Jump to content


Premium Ammo Rebalance

Sandbox Premium shells Rebalance

  • Please log in to reply
219 replies to this topic

Zoggo_ #81 Posted 05 June 2019 - 12:45 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 31421 battles
  • 449
  • [ZOGGO] ZOGGO
  • Member since:
    05-11-2013

Ok early days, no need to panic yet.

Lower tier HP buff very good. WG should have done this years ago.

 

The increase in standard ammo damage seems too high compared to HP especially at high tiers. High alpha guns do not need 40% increase in damage. When you could get 2 or 3 shotted from big tds this will create a lot of camping.

Also auto loaders clip potential needs to be taken into account, as they could become too strong and could clip out (with rng) pretty much all mediums.

 

Question? Wouldn't it be a good idea to change the pen RNG on standard rounds from 25% to say 15%. If players knew the standard round was more reliable at penning they would fire less gold ?

 

Just a side note, with massive changes to HP of all tanks and huge increase in possible damage this will surely make wn8 and XVM utterly redundant ? All older stats when premium ammo rebalance goes live will surely be meaningless.

Personally I dont use xvm in battle but I like to use 3rd party sites to check how I'm doing.



nulldev #82 Posted 05 June 2019 - 12:54 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 13066 battles
  • 90
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011

View PostExclamationMark, on 05 June 2019 - 01:14 AM, said:

 

Go play AW then.

 

Where do you see single player mode in that?

XxKuzkina_MatxX #83 Posted 05 June 2019 - 01:12 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 53231 battles
  • 4,634
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View PostZoggo_, on 05 June 2019 - 03:45 AM, said:

Question? Wouldn't it be a good idea to change the pen RNG on standard rounds from 25% to say 15%. If players knew the standard round was more reliable at penning they would fire less gold ?

 

It sure will encourage people to fire less gold but i don't know if that's technically possible. RNG on pen and shell distribution (accuracy) if lowered could help because part of the issue is people missing the weak spots rather than not having enough pen. Also some just want to make sure so they load gold because they don't trust the standard pen when RNG is factored in.



7thSyndicate #84 Posted 05 June 2019 - 01:20 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 46879 battles
  • 686
  • Member since:
    10-09-2012
What are they doing to this game...

ExclamationMark #85 Posted 05 June 2019 - 01:21 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 16788 battles
  • 4,405
  • [IDEAD] IDEAD
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013

View Postnulldev, on 05 June 2019 - 12:54 AM, said:

Where do you see single player mode in that?

 

... good question. Sorry, I was thinking of the co-op mode. :teethhappy:

XxKuzkina_MatxX #86 Posted 05 June 2019 - 01:47 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 53231 battles
  • 4,634
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

VEROXX from TAP compiled this table of the current increased alpha and HP of tier 10 tanks...

 

Spoiler

 



Hiisi #87 Posted 05 June 2019 - 03:41 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 16586 battles
  • 305
  • Member since:
    03-21-2011
Alfa increase in sandbox is too big compared to hp buff. Also bigger increase in larger calibre guns are bad, it should be other way round, so that lower calibre guns gets bigger bonus. In that way tier gab would be a little bit smaller.

Alfa increase should be 30-20 %. Biggest increase should be in lower calibres, not in biggest. Hp changes should stay the same. That would make games last a bit longer than it currently does. Also in current sandbox iteration high tier vehicles has huge alfa compared lower tier hp pool. Higher tiers pens lower tiers quite easily so no premiums needed, so they use normal ammo with big alfa bonus.

SuNo_TeSLa #88 Posted 05 June 2019 - 06:14 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 45762 battles
  • 425
  • [SWEPH] SWEPH
  • Member since:
    07-07-2013
Looks very bad, might force me out if it happens..

snuble #89 Posted 05 June 2019 - 06:56 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 35483 battles
  • 312
  • Member since:
    04-08-2011
So tanks will die faster at T9 and T10.

ZDN #90 Posted 05 June 2019 - 07:06 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 22925 battles
  • 105
  • [CTRL-] CTRL-
  • Member since:
    12-14-2011

Nice alpha increase,and you balance it with hp increase.

