Jump to content


Making Arty Better For Everyone (Proposal)

Arty artillery proposal suggestion new update idea spg gun self

  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

Dr_Blackshark #41 Posted 11 December 2018 - 07:14 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 14954 battles
  • 145
  • Member since:
    08-29-2015

What you suggest is making the artilerry unenjoyable. All your thoughs are about making them more useless than a Leichttractor vs a Maus ( back in the day when there wasn't a tier limit in platoons, eeeh? :D). Problem 1: not all arties have thos pods, like t7-10 french arties. Problem 2: how the hell can't you out maneuver a regular(not french turreted) arty???? Problem 3: If their shots would still have the [edited]tracers, they would die immediately cos' they wouldnt be able to relocae from the counter barrage...

Btw addition to problem 3:Why the hell do they, and anything unspotted have tracers.....like seriously, you can't see a 5-6m big thing, but can see it's 200mm shells from 2000metres....Seriously what the heck. The only thing they should adjust on them is the tracer removal. - Yeah, i love playing arty ( in case you asked)



WoT_RU_Doing #42 Posted 11 December 2018 - 07:15 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 57826 battles
  • 3,344
  • [-GY-] -GY-
  • Member since:
    07-20-2013

View Post1ucky, on 11 December 2018 - 06:09 PM, said:

I'm already using arty with the X key hull lock like you suggested, helps by removing hull traverse related aim bloom.

And hitting moving targets is already tricky enough by the way.

Basically the only way you get them is if they run into your pre-aimed gun, you can't really chase them (which is of course fair enough).

If it seems otherwise from the other side, those must be either exceptionally lucky (extremely uncommon) shots, or it's just a warped perception.

 

I guess one of the main reasons (perhaps even the *only* reason) that arty sucks is that there are multiple arties per side per game.

Plus you even get stunned and damaged (or sometimes even TK'd) by your own team's arty often enough, especially when in close quarters / facehugging enemies.

 

Maybe reducing team damage tolerance for arty players would help a bit, as well as obviously reducing the number of artillery pieces per match. Guess the former should be easy to do, while the latter is tricky cause it sucks if you grind a tank and then aren't allowed to play it.

 

Face hugging is a valid method of protecting yourself while reloading, partly from the enemy heavy as you've hidden your lower front plate, but also from arty (if you get shot, so does the enemy). If you remove team damage potential from the friendly arty, what you actually cause in this situation is that while you attempt to face hug, the enemy arty shoots you, slowing your reload and maybe damaging your track. The guy your face hugging meanwhile finishes his reload unscathed, and can manoeuvre around for a guaranteed pen shot. So contrary to popular expectation, removing team damage from arty actually works against you from the heavies point of view, as arty will shoot you more often.

Edited by WoT_RU_Doing, 11 December 2018 - 07:17 PM.


grizly1973 #43 Posted 11 December 2018 - 07:16 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 23311 battles
  • 174
  • Member since:
    02-25-2013

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 10 December 2018 - 11:22 PM, said:

The current problems with artillery is:

 

- It allows players to outplay much more skilled players from complete safety.

- It promotes camping, as you're only safe from artillery when hiding behind cover.

- It can't counter the targets that it's supposed to counter, because they're not spotted.

 

Does your suggestion solve any of these issues? No offence, but nope.

 

The problem is that you can't solve the problem with artillery, because then you will turn it into something that isn't artillery anymore. And what's the point in having artillery in the game if it doesn't behave like actual artillery?

 

Also, do you notice something else in your images? The SPGs not alone, but part of an artillery battery. That's another issue with artillery in World of Tanks. It's completely unrealistic. Artillery was not designed to shoot on individual moving targets such as tanks, because by the time the shell lands, the targets will be in a completely different position. That's what TDs was invented for. Artillery is an area bombardment tool, focusing on providing fire support onto a specific location rather than onto a specific target.

