It doesn’t. Adding artificial screen shake and spark effects might, on top of it just being a terrible idea.
As I said This game already has a LOT of flashing lights. one major thing being machine guns, Tracers, Autocannons, and more.
Point 1, More detailed damage models, I don’t have much particular issue with in concept, but feels like it would be a big dev time sink with limited returns, and definitely has scope for creating imbalances and the ‘feeling’ of bias dependant on exactly how it is deployed, as it feels like it would fundamentally be a nerf to the vehicles which get it first. Also it is possible, depending on implimentation, this could nerf post pen damage as the minor components may absorb damage that may have otherwise hit crew or a vital component. Anyone who has side shot a t34 with solid shot will know this situation well, more modeled objects does not mean more damage. I think the current model of crew and vital components is sensible.
I think possibly looking at post pen damage/spalling for lighter vehicles especially may be a better solution here?
Point 2 I think by absolutely no circumstance should be added. This is ultimately a game, and so time in which the player cannot actually play should be minimised, and the added effects would also likely prove rather irritating rather than fun. I don’t see ‘realism’ to be a useful argument here, we are not driving real tanks into a real war, we are playing a game. Realism to that degree will be ultimately damaging to the game. For example, repairing a damaged barrel, or most other things, in combat is not even remotely realistic, but removing that would be a very bad change. ‘Realism’ would have tanks breaking down before they even reach the battlefield. Objectively bad.
The current model of crew being killed and debuffed by damage I think is sensible. If people really want more crew damage to be simulated, perhaps increasing the debuffs alongside introducing the healing mechanics could be a decent compromise.
Point 3 I think is potentially similar to point one. I don’t have any major complaints about the concept, but neither do I see all that much value in the addition. It could potentially be a decent solution to the ‘didn’t hit anything’ issue whilst not being too intrusive, in that way I can see value.
On crew healing, I like it, I think this will be a valuable mechanic to add in the implimentation described, healing when not combat active to a still slightly damaged state. I think this is probably the best way this could be implimented. And no, healing on caps is no more realistic than this.
2 Likes
can you maybe take 5 mins to actually fact check your own bogus statement. its not WoTs stun… thats an AoE based stun that last from anywhere from 6-16 seconds and is triggered from arty.
I’m very much for more detailed damage models and I think most of the community is. At the same time I don’t understand why there are still tanks with cosmetic hull MGs (for example: the Panzer IV hull mg) while others like the Spj fm/43-44 has a hull mg fully operational. I understand that their usage is limited, but shouldn’t it be a priority to finally finalize these old models that new players get to play with? It’s attention to detail that makes a game truly special imo, especially when a player is discovering it’s aspects.
As for the other mechanics I think the community is not informed enough to make these kind of decisions before they are implemented to some extent. So it boils down to what the developers want or don’t want to have in the game. At the same time I understand that investing money and time into a mechanic and then having to scrap it due to bad reception is the worst case scenario for Gaijin. After that it’s important to consider that probably not a very big part of the community has voted in the survey so that diminishes it’s value quite a bit.
As for my personal opinions on the matter, I don’t think any of the ideas are inherently bad, but I recognise that some of them might introduce frustration to some players. Not to mention a big part of the community including me is already frustrated with the damage model as it is right now and introduction of these mechanics will only shine light on the issues it already has. I would be very much for some refinement in this regard, maybe before even experimenting with these mechanics.
1 Like
probably because it is perceived as a very very low priority since its not a coaxial. and has limited use. and since vehicles such as the Spj only has the Hull MG it receives priority, since its the only MG
Completely agree with you, have current major issues the biggest priority.
Autocannons would be able to permastun many vehicles, so it’s arguably worse. At least in WoT you had your hitpoints to take the hit instead of your crew and ammo - taking a second hit for free wasn’t a huge deal, in WT it is.
I agree with the statement but it still bothers me personally, so that’s why I decided to mention it in regards to making models more detailed. Some of these models are very old and to see them basically unfinished makes me sad when I play with them. You even have a guy sitting behind the mg (mostly the radio operator) doing basically nothing, so there is no phantom person behind a gun realism problem like with the roof mounted ones.
you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. go on the WoT wiki and literally read about SPG stun mechanics…
You take damage in an AoE (so not even a direct hit) like this stun method has been explained twice in the same paragragh, but you also can have the stun range from anywhere 10-15 seconds in duration based on some rng parameters within the AoE. it is catagorically NOT EVEN THE SAME mechanic.
stop even trying to compare this to WoTs… its actually sad that people cannot even do the bare minimum of research
2 Likes
I agree with you however, i find it unlikely for it to be implemented even with the fact that the skink has a functional hull mg, the Wirbelwind, Ostwind I&II, based on their original chassis proves gaijin knows and can implement it… but they don’t…
i never play WoT so im not even going to try to understand what this is about.
If you had any idea about how to read, you’d know I’m talking about regular tank shots instead of artillery - which is what the proposed changes here in WT apply to. In WoT you could take a hit from another tank without losing half your crew and/or the ability to fire, being able to prevent an enemy from playing the game for a few seconds while you reload will be an incredibly annoying and just straight up bad addition.
At least in WoT the stun didn’t FORCIBLY MOVE YOUR AIMING RETICLE, which was proposed.
Same shit, different smell.
My research is the several years I played it before I decided to quit, caused by RNG and artillery changes primarily. I don’t need to read a wiki - I was there when it happened.
I tried researching what wot stun was, and was underwhelmed when it was just aoe arty stun.
People were propping it up like it applies after being hit in general and it would apply a long stun, but it was just some mechanic for a certain type of vehicle
And once again, the proposed stun and concussion mechanics don’t even stun YOU, the player. At most, it does some minor gun drift and cosmetic effects.
Maybe it could be refined, but it’s not the big bad that everyone everywhere else has been making it out to be
Then I propose a compromise - those who think the stun and concussion mechanics won’t be a big deal can play with them, and those who think otherwise will play without them.
I’ll give it a week before you change your mind.
Eh sure, my gameplay doesn’t really face those types of threats anyways, since shots at me more than often one shots me, or it’s because I rat with ridgecamping
While it is not the exact same, it is subjectively worse in theory. Whichever crew member is damaged will not be able to respond. In essence, you lose control and have random movement happen to you. I would not enjoy this from a gameplay perspective. And to prevent any doubt, I have reread it to confirm the planned implementation. I honestly think this stun mechanic is a bad idea, at least with how it is proposed.
1 Like
And if you read the blog you would see they explained this by one crew being hit/injured and used the gunner as an example of the effects they take (aiming variable) you are not prevented from playing, you are just hindered from doing the normal task.
Which if you bothered to do any basic research on WTs crew mechanic you would understand that this SAME system is already present :D its called crew health and this effects the crew stats. its the same with crew replenishment, you get given “an inexperienced crew” vs what you originally had.
Your arguing like stun is something “new” in terms of what it does in WT when in reality is been present in WT for literally the last several years. the only “new” aspect to this stun is the concussion which seems to be specifically for duel control turrets which actually is more IRL than you think, leos/strvs having instant take over is unrealistic anyway and needed to be nerfed regardless if you play top tier you will understand why.
1 Like
Personally I’m not a big fan of any of these 3 options, and the biggest change I want to see, would be a nerf to Spall liners as I believe they ruin the skill of top tier by giving some tanks a unfair advantage in damage reduction, and the leopard 2’s benefit the most from this.
Managing a close to 50/50 split even with all the (often deliberate) misinformation going around is rather impressive. It’s good to hear the devs won’t just be blindly taking these results as absolute fact with no context.