So you don’t care about the playerbase then, good to know. You’d rather them quit the game if they disagree with whatever you want, rather than find a middle ground to preserve and attain the player retention needed for the game to actually survive.
2 Likes
Yeah, you’re probably right. Instead of SPLITTING the player base, you’re going to be LOSING the player base. That’s much better!
Yes, we need to PENALIZE people for trying to have fun. Who do they think they are trying to enjoy themselves. Don’t they know we’re trying to “unsplit” the player base here. So what if they have to play train mode 5x in row. It’s for good cause. They should donate their time freely to do things that they don’t want to do to save a game they no longer want to play.
Based on some of the responses here, I’m sure that make sense to a lot of you.
2 Likes
See, this is why you leave all the critical decisions to the new players rather than the dedicated players. They know how to kill the game faster, and that’s what we all need right about now.
2 Likes
Because the main thing I see keeping newer players away is needing to grind the same unlocks multiple times, and bot lobbies. So fixing those two primary issues I firmly believe will bring in more players than the amount that go away, especially considering the attitude of alot of those players considering leaving I think it will still be a net gain for total players.
This part has nothing to do with the campaign system, and there have been multiple people who have suggested ways to have nation-based progression alongside keeping the uniqueness of campaigns.
Merging all the campaigns to remove this is a placebo. It does not actually fix the game. Fixing the issues with the game and making it better would remove any need for this to occur in the first place, as people would stay because the game is good.
List off the top of my head:
Bipods/mounting system
Fire going through walls
Fire instantly engulfing you in flames is brushed by
White phosphorus going through walls with no openings
Overabundance of automatic weaponry and explosives which puts new players at a disadvantage with BA
2 Likes
this is not MM rework anymore, this is gameplay rework. and one that i wouldnt even be against.
and this is directly tied to player retention. devs need to provide best experience to player. what is the best experience for player? ultra long queues for player to get matched with full team of human players with his mode/map of choice? short queues to be matched with bots? or instant queues that match player with least hated mode amongst human playerbase (or at least 20 players in current match)?
and i dont want to leave that kind of things to devs. ffs they have problem fixing reported balance bugs that were reported almost a year ago. some bugs were filled at game beginning and arent fixed. ffs MG bipods arent fixed. and you expect them to improve maps and modes based on data?
considering that this is obviously small dev team and they have too much work for their size, it is good enough stopgap measure.
what is keeping you in the game now? you cant choose what you want to play now.
go play single player game on maps you like if you dont like this. ffs we want less bots in our matches and for that to happen we need playerbase not splitting in MM. do you even know with how many bots you are playing now? do you even know how relatively small playerbase is? do you know how you are splitting MM with hard rules?
every hard choice splits MM.
lets say you choose hard MM with BR 3 (out of 10), with HA 1941 and d-day map with assault mode. first we will ignore that it is impossible combination of mode/map. tell me how many players do you need for this kind of MM? or do you want to play against bots? first you need 10 queues for every BR, then you multiply this with 6 for every year of HA, then you multiply this with 5 game modes and then you multiply this with 50 maps (just putting random ballpark number, idk how many maps are currently ingame). that means that game would need to run 15000 MM queues to satisfy every player combination. sure this would not split playerbase.
and this is absolutely ok. i leave all the time on shit maps/game modes. like i said i am not against implementing soft veto on maps, but i am against hard veto.
1 Like
Map vote system is common in alot of games and works well and I wouldn’t be opposed to it but it would require a pregame lobby system this game doesn’t yet have.
Again, I don’t care about seniority in a digital gaming community. When you have a healtly social life and touch grass you tend not care about such things.
it doesnt require it. you can just choose maps you absolutely dont want to play for any side in your game lobby. you would only need to have at least one map/mode available to your side that isnt vetoed. if there are multiple maps that arent vetoed or have same number of votes, MM would pick one randomly from them.
1 Like
I’m all for it.
Yeah I feel like most of what is being said goes beyond changing matchmaking and just commenting on the game. Yes the game has issues but we are simply addressing the issues of bot lobbies and campaigns with no players in a way that can be immediately implemented. Most of this stuff being thrown around is abstract and more so long term game development stuff. By merging the campaigns into factions we have an immediate fix to these problems in some capacity (NOTE: Nobody is saying it’s a perfect cure all fix everyone will be happy with). Comments about player retention are speculation imo and once the update comes we can go from there in terms of what’s next for the playerbase.
