Sure, tho still gives the arbitrary cutoff.
Well if they are adding a feature that some vehicles had, they better add it to all of them.
Honestly i just wish they didn’t. Just remove arbitrary spalling cutoffs and don’t add spall liners. Its just a more consistant experience for everyone involved. Which is the big issue of how they are talking about spall liners, its just a nightmare in terms of knowing what damage the shell will do
We’re currently faced with an arbitrary cut off. They haven’t modeled all vehicles known to have spall liners, only Rank VIII tanks to play catch up with their choice to add spall liners to the T90M.
That’s the problem faced with the current path. If you’re gonna do it, you have to do it across the board.
I disagree that spall liners should never be added. I think it’s necessary for the health of the game at top tier, tanks IRL don’t die from one penetrating shot. It should help to prevent “CoD” gameplay which currently dominates due to the ease at which you can kill tanks. Spall liners should slow down gameplay as multiple penetrating shots are required to finish a tank.
Its arbitrary in the sourcing requirement and what vehicles they have bothered to get around to. Its not arbitrary based on whatever rank number the vehicle has.
I think that is a noteworthy difference. It would be like giving the Abrams DU inserts depending on the rank.
You dont have to do it across the board, but you do it bottom up on some old vehicle and not top down.
They kinda do. Any shot that penetrates and that dissables or scares the crew enough is a “kill”
It just makes the engagement inconsistent. You wont know what spalling to expect and where to place the shot untill you have shot at least once on the target.
It will be like 6mm structural steel carousel box catching shrapnel and the tank surviving because 1/15 times my dart is unlucky and passes between 8 shells and does no damage.
Same with the AMX 30, or Leclerc occasionally eating darts frontally. Meanwhile Centurion or Abrams get yeeted, a lot of that being the fact Abrams have no hull armor
Spall liners make the spall cone smaller, it doesn’t absorb all penetrating small.
Yes that’s due to the fuel tanks placed frontally. That’s what T-55s have, that’s what T-72s have.
They’ve already chosen to do it top down, and yes it’s an arbitrary cut off. I would rather see an arbitrary cut off that makes sense logically for game balance rather than the current haphazard implementation we’re currently seeing.
Does that message say it does?
And like late Centurion or Abrams. Except those get yeeted for using slightly thicker plates, and in the case of Abrams it uses actuall armor plate.
Well, gane balance is via BR. The arbitrary cutoff by using rank would create wild BR swings of otherwise identical vehicles
“passes between 8 shells and does no damage”
Yes. Where does it mention spall liner? And where doesn’t it specify what caught the shrapnel?
Yet tanks that were given spall liners didn’t increase in BR.
Probably because they had no numbers to actually balance said vehicles with spall liner. Gaijin only does vibes based balancing when a vehicle first releases
I think they were given enough feedback on the dev server to have recognized the buff they were arbitrarily adding.
Iirc dev server didn’t have spall liner for all of the additional vehicles. And for that part it seems more like they rushed that addition in response to feedback on dev server. Even so its probably the right thing to add apall liner and adjust BR later if need be. Especially if a lot of vehicles are supposed to have them
Adding Rank VIII in the first place should have denoted a BR increase which is necessary in GRB to prevent further compression.
Gaijin has demonstrated incompetence with this update. They don’t understand their own game.
Rank really hasnt been that since forever. Its more of a arbitrary progression limiter. A fairly well implemented one in fact.
Rank and BR are for sorting vehicles. Rank VIII in its current form exists to deflect criticism for adding “top tier premiums” by being able to say “they’re not top tier they’re Rank VII”.
Rank VIII and the addition of spall liners should have seen the top BR increased to 12.3
No?
Ok, this is supplemental to the estimates in this post, which put the Abrams turret at 960mm and LFP at 650 with 3rd gen DU armor packages.:
These new photos are from “The World’s Greatest Tanks” by Michael E. Haskew. Published by Amber Books. This book just gives a flat estimate of 960mm of protection provided by 3rd gen DU inserts.
I also have Clancy’s Armored Cav, which puts the baseline M1A2 (non-SEP) at 800mm protection. Still better than the current values we get from the nerfed export non-DU Swedish trials variant that our baseline M1A2 and even our SEPs are stuck with.
Clancy also describes the armor composition, granted with guesses. Except for a description of the spall mitigation layer that is stated rather definitively. I can upload those pages if it would be of use.
I find it funny that Mr. Damage is willing to cite NiiStali as “evidence” and then claim that we consider that or the UVZ propaganda book as valid sources, when even Gaijin won’t accept the Russian estimates of 750mm KE for the Abrams. XD
The 750mm estimate isn’t a good source, you said that Mr. Damage. Even the Swedish trial M1A2 export variant exceeds those numbers on the turret. That book was nothing but butthurt propaganda trying to save face as they malded and coped about their tanks being BTFO’d by the Abrams in Iraq not once, but twice.
We never said either of those sources you like are good. Gaijin straight up rejected the armor estimate from the UVZ book.
Does Gaijin accept the book as a source? can you show the page with info about spall liner ?
