I get more kills stolen now with severe damage than I did before. On top of that there are way fewer crits now since severe damage does not count as a crit. Crits made up a solid portion of the match rewards/score, so it’s a big nerf.
2 Likes
I just hope you won’t make it in the same way such it was with that awful “hullbreak” mechanics, flashbacks: “you shoot side of XM-1 with 105 mm apfsds of Centauro Romor, it only kills commander, and then XM-1 makes an offhand shot into the corner of my hull with the same 105 mm apfsds and my vehicle just disappear because of that stupid mechanics”. New modules should be either for all vehicles, or for none.
9 Likes
Reading this, the second option sounds to me like it will wreak absolute havoc on people with high ping.
We are already playing at a pretty large artificial disadvantage. I already have so many situations where I shoot someone before they shoot me on my screen, but ping says no I didnt and my shell evaporates into thin air, so I die and they dont.
I cannot stress how absolutely painful it would be to play especially high tier vehicles where in the few situations that the game DOES decide I did actually shoot them too, that actually because he had hit me already, my shell randomly flies off to the side because my gunner is concussed despite the fact he isnt on my screen.
It would make top tier tanks especially completely unplayable.
And before anyone says “just play on a closer region”, I live in New Zealand. The lowest ping I can get to any server is 200. This will seriously negatively effect everyone playing from NZ, Australia, Africa, or other places that are far from the avalible servers.
6 Likes
Repair crew skill determines the max possible repair time.
Multiple damaged modules shouldnt increase this cap
Minute long repair times however comes from dead or hurt crews
(I now realize that I’ve been typing this for way too long. TL;DR please gaijin we literally just want BR decompression)
And yet, why not? The purpose of the roadmap is the mend the player base’s displeasure with the current state of the game, is it not?
On the given options for damage model changes, the consensus seems to be that the options are either too time-consuming, too controversial, too confusing, or would be difficult to balance.
Now let’s ignore the suggestion of completely overhauling the gamemodes for the time being and focus on a “smaller” issue that the community has been requesting for more than 5 years, BR decompression (which, alas, is a subject that seems to be completely avoided in the roadmap…)
Suppose we trust the top 20 war thunder content creators who meet the criteria of consistently making content for most or all gamemodes for low, mid and top tier with the task of privately discussing the matter and, in 2 months (which one would think is more than enough time, considering most of these players deal with these issues on a daily basis) present a tentative list of changes that would decompress the BRs for air and ground vehicles to a degree that they would consider acceptable (naval needs an entire rework more than just BR decompression, I think we all agree).
After the list is presented, the changes will be tested (on the dev servers first, if deemed necessary by the developers) for a period of 1 week to 1 month. If the reception to the changes by the community is positive, and if the matchmaker does not truly become “too slow” as we hear time and time again from the developers, I see no reason why the changes would not be implemented permanently. The community could then vote to fix any balance outliers.
Given the relatively short time in which this could be implemented, the immense effect (for the better) that it would have on the players’ enjoyment of the game as well as the fact that, again, the community has been asking for this for more than 5 years, I fail to see the reason why the developers would not consider this a priority
3 Likes
just picture a auto canon firing at you
he or squashead and heat is perfect for emilating like tanks
This is some next level controlling behaviour, if the votes turned out in your favor you would keep quiet. The only way to get useful results from such a poll is by requiring everyone to play a couple matches with the mechanics, and only then unlock the poll
1 Like
Even if they aren’t, it seems fairly obvious people don’t want another mechanic that impedes gameplay. And regardless of where this falls, “it own messes with your ability to fight back” or “it makes repair times worse” it’s still a net negative.
1 Like
Repair crew stat yes does determine max repair time but each vehicle type has a different base repair time that this skill effects (MBTs are 40s base while SPAA/SAMs are 35.7s base) and some IFV/LTs vary from 35.7s to 38s.
multiple damaged modules on there own dont increase the timer, (like you said its crew damage that does) which is why Option 3 is arguably the worst anyone can vote for because its going to be perma fire heaven when your still limited to 2 FPEs and if your going to micro manage FPEs like in WoWs to prevent perma fires well crew WILL take fire damage thus effecting repair stats.
More modules to repair though while crew is damaged will SIGNIFICANTLY increase repair times even if those minor modules only add 1-5 seconds total per one. its still added to the overall timer if crew has to repair it in a hurt (damaged) state.
Which is why ive no clue why ppl are voting for Option 1 and 3 together :D they literally are going to make the player experience much worse, much worse than ppl realise.
