Jump to content


premium ammunition and reload time


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

slitth #1 Posted 24 November 2017 - 07:29 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 12131 battles
  • 1,044
  • Member since:
    06-23-2011

Hypothetical question.

 

Could changing premium ammunitions reload time be a effective way of balancing it?

For example by ignoring any positive modifiers from equipment and crew and only allowing premium ammo to use the base reload time of the gun.

Or does it need to be longer that the base reload time if it's to be used as a balancing tool?


Edited by slitth, 24 November 2017 - 07:41 PM.


Enforcer1975 #2 Posted 24 November 2017 - 07:35 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 20973 battles
  • 10,935
  • [D0NG] D0NG
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014

Nope.

Increasing the price won't help. Those desperate to spam premium are only going to buy more Fort Knoxes.

Increasing reload time won't help either then they will spam it just so that they have a higher chance to do damage.

Decreasing damage has the same effect.

Had a game where i got spammed with premium ammo and i bounced 5.5k, some people will not stop because they think that's the only way to win.


Edited by Enforcer1975, 24 November 2017 - 07:36 PM.


slitth #3 Posted 24 November 2017 - 07:41 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 12131 battles
  • 1,044
  • Member since:
    06-23-2011

View PostEnforcer1975, on 24 November 2017 - 06:35 PM, said:

Nope.

Increasing the price won't help. Those desperate to spam premium are only going to buy more Fort Knoxes.

Increasing reload time won't help either then they will spam it just so that they have a higher chance to do damage.

Decreasing damage has the same effect.

Had a game where i got spammed with premium ammo and i bounced 5.5k, some people will not stop because they think that's the only way to win.

 

Price?

We are talking about reload time, not cost of premium ammunition?

You know like a base reload speed on a gun could be 5 seconds and could be improved with equipment or crew skills to 4 seconds.

 

If we limit premium ammunitions load time to the guns base time, then you can improve the "normal" ammunitions with equipment and skill.

Thereby giving "normal" ammunition a small advantage over premium ammunition.

 

Or said in more gamer like terms.

"normal" ammunitions DPM can be improved by equipment and skill.

premium ammunitions DPM will always have the base DPM


Edited by slitth, 24 November 2017 - 07:45 PM.


SuedKAT #4 Posted 24 November 2017 - 08:08 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 12154 battles
  • 6,630
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-21-2014

It would result in a nerf for tanks that rely on premium ammo to be effective, like stock and bottom tier tanks, it would buff top tier and well armored tanks quite a bit as well as the ones that already have a high base pen.

 

You're trying to treat the symptom not the cause, it would be better to achieve better balance so tanks don't need to shoot premium ammo, sure some still will but a lot won't do it as default. 



Gremlin182 #5 Posted 24 November 2017 - 08:08 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 49726 battles
  • 8,369
  • Member since:
    04-18-2012

What is your logic behind this supposed change to reduce premium ammo spam well yes I suppose it would do that but here is the thing not everyone spams premium ammo.

Some tanks do actually need premium ammo to be competitive and with a longer reload that makes them uncompetitive again assuming its a reload increase that is long enough to put players off from using it.

What about autoloaders would it take longer to reload a magazine of premium or increase the time to load each shell.

 

It has been suggested that they reduce the damage of premium rounds and that seemed acceptable to some though so far wargaming do not seem to have said anything about that.

 

As long as players want to be more certain of damaging an enemy tank you will get them spamming it pretty much whatever limitation you put on it.

 



Homer_J #6 Posted 24 November 2017 - 08:49 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 29728 battles
  • 31,463
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010
Dingers keep their premium ammo close to hand so it should reload faster. :justwait:

slitth #7 Posted 24 November 2017 - 08:50 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 12131 battles
  • 1,044
  • Member since:
    06-23-2011

Any modification made to premium ammunition will hurt stock and bottom tier tanks.

 

As both limiting the reload time or reducing the damage will lower the DPM.

 

The difference is when you are reducing the damage will have the same effect no matter the setup of the tank.

Where limiting the reload time premium ammunition will be a debuff that increase as the tank get better.

 

And stock tank will probably not have any equipment or skills that improves the reload of "normal" ammunition by much.

So in a stock tank the premium ammunition will probably be the better choice most of the time.

 

Let use the Defender as an example.