 

The only solution to artillery is to remove it. And if this game really needs some kind of indirect fire support, they can make LTs unique and give them add call-ins such as off-map artillery barrages and airstrikes that can be called in within the LTs viewrange. That would atleast solve the problems above and be a lot more realistic than the singe shell barrage casino machines we have today.

 

Yes, I'm aware fo the current arty problems, but to them I'll add their tendancy to reliably hit moving targets. That reliability is what this whole proposal aims to reduce. Yes, artillery batteries are fun and all but they can't work in WoT. Or they could, but covering a single area by 3 arties is impractical in WoT. Given that they won't be removed, I tried to work with what I had. Giving lights the ability to call in for support would break the feel WoT has, the feeling of having to count only on yourself & on your team.
18:25 Added after 8 minutes

View PostDr_Blackshark, on 11 December 2018 - 08:14 PM, said:

What you suggest is making the artilerry unenjoyable. All your thoughs are about making them more useless than a Leichttractor vs a Maus ( back in the day when there wasn't a tier limit in platoons, eeeh? :D). Problem 1: not all arties have thos pods, like t7-10 french arties. Problem 2: how the hell can't you out maneuver a regular(not french turreted) arty???? Problem 3: If their shots would still have the [edited]tracers, they would die immediately cos' they wouldnt be able to relocae from the counter barrage...

Btw addition to problem 3:Why the hell do they, and anything unspotted have tracers.....like seriously, you can't see a 5-6m big thing, but can see it's 200mm shells from 2000metres....Seriously what the heck. The only thing they should adjust on them is the tracer removal. - Yeah, i love playing arty ( in case you asked)

 

I have nothing against you playing arty as I'm not here to make fun of anyone. Well, you said that my proposal aims to make arty useless. Think about it for a moment. Think about what arty is truly meant to do. I bet you know the answer if you are an arty player, right? It meant to destroy well-armored targets occupying strong positions (like a hull-down IS-7 in a crater in the middle of a field) or forcing them to relocate if destruction is not possible. And my proposal aims to make arty good at that and ONLY that. I knwo that you might find my measures too extreme, but nobody said that's how it MUST be. You can come up with your own ideas to altering the features I proposed in ordet to get a better result out of all this brainstorming. I would really appreciate that. Now regarding pods and French arty: I've stated in my actual proposal that most arties from tier 5 on can get 3D pods added to their models. French arty, on the other hand, would get slower turret rotation and the unability to move while in firing mode, thus reducing bloom (that would remain just as it is now given that I propose the nerfing of aimtimes and dispersion values in relocating mode). The transition form one mode to another could take less than a second in French arty. Arties below tier 5 would be, just as I stated before, unaffected or simply nerfed a bit where the data shows such a thing would be required.

fighting_falcon93 #44 Posted 11 December 2018 - 07:31 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View Postgrizly1973, on 11 December 2018 - 07:16 PM, said:

to them I'll add their tendancy to reliably hit moving targets.

 

They will always be able to do that, even if you give them some kind of siege mode. The problem here is their satelite view combined with their short shell travel time. In real life, the forward observer first has to report in the coordinates to the cental artillery command, then the artillery crew have to adjust the gun, and then the shell has to actually arrive to the target. This takes waaay longer than the 5-10 seconds it takes for a WoT SPG. 

 

View Postgrizly1973, on 11 December 2018 - 07:16 PM, said:

Given that they won't be removed

 

Don't say that, because we can never know for sure. WG has said one thing and then changed their mind multiple times before. They said artillery was fine before aswell, then they changed it. They said that premium ammo was fine, now they're also changing it. One day artillery might be removed aswell, or not, we don't know.

 

View Postgrizly1973, on 11 December 2018 - 07:16 PM, said:

Giving lights the ability to call in for support would break the feel WoT has, the feeling of having to count only on yourself & on your team.

