Jump to content


I like tank lines with varied gameplay


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

Uebergewicht #1 Posted 24 January 2018 - 12:54 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 11702 battles
  • 1,035
  • [ATD] ATD
  • Member since:
    11-15-2015

Given that WG is currently completely revisiting the balance of many tank lines to "streamline" them and make them play similar from start to finsh, there´s a statement I would like to make, and I wonder how many of you see it in a similar light:

 

I like tank lines with varied gameplay

 

 

I don´t really see why that´s such a bad thing. I like to get o gripes with a new vehicle, learn its ins and outs, adapting to a different playstyle - without neccesarily changeing to a completely different line. For example, back in the day I chose to grind the "low line" of Russian meds as my first medium line, simply because I liked the variety the line offered. Tanks went from an uparmored Cromwell to an alpha brawler to a paper stealth sniper to either a pure blooded medium or a rear mounted dpm brawler.

I can get it in some cases, for example, if they uparmored the Panther line to make the jump from tier 8 to 9 less glaring, but I don´t see why this would always be considered more desireable. I´m totally fine with at least some lines consisting of oddball tanks, especially when these are just alternate lines parallel to more similar playing ones. I´d be a bit disappointed if WG streamlined them all.

 

What do you say?



CptBarney #2 Posted 24 January 2018 - 01:10 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 18996 battles
  • 3,978
  • [-WR--] -WR--
  • Member since:
    12-09-2013

I like tanks with variety and different playstyles especially ones with clear roles as well. Its why i went up the amx 50 100 line playing a mobile autoloader was alien to me before then.

 

obviously maps can ruin that or hinder but then it would be incredibly hard to balance maps for one group of tanks without ruining another.

 

although having tanks that cant do sod all in the current meta or in general makes them pointless to play and a waste of textures, coding and modelling etc.

 

shame because i think the t-34-2 is vereh sexeh



Homer_J #3 Posted 24 January 2018 - 01:14 PM

    Field Marshal

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

View PostUebergewicht, on 24 January 2018 - 11:54 AM, said:

 

 

What do you say?

Agreed.

 

I have no idea where this every tank in the line has to be the same play style idea has come from.  Although it's an idea that WoWP has always had, perhaps they want to mirror the success of that game.



iztok #4 Posted 24 January 2018 - 01:24 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 35215 battles
  • 2,460
  • Member since:
    10-28-2010

> I like tank lines with varied gameplay

Me too. Unfortunately WG doesn't (RIP ELC :( )



Rati_Festa #5 Posted 24 January 2018 - 01:47 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 41407 battles
  • 1,079
  • Member since:
    02-10-2012
I agree too as we are essential lead to grind them making them the same at each tier makes the grind less interesting.

Bazoopa #6 Posted 24 January 2018 - 01:49 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 15068 battles
  • 23
  • [RDDT4] RDDT4
  • Member since:
    05-12-2013
As long as the game doesn't lose the variation overall then I don't see it as an issue. The tech trees are supposed to represent a development to the line (which are often slightly better iterations).

Complete overhauls (eg mid to rear mounted turret, complete change of focus from armour to mobility etc) should be represented by a new branch.

I think the variation within current lines is as a result of WG having tanks they wanted to include in the game at the stage they were introduced without a fully fleshed out development path in the text tree to fit them in properly.

If the variation exists in the overall tech tree then you've got the option for variation and also the option to increase your tier with a vehicle type and play style that fits you. Win-win

WhoCares01 #7 Posted 24 January 2018 - 02:41 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 11525 battles
  • 242
  • Member since:
    04-21-2015

There are really some awkward tech trees, e.g. going to German MT E50M, you start with 3x LT, followed by 2x HT, and finally 5x MT. Which means that you have to retrain the crews or start with new crews.

Advancing crew roles are also often inconsistent, e.g. T-54 with Loader as Radioman (like T-43/T-44), going to T-62A and Obj. 430 with Commander as Radioman (same as Obj. 416 on tier 8...).

Apart from the crew composition, crew skilling is really an important aspect in consistent tree progression, e.g. starting with a camo crew for sniping TDs, when the tree then "suddenly" transitions into brawling TDs which would much more benefit from repair skills... But I fear that's not the "streamlining" WG has in mind, as it creates income (like I just retrained my German TD crew now on Ferdinand and soon JTiger for repair when it was discounted)  :coin:

 

On the other hand, there are cases to be made for trees of specialized one-trick-ponys vs. the vesatility of jack-of-all-trades (but master of none), I like both, as long as the tree is consistent ;)


Edited by WhoCares01, 24 January 2018 - 02:49 PM.


Uebergewicht #8 Posted 24 January 2018 - 03:13 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 11702 battles
  • 1,035
  • [ATD] ATD
  • Member since:
    11-15-2015

View PostWhoCares01, on 24 January 2018 - 02:41 PM, said:

There are really some awkward tech trees, e.g. going to German MT E50M, you start with 3x LT, followed by 2x HT, and finally 5x MT. Which means that you have to retrain the crews or start with new crews.

Advancing crew roles are also often inconsistent, e.g. T-54 with Loader as Radioman (like T-43/T-44), going to T-62A and Obj. 430 with Commander as Radioman (same as Obj. 416 on tier 8...).

 

That´s actually a good point. I havent considered that. It can be indeed quite annoying when you constantly have to re-train the crew, or even change the setup completely (new roles for existing members, dropping crewman who you then traiend in vein, or requiring additional crewmen which you have to get from somewhere else). Maybe a possible solution would be if WG discounted or even freed such retrainings whenever you train a crew from one tank to a tank you can directly research from it, at least for the first time you do so. But yeah I know, they probably don´t want to cut into their revenues...



