Jump to content


Remove Commander hatches and cupolas as the number 1 weakness


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

Planetos #1 Posted Aug 20 2016 - 06:00

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 25039 battles
  • 85
  • [VENUM] VENUM
  • Member since:
    05-30-2011

Hear me out. i know the topic is probably going to cause a lot of flaming, but i have an idea.

 

After having been a WOT player for almost 5 years i have noticed a number of very annoying, and very unnecessary trends in the game. however 1 trend is the most annoying and it ruins a majority of my games, and that would be commander hatch spam. honestly, shooting the commander hatch 5+ times should in no way shape or form put a tank completely out of action. it is only ONE part of the tank. many of my favorite tanks, and what used to be one of my favorite tier 8 premiums, the KV 5 have been parked in my garage for too long because of this one stupid vulnerability. 

 

what i propose is a mechanic installed in the game that gives the commanders hatch a set amount of the tanks TOTAL HP, say maybe 10-15%. once this HP is depleted the commanders hatches and cupola's no longer take damage. HOWEVER you may still shoot them to injure or kill the commander, but they do NOT drain the tank of its total HP pool.

 

now this may sound OP or unbalanced, but can any of you count how many times you have been taken out of a battle PURELY because the enemy was NOT skilled enough to find another weakness on your tank? the frontal machine gun turret (aka R2D2) on the KV-5 should NOT be able to drain an ENTIRE tank of its HP when there is still 90% of the tank and crew that are still functional.

 

i have used the KV 5 as my prime example, purely because it is one of the most recognized tanks in the game for its prime weakspot. however there are a number of tanks that i am sure players know about that have 1 weakspot that can easily get them killed for no reason at all. 

 

now many of you may be thinking, "well you just need to learn to play better" or "just hide the weakspot", its not always that simple, and when you look at the big picture, it is pretty stupid that 1 small spot can destroy a multi-ton vehicle. 

 

after doing some deep thinking, and research, the mechanics to make this happen are already in the game. however the mecanic is only used for specific modules like tracks, ammo racks, turret rings, etc. so i believe the same mechanic can be applied to other parts of the tank as well as long as they are isolated and done properly. for example, tracks take a specified amount of damage to become critically damaged (orange), and then additional damage to BREAK (red) the module, however these modules slowly get repaired by the crew. some modules that are BROKEN will put a tank completely out of action (ammo rack, fuel tanks) and cannot be repaired as the tank is knocked out.  the commander hatch could be designed as a separate damage model with a specific HP pool that would NOT repair. the crew member, most commonly a commander or radio operator would still be able to be healed/recovered with a med kit, and as such can still be knocked out even after the machine gun turret/cupola has lost all of its HP. to clarify, the machine gun turret/cupola can still be shot in order to hamper the performance of the tank crew, it just would not contribute to additional HP loss of the rest of the tank

 

overall this may sound like a rant, and i am sure there will be plenty of debate, but in the end this change could help prolong battles across the board, and slowly push players to become more skilled in their attempts to overpower and knock out enemy tanks. 

 

please only provide constructive criticism and your opinions below, thank you.



Strike_Witch_Tomoko #2 Posted Aug 20 2016 - 06:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 15574 battles
  • 12,509
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

in the case of KV-5.  the r2d2 is needed as that thing is REALLY armored...and keep in mind tier 6 and 7s fight it.  and it has prem MM

 

removing the r2d2 weakspot would lead to the removal of its prem mm with no buff to the gun or anything

thats how good its armor is

 

and in the case of stuff like AT2, or T29,  these cupolas are needed as they armored as hell and need somethign to shoot at. (and even then a hull down T29 is a nightmare)

 

 

 

but in the case of M48....and 59 patton.   it does make sense

as the turret itself is insanely pennable.  so why have a tumor on a tumor?

Spoiler

 


Edited by Strike_Witch_Tomoko, Aug 20 2016 - 06:05.


killswitch95 #3 Posted Aug 20 2016 - 06:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 36410 battles
  • 8,804
  • [NICO] NICO
  • Member since:
    04-12-2012

I'd say keep the CO hatch as a module/crew weakspot, but not a hitbox weakspot for HP...

 

but its not really that big a deal



killswitch95 #4 Posted Aug 20 2016 - 06:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 36410 battles
  • 8,804
  • [NICO] NICO
  • Member since:
    04-12-2012

View PostStrike_Witch_Tomoko, on Aug 20 2016 - 00:02, said:

but in the case of M48....and 59 patton.   it does make sense

as the turret itself is insanely pennable.  so why have a tumor on a tumor?