With a 50% crew it has a reload of 18,6 and a DPM of 1.419

With a 100% crew it has a reload of 14,38 and a DPM of 1.836

With a 100% crew and BiA it has a reload of 14,06 and a DPM of 1.877

With a 100% crew and nearly everything that can improve reload it has a reload of 11,44 and a DPM of 2.307

 

Now the base stats of a gun are based on using a 100%

So until you get to 100% crew, premium ammunition has no drawback other than the cost.

But as the tank get better you have to consider what will give the best damage, faster reload or better penetration.

 

For example if you use "normal" ammunition in a Defender and you only penetrate with 75 % of the shots, then you will only have a DPM of 1.731

But if you use premium ammunition and penetrate with 100 % of the shots, then you will keep the DPM of 1.836.

 

To sum up.

The better the tank and the better you are a keeping a penetrate rate.

The better the "normal" ammunition will be over premium ammunition.

 

The lower the tank and the lower the penetrate rate.

The more premium ammunition will allow you to catch up.

 

 

 



fighting_falcon93 #8 Posted 24 November 2017 - 09:02 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32103 battles
  • 4,204
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View Postslitth, on 24 November 2017 - 07:29 PM, said:

Could changing premium ammunitions reload time be a effective way of balancing it?

 

I'm interested in hearing the logical reasoning to why it would take longer time to load an APCR/HEAT shell rather than an AP/HE shell? :)

 

An APCR shell actually weighs less than an AP shell of the same caliber, so why would a lighter projectile take longer time to load? You see that's the problem with "making up" balancing ideas rather than taking inspiration from reality, because the made up solutions makes no sense.

 

The best solution to premium ammo will always be the most simple one, to simply remove it and reintroduce those shell types as standard ammo with similiar cost and upsides/downsides in different situations.



vasilinhorulezz #9 Posted 24 November 2017 - 09:10 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22813 battles
  • 1,109
  • Member since:
    09-26-2014

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 24 November 2017 - 09:02 PM, said:

 

I'm interested in hearing the logical reasoning to why it would take longer time to load an APCR/HEAT shell rather than an AP/HE shell? :)

 

An APCR shell actually weighs less than an AP shell of the same caliber, so why would a lighter projectile take longer time to load? You see that's the problem with "making up" balancing ideas rather than taking inspiration from reality, because the made up solutions makes no sense.

 

The best solution to premium ammo will always be the most simple one, to simply remove it and reintroduce those shell types as standard ammo with similiar cost and upsides/downsides in different situations.

 

I don't know, maybe gold is heavier than other metals :unsure::confused:?

vasilinhorulezz #10 Posted 24 November 2017 - 09:13 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22813 battles
  • 1,109
  • Member since:
    09-26-2014

Leave premium ammo as it is, unless they revert the idiocy meta of removing weakspots and overbuffing armor, messing with ammunition is the last thing they should do.



slitth #11 Posted 24 November 2017 - 09:14 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 12131 battles
  • 1,044
  • Member since:
    06-23-2011

Same reason as a APCR/HEAT shell does the same same as a AP shell.

Or the same reason as a tank only can have 3 equipments mounted.

GAME balance.

 

Or perhaps the limited shells are stored in a out of the way place because you need use the easy access places to the standard shells.

 

And how is adding can new set upsides/downsides to the game an easy solution when considering it effect on game balance?



slitth #12 Posted 24 November 2017 - 09:18 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 12131 battles
  • 1,044
  • Member since:
    06-23-2011

View Postvasilinhorulezz, on 24 November 2017 - 08:13 PM, said:

Leave premium ammo as it is, unless they revert the idiocy meta of removing weakspots and overbuffing armor, messing with ammunition is the last thing they should do.

 

This is just a hypothetical discussion on how effective modifying the reload system would be as a balance tool in the case someone want to "balance" premium ammunition.

The question of premium ammunition needing a "balance" is not in question in this discussion.


Edited by slitth, 24 November 2017 - 09:22 PM.


fighting_falcon93 #13 Posted 24 November 2017 - 09:26 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32103 battles
  • 4,204
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View Postslitth, on 24 November 2017 - 09:14 PM, said:

Same reason as a APCR/HEAT shell does the same same as a AP shell.