1 Like
I’m not entirely against having all “campaigns” being merged. Obviously sometimes I want to play in a specific setting and I’m sure there will be settings for custom games in the new system and I will miss campaigns; but for the most part I’m fine. I love this game because it’s a WW2 sandbox, so it’s no big deal if I jump from the tropical Pacific to the city of Stalingrad to Northern France to……
The only thing I don’t really agree with is the Battle Rating
and what is the problem with BR? do you enjoy playing stuart vs tiger? i do when i am in tiger, not so much when i am in stuart…
1 Like
In warthunder you can veto 2 maps, and mark 3 as last preference.
1 Like
The author should change the title of the topic to “Armored Train: The War of bots” 
1 Like
I like how the game is a sandbox. Every vehicle and weapon has its intended roles and capabilities. Currently in game I love seeing all the different things clash together. Seeing Pumas, Stuarts, Scotts, Panthers, Panzers, Tigers, eventually Pershings, etc all running around the map really encapsulates that feeling.
I don’t mind being thrown around from map to map, but I don’t necessarily like how my load out will determine what maps it throws me on. I know I know just change my load out, but I’d rather be thrown into the “melting pot” with whatever I got. Sometimes I just feel like playing the Stuart.
I also find this battle rating will do nothing but turn gameplay into a never ending slug fest of the heaviest tanks and weapons unless someone deliberately chooses to play as “noobs” in this new system with early game stuff. Under the current (for however much longer) system I like seeing a mix of early to late game content all over the place.
I kind of think a better replacement for “battle rating” would basically be “pseudo” campaigns, or we have our squads preset according to map, location, setting, etc. So we can customize all our different squads, for example, Germany: Berlin, Germany: North Africa, etc and when the map rotation throws us on a map we have those presets instead of whatever gear I’m choosing determining the map. In fact it’s no different than some events we had in the past where the map cycle took us to different campaigns
That’s fair, I guess my issue is that they went for the more controversial option. They could of kept the campaigns and did the progression rework alongside this. Something that will make the game better rather than appear more populated.
That’s fair, but then how do you expect this entire overhaul with matchmaking and the BR system to go over any smoother, if you admit they can’t do map or gamemode fixes, alongside simple mechanic fixes?
They could literally have addressed things saying that there will be a HA or Realism mode in the future, just not on the release of the update. I think that would have gone over smoothly and caused no issues. I mean there’s currently so many things clear about this update which could kill the game since they released the Q&A in the last week of April, am I right?
I have a job that I work 6 days a week currently. I don’t need to confirm to your outlook of societal norms and social interaction to have a “healthy social life”.
this is already the case. most maps dont allow flanking so it is just slugfest of heaviest armor/biggest gun. specially when someone is in gray zone. i would like mixed tanks battles where you could flank, but maps are sadly too small, limited and vehicle unfriendly. but even in mixed tank battles there would need to be limit on class of tanks you would be allowed to field cause heavy tanks had least presence on battlefield.
not to mention e.g. AR that have great performance close and mid range with passable long range performance that are paired vs BA or shit smg that have every stat worse than AR. if there was historical equipped squad with their year appropriate smg there wouldnt be a need for BR, but now when you can equip every squad with 4 AR/SMG, 1 MG and rest with semi autos there is a need to limit them to at least equal strength to what you opponent can bring.
you see they couldnt. MM rework was absolutely needed if you wanted to have human matches. too many MM queues just gives you bot matches specially when in non peak hours. bot matches= bad and boring matches.
i will give them benefit of the doubt there. and any bugs and errors there will be thrown into priority queue for fix. problem now is that they are working on adding new content and not on fixing the bugs and improving gameplay mechanics. this could easily be problem of shitty managers who want to see “progress” and monetization opportunities when devs work on game rather than vague player satisfaction.
unless they magically gained 10x or 100x playerbase, they couldnt. this is not war thunder that has 100x or more playerbase that it could afford to split playerbase into 2 or 3 separate MM algorithms.
btw they postponed it to week after, so first week of may… and we got some questions answered about slots and stalingrad (tbh i was expecting massive Q&A so idk if it was an actual Q&A).
1 Like