Jump to content


Light tank drivers, hear me out!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
124 replies to this topic

Askorti #41 Posted 18 February 2014 - 03:00 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 11776 battles
  • 1,137
  • Member since:
    06-24-2012

If 60kph is a limit, then lights have very little chance to be more mobile than meds. Most high tier ones do reach such speed and are capable of maintaining it, like the Soviet TIX-TX trio for example.

What is there for lights to do, to be more mobile than meds? 



Zarax999 #42 Posted 18 February 2014 - 03:02 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 10117 battles
  • 3,249
  • [TWC] TWC
  • Member since:
    04-08-2011
A few lights were faster but in theory the most difference should be in accelereation (HP/ton) and ground resistance.

Flinsenberger #43 Posted 18 February 2014 - 05:13 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 8009 battles
  • 577
  • [OE] OE
  • Member since:
    08-11-2012

There are enough scouts to populate higher tier levels.

For Germany there are Hotchkiss 11-2 / 51-2, the Marder and the HS30, all designed in the 1950s.

So "history" is really not an issue. There are well enough historical tanks available to populate the tiers.

 

Concerning the speed: It is still a game. So I really don't care about accurate historical values. Every tank runs around with unhistorical guns, plus half the tanks are only paper designs themselves. 

And for gameplay balancing the speed is desperately needed for scouts, because of the 2-sigma change in 8.6 . Before that, speed was all that was needed, because most tanks (russian) just couldnt shoot a moving target at 300m. Now it's no problem.

 

Same goes for viewrange. I don't care about 420 with open top limits.... it is a number in some game file. Not more.

There are no historical reasons, nor any logical reasons. The only reason for these is the limitations the power of average computers (EDIT: And probably the engine).

 

WOT is not historical, it is a bastard of pseudo-history-scifi-tank-simulation and an ego-shooter.

How historical is it for tanks that shot machine guns up to 800m (PzKpfW IV) to have a view range of 420m? Tigers hit 47% of their shots in combat at a distance of 2000m.

 

So really, lets keep the "history" out of it. Focusing on how to have great game balance will achieve way better results than arguing with history.


Edited by Flinsenberger, 18 February 2014 - 05:15 PM.


Tazilon #44 Posted 19 February 2014 - 05:03 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 966 battles
  • 1,746
  • Member since:
    03-31-2012

View PostZarax999, on 18 February 2014 - 10:25 AM, said:

No WWII tank was designed to keep that speed, 60km/h was pretty much the practical limit all around.

Zarax - the game pits 1939-1945 tanks up against 1965 tanks and worse.  Make it REALLY historical and it ceases to be a game.  Concessions must be made to enhance game play.  It is WAY beyond the boundaries of reality to have tanks running around with no infantry support and no infantry TO support.  Artillery was not used as an anti-tank weapon.  It was used to eliminate heavily fortified static defenses; defenses tanks had no chance of overcoming.  History is dead the moment every battle countdown timer reaches 0;00, so lets quit pretending this is a historical game - it isn't.  It is an arcade game based loosely on some historical tanks and many developmental tanks whose flaws kept them from ever reaching large scale production - if any were even produced at all.

 

 

 

 

My personal suggestion if you wish to make it completely historical is to introduce eras of game play.  

 

WWII (pre-war to 1949)

Korean War (1950s)

Vietnam War (1960s-1975)

Modern (1976-present)

 

It would open up huge numbers of new tanks and allow Wargaming to adhere to  some semblance of historical stats while maintaining game balance across the board.   This current attempt to stick to historical stats while putting tanks in ahistorical battles is ludicrous and does a great disservice to a fabulous game.

 

Either:

 

switch to eras-based game play or

 

.relax the standards on historical stats in order to improve game balance.

 

My earlier suggestions are all that is needed if they wish to stick to one size fits all in terms of the years they pit against each other.

 

Either way, my suggestions on camo remain valid.  Trees and bushes in 1940 hide things just as well as trees and bushes in 1995.  For some reason bushes fail to do that well anymore due to the changes Wargaming made in order to promote TDs as the NON-HISTORICAL Flavor of the Month jokes that they currently are.

