War Thunder

War Thunder Dev Tracker




15 Jan

Comment
    Stona on Forums - Thread - Direct

Real in battle (in game) performance

Comment
    Stona on Forums - Thread - Direct

Comment

It won't happen, because it cannot happen. The current top tier population and vehicle pool could not sustainably support a huge expansion to 12.0 BR. We never ever make such huge expansions because it's simply not possible. The expansions go from x.0, x.3, x.7 and then x.00 again.


It's all very well people claiming what's "ideal" for balance without understanding that's it's not actually possible for us to do.


12.0 BR is an entirely fantasy proposal at the moment I'm afraid. BRs are expanded when it's actually possible to do so. People misunderstand entirely that we are not purposefully "holding back" on purpose. We simply cannot expand BRs when there is not the clear evidence, population and vehicle pool to do so. You can't have whole absolute top BRs with nothing but 1-2 vehicles in total on them.

Comment
    OrsonES on Forums - Thread - Direct

Game Rules Amended - Changes indicated in red.

As whole Game rules were redesigned, only categories were marked red for easier reading instead of whole text.

Post
  • A bug has been fixed where AI players can use helicopters and unavailable vehicles from their research trees in the Enduring Confrontation missions.
  • EC7 with BR 9.7 and above has been added to Enduring Confrontation. EC6 now includes BR 8.0 — 9.3 vehicles.
  • The mechanics of Warbond awards for the Battle Pass have been improved. If a player exceeds the total allowable limit of 3600 Warbonds, a warning message will appear. Players may either take a prize with the “burning” of the extra amount of Warbonds, or postpone it receiving the award, later spending the extra Warbonds at their own discretion.
The current provided changelog reflects the major changes within the game as part of this Update. Some updates, additions and fixes may not be listed in the provided notes. War Thunder is constantly i... Read more
Post
    /u/ on Steam - Thread - Direct
: You can find the details for this event on the announcement page [url=https://steamcommunity.com/ogg/236390/announcements/detail/4816004515022510715]here[/url].

14 Jan

Comment

Whilst a good idea in principle, again, we simply cannot display all of our sources as a library / databank.


For one, some sources are private, purchased or not publicly available and our consultants went to various museum's / archives etc to track down and secondly because we cannot make all of that freely available for everyone else to simply use as they wish. Lots of people / companies would simply take it all for themselves if we made our entirely library public and thats generally why no game does that at all.



Whilst I cannot speak on behalf of our consultants who do that in this case, what I can say is if an error is made and a source is deemed to be poor, we will always correct it wherever possible.


What I can say is from our side (forum etc), we have been talking on new Tech mods and will continue to take more on who are keen on historical matte...

Read more
Comment

Again it comes back to time and resources. We simply so not have the people or capacity to be able to provide all the sources used each and every time a historical report is denied. We receive hundreds per day, many spam and many invalid. That alone is already a major challenge.


Some sources also cannot be shared either because they were purchased or come from private collections / museums. Coupled with the fact all the data and research our consultants and development teams have done is not simply going to be made into a publicly available wide resource, which is the only other way of showing everything which we have.


As for multiple reports. We already do merge and answer them all.



As far as I understand, the issue with Etendard CCIP is not as clear as you make out. Further investigation was required.

Comment

Often because it's just not that simple. Because a historical report is submitted with 2 sources that agree, there could already be 5 other sources in th Devs possession that debunk those. So then we have a stalemate that then requires one of our consultants to revisit the whole thing, potentially spend months hunting down in museums / archives etc to validate either source. We do not have an endless amount of developers or consultants with the spare time to instantly resolve potential / claimed historical issues.


Even then a historical issue can be quite literally anything. From a vehicle potentially missing 1mm of armour or 3kph of speed to literally a million other combinations of matters. Actual game bugs, crashes and issues will always take a priority in that sense. We have over 1700 vehicles in game and that number is only going to grow. In the grand scheme of things, you have to prioritize the bigger picture (game bugs and issues) rather tha...

Read more
Post
    Stona on Forums - Thread - Direct

A bug has been fixed where AI players can use helicopters and unavailable vehicles from their research trees in the Enduring Confrontation missions.


EC7 with BR 9.7 and above has been added to Enduring Confrontation. EC6 now includes BR 8.0 — 9.3 vehicles.


The mechanics of Warbond awards for the Battle Pass have been improved. If a player exceeds the total allowable limit of 3600 Warbonds, a warning message will appear. Players may either take a prize with the “burning” of the extra amount of Warbonds, or postpone it receiving the award, later spending the extra Warbond

Post
    Stona_WT on Forums - Thread - Direct

A bug has been fixed where AI players can use helicopters and unavailable vehicles from their research trees in the Enduring Confrontation missions.


EC 7 with BR 9.7 and above has been added to Enduring Confrontation. EC 6 now includes BR 8.0 — 9.3 vehicles.


The mechanics of Warbond awards for the Battle Pass have been improved. If a player exceeds the total allowable limit of 3600 Warbonds, a warning message will appear. Players may either take a prize with the “burning” of the extra amount of Warbonds, or postpone it receiving the award, later spending the extra Warbo

Comment
    Ouiche on Forums - Thread - Direct

Hi!


I had a chat with the support, it seems they answered on the 28th of November, asking for some data. Make sure to provide this data, it's necessary to move forward. They'll follow up from there.


Cheers.


13 Jan

Post
  • A bug has been fixed with Swedish and Chinese AI aircraft not spawning in the Enduring Confrontation and Custom Battle modes.
  • Terms for vehicles available for naval Battle Tasks have been changed. Now they match ground and air Battle Tasks: easy challenge requires a vehicle of rank II or above, medium and special challenges requires rank III or above. The new rules come to effect for newly generated tasks.
  • The festive hangar has been disabled.
The current provided changelog reflects the major changes within the game as part of this Update. Some updates, additions and fixes may not be listed in the provided notes. War Thunder is constantly improving and specific fixes may be implemented without the client being updated.
Post
    /u/ on Steam - Thread - Direct
: You can find the details for this event on the announcement page [url=https://steamcommunity.com/ogg/236390/announcements/detail/3028075351857757241]here[/url].
Comment

It was not always just about asking. The game was always going to have to progress in some direction at some stage. Staying at the Korean war era forever would simply not have had the same interest. Afterburning supersonic jets and missiles were in internal testing for a significant time before the came. The limitation was getting them working in the game meta and the technical challenges they introduced.

Comment

There will always be someone disappointed with answers unfortunately. Asking the same question twice over wont change the answer.


Every single person has their own interpretation of what the "correct" answer for them personally is. But its not always the case in reality.

Comment

That was my approach too, certainly in trying to collect a wider range of questions so that every Q & A covered as broad of a scope as possible and everyone could walk away with at least one question relevant to them answered. But based on the feedback and comments we had underneath them, almost every time it was "this is useless", mostly because there are those that simply want to see the same topics talked about over and over again (BRs, Map size, top tier etc etc).


As you say, the developers are also very busy, so they dont want to be answering the same questions over and over on the time they do have free to do Q & As.