Poll: Tank Customization Proposal

Thanks to BattleBudgie for emailing us.

Hey TAP,

as a fellow WoT player, I regularly visit the blog and I witnessed numerous times that you asked the players about different upcoming, planned, or just brainstorming features. That gave me an idea about something we’ve been hearing from WG employees for ages, but nothing solid has been said so far, namely the customization of the tank exterior.

3f8bed6c5686b22c44d9a89d355548c5.jpg

More and more HD models have been coming out recently, and they seem to have more and more visual decorations that could be easily (re)movable and interchangeable if the game had some kind of micromanagament system for it. What I’m talking about is the rolled up tents/canvas/camo nets, tools, logs etc. For example ones like the Russian T9 heavy, T-10 has on its hull/turret (the upcoming T10 lights and Thunderbolt Sherman seem exceptionally well-decorated as well). These could be easily adopted and applied on other tanks, giving them a more original, personal feel.

However, I would make this interesting and take it one step further. What would be even more cool? Adding stuff to your tank that noticeably improves its protection in battle. Namely factory-made or “home-made” applique armor (think of SuperPershing, or – again – the upcoming Thunderbolt), track pieces, sandbags, pieces of concrete (yup, those were a thing). Now I understand this wouldn’t be a piece of cake to balance out properly. A Maus having concrete slabs on its turret front and belly? Wow, no thanks. But it wouldn’t be impossible either.

e2197c81ea7e46987a3cd49b3f4ed180.jpg

First of all, these pieces couldn’t be placed anywhere on the tank, only on predefined mounting points. This way, devs could prevent players with heavily armored heavies which have only very few weakspots to cover those (balance-wise) essential, thinner areas with extra armor. So, applique armor and such could only be mounted on specific areas, giving tanks that use them some welcome boost in protection without making them OP and impenetratable.

Secondly, these things would have their own weight, preventing players from applying too many of them (tank weight limits should be balanced accordingly) AND decreasing the tank’s mobility noticeably. In other words, you could turn a decently-balanced medium tank into a well-protected one but only at the cost of its agility (Seb: I’d also reduce the turret rotation speed in case extra armor is applied there).

leB87uA.jpg

These protection-increasing add-ons could have a wide array, making them even more elemental in terms of gameplay and player skill. They could have different types, all with their own properties. For example, primitive cage appliques were effective against HEAT shells, but giving virtually no extra defence against AP and APCR. As such, sandbags could give exceptional bonuses against HE impacts, while extra armor plates would be the jack-of-all-trades, reasonably increasing protection against every kind of ammunition but not giving a large bonus against any one of them. Concrete blocks could have the highest protection values of them all but they would degrade from incoming shots, eventually getting destroyed.

One more thing: these extra armor modules could be divided into different categories, like light, medium and heavy (eg. light/medium/heavy concrete applique, light/medium/heavy steel applique). Light tanks could only mount the light variants, mediums and TDs the light and medium ones, while heavy tanks could mount the heaviest pieces as well. This would protect the inherited class balance, for example preventing medium tank players to turn their medium tank into a heavy one by mounting massive extra armor on it. Vehicle classes are there for a reason after all, aren’t they?

M4_Sherman_Tank_with_Concrete_Armor.jpg

What I’m trying to say is that with smart balancing, and a bit of imagination, this feature could bring a new level of depth into the game, while also being exciting and popular. Who doesn’t love screwing up an old, rusty bedframe on their tank after all?

Now, please understand that I’m only brainstorming here, these things would all require extensive balancing and a large amount of work on WG’s side but personally I can’t see why they can’t be added eventually, bringing a new and exciting feature into the game.

T34-85_winter44-45_east_germany.png

I’d like you to vote in following poll or comment about the idea. I consider this a really good suggestion for WoT, especially since eventually WG will run out of new content to add in the game.

Advertisements

51 thoughts on “Poll: Tank Customization Proposal

  1. Side note: Concrete, tracks and sand bags were pretty much useless in real battles. Tracks even proved to decrease(!) the armour effectivity, since it was softer steel and thus was prone to bigger normalization than armour alone.

    Cosmetics? Why not. But piece of protection, rather not, unless it’s very minor thing that needs almost no balancing (like side screens – slower, but have some defense against HE/HEAT/HESH)

    Liked by 6 people

    1. Yes, I forgot to add that I understand complitely that that the proposed game mechanic might be unrealistic to some extent. But hey, we all know we’re not talking about a simulator here and we all know there are much more unrealistic features in WoT, so I’d say why not? With proper balancing it could make a fun, yet easy to understand mechanic that would bring a new level of depth into the good old WoT gameplay.

