Jump to content


So If The Game Was As Follows..


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

TungstenHitman #1 Posted 23 October 2017 - 03:02 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 20589 battles
  • 3,798
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

So after sifting through various threads, this is my grasp of what players want, at least on this forum anyway.

 

Would this be better, if not, why not? and what have I missed?

 

1. Maximum +1 -1 tier

2. Maximum 1 arty per team.

3. 15% RNG

4. Premium ammo nerfed 50%

5. Premium ammo cost 50%

6. Premium ammo limited to 5 rounds (varies based on RoF and alpha, more for a quick firing low alpha gun is only fair)

7. All tanks should have one frontal weak spot that the weakest tiers premium ammo can pen. The heavier armored the tank, the smaller the weak spot and thus much harder to hit but at least a tiny microscopic weak spot is still a weak spot and a chance while not ruining the point of a player taking a heavy class of tank either. Equally a really slow heavy tank like a Tortoise etc, should not have several frontal weak spots nor a giant bucket cuppola to plink to death.

8. No in-battle mods of any kind. Use what came with the game, same for all. If you can't play the game without 300 time magnification or removing foliage etc then git gud.

9. Reduce maximum view range from 450 to 350 or alternatively increase map size though increasing map size may cause performance issues?

10. No tiny maps for tier6+ (Mines etc)

11. Friendly Fire. top tier with big boom stick shoots bottom tier with little wimpy boom stick, not fair "eye for an eye". How about the percentage of HP removed from the friendly you shoot is taken from the player who did it. This was not always on purpose I often derped a team mate by accident but if I lost 80% of my own hp I would be very reluctant to take that 50/50 shot lol.

 

A final consideration perhaps, though not really serious, is Arty floats on water and has parachute so can't suicide.. also immune to self fired shells  ;)

 

 



commer #2 Posted 23 October 2017 - 03:05 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 38081 battles
  • 1,995
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011

View PostTungstenHitman, on 23 October 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

So after sifting through various threads, this is my grasp of what players want, at least on this forum anyway.

 

Would this be better, if not, why not? and what have I missed?

 

1. Maximum +1 -1 tier

2. Maximum 1 arty per team.

3. 15% RNG

4. Premium ammo nerfed 50%

5. Premium ammo cost 50%

6. Premium ammo limited to 5 rounds (varies based on RoF and alpha, more for a quick firing low alpha gun is only fair)

7. All tanks should have one frontal weak spot that the weakest tiers premium ammo can pen. The heavier armored the tank, the smaller the weak spot and thus much harder to hit but at least a tiny microscopic weak spot is still a weak spot and a chance while not ruining the point of a player taking a heavy class of tank either. Equally a really slow heavy tank like a Tortoise etc, should not have several frontal weak spots nor a giant bucket cuppola to plink to death.

8. No in-battle mods of any kind. Use what came with the game, same for all. If you can't play the game without 300 time magnification or removing foliage etc then git gud.

9. Reduce maximum view range from 450 to 350 or alternatively increase map size though increasing map size may cause performance issues?

10. No tiny maps for tier6+ (Mines etc)

11. Friendly Fire. top tier with big boom stick shoots bottom tier with little wimpy boom stick, not fair "eye for an eye". How about the percentage of HP removed from the friendly you shoot is taken from the player who did it. This was not always on purpose I often derped a team mate by accident but if I lost 80% of my own hp I would be very reluctant to take that 50/50 shot lol.

 

A final consideration perhaps, though not really serious, is Arty floats on water and has parachute so can't suicide.. also immune to self fired shells  ;)

 

 

 

If prem ammo is nerfed 50% and prem ammo cost is lowered and limited to 5 shells what do you want to pay for that is now free since WG will want to keep a steady revenue stream? You want crew exp to become much slower, equipment more expensive, tanks more expensive or how do you want to offset lower income for WG caused by your propositions.

commer #3 Posted 23 October 2017 - 03:06 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 38081 battles
  • 1,995
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011
Decreasing max view range to 350 is retarded though. This would make light tanks obsolete and heavy tanks broken. The game is already a close range brawl in key moments of the battle.

__H3H3__ #4 Posted 23 October 2017 - 03:07 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 30317 battles
  • 577
  • [OXIDE] OXIDE
  • Member since:
    12-09-2013
As much balanced tanks as possible.

