Instead of working on this, why not improve the game where it matters?
The Ground RB mode is a complete mess in the higher BR’s, yet you’re doing nothing to balance the game.
There are constant demands for a TO mode, because CAS is broken, yet you’re not making changes to balance thos.
The Air RB mode is boring and unattractive, yet you’re not adding mission goals that are utilizing the capabilities of strike planes or bombers.
So yes, making changes to damage models and crew member healing is nice, but not really a priority when your BR range is not supporting fair gameplay and your matchmaking results in constant uptiers that are even worse whwn you consider the spm of premium vehicles and one death leavers.
Fix the game, then mess around with the rest.
Also, shaking the screen and moving your aim away from your target is…unrealistic.
2 Likes
I am monitoring the situation regarding crew stun on Reddit and… just one example of what’s going on here.
LOTS of people literally don’t know what they are voting for. They aren’t reading the Dev Blog. They are drawing conclusions from an echo chamber of what they read by other Redditors talking about WoT and voting based off that.
And just like this, HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of people.
I hardly consider the vote of the crew stun mechanic to be valid as of now. Lots of voters didn’t bother to even read about it.
I believe a new dev blog specifically adressing this mechanic in more detail should be made, along with a new vote call exclusive to this mechanic.
@Stona_WT @Smin1080p
4 Likes
Hopefully the devs haven’t used their Wisdom skill as a dump stat (though putting up a poll based on a text post isn’t helping their case) and can figure out that with so many comments there, here, and in the blog being from people who are literally and objectively uninformed, they shouldn’t be taking the poll results as some absolutely infallible metric.
Especially considering the stun question specifically is still managing close to 50%, even with all these worthless votes.
We shouldn’t have had a vote until after actual hands-on testing.
2 Likes
On the note of stun, honestly, I really don’t think it’s a good idea because…
Ok let’s say you aren’t very aware, or let’s say you are, you’re going to make a mistake or someone is going to be there at the wrong time in the wrong place and shoot you when you’re not aware, I’ve had this happen to me a lot and I’m most cases I die of course, usually it’s light tanks or I’m trying to angle and someone pops up from nowhere in a HE slinger or is camping from spawn, but in the off case that I’m not lobotomised, the shell ricochets or non pens and I survive, or if the shell passes through and destroys a fuel tank, I can react and i can step back and reassess my situation and decide if I want to peek again or shift my focus, if stun was added, I’d be dead to rights already even if the player didn’t aim or didn’t even know where to shoot, this might encourage players to not aim properly you know, make skill less of an important factor during engagements and make the intensity of an engagement less intense and just more point and click, on top of that, how do you think this will also affect angling? Angling will be pointless as you will have to always seek cover, don’t even bother angling because that doesn’t help you. Remember aiming for the gunner? Remember remembering all the spots that penetrated a target? It will make heavy tanks even more frustrating to play and I don’t even main heavies, I prefer light tanks overall
That’s never going to happen. They have been pretty adamant about it
Reduce? That’s a wild assumption.
Then stun doesn’t happen. I already explained this to you, and you replied.
…pick one. You can’t have both.
2 Likes
I would prefer it if using crew replenishment just replaced all injured and dead crew, instead of the crew somehow healing like they have nanobots in them or something.
That way, crew replenishment feels more useful, caps are more important, and injured crew are an actual punishment instead of a temporary setback (while still allowing an opportunity to recover).
1 Like
I’m interested in everything, so I put yes everywhere. Let them implement it in a test, let’s play, and then vote again. And based on this data, decide whether to introduce mechanics or not.
What interests me the most is the stun. This makes the potato shake, but here, I think, this won’t happen - well, think for yourself, with the first shot you’ll be shell-shocked, and with the second you’ll be sent to the hangar. Well, if you wait 6-7 seconds, nothing will change in the grand scheme of things. Only sparks will be added. OK, they hit, 1-2 seconds of stun, the guy in the tank became inflated and you went behind cover if you had time. Maximum two seconds longer than usual.
If there are epileptics, make the feature with effects disable and that’s it, so that there are no legal problems. Why whine, girls? So personally, I don’t see any problems.
1 Like
Stun…are you mad???
The other game show already how stupid mechanics like stun is and only makes players way more annoying and frustrated also tinnitus sounds are extremally annoying and i bet most of ppl turn this off already we don’t need another one.
As for crew healing as long if its not become another consumables and only something like very slow progres during battle but still not to full condition then its ok.
Ps. of course you could not taken Russian tanks first to changes… god forbid doing something against them.
I also love how the people who wrongly assume that the mechanic will be “like in WoT” and didn’t even read the dev blog are mass-spamming propaganda against the mechanic and demanding everyone to vote “no”, harassing and insulting those who vote “yes”…
Yet, as soon as you even question their potential misconceptions or disagree with them, they jump in to downvote-swarm, insult and accuse you of “doing psy-ops to destroy the game by having it be implemented”.
This is a circus.
4 Likes
Isn’t that what you are doing now?
1 Like
Well, i somewhat get the hate. I can see some bullshit things like a autocannon spraying a front of the turret, and a random shrapnell that does not exist hits the gunner stunning you.
