Jump to content


What are anti-SPG activists supposed to add to the game?


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

AC130Pilot #1 Posted 09 July 2017 - 04:59 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 14702 battles
  • 174
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

I dislike anti-SPG activists a lot and feel they bring nothing positive to the game. In fact, they have a negative impact on matches.

 

It seems just about impossible to play the game in a positive style without getting penalized by having an anti-SPG activist on your team who may be a potential threat to allied SPGs, for example, make the SPG damage itself by blocking the gun of SPG by one's own, push out of cover/sabotage that game in any other way and insult/provoke the SPG player. So in games you manage through skill or bad judgement from the opposing team, to  find/make a breakthrough in their lines, being positive you try to exploit this to your and your team's advantage, and for this you are gifted with an anti-SPG activist, who has wasted all of his/her own time to sabotage the game for artillery and the time of allied team by not participating in the battle.

 

To me anti-SPG activists only seem to be a penalty on positive play and players, they add nothing to the game and distract us from it. So what are they meant to add, what is their purpose in the game? So why doesn't Wargaming give players the option of fighting battles with or without anti-SPG activists, a button you can select and choose to play either type of battle?


Edited by AC130Pilot, 11 July 2017 - 11:42 AM.


ZlatanArKung #2 Posted 09 July 2017 - 05:03 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostAC130Pilot, on 09 July 2017 - 04:59 PM, said:

I dislike anti-SPG activists a lot and feel they bring nothing positive to the game. In fact, they have a negative impact on matches.

 

It seems just about impossible to play the game in a positive style without getting penalized by having an anti-SPG activist on your team who may be a potential threat to allied SPGs, for example, make the SPG damage itself by blocking the gun of SPG by one's own, push out of cover/sabotage that game in any other way and insult/provoke the SPG player. So in games you manage through skill or bad judgement from the opposing team, to  find/make a breakthrough in their lines, being positive you try to exploit this to your and your team's advantage, and for this you are gifted with an anti-SPG activist, who has wasted all of his/her own time to sabotage the game for artillery and the time of allied team by not participating in the battle.

 

To me anti-SPG activists only seem to be a penalty on positive play and players, they add nothing to the game and distract us from it. So what are they meant to add, what is their purpose in the game? So why doesn't War Gaming give players the option of fighting battles with or without anti-SPG activists, a button you can select and choose to play either type of battle?

 

As long as I am free to play without SPG,  you can have that buttom.

 

Arty just prevents active and positive play, which I find boring. If 3 of them, camping can begin.



CmdRatScabies #3 Posted 09 July 2017 - 05:04 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 35200 battles
  • 3,565
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015

View PostAC130Pilot, on 09 July 2017 - 04:59 PM, said:

To me anti-SPG activists only seem to be a penalty on positive play and players, they add nothing to the game and distract us from it. So what are they meant to add, what is their purpose in the game? So why doesn't War Gaming give players the option of fighting battles with or without anti-SPG activists, a button you can select and choose to play either type of battle?

 

I just TK them or send replays in to support (support don't look at team damage but they do look at griefing).  Don't see it that often though.

AC130Pilot #4 Posted 09 July 2017 - 05:11 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 14702 battles
  • 174
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

inb4 inflammatory replies...

 

I'm regarding this, also take a notice of this.



monthey_ #5 Posted 09 July 2017 - 05:11 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 34107 battles
  • 627
  • [MAROC] MAROC
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

Arty players are like the crossbowmen from the past. An an untrained commoner was able to shoot down a highly trained knight in armour from great distances creating a situation that even friendly knights looked down upon their own crossbowmen. Gone was the status of highly trained and skilled men on the field because a farm boy could negate their skills with a single pull  on a trigger or shoud I rather say "click" in WoT.

History is repeating itself I guess.

 

So move on and accept you guys are the scurge of WoT and nobody likes you say for fellow clickers.



AC130Pilot #6 Posted 09 July 2017 - 05:13 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 14702 battles
  • 174
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

View Postmonthey_, on 09 July 2017 - 04:11 PM, said:

So move on and accept you guys are the scurge of WoT and nobody likes you say for fellow clickers.

 

All right, take care, my dear.

CmdRatScabies #7 Posted 09 July 2017 - 05:15 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 35200 battles
  • 3,565
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015

View Postmonthey_, on 09 July 2017 - 05:11 PM, said:

Arty players are like the crossbowmen from the past. An an untrained commoner was able to shoot down a highly trained knight in armour from great distances creating a situation that even friendly knights looked down upon their own crossbowmen. Gone was the status of highly trained and skilled men on the field because a farm boy could negate their skills with a single pull  on a trigger or shoud I rather say "click" in WoT.

History is repeating itself I guess.

 

So move on and accept you guys are the scurge of WoT and nobody likes you say for fellow clickers.

 

As many have said, 1 arty in a game is okay but 3 completely trashes it.

AC130Pilot #8 Posted 09 July 2017 - 05:37 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 14702 battles
  • 174
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

View PostCmdRatScabies, on 09 July 2017 - 04:15 PM, said:

As many have said, 1 arty in a game is okay but 3 completely trashes it.

 

Yes, maybe. Maybe limit to 2 SPGs per team, I'm not so sure.


Anyway, I'm just here to restore some balance...



Spurtung #9 Posted 09 July 2017 - 05:42 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 60179 battles
  • 5,532
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostCmdRatScabies, on 09 July 2017 - 06:15 PM, said:

As many have said, 1 arty in a game is okay but 3 completely trashes it.

Many have said LT-7 for the Obj. 260 is much harder now.

 

So...what should we do about that?