      Like

      1. Proper balancing – what is that? 🙂

        People will never be happy with balancing in the game, since it’s PvP and every player likes something else…

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I would say yes if concrete, sand bags, and other useless addons hadn’t been mentioned, forget the fact that they did not offer protection to anything other than hape-charged, in the case of sandbags not even that because the round would get stuck in the sand, giving more time for the fuse to activate and that means the armor would still be penetrated
        however my main issue is how would WG create a mechanism that could calculate speed drop, turret rotation, gun depression, effects on suspension and specific ground pressure resulting from that?
        lets say you have a T8 T34, everyone knows it has a good gun and extremely strong turret from the front, still its hull armor is a major weakness. Then lets think someone took a look to the Super Pershing and T-44-100 and decided to put spaced armor all around the hull, then lets say someone else used tracks only on the front, how would WG be able to anticipate the infinite number of modificaions the millions of players could come up with, and how would they be able to modify the tank performance corresponding to the exact placement of each piece
        I believe we are limited to things that make the tanks look like they were a tool used by soldiers, stowae, fuel canisters, tools, cables/chains, spare tracks/roadwheels, etc…, of course that kind of thing (almost like giving the tanks a poper “war machine” character) should be done when converting to HD, after converting all tanks and maps WG needs to make a revision and fix the lower quality models, they have assumed the early HD models are at a lower standard of quality

        Like

    1. That’s what people said about hydraulic suspension as well, yet it’s already in the game. Not to mention the devs are actively considering removing arty, which was also unimaginable a year or two ago. I’d say we’ve seen bigger revelations in the history of WoT. So why not dream? 🙂 Give positive feedback and maybe they’ll do it. As Seb also said, there is no endless supply of tank lines after all.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Aw yes, a Maus with an anti-HEAT cage.
    And a shitload of tracks on the front of my Liberté and on my Lowe-Obj 252 LFP. 😛
    Oh, and let’s not forget the UFP of my Strv S1, just to bullshito-bounce even 122mm.

    I’m not sure about those protections, but I’m totally for purely cosmetic stuff. I’d even like to see the camo net hanging on equipped vehicles.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Slightly offtopic. but you mentioned Strv S1. God, I hate shooting at those things, only bounces…

      About decorations – sure, why not? Should they offer protection? No. Because everybody would use them and it would make many low-pen guns completely useless.

      Like

      1. I LOVE this TD. The BS is powerful with this one. Today, in a signe battle, I bounced one T25 Pilot shell, another from a T26E4 and even one from a KV-4 (it hit the track links), for 800 blocked.

        When you fight one, you should maybe try HE? 🙂 or HEAT. And don’t hit the spaced armor above the tracks: it’s empty, just like the T29’s ears.

        Like

      1. WT allows you to stick whole bushes and track links onto the front of your tank, making harder to spot and pen. As far as I know these addons are only available for golden eagles.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. its not that gaijin loves to change open maps to close range cluster**** and any item covering weakspot (be that bush, fuel canister or other thing, especially that players have habit of covering weakspots with them) can mess-up your aim especially in SB mode.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. Inb4 decoration bundles in the premium shop. Because of course it would require gold, otherwise it wouldnt be p2w enough for WoT.

    Like

    1. Yeah, because you totally can’t buy premium consumables and gold ammo for credits. Please be reasonable for a moment instead of just taking an opportunity to bash WG a bit. I find it very very unlikely that they’d make this a premium only feature.

      Like

      1. If it is like camo its good because affordable. If it is like consumables that you have to re-buy every game, it’ll be pay2win just like gold ammo ; because non-paying users simply cannot afford as much as paying users.

        People with premium accounts and tanks can afford to play full-gold in tier 9-10, free users can barely afford a few rounds here and there especialy at high tiers. Gold is already borderline pay2win, because it is with credits doesnt mean everyone can afford as much, and there is a huge difference in battle between a full-gold T-54 and a full-AP one for exemple. So if to the already expensive gold you add a new premium feature that also costs tons of credits to run ; free users wont be able to follow while paying users will have a huge and significant davantage – and thats the definition of pay2win…

        So if it is in any form of premium ; it is bad for the game and a potential pay2win feature if it counts as armor.
        If its just for decoration however I wouldnt mind seing it premium only, that would be a new source of money for WG, and if people can pay hundreds of euros for a knife skin or a hero skin on other games, I dont think decorating a tank would cause any problem for customers. Thus maybe WG wont need to spam us with premium tanks every week and will be able to focus on real features. A fair and interesting source of income for WG which wont break the game.