 

So  Normal ammo has more alpha but less pen,and premium ammo low alpha and good pen.That is ok and normal.

 

No rage about nerfing the premium ammo and tanks get some needed hp buff.Makes the game more fun/going the right direction.Not nerfing all the nice parts and making the game so bad that players quit it after years off play time.



chainreact0r #91 Posted 05 June 2019 - 07:13 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 34266 battles
  • 358
  • [OXIDE] OXIDE
  • Member since:
    09-21-2011

View PostDr_Oolen, on 04 June 2019 - 05:00 PM, said:

 

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...

 

This fits pretty well with what was written in the article, meaning low armor tanks will get more % hp buff then heavily armored tanks. If this concept is approved and fine tuning starts, we might actually end up with something very similar to this.

Jauhesammutin #92 Posted 05 June 2019 - 07:53 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 23536 battles
  • 719
  • [KANKI] KANKI
  • Member since:
    11-05-2013

So basically they are increasing the normal alpha more than they are increasing hitpoints. Doesn't this mean even faster games? Isn't that just a buff to all heavily armored tanks and nerf to tanks without armor / bad standard pen like Leo 1 or T-54.

 

What about XP/Credits? If the game has more hitpoints and the guns do more damage surely the XP and credits income will increase. 

 

What about other stats like average DMG and PR? Everyone is going to get higher PR as the average damage will increase by ~30%.

What about MoE? You are sitting at 94,99& and the patch hits. The next time you play your MoE drops drastically as everyone has been playing normally but their damage has increased by ~30%.

 

What about 3rd party stats like WN8? 



scouse_in_the_house #93 Posted 05 June 2019 - 07:53 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 1019 battles
  • 146
  • Member since:
    12-01-2014
It does feel like cutting off an arm to cure a cold, gold spam is a result of bad map design and broken heavies.
So instead of giving those same heavies a 30% Dpm advantage, why don't they do the sensible thing and give all of them cupolas that can be penned with standard ammo and aiming, lower plates that are not 270+ effective etc.
WG have also created massive silver inflation with frontlines, give us something to spend it on other than prem ammo.


Dava_117 #94 Posted 05 June 2019 - 08:25 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 22129 battles
  • 4,532
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

Why is a lot of people caring about third party modes? It's third party so WG should not base on that its update.



tajj7 #95 Posted 05 June 2019 - 08:28 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27778 battles
  • 15,693
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 04 June 2019 - 11:06 PM, said:

 

That's simply not true. People complained in RU that the proposed changes were not the solution more or less the same as in EU. The number of 430Us per player ratio is the almost the same in both clusters (0.14 in RU vs. 0.12 in EU). The vehicles distribution by nation is also similar between clusters. The numbers don't support the narrative and if we're going to pick and choose, the AMX 30B buffs were also postponed same as the 430U nerfs.

 

Like I said its what I read, I read loads and loads of posts, albeit with google translate, but it was pretty clear there were A LOT of people against the 430U and 430 nerfs, not against the way they did it, just against it full stop, and low and behold these changes have been cancelled and we have heard nothing about nerfs.

 

 

View Postcomi_wolfsbrother, on 04 June 2019 - 08:09 PM, said:

You know who will benefit from this change ??? WoT premium shop and Defender :))))  Imagine poor IS or worse, KV-85 in 1vs1 situation against Defender with current stats, now imagine the same situation with changes they want to introduce...it is painful situation now, it will be even more painful with new changes. 

 

Yeh basically that relationship goes across all tiers, you'll have these high alpha armoured heavies that force premium ammo spam at them having higher HP, but meanwhile they won't need premium ammo to fight lesser tanks, so they just get an alpha buff.

 

Like you say, Defender will get a massive alpha buff, but most tier 6-8s facing it frontally have to fire premium ammo at it just to pen the lower plate, whilst it will be hitting like an IS, which its able to pen easily with standard AP, with like 40% buffed alpha.

 

Completely silly. 