__H3H3__ #5 Posted 23 October 2017 - 03:09 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 30317 battles
  • 577
  • [OXIDE] OXIDE
  • Member since:
    12-09-2013

View Postcommer, on 23 October 2017 - 02:06 PM, said:

Decreasing max view range to 350 is retarded though. This would make light tanks obsolete and heavy tanks broken. The game is already a close range brawl in key moments of the battle.

 

true. Just give HT and TD 350 max MT 375 and LT 400. 

And give arty 200 :)



TungstenHitman #6 Posted 23 October 2017 - 03:10 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 20589 battles
  • 3,798
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

View Postcommer, on 23 October 2017 - 02:05 PM, said:

 

If prem ammo is nerfed 50% and prem ammo cost is lowered and limited to 5 shells what do you want to pay for that is now free since WG will want to keep a steady revenue stream? You want crew exp to become much slower, equipment more expensive, tanks more expensive or how do you want to offset lower income for WG caused by your propositions.

 

Who pays for premium ammo anyway? If it does half the damage, half the price is fair enough but sure, keep it same price maybe. I spend money on camo and moving crew around tanks and I'm sure premium tanks and accounts is where most money is made tbh?

AngelofAwe #7 Posted 23 October 2017 - 03:10 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 39030 battles
  • 3,057
  • Member since:
    12-24-2011
Remove dumb (have to use a politically correct word) tank designs with derp guns that require no tactical play or skill and completely negates any armor, sidescraping, angling or other mechanics that actually take some skill to use in the first place.

Which means I'm not only looking at the dumbest designs and most skilless tanks of them all (Type 4/ Type 5) but also the FV TDs etc. 

TungstenHitman #8 Posted 23 October 2017 - 03:10 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 20589 battles
  • 3,798
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

View Postcommer, on 23 October 2017 - 02:06 PM, said:

Decreasing max view range to 350 is retarded though. This would make light tanks obsolete and heavy tanks broken. The game is already a close range brawl in key moments of the battle.

 

Not if other classes had less than 350 would it? 

commer #9 Posted 23 October 2017 - 03:15 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 38081 battles
  • 1,995
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011

View PostTungstenHitman, on 23 October 2017 - 03:10 PM, said:

 

Who pays for premium ammo anyway? If it does half the damage, half the price is fair enough but sure, keep it same price maybe. I spend money on camo and moving crew around tanks and I'm sure premium tanks and accounts is where most money is made tbh?

 

The question isn't who pays. If what you say is implemented WG will earn less. Since they are a for profit business they will need to earn their money in WoT somewhere else. Where. Stop avoiding the question and answer me. How does Wargaming create new incentives for runing prem account when premium ammo stops being one of them?

commer #10 Posted 23 October 2017 - 03:15 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 38081 battles
  • 1,995
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011

View PostTungstenHitman, on 23 October 2017 - 03:10 PM, said:

 

Not if other classes had less than 350 would it? 

 

No it would still benefit heavies since it would make their low speed less of a disadvantage given the engagement range would be shorter. Also it would be a buff to inaccurate guns since again the engagement range is closer. 

rustysprite #11 Posted 23 October 2017 - 03:22 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 21932 battles
  • 2,446
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    03-18-2012

View PostTungstenHitman, on 23 October 2017 - 02:02 PM, said:

 

 

A final consideration perhaps, though not really serious, is Arty floats on water and has parachute so can't suicide.. also immune to self fired shells  ;)

 

 

 

 

Great idea !  :teethhappy:

 



Aikl #12 Posted 23 October 2017 - 03:23 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25167 battles
  • 4,253
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

Good suggestions overall. Not sure if view range nerfs is what needed; it's mostly how the maps are made that appear to create problems. Redline-camping-meta isn't a healthy one. Maybe view range nerfs are the way to go, but it'll only create greater swathes of 'dead man's land' in front of the bases. A good crew can get maximum viewrange with 360m base+binos.

 

You have a fairly good idea with the Tortoise. The 'moving bunker' concept is a decent one in my mind; a tank with decently good top speed but bad acceleration (local mobility) and turning speed. That goes for both certain 'assault TDs' and superheavies. Most players seem to complain about the ability to get into positions rather than what they can do when they're there.

