But it’s necessary. If the developers truly want to do it right, balanced and fair, everything needs to be reviewed and rebalanced. I know it’s a mess right now, but it’s the same old story. It’s something the developers should have done from the beginning, and kept modifying it properly, especially since the players wanted realism. But they made the mistake of evolving the game within a flawed mechanic until reaching a point of no return, only forward progress. That’s why the game feels like things get worse every year, and they implement worse mechanics, because the game’s foundations were flawed from the start.
The game was intended to be a realistic competitor to World of Tanks, but ended up being World of Tanks 2.0 (the kind that today’s players want).
In principle, the basic accuracy figures should be realistic, as there have been several reports where these figures have been changed due to official documents. What is certain is that there is no effect from wind, humidity, or other factors that would affect accuracy.
But then we would have to give the Full AP cards an artificial upgrade so that they deal damage in a sphere, and the HEAT, APCR, and APDS cards would also have to be upgraded, since their situation is the same as that of the Full AP cards.
I’d be interested if the devs at least did some kind of test with that mechanic, to see how the matches would play out, and then decide. It’s also the same old story: realistically, as long as people keep buying premium tanks and premium accounts, the devs aren’t going to change a thing, since they’ve achieved something extremely beneficial: a large number of complacent players who accept everything the devs come up with and even buy everything they put on sale. Removing veteran players to replace them with these new ones was the best strategy the devs have ever implemented.
This is a company. What they want is to earn money, like every other company in the history of business.
The only motivation they would have to initiate such a comprehensive revision of the game is if it would bring them more money.
On the face of it, this seems highly unlikely, because the more realistic tank experience we have described (bigger map, worse aim, one penetration ends the fight) leads to a much slower flow of the game. And if there’s one thing we can observe for certain in the playerbase, it’s that people like quick and plentiful action.
This seems like projection to me. The popularity of current GRB is no accident.
It doesn’t feel that way to me, or I wouldn’t be playing it.
I would like to see more competitive parity, but high levels of realism are best left to Discord-run events and/or a future overhaul of SB perhaps.
It sells the illusion of realism, and does it really well. This is foundational to its success, as you yourself state:
Yep.
I may not have been sufficiently clear in what I mean by “accuracy”.
When you think of accuracy in WT you are probably thinking of horizontal and vertical targeting speed + average spread of your shots over a certain distance. But you’re missing the fact that mechanically, aiming in WT works completely differently than it would have in WW2.
For example: for tanks that don’t have hand-cranked turrets, we always use the powered turret drive rotation. This means we perform our gun laying at the maximum possible theoretical speed. This was not done in real WW2 gunnery. The powered drive would get you most of the way to the target, but without the micro-adjustments made possible by a mouse interacting with software, the final gun laying was performed manually because the “fast” drive lacked the precision necessary to perform the final corrections. Try and play ground RB with your mouse DPS settings turned up all the way and you might get a feel for what I’m talking about.
When you add parallax difference, hurry, visibility etc, the kind of pixel hunting we do would simply not happen. There’s a reason tanks tended to have their armour concentrated in the UFP… because most shots in real life conditions were simply centre mass shots.
To go more in depth about why War Thunder’s aiming system is so much better than real life, the issue is that your gun constantly follows your reticle. Unless you’re pressing free look, there is no point during the match where the gun is not adjusting its elevation and traverse based on where you’re looking.
This level of constant micro-corrections happening every tenth of a second is simply impossible to replicate in real life. The gunner isn’t gonna sit there working his arm off his shoulders to constantly micro-readjust the aiming of the gun, and even if he wanted to, he’s not going to do it for a target he or his commander can’t see. And good luck looking steadily through a gunsight of the era while your tank is moving over rough terrain, and managing to stay on the target…
If you give tanks real-life penetration vulnerability, but leave this terminator laser-like accuracy of gun laying, you are not going to get a realistic engagement.
If APHE can have its sphere of death, I don’t see why every other round can’t get, say, a strong bonus spall modifier.
It might lead to BR changes, but the same would have been true with an APHE nerf anyway.
Of course they have to make money, what I’m saying is that at least, since they’re making money, they should provide a slightly better service, and not base or condition absolutely everything they do in the game on “let’s see how we can make more money by working less.” For example, bug reports: there’s a huge number of bugs reported and accepted, but they’ve gone years without being fixed. I imagine it’s because fixing bugs doesn’t generate money, and if people eventually forget about them or get used to them (which is what usually happens), then the developers are free to waste time fixing them.
