Jump to content


Premium Ammo Rebalance

Sandbox Premium shells Rebalance

  • Please log in to reply
219 replies to this topic

Strizi #21 Posted 04 June 2019 - 04:30 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 41988 battles
  • 885
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011
What a stupid idea wargaming :sceptic::angry:

Danger__UXB #22 Posted 04 June 2019 - 04:30 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 9786 battles
  • 2,837
  • Member since:
    03-07-2013

All they have done is made you shoot more special ammo to kill the superheavies which cannot be penned with ap ...due to the ever increasing corridor maps and the flattening of them....which places alot of the engagements at long distance= (pen drop over distance) = Load the HEAT = KEEErrching!!

 

...I knew whatever happened the balance would be money orientated in their favour.:coin:....are you really suprised??


Edited by Danger__UXB, 04 June 2019 - 04:43 PM.


tajj7 #23 Posted 04 June 2019 - 04:33 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27789 battles
  • 15,725
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014
Annoyingly you cant post in the sandbox forum yet. 

Edited by tajj7, 04 June 2019 - 04:33 PM.


Dava_117 #24 Posted 04 June 2019 - 04:41 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 22150 battles
  • 4,533
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View Posttajj7, on 04 June 2019 - 04:29 PM, said:

The alpha buffs need to be tied in with the armour consideration they are making, not bigger guns get more of a % increase.

 

Giving a Grille 15 40% more alpha, I can get, because it will have to face increased alpha standard ammo or increase alpha HE coming back it. 

 

Giving a Bobject  40% more alpha, is completely stupid, because it will either bounce more (because more standard ammo is fired at it), or it has more HP, because premium ammo is fired at it, meaning either way, it is getting a survivability buff, so giving it an alpha buff AS WELL, is just dumb.

 

If your tank has armour, you get the lower end of the alpha buff, because you are getting a survivability buff. 

If your tank has no armour, you get the higher end of the alpha buff, because your survivability is unchanged and its harder to fight armoured stuff now with their HP buff. 

 

Don't agree with that. IMO all guns should have the same damage increase, let's say 30%. Paper tanks will already receive a buff in HP to compensate for less armour so no need to increase alpha on paper platform.



vasilinhorulezz #25 Posted 04 June 2019 - 04:41 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 26548 battles
  • 1,848
  • Member since:
    09-26-2014
This will be fun :).

Dorander #26 Posted 04 June 2019 - 04:43 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 21025 battles
  • 5,475
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012
Well... guess it's back to driving superheavies.

vasilinhorulezz #27 Posted 04 June 2019 - 04:46 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 26548 battles
  • 1,848
  • Member since:
    09-26-2014
WG balancing department shows us once more their incompetence. Seriously, when are you gonna fire those guys and get people with at least average IQ?

Edited by vasilinhorulezz, 04 June 2019 - 04:46 PM.


PanzerTedo #28 Posted 04 June 2019 - 04:48 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 34606 battles
  • 66
  • [WGL-A] WGL-A
  • Member since:
    07-01-2011
It seems to me it's gonna be another major WG fail. Maybe time to finally quit this game? Hmm, we'll see....

Dr_Oolen #29 Posted 04 June 2019 - 05:00 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 23434 battles
  • 1,886
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012

View Posttajj7, on 04 June 2019 - 04:29 PM, said:

The alpha buffs need to be tied in with the armour consideration they are making, not bigger guns get more of a % increase.

 

Giving a Grille 15 40% more alpha, I can get, because it will have to face increased alpha standard ammo or increase alpha HE coming back it. 

 

Giving a Bobject  40% more alpha, is completely stupid, because it will either bounce more (because more standard ammo is fired at it), or it has more HP, because premium ammo is fired at it, meaning either way, it is getting a survivability buff, so giving it an alpha buff AS WELL, is just dumb.

 

If your tank has armour, you get the lower end of the alpha buff, because you are getting a survivability buff. 

If your tank has no armour, you get the higher end of the alpha buff, because your survivability is unchanged and its harder to fight armoured stuff now with their HP buff. 

 

I like how 30 minutes of some brainstorming done by people on the forums produce instantly much better solutions than what WG has been coming up with for a year...

