Stona

Server Update 11.02.2019

Best answer

Regarding the removed. Ha-Go, FCM 36 and H.35. We will have some news to share on them in the future as well as the possibility of their return / obtainment. 

 

The developers are currently hard at work on the current change and we will have further updates and news to share in the near future. 

 

Thank you all for your continued feedback. We are still reviewing and passing daily :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Smin1080p said:

Anyone with an account currently will have all of the reserve vehicles removed. This change will only affect new accounts registered after the change. 

this is a little bit hard to follow for me people that have logged into the game before the update will still be able to buy and research them but people what joined the game after the update wont

  • Haha 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a very harmful update for the game, and your decision to roll it out without ANY community testing completely baffles me.

Even if you ignore the tanks that were made unplayable by these changes, something of this magnitude SHOULD NOT be pushed out without appropriate BR changes.

It's been 4.5 months since the release of Helicopters, it's been 2.5 months since the release of Italian GF, and we've yet to see any meaningful balance changes to both.

You have TOWs without range limit, you have a glorified Leopard I at 8.0, you have 1980's stabilized go-kart at 3.3

Instead of making even the tiniest of tweaks, you decide to make even more massive changes affecting 90% of the tanks in game, without any consideration of their effects on balance.

How long will we have to wait for you to "check" how they perform? Another 2.5 months? Half a year?

 

What's even the point of this all? It's not any more transparent, since your new values differ from what people calculated themself using your own formula.

When it comes to APFSDS, you have not provided any formula at all, and Willi Odermatt's website requires much more information than what's avaliable to players or even what you seemed to use yourself.

If I'm forced to dig up documents regarding Frustum length, why won't YOU use official documents regarding AP penetration?

Why not only use this method when you don't have actual documents for the shells? Why conflict with official documents and multiple corroborating sources to make everything one-size-fits-all?

 

I very much hope you reconsider this ridiculous idea, as it might send massive reverberations for the rest of the War Thunder lifetime, alienating more and more players.

  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 10
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, after a few more games and this new mechanic is dreadful. With my apparently mandatory BR+1 I'm now up-tiered against tanks I can't pen frontally anymore. Solid shot is now worse than it's ever been. There's almost no need to grind out different AP shells, they all have identical penetration, just different RNG values for ricochet. Combine that with poor spalling mechanics (are they actually worse now?) you've made a fun game into a bore fest. I find with the early american tanks I have to pump round after round into enemy tanks, effectively killing the crew one by one unless I get a lucky hit on ammo racks that does something other than make them change colour to yellow/orange..

 

Note, I only play in RB.

 

  • Upvote 6
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, gromvoiny said:

 

Reserve tanks of all nations are automatically given to everyone upon first login to the game. So unless you created your War Thunder account just today after the update, you own the now hidden ones already anyway. 

"Anyone with an account currently will have all of the reserve vehicles removed. This change will only affect new accounts registered after the change" 

 

The problem is that this didn't happen. OK, every player will keep the H.35 and Ha-go since they were reserve tanks the problem is that the FCM 36 was NOT a reserve tank, people had to research it.

 

So Gaijin just removed a tech tree vehicle without warning. The devs told us that they would warn players before removing a vehicle in the tree. So what happened here was unfair, people who didn't research the FCM 36 lost it forever. 

 

I'm sincerely frustrated to lose a vehicle that I could have unlocked in a single battle because Gaijin thought it was a reserve vehicle and didn't warn anyone. 

 

The reason to not warn players was fair (everyone has the reserve tanks), but since the FCM 36 isn't a reserve at all this reason isn't valid anymore and I think Gaijin should do something about it, they need to give players a chance to unlock the FCM 36.

Edited by Electrolite_xyz
Making post more concise and direct
  • Upvote 7
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not understand the deleting of Japanese Type 95 Ha-Go !!!

 

Can you imagine first time playing Japan and you can NOT find one of the most iconic vehicle of pacific war ??? It is like playing Russia but no T-34 or playing US tree without Sherman !

