Jump to content


WoT Suggestions Thread

Suggestions what should WG implement new (and old) ideas

  • Please log in to reply
2647 replies to this topic

ZlatanArKung #61 Posted 01 September 2017 - 03:00 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1537 battles
  • 5,336
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014
Suggestion: Remove premium ammo from the game. Then rebalance armour values so every tank can be frontally penned by tanks of 1 tier below if small weakspots are hit.
Weakspots are cupolas, mg ports etc.
You can also introduce larger weakspots like, lfp, turret cheeks or similar that or reliable pens for same tiered tanks but or only 50-70% chance of penning for 1 tiered lower tanks if hit straight on.

Streamline Penetration values across tiers.
T10 HT: 260-280
T9 HT: 230-250
T8 HT: 210-230
T7 HT: 180-200
T6 HT: 150-170
And same for other tank classes.
T10 medium: 250-270
T10 TD: 280-300
T10 LT: 240-260

T10 weaker weakspots: mg port, cupola and similar: ~200-220mm of effective armor.
T10 larger weakspots, lfp/cheeks: 220-240 mm of effective armour.



Suggestion: Nerf/remodel Defender, Liberte, Patriot, Skorpion G, New,Chinese TD, Chrysler.
And then stop releasing premium tanks that are better then regular counterparts.
Premium tanks should be slightly worse then regular counter parts.
 

Aikl #62 Posted 01 September 2017 - 06:44 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 27199 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostZlatanArKung, on 01 September 2017 - 02:00 PM, said:

(...)

 

This is essentially my favourite approach to the mechanics. As it will mean less credits spent on premium ammo (most likely), I have a follow-up:

 

Increase the cost of playing (higher tiers).

Increasing the repair costs will be an effective way of creating a new credit sink - but at the same time adjusting credit earnings to reward someone for playing decently well. Ideally you want about the same cost as today for an average game, while awarding above-average performance even more. Below-average performance might result in a bit higher repair bill. Going AFK or performance equivalent to an AFK player will be felt in the credit reserves. 

 

No, it's not elitist to suggest that basecamping tanks that get one shot off should have problems doing that several thousand games in a row. Playing T10 tanks is already dependant on either doing well and/or grinding credits (which in effect means paying for the game). It's a free-to-play/freemium game. That doesn't mean free access to all areas of a game. If you're a bit below average, and want to play T10, you can probably afford a whole euro a day to play the four-six hours daily that many of the 'free' players are. Yes, I tend to do the math every time a self-declared free player whines in the forums.



ZlatanArKung #63 Posted 01 September 2017 - 07:39 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1537 battles
  • 5,336
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostAikl, on 01 September 2017 - 06:44 PM, said:

 

This is essentially my favourite approach to the mechanics. As it will mean less credits spent on premium ammo (most likely), I have a follow-up:

 

Increase the cost of playing (higher tiers).

Increasing the repair costs will be an effective way of creating a new credit sink - but at the same time adjusting credit earnings to reward someone for playing decently well. Ideally you want about the same cost as today for an average game, while awarding above-average performance even more. Below-average performance might result in a bit higher repair bill. Going AFK or performance equivalent to an AFK player will be felt in the credit reserves. 

 

No, it's not elitist to suggest that basecamping tanks that get one shot off should have problems doing that several thousand games in a row. Playing T10 tanks is already dependant on either doing well and/or grinding credits (which in effect means paying for the game). It's a free-to-play/freemium game. That doesn't mean free access to all areas of a game. If you're a bit below average, and want to play T10, you can probably afford a whole euro a day to play the four-six hours daily that many of the 'free' players are. Yes, I tend to do the math every time a self-declared free player whines in the forums.

 

Problem is that such a change will never happen. No matter how good it would be.

SlyMeerkat #64 Posted 01 September 2017 - 11:17 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18826 battles
  • 3,329
  • [-RLD-] -RLD-
  • Member since:
    01-29-2013
It would be nice to have an in game stat tracker

ForceGhost #65 Posted 01 September 2017 - 11:20 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 23660 battles
  • 105
  • Member since:
    09-15-2010

View PostSlyMeerkat, on 01 September 2017 - 10:17 PM, said:

It would be nice to have an in game stat tracker

 

Something similar to XVM?

