56 replies to this topic

[Nishi_Kinuyo]

TL;DR:

Tanks are balanced by tier because balance by history isn't balanced.

Which is exactly why the Tiger is tier 6/7 (depending on model) and the T-34/76 and T-34/57 are tier 5.

 

Or if you want to compare it in Wart Hunder, since it has a slightly different approach to tiers and MM:

Rasha:

T-34, T-34 (1942) and T-34 Ekranami are all battle tier 2.

T-34/57, T-34-85 (D-5T) are battle tier 3 (BR 4.0 and BR 5.3).

T-34-85 (ZIS-S-53) is battle tier 4 (BR 5.7).

Germany:

Tiger H1, Tiger E are battle tier 3 (BR 5.7).

Tiger II (Porsche), Tiger II (Henschel) are battle tier 4 (BR 6.3 and BR 6.7).

Tiger II (10.5cm KwK) is battle tier 5.

17:51 Added after 4 minutes

KanonenVogel19, on 19 May 2019 - 06:37 PM, said:

All in all, I think this boils down to core design problems in WoT. For example, all tanks being balanced towards being damage dealers rather than some being pure spotters. Or, all tanks having enough view range to spot for themselves rather than having to depend on dedicated recon tanks. Or, almost all maps favouring close quarters brawls rather than focusing on strategic positioning, concealment, sniping etc.

Because tanks simply aren't fast, and some tanks are really slow.

Even on El Halluf it takes a churchill 7 a full 2 minutes to reach heavy corner.

Now imagine if the map was 4 times bigger (2×2km instead of 1×1km); you'll never reach the action in time to give a meaningful contribution.

You'll either arive too late to do anything with the rest of your team having moved on already meaning you do zero damage.

Or you arive too late to support your team leaving you overwhelmed by the enemy and die with barely any damage done.

 

And of course the game is balanced towards dealing damage since that is what kills the enemy, and what is being rewarded the most.

One could argue that spotting needs to be rewarded more, but I don't exactly notice most LTs being great spotters.

[KanonenVogel19]

Nishi_Kinuyo, on 19 May 2019 - 06:46 PM, said:

Tanks are balanced by tier because balance by history isn't balanced.

 

Wrong, history is very balanced, because it has to follow the laws of physics. As I wrote before, in reality you can't do what WG is currently doing in this game, that is strapping on a lot or armor, a big gun, a strong engine, and still make the tank rather small. The laws of physics doesn't allow that. If you mount a big gun, you will have to pay both in terms of speed and production cost. Actually, a lot of problems that we have in this game right now comes from the fact that WG has designed the game in an unrealistic way.

 

Nishi_Kinuyo, on 19 May 2019 - 06:46 PM, said:

Because tanks simply aren't fast, and some tanks are really slow.

 

Speed is relative. Of course tanks are not fast if you compare them to a car. But if you compare different tanks, then some tanks are faster than others. Usually, recon tanks focus on speed, because that's what matters when doing recon.

 

Nishi_Kinuyo, on 19 May 2019 - 06:46 PM, said:

Even on El Halluf it takes a churchill 7 a full 2 minutes to reach heavy corner.

Now imagine if the map was 4 times bigger (2×2km instead of 1×1km); you'll never reach the action in time to give a meaningful contribution.

 

Ehrm, why would you make the current corridor maps 4 times bigger? That doesn't make any sense at all. You're looking at the entirely wrong problems here. The problem doesn't lay in making maps bigger. The problem is that all heavies drive into a corner rather that spreading evenly across the entire map. The problem is that tanks can only shoot at a distance of 500-something meters. The problem is that battles are over within 10 minutes.

 

Nishi_Kinuyo, on 19 May 2019 - 06:46 PM, said:

And of course the game is balanced towards dealing damage since that is what kills the enemy, and what is being rewarded the most.

 

And what damage do you want to do if you can't see the enemy? Notice that applies not only ingame by in real life aswell. There are different types of tanks for a reason, you don't use a Tiger as a recon tank, neither do you use a Luchs to take out other tanks. And that's the concept that is completely messed up in this game, and you comment even confirms it. Tank combat is so much more that just raining shells on the enemy, and even though this is a tank game, it's not represented.

[Homer_J]

KanonenVogel19, on 19 May 2019 - 06:37 PM, said:

 

I understand. In that case, I think WGs main design error was to make some of the tanks appear as cannon fodder. For example, while cheap recon tanks could not even compare to the armor and firepower of a Tiger, they where much more suited for spotting duties thanks to their small size and mobility compared to a Tiger. Same thing with the cheaper tank destroyers. While not having guns powerful enough to garantee a frontal penetration of a Tiger, they would have very good rate of fire due to the lower caliber and good concealment due to the smaller size.

 

Very few people enjoy sitting in a bush watching their team fail.

[KanonenVogel19]

Homer_J, on 19 May 2019 - 09:24 PM, said:

Very few people enjoy sitting in a bush watching their team fail.

