[Updated 03/09] Testing our Proposed APHE Shell Changes on the Dev Server!

[maguumo]

@SPANISH_AVENGER

List them, I will carefully and specifically address them ONE BY ONE.

I already linked you three posts that talked about how this would affect gameplay that you ignored previously here, that would be a good start. Try to address how this change would affect gameplay instead of again focussing on realism.

@maguumo

[…]

@EddieVanHalo

No tank is invulnerable that is my point

Some are frontally invulnerable against some things they see, or extremely hard to pen. This patch would increase that number. That is obviously bad for balancing.

@Shadow__CZ

That isn’t how MM works. If you are at top BR it is downtier. But that is beside the point.

It’s a tank at the exact same battlerating, meaning I will see it every match. Even in an uptier not being able to engage someone frontally at all is bad balancing.

@Shadow__CZ

Maybe barrel and track torture or even just reposition? If you are in Sherman in the open facing a Tiger you have done mistake.

We already posted clips in this thread that show situations where that does not help, while shooting the cupola does.
If the Tiger is in a situation where someone has time to aim for his cupola before he clicks on your upper front plate he misplayed. The matchup already heavily favors the Tiger without it losing an important weakspot.

[RunaDacino]

@Shadow__CZ

If you are in Sherman in the open facing a Tiger you have done mistake.

Wasn’t the survivability onion brought up a lot in this thread?

Don’t be there, get seen, don’t get hit, don’t get penetrated, don’t get killed.

I don’t understand why it’s such a crime for some tanks to have to rely on ambush situations to win an encounter.

I understand the argument of “Our maps suck and make setting up ambushes harder” and even agree with it. Playing British cruiser tanks, certain maps feel like a guaranteed torture after all. However, that’s a separate issue that we should champion solutions for together and independent of APHE and whatnot.

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

@maguumo

I already linked you three posts that talked about how this would affect gameplay that you ignored previously here, that would be a good start. Try to address how this change would affect gameplay instead of again focussing on realism.

maguumo:

No. You are not talking about the “negative” impact this would have ingame. You only discuss the semantics of whether my nuances contradict each other or not but fail to tell me WHAT exactly I am suppossed to discuss apart from the cupola trickshots.

[EddieVanHalo]

I bought the T95 for a laugh and spent most of yesterday playing it.I Know it is painfully slow and it has huge armour values form the front but its not invulnerable .I got my gun shot out with no means of repair and got hit with a cupola shot which seems silly but maybe the game is suggesting a hot piece of metal hit one of the 20 rounds of ammo I was carrying.I guess I have to suck that up if I play this game.

I placed my self in good positions and took out Tiger 2s on the other side of the map.It was funny.Then I got overun and out flanked.That is the game.That is what I expect from the game.I also got bombed a couple of times.Tough but not invincible.

When finding myself face to face with a T95 close up and front on in Eastern Europe in my Panther F I panicked (for a second) then took out its gun followed by it’s track.Unable to flank I tried multiple times for a cupola shot but got no results,then a team mate took it out with a side shot.

All of this is the game ,that’s War Thunder and its fine.I see no reason to mess with it.
No vehicle is indestructible so I am just bemused by your view especially as you have played so many games.

[maguumo]

You didn’t even read the post. Click on the quoted sections.

Spoiler

@maguumo

The rest of the shells are not modelled realistically either. The meta top tier shell went from HEAT to APFSDS due to a pure balancing decision. AP post pen damage, which was almost on par with APHE, was nerfed a couple months after the introduction of France as a balancing decision. AP post pen damage could easily be increased again to a point where it is competitive with APHE, problem solved.

The most drastic instances of APHE overperforming are overpressure rounds, which this change would not address.

APHE rounds strong enough to be able to penetrate close to the center of mass of their opponent barely lose any post pen damage, in some instances this change would make them stronger. Thus this change is a significant buff to tanks with high pen APHE guns and strong frontal armor profile while mediums that often already have to aim for tiny weakspots are nerfed by the weakening or complete removal of a signfiicant amount of weakspots.

Then you can throw more subjective opinions in, like that removal of weakspots that allows you to fight back against players in strong camping positions is a bad gameplay decision as it further discourages active and mobile play.

