Jump to content


Special ammunation rebalancing

Gameplay

  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

ExclamationMark #61 Posted 02 June 2019 - 09:33 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 16785 battles
  • 4,360
  • [IDEAD] IDEAD
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013

View PostKanonenVogel19, on 02 June 2019 - 05:53 PM, said:

Please, I understand your point, but you also need to understand that we can still have high penetration shells in the game even if they cost the same. If high penetration shells are actually required to play the game, then they should not be so expensive. All shell types should cost the same.

 

And I understand yours. :P

Armour Warfare did the same, and arguably that is one of the best things it had over WoT. Ammo types were generally quite balanced. Except HE maybe. I think HE was too strong but whatever.

I'm all for an ammo rework, it just needs to be done well.

And the biggest issue with an ammo rework is, rebalancing tank armour has to be done the same patch or at the very least the patch after (preferably before). Otherwise the game will go downhill very, very quickly.


Edited by ExclamationMark, 02 June 2019 - 09:34 PM.


KanonenVogel19 #62 Posted 02 June 2019 - 10:08 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 390 battles
  • 529
  • Member since:
    04-05-2019

View PostExclamationMark, on 02 June 2019 - 09:33 PM, said:

And I understand yours. :P

 

Thank you :great:

 

I'm trying to push the idea that all ammo types need to cost the same. That's the entire foundation to a good ammo rework, regardless of how they tweak the other parameters. I would very much appreciate it if you (and everyone else that agrees), could help me to push that idea when the Sandbox testing starts. I think we can get WG to understand this if we're enough people to point it out, so all help in mentioning an equal ammo cost is appreciated.

 

View PostExclamationMark, on 02 June 2019 - 09:33 PM, said:

And the biggest issue with an ammo rework is, rebalancing tank armour has to be done the same patch or at the very least the patch after

 

Personally I'd prefer a map rework rather than an armor rework. We need maps like this:

 

 

But of course, if WG instists that they want to keep their corridor maps, then some tanks will have too good armor if we don't have high penetration ammo. Then it's also important to note that just because they remove premium ammo, doesn't mean that they need to remove high penetration ammo. We can still have high penetration ammo as stardard rounds.

 

View PostExclamationMark, on 02 June 2019 - 09:33 PM, said:

I'm all for an ammo rework, it just needs to be done well.

 

Can I ask you, what do you think about this idea:

 

Instead of having an individual cost for all ammo types and consumables, we would have an abstracted service cost for each individual tank. In that service cost, the ammunition and consumables are already included, and regardless of what setup you choose, the cost is always the same. After each battle, you always pay the same service cost regardless of how many shells you shot, regardless of what consumables you actually used, and regardless if your tank was destroyed or not. This service cost needs to be set low enough so that regular players can still make a profit, but it also needs to be set high enough to not cause a credits inflation.

 

What do you think about that idea? Unless WG is already implementing something along these lines, would you support/promote this idea on the Sandbox server?



ExclamationMark #63 Posted 02 June 2019 - 10:28 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 16785 battles
  • 4,360
  • [IDEAD] IDEAD
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013

View PostKanonenVogel19, on 02 June 2019 - 10:08 PM, said:

Thank you :great:

 

I said I understood it, not that I agreed with it... unfortunately there is a difference and that matters here - premium/gold ammo is the main reason people buy and generally continue to buy premium accounts. Or at least it was, with the recent changes to premium benefits (which were absolutely not needed), not so sure that is the case. But it is a big contributing factor nonetheless. 

So realistically, WG will not change the prices of gold ammo. Essentially WG is nerfing gold ammo (-20% to damage), and that could already be a hit to their profitability. 

 

View PostKanonenVogel19, on 02 June 2019 - 10:08 PM, said:

Instead of having an individual cost for all ammo types and consumables, we would have an abstracted service cost for each individual tank. In that service cost, the ammunition and consumables are already included, and regardless of what setup you choose, the cost is always the same. After each battle, you always pay the same service cost regardless of how many shells you shot, regardless of what consumables you actually used, and regardless if your tank was destroyed or not. This service cost needs to be set low enough so that regular players can still make a profit, but it also needs to be set high enough to not cause a credits inflation.

