Nah, actually they should bring back .50 Cal Barrel damage. now THAT was fun.
Jokes aside, getting rid of barrel damage is a terrible idea, because sometimes its the only thing to do to ensure you don’t die to a heavy tank (Think like, T-34-85 or M4A3(76) vs. King Tiger, or something like King Tiger vs. T95). Thats just the truth. Getting rid of it means getting rid of the way for a lot of tanks to counter higher-BR enemy vehicles
That’s what I thought but I didn’t want to say it incase my memory failed me. I could have sworn a ton of our Uranium is from fission power and nuclear weapons. It’s what’s left over after enrichment.
Yeah that’s why it’s called DEPLETED uranium. It’s basically just refined reactor waste lol
Uranium used after fission is not as harmful as most of its radioactivity was used up in providing enegy. The fact that it is not much radioactive anymore is due to it having become stabilised. The little traces were useless for power generation and not harmful for exposure.
My favorite thing to do in VBC (PT2) and 25mm equipped tanks. And my Swedish 40mm lineup. Get the gun, get the tracks, pop the engine, then either leave them to be farmed by your teammates, or just get the kill.
And that’s the counter. At the BR’s I play at now any tank can sneeze at me and I’ll explode.
Nah prolonged exposure to DU dust pretty bad 4 u tho, part cuz radiation getting inside you, even if it isn’t much, and also uranium, like basically every other heavy metal, is not very good for you. The main way to be exposed to DU dust, is to be a tanker in a tank that uses DU armor and ammunition, which is why USA has some radiation safety stuff to stop the DU armor from affecting driver
You said this yourself
And pretty sure every apfsds user has such protection
Meanwhile I aim centre mass at 1200m and somehow snipe their barrel and nothing else half the time. Or I shoot a light tank with the Jagdtigers 12.8m gun and it hits their barrel and disappears into thin air without doing and damage whatsoever.
Sounds like a desync issue tbh.
It’s definitely necessary and it’s integral to the BRs, it should stay. I think in the measure that there is an issue here, it’s not in the mechanic itself, it’s in the meta.
Small cramped maps make it both very easy and very desirable to go for barrels. If you’re far away, shooting a barrel can even be counterproductive since the target can get away. If you’re 300m away, and you’re confident your opponent doesn’t have immediate backup on hand, shooting the barrel will often be the safest option to deal with many opponents.
To me it’s similar to the “turn engine off, stay stationary, listen to sound, and camp a corner” style of gameplay that is also incredibly effective. Is there something inherently wrong with it? Not really. Does it happen a bit too much? I think so. On a small map it’s a very effective way to play.
Players respond to incentives. So focusing on barrel damage is missing the forest for the trees.
More like a Gaijin issue.
I sharply disagree on barrel damage being “necessary” in any fashion. The machines it punishes are oftentimes already punished by the continuing proliferation of excessively high-pen APDS, HEAT, HEATFS, and in some cases even APFSDS into the BR ranges where most late game heavy armor sits.
Those tanks already have to deal with their armor being rendered worthless by all those high-pen rounds. I think it is anything but “fair” for those machines that when they happen to encounter something which doesn’t have those types of shells, that said opponent can just barrel-knock and run/flank & side shot. It forces heavy armor into a “worse medium tank” playstyle, when in all honesty, those same heavies could instead be enabled to help aggressively push camping opponents out of nasty positions, using their armor as a battering ram. But such a strategy only works if they can keep their firepower functional.
Another user in this thread already suggested dividing the barrel into two parts damage-model-wise. The muzzle brake would only increase gun recoil if damaged, throwing off your aim after each shot. Fume extractors would be labeled as muzzle brakes for all intents and purposes. The rest of the barrel would be the current damage model.
Then, if you are pointing your gun at someone, they can’t shoot your barrel tip and disable your ability to fire. But if they are sitting behind a corner with the gun sticking out, the barrel can still be blown through the side.
Here:
These are some instances where barrel damage has occured, except they could not repaired because enemy tanks were in the vicinity and these tanks were ultimately abandoned because then the whole turret needs to be replaced. The first unreal thing in the game is fixing tanks. You can fix damaged tracks and turrets within a minute. A damaged barrel can also be fixed while the tank is under fire. So removing it is a nice idea but then there are more unreal things.
