the 4 is a Trojan horse…
1 Like
I didn’t say anything about hiding percentages, I think it’s neat that they are visible live!
I talked about the ability of changing your vote, just in case you change your mind or committed a mistake, like many people on Reddit are saying to be their case.
How? Just curious.
sure
So how will this get implemented in Russian tanks? Is Gaijin about to genuinely increase the likelihood of the charges in the carousel getting set off thanks to a fire in the fighting compartment? Because I highly doubt this based on the existing issue and model. This screams a nerf to Western vehicles.
1 Like
Okay so instead of waiting till you get it done for all vehicles you choose to let leopards up to 2a4 and abrams suffer first ?
what about the russian deathraps ? you should get plenty of info about them so why not those coffins first ?
Remember russians got Wet ammo stowage… ;)
Also this entire thing just screams for a nerf to leopards and abrams
can’t let the olegs suffer
1 Like
people already complain about how modelling is currently done in the game and now they want more modules to be added. I cannot see this would not increase the number of bug reports and complaints about modelling being unfair, or as we see with modern vechiles fudging the unknown information for bad or good in terms of game balance.
Additionally how do you implement this I can’t see them doing all at once but this would come with obvious drawbacks
1 Like
When it comes to damage modeling:
- the main issue is APFSDS (and obviously apds/apcr) not dealing enough damage in some cases. There are opinions/claims about DU penetrators (maybe tungsten too?) behaving kind of like APHE because of those fine particles combusting in the hull. It would/could definitely help with problematic light vehicles.
Changing this would also help with helicopters being annoyingly resistant to APFSDS. - Modeling the autoloader module for autoloaded tanks would be a great balancing tool. Autoloaders are way too forgiving, considering how a manually loaded tank is basically useless with 10+ second load times at top tier, especially with various interruptions in the loading (FPE usage, automatic crew swaps…).
- Ammo should detonate more easily and more consistently. No RNG should be involved. There are TONS of cases when - for example - russian carousels get hit with several (!) ammo pieces destroyed (the propellant part), and nothing happens. These cases are pure cancer bs.
- Heavily sloped very thin armour plates shouldn’t be able to deflect/shatter modern APFSDS projectiles at all, there are many very very accurate simulations about such cases. BMP upper front plate for example. Seeing brutally strong projectiles bouncing off of angled but extremely light armour is as cancer bs as the previous point.
As for crew healing, simply being able to swap them would be perfectly enough. So we aren’t forced to have a half-dead gunner while our commander/loader is perfectly healthy, for example.
A heavily damaged crew is fine and can actually add a lot to immersion. But when a single critical crew member (gunner, driver) is injured while the rest of the vehicle/crew is perfectly fine, it’s just painful not being able to swap them around.
Making crew skills tied to the crew position instead of the person itself would help this, to avoid a huge penalty for such swaps (a tank becomes way too sluggish even with a single dead crew member… the penalty is large). Bit less realistic but still quite believable. Of course driver and gunner slots would have to be filled at all times to avoid becoming invincible (hulldown Maus puts the remaining 2 crew members in the hull front for example).
2 Likes
Especially with the coming APHE rework which will significantly reduce damage from things like cupola shots. Just healing anywhere would only make camping stronger, which is harmful to overall gameplay.
Heck, it could even be just a replenishable consumable med kit. That’d be the best of both worlds.
Instead of adding more broken features why not address volumetric which is by far the greatest source of player frustration with player damage models?
Dear WarThunder, why do you have to be so weird sometimes?
You state that the problem is that IFVs and APCs are the issue because of the empty spaces they have, then you proceed to propose a mechanic and say you started implementing it on two MBTs???
Then you propose two more mechanics that would by the sound of it impact all combat vehicles.
So how exactly are these new mechanics going to make IFVs and APCs less survivable now?
The only time you mention the impact on specific vehicles, it sounds like you’re only nerfing MBTs first???
You also say the new fire sources will only do minor damage to crew and in the next part we have something that would fully heal the crew again. So if IFVs and APCs would get more burnable parts but then their crews would auto-heal again, I’m not sure it would actually lower their survivability a lot. So the overall effect would have to be tested and it also sounds like you’re starting with vehicles that by your own words are not even the problematic ones. It’s really hard to vote yes and no based on such incomplete and seemingly contradicting information.