 

Well unfortunately, that's how team based games are sometimes, especially in a game without skill based MM. But that only happens sometimes. A lot of battles are actually consisting of (mostly) competent players, that while not unicums, atleast shoot the targets that you spot. This is not only a problem in WoT, but all team based games with random players. For example, in Battiefield there're also a lot of ... "questionable" players that play as medics but don't revive, or as support but don't give ammo, etc.

 

Also, to be fair, the way WG has designed scouting gameplay is also a bit bad. Sitting in a bush and look at how the battle plays out. They could have made it so much more interesting.

Edited by KanonenVogel19, 19 May 2019 - 09:32 PM.

[eekeeboo]

As you have discovered from the conversation you can't balance this game "historically" because it is not a simulator and is not limited by historical parameters. 

 

There are mentions of balanced in real life, that's not the case, there was no balance, that's now how life or war works/worked otherwise you would never have a winner. 

[SiliconSidewinder]

KanonenVogel19, on 19 May 2019 - 03:47 PM, said:

 

 

 

You mentioned 3 Tigers, but how many tanks did the allies have?

What happened to the rest of the German division, namely all the Pz.IVs, StuGs, etc?

Where are the Sherman Fireflies?

Why didn't you get any support from American Thunderbolts?

 

As you see, WG can't implement a historical game mode when all these important things are missing 

 

there were no sherman fireflies in 1942 in africa.

 

there will be other tanks as well but it in the end it will come down to three tigers rofl stomping what ever tanks the british will have.

and yes obviously this wouldn't make for a good game outside of such onetime scenarios.

[Geno1isme]

KanonenVogel19, on 19 May 2019 - 07:37 PM, said:

All in all, I think this boils down to core design problems in WoT. For example, all tanks being balanced towards being damage dealers rather than some being pure spotters. Or, all tanks having enough view range to spot for themselves rather than having to depend on dedicated recon tanks. Or, almost all maps favouring close quarters brawls rather than focusing on strategic positioning, concealment, sniping etc.

 

WoT is successful BECAUSE all tanks are self-sufficient to some degree and you DON'T strictly need teamwork to win. What you want is a COMPLETELY different game.

Just like in most MMORPG all classes need to be capable of progressing by themselves, even healers need to be able to do some damage to level up, as most people don't want to be forced to group up for standard content.

[bayosvk]

Fanste94, on 18 May 2019 - 01:08 PM, said:

Sign this petition if you want to join the fight to make the game historically accurate so that the players besides playing the game can learn something about the history http://chng.it/V77F6CByvm

 

Fanste94, on 18 May 2019 - 07:13 PM, said:

 

Maybe it's not for you, because won't now is a mess

 

please explain, why is WOT a complete mess?

[KanonenVogel19]

SiliconSidewinder, on 20 May 2019 - 11:23 AM, said:

there will be other tanks as well but it in the end it will come down to three tigers rofl stomping what ever tanks the british will have.

 

Think about it for a while. If 3 Tigers could rofl stomp anything, how come Germany lost the Africa campaign? The problem here is not about the scenario being unbalanced or boring, it's about WG implementing it the wrong way.

 

Geno1isme, on 20 May 2019 - 12:02 PM, said:

WoT is successful BECAUSE all tanks are self-sufficient to some degree and you DON'T strictly need teamwork to win.

 

Let me put it this way. In Armored Warfare all tanks are self-sufficient to some degree aswell, and you don't strictly need teamwork to win either, and how successful is that game? What I mean is that I think there's much more into WoT success than just that.

 

Also, recon vehicles usually have some kind armament, and if not, they could have abilities instead, which will allow them to cause damage aswell. The point here is that classes should be played in different ways, that's not really the case in WoT. LTs are played as poor MTs, MTs are played as unarmored HTs, TDs are played as turretless HTs. That's the problem. And on top of that we have maps that favour head-on brawls and premium ammo spam.

 

Teamwork should be required to win. That's another problem with WoT, where players have built up this mentality that their goal is not to win, but to farm damage, their goal is not to help their teammates, but to use them as meatshields, their goal is not to cooperate, but to play individually. Do you know why players have developed that mentality? Because WG has allowed that behaviour through design.

 

Geno1isme, on 20 May 2019 - 12:02 PM, said:

What you want is a COMPLETELY different game.

 

Not a completely different game, but IMHO some things need some bigger changes, yes. For example, the class system, tier system, maps, premium ammo, artillery, overall balance, etc.

 

Geno1isme, on 20 May 2019 - 12:02 PM, said:

Just like in most MMORPG all classes need to be capable of progressing by themselves, even healers need to be able to do some damage to level up, as most people don't want to be forced to group up for standard content.

 

All classes should be able to cause damage, but that doesn't mean it should be their primary role. Allow me to use Battlefield 2 as an example again. As medic, you have an assault rifle, but people still expect you to use your revive more than your gun. As engineer, you have a close quarters weapon, but people still expect you to use your repair more than your gun. Why are people expecting you to do that? Because you're the only class that can do it.

 

And important to note is that it actually works. So the selfishness problem is not a global gaming problem, but rather a game specific problem, which WG themselves have promoted by designing the game the way they have.

