Yes im fully aware this is also a factor, I did say in a previous post further up about this being a potential situation with option 1, for me option 1 has so many ways it can go that either screw “you the shooter” or “benefits you the IFV” its not “screws the IFV and benefits you” no matter HOW they implement
Adding or revising the number of modules in some ground vehicles?
Which ones? Don’t give me this “it’s too early to say”. There’s no way Gaijin didn’t sit down and pre-plan or make a list of the vehicles this needed to be applied to before making this an option. There’s no way. They know exactly what vehicles they want to add this. And the community managers messed up royally by just name dropping M1s and Leo’s.
Any respectable community manger that has their fingers to the pulse of this game’s community would know there is a large percentage of players who believe Western and NATO vehicles are getting reamed. Look no further than the Abrams and Challenger armor posts to stay recent. How else were they going to interpret that line beyond “NATO get wrecked”. The list of affected vehicles should’ve came out. Full stop. Dispel any and all rumors. Didn’t happen.
Introduce a stun or concussion effect that impacts crew member performance.
No. No. No. Anything that results in the amount of time where you are just sitting around and not engaging or playing is a terrible, terrible, terrible idea. The only way this was going to seem even remotely viable, was if it came alongside a cap on repairs at 30 seconds. But it didn’t. It came with an explanation that your actions will be impaired or paused or extended or made harder. And that isn’t fun. Who wants to sit there with an already 45 second long repair time and get stunned because some R3 decided to pot shot you and stun you? Even if it doesn’t affect repair times, it takes away from gameplay in a net negative manner.
Increasing the number of items that can catch fire in the fighting cabinet.
There’s no way this gets implemented fairly. We already have the well documented frustration of watching Western/NATO long darts going through the sides of T-72s/80s/90s, hitting the ammo carousel with shrapnel and doing absolutely nothing but yellowing the module. You expect me to believe Gaijin is going to add a means that would increase the likelihood of a fire in the same compartment that houses the charges and rounds? If so, why would I ever play Russian vehicles then? If they didn’t, they it’s not a balanced mechanic.
These, as explained in the current form and I highly doubt they get changed since Gaijin never listens or comes back to these posts for feedback, are terrible ideas.
4 Likes
while yes it isnt linked to WoTs stun
i still do not want a mechanic esensially solely there to delay response times when you get shot first, and anyways, even if it was WoTs Stun, it wouldn’t be so bad as we don’t have top down Arty view (actually thats probabally just CAS)
you do have a good point in making people read it though, this could be a huge change depending on how it is implemented, or should i say, how poorly its implemented, I just don’t have faith in gaijin doing something that isnt either broken or annoying, Like how they still haven’t fixed volumetric eating 500mm pen shells with 50mm of armour because it hit a joint, or weirdly overlapped armour, Or how overpressure works, a 50mm shell with just under 220g of TNT explosive filler Equivalent can destroy a whole ass M10 by hitting its front plate, where the overpressure damage should be minimal to the turret crew if any at all, it makes playing open tops a joke most times, its a good mechanic and all, but it just needs to be tuned down a bit, that and the Avenger should be overpessureable like an open top, i doubt a canvas screen so thin it doesn’t even show up on the armour view and that can be shot off should stop normal caliber HE, and normal HE cannot overpressure even when it has been shot off
agreed
1 Like
Everyone of these proposal should be tested before being implemented in to the game. Implementing such features should be play tested by everyone in the community, given feedback by the people participating in the test and at the end tweaking it to make it fit for the majority of player or abandon the proposal which didn’t make the cut.
1 Like
we have autoloaders in game for 7+ years and yet there still isn’t damage model for this module … complicated and relatively fragile loading mechanism that in game works as indestructible adamantium monoblock, impossible to damage or disable in any way, working 100% reliably regardless of any damage done to tank
but hey, let’s make it a priority to implement two sepparate modules that can disable gun aiming for Leo2 and M1 and extend repair times
8 Likes
You can’t say something is “objectively bad” when it isn’t even available to try. Subjective opinion at most, just like mine or any other person’s. That’s why they should let us try it out. For me it’s a subjectively good addition but I would still like to be able to try it out.
