Jump to content


My feelings on "gold" ammo


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

ExclamationMark #1 Posted 16 November 2017 - 03:10 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 16775 battles
  • 3,727
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013

What the vast majority of players & gold whiners don't understand is that balancing gold globally right now would be very, very difficult to do right. 

 

Increase prem ammo cost 

   vast majority of "gold noobs" are exactly that because they obviously have the credits to be one, by one means or another. Increasing prem ammo cost only means that people play more SH, more prem tanks, buy packages more often etc. - at the end of they day nothing will change.

 

Decrease prem damage

   for the average player it won't change a thing, they'll keep spamming gold to ensure their pens. For skilled players all they'd do is be more aware of the tanks they're loading gold for. Me personally I'm a huge APCR spammer - usually set it as my default ammo. Simply because the pros of it vastly outweigh the cons. HEAT however I don't spam. The mechanics of it are crap and more times than not they screw me over. For me all it would mean is I'd be less liberal with APCR. 

 

Make accuracy relevant and reduce pen RNG

   this is the best solution IMO. I'm going to assume that the vast majority of unicums (and less skilled players too) that are also "gold noobs" have the same mindset as me - I spam gold (or more correctly APCR) because I don't like to be limited by the game design, more specifically RNG. Gold helps with that, but it in no way fixes it. There is no skill on relying on RNG and in my eyes you're a mug if you are bouncing shots that your prem ammo would pen.

   +/-25% on pen is the main issue. If I have a 300mm pen gun I expect to be able to pen an Ebola5 frontally. But you roll the dice and get... 225mm of pen. Oh hey, that's just about enough to pen his flat side turret... Or I could roll 375mm of pen which would make him butter. Accuracy RNG is not as bad but at the same time it is. If accuracy was a meaningful statistic you'd be able to not only hit weakspots, but do it reliably, at close range at least. Being able to do it at range is where the problems would begin.

 

Buff armour

   two words: Ebola5 & Maus.

 

A mix of the first three is the best course of action. For arguements sake - increase gold cost by 5%, decrease damage by 5%, limit pen RNG to +/-10% and make accuracy a stat that actually means something.

The biggest issue unfortunately is if you go too far with limiting pen RNG and accuracy. This will make the worse players worse, and the better players even better than they already are now.

I could have wrote far more but I didn't really feel like it... Gold ammo has always been an issue and it's hard for me to say if it was a bigger issue when it actually was gold ammo, or now, where you have a 50% chance of meeting a "gold noob" that will effectively negate the one thing your tank has over theirs - armour. And this is why I don't play tanks that essentially rely on armour... because like it or not in most cases it's meaningless. 



Balc0ra #2 Posted 16 November 2017 - 03:28 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 66609 battles
  • 16,634
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View PostExclamationMark, on 16 November 2017 - 03:10 AM, said:

Increase prem ammo cost

 

Only thing that will change is the forum moaning. And it will increase the gap between new players with a lower income vs more established players. And it's usually the last one that use it more as is anyway.

 

View PostExclamationMark, on 16 November 2017 - 03:10 AM, said:

Decrease prem damage

 

That and as has been shown with the premium SPG's and prem Lights. Premium tanks would keep their gold ammo as is in terms of damage and pen. So then tier 8 would be even more broken considering how many premium tanks there are on that tier. Idk if ammo cost would affect those. As in if they would be excluded from it, and run it cheaper to. Making the game just a bit more pay 2 win if you will.

 

View PostExclamationMark, on 16 November 2017 - 03:10 AM, said:

Make accuracy relevant and reduce pen RNG

 

We still need +25% on RNG. As 10% on "that other game" proved to break more then it did fix. As you had zero chance vs more armored targets. +25% at least gives some a chance vs +2. But -25% is not needed. That can go down to 15% or something. But there is also the idea WG had that gold ammo on a low roll, should go lower then the normal AP pen. As it does on most tanks. To reduce the "pay 2 win" gap when gold ammo was still for gold. IDK how you feel about that aspect tho.

 

View PostExclamationMark, on 16 November 2017 - 03:10 AM, said:

Buff armour

   two words: Ebola5 & Maus.