[SiliconSidewinder]

KanonenVogel19, on 20 May 2019 - 03:05 PM, said:

 

Think about it for a while. If 3 Tigers could rofl stomp anything, how come Germany lost the Africa campaign? The problem here is not about the scenario being unbalanced or boring, it's about WG implementing it the wrong way.

 

 

sigh give a example on how historic mm doesn't result in not equal having fun games, have silly people give silly comments to you. 10 of 10 would do again.

 

again, we are making these scenario based on historical line ups ourself picking tank numbers based on units present at fronts and their historical equiment which results in very onesided games.

if you don't believe me, get over to our place and sign up

 

http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/636591-pantarudeln-historisch-fast-korrekt/page__pid__16906893__st__1600#entry16906893

 

 

[Nishi_Kinuyo]

KanonenVogel19, on 20 May 2019 - 03:05 PM, said:

Think about it for a while. If 3 Tigers could rofl stomp anything, how come Germany lost the Africa campaign? The problem here is not about the scenario being unbalanced or boring, it's about WG implementing it the wrong way.

The one thing that wins/loses most wars: logistics.

It doesn't matter how awesome the Tiger 1 was; if its out of fuel and ammunition, it is worthless.

Or spare parts to keep it running despite the frequent breakdowns.

[KanonenVogel19]

SiliconSidewinder, on 20 May 2019 - 04:37 PM, said:

have silly people give silly comments to you.

 

So instead of actually thinking about it for a while, you just put the label "silly" on both me and the argument? This conversation is pointless and do you know why? I'm discussing this with people that has already in advance decided that for some reason historical accuracy and realism is bad. Doesn't matter what arguments I put forward, you are already determined.

 

SiliconSidewinder, on 20 May 2019 - 04:37 PM, said:

we are making these scenario based on historical line ups ourself picking tank numbers based on units present at fronts and their historical equiment which results in very onesided games.

 

Sigh, you can't do that in the games current state because the game has not been designed for such a senario. Things like maps, lack of air support, viewrange inflation, and so on, doesn't support a historical scenario to be played out historically accurate. Of course it becomes one sided.

 

Nishi_Kinuyo, on 20 May 2019 - 04:50 PM, said:

The one thing that wins/loses most wars: logistics.

It doesn't matter how awesome the Tiger 1 was; if its out of fuel and ammunition, it is worthless.

Or spare parts to keep it running despite the frequent breakdowns.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong about the logistics part, but you're completely missing the point. Do you realise that both the Soviets, British and Americans managed to destroy a lot of Tigers during the war? Apart from popular thought, these tanks were not invincile and they couldn't rofl stomp everything. Their success depended on a combination of tank quality and crew quality. Of course they were supperior when getting fought from the front, but that's irrelevant when 5 times as many Shermans rush them and shoot them in the rear. Or when a Thunderbolt slam a bunch of anti-tank rockets into their side.

[Homer_J]

KanonenVogel19, on 20 May 2019 - 05:14 PM, said:

 

So instead of actually thinking about it for a while, you just put the label "silly" on both me and the argument? This conversation is pointless and do you know why? I'm discussing this with people that has already in advance decided that for some reason historical accuracy and realism is bad. Doesn't matter what arguments I put forward, you are already determined.

 

 

You are right with one thing.  WG implemented historical battles badly.  That doesn't mean there is a good way to do it though within the restrictions of World of Tanks.

[KanonenVogel19]

Homer_J, on 20 May 2019 - 05:52 PM, said:

You are right with one thing.  WG implemented historical battles badly.  That doesn't mean there is a good way to do it though within the restrictions of World of Tanks.

 

I agree with that. To be honest, I don't think they can implement historical battles in the games current state at all, it's simply too unhistorical and missing to many entities that existed historically. Although, I do hope that they could make the game more realistic and more historically accurate. Of course not at the cost of fun and simplicity, but as much as possible without going too far. An example would be maps and premium ammo.

[Jigabachi]

Soooo... as before, OP won't come back to elaborate his totally awesome and even more totally needed idea. Surprise.

Maybe in the next spamthread...

[BIZMARK_16]

Fanste94, on 18 May 2019 - 01:08 PM, said:

Sign this petition if you want to join the fight to make the game historically accurate so that the players besides playing the game can learn something about the history http://chng.it/V77F6CByvm

 

stop you biching and play war thunder and stop trying to destroy this game here Ok 

[_SpartanWarrior_]

bayosvk, on 20 May 2019 - 11:23 AM, said:

 

 

please explain, why is WOT a complete mess?

 

For your 16k battles,of course you do not know

BIZMARK_16, on 22 May 2019 - 08:09 AM, said:

 

stop you biching and play war thunder and stop trying to destroy this game here Ok 

 

Stop you insulting and don't cry he just gave a idea Ok

KanonenVogel19, on 20 May 2019 - 05:35 PM, said:

 

I agree with that. To be honest, I don't think they can implement historical battles in the games current state at all, it's simply too unhistorical and missing to many entities that existed historically. Although, I do hope that they could make the game more realistic and more historically accurate. Of course not at the cost of fun and simplicity, but as much as possible without going too far. An example would be maps and premium ammo.

 

I agree with you too.