Comments on: On complicated armor models

By: Lavitz

Lavitz — Sat, 28 Dec 2013 13:04:34 +0000

all of a sudden noone remembers how serb said that leo1 was too modern for wot?

By: iamablocker

iamablocker — Fri, 27 Dec 2013 09:13:10 +0000

It would be like Air kills in WT:

you pour tens of large caliber shells on an enemy. only for a passing Panzer 2′s 20mm to score the kill and rob you of your credits and experience.

By: ouchthathurts

ouchthathurts — Fri, 27 Dec 2013 06:25:05 +0000

“I cannot help but wonder, how will Gaijin deal with the amount of “why the hell did THAT happen” complaints”

The same way that WG does: “How terrible.”

That’s an awful way to deal with valid criticisms, but not unexpected when 95% or more of the criticisms you get are utter rubbish.

As for the “realism” thing, WG’s game designers are (correctly) not at all about realism for the sake of being realistic. The attempts at “realism” are applied only to certain narrowly defined areas.

The question is, why? I suspect that WG, consciously or unconsciously, is using a standard artistic technique where you place certain limitations on what you can do in order to inspire creativity. Shakespeare did this when he wrote dozens of plays in iambic pentameter (a certain specific format of syllables and stress). There was no need for it, and plenty of works were written in simple prose, so why would he do it? Well, it turns out that by forcing yourself to work within certain limits, you can often get more interesting and creative results than if you allow yourself to do anything.

By: Wysch

Wysch — Fri, 27 Dec 2013 01:31:02 +0000

I think you also HAVE to mention how will the differences between ammunition in WT work. Because – honestly – this is the reason why I disagree with you that Wargaming “has it” better. Also there is a slight possibility that the arcade battle (damage) model could be easier while this already presented damage model could be in historical battles. But mainly, do mention the ammo types for all your readers. This is the crucial point of Gaijin’s tank gameplay. In my opinion. Like it really was in reality.

By: Worldwideweb

Worldwideweb — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 22:22:43 +0000

well, even though FRB is much more challenging than the other types as it is more focused on “realism”, i wouldnt call it a “full-blown sim”.

Yes, it requires more knowledge, better piloting skills, but it is still more casual than other sims out on the market, for example the IL-2 series, which puts a higher emphasis on realism than birds of prey or war thunder, however i have to admit that Gaijin did a fairly good job for a console-flight title ;)

War thunder tries to provide entertainment and aims at a large mass due to it’s different difficulty settings, you can click on FRB and you’re immediately placed inside a cockpit, ready to climb in the sky, which is fun, but merely a sim. Think at games like DCS:A-10C, which requires you to study its manual for understanding at least most of the keys in your cockpit. Complexity like that is missing in WT, which is fine, as it shouldnt have it… it would diminish its playerbase greatly and just make it accessible for hardcore-flight-sim-players, which will ruin gaijin after some time…

the same occurs to WoT: for F2P you need a large playerbase, and easy access & long term fun is the key to it ;)

By: Schepel

Schepel — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 21:23:50 +0000

I would be interested in such a thing, too. If you stick to general principles, you should be able to avoid fanboy BS discussions.

By: DaReaperZ .

DaReaperZ . — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 18:19:16 +0000

The “myth” about German steel is interesting when you think about it. Germany has always been famous for good quality steel. I do actually believe that the Russians used mostly this “cheaper” steel variant that doyle is talking about. They had a higher amount of coal in their steel, making it more brittle and more impure. So that is in fact, fact, not necessarily a myth at all. The funny thing is that doyle is used for a source sometimes, then people ignore him. While he actually stated there was a difference between steel quality, and says that Germany was ahead of all the allies before the war.

Then again, I never expect to find impartial things said about anything here, though it is, albeit very clumsily, disguised.

By: Stronk Tenk

Stronk Tenk — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 16:19:49 +0000

You can have the tanks either brand new looking or beat up. Your choice: http://coub.com/view/6xi8

By: Fedajkin

Fedajkin — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 14:44:51 +0000

There was a dev stream today, and from what I saw the entire “complexity” boils down to, you penetrate = you kill the enemy, plus constantly re-spawning. I want a game that is better than WoT but from what I seen of WT gameplay I have a lot of doubts right now. Right now the only good thing is the tank graphics (environment on the other hand seems a bit meh)

By: greebo

greebo — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 14:32:38 +0000

SS – why the hell are u talking about pros and cons of WT:GF, while u have never played it before? Everything (in ur opinion) is bad in this game. Too detailed models? Wrong! Good quality textures? Wrong! Mud, dust etc ground shit which sticks to tanks? Thats very bad idea!
Simple is best!
Simple is good!
Lets make then two squares with pipes, moving on flat area! I gues this gonna be best game evah in ur opinion.
With whole respect but last two articles about WT made by you, were contained huge amount of bullshit. Play, and then rate.