Jump to content


SPG's feedback


  • Please log in to reply
8199 replies to this topic

bishop_basher #41 Posted 17 September 2012 - 03:13 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 84516 battles
  • 689
  • Member since:
    08-18-2011
Ectar,

Pathetic attempt in which I think you wished you had never opened this (new) topic can of worms

Limit arty to 2 maybe 3 and your precious forum database will suddenly become less active with arty threads.

Simples.................

Nectaria #42 Posted 17 September 2012 - 03:14 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 9652 battles
  • 3,787
  • Member since:
    10-23-2011
"which MAY discourage"

They aren't even convinced of their own "fix".

:Smile_veryhappy:

XxXSpottedYouXxX #43 Posted 17 September 2012 - 03:16 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 23824 battles
  • 8,336
  • [4077] 4077
  • Member since:
    05-05-2011
Just limit them.

50% Dislike Them
50% Like Them

.. Tough Call and i bet the ones who dislike are your prized customers.

Vlevs #44 Posted 17 September 2012 - 03:27 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 14088 battles
  • 628
  • Member since:
    02-05-2011

View PostEctar, on 17 September 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

The solution isn't from the Community Team JUDrFeelgood. This is from the dev team. We're just relaying the message.  I'd like to see arty capped but I don't know if a system like that can be done.  I note myself the problem is only excess SPG's.. You don't for example see excess Scouts.   Feedback on what players think would be a good change is much appreciated and we look forward to seeing the suggestions.

Since EU player community has extremely limited direct contact to dev team, it's our only hope that community team relies messages "upstream" as well. For the same reason poor community team is the middleman for all the hate directed at devs, which I understand is quite a predicament. Devs have put you in the line of fire, so if they fail, it's you who gets the flame. I wish you best of luck.

conductiv #45 Posted 17 September 2012 - 03:35 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 34565 battles
  • 3,372
  • [FIFO] FIFO
  • Member since:
    08-25-2010
I'm suprised by the general oppinion of people in this thread. nerfing income is a way to reduce the number of arty in every battle without imposing rediculous check times to enter a game.

okay imagine the MM like a dam guiding water (arty) into different games. in this case it guides the water as equally as possible down all the different lanes. if more arty presses battle, the water pressure increases and the number of arty for every battle increases

now a cap is placed, meaning someone is narrowing the dams water acces ports.
-balance will be okay if no large amount of arty players presses battle at the same time, just like the narrow water holes can't process a huge amount of water at the same time. as this will "nerf" the SPGs acces to matches
-we all know the MM sometimes suffers from a overkill of SPG players now lets assume all of them are kept on hold till a battle becomes available to them. its like water building up on 1 end of the dam.

downtime for arty will greatly increase and climb throughout the day, its not 15 seconds extra..it will quickly add up to 10-15 minutes during peak hours, unless a exeption is made (aka only arty games, que cap or something) to releive the downtime. and thats not what the arty player or the game desighner wants.

now imagine the income nerf.
-the income nerf will reduce the amount of incomming SPG's in the que, allowing the MM to divide less SGPs over the same number of games. result is less arty parties as there is less water behind the dam.

a income nerf is probably chosen because it doesn't have any impact on the SPG's actual ingame efficiency. and as such the average WR of the vehicle won't be affected.

Urzum #46 Posted 17 September 2012 - 03:37 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 39622 battles
  • 73
  • [T-ARM] T-ARM
  • Member since:
    10-12-2011

View PostEctar, on 17 September 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:


The solution isn't from the Community Team JUDrFeelgood. This is from the dev team. We're just relaying the message.  I'd like to see arty capped but I don't know if a system like that can be done.  I note myself the problem is only excess SPG's.. You don't for example see excess Scouts.   Feedback on what players think would be a good change is much appreciated and we look forward to seeing the suggestions.