1 Like
Same. It absolutely solved nothing besides making air battles less fun and rewarding. And Gaijin gives zero ish about following up with it.
1 Like
but option 1 and option 3 apparently dont do the same thing…
lets assume the modules option does in fact create more spalling to “nuke crew” or damage crew. this is still going to negatively impact players due to repair timers going up due to crew health. and like I mentioned more modules means more stuff to repair so you can go above the base repair timer much easier than prior. option 1 will have a negative impact.
option 3 is just as bad with fires damaging all components/crew and does the same thing as option 1. you people only looked at “stun” and went “oh fk vote no” ignoring option 1 and 3 being arguably worse :D
No. I literally said multiple times that it’s fine by me if the voting wins 90% with a “NO”.
I just want to know that those “NO” votes are actually informed about what they are voting, unlike what seems to be the case.
“Controlling behaviour” is the dozens of posts of people demanding others to vote “no” and insulting those who dare to question it, not asking people to at least make sure they understand what they are voting.
And I agree with this.
2 Likes
If you vote for tanks to have more things to be broken, then you don’t get to complain that CAS is overpowered.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us4ZXmbmGdw
3 Likes
Please don’t ditch these mechanics and instead implement them in the dev server so people can try them out. Even after reading the article thoroughly you really can’t get a grasp of how good/bad the mechanic itself might be if you can’t experience it in real game 😔
11 Likes
Stun and sparks are objectively bad. That’s all
5 Likes
My guy, I voted against all of them. Not a single proposed change fixes the very issue Stona dropped in the opening line of this devblog. And I absolutely don’t trust Gaijin to implement it even close to a balanced manner. They haven’t with anything they’ve added or changed lately. What makes you think this would be the change to the status quo?
4 Likes
Your attitude is a shining example of why gaming communities, and WT’s in particular, really should not be given the power to vote on game design.
1 Like
The stun one sounds like a cool idea but I don’t think that the effects are entirely necessary. I think it would be better to just induce a half-second reduction in skill and maybe the temporary drift. I don’t think that the camera effects would be very appreciated, they seem more annoying than anything and would probably just make people dislike the effect. Maybe screen shake, but not sparks. And definitely not the ringing, at least not without an option to turn it off/lower the volume.
Additionally, does this mean that it is planned to add a minor reduction in crew skills every time the tank is hit and not penetrated? To represent the crew losing composure while being shot at? I think that if that was added it would be precedent to also allow it to subside, maybe after like a minute of not being hit. That could be another step to realism, maybe with slight screen shake on hit being added.
As for the additional fire one, the only ones of those I agree with somewhat are the wiring and machine gun ammo. Rubbish and oil on the floor should be ignored (unless it is modeled as piling up as the battle progresses) because typically in the game tanks are “clean” when they enter battle. The crew clothing, while a good idea, just seems like another way to do more damage to the crew with any particular hit, and in this case the player would not be able to really do anything about it except for use an FPE. As I understand it, typically (especially in the Cold War) tank crew equipment is fire resistant by default. The wiring fires and machine gun ammo ones are alright though, as long as the wiring isn’t catching fire on every hit.
The other ideas (more modules and healing) are good and those ones should be implemented. Tanks are complex machines, after all. For modules, maybe some computers on Cold War-Modern tanks that can mess with shot dispersion if hit, or wind sensors, or things like that. Disabling rangefinders if the laser rangefinder projector is hit, and the rangefinder itself. Causing temporary crew skill loss if optics are hit, modeling autoloaders as modules that reduce load time if hit. For autoloaders specifically, I think they shouldn’t outright stop the autoloader, just increase the time it takes to load a new shell. But by such a margin that it might as well be stopped, because the autoloader is broken.
Overall, I mostly agree with the modules and healing, but not particularly the stun or fire ones. Hopefully at least the healing is implemented. At the end of the day, this is a game and a game should be enjoyable to play.
… or we’ll end up with vehicle filled with bogus modules that will completely absorb nonsensical ammounts of damage/fragments, just like optics do today
if Gaijin can’t fix optics & vision ports damage model in 10 years, I seriously doubt they’ll be able to make option 1 work. Can’t fix one broken module and give it propper damage model, but we’ll fill the tank with a dozen more modules and by some miracle all of them will have working damage models AND will react correctly to shells or fragments AND create aditional spalling. Really?
and even if they try to implement this, they’ll end up with “volumetric armor 2.0” situation … 1000+ tanks to update, it’ll take them years to convert a few vehicles and the rest will either be ignored or saddled up with a halfbaked placeholder.
2 Likes
Pizza or Hamburgers?