 

I agree that armor on super heavies should still be effective, even vs gold ammo. But, as pointed out in a different topic, they should not be to retarded that no equal tier HT can't counter them at all.

 



Cpt_VV #3 Posted 17 November 2017 - 04:16 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 2611 battles
  • 48
  • Member since:
    05-18-2017

I agree with all stated above. In this moment with broken MM, turd armored tonks as Maus, Type 5, VK (tier VIII) where vehicles 2 tier lower have rly small chance to pen them even with prem ammo, it is hard to do some changes. Does prem ammo has effects on gameplay in randoms? Sure it does. It gives huge advantage to someone. Does it influence gaming experience? Sure it does. Does it sometimes brakes fun? Hell yea. I rarely use it (even when someone spams me with prem ammo).  

 

WG doesn't have any plans to change this (anytime soon at least as I know).

 

One simple solution could solve this - They could bring prem consumables (ammo, ratios etc) like back in days when they were only for gold. Sure, some ppl, mostly in clans, will have it still arround, but I believe that this would reduce spamming this ammo all day long. 

 

 



shane73tank #4 Posted 17 November 2017 - 07:44 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 28638 battles
  • 2,034
  • [USAGI] USAGI
  • Member since:
    03-01-2014
Maybe leave it as it is and we just get on with it,  trying to change it now would be like opening Pandora's box and god knows what  would get broken

TankkiPoju #5 Posted 17 November 2017 - 08:10 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 20796 battles
  • 6,292
  • [-PJ-] -PJ-
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

View PostExclamationMark, on 16 November 2017 - 03:10 AM, said:

Decrease prem damage

.

.

.

 

Buff armour

   two words: Ebola5 & Maus.

 

I agree 100% with decreasing premium ammo damage. And personally I also spam a lot of APCR.. depensing on tank. For example I shoot hardly ever APCR/HEAT in premium tanks because I play them for credits anyway.

 

Heavy tank armor should be effective against same tier gold ammo BUT it should be weighed heavily with individual skill. For example, flat E100 cheeks are butter against rasha HEAT but when angled skillfully it can actually bounce quite a lot of it anyway... which is IMHO how this should work. It's not perfect, but it works.

 



Codename_Jelly #6 Posted 17 November 2017 - 02:38 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 16404 battles
  • 5,057
  • Member since:
    08-04-2013
Want to sort out premium ammo spam, exclude it from Mark of Excellence that is probably the biggest reason its used so much.
 

View PostCpt_VV, on 17 November 2017 - 03:16 AM, said:

I agree with all stated above. In this moment with broken MM, turd armored tonks as Maus, Type 5, VK (tier VIII) where vehicles 2 tier lower have rly small chance to pen them even with prem ammo, it is hard to do some changes. Does prem ammo has effects on gameplay in randoms? Sure it does. It gives huge advantage to someone. Does it influence gaming experience? Sure it does. Does it sometimes brakes fun? Hell yea. I rarely use it (even when someone spams me with prem ammo).  

 

WG doesn't have any plans to change this (anytime soon at least as I know).

 

One simple solution could solve this - They could bring prem consumables (ammo, ratios etc) like back in days when they were only for gold. Sure, some ppl, mostly in clans, will have it still arround, but I believe that this would reduce spamming this ammo all day long. 

 

 

 

The Jap Heavies are just pure BS, after 5 AP shells into the side from my Tortoise I couldnt pen so switched to my stock of 5 APCR and after 3 shots none of those went in either.  Went to tanks.gg for model and its all ******* red.

 

Even the cupola cannot be called a "Weak" spot.


 

K_A #7 Posted 17 November 2017 - 02:53 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 13643 battles
  • 4,665
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    04-18-2013

View PostCodename_Jelly, on 17 November 2017 - 01:39 PM, said:

 

The Jap Heavies are just pure BS, after 5 AP shells into the side from my Tortoise I couldnt pen so switched to my stock of 5 APCR and after 3 shots none of those went in either.  Went to tanks.gg for model and its all ******* red.

 

Even the cupola cannot be called a "Weak" spot.