I'm pretty sure we will see excess Scouts when 0.8 comes out. At least in the few first weeks, even months. Many players that did not tried the physics will roll out in their fast lights or meds, just for the fun of it. On test server i got in some matches with 2-3 tier 8 arties per side and the rest only t-50-2-s and AMX lights... and how much fun can a T92 have in this situation? :Smile_trollface-3:

on topic: Reducing the income won't make me stop playing arty, and i'm sure this applies to all arty players out there. You don't always get profits with any tier VIII tank. One plays such machines for the fun of it or to grind xp for some ultimate machine. Never tier 8 and above are played for credit farming (except for premiums, of course)

JUDrFeelgood #47 Posted 17 September 2012 - 03:40 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 19980 battles
  • 220
  • Member since:
    01-04-2012

View PostEctar, on 17 September 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

It's good that the thread is active and hot. This keeps the forums free from all the dupe topics and then counter "oh not not another arty thread" topics.  Also there may be 5 topic active with only the same 4 or 5 people talking in each of them, those conversations can easily be condensed into one.



Not at all, we're just looking at ways to trim down parts of the forums where there is duplicate information or topics that don't help things much. That's why if someone asks about a specific tank etc, it's normally moved from gameplay discussion to the specific tank section.. Advice on the Type 59 or Type 62 for example is best found in the Chinese Vehicles section.



The solution isn't from the Community Team JUDrFeelgood. This is from the dev team. We're just relaying the message.  I'd like to see arty capped but I don't know if a system like that can be done.  I note myself the problem is only excess SPG's.. You don't for example see excess Scouts.   Feedback on what players think would be a good change is much appreciated and we look forward to seeing the suggestions.

I uderstand you, but youre channel, that has some voice in WG company. So lets try give them a "community" ticket through you. Limit SPG - 4x per team. In late patches there was such a limitation I remember.

Vlevs #48 Posted 17 September 2012 - 03:43 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 14088 battles
  • 628
  • Member since:
    02-05-2011

View Postconductiv, on 17 September 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

I'm suprised by the general oppinion of people in this thread. nerfing income is a way to reduce the number of arty in every battle without imposing rediculous check times to enter a game.

okay imagine the MM like a dam guiding water (arty) into different games. in this case it guides the water as equally as possible down all the different lanes. if more arty presses battle, the water pressure increases and the number of arty for every battle increases

now a cap is placed, meaning someone is narrowing the dams water acces ports.
-balance will be okay if no large amount of arty players presses battle at the same time, just like the narrow water holes can't process a huge amount of water at the same time. as this will "nerf" the SPGs acces to matches
-we all know the MM sometimes suffers from a overkill of SPG players now lets assume all of them are kept on hold till a battle becomes available to them. its like water building up on 1 end of the dam.

downtime for arty will greatly increase and climb throughout the day, its not 15 seconds extra..it will quickly add up to 10-15 minutes during peak hours, unless a exeption is made (aka only arty games, que cap or something) to releive the downtime. and thats not what the arty player or the game desighner wants.

now imagine the income nerf.
-the income nerf will reduce the amount of incomming SPG's in the que, allowing the MM to divide less SGPs over the same number of games. result is less arty parties as there is less water behind the dam.

a income nerf is probably chosen because it doesn't have any impact on the SPG's actual ingame efficiency. and as such the average WR of the vehicle won't be affected.

That's kind of correct if we have non-stop influx of 4+ arties per side. Then again, if the situation is as Ectar suggests, that arty parties are a rare occurence, there shouldn't be a problem with bottlenecking arty demand.

Also doesn't explain why devs decided to increase repair costs instead of decreasing winnings. If the team wins, arty income is unaffected since arty will most likely be alive. If the team loses, arty will go massively negative. I can't see why this is the right way to soleve the issue, as it mostly encourages arty players to escape rather than support team to the last shell.

Gleb_Reawer #49 Posted 17 September 2012 - 03:51 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 28806 battles
  • 1,209
  • [-HOW-] -HOW-
  • Member since:
    10-23-2011
Just wondering about the effects of the arty credit nerf to scouts. They too will get less credits for the shots that arty makes, am I right? If so, then there will be even less point in playing scout bc only a part of your teams tanks are able to take advantage of your spots whereas arty can almost always make use of your spots.

Then we will have less scouts(except those who like doing stunt for fun) and maybe some think that's fine. No, it's not. Less scouts equals more camping bc no one wants to be the first one to get shot by an invisible TD.

Edited by Gleb_Reawer, 17 September 2012 - 03:51 PM.


conductiv #50 Posted 17 September 2012 - 03:57 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 34565 battles
  • 3,372
  • [FIFO] FIFO
  • Member since:
    08-25-2010

View PostVlevs, on 17 September 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

That's kind of correct if we have non-stop influx of 4+ arties per side. Then again, if the situation is as Ectar suggests, that arty parties are a rare occurence, there shouldn't be a problem with bottlenecking arty demand.

