Jump to content


Premium Ammo Rebalance

Sandbox Premium shells Rebalance

  • Please log in to reply
219 replies to this topic

XxKuzkina_MatxX #201 Posted 06 June 2019 - 11:03 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 53201 battles
  • 4,293
  • [OBY] OBY
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View Posttajj7, on 06 June 2019 - 01:30 PM, said:

...

 

So to summarize this argument:

 

  • You said in this post: "I did read it and it was pretty obvious there was a lot of players just complaining that it shouldn't be nerfed, probably read 100+ posts and they were the majority." and that's simply incorrect. I've read every single post in the thread and i can safely say the minority were against the idea of the nerfs. Produce this majority you're talking about if you can either in numbers or in actual posts.
  • Then you tried diluting the mistake you made by bringing up the russian bias, the russian tech tree balance and all that irrelevant stuff. A smoke screen often helps but it indicates a cover up and it backfired when you quoted two different numbers to make up a false result. where is "that is over a 10% difference"??? The difference in the worst case is 7.34% if that mean anything at all to this discussion. You picked two different numbers from two different tabs!
  • I see a pattern here with you putting yourself in a bad position just to prove your point which could be wrong anyway. Off the top of my head, the super conqueror argument that didn't end well, the Chieftain cupola that you considered a proper weak spot even before the introduction of the tank and more recently the relentless defense of the wheeled vehicles despite the numbers saying they are over performing.
  • Self serving bias i can deal with but i find that practice immature and mundane. What are you trying to proof here? Something that didn't happen in reality? Posts that never existed?

Edited by XxKuzkina_MatxX, 09 June 2019 - 07:22 PM.
Be respectful


tajj7 #202 Posted 06 June 2019 - 11:07 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27558 battles
  • 15,259
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostDava_117, on 06 June 2019 - 09:54 AM, said:

 

Consider that, even if the server goes live like this, there will be a lot of tank that can take out a Maus with standard ammo that will be buffed too.

If everything stays as on SB now, my T30 will have 1060 alpha. It can kill a Maus in 4 shot, even more reliably than now as 750x4 is exactly 3000 while 1060x4 is more than 4k, so more than 500 HP more to compensate for low rolls. 

And that, if the player gets in the open, he will be killed even faster thanks to the better alpha of med. 

 

Yeh but that makes no sense either.

 

What WG seem to have done, as far as I can tell, is increase the alpha but keep the DPM differences between tanks the same as they are now.

 

Except because HP pools and alpha have gone up, that DPM difference is 'worth less' because its a smaller percentage of the HP of tanks.

 

To explain what I mean.

 

Currently E100 DPM is 2,346, with 750 alpha and 3.13 round per minute. Leo 1 DPM is 2,804, with 390 alpha and 7.19 rounds per minute.

 

DPM difference between the two is 458. 

 

After the change it E100 will have 1060 alpha, at 3.13 round per minute, this becomes 3,317 DPM. Leo 1 will have 525 alpha, at 7.19 rounds per minute, this becomes 3774 DPM.

 

So under the rebalance, the DPM difference is 457, basically the same.

 

So this is why I think WG have buffed the high alpha guns by a higher percentage than the lower alpha guns, they want to keep the DPM differences between all the tanks the same.

 

But what they haven't realised is that 458 DPM advantage against tanks with a max of 3k HP, is better than it is against tanks with 3.6k HP.

 

458 DPM advantage is actually 1.17 shots extra in a minute for a Leo 1 with 390 alpha, but for the buffed HP/alpha Leo 1, its only 0.87 of shot extra. 

 

So the DPM difference between lower alpha guns and bigger alpha guns has become less valuable than before. 

 

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 06 June 2019 - 10:03 AM, said:

View Posttajj7, on 06 June 2019 - 01:30 PM, said:

...

 

So to summarize this argument:

 

  • You said in this post: "I did read it and it was pretty obvious there was a lot of players just complaining that it shouldn't be nerfed, probably read 100+ posts and they were the majority." and that's simply incorrect. I've every single post of the thread and i can safely say the minority were against the idea of the nerfs. Produce this majority you're talking about if you can either in numbers or in actual posts.
  • Then you tried diluting the mistake you made by bringing up the russian bias and the russian tech tree balance and all that irrelevant stuff. A smoke screen often helps but it indicates a cover up and it backfired when you quoted two different numbers to make up a false result. where is "that is over a 10% difference"??? The difference in the worst case is 7.34% if that mean anything at all to this discussion. You picked two different numbers from two different tabs!
  • I see a pattern here with you putting yourself in a bad position just to prove your point which could be wrong anyway. Off the top of my head, the super conqueror argument that didn't end well, the Chieftain cupola that you considered a proper weak spot even before the introduction of the tank and more recently the relentless defense of the wheeled vehicles despite the numbers saying they are over performing.
  • Self serving bias i can deal with but i find that practice immature and mundane. What are you trying to proof here? Something that didn't happen in reality? Posts that never existed?