I was referring to players in the early days, eight or nine years ago.And also, the fact that the vast majority of players don’t want the APHE nerf, that they seek to abuse CAS, that they want extremely small maps and CQC combat, and that ODL is constantly being done is not an accident either.
I’m still playing, and I’m noticing. You only have to look at the number of rebounds or drives without damage that happen, which didn’t happen eight years ago (at least not so frequently). That means either the game has gotten worse, or the devs have added a random mechanic to save players from dying.
It’s clear that there are many missing precision factors (which would be interesting to add to lengthen games), but for example, changing from powered turret drive rotation to the crank could be done simply by making short mouse movements slower to represent adjustments with the crank.
I think it’s just as impossible for them to give all bullets a damage sphere as it is for them to add a stun system.
The simplest way to improve the game is to give all bullets consistent spalling damage, essentially giving them the same damage they have now but removing the randomness that sometimes causes bullets to pass through without doing any damage. And in the case of APHE bullets, it would mean removing the kill sphere and replacing it with a slightly larger damage cone than the other bullets. This would improve things and wouldn’t require changing any Battle Royale (BR) weapons, since APHE bullets are already too powerful. Removing the kill spheres would simply make them less overpowered in securing easy kills.
I don’t usually give too much consideration to player stats since they aren’t necessarily indicative of vehicle’s capabilities. I think it makes more sense to balance a vehicle around its hard parameters than around its playerbase.
In the case of the BT series, they are the direct predecessors to the ever iconic T-34, so you are going to get tons of new players playing them. This is where your point about armor does actually somewhat come into play. Vehicles that are strong overall, but have low survivability are going to inherently require more skill to unlock the full potential of. Most new players are just going to rush into direct combat and will often die first if they are facing something with a shoulder stab that gets the first shot off. But a semi-decent player can do very well with the firepower+mobility combination.
I’d also like to point out that I am not content with the current state of the Pz.III, Pz.IV, and Stuart family, as well as many other low rank vehicles. They need changes too. My reply was just only looking at the BT series.
I think it’s also disingenuous to discount my proposed changes to the BT-7M as just a double nerf. I also want to give it scouting, APCR, and HE. The BT-7M gets brought into higher BR line-ups all the time, so this would make it generally more completive.
I would argue there is a need. I’d consider Rank I to be extremely unbalanced, but no one talks about it since you aren’t forced to spend too much time there. Considering this is meant to be the first exposure new players get, I see a major need to address this issue instead of just leaving it be.
If you honestly feel that the BT series’s placement fine as is, than there’s really nothing more I can say. You’re entitled to your own opinion, and we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
I’d say vehicles like M8 LAC and Stuart are some of the bigger offenders. Yes the BT’s are fast with decent guns but the stuarts are similar with better armor and stabilizers.
M8 LAC has a very high mounted 50 which can pen most vehicles from behind a hill lol. I’d say 1.7 for both the 1.0 Stuart and the M8 LAC
It’s not quite so simple for the Stuarts. There’s several different parameters that are ahistorical and could be nerfed. With those changes applied, the M2A4 could be 1.3.
I’d personally go as far as to say they are imo they best vehicle from ,1.x-2.x seriously they are just solid all-rounders
Regardless asking for gaijin to change something seems far fetched they only like doing that to nations they don’t like.
Seriously though Mig-29 would be far better if they lost the R27ER for the R73 (just using them as an example given people have asked for this forever)
I have issues with all KV tanks they’re a bitch to pen, you’re the one who doesn’t know how to read. Obviously I’m making fun of you for buying the tigers if you didn’t spend money on the KV-220.
I think point 2 is a questionable metric as of present given the state of the matchmaker and how often you’re getting full uptiers (like all the time).
If you ever catch me saying I’m good at this game you can use that against me, but I’ve never said that. And so what, my arcade mode stats have the Centurion 1 as my most played tank. What’s your point?
To be fair they are by far the most annoying tanks to pen and easily kill in the 4.X area unless you are playing a German tank or a TD. However, I wouldn’t call any undertiered now that the Kv-1E/B are both rightfully 4.3.