 

 

 


Edited by Tazilon, 19 February 2014 - 05:17 AM.


Zarax999 #45 Posted 19 February 2014 - 07:38 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 10117 battles
  • 3,249
  • [TWC] TWC
  • Member since:
    04-08-2011

You keep addressing me but I'm merely reporting WG point of view...

IMHO the problem is not that lights are not mobile enough but rather the other classes are too mobile in comparison.



Flinsenberger #46 Posted 19 February 2014 - 03:35 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 8009 battles
  • 577
  • [OE] OE
  • Member since:
    08-11-2012

View PostZarax999, on 19 February 2014 - 07:38 AM, said:

You keep addressing me but I'm merely reporting WG point of view...

IMHO the problem is not that lights are not mobile enough but rather the other classes are too mobile in comparison.

 

For higher tier the main problem is that lights don't bring anything to the table that high tier mediums dont.

 

Why prefer "keeps camo on the move" over

(e.g. Batchat 25t vs. AMX 13 90)

- same viewrange

- 700 more hp (or 64%)

- higher top-speed (1kmh)

- better traverse (2 deg / second)

- 20% higher HP / wt ratio

- more pen (89/82 normal/premium)

- more avg dam per shot (150)

- better armor

- lower chance of fire (10%)

- slightly worse stationary camo (0.6%)

 

It makes no sense at all. And that is why high tier light tanks/scouts just suck hairy stinky round things in a skin sack when compared to Tier 10 meds.

 

So it is not just mobility, or viewrange, it is everything.

 

EDIT:

And then some more: Map design (small tunnel maps), 2Sigma-patch, map changes (e.g. Prokhorovka bumpy ride to the middle), arty nerf, camo issues with TDs (which are thankfully being changed back), power creep, bush changes.

 

Scouts are still powerful, if only because of their drivers. But they have been given the shaft severely over the last 5 patches.


Edited by Flinsenberger, 19 February 2014 - 03:42 PM.


Zarax999 #47 Posted 19 February 2014 - 03:40 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 10117 battles
  • 3,249
  • [TWC] TWC
  • Member since:
    04-08-2011

I think we all agree on high tier lights being UP compared to mediums.

Historically bat-chat was actually killed of by AMX 13 because there wasn't anything it could do really better than it.



Tazilon #48 Posted 19 February 2014 - 11:09 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 966 battles
  • 1,746
  • Member since:
    03-31-2012

View PostZarax999, on 19 February 2014 - 06:38 AM, said:

You keep addressing me but I'm merely reporting WG point of view...

IMHO the problem is not that lights are not mobile enough but rather the other classes are too mobile in comparison.

 

 

Scouts used to go 72 km/h.   A few rare other tanks still do.  so the issue becomes - how to simulate scout tanks being the fastest tanks on the battlefield (remember now, this is a "historical" game and historically "Scout" tanks REALLY represent recon UNIT comprised of fast light wheeled vehicles with Light "scout" tanks there for support) and impact the least amount of players negatively.  The way to do that is to make scouts matched up against the high tiers go 72 km/h and make other kinds of tanks go 65 km/h tops.  Lower tiers will slowly scale down in top speed.  This will only slow down (nerf) a small number of tanks.  Much fewer than if we say lights max at 60 so everyone else has to slow down below that.  All the stated top speeds are LEVEL GROUND top speed - downhill top speed will be  higher for each tank.

 

It is a simple solution that negatively impacts only a small number of tanks.  Changing environmental camo buffs everyone to some degree.  Decreasing TD camo and several mediums as well nerfs TDs but they are taking advantage of a totally unrealistic benefit as it is so they have no room to complain.

 

My proposals restore class distinction, negatively affect the fewest number of players possible and give scouts a clearly defined role in the game again without making them OPd.

 

It is so simple, Wargaming will never do it.

 

Why?  The stat whores will hate - and loudly complain about -  any change that forces them to use skill to win and this change makes them give more thought to the game.

 

 


Edited by Tazilon, 19 February 2014 - 11:39 PM.


