|
I'm bit behind the times, what where these changes to the penetration mechanics? There's a lot of bitching out there, but nobody is really saying what about the changes is bad and why.
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 03:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
This kind of rework to the game systems stuff is usually when one tank or nation gets extremely good for like a month, so we need to figure that out and get some golden wagers done.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 03:20
|
|
|
Any advice on using the F-80C-10? I’ve seen a couple of videos but I don’t know what applies and how much due to all the videos about it being like 3 years old.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 03:34
|
|
|
Hipster Occultist posted:I'm bit behind the times, what where these changes to the penetration mechanics? There's a lot of bitching out there, but nobody is really saying what about the changes is bad and why. https://warthunder.com/en/news/6010-development-improved-calculation-of-armour-penetration-in-the-game-en Q&A followup: https://warthunder.com/en/news/6023-qa-ballistic-update-questions-and-answers-from-the-developers-en tl;dr They're standardizing the solid shot ammo around mathematical formulas instead of historical documents, for the sake of consistency and simplicity without sacrificing realism. Every solid shot round except APDS is changing, they have a good idea how they want to model explosive filler for the sake of calculating penetration. Machine gun rounds (anything low caliber, really) and chemical rounds are unaffected.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 03:36
|
|
|
Hipster Occultist posted:I'm bit behind the times, what where these changes to the penetration mechanics? There's a lot of bitching out there, but nobody is really saying what about the changes is bad and why. I think there was a big change a while ago where they started to switch from Wartime/Post War penetration data to a strictly mathematical formula (since some of the pen data was either really optimistic, or outright proven wrong). And before (?) that they redid the bounce mechanics to get them working more in line with how they are now. For a while there you could APCR to pen armour at pretty extreme angles, and now you're more likely to bounce.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 03:38
|
|
|
Alrighty, I never really used Solid Shot. Does that mean anything for my USSR tanks and their APHE?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 03:50
|
|
|
Blistex posted:I think there was a big change a while ago where they started to switch from Wartime/Post War penetration data to a strictly mathematical formula (since some of the pen data was either really optimistic, or outright proven wrong). And before (?) that they redid the bounce mechanics to get them working more in line with how they are now. For a while there you could APCR to pen armour at pretty extreme angles, and now you're more likely to bounce. The update was literally yesterday: https://warthunder.com/en/game/changelog/current/933
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
So I usually like to laugh at communities blowing up about this kind of stuff. So the "historical data" is of dubious quality? I kinda figured that would end up being the case when the loudest whining I saw was about historical documents. On the other hand, not adjusting BR after that change is probably gonna make some tanks really suck/rock for a while.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 04:16
|
|
|
/\ They're probably going to need a few weeks of gameplay before they even think about adjusting tanks that are curb-stomping at their BR or being stomped.Solumin posted:The update was literally yesterday: https://warthunder.com/en/game/changelog/current/933 I must have mistaken people talking about it with another patch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 04:17
|
|
|
Spreadsheet of the ammo changes are here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ai5YAemDxsPJrjizt7JPRO7czpNb05SVySzsxc1iw1o/edit#gid=1380716881 Highlights include Britain's ground forces getting a solid buff across the board and the OTOMATIC getting ~118mm penetration on its APHE shell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
Dr.Radical posted:Any advice on using the F-80C-10? I’ve seen a couple of videos but I don’t know what applies and how much due to all the videos about it being like 3 years old. untouchable vs props when energy trapping them forced into head ons against other jets since it feels more like a "jack of all trades master of none" kind of plane its biggest strength are its aesthetics and that people will let their guard down against the reach of your american .50s look for enemies that are already engaged with someone else before bnzing them unless you have an exceptional energy advantage. otherwise get used to doing 1-2km firing ranges against enemies that can nuke in 1 shot head on like most  planes, it is considerably good at ground attack despite being a fighter so you can use this to lvl it up faster whenever its available during tank pvp missionsif you go crabbing during an air RB match expect to aggro all Migs in the area
