- For PC
- For MAC
- For Linux
- OS: Windows 7 SP1/8/10 (64 bit)
- Processor: Dual-Core 2.2 GHz
- Memory: 4GB
- Video Card: DirectX 10.1 level video card: AMD Radeon 77XX / NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660. The minimum supported resolution for the game is 720p.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 17 GB
- OS: Windows 10/11 (64 bit)
- Processor: Intel Core i5 or Ryzen 5 3600 and better
- Memory: 16 GB and more
- Video Card: DirectX 11 level video card or higher and drivers: Nvidia GeForce 1060 and higher, Radeon RX 570 and higher
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 95 GB
- OS: Mac OS Big Sur 11.0 or newer
- Processor: Core i5, minimum 2.2GHz (Intel Xeon is not supported)
- Memory: 6 GB
- Video Card: Intel Iris Pro 5200 (Mac), or analog from AMD/Nvidia for Mac. Minimum supported resolution for the game is 720p with Metal support.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 17 GB
- OS: Mac OS Big Sur 11.0 or newer
- Processor: Core i7 (Intel Xeon is not supported)
- Memory: 8 GB
- Video Card: Radeon Vega II or higher with Metal support.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 95 GB
- OS: Most modern 64bit Linux distributions
- Processor: Dual-Core 2.4 GHz
- Memory: 4 GB
- Video Card: NVIDIA 660 with latest proprietary drivers (not older than 6 months) / similar AMD with latest proprietary drivers (not older than 6 months; the minimum supported resolution for the game is 720p) with Vulkan support.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 17 GB
- OS: Ubuntu 20.04 64bit
- Processor: Intel Core i7
- Memory: 16 GB
- Video Card: NVIDIA 1060 with latest proprietary drivers (not older than 6 months) / similar AMD (Radeon RX 570) with latest proprietary drivers (not older than 6 months) with Vulkan support.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 95 GB
Dear players! We see that you have many questions and observations about how the economy and progression work in War Thunder. Kirill Yudintsev, creative director of Gaiijn, is best suited to explain all of this.
Player progression is essential. You can't give a player everything at once, because it will overwhelm and make the game very difficult for them and they will just leave it either immediately or almost immediately. This has been tested by us many times in different ways. When applied to our game, later vehicles are almost always more difficult to learn and play tactically, in the controls and with its capabilities. Progression provides opportunities for gradual learning and engaging the players. Without it, the game will lose players right from the start.
In addition, progression serves as one of the basics of how a game makes money (basically players pay for acceleration of progression).
The fundamental difference between paid games and fair play free-2-play games is that you don't have to pay to play free games, and most players don't actually pay.
Most War Thunder players - about 80% - have never paid a dime into a game, whilst playing for months or years. Many of those players who have paid for something in the game don't pay every month (and sometimes not every year) either. Nevertheless, all of the maintenance to the game, all of its development, servers, and support, is provided by those players who pay.
In any game players play only when they have fun. But in a f2p game, players only pay if the game really entertains them. The player is already playing, already having fun, and pays if they want to support the game, or try something new, which is, at the same time, not necessary to enjoy the game (otherwise they would just quit playing and not pay at all).
Hence the unobvious conclusion: the less you have to pay to play the game, the more differently priced paid options it should have, so that those who can afford it can spend more, and those who can't or don't want to can play for free and have fun.
There are many progression and economy options in F2P games. Not all of them are suitable for our game, because War Thunder is about real combat vehicles, which are not equal, differing in power and capabilities.
To quickly and roughly summarize, the general principles of economy and progression in our game:
- vehicles should be unlocked gradually, from simpler and older to more complex and later
- the total time to get the first "top" vehicle should be a balanced (not too long not too short) number of game hours
- the player should at the beginning of the game route (while mastering the game) get new in-game equipment often enough
- The game has to earn money, otherwise it will be closed. And it must make money without a pay wall, so you can play indefinitely without paying anything (so there is no deception that the game is "free" when in fact it is not). Income should provide everyone the opportunity to play a multiplayer game with multiple modes and features
- Progression and economy should, as far as possible, provide a variety of vehicles encountered in battle, otherwise it's just boring. I.e. there should not be too many "farming" vehicles, and especially if they are statistically stronger in battles (otherwise only the same popular vehicles will appear in battle).
- In a game with so many vehicles and modes it's impossible to manually adjust the in-game economy (it's important that it obeys specific rules, and manual changes to them would skew a vehicle’s effectiveness, making some vehicles "bad" and others much better than average, and thus affecting their occurrence in battles).
On the basis of these theses the economy is “adjusted” (algorithmically based on statistics).
About once every couple of years we revise it globally, as new vehicles are added to the current trees, and the rest of the time, to a lesser degree, "correct" the economy, using accumulated statistics.
The current progression and economy system is not the only possible system for game economy principles. There are also, for example, systems based on randomness or on the exchange of virtual objects between players. However, without even considering the limitations on different platforms associated with these options, any such significant changes are unlikely to be well received. After all, our community is formed of people who accept the current economy and progression in basic principles, or rather they may even like it in general.
So it turns out that the main key parameter that we can change without significant harm to the game and players is a revision of the total time to reach the top and get the whole line (with some smaller tweaks like modification research speed, balance of repair\gain and so on). We have already done this kind of revision three times, and it's probably time for the next one. This work takes many weeks, so we will probably show the planned changes in the second half of the summer.