Ok, Ha-Go gun is obsolete because of the new changes BUT why not give Ha-Go the Type 1 APHE, it currently does 47mm pen at 10m ?

 

Or instead of taking away Japanese vehicle which btw they don't really have that many to begin with, Why not finding a replacement for the Ha-Go ?

The Ke-Nu would be a perfect replacement. It is technically still a Ha-Go but with better turret and it can fire HEAT.

 

Deleting a very iconic tank as i said, is very lame and cheap. The devs must know this! ..

Type4_Ke-NU_museum_credits-Dlister.JPG

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 5
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Releasing this update without a preliminary balance pass was a bad idea (ignoring that I think this was a bad idea to start with). Presumably Gaijin would be able to just look at shell penetration and put them in a tier with similar vehicles of similar caliber, no? I mean a quick glance at my vehicles shows that basically anything that was not solid shot and APCBC got mega nerfed, APCBC-HE got minor buffs, and AP solid shot got minor/major nerfs. I think it would be possible to base some balance changes around these changes to penetration. 

  • Upvote 6
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a joke. My already under performing US tanks are now EVEN WORSE. We want the BR of these vehicles lowered please, this is just getting ridiculous now. Try taking your 76mm cannon for a test and go see what i mean for yourself. Don't even get me started on the 75mm. Also, the Panther D rounds now have 191mm pen and 975/925 m/s of speed. :) I see no Russian tank that has a lowered effectiveness after the update also. One more matter, the APCR rounds in US 7.0-7.7 have all the same penetration (264mm default apcr round, 271mm but higher velocity, not to mention the unnecessary cost) but why do i have to research a round that i have already? Very similar in performance anyway, you know what i mean. I find these changes rather... sided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Smin1080p said:

 

Please read the dev blog to understand how shells are now calculated and which shells this affects: https://warthunder.com/en/news/6010-development-improved-calculation-of-armour-penetration-in-the-game-en

 

Anyone with an account currently will have all of the reserve vehicles removed. This change will only affect new accounts registered after the change. 

Not all of the tanks where reserves is what they are saying, and so they do not have the fcm.36.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, *tester188 said:

Currently tech mod is under investigation, but Ha-Go's 37 mm Type 94 APHE shell is incorrect specification. With the calculation result based on the wrong shell specification, it is doubtful to decide to eliminate.

 

Type 1 APHE can also be used in the Type 94 37mm cannon. Not to mention its shell weight and explosive mass is wrong too.

 

Give the Type 1 to the Ha-Go!

 

2 hours ago, Smin1080p said:

 

Anyone with an account currently will have all of the reserve vehicles removed. This change will only affect new accounts registered after the change. 

The FCM.36 isnt a reserve. Not everyone has it.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a player since 2014, i enjoyed this game not only because of gameplay, but because it served me like some kind of tank encyclopedia, where i could check armor values, x ray and so on.. and i learned a lot about military vehicles that way. And yes, im sad about removing tanks, but i would be happy if at least i could see all removed vehicles in hangar even if i wouldnt be able to get them. Why? Because i could at least inspect their weaknesses and because as an engineering student i appreciate all the knowledge and data collected in this game and it would be nice if someone could learn something from it. Let be honest, its really hard to get all this technical information for every vehicle, so good work on that. And im sorry for my english :)

  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Gaijin have to remove the H-35 and FCM-36? They could have just given them the SA-38 gun, see the suggestion thread.

Edited by Jarms
  • Upvote 2
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JG3_Luftwaffle said:

So instead of keeping the values given by documents which kept the penetration values useable and historical you just deleted some tank from the game? And you wonder why people are angry at how gaijin has been rushing out updates.

 

Some examples of the utter folly of this change.

L23A1: where do I even start? The lanz odermatt formula was part of what was used to fix this shell in the first place and now you've recalculated with the incorrect striking velocity and density after all the information we threw at you to fix it? Lets not forget that L23 is unchanged so it now has more flat pen despite being exactly the same except for being less dense. Outstanding "standardisation" there.

