If any of these get added, you just know they will barely function right if at all. It’s bad enough there’s modules that will magically eat rounds they rightfully shouldn’t already, and by adding even more things for the code to get hung up on, there’s gonna be even more rounds being lost into the void not doing damage when they should. Crew stun should not be added either because there’s so many ways that could be cheesed and make the game even more unenjoyable. If you want a dose of stun mechanics, go play WoT and have fun when you get arty’d and get screwed over because your reload is too long or you can’t move to cover fast enough, etc because some HE just barely splashed your vehicle and now you’re ineffective at vital moments. This game is a balance of arcade and realism, and the stun mechanic pushes it too far over into too realistic, and will make the game more unfun. The only thing that would be a good thing out of all this would be a way to heal crew, but limit it to cap points making it even more important to hold onto the control points and encourage more focus on them since we don’t have any gamemodes that aren’t capture point focused. Knowing how this game is handled, there’s always a monkey’s paw type of deal with everything that gets added, so I’m not hopeful about what comes out of this.
I dont think any of the damage nor healing changes are necessary. In America, and I am not a lawyer, some of the changes sound potentially illegal, as the audio and video changes could violate the Americans With Disabilities Act (people like myself).
I find it frustrating that everyone only fires APFSDS, then gets angry when they used the wrong ammo type on their light spacious target. There are different ammo types in real life for a reason.
Using real-life examples, at 73 Easting the only casualty was a Bradley where the shell entered, went through the commander… and then out the back of the vehicle. No one else had a scratch.
Why have ammo types - or even damage models - at all if the results will be changed to suit players preferences?
I want to point out a flaw in this survey .
These surveys need to split up between different game modes, why should people who play Arcade be allowed to vote on something that will affect players who play RB or SIM and maybe don’t want these mechanics implemented for those gamemodes? Someone who plays arcade should not be allowed to make a decision for someone who currently enjoys the RB or SIM gamemode and vice versa, the game is majorly different in how it plays between all 3 game modes
- " The first way is to introduce a more detailed damage model to specific vehicles. There’ll be new types of modules, ranging from electronic modules for air defense vehicles, machine gun ammunition, electrical equipment, as well as detailing and correcting guidance modules such as the drives. This is labor intensive and painstaking work however, as it cannot be implemented for all ground vehicles in the game at once — each vehicle would require separate manual work. In particular as part of this task, we’re currently separating and detailing the elevation and traverse drives of the M1 and Leopard 2 series tanks with the addition of a hydraulic drive supply tank, where disabling this part will also disable the guidance drive."
More detailed damage models can work and I support it but this will entirely depend on how much detail were talking and what sort of negative effect damaging those modules will have on the vehicle/crew.
The second way** is to introduce new logic for damaging crew members and modules, which will reduce the likelihood of the situations we’ve described above, as hits will be effective even in these cases. Here’s how it’ll work. Any hit to a crew member causes a stun effect. When stunned, the camera will shake and sparks will be shown on your screen for a short period of time, about 1-2 seconds. Dealing damage to the gunner (or commander in vehicles with duplicate controls) causes a few seconds of concussion. It also causes the camera to shake, a ringing effect in your ears, and a temporary drift with a variable vector (a change in direction) is added to the gun aiming, which you’ll need to compensate for manually. In this case the initial aiming point when armor is penetrated moves away at the moment of receiving damage (taking into account the favor killer mechanics) to a random distance and direction within approximately 1/4 of the screen.
The third way is additional sources of fire in the fighting compartment, where damage to internal modules in this area may cause them to start an internal fire. Several things can burn and smolder inside a vehicle: crew clothing, wiring, machine gun ammo, plus rubbish and oil on the floor. In this case the fire can go out on its own, unlike an engine or fuel tank fire, and the damage it causes will be less than the damage caused by an engine or fuel fire.
I think the 2nd and 3rd suggestions are terrible and don’t belong in the game .
The game walks a fine line between arcade and realism in RB and SIM. Any form of camera shake or vivid sparks and your POV/Camera perspective shifting is a recipe for motion sickness and seizures .