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 04:56
|
|
|
wilderthanmild posted:So I usually like to laugh at communities blowing up about this kind of stuff. So the "historical data" is of dubious quality? I kinda figured that would end up being the case when the loudest whining I saw was about historical documents. It's not necessarily the quality of the documents themselves, and more a recognition that literally every nation had different testing standards for ammunition and trying to reconcile all of them is both a massive pain in the rear end and not necessarily any more 'historical'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 05:02
|
|
|
Whole lot of folks camping the air spawn these days, haven't lived in a plane for more than 15 seconds in I don't know how many matches... Is the trick just be the first plane up and go camp there?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 05:52
|
|
|
appropriatemetaphor posted:Whole lot of folks camping the air spawn these days, haven't lived in a plane for more than 15 seconds in I don't know how many matches... Kinda? Or to hit the deck over the airfield and check your six immediately. That said I camp the hell out of chopper spawns because they deserve to die, the game is legitimately better without them if they brought ATGMs, and there is no other effective counter to them without dumping 700+ points on a jet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 06:08
|
|
|
Lol, 3 inch Gun Carrier got a slight buff. And the Tortoise. Actually, a lot of Brit stuff did going by the spreadsheet. Makes me happy even if everyone else is raging.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 13:30
|
|
|
Exioce posted:Quite a large thread on the official forums about these ammo changes. Most people calling Gaijin retards. They’ve all decided math is for dweebs and gaijin should just use ‘historical’ tables that are often propaganda, incorrect and conducted to various standards. Maybe their calculations do need improvement. What I do know is that Cold War penetration tables should not be considered 100% accurate. Regarde Aduck fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Feb 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 14:55
|
|
|
The real issue with using "historical penetration tables" for penetration data in the game is that if you take a step back, it's a really loving stupid grognardy bullshit, extremely irrelevant in the face of all the other simplifications War Thunder (and ever more so every other combat sim so far) makes. We don't have non-penetration spalling, which knocked out many a vehicle IRL. We don't have crews bailing out in situations when many a crew would. We don't have armor deterioration, where shells that couldn't penetrate eventually cracked and spalled the plates enough for the tank to just fall apart, turret rings and gun laying drives to irreparably seize, transmissions to jump out of their manifolds, etc etc. The reason penetration tables are super popular is that reading about RAW NUMMERS GOING UP gives hapless armchair generals and grandpa gamers a massive erection as they have something very easily comprehensible to use as an argument for why Their Fave Panzer Was The Best Panzer. They're irrelevant (or even detrimental) for gameplay and the "Realism" part is extremely questionable if you look at it reasonably; a tanker in a T-34 didn't pull out a penetration table to figure out if he gonna be able to penetrate a tiger, he kept shooting and trying and i the Tiger kept shooting back, they either went closer until the hits made it stop shooting, or ran off. Moving onto the formulas for all shells means the following: - 2 conflicting penetration tables from different sources are irrelevant now (there was often more than 2), saves a FUCKTON of work in maintaining this massive archive of all this testing for all these guns done by various nations - It lowers the minimal information necessary for "fairly" adding more exotic guns that have no proper penetration data about them left (this was a huge issue with Japan; the historical sources are scarce and poo poo, and often fluffed up massively) - It potentially opens room for making the ballistics model more sophisticated, as you no longer have to do some really removed analysis of how should this super weird shell perform against this super weird plate at this very particular range and angle; you got velocity, you got shell type, you got angle - shell end of the equation is done - means you have fewer weird variables to work with while figuring out how should the plate end of the deal behave This is unambiguously good change to the game (and any game that's going to implement historical armored warfare simulators after this point!).
