so your back to saying that incendiary shouldnt be fixed because you have a round type that works, despite having been found to be less effective historically
hmmm, that reminds me of something
maybe I should bring back that real shatter comparison
2 Likes
and back to the fact that I is very obviously bugged in its lack of damage
and fyi its not only a problem for 0.50s other guns with I rounds have the same issue
then how you go report that issue?
cuz crying here will get you nothing
maybe because its been reported?
and funny how you should say that, when all youve been doing in this thread is crying about m20
and interjecting that into conversations that dont even involve m20
1 Like
Meanwhile:
Fuel tank fires seem to not happen very much.
It’s been reported multiple times, with mods saying to make a ‘Suggestion’ to fix it.
They know it’s broke. But won’t do shit about it.
Gee, imagine if Mineshells just acted like regular AP rounds all of a sudden and didn’t explode and gaijin said they needed you to make a suggestion to have them work properly. Lol
Crying here will make the issue more known and talked about, increasing chances of the devs taking note and fixing it.
arent .50 cals the best guns already?
especially the american ones? bring tracers and you set every bomber on fire and they even have alot of pen aswell
dont think they need to be buffed
1 Like
no they arent
they arent bad but in no world are they the best guns
1 Like
All cannons perform damage wise very similarly to one another. So at that point, it just becomes a matter of velocity and ballistics.
.50s were designed to catch things on fire. But as it stands, their chances are basically completely static and don’t actually scale the way they should, causing the above issues where fuel tanks won’t catch alight.
Meanwhile, 1-2 20mm rounds can completely cripple a P-47.
But it can take over 7-10+ rounds to light a fuel tank on fire in-game for something like that to occur. This is not considering the plane’s incendiary rounds are bugged and borked, still using old Hitpower mechanics as Gaijin is treating incendiary as HE rounds that do essentially barely any damage. You can’t even take advantage of the tiny HE effect either as they don’t show up in any belt in any considerable margin except stealth.
Now slap these on aircraft that require extreme patience and lives and dies by it’s teammates. Meanwhile, your enemy is a space climbing hotrod that turns on a dime and has weapons that can instantly tear your to shreds with just a few rounds.
well uhh the russian and american ones at least in props
you set everything on fire
tracers are literal flame throwers with like 300 more metres range than cannons and 10 times as much trigger time
they dont
again they are pretty nice guns unless you miss 99% of your shots
(looking at a certain person here)
i will preach this to every person here over and over again
if you get hit in a dogfight
and die cuz of it
that is 100% on you taking the wrong lines and getting into the line of fire of the enemy
and 50cals just kill like cannons since you dont have one of them but 6 if not more most the time
more 2-5 but wtv
ever thought about playing something else if youre struggling with your plane?
the russian tech tree is always there yk
aka like every plane if the enemy has a brain
only plane that actually fits this description is the yak3/yak3vk/yak3u
and again ill go back to this point
unless the difference is like between 4 7mms and 1 20mm or something like that GUNS DO NOT MAKE OR BREAK A PLANE
you should always fly in a way where you can get more than one shot if it is possible
in every plane
with every weapon
2 Likes
Specifically the classes of ammunition which universally do terrible postpen damage regardless of caliber. All pure incendiary rounds just go “spark” and do nothing.
I’m not referring to API-T rounds - I am well aware those rounds work. But just because one round type currently works exceptionally well does not excuse the other round types currently doing fuck all.
If the API-T rounds were the standard by which the rest of late-war .50cal belts were modeled, the AP-I rounds without tracers would be even stronger flamethrowers, and the pure incendiary bullets would be exploding wings off like miniature HE rounds with added fire bonuses.
Exactly, this.
And…what is the problem with wanting ALL rounds to actually deal useful amounts of damage? Just because one functions doesn’t excuse the others not doing so.
No, buff what currently doesn’t work instead of dragging down what works.
Look at how the community decided on the much-anticipated APHE nerf - they chose to not nerf it when given the choice. Thus what other choice do we have but to uplift everything else?
