Jump to content


Improvements to Personal Missions And Reward Tanks


  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

mvdt #81 Posted 21 January 2019 - 11:24 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 40646 battles
  • 297
  • [-BOMB] -BOMB
  • Member since:
    05-10-2011

Hello WG,

 

In my opinion it is ridiculous that you FORCE players that don't want to play artillery (anymore) to do missions. For example Alliance-3 (Chimera operation).

Why is stunning an enemy primary objective?

 

I am hoping you can change this and make stunning an enemy secondary.

Thanks in advance,

 

mvdt



loot_the_supermarket #82 Posted 21 January 2019 - 11:44 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8237 battles
  • 266
  • Member since:
    01-03-2017

View Postmvdt, on 21 January 2019 - 10:24 AM, said:

Hello WG,

 

In my opinion it is ridiculous that you FORCE players that don't want to play artillery (anymore) to do missions. For example Alliance-3 (Chimera operation).

Why is stunning an enemy primary objective?

 

I am hoping you can change this and make stunning an enemy secondary.

Thanks in advance,

 

mvdt

 

Agreed, it was all good up to the Chimera and 279E, we could avoid sullying our garage if we chose to ...WG just need to give alternative primary missions for non Arty and/or just keep the 3 primary missions for arty in the alliance (or at least just keep all three in any one nation block)

Edited by loot_the_supermarket, 21 January 2019 - 11:45 AM.


Gremlin182 #83 Posted 21 January 2019 - 12:08 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 52632 battles
  • 8,653
  • Member since:
    04-18-2012

279 buff ok I am looking at this in tanks GG and as others have said there is no lower plate as such,

The hull front is mostly 280 + turret Even higher easily 350 +

Weak spots well an extremely difficult to hit cupola that's around 212 but hey its a tier 10 so I expect good armour.

Never driven one and don't remember meeting one so how hard it is to kill I don't know.

Is it sensible to buff it NO actually imo its a pretty bad idea to buff or nerf any tank right now and its pretty silly to make any changes to premium ammo too.

 

Balancing tanks and for that matter ammo is presumably based on how they perform against the tanks they meet and how well or badly they do.

 

So Qestion how can you decide anything until you give us back +2 -2 MM, right now all we have is +2 -0 and occasionally -1

My tier 10 games are either against tier 9 or 10 tanks usually tier 10 Tier 8s I might see as I say one game in 20.

Tier 9s same thing only its mostly all tier 9 or five tier 10s and ten tier 9s very rarely a tier 8 and never a tier 7

 

You really have to work on that MM there is literally little point in balancing tanks making decisions on premium ammo arty or anything else other than maps cosmetic changes improvements to the game engine etc.

All the other changes will have to be redone when you give us a working MM

 

I still haven't got my head around this 3 5 7 template of yours as yet

My tier 8 tanks often meet tier 9 and 10s but my tier 10s seldom if ever meet tier 8 tanks.

I know its not a conspiracy but that's how it appears

 

 



Dinux #84 Posted 21 January 2019 - 12:22 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 35127 battles
  • 19
  • Member since:
    07-30-2011

View Postmvdt, on 21 January 2019 - 10:24 AM, said:

Hello WG,

In my opinion it is ridiculous that you FORCE players that don't want to play artillery (anymore) to do missions. For example Alliance-3 (Chimera operation).

Why is stunning an enemy primary objective?

- There is no force included since you as a user choose assignments to perform.

 

We need several more assignments where spg comes to use either it is first or second object. SPG is one of five classes in this game and the class has been neglected for several years.

Since today's game contains super heavytanks & super TD (SHT and STD), it is time that spg regains its normal damage effect for balance up the game.

 

And when it comes to grand battle, you have to keep the number of spg (4) since it has been calculated long ago that this figure is balanced.