 

I think it'll be coming into WG's official "Mod Centre" at some point in the future



Inos #66 Posted 03 September 2017 - 10:24 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 96058 battles
  • 81
  • Member since:
    06-26-2011

Where is WOT going?

 

Wargaming is a company which wants and should make money.

Thats the puropse of every comercial company and this is ok.

 

To understand for everybody esepcialy the younger players where WOT came from and how it developed I recomend to view  The Mighty Jingles  Video.

 

https://www.youtube....grB6-C&index=14

 

Despite the fact that WOT is running on an acient Engine, its only a question of time until a much better game will replace it, the si  point what Wargaming plans are for this game.

 

It needs to attract new players keep the old on the game and at the same time try to make money.

 

The tanks like cryslers and Defender are desinged for the new players, idiots proved, but unfortunately in the and of skilled players deadly and totaly OP oponents.

 

I played all maps in this game before even T10 existed, so I experianced the whole deveopment, and over the years I spend a fair amount of money for this game.

( I should get a special medal for that "best coustomer of the year") LOLOL

 

WOT is about to destroy the fun of game, steadly since years now. The game got booring, smaler and smaler maps, boaring city maps with no real flanking chances. and in T10 with total OP tanks like Schwer and Maus which roll over teams. Well understandable if you buff tanks like maus and Schwer you need city maps and kill arty.

 

And this is totaly destroying the dynamic and fun of the game.

 

Wargaming can try to squeze the orange a litle bit more or what I suggest to think about new ways and alternatives to balance the needs of the players.

 

But how it goes on the last year or so is the best way to kill this game.

 

The Day will come a better game launches and WOT is dead within months.

 

I urge wargaming to watch The Mighty Jingles video and to think about how you wana go forward.



Jumping_Turtle #67 Posted 03 September 2017 - 04:23 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 71611 battles
  • 8,197
  • [CNUT] CNUT
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013

View PostInos, on 03 September 2017 - 10:24 AM, said:

 

I urge wargaming to watch The Mighty Jingles video and to think about how you wana go forward.

 

Yeah, lets not do that.

Steve8066 #68 Posted 03 September 2017 - 08:01 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 19720 battles
  • 1,165
  • Member since:
    10-06-2015

View PostInos, on 03 September 2017 - 10:24 AM, said:

The Day will come a better game launches and WOT is dead within months.

 

I'll be honest, I came here from WT and will go back to that the minute that Gaijin fix the lawn darts (kamikaze planes), which is `been looked at`. In simple terms, WoT has nothing to keep me once that is fixed.



lord_chipmonk #69 Posted 03 September 2017 - 08:30 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36526 battles
  • 10,279
  • [-HOW-] -HOW-
  • Member since:
    12-23-2012

View PostSteve8066, on 03 September 2017 - 08:01 PM, said:

 

I'll be honest, I came here from WT and will go back to that the minute that Gaijin fix the lawn darts (kamikaze planes), which is `been looked at`. In simple terms, WoT has nothing to keep me once that is fixed.

 

That's fair enough, and to me the opposite is true (at least for ground combat). What WT does do well though for me is aerial combat. Really should give it another try. 

Joshuarock227 #70 Posted 03 September 2017 - 09:28 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 2994 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    07-25-2017
Personal I think the T54 mod 1 needs a review and buff,it's gun simply isn't good enough to deal with most targets it comes against I've fought against,I mean a tier 7 gun against tier 9 and ten oppents how is that in anyway going to make it a competitive tank?

hjsteg #71 Posted 04 September 2017 - 09:32 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 32568 battles
  • 314
  • [WID] WID
  • Member since:
    12-21-2011

Since this thread is pinned, there is a possibility that some Wargaming employee might read this post and consider my proposal. It is about the garage filters and use of that.

 

Make selection of tanks that have more research options easier to find in the garage.

 

Background: With changes in the tech tree tanks that are elited remains elited even after there are new tanks to research from the tank. As an example I can mention the following tanks:

VK4502B - fully elited. Now a new tank, the PzKpfW VII is researchable.

WZ-111 Model 1-4 - fully elited. Now WZ-111 5A is researchable.

