Another spot on analysis and again a criminally underrated video! Honestly your videos are just as good as the likes of Mandalore and Raycevick etc... I myself have sunk many thousands of hours into War Thunder. I can't help but feel that, although you cited some positive developments, that game has also suffered from a similar 'stagnation' as you attributed to MWO. Mainly in that, for the last 10 years or so, the game modes have not significantly changed or improved. Air RB is a deathmatch where bombers don't fit in, Arcade is a clusterfuck, tank battles are plagued with unbalanced matchups and tiny arena-shooter maps instead of simulator-style terrain, they mismanaged the Simulator community so badly they basically killed the game mode etc. If I had quit in 2012 and played again today, nothing significant would seem to have changed, or am I wrong? Any plans to make any videos about War Thunder, be it praise or constructive criticism? I was wondering, do you play any other flight sims like IL-2 Great Battles, DCS etc or just War Thunder? Thanks
Those two creators are exactly my inspirations. Mandalore was kind enough to share similar positive feedback. This comment means the world to me, thank you!
Starfighter suffers from what I call the "Donut of Death". Once someone is on you and you pull up, or to the side, they do the same. And because of the instant speeds and telling where your turning its more a matter of "who gets bored first" is who wins. You get tired and try to juke or outrun them well you lose they win. A better more juicy target presents itself for them and they break off, well they lose you win. This is EVERY SINGLE ENGAGEMENT in Starfighter mode. Only way this gets broken up is if Teammates will ACTUALLY listen and come get someone off your tail.
I liked, how air combat was handled in Battlefield 2. Armament was powerfull, but the player had to rearm at the airfield, flight model was also engaging because of the aircraft's high speed and agility. After that there was always something wrong with the flying experience in the next instalments. And the starfighter gameplay in Dice's Battlefronts was just horrendous.
You spoke in this video about Arcade mode, and the differences between gameplay with say, Biplanes and Monoplanes. I'll tell you something, my favorite game was in biplanes. Just after the French Tech tree was added and I started grinding it up. It was fantastic. I was in an arcade match and thought I couldn't be beat, until another French plane got on my tail. For the next twenty minutes it was just me and him, spinning around, taking small snipes at each other, breaking off, killing other planes, saving teammates, or trying to turn to get a good shot on him. By the end of the match, we still hadn't killed each other. Our planes were wrecked and smoking and I'm pretty sure I reloaded more than five times just fighting him. But that was the most fun I ever had in War Thunder.
I don't think the game wants to be a dog fighter. I never have fun with dog fighters because they are so super skill dependant that getting in to them is like getting in to fighting games. Most of the dog fights you show cased here are just flying around with a pay off at the end. But if you are not good enough to destroy the enemy, there is no pay off. Its just set up without the enjoyment at the end. Its like playing a battle royal only to be sniped by someone before getting in to a fight. Just like the ego shooter part wants to be cod and not counter strike, the flying part wants to be mario cart and not war thunder. (I couldn't come up with an arcade flying game. Sry ^^)
That's a rather good analogy - starfighter assault wants to be mario cart - but I'm certain the gamemode would be made better with *real* dogfighting mechanics. Warthunder's arcade battles are *exactly* a mario-kart dogfighter and they're fun even with lead indicators, exaggerated flight models, and simple controls. WarThunder Arcade battles are what this game mode should have been at minimum, ideally. Edited because i spelled Mario Kart as Mario Cart. Doy.
This would literally all be remedied if the game allows for fighters to slowly, but surely, gain crazy amounts of speed (as well as make it somewhat difficult to slow down as well). Not that the maps were ever big enough to support that, anyway.
Bigger maps as well. AND add on component destruction, I hit their engines well their top speed is reduced unitl they Respawn. As well as remove the direction markers for where enemies are around you.
Although it was slow, I think it was more creative. Boarding, turrets, marine gameplay, etc. All stuff that would have been better with modern flight mechanics and models.
I'm surprised that you haven't got more view for such a good video. I haven't touched SA even once, and I don't think I will if after watching this video. I want to ask though if you think damage to individual components is necessary if the developers want to create a more arcade-like experience. I played a lot of casual dogfighting games on PS2, stuffs like Ace Combat and Snoopy vs. Red Baron, and I don't think a loy of them have location damage.
I believe all of them would benefit from location damage. Even if they all result in a *kill* - they way they result in a kill is an added variety players can experience.