 

Anyway, I'm pretty much done with you. Your assumptions are false, your comparisons are silly and your arguments hold no water.

 

 

:D

 

I read the same thread and read almost every post as well, I saw what I saw, you claimed different, but you can't give any numbers either for what you claim, so I can safely say you are wrong. Go figure and yet again you can't prove me wrong. 

 

10% difference is 'Weekly distribution of vehicles by nation' of the RU server, Russian vehicles are the most popular, with 27.6% of all plays.

 

On EU sever, same site, same statistic, 'Weekly distribution of vehicles by nation', the share for the Soviet tech tree is 17.55%, which is over a 10% difference. But to be fair, WOTnews seems to have two tabs that says the same things and have the same graphs, but show different figures, so I am not sure which one is correct.

 

So its either a 10% difference, or a 7% difference, either way RU vehicles on the RU server are the most popular and they are not on the EU server according to WOTnews.

 

Which still supports my point, and if the figures are correct then the difference could be as much as 10%, hence why I said it. 

 

As for the rest?

 

The super conqueror that is currently underperforming for the majority of the playerbase?

 

Posted Image

 

That one? That others consistently claim is some OP monster that dominates the meta? Despite it clearly not doing that. So I am right there.

 

The Chieftain cupola, never played the tank and only had a brief look at it so I thought it would be fine, turned out it wasn't. Can't be right all the time. 


As for the wheeled vehicles, well -

 

Posted Image

 

Block Quote

 the relentless defense of the wheeled vehicles despite the numbers saying they are over performing

Where is this over performance then? :D

 

So another one I was right on, which I consistently am more often than not. 

 

Block Quote

 Anyway, I'm pretty much done with you. Your assumptions are false, your comparisons are silly and your arguments hold no water.

 

Right back at you, your assumption is false, your arguments are awful, you have been unable to back a single claim up with any data and you have now reached the absurd position where the only way you can save face is for you to desperately claim I have to prove some absolute proof in something you know can't be done when as LRS said -

 

Block Quote

 It's more about illustrating the more probable atmosphere that exists in WG and where they might bend when it comes to decisions that impact the playerbase.

 

RU>EU>NA>SEA seems to fit the picture.

 

That is basically what my comment was, not some campaign or agenda to definitively prove WG's russian bias, but to instead express doubts and worries that WG might not changes this silly premium ammo change because they have a history of pandering to their biggest playerbase, who tend to favour heavy tanks and their own nations tanks (as the evidence shows) and this has resulted in a very much Soviet meta going on (again as the evidence shows) 

 

If we go back to the original comment, all I said is I didn't have much faith in WG reverting this premium ammo change because it will benefit a lot the russian vehicles and heavies that the RU playerbase tend to favour and that WG pander to, you tried to claim that was an absurd comment but I have shown more than enough to support that theory and why I might have that worry and you have shown nothing that dispels the theory or even really causes doubt on it.

 

And now you failed so spectacularly at that you are trying to claim I have some history of being wrong on lots of things and you can't even do that. You bring up things that mainly I have been right about, ok on first view I got the T95/FV4201 cupola wrong, a tank I had barely seen, was not in the game and I'd never played. Thats about it though, I have consistently been right about WVs and continue to be so. 

 

You should have backed out of this ages ago, it has gone terribly for you, you took someones fairly innocuous comment which has plenty to support it and had a massive hissy fit about it, and then have just kept digging a hole you can't get out of.

 

Give it up, quit whilst you are a long way behind. 

 


Edited by tajj7, 06 June 2019 - 11:38 AM.


Dava_117 #203 Posted 06 June 2019 - 11:24 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 21981 battles
  • 4,473
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View Posttajj7, on 06 June 2019 - 11:07 AM, said:

 

Yeh but that makes no sense either.

 

What WG seem to have done, as far as I can tell, is increase the alpha but keep the DPM differences between tanks the same as they are now.