 

I think it's a unique idea, can't say I've read it here before. But what do I think of it? Honestly, can't agree.

I don't agree that you should have to pay for something that you didn't use. What if you die early? You get ammo racked, back to garage without using anything. Just doesn't feel right. Charging someone for something they didn't use. And yes I understand the concept - like paying for a gym membership. You may not use everything there, but you have access to it.

And again, this all comes back to WG's profitability - in general, this would mean that players make more profit. So it won't happen.


Edited by ExclamationMark, 02 June 2019 - 10:30 PM.


Zylon0 #64 Posted 02 June 2019 - 10:31 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 9650 battles
  • 188
  • Member since:
    01-06-2011

Cost should never be a way to balance things, as it can be nullified with paying.

Thus pay to win.



KanonenVogel19 #65 Posted 02 June 2019 - 10:34 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 390 battles
  • 529
  • Member since:
    04-05-2019

View PostExclamationMark, on 02 June 2019 - 10:28 PM, said:

WG will not change the prices of gold ammo.

 

Ok, but let's put aside what we think they will or will not do, and instead focus on what you want them to do. If you had full power, would you make all ammo types cost the same? :)



ExclamationMark #66 Posted 02 June 2019 - 10:50 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 16785 battles
  • 4,360
  • [IDEAD] IDEAD
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013

View PostKanonenVogel19, on 02 June 2019 - 10:34 PM, said:

Ok, but let's put aside what we think they will or will not do, and instead focus on what you want them to do. If you had full power, would you make all ammo types cost the same? :)

 

Yes.

But of course, goes without saying that would require all standard ammo to be buffed.


Edited by ExclamationMark, 02 June 2019 - 10:50 PM.


KanonenVogel19 #67 Posted 02 June 2019 - 11:05 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 390 battles
  • 529
  • Member since:
    04-05-2019

View PostExclamationMark, on 02 June 2019 - 10:50 PM, said:

Yes.

 

Then we agree with each other ;)

 

So if you want, I'd appreciate it very much if you and everyone else that agrees, would help me to push that concept forward on the Sandbox :great:

 

View PostExclamationMark, on 02 June 2019 - 10:50 PM, said:

But of course, goes without saying that would require all standard ammo to be buffed.

 

They can implement downsides to the high penetration rounds in order to make them weaker. For example, if they add overpenetration to APCR rounds, that means the APCR rounds will still work as usual against heavily armored targets, but if a player shoots them against lightly armored targets aswell, they will overpenetrate and do almost no damage. HEAT should not have that much penetration, in reality they actually have less penetration that an AP round on close distance. But since they don't lose penetration over distance, they make up for it.



Kartoshkaya #68 Posted 03 June 2019 - 05:42 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 26085 battles
  • 761
  • Member since:
    01-01-2015

View PostKanonenVogel19, on 02 June 2019 - 11:05 PM, said:

They can implement downsides to the high penetration rounds in order to make them weaker. For example, if they add overpenetration to APCR rounds, that means the APCR rounds will still work as usual against heavily armored targets, but if a player shoots them against lightly armored targets aswell, they will overpenetrate and do almost no damage. HEAT should not have that much penetration, in reality they actually have less penetration that an AP round on close distance. But since they don't lose penetration over distance, they make up for it.

 

I like the idea of overpenetration, but when you see how players like our 'special one' struggle to understand the actual differences between ammo (penetration angles, penetration lost over distance, ..) I think a huge part of the playerbase will have a hard time with this.

 

I think a simple mechanism is mandatory as the game is already really really hard for a lot of players nowadays...



Liquiel #69 Posted 03 June 2019 - 06:04 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 9615 battles
  • 92
  • [BRAND] BRAND
  • Member since:
    09-30-2011

 

 Personally I'd prefer a map rework rather than an armor rework.

 

Actually, the best idea is to change ammo and to drastically change maps to enable flanking at the same time.

KanonenVogel19 #70 Posted 03 June 2019 - 06:05 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 390 battles
  • 529
  • Member since:
    04-05-2019

View PostKartoshkaya, on 03 June 2019 - 05:42 AM, said:

I think a simple mechanism is mandatory as the game is already really really hard for a lot of players nowadays...