Crew members being stunned is a bad idea, reloads or firing of the gun not being possible due to a dead crew member or damaged gun/breach area is more then enough. In my opinion we don’t need a stupid stun mechanic. The game already rewards you if you place a well aimed shot against your target, I think having a further stun mechanic the crew can experience would be detrimental to the games enjoyment and would really not add anything beneficial to game-play or the overall experience of the game. A stun mechanic would instead reward badly placed shots, I think the way crew and module damage works currently is more then enough and we do not need a stun mechanic. Tinnitus and losing hearing depending on the side of the tank that was hit could work but anything that causes a stun or loss of control is not something that should be implemented . If screens shaking and sparks on top of tinnitus is implemented in any shape or form there should be a option to completely turn those off. This is not something that should be forced, some people already suffer from tinnitus or experience motion sickness very easily .
If additional chances for fires to occur in the crew compartments are implemented there should also then be a way to have the crew address those issues with extra fire extinguishing charges. I also think this is unnecessary and adds a further negative mechanic that will end up being more annoying and frustrating to the games game-play in the long run.
These ideas sound great on paper but implemented in game and considering how the game already plays I think aside from adding more detailed and extra modules that could potential be damaged the other suggestions should not be implemented…
The second way is to introduce new logic for damaging crew members and modules, which will reduce the likelihood of the situations we’ve described above, as hits will be effective even in these cases. Here’s how it’ll work. Any hit to a crew member causes a stun effect. When stunned, the camera will shake and sparks will be shown on your screen for a short period of time, about 1-2 seconds. Dealing damage to the gunner (or commander in vehicles with duplicate controls)
Again this is a bad idea, why would the gunner being hit stun the commander just because they have duplicate controls ? This frankly makes no sense because the control modules that tanks with a commander override have are not linked in such a way that it would cause damage to either of the crew members if one was hit . Vehicles with duplicate controls don’t have mirrored controls in real life in such a way that the gunner or his control module being hit should cause damage to the commander. This is honestly a dumb idea and I hope this is not actually implemented . The only time any other crew members should take damage is if they are in the path of the shrapnel caused by the round penetrating.
Due to numerous requests, we’re also considering the possibility of introducing healing for injured ground crew members. How do crew injuries currently affect gameplay? When calculating the repair time, active crew members that have been skilled are taken into account (knocked out crew are considered not skilled). The percentage of remaining health is linearly converted into a repair time multiplier in the range from 0.5 to 1. The average value is calculated for the entire crew in the vehicle.
I dont think healing of the damaged crew members should be implemented in any form or shape for RB or simulator battles unless were talking about a very small partial healing while standing on a captured flag. This is not a FPS like Battlefield where you run around providing medical assistance to your crew. We are already assuming these vehicles are in a active war zone and them surviving a hit too their vehicle with wounded crew already suggests that the crew is self managing their battle damage and not bleeding to death as they are already administering first aid on themselves or their crew members . Adding a mechanic to fully heal your crew would be detrimental to game-play , the game rewards you not being hit in the first place . You should not be able to just heal your crew members after surviving a engagement, it takes away the reward of playing your vehicles properly and not taking any damage in the first place .
The current mechanic of damaged crew members having a penalty applied on their performance is realistic enough and works fine as it is. I don’t think this suggested mechanic is something the developers should waste their time on implementing , don’t try to fix something that isn’t broken.
I think instead a better idea would be to allow us to use the crew replacement mechanic on damaged crew if we choose too, not just disabled crew members. This would then force the player to think a little instead of just feeling safe and secure knowing his damaged crew members after a engagement will just heal up their damage and be all fine and dandy ready for the next fight if they just sit in the same place.
P.S I would like the developers to submit a survey on implementing further BR decompression instead of adding additional annoying mechanics to the game.
You really don’t know how heavy and packed armored vehicle first aid kits are.
Even civilian first aid kits have more than you mentioned.
TBH, all 3 (maybe rework 2 a little bit) should be implemented. GRB needs fresh mechanics/features, and those three solutions add up for the sake of realism, and it makes inside the tank more alive. Let us play with these changes in the test server and get a feel with it.
No, not really. And War Thunder is not based on realism. If that was the case, Point 3 would make Russian tanks completely pointless. A single spark would put every turret into space.
