Not making a fuss of anything!
I just wanted to reassure this user that their writing isn’t so bad that “it doesn’t make sense in English” :P
I think their English is quite decent, so I got a bit sad when they started apologising when you told them their writing was unintelligible, since I don’t think it was the case at all, hahah.
far from it, I’m Brazilian, the name is just from a character I like
Oh, I see! Hahah, roger that!
Point still stands though:P
The statement he made just lost me and the context.I still don’t know what the statement meant or if it was a simple translation error.I am English and I sometimes look at what I wrote and have to correct it as it makes no sense.It’s a forum ,shit happens.
It doesn’t help we have Brazilian with a Japanese name : ) That can lead to assumption.
I also did not know whether you were talking via a translator or not until we discussed it.
No doubt some Europeans speak better English than the British : )
any way we are getting off topic.
I find the 17 pounder APCBC to quite reliably eat tiger Is from the front if not angled so I’m not sure the WW2 armour performs significantly better - at least in case of german tanks. IS are a nightmare to fight frontally. Unless like, you mean the armour taking permanent damage that weaken it to follow-up hits (the mention of side panel weld failing from a penetrating shot).
Let me change a couple things, tell me if it helps! This is what I understood;
“Your example is someone who supports smaller, one-lane maps and who actively cherry-picked results; and who, yet, still couldn’t make the changes look as bad as they wanted.”
Hahahah, me too. That’s why I will often edit my comments once or twice after posting them, when I realise I could have expressed something more clearly or when I realise I’ve commited a mistake. I am something of a grammar nazi myself, although sometimes I kinda stop caring and I write in disgustingly mediocre English lmao.
I find sometimes it does and sometimes it just doesn’t under the same circumstance and that to me is where an issue lies if there is one.I have to ask though are there other factors to consider built into the game such as crew level ,player level or the amount of ammo carried? If I hit a Tiger from the front and he goes bang is it because they already lost some crew and I have no idea of that? I am just presuming its inconsistency
I’m thinking a T95 should be able to pen an IS3 from twenty feet away.Maybe I am wrong.
What does he mean by this ?
Basically;
“Your example” = Subject, the person you linked (as an example)
“Is someone who supports smaller, one-lane maps” = Describing said person’s preferences.
“And who actively cherry-picked results” = Implies the person cherry-picked the results they shared to back up their point.
“And who, yet, still couldn’t make the changes look as bad as they wanted.” = They are stating that the changes don’t look as bad as “your example” person attempted to and intended.
Just to clarify, my initial comment wasn’t making a fuss about this, and these replies are not an attempt of mine to be pedantic or obnoxious! I just wanted to reassure them, and, now, since you said you still did not understand their comment, I thought I would try to help, just so you could figure/know, since I would hate not to understand someone’s point, hahah ^^
Today I am somehow feeling good, which is really weird, so I just want to have nice interactions, to be wholesome to everyone and be fine and cool with everyone, hahah. So I’m sorry if my first comment felt like me making a fuss about it!
That is fine and I come onto this forum with a good attitude most days and mainly to learn. One of the reasons I often edit a post is because upon reading it back I came across as rude when I didn’t mean to be.
Communicating via writing is fraught with potential dangers : )
My views of the game are taken from what I see and I try to have no preset agenda. I am willing to be swayed or moved by evidence as a scientist would and maybe a priest wouldn’t : )
Server desync seems to be the biggest contributor to “What” bounces on my end. I’ve compared some gameplay display with server replay after noticing I couldn’t pen a vk3002 on its mantlet with a centurion.
Locally, game showed the gun sights aimed square on the flat part of the VK3002 mantlet where angle is essentially square. Server-side though, the gun was lagging behind and below the crosshair so upon firing, it hit the curved, lower side of it and bounced.
I imagine the same likely applies to slightly angled hulls as well. Your gun lags behind your sights and hits an angled part.
Crew skills also seem to be a contributing factor Crew with full vitality vs no vitality likely makes a difference between black and red for spalling far from the penetrating shell. I am very much not a fan of this personally if this can be proven beyond doubt to occur.