 

Tiger II 105: 175mm pen for the stock shell at 7.0? My god this is going to be suffering.

 

DM23: Use of a formula for unsegmented monobloc penetrators on a segmented monobloc penetrator. Astounding work...

 

This chsnge represents everything the community has been getting angry about in the past year or so. These formulae are incredibly general and are no substitute foe historical documents as they rarely provide truly accurate values. Yet instead of resorting to these formulae as a backup when no documents on something can be found you used it as your new gospel. It simply looks like you've dropped more historical accuracy for speed of new content being produced and that's a very "other game" thing to do.

 

(Oh and these guns certainly aren't historically accurate anymore so you may want to take that out your advertising...)

QFT

 

It is baffling now how this game has managed to get to here in this point in time. We have gone from a game that always used historical documentation that was provided in every news updated about a patch, to a completely botched, untested, and in almost all cases, a formula that does not replicate that of real-world results who have had their results tested and published, well documented being that.

 

Everything here-in lies from your development blog, linked in the OP:

Quote

This method will make it possible to standardise the armour penetration system and avoid situations where documents from various countries provide different data on armour penetration for the same shell.

How often did this actually prove to be an issue of non-standardized testing requiring the development of a system to overhaul the entire gameplay penetration values? How many instances have you found of documented sources stating that previous testing accounts were incorrectly published and that the newest source was in fact the most correct?

 

Quote

we can highlight two phases that have been expressed in its development

When have we ever heard of this two-phase plan within the last four years of this game, that this was a goal to be implemented? Show me the sources, Stona, where you can link to the past that details specifically that future plans to the game are to completely update, and overhaul that of ground forces gameplay.

 

Quote

However, these phases were not able to unify the armour penetration system and make it comprehensible to players while preserving its documentary and technical basis.

According to who? Your saying players were struggling reading across rows/columns of penetration data? No different than how it is presented in game with range/penetration values? 

 

Quote

 After performing a lengthy and detailed analysis, we decided to improve the current system and make it easier to understand.

Please (although I highly doubt it) allow us to speak with the developers who decided that the data they collected showed that this was a needed change in order to preserve that of gameplay linearity so as not to confuse the playerbase.

 

Quote

These include refinements to the ballistics parameters for high-calibre armour-piercing rounds.

Quote
re·fined

Dictionary result for refined

/rəˈfīnd/
adjective
 
  1. with impurities or unwanted elements having been removed by processing.

This update has done nothing but introduce impurities to the game by in most cases, negatively affecting the performance of high-caliber shells through the means of reduced penetration. You have managed to go ahead and take what was at one point in time a well-thought-out system of introducing performance data to now an umbrella-system to cover the entire game. How is this system supposed to refine something without any actual physical evidence to back your theory. At this moment it can only be that the actual evidence and documentation published by nations across the world to disprove the inaccuracies that this flawed system brings to the game. It has in no shape or form, helped in the slightest.

 

 

To the developers of this game, I hope you actually begin to compile the feedback that players bring to you and sift through the information, not to base it on historical prevalence and report back, but to see how the actual health of the game has progressed to. This has been yet again, another step in a faulty direction that negatively affects the light of the game and its reputation outside of the community to now distant itself away from those who look from the outside in. I hope your judgement decisions will change, and your overall goals for development and business progression also change to be more inline with that of the hopes of the players. At this point I think you are far too distant with your own game to understand this, and as such it has resulted in many high-level ambassadors of your game to even stoop to levels as low as that which has been seen to mock the playerbase itself. A dire need of attention to those of which who give you your livelihood needs to be had, or else this game will end, and you will most likely attempt another short-term start-up which may very well fail like those of the past have already.

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 12
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Stona said:

I-Go Ko, Chi-Ha — 57 mm HEAT  shell is now available by default.

Well at least thats something. :D

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

flat nose russian shells still overperform vs angled armor

85mm BR-365A can penetrate over 60mm@65°: when the stat card shows 55

152mm  BR-540B can penetrate over 100mm@60° when the stat cad shows 68

 

How can a flat nose shell have the penetration of a pointy shell and improved penetration vs angled armor?