Also doesn't explain why devs decided to increase repair costs instead of decreasing winnings. If the team wins, arty income is unaffected since arty will most likely be alive. If the team loses, arty will go massively negative. I can't see why this is the right way to soleve the issue, as it mostly encourages arty players to escape rather than support team to the last shell.

if it was that rare, people woudn't be asking for a fix in general. extremes (8+) are rare, but 5+ is quite common nowadays.

I don't know if the choses credit nerf is the best or not, the main piont of the nerf is reducing a players motivation to play said class (often)..as such making the class less profitable when played well and a massive loss when played poorly is viable, rather then massive loss when played poorly and a cash cow when played well. nerfing income a marginalises valeus both ways, increasing vehicle repair costs only punishes bad play.

you might be on to something.

MadInAShed #51 Posted 17 September 2012 - 03:58 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 20692 battles
  • 1,675
  • [TYTI] TYTI
  • Member since:
    09-01-2010

View Postconductiv, on 17 September 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

I'm suprised by the general oppinion of people in this thread. nerfing income is a way to reduce the number of arty in every battle without imposing rediculous check times to enter a game.

............................
now imagine the income nerf.
-the income nerf will reduce the amount of incomming SPG's in the que, allowing the MM to divide less SGPs over the same number of games. result is less arty parties as there is less water behind the dam.

income nerf will reduce the amount of incoming arty????

drivel.

the tier 9 mediums, tier 10 heavies are in general money sinks (tier 9 especially) ...do people stop playing them??? no.
i barely look at ho wmuch money i have won/lost when playing my favourite tanks..i dont care..it wont stop me playing them...it just means i have to play a money making tank to recoup that loss. BIG DEAL.

conductiv #52 Posted 17 September 2012 - 04:02 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 34565 battles
  • 3,372
  • [FIFO] FIFO
  • Member since:
    08-25-2010

View PostMadInAShed, on 17 September 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

income nerf will reduce the amount of incoming arty????

drivel.

the tier 9 mediums, tier 10 heavies are in general money sinks (tier 9 especially) ...do people stop playing them??? no.
i barely look at ho wmuch money i have won/lost when playing my favourite tanks..i dont care..it wont stop me playing them...it just means i have to play a money making tank to recoup that loss. BIG DEAL.

yes you have to play a different tank more often, this will reduce the amount of times you press battle in the arty. it is not desighned to force people to stop playing arty..its means to reduce the number of times people press battle in them.

Polifimia #53 Posted 17 September 2012 - 04:07 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 10214 battles
  • 105
  • [HN00B] HN00B
  • Member since:
    12-24-2011
I play a lot with arty but participating in battles with 7 spgs per side is very far entertaining....
I too believe a limit should be placed and I doubt if an income nerf will really affect the number of arty players. If that was the case, then we would not observe tier X tanks so frequently.

Given that the game shows population that ranges from 30 to 90k players, how much delay in calculating the MM would cause a spg limit of i.e. no more than 3 per side per battle?
Also, a limit placed initially in a platoon (for example no more than 2 spgs in a platoon or in the extreme case just 1) would decrease the waiting time?

From my perspective I would trade some seconds of waiting time for a much more balanced MM. And this goes not only to the number of SPGs, but also to all kinds of tanks. Some battles placing 5-6 tier X mediums (3-4 bat chats) against 5-6 TDs of same tier end up being completely unbalanced.... And of course an MM would be more that welcomed if it could further calculate how upgraded is the tank with respect to the stock version, some kind of efficiency of players etc.
Both modes (ranked and existing random) could coexist depending on players' needs.

To be honest I believe this credit reduction targets more to force spg players to buy a premium tank as a money maker rather than to reduce the number of spgs per battle....

Gremlin182 #54 Posted 17 September 2012 - 04:42 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 51769 battles
  • 8,564
  • Member since:
    04-18-2012

View PostNectaria, on 17 September 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

How hard is it to put a cap of the entire arty in game at 3 max? We don't ask for ANYTHING ELSE.

Yet ofcourse you guys do something totally different and hope we like it...

