Responding To Dev Server Feedback Regarding Turret Baskets

[WaterVaporKix]

Here’s your feedback: The difference between the X-ray and the damage model is quite frustrating when the purpose of the X-ray is to show internal components and at least heavily imply the damage model.

Visual fluff is nice but being lied to by the X-ray view isn’t. How many other models have major discontinuities?

[I_9029]

so now the question is, will turret basket still create additional spall like in the dev server? or will they not create additional spall cause their dm is only the turret ring and basket bottom?

[AlvisWisla]

Being against an x-ray incorrectly thinking it’s a damage model isn’t being against the damage models.

[Hartsy1]

Your gunner optic argument/change would make absolutely no difference, all players would do is install a custom sight showing them where to aim and at what distance.

[rainy2000]

Not in all cases.
Now you can disable the engine and horizontal drive in one easy shot (the LFP), which is quite a huge nerf imo.

[Jεcka]

I wonder if 2A7Vs basket will get its spall liners that all Leo 2s have had ever since the 2A6M…

Most likely not, cus that’d be a buff. Same way its visual and damage models still haven’t been fixed, lmao.

[viski253]

Top tier italy will have a good 2 months of being relavent now.

[Smin1080p_WT]

@MokaMoki

So you saw players were against it, and…choose to go full steam ahead anyways? I wouldn’t call that listening.

We have seen the spesifc points of why some players were against it. We have made some changes to the elements within the turrets based on that feedback, refined the models and also explained in greater detail many of the confusing elements, addressing many of the questions people had about it’s implementation.

[MrBombastic8]

hey smin have the devs fix the hydraulic pump location yet?
Also did they change the things where turret basket like on the abrams would create spall?
Also i dont see the abrams dmg model

[Teh0]

@Smin1080p_WT

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.

British AP rounds are an exception of course. Then again I can hardly call it frustrating since 1st shot kill is practically guaranteed to fail. No escape with those reverse speeds.

[MokaMoki]

But there was nothing confusing or misleading about it. It’s a nerf full stop. A nerf players were clearly against. And one that they said they didn’t want to see added. And you’re still adding it. You guys couldn’t even wait until the extra vehicles scheduled to get it actually got it so it seems less like a punch to the gut. The Abrams absolutely didn’t need this. And yet, its still going to happen.

Its like Gaijin announcing they are going to slap players across the face and the feedback was “What? No. Why would you do that?!” So this post is just you going “Oh sorry, we will actually go for the stomach. But hey we listened to you and tweaked our approach”.

[k1nle]

I think basket floor must go to hydraulic pump module. And when pump (and thing on leo2a5+) get damaged - use effect of destroyed engine (dead battery)

[MrBombastic8]

@Teh0

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.

In respond to this i hope i dont get 1 shot most of the time when im hit in the lfp on abrams anymore

[rainy2000]

Well, it having the Eurofighter, Gripen C, A129D, and the 2A7v made is already pretty decent.
This change would only nerf the 2A7V for Italy, and make the Arietes slightly less abymsal (though the difference in capabilities between the 2A7V and Ariete is still incredible).

[MotorolaCRO]

Nice change, thanks.

[AlvisWisla]

Smin, can you comment on if damage models could show up as part of an x-ray element in a future update?

[Smin1080p_WT]

@MokaMoki

But there was nothing confusing or misleading about it.

For many, there was actually. As you can see by some of the reponses to this post. It has indeed cleared some things up for some.

@MokaMoki

You guys couldn’t even wait until the extra vehicles scheduled to get it actually

We saw this question quite a lot, and it’s covered in the post as to why we cannot unfortunately:

@Smin1080p_WT

Why they can’t all come at once

As mentioned quite a while ago , implementing new modules takes a lot of time. Whenever there is a change to a vehicle, modules like this are also affected in some way and need to be updated. The issue we’d face here if we modelled them and then left them aside while working on other baskets, is that when the time would come to add everything there would likely be significant changes to the vehicles. This would require additional time to make the modules work again, as they’d be months out of date (this is also why regularly a vehicle will receive several changes in one go). As vehicles are updated frequently it is not feasible to ‘park’ features like this for very long.

[MrBombastic8]

probably it would be a seperate tab or the xray will highlight the horizontal drive part only

[AlvisWisla]

Well that’s what I mean.

As part of these options, or elements.

[kedrigern]

@Smin1080p_WT

Please read the article in full. It’s explained in detail:

@Smin1080p_WT

The issue we’d face here if we modelled them and then left them aside while working on other baskets, is that when the time would come to add everything there would likely be significant changes to the vehicles.

hey so quick two points @Smin1080p_WT .

1. Maybe before the devs decide to add a massive gameplay alteration like a gigantic plate on the bottom of a tank, they could use that wonderful feature called “talking to your community” (if i do remember that survey did have a part where they taled about implementing more sources of fire for example) like you did with the ammo boxes and stun mechanic with votes and survey to see if the community is thrilled by having their gameplay altered in a bad “different” way for the sake of “realism”.
2. The devs decision to release this massive damage module only to select few tanks is giving the non affected tanks a big advantage… in a competitive game…
   More work or not if the addition quite literally gives other nation tanks an unfair advantage then how can that be defended at all, itll remain this way for at the very least few months if not a year because in your own words:

@Smin1080p_WT

implementing new modules takes a lot of time

meaning that for “lot of time” these tanks will be at a disadvantage. Not really creating a “fair playing field” with this.

If it cant come at once then it shouldnt come at all