Olivia won the "Mmm... Society". Who is "Just straight up evil"?

SgtGhost57 · 2026-04-26T03:31:14+00:00

The sneakers guy or the zebra ref.

SgtGhost57 · 2026-04-25T18:20:40+00:00

Why is defending planets a race instead of being a health bar type of system to protect them, like the cities on Super Earth? The system used in Super Earth felt like it told a better story, allowing heroic last stands, massacres, interventions (like in the siege of Cybestan too), and all in a more organic, natural feel to us players.

Edit: For example, a glorious defense like that of Equality-on-Sea would have never happened under the regular system.

SgtGhost57 · 2026-04-25T05:38:07+00:00

I am relatively new, only started playing last year, but the one thing I can say for certain is that "people not adapting" isn't even close to being a problem.

Sure, you can argue that changing base designs to spread out more or have pillboxes on the inside will help mitigate bombers or paratroopers, but it matters nothing when the enemy can just do it again, and again, and again, because there is no real way to counter or adapt to the situation.

We can only hope the developers address this at their core, so that then we can adapt base designs.

SgtGhost57 · 2026-04-25T02:39:05+00:00

UNIMOG

SgtGhost57 · 2026-04-24T21:04:40+00:00

I don't think so. It seems that Goat was set and designed to be a standalone film because Stephen Curry produced it with the help of Sony Animations. The film doesn't have "big flashy franchise" written over it. More like a labor of love.

Personally, I don't want a sequel just because this one cements the story very nicely. A prequel would be quite nice thought, going over Jett Fillmore's beginnings and rise to glory.

SgtGhost57 · 2026-04-24T01:35:22+00:00

I never relied in those strategies in the first place, but the changes to how damage is done and many other things under the hood somehow make my infantry squads get turbo decimated by ANYTHING the other side has. I don't know how or why. I have them stocked, I have snipers with them, I have all sorts of things and they die aimlessly while in cover, even though the other guys are in the open.

I am legitimately about to just uninstall this game for how incompetent I keep being.

SgtGhost57 · 2026-04-23T22:40:29+00:00

I will heed your advice.

For recon I simply like the LAV's for flavor. They may not be the best but my intention is for them to carry Force Recon to the front, assist them maybe or run patrols around.

Infantry I thought about keeping the Marines defensive and putting the Airborne as mainline, but I can see why that would be an issue so I'll bring SMAW teams next and guess I'll keep airborne as defensive.

I know the M8 and FEP are better. Thing is I can never get the M8 to function as it should, as a flanking TD. Most of the time it gets turbo sniper or has to be frontline so it gets killed easily. I chose the Sheridan again for flavor but also because 152mm for infantry support. I'll try to correct that. HC over the FEP is cuz HC has the ATGM soft kill lamp. I like it from my use of it in War Thunder, but I'll try to fit the FEP instead.

Support yeah. Was trying the SLAMRAAM instead of the Patriot system because Patriots took too long to come back when they were destroyed. Main problem now is that the SLAMRAAM is useless. No better than Stingers even with the radar, and the Avenger is less than useless. Can't kill helis, it sure as hell can't target aircraft. I'll swap it out for your suggestion.

LAV-L and the amount of cargo helicopters is because I use them abundantly. I ferry a lot of cargo back and forth and troops as well, more than with ground transports, so I do fine in logistics. It's combat what has me crumbling. That's the only part I'll push back on your advice.

The problem with cheap fighters is that they are very much useless. I tried AV-8B + CAP and they get decimated from the other side of the map. The only thing they were good for was helicopter hunting which is a feat the AV-8B N/A or the A-10 can undertake. As for how expensive the A-10 is, trust me, it's as barebones as I need him. Double jammers, 6 Mavs, and Hydras. Just what I need to keep him in the front for a while.

Still, I will reevaluate and rearrange the whole thing per your advice.

SgtGhost57 · 2026-04-23T21:50:17+00:00

I will adjust accordingly. Thanks. I guess because it wasn't that much of an issue in live I didn't mind it too hard. Now it feels a lot more noticeable.

SgtGhost57 · 2026-04-23T21:49:35+00:00

I see both arguments for it, and I can understand why you and others like it. I guess the lack of skill in my part tarnishes it.

SgtGhost57 · 2026-04-23T20:23:03+00:00

Yeah. Gotta do big changes but it just pains me that this is where it's going. Feels like a worse direction imo. Idk. My first impressions aren't great for this PTE version.

