A second and final vote will take place, for which Gaijin has officially stated than a clear majority (not 49-51; but more like 66-33) will be required to make a decission, since it wil be a full fledged vote instead of an engagement one like this one was.
And Gaijin stated they will put in place measures against bot votes this time to ensure genuine results.
The game’s fate will be decided then. Until then, it is clear none of us will change our positions.
In your own words, realism is the least of the concern. It’s a gameplay decision first and foremost, and predictable and consistent damage output is preferable for that.
The line of what is realistic in terms of post pen damage is also extremely blurry. There is a very good argument to be made that higher post pen damage for AP would be realistic.
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.
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.
It’s not really about full downtiers, the Tiger H1 and M4A3 (76)W or T-34 85 share the same BR. If you look into protection analysis it is also far easier for the Tiger to kill either of these two tanks used as an example than it is for them to kill the Tiger. It already has a significant advantage in the engagement. Taking away an important weakspot from just one side of the equation changes the balancing.
Then again, M4A3 (76)W shouldn’t be the same BR as the Tiger.
As I said, Tigers and Panthers should be A3’s “final uptier bosses”, not Tiger IIs like now lmao.
This APHE change could be instrumental on allowing this to happen finally, because A3 wouldn’t be so strong against its currently downtier tanks, so there would be no need to uptier it to the point where it must face Tiger II H)s.
Realism for its own sake is the least of the concerns indeed; realism for the sake of realism… but when the implications of realism are positive gameplay effects as well, they come together in the same pack, instead of being incompatible opposites as people picture it to always be the case.
Just like APHE, I would be all for maximum realism; again, not for the sake of realism, but because I think full realism would balance them out evenly by itself, with no need for arbitrary decisions.
In real life, APHE was only barely better than AP. If it was exactly like that ingame, I think it would be perfect from a gameplay perspective too.
That’s what I meant with the whole gameplay and realism argument this whole time.
This is not part of the vote and extremely unlikely to happen. They would have to increase the BR ceiling for ground to something like 16.0 and then invest most of that buffer zone into ~3.0-7.0. They won’t do that, we’ve never seen decompression like that before. It would also gut most lineups, leaving you with two or so vehicles per BR. The far more likely outcome is that we’d get no or minimal BR adjustments and can just get to live with worse balancing as the focus is on adding new top tier toys.
Yes, we were at that point already. Realism is not an argument in favor of implementing a change if it leads to bad gameplay outcomes. The discussion is thus about the gameplay outcome of this change. Which you unsurprisingly did not respond to.
In real life tanks did not fight on after penetrating hits. In real life a hit to your foot is debilitating and doesn’t just cut the reload rate of the loader down by .3 seconds. A Panther A having it’s entire turret crew incapacitated by a penetrating AP hit to the turret face is already a generous interpretation of realistic AP spall. Does not matter anyways, as according to you realism is the least of the concern. I don’t know why you keep bringing it up.
I would never support realism for the sake of realism if it is detrimental to gameplay…
Thing is, in this case, I believe realism is NOT detrimental to gameplay, on the opposite; it enhances it.
Now that I woke up, this is the best way I could find to explain it, hahah. See now why my position has always been consistent, and why I was never dishonest with my realism commentary?
I only support this realism because it would also be better for gameplay, the way I see it. If it was detrimental to gameplay, I wouldn’t support it, no matter how realistic it was.
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…
Or I would never support variable/dynamic reload rates (loader being randomly faster or slower each reload because he’s not a robot), no matter how realistic it was, because it would be detrimental to gameplay… etc.
So no, I don’t always support realism just for being realistic; only when it had a positive impact on gameplay, as it would be the case when it comes to shell modelling.
You can justify anything by adding context to statements if you do it only after people point out that they’re mutually exclusive. If you were interested in having an honest discussion you would present a consistent viewpoint instead of doing a 180, hoping that no one remembers what you wrote earlier in the very same thread. You changed your point from “realism is the least of the concerns” to “anyone that doesn’t want this game to be more realistic wants it to be WoT”.
Even now you keep bringing up realism in every post for some reason while ignoring the points raised about how this would negatively affect gameplay.
For God’s sake, I have explained repeatedly how there was never a 180 but you just don’t care.
