Jump to content


Premium Ammo Rebalance

Sandbox Premium shells Rebalance

  • Please log in to reply
219 replies to this topic

ExclamationMark #41 Posted 04 June 2019 - 05:32 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 16788 battles
  • 4,415
  • [IDEAD] IDEAD
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013

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

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. 

 

Yep.

Our only hope is that RU playerbase is vocal enough about these "balance changes" that WG realizes what a stupid idea it is.



undutchable80 #42 Posted 04 June 2019 - 05:36 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 11094 battles
  • 3,509
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    10-30-2014
Can we get +/-0MM please? Facing a Maus in my T8 now is hard enough already. Add another 500 hp and abandon all hope ye who enters +2MM...

Dava_117 #43 Posted 04 June 2019 - 05:40 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 22157 battles
  • 4,543
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View Posttajj7, on 04 June 2019 - 05:32 PM, said:

 

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. 

 

In my OP I also stated I would also change the damage increase method. Both a standard increase common to all guns or bigger for lower caliber while lower fo higher caliber could do the trick too. But surely not just based on armour.

OneSock #44 Posted 04 June 2019 - 05:43 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 39562 battles
  • 1,776
  • [BBMM] BBMM
  • Member since:
    06-06-2011
Cent 7/1 says hello. next to useless premium HESH round. WG. really ?

tajj7 #45 Posted 04 June 2019 - 05:43 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27801 battles
  • 15,725
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostExclamationMark, on 04 June 2019 - 04:32 PM, said:

 

Yep.

Our only hope is that RU playerbase is vocal enough about these "balance changes" that WG realizes what a stupid idea it is.

 

Not much hope there, its a buff to the bobject, IS7, 430U as much as the super heavies, and there was a vocal outcry when they wanted to nerf the 430 and 430U. 
16:44 Added after 0 minutes

View PostDava_117, on 04 June 2019 - 04:40 PM, said:

 

In my OP I also stated I would also change the damage increase method. Both a standard increase common to all guns or bigger for lower caliber while lower fo higher caliber could do the trick too. But surely not just based on armour.

 

Super Conqueror is lower alpha, does that need the same level of alpha buff as a Cent AX? 

PuddingFire #46 Posted 04 June 2019 - 05:51 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 23599 battles
  • 50
  • Member since:
    03-13-2011
Why all the changes, just limit the amount of premium ammo you can take into battle, something like a maximum of 25% of total shells can be premium rounds. Job done

Zodiac1960s #47 Posted 04 June 2019 - 05:51 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 41510 battles
  • 1,006
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011
Do it!  

Dava_117 #48 Posted 04 June 2019 - 05:53 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 22157 battles
  • 4,543
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View Posttajj7, on 04 June 2019 - 05:43 PM, said:

Super Conqueror is lower alpha, does that need the same level of alpha buff as a Cent AX? 

 

The difference in alpha si quite low, so yes. 

It need some toning down, but I don't think alpha is one of them.



JocMeister #49 Posted 04 June 2019 - 05:55 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 27248 battles
  • 2,564
  • Member since:
    08-03-2015
This just proves again that whoever is in charge of balancing at WG has absolutely NO idea what they are doing. Or its a deliberate move to dumb the game down even more to their desired corridor + super HTs + HE spam meta..

Suurpolskija #50 Posted 04 June 2019 - 05:57 PM

    Captain

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

View PostJocMeister, on 04 June 2019 - 06:55 PM, said:

This just proves again that whoever is in charge of balancing at WG has absolutely NO idea what they are doing. Or its a deliberate move to dumb the game down even more to their desired corridor + super HTs + HE spam meta..

 

As anticipated as this "change" was, when I first read about the news on the weekend without these details, I couldn't help my first thought being "Oh no..." because I knew they'd fluff it up. 

 

I still must say, this is just the first iteration, I really hope they quickly notice how bad idea this is and move to something else. 