1 Like
How about implementing it separately for AB, RB, and SB?
AB is easy, SB is more realistic
AB is different, not necessarily easier. (Try playing LT’s or any lightly armored thing lmao)
1 Like
Tanks should be given access to manual elevation and azimuth controls if the power is lost due to damage to powered drive controls. Realistically this is how a crew would continue fighting in a degraded condition.
Tanks like the M1 series have the main hydraulic system, auxiliary hydraulic pump, and manual controls in order to remain combat effective albeit less effective.
2 Likes
Another post on how stun should look like:
Darkened screen that comes back over time.
No screen shake, no sparks.
At most a retina burn and darkness for a soldier.
In a tank it’d primarily be darkness as they’d look away from their optic.
The fact some people vote for a stun mechanic because ‘realism’ and ‘flesh and bones humans’, and then those same people vote for magical over-time crew healing is just…
2 Likes
Tanks have first aid kits, it’s not magic, it’s reality.
1 Like
…and before anyone says that “crews healing in minutes is unrealistic”; and so is repairing a destroyed engine in 17 seconds.
In War Thunder, the key is:
-Core realistic base…
-…which is adapted to arcade gameplay.
War Thunder is not meant to be ArmA 3-level simulation…
…but that doesn’t mean it is meant to be WoT-level arcade…
…and vice versa.
In real life, tanks can repair their tracks… just not in 20 seconds.
In real life, crews can be healed… just not in 20 seconds.
This crew mechanic is as realistic/arcade as the tank repairs; based on realism, adapted to gameplay via “arcadeisation”.
I hate how every time a realism/arcade matter is brought up people jump to extremes when what makes War Thunder so magic and special is, precisely, the perfect blend/combination of these into a sweet MIDDLE GROUND.
8 Likes
I’de drop it man, your beating a dead horse at this point. people cry realism but dont realise options 1 and 3 are worse :D option 2 with some of the woes ppl have mentioned can VERY easily be mitigated like stacking limits or stun isnt applied on anything BELOW a set calibre so autocannons could be skipped here etc.
I’ve got my popcorn ready for when options 1 and 3 blow up in everyones faces all because they got there eyes trained on “stun oh very bad, not good for WT” then proceed to compare it to WoTs Stun (like TEC did in his video) and also complained about screenshake and tinnitus which BOTH have settings already in game to disable :D
Yep. Realism is always measured in degrees, not absolutes. And the specific degree differs case by case, as needed for a given thing.
1 Like
I think I rather see these effects in a detailed video over having to vote for it without seeing what the effects would be and guessing for an effect that might not have translated well over into their news blog.
Oh right because some band-aid and an aspirin is going fix a guy injured by shrapnel. He’ll forget about the pain and load those shells no problem.
2 Likes
I certainly like this one, but I dare say you can also expand this concept to aircraft and helicopters as well. It will add a dynamic to gameplay, though admittedly it will be annoying to learn and adapt to new weaknesses.
This will be a straight no from me. While I understand the purpose, taking away player agency by adding a random element when your crew is hit is not a good direction to go. As others have pointed out, unwanted screen movements can be overly agitating. If implemented, I’d rather see the screen blur slightly instead of shake. However, I do not see this being positive for Tanks.
I voted no, but would interesting as long as the fire is started by something related and not by random chance.
I like this but there’s going to have to be restrictions. There should be a limit to either the amount of healing (finite amount of med-kits) or only be healed on the objectives. This is as long as it is being implemented this way. I had imagined the med-kit would be a consumable item like a module.
3 Likes
i feel like the many players that say "this game is realistic and i fully support all the “realistic” changes: actually have no idea what realism is…
Oh right because some tools and spares are going to fix an engine blown up by an artillery shell. It will forget about the complete destruction and run again no problem.
I will quote myself once again:
2 Likes