 

l2p :trollface:

 

But seriously, Type 5 has 160mm of upper hull side armour, if you can't pen that with Tortoise apcr then you're doing something very, very wrong... :facepalm:



Lomion_EU #8 Posted 17 November 2017 - 03:13 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 36078 battles
  • 586
  • [CSW] CSW
  • Member since:
    08-30-2012

View PostCodename_Jelly, on 17 November 2017 - 01:39 PM, said:

 

The Jap Heavies are just pure BS, after 5 AP shells into the side from my Tortoise I couldnt pen so switched to my stock of 5 APCR and after 3 shots none of those went in either.  Went to tanks.gg for model and its all ******* red.

 

Even the cupola cannot be called a "Weak" spot.

 

Replay(?)

Codename_Jelly #9 Posted 17 November 2017 - 05:06 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 16404 battles
  • 5,057
  • Member since:
    08-04-2013

View PostLomion_EU, on 17 November 2017 - 02:13 PM, said:

 

Replay(?)

 

Got 509 in folder, 90% Tortoise I really cba going through them all.

 

I really should keep better track of that folder.



Search_Warrant #10 Posted 17 November 2017 - 05:13 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 27235 battles
  • 6,346
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011
25% RNG on pen is stupid and broken from the start. low pen guns already suffer, why would i want a chance to make it lower? i dont trust it to high roll for me because WG works that way. i dont even like 25% RNG on damage because low damage guns get crapped on while 750 alpha guns can have a chance of 1 shotting you. its stupid.

Edited by Search_Warrant, 17 November 2017 - 05:14 PM.


Mike_Ba64 #11 Posted 18 November 2017 - 11:13 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 26207 battles
  • 12
  • [1389] 1389
  • Member since:
    10-11-2014
I know that this would be pointless in SH/CW/Tier X battles, but gold ammo should also bring less XP than regular ammo.

japtank #12 Posted 19 November 2017 - 12:46 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27619 battles
  • 1,046
  • Member since:
    04-20-2012

View PostMike_Ba64, on 18 November 2017 - 11:13 PM, said:

I know that this would be pointless in SH/CW/Tier X battles, but gold ammo should also bring less XP than regular ammo.

 

You mean like firing premium ammo would yield no XP, so no credits?

Heh, food for thought here, not sure it would be enough though, but worth noting.



Havenless #13 Posted 19 November 2017 - 01:03 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 454 battles
  • 435
  • [-UM] -UM
  • Member since:
    12-18-2014

I don't think lowering the damage would be any solution. If you're playing a bottom tier tank(which is when at least I shoot most of my gold shells because I really need the pen) I think the last thing that the game would need is a further penalty whenever fighting the higher tier tanks that you just can't AP penetrate. 

 

The only option for lower damage with gold rounds would be to scale it, which would punish excessive gold spam without punishing a player for loading gold when it's needed. Like this: If you shoot gold at a higher tier, there's no penalty. If you shoot gold at a same tier tank, you get a -5% alpha penalty. If you shoot gold on a tank that's one tier lower, you get a -10% alpha penalty. If you shoot at a tank that's two tiers lower, you get a 15% alpha penalty. This system wouldn't fix all the problems but it would ensure that you are free to load gold against big tanks but if you're constantly shooting gold at lower tier tanks, you get a penalty. Not like this would make the fight "fair" for the two tiers lower tank, but it's better than nothing.

 

Obviously there's no proper solution for gold ammo as long as +2/-2 matchmaking and poor tank balancing exists. If gold ammo was just removed from the game or "made available only for gold" like lots of idiots suggest, the game would be in an even more broken state than now. This is not to say that gold ammo is a good mechanic that's working well but it's a lesser evil than the already overpowered super heavies being buffed further.



Hedgehog1963 #14 Posted 19 November 2017 - 01:26 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 51444 battles
  • 7,572
  • [DIRTY] DIRTY
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011
Deja vu all over again...