The API-T rounds, no. But the AP-I rounds should be dealing arguably slightly more damage due to not having the hollowed-out tracer cavity, while the pure incendiary rounds should be acting like small explosive rounds. Incendiary compositions in confined spaces have approximately 0.35-0.5x TNT equivalencies, thus the M23 Super Incendiary would be equivalent to or slightly stronger than the likes of 13mm MG131, 12.7mm Berezin, 13.2mm Japanese, 13.2mm FN Browning, 12.7mm Ho-103, and 12.7mm Breda-SAFAT high-explosive rounds.
Yup, and this needs to be changed. It’s been long overdue to update how aircraft cannons work.
We can already see how explosive bullets in these sizes work on guns such as Berezins, Japanese 13.2s, Ho-103s, Breda-SAFATs, and especially Swedish FN Brownings (despite being a French gun weirdly no French planes ingame have it). Properly modeled pure incendiary bullets would effectively become as potent as these rounds are.
Nevermind the much-larger pure incendiary bullet types on 20mm and larger-caliber guns. If 12.7mm M20 API-T is a “flamethrower,” then imagine what a properly-modeled 30mm MK108 pure incendiary bullet with 20x more filling would do…
1 Like
US 50cal apit is one of the best if not the best shell for props
there is no reason for you to have an even stronger shell
while i do not disagree that one round working doesnt excuse the other one not working
but you already have a full belt of the best round
so why not use that
i never seen shVAK users complain about their other shells not being as good as FI-T
either you nerf apit and make api and I stronger a bit or keep it as it is
im coming here from a standpoint that cares about actually good balance and gameplay more than about “realism”
so stop crying “but muh realism”
2 Likes
My operating philosophy is fairly simple - “Nerfs help no one.”
The people who enjoy a given weapon or vehicle or other thing see what they enjoy get systematically destroyed. The people who whined about said weapon/vehicle/etc. just find something new to whine about and still refuse to shut up. Nobody is truly happy, nor “wins.”
That is why unless it’s an emergency AND all other options have failed, nerfs should simply not occur. Instead bring everything else up closer to the level of the supposedly “OP” things. Instead make the counters easier to use, add new counters to the “OP” things, and intentionally release dev blogs saying “if you hate X, good news! We added Y to this existing vehicle to counter X, and added vehicle Z also to counter X - go use both to kill X, happy hunting!”
1 Like
it’s just not a problem at all if there’s a better, perfectly working belt available.
Do you understand second-order effects? As I said before:
That will be the entire tree. Have fun!
Fair nerfs help literally everyone else who has to fight it.
This thread is literally whining that perfectly good guns somehow need a buff because the OP has horrible aim.
By your logic, once that is remedied, he’ll just move on to something else like P-47s not having airspawns or whatever, so we should do nothing.
ok I’ll be eagerly awating my A6M5s to be capable of 650kph+ in level flight so they can keep up with other props
i’ll be eagerly awaiting my R2Y2s to move back down to 7.0 and be re-given the bomber airspawn then
yak3u and every other op plane prove you wrong
1 Like
One round happening to work doesn’t change the fact that the others either partially or mostly don’t.
Oh I do, but given the…apalling lack of skill inherent to the average player, I really doubt it will affect American props that much. Why? Because the API-T round is unchanged, and if people use that, nothing about their performance changes.
The other belts would see noticeable increases in damage output, but if they can’t fly the planes half decently to begin with, gun damage matters very little. The belt seeing the biggest change would be .50cal Stealth belts, given those are half pure incendiary rounds. But most average players do not use Stealth.
I only support weapon or flight model nerfs when all other possible options have been tried and were found unsuccessful. Such as introducing new planes to counter the problem ones, changing objectives to make the “OP” vehicle less meta-defining, enhancing existing planes in certain respects to better adapt, BR changes, etc. If everything else is completely exhausted, then sure, there’s no other option.
.50cals are reasonably good, but I personally cannot help but notice that said performance is only really certain rounds doing all the talking.
What exactly is “wrong” with wanting ALL the round types to actually work at least decently well?
