There’s no fear here.But there is frustration for bad game design and community engagement if you’re going to disregard a vote and do whatever you want. The fact that we got a fairly healthy compromise with two of the four proposals being voted in favor set to be added should be satisfactory to you. Why can’t you just accept that?
Not to mention; Gaijin is going to just drop the proposal that they claimed to have only a 2% difference but is going to revisit the mechanic that had the biggest difference? Sorry but that’s asinine in every sense.
And my point still stands as well. A “no” is a no.
Gaijin didn’t disregard the “no” vote. They are not going to implement it.
And they DID rework the fire mechanic, it’s different the way they are implementing it compared to their proposal. Why? Because they wanted to find a compromise to please everyone in a lesser or greater degree, because they know they can’t just ditch half the playerbase in favour of the other half.
They merely intend to do something similar, except it’s not even certain, and would likely be subject to vote again; not to mention that they specifically stated that it may not even come back as a suggestion in the future if they deem that the accepted mechanics already solve the issue this suggestion was meant to solve.
So then I stand correct in that the entirety of the vote was pointless. Each one of the mechanics, despite two of them getting a no from the player-base, will get revisited and/or implemented in one way or another. Our input was effectively a show and a waste of effort. That is just stellar community engagement. I guess that shouldn’t be a shocker because despite players requesting such things like the 2S38 to go up, our requests mean nothing.
And if it ever is ruled again, which is not even a certainty per Gaijin’s words, it will be in a reworked and massively toned down version which will likely be once again subjected to vote, in which case, if everyone hates it so much, can just vote “no” again.
You keep talking as if Gaijin had “dismissed and ignored” the vote results when it’s not the case.
Still don’t understand why there needs to be a “just vote no again” in the first place. I don’t understand it. Why is the first no not enough. This whole thing goes away if Gaijin just drops it.
You mean the same dataminers that uncovered an extra 100mm armor plate right in front of the IS-6’s gunner years ago? An armor plate that would protect said gunner in the event of a penetration, and was pretty much impossible to find out without datamining its armor layout?
The problem is when Gaijin decides to implement 4 of them then it will more realistic but you guys are from off the reddit website complaining in r/warthunder now why?
Yeah, so it can stiff turret traverse while engine/batter is at 0, because it’s turret independent generator continues running, but gaijin should model these in X-Ray and modules if they go all in on this.
oh now i can see it, isn’t that just the modifier for the armor quality though?
as in: if the armor type is, let say, structural steel with a modifier of 0.45 (45%) and is 100mm thick then the “armorthrough” value would be 45mm. If in the same scenario the armor is HHRA with 1.25 (125%) the “armorthrough” value would be 125mm.
its just a value subtracted from the rounds total penetration to change how much penetration is still left when calculating the next piece the round goes through (or not).
its definitively not what you would describe as a “extra armor plate”.
HOWEVER in the link you sent there seem to be a value that is to high applied to the gun mask:
What i suspect happened is that someone did 150/200 and got 0.75 and though “oh good, its the 25% extra from HHRA in difference” when in actuality they should have done 200/150 and gotten 1.33 and thought “whoops, accidentally got 33% instead of 25% extra, need to fix that”.
and then something similar for the other part.
I will say that i know very little about the inner workings of war thunder armor programming but i know base level programming in general. i might be completely wrong here but it seemed the most logical explanation as the numbers lined up so well to the modifiers (and have done so in some other examples i saw whilst googling “armorthrough” as well).
Judging by how long ago this was it seems more like a bug/mistake whilst implementing a new feature a few tanks at a time or something. But again, i’m just going on context clues and plausible logical explanations.
That’s what they say yes, but I think an increase of 50% in armor thickness is a little suspect to only get noticed by a dataminer. This isn’t just a few milimetres, it’s a huge difference - and stayed like this for a good while.
50% combined on the two specific modules. not on every armor on the tank.
and its 33% for one and 100% for the other.
The issue seems to be (if i understood it correctly) that the specific tank had both turret front and turret gun mask modeled with an extra 50mm of “armorthrough” in the programming when it should not have been different at all. i don’t think the actual number matters, what matters is that it was different when it should have been the same as the regular numbers.
that it comes out to 50% is probably just a coincidence but it is 50mm extra per piece.
the value is normally used to simulate layered armor to make the armor act thicker than the physical measurements.
