There never should have been a vote to test the idea. They should have had a test, then had a vote.
2 Likes
But they explained why the vote was happening. It was going to take some amount of development time; such that could have been spent elsewhere. Thats the reason for the vote. Additionally, the vote also included the reworking of HE aspect of APHE; effectively being a nerf. So you weren’t just voting for a test, but a test with the nerf.
A no vote could have been for one or the other, or both. I didn’t ask for an APHE rework, so I don’t want time spent on it. I also don’t want a round a clear majority of vehicles I use to be nerfed. Furthermore a yes vote would’ve increased the possibility of an implementation to nth degree, which would’ve dramatically upset the current balance of the game. Certain tanks would’ve gotten immensely stronger and some immensely weaker. For some people, that was all they needed to say no.
3 Likes
A “no” would make them win more time since it’ll clearly say ppl doesnt want THIS change (at the moment) so they could focus on other features ppl would
1 Like
What development? Ground forces as a game mode has been completely stagnant, other than new vehicles. There is no development happening in ground forces.
You don’t want APHE nerfed but I do. People want an easy button. I want things to work as they should.
5 Likes
I don’t think you’ve been playing ground battles if you believe there’s been zero development.
We’ve gotten drones, trench dozers, magical crew healing, the player base just recently voted yes on the ability to create ammo boxes for certain vehicles like SPAAs and ATGMs; just to name a few.
Now whether or not these have been net positives or net negatives for ground battles; that is a different discussion. But no, ground battles have not been “stagnant”.
You are allowed to want the APHE rework. But only 48% agreed with you, and 52% disagreed. That’s how voting works. Sometimes you win, sometimes you don’t.
I haven’t played in a while as my computer needs work but I’m aware of those additions. Drones aren’t a positive. Trenching has been abandoned. When was the last dozer tank added? When was the last flame thrower tank added? Gimmicks do nothing for the game. We need improvements, not gimmicks.
3 Likes
I see that the word nerf is being used too often and with a lot of fear. It is clear that the word nerf is not usually liked, but in many cases it is necessary for certain vehicles to receive it since they greatly exceed the statistics of other tanks of their level. We have already seen how many tanks had their Br raised by up to 1.0 (that is a nerf), but it is still necessary, although it is clear that those who use those tanks find it very unfair and if they could they would vote against this change. What I am saying in all this is that as much as it is said nerf, if it is necessary it must be accepted, I play with many tanks with APHE, in fact the tank with the best stats that I have is the Ferdinand, but I know that to a large extent I have them because that tank has APHE, if I did not have that ammunition or they changed it I would not have made almost half of the kills, that is why from the beginning of the GF I realized that It was stupidly absurd that your combat effectiveness depended on whether your tank had APHE or not.
I understand the players who don’t want the change, many only play nations that use APHE and only in certain Br, but it would be interesting for them to play with other nations, like the UK or France, with tanks that use Full AP or APCR, to play for example 100 games with the T-34 85, the Tiger 2 and then with the Comet, ARL-44, Centurion Mk3, etc, and then compare the enemy deaths and casualties, that way they would realize the enormous difference.
This unfortunately introduces a whole other issue though; that being the state progression. I enjoy what I enjoy. So why would I subject myself to the rigors of another slog for a new nation, especially if it doesn’t interest me? If Japan, China, Italy, and Israel were appealing enough when I first started playing; then I would’ve gone with them instead.
But I love Shermans. It’s my favourite tank to date. And the US simply has the most of them. Why would play any other nation? Now sure, at this point, every nation has one. But one or two is not worth the hassle to get to them. You’d have to overhaul the progression system in a way Gaijin doesn’t seem to want to do.
But to bring this back in line with theme of the discussion; I’m not against other rounds getting buffs to make them more viable. Which I feel like was a better direction to go. But I am against taking what I enjoy and making it less enjoyable. From my point of view, it seems like a yes vote was more about taking the one round that’s fun and making it feels just as bad as everyone else when I want and would support bringing everyone else up. Balance is still achieved, just in an “everyone benefits” instead of a “no one is allowed to have fun”.