 

Except because HP pools and alpha have gone up, that DPM difference is 'worth less' because its a smaller percentage of the HP of tanks.

 

To explain what I mean.

 

Currently E100 DPM is 2,346, with 750 alpha and 3.13 round per minute. Leo 1 DPM is 2,804, with 390 alpha and 7.19 rounds per minute.

 

DPM difference between the two is 458. 

 

After the change it E100 will have 1060 alpha, at 3.13 round per minute, this becomes 3,317 DPM. Leo 1 will have 525 alpha, at 7.19 rounds per minute, this becomes 3774 DPM.

 

So under the rebalance, the DPM difference is 457, basically the same.

 

So this is why I think WG have buffed the high alpha guns by a higher percentage than the lower alpha guns, they want to keep the DPM differences between all the tanks the same.

 

But what they haven't realised is that 458 DPM advantage against tanks with a max of 3k HP, is better than it is against tanks with 3.6k HP.

 

458 DPM advantage is actually 1.17 shots extra in a minute for a Leo 1 with 390 alpha, but for the buffed HP/alpha Leo 1, its only 0.87 of shot extra. 

 

So the DPM difference between lower alpha guns and bigger alpha guns has become less valuable than before. 

 

That is actually quite an interesting fact I didn't think about. Quite a fine reasoning for WG that, while IMO is wrong, still more fine than expected and may actually increase my faith in WG.

Still I would much more prefer a fixed increase along the board or an inverse increase with caliber with higher caliber gun getting some gun handling buff as UrQuan proposed.



Zylon0 #204 Posted 06 June 2019 - 11:37 AM

    Corporal

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

View Posttajj7, on 06 June 2019 - 10:07 AM, said:

 

Yeh but that makes no sense either.

 

What WG seem to have done, as far as I can tell, is increase the alpha but keep the DPM differences between tanks the same as they are now.

 

Except because HP pools and alpha have gone up, that DPM difference is 'worth less' because its a smaller percentage of the HP of tanks.

 

To explain what I mean.

 

Currently E100 DPM is 2,346, with 750 alpha and 3.13 round per minute. Leo 1 DPM is 2,804, with 390 alpha and 7.19 rounds per minute.

 

DPM difference between the two is 458. 

 

After the change it E100 will have 1060 alpha, at 3.13 round per minute, this becomes 3,317 DPM. Leo 1 will have 525 alpha, at 7.19 rounds per minute, this becomes 3774 DPM.

 

So under the rebalance, the DPM difference is 457, basically the same.

 

So this is why I think WG have buffed the high alpha guns by a higher percentage than the lower alpha guns, they want to keep the DPM differences between all the tanks the same.

 

But what they haven't realised is that 458 DPM advantage against tanks with a max of 3k HP, is better than it is against tanks with 3.6k HP.

 

458 DPM advantage is actually 1.17 shots extra in a minute for a Leo 1 with 390 alpha, but for the buffed HP/alpha Leo 1, its only 0.87 of shot extra. 

 

So the DPM difference between lower alpha guns and bigger alpha guns has become less valuable than before. 

 

Perhaps we are overlooking something.

Could it be that WG decided to combine several things they wanted to change into one big change?

Thus what appears illogical to us at first glance is actually not 1 issue they are trying to fix, but many?



Geno1isme #205 Posted 06 June 2019 - 11:43 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 47341 battles
  • 10,216
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

View PostDava_117, on 06 June 2019 - 11:54 AM, said:

If everything stays as on SB now, my T30 will have 1060 alpha. It can kill a Maus in 4 shot, even more reliably than now as 750x4 is exactly 3000 while 1060x4 is more than 4k, so more than 500 HP more to compensate for low rolls. 

And that, if the player gets in the open, he will be killed even faster thanks to the better alpha of med. 

 

So people will be even less inclined to take any risks and will camp even more (as campers overall have a better chance to land the first hit in a 1v1). Sounds awesome ...
10:48 Added after 5 minutes

View PostZylon0, on 06 June 2019 - 12:37 PM, said:

Perhaps we are overlooking something.

Could it be that WG decided to combine several things they wanted to change into one big change?

Thus what appears illogical to us at first glance is actually not 1 issue they are trying to fix, but many?