 

That can further extend to other tanks; where tanks are actually different from each other, with clear-cut advantages and disadvantages - instead of having two, maybe three, archetypes for each tank class. Mediums currently has '-10 gun depression with turret armor" and "russian brawler with soupbowl turret and limited gun dep.". It would be far more interesting to mix things up a bit. Centurion AX fits the bill as an allrounder, with no particularly special feature. Gun handling is OK, speed is fine, it has gun depression, some turret armor. Leopard 1 could have no real armor, best-in-class gun handling/accuracy and penetration at range. Patton could be further amplified as essentially mid-range fire support; with its good viewrange and mediocre final accuracy - but good pen values and fairly good turret armor against unaimed shots.



TungstenHitman #13 Posted 23 October 2017 - 03:25 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 20589 battles
  • 3,798
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

View Postcommer, on 23 October 2017 - 02:15 PM, said:

 

How does Wargaming create new incentives for runing prem account when premium ammo stops being one of them?

 

Ah, missed that bit. Several options. All unpopular but the one of the biggest gripes on this forum is premium ammo. Yes as you say if the ammo is limited or indeed reduced in price to match the reduction in damage then suddenly many players, particularly premium accounts, would be making massive amounts of credits compared to now and actually not need a premium account. We both know the answer to this issue, everyone does. It actually contradicts the suggestion I made of reducing the cost nerfed premium ammo when in fact increasing the cost is the way to go, since rounds would be limited.. maybe not limited? Is 50% reduction enough? 

 

1. Do you agree premium ammo should have it's alpha nerfed 50%?

2. Do you agree premium ammo should be limited in number with that number calculated on it's RoF and Alpha?

 

The cost is the detail that would need to be adjusted accordingly so the on average, a player uses as much credits roughly as he does now. This would be an unpopular adjustment and either increases the cost of a heavily nerfed and number limited premium ammo or reduces the income from each battle. This would be the cost for addressing premium ammo. Which is worse for players? vs current Gold Spamming meta? Or the suggested change above?


Edited by TungstenHitman, 23 October 2017 - 03:29 PM.


PaiNzzz #14 Posted 23 October 2017 - 03:28 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 16472 battles
  • 141
  • Member since:
    07-23-2011

1) +1/-1 tier MM would be nice and more balanced to have but requires rebalancing of the whole game. Some tanks are better at fighting higher tiers than others, as some are useless and hopeless against even their own tier.

2) In order to limit arties per team, one has to know roughly the ratio of arties / non-arties. Just suggesting 1 in 15 would create problems if the above analogy is not 1/15 (which I seriously doubt it is), making arties wait forever in queue. A limit of two would be my taste, but without data it is hard to say, three is also acceptable. I can't let my personal dislike for arties ruin their game.

3) Less RNG might be good, but not too less. I disagree with 0-10% RNG as that makes situations "too fixed". 15% to 20% should be good enough.

4) ?

5) I'd say no. Too expensive and nobody uses them, too cheap and everyone uses them. I think that after the change to get them with silver it's good enough. However, WG only knows how much they're actually used and whether it should be tweaked with.

6) Well, that's too few. If you play a pea shooter with 170 pen at +2 with many heavies and impenetrable TDs, better just take a single premium round and fire it on yourself. I would disagree with any limit that is not a percentage of rounds carried, eg 1/3 or 1/2 of total rounds.

7) Meh, superheavies are hard to balance. Top tier and they roflstomp everything, bottom tier and they get penned in the face. No opinion yet, really. Sorry.

8) Mods have an entire community behind them, and have offered a great many things to the game, many of which have been implemented / incorporated into the game. If I may speak about the illegal ones, they will find a way to use them anyway.

9) Wat. I thought about it a little while and all I have to say has already been said. Wat.

10) People that only play one tank type, get over and try to improvise, adapt, overcome. I do enjoy most maps. I've even grown fond of Paris in my Conqueror. Ew.

11) People can get in your line of fire and surprise you before it's humanly possible to react. So, no. Paying with my own HP because a guy speeding at 70 km/h decided to run in front of me is plain wrong. It's an accident, it happens.

12) Arties really suicide a lot, I do think that should be reportable.

 

Good luck and fair uhhh streets?


Edited by PaiNzzz, 24 October 2017 - 08:29 AM.


commer #15 Posted 23 October 2017 - 03:31 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 38081 battles
  • 1,995
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011

View PostTungstenHitman, on 23 October 2017 - 03:25 PM, said:

 

Ah, missed that bit. Several options. All unpopular but the one of the biggest gripes on this forum is premium ammo. Yes as you say if the ammo is limited or indeed reduced in price to match the reduction in damage then suddenly many players, particularly premium accounts, would be making massive amounts of credits compared to now and actually not need a premium account. We both know the answer to this issue, everyone does. It actually contradicts the suggestion I made of reducing the cost nerfed premium ammo when in fact increasing the cost is the way to go, since rounds would be limited.. maybe not limited? Is 50% reduction enough? 