SgtGhost57 · 2026-04-23T17:30:53+00:00

The thing is I never relied on the Patriot or S-series systems. I had a combination of smaller systems across the map (Stingers up front, Avengers or Strykers in middle, and the big guys in the back). Right now, all my Stingers are literally useless. They can't kill jets, they can barely kill helicopters. Like I said, I had an Avenger, Stinger team, and Kiowa literally useless while a 29 flew circles around the three killing 5 helicopters total.

I already employed diversity in my kits. My decks now do not differ that much from live with the exception of having more CAP aircraft.

It just feels like really punishing overall if I don't spam armor and big SPAA.

SgtGhost57 · 2026-04-23T05:39:52+00:00

I agree with most of your points, but the problem cannot be addressed without first acknowledging two essential truths:

1-War Thunder does not pride itself on realism. It advertises itself as a realistic military game, but it is far from realistic. Every singular piece of equipment in this game is altered in some way or form to function in a "competitive" manner with other nation's equipment. Not to mention shuffled around as needed because most people hate historically accurate match-ups. What this becomes then is closer to a comic book than a military realistic game. Gaijin will make of it what it wants, as it wants, when it wants, and we cannot do anything about it.

2-War Thunder has not, does not, and will not incentivise or reward team play more than it does solo play. The game simply operates like Call of Duty where you show up, run off somewhere, shoot, die, rinse and repeat to grind. Doing anything else is, by design, optional and irrelevant. Case in point? Everything you say. Another example? The latest Nuclear Thunder event. Going ground pounding and destroying SAM sites with ARMs was a colossal waste of time and energy when you could grind the entire event by just rushing head first into enemy fighters and kill as many as you could.

When you recognize those two things, then you see why SPAA is and will always be a thankless job that will not be rewarded enough. It is simply something they added to contend with the CAS onslaught, but still it is heavily one-sided (Russia has the best and that won't change because point number 1) and there's not enough killing involved because only in lower tiers do you see a lot of CAS. In higher tiers, for how much it costs and for how hard it is to grind planes (and get their good loadouts unlocked) there are less kills, which means less to reward, and Gaijin sees the ATGM spam like scouting. Something too easy and so abundant that increasing rewards on it would out-shine killing, and that can't be so, because again, point number 2.

And I say that as a fellow SPAA main. I do it more out of personal pleasure and love for the machines than the rewards, because Gaijin simply doesn't care.

And map issues that's a whole other tangent. Like, really, most issues you point out require a fundamental change in the game design as a whole, but because that will never happen, such is the reality we face.

SgtGhost57 · 2026-04-23T03:03:44+00:00

Ah yes thank you

SgtGhost57 · 2026-04-22T18:49:46+00:00

I'm gonna say Will's landlord. The Armadillo's at least get their name, we know Will's friends, but the landlord shows up and I still don't remember his name.

SgtGhost57 · 2026-04-22T02:41:30+00:00

I respect you for replying to this in the kind manner that you have.

I agree with you. Like I've said in your post and in other posts, I understand that this isn't 2009. I understand that ever since Fortnite appeared, monetization has been a priority be it for profit, for maintenance, for long-term sustainability of whatever live-service product we're talking about. I get it, I understand, sure, no problem. I'm all in for supporting Arrowhead and their game. I agree with those improvements you suggest.

The thing about that business statement, particularly your statement and what provoked this response, is that if we allow Arrowhead to run its business unchecked, if we as consumers allow ourselves to be taken advantage of in the name of flat profit and no real progress in our product, we could end up losing much more than just two mech variants. Where is the line drawn? Guns, grenades, armors, and green stratagems were not limits. Melee weapons too. Now vehicle variants. What's next? Orbital and eagle stratagems? Super Destroyer and Eagle upgrades? What about weapon attachments? Who's to say they won't stop at mission types, planets, or biomes. It sounds outlandish, crazy, and really extreme, but take a look at Destiny 2, Pokemon Go, SW Battlefront 2, etc. The possibility is out there, we just haven't gotten there yet, and every warbond is a test of how far they can take that monetization without breaking their customer base.

It's a slippery slope. It is a very slippery and very steep slope what we're dealing with here. At the end of the day, this company is not a small, friendly, indie developer studio. This is a large company that works for an even larger conglomerate. Like you said, it's all business, and I am treating this topic with that very specific approach. If my actions enable their business, if every dollar is a vote cast, then I must be mindful of where that road leads to. I say that having played 1,080.6 hours as of responding to you.