        Like

          1. The point is, you can pay through the nose in this game and be nowhere near considered good. In fact, I see a lot of bot defenders going around doing more harm then good for their team.

            Sure, they paid, but they ain’t winning anytime soon.

            Like

          2. I barely use any gold myself and would have the means to do it ; however calling it fair and free is simply false imo, it gives a big advantage to the player using it in the form of not really having to aim or flank anymore. And seing *most* uniscums fire gold at everything is more than frustrating because it encourages players to do the same, and there s nothing more infuriating than using your armor correctly for nothing because heat goes through anyway.

            Like

        1. If somebody feels the need to run straight gold in their tier 9s and 10s, it probably means they are overly obsessed with their stats, or not that good to begin with, usually both. I run a premium account, and I don’t feel the need to press the 2 key and roll my face on the keyboard. It’s a waste of credits that I could be using to fund my clan wars expenses.

          With that being said, this kind of “feature” is a terrible idea. Decoration is fine, additional armor protection is not.

          Like

  4. I would love to see this, lots of F2P combat games have been wanting to do this for years (PlanetSide2, MWO come to mind).

    Adding the visual stuff will probably not be difficult, I imagine actively modifying the hitboxes of tanks however probably will be. There’s a database and balancing nightmare for ya. Though I imagine adding 10mm track links onto the pike of a T-10 like it is on an IS-3 probably won’t hurt too bad.

    Like

    1. They could be made without modifying the hitbox of the tank, just like the current HD models with truck links on them. They don’t have their own hitbox but increase the armor thickness of the tank’s armor on the particular area.

      Like

      1. I meant the increase in thickness, so the collision model, not the hitbox as in size and dimensions, it’s the stuck track links that I meant. It would be ridiculous to allow people to put them anywhere because the collision models are very complex and precise things. My guess as to why they haven’t publicaly discussed this as a feature yet is that they’ve thought about it a long time ago and came to the conclusion that even if they allowed you to put armor in preset places, players would always put them in the spots everyone views as best for that tank.

        So that’s an issue I personally have no solution for since all that is is buffing the armor of every single tank with maybe some options (unless you can stack up like 20 track pieces in very specific ways as to add a bit of personal preeference).

        Otherwise it’s a cool idea, because experienced players will have something to show for it because they will have analyzed where they get penetrated most.

        Like

  5. Absolutely no. At least not in the way OP proposes it.

    If that stuff was visual ONLY, it would be fine. Like this, hell no.
    As said above, it would be a balancing nightmare.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Hell no! It would make the +/-2 tier difference impossible. Imagine you meet an O-I Exp. on any of your tier 3 MTs. You already have problems as it is. If the O-I has shit added you just can’t pen it anywhere. Bad idea!

    Liked by 2 people

  7. No to appliqué armor with an armor model.

    Those things basically never helped, except for concrete, which weighed the tank down so much it was deemed pointless.

    Even the caged armor had the effect of helping out with HEAT penetration, as the chemical fuse used in shells at the time didn’t allow for the jet of copper to form early enough. Adding a cage in some cases allowed exactly that to happen.

    Like

    1. We’re talking about a game where tanks have HP, tracks can be repaired without the crew getting out of the vehicle, self-propelled artillery can use a satellite view to destroy tanks with pinpoint accuracy (which they never even shot at IRL) and a Maus can cross a fragile wooden bridge without it collapsing immediately. I honestly can’t understand why are some people so obsessed with historical accuracy all of a sudden 🙂

      Like

      1. Because that would be a mechanic ticking a lot of “do not do” boxes.

        A) complicated to implement
        B) difficult to balance
        C) prone to bugging
        D) historically inaccurate
        E) helps propagate erronous myths

        The last point brilliantly displayed in your point about artillery never shooting at tanks, something that is absolutely false.
        SPGs had direct vision sights, because if you have a big gun and your life depends on it, you use it on a target you’re not necessarily meant to engage.
        Hence using the flak 8.8 (primarily an artillery piece) against B1s and Matildas, the ZiS-3 as an AT/artillery gun, and even the 122mm A-19 artillery gun as the D25-T as seen on the IS-2 to 4.