 

Sorry, but that's complete BS. Having call-ins would still mean that you rely on yourself and your team. The only difference is that instead of having clickers that click the enemy, you have light tanks that call in different types of support. Actually, air support was very common in WW2, so integrating some type of air combat into the battles would make much more sense than having an individual artillery that clicks on individual tanks. It would even allow WG to introduce AA tanks into the game such as the Flakpanzer IV "Ostwind".



grizly1973 #45 Posted 11 December 2018 - 07:32 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 23311 battles
  • 174
  • Member since:
    02-25-2013

View PostWoT_RU_Doing, on 10 December 2018 - 11:15 PM, said:

You know that pressing X already locks the hull and improves aiming time? As for the rest, I can tell just by reading your suggestions that you don't have much experience of arty, especially at top tiers.

- Since 9.18, hitting a target on the move has become almost impossible. You need to be at very close range to have any real hope, and it is a total lottery. On top of that, with the arty view ranges, there isn't time to aim (or turn) in the times typically involved, assuming the arty even spots the enemy before he dies.

-  The same applies to arty trying to hit a target that is circling them. There are very few arties that have the ability to traverse fast enough to follow anything except a heavy tank or TD, and the shot will still miss much of the time. The biggest mistake lights typically make is driving straight towards the arty, making the shot far simpler.

- Fast moving target s are also an issue, as the aiming circle will still bloom if you try to follow the target. You can guess and fire where you think a light may go, but most players do actually miss.

In effect, with 9.18 they implemented much of what you suggest, but you just want to make the effect of the changes far greater. All this will do is encourage many arty players to stay still the entire battle, and never relocate to help the team better (which I think has increased also since 9.18)

P.S. Think the DANA is too recent for WoT to include it, which is a shame as it's rather a pretty vehicle.

 

I personally don't find it very hard to hit light tanks or at least splash very close to them in my M12. The M12 also has a relatively fast aim time to go with it. When writing my suggestion I was thinking mainly of American arty and French arty (as it would be the exception to the proposal as I suggested it). Arties of other nations that aren't so good (i.e. German and Russian arties due to very narrow gun arch) would be obviously less affected as not to turn the arty branches in something like all the TDs and the pre-nerfed 268 V4.

P.S.: The DANA is from 1975, making it just as new (or old, depending on how you want to put it) as the tier 6 Type 64 Chinese (actually Taiwanese) light tank. Given that it doesen't have any reactive armor or fancy other technologies, it fits in the game with ease if carefully balanced.

18:42 Added after 9 minutes

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 11 December 2018 - 08:31 PM, said:

 

They will always be able to do that, even if you give them some kind of siege mode. The problem here is their satelite view combined with their short shell travel time. In real life, the forward observer first has to report in the coordinates to the cental artillery command, then the artillery crew have to adjust the gun, and then the shell has to actually arrive to the target. This takes waaay longer than the 5-10 seconds it takes for a WoT SPG. 

 

 

Don't say that, because we can never know for sure. WG has said one thing and then changed their mind multiple times before. They said artillery was fine before aswell, then they changed it. They said that premium ammo was fine, now they're also changing it. One day artillery might be removed aswell, or not, we don't know.

 

 

Sorry, but that's complete BS. Having call-ins would still mean that you rely on yourself and your team. The only difference is that instead of having clickers that click the enemy, you have light tanks that call in different types of support. Actually, air support was very common in WW2, so integrating some type of air combat into the battles would make much more sense than having an individual artillery that clicks on individual tanks. It would even allow WG to introduce AA tanks into the game such as the Flakpanzer IV "Ostwind".

 

That's a good point, but we know WoT isn't realistic and won't ever reach the level of realism you talk about here.

I'm pretty sure all the dedicated arty players will go absolutely nuts if you simply remove their whole class of vehicles. My proposal would give them the need to develop new skills, just like the Swedish TDs force you to do if you want to be influential while playing them.

While that's another good idea in itself, I'm pretty sure all tanks should get that ability if you decide to implement it. Light tanks are very influential towards the end of most battles and giving them the ability to bomb the butter out of a lone remaining superheavy instead of trying to actually try to destroy it with tactics such as sidehugging and circling combined with tracking and shooting for weakspots such as the engine and fuel tanks wouuld not be a positive change. Having such ability would be cool in frontlines (it actually is cool in frontlines) but giving that ability to anyone in randoms will take away the feel WoT has had since its beginning (or what's left of that feeling anyways :unsure:).