You can’t have cross era engagements(eg Rebel Alliance vs CIS) in Battlefront. In War Thunder cross era engagements are possible. You could have A-10 Warthogs blowing up Tiger tanks.
You do an excellent job of emulating all of your inspirations, while also bring something new to the table. No idea why TH-cam just now fed me your channel, but this is good shtuff. I'm only disappointed I'm about to be out of videos 😂
I did, recently. Two points: 1. A lot of dogfighting design relies on the pilot's head *pivoting* to track and follow. That's present in WarThunder simply through a free look camera design that's really good. It was present in Squadrons really only through VR--VR is absolutely the way to play it. 2. I did some testing and confirmed elsewhere - the speeds are all fairly slow, still. All the ships translate to early-WW2 fighter and fighter bomber speeds which - when combined with all the computer assisted elements - doesn't produce an ideal flight experience. Squadrons, too, disappointed. There were more elements - certain speeds for turning faster - but it still incredibly slow, still wasn't any component damage, and still limited overall. I hate to argue it was developed to be as "accessible" as possible because I value accessibility, but it felt like they developed it be enjoyed without much learning involved.
While I agree with your points and conclusion, I don't how viable thinks like stalling or losing control at high speed really are, because fighting in space works different than fighting on a planet.
You're right - but the Star Wars dogfighters (Battlefront II and Squadrons) aren't trying to be space-sim dogfighters like a Star Citizen or Elite Dangerous. Stalling doesn't work - which is why I discarded the energy fighting example - but control losses at high or low speed ought to have remained.
Is this like a second hidden channel of a big youtuber I don't know about? awesome video!~
It's absolutely not, but I'll take the comment all the same. Thank you!
Another spot on analysis and again a criminally underrated video! Honestly your videos are just as good as the likes of Mandalore and Raycevick etc...
I myself have sunk many thousands of hours into War Thunder. I can't help but feel that, although you cited some positive developments, that game has also suffered from a similar 'stagnation' as you attributed to MWO.
Mainly in that, for the last 10 years or so, the game modes have not significantly changed or improved. Air RB is a deathmatch where bombers don't fit in, Arcade is a clusterfuck, tank battles are plagued with unbalanced matchups and tiny arena-shooter maps instead of simulator-style terrain, they mismanaged the Simulator community so badly they basically killed the game mode etc. If I had quit in 2012 and played again today, nothing significant would seem to have changed, or am I wrong?
Any plans to make any videos about War Thunder, be it praise or constructive criticism? I was wondering, do you play any other flight sims like IL-2 Great Battles, DCS etc or just War Thunder?
Thanks
Those two creators are exactly my inspirations. Mandalore was kind enough to share similar positive feedback. This comment means the world to me, thank you!
Starfighter suffers from what I call the "Donut of Death". Once someone is on you and you pull up, or to the side, they do the same. And because of the instant speeds and telling where your turning its more a matter of "who gets bored first" is who wins. You get tired and try to juke or outrun them well you lose they win. A better more juicy target presents itself for them and they break off, well they lose you win.
This is
EVERY
SINGLE
ENGAGEMENT
in Starfighter mode. Only way this gets broken up is if Teammates will ACTUALLY listen and come get someone off your tail.
Keep making videos! These are great!
Thank you! Long form content takes a long time to produce. Another one on the way!
I liked, how air combat was handled in Battlefield 2. Armament was powerfull, but the player had to rearm at the airfield, flight model was also engaging because of the aircraft's high speed and agility. After that there was always something wrong with the flying experience in the next instalments. And the starfighter gameplay in Dice's Battlefronts was just horrendous.
You spoke in this video about Arcade mode, and the differences between gameplay with say, Biplanes and Monoplanes. I'll tell you something, my favorite game was in biplanes. Just after the French Tech tree was added and I started grinding it up. It was fantastic. I was in an arcade match and thought I couldn't be beat, until another French plane got on my tail. For the next twenty minutes it was just me and him, spinning around, taking small snipes at each other, breaking off, killing other planes, saving teammates, or trying to turn to get a good shot on him. By the end of the match, we still hadn't killed each other. Our planes were wrecked and smoking and I'm pretty sure I reloaded more than five times just fighting him. But that was the most fun I ever had in War Thunder.
I don't think the game wants to be a dog fighter. I never have fun with dog fighters because they are so super skill dependant that getting in to them is like getting in to fighting games. Most of the dog fights you show cased here are just flying around with a pay off at the end. But if you are not good enough to destroy the enemy, there is no pay off. Its just set up without the enjoyment at the end. Its like playing a battle royal only to be sniped by someone before getting in to a fight.
