going from rumor thread here,
they dont mean HE stun, they mean injury stun, imagine getting bashed by a metal pan in the head, you get stunned, disoriented, possibly concussed, takes a while for you to regain senses
1 Like
I mean the vote is on an idea. We don’t actually know what will stun and what wont under a potential implementation. They have directly stated hits to crew will stun, but we have no idea if it may include hits to certain modules or higher caliber HE.
The idea itself entails a lot of sources of stun could be considered.
Isn’t easier just to increase spall ? You know, pretty much like some time ago
This brings memories, knocking down the gunner made tanks unable to shot, update and Commander fired right away, new update Commander takes some time to fire. Pretty much like replacing the gunner on old system but adding more lines
concerning the fires, it would be nice to see replenishable fire extinguishers when on points, dying because of fire is always pretty annoying, especially for the fact that there is nothing you can do, and that teammates won’t help you 90% of the time
Would implementing a way to change your answers be a good idea for the surveys perhaps (limited amount of changes to like 1-2 times)?
That way the people who had knee-jerk reactions have the opportunity to change their mind/survey answer after discussion on the forums or similar.
Do you agree with the proposal to add new modules to a number of ground vehicles?
Nope. If all of them all at once, maybe. More half cooked mechanics like volumetric, no thanks.
Do you agree with the proposal to introduce stun and concussion mechanics?
Definitely nope.
Do you agree with the proposal to add new fire sources to the fighting compartment?
Nope. It’s good enough as it is.
Do you agree with the proposal to heal wounded ground crew members?
Nope. If only at a cap or in base, maybe. Otherwise leave it as it is, which is by far “the simplest and easiest-to-use implementation”. Besides, this reminds me a lot to that failed attempt to introduce medical kits.
4 Likes
Detailed damage model is good, BUT, it should be implemented when enough vehicle have it, not just 1 or 2 type cause that will be a big disadvantage for that vehicle, example if it released to only m1 and leopard 2 then both will be more easily to stop their turret from moving vs other tank cause there’s more module that can be destroyed to achieve that, and other tank that don’t have detailed damage model will have a massive advantage until they get the detailed damage. it’s like spall liner but in reverse, rather than giving vehicle that have it a buff, it nerf them
4 Likes
Crew stun is one mechanic that is needed to more severly cripple a vehicle after being penetrated. However I strongly disagree to add some visual effect that effects the player themself.
What we need is just an indicator that gunner/driver/loader are currently stunned.
If I penetrate a vehicle, damage the crew and knock out the vertical or horrizontal controls, I don’t want the player to just turn his hull and kill me because my round didn’t disable him at all.
This only happends because knocking out the crew is generally the best way to take out a tank, or otherwise everyone would start to aim to disable someones breech to knock them out for good.
In general we need mechanics that make it easier for vehicles to be killed instead of turning vehicles into bullet sponges that only get killed through ammo explosions or when all crew are knocked out.
We don’t need APHE to knock out all crew, we just need any AP to disable a vehicle for good.
I really don’t see a point why we can even repair a tanks engine, when that’s like the one part that seperates a tank from just being a bunker.
If your engine gets knocked out, you J out or play as a bunker until you get killed.
At least you shouldn’t be able to repair your engine on your own, but with the help of a teammate.
Alrighty. Stun mechanic is clearly a no go for people and additional fires in the fighting compartment is about a 1% away from being a no. Keep voting no y’all. Terrible mechanics, so keep voting against them.
People used to aim for ammoracks
Which has proven to be flawed because of “wet ammo stowage” on russian tanks, so they went back to crew sniping
which isn’t that hard in the first place…
some tanks got it even worse because of that m1 abrams as example hit in the ufp/turret ring and you can basically J out
Well set the chance for a catastrophic ammo explosion to 100 problem solved.
but that would be a negativ change for 1/2 nations ( russia and china)
1 Like
I feel like the healing could neatly be integrated into the same mechanic as reloading shells inside held objectives. This feels a bit less arbitrary as the time based approach. Also it enables decisions, meaning that one has to decide to heal by performing specific action (i.e. driving to the objective), instead of just waiting.
