If you guys could leave the off-topic SPAA/HE-VT stuff for its own thread, that’d be great.
2 Likes
The punishment is already there, you’re immobilized for however long the repair lasts and are very likely to take more hits.
1 Like
The extra modules in select vehicles was close to 87% for, 13% against.
The stun mechanic was 41% for, 59% against.
The additional fires in fighting compartment was 49% for, 51% against.
The automatic crew healing was another 85-87% for, 15-13% against.
So only one of the ground battle damage modeling will be implement, two won’t. And the automatic healing will be added as well.
2 Likes
Thanks.
The only vehicles they mentioned initially were NATO MBTs, and only after they heard everyone make a stink they mentioned the 2S38 - except of course they aren’t raising its BR until they are fully finished with its modules (which could be never).
2 Likes
Alright, who’s the CAS main that telling the Dev’s to nerf Spaa AMX-10P? It’s the only well-rounded French Spaa in 5.7-7.0! (Truck doesn’t count/either the 50cal one).
Now it won’t be able to help ground forces with its nerfed depression.
1 Like
-
i thought yall said they dont listen to us?
-
no they didnt, just because htey dont mention all of em doesnt mean not more than 2 are coming
read the post, they said 2s38 is the first to get its modules
So this “Stun” only apply when crew got hit right ? if it is then i’m agree with this.
But in my opinion Stun machanic should be simple not too hardcore.
A darkened screen similar to high G-force in aircraft (but happen a lot quicker) or vision blur would be enough. Combine that with a ringing sound (tinnitus sound effect) or just “sound fade out” for a brief moment.
And [optional option] maybe lost control from a crews (that got hit) for a brief moment.
For example
if driver got hit you lost control from tank movement for a seconds. (tank doesn’t stop but keep moving in the direction you previously going)
if gunner got hit lost control from gun handling for a seconds. (turret / gun stop moving)
if loader got hit. Reload got reset or delay for a seconds.
if commander got hit (while gunner still alive and well) lost control from roof machine gun for a seconds.
Crew healing sound ok to have. Definitely better than having to deal with red driver,gunner,loader.
Overalll we need to see how it work first before tweak it.
1 Like
The issue, one that a lot of people didn’t like, is that if your gunner was hit (for example) it would shift your aim up to a quarter of your screen. And that’s just one part of the crew. What does it do to the driver? Cause them to stop or accelerate uncontrollably? No thank you. Does it freeze your loader and slow the reload speed? Do they drop the round, making out start all over again on the reload? None of these add value to the overall experience.
Luckily, people voted against the Stun proposal so we won’t be seeing it.
1 Like
As i said in my post “optional option” Doesn’t mean Gaijin must implement these effect on crews.
For gunner only stop your aim for a 1-2 second no need to drag your aim else where.
For driver tank just keep going in the direction you previously going for only 1-2 second.
For loader only add a few seconds to reload rate for that moment.
Even then it still not up to us to make a final decision.
Please stop talking about shit you clearly know nothing about…
ITPSV 90 MARKSMAN was originally on a t55 chassis and in use for years.
When Finland got extra leopard chassis lying around in 2015, they changed the marksman turrets on those and it became the ITPSV LEOPARD 2 MARKSMAN.
So obviously both versions are “production vehicles”, and the real Ilmatorjuntapanssarivaunu 90 isn’t actually in game.
4 Likes
They’re both called that. They’re both real as you said.
So all you’ve done is agree with me.
Dude… I’m Finnish, so maybe don’t try to be a smartass about my own language.
Lmaoooo nice edit once again… No i didn’t agree with you, as you stated
Which is implying the other isn’t a production vehicle.
And also
Which is just incorrect.
3 Likes
Is this game realistic enough??? - - no,make it more
Only after enough people make enough of a stink, like with the spall liner stuff from earlier this year or the economy changes last year.
When you mention only NATO MBTs in a devlog talking about nerfing IFVs and APCs, it shows where their priorities lie.
Read the post, they’re saying they won’t raise its BR until they have more data from module changes (i.e. no BR change in the meantime, and if the modules don’t nerf it enough we’ll have to wait even longer for them to realize that).
Weird seeing people advocating for Gaijin to ignore the results of the vote. Like why have it then? We rarely get to actually impact what gets added and not. Accept some people didn’t like some of the proposals and voted accordingly.
Further more, it’s also weird that people voted in favor of something, then stated they didn’t like the proposed idea. Like then why did you vote in favor of it? None of the proposed mechanics were stated in such a fashion like “We have this idea. What’s yours?”
It was clearly “Here is our idea, do you want it or no?”.
“We want to bake you some chocolate chip cookies. Do you want chocolate chip cookies, yes or no?”
And y’all be answering like “Yes, I want chocolate chip cookies. But I don’t actually like chocolate chip cookies and instead want a fried egg. A fried egg would be much better”.
2 Likes
Realistically, I do not see these results as absolutely binding.
-Extra modules is more than likely to be implemented due to overwhelming support.
-Crew stun is possible to be revisited, but unlikely due to it being too polarizing.
-Extra internal fires is quite likely to be revisited due to it being less polarizing, but admittedly vague as it stood when presented.
-Crew healing is likely to be added as well, though I have doubts it will be as presented.
1 Like
Being revisited down the line not an issue. Especially if the revision contains more details and is based on feedback. But the logic rationale is lost on me when people are/were demanding the vote be scraped because they didn’t like the outcome and people voting for something but being against it; only to offer up their take when none of the questions asked for it.
Vote no, and then give your reasoning. Voting yes, in regard to this poll was for the implementation of what Gaijin proposed, not what you want to see. That’s the point of feedback when you vote according.
“Yes, because I like Gaijin’s idea of A,B, and C because…”.
“No, because I don’t like Gaijin’s idea of X, Y, and here’s why…”.
Do as you will I guess, but that’s just bonkers to me.
6 Likes
i think a mechanic, with shatering optics if destroyed and or rendering laserrange finder useless once the optics are hit, also including the capability to track air tarets for vehicles with optical tracking modules, could be an additional option to stun/explosion effects
And still nothing is being done about the further compression that is being caused by the battle rating changes. Sure the MiG-15s/17s & Sabres have a bit of difficulty at their current BR (pre-change implementation), but moving the A-5 Sabre to 8.0 is too much. It doesn’t need to be facing Su-9s, Su-11s and the lot.
Yes, the changes are decompressing the Mid-High tier range, but making the Low-High tiers suffer.
Also why isn’t the 2S38 being moved to 11.7 where it belongs?
There is a LOT of things that need to be done to make this game playable.
1 Like