@maguumo

There is no speculation necessary on that part. We had buffed AP in the past, it was not significantly weaker than APHE in most situations, which are penetrations close to the center of mass. AP only guns also usually have higher pen, facilitating the ability for the player to do that. APHE guns would retain the niche of far off center weakspots like cupolas, but considering you haven’t hit one of a Tiger E in a decade and weren’t even aware that it is possible to do so I fail to see how this would negatively impact you.
Nuking the entire crew with shots placed far away from it is an overpressure situation most of the time, this change would not address that.

@maguumo

Judging by Gaijins track record it will not, at the very least for months. Then they’ll balance not by vehicle ability but by stats, so whatever the outcome, minor nations will get shafted even harder. And then the outcome will be that tanks with strong frontal armor profile get moved up to a BR where their armor is largely irrelevant. No thanks.

@RunaDacino

Wasn’t the survivability onion brought up a lot in this thread?

And why should the survivability onion not apply to heavy tanks?

@RunaDacino

I don’t understand why it’s such a crime for some tanks to have to rely on ambush situations to win an encounter.

It’s not a crime, it’s bad balancing. Tanks that can hold W to the center of the map while you need them to be unaware of you in order to flank them and get a sideshot leads to vehicles stomping.

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

I will just quote myself from a comment I made on the voting topic:

Continuing the discussion from Following the Roadmap: Voting to Test our Proposed APHE Shell Changes:

@SPANISH_AVENGER

I agree. Artificial nerfs AND/OR artificial buffs should never be a thing on a game that has always aimed for maximum accuracy and realism in modelling.

---

Even leaving realism and accuracy aside: this new model is also better for gameplay; as of now, the gap in performance capabilities between APHE shells and solid ones is WAY too big, making solid shots feel utterly useless by comparison- and no, artificially buffing these is not the solution; correcting APHE is.

Gameplay wise, this would also make so many “trick-shots” less viable as well, like the “hit a pixel of a cupola and the entire crew dies because there’s a nuclear explosion inside the tank” kinds of shots, making Heavy Tanks a little more relevant, at last.

I have been talking about gameplay since August 13, but apparently “I only care about realism irregardless of gameplay” xD.

[RunaDacino]

@maguumo

It’s not a crime, it’s bad balancing. Tanks that can hold W to the center of the map while you need them to be unaware of you in order to flank them and get a sideshot leads to vehicles stomping.

So, the entire cruiser line of the British tree is bad balancing?

You so much as get noticed, you die. Sometimes even to machine gun fire. You cannot hold W to center of the map either.

You cannot even corner peek because no reverse speed means you cannot retreat.

You absolutely must flank or ambush to survive. You also need to aim your shots because unless you take out the breech/gunner/turret ring/cannon, you are likely to die.

Also does this also say the italian tree is bad balancing as well? The italian tree relies entirely on playing like a rat. While British cruisers may die to machine gun fire, nearly every non-hungarian italian vehicle dies to getting sprayed by coax either thanks to open top or ~20 mm frontal armour.

As an aside, I still find the T-34-85 to be much harder to face up front than tigers. Why are we focusing so much on the tiger and not the T-34-85 which can “also W into objective”?

T-34-85s can bounce even an APDS sent into the turret cheeks if you are a few pixels too far to the right/left. Or well, shatter it.

[maguumo]

@RunaDacino

You so much as get noticed, you die. Sometimes even to machine gun fire. You cannot hold W to center of the map either.

You cannot even corner peek because no reverse speed means you cannot retreat.

You absolutely must flank or ambush to survive. You also need to aim your shots because unless you take out the breech/gunner/turret ring/cannon, you are likely to die.

Some tanks are just bad, but that isn’t really the point. In all of these you still have the chance to take out an opponent frontally. It’s a matchup that heavily favors your opponent, but the chance to get him if he’s slow to aim or whiffs his shot if you yourself have decent aim is there. Taking even that small chance to fight back away makes these opposing vehicles even stronger.

@RunaDacino

As an aside, I still find the T-34-85 to be much harder to face up front than tigers. Why aren’t we focusing so much on the tiger and not the T-34-85 which can “also W into objective”?

Because this change will not affect the T-34 85 significantly. It loses the cupola weakspot, which sucks, but you usually don’t rely on having to hit that.