Thank you for being constructive, I really appreciate that. Take my +1!



slitth #46 Posted 11 December 2018 - 07:42 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13845 battles
  • 1,193
  • [AL-EU] AL-EU
  • Member since:
    06-23-2011

First I would like to point to The Big SPG Discussion Thread

 

Second, the biggest problem with artillery that I have seen in constructive feedback is that artillery is to far from the front-line.

Because you have to fight through a front to get to them, they are so well protected that they could be on a another map is some situations.

And if the maps do not allow for stealth manoeuvres that will not change.

 

The best thing for artillery would to get to closer to the front-line and put them in danger.

How to do that is another question



1ucky #47 Posted 11 December 2018 - 07:46 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 85391 battles
  • 1,244
  • [THRIL] THRIL
  • Member since:
    11-05-2013

View PostWoT_RU_Doing, on 11 December 2018 - 07:15 PM, said:

 

Face hugging is a valid method of protecting yourself while reloading, partly from the enemy heavy as you've hidden your lower front plate, but also from arty (if you get shot, so does the enemy). If you remove team damage potential from the friendly arty, what you actually cause in this situation is that while you attempt to face hug, the enemy arty shoots you, slowing your reload and maybe damaging your track. The guy your face hugging meanwhile finishes his reload unscathed, and can manoeuvre around for a guaranteed pen shot. So contrary to popular expectation, removing team damage from arty actually works against you from the heavies point of view, as arty will shoot you more often.

 

You seem to have misread what I posted.

I never suggested that team damage be removed.

 

But that it might help if the tolerance for team damage done by arty players was reduced.

As in: Get marked blue or banned sooner, in case you're a [edited]who constantly splashes his own teammates.



WoT_RU_Doing #48 Posted 11 December 2018 - 07:59 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 57826 battles
  • 3,344
  • [-GY-] -GY-
  • Member since:
    07-20-2013

View Post1ucky, on 11 December 2018 - 06:46 PM, said:

 

You seem to have misread what I posted.

I never suggested that team damage be removed.

 

But that it might help if the tolerance for team damage done by arty players was reduced.

As in: Get marked blue or banned sooner, in case you're a [edited]who constantly splashes his own teammates.

 

My apologies...see what you are saying now. I'm afraid I don't agree though as I think ALL team damage should be punished more severely. Specifically I think it should be treated just the same as damage to enemies, but with a negative score, so it directly affects credit/XP.

View Postgrizly1973, on 11 December 2018 - 06:32 PM, said:

 

I personally don't find it very hard to hit light tanks or at least splash very close to them in my M12. The M12 also has a relatively fast aim time to go with it. When writing my suggestion I was thinking mainly of American arty and French arty (as it would be the exception to the proposal as I suggested it). Arties of other nations that aren't so good (i.e. German and Russian arties due to very narrow gun arch) would be obviously less affected as not to turn the arty branches in something like all the TDs and the pre-nerfed 268 V4.

P.S.: The DANA is from 1975, making it just as new (or old, depending on how you want to put it) as the tier 6 Type 64 Chinese (actually Taiwanese) light tank. Given that it doesen't have any reactive armor or fancy other technologies, it fits in the game with ease if carefully balanced.

 

  French arty has a smaller splash radius, low damage potential and the turrets are slow to turn. In short, they were rendered almost ineffective after 9.18 in a traditional sense, but are still good for stunning. btw, on my first post, to which the above was a response, I note that the first bullet doesn't make it clear that I'm taking about when the ARTY is on the move.

As for the DANA, that'd be nice.



1ucky #49 Posted 11 December 2018 - 08:08 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 85391 battles
  • 1,244
  • [THRIL] THRIL
  • Member since:
    11-05-2013

View PostWoT_RU_Doing, on 11 December 2018 - 07:59 PM, said:

 

My apologies...see what you are saying now. I'm afraid I don't agree though as I think ALL team damage should be punished more severely. Specifically I think it should be treated just the same as damage to enemies, but with a negative score, so it directly affects credit/XP.