Today there is no filter to select tanks that are not elited. Only a filter to select tanks that are elited.

 

I admit using XVM as it has a filter to select tanks that are non elited, and both VKB and WZ-111 1-4 will not appeare in this filter as they already are elited. So I often miss out grinding those tanks. I really want the game client to do this.

 

The easy solution would be to remove the elited status from tanks that have further options to research when the tech tree i modified. And just add a garage filter for non-elited tanks. But as players have accomplished getting tanks elited this would probably make some of us unhappy. 

 

Proposal: Make a filter in the garage to select tanks that are grindable to research more modules / tanks from. Name the filter "Tanks with more research options".

 

This would make it much easier to grind tanks and progress through the tech tree.



Kozzy #72 Posted 04 September 2017 - 11:01 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 42114 battles
  • 3,182
  • [RINSE] RINSE
  • Member since:
    06-29-2011

A couple of minor suggestions from me:

 

1. At the battle results screen show a model of your tank and where each shot hit it.  Show all pens and bounces (and from what gun/shell type) and show which modules were hit AND show if safe stowage, preventative maintenance and wet rack saved that module's life. 

 

2. A minor one which makes me angrier than it should; in the notification centre separate the battle results from the resupply summary.  Example in the pic, have the stuff in the red boxes on a separate tab to the stuff in the blue box.

 


Edited by Kozzy, 05 September 2017 - 04:07 PM.


trland #73 Posted 04 September 2017 - 12:30 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14305 battles
  • 222
  • [EKHUN] EKHUN
  • Member since:
    02-14-2012

View PostAikl, on 01 September 2017 - 05:44 PM, said:

 

This is essentially my favourite approach to the mechanics. As it will mean less credits spent on premium ammo (most likely), I have a follow-up:

 

Increase the cost of playing (higher tiers).

Increasing the repair costs will be an effective way of creating a new credit sink - but at the same time adjusting credit earnings to reward someone for playing decently well. Ideally you want about the same cost as today for an average game, while awarding above-average performance even more. Below-average performance might result in a bit higher repair bill. Going AFK or performance equivalent to an AFK player will be felt in the credit reserves. 

 

No, it's not elitist to suggest that basecamping tanks that get one shot off should have problems doing that several thousand games in a row. Playing T10 tanks is already dependant on either doing well and/or grinding credits (which in effect means paying for the game). It's a free-to-play/freemium game. That doesn't mean free access to all areas of a game. If you're a bit below average, and want to play T10, you can probably afford a whole euro a day to play the four-six hours daily that many of the 'free' players are. Yes, I tend to do the math every time a self-declared free player whines in the forums.

 

increase the reward for better would only encourage ppl use more gold for more dmg. Thus makes them pay more credits on ammo which they may get back (partly maybe?) from the bigger reward. Now we are talking about decent players whose gold abuse than will pay off. Bad players will lose more for their higher gold usage but they will probably not stop using gold 'cause bad players don't actually believe they are bad...

Aikl #74 Posted 04 September 2017 - 12:40 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 27199 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View Posttrland, on 04 September 2017 - 11:30 AM, said:

 

increase the reward for better would only encourage ppl use more gold for more dmg. Thus makes them pay more credits on ammo which they may get back (partly maybe?) from the bigger reward. Now we are talking about decent players whose gold abuse than will pay off. Bad players will lose more for their higher gold usage but they will probably not stop using gold 'cause bad players don't actually believe they are bad...

 

While the suggestion for increasing cost of fooling around in T10 certainly has its use even now, it's meant as a follow-up to ZlatanArKung's proposal for removing premium ammo - it's hardly a secret that the main point of premium ammo (from WG's side) is to have a giant credit sink.

Ferditude #75 Posted 04 September 2017 - 03:00 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 2789 battles
  • 794
  • Member since:
    11-22-2016

View PostAikl, on 04 September 2017 - 12:40 PM, said:

 

While the suggestion for increasing cost of fooling around in T10 certainly has its use even now, it's meant as a follow-up to ZlatanArKung's proposal for removing premium ammo - it's hardly a secret that the main point of premium ammo (from WG's side) is to have a giant credit sink.