 

Basically:

- buff HP on most paper tanks by 50%

- buff HP on most armored tanks by 15%

- buff alpha on most paper/least alpha tanks by 40%

- buff alpha on most armored/most alpha tanks by 15%

 

... so something like E3 would get like 15% hp, 10% alpha; maus something like 15% HP and 20% alpha; grille something like 50% HP and 30% alpha and leopard something like 50% hp and 40% alpha...


Edited by Dr_Oolen, 04 June 2019 - 05:05 PM.


Bracciano_gatto #30 Posted 04 June 2019 - 05:00 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 2906 battles
  • 404
  • Member since:
    09-07-2018
This seems like a real bad idea ... real real bad ...

UrQuan #31 Posted 04 June 2019 - 05:02 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 21323 battles
  • 7,117
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

View PostDava_117, on 04 June 2019 - 04:41 PM, said:

 

Don't agree with that. IMO all guns should have the same damage increase, let's say 30%. Paper tanks will already receive a buff in HP to compensate for less armour so no need to increase alpha on paper platform.

 

Taji's concept is good, however, as you noted, it shouldn't rely on how much armor you got. People focus too often on the big guns some armored HT's got. But giving less damage buff because you got armor is not good either as some armored HT's don't have high alpha & would get shafted in that regard. Rather go about the alpha tbh, big alpha guns get less % buff; lower end of alpha more. With a look at DPM as well, some tanks don't have high alpha but got ridiculous DPM, so cant' buff that alpha too much then. 

The spread of damage per shot is very wide at some tiers, wouldn't mind to see that gap closing a little.

 

The short of it is: a blanket buff/nerf will never work. A general rebalance can work, with the caveat that special cases need special treatement. A tank that already has very high alpha (like the jap heavy AP guns or the new russian rear turret tanks) can do with more gun handling buffs rather then a simple damage buff to make them better in dealing damage. same,with some TD's. While other tanks, like quite some lights & some meds can do with some good damage buffs to their gun


Edited by UrQuan, 04 June 2019 - 05:03 PM.


tajj7 #32 Posted 04 June 2019 - 05:05 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27789 battles
  • 15,725
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostDava_117, on 04 June 2019 - 03:41 PM, said:

 

Don't agree with that. IMO all guns should have the same damage increase, let's say 30%. Paper tanks will already receive a buff in HP to compensate for less armour so no need to increase alpha on paper platform.

 

Paper tanks are not getting the survivability buff. 

 

Premium ammo is effectively being nerfed by HP being increased and standard ammo being increased, but that means nothing to paper tanks, premium ammo is irrelevant to them, so they get no survivability buff and their main weapon to deal with armoured tanks is getting nerfed, so effectively they are getting nerfed, whilst armoured tanks are getting a buff.

 

So their alpha should compensate for that, they should be getting more alpha buff, to balance out the survability buff armoured tanks are getting. 



Suurpolskija #33 Posted 04 June 2019 - 05:05 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 22821 battles
  • 2,211
  • [KANKI] KANKI
  • Member since:
    01-26-2016

Wow. A huge buff to superheavies and sturdy TD's. Huge buff to high alpha guns. This is like the worst case scenario lol. Good that it's only "the first iteration" because if this goes through, I'm out. 



NL_Chaos #34 Posted 04 June 2019 - 05:13 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 15076 battles
  • 12
  • [JOM] JOM
  • Member since:
    05-12-2013

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 04 June 2019 - 04:08 PM, said:

 

Yep, the death star always needed an alpha buff! :teethhappy:

 

haha or what do you think about the t95 i mean that thing is a beast and now it gets more hp and more alpha dmg thats going to be fun.

Dr_Oolen #35 Posted 04 June 2019 - 05:14 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 23434 battles
  • 1,886
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012
One other thing to consider is how these changes affect MM spread... Basically being bottom tier youll get even more fucked than now. Basically with these changes +-1 would be absolutely necessary to make the game playable as bottom tier. And at that point (+-1) you might as well rebalance penetrations/armor individually anyway because heavies would no longer "have to" be able to bounce +2 tanks and -2 tanks would no longer have to pen +2 tiers... So there would be no need for 330 gold at T9, just as there would be no need for 220+ mm "weakspots" on t8 heavies...