TungstenHitman #15 Posted 19 November 2017 - 01:47 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 23185 battles
  • 4,213
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

I'd go with reducing premium ammo's damage tbh. By how much damage? well I'd say anything from 50%-75% of standard AP alpha would be fair enough. Obviously there's a big difference between 50% and 75% but I'm not sure what a fair figure would be. "Fine, I'll just shoot you twice instead" you think? Unlikely, most players, unless in a position where unable to react, will either find cover or at least return fire which may not suit your current hp situation to trade shots at 50% reduction in alpha so I really do think reducing the alpha gold ammo is the way.

 

The result will be, first of all, because it's, lets just say for example, 50% less alpha than standard AP, you will have to at least shoot twice as much to achieve the same damage. This in itself is forcing a player to use twice as much gold ammo to achieve the same damage so even though the cost is the same per round, because you are shooting twice as much to achieve same damage as standard AP, you are spending twice as much since you have to shoot twice, so in effect, is increasing the cost without changing the price per shell.

 

Couple to this, the fairness factor, whereby you cannot simply "pay to win" at least that is to say, you will have to work harder for it since, if a gold round is only 50% alpha of standard AP, you are also effectively reducing your DPM by 50%. So for example, if you switch to gold ammo, you would be effectively reducing your DPM from lets say 2500DPM to 1250DPM, so in the interest of fairness, if it came to noob spamming gold with autolock vs an experienced player shooting AP that can pen with aimed shots on weak spots, the experience player would still win all things even, since it would be 1250DPM gold spamming noob vs 2500DPM experienced player firing standard AP at weak spots. 

 

That said, the gold ammo, even at 50% alpha, would still be a very useful tool to have in your arsenal, a must have, since there are always situations where a somewhat guaranteed 50%DPM is essential to winning vs no chance of penning with standard AP which can arise if you find yourself in a trapped map location, circumstances have forced no alternative measure of attack/defense. In this case, you would be backing your remaining hp vs enemy remaining hp and would know that the 50% alpha of the gold round, which is somewhat guaranteed in this circumstance, is going to be enough to take you over the finishing line and win, or at least kill that enemy and survive the encounter. This for me, is fair enough.


Edited by TungstenHitman, 19 November 2017 - 01:57 AM.


Joggaman #16 Posted 19 November 2017 - 01:48 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 24201 battles
  • 6,402
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-23-2011

My feelings on "gold" ammo:



Havenless #17 Posted 19 November 2017 - 02:35 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 454 battles
  • 435
  • [-UM] -UM
  • Member since:
    12-18-2014

View PostTungstenHitman, on 19 November 2017 - 03:47 AM, said:

I'd go with reducing premium ammo's damage tbh. By how much damage? well I'd say anything from 50%-75% of standard AP alpha would be fair enough. Obviously there's a big difference between 50% and 75% but I'm not sure what a fair figure would be. "Fine, I'll just shoot you twice instead" you think? Unlikely, most players, unless in a position where unable to react, will either find cover or at least return fire which may not suit your current hp situation to trade shots at 50% reduction in alpha so I really do think reducing the alpha gold ammo is the way.

 

The result will be, first of all, because it's, lets just say for example, 50% less alpha than standard AP, you will have to at least shoot twice as much to achieve the same damage. This in itself is forcing a player to use twice as much gold ammo to achieve the same damage so even though the cost is the same per round, because you are shooting twice as much to achieve same damage as standard AP, you are spending twice as much since you have to shoot twice, so in effect, is increasing the cost without changing the price per shell.

 

Couple to this, the fairness factor, whereby you cannot simply "pay to win" at least that is to say, you will have to work harder for it since, if a gold round is only 50% alpha of standard AP, you are also effectively reducing your DPM by 50%. So for example, if you switch to gold ammo, you would be effectively reducing your DPM from lets say 2500DPM to 1250DPM, so in the interest of fairness, if it came to noob spamming gold with autolock vs an experienced player shooting AP that can pen with aimed shots on weak spots, the experience player would still win all things even, since it would be 1250DPM gold spamming noob vs 2500DPM experienced player firing standard AP at weak spots. 