 

That's one of the reasons to why premium ammo isn't balanced, because it has (mostly) upsides, combined with the same damage, and the only "balancing" factor is the credit cost. The credit cost can't be used as a balancing factor.

 

View Postslitth, on 24 November 2017 - 09:14 PM, said:

GAME balance.

 

No need to come up with made up solutions to acheive game balance. It's perfectly doable with realism.

 

View Postslitth, on 24 November 2017 - 09:14 PM, said:

And how is adding can new set upsides/downsides to the game an easy solution when considering it effect on game balance?

 

Who said anything about new upsides/downsides? All ammo types in WoT already have upsides/downsides, it's just that they are so tiny that a player can still load full HEAT and do well. The only thing that WG needs to do is to make these upsides/downsides much more apparent, combined with different amounts of damage for the shells and making all shells cost (almost) the same.



ZlatanArKung #14 Posted 24 November 2017 - 09:27 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,171
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014
No change can be done to premium ammo without a major armour layout change.

fighting_falcon93 #15 Posted 24 November 2017 - 09:32 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32103 battles
  • 4,204
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View PostZlatanArKung, on 24 November 2017 - 09:27 PM, said:

No change can be done to premium ammo without a major armour layout change.

 

That depends on what WG wants to acheive. Do we still want armor to be useless? If yes, then yeah they need to lower the amount of armor. But then I wonder, why bothering to change it in the first place if the end result will be the same, i.e. armored tanks still getting penned from the front making their armored areas completely useless? The main problem with gold ammo is that you pay extra credits in order to lol-pen armored targets frontally and that's what needs to change. So I'd say we don't need a major armor layout change, we need a major map layout change that allows us to play strategically and actually shoot targets from their sides and not their front.

ZlatanArKung #16 Posted 24 November 2017 - 09:37 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,171
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 24 November 2017 - 09:32 PM, said:

 

That depends on what WG wants to acheive. Do we still want armor to be useless? If yes, then yeah they need to lower the amount of armor. But then I wonder, why bothering to change it in the first place if the end result will be the same, i.e. armored tanks still getting penned from the front making their armored areas completely useless? The main problem with gold ammo is that you pay extra credits in order to lol-pen armored targets frontally and that's what needs to change. So I'd say we don't need a major armor layout change, we need a major map layout change that allows us to play strategically and actually shoot targets from their sides and not their front.

Armour have never been useless, and is now stronger then ever.

 

Any nerf to premium allow will just further increase value of armour and make already overpowered tanks like Type 5 and Jap heavies, VK 100P and that line, Defender etc stronger.

Just like the new AT line will get much stronger, aswell as T28.

 

While all tanks without armour will just become less and less useful.

 

This game already heavily favours frontally armoured tanks, there is no need to further increase the power of said tanks.


Edited by ZlatanArKung, 24 November 2017 - 09:40 PM.


slitth #17 Posted 24 November 2017 - 09:47 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 12131 battles
  • 1,044
  • Member since:
    06-23-2011

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 24 November 2017 - 08:26 PM, said:

 

That's one of the reasons to why premium ammo isn't balanced, because it has (mostly) upsides, combined with the same damage, and the only "balancing" factor is the credit cost. The credit cost can't be used as a balancing factor.

 

 

No need to come up with made up solutions to acheive game balance. It's perfectly doable with realism.

 

 

Who said anything about new upsides/downsides? All ammo types in WoT already have upsides/downsides, it's just that they are so tiny that a player can still load full HEAT and do well. The only thing that WG needs to do is to make these upsides/downsides much more apparent, combined with different amounts of damage for the shells and making all shells cost (almost) the same.

 

Very few things in the game has anything to do with realism.

Most are simply inspired by reality and then simplified.

 

The difference between shell types are one of this examples.

Now, programming a bigger difference between shell types is a whole lot harder than make a simple DPM adjustment.

 

The has already be a discussion about lowering the damage per shell on premium ammo.

 

This is a simple as this.

A shell does a 100 damage per shell and the gun can shoot 10 shells per minute. Giving it a theoretical DPM of 1.000.

Now this gun can be improved so it can shoot 11 shells per minute. Giving it a theoretical DPM of 1.100.

 

You have a shell type that as an advantage that you want to limit it a bit.

One of the simplest way to do this is lowering the damage per shell to 90.