 

1. Do you agree premium ammo should have it's alpha nerfed 50%?

2. Do you agree premium ammo should be limited in number with that number calculated on it's RoF and Alpha?

 

The cost is the detail that would need to be adjusted accordingly so the on average, a player uses as much credits roughly as he does now. This would be an unpopular adjustment and either increases the cost of a heavily nerfed and number limited premium ammo or reduces the income from each battle. This would be the cost for addressing premium ammo. Which is worse for players? vs Gold Spammers? Or the above?

 

If rounds become more expensive and have lower alpha no one would use them. If you really want to rebalance prem ammo give different types specific drawbacks so for example a prem heat now is absorbed by spaced armor and it could also loose even more speed while prem acpr for some tanks could have huge pen drop off so it only works at close range. This would discourage prem usage. Also more reasonable weakspots would also decrease prem usage. People fire more prem because of the game changes. In corridor meta we have to engage tanks frontally and those tanks lost their weakspots so people fire prem. To change the amount of prem spam the best solution is totally redesigning the game. 

 

 

Also for the light nerf - t10 lights are crapalready, we have corridors already. They need some advantages. 



Homer_J #16 Posted 23 October 2017 - 03:34 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27652 battles
  • 29,000
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostTungstenHitman, on 23 October 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

So after sifting through various threads, this is my grasp of what players want, at least on this forum anyway.

 

 

 

What only a tiny minority think they want.

 

They can't help being wrong.



Kozzy #17 Posted 23 October 2017 - 03:40 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 38855 battles
  • 2,705
  • [EAB2] EAB2
  • Member since:
    06-29-2011
With a nerf to the usefulness in premium ammo, what do you think will happen to the viability of tanks that rely on armour?  Do you think the playing population of these tanks will change?

Derethim #18 Posted 23 October 2017 - 03:44 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17107 battles
  • 1,843
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

I think ammo would need a complete overhaul and shell prices should be in small differences from each other, but there'd be bigger differences in their effects, so, for example, you wouldn't use APCR on long range or HEAT on spaced armor you'd currently still pen.

No need in 50% nerf. I don't agree with any of the ammo-related things.

Don't agree with +2mm or 1 arty per team. I'd hate that.

Also, no mods is kinda' stupid. XVM doesen't have THAT huge of an impact on the game.

Bigger maps is a FUK YES 


Edited by Derethim, 23 October 2017 - 03:49 PM.


Derethim #19 Posted 23 October 2017 - 03:46 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17107 battles
  • 1,843
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

View PostKozzy, on 23 October 2017 - 03:40 PM, said:

With a nerf to the usefulness in premium ammo, what do you think will happen to the viability of tanks that rely on armour?  Do you think the playing population of these tanks will change?

 

A change in ammo would mean a change in armor.

A complete overhaul you might say.



TungstenHitman #20 Posted 23 October 2017 - 03:47 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 20589 battles
  • 3,798
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

Ya you see the thing about heavy tanks is I think overall most are not too bad, a few are guilty of being a bit OP but this wouldn't be so bad if you only saw +1 tier at worst (which is why so many play tier9 lets be foking honest here). Heavy tanks need something that makes them worth bothering with because

 

1. They tend to be slow

2. They have no camo.

3. They tend to aim slower and accuracy is a little worse.3

4. Agility tends to suffer, both hull and turret tend to be slower than the little shite in his LT racing rings around them using the HT as a pin cushion

5. Because of the above, no other class gets focused on by arty more that a HT, by nature, the are the first spotted and easiest to hit.

 

So for all the above the NEED to have that bouncy frontal armor and more hp to last but the thing is, same tier HTs are a tough nut to crack as they should be, +1 tier HTs are really tough at times to deal with and can hold their own -1 but a +2 HT is taking the piZZ altogether, some are just swatting everything in their path without consequence while equally a -2 tier heavy is actually the same armour as a +2 medium only slow, and useless unlike the +2 medium so as long as there is +2, is impossible to balance, cannot be done.. only way would be to make the gains between tiers almost negligible. This could work too but to spend so long grinding for a tank that's only a little tiny, microscopic bit better than the tier you just completed? would you be happy? Actually I would no mind this






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users