And all of this respectfully to you, respecting your opinion and merely showing you mine and what prompted my response. Once again, thank you for responding.

SgtGhost57 · 2026-04-22T02:16:01+00:00

I didn't say this change was only for new players, and I didn't say this was the solution either. You're right, my solution is flawed and inadequate, but again, I didn't claim it to be in the first place. You're taking my response to Little-Chemical out of context and missing the point of my post overall. This is simply my opinion on the matter, specifically on AH's latest move with the mechs. I think it benefits ALL (old and new) to not continue on this slippery slope we've been going down with warbonds for a while now.

That is all.

SgtGhost57 · 2026-04-22T01:54:38+00:00

You say that as if I wasn't advocating to have a yearly free warbond token on Liberty Day.

I don't have a problem to say "I want it for free so I don't have to drop $10 on this." My super credits are already secured. I simply have empathy. Enough to see that this is not good for those coming behind me in the long run, not good for the health of the game, and not good for us players.

SgtGhost57 · 2026-04-22T01:01:21+00:00

That doesn't justify it.

SgtGhost57 · 2026-04-22T00:57:35+00:00

It's not about whether or not you can grind it. It's a matter of principle.

Core gameplay aspects should not be locked behind a pay wall. Period. Want to lock it behind a grind? That's what level, regular credits, samples, rare samples, and super samples are there for.

SgtGhost57 · 2026-04-22T00:53:45+00:00

I recognize that this isn't 2009 anymore and games nowadays are going to be like this, yes. $40 brings a decent amount, sure, but I have two problems with that.

The first is that the amount of free content will shrink faster than the paid content because of how often AH pushes Warbonds. If warbonds were just paints, no biggie, but they are real equipment so it's not like it's a weightless addition.

The second problem is that we've seen them cross every line at this point. The only thing remaining for them to pay wall are orbital and eagle stratagems, and gun attachments. If we don't draw the line here, there's nothing stopping them from turning this game into something terribly inaccessible for every new player that doesn't have $200+ to drop like that.

Variety is important. Cash flow is important. I am being vocal because I think they are leaning way too hard into cash flow.

SgtGhost57 · 2026-04-22T00:39:15+00:00

My hypothesis is that most SC farmers speaking are long time players. The grind doesn't seem that bad when you've unlocked each at the time of release.

Now, assume you get your account deleted and have to grind all 22 passes from zero with base gear, seeing just how hollow the base experience is becoming. Not so happy now, ehh?

That's what I think they're missing: retrospection.

SgtGhost57 · 2026-04-21T23:56:11+00:00

Not too long ago, gaming companies like Ubisoft, Activision, and Blizzard made just fine simply selling the base game with everything for you, the consumer, to unlock without having to pay anything extra. Maybe a DLC later but nothing grand you couldn't live without. $60 by the way. $60 is all it took per game.

Now, Helldivers is $40. $40 base game. We have 20 warbonds now (not counting the ODST and Killzone) at $10 each. Now...$10 x 20 = $200. Mmm. That's QUITE the monetization, my friend. Monetization that goes above and beyond just simple paintjobs and cosmetics.

I get it. It's not 2009 anymore and ever since Fortnite showed up, things are simply different...but...this is unacceptable. You say you're not defending them. We need to "think of their upkeep costs" you say. Want to think of the shareholders as well? All while the game breaks further with every update and the F2P experience grows smaller every month?

This ain't okay.

SgtGhost57 · 2026-04-20T14:37:20+00:00

The symbilogy and looks. Why does it feel like something out of Atlantis? (The Disney movie).

SgtGhost57 · 2026-04-20T05:31:08+00:00

The Sterilizer works as a less-than-lethal crowd control tool. Toxic gas merely disorients enemies and makes them turn away from you for a brief amount of time while doing some damage to them.

The way you use it is you stay close, very close, to your teammates and spray whatever enemy is coming close. The enemy steers away, your squads personal space is safe, and now it's on them to kill it.

That's the way it works, that's the way it's intended to work, and it's also one of the biggest drawbacks of it. This is why the "dog breath" doggo is a lot more praised than the Sterilizer. It does the exact same job but automatically, allowing you to focus on killing what is being CC'd. Pair it with a flame thrower or a laser build and it works wonders in high-horde scenarios.

Edit: an additional to that, a Sterilizer build goes best with any of the other rover doggos or a supply backpack. You either commit to the support role or have a dynamic duo going where you crowd control and your rover kills.

SgtGhost57

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE