You immediately jumped to a losing scenario, instead of honestly examining possible outcomes. With that mindset it’s better to end the discussion.
For God’s sake, it’s been 6 days and countless hours of arguing and you keep bringing this up and clinging to it no matter what I say, the only thing I am embarrassed about is having wasted so much time trying to reason about this when it’s obviously a lost cause.
Well, half a decade ago, AKA in 2019, the top Ground BR was 10.0, where Leopard 2A5 and M1A1 were. Now, one of them is 11.0 and the other is 11.7; +1BRs and +1.7BRs away from their original spot. So, even though it’s been at a slow pace and even though it’s still not enough, there has been decompression over time.
Even speaking of lower tiers, both Tiger Is went up by a BR step (5.3 to 5.7, and 5.7 to 6.0), Tiger II (P) went up from 6.3 to 6.7 and Tiger II (105) went from 6.7 to 7.0, plus many other changes.
And, as Gaijin staff members said, such a change as the APHE one would lead to further BR changes, and we were also told that some decompression was coming soon (and even more that will come later).
You could make AP and APCR generate 70 times more spalling on their cone and they would still be lightyears away from APHE’s 360º sphere of doom.
4 Likes
the winning scenario is where the opponent makes a mistake, so you have still yet to prove your point
By default all encounters are won because your enemy made a mistake. It’s synonymous with you outplaying the enemy.
When your enemy has a technological advantage over you, the amount of mistakes he can make increases, while yours decreases.
Tiger I is not better than an M4A3E8 or T-34-85 and doesn’t influence the ratio of how many mistakes can you and your enemy make.
1 Like
It wouldn’t keep getting brought up if you just admitted you were wrong. You are unwilling to do so, hiding behind poorly constructed excuses instead, pretending you did not specifically talk about the 76 mm on medium tanks when making the wrong absolute statement about the Tiger E’s cupola. It’s also a very easy point to nail you with, I only have to post a screenshot of your own post with context.
That wasn’t really decompression, it just moved the compression to 7.x. They also moved most tanks as a group across all nations, it’s mostly still the same stuff that faces each other.
Yes, they also told us a plethora of other things that didn’t happen yet or were blatant lies. I’ll believe it when I see it.
You’ve played this game long enough to know that that is not true. In the closed beta people used to main APCR. AP was at multiple points in the past barely weaker than APHE, the last time was when they added France to the game. Increasing spall of AP back to that level would leave APHE a very small niche of shooting cupolas and the like, which would mostly be balanced as AP only guns tend to have more pen, quicker reloads, more capable platforms and so on.
2 Likes
And, at this point, instead of having War Thunder use realistic shell damage models, you get an arcade WoT-like game where shells are artificially designed with no regard for realism.
I think the APHE fix should come, and, along with it, any potential solid shot fixes that may be needed (such as the extreme ease APDS shatters with, or APCR bounces off with); but disregarding realism for the sake of what some consider to be “more engaging gameplay” Will only lead to War Thunder losing the essence of its selling point, the fundamental pillar it was founded on; basic notions of realism.
If we start artificially buffing and nerfing things “for balance/gameplay” instead of balancing through and taking into account realism… what separates us from WoT? When does “disregarding realism for gameplay” stop? What would come next, altering armor values “for balance”?
5 Likes
The game played completely fine with stronger AP rounds and was not comparable to WoT as careful shot placement was still important. Most of a tanks crew getting incapacitated by penetrating hit is not more or less realistic than any of the proposed options. It’s a gameplay decision at the end of the day.
Things have been artificially buffed and nerfed for gameplay purposes since the inception of this game. This game is not a simulator, implying that everything that’s not completely realistic needs to be changed, including things that have a decade of precedent ingame, or this game is WoT, is asinine. You yourself agreed that this was first and foremost a gameplay decision. Now that that argument seems to be going poorly for you you just switch back to “it needs to be more realistic or this game is WoT”.
3 Likes
It’s always been both things.
I think, in this case, increased realism leads to increased gameplay quality.
People always picture it like realism and gameplay are direct opposites at all times, but I don’t think it’s always the case; sometimes, these come together.
The gameplay I want is the realistic one; when I shoot a shell from a gun, I want to know that the observed effects are close to what they would be in real life; not “this is how it was purposefully and artificially designed to be for this particular game”.