Giving the shell type a theoretical DPM of 900 with the normal gun and a theoretical DPM of 990 with the improved gun.

 

But say you want to only want to limit the advantage on the improved gun.

Then the simple way to do this is to let the damage per shell and shells per minute remain the same on the normal gun

And simply do not allow the increased rate of fire on the improved gun.

 



fighting_falcon93 #18 Posted 24 November 2017 - 09:59 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32103 battles
  • 4,204
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View PostZlatanArKung, on 24 November 2017 - 09:37 PM, said:

Armour have never been useless, and is now stronger then ever.

 

On this we don't agree with each other. On most tanks, with some exceptions, armor is completely useless against any player that has a brain and doesn't use auto aim. There're many examples, let me give you a few:

 

- What happens when you peek with your E5? You get penned in the cupola (how many maps allow you to keep distance?).

- What happens when you stop angling your E100 turret? You get penned in the cheeks.

- What happens when you show your T-62A turret on close distance? Players double tap the '2'-key.

 

There's many more examples but the common factor is that those tanks are supposed to bounce when showing their thickest armor, and they do... until the enemy loads gold ammo.

 

I know that you and others don't agree with me on this, but that's my honest opinion.

 

In todays game there's no point in playing anything with armor, because if you need to wiggle, hide/angle your turret/cupola, avoid getting hit etc etc you might aswell pick a tank lightly armored tanks and trade all of that armor to much more useful parameters such as gun handling and mobility. I mean, after all, in both cases you'll not be able to depend on your armor, so what's the difference?

 

View PostZlatanArKung, on 24 November 2017 - 09:37 PM, said:

This game already heavily favours frontally armoured tanks, there is no need to further increase the power of said tanks.

 

As I said in my previus reply, this is not because the existance or lack of premium ammo, but because of the corridor maps that force players to attack each others from the front. You know the whole point with having good frontal armor is not so that you'll get penned in the pixel without armor, but that you should actually bounce from the front. And yes, I know about the entire wiggle strategy, which is another dumb mechanic that looks completely rediculous.



fighting_falcon93 #19 Posted 24 November 2017 - 10:13 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32103 battles
  • 4,204
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View Postslitth, on 24 November 2017 - 09:47 PM, said:

Very few things in the game has anything to do with realism.

Most are simply inspired by reality and then simplified.

 

Quite a contradiction, don't you think? If it's inspired by reality, it has something to do with realism :)

 

View Postslitth, on 24 November 2017 - 09:47 PM, said:

Now, programming a bigger difference between shell types is a whole lot harder than make a simple DPM adjustment.

 

What is it that you want to program? Just as you edit the reload delay value to affect reload and DPM, you also edit the values for penetration fall-off, normalization, damage etc.

 

View Postslitth, on 24 November 2017 - 09:47 PM, said:

One of the simplest way to do this is lowering the damage per shell to 90.

Giving the shell type a theoretical DPM of 900 with the normal gun and a theoretical DPM of 990 with the improved gun.

 

Yes, and that makes a lot more sense than making the shell load slower. So I agree that gold ammo should do less damage, but not that it should take longer to reload. In the end both solutions lower the DPM, but the lowered damage makes more sense than an increased reload time.


Edited by fighting_falcon93, 24 November 2017 - 10:17 PM.


Balc0ra #20 Posted 24 November 2017 - 10:26 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 67427 battles
  • 17,164
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View Postslitth, on 24 November 2017 - 08:50 PM, said:

Let use the Defender as an example.

 

The Defender is a premium tank. And when any changes occur. Premiums won't be affected. As if it did, people did not get what they payed for in terms of stats even. We seen it before with the Type 59 on the first nerf, and the massive SP nerf. WG learned that the hard way after that, and premium tanks are locked. Even with regards to gold ammo.

 

Thus any changes to premium ammo won't affect premium tanks. As we did see with arty, when the only two premium SPG's got to keep their AP and HEAT gold ammo. So regardless if you increased the reload, price, reduced the damage etc, or any of the 999 other suggestion to balance it. Tier 8 would be the most imbalanced tier of them all. With half the tanks in each game being premium tanks. It would just make that tier, even more pay 2 win. That's the issue with gold ammo atm. It's not easy to balance or change, when half the tanks on a tier won't be affected by it.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users