Jump to content


RANT: STOP DELETING WEAKSPOTS!


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

Bambodos #1 Posted 15 November 2017 - 08:11 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 20692 battles
  • 145
  • [11RHS] 11RHS
  • Member since:
    08-17-2013

Wargaming: Stop deleting weakspots and making this game Pay-To-Win! 

 

(9.21) Are you kidding me? Removing weakspots on the British AT Line?? Increasing their armor around the weakspots is fine, but dont make the cupolas harder to pen cause it will make players fire more and more gold...

--> Result: GOLD SPAM

 

Conq.JPGConq2.png

Not introducing a weakspot on the New Super Conquorer Turret?? Seriously why is that (red circle) not a weakspot?? Did you have to make it Impenetrable??

-->Result: GOLD SPAM

 

Impossibility to penetrate the Maus with regular AP when facing frontally?

-->Result: GOLD SPAM

Type 4 and 5?

--> Gold Spam..

 

See my point??

 

Stop increasing the overall armor to nearly impenetrable values and REINTRODUCE Weakspots. NOT DELETE THEM ENTIRELY!

(Hatches and cupolas of 25cm?? Come on... this is not realistic..)

 

Rework the ammo or rework the models... I can hardly break even, even with a prem account.

 

Yours truly.

A frustrated tanker...

 

(P.S. I get the rebalancing part, but this is rebalancing done wrong...)

 



Balc0ra #2 Posted 15 November 2017 - 08:18 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 62806 battles
  • 14,399
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

Here is the issue. Either people complain about armor being useless due to gold spam. Or they complain about needing to use gold due to to much armor. There is no middle ground. Even if there are weak spots. I mean the T25E4 was nerfed since no one knew or used the 2 weak spot it had.

 

That said. The AT line's armor have been useless since day one. As even tanks 2 tiers lower can easily pen it head on. Unlike the AT-2 that had 201mm armor vs tier III 33 pen guns. 


Edited by Balc0ra, 15 November 2017 - 08:18 PM.


Homer_J #3 Posted 15 November 2017 - 08:23 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27072 battles
  • 27,700
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010
I'm still waiting for someone to explain why a tank should be designed with weakspots.

Poerhis #4 Posted 15 November 2017 - 08:35 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 16647 battles
  • 209
  • [SIKA] SIKA
  • Member since:
    01-14-2011

British tds are ridiculously slow. That is why I am OK with them having no frontal weakspots.

 

Giving strong frontal armour with no weakspots to a snappy and fast tank though would be stupid and bad gameplay design.


Edited by Poerhis, 15 November 2017 - 08:35 PM.


VsUK #5 Posted 15 November 2017 - 11:11 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14288 battles
  • 1,301
  • Member since:
    06-19-2012
Problem you seem to fail to contemplate in your replies. It's not the fact people use gold to guarantee they pen you. It's the fact they're removing weak spots so people have to use gold to pen you. 
I remember a time when a T7 could out play a T9 or T8 against a T10. Now it's a case of who's willing to pump through as much gold as they can. Why not just remove reg ammo & go all out premium, because that's where we're heading. A game with tanks that used to have weak spots for the snipers to go for. Now is merely cosmetic & reg ammo is purely to give people a false impression it'll be useful. 

Not played in a while, been busy expanding my empire!

Bucifel #6 Posted 15 November 2017 - 11:27 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27744 battles
  • 1,373
  • [3NRGY] 3NRGY
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

View PostHomer_J, on 15 November 2017 - 08:23 PM, said:

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why a tank should be designed with weakspots.

 

because without this is just a f***ing P2W GAME !

 

tanks are designed with HP pools, not like a realistic game (WT) so they cant die in one shot constantly, maps are too small and is hard to flank and ammo...standard ammo is designed in balance with armor, so armored parts are (for standard ammo) impenetrable but you still need a chance to win a fight, right? A fair chance, not a payd one !


Edited by Bucifel, 15 November 2017 - 11:28 PM.


Pandabird #7 Posted 15 November 2017 - 11:29 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 33973 battles
  • 4,517
  • [KOFF] KOFF
  • Member since:
    05-19-2013
2 years too late

Homer_J #8 Posted 15 November 2017 - 11:36 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27072 battles
  • 27,700
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostBucifel, on 15 November 2017 - 10:27 PM, said:

 

you still need a chance to win a fight, right? A fair chance, not a payd one !

IMO no.  You have the option to run away instead.

 

Having built in weakspots is stupid as far as I am concerned.  Why bother with a slow heavily armoured tank if it has this one spot which anyone can penetrate and everyone knows about.



japtank #9 Posted 15 November 2017 - 11:38 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27611 battles
  • 1,046
  • Member since:
    04-20-2012

According to this topic, the problem is not weakspots nor armor but premium ammo.

We can agree on that.

 

Maybe they're preparing us for an ammunition rebalance and have premium ammo deal 50% less damage.

Hey! one can dream :)



Derethim #10 Posted 15 November 2017 - 11:48 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16426 battles
  • 1,717
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

View Postjaptank, on 15 November 2017 - 11:38 PM, said:

According to this topic, the problem is not weakspots nor armor but premium ammo.

We can agree on that.

 

Maybe they're preparing us for an ammunition rebalance and have premium ammo deal 50% less damage.

Hey! one can dream :)

 

The 50% crap is stupid. An armor+ammo overhaul would be needed. 