Argumental that it would not be fun to be seen first and then know that it is incoming fire from spg is not factual here. The fact that the class provides support and support on specific points is what the class does best, whether it is defense or attack. If a few detest a class so to the extent that he / she can leave a suggestion that a whole class should be removed in the game. IS nothing but saying that he / she wants to play a game that goes into its own protected pace and nothing can change their sphere that offers variety to how #safe" you want to play an online game. To the few who detest spg, learn what spg can and can't shoot in the maps instead of being unreasonably whining here. The fact is that there are already several points on maps where spg cannot shoot by staying in "normal" spg places. But by moving, I can given the opportunity to support the progress on important points whether it is defense or attack, which is an important part of the spg class as a hole.



mvdt #85 Posted 21 January 2019 - 12:37 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 40646 battles
  • 297
  • [-BOMB] -BOMB
  • Member since:
    05-10-2011

View PostDinux, on 21 January 2019 - 12:22 PM, said:

- There is no force included since you as a user choose assignments to perform.

 

We need several more assignments where spg comes to use either it is first or second object. SPG is one of five classes in this game and the class has been neglected for several years.

Since today's game contains super heavytanks & super TD (SHT and STD), it is time that spg regains its normal damage effect for balance up the game.

 

And when it comes to grand battle, you have to keep the number of spg (4) since it has been calculated long ago that this figure is balanced.

Argumental that it would not be fun to be seen first and then know that it is incoming fire from spg is not factual here. The fact that the class provides support and support on specific points is what the class does best, whether it is defense or attack. If a few detest a class so to the extent that he / she can leave a suggestion that a whole class should be removed in the game. IS nothing but saying that he / she wants to play a game that goes into its own protected pace and nothing can change their sphere that offers variety to how #safe" you want to play an online game. To the few who detest spg, learn what spg can and can't shoot in the maps instead of being unreasonably whining here. The fact is that there are already several points on maps where spg cannot shoot by staying in "normal" spg places. But by moving, I can given the opportunity to support the progress on important points whether it is defense or attack, which is an important part of the spg class as a hole.

 

You need to play artillery to get all missions completed. So basically WG is forcing you to play arty. I have played arty myself, I simply don't enjoy it, like most other players. With current missions you HAVE to play artillery. Why not make it so you can do secondary conditions by playing arty, and make primary conditions available for any tank. I am not rebuying artillery for missions only, I rather buy other tanks I have sold in the past.

 

As for the artillery class, I checked your account, you have played quite a few games in arty. Don't you think it is a little bit unbalanced at the moment? Artillery is not neglected, artillery is just a thing players don't like. The concept of artillery needs changes.



WoT_RU_Doing #86 Posted 21 January 2019 - 01:01 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 52386 battles
  • 2,470
  • [-GY-] -GY-
  • Member since:
    07-20-2013

View Postmvdt, on 21 January 2019 - 11:37 AM, said:

 

You need to play artillery to get all missions completed. So basically WG is forcing you to play arty. I have played arty myself, I simply don't enjoy it, like most other players. With current missions you HAVE to play artillery. Why not make it so you can do secondary conditions by playing arty, and make primary conditions available for any tank. I am not rebuying artillery for missions only, I rather buy other tanks I have sold in the past.

 

As for the artillery class, I checked your account, you have played quite a few games in arty. Don't you think it is a little bit unbalanced at the moment? Artillery is not neglected, artillery is just a thing players don't like. The concept of artillery needs changes.

 

Seems a bit unfair on those of us that like arty, but not another class. Equally, what about players that don't like a particular nation grouping?

loot_the_supermarket #87 Posted 21 January 2019 - 01:06 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8237 battles
  • 266
  • Member since:
    01-03-2017

View PostDinux, on 21 January 2019 - 11:22 AM, said:

- There is no force included since you as a user choose assignments to perform.

 

We need several more assignments where spg comes to use either it is first or second object. SPG is one of five classes in this game and the class has been neglected for several years.

 

 

Why should arty have dedicated missions when the other classes do not? There's no restrictions on class choice for any of the missions in the new campaign, you can complete any mission with any tank class , ok so it's near impossible to do some with the wrong class but it's not a restriction... yet arty gets special treatment with arty only missions?