        Like

  8. I’m a 3d moddeler my self. And i know how war gaming employees work on their models. Those decorations you see are not isolated from the tank model. Its all one object and to have such a feature i can tell you that takes a lot of work. Its a mechanic that doesn’t exist in the game at all. And i think it would require a lot of modifications to be added. They can ofc modify the object to remove some of these additions if they have the surface under it moddeled but in some cases its not.
    But to do that with all the tanks its a lot of work.

    Like

  9. Well, if it was properly designed, why not. Like it was said in the article, this additional armor would be available in pre-determined positions and I don’t think it’d be too hard to balance, if WG tried that is.

    For example, Maus would not be able to get better lower plate or turret front, but it could get more UFP armor (better protection against TD’s), engine deck (good against arty/HE in general) or small links on side armor. IS-4 could get better shoulder armor, E100 could get additional plates on LFP or turret front, to make enemies aim longer, IS-7 could get applique armor on UFP so it can angle more.

    Also, apart from additional weight, terrain resistance can also increase (heavier tank digs deeper into the ground and additional armor on certain parts messes with weight distribution, so it has some logical aspect to it). And, those armor plates can act as an equipment and take up an equipment slot (this would probably require expanding number of slots to 4, with cost rebalance ofcourse) so putting them on is a tradeoff not requirement.

    Like

  10. Cosmetic stuff: yes i am eagerly waiting for this. Also, why not have a dynamic garage where stuff actualy realy happens? (People walking around, welding, filling up ammo and fuel etc,..) age of empires 3 had this feature years ago so it should be possible.

    Add on armour: just make one or a very limited amounts of loadout for the tank. This way you can avoid many off the disadvantages listed in the discussion.

    Additional idea to balance extra armour: force the players to install additional grousers or enhanced suspension. Not only is this historical (note the duckbills in your sherman picture) but this way it will help balance since you will end up chosing between extra armour and a gun rammer for example.

    And wot is a arcade game, so no problem with the historical bad results from add on armour.

    Considering last christmas tests (the tree and snowitzer) this has a reasonable chance to come one day in one form or another.

    Like

  11. Only problem is that historians and experts deem all those makeshift addons to either be worthless or in some case counterproductive in tank-to-tank combat… But I’m all up for decorating my tanks with nets, bushes, branches, antennas, machineguns mounted/demounted, spare tracks, spare wheels etc etc
    It would be awesome and most likely not too difficult to implement if they really want to.Trick is to find an easy system that enables you to be creative without bugging up the game.

    Like

    1. We’re talking about a game where tanks have HP, tracks can be repaired without the crew getting out of the vehicle, self-propelled artillery can use a satellite view to destroy tanks with pinpoint accuracy (which they never even shot at IRL) and a Maus can cross a fragile wooden bridge without it collapsing immediately. I honestly can’t understand why are some people so obsessed with historical accuracy all of a sudden 🙂

      Like

      1. Dont forget that atleast half of the in-game has unhistorical gun/engine options, or unhistrocially inflated/deflated armor, engine power or gun depression, tanks that are modified in-game and are thus unhistorical (such as Type 5) or straight up made up by WG (WT E100, 215B heavy) or Kongzhong (some of the Chinese tanks, those TDs and 59-patton are confirmed fakes, 121b, t-34-X series, 121, 112 and 113 are pretty suspicious too).

        Like

      2. I’m okay with the concept as decoration (How difficult would it be for WG to put netting on top of tanks to indicate camo nets etc?) – But in most situations I wouldn’t give tanks improved armor with historical accuracy as a reference…

        Like

  12. Jesus everybody’s moanng about tracks and concrete… yes they did nothing but in WW the put them on tanks anyway so why not make them just a cosmetic addition ?

    To me this proposal sounds awesome and i would love to have it in this game.

    Like

  13. No fucking NO. Tanks dont need extra armor, only gold ammo needs reduced pen. Many tenks have been buffed to the extent where they cant get penned by AP anymore. And nboth gold ammo, premium med kit etc., are alreaddy pay to win because they give you better performance in battle and you need to pay real money to afford premium account opr premium tanks allowing you to use these elements in higher tiers. You dont even break even in tier 8-10 with no premium account if you are average, let alone using gold ammo.

    Yes to visual add one ONLY.

    Like

  14. No, and here’s the main reason:

    Every model in the game is built to a specific polygon count.
    This is to make sure that the will not bog down.

    Giving people the ability to greatly increase the models details, i.e. more polygons.is a recipe for disaster.

    So not only no, hell no.

    Unless you want to get lagged out by a bunch of crap people put on their tanks.

    This is not Barbie Dream house.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s