 

I understand what you mean, but to be honest, overpenetration is a very simple mechanic. Basically, if your shell has enough penetration to pierce the enemy twice, then it will go stright through the tank and not do much damage. They can even add a similiar notification to the one you get when you do a critical hit or a bounce, you know that white text that pops up close to the enemy. The people that refuse to learn the game will refuse to learn it even if you make it even simplier than it's today, so unfortunately I think these kind of people are a lost cause already.

 

View PostLiquiel, on 03 June 2019 - 06:04 AM, said:

Actually, the best idea is to change ammo and to drastically change maps to enable flanking at the same time.

 

Yeah, I agree.



Zylon0 #71 Posted 03 June 2019 - 11:13 AM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 9650 battles
  • 188
  • Member since:
    01-06-2011

View PostLiquiel, on 03 June 2019 - 05:04 AM, said:

 

Actually, the best idea is to change ammo and to drastically change maps to enable flanking at the same time.

 

Yet if maps become to easy to get flanked on, then all the slow or sluggish tanks become instantly obsolete.

For instance an open field map.

 

But the game mechanics do not allow to fire at each other from great distances 1.5-2 km. (like in warthunder or RL?)

And the in game speed is faster then tanks would behave in RL.

 

Both these factors would make agile tanks rule the battlefield, as if they where MBT..

 

So we would we back at square one and people looking for special ammo to rebalance the new situation.


Edited by Zylon0, 03 June 2019 - 11:14 AM.


KanonenVogel19 #72 Posted 03 June 2019 - 02:55 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 390 battles
  • 529
  • Member since:
    04-05-2019

View PostZylon0, on 03 June 2019 - 11:13 AM, said:

Yet if maps become to easy to get flanked on, then all the slow or sluggish tanks become instantly obsolete.

 

They would not become obsolete. However heavy tanks and definitely super heavy tanks, would be a lot more balanaced than they're currently. The point is that right now, HTs can just focus on pushing forward, that's what makes them so unbalanced right now. On a proper realistic map, they'd need to be careful to not push too much so their sides get exposed. That's why HTs where not so OP in real life, because there where actually ways to take them out without having some magic ammo with super high penetration.


Edited by KanonenVogel19, 03 June 2019 - 02:55 PM.


HundeWurst #73 Posted 03 June 2019 - 05:19 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 74728 battles
  • 4,602
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

View Postdoomenator17, on 02 June 2019 - 04:21 PM, said:

It is becoming more and more a pay to win gameplay.

Personally i have encountered to many matches were even at tier V and VI (5 and 6) top tier tanks medium and heavy tanks use special ammo to win.

 

As a counter for to many players going near full loadout of special ammo, I suggest that the game developers restrict the amount of rounds one can loadout for special ammo of any kind may it be HEAT, APCR, AP or HE.
This will force people to learn to aim for weakspots and if their standard ap or APCR (for most guns) won't work, try using HE then. If you still don't to damage try get teammates for help or try flanking.

 

Here is an example.
2019-06-02_LI (2).jpg

 

I'm not defending the current premium rounds but weak spot in 2019... If only there were some of these left.... LUL

 

Also limiting the amount is pointless. People would stop spamming them but would still use them against any kind of armored tank. 



doomenator17 #74 Posted 11 June 2019 - 03:39 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 6454 battles
  • 3
  • [-T_N-] -T_N-
  • Member since:
    05-17-2012

The main issue what you people overlook is the unfairness at lower tiers,

It makes grinding even harder then it is.

 

With the special ammo there is hardly impossible to block damage making it harder to survive and do more damage --> resulting in more losses and less exp.

 

Look I see your point at high tiers like tier IX and X but look at the whole picture here. (all the tiers).

 

I only ask to do something about high penetration with high damage shells.

How will regular players have in the game if there lose ratio increases so many times because of the overuse of special ammonation, it takes the fun out of the damn game.


Edited by doomenator17, 11 June 2019 - 03:43 PM.






Also tagged with Gameplay

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users