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 15:13
|
|
|
Agreed, it's absolutely a good change and I'm in favor of it. I'm not sure if gaijin implemented everything correctly, but I also think the community is overreacting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
I'm just skeptical everything was calculated correctly given the whole FCM 36/Ha Go fiasco. I know it was an outdated gun but I just find it hard to believe even the French and Japanese decided to put a gun in their tank that couldn't have penetrated a Mark I from WW1 at anything but point blank, with a fuze set to detonate at a depth the shell can't reach. Like they were bad at tank design in the 30s but not that bad. Surely the FCM or Ha Go knocked out a *single* tank during the war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:I'm just skeptical everything was calculated correctly given the whole FCM 36/Ha Go fiasco. These were tanks literally not meant to ever face another tank. The guns were also very similar to the ones these WW1 tanks had, and these tended to have a lot of "can't do anything to each other" encounters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
Did the Abrams get a pretty hefty downgrade or is it mostly the same? Looks like the former
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 17:05
|
|
|
Didn't the FCM 36 get absolutely hosed when faced with tanks? It had a tough time wirh panzer 2's and was unable to pen panzer 3's I thought. It was very much designed to attack infantry positions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Did the Abrams get a pretty hefty downgrade or is it mostly the same? Looks like the former Practical penetration is mostly the same because it's the performance against angled plates that matters past a point and that practically didn't charge. I heard the after penetration damage got gimped which doesn't seem like very important when you mostly shoot T-64 series tanks and they just auto explode on centre of mass hits because of the ammo carousel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
unlike most of the 37mm in game the sa/18 in the fcm 36 and h35 was not an anti tank gun, so it makes sense that it would have abysmal performance against tanks. im still sad to see the fcm go since it’s a neat looking machine imo. I really hope removing two low tier tanks from the french leads them to add more 25mm hotchkiss armed vehicles like the pan pan and zt2, but I’m not holding my breath
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 17:51
|
|
|
I mean it's not like it's gone, everyone who logged in since France and Japan were added has them (as they were reserves) and they'll probably keep handing them out as the comedy hurr option in events like with Po-2.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
free hubcaps posted:unlike most of the 37mm in game the sa/18 in the fcm 36 and h35 was not an anti tank gun, so it makes sense that it would have abysmal performance against tanks. im still sad to see the fcm go since it’s a neat looking machine imo. I really hope removing two low tier tanks from the french leads them to add more 25mm hotchkiss armed vehicles like the pan pan and zt2, but I’m not holding my breath Yeah, the P.178's absence was puzzling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:I'm just skeptical everything was calculated correctly given the whole FCM 36/Ha Go fiasco. An important consideration is that shells with a penetration depth fuse don't actually have a penetration depth fuse but an impact activated delay fuse. So these guns will hit a 15mm armour plate, embed themselves in it and then explode, spalling the gently caress out of the tank's interior.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
Teal posted:I mean it's not like it's gone, everyone who logged in since France and Japan were added has them (as they were reserves) and they'll probably keep handing them out as the comedy hurr option in events like with Po-2. oh i know, i guess im just sad that i won’t be able to pick on new players using them when playing reserve (which I’m pretty sure is why gaijin is removing them, cuz lol if you are new to the game and decide to play the french first then you’d probably just stop playing) Madurai posted:Yeah, the P.178's absence was puzzling. for real, it was one of the most widely produced armored cars in the world and one of the most advanced/effective armored vehicles France had in service at the start of the war. when I think french armor I think oscillating turrets and heavily armed armored cars, and yet we’ve seen almost none. I hope them adding the amx 10 is a sign of things to come (it’s probably not). somua/gendron would be cool too, not to mention later ACs like the many AML variants (the one that mounted a 60mm mortar alongside a 20mm autocannon would be extremely fun) or the legendary EBR e: gaijin plz 
free hubcaps fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Feb 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
The p.178 would be a boon for Gaijin too because it was used by the Germans and the Italians after the fall of France. There's two new premium tier 1s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2019 00:59
|
|
|
They should make the no-go spawn zone like...big. Played a couple games tonight and every one had a few enemy tanks hiding in some just-outside-the-circle nook and just spawn camping from <5 min in. Couldn't even see them because of that top layer of soil/snow or whatever that you can shoot through but enemies can't see through.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2019 08:18
|
|
|