_Agent_ #49 Posted 20 February 2014 - 12:54 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 37815 battles
  • 147
  • Member since:
    05-08-2011
in my opinion give a solid 25% buff to camo, 10 m more view range, 50% reduction in environmental damage caused by jumps from bumps, improved mobility and top speed, a nd make the maps more scout friendly. 

IRSanchez #50 Posted 20 February 2014 - 01:56 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 57308 battles
  • 1,904
  • [F4W] F4W
  • Member since:
    05-18-2011

Light tanks need few things:

.

0. Limit tier spread, especially for T4 scouts (they are often played by newbies on their way to T5 medium without having any choice... it's frustrating for the newbies, as well as rest of the team that facepalm after the typical scout die without any gain). A good start would be MM+2 for T4's, MM+3 for T5-T8.

.

1. Better camo factor. +10-15%. It's pretty silly when they are contested by medium tanks regarding camo factor. There should be clearer advantage, than a minor boost to camo on the move comparing with strong meds).

.

2. Bit more view range (this goes in pair with camo factor, and the generall unsatisfactory scouting performance of lights vs higher tier meds).

.

3. Bit more mobility (top speed, less energy bleeding). Scouts don't have hp pool to soak the hits, and with improved accuracy across the range (after 8.6) neo-style evasive driving is not viable.

.

4. LESS dpm to balance out the above. DON'T make them dmg dealers/ wtf assasins, for pits' sake - they are scouts. So no op guns (NO to autoloaders or high pen/rof classic guns).

.

Lights don't really fit the current game, where the best way to use them is like a support/scout/assasin hybrid (and only few of tham are capable to do such task).

.

Balancing the guns for noticably LESS dpm should prevent light tanks from dominating the game when they get top tier (with reduced MM spread, they will be top tier more often. If they get buffed with better camo/viewrange/mobility - they will become rape machines in experienced hands, so DPM cut is a must).

.

Let's make scouts worth it.

 


Edited by IRSanchez, 20 February 2014 - 03:21 PM.


Flinsenberger #51 Posted 20 February 2014 - 11:53 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 8009 battles
  • 577
  • [OE] OE
  • Member since:
    08-11-2012

Less dpm? You got to be kidding me. Drive a vk1602 Leopard or a Pz38nA and we talk about "less dpm" again.

 

 

 



Askorti #52 Posted 21 February 2014 - 10:41 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 11776 battles
  • 1,137
  • Member since:
    06-24-2012

View PostFlinsenberger, on 20 February 2014 - 11:53 PM, said:

Less dpm? You got to be kidding me. Drive a vk1602 Leopard or a Pz38nA and we talk about "less dpm" again.

Scouts are supposed to spot, not fight.



IRSanchez #53 Posted 21 February 2014 - 10:52 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 57308 battles
  • 1,904
  • [F4W] F4W
  • Member since:
    05-18-2011

View PostFlinsenberger, on 20 February 2014 - 11:53 PM, said:

Less dpm? You got to be kidding me. Drive a vk1602 Leopard or a Pz38nA and we talk about "less dpm" again.

 

 

 


.

They are meant to scout as major task.

When you improve their camo, spotting range, mobility as well as decrease MM spread WHILE leaving the current DPM - there is high chance many of those scouts will become unbalanced. The high tier ones (7-8) are already very potent in good hands...

.

So this is where the idea of DPM cut comes from.

I'm talking more general here (scouts across the range), you still need to apply the changes on each vehicle individually.

 

BTW leopard has very good DPM of 2000 with 50mm L60 gun. That's on par with T5 medium tanks.... even if not all players are willing to use this DPM to it's full potential with premshellspam.

38nA has DPM of 1680. Again, sam value as its T4 german medium brother (Pz III).

.

Now be honest: with similiar MM, DPM, beter camo/mobility/spotting to same tier meds - do you really think that wouldn't be OP?

 

 


Edited by IRSanchez, 21 February 2014 - 11:07 AM.


Tazilon #54 Posted 22 February 2014 - 03:36 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 966 battles
  • 1,746
  • Member since:
    03-31-2012

View PostZarax999, on 19 February 2014 - 06:38 AM, said:

You keep addressing me but I'm merely reporting WG point of view...