 

More likely this whole "test" is a deliberate fake so WG can cancel the whole "nerf premium ammo" project without breaking their "promise" from last year. WG has repeatedly demonstrated that they have no clue about balancing this game at all. Mostly they just create new issues for no reason (268v4, wheeled tanks, Godzilla derps, template MM, stun mechanic, special OP rewards, ...).

tajj7 #206 Posted 06 June 2019 - 12:53 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27558 battles
  • 15,259
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostDava_117, on 06 June 2019 - 10:24 AM, said:

 

That is actually quite an interesting fact I didn't think about. Quite a fine reasoning for WG that, while IMO is wrong, still more fine than expected and may actually increase my faith in WG.

Still I would much more prefer a fixed increase along the board or an inverse increase with caliber with higher caliber gun getting some gun handling buff as UrQuan proposed.

 

It makes sense why they have done that, but they haven't though it through and it doesn't make sense in relation to the HP buffs.

 

Because especially with the TD alpha buffs, they have gone from needed two high rolls to kill a lot of vehicles, to needing two low rolls, thus they have increased the chances of one shots and two shots, and thus people dying more quickly.

 

I am not sure why they would want to do this and it makes me wonder whether they have not thought through the full impact of this but where just trying to make all the numbers stay roughly the same. 



UrQuan #207 Posted 06 June 2019 - 12:58 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 21298 battles
  • 7,089
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

View Posttajj7, on 06 June 2019 - 12:53 PM, said:

 

It makes sense why they have done that, but they haven't though it through and it doesn't make sense in relation to the HP buffs.

 

Because especially with the TD alpha buffs, they have gone from needed two high rolls to kill a lot of vehicles, to needing two low rolls, thus they have increased the chances of one shots and two shots, and thus people dying more quickly.

 

I am not sure why they would want to do this and it makes me wonder whether they have not thought through the full impact of this but where just trying to make all the numbers stay roughly the same. 

 

My hope atm is that the current modification is just a blanket rule application regarding the alpha & HP buffs to check for various issue & finetuning happens later (albeit WG's general approach with test-serving things doesn't give me much hope at all)

That said; I really hope they come back on the whole 'big alpha needs big buffs & low alpha needs small buffs' because i feel that's the wrong direction to take regarding damage. I rather see the damage per shot gap getting smaller, rather then wider.



tajj7 #208 Posted 06 June 2019 - 02:38 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27558 battles
  • 15,259
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostUrQuan, on 06 June 2019 - 11:58 AM, said:

 

My hope atm is that the current modification is just a blanket rule application regarding the alpha & HP buffs to check for various issue & finetuning happens later (albeit WG's general approach with test-serving things doesn't give me much hope at all)

That said; I really hope they come back on the whole 'big alpha needs big buffs & low alpha needs small buffs' because i feel that's the wrong direction to take regarding damage. I rather see the damage per shot gap getting smaller, rather then wider.

 

Yeh lets hope so, but its WG, often they seem to get terrible feedback on stuff and just go through with it anyway. I mean the bobject, Maus buffs, tier 10 lights, all stuff like this they were told on super test and on public test that the changes they made were bad and they just went through with it anyway and we saw what happened.

Long_Range_Sniper #209 Posted 06 June 2019 - 06:34 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36600 battles
  • 10,198
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

View Posttajj7, on 06 June 2019 - 10:07 AM, said:

That is basically what my comment was, not some campaign or agenda to definitively prove WG's russian bias, but to instead express doubts and worries that WG might not changes this silly premium ammo change because they have a history of pandering to their biggest playerbase, who tend to favour heavy tanks and their own nations tanks (as the evidence shows) and this has resulted in a very much Soviet meta going on (again as the evidence shows) 

 

It's what the narrative from WG shows, and I was unable to find a counter-narrative. 

 

But when you look at the spread of tanks played by EU players compared to RU, then if you implemented the proposed changes as they are then they would appear to tilt towards the RU server preferences.

 

I'm afraid we probably just have to suck that up, and it shows that maybe playing on the Sandbox for us isn't really worth it.

 

Now, a comment from a CC about now would be good, but there's more evidence that there's Russian bias in the game than us having a CC for the English speaking forum.



RedlineRailgunningRemmel #210 Posted 06 June 2019 - 07:16 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 43818 battles
  • 720
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

No, WG stop. Why did this idea even make it to a test environment when it looks so very BAD on paper? :P Did arty stun you one time too many?



miki78 #211 Posted 07 June 2019 - 09:09 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 25793 battles
  • 25
  • [RGV] RGV
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011
For me it's perfect idea how stop gold spam. AP ammo IS the great solution for this game. I am happy and just keep work this way.