Surely the reason there are so many SPGs in those games is because of the proportion of SPGs to tanks online at that time, so how does capping it to 3 per team fix anything.Ok assume for the sake of argument that there are 30  players online when you log on and 20 of them are playing spgs that's automatically 10 per team.If the MM limits it to 3 per team you get a game of 5 tanks and 3 SPGs in two 8 man teams with 14 SPGs unable to play at all.Now scale that up in proportion to how many there are actually on line.If the MM starts allocating games with a 3 SPGs per team Balance eventually there will be a whole pile of spgs left unable to play.

mascotzel #55 Posted 17 September 2012 - 04:46 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 19530 battles
  • 402
  • Member since:
    11-13-2010

View PostEctar, on 17 September 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

If the 8.0 fix doesn't make a noticeable difference in the rare occasions where there is 8 or more arty per side in a team, we will look into further ways to balance things out.
If that's where you consider drawing the line, You're doing it wrong from the start.

Nectaria #56 Posted 17 September 2012 - 04:51 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 9652 battles
  • 3,787
  • Member since:
    10-23-2011

View PostGremlin182, on 17 September 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

Surely the reason there are so many SPGs in those games is because of the proportion of SPGs to tanks online at that time, so how does capping it to 3 per team fix anything.Ok assume for the sake of argument that there are 30  players online when you log on and 20 of them are playing spgs that's automatically 10 per team.If the MM limits it to 3 per team you get a game of 5 tanks and 3 SPGs in two 8 man teams with 14 SPGs unable to play at all.Now scale that up in proportion to how many there are actually on line.If the MM starts allocating games with a 3 SPGs per team Balance eventually there will be a whole pile of spgs left unable to play.

And that will discourage to play them all together so in a few weeks time the 3 limit won't be a problem anymore.

Pral #57 Posted 17 September 2012 - 05:08 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 40185 battles
  • 14
  • [GEREF] GEREF
  • Member since:
    11-13-2011
I play GW Tiger occasionaly and there are very rare occasions when there is less than 4 arties. I vote for the 3 arties limit per game as it is not much fun playing arty with so many artys on the team competing for every single rare target. The arty limit is a much better solution even if it means waiting a bit in the line than making the arty even less profitable than now - it is not easy to grind it when you have to compete for the rare targets with 4 other arties all the time.
Further especially on some maps like Himmelsdorf it is ridiculous but acceptable to have one arty but a fight among 5 arties on each side is just strategic nonsense. A know that the game is not ment to be historicaly authentic but it just doesnt make sense to have a multiple arty encounter in a city with high walls everywhere and it is not fun. Knowing from the start that the arty will loose from 10000 to 2000 in such a game depending on performance is not making more fun out of it either and the above mentioned "correction" making the arty even less profitable will make it just worse. Please set a 3 arty limit at least on maps like Himmelsdorf, Ensk and Ruinberg, arty players dont like to play there anyway...

popuptoaster #58 Posted 17 September 2012 - 05:14 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17880 battles
  • 1,658
  • [R_T_R] R_T_R
  • Member since:
    03-05-2011
Jesus christ how long will it take WG to fix this??

Making arti more expensive to play will make NO DIFFERENCE!!! No one plays high tier stuff to make a profit anyway.

You guys don't need to hunt for answers or rebalance anything or try new costs/XP earnings all you have to do is listen to the community who have been saying the same thing for a year!

Fix the MM so it can limit arti to 3 per side for any battle and 90% of complaints will stop.

popuptoaster #59 Posted 17 September 2012 - 05:16 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17880 battles
  • 1,658
  • [R_T_R] R_T_R
  • Member since:
    03-05-2011

View PostNectaria, on 17 September 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

And that will discourage to play them all together so in a few weeks time the 3 limit won't be a problem anymore.

I agree with this, if i want to play my top tier arti and there's a queue I will have to wait, if i get bored waiting i will play something else. You have to queue for company battles quite often, whats the difference?

Edited by popuptoaster, 17 September 2012 - 05:17 PM.


Muckfunky #60 Posted 17 September 2012 - 05:18 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 15553 battles
  • 90
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011
Just to reiterate what popuptoaster and pretty much the whole community have said, 3 arty per side and leave the income potential alone. IT IS SO SIMPLE!




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users