JocMeister #51 Posted 04 June 2019 - 06:00 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 27248 battles
  • 2,564
  • Member since:
    08-03-2015
PS. This will eff up the MOE values BADLY for everyone.

Horcan #52 Posted 04 June 2019 - 06:00 PM

    The Great Hunter

  • Player
  • 61741 battles
  • 506
  • [DACUS] DACUS
  • Member since:
    01-30-2011
This could only work if they make MM +-0. If this changes pass for tier 8 vs 10 they just kill the game. The gap will be even higher that it is now.

XxKuzkina_MatxX #53 Posted 04 June 2019 - 06:02 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 53231 battles
  • 4,674
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View Posttajj7, on 04 June 2019 - 08:43 PM, said:

Not much hope there, its a buff to the bobject, IS7, 430U as much as the super heavies, and there was a vocal outcry when they wanted to nerf the 430 and 430U.

 

Why? do you think you are reinventing the wheel here?

 

Take a look at this already 30 pages long topic. You can find the same complaints and suggestions mentioned here by you, Dr_Oolen, Dava_117, UrQuan, etc.

 

What makes for good game play is obvious to all only there are different approaches to achieve the same thing!


Edited by XxKuzkina_MatxX, 04 June 2019 - 06:20 PM.


UrQuan #54 Posted 04 June 2019 - 06:06 PM

    Lieutenant General

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

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 04 June 2019 - 06:02 PM, said:

 

Why? do you think you are reinventing the wheel here?

 

Take a look at this already 30 pages long topic. You can find the same complaints and suggestions mention here by you, Dr_Oolen, Dava_117, UrQuan, etc.

 

What makes for good game play is obvious to all only there are different approaches to achieve the same thing!

 

Aye,from the little I can get, the russian discussion about balance stuff doesn't differ that much from us. And they also have the dimwits that go 'But VK 100 armor is weak!'. but we shouldn't focus on those extremes, plenty of sensible folks o the russian side too who enjoy a healthy game. 

XxKuzkina_MatxX #55 Posted 04 June 2019 - 06:14 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 53231 battles
  • 4,674
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View PostUrQuan, on 04 June 2019 - 09:06 PM, said:

Aye,from the little I can get, the russian discussion about balance stuff doesn't differ that much from us. And they also have the dimwits that go 'But VK 100 armor is weak!'. but we shouldn't focus on those extremes, plenty of sensible folks o the russian side too who enjoy a healthy game. 

 

Waaat? I thought the VK is getting buffed next patch, WG plox!!! :(

 

Seriously though, it's so much fun watching two identical posts pop up at the same time by two entirely different players.



arthurwellsley #56 Posted 04 June 2019 - 06:23 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 54054 battles
  • 4,016
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

WG say for the Common test=

"For example, boosting the HP of the Maus and the Leopard 1 by the same ratio will benefit the Maus much more. The exact gain for every vehicle will depend on how efficiently that vehicle uses its HP pool in the current tactical environment. Well-armored tanks able to mitigate more damage with high survivability will receive a proportionally smaller increase in HP compared to their less-protected brethren. This is necessary to keep the vehicles’ relative survivability at the same level. The HP pool boost will range from 15% for heavily-armored vehicles (depending on tier), up to 30% for lightly-armored ones (for an average of 26%). The aforementioned Maus and Leopard 1 will get 18% and 29% respectively. These are test values and may change if needed based on the Sandbox test results.