Long_Range_Sniper #212 Posted 09 June 2019 - 06:31 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36600 battles
  • 10,198
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

View Posttajj7, on 06 June 2019 - 10:07 AM, said:

Give it up, quit whilst you are a long way behind. 

 

Looks like he has given up. Facts>emotion.

 

I've scanned that RU forum thread. It's 240 pages long! Even at 30 seconds a page that's two hours reading.

 

One thing I did notice on that thread, that we don't see on the EU cluster.

 

People like this engaging.

 

Capture.jpg

 

But apparently there's no "Russian bias"?



XxKuzkina_MatxX #213 Posted 09 June 2019 - 06:39 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 53201 battles
  • 4,293
  • [OBY] OBY
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

Here is the situation, if WG introduced a good tank be it the 430U or any other tank. People spent time. credits and gold to play it. Then WG wanted to nerf it, of course people will be against that in any cluster especially when the nerfs are sooo irrelevant.


Edited by XxKuzkina_MatxX, 09 June 2019 - 07:31 PM.
Be respectful


Long_Range_Sniper #214 Posted 09 June 2019 - 07:00 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36600 battles
  • 10,198
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 09 June 2019 - 05:39 PM, said:

*edited*

 

Wow....do you get out of bed this way, or build up to it over the course of the day? You don't have to post if it's a "waste of your time and energy", but the fact you did in such an eloquent way shows that something seems to have got right under your skin. Well, you can refer to lies, BS, and misinformation all you want.

 

I have also never claimed it was fact or anyone was "forced". I have stated an opinion that seems to fit the facts that I can see from an outside observer. 

 

If you're classing an opinion based on incomplete information as BS, then how come you have sufficient information to class your own as opposite? 

 

Come one now, you can come clean. You didn't read the whole thread did you? Who gives over two hours of their life to read a Russian language pixel tank forum thread?

 

it is my honest opinion, based on the information I've seen that the proposed ammunition balances would benefit the RU forum more than the EU forum.

 

Also what's wrong with some romance between me and Tajj? After he referred to me as "clueless" in 2015 I realised that opposites do attract. 

 

Would you like a hug as well?



Dava_117 #215 Posted 09 June 2019 - 07:01 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 21981 battles
  • 4,473
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View PostLong_Range_Sniper, on 09 June 2019 - 06:31 PM, said:

 

Looks like he has given up. Facts>emotion.

 

I've scanned that RU forum thread. It's 240 pages long! Even at 30 seconds a page that's two hours reading.

 

One thing I did notice on that thread, that we don't see on the EU cluster.

 

People like this engaging.

 

Capture.jpg

 

But apparently there's no "Russian bias"?

 

To be fair, considering that the devs are more likely russian speaking than english speaking, that is not really a proof that there is a russian bias rather than the fact that exist a dev that plays the game and is very active on russian forum...

Long_Range_Sniper #216 Posted 09 June 2019 - 07:06 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36600 battles
  • 10,198
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

View PostDava_117, on 09 June 2019 - 06:01 PM, said:

 

To be fair, considering that the devs are more likely russian speaking than english speaking, that is not really a proof that there is a russian bias rather than the fact that exist a dev that plays the game and is very active on russian forum...

 

I'm not presenting a case to court. This isn't a PhD thesis showing Russian Bias as proven. I'm just saying that when I look at the player data, the changes, the sort of tanks released, the changes, the buffs, the nerfs and everything else that the RU side of things seems to get the tilt by WG. When I look at the ammo changes I see changes that would tilt towards more armoured tanks. RU seems to like armour more than EU.

 

Watch the Claus Kellerman video on Russian Bias called "FILTHY". The first two minutes are where he puts his cards on the table.



XxKuzkina_MatxX #217 Posted 09 June 2019 - 07:18 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 53201 battles
  • 4,293
  • [OBY] OBY
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View PostLong_Range_Sniper, on 09 June 2019 - 10:00 PM, said:

Wow....do you get out of bed this way, or build up to it over the course of the day? You don't have to post if it's a "waste of your time and energy", but the fact you did in such an eloquent way shows that something seems to have got right under your skin. Well, you can refer to lies, BS, and misinformation all you want.

 

Do i ask you how your mood is or how you spend your time? don't like the response, don't provoke one in the first place!

 

View PostLong_Range_Sniper, on 09 June 2019 - 10:00 PM, said:

I have also never claimed it was fact or anyone was "forced". I have stated an opinion that seems to fit the facts that I can see from an outside observer.

