If someone is not willing to test these changes, even when the test is already up and running, then it obviously means he doesn’t care and it doesn’t affect him.
1 Like
And again, like the ppl who voted yes, the one who voted no are equiped with a brain, surprisingly normal. I dont see how did ppl justified their opinion but still voted without thinking
No it Can also mean that i prefer gaijin working on other features than this one
Nobody told me what to vote, sorry dude
All this to say that you’re not legitimate to say that some arguments are falses and other true, you can chat about them, but not refuses them, and damn mate, it’s a poll stop shitting on ppl
What is the bigger balancing problem:
Bringing one tank overperforming in every single aspect back into a balanced state
or
redefining the proper, balanced spot for roughly ~1/3 of all tanks ingame, and ~80% of the tanks of the entire low and mid tier bracket?
But sure let’s throw more than half the ground BRs into utter disarray just for a bit of muh realism.
I’m a “don’t just buff, nerf where needed” person too but it’s easier and less of a mess to buff the few underperforming outliers than to nerf the comparatively overperforming majority.
1 Like
AP:
vs. good performance APC (90mm T50):
Spoiler
Unfortunetly I couldn’t find the picture of the T50 APCBC that someone posted before on the forums.
It showed the difference in design compared to the M82 and M41 APC.
M61, M62 and M82 (M41) have rounded noses that are quite soft. So they actually will not shatter that often but they also have very bad penetration performance in comparison, since a lot of energy is wasted in deformation of the projectile and they get easily deflected from sloped armor, instead of digging into the armor.
Of course there are like a dozen different factors that change the performance of a shell and whether it breaks up or shatters after penetration, but that’s like a rule of thump.
In WT 75mm M61 and the 75mm Pzgr. 39 have practically the same performance, while in reality the Pzgr. 39 was more effective in penetrating armor for the same amount of energy.
But German APHE fuzes rarely worked and maybe the US onces were actually more reliable, who knows.
3 Likes
No reflexive voting here. I knew actually what I was voting for when I voted no. I’m sorry you can’t understand that.
If they didn’t want the test in the first place, and I would go as far as saying they gave their reason why, then I see no issue with voting no without testing it.
Do you want to get the Maus issue with every very well armored tank in the game?
This Guy and other have kept shitting on people since the poll came out, i think it’s impossible to make him understand that there are brain equiped ppl that dont vote like him and it’s the life
1 Like
That has worked so well for the Maus, right?
1 Like
That’s fine for this vote, but if the test is already up and running, you’re ought to test it before the second vote.
1 Like
But I don’t want the nerf. At all. Full stop. I didn’t even want this rework. It wasn’t even in my too 50 when I gave my ideas to Gaijin for the roadmap. Why would I need to test a nerf I don’t want? I’m at a loss as to why you can’t seem to get that. It’s an automatic no. As well as for the people I play with it. I like the current explosion model. I don’t need to test the nerfing of it.
I understand, but it would take you like 15mins at most and it’s more fair. I dont want it too but if it comes out, i think imma be forced to try it if i wanna open my chatbox
Because your vote (after the test) without testing it would be worth less, than someone’s who did test it and experienced it first hand.
1 Like
It’s been requested by the community for 10 years.
1 Like
It’s not a nerf, it’s a fix.
If Gaijin had modelled Tiger H1 with 600mm of front armor and it was reduced to 102, it wouldn’t have been a “nerf”, but a fix.
At this point I can imagine that, if they did a vote about that example, people would vote “no” because “nerfing Tiger’s 600mm front armor won’t make the other tanks better” and would instead demand to give Shermans a 400mm thick front armor “for balance”.
4 Likes
If they would have done it, it would have done it on purpose, so it would have been a nerf that brings the tank Closer to reality. Also New mechanic doesnt count parameters like qwake and heat so they would automatically introduce a buged mechanic
If only community would realise that most of the time.
Any fix is suddenly a buff or a nerf.
2S38’s autoloader was gimped and unrealistic until modules being modeled? Totally a buff, definitely not a fix and actual modeling of actual autoloader instead of Gaijin’s nerfed model.
1 Like
We don’t know it’s worse because we haven’t tried it yet, that’s what the vote is for. Your all assuming it’s worse when for all you know it may be better in some ways.
Yeah, I remember it too. It was MiseryIndex556 ,but unfortunately the picture he posted is now gone.
@MiseryIndex556 Hey, can you re-post it here, please?
1 Like