I could see players get frustrated at one sniper camping on the other side of the map, vanishing to heal and then without changing spot coming back with full health crew (if the crew was only damaged before obviously).
It’s amazing how some very active and “good by heart” community members are being super damn loud about their own opinion but call everyone else that doesn’t agree with that stuff ignorant and that they cannot read.
Happens for every community vote, guess that’s why the win rewards were nerfed and the economy in game is actually bad, even for good players.
They call people that don’t agree with them bad and stuff but them, their propaganda and their sheeples following them? Nahhhhh man no issue there.
1 Like
Why haven’t we seen any additional information on this? Where’s the list of all the vehicles they want to add more models to? Why aren’t people’s questions where the CMs are specifically tagged getting responses?
Love how we are about to get a couple of new game altering mechanics with no extra information or clarity. Great engagement from Gaijin.
1 Like
I fail to see why anyone would oppose Crew concussion. Sure, It benefits the player who strikes first, and if they don’t succeed in eliminating you after that initial shot, it’s entirely their responsibility. And you get a chance
Now I understand I’m going to receive flak on this viewpoint, but I firmly believe that getting shot is a consequence of poor decision-making or simply being outplayed. While I’m against spawn camping and rapidly shrinking maps, I don’t think Crew concussion would significantly harm the game. Rather, it would encourage players to think strategically before acting and emphasize the importance of teamwork.
With the increased risk of traveling alone, players would find greater safety in sticking together with a teammate. This shift would likely discourage solo missions to the far reaches of the map. And instead make for a better and more strategic game where one single player still very much has the possibility to change to course of the game. But it will be more Risky.
High risk = High reward
I believe this update is needed for War thunder to become a game that relies on your teammates to get through the game.
2 Likes
You would still have darts pass through between ammunition in carpusel tanks due to how the damage model works on carousel tanks work.
Inbetween the fuel tanks and the 6mm carousel armor there just wont be shrapnel to hit the ammo.
Remember:
The day they accidentally deleted spalling for solid shot rounds, only the non-carouself tanks actually got much of any survivability upgrade due to it. The carousel tanks allready had a damagemodel that heavily negated spall
And if they are adding components, one vehicle at a time some vehicles will become unplayable, and other that vehicles where there is no blueprints will become OP since gaijin cant just make up components. Like on the U-sh 405
1 Like
yep for those who anyone fails to read the devblog without noticing the crew stun and concussion and the people who always failing the exact reason is what we should have given players glasses, I don’t need glasses like why not people will stop using glasses.
The reason is Gaijin would have been used to be realistically as their opposed to Wot arcade, and don’t give the same thing over the different game like Gunner Heat PC, This is War Thunder, and War thunder goes to be realistic game.
btw this is a quote from War thunders website:
Aviation, Ground Forces, and naval forces fight together in one game and even in one battle, just as real life bottles were fought
What are they on about?
- when was naval and tanks in the same battle.
- when did modern mbt’s fight in cities. and not out in open fields.
thr- you know what there is too many issues with this line to mention in a single post…
2 Likes
Yep. And there’s no way they don’t have the full list of affected vehicles already. So I don’t know why they didn’t just post that in the devblog. Name dropping the M1s and the Leos and only them is a massive slip up.
2 Likes
Auto-cannons and removing player agency by adding random elements being the main reasons. Removing the visual effects from the equation, having the turret snap to a random direction and now being unable to respond for some seconds after a poorly placed shot should not benefit the attacker in a gameplay sense. If this is supposed to help vehicles such as the VCC 80/60, low-caliber spalling should be revisted instead. But stun mechnics will continue to be a no from me.
You’ve probably heard a phrase along the lines of “You can do everything right and still fail. Such is life.” I assume? Certainly, getting shot should have consequences, but the stun mechanic is too severe in a gameplay sense. It reduces counterattack opportunities and seconds matter in gameplay. This is one of the cases where, in my opinion, realism simulation would adversely affect the gameplay experience. This is why it is no.
1 Like