 

If you're classing an opinion based on incomplete information as BS, then how come you have sufficient information to class your own as opposite? 

 

The thread is there and obviously you read it or parts of it. What opinion can you have??? If you read all the 240 pages and reach the same conclusion you have right now. I will gladly admit that i am wrong!

 

View PostLong_Range_Sniper, on 09 June 2019 - 10:00 PM, said:

Come one now, you can come clean. You didn't read the whole thread did you? Who gives over two hours of their life to read a Russian language pixel tank forum thread?

 

LOL! russian is my first language and if you thought about it for a minute, the thread didn't get to 240 pages in 1 second or even 1 day. I read it carefully as i read every important topic here or over there.

 

View PostLong_Range_Sniper, on 09 June 2019 - 10:00 PM, said:

it is my honest opinion, based on the information I've seen that the proposed ammunition balances would benefit the RU forum more than the EU forum.

 

What? :)

 

View PostLong_Range_Sniper, on 09 June 2019 - 10:00 PM, said:

Also what's wrong with some romance between me and Tajj? After he referred to me as "clueless" in 2015 I realised that opposites do attract. 

 

Would you like a hug as well?

 

I have no problem with that, he is likeable most of the time and i am too old for you sniperino!



Long_Range_Sniper #218 Posted 09 June 2019 - 07:32 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36600 battles
  • 10,198
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 09 June 2019 - 06:18 PM, said:

Do i ask you how your mood is or how you spend your time? don't like the response, don't provoke one in the first place!-

 

An honestly held belief, backed up with evidence, and posted accordingly is classed as "provocation" now?

 

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 09 June 2019 - 06:18 PM, said:

LOL! russian is my first language and if you thought about it for a minute, the thread didn't get to 240 pages in 1 second or even 1 day. I read it carefully as i read every important topic here or over there.

 

It's currently 240 pages long, so when you asked for evidence that would require analysis of that thread, you were asking for something pretty significant for very little gain.

 

Because the work would be unlikely to change your view now would it?

 

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 09 June 2019 - 06:18 PM, said:

I have no problem with that, he is likeable most of the time and i am too old for you sniperino!

 

As you're stating that you're too old for me as a fact, could I see the fact that substantiates your statement? 

 

If it's your opinion of course then that might be correct. It might be wrong as well.

 


Dava_117 #219 Posted 09 June 2019 - 08:02 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 21981 battles
  • 4,473
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View PostLong_Range_Sniper, on 09 June 2019 - 07:06 PM, said:

 

I'm not presenting a case to court. This isn't a PhD thesis showing Russian Bias as proven. I'm just saying that when I look at the player data, the changes, the sort of tanks released, the changes, the buffs, the nerfs and everything else that the RU side of things seems to get the tilt by WG. When I look at the ammo changes I see changes that would tilt towards more armoured tanks. RU seems to like armour more than EU.

 

Watch the Claus Kellerman video on Russian Bias called "FILTHY". The first two minutes are where he puts his cards on the table.

 

The fact that WG take the RU server opinion more into account is quite predictable, considering that there is where most of their playerbase is and where they can speak their native language.

But, a part from the damage increase ratio that, as Tajj noted, seems trying to keep the difference in DPM constant, the rest of the changes are quite good. It will increase survivability of all the tanks while solving the premium ammo spam problem.



Long_Range_Sniper #220 Posted 09 June 2019 - 08:22 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36600 battles
  • 10,198
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

View PostDava_117, on 09 June 2019 - 07:02 PM, said:

The fact that WG take the RU server opinion more into account is quite predictable, considering that there is where most of their playerbase is and where they can speak their native language.

 

Heresy! Apparently all sorts of nasty words will come down on you from on high for such a thought.

 

View PostDava_117, on 09 June 2019 - 07:02 PM, said:

It will increase survivability of all the tanks while solving the premium ammo spam problem.

 

if you think tanks will survive for longer, have you considered how much premium ammunition people will have to fire to remove the greater hit point pool?

 

I just wonder if WG are off on a smoke and mirrors exercise? They know full well that we can't access the server data showing the amount of premium ammo fired by players.

 

What if they've modeled a new system that might give the impression of a change, but might still generate the same requirement to maintain a premium account (who buys ammo with gold anyway?).

 







Also tagged with Sandbox, Premium shells, Rebalance

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users