There was no crew replenishment before, that’s why most of the community was upset. Another nail in the coffin of realism. IIRC ppl used to call the original idea “Zombie Crew”… :)
1 Like
No thank you to all.
For these to work, and if we want to double down on this “I want more realism rah rah” mindset, then let’s restrict Ground RB to be played just like Sim. You will be locked in 1st Person, you cannot zoom without your commander’s binoculars, you will always see your gun barrel in the gunner sight, and then we can add these effects. No more 3rd Person in Ground RB.
We do not need these in War Thunder.
1 Like
But that’s not how this works. If so, then what tweaks are Gaijin going to add to get the other proposals who did get a majority yes to get that percentage of votes to 100%? I don’t like any of the proposals and voted no on all of them. What is Gaijin suppose to do then to get me to say yes? Why can’t a “no” be a no and a “yes” be a yes?
The results seem like a healthy mixture I wouldn’t touch at all. What’s crazier is the one that was closer to a tie, the additional crew fires, Gaijin is just scrapping it, with no plans to revisit it. But yet the one that was a far more clearly a majority “no” is going to get a revision? Even if you voted yes for it, you should be against that 100%. That’s bad community engagement, full stop.
Different situation though. Gaijin didn’t ask for a vote that time. They added it into the game, people didn’t like it, and it was removed. This time around, they directly asked for players to vote and got an answer. No. This does not need to be revisited. And again, there is a healthy compromise here. Of the three discussed, technically two are being implemented.
Gaijin is going to add additional modules to fill empty space. And additional fires. Now, despite the player base voting no for that as well and Gaijin saying they won’t consider it going forward; they are effectively admitting it is coming anyways by saying these new models, which will be in the fighting compartment, can catch fire anyways when hit.
So basically, one is getting officially added because the player based voted for it. One is getting added in an underhanded manner, despite the player base and Gaijin saying no. And one is getting revisited being clearly rejected by the player base.
So what was the point of the vote?
1 Like
The flip side might be that (made up number) 80% of the total playerbase has started in last (made up duration) 3-5 years so they are not bored.
More people play the game than ever so on paper what is being done (keeping certain aspects as they are) obviously “works”.
In RB modes we evolved to 16 v 16 furballs and maps with limited tactical options (dead zones specifically on flanks). Tis what most players want it seems.
1 Like
In that case perhaps my proposed stun effect could be added to SIM mode only?
That would also make more sense as then in 3’rd person it’s the commanders view whilst in RB its really no crew used in third person when zoomed out.
what is this comment?
most of the playerbase is casual players…
not everyone visits the forums of a game they play, letalone the subreddit
if they wanted more participation they obviously wouldve done an annoucement in game…
2 Likes
so what, those features, even though they had lost, had alot of positive votes too
what people didnt agree with is the concept which they presented in the first blog(and most comparing it to wot), theyre trying to improve it and see if people will like a different idea. if not even then, they just wont keep trying
3 Likes
Unfortunately, Gaijin are unable to make people aim better, and the idea that it is upon them to do so is quite silly. So the problem will persist until they do something really drastic like add an auto-aiming system, which they would never do. But, as always with the community of this game, it is the vocal minority complaining anyway, so it isnt really an actual problem.
1 Like
i think the killer thing was the ‘aim punch’ like mechanic that was apart of the stun was the bad part people didnt like, i bet if it was just audio and visual effects much more would have been for it
It is clear proof that there are many War Thunder players who are not at all interested in realism, but hey, this was to be expected, for a reason gaijin has dedicated himself intensely to throwing veteran players away.
1 Like
Has nothing to do with the fact they are presenting an issue, claim to solve the issue by suggesting a bunch of random things that have no relevance to the problem they are suggesting, fail to properly inform people of the impact of these things, clearly give people the illusion of choice, and put themselves in a position to avoid responsibility for the inevitable problems this is going to create.
These are features they just want to implement and came up with an excuse as to why they need to, somehow this is already in development and somehow, despite a negative response to it, they’re still planning to implement the stun mechanic, and despite the negative vote against new fire sources, they are still going to implement it.
You can accuse people of needing to aim better, but ultimately there is a large difference between shooting a light tank vs a heavy tank, requiring more aim on one vs the other is inherently unbalanced.
And sure, just call everything a vocal minority.
2 Likes
It’s as I said on the previous post, they are revisiting both mechanics since the results are arguably close. I do not see why this is a shock to people, the results are not absolutely binding. There was not an overwhelming no for both of these mechanics, so it means there is interest but problems with them. However:
I’m going to pick on your statement here, since I’m seeing others say this a lot. This mechanic is a double edged sword, it may give you more time if you only damage crew, but you are only looking at it in one way. What if you get shot and now cannot respond in a timely manner? This was the aspect I did not like at all. In this game, you have to make a decision between going for a one shot or disabling the enemy so they can’t fight back. If you are unable to disable the enemy despite having the advantage, I frankly think you messed up. If you get shot but not disabled, you should have your chance to fight back. I will not like any mechanic that removes that counterplay.
5 Likes
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