It’s not. Not having the improved modules was a nerf because weapons and targetting would be disabled if the entire airframe took just a little bit of damage.
Honestly just implement it to the big 3 nations instead of just the Abrams and Leopards.
This would mostly remove all the controversy surrounding this.
You don’t necessarily have to implement it all in one go for every nation’s MBTs - just the ones that matter the most.
1 Like
“Updated frequently” a select few are updated infrequently, we have aircraft with completely incorrect canopy and cockpit models for years which seems to be no issue to the devs, this is just not a good excuse for implementing game changes that affect the balance of vehicles but only to a select few leaving unchanged vehicles with an advantage, they’d rather tip the scales of balance in a certain direction rather than risk the low chance of having to make minor adjustments to models when rolling out a feature for all vehicles at once
5 Likes
The damage model in the article looks a lot better than what is shown in the x-ray view. The only suggested change I’d recommend is that they should have enough damage resistance that they are not knocked out with a couple of shrapnel peices.
1 Like
Hey @Smin1080p_WT,
With the reduction of the damage model, does that include spall generation, or just the ability to damage the turret drive in that exact location? Or is it completely non-hittable now, serving only as a visual representation in the hit camera and X-ray while in the hangar?
Reason and communication is always better than the comical lack of wisdom you propose.
It’s always best to explain why things are like they are and HOW they actually are instead of shoving it down throats without clearing out misconceptions, etc.
Clearing up things with customers is always better than being at constant war because of some misunderstanding that could easily be cleared up with a post like this one.
11 Likes
Will parts such as damage to vehicle batteries and fire control systems in more details be installed?
Alvis doing a classic display of its… Atypical wisdom.
Regarding the post, the purposed changes, they seem fair enough. I effectively changed my mind.
5 Likes
even though they did everything right
Could we please apply this logic to A2A missiles damaging aircraft when impacting with the ground?
Currently taking advantage of multipath takes quite some effort. You have to compromise your positioning and somehow follow the jagged terrain in an attempt to stay below 50m (any higher and you’ll still get hit).
And yet, even when a player does everything right a missile can still (seemingly randomly) kill them just because it missed and exploded on the ground. There’s clip of people dying to a missile impacting the ground while they are flying 30m above flat terrain. How does one avoid dying like this? You don’t. There is no counterplay.
Splash damage from AAMs exploding upon impact with the ground should not be a thing. It actively ruins top tier air.
Why is it that Gaijin agrees it doesn’t make sense to punish players who did everything right in the case of turret baskets, but not when it comes to what I just described? Stop cherrypicking and apply the same logic to other gamemechanics as well.
1 Like
“From our perspective, we want to avoid penalizing the player who managed to land a shot on the enemy first, reducing those frustrating moments of penetrating a vehicle without doing any meaningful damage — even though the round passed through a significant amount of the interior.”
Hmm… You say so, then why did they add the spall liner?
2 Likes
Its realistic, yea realistic
But the change seems good, lets hope they actually model the Abrams correctly, instead of whatever in the dev server
I cant imagine getting 1 shot and have to wait 40 seconds to repair while the enemy is rapidly approaching at mach jesus
1 Like
It’s ridiculous. After a year and a half of top tier USA being unplayable the teams had finally improved to the point where you didn’t have to be a masochist to actually enjoy playing USA. USA teams weren’t the meta but they were competitive. Gaijin couldn’t have that. Naturally a nerf was incoming.
2 Likes
Same! This is why communication is the most productive way of addressing things and not “just ignoring people” like some bright tools have suggested here.
I think many of us changed our minds thanks to this post. Otherwise, I would have continued to rage about this matter eternally, hahah.
Besides, all of the feedback was productive; the new basket damage models are reduced compared to the initial plan, so they achieved a middle ground compromise where now it would be as much of a weakness as it was originally going to be, while it will reduce the chances of center of mass shots just slicing harmlessly across the fighting compartment.
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
bro this isnt r/rant bro
I agree.
If they want reality, they’d be better off enlisting.
I refuse to enlist a second time, even online.
@Smin1080p_WT It would be nice if we got on update on the many Abrams bug reports that are waiting to be implemented since the devs are already working on the Abrams in some way.
[ [Community Bug Reporting System ]
[Community Bug Reporting System ]
[Community Bug Reporting System ]
[Community Bug Reporting System ]
[Community Bug Reporting System ]
22 Likes
Yep. Abrams didn’t need this but they just don’t listen. Listening would be to scrap this. And their logic for not wanting to wait to add it to more vehicles is just asinine. Lets just make an already struggling tank worse.
11 Likes
Its been 10 years
My time has come!
Abrams, 2035 finally getting a model change and proper armor calculation