Ammo is idk. It seems purely RNG. AFAIK, only late war shermans did wet ammo stowage. HEAT-FS seems to cook ammo off more reliably than APDS in my experience (RATEL 90 gives me way more ammo rack kills than I had with comet I).
Man I can’t wait for the APHE changes. Maybe then I’ll be able to consistently 1 shot light vehicles.
Unfortunately yes, I wish they did it properly.
However, I think it’s more realistic than what we have now. All of the proposed changes together make APHE more lethal forwards and less lethal sideways. It behaves a bit more like AP, which brings us closer to reality.
Don’t forget about spalling from the penetration itself. New APHE will have strong spalling, just like AP. I believe this spalling covers these gaps.
I wouldn’t go that far to say that it has nothing to do with reality. They showed some drawings from some kind of a document, so there is something to it.
The pictures probably represent the fragmentation vectors of the explosion, not the final fragmentation vectors. It probably has something to do with the shell’s shape and structural integrity, it’s easier to break through some parts of the shell, than the others.
Gaijin just took it literally and implemented it, without adding inertia.
I may be wrong though, I’m not an expert at all.
Maybe if people stopped arguing about balance and vote results, Gaijin would take the feedback regarding realism and prepare a better rework.
Most people I’ve seen here couldn’t care less about realism. They examine these changes in aspects such as balance, game design, meta shifts, BRs adjustment duration or even grind… They also often base their decision on whether it benefits them and their tribe or not.
Yeah no shit sherlock, its one of the things this will impact heavily. Realism generally takes a second place to balance in these areas, and for hella good reason.
hmmm if people stopped arguing about the relavant parts that actually impact the game hmmm
Balance and realism can be both achieved in this case which is why APHE is going through some iterations, latest one being added lethal fragments on entry spalling.
Me when cupolas kekw
(Ive explained the postpen balance issue sooo many times I aint doing it again)
The changes taketh and giveth. No more obscure weakspot kills (unless you’re using overpressure APHE), in return we get more lethal entry spalling which could be good against light vehicles and intact slug.
Ah, but therin lies the issue. Lighter vehicles get worse, heavies get better- and so they go up. Heavies tend to have quite good guns for their tier-many enough to overpressure. The vehicles that they face (Mediums, Lights), generally do not.
Post-pen damage has an inverse relationship with the effectiveness of armor, as paradoxical as it may seem. As long a vehicle’s armor makes it difficult to pen, it must be relatively easy to kill once it is penetrated, and its weakspots must be reliable.
If those weakspots vanish, or do significantly less damage, the armor will then become less powerful as the tank is forced upwards due to overperforming.
Thus is what will happen, and I almost cannot wait to relish in the heavy tank crowd’s tears as they realize what they have done.
Only the very large calibre ones mainly Russians so no its not “many” that can overpressure.
Armour isn’t the only thing that affects BR. Their low mobility, reaction time, and reload all play a factor. Like for example the T26E5, its armour is insanely good for its BR but is held back by its lack of penetration.
Some heavies don’t benefit from the changes at all, in fact some heavies are less survivable because of the changes. Take for example the Tiger 2H, sometimes APHE isn’t enough to 1 shot through the turret weakspot and the Tiger 2H can end up retreating and repairing but with the changes, the intact slug can keep going and hit the ammo in the back of the turret.
Crucially some heavies benefit nicely from this change as well, like the IS-2s.
You’re overgeneralizing. Some benefit rightfully and some don’t. Some don’t get affected at all and some will be affected negatively. Overall from my own testing in the dev server, the change seem to be well balanced even on smaller APHE from small calibre shells.
What if it all makes for a game that you no longer like ,what then? You just leave and stop playing?
We already have tons of complaints about heavy tanks being redundant in the face of post war ammo and now they are to be redundant with WW2 ammo as well? We can just shoot right through anything we face? Players expect more than that.
The only expectation or benefit was that we lose the stupid cupola kill but even that is uncertain.If the current system is so bad then why is the game so popular and why do so many say the system we have is far better than WoTs?
What if everybody hates it? WT never go back on anything ,it will be another 12 years of endless debate and complaining. Why do you guys keep torturing yourself with endless changes? if you dont like the game then walk away, if you do like it then stop moaning about it and get on with it. Its the changes that are killing War Thunder not helping it.