Like I always say, WT is a system of systems.
What I mean when I say “necessary” is not that the game can’t be envisioned without barrel damage, or that player experience without it would suck. What I mean is that there are a bunch of interconnected systems in the game that rely on one another in order to stay in equilibrium. If you change one system, the ripple effect leads to many more drastic changes. You may not be prepared for all of them.
There are several vehicles in this game that, in their current BR placement, are frontally extremely hard to kill. The example of the American 75mm has already been mentioned, but you can extend this to other BRs as well: Jagdtiger and Maus, Tutel and T32E1, IS-3 and IS-4M. The ability to take out their barrels to bypass their frontal armour is baked into the way they are balanced. If you remove barrel damage, their efficiency will go up. If their efficiency goes up, their BR will also go up.
Are you prepared for that to happen? It’s not a rhetorical question, just something you need to think about. I would rather keep the Jagdtiger at 6.7 and take my chances with barrel damage than remove barrel damage and watch it become 7.7.
So in a sense there are two discussions here happening at the same time. One is about barrel damage as a mechanic, the other is about armour meta (or lack thereof). The barrel damage is actually the smaller of the two, it’s just a logical consequence of the way Gaijin balances heavy armour.
Because of the need to intercept a vast audience - including a casual one - and the way WT is designed, there will always be vehicles that can deal with even the heaviest armour at any given BR.
I’ve made your same argument many times: mobility is always an advantage, armour is more situational because it’s useless up to the point where it actually does stop a penetration. And in a game where mobility is already key in several other ways, it means that heavy tanks are not meta. For me as an enjoyer of heavies and casemates, that sucks. But I understand why the game is designed like that and I don’t expect it to change. I just use it as motivation fuel to do even better with these non-meta vehicles. Makes me cherish every Jagdtiger nuke even more. ;)
In any case, overpressure is much more of a threat to these heavies than the high penning rounds you mention, which usually have terrible post-pen and allow you to play it out or plan ahead. I can cover or sharply angle my Jagdtiger’s left side and know that the gunner will likely survive an APDS, so I can fire back. Not so much vs a 155mm HE.
Yes. MMOs try to average out player experience. Maps are mostly one size fits all. So are mission types and objectives. The situation in sim is a bit different, but in ground RB, you end up playing most vehicles in a very similar way. There is a “universal” skill set in ground RB that will pretty much always serve you well, for exactly that reason.
Camping corners on a city map is one such example, like I was saying above.
They could. But you should try not to balance your judgement of these possibilities on what an ideal player would do in an ideal and positive scenario. Think instead of what would happen if, for example, people tried to abuse the system or exploit it to the fullest (as they always do), or what would happen when the higher efficiency of these heavies would send them up in BR.
For example:
Look at what you’ve written here and think about it from a different perspective.
“Some tanks can frontally deal with my heavy armour. Those that cannot deal with it frontally, still have a fighting chance if they disable my barrel and flank.”
That’s pretty bog standard game design, you don’t want players to be helpless if at all possible. Because for example, suppose we revise the scenario:
“Some tanks can frontally deal with my heavy armour. Those that cannot deal with it frontally, are pretty much screwed.”
Well then, why on earth would you subject yourself to the torture of spawning the latter at that point? You just wouldn’t play them.
I’m all for testing that, it is certainly better than outright removing barrel damage, but again what worries me is the ripple effects that would follow.
Thats one big para
I dont think anyone will read all that, you will have to summarize.
also remove the ability for someone to kill you. but just for yourself. :)
It is. Reading it is optional, so if people are not interested in it and prefer to skip it, that’s totally fine.
Hi, said user here.
I suggested dividing the barrel into multiple parts, and then have muzzle devices as additional parts on top of that. More than just two pieces, I want to see barrels have 4 to 7 sections that can be independently damaged (stubby barrels will have less, ofc).
Specifically barrel damage inflicted when you are aiming the gun at someone by they guy you were aiming at is what irks me. It unfairly punishes tanks with big guns, big muzzle brakes/fume extractors, and slow reloads. And with the sheer amount of machines possessing rounds that ignore armor these days, I see it as honestly unnecessary to retain.
Thank you, man. Please make it into an official suggestion if you haven’t already.
Thats what im saying
I agree with the title of this discussion