 

(...)

No problem.

And I like your idea.

That should teach those JPzE100 troll platoons... :)

For sure much better than almost no repercussions at all (which is the case now, sadly).


Edited by 1ucky, 11 December 2018 - 08:27 PM.


D4wiD3K #50 Posted 11 December 2018 - 08:32 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 660 battles
  • 294
  • Member since:
    08-11-2012

View Postgrizly1973, on 10 December 2018 - 08:16 PM, said:

 

Well, it's hard to explain but it wouldn't be more complex than the Siege Mode that Swedish TDs get. Also, as an unpopular opinion, arty can't be removed completly because some disabled people (missing a limb) can only play arty. If you take it away, you take their only gameplay option away. (I'm actually dead serious about this, as I personally know someone in this situation)

 

Yeah, that's a great point man. We all have to suffer from an atrocious noobtube mechanic that damages the gameplay so the tiny minority of disabled people can play a game that's clearly not been designed for them.

 

I think in Counter-Strike we're going to need an ion cannon as well so disabled people can play it. In PUBG and Fortnite we need spaceships that can fly far above everything out of the reach of everyone's reach, and carry rocket launchers. I mean otherwise disabled people can't play the game right? Surely we have to ruin the game for everyone else to fix that!

 

View Postjuonimies, on 10 December 2018 - 08:23 PM, said:

 

No. ENEMY artillery is pain. 

 

Most players don't understand that friendly artillery is part of team's weapon systems and causes damage to enemies.

 

Players, who don't assimilate the nature of indirect fire, please uninstall. 

 

No. All arty is [edited]. Some of us have an objective opinion which does not depend on whether we benefit or suffer from the broken mechanic in an isolated instance, but whether it's broken or not. A broken mechanic doesn't become "fixed" if you or your teammate plays it. It's still broken. *edited*  

 

If I could decide my own team would never have any SPGs. They are bad at winning games and a vast majority of the players are so trash that you can't expect the least bit of useful fire support from them. I mostly notice their presence when they steal damage from me during the clean-up.


As per usual the importance of indirect fire for the game is almost exclusively stated by the players who lack the brain capacity to read the minimap, initiate plays and react to different situations and need a broken noobtube mechanic to compensate for that and punish the players who are actually trying to play the game instead of camping next to a rock.


Edited by Jahpero, 12 December 2018 - 11:15 AM.
This post has been edited by the moderation team due to offensive content


FrantisekBascovansky #51 Posted 11 December 2018 - 08:52 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 29675 battles
  • 753
  • Member since:
    03-26-2018

View PostD4wiD3K, on 11 December 2018 - 08:32 PM, said:

 

*edited*  

 

Do you really believe statshaming him will somehow make your point of view more objective?



WoT_RU_Doing #52 Posted 11 December 2018 - 09:03 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 57826 battles
  • 3,344
  • [-GY-] -GY-
  • Member since:
    07-20-2013

View PostFrantisekBascovansky, on 11 December 2018 - 07:52 PM, said:

 

Do you really believe statshaming him will somehow make your point of view more objective?

 

Well he's obviously right, because his winrate is higher.

(oh, but his WN8 is lower...confused! )


Edited by WoT_RU_Doing, 11 December 2018 - 09:06 PM.


grizly1973 #53 Posted 11 December 2018 - 09:40 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 23311 battles
  • 174
  • Member since:
    02-25-2013

View PostD4wiD3K, on 11 December 2018 - 09:32 PM, said:

 

Yeah, that's a great point man. We all have to suffer from an atrocious noobtube mechanic that damages the gameplay so the tiny minority of disabled people can play a game that's clearly not been designed for them.

 

I think in Counter-Strike we're going to need an ion cannon as well so disabled people can play it. In PUBG and Fortnite we need spaceships that can fly far above everything out of the reach of everyone's reach, and carry rocket launchers. I mean otherwise disabled people can't play the game right? Surely we have to ruin the game for everyone else to fix that!