Spoiler

 

 

Because *[edited] you for trying to use a hull down position with a tank that has gun depression*



blazer285 #5 Posted Aug 20 2016 - 06:07

    Captain

  • Players
  • 12147 battles
  • 1,535
  • Member since:
    10-14-2012
Or amx 30b turret hatchet 

Strike_Witch_Tomoko #6 Posted Aug 20 2016 - 06:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 15574 battles
  • 12,509
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

View Postkillswitch95, on Aug 19 2016 - 22:06, said:

 

Because *[edited] you for trying to use a hull down position with a tank that has gun depression*

 

so T29, T32, and e5 are allowed to but meds not =(



killswitch95 #7 Posted Aug 20 2016 - 06:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 36410 battles
  • 8,804
  • [NICO] NICO
  • Member since:
    04-12-2012

View PostStrike_Witch_Tomoko, on Aug 20 2016 - 00:09, said:

 

so T29, T32, and e5 are allowed to but meds not =(

 

Working as Intended Comrade™®©@£¥

WulfeHound #8 Posted Aug 20 2016 - 06:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 12905 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011
Or why not keep them as a weakspot but have reduced damage when penetrating a la AW?

LOUD_METAL #9 Posted Aug 20 2016 - 06:25

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 9656 battles
  • 1,316
  • Member since:
    08-15-2014

View PostWulfeHound, on Aug 19 2016 - 21:16, said:

Or why not keep them as a weakspot but have reduced damage when penetrating a la AW?

 



GhostUnitVII #10 Posted Aug 20 2016 - 06:31

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 23231 battles
  • 957
  • [T_K_O] T_K_O
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011

View PostWulfeHound, on Aug 20 2016 - 05:16, said:

Or why not keep them as a weakspot but have reduced damage when penetrating a la AW?

 

Because, AW is a competitor's game, if they followed the same concept, they would be accused of copying another companies code, or concept, which would violate copyright laws... Also it would require alot of coding as each individual tank would need to be reconfigured that have a commander hatch to take little or no damage. This game has a lot of tanks, and still more to come, AW already had the system in placed at the start, so things are a little easier for them.

 

Honestly, doubt Wargaming would consider this, as tanks like the E100 police bar would be removed, and various other commander hatches that actually make rolling fortresses a punching bag... I was surprised about the E5 honestly, that tank was plagued by its comm-... Top hat... as it was the weakest part of the tank, and still is, just not as weak. The KV5 well... That tank was just doomed, a feared tank in the beta, but now, it's just another punching bag with a BB gun for a cannon...



IF_YOU_DONT_HELP_WE_LOSE #11 Posted Aug 20 2016 - 06:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 36885 battles
  • 6,566
  • Member since:
    07-22-2012
Or make them 25-50 percent damage

WulfeHound #12 Posted Aug 20 2016 - 06:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 12905 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostGhostUnitVII, on Aug 20 2016 - 00:31, said:

 

Because, AW is a competitor's game, if they followed the same concept, they would be accused of copying another companies code, or concept, which would violate copyright laws... Also it would require alot of coding as each individual tank would need to be reconfigured that have a commander hatch to take little or no damage. This game has a lot of tanks, and still more to come, AW already had the system in placed at the start, so things are a little easier for them.

 

Honestly, doubt Wargaming would consider this, as tanks like the E100 police bar would be removed, and various other commander hatches that actually make rolling fortresses a punching bag... I was surprised about the E5 honestly, that tank was plagued by its comm-... Top hat... as it was the weakest part of the tank, and still is, just not as weak. The KV5 well... That tank was just doomed, a feared tank in the beta, but now, it's just another punching bag with a BB gun for a cannon...

 

Considering AW is basically WoT 2.0, there's a lot of copying that's been done by them. They've already got 6th Sense as standard, arty already has the Battle Assistant view as standard, and they've already got a few vehicles that are in WoT (plus a bunch more planned, the T-10M, M103, Conqueror, and possibly IS-7 are planned for later on)

 

And I mean a system similar to AW's cupola damage reduction. IIRC damage is reduced by anywhere up to 50-75% on a penetration, while here in WoT the damage loss would be smaller.


Edited by WulfeHound, Aug 20 2016 - 06:40.


GhostUnitVII #13 Posted Aug 20 2016 - 06:58

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 23231 battles
  • 957
  • [T_K_O] T_K_O
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011

I've only heard of WoT 2.0, haven't actually seen any game play of it. But that game is being developed by a different team, so I've heard. World of Tanks, or more like World of Tank's PC is so backwards thinking game that for them to actually get anywhere, they have to hold back their development of the game... Look at WoT on the console versions, and at Blitz. Blitz is like PC WoT, as the Console version have sandstorms, blizzards, and various other effects I would like to see in World of Tanks PC.

