We could do this all day.
If cupola trickshots not being as reliable is a negative gameplay effect to you, that’s a subjective thing. To me, it’s a positive gameplay effect.
You believe that “I support realism in detriment to gameplay” because YOU consider this to be a detrimental gameplay effect. I consider it to be an enhancement; so no, I don’t support this FIX “in spite of gameplay”; I support it, mostly, because of gameplay…
What? Why do you even play this game with that crazy attitude?
None of these address the point raised. Read the post you are replying to.
That is a small fraction of the gameplay aspects raised in the posts linked. Responding to it alone while ignoring the parts that talk about the impact this would have on balancing does not constitute an answer.
No. You keep arguing for this change with realism as an argument, which does not work, as you agreed to earlier. You then usually refuse to talk about the actual gameplay impacts of this change, instead bringing up realism again and again as if that was somehow a good argument in favor of it.
Name some heavy tanks that are frontally invulnerable to most of what they see and balanced.
For God’s sake WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT TO DISCUSSS!? WHAT OTHER “GAMEPLAY EFFECTS” DO YOU WANT ME TO MENTION AND SPELL OUT ALREADY? COME ON, BRING IT ON ALREADY, YOU ARE DRIVING ME INSANE WITH THIS NONSENSE ALREADY! COME ON, LET’S FINISH THIS ALREADY! WHAT GAMEPLAY EFFECTS DOES YOUR MAJESTY WANT ME TO SPELL OUT?
List them, I will carefully and specifically address them ONE BY ONE. COME ON! It’s been days, days, DAYS, LET’S SETTLE THIS ONCE AND FOR ALL ALREADY, I AM FED UP WITH THIS, FED UP!
EDIT: this “conversation” is beginning to take a toll in me, it’s like talking to a wall, it’s desperating.
No tank is invulnerable that is my point
That isn’t how MM works. If you are at top BR it is downtier. But that is beside the point.
Maybe barrel and track torture or even just reposition? If you are in Sherman in the open facing a Tiger you have done mistake.
But I got the answer you want to turn WT in COD with tanks where snapshots are everything and strategy is dumped down. I see that our opinions are diametrically opposed and we will never agree on this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You didn’t even read the post. Click on the quoted sections.
And why should the survivability onion not apply to heavy tanks?
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 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:
I have been talking about gameplay since August 13, but apparently “I only care about realism irregardless of gameplay” xD.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I just dont see any of this " Stomping" Not below 7BR anyway.
It’s all rock ,paper ,scissors as far as I can see.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.