War Thunder isn’t a full fledged simulator, but neither is it an arcade game; War Thunder is…
4 Likes
It keeps coming back to either “War Thunder isn’t meant to be realistic!” or “APHE is working as intended!” huh
2 Likes
While it’s aviation, there’s legitimate real life tactics that rely explicitly on having a numerical advantage.
Thatch Weave, for instance. Or a lot of other other american vs japanese WW2 approaches.
I do not see the issue with requiring teamplay elsewhere.
You’re not going to be able to take out enemy tanks 1 vs 1 with lightly armoured, zero reverse speed, zero stabilizer vehicles if it turns into corner fighting already. If for whatever magic reason I’m forced into an engagement where it’s corner peeking for everyone - only time I can legitimately do anything in a tank like the Avenger is if I have a teammate bait out the enemy tank to take a shot so that I can safely roll out and take mine and have time to retreat behind the wall in a few years.
You say that someone has to push the objectives and occupy the enemy, right? Don’t the KVs/ISes/M6s/Jumbos/Churchills/T34s/ARL-44 do exactly that?
2 Likes
Gosh, this is the exact ad poster that made me curious into clicking it and finally go down the “rabbit hole”…
3 Likes
I learned about War Thunder actively hahah.
By 2013, I was already getting bored of WoT’s arcadyness; so, every day, I would search on Google: “new tank game”, in hopes of seeing an announcement lmao.
And so happened, that, one day, searching for that, I saw War Thunder’s Ground Forces announcement… and shortly afterwards, this trailer came out;
It was at THAT very moment… that I uninstalled WoT from my PC (still played it on XboX because it felt better and I had to quench my tank thirst somehow till War Thunder’s Ground Forces release). I had my fun with it for years because it was the best option available, but it was too arcade for me at that point and it didn’t satisfy my needs anymore.
War Thunder was the reason why I switched back to PC (I played WoT on PC between 2010 and 2013, then on XboX 360 between 2013 and 2014).
I even got my first gaming PC specifically for War Thunder, back in 2014…
The premise of War Thunder was perfect- PERFECT.
A game in the sense that you can use any vehicle with a keyboard and a mouse in third person.
A simulator in the sense that damage models, physics and ballistics were more realistic than any other game at the time (and is still the case except for full fledged simulators).
So… yeah. When I see people trying to turn War Thunder into some arcade game “because they think realism isn’t fun”, it gets in my nerves.
Because what made me, and thousands of players, join War Thunder… is precisely THAT realism. And certain players want to take that away from us…? Yeah, sometimes I sound bitter during these discussions, because I can’t take that too kindly.
3 Likes
- you claim that realism is the most important factor
- people point out that this game has always put the focus on gameplay over realism in order to produce something that’s fun to play
- you concede that realism is “the least of the concern”
- a couple days later you hope everyone forgot about that and start with “this change needs to happen or this game is WoT” hyperbole again
Very dishonest behavior that should have no place in a discussion. But it’s coming from the same person that lies instead of accepting they were wrong about what weakspots can be penetrated, so the trend isn’t surprising.
And, I keep repeating myself, the game has always adapted mechanics for the purposes of balancing and making the game enjoyable as opposed to going for what’s most realistic. The current APHE modelling has 10 years of precedent and balancing focussed around it, if you want it changed you need to argue for it with positive gameplay outcomes, not “it would be more realistic this way”. That’s not even a given considering how simplified post pen damage is compared to the real world. Stronger AP rounds, like what we had in the past, are not more unrealistic than what we have ingame right now either.
4 Likes
As I have explained multiple times:
But you (the one who actually is dishonest and ignores and twists everything I say to picture me on a bad light) continue to ignore this.
If M4A3 (76)W had 400mm of armor and I wanted it to be 64mm again, it would be both for realism AND for gameplay; because in that case, just as in OP APHE’s, better gameplay is linked to more realism. And yeah, I wouldn’t take too seriously if M4A3 (76)W players came in saying that “it was perfectly fine for this tank to have 400mm of armor” for “balance” because “gameplay against Tigers is not balanced otherwise”.
See what I mean already with this example, or are you going to keep on that crusade to deligitimaze me and picture me as a dishonest person?