We are no doubt open to other suggestions (and we have many of our own), but we doubt that a complete transformation of the progression into something completely new will be accepted by many players, no matter how much we would like to do it ourselves. We'll still try to come up with something new in the progression, and we'll definitely consider all of your suggestions.
Separately, a few words about review bombing as a method of communication
Separately, a few words about review bombing as a method of communication. As many of our players know - we've repeatedly reverted both planned and already released large and small changes (including in the economy and progression). Due to threads on reddit (where much of the western English-speaking community communicates) and with threads on the forums and comments to articles on the site. We value our players and our game, not our updates and changes. If we know that the majority of the community doesn't want an update, we cancel or revert it immediately. Even if some part supports and some part opposes - we prefer conservatively the "do no harm" principle - keeping the current status quo.
Of course, a review on Steam is also a platform for expression. However, the majority of new players just look at the score evaluation, and do not read the text of reviews and do not go into what they were left for. So review bombing does damage to the game in that new players simply won't try it, while it doesn't raise their awareness of the problems you've noticed. If your goal is not to hurt the game, please use other, less destructive ways. For example, leave feedback in our forum, and suggestions specifically about the economy we are inviting in the feedback form. Also, review bombing will not cause modifying or nullifying in-game prices - if the game is shut down, no one wins.
Radical, revolutionary changes in games that have been around for years are always very difficult to make, because they will almost certainly break gameplay for a significant part of the players. We try to proceed according to the principle "do no harm" and change the game carefully. However, if a topic receives a lot of support from the community - we do everything possible to support the players. We commit to follow the feedback even more carefully in the future and take it into account when defining our plans for the development of the game.
If you still have questions - ask in the comments, and in the future we will try to clarify all unclear points.
Comments (269)
Comments will be premoderatedEven with premium status and premium vehicles, the grind is unbearable and the repair costs keep you frustrated during all the games because you need 3 kills to balance a death. This was somewhat bearable in air battles thanks to the activity you would gather while dogfighting meanwhile you could absorb shots to gain points in ground battles. Nowadays the economy and the progression is unbearable especially when it comes down to ground and helicopters.
The main problem is time. Some people, including myself do not have a lot of time to try to climb to that "locked" part of the game, the highly modern top tier with jets, drones and MBTs and probably the only side of the game with constant updates inspires you to continue but after playing for an hour, getting a tenth of the research of a vehicle you can also not pay due to the high repair costs and seeing players with premium time, a premium vehicle just getting any vehicle is just not for me.
Reasonable points in general, but the devil lies in the specifics. Things need to change, and not just in the usual "here we reduced research requirements by 20% are you happy now?" stuff that's been done before and changed nothing, but a complete reevaluation of how monetization should be approached. Namely, frustration- and grind-based monetization schemes HAVE to go. Not toned down slightly, GONE.
The economy bothers me less than when I pay for a product like the Ta 154 and it has a major problem with the auto trim settings above 500km/hr IAS, a problem acknowledged by a forum moderator as well, but the support team refuses to fix it. Why should anyone spend money if we won't necessarily get what we paid for?
Hey. Please send myself or any Technical Moderator on the forum a message regarding any outstanding reported issue and we will be sure to check that out.
I Respect for coming out and that but How can we know that this isn't just a false lies whats best for the game is making it more accseable for F2P players and if F2P enjoy the game more and the grind isn't putting them down they would spend money on the game that's what I would do Game fun=Money spent/ Game repative=Quit then this this has been going on for far to long now is time for change the community has made it mind up/ will you? This won't stop untill its fixed
Hi, I have been playign the game since 2016, and each year I am excited to play my favorite vehicles which are added. Gaijin works very hard to introduce new vehicles for players like me. However.. how can I enjoy these vehicles when I (and majority of the playerbase: Source, Steam charts) can clearly see that the economy has made it near impossible to play without paying money? In a recent post, it was stated that TT vehicles are intended to not be profitable! How is this fair to F2P players?
Overall, the game should provide more services and rewards for VIP accounts and premium members to encourage players to spend their money for an enhanced gaming experience. The game should lower the repair fee to encourage players to respawn more. VIP accounts should be provided with more rewards and services, such as a discount on repairs, ban more maps, +-0.6 BR option. The current battle tasks are too difficult, tasks could include playing as the US Army in 2 games Premium permanent backup
I was for the changes(unlike CC's that riled a hate mob cuz they don't understand the math) and i did give more extensive critique and suggestion via the helpful channels gajin recently opened for that so i will oversimplify what a good deal of players feel. Most ppl are fully fine with RP requirements atm and are with Sl earnings if they have average skills(or premium) and repair doesn't affect those like us. Repair cost just drags ppl down a well it doesn't help "balance" just ruins the game.
Reward scaling should be adjusted The amount of sl or RP earned is not scaling properly. You can get 10 kills a game and make only slightly more than you would if you got 5 kills. This stops players from respawning and getting those extra kills because they know they won't get the reward they deserve anyway. And by that we get less long and more boring games. This makes the game less fun for everyone.
as someone that has had premium acc for the last years, started as F2P player, with way over 8000 hours and a substantial amount of money in the game since 2014, the economy changes, balancing(BR, SL/RP gains, repair costs, module SL/RP costs, amount of vehicles to unlock, et cetera...) on top of the horrible map designs and bad gamemodes(where is air RB enduring confrontation that we tested years ago?) i can only say: if you make the game miserable for all players(F2P and premium), it will die.
Submit a complaint