IMHO the problem is not that lights are not mobile enough but rather the other classes are too mobile in comparison.

 

 

No you aren't.  You keep telling us you are taking what we say and giving it to Wargaming.  Try doing that for a change instead of telling us "Wargaming won't go for that."    You asked for feedback - we are giving it to you.  If you aren't honest enough to take our feedback and tell Wargaming what we said, then go away.  Let Wargaming take what we say and respond.  YOU are not Wargaming so quit pretending to speak for them.



Tazilon #55 Posted 22 February 2014 - 03:39 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 966 battles
  • 1,746
  • Member since:
    03-31-2012

View PostIRSanchez, on 20 February 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

Light tanks need few things:

.

0. Limit tier spread, especially for T4 scouts (they are often played by newbies on their way to T5 medium without having any choice... it's frustrating for the newbies, as well as rest of the team that facepalm after the typical scout die without any gain). A good start would be MM+2 for T4's, MM+3 for T5-T8.

.

1. Better camo factor. +10-15%. It's pretty silly when they are contested by medium tanks regarding camo factor. There should be clearer advantage, than a minor boost to camo on the move comparing with strong meds).

.

2. Bit more view range (this goes in pair with camo factor, and the generall unsatisfactory scouting performance of lights vs higher tier meds).

.

3. Bit more mobility (top speed, less energy bleeding). Scouts don't have hp pool to soak the hits, and with improved accuracy across the range (after 8.6) neo-style evasive driving is not viable.

.

4. LESS dpm to balance out the above. DON'T make them dmg dealers/ wtf assasins, for pits' sake - they are scouts. So no op guns (NO to autoloaders or high pen/rof classic guns).

.

Lights don't really fit the current game, where the best way to use them is like a support/scout/assasin hybrid (and only few of tham are capable to do such task).

.

Balancing the guns for noticably LESS dpm should prevent light tanks from dominating the game when they get top tier (with reduced MM spread, they will be top tier more often. If they get buffed with better camo/viewrange/mobility - they will become rape machines in experienced hands, so DPM cut is a must).

.

Let's make scouts worth it.

 

 

 

Guns are not an issue at all.  The problem with scouts is that Wargaming made Mediums do everything scouts should be doing.  



Tazilon #56 Posted 22 February 2014 - 03:40 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 966 battles
  • 1,746
  • Member since:
    03-31-2012

View PostIRSanchez, on 21 February 2014 - 09:52 AM, said:


.

They are meant to scout as major task.

When you improve their camo, spotting range, mobility as well as decrease MM spread WHILE leaving the current DPM - there is high chance many of those scouts will become unbalanced. The high tier ones (7-8) are already very potent in good hands...

.

So this is where the idea of DPM cut comes from.

I'm talking more general here (scouts across the range), you still need to apply the changes on each vehicle individually.

 

BTW leopard has very good DPM of 2000 with 50mm L60 gun. That's on par with T5 medium tanks.... even if not all players are willing to use this DPM to it's full potential with premshellspam.

38nA has DPM of 1680. Again, sam value as its T4 german medium brother (Pz III).

.

Now be honest: with similiar MM, DPM, beter camo/mobility/spotting to same tier meds - do you really think that wouldn't be OP?

 

 

 

 

Less hit points, less armor but higher MM.    DPM is a red herring stat.  The Leopard can't shoot anything but close in targets with any degree of success.  If also has the pen of a wet noodle.

 

The old Top Tier V Scouts were not OPd.  They added personality to the game.  They added flavor to game play.   They demanded respect and caused concern but they did not unbalance play; rather they enhanced it.

 

We need to return to that model for scouts.


Edited by Tazilon, 22 February 2014 - 03:46 AM.


Ulv_Jaeger #57 Posted 22 February 2014 - 05:22 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 12872 battles
  • 1,332
  • Member since:
    10-20-2013

I only use tier IV scouts so my comments and observations relate to them. Currently I only use the Luchs but previously the Pz38 na, and T-50.

