They completely screwed Gen 1 APDS recently, we’re still using it. They massively buffed HEAT-FS damage nothing has moved. Hell OQF 75mm APCBC has been complete garbage in damage for years and the tanks didn’t move BR because they’re still pretty usable.
Hell when they changed EVERY SINGLE KINETIC SHELL IN THE GAME to a fomrula do you remember it being the end of the world??? A few things shifted but it wasn’t that bad at all.
1 Like
I was arguing against this statement, saying that his view of “not wanting unrealistic damage” is in itself unrealistic and just leads to bad gameplay.
I love it when people just show up in the middle of arguments and interject against stuff when they don’t know what the argument was in the first place.
Decreasing damage > bigger ttk > more randomness > more abilities to unskilled 0.5 kd players
So because you have to aim better you think this will unfairly benefit low skill players XD
5 Likes
How are you so sure? If you voted yes there would have been a test to see how these changes actually effect gameplay.
9 Likes
It takes a lot of skill to point and click at a cupola
1 Like
Yeah, about as much as any other weakspot.
That’s because none of these shells have even nearly as much impact on the low/mid tier balance as APHE does. If QQF 75mm APCBC is terrible, it affects like 5 tanks or whatever.
If gen 1 APDS is terrible it affects nearly only british vehicles and not even a lot of them. Lower BR ones can also use solid shot instead of APDS as it still has plenty of pen and does much more damage.
HEAT-FS again also isn’t often a main ammo type of a vehicle. And that buff wasn’t even close to being as significant.
In this change on the other hand they not only touch the most wide spread ammo type in the entire game, but also rework it in a way that stops it from damaging vehicles by shooting certain parts of them all together.
It can’t be compared to any shell change ever made in the past as it’s impact on the game will be much larger. It has potential to completely break some vehicles while making other irrelevant
The problem now is that we can see any proposed change that was made to any other round (or similar mechanic) will receive the same treatment if put to a vote and be blocked before it’s even tested.
Realism improvements should never have been put up to vote in a climate where players disgruntled about all other kinds of unrelated game issues will likely vote no out of spite. This whole thing was just a terrible idea.
6 Likes
the idea of having to vote if APHE shells remain magical nuke shells is laughable, this is a change the game needs to have or Gaijin will actually make AP shells just as magical to make them as good as APHE
3 Likes
Maybe this mechanic will be bad but at leat We should try! Voting ‘‘no’’ without any test It’s a totaly waste
3 Likes
That won’t pass a vote either. The vote-before-we-test approach sticks us with the current game, as is, forever.
A fact that the vote is nearly equal for both sides only validates the need for it.
1 Like
Issue is that it is widely seen as a nerf and people dont want their favorite rounds nerfed.
However, it seems like a net buff if “yes” wins but if “no” wins, it will be a sizable buff.
3 Likes
Why? So if this change was occuring years ago you’d be ok with it? Weird take
Buff solid AP by making it unrealistically good as APHE, screw it turn all the shrapnel generated by solid AP into human homing missiles, why not? you can kill the whole crew of a tank with APHE by shooting the hull corner while the shell is not even travelling in the direction of where the crew are
1 Like
what??? Dude… what you wrote doesn’t make sense
It’s even shown off in the images no one looks at as not a nerf really for proper hits, you can see 57mm APHE doing MORE Kills in the new system. Yet people are silly
1 Like
And the fact newly created accounts can be created for free and vote immediately can be gamed, as we have seen today, I suspect.
2 Likes
It saves development time on a change that would only create more problems that would require additional development time to be solved. And even if it gets tested and then rejected then what it is if not a waste?
Voting yes for it is a waste. Why test something that you already know will create a metric tone of problems afterwards? It’s much better to work on something actually productive.