 

Nobody is forced to use Heavies, Mediums, Lights or TD's to complete the campaign, but we are all forced to use arty

All I'm asking WG for is an alternative in the primaries or the ability to use 3 orders to bypass the 3 dedicated arty missions, which means all arty only missions need to be in one nation bloc


Edited by loot_the_supermarket, 21 January 2019 - 01:16 PM.


WoT_RU_Doing #88 Posted 21 January 2019 - 01:18 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 52386 battles
  • 2,470
  • [-GY-] -GY-
  • Member since:
    07-20-2013

View Postloot_the_supermarket, on 21 January 2019 - 12:06 PM, said:

 

Why should arty have dedicated missions when the other classes do not? There's no restrictions on class choice for any of the missions in the new campaign, you can complete any mission with any tank class , ok so it's near impossible to do some with the wrong class but it's not a restriction... yet arty gets special treatment with arty only missions?

 

Nobody is forced to use Heavies, Mediums, Lights or TD's to complete the campaign, but we are all forced to use arty

 

The simple answer to that in my view would be that derp guns should have stun too, not that the missions should be changed. It makes no sense to me that I can stun using the 152mm ML-20 on a SU-14-1, but not when it's mounted on the SU-152.

mvdt #89 Posted 21 January 2019 - 01:22 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 40646 battles
  • 297
  • [-BOMB] -BOMB
  • Member since:
    05-10-2011

View PostWoT_RU_Doing, on 21 January 2019 - 01:18 PM, said:

 

The simple answer to that in my view would be that derp guns should have stun too, not that the missions should be changed. It makes no sense to me that I can stun using the 152mm ML-20 on a SU-14-1, but not when it's mounted on the SU-152.

 

I agree with this. Or stun should be removed completely.

 

View PostWoT_RU_Doing, on 21 January 2019 - 01:01 PM, said:

 

Seems a bit unfair on those of us that like arty, but not another class. Equally, what about players that don't like a particular nation grouping?

 

I agree with you on this one, 1st campaign was much better. 

loot_the_supermarket #90 Posted 21 January 2019 - 01:29 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8237 battles
  • 266
  • Member since:
    01-03-2017

View PostWoT_RU_Doing, on 21 January 2019 - 12:18 PM, said:

 

The simple answer to that in my view would be that derp guns should have stun too, not that the missions should be changed. It makes no sense to me that I can stun using the 152mm ML-20 on a SU-14-1, but not when it's mounted on the SU-152.

 

I suspect WG (and most of the player base) would prefer a minor change to the primary mission to include tracking damage than yet more stun ... in fact one of the primary missions does have that alternative.

WoT_RU_Doing #91 Posted 21 January 2019 - 01:35 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 52386 battles
  • 2,470
  • [-GY-] -GY-
  • Member since:
    07-20-2013

View Postloot_the_supermarket, on 21 January 2019 - 12:29 PM, said:

 

I suspect WG (and most of the player base) would prefer a minor change to the primary mission to include tracking damage than yet more stun ... in fact one of the primary missions does have that alternative.

 

That would also work, if they followed your exact wording. It shouldn't replace it though, as stun overrides tracking.

eekeeboo #92 Posted 21 January 2019 - 01:48 PM

    English Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 46125 battles
  • 2,077
  • Member since:
    07-25-2010

View Postblockypanzer, on 20 January 2019 - 07:06 AM, said:

 

Please don't lie to your community. We all know there was no data that said the 279e needed buffing. And please tell us what matters in the game more than a tank's winrate and damage ratios when looking at whether it's OP. Last I checked, if a tank is dealing huge ammounts of damage, taking minmal ammounts in return, and winning a 15v15 game at a rate much higher than its fellow vehicles, that would indicate it's broken OP and needs looking at for nerfs. Perhaps you'd like to convice us that a tank with a 65% winrate is balanced because it gets tracked a lot? Or because its spotting ratio is low? Doesn't seem these things are doing much to subvert the winrate does it?

 

Accusing me of lying isn't going to help nor change the facts. 