1 Like
The issue is that if some tanks require teamplay to be taken out (and are a tough nut to crack even then) it creates balancing problems as nations are not evenly matched. Even if they were, it’s just unsatisfying to not be able to do something to an opponent that is putting in less work than you are. We’ve had some examples of vehicles were that was/is the case in this thread, like the KV-1E/B currently, the Jumbo at 4.7, the IS-6 at its introduction, the IS-7 at 8.0. These tanks stomp(ed) because they could just hold W towards their enemies, which had to jump through hoops in order to do anything about them.
Just look at your examples. If you’re playing a 4.0 match a KV-1E/B will have a far easier time at just pushing the objectives than any other tank at those BRs. A T-34, Pz IV, M4A2, ARL needs to be played far more carefully.
Sure, some tanks can still only flank to really stand a chance, but a lot of mediums and some light tanks can hold their own in a 1vs1 against heavies pretty well. They’re at a disadvantage, but they stand a fighting chance.
2 Likes
I twisted nothing, those are two direct quotes from you. There is a massive difference between “realism is the least of the concern” and “this change needs to happen or this game is WoT”.
I don’t have to picture you as anything. Just quoting things from you is doing that job. If you were honest your position would be consistent instead of flip flopping around whenever you think you can get away with it.
Coming up with entirely fictional and outlandish scenarioes does nothing to prove your point. APHE has been ingame in its current state since a decade and is overall decently balanced. Any disparity to other shells like AP could easily be lessened by increasing their respective spall back to a level it already was at in the past. You need to illustrate why a change to a different but still extremely simplified APHE model would have positive gameplay outcome.
2 Likes
Because, then, APHE will finally be in line with the rest of the shells in modelling and therefore gameplay implications.
Right now, you aim every shell in the same way you would realistically need to aim it… except for APHE, which has extremely overperforming capabilities based off an unrealistic modelling. The shell is out of place as it is and that’s why it’s being complained about, criticises and bug reported for ALL these years by thousands of players.
Your argument that “it’s fine because it’s been like this all along” falls apart when it’s had such levels of criticisms and reports the whole time. It’s like saying that 50,000 SL repair costs were fine “because they were always there”. No, they weren’t; and just like we changed those, we need to change this too.
You understand nothing… do you? At least I would prefer to think that instead of knowing that you are doing this on purpose.
This is getting tired. You have no intention to listen. Let me spell it out for clarity in another most likely vain attempt at reasoning with you:
MY.
POSITION.
IS.
CONSISTENT.
THIS.
GOES.
FOR.
B O T H ( B O T H ).
REALISM.
AND.
GAMEPLAY.
Because not ALWAYS is it about “gameplay VS/OR realism”.
Sometimes, improved gameplay comes TOGETHER with improved realism.
They aren’t always absolutely incompatible.
As I put on an example; if M4A3 (76)W had a 400mm thick hull armor, it would be both unrealistic AND bad for gameplay (except for biased fans of that tank who just want it to be better regardless of realism). So fixing it would be best both for gameplay AND realism.
1 Like
You fail to see the point, probably on purpose.
You agreed that “realism was the least of the concern” when discussing if this change should be implemented. Then you flip flopped back to “this change needs to be implemented or this game is WoT”. These two positions are diametrically opposed (and the second one is polemic). If a change can be good for gameplay and realistic at the same time has no bearing on these statements. It’s a judgement of the core principle of the design of this game and whether gameplay or realism take a priority role in deciding how things are implemented.
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.
3 Likes
If AP’s damage was fixed to realistic degrees and it works fine, why should it artificially be buffed so that it performs closer to the already overperforming APHE?
Not to mention that, as I said, even if you artificially increased AP’s spalling, it would still not be remotely close in capabilities compared to APHE’s 360° sphere of death. With APHE, you can hit a cupola or a hollow corner and still kill a tank’s whole crew; with AP, even if you artificially dial up its spall by 700%, this would never happen.
As far as I know, some of the AP changes needed are:
-APDS shouldn’t shatter so easily.
-APCR shouldn’t bounce so easily.
-Maybe they could use a little more spalling; but never to the degree where they would presumably be as good as currently OP APHE, which wouldn’t be possible as I explained above anyway.
All of which would be addressed with BR changes. Maybe then we will stop having Sherman’s facing Tiger II (H)s. That sounds neat, IMO.
1 Like
I have just theoretical question to those who oppose the APHE changes. There is a lot of discussion around balance and skill and fun and so on. But I don’t understand one aspect of the discussion.
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?
2 Likes