The context in which I’m replying is a mechanic proposed by Zephoid to give APHE shells a chance of failing to fuse which would be RNG. I’m not discussing the mechanics of fuze sensititivity or timing of APHE shells as modelled in game.
Shells shatter is also random. It is based on angle, but it can happen on on flat unangled plates. Not only that, it can happen with a 480 pen conq round on a 40mm plate that even a shattered shell would go through. It also is plagued by plate overlaps triggering the shell shatter calculation twice. With not every vehicle having volumetric modeled that ends up being a nightmare of polka-dotted points to target based on nation and vehicle. As much as you try to ‘mitigate’ it its still rolling a dice every shot even in the best of scenarios. Literally exactly your argument terming it ‘undermining player sense of agency’.
Shells shatter is also random. It is based on angle, but it can happen on on flat unangled plates. Not only that, it can happen with a 480 pen conq round on a 40mm plate that even a shattered shell would go through. It also is plagued by plate overlaps triggering the shell shatter calculation twice. With not every vehicle having volumetric modeled that ends up being a nightmare of polka-dotted points to target based on nation and vehicle.
You may not agree, but the fact that you can describe the mechanics of the shell shattering in this manner elevates it significantly above the simple probability of an RNG based APHE fuse failure. Furthermore, with the exception of the shell shattering mechanic, all of the issues with thin plates, ricochets, volumetric armour eating shells, inconsistent damage etc are true for all ammunition in the game not just APDS. Honestly I much prefer whatever fast approximation we get in the game as opposed to my PC grinding to a halt everytime a shell impacts while the game client tries to run a finite element analysis of the impact. Also don’t think I’m being unsympathetic, the entire time we’ve been having this discussion there are replays in my head of the 2-3 times I’ve shot a Tiger H1 pointblank in the side, perpendicular with a 17pndr APDS and the shell was completely absorbed because I hit the tiny little steel sheet track guard that overlaps the bottom of the side sponson, or the countless shots out of my Tiger H1’s 88 that keep getting eaten by Sherman 76mm mantlets.
I have no evidence to support it but I feel like the majority of player complaints come down to unrealistic expectations. These expectations are partly to do with how war thunder inconsistently communicates shell impacts to the player in the form of issues with rendering the game, or inconsistencies with server vs local replays; in addition to the complete ignorance of players when it comes to the reality of different projectiles and their effects on various materials and the conditions under which they impact.
We’re playing a video game, with the exception of a few tankers, the only frame of reference people have is other video games, movies and books. So everyone’s suspension of disbelief is going to vary dramatically, and most people’s idea of what the game should feel like is deeply personal and has no real basis in reality. I stand by RNG fuses being a bad thing, while I agree that the mechanics of shell impacts can be improved, it’s not self evident to me that improving the reliability of impact/penetration physics can be achieved without compromising the current game, additionally I don’t consider the current inconsistencies of shell impacts to be an issue.