All of these proposals just make WT more and more like WH :(
+1 especially for helis, sometimes when they are hit by apdsfs they just keep on flying, also would u consider a fluid trails behind the damage vehicles if it is hit at hydraulic parts or smth like a radiators where it have fluids in it.
Honestly, I find these proposals to be pretty absurd. We need better hit detection and a continued fix on wacky volumetric shinanigans, not more mechanics for the server to compute and probably fail to represent correctly. It also adds the level of detail fidelity that we don’t need should the system we have right now perform as it should.
- The first option is probably worse in this regard since now you have to calculate the hit to various smaller components and the effect these damages would bring. And in addition to being work intensive to implement, not all details would be readily available to every vehicle we have in WT currently and going forward. This would mean some vehicles would have simply fictitious component arrangements to the benefit or detriment to themselves.
- The second option falls into the other pitfall of an excessive level of detail that detracts from the gameplay. WT is a vehicle combat game, crew members getting shell-shocked is just annoying to deal with. Ground combat engagement already has the gameplay loop of First-To-Shoot-Will-Win, we don’t need to penalize people who got shot at by further ruining their chance of turning the things around because the first shooter didn’t aim properly.
- The third option, if I’m understanding this correctly, would be aggravating. You have survived a hit on your tank with an orange crew, having your gunner die seconds later due to fire damage that is outside of your control would be immensely frustrating…
As for the healing mechanic, I don’t like the ability to regen health, even if it’s limited to just restoring them to be optimal at their station. Instead how about we overhaul the Crew Replenishment mechanic of instead of replacing only one crew, you can replace more than once? It’ll take time like restocking your ammo at cap points, going from the most wounded crew to the least.
I’m really curious about this, will this be a first person effect only? I really dislike vignettes or overlays while in 3rd person, it wouldn’t make much sense to see sparks or smoke since we are not viewing the inside of the fighting compartment while we are in 3rd person view.
I’m okay with visual debuffs as longs as they are in 1st person view like in gunner or commander sight for the sake of immersion.
Then add Kevlar vests to the modern Nato tanks with proper gear, helmets, and other actual equipment to Nato tankers for more survivability, while Russian tankers dont get any extra ballistic vests or protection maybe some 70s style padded helmets with no ballistic protection and its merely for crews to not bang their heads on the inside of the hull, since that’s actually accurate according to IRL.
Otherwise I see this as nothing more than more Russian bias coding to quietly and discreetly buff more Russian tanks, as if having these last additions to the Russian line up at 10.0 wasn’t blatant enough.
It already happens when you get hit by ATGMs but not for AP or HE shells and some tanks like the T-80UK have screen shake when you fire, but others don’t (I assume this is a deliberate effect on tanks that don’t have stabilization for optics or is based on caliber size)
Indeed, additional modules and more detailed systems is a must for all vehicle types.
I remember back in 2019 when they teased the idea of broken optics for ground vehicles, I made these quick images of what it would look like.
For example, the image on the right is the visual debuff modern tanks would get, which is a glitchy grain effect overlay that should probably last 1 to 2 seconds, as most modern tanks rely on digital optics, which in my opinion is way better than sparks and screen shake.
Lower tier would get damaged optics, the extent of the damage should not be very large as to not obscure the entire optic like in the image on the right, it should also be repairable.
I would love to see stuff like this added to the game, it’s not too hardcore, but immersive damage to first person modules would be awesome.
Except if some vehicles are modelled like patria with some random computer boxes counting as horizontal guidance system and others only have the motor modelled…
This has every chance to be absolutely broken and i sure as hell know what i’m gonna expect from them…
Adding a use to destroying optics is an easier task. Also maybe tanks should not have the aiming sight placed at the end of the barrel, just like sim.
For yellow/orange/red optics these would be fantastic. Destroyed optics absolutely need to block use of gunner view though (as does the gunner being dead).
Definitely. CoD-style forehead shooting with optics in the barrel is absurd for a game like WT; the not-at-all-realistic Battlefield series has done this right (for both small arms and vehicles) for the past decade.
It shouldn’t be in any mode in WT, including Arcade. AB has the drop/pen indicator anyway, making understanding and accounting for parallax a non-issue; this also makes it a great place for people to learn it on various vehicles.