appropriatemetaphor posted:They should make the no-go spawn zone like...big. Played a couple games tonight and every one had a few enemy tanks hiding in some just-outside-the-circle nook and just spawn camping from <5 min in. Couldn't even see them because of that top layer of soil/snow or whatever that you can shoot through but enemies can't see through. Making the spawn zone itself bigger--like the width of the map bigger--would also help. Any Gaijin employee who puts out a map with single spawnpoints should probably be looking for other work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2019 15:10
|
|
|
Or, at the very least, spawn points should offer a tactical advantage to those within it, such as those outside not having the gun depression to shoot inside without majorly exposing themselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
Anything that promotes spawn point camping is a terrible idea; this includes staying in and shooting out of your own because there are plenty of bad players who will do just that. Just make the spawn points larger and more elongated along the full axis of the map. Fear of the unknown is a perfectly workable deterrent, epecically paired with the minimap marker of people too close to your spawn. Right now it’s like 1-2 spawn points w/ 100x100m spaces. If it was like 3 spaces w/ 300x300m, there’s a lot more uncertainty involved for the camper. Some maps like Vietnam, Karelia or Berlin won’t really work without major changes like this, but that’s honestly not a negative in my eyes. Mazz fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Feb 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2019 18:34
|
|
|
Teal posted:We don't have non-penetration spalling, which knocked out many a vehicle IRL. This is the kind of mechanic that would absolutely hit Germany the hardest considering their poo poo metal throughout the war. Apparently the Stugs and early Tiger I's were the only German AFVs that were even approaching what everyone else considered "good armour (metallurgical) characteristics". Some people think it was just a late war thing, but Soviet testers pre-war and during the early stages of Barbarossa (when they did manage to capture some German tanks) were absolutely shocked to find out how brittle and lovely the armour was on most tanks. Late/Post war testing proved that the KT's front hull was nearly impenetrable by almost everything they used during the war, but it didn't matter that much when non-penning hits created massive amounts of internal spalling that would obliterate the driver/radioman, and remove the lower half of the gunner and loader, and take off the commander's legs below the knees (in reference to the types of guns it's facing in WT, not based on historical accounts). Here is a picture showing how lovely the metal in the KT's armour was. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 00:26
|
|
|
Know what sucks? Burning a big research booster and then getting put into an battle that's over half done. Edit: apparently there is a setting to prevent this, but man, that wasted my daily reward 
wilderthanmild fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Feb 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 02:43
|
|
|
wilderthanmild posted:Know what sucks? Burning a big research booster and then getting put into an battle that's over half done. I wasted a Golden Eagle wager before I made an effort to find out how to disable that setting. I was playing RB with an Elefant, and started the game at a point where my team had already started the "spawn rape" portion of the game, and I didn't even get a chance to see an enemy unit until the game was over because the enemy ran out of vehicles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 04:04
|
|
|
https://warthunder.com/en/news/6035-development-challenger-2-and-rank-vii-armored-vehicles-en What the hell https://static.warthunder.com/uploa...63c6327487e.jpg "Challenger 2 and rank VII armored vehicles" I don't even know, anymore
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 17:22
|
|
|
UK ground forces need a lot of things (effective AA between 3.7 and 7.7, ammo tweaks, either some vehicles with speed or matchmaking that occasionally partners them with the teams that have it, etc...), but the first Tier VII tank sure as hell isn't it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 17:31
|
|
|
It feels like WT knows what makes it money and is farming the hell out of it while it still can. Who knows, maybe they were banking on Ships and helos being a much bigger earner than it was and are doing a fire-sale on modern poo poo to make up the losses before they have to turn off the lights. Cynical maybe but it's starting to feel like they're chasing whatever money they can via moving end-game goalposts while the previous stuff hasn't even begun to be properly polished or integrated into the game fully.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
Probably not too far from the truth. I don’t think there is much financial risk of them going under, at least not yet, but the premium money firehose was opened up and it set a pretty insane pace to maintain. You know what the big thing a 7th tier does? Invalidate tier 5 premiums as a way to grind clean to the end. That’s about it. This jump is too fast and leads down a terrible path since there is zero concrete information on tanks like the C2 or anything post Cold War. 100% assuming attributes is a terrible loving idea for this type of game, as evident by the holes they already had to fill with what they have. About the only positive is we might see more BRs now between supersonics and these high end tanks, so 7.0-9.0 might not need to include 35 years of vehicles. Mazz fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Feb 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 18:53
|
|