Dont get me wrong, my vote was a Yes, i think it will be a decent mechanic, if made well, to give some kind of a penalty in one of the situations where you penned someone, but did nothing for no reason (nomen omen one of the weird non existent scenarios) but i can see all the non existent scenarios that can happen, just like volumetric, overpressure etc.
4 Likes
No.
I am asking people to R E A D the dev blog before voting.
I don’t care which option wins as long as I know that the voting was made with full knowledge of what was actually being voted.
It is fine if you read it, disagree with it, and vote “NO”.
But at least make sure you know what you are voting.
Most people who are voting “no” are automatically assuming that the suggested mechanic would work like WoT’s when it literally has nothing to do with it.
So… it is perfectly fine if you don’t like it and don’t want it ingame.
No, I am not telling anyone what they should vote for (unlike those spamming posts literally demanding to vote “no” and insulting everyone voting “yes”); I am only asking that at least you make sure you actually know what you are voting instead of basing your vote off wrong conclusions.
If people read it, disagree with it and vote “NO”, I am more than happy for them. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I want the majority to win, even if I may not necessarily agree with it. I am not going to start insulting and harassing others over it, unlike many users do when others show disagreement.
But it frustrates me to see people automatically voting without even taking a look at the dev blog first. At least make sure your vote is well founded and not blind.
I think that, whatever comes out of the voting, should be because people understood what they were voting for, and not over wrong conclusions wrongfully drawn for not taking 1 minute to read the thing.
4 Likes
I think we all have enough history to have adequate distrust here…
6 Likes
Im glad things are being considered however i think all of these proposals in the survey are missing the point and will amount to very circumstantial/minor positive and potentially big negative changes what gaijin should instead be focusing on is ground up spalling behaviour rework like ricocheting fragments, large chunks of armour/fragmented shell cutting through everything, small particles being able to ignite ammunition, fuel explosions not being RNG one shot, more realistic partial and over pen damage outputs two examples being 100mm pen ap going through 95mm armour has the fragments do nothing to crew when it should be almost equal to optimal thickness/ overpen currently not being a thing untill ridiculously thin plate suddenly produce nothing, HEAT jets being tiny lines with minimal fragments while realistic for penetrations ignores the larger cone of burning copper cloud ignited by or igniting the air it touches as is travels forward at 10000m/s
none of these proposals address these
all these factors combine to make APHE/APDS meta where nothing else is viable unless it is forced to be by adding band aid mechanics like overpressure or hull break, both can be avoided by giving HE aspect its correct devastating line of sight damage which can be modelled in game by many many more fragments
plz gib more fragments to my face
1 Like
One of the things that I fail to understand is why these additions have to be made.
The main thing that the community has been complaining about has been the broken damage models and volumetric shells which dissapear after coming in contact with certain geometric parts of the armor. As far as one can see, the additional models with only exacerbate this issue by overcomplicating the mathematical calculations necessary to determine damage.
I am glad to see that the majority of the community agrees that cutting off control from the player and visual distortion is a bad idea for a multitude of reasons.
The third way, similarly to the first, appears to be an overcomplication to account for lack of damage due to errors which stem from the programming of volumetric and broken damage models which in turn will only muddle things further.
Finally, the healing of crew members. While I empathise with the rest of the communty about the frustrations of having an undamaged commander and a red gunner in a tank, a “Call of Duty” styled healing mechanic is not an effective or a realistic game mechanic. This game mechanic will artifically slow down gameplay as players will sit behind cover, waiting for their crew to heal. What perplexes me is why Gaijin doesn’t implement already existing mechanics to account for crew healing? The ammunition replenishment at captured points could be easily replicated to heal damaged crew and would be much more balanced, ensuring that the game doesn’t slow down for arbitrary reasons. Another mechanic that could be recycled is crew replenishment. When replenishing a crew member, the rest of the crew could heal in the downtime it takes via “supplies brought on” with the new crew member.
In essence, what these mechanics proposed end up doing is overlooking two intrinsic issues: old malfunctioning mechanics (volumetric & damage models) and old functioning mechanics which could be used to improve player experience.
Please re-evaluate your choices and use the devices available to fix issues, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.
11 Likes
not about adequate distrust, so many on here have assumed this mechanic is a clone of WoTs which works in AoE and not on penetration/hit of crew like its been explicity explained to us as. which greatly changes how this system is and should be viewed.
But people still dont see how option 1 and 3 ironically NEED option 2, otherwise both those systems on there own are going to be a bigger hinderance to players “fun and enjoyment than people think”.
Option 1 can go 1 or 2 ways. either the more modules eat spalling and has the opposite effect (which we all know is gunna happen) OR it substantially adds to the repair times which doesnt solve the IFV problem but just makes then borderline trash to play.
Option 3 is something I’de never vote for, if you have played WoWs (world of warships) you will know exactly why, its called perma fires and its a toxic af gameplay loop that again is trash and awful to play against.
How many on here have had engines catch fire on a corner you cannot see past? and had perma fire because you used both FPEs putting it out? yh my case in point.
Option 2 is needed to offset options 1 and 3 (especially option 1) option 3 is just flat out bad from a gameplay experience.