It is a second reason not to remove it, albeit a much less important one indeed. The thing is that arty has its own little purpose of sh***ing on tanks in power positions, which is not bad. One tank shouldn't be able to completly dominate a whole flank. There must be something that can hinder it, one way or another. Removing arty will not allow anything to counter things such as hull-down IS-7s. Getting it back to its original state is a really bad idea. My sggestion minimises the impact of arty only to its sole purpose of stopping tanks from dominating positions and encourage movement and tactical play. My suggestion IS a nerf to arty and IS meant to make it harder and more inconvenient to play unless you focus on focusing heavy tanks, while being less effective at this too than it is now.



fighting_falcon93 #54 Posted 11 December 2018 - 09:45 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View Postgrizly1973, on 11 December 2018 - 07:32 PM, said:

That's a good point, but we know WoT isn't realistic and won't ever reach the level of realism you talk about here.

 

Which is a shame, because I think that this game would benefit from a bit more realism. No necessarily to make the game more complicated, but to give it more depth and a greater playing experience. Many players are afraid of realism, but there's nothing to be afraid of, it's just one way to design a game, and very often designs based on realism turn out very well because they automatically derive the rules of logic and balance. Then of course, just because a game takes inspiration from reality doesn't make it a simulator, that comes down to the ratio of complexity compared to gameplay.

 

View Postgrizly1973, on 11 December 2018 - 07:32 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure all the dedicated arty players will go absolutely nuts if you simply remove their whole class of vehicles.

 

Yeah, that might be true, but at the same time, many of the non-dedicated arty players are going nuts because the class is still not removed. So as you see, it's a tricky situation where it's impossible to please everyone. What WG needs to do is to consider who's the majority, and also if they can compensate an artillery removal and please these players in another way. For example, artillery players might be happy to start driving light tanks with call-ins instead where they can get access to an entire artillery battery instead of a single gun.

 

View Postgrizly1973, on 11 December 2018 - 07:32 PM, said:

Light tanks are very influential towards the end of most battles and giving them the ability to bomb the butter out of a lone remaining superheavy instead of trying to actually try to destroy it with tactics such as sidehugging and circling combined with tracking and shooting for weakspots such as the engine and fuel tanks wouuld not be a positive change.

 

In my opinion, it would make light tanks unique, which is a good thing, as it makes the game more varied. The classical way of flanking, detracking, sidehugging etc is already "occupied" by the medium tanks. So instead of just making light tanks a worse version of a medium tank, they could get a unique feature instead. This would even allow WG to buff the light tanks view range even further, and nerfing their guns even more, since their main weaponry would now be call-ins instead of their own gun.

 

Regarding your example with the light tank vs the super heavy. It would not be a case of "bomb the butter" out of it. First of all, the call-ins should have delays from the time you used it to when it actually arrives. If we take a dive bomber as an example, the delay should be atleast 10-20 seconds, giving the super heavy a very good time window to make an unexpected turn or to change position. And secondly, the call-ins should also have cooldowns, meaning that after you've used them they're locked for a certain amount of time before they can be used again. A dive bomber which is quite powerful might have 50-60 seconds cooldown, while a light artillery barrage might just have 30 seconds cooldown.

 

Here're some examples of call-ins:

 

 

 

 

View Postgrizly1973, on 11 December 2018 - 07:32 PM, said:

giving that ability to anyone in randoms will take away the feel WoT has had since its beginning

 

Yes, it might alter the original WoT feeling a bit, but changes are not always bad. If they can balance it properly, make it interesting, and make it look good, then I think it would be a very positive change for WoT. Especially since that would allow them to remove artillery, which would make a lot of players happy aswell.

 

View Postgrizly1973, on 11 December 2018 - 07:32 PM, said:

Thank you for being constructive

 

No problem, I always try to be constructive and explain why I think like I do.

