your KV-85. I agree that KV-85 is not a pinnacle of perfection, I don't like it either, but it's definitely not the gun's fault.[/QUOTE] I don't know if it's just some weird bullshit, but I feel like the panther has some sort of black magic going for it. I've played a decent amount of the T-34-85 (I love it) and it one shots pretty much everything, except the motherfucking panther. I don't know what's going wrong, but i'll be going on along, a few kills, and then BAM. Panther. I've played three matches with the T-34-85, and I got killed 4 times by Panthers. They seriously seem to survive every side shot, rear shot, and turret shot I throw at them.

Is anyone else having problems flying in Simulator battles? When i'm trying to fly sideways the plane keeps straightening itself. It's like i'm being controlled by Instructor even though i have FullAircraft Controls

[QUOTE=Texas_Ranger;45047052]I don't know if it's just some weird bullshit, but I feel like the panther has some sort of black magic going for it. I've played a decent amount of the T-34-85 (I love it) and it one shots pretty much everything, except the motherfucking panther. I don't know what's going wrong, but i'll be going on along, a few kills, and then BAM. Panther. I've played three matches with the T-34-85, and I got killed 4 times by Panthers. They seriously seem to survive every side shot, rear shot, and turret shot I throw at them.[/QUOTE] Rear hull rear shots are suboptimal because the engine consumes the shell instead of the crew or ammo. If you get behind them, aim at the rear of the turret instead. Sides should be butter smooth penetration but I know well that sometimes the engine just spazzes out and they aren't. To be fair, I survive retarded amount of shots by them shooting me as well, so i don't really complain.

We lose 20 tickets away from victory because no one lands on domination. Please, someone, come take my gun and shoot me with it.

i'm personally not "hailing" Kursk, I just like it a hell of a lot more than the other maps.

[QUOTE=Teippiman;45047225]Is anyone else having problems flying in Simulator battles? When i'm trying to fly sideways the plane keeps straightening itself. It's like i'm being controlled by Instructor even though i have FullAircraft Controls[/QUOTE] An aircraft is designed to be stable, going straight and level is natural to it, otherwise you would have stability issues. If you want to hold it flying at an angle, you'll have to keep on the stick.

[QUOTE=Shibbey;45047567]An aircraft is designed to be stable, going straight and level is natural to it, otherwise you would have stability issues. If you want to hold it flying at an angle, you'll have to keep on the stick.[/QUOTE] This is only usually true for planes with slanted wings like the F4u and Bf109 and like 80% of all WWII fighters. As you tilt, thanks to the 5 or 10 degree wing tilt, one wing will be closer to horizontal and the opposite wing the same amount further from horizontal.

[QUOTE=Doom14;45047557]We lose 20 tickets away from victory because no one lands on domination. Please, someone, come take my gun and shoot me with it.[/QUOTE] You're still playing arcade.

Basically WT is shit