Increasing the one-shot damage of the basic shell. It will improve by different amounts, depending on two factors:

  • The caliber of the gun (the primary factor). The larger the caliber is, the larger the damage gain will be. For example, the current mean value for a 90-mm Tier VIII gun is 240 points. After the rebalancing, it will go up to 315 points (an increase of 31.25%). An average 150-mm gun currently has an alpha strike of 750 points; after the changes are applied, it will increase to 1060 points (an increase of 41.33%).
  • The tier of the vehicle (the secondary factor). This one will not have as big an impact as the gun caliber, but will still produce some minor value differences. We shall maintain the correlation between the alpha strike value of guns of the same caliber and the vehicle’s tier. For example, a 105-mm gun on a Tier V tank currently deals 300 points of one-time damage on average. The shell rebalancing will boost this to 400 points (an increase of 33.33%). At Tier X, currently the most common damage yield of a 105-mm gun is 390 points; once the rebalancing is done, it will increase to 525 points (by 34.62%). The difference in relative gain between Tiers V and X is just over 1%, but it still exists."

 

So I did a rough calculation for six tanks;

 

Caernarvon - alpha was 280 becomes (31.25) = 367.5. Present HP 1,500 (15% increase) = 1,750

Cong - alpha was 400 becomes (31.25) = 525. HP = present 1850 (15% as included in armoured) = 2,127.5

SuperConq - alpha was 400 becomes (31.25) = 525. HP at present = 2,400 (15% increase) = 2,760

 

as a comparison;

IS3 - alpha was 390 (assume as larger calibre gun 35 increase) = 526.5. HP at present is 1450 plus 15% is 1,667.5

T-10 - alpha was 440 (assume larger calibre gun 35 increase) = 594. HP is presently 1,700 plus 15% is 1,955

IS-7 - alpha was 490 (assume larger calibre gun 35 increase) = 661.50. Hp is presently 2,400 plus 15% increase = 2,760

 

IS3 previously needed four shoots to kill a Caenarvon, after changes still four shots. Caernarvon needs six shoots to kill an IS3 and after changes five shoots. One shoot buff to Caern

T-10 presently needs five shots to kill a Conqueror, after changes down to four shots. Conqueror presently needs five shots to kill a T-10, after changes four shots to kill a T-10. Equal reduction of one shot, but ROF

IS-7 presently needs five shots to kill a SuperConq, after changes still five shots. SuperConq presently needs six shots to kill an IS-7 and after changes remains six shoots. Equal but ...


Edited by arthurwellsley, 04 June 2019 - 06:24 PM.


Unforgiving_Destiny #57 Posted 04 June 2019 - 06:27 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 49522 battles
  • 508
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    04-29-2011

View PostPuddingFire, on 04 June 2019 - 05:51 PM, said:

Why all the changes, just limit the amount of premium ammo you can take into battle, something like a maximum of 25% of total shells can be premium rounds. Job done

 

*edited*  

Edited by Jahpero, 04 June 2019 - 06:36 PM.
This post has been edited by the moderation team due to inappropriate remarks.


mgns #58 Posted 04 June 2019 - 06:38 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 37818 battles
  • 73
  • Member since:
    03-05-2011

View PostUnforgiving_Destiny, on 04 June 2019 - 05:27 PM, said:

*edited*  

 

it would also be a completely retarded way of balancing ammo types but don't let that stop you.

Devon77 #59 Posted 04 June 2019 - 07:01 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 22409 battles
  • 30
  • Member since:
    01-15-2013

Best change ever made by WG!!!! Let it come and let all those "good" players shooting gold only, do less damage.

 

Or let them see if they can find the weak spots.. I'm betting no! :)

 

Roll it out please WG!



tajj7 #60 Posted 04 June 2019 - 07:04 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27801 battles
  • 15,725
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 04 June 2019 - 05:02 PM, said:

 

Why? do you think you are reinventing the wheel here?

 

Take a look at this already 30 pages long topic. You can find the same complaints and suggestions mentioned here by you, Dr_Oolen, Dava_117, UrQuan, etc.

 

What makes for good game play is obvious to all only there are different approaches to achieve the same thing!

 

I looked at the medium tank rebalance news item on there, LOADS of complaints about the 430 and 430U nerf, what happens? Those nerfs get cancelled, so no I don;t have much hope. 





Also tagged with Sandbox, Premium shells, Rebalance

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users