Jump to content


Hybrid Tank Destroyers/Self-Propelled Guns

repost

  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

Poll: Hybrid Tank Destroyers/SPGs (28 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battles in order to participate this poll.

Hybrid Tank Destroyers/SPGs (as explained below)?

  1. Yes, as a general rule for all vehicles with the mechanic (9 votes [32.14%])

    Percentage of vote: 32.14%

  2. Yes, but all such vehicles must have low average damage (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. Yes, but with something else (2 votes [7.14%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.14%

  4. No, too complicated (2 votes [7.14%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.14%

  5. No: play either Tank Destroyers or Self-Propelled Guns instead (14 votes [50.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 50.00%

  6. Hard to say (1 vote [3.57%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.57%

Vote Hide poll

Dorander #21 Posted 21 July 2018 - 10:59 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 18196 battles
  • 2,758
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View Postvcristi, on 21 July 2018 - 08:47 AM, said:

<snipped physics values>

 

Now i am thinking why WG is not implementing those 100-150 m/s shell speed for arty? Maybe because they would not be capable of hitting lights going at 60 km/h?

But they said that arty is for digging out campers from their hull-down positions....:sceptic:

 

 

Could it possibly be that waiting 12-15 seconds for your shot to land isn't any fun? Hitting lights going 60 km/h already is a stroke of luck, not only do you need to time the shot perfectly, you also need a lucky accurate shot, and you need the light to not make new decisions within the usual ~2-3 seconds travel time. In a game like WoT, people make new decisions constantly.

 

You're probably right when you say artillery has mortar-like mechanics. That's because what "artillery" as a word is is a label for the tank type that can fire indirectly in this game. It would be irrelevant if they looked like mortar setups and were called "mortar support" or... you know... "mortar combat"... :hiding: because in an unrealistic game like this it's the mechanic that matters, not the label, not even the physics.

 

If I fire my gun in any tank, the game automatically calculates the firing angle. I don't do that. The gun doesn't fire at where I point. The gun fires at where the game believes I should be pointing if I wanted to hit the thing I am pointing at. Alternatively, if we want to claim that the representation is fine here, our guns aren't solid straight barrels but dynamically curving elephant trunks, and for some reason you never hear anyone complain about the lack of realism due to the elephant-factor of direct-fire tanks. Why gloss over the visuals of one mechanic and not the other?



Tina_Taiho #22 Posted 21 July 2018 - 11:30 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 347 battles
  • 5
  • [CL1CK] CL1CK
  • Member since:
    07-15-2018
Despite all the trouble with physics, I am way more concerned about the playerbase actually being able to use a tank this way. Most players are already overwhelmed with a single, more basic rule of their specific vehicle so an increase in complexity and game dynamic would be bad for everyone and only bring an increase of cluelessness.

Dava_117 #23 Posted 21 July 2018 - 11:56 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 19480 battles
  • 3,303
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View PostDorander, on 21 July 2018 - 10:59 AM, said:

 

Could it possibly be that waiting 12-15 seconds for your shot to land isn't any fun? Hitting lights going 60 km/h already is a stroke of luck, not only do you need to time the shot perfectly, you also need a lucky accurate shot, and you need the light to not make new decisions within the usual ~2-3 seconds travel time. In a game like WoT, people make new decisions constantly.

 

You're probably right when you say artillery has mortar-like mechanics. That's because what "artillery" as a word is is a label for the tank type that can fire indirectly in this game. It would be irrelevant if they looked like mortar setups and were called "mortar support" or... you know... "mortar combat"... :hiding: because in an unrealistic game like this it's the mechanic that matters, not the label, not even the physics.

 

If I fire my gun in any tank, the game automatically calculates the firing angle. I don't do that. The gun doesn't fire at where I point. The gun fires at where the game believes I should be pointing if I wanted to hit the thing I am pointing at. Alternatively, if we want to claim that the representation is fine here, our guns aren't solid straight barrels but dynamically curving elephant trunks, and for some reason you never hear anyone complain about the lack of realism due to the elephant-factor of direct-fire tanks. Why gloss over the visuals of one mechanic and not the other?

 

The gun is not curving like a trunk. The elevation limit is taken into account so, in example, a really low velocity gun can be unable to shoot a very far target, especially if you're going downhill.

Dorander #24 Posted 21 July 2018 - 12:17 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 18196 battles
  • 2,758
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostDava_117, on 21 July 2018 - 10:56 AM, said:

 

The gun is not curving like a trunk.

 

Obviously, hence the ridiculous comparison. The point was the game auto-factors angles according to its own internal rules so that the achieved effect is that all we have to do is point and click, then wait for the shell to land, no matter what we're playing, because that is the purpose of the game's mechanics, not some semblance to reality. The shells could take a detour to Rome as far as I'm concerned, as long as they end up reasonably close to where I aimed in a manner and timing able to affect the gameplay.







Also tagged with repost

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users