2 Likes
But this is an entirely subjective take. And what you are advocating isn’t an improvement. It’s a nerf. Nerfs aren’t improvements. Especially when the intent is to make it as worse off as everything else rather than improving what isn’t good in the first place.
It’s also subjective to say APHE is fine the way it is.
It is an improvement. APHE doesn’t explode in a sphere. It’s a cone.
And don’t get started on the field repair mechanics or other game mechanics. Those are separate issues.
1 Like
I think it’s very good that you don’t want to use other nations, you’re within your rights, just as if you want to play 40,000 games with M4, that’s your business, but in an online game, where you play with and against other players, you can’t demand that things be kept that have been there since the start of GF and that the devs didn’t change due to ignorance or laziness. You can do this in games against the AI, where you can even ask to have the option of killing 16 tanks with one shot, because you’re not harming anyone. However, being online, the negligence of the devs has led to this, to many players deciding to only play with tanks and nations with APHE only, and all this is because the devs didn’t modify the damage when they should have, which is when GF stopped being Beta.
It seems correct to me that all the bullets, when penetrating, do almost the same as the APHE. It would even have a certain realism, when penetrating, the fragments of the bullets would bounce off the inside of the tanks, killing all the crew. So if you hit someone in the dome with an APDS, when penetrating the fragments would bounce off the other part of the dome and go down, killing everyone in the turret and hull. That’s good, I’m in favor.
There are plenty of things to do, even with shells rework other than this one, there are also other modes to work on than grd, and maybe you want it to come, but most ppl didnt, and also i dont think you play lot of grd battles to Say it’s never updated because it was 2 days ago but i wont go further since it’s beyond the topic
It’s not only for that that ppl could have voted no. They could also vote no because they would rather gaijin to focus on other features than this very change, btw i know it’s just an example but arl44 has a very decent ap for 5.3. that’s why it’s with t34-85, it surely hasnt same post pen, but it has 100 more mm of pen and the tank is more modern on the paper
3 Likes
Yes but damage doesnt come only from the ammo explosion, you have heat, qwake, metal from the pened plate. Also shouldnt forget that the quest to a purely real Pen is a dream, it’s not in less than a tenth that you will do things that takes days/weeks to do on othersoftwares
And what other features should gaijin focus on instead of balancing bullets? It’s clear that if you only play planes it affects you, since it’s time they spend on GF and not on planes, but if you play tanks I don’t see anything more important than balancing the game, in fact balancing bullet damage is more important than even modifying the penetration calculator.
1 Like
For the others features i already talked about but mods made understand the guy and me it was beyond the topic so i wont go further here. And even for tank battles there are others things to do that some persons could prefer, like volumetric shell fix. And as you said, it could be time dev wont take for planes
1 Like
No, I’m stating you are among the sheep herd, anyone who has voted Yes has either “A” taken everything into consideration or “B” the more common choice would be B “I vote yes, but don’t give a reason why I did so, so I’ll make one on the spot”.
Your responding that you voted yes is only telling me you had no actual reasoning to vote yes, you just did so out of dumb pain and frustration rather than thinking.
Volumetric shells are a disaster and cause a lot of problems due to not implementing them correctly, but at the end of the day they essentially affect all tanks of all nations to a greater or lesser extent, on the other hand the imbalance of the APHE only affects certain nations, it is something selective, so it is something that should be modified as quickly as possible (and they have been maintaining it for many years), apart from that I don’t think the devs need half their life to correct the damage of the APHE, it would simply be taking the damage of the Full AP and giving them a slightly larger cone of fragments, varying more or less depending on the explosive payload. Although knowing gaijin, I’m sure they would go all out making a completely new damage model with weird variables to end up making something the same as it is now, instead of making it easier and more realistic.
The damage from concussion is minor. There have been tests on the impact of the round detonating in confined spaces. The majority of the explosive energy is going into fracturing the shell. Gaijin’s interpretation is completely unrealistic.
I’m not expecting a simulator of penetration. I’m expecting a reasonable interpretation of how things would perform. APHE is currently not reasonable.
3 Likes
They said it would take lot of time if ppl want the test, this time you could vote so they do smthg else they would delay if they do the test, volumetric was just an example of else,
1 Like