So let him whine, then when that time comes. I remember when P-47s had airspawns, and personally wouldn’t mind seeing them get that again even.
I’m talking realistic alterations…all too often Snail proceeds to either do absolutely nothing about a plane and then take an absolute sledgehammer to it, or proceed to make its rudder brick at all relevant combat speeds which due to the instructor over-relying on rudder, renders the plane horrifically wobbly to fly. That tendency is why I generally frown upon “just nerf it!” regarding flight models, because I have been around long enough to know pretty much always what Gaijin’s type of nerf ends up being.
Yes, the Yak-3U is silly. As are probably all the Yaks, Lavochkins, I-185s, and some others. But its also made of glass for all intents and purposes while also having not all that much ammo in its guns and being relatively under-armed for its BR.
How you could de-fang the Yak-3U without needing to fuck with the flight model or guns could be for example reforming the objectives of Air RB so that air-to-air TDM is no longer the be-all-end-all. That makes pure fighters like this one very much suboptimal versus multiroles which have optional tank-killing guns and ordinance, and thus the problem vehicle solves itself. The thing has no ordinance whatsoever. Another way conducted in parallel could be adding objectives that require it to go to very high altitude where its engine chokes, which the mode had years ago but progressively removed to appease lazy fighter mains. That also doesn’t require nerfing the plane itself one damn bit.
I see nerfs as a lazy, last-resort option that way too many people jump to as a first option, and always will.
Honestly all those poor things need to be 6.7, 7.0, and 7.3, respectively. And the V2/3 should get the same engine output as the V1 which is strangely a bit higher.
Could be a solution to the current unkillable bomber problem, come to think of it.
I see nerfs as the laziest, most-braindead course of action when it comes to balancing any video game. Care to actually think more seriously about how to address planes like it, or is that all you’re capable of coming up with?
lol
and there’s a belt that is 100% that round
even early or mid belts do not struggle at all
pretending .50s are somehow weak because of that and not because you just keep missing
No, according to your logic:
Nobody would win with a .50cal buff since they’d find something else to whine about, therefore we simply shouldn’t do it.
it would be as simple as moving it up to 6.3/6.7
I could still take a 3U, kill all the multiroles on the enemy team, and that’s that. By extension they would also be far less capable fighters since you’d be trading the ability to hit those targets for flight performance.
It’s always better to move a plane up in BR and have it become mediocre than have a SINGLE aircraft ruin an entire BR. Maybe one day you’ll play the game enough to understand that.
lol
7.3 would be fine for all three, the differences are negligible. 6.7 would be a slaughter.
Intake losses.
How do you reckon three removed attackers are a “solution” to the bomber problem when you can just nerf the bomber DMs to not have more armor than some TANKS?
1 Like
so uhhh
whats your argument here
because this shows that replacing 6x 0.50 cals with 4x cannons (not even the best cannons their rate of fire is a bit too low) increases its BR by ~1.7 (also with a very slightly worse flight model due to increased weight)
so are 0.50 cals the best guns or are cannons much better like this shows
tbf this is not late war belts for the 0.50s, but this is still at a higher BR than a variant with much better flight performance and late war 0.50 cal belts
so if 0.50 cals are such good guns, why does replacing them with mediocre cannons cause a planes BR to increase by that much
1 Like
quote:
“but if they can’t fly the planes half decently to begin with, gun damage matters very little”
If gun damage matters very little, why is this plane going up by 2.0 BR when fitted with better guns?
They are great cannons. 520rpm is plenty.
Much like in real life, cannons are obviously better and nobody switched back to .50cals unless they had major issues (which are not represented in WT).
More importantly this directly disproves that gun damage “matters very little” when you’re bad. No, when you are bad and can’t aim you NEED the few hits you’ll get to matter a lot, whereas with .50s you need decent aim to hit your enemy more than once or twice.
1 Like
yk i actually play the game in not op planes
and i faced yak3us in not op planes too
and they clown on me all the time(or they would if their pilots could like fly them)
there is no way to address such planes that isnt nerfing
1 Like