Thank you aswell for being able to have a discussion even if we don't fully agree :great:

 

20:48 Added after 2 minutes

View Postslitth, on 11 December 2018 - 07:42 PM, said:

The best thing for artillery would to get to closer to the front-line and put them in danger.

How to do that is another question

 

And that is both the point and the problem. If they do that, it will not be real artillery anymore. Real artillery actually sits much further away from the front than what they currently do in WoT. So what's the point in keeping artillery if it doesn't behave like artillery anymore? Then they might just remove it instead.


Edited by fighting_falcon93, 11 December 2018 - 10:08 PM.


WoT_RU_Doing #55 Posted 11 December 2018 - 10:15 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 57826 battles
  • 3,344
  • [-GY-] -GY-
  • Member since:
    07-20-2013

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 11 December 2018 - 08:45 PM, said:

 

Yeah, that might be true, but at the same time, many of the non-dedicated arty players are going nuts because the class is still not removed. So as you see, it's a tricky situation where it's impossible to please everyone. What WG needs to do is to consider who's the majority, and also if they can compensate an artillery removal and please these players in another way. For example, artillery players might be happy to start driving light tanks with call-ins instead where they can get access to an entire artillery battery instead of a single gun.

 

For me, i'm sorry to say your suggestion it would not only ruin arty, but also light tanks. Unless I'm sat in a bush passive spotting, I'm putting my effort into snap shots while evasively driving around trying to keep the enemy lit up. I don't have the spare hands to use additional keys to call in an additional support function.  

fighting_falcon93 #56 Posted 11 December 2018 - 10:35 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View PostWoT_RU_Doing, on 11 December 2018 - 10:15 PM, said:

For me, i'm sorry to say your suggestion it would not only ruin arty, but also light tanks. Unless I'm sat in a bush passive spotting, I'm putting my effort into snap shots while evasively driving around trying to keep the enemy lit up. I don't have the spare hands to use additional keys to call in an additional support function.  

 

It would indeed change how light tanks are played, but that's a good change IMHO. We need more variety in this game, and classes should be more different. So for example, medium tanks already occupy the role of actively manouvering around the battlefield while fighting, and the upcoming wheeled vehicles (which IMO should be a separate class) will occupy the role of active spotting. So light tanks should naturally occupy the role of passive spotting. The light tanks should get have good gunhandling, accuracy and rate of fire, but very bad penetration and alpha. The whole uniqueness of the class would be that they would only use their gun against other light tanks or of they get behind a tank destroyer, but their main weapon would be their call-ins.

 

But yeah, I'm not denying it, it would completely change how light tanks are played, but I think that's a good change. Right now light tanks, especially the tier 10 ones, are nothing more than underpowered medium tanks. Quite a boring difference between 2 different classes.



slitth #57 Posted 11 December 2018 - 10:38 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13845 battles
  • 1,193
  • [AL-EU] AL-EU
  • Member since:
    06-23-2011

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 11 December 2018 - 08:45 PM, said:

 

And that is both the point and the problem. If they do that, it will not be real artillery anymore. Real artillery actually sits much further away from the front than what they currently do in WoT. So what's the point in keeping artillery if it doesn't behave like artillery anymore? Then they might just remove it instead.

 

And tanks do not preform well in cities with narrow streets.

But we still have city maps that a sane tank command would not enter without a really good reason.

Nor are real battles limited to sure a small battlefield.

 

Artillery can still have a frontline role in WoT because of their unique fire arc. 

Do not let real life limite the creativity in a acarde game



FrantisekBascovansky #58 Posted 11 December 2018 - 10:44 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 29675 battles
  • 753
  • Member since:
    03-26-2018

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 11 December 2018 - 09:45 PM, said:

 

Which is a shame, because I think that this game would benefit from a bit more realism. No necessarily to make the game more complicated, but to give it more depth and a greater playing experience. Many players are afraid of realism, but there's nothing to be afraid of, it's just one way to design a game, and very often designs based on realism turn out very well because they automatically derive the rules of logic and balance. Then of course, just because a game takes inspiration from reality doesn't make it a simulator, that comes down to the ratio of complexity compared to gameplay.