Just like the ego shooter part wants to be cod and not counter strike, the flying part wants to be mario cart and not war thunder. (I couldn't come up with an arcade flying game. Sry ^^)
That's a rather good analogy - starfighter assault wants to be mario cart - but I'm certain the gamemode would be made better with *real* dogfighting mechanics.
Warthunder's arcade battles are *exactly* a mario-kart dogfighter and they're fun even with lead indicators, exaggerated flight models, and simple controls. WarThunder Arcade battles are what this game mode should have been at minimum, ideally.
Edited because i spelled Mario Kart as Mario Cart. Doy.
This would literally all be remedied if the game allows for fighters to slowly, but surely, gain crazy amounts of speed (as well as make it somewhat difficult to slow down as well).
Not that the maps were ever big enough to support that, anyway.
Bigger maps as well. AND add on component destruction, I hit their engines well their top speed is reduced unitl they Respawn. As well as remove the direction markers for where enemies are around you.
I would be interested in an analysis of Starfighter Assault from the original Battlefront 2.
Although it was slow, I think it was more creative. Boarding, turrets, marine gameplay, etc. All stuff that would have been better with modern flight mechanics and models.
I'm surprised that you haven't got more view for such a good video. I haven't touched SA even once, and I don't think I will if after watching this video.
I want to ask though if you think damage to individual components is necessary if the developers want to create a more arcade-like experience. I played a lot of casual dogfighting games on PS2, stuffs like Ace Combat and Snoopy vs. Red Baron, and I don't think a loy of them have location damage.
I believe all of them would benefit from location damage. Even if they all result in a *kill* - they way they result in a kill is an added variety players can experience.
You can’t have cross era engagements(eg Rebel Alliance vs CIS) in Battlefront. In War Thunder cross era engagements are possible. You could have A-10 Warthogs blowing up Tiger tanks.
My complaint was that the sequel era matches didn't have the same ship offerings. The Resistance should have had Y-Wings, they were in the sequels.
@@birthdaytruck That’s also a good point.
Jeez, that shouting clip was way too loud!
My fight or flight response kicked in - thought my neighbor was getting murdered for a moment
This is a fantastic video, I'll be sure to tell my friends about this channel!
If you love Star Wars and dogfighting, maybe check out Star Wars: Squadrons
Squadrons, too, was slow. I remember doing the math: a TIE Bomber was as fast as a JU-88 from WW2.
You do an excellent job of emulating all of your inspirations, while also bring something new to the table. No idea why TH-cam just now fed me your channel, but this is good shtuff. I'm only disappointed I'm about to be out of videos 😂
I have another video slated for August 1 - if it's done before I'll just upload early!
Have you played Squadrons?
What were your thoughts on that?
ahh since i came from your forum post i know the answer.
I did, recently. Two points:
1. A lot of dogfighting design relies on the pilot's head *pivoting* to track and follow. That's present in WarThunder simply through a free look camera design that's really good. It was present in Squadrons really only through VR--VR is absolutely the way to play it.
2. I did some testing and confirmed elsewhere - the speeds are all fairly slow, still. All the ships translate to early-WW2 fighter and fighter bomber speeds which - when combined with all the computer assisted elements - doesn't produce an ideal flight experience.
Squadrons, too, disappointed. There were more elements - certain speeds for turning faster - but it still incredibly slow, still wasn't any component damage, and still limited overall. I hate to argue it was developed to be as "accessible" as possible because I value accessibility, but it felt like they developed it be enjoyed without much learning involved.
While I agree with your points and conclusion, I don't how viable thinks like stalling or losing control at high speed really are, because fighting in space works different than fighting on a planet.
You're right - but the Star Wars dogfighters (Battlefront II and Squadrons) aren't trying to be space-sim dogfighters like a Star Citizen or Elite Dangerous.
Stalling doesn't work - which is why I discarded the energy fighting example - but control losses at high or low speed ought to have remained.
I wonder what you would think of comparing this gamemode with star wars squadrons.
I played through Squadrons and I ought to do a video on it. Squadrons was better but the speeds were far too slow, still.
Good lessons!
almost a thousand hours on War Thunder? you have my condolences
That's not even that much. Go scroll through the subreddit and you'll see guys with 3k and 6k hours.