 

What I am trying to say is that I really, REALLY doubt they will put more money into this game, as it seems that they are paying more attention to other game systems, other than PC. Things like this is doubtful, and honestly I would LOVE to see it happen, but being around this game for as long as I have, kind of teaches you that Wargaming, doesn't really give a dam, unless it affects their funding...



Callyx #14 Posted Aug 20 2016 - 07:06

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 11628 battles
  • 117
  • Member since:
    12-01-2015
I don't know if the change would make things better or worse. The commander's hatch weak spots are the best sopts to shoot some tanks, and work pretty well at 20 meters but not so well at 400 meters, which is reasonable imo. As to a shell through the hatch not doing a great deal of damage, remember arcade game. In reality most tanks were knocked out by one penetrating shot as that usually took out most or all of the crew, so reality isnt what you want here.

Slatherer #15 Posted Aug 20 2016 - 07:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 34034 battles
  • 3,455
  • Member since:
    01-21-2014

View Postbblazer285, on Aug 19 2016 - 21:07, said:

Or amx 30b turret hatchet 

 

Everyone always seems to forget about this tank...   Thx for remembering! 



Planetos #16 Posted Aug 20 2016 - 07:28

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 25039 battles
  • 85
  • [VENUM] VENUM
  • Member since:
    05-30-2011
ok so the title is a little misleading, my apologies. what was intended is not allowing the entire tank HP pool to be drained by 1 spot being shot repeatedly. its just stupid. you shoot a pane of glass, and the bullet hole is open space, there is no more glass there, so repeatedly shooting the opening does not damage the rest of the pane. 

gotthelife #17 Posted Aug 20 2016 - 07:40

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 17462 battles
  • 51
  • Member since:
    08-01-2011

View PostGhostUnitVII, on Aug 20 2016 - 05:31, said:

 

Because, AW is a competitor's game, if they followed the same concept, they would be accused of copying another companies code, or concept, which would violate copyright laws... Also it would require alot of coding as each individual tank would need to be reconfigured that have a commander hatch to take little or no damage. This game has a lot of tanks, and still more to come, AW already had the system in placed at the start, so things are a little easier for them.

 

 

 

First i agree with Plametos. Its just stupid enough. Second I dont thinks its an issue about copyright. Its like using same gun both in COD and Battlefield is braking the law. That doesnt make sense. Third and most important. If you are owner of a comapany or employee of it; you cannot have pleasure to reject something really important and demanded by the customers just because its too hard. Thats why they are there no matter how hard. Do you think it is easier to change visuals to hds? nope. Thats not an excuse. They should have done it months even years ago

IcyFirefly #18 Posted Aug 20 2016 - 07:47

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 13511 battles
  • 206
  • Member since:
    05-21-2015

I could not agree with this post more. Though I know that WoT is not set in complete realism, the idea of killing the commander 7 times to take out the entire functionality of the tank does not make sense. Personally, i have not thought too much on this idea as other broken things in the game (gold rounds and artillery) have taken up most of my mental power. I LOVE the idea of making hatches and weak points only able to remove so much of the hit points of the tank. The one thing to be careful with though is to make sure that you only apply this limited hotpoint potential to certain areas of a tank and make it so that you can still drain the entirety of the health from hitting the turret and hull.

Keep the ideas coming Planetos <3

-Autumn



aethervox #19 Posted Aug 20 2016 - 08:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 26406 battles
  • 2,845
  • [PFLL] PFLL
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

View PostWulfeHound, on Aug 20 2016 - 06:16, said:

Or why not keep them as a weakspot but have reduced damage when penetrating a la AW?

 

or how about not

aethervox #20 Posted Aug 20 2016 - 08:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 26406 battles
  • 2,845
  • [PFLL] PFLL
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

View PostWulfeHound, on Aug 20 2016 - 06:39, said:

 

Considering AW is basically WoT 2.0, there's a lot of copying that's been done by them. They've already got 6th Sense as standard, arty already has the Battle Assistant view as standard, and they've already got a few vehicles that are in WoT (plus a bunch more planned, the T-10M, M103, Conqueror, and possibly IS-7 are planned for later on)

 

And I mean a system similar to AW's cupola damage reduction. IIRC damage is reduced by anywhere up to 50-75% on a penetration, while here in WoT the damage loss would be smaller.

 

AW has the same tanks? Surprise, surprise. What would you think, arcade vehicles?

 Who knows cause they haven't changed it.

A masterly job of conjuring a nothing something out of thin air.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users