 

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you explain why the AP HE of the H35 is 13mm and the fuse for detonation is 25mm?

 

I do not like this new calculation system, I prefer the old one but I do not expect Gaijin to go back to the old system because I learned in the worst way that the gaijin does not care about players speak.

shot 2019.02.11 19.45.39.jpg

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 10
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gaijin, smin1080p, people are asking that the vehicles that are being removed are re-positioned inside the tree.

 

Players/customers should be able to play with them in a separate event/gamemode such as WW1 era event/gamemode with only those tanks, surely it will segment the gametable but at least people will be happy to have a shot with them and have fun on small maps.

 

A gamemode on small maps for these kind of vehicles (pre WW1/WW1) are what players/customers want, please listen.

 

Please.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, gotta love how "good" low tier france is now, sure will be lots of fun playing the AMC.34 YR and not being able to pen a M2A4 from more than 80ish meters while that thing can pen the AMC from MORE THAN 2KM DISTANCE, OBVIUSLLY the AMC.35(ACG.1) should not replace it since at 1.7 it still is WORSE than the M2A4 in litterally everything but gun depression, hell, the M2A4 even is better at dealing with planes becouse of this dumb logic of everyone but Germany, low/mid-ish tier Russia, half of low tier Japan, most of France and Britain should get roof mounted AA MGs...

 

6 hours ago, Cpt_Jack_Irons said:

Cromwell Mk.5, Sherman, Jumbo, Churchill Mk.7 all with the 75mm gun cant be effective anymore because their gun cant surpass 100mm of armor now despite many sources where 75mm Shermans got trough the frontal armor of tigers

Not really, losing 5mm of pen really won't make these tanks much worse, the Cromwell 5 and the early Shermans can more than hold their ground with such a minor change, meanwhile it really is lots of fun playing with the 4.0 75/34 M43 stock, 0.3 to 0.7 higher than these tanks, with 75mm of pen... if this thing is acceptable at 4.0 without having the HEAT round that is used from 2.3 to there as its stock round, the Shermans and the Cromwell will be fine with starting 90mm of pen, and the Churchill Mk7 and Jumbo, well, they are what they are, bunkers, again, 5mm less pen, it won't kill those tanks, they relly on armor, and they still got more than what they need at that BR, if your concern is how will they work as stock... well, the very same way the 10.5cm Tiger II will have to work stock, except that in its case, it will have to struggle against T-54s with less pen than a Panther D on a round that is slightly faster and has more than double the mass of the 75mm round, yep, when stock it literally becomes a back-up for a Panther D back up at 7.0, but hey, the more reasons to have it go to 6.7 and have the T29 go to 7.0 the better!

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 3
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very disappointed on Gaijin. It is what you put in the "About the Game":

Over 1,000 highly detailed aircraft, helicopters, tanks, warships and other combat vehicles crafted carefully from historical documents and surviving sources.

 

It is not the game that I want to spend on it anymore.

  • Like 5
  • Upvote 5
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Stona said:

Long story short: Due to changes provided with latest calculation system, guns used in removed vehicles were too obsolete to provide any real firepower (old, pre-WW2 guns). In the future we will implement new low level vehicle.

I play a lot of French and those vehicles were virtually useless BEFORE the pen changes.  On a related note, you made the H.39 a reserve, but left the H.39 (Cambrone) Premium at 1.3.  

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will these new ammunition changes bring in new ammunition to tanks like the M1 Abrams and Challenger tanks? They would not be overpowered compared to some rounds we already have in game in the Italian, France, and Japan tech tree. It would be a logical decision to keep them at their current BRs with new ammunition rather than than adjusting their BRs.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why was the Ha Go removed and not the AMC 24 YR? Both have the same pennetration values but the Ha Go is removed while the AMC stays 

Except the Ha Go has 31mm pen while the AMC has 27mm 

Could someone explain the decisions made as to why a better vehicle is removed from one tree while a worse one stays in another?

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.