 

cr or gold?

I previously thought gold, but may be both cr +gold use benefit wg $ income



Aikl #76 Posted 04 September 2017 - 03:38 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 27199 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostFerditude, on 04 September 2017 - 02:00 PM, said:

 

cr or gold?

I previously thought gold, but may be both cr +gold use benefit wg $ income

 

Not entirely sure what you mean. Having a credit sink is effective because credits are a result of cash, skill and/or time.

 

Gold sinks are hardly needed. Premium tanks are more or less cash shop-only nowadays, and it looks like the whole "this T10 tank will be replaced, owners will keep the old as a reward and get the replacement" scheme is a usable gold sink - same goes for premium tank trade-in.

 

Making premium ammo into literal 'gold ammo' again... well, no thanks. I'd rather have it as an alternate ammo type with pros/cons. Tanks with 212mm AP and 250mm HEAT are a viable example. One is not necessarily superior to the other. Something like the Pilot, which has 192mm AP and 243mm APCR pen, might keep roughly this penetration - but APCR will e.g. have a bit less damage and way more dropoff at range. Nowadays APCR is almost always a superior choice. It trades a few degrees of normalization for far higher penetration even at 500m and way higher shell velocity.

 

A rework could feature the Pilot with APCR that does 10-20% less damage, ~240mm penetration, and inferior penetration outside e.g. 200m. Again, that's if tanks get weakspots that a Pilot can pen if it's close enough - and thus not have to rely on premium ammo do to damage.

 



Snake_Keeper #77 Posted 04 September 2017 - 05:53 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 10611 battles
  • 765
  • Member since:
    02-04-2016

Please add +10 penetration to 7,5 cm Kw.K. 40 L/48 AP rounds, and +7 to APCR. This would bring the gun performance closer to the American/British test results.

Pz. IV. H, and Pz. III/IV both have direct competitors in their tier that have better penetration, or rate of fire, or have better mobility thus fare better being bottom tier.

 

View Postlord_chipmonk, on 03 September 2017 - 08:30 PM, said:

 

That's fair enough, and to me the opposite is true (at least for ground combat). What WT does do well though for me is aerial combat. Really should give it another try. 

 

I get bored very very quickly playing WT planes.
 

badabum #78 Posted 05 September 2017 - 12:55 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 52651 battles
  • 346
  • [WW3] WW3
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011
Suggestion: add filter for female crew members in barracks.

nomadewolf #79 Posted 05 September 2017 - 03:24 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 16337 battles
  • 54
  • Member since:
    08-27-2011

Here are my suggestions to fix this game:

  • Ammo
    • Make premium ammo cost the same as regular ammo
    • Make premium ammo do less damage (for balancing purposes)
  • Premium tanks
    • Make all tanks possible to buy simply by grinding the game
    • Make all tanks possible to buy with Gold/Money (do the conversions)
    • Make all tanks possible to convert to Premium tanks (by paying Gold/Money, of course)
  • Tank skins
    • Introduce the concept of Epic Skins
    • An example of an Epic Skin would be the Blak Skin (Like Black Is-6 and T-34)
    • Another example would be the Patriot skin
    • This way every tank could have such a skin
    • Epic Skins would cost Gold/Money, of course (way more)

 

With this changes i think the need for the game to make money would be acommodated while making the game feel more fair. I would even argue that maybe WG would make even more money...

League Of Legends uses a similar model, which is where i drawn my inspiration for these changes.

 

What do you guys think?



WrekuiemForAMeme #80 Posted 05 September 2017 - 07:25 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 6603 battles
  • 42
  • Member since:
    12-02-2015

Thought I'd throw in my 2 pennies;

 

  • Bring back cross-team chat (all the toxic chat is now concentrated within the team), or at least provide a standard list of statements you can issue a player to promote positivity (e.g. well played, nice shot, you got lucky, etc.)
  • Be able to close General chat in garage if not interested
  • Map pinging only for platoons (like platoon only chat) to save map spam
  • Be able to pause Personal Reserves (e.g in case of SH invite)
  • Be able to recruit female crew
  • +1-1 MM
  • Bring back decommissioned maps whilst we wait for new maps





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users