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.
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.
“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.
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.
Inb4 they apply it to all large caliber shells and SAV becomes even more toxic
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.
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.
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.
To be fair, what if it hits a dead crewmember-
I understood the stun to only affect the player that was hit, so if the crewmember was dead it wouldnt do anything. Alternatively, the game could crash.
It seems as the survey was just a propaganda ruse from our Gaijin overlords.
at least they’re postponing development and not implementation, meaning in the future its hopefully going to look different to what was previously described.
Yeah I don’t get this either. This mechanic had the most opposition, so why would it be postponed at all? If the player base said no thank you, that should be it.
I feel like you should do similar polls in regards to large scale BR changes like the one you announced that many have a problem with. We’ll have a few months of awful balance in the 7.0-9.0 aircraft BRs before your stated separate BR balance based on game mode takes effect.
To be fair if an autocannon does penetrate, even with low damage output, this essentially kills the enemy by buying the autocannon vehicle more time. Think something like a 2S38, that would undoubtable become even more of a pest to deal with, comfortably penetrating most enemies, but now also making them unable to react.
And then my personal concern, does a radio operator being strafed really need to stun the whole tank? It can be argued that it is silly, but Gaijin never denied it, so the risk is there.
Hi!
Because you appear to have limited reading comprehension, I’ll help you out with some of these questions.
Things like hydraulics and electrical systems, axuilary power units and fuel lines. They will not impact the vehicles at all other than being more things to be shot and damaged, and hamper the user when damaged.
All that had them, so most likely every vehicle they can find info on.
Disadvantage
How long is a piece of string
Same question as above
No
Screen shake, sparks appearing on screen, and tinnitus.
It doesnt. None of these proposed changes do. The actual solution to the problem people have is to learn to aim, but you are not allowed to say that.
Well if the autocannon penetrates the armour with one round, the next most likely will too, and the crew will end up dead very fast. If it cannot penetrate the armour, then there will be no stun applied. In any case, when a round penetrates and injures but does not kill a crewmember it will stun, and i can see this helping british vehicles a little, but mainly the low teir AP slingers that currently have awful post pen damage, and tend to only orange or red a crewmember with a direct hit and pen.
You may be able to use a secondary gun or autocannon to retaliate, or you may be able to get back into cover before the other guy can retaliate, or you could pop smoke and live. There are many scenarios where the extra seconds can save your life.
Because people didn’t like it, and it has been replaced by overpressure. Hull break would still not have solved the problem people have.
Well if the poll had gone through, then yes. Currently, no.
The poll result.
This isn’t a question. Especially when the next question is this:
As outlined in the above part about new modules, things like electrical systems and fuel lines.
Yes
To further hinder whomever has been shot, and to handhold the person shooting who is unable to simply aim for a breech, or take a kill shot.
Getting shot or damaged in some way, same as every other fire in game.
Same as every other fire in game, crew damage over time and the inablity to repair while the fire persists.
It doesnt, the solution is still learning to aim, but the idea is that the person on fire will need to now wait before they can repair, and will take crew damage over time which could potentially knock out a vital crew member. They will probably make it so that fires can do damage to all the modules they are going to add, but that wasnt mentioned anywhere.
Next time, if you read the posts before whining, you might be able so save yourself some time on the forums, that you can spend doing something worth doing with your life.