Then what was the point of asking for a vote? Why bother if you’re going to just override what the players voted for? Two of the four proposals were a no. Just respect that outcome and let it go.
1 Like
The point was to gauge interest in such mechanics, it’s not a straight “yes or no”. They encouraged people to also voice their opinions about them to give weight to these votes. I will still vote no to any stun mechanic regardless. The extra fires? I’m fine with extra fire sources from the modules added as they mentioned, but I argue they need to reassess FPE now. They did at least address my issue of the fires possibly being too random, this version is much more acceptable.
Just to let you know, I would benifit if the vote was binding, everything is exactly as I voted. I just understand the purpose of the poll, which was to gauge interest.
1 Like
how is the fire mechanic as they plan to implement it different than how they pulled for it? just generally curious as I though the poll specified that the lighting of fire in compartments wouldnt use FPE and do some damage? I know they plan to make it if you shoot a battery or a hydraulic system it’ll cause a fire but how is it different from the poll. just confused and seems your pretty well versed in this aspect of it
I’m going by this statement, as they equate it to engine and fuel tank fires. This was different to having a small and short fire when penetrated in the crew compartment. This version now sounds like it is related to whatever module is hit. Modules usually require FPE to extinguish unless it’s considered an external fire. This is why I am assuming this will now require FPE charges. I could be wrong, we would need to see how it’s implemented in the end.
1 Like
okay thank you for explaining it
You are repeating yourself despite what has been said, still showing that you really do not understand what is going on. I’ll break what you have said down.
Something that you and others complain about, you were literally referring to your complaining about it in this thread.
Their solutions are very relevant to the issue they have outlined, all of them strive to make it harder for someone who has been hit and penetrated to retaliate before the second shot comes in to kill them. This is directly related to the issue, by both making vehicles less survivable, and by making it slower to retaliate. This is simply not the correct solution to the issue, in part because the issue isnt really an issue, but also because it has a lot of other side effects, especially the stun one.
The information was there, the problem is that you and plenty of others failed to read and comprehend.
There clearly is choice, the 2 votes that went hard yes are slated to come next update, the one that was close is not being fully implemented, but will get some playtesting as part of one of the first 2, and the stun mechanic has no plans to be implemented. they might think about it later, but only if these changes dont pan out. Even then, they will most likely do another poll.
This comment is entirely silly. Every addition will come with problems, the idea that having asked the community about the mechanics makes the problems anyones fault other than Gaijins is stupid because it makes no sense, it’s not like they can hold the community resposible for it and punish all the individuals voting for one thing or another. They will do what is best for the game, and if they believe that means asking the community then that is what they will do.
If they wanted to just go and do them they would have…
They plan and work ahead, just like every company ever that has lasted more than 10 minutes. Its amazing this is a surprise to you.
They arent, this is just a lie. Its been postponed indefinately and wll only be considered again if the current mechanics do not work to alleviate the issue.
This is the only thing that you have said that makes sense. Like i said, if they want to implement a mechanic, they will. Like usual however, if this causes problems then it will be removed or toned down. They have said they are doing it this way because of how close the poll was, and in the end can conduct the polls how they like and interpret them so. It is not being implemented fully and what is going to be implemented was most likely always going to come with the mechanic that people did want. It will get the playtest you want it to at least, but like everything, you are complaining about that too…
Not really, you shoot the hull mg port on a jumbo, you shoot cupolas on various tanks, and from the side you shoot a king tiger in the rear of the turret because you know it will 100% ammo rack it, why are you unable to apply the same logic to light tanks? The problem is purely perception, you think because you can pen the armour you can shoot it anywhere, and then you complain when you shoot in the only place in the tank where there are no components.
I understand you dont like the idea that this is true, but it is true for all of us on the forums, on the reddits and who interact on the news posts and so on. The majority of players simply play for 30 minutes to a couple of hours a night, never engage in stuff outside the game, and stop playing when they stop having fun, as opposed to chronically whining about how unfun the game is despite carrying on playing it when they stop having fun.
2 Likes
They should match this change with more realistic fire extinquishers. More charges and automatic
1 Like
Look how long the game has been around before they gave you a free one? I highly doubt they’re willing to give more. The community vote no on additional fires, yet it’s going to be implemented someway anyways is the issue.
2 Likes
Glad to see the results with a fairly split result will be getting another look later on. Hopefully next time we’ll have a dev server or other form of non-text-based demonstration before having a vote. :)
1 Like
Next time we don’t vote, they’ll make it as fact. It’s already happened.
Hopefully they fade to nothingness since the player-base voted no. Let them go the route of bomber cockpits.
because the vote wasnt fair?
-
stun mechanic lost because many jumped to conclusions of it beung like wot straight away instead of reading the post, with comprehension
-
those that did read it and voted no, most likely did not like the current concept
its not bad to revise a concept my guy, if most dont like the other one too, theyll just stop trying
3 Likes
We will make polls until we get the result we want energy, lol.
This feature is only a matter of time.
1 Like
Just as I’ve said to the other person screaming “But! But! Look at these six people on the subreddit!” That doesn’t speak for the entirety of the player base that voted. And you have no proof that’s the dominate mindset people had when they went to vote besides an outcome you don’t agree with. Absolute shame some people just can’t accept it and be happy that three of the four proposals are coming despite players only voting for two.
1 Like
Or they’ll just ram it down people’s throats like with the “severe damage” mechanic. Because that totally didn’t bring an unnecessary, overly complicated mechanic to the game.
1 Like
I think it’s your turn to read properly. This part of the statement is a direct contradiction to the area you highlighted.
Only the two mechanics with “yes” votes are coming as proposed. The random fire source is not arriving, instead it is now related to expanded modules due to player feedback.
1 Like
So it’s still coming, just in a form no one asked for, that we didn’t vote on, and despite the original proposal getting a “no” result in the first place.
There’s that monkey paw Gaijin loves so much.
The random fire source is not arriving.
Yet
1 Like