 

The first problem is Crew skill training. because they appear early in the tech tree, you will rarely have a skilled crew or equipment to compete with higher tier vehicles (even tier six TD's hello Kitty) in terms of spotting ability and stealth.

 

Secondly, they are out performed in the scout role by same tier TD's such as the M8A1, Same tier mediums such as the Pz.III due to MM and survivability, and tier Vi mediums such as Vk3002M and Vk3001D in view range, survivability, and ability to play alternate roles in the battle.

 

Thirdly. Income. There is no reward for a scout through spotting unless the team or scout do damage. No reward for locating enemies, no reward for keeping the team informed of deployment and enemy tank movement. When you assume you are spotting, you reach the result screen only to see that a higher tier tank was actually doing the spotting.

 

Fourthly. survivability when passive scouting. You are often exposed spotted and killed by advancing enemies because advanced spotting locations are often without effective retreat routes. High tier enemies can penetrate your unskilled crew camo from considerable distances, and without perks you have no indication of the danger. Even when skilled proxy spotting will give you away.

 

Changes I'd like to see.

 

1.No possibility of proxy spotting light tanks designated scouts.

2.Rewards for first spotting of an enemy irrespective of damage.

3.Rewards for subsequent spotting and location of enemies.

4.Rewards for damage to enemies after location irrespective of wether they are still being actively spotted.

5.Spotting feed back to inform you that you are currently actively spotting.

6.A feature in game similar to the XVM minimap mod that is only applicable too and activated by scouts, where tanks spotted by scouts appear as labelled dots on the map.

7.Accelerated crew training for scout tanks at least up to the first skill.

8.Camo ratings adjusted in accordance with actual size and not due to type. Remove the artificial type advantages.

9.View range to be at least on par with the highest view range they are MM'd to encounter.

10.Fixing the ridiculous situation where scouts break their tracks, or damage themselves from minor jumps. they should be able to take reasonable abuse on rough terrain and be fit for purpose.

11.Possibility for all scouts to ride hatches open for a view range bonus, and possibly a splash vulnerability or other penalty when in use. This would be a module or skill only available to scouts. 

12.Assign certain modules or skills exclusively to scouts or create advanced versions for scouts, such as relay, designated target, certain advanced optics etc.

13. Possibly some form of tie in with arty, a dependency, or an arty accuracy buff when a target is designated and spotted by a scout...

14. Soft terrain advantages. Lights and scouts should be by far the most adept at movement in soft terrain etc.

15. Enhanced climbing ability compared to other tank classes.

 

I think a clear distinction between light tanks, and recon units (scouts) is needed. One for fun and whizzing around annoying tankers doing damage, and the other as a highly useful information gathering tank. Both with their own trees, and thus playable by choice and preference rather than as a stumbling block.

With the above changes I'd be happy to drive a scout without significant armament.

 


Edited by Ulv_Jaeger, 22 February 2014 - 05:53 AM.


Ulv_Jaeger #58 Posted 22 February 2014 - 05:31 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 12872 battles
  • 1,332
  • Member since:
    10-20-2013

View PostAskorti, on 21 February 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:

Scouts are supposed to spot, not fight.

 

I mostly agree, and think a distinction should be made between scouts and lights (see above), however, even jeeps carried bazookas or panzerfausts, so perhaps some very limited but relevant to tier encountered armament is warranted. At least the ability to track the tanks you encounter? If not directly offensive, they need some system with which to call in better fire support to compensate?


Edited by Ulv_Jaeger, 22 February 2014 - 05:36 AM.


Zarax999 #59 Posted 22 February 2014 - 08:50 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 10117 battles
  • 3,249
  • [TWC] TWC
  • Member since:
    04-08-2011

View PostTazilon, on 22 February 2014 - 03:36 AM, said:

 

 

No you aren't.  You keep telling us you are taking what we say and giving it to Wargaming.  Try doing that for a change instead of telling us "Wargaming won't go for that."    You asked for feedback - we are giving it to you.  If you aren't honest enough to take our feedback and tell Wargaming what we said, then go away.  Let Wargaming take what we say and respond.  YOU are not Wargaming so quit pretending to speak for them.

