Or maybe Gaijin simply wanted to make APHE realistic, but knew everyone would cry upon hearing any kind of nerf to APHE.
They know buffs are always seen positively by people, so they made a vote on the nerf to see just how mad people will get and avoid review bombing.
Yeah suddenly after 10 years they wanted to make the shells perform realistically, as if.
yeah… as it should be. pvp games without balance are incredibly one-sided. would you want to always be shoved into a much, much worse tank than your opponents? historical matchup accuracies should be reserve for a dedicated milsim pve game.
Sim is already the least populated mode, would be even worse if you split the player base unevenly by making matches so one side has an unfair advantage over the other. I’d throw out a wild guess and say most people don’t want to play at a distinct disadvantage most of the time just for the sake of muh realism.
Sim is already the least populated mode
I mean, to be fair the only reason it’s like that is because it’s both neglected and extremely casualized to the point there’s no reason to play it over realistic.
If it had actual support it could probably rival other modes but since it’s a forgotten relic it’s expected to be played as such.
It’s not a choice between balance or realism, you can have a little bit of both. You can have a fairly balanced game with fairly realistic matchups. There’s no reason so many tanks with modern high pen HEAT have to fight WW2 tanks. And by WW2 tanks I don’t mean a Maus, I mean a T-34-85 or an M4A3E8.
Right now the priority ratio is 100% balance 0% realism, why can’t it be 75% balance and 25% realism.
Getting off-topic again, but tbh kinda applies to the topic too.
well at some point you just lose casuals with more and more authentic, but complicated controls. I doubt that it would rival arcade and realistic even with more support. Most people don’t come into this game expecting a milsim. and if you incorporate unfair matchmaking based on historical accuracy, it would probably look even less appealing to most players.
Nah, I don’t think they wanted this either. I think they just figured players wouldn’t ever vote for stronger APHE given a choice, so I would look like they were listening to players here at the end of the day, but didn’t count on some sheep-like behavior and some poorly informed CC’s.
There’s nothing more fundamentally more complicated about sim’s controls. it’s just a different way of utilizing them.
On top of that if the game’s developer brags about accurate representation of the vehicles, what’s the issue with having a game mode that accurately represents their usage? I would be all for a historical match up game mode, it would be fun and a break from the dogshit that is sherman vs sherman vs sherman vs sherman or T-72 vs T-72 vs T-72.
You probably weren’t there yet, or if you were, you seem not to remember very well;
But we already had 100% historical simulator battles and they were a flop.
Queues were always 0-2 for the disadvantaged team, 50+ for the advantaged team- naturally, no one wanted to play in a terrible technical disadvantage. Queue times were 10+ minutes because of this, and sometimes finding a match was straight up impossible.
Bit off-topic, so we should probably discuss this in the topic Panter linked earlier hahah.
But we already had 100% historical simulator battles and they were a flop.
By who’s standards exactly? They tested realistic enduring confrontation (the most fun I’ve ever had in this game) and they said it too was a flop. They tested a battle royal game mode, also extremely fun, but it was deemed a flop. They claim things are flops all the time, you know? Just like top tier jets past 1956? Weird how that turned out.
Not to mention the world war mode that was not only a success but often played by thousands of players when it was actually enabled.
The main issue was when the test of historical simulator battles was ongoing it was both A: during a time in which the game had significantly less players but also B: poorly advertised.
But to add insult to injury, war thunder cannot fundamentally provide a simulator game mode. It lacks too many mechanics and QoL features for it to be more than an arcade game. Ultimately if you rub shit on the wall most people is going to say it stinks, but if you actually spend the time to adequately craft a game mode that’s not only fun but also rewarding you will find a playerbase and you will find that people enjoy something that is properly implemented.
Of course arcade players won’t suddenly start playing sim. Not every change in the game has to be made to please arcade players. There are 3 different game modes to attract different people looking for different level of realism.
Currently War Thunder has grown too big to care about the sim niche. Sim players are often used at the start to get the game going and then thrown away once the game becomes popular.
Yes, the thread is too important to pollute it.
It IS a choice between balance or realism. If you think it is not, give me an example how they could go more into realism without creating a matchmaker seperation that leaves a few tanks in limbo where matchmaking would take several minutes.
because irl wars aren’t fought on even terms and more realism usually tends towards an unbalanced state.
