I agree, I think a “modified” stun mechanic, nothing “mimic’d” from the other game and a lot less “intrusive” than what was proposed would get a lot more votes . . but then again, logic & reason are not always factors considered by the masses for . . well, just about anything really . . . lol
Such a shame about the negative reception of the stun mechanic, I had hoped we could at least see some kind of stun/concussion effect caused by large caliber solid shot and HESH.
Also, I hope these more detailed damage models aren’t going to backfire and end up buffing APHE while further hindering APDS and APCR
P.s. please work on HESH
3 Likes
we will postpone its development for now.
Why does this sound like all these things are already planned to be in the game and making it a community vote is just an easy way to shift the blame to players if it ends up being miserable like you’ve done with previous votes?
People voted no, why is it being ‘postponed’ as if this was already in active development? And why for now as if it’s going to end up in the game one way or another? People voted, they said no.
10 Likes
Yeah, that’s the biggest problem here.
It’s even “fun” to see so many players so happy about adding more modules to vehicles. And some time later, there’s a good chance those same players will be complaining “why did my shell get completely eaten by the radio module!?”. We already have this kind of situation with e.g. fuel tanks.
For me more modules just means more post-pen RNG, which is never a good thing. At least that’s how I see new modules now, before I get more detailed information about them. Somehow I doubt they will work any differently than current modules when it comes to stopping shells or shrapnel.
I voted against this change, because even if the new modules turn out to be a disaster, Gaijin will never undo them. It will always be “the vast majority of the community wanted them!”.
9 Likes
Main problem with stun is, it never mentioned its relation to shell caliber, or any calculation with the “stun duration” if it is only limited to large caliber shells (90mm+ or something along the lines) it would be a lot more “fine”, because as the wording goes, the current implementation on paper is just inviting autocannon spam.
Also to note: most higher caliber shells kills your gunner/commander in one shot anyways, so the stun wont even be in effect, the only shells that will really take advantage of the effect are small caliber high rpm autocannons, as they does not deal as much crew damage by single shots, and compensate with high fire rate.
2 Likes
It’s note worthy that the community has never proposed any of these changes as a suggestion to solve the problem either, these all come from Gaijin themselves and are proposed with the least amount of information possible which will surely be abused.
Before you know it you’re going to have modern MBTs get disabled constantly because they’re packed with modules and technology which are not actually modeled in the game to have a function, but can still disable the vehicle, but conveniently ‘some nations’ MBTs don’t have all of this tech and their middle ages tech is immune to being disabled in the same manner whilst not suffering from the lack of these modules.
We already have this kind of situation with e.g. fuel tanks.
Yeah that is a good example, fuel tanks that offer no functionality, but do get modeled and clearly benefit some vehicles massively with their layout, getting all the benefits from being packed with fuel and the ability to absorb damage better than any armor without any of the downsides of carrying this much fuel or consequences from being shot at at.
5 Likes
so can we get more FPE or get new FPE in zone?
1 Like
More detailed modules…
As if we didn’t already have enough broken features in WT…
Poorly implemented, a handful of vehicles at a time updated, imballance, neverending fights over “why vehicle A got it now while vehicle B did not”, etc…
“There is a curse. They say: may you live in interesting times. This is the worst thing you can wish on a citizen of Discworld.”
And that’s what players voted for…
1 Like
Great! :D
i think way more people were opposed to the way the stun mechanic was described more than actual implementation of a future version.
i think it could be done in a nice not to jarring way but the previously described version sounded so irritating for the player both gameplay wise and audio/visual.
An extremely toned down version where you also clarify that its ONLY if the crew in question gets injured might get a much different reception from the player base.
1 Like
Ah, discworld enjoyer!
Lovely to see.
Not sure you could do better than “Any hit to a crew member causes a stun effect,” tbh. I mean, I suppose you could add a “no… really, we’re not kidding” to the end, or something.
The wisdom of crowds, yadda yadda. All voters in every poll and election in history were mostly ignorant and making vibes-based decisions, nothing will ever change about that. I mean there’s nothing here from people griping about the poll result that Plato didn’t say 2,500 years ago about why democracies can’t work really. Churchill’s “the worst form of government except all the others” also comes to mind.
If people (not singling you out, just speaking in general) think the game company shouldn’t listen to its player base or run ideas by them directly ever, that’s fine, at least they’re being consistent, I just disagree with them. I just think I could write the posts those same people would write in the alternate universe where the company did a poll and then ignored the results, too (or never did community polls).
Not the result I’d have chosen, but I respect the process. It makes me feel that maybe my choices will win next time. Even compared to their previous community polls I think this effort was well done. They asked a set of reasonably clear questions this time, they didn’t try to clarify or bend the results while the vote was on, and they stayed committed to following through on the results they got. Like I said, credit where credit’s due.
6 Likes
“so they can cause a fire when hit as currently happens when the engine or fuel tanks are damaged.”
It would’ve been if people voted for it, but as per how it is worded in the post, it will be exactly like regular fires - not “fires that extinguish by themselves after 1-2 seconds”, like you claim.
Agreed. I am glad that they actually followed the results of the poll this time- even if people had voted for stun, I wouldnt have liked it, but at least the majority would have wanted it, so I would have accepted it.
1 Like
In this case the fire can go out on its own, unlike an engine or fuel tank fire, and the damage it causes will be less than the damage caused by an engine or fuel fire.
From THIS forum post, and not the previous one.
Thing is that apparently a big part of the player base lack proper reading comprehension.
They have to make thing abundantly clear (preferably in listform) or way to many people will miss important information nestled into the walls of text they currently put out.
A “easy-to-read” version (like many government and legal websites have of their information) of these types of posts should exist along side the main one. I think this could avoid many non issues the player base comes up with.
2 Likes
Inb4 they apply it to all large caliber shells and SAV becomes even more toxic
1 Like
To be fair the whole description, while more detailed than just “Stun if hit” did lack certain information. It only gave the following information:
“Any hit to a crew member causes a stun effect. When stunned, the camera will shake and sparks will be shown on your screen for a short period of time, about 1-2 seconds.”
Lacking key info, like what the duration depends on, if you’re still able to control it with lower efficiency (and if yes by how much) or if you are just inoperable and if one crew member stuns the whole tank or only the individual function of said crew member.
Keep in mind any detail not in favor of a player that is not specifically denied can very much be there even if not expected, so some prefer to stay on the safe side and keep the game as is, instead of potentially making it less enjoyable for themselves.
So simply blaming it on players is factually wrong.
1 Like
I mean, even though it said “Any hit to a crewmember…”, people still imagined it was gonna be like WoT. They thought that it would make autocannons super OP because many hits equal many stuns. Even those that wouldnt penetrate.
But i agree, the post should have been much more descriptive. Especially as it seems they have some of the addition already modelled and ready to be put into the game.
3 Likes
Agreed.
how about a listform where all of the major points can be opened like spoilers to reveal more detailed information?
that way we get concise short info but also the ability to read deeper if we feel the need thus solving both problems.