@SPANISH_AVENGER

I have been talking about gameplay since August 13, but apparently “I only care about realism irregardless of gameplay”

You didn’t address the points others or I raised here, instead you talked about realism. I gave you a list of a small fraction of posts by me where you mostly ignored the part talking about gameplay impact. Also don’t put words in my mouth, if you think I said that go find a quote.

[EddieVanHalo]

@maguumo

It’s not a crime, it’s bad balancing. Tanks that can hold W to the center of the map while you need them to be unaware of you in order to flank them and get a sideshot leads to vehicles stomping.

I just dont see any of this " Stomping" Not below 7BR anyway.
It’s all rock ,paper ,scissors as far as I can see.

[maguumo]

The KV-1E/B stomp at 4.0. The Jumbo stomped at 4.7. The IS-6 stomped after its introduction at 7.0. The IS-7 stomped at 8.0. All of these did so because the frontal armor profile was so strong that you could play these vehicles like an idiot and most of your opponents still wouldn’t be able to do anything about it. None of these made for fun gameplay for the people that had to put up with the bullshit, and luckily most of these things have long been fixed.

[EddieVanHalo]

@RunaDacino

So, the entire cruiser line of the British tree is bad balancing?

You so much as get noticed, you die. Sometimes even to machine gun fire. You cannot hold W to center of the map either.

You cannot even corner peek because no reverse speed means you cannot retreat.

You absolutely must flank or ambush to survive. You also need to aim your shots because unless you take out the breech/gunner/turret ring/cannon, you are likely to die.

That is where you need the mapmakers to play ball and that is why the current wave of map destruction is so abhorrent. It contradicts Gaijin’s own game.

@RunaDacino

Also does this also say the italian tree is bad balancing as well? The italian tree relies entirely on playing like a rat. While British cruisers may die to machine gun fire, nearly every non-hungarian italian vehicle dies to getting sprayed by coax either thanks to open top or ~20 mm frontal armour.

You are correct and you are talking about variation,Identity and personality of each nation and why it was great and fun.Now it’s all copy paste and shit.

You are overall taking about the freedom of choice that made War Thunder the legendary game it was which has since been removed.

This is odd because freedom of choice was always something that War Thunders founder Anton was most proud of according to his interviews.

Freedom to hide and snipe,freedom to flank or freedom to brawl in a heavy, freedom to use CAS ,bombers or fighters.

As it is now we are going back to the Atari tank games of 1980.Two same tanks out in the open with zero cover and no advantage for one over the over.

Total boring balance.

[KillaKiwi]

@UPossum

The proposed changes to the APHE is not making them more “realistic”, it’s a decrease of their damage, just another step to arcade. All kind of shells deal too little damage already, no need in such “improvements” to one of them.

No they don’t. A 122mm solid shot would wipe out the entire crew of a Tiger 1 in one shot in the game but when it embedes itself into the transmission the vehicle is merely immobilized for 30s.

The issue isn’t the damage, it’s that internal modules can be repaired when they are destroyed.

WT logic is that 5 crews hop into a shot up tank, repair all internally destroyed components, ignore the multiple holes in the armor since the armor repairs itself instantly after impact, and go into combat in their fully operational tank.

That is the problem.

If you have a tank with 250mm of penetration, it shouldn’t make a difference whether I penetrate 80mm of armor to hit an ammunition rack or hit the turret in the center, killing multiple crew members and destroy the gun in the process.

Why would a 1950s M41 Bulldog have almost the same BR as a 1944 Panther (or M18) when it has, in reality, much more firepower, due to more advanced ammunition, faster traverse and better gun depression, a larger turret with convenient ready racks, and better fire controls with a commander that can not only spot a tank but also aim and fire the gun, if necessary?

It’s because killing crew is the most reliable way to take out vehicles in WT, when that shouldn’t be necessary.

[EddieVanHalo]

I have played so many games where my APHE shots are bouncing off things Gaijin are telling should be an easy target.
Just bounced two consecutive shots off an M10 from 200m in a Swedish Sherman. Bouncing SAV shots off a Panzer IV frontally from the same distance.

So many times we are hit with the No penetration warning from perfectly good shots.
No wonder people are saying no to proposals to nerf APHE.

I assuming overall that is what they are trying to do as I have no access to the Dev server.

I think all any of us can do is suck up the occasional and random WTF moment and accept it as part of the game.Maybe it simulates a failure of a round or maybe its just a Gaijin failure but it seems this has been the case for the last 12 years and will be for the next 12.