Or it ruins the fun as with the SACLOS missile changes that just ruined dozens of vehicles and made most hightier SPAA almost useless.
WT is still a game, not a full-on simulator. The priority should be on fun for the majority, and therefore balance for a PvP game.
That’s just not true. WT simulates planes much more realistically than many other games, and it is one of a few games to simulate damage inside of tanks.
I agree. Balance should take priority over realism in all circumstances, but that doesn’t mean that realism should be shunned.
APHE is fine as it is, and I don’t see any need for it to change. Solid shot needs to be buffed to be made more usable.
That’s just not true. WT simulates planes much more realistically than many other games
This is only true if your comparisons are call of duty and battlefield.
But if you compare it to IL-2 or DCS you’ve definitely lost that argument tenfold.
and it is one of a few games to simulate damage inside of tanks.
Even in this regard the game falls rather short in comparison to other commercially available products (Steel beasts, Steel Armor).
I agree. Balance should take priority over realism in all circumstances
Balance should give the average person the opportunity to perform but it should never be the only thing that constitutes to gameplay. realism is the literal name of the game mode in some cases and it should be a significant factor when it’s called for.
Yes. AP’s spalling and the shell itself should get a little buff. Reducing the cases where you penetrated and then a dude catches the shell with his chest and only turns orange would be lovely already.
It isn’t.
All HEAT and other modern ammo slingers like M56, IKV 103, M41 (Both American and German), M-51 to 8.0, so they will never meet 6.7s. Preferably with decompression they could be moved even a little higher.
This sentence was talking about priorities when making BR changes.
Solid shot is very usable, it’s just obsolete when compared to APHE.
Buffs always sound cooler, but buffing other shells would be purely a balance decision. The purpose of changing APHE in the first place is improving realism.
On a side note maybe talking about approach to BRs is not that much off-topic, it’s a part of the argument of how important realism is in this game and in post-pen effects.
they’re not the be-all-end-all of realism either, seeing how DCS is rolling dice to see if countermeasures work…
I find it a bit crazy how much pull some folks here are giving a singular Russian CC regarding this vote. And how quick they were to decry the vote as being tampered with or being botted. When you look at the English CCs on this, you see how Tankenstein, The European Canadian, and MatDawg all made videos on the proposal and gave their two cents as to why they think it’s a great idea but when you look at their comment sections; it’s a majority against it for two reoccurring reasons.
They don’t trust Gaijin to implement it fairly or balanced. Which is fair when you look at the track record of even the most recent additions or changes; like spall liners (still missing from a ton of vehicles), the Abrams armor, and research bonuses. Like we still don’t have bomber cockpits and this game is 10 plus years old.
Realism =/= fun.
Watching people here throw every insult they could at those who voted no was bonkers. “Stupid”, “Low IQ”, “braindead who cant think for them”, etc. Yikes. And how do you know they didn’t? How does the vote going the way you don’t want it indicative of whether they read it or not? Again, yikes.
I did read it. And I still voted no. I don’t even want the change to begin with. An APHE rework wasn’t even in my top 50 ideas when we submitted our “what do you want to see on the next roadmap”. But I don’t want it purely from an economical reason (which was in my top two). Anything that decreases the likelihood of a kill, increases TTK, or increases the likelihood of someone coming in and one shot-ing someone I just sent two rounds through…no thank you. Assists don’t pay the most. Hits don’t pay the most. Kills do (and activity time for some dumb reason). The ground progression in War Thunder is abysmal and anything that would make it worse, like altering the circular detention versus a more realistic…no. No thank you.
I’m also not in favour of the damage this is going to do to balancing. And the months it’s going to take for Gaijin to compile new data points they won’t ever share to reassign new BRs. I enjoy 7.7 and down. I specially enjoy 3.7 to 6.7. And this change would absolutely have the strongest effect on that range. And yes, I don’t want my favourite vehicles potentially weaken with this proposed HE “nerf”. Who likes nerfs? I’m not ashamed to admit that and I certainly don’t fault others who voted no for similar reasons.
Again, I don’t even want this change. So if given the option to decrease Gaijin’s effort spent on it, yeah; I’m voting no.