Enforcer1975 #9 Posted 24 January 2018 - 04:43 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 20559 battles
  • 10,543
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014
I'd rather have variety ( as mentioned above playstyle variety in a tank line ) than variety ( WG implementing fake or blueprint tanks that never existed ) because they need to create and fill in gaps that didn't really exist. 

Edited by Enforcer1975, 24 January 2018 - 04:44 PM.


Bazoopa #10 Posted 24 January 2018 - 04:54 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 15068 battles
  • 23
  • [RDDT4] RDDT4
  • Member since:
    05-12-2013

View PostEnforcer1975, on 24 January 2018 - 03:43 PM, said:

I'd rather have variety ( as mentioned above playstyle variety in a tank line ) than variety ( WG implementing fake or blueprint tanks that never existed ) because they need to create and fill in gaps that didn't really exist. 

 

But given that WG will carry on building tech trees in that way to keep producing new content, it makes sense that similar tanks are in the same lines with noticable differences incorporated into separate paths. 

 

You still have the option of finding the variation through taking a different path. But keeping these huge variances within the same line to a minimum helps to build crews in the correct numbers and with suitable skills and perks and helps the player learn the most effective way to play that type of vehicle over a number of tiers.

 

As long as this doesn't mean losing unique tanks just to fit every single tank into a full tech tree of similar vehicles then I don't see an issue with WG 'cleaning up' their tech trees in the way they seem to be doing



Junglist_ #11 Posted 24 January 2018 - 04:56 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35931 battles
  • 1,332
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013
I don't care at all whether the tanks have similar gameplay style or not.

Enforcer1975 #12 Posted 24 January 2018 - 05:17 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 20559 battles
  • 10,543
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014

View PostBazoopa, on 24 January 2018 - 04:54 PM, said:

 

But given that WG will carry on building tech trees in that way to keep producing new content, it makes sense that similar tanks are in the same lines with noticable differences incorporated into separate paths. 

 

You still have the option of finding the variation through taking a different path. But keeping these huge variances within the same line to a minimum helps to build crews in the correct numbers and with suitable skills and perks and helps the player learn the most effective way to play that type of vehicle over a number of tiers.

 

As long as this doesn't mean losing unique tanks just to fit every single tank into a full tech tree of similar vehicles then I don't see an issue with WG 'cleaning up' their tech trees in the way they seem to be doing

 

While you are mentioning it. They really need to adress that thing with switching the radioman to commander or the iirc loader on the T-54 line. Also looking at other lines like f.e. the chinese line you switch from light to medium then depending on what you want you have to either switch to light again or go medium. I'd say other lines need more of that streamlining...not the russian line. 

Rati_Festa #13 Posted 24 January 2018 - 05:24 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 41407 battles
  • 1,079
  • Member since:
    02-10-2012

View PostEnforcer1975, on 24 January 2018 - 05:17 PM, said:

 

While you are mentioning it. They really need to adress that thing with switching the radioman to commander or the iirc loader on the T-54 line. Also looking at other lines like f.e. the chinese line you switch from light to medium then depending on what you want you have to either switch to light again or go medium. I'd say other lines need more of that streamlining...not the russian line. 

 

They are still making those mistakes now. The t54 lwt has a different setup to the T 100 and its concerning view range and its quite annoying. The radio man skill switches to a different crew member I think its from loader to the commander.

juonimies #14 Posted 25 January 2018 - 09:21 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 43760 battles
  • 350
  • [KARJU] KARJU
  • Member since:
    07-04-2011

Uebergewicht, WarGaming ignores your arguments.

 

It knows better than you, what is better for you. And for all of us.

 

And we even have given it the right to do so, when we signed EULA.  


Edited by juonimies, 25 January 2018 - 09:22 AM.


Obsessive_Compulsive #15 Posted 25 January 2018 - 09:54 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 24332 battles
  • 8,048
  • [ADUK] ADUK
  • Member since:
    09-09-2014

I like a line to have a logical and ever present theme so that consistency in adaptation to tier change is present. If I want a varied experience I pick another class/line. Having to retrain crews for different classes mid line is not logical nor wanted by myself. Nor is having to consider retraining crew skills because My medium changed from ninja to brawler...

 

Given that variety is in abundance in this game ( count the vehicles) it seems a little odd to want a handicap to your grind.



PowJay #16 Posted 25 January 2018 - 11:01 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 34938 battles
  • 4,089
  • Member since:
    09-07-2012

There are so many different types of vehicles in so many tech trees, that if you don't like the playstyle of one, then try another. There are variations in playstyle due to guns, armour, mobility and camouflage in some lines. One example is (to some extent) the original German TD line.

 

Marder II is high profile, splinter protection armour, good top gun, average mobility. Hetzer is well-armoured with a choice of rapid fire or derp gun- but everyone plays it for the derp. StuG III G is a great all-rounder, but the JPz IV has great camo, but (IMHO) a choice of two MEH! guns which require some thought.

 

The JPanther is a true beast, and although many declare that the 105mm is the must-have gun, my son plays (much better than me) with the 88mm. It has the same DPM, pen and accuracy. It is cheaper and only has slightly slower aim time.

 

Then we have two TDs with very different characteristics, ending in two slow, massive TDs with big guns.


Just one example, but just to prove that I am not biased, we have the UK heavy TD line from V to IX, all the same as far as I am concerned, and while the end (X) might be worth it, I can't be bothered with all the ATs. Maybe there is something to be said for variety in the lines. :)



Mannanan #17 Posted 26 January 2018 - 01:12 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 18970 battles
  • 624
  • Member since:
    07-28-2017
I don't mind it either way. I don't consider it a problem which needs to be addressed now while there are many other problems with the game. Too much effort invested the wrong way now.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users