The website of WarThunder is actually prominently stating that the game is a realistic simulation.
The community is asking for realism and, the developers are coming with 3 proposals.
The first one, the only one to actually implement realistic behavior is ‘hard’ to implement, so embrace it as a challenge and make the game better (at least in that aspect).
The second proposal is introducing some random logic with random effects and some pseudo calculations to resolve the realism problem… this has of course no bearing whatsoever with the problem at hand. Besides, soon after this magic formula would be added the next step is probably to use that for balancing purpose.
The third is a derivation of a second… so now we add random sources of fire in the fighting compartment, based upon what? What was the problem we were trying to resolve… would some random made-up stuff that will be implemented randomly will help?
Finally, here is another realistic issue… although the game is trying to be more of a fast-pace arcade game with point and click and very short engagement on small maps (at least for realistic ground) in the duration of the game… a crewman manning a position… would not have time to re-grow a limb or regenerate the 2 pints of blood he just lost. So healing crews during fight is simply incomprehensible…
Now if you start implementing engagement lasting days, on map larger than very few kilometers… then maybe you can consider healing… by forcing the tank and the crew to retreat to allow medevac.
Of course, I voted no for everything but the first proposal.
Why are we voting on major changes to the game like this??
OPEN THE DEV SERVER
You want to annoy half your customers, then please carry on…
I fundamentally disagree with this statement. In real life, shooting light vehicles with high-penetrating kinetic energy rounds is not effective, which is why it is standard to use HE or HEAT (or HESH) to shoot at personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. I still think there are some issues with the survivability of light tanks, but shooting them with a tungsten dart and expecting it to be lethal is unrealistic.
I strongly support this. Although the presence of more modules may actually absorb more spall and make vehicles more survivable, if the functionality of those modules is accurately represented in-game, this will be a great improvement overall.
For example, if the control box for the smoke grenades could be destroyed, it would disable the ability to fire smoke grenades for vehicles which use electrically-fired smoke grenades. Similarly, if the breech of the smoke mortar in WWII tanks is destroyed, it can no longer be used. I think details like this, along with the disabling of other lesser systems besides the gun, guidance systems, and crew, will make tank engagements more interesting.
An additional system that I think should be added to damage/armor models is tank suspension. For the most part, the internal suspension elements (e.g. torsion bars, Christie springs) are not modeled as part of the tank armor. Adding these may improve the survivability, but also adding the ability to damage suspension components and limit mobility would be another way for additional modules to help
I also support making the damage models for existing equipment more detailed and/or have more impact on gameplay. Currently, the optic models for many lower rank vehicles uses a very simplified model (often a simple rectangular box or cylinder) and has zero impact on gameplay when destroyed. Other systems, namely the engine and transmission, could have damage to different portions affect their performance in different ways.
I do not think this style of concussion is suitable for War Thunder’s gameplay. If War Thunder had a more in-depth and crew-position-based gameplay, then sure, I think adding stuns for the player screen would be appropriate. However, this would just end up being distracting and detracting from the current state of gameplay.
While I think there should be a few more sources of ignition, I do not think the described methods are correct. Instead of adding small fires to un-modeled objects inside the tank, additional sources of standard fires, such as oil tanks, fuel, oil and hydraulic lines, and external fuel/oil tanks would ensure fires are somewhat predictable and consistent.
If this feature is implemented as planned, even if the fires go out automatically, it will become desirable to use FPE more often. Making FPE replenishable on capture zones is a feature players have requested for a long time now, and this would further increase the desire.
It would also be nice if modern tanks received automatic fire extinguishing systems, rather than relying on the player to activate it. The automatic system should still put some sort of temporary performance penalty while it is being used, but it is silly that modern MBTs still have to rely on manual extinguishing.
While I strongly support crew healing as a mechanic, having automatic healing after a certain amount of time does not match the current way that War Thunder’s self-repair mechanics work. Instead, healing should be limited to capture zones, or, in my opinion, should require a dedicated activation and use time, similar to regular repairs or fire extinguishing. I do not think that the number of uses should be restricted, but there should be a cooldown between uses of the healing mechanic.