 

Fine, let me take the velvet gloves off.

First of all, get off your high and mighty "pro-player" horse. Just because you're a good player and got a semi-popular blog it doesn't mean WG gives half a rat backside to your feedback anymore than the average player whining, FTR is pretty much the only blog that sometimes they read.

I brought player feedback on FTR (sorry if I didn't just bring your POV but you don't have exclusive rights on that) and it was a pretty popular article so at least devs are more aware about players being unhappy with lights.

 

Developers do not read anything in the forums aside the RU Q&A and what little feedback the Chieftain passes from the NA forum.

 

There are only two ways to get any feedback through that have any reliability (whining on RU Q&A could get some attention but the answer is 99% of the time trolling):

 

1) Through the Chieftain in NA forum (and less likely the Challenger on EU)

2) Through WG developer Cannoneer

 

Both don't have any influence on game mechanics, thus accepts only feedback based on documental proof, which is only historical info.

Kankou/Daigensui on US forum obtained some stuff that way (and her greatest result is the Japanese tree), Listy through those (and Overlord before) has some influence on the british tree and yours truly hopefully obtained a few changed on the upcoming Sturmtiger tree.

 

I tried to help you in several ways but you're stuck in your ways and just keep whining, keep going that way and the only thing you will obtain is more frustration.



Sliktastic #60 Posted 22 February 2014 - 12:13 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 33643 battles
  • 461
  • Member since:
    06-19-2011

Daigensui as positive example? Really? Zarax do you really see he/she/it as a positive example of a community member? I remember being call harsh names just because I made ones a small comment that the E-75 (W) could be a substitution for the E-50 Ausf. M. It is always funny to be call names for giving input.... :'(  Thats is one of the main reasons I dont comment here in this forum and SS blog.

 

 

 

 

As for the overall topic, I just can say, you both: Taz and you Zarax are two wichtigtuer :).

I dont know even were to start. Example Zarax.... you mention way before that the E-50 M is basically the E-75 (Weserhütte)... Wrong, it is a tank done by Martyneko.

View PostZarax999, on 06 February 2014 - 10:45 AM, said:

No, it's basically the Weserhutte design you can see in Spielberger's "Special Panzer Variants".

And this is a nice prime example of WG-policy :(. And you both: Tazilion and Zarax should stop to search for excuses, or explanations, or gudies, or etc.... As it just left WG of the hook  What I mean with it? Zarax dont try to find a explanation for WG BS... the E-50 Ausf. M is a tank done by Martyneko in five mins. It is cheap and easy tank to made. A quick buck for WG (the more we see the historical angle sucks in this game, the more pressure is on WG). And Tazilion dont put to much stuff out there about to make/find a ROLE for tanks (the more light tanks suck, and player dont play them, the more pressure is on WG. P.S. Thats why I dont drive the VK1602.).

 

Or in other words:

Tazilion your guides lets WG of the hook to change the light tank game play. Because you have found a way to make this ROLELESS tanks work.

Zarax your blog lets WG of the hook to be call out for their cheap un-historical disisions. Every tank, every explanations you come up with lets WG of the hook. Example: Your (reasonable) explanation E-50 Ausf.M could be more or less a E-75 Weserhütte... etc...

 

 

I made ones a long and boring post about WG-policies: http://forum.worldof..._st__20#topmost

 

The core is: WG doesnt care, and tries to goes always the way which as the least amount of work (you can even see it in the upcoming 9.0).** Instead of buying a licence for a better engine (and saving the money for buying BigWorld.), WG is tweaking the big world engine. Which is more or less only good for one thing: Holding many people as possible on one server stable (P.S. thats why WG has the record for the most players on one server.). But the engine has really bad performance stats otherwise. What I mean whit it? I mean you can get a stable performance even which a huge GLOBAL load, but a very poor LOCAL load (for todays standards). What I mean with that? I mean the engine sucks out badly by having to many players in one instant. Example: EVE online, every celestial object is a instant were player can fly to and fight and do stuff, but those arent limited. You can have a 300 vs 300 battle on one gate, or station, or belt, or any other celestial object without larger performance problems. The same cant be said for Big World, a instant is very much on its limited with the current 15 vs 15. That plus the poor drawing range and small map size does add for a lot of problems.