As an X box player I have no access to the dev server so it was just a no from me in the vote. Maybe X box users should have been banned from voting.

[Shadow_CZ]

@EddieVanHalo

As an X box player I have no access to the dev server so it was just a no from me in the vote. Maybe X box users should have been banned from voting.

Everyone will have access to the testing once it will be tested on live server some time after the update.
So you will be able to test it personally.

[KillaKiwi]

In an ideal world, the M4A3 would be at a higher BR then the Tiger, since the APCR can penetratet the Tiger pretty much from any range and angle and the M4A3 beats the Tiger in every category except overall armor protection.

In fact the M4A3 could be at the same BR as the Tiger II H since the APCR would just be such a boost in firepower.

It’s just that WT has taught us that you need a 122mm APHE shell to have a chance to destroy a Tiger II H.

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

@KillaKiwi

In an ideal world, the M4A3 would be at a higher BR then the Tiger, since the APCR can penetratet the Tiger pretty much from any range and angle and the M4A3 beats the Tiger in every category except overall armor protection.

In fact the M4A3 could be at the same BR as the Tiger II H since the APCR would just be such a boost in firepower.

What

[Panter2005]

@Shadow__CZ

Why should player in Tiger H1 in full downtier and who has done basically everything right and is perfectly angled be easily killed by basically everything it can face?

Because cope and “armor is op”

[RunaDacino]

@EddieVanHalo

So many times we are hit with the No penetration warning from perfectly good shots.

For this, people have called out gunner optics being a likely cause.

In a very recent game on seversk, I even had the chance to test it out and yup, gunner optics can create magic.

Scenario: Centurion MK1 with mk8 shot (190 mm flat, 140 mm 30 degrees) shooting VK 3002 on mantlet.

Shot to the right side of the mantlet (or shoot left side from my perspective): Clean penetration, kills turret crew bar gunner and destroys breech.

Tank is immobile, not moving, not adjusting turret, nothing. Same angle, same elevation everything onto the other side of the turret to clean things up.

No penetration.

Try again, no penetration.

Shoot the side without gunner sight and it’s a kill.

This explains a lot of times I died to fighting panthers with APDS and other guns that should shoot clean through the mantlet: the side with the gunner optic is cursed. Lesson: shoot the opticless side.

Edit: Also server desync seems to matter a lot.

I checked replay and it seems I aimed lower according to the server than where I had my own cursor.

Edit 2: It seems like a not uncommon problem.

You look like you’re aiming for X on your screen/local recording while the server-side recording says you’re aiming elsewhere.

This reddit post shows it happening:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/1cq3fqu/server_desync_making_you_miss_is_cool_ig/

[KillaKiwi]

@SPANISH_AVENGER

For example; I would never support full-historical matchmaking (Pz.38(t) vs KV-1 lol) because, no matter how realistic it was, it would be detrimental to gameplay…

Except when you change the gameplay so that T-34s and KV-1s are practically blind while driving, unless their commander is looking outside the hatch, which is a problem because the commander is also the gunner. When they stop they can look around with their periscopes, which makes it incredible difficult to aquire targets.
The know there’s an enemy because they would get shot first, then look around, then try to aim the gun, while having no clue what else is going on.

Of course they can rely on their incredible armor but there are way more T-26s and BT-5s, later T-60s, that are also fighting the same battles.
Your Pz 38(t) doesn’t need to fight T-34 or KV-1s but it can scout them and have TDs and Pz IIIs take care of them.

So it all depends “how realistic” you want the game to be.

The game allows your tank do things that wouldn’t be possible in real life. Like look around in binocular view in your 1-crew turret, reload the gun, traverse the turret or even reload your coaxial at the same time.

[EddieVanHalo]

@Shadow__CZ

Everyone will have access to the testing once it will be tested on live server some time after the update.
So you will be able to test it personally.

Test it or just accept it once it’s in place?

@KillaKiwi

So it all depends “how realistic” you want the game to be.

The game allows your tank do things that wouldn’t be possible in real life. Like look around in binocular view in your 1-crew turret, reload the gun, traverse the turret or even reload your coaxial at the same time.

So assuming we are all having fun in this game ,Hence why we all play it ,why do we need this change?