For instance, you haven't once considered that perhaps the floor of the tank was leading too much damage being caused via splash damage, or that there was an above average number of critically damaged modules from splashed damage resulting from explosions originating below the tank. 

There is a difference between being informed and sharing that information and lying. Insulting me is not going to help and definitely not change anything. Only your ability and willingness to be open and think about the reason for changes and how these changes were done will help you in this. 

I don't need to try to convince you on the winrate because any person who's thinking about this and not just waiting for the opportunity to complain will have considered what players will have already unlocked this tank their ability and their ability to win in battles combined with how likely these people are to play in platoons that can also vastly influence win-rate. 

Once more, balancing a tank is done on more than just winrate and the damage the tank does. 

12:50 Added after 2 minutes

View PostGremlin182, on 21 January 2019 - 11:08 AM, said:

279 buff ok I am looking at this in tanks GG and as others have said there is no lower plate as such,

The hull front is mostly 280 + turret Even higher easily 350 +

Weak spots well an extremely difficult to hit cupola that's around 212 but hey its a tier 10 so I expect good armour.

Never driven one and don't remember meeting one so how hard it is to kill I don't know.

Is it sensible to buff it NO actually imo its a pretty bad idea to buff or nerf any tank right now and its pretty silly to make any changes to premium ammo too.

 

Balancing tanks and for that matter ammo is presumably based on how they perform against the tanks they meet and how well or badly they do.

 

So Qestion how can you decide anything until you give us back +2 -2 MM, right now all we have is +2 -0 and occasionally -1

My tier 10 games are either against tier 9 or 10 tanks usually tier 10 Tier 8s I might see as I say one game in 20.

Tier 9s same thing only its mostly all tier 9 or five tier 10s and ten tier 9s very rarely a tier 8 and never a tier 7

 

You really have to work on that MM there is literally little point in balancing tanks making decisions on premium ammo arty or anything else other than maps cosmetic changes improvements to the game engine etc.

All the other changes will have to be redone when you give us a working MM

 

I still haven't got my head around this 3 5 7 template of yours as yet

My tier 8 tanks often meet tier 9 and 10s but my tier 10s seldom if ever meet tier 8 tanks.

I know its not a conspiracy but that's how it appears

 

 

 

Some of these points might be better in the general feedback topic. It's good feedback but please bear in mind that this is also a patch with no MM changes, so the points are a little redundant in these topics. 

loot_the_supermarket #93 Posted 21 January 2019 - 02:11 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8237 battles
  • 266
  • Member since:
    01-03-2017

View PostWoT_RU_Doing, on 21 January 2019 - 12:35 PM, said:

 

That would also work, if they followed your exact wording. It shouldn't replace it though, as stun overrides tracking.

 

Chimera Alliance-14 primary is the precedent, and that seems the perfect answer ... a very simple modification for WG to implement on a few other 'stun only' primaries and we'd have a far fairer situation.

blockypanzer #94 Posted 21 January 2019 - 10:33 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 17906 battles
  • 27
  • [I_B] I_B
  • Member since:
    03-05-2013

View Posteekeeboo, on 21 January 2019 - 12:48 PM, said:

 

Accusing me of lying isn't going to help nor change the facts. 

For instance, you haven't once considered that perhaps the floor of the tank was leading too much damage being caused via splash damage, or that there was an above average number of critically damaged modules from splashed damage resulting from explosions originating below the tank. 

 

Once more, balancing a tank is done on more than just winrate and the damage the tank does. 

 

Can you explain why it's an issue that this tank is vulnerable to large HE blasts under the hull? It's not like there is currently any effective way to destroy this tank on the battlefield right now other than large calibre HE spam and artillery focus. Removing the viability of arty splash or well placed shots under the tank is just taking away one of the last ways to feal with the tank that doesn't involve full-use of premium ammuntion, and an inconsistant solution too (4 tracks makes landing HE round neatly under the tank hard, even harder with arty. Overall much lower DPM than pens with AP/HEAT would be)

 

Sure, balancing a tank is about more than just winrate and damage, but you're not balancing this tank; you are tipping the scales even further in its favour. To balance such a powerful vehicle, it needs weaknesses, and a vulnerability to HE and module damage is a pretty good one. If I recall, a common defence of the Object 140 and 907 (the two best mediums in the game) is that they both take heavy module damage, especially to the fuel and ammo rack. Despite this weakness both still perform incredibly well. Why is this something that you are seeking to remove from the 297e, when it seems all the more neccesary to include such weaknesses in a tank that can barely be penetrated by any gun in the game?