 

 

I agree for more realism to the game. What about to be more realistic about not to be able to repair damaged tracks and to not to resurrect knocked out crew member? So the tank with dead gunner would be not be able to shoot, and tracked tank will not be able to move. What are you thinking about that?

fighting_falcon93 #59 Posted 11 December 2018 - 11:00 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View Postslitth, on 11 December 2018 - 10:38 PM, said:

And tanks do not preform well in cities with narrow streets.

 

Well it's not me that designed the city maps. In fact, I suggested to WG to stop the urban themed maps and instead focus more on realistic maps like Kursk, Ardennes, El Alamein etc.

 

View Postslitth, on 11 December 2018 - 10:38 PM, said:

Artillery can still have a frontline role in WoT because of their unique fire arc. 

 

Only tanks with a true unique firing arc are Bishop and FV304. The other arties only get an above average firing arc because they fire low velocity rounds from such long distances. If you make a shot range shot with artillery you'll notice that it has a flat shell arc, just like any other tank in the game.

 

And besides all that, artillery was not designed for frontline combat. That's why assault guns like the Sturmtiger and ISU was invented. 

 

View Postslitth, on 11 December 2018 - 10:38 PM, said:

Do not let real life limite the creativity in a acarde game

 

That's an argument that I strongly disagree with.

 

First of all, I understand what you mean with WoT being an "arcade game", but I don't agree with the statement. WoT is a tank shooter game. And while it indeed is not a simulator, that doesn't mean it's an arcade game either. This classification isn't binary, a game can be realistic and still not be a simuator. It's about how far you decide to go in the games complexity that decides if it's a simulator or not. Similiarly, you can make a game realistic, and still keep the arcadish feel to it, because it's the games simplicity that contributes to this feeling.

 

Secondly, I think it's obvious that WG wants to keep WoT atleast semi-realistic. That's why we got a graphics rework with much more realistic look, and on top of that, the game if based on a lot of realistic elements, everything from the different kinds of ammo types and how these work, to most of the historical tanks. These things makes the foundation of WoT realistic, then we have some simplified things, such as hitpoints, first aid kits, and so on.

 

As long as the gameplay factor is not punished, I will always support more realism because realism is what makes a game like this interesting. WoT is a tank shooter game, so that's what the players should get, and not some made up fantasy game like Mario Kart.

 

22:08 Added after 8 minutes

View PostFrantisekBascovansky, on 11 December 2018 - 10:44 PM, said:

I agree for more realism to the game. What about to be more realistic about not to be able to repair damaged tracks and to not to resurrect knocked out crew member? So the tank with dead gunner would be not be able to shoot, and tracked tank will not be able to move. What are you thinking about that?

 

I assume you're being sarcastic here.

 

You're trying to make it look like a game has to be binary, either fully realistic in all aspects, or not realistic at all. That's not the case. For things that affect the fun factor greatly, there can be exceptions or simplifications of the realism. In this case, WG made the decision that having the crew member knocked out for the entire battle would hurt the fun factor too much. So they made an exception. That however doesn't mean that they should go all out on fantasy and allow us to put wizzards in our tanks.

 

Besides, you're quite wrong with your statement that a tank with a dead gunner can't shoot. In reality, another crew member will simply take over the gunners role. Sure, having 2 roles at the same time will make the performance worse, but the tank will still be able to shoot.


Edited by fighting_falcon93, 11 December 2018 - 11:09 PM.


slitth #60 Posted 11 December 2018 - 11:32 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13845 battles
  • 1,193
  • [AL-EU] AL-EU
  • Member since:
    06-23-2011

True, realism helps give a game depth, but it not good to let real life limit a game.

Just think how much fuel consumption would limit some tanks if this was added to the game.

Or how a solid barrel could mess with the game.

 

On the other hand a more cartoon look would kill the game







Also tagged with Arty, artillery, proposal, suggestion, new, update, idea, spg, gun, self

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users