IIRC the hydraulic turret drive is only on 2A4s in the game anyway, the 2A5 or 2A6 (I forgot which one exactly) already received electric drives. Those could be modelled as well, but unless we’re replacing hydraulic lines with wires and fluid tanks with batteries, they wouldn’t quite extend so far (though tanks with hydraulics also have batteries). Generally modelling more modules sounds like a good idea though, but the implementation would have to be somewhat balanced, just mentioning two tanks at first is rather worrying and we haven’t even heard about the progress on spall liners for months now. In December you were working on spall liners for Arietes and we’re now in April with no new info, but already talking about potential nerfs for these vehicles (assuming Arietes also have turret drives 😉).
Could this lead to weird overlaps where some vehicles have spall liners but no “nerfs” modelled while other vehicles have new damageable modules but haven’t even received their spall liners yet?
I would humbly ask for more info on what is planned and how you would go about it because it sounds a bit chaotic right now.
5 Likes
One last point on this post; there’s another way to vote against this if you think these are bad ideas. That’s all I’m going to say.
1 Like
No.
There’s a voting open to the whole community.
Whatever the results are, they will be the majority speaking and suggesting doing anything beyond this is not right.
1 Like
The point of frustration is that some shells (i.e. small-caliber APDS, every APCR round) do pitifully low damage. So increase the amount of spalling they generate. It’s that simple.
And please no stun. Stun is literally what players on a certain other tank game have complained for years about. Wrenching control away from the player, particularly in a really disorienting fashion, is just not fun. It’s frustrating. Not even mentioning how you could probably actually trigger epileptic seizures or motion sickness in sensitive individuals.
Crew healing seems just… silly. I’m ambivalent towards it.
Multiple modules sounds pretty cool. I realize this is a lot of work though. And if they’re going to end up creating more frustration by “eating” shots/spalling, then I’m absolutely against it.
There’s absolutely zero reason to jump through fifteen circus hoops to tangentially “solve” an issue, when a much simpler solution (increase spalling/damage of shells) exists.
1 Like
Games should be enjoyable. If they stop being so, there are a lot of other things nowadays competing for our time.
2 Likes
?
“This does not mean that we will work on others”
So will there be other new model revamps, or will there not?
Spoiler
are was omitted because “this does not mean that we are work on others” makes even less sense
Personally I don’t like any of those proposals…
Poor shots should not be rewarded (and certainly not in the second way) and crew should not be magically regaining health (except for AB)…
3 Likes
How about some effect for damaged optics finally? You wouldn’t have to add another module to tanks and shell eating optics would finally have some impact on the game. You could also make optics repairable. You can make some flashbang, cracked glass or other view obscuring effect when optics are hit, or temporary stun of respective crew member that uses optic that was hit.
How about doing wounded crew bleed? Like with damaged radiator, where if you don’t start repairing, the engine breaks. You could turn on bleeding for hit crewmember and you have to bandage the wounded crew member or he will become incapacitated. During the bandaging he would be temporarily unavailable, like when crew members switch when one is incapacitated.
Or you can just do simple bandage mechanic similar to firefighting and the wounded crew member gets partially healed after that.
I generally don’t agree with crew members healing on their own, if somebody is hit, he wouldn’t suddenly become unhit in realife. Bleeding seems like the only thing that could be stopped during the battle, but that person could still be unable to use a limb that got hit.
I am ok with stuns of specific hit crew member. We already have that in form of incapacitated crew member that is in process of replacement. This would be the same except you wouldn’t lose a crew member. This would buff nonHE shells imo as they are far less effective vs crew.
More frequent fires also sound alright as in current state there is barely any fires happening, so almost no use for fire extinguisher let alone danger of a fire getting out of hand and doing some damage.
I really like the first one, and don’t think that it’s quite “rewarding poor shots” because said poor shots would have hit those modules in the real tank.
My poor attempt at an example would say, be in a game where the turret drive wasn’t modeled at all, then people complaining that adding it only rewards poor shots
This actually
2 Likes