 

I will not accuse you of lying again, but I'd appreciate a more transparent response.



eekeeboo #95 Posted 22 January 2019 - 01:07 PM

    English Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 46125 battles
  • 2,077
  • Member since:
    07-25-2010

View Postblockypanzer, on 21 January 2019 - 09:33 PM, said:

 

Can you explain why it's an issue that this tank is vulnerable to large HE blasts under the hull? It's not like there is currently any effective way to destroy this tank on the battlefield right now other than large calibre HE spam and artillery focus. Removing the viability of arty splash or well placed shots under the tank is just taking away one of the last ways to feal with the tank that doesn't involve full-use of premium ammuntion, and an inconsistant solution too (4 tracks makes landing HE round neatly under the tank hard, even harder with arty. Overall much lower DPM than pens with AP/HEAT would be)

 

Sure, balancing a tank is about more than just winrate and damage, but you're not balancing this tank; you are tipping the scales even further in its favour. To balance such a powerful vehicle, it needs weaknesses, and a vulnerability to HE and module damage is a pretty good one. If I recall, a common defence of the Object 140 and 907 (the two best mediums in the game) is that they both take heavy module damage, especially to the fuel and ammo rack. Despite this weakness both still perform incredibly well. Why is this something that you are seeking to remove from the 297e, when it seems all the more neccesary to include such weaknesses in a tank that can barely be penetrated by any gun in the game?

 

I will not accuse you of lying again, but I'd appreciate a more transparent response.

 

It's not that it's vulnerable, it will still be vulnerable, even with increased armour on the floor, the damage will still take place but the amount of damage will not be as extreme as it currently is. The vehicle will still take a reasonable amount of damage as well as the ability to shoot the tank in the side and the back. 

 

For HE splash damage, there's also a consideration that it may not just be from arty, but factor in the increased risk of fires from the vehicle having critical damage to the fuel tanks from HE rounds fire not at the tank but the floor underneath it. 

 

The vehicle will keep it's a relatively weak floor, it's not going to be an invulnerable floor, those things that could damage it and shoot at it normally will still be able to do so now. For 90% of instances, the increase of armour to the floor doesn't change anything because of the auto-bounce from the angle you're shooting at. The increase of armour isn't going to remove the weakness but reduce the effect and bring it in line (if it goes through) with averages and the intended playstyle of the vehicle. 

 

That's why I've been transparent and people who have thus far accused us/me/WG of buffing the tank to be invincible from the front, which is not how the change is taking place nor the effect that's going to happen. People complaining that the tank will now be invincible frontally because buffs to the frontal armour, again this isn't accurate. There is a lot of negative opinion on the proposed change, which is fair enough, but it's only going to be really valuable feedback if people actually take note of the change and actually look at what on the vehicle will be adapted. 



Geno1isme #96 Posted 22 January 2019 - 03:52 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 45403 battles
  • 9,252
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

View Posteekeeboo, on 22 January 2019 - 02:07 PM, said:

The vehicle will keep it's a relatively weak floor, it's not going to be an invulnerable floor, those things that could damage it and shoot at it normally will still be able to do so now. For 90% of instances, the increase of armour to the floor doesn't change anything because of the auto-bounce from the angle you're shooting at.

 

Except that basically every T6+ gun can triple-overmatch 20mm of armor with AP which makes angles completely irrelevant, but only two guns in the whole game can overmatch 55mm. But then you originally wanted to remove overmatch alltogether when introducing the romulans (aka swedish TDs) as well ...