I’m done trying to discuss anything with you, you’ve been disingenuous this whole time in constant attempts at picturing me in a negative light; me trying to reason with you has taken up at least 1/3rd of this whole thread’s replies and it has served no purpose beyond cluttering it with spam.
Realism and gameplay are NOT always mutually exclusive.
I only support the APHE fix because, APART from being realistic, such fix would ALSO have a positive impact on the game. If it had a negative impact on the game, I would NOT support it, no matter how realistic it were.
I have repeatedly explained that I don’t support this realistic aspect just for the sake of its realism, but also, ALSO, because said realism’s implication would have a positive impact on the game.
That’s the last of it I will say, because no matter what I say or how much I explain, you will always manage to find a way to twist it into “me being dishonest” or whatever bullcrap and I don’t want to clutter this thread any further with nonsense.
The statements stand on their own, everyone can read them. And everyone with a decent grasp of the English language can see that they’re diametrically opposed.
It has served the purpose of showing other people that you are incapable of arguing in good faith and conceding a point when proven wrong. That’s pretty important considering you tend to spam these topics with hundreds of posts.
Like here?
All I see “realism good, otherwise WoT”, not very much about gameplay at all.
Odd you failed to respond to the points raised about gameplay impact then, instead again focusing on how realistic it would be.
But only in downtier it will consistently face guns unable to pen it in much easier way. In case of US the M4/T26 is at 6.0 and for soviets SU-100 also exists at that BR not to mention the PT-76 at 5.3 which just lolpens Tiger no matter what.
Both M4A3E8 and T-34 85 are more nimble and manuverable and at very least in case of M4A3E8 its BR is just silly and should be lover.
And again this scenario only comes up when the Tiger H1 player has done everything right and took the time to engle properly or took the time to get into proper hull down position. Again why should player who has done everything right and is in heavy tank in downtier be quite easily killed?
You are the one who either does not have a decent grasp of the English language, or who is arguing in bad faith.
You CONSISTENTLY ignore EVERYTHING I say no matter how much I repeat myself because you consider that I “contradict myself” instead of figuring that I am merely adding NUANCE to my statements because not everything is black and white.
Or are you incapable of grasping the notion of NUANCES and you think anything that isn’t fully black and white is “a contradiction in bad faith”?
I have talked more than enough about gameplay.
I. Have.
Since you have consistently ignored it, let me repeat myself once again here. I know you will ignore it once again, but at least others will see that it is YOU the one arguing in bad faith here;
A single shell type standing out and being inherently better than all others because of an artificial and dramatic increase in relative performance is BAD for gameplay. One specific shell type being able to perform ridiculous trick shots no other shell is capable of executing is BAD for gameplay. Have I made myself clear enough yet, or is this going to continue being an eternal back-and-forth cycle of you actively ignoring me to falsely accuse me of arguing in bad faith when it’s literally what you and no one else here has been doing for days now?
All a bit of a moot point in a BR level filled with artillery firing HE that bypasses all heavy armour anyway. That is what wrecks playing heavy tanks in this game now. APHE is what it always was.
Because all you try to do is rescind statements when someone points out they’re wrong/opposing. Why would anyone honor that? If you were arguing honestly it wouldn’t be possible to find things like that in the first place, as you’d have a consistent line of reasoning instead of one that changes every two days.
You have not responded to any of the gameplay concerns listed in various posts, for example here:
or here
You handwaved that entire part away with “well, maybe Gaijin adds three new BRs and decompresses the game”. The response to which you also ignored.
Then you spent most of your replies talking about realism, which is weird because your position was that realism is the least of the concerns. Well, before you switched over to “more realism is needed or this game is WoT” at least.
It’s not a downtier, the M4A3 (76)W is at the same BR. Why should it no longer be able to do anything against a competent Tiger I player while the Tiger can continue to just click on the M4s UFP? It is already a matchup that heavily favors the Tiger, what is your reasoning that the Tiger I needs a further buff?
Heavy tanks that are frontally invulnerable stomp and are bad for gameplay. See KV-1E/B, IS-6 at introduction, Jumbo at 4.7, IS-7 at 8.0.
Because, as I have explained countless times, they are NOT opposing- they add up to each other, adding NUANCE to their points.
Everything else I could possibly need to say to reply to the rest of your comment, I have already said it. Numerous times. So I won’t be repeating myself over again, because the same way you have ignored it previously, you would just ignore it once again.