As stupid as 250mm hatches.



Bucifel #11 Posted 16 November 2017 - 01:22 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27744 battles
  • 1,373
  • [3NRGY] 3NRGY
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

View PostHomer_J, on 15 November 2017 - 11:36 PM, said:

IMO no.  You have the option to run away instead.

 

Having built in weakspots is stupid as far as I am concerned.  Why bother with a slow heavily armoured tank if it has this one spot which anyone can penetrate and everyone knows about.

 

yes, can be an option...but NOT WHEN GOLD AMMO IS HERE.

 

why bother with a slow heavy when everyone can piss your armor? Armor, not weakpoints, armor ! ?? At least weakpoints require knowledge or you can hide / angle them...but this...require only money !

 

anyway...after that, how you run away if youre in another slow heavy? Your role is not that and to fight an equal enemy you need weakpoints.



Homer_J #12 Posted 16 November 2017 - 01:56 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27072 battles
  • 27,700
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010
Thx for flakey forum WG

Edited by Homer_J, 16 November 2017 - 05:24 AM.


Homer_J #13 Posted 16 November 2017 - 01:59 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27072 battles
  • 27,700
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostBucifel, on 16 November 2017 - 12:22 AM, said:

 

 

anyway...after that, how you run away if youre in another slow heavy? 

Then you have a stalemate.

 

Quote

yes, can be an option...but NOT WHEN GOLD AMMO IS HERE

It is still possible to bounce even premium rounds I had a Mauschen bouncing my WZ-111 1-4 HEAT shells today but then he was a good player and had a bit of luck on his side too.



ZlatanArKung #14 Posted 16 November 2017 - 05:16 AM

    Major General

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

View PostBalc0ra, on 15 November 2017 - 08:18 PM, said:

Here is the issue. Either people complain about armor being useless due to gold spam. Or they complain about needing to use gold due to to much armor. There is no middle ground. Even if there are weak spots. I mean the T25E4 was nerfed since no one knew or used the 2 weak spot it had.

 

That said. The AT line's armor have been useless since day one. As even tanks 2 tiers lower can easily pen it head on. Unlike the AT-2 that had 201mm armor vs tier III 33 pen guns. 

Weakspots doesn't make armour useless.



ZlatanArKung #15 Posted 16 November 2017 - 05:17 AM

    Major General

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

View PostHomer_J, on 15 November 2017 - 11:36 PM, said:

IMO no.  You have the option to run away instead.

 

Having built in weakspots is stupid as far as I am concerned.  Why bother with a slow heavily armoured tank if it has this one spot which anyone can penetrate and everyone knows about.

 

You do know that T95, a tank which is OP in current meta, is very slow AND have frontal weakspots.



ZlatanArKung #16 Posted 16 November 2017 - 05:22 AM

    Major General

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

View Postjaptank, on 15 November 2017 - 11:38 PM, said:

According to this topic, the problem is not weakspots nor armor but premium ammo.

We can agree on that.

 

Maybe they're preparing us for an ammunition rebalance and have premium ammo deal 50% less damage.

Hey! one can dream :)

 

Such a change would be nothing less then completely retarded.

 

1: They wouldn't nerf premium tanks, thus, D even derp will get even stronger.

2: Jap heavy tanks would pretty much be getting 50% more hp.

3: Maus would get 50% more hp.

4: Defender would get more hp.

 

The tanks that would benefit from such change are heavily armoured ones and premium tanks.

Heavily armoured tanks are already the best performing tanks in game, there is no reason to further buff the already best performing tanks even more.

Unless you want everyone to play only armoured heavy tanks.

Premium tanks would benefit due to 'can't change premium tank' policy, they would still deal 100% damage with premium ammo. Defender would be such balance. Da.

 

But knowing that the guy Murazor is in charge of development, it wouldn't surprise me if he actually introduced such retarded changes.



Bambodos #17 Posted 18 November 2017 - 12:59 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 20692 battles
  • 145
  • [11RHS] 11RHS
  • Member since:
    08-17-2013

View Postjaptank, on 16 November 2017 - 12:38 AM, said:

According to this topic, the problem is not weakspots nor armor but premium ammo.

We can agree on that.

 

Maybe they're preparing us for an ammunition rebalance and have premium ammo deal 50% less damage.

Hey! one can dream :)

 

Yeah we need the ammo rabalance badly..

brumbarr #18 Posted 18 November 2017 - 01:22 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,286
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostBambodos, on 18 November 2017 - 12:59 PM, said:

 

Yeah we need the ammo rabalance badly..

No we dont, actually, this is one of the worst times to rework ammo and would make this game completely unbalanced and break it.



Homer_J #19 Posted 18 November 2017 - 02:51 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27072 battles
  • 27,700
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostZlatanArKung, on 16 November 2017 - 04:17 AM, said:

 

You do know that T95, a tank which is OP in current meta, is very slow AND have frontal weakspots.

 

Then they should be deleted.

 

Adding magic targets for those in the know is not how you balance a game.



ZlatanArKung #20 Posted 18 November 2017 - 02:59 PM

    Major General

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

View PostHomer_J, on 18 November 2017 - 02:51 PM, said:

 

Then they should be deleted.

 

Adding magic targets for those in the know is not how you balance a game.

 

Ye, let's make a strong tank even stronger.

 

Foch game balance when you can increase premium ammo usage.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users