 

Zarax I told you before, that for example Assault guns (germans and russians) can have a  ROLE in the game, when we see bigger maps and engagements on a longer distance. See here: http://ftr.wot-news....e-sturmpanzers/

 

But we will not see this soon. What I mean with it? I mean Assault guns and a realistic gameplay for them with a ROLE. Because even with Havok, we still have the map problem. And when we have not solved the map size problem (1), we have not the the drawing distance problem (2). After that the new map size are only fun with more players, meaning bigger maps need 20 vs 20 battles, and this is the next problem (3). Those are just three problems of the engine, of course the list could go on and on and on and on and on. But I dont think, WG will trully fix those issues, as those it need a new engine, and a new engine means a new IP. Which means WG has rework most of the game. A WORK WHAT WG SHOULD DO, BUT WILL NOT DO (as they are as mention in the map thread, are always going for the cheapest option.). So my 50 cents is, that we will see Assault Guns. Yes, WG will dump them into the game without any ROLE. Long story short this is as well the current problem of the light tanks after the old LT Tier V execution. Meaning, that WG has change the light tanks without giving them a ROLE: For that you need a larger drawing distance (1) and larger view ranges (2) and engagement ranges (3), larger maps (4), more players on the bigger map (5) and the list goes on. Without those changes you will only find, that any buff to a light tank makes a medium (or other class) useless and vis versa. Thats why CURRENTLY any discussion about a light tank buff will only end up in a medium tank whining... or the medium buff in a light tank whining (just look at this thread). As both (currently) are substitution for the same ROLE. AND THIS HAS WG TO UNDERSTAND. Or we will just see that with patsh X are LTs OP and with patsh Y are MTs OP again. The the game would go on and on and on..... until both have DIFFERENT ROLES.

 

 

 

______

P.S. what I mean with ROLE and other terms can be found here. A very nice vid about people which know alittle bit more then WG (latter doesnt even understand the principle of opportunity cost):

http://www.youtube.c...DA989F65CD6E98A

http://www.youtube.c...h-Bs_n&index=34

 

As the Dr. -- nickname for the CCP Dev. Because of the title he as, I think it was math, -- in EVE: I could think of WG-trees and its tanks, and I could easily X-out 50% of all the tanks as useless. And the true is that almost all light tanks are in this group. And in the future will see this problem again, that assault guns are useless or they make other tank/spg-typs useless. As WG doesnt balance along ROLES or opportunity costs.

 

___

** Two other examples of WG laziness is one whole RU-251 situation and second Yuris comment about going to Kubinka to measure a tank. The latter a player asked in the russian Q&A about a russian tank and that the overall size would not fit. His suggestion was that someone form WG should just measure it. WGs answer: No, sending a employee would cost to much money. The same is repeats again and again. For example all the "histrocal research" is done by the local magazin (dont know the english word). It cost WG nothing to ask about paper X or paper Y, they just should specify the topic the more likely you get an answer..... But Im off topc... I remember SerB saying that they would spend money on this, and they had spend a buttload of money to get historical papers (which is not true). Which is not the case. He was lying, it just cost WG money to go to the magazin and take the research results home, and it cost money to read it (working hours). But the nothing else. But WG is to cheap to do the latter. P.S. thats the true about the Kette situation. I asked in Koblenz if ever someone of WG or any other gaming company had call. I mean just calling.... or sending a latter .... The answer was: No. By the way I had the answer about the tank in 5 min. And WG have it too, they just need to pick up a phone. Or ask me.... and give me a code for a PzV/IV and Type 59.... I could sell those two on ebay for 500 bucks each (as Im not a socialist like Zarax and Taz which do stuff for free :P ). And for 1000 bucks I would do stuff for WG. So If WG needs something, just ask....

 

 


Edited by Sliktastic, 22 February 2014 - 01:03 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users