 

 

View PostHiisi, on 05 June 2019 - 02:41 AM, said:

Alfa increase in sandbox is too big compared to hp buff. Also bigger increase in larger calibre guns are bad, it should be other way round, so that lower calibre guns gets bigger bonus. In that way tier gab would be a little bit smaller.

Alfa increase should be 30-20 %. Biggest increase should be in lower calibres, not in biggest. Hp changes should stay the same. That would make games last a bit longer than it currently does. Also in current sandbox iteration high tier vehicles has huge alfa compared lower tier hp pool. Higher tiers pens lower tiers quite easily so no premiums needed, so they use normal ammo with big alfa bonus.

 

Yep, I just dont get it.

 

Alpha increase seems to range from about 33 - 43%, but HP increase only goes from 18 - 31%, so they are increasing the time to kill.

 

Why, in a current meta where loads of games last like 3-4 minutes, would they want to speed up how quickly you can kill a tank? 

 

Why are high alpha guns getting a 43% increase in alpha? Makes no sense, as you say, its the smaller guns that should get a bigger increase in alpha. 



undutchable80 #96 Posted 05 June 2019 - 08:35 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 11089 battles
  • 3,503
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    10-30-2014

Dunno if this vid has been posted in the thread yet, but after watching this I am less pessimistic about the proposed changes. Still feel some superheavies need a (bigger) weakspot here or there to make the changes work (better). You can buff my standard round all you want, but generally I still need to dab that 2-key when facing a Maus or Type 5. 

 

 



nando2u #97 Posted 05 June 2019 - 08:37 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 22773 battles
  • 24
  • [BMARO] BMARO
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012
Simple way to 

Premium Ammo Rebalance

is to cut the damage by 50% of gold ammo



Thornvalley #98 Posted 05 June 2019 - 08:40 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 41246 battles
  • 176
  • Member since:
    01-27-2015
This will be fun for -2 tier tanks? Imagine T10 tanks with buffed hp and alpha vs T8 where the same precentage increase results in a smaller numbers.

XxKuzkina_MatxX #99 Posted 05 June 2019 - 08:45 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 53231 battles
  • 4,634
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View Posttajj7, on 05 June 2019 - 11:28 AM, said:

Like I said its what I read, I read loads and loads of posts, albeit with google translate, but it was pretty clear there were A LOT of people against the 430U and 430 nerfs, not against the way they did it, just against it full stop, and low and behold these changes have been cancelled and we have heard nothing about nerfs.

 

And again that's incorrect, the RU forum was mainly against the proposed changes because they were meaningless changes that served no purpose apart from annoying both the player and the enemy. There was even a topic here about this with some sample posts about the changes in general and the 430U in particular.

 

Let's dispense with the drama already, WG made a conscious decision to introduce the 430U into the game and keep it that way so far. What happened in the test server and the reason behind postponing those changes is unknown. You also made a conscious decision to not like the 43U and not play it (much) as it's, in your opinion, unbalanced. The issue is between you and WG balance department as i see it so instead of bickering about an irrelevant history why don't you take a look at what they say about the ammo rebalance proposal?

 

Did the RU players specifically asked to have the 430U in the game or was it WG? As they say, hate the game not the player!


Edited by XxKuzkina_MatxX, 05 June 2019 - 09:02 AM.


ValkyrionX #100 Posted 05 June 2019 - 08:52 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 50816 battles
  • 2,273
  • [NOPAS] NOPAS
  • Member since:
    02-07-2015

I am now updating my sandbox client because I want to see these changes with my own eyes, however we have to PREVENT with all the means we have a game change so WITHOUT SENSE

 

what I read scares me and a lot ...these changes must not take place or I swear I uninstall the game forever
 

 

07:54 Added after 1 minute

View Postnando2u, on 05 June 2019 - 08:37 AM, said:

Simple way to 

Premium Ammo Rebalance

is to cut the damage by 50% of gold ammo

 

NO, it is enough just to limit the number of these shots that can be loaded into the hold ammunition and you're done .. changing the mechanics doesn't make sense!

 

 


Edited by ValkyrionX, 05 June 2019 - 08:55 AM.






Also tagged with Sandbox, Premium shells, Rebalance

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users