 

That said, the gold ammo, even at 50% alpha, would still be a very useful tool to have in your arsenal, a must have, since there are always situations where a somewhat guaranteed 50%DPM is essential to winning vs no chance of penning with standard AP which can arise if you find yourself in a trapped map location, circumstances have forced no alternative measure of attack/defense. In this case, you would be backing your remaining hp vs enemy remaining hp and would know that the 50% alpha of the gold round, which is somewhat guaranteed in this circumstance, is going to be enough to take you over the finishing line and win, or at least kill that enemy and survive the encounter. This for me, is fair enough.

 

If you nerf the alpha of gold ammo by 50% you basically make top tiers even more overpowered than before. If you've ever tried to drag down a tier 8 heavy tank with your T-34-85 with its 180 alpha(which is considered very high for a tier 6 medium), it's already hard enough and you're a massive underdog. If that was 90 damage instead we'd have even more overpowered top tier heavies. The last thing this game needs is more "diversity" of artificial unbalance.

Snatch_The_AmmoRacks #18 Posted 19 November 2017 - 05:31 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 29634 battles
  • 274
  • [POWNY] POWNY
  • Member since:
    11-10-2013

View PostBalc0ra, on 16 November 2017 - 02:28 AM, said:

We still need +25% on RNG. As 10% on "that other game" proved to break more then it did fix. As you had zero chance vs more armored targets. +25% at least gives some a chance vs +2. But -25% is not needed. That can go down to 15% or something. But there is also the idea WG had that gold ammo on a low roll, should go lower then the normal AP pen. As it does on most tanks. To reduce the "pay 2 win" gap when gold ammo was still for gold. IDK how you feel about that aspect tho.

I would prefer to know I have no chance of penning a target and to know I have no chance in being penned. If that + 25% is ''needed'' applies to accuracy to that is garbage. OP idea's make perfect sense. I want to play tanks not slot machine and with the way accuracy works atm alot of tanks have the same gun 'feel' purely thanks to +/-25% rng and I hate it.

 

For real reduced rng would make everything better. Accuracy would mean more, inaccurate tanks can't laser snap shot you due to a lucky roll of the dice shots. Pen is pen and you don't have to deal with stupid bounces and then flock to tanks.gg just to find you didn't pen a 70% shot. 


Edited by JuicyProduction, 19 November 2017 - 05:31 AM.


Homer_J #19 Posted 19 November 2017 - 09:37 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 29163 battles
  • 30,615
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

I agree with most of it but currently accuracy is meaningful and RNG on pen/damage doesn't need cutting that much. 

 

Having said that I think there is scope for increasing the accuracy of supposedly accurate tanks though and maybe even reducing the tendency to hit toward the centre further to make taking time to aim more worthwhile.  Kind of what they looked at with the sandbox.  Accurate guns could have 0.2 spread but make it just as likely you will hit the edge as dead centre.

 

As for pen/damage aren't something like 65% of RNG rolls supposed to be in the +/-10% range already?  I think reducing it to +/-10% overall would be too drastic but maybe +/-20% and group them more toward the centre so you get more average rolls would be better.

 

I don't think any of it will reduce either the use of premium ammo or the crying over it's use though.


Edited by Homer_J, 19 November 2017 - 09:40 AM.


RamRaid90 #20 Posted 19 November 2017 - 09:46 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 22102 battles
  • 6,619
  • [D0NG] D0NG
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View PostCodename_Jelly, on 17 November 2017 - 01:39 PM, said:

 

The Jap Heavies are just pure BS, after 5 AP shells into the side from my Tortoise I couldnt pen so switched to my stock of 5 APCR and after 3 shots none of those went in either.  Went to tanks.gg for model and its all ******* red.

 

Even the cupola cannot be called a "Weak" spot.

 

View PostK_A, on 17 November 2017 - 01:53 PM, said:

 

l2p :trollface:

 

But seriously, Type 5 has 160mm of upper hull side armour, if you can't pen that with Tortoise apcr then you're doing something very, very wrong... :facepalm:

 

My guess is he's making the cardinal error of shooting the middle section of the side hull... but seriously. You should be able to pen the FRONT of a type 5 with the Torts APCR.

Edited by RamRaid90, 19 November 2017 - 09:47 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users