I wouldn’t really agree, they do have a point of there being to much empty space and the risk for just “through and through” shots is to high, but i personally think that modeling the baskets as drives isn’t the best idea. It would be better to have the hydraulics and electrics modeled as it would effectively result in the same effect in practice but would be accurate to IRL so way less players would complain (there would obviously still be complaints, there always is… but less).
Not really practically possible, there are to many vehicles for it to be reasonable to do like that.
No, the small details isn’t part of the damage model, look at the main post. (a lot of players have asked for a toggle in X-ray to show damage model instead of the visual model, it would help dispel rumors and make things a bit clearer for players as well).
Agreed, but i personally find it hard to see an alternative route if detailed internals are to be added in the game at all. There is going to be a transition period where things will shift until they are all modeled, but i don’t think it’s actually going to affect things in practice as much as many seem to think. Though i fully understand the feeling of “unfairness” when things are implemented in this way, it’s inevitably going to rile up one side of the coin more than the other so to speak. But that is going to be the case for the other side later as well. It goes back and fourth. Though i personally believe that it might create less friction in the community if they instead of ~5 tanks from 2-3 trees did 2-3 tanks (of same or close BR) in every tree so that all nations in game gets the same amount of additions to detailed internals each update (no clue if that is feasible in practice). But then you will have issues of “why did they pick x vehicle for nation y when they only chose z vehicle for nation q, that other vehicle needs it more as it is more OP!!” anyway so.
Temporarily it will feel like that yes, i don’t think it effects the in-game numbers as much as many think. but i might be wrong, who knows.
I’m sort of loosely planning to make a suggestion for it, though right now it’s just a “back of my mind” thing.
This would have been the preferred way. I don’t understand Gaijin’s logic when it came to implementing this. Sure adding more components to be damaged is fine but that should have been saved for the future. They could have just tested it on the Dev server, shelved it and worked on everything else in the meantime. The workflow of Gaijin is strange to me, they bounce around from one thing to another and never actually completely finalize a mechanic.
Back at the topic though. It would be easy to just add slip rings to every tank in the game.
It’s been a few months since the turret baskets were introduced and I’ll be honest, I’m not a huge fan
They are way too easy to knock out, making the tank as good as dead… It just doesn’t feel satisfying getting kills on tanks with turret baskets anymore, it doesn’t reward good shot placement, it’s just a massive shrapnel sponge that gets knocked out with almost every penetrating hit
I haven’t played tanks that have turret baskets much but I can assume it feels extremely frustrating getting your turret ring shot out constantly
All these changes have made tanks way too easy to kill and it feels like skill isn’t rewarded anymore, you just put a shell in the center of a tank and it’s as good as dead
Adding extra modules literally just pushes the pain around for players at different states lol
no module inside = pain for the shooter who would hit an empty spot that does no damage
more modules = player getting hit anywhere becomes a sitting duck
The good thing is some NATO tanks <10.7 that should have the basket hadn’t been added to them isn’t affected by the change, where soviet/chinese got hit by autoloader module pain as early as 9.3.
People wanted SPAA, and let’s be honest, CAS being unkillable for 3 years was not enjoyable.
On the note of turret drives, I still haven’t felt wronged by turret drive damage.
If I get penned it is my fault for playing the position incorrectly to begin with.
I have to be seen, shot at, and hit before penetration has a chance of occurring to begin with.
Are T-series tanks, Abrams, and Leopard 2s less fun in arcade battles due to those features? Maybe, I’m not one to speak on that.
A friend of mine that plays ground arcade top BRs seems to have no negative thoughts though.
The only negative situation I experienced was engine and turret drive dying, however that was in Abrams where that occurred similarly rarely before it received the basket, and engine death means crew death shortly after in most situations to begin with. So I do not apply that as a new experience.
I’ve yet to lose both my engine and turret traverse on Leopard 2s at the same time… probably cause it’s harder to hit the turret ring in general.
Oh yeah, the SAMs have been an absolute BLESSING! I know anti-radiation missiles will sadly come soon enough to counter them anyway, so we gotta cherish every moment till that happens xD.
Regarding the modules, I just think at least 1-2 more MBT families should have got them by now. The idea was for every MBT to get them; not just two!
Repairing the autoloader and it’s back to it’s maximum speed vs loosing the loader crew member and the shot time takes 2-3x the average time. Plus on the HSTVL/RDFLT, they added the same turret basket that the Abrams and the Leopards sufferer from, so not only does it have the pitfall of the T-series autoloaders, it has both at the same time. If you are really sitting there trying to argue that adding autoloader modules wasn’t a necessity then you’re just blatantly biased. Gaijin intentionally over inflated the hit boxes of turret drives and it was stupidly done.
I’ve bug reported the HSTVL/RDFLT’s turret basket saying it wasn’t a part of the turret but of course it was denied.