 

Against HE, the extra 35mm will negate about 80 points of damage, so not that much of a deal either way.



eekeeboo #97 Posted 22 January 2019 - 06:16 PM

    English Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 46125 battles
  • 2,077
  • Member since:
    07-25-2010

View PostGeno1isme, on 22 January 2019 - 02:52 PM, said:

 

Except that basically every T6+ gun can triple-overmatch 20mm of armor with AP which makes angles completely irrelevant, but only two guns in the whole game can overmatch 55mm. But then you originally wanted to remove overmatch alltogether when introducing the romulans (aka swedish TDs) as well ...

 

Against HE, the extra 35mm will negate about 80 points of damage, so not that much of a deal either way.

 

  It's a little more complicated than that. In this case what angle can you achieve on the floor of a tank? 

 

The overmatch mechanics weren't planned to be removed but reworked so that there was more accuracy to it. 

 

For negating damage it may be minimal, but it's also about the explosion radius and the effect on modules. 



ToodlePips #98 Posted 23 January 2019 - 04:59 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 61006 battles
  • 564
  • Member since:
    07-11-2012

View Posteekeeboo, on 18 January 2019 - 05:01 PM, said:

No the point is that, if you see the tank as being OP, is it OP because o the tank or because of the player? Because it has a good WR does that mean it is OP? How does that affect the decision on things like.... A tank may have an above average or far higher average of taking damage from artillery, so you'd look at the reasons for this, can you reduce the damage it takes from arty without breaking anything else? Well one way to find out is to test it and see what happens if it works, yay, if not .... then back to see what happens. 

 

 

Is it OP because of the tank of the player? Well, like I said - in the case of tanks such as the Object 907, the VK and probably the Obj 279 as well it is actually both, since these tanks are in itself very strong, AND they are by definition exclusively played by some of the best players around. Again,I simply don't think it is a good idea to make tanks that are in itself among the most powerful of their Tiers available only to the most skilled of players. However, to be fair I have to admit that free-to-play tanks such as the Super Conqueror and especially the Object 430U are actually a much bigger problem than clan reward tanks atm, because these tanks are really all over the place at the moment in high Tier games. Facing such tanks in some Tier VIII premium tank has become a joke, especially when you're playing some of older generation Tier VIII tanks. I had this experience a lot over Christmas when trying to use the bonus to grind some credits, and boy, it made me hate the game. 

 

Well, nevermind. The longer I think about it, the more it seems that I'm simply no longer the target audience of this game, which is fair enough, I guess.  

 



blockypanzer #99 Posted 23 January 2019 - 06:47 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 17906 battles
  • 27
  • [I_B] I_B
  • Member since:
    03-05-2013

View PostToodlePips, on 23 January 2019 - 03:59 PM, said:

Well, nevermind. The longer I think about it, the more it seems that I'm simply no longer the target audience of this game, which is fair enough, I guess.  

 

Free thinking? Has a brain? Not a whale? Doens't like driving flavour of the month, 57% winrate OP Russian bobjects, because you know they'll just add an even more OP fictional Russian cyka super tank in a few months? Yeah, you probably aren't the target audience mate. Stick to low tiers where it's stil lfun until the game collapses :P



ToodlePips #100 Posted 25 January 2019 - 02:21 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 61006 battles
  • 564
  • Member since:
    07-11-2012

View Postblockypanzer, on 23 January 2019 - 05:47 PM, said:

Free thinking? Has a brain? Not a whale? Doens't like driving flavour of the month, 57% winrate OP Russian bobjects, because you know they'll just add an even more OP fictional Russian cyka super tank in a few months? Yeah, you probably aren't the target audience mate. Stick to low tiers where it's stil lfun until the game collapses :P

 

To be fair, I used to be a whale ... I blush at the thought of how much money I used to throw at this game. Not one of the bright spots of my biography :hiding: .

But I do agree regarding low tier games ... Tier IV and V can still be fun at times, provided your game doesn't get effed by pimped-to-the-max T67 sealclubbers or a platoon of E-25's ...






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users