Edited by Dr_Oolen, 04 June 2019 - 05:16 PM.


Danger__UXB #36 Posted 04 June 2019 - 05:17 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 9786 battles
  • 2,837
  • Member since:
    03-07-2013

Type 5 gets 2 buffs....

 

HE and HP???...Its good to know WG handled the situation correctly?...Gotta laaaaarrrrf!!:teethhappy:

 

Meanwhile in light tanks;....

 

 


Edited by Danger__UXB, 04 June 2019 - 05:22 PM.


Dava_117 #37 Posted 04 June 2019 - 05:27 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 22150 battles
  • 4,533
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View Posttajj7, on 04 June 2019 - 05:05 PM, said:

 

Paper tanks are not getting the survivability buff. 

 

Premium ammo is effectively being nerfed by HP being increased and standard ammo being increased, but that means nothing to paper tanks, premium ammo is irrelevant to them, so they get no survivability buff and their main weapon to deal with armoured tanks is getting nerfed, so effectively they are getting nerfed, whilst armoured tanks are getting a buff.

 

So their alpha should compensate for that, they should be getting more alpha buff, to balance out the survability buff armoured tanks are getting. 

 

That is why they get more HP in return. They don't have armour so they get a direct HP buff instead of an indirect one.

I far more prefer a solution like UrQuan said, to reduce the difference between the lower and upper edge of alpha spectrum but not based on armour. 


Edited by Dava_117, 04 June 2019 - 05:28 PM.


_RNG #38 Posted 04 June 2019 - 05:28 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 1596 battles
  • 358
  • Member since:
    02-03-2019
so i have read the artticel but i just unterstand rocket sience...

m4inbrain #39 Posted 04 June 2019 - 05:31 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 14712 battles
  • 315
  • Member since:
    11-19-2010

Yeah, no.. That'd be an uninstall for me. They can do what they want with their game, i had my enjoyment and moneys worth out of it - but if this goes through, and by that, i don't just mean "the numbers", but the entire concept, i'll play something else. Making the game even more volatile than it already is, is the last thing you should do. The TTK currently is in a decent place, more or less - with these changes, and with this concept, TTK will change drastically because damage goes up by a considerably higher margin than HP, and camping will be even more prevalent. If everything does more damage, but your HP barely goes up (Maus, Type 5 etc), you actually die considerably faster once somebody gets into your sides. To the point where the "new" TDs actually twoshot Maus again. 

 

I'd love to see the guy who comes up with non-thought out bs like this.

 

Here's how you fix premium spam. You fix MM first, preventing the NEED for tier 8s to carry vast amounts of skillrounds to be not entirely worthless in a T10 match. Then, you take premium rounds, and you have a few options. A: just flatout trade damage for penetration. At a 3 to 1 ratio. For every mm extra pen, you lose 3 damage on that shell. Or: limit the amount of premium shells carried. Or: introduce a debuff: if you fire a skillround, the next one loads 50% slower.  

 

How hard is it to understand that premium rounds aren't "optional" or "situational", and never will be. No, you don't fix it by increasing everything else and not touching premium rounds, all you do is to introduce vast amounts of values that could screw the balance massively. I don't see how that fact(!) is hard to understand. 

 

Here's the border line, and it's one that WG really needs to take to heart if you want to get anywhere. WG is barely able to balance single tanks. Time and time again WG has proven that they're unable, or barely able to fix already existing tanks in an existing meta. You now want to rebalance every single tank and ammo in the game. How high do you think the hopes are with the players that this will be anything but a disaster? 



tajj7 #40 Posted 04 June 2019 - 05:32 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27789 battles
  • 15,725
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostDava_117, on 04 June 2019 - 04:27 PM, said:

 

That is why they get more HP in return. They don't have armour so they get a direct HP buff instead of an indirect one.

I far more prefer a solution like UrQuan said, to reduce the difference between the lower and upper edge of alpha spectrum but not based on armour. 

 

They aren't though, that HP buff is meaningless as its less than the buff to all standard guns.

 

At best they are getting a 29 - 31% HP buff, all the alpha of all guns is also going up by that much. So they are at the same point. 

 

Plus bigger guns actually do more damage to them. 







Also tagged with Sandbox, Premium shells, Rebalance

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users