HeathLedger_ #10 Posted 09 July 2017 - 05:45 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 250 battles
  • 1,035
  • [-UM] -UM
  • Member since:
    01-13-2017

View PostSpurtung, on 09 July 2017 - 05:42 PM, said:

Many have said LT-7 for the Obj. 260 is much harder now.

 

So...what should we do about that?

 

Make non arbitrary mission requirements? Winning the game as a light doesn't necessarily involve yoloing in so you get a chance at killing 3 arty. 

 

As to the OP, arty is a broken game mechanic that just leads to worse gameplay overall. Getting it removed or played less will inevitably add to the game in the form of actually being able to use the map and not having to hide behind the highest cover you can find in 3 arty games. One of the main reasons ranked battles were as bad as they were was because every game ended up having 3 arty because it's piss easy to play.



Spurtung #11 Posted 09 July 2017 - 05:47 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 60179 battles
  • 5,532
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostHeathLedger_, on 09 July 2017 - 06:45 PM, said:

 

Make non arbitrary mission requirements? Winning the game as a light doesn't necessarily involve yoloing in so you get a chance at killing 3 arty. 

 

As to the OP, arty is a broken game mechanic that just leads to worse gameplay overall. Getting it removed or played less will inevitably add to the game in the form of actually being able to use the map and not having to hide behind the highest cover you can find in 3 arty games. One of the main reasons ranked battles were as bad as they were was because every game ended up having 3 arty because it's piss easy to play.

 

I see so much of the maps being used, with or without arty...

HeathLedger_ #12 Posted 09 July 2017 - 05:51 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 250 battles
  • 1,035
  • [-UM] -UM
  • Member since:
    01-13-2017

View PostSpurtung, on 09 July 2017 - 05:47 PM, said:

 

I see so much of the maps being used, with or without arty...

 

Try having fun on el halluf with 3 arty. or playing ruinberg mid ridge. 
 

Arty completely makes masking your tank behind terrain a worse risk/reward situation unless the terrain can stop the arty shell completely. Which means with more arty in a game less of the map becomes worth playing. That's not something you can argue. What you can argue is if that makes the game better or not, which in my opinion it doesn't. 



ellua #13 Posted 09 July 2017 - 05:57 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 1160 battles
  • 555
  • Member since:
    09-29-2011

Not 3, not 1, I want 15v15 ARTY GAMES ! LET"S THEY ENJOY ARTY MORE ( in their own environment )

 


Edited by ellua, 09 July 2017 - 06:00 PM.


Enforcer1975 #14 Posted 09 July 2017 - 05:58 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 18481 battles
  • 9,855
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014

View PostZlatanArKung, on 09 July 2017 - 05:03 PM, said:

 

As long as I am free to play without SPG,  you can have that buttom.

 

Arty just prevents active and positive play, which I find boring. If 3 of them, camping can begin.

 

Arty actually makes me move around more to avoid being hit.

 

 

@OP

The forum and in-game trolls need their daily salt intake so we need them for the forum.



Jigabachi #15 Posted 09 July 2017 - 06:03 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17753 battles
  • 17,666
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View Postmonthey_, on 09 July 2017 - 05:11 PM, said:

History is repeating itself I guess.

The comparison is rather bad, because in RL you aren't interested in balance. The introduction of crossbows showed that you don't only need steel, but also wits to win a war. The same wits that led us out of our caves some thousand years ago...

 

But yes, the p2w sealclubbing knights must have been quite butthurt back then...



monthey_ #16 Posted 09 July 2017 - 06:04 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 34107 battles
  • 627
  • [MAROC] MAROC
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View PostAC130Pilot, on 09 July 2017 - 05:13 PM, said:

 

All right, take care, my dear.

Nice to see you actually liked my post ;)



1ncompetenc3 #17 Posted 09 July 2017 - 06:07 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36772 battles
  • 11,489
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

Reason and logic.



Erwin_Von_Braun #18 Posted 09 July 2017 - 06:12 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 36131 battles
  • 3,945
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-25-2014

View Postmonthey_, on 09 July 2017 - 04:11 PM, said:

Arty players are like the crossbowmen from the past. An an untrained commoner was able to shoot down a highly trained knight in armour from great distances creating a situation that even friendly knights looked down upon their own crossbowmen. Gone was the status of highly trained and skilled men on the field because a farm boy could negate their skills with a single pull  on a trigger or shoud I rather say "click" in WoT.

History is repeating itself I guess.

 

So move on and accept you guys are the scurge of WoT and nobody likes you say for fellow clickers.

 

Just for a second there I thought you were comparing noble, historic warriors to 'pro' gamers.

But then I thought no, he couldn't possibly be doing that...................could he?:trollface:



Jigabachi #19 Posted 09 July 2017 - 06:14 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17753 battles
  • 17,666
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View Post1ncompetenc3, on 09 July 2017 - 06:07 PM, said:

Reason and logic.

A hint of that, agreed, but drowned in butthurt and immature moaning.



monthey_ #20 Posted 09 July 2017 - 06:16 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 34107 battles
  • 627
  • [MAROC] MAROC
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View PostJigabachi, on 09 July 2017 - 06:03 PM, said:

The comparison is rather bad, because in RL you aren't interested in balance. The introduction of crossbows showed that you don't only need steel, but also wits to win a war. The same wits that led us out of our caves some thousand years ago...

 

But yes, the p2w sealclubbing knights must have been quite butthurt back then...

I agree with you that tactics and strategies evolved because of medevil clickers just like they do know. Though I doubt it is for the better. I do think  the comparison is perfectly fine when you take into account the reaction of the people back then. Fact is skill vs clicker animosity did occure just like it does now. 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users