Jump to content


Could giving all shells the same penetration and price solve the problem?

ammo premium ammo

  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

Paul_Kouadio #1 Posted 06 June 2019 - 02:34 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 6073 battles
  • 165
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-03-2017

Okay guys, here are a few thoughts on the madness that is premium ammo. Please share your own thoughts, I'd really appreciate it. And sorry if there are too many threads on this stuff.

An important aspect of this is a change that wouldn't take months upon months to implement, and wouldn't drastically change current gameplay, yet would (hopefully) resolve the current issues.

 

Give all tanks the same shells (AP, APCR, HEAT), at the same price. 

Make sure all shells have the same penetration, but retain the differences in overmatching, ricochet angle etc.

  • APCR would retain its better shell velocity (maybe buff this to make it more noticeable) and keep the worse pen dropoff (which isn't massive, but still present) and normalisation (maybe also remove overmatch capability due to smaller caliber of penetrator).
  • HEAT would be the right shell for sniping due to no pen dropoff at range with better ricochet angle but have lower velocity
  • AP would remain what it currently is.
  • HE would remain as is (this is a whole other debacle, and is a little harder to sort out).

At the same tier, the higher the caliber of gun, the lower the penetration of AP/APCR/HEAT, due to higher HE potential. (IRL, HE is very dangerous); this is already pretty common, so nothing alarming. Of course, quirks should be maintained (such as the obj. 277 having relatively high pen for a HT with an 130mm at tier X)

 

Spall liners would be brought into relevance by neutering the crew damage & internal module potential of incoming HE rounds (so HE can't damage crew and internal modules if you have a spall liner)

So you'd use APCR to pen a lightly armored, mobile tank at range (Grille 15 TD line, Leo 1 line, TVP line etc)
And you'd use HEAT to pen a more heavily armored, slower tank at range (Side of a Maus, 60TP,  etc...)

 

MOST IMPORTANTLY, give frontal weakspots to all tanks, while keeping their specialty.
What does this mean?

  • For a super conqueror, keep the strong turret, but weaken that top cupola, so that anyone who finds a shot on it can pen. The LFP is already a giant weakspot. The idea is not to make a tank irrelevant; if the player is hiding their weakspots, they should be rewarded
  • For an IS-7, keep the pike nose and tough turret, but weaken the LFP (and anything else you can think of that would be reasonable)
  • For the Maus, weaken the turret cheeks to maybe 230-250mm of effective thickness, and nerf that LFP to the ground, it's small enough already :sceptic:. The aim here to force Maus drivers to angle their turrets if they wish to remain resilient.
  • For the Type 5 Heavy, weaken the hatches in the flat front plate, and the cupola.

You get the idea.

Of course, all this would probably call for a pen buff across many tanks, as all shells would have the same pen. (Maybe set pen between current standard penetration value and premium pen, i.e. for a M48A5, pen would be maybe 268+330 = 598/2 = 299mm)

The only issue I see with this idea is that tanks with okay-ish armor would be nerfed by this (like the T-44, Jagdpanthers, E-50 series etc.)

The idea here is to allow -2 MM tanks to actually contest the weakspots of higher tiered tanks. of course, good players who hide their weakspots or try to minimise their vulnerabilities should be rewarded with effective armor in combat.

 

As for HE, maybe they could be removed for large-caliber guns? But then how would a HT engage a hull-down T34 or WZ-111 5A? Hmm, the key lies in the weakspots; they may be small, but they need to be easy to pen. 


Edited by Paul_Kouadio, 06 June 2019 - 02:35 AM.


Robbie_T #2 Posted 06 June 2019 - 03:21 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20141 battles
  • 943
  • [BBMM] BBMM
  • Member since:
    07-08-2016
  • For a super conqueror, keep the strong turret, but weaken that top cupola, so that anyone who finds a shot on it can pen. The LFP is already a giant weakspot. The idea is not to make a tank irrelevant; if the player is hiding their weakspots, they should be rewarded
  • and how suppose that must work....so the conq sets him self up hull protected by rock or hill and everytime he want to take a shot he will be penned by a tier 8.... because that cupola is the first thing to show its self and will be even easier for a tier 9 or 10 to pen.

 

  • For an IS-7, keep the pike nose and tough turret, but weaken the LFP (and anything else you can think of that would be reasonable)
  • -so keep the pike nose  but weaken the lower plate...that is the pike nose....dont see why its need to be weaker. and why the is7 should keep the  strong turret and the s conq must have a weakspot on top

 

  • Maus i dont have
  •  

For the Type 5 Heavy, weaken the hatches in the flat front plate, and the cupola..

-.really with the recent gun nerf? from Op to obselete..thats the only thing its got going now is to be a sponge for the team.

 

The thing i see here you want tier 8's to reliable pen tier 10's...... not even speaking of tier 9

Because tier 10 and most 9's can pen eachother in the weak spots.

 

 



Geno1isme #3 Posted 06 June 2019 - 09:25 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 48124 battles
  • 10,223
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

You're contradicting yourself:

"An important aspect of this is a change that wouldn't take months upon months to implement, "

"MOST IMPORTANTLY, give frontal weakspots to all tanks, while keeping their specialty."

 

Changing ammunition parameters is simple. Checking and adjusting armor models and other tank specific parameters on a global scale will take forever (we're talking about 500 tanks and their interactions here).

 

View PostPaul_Kouadio, on 06 June 2019 - 03:34 AM, said:

Of course, all this would probably call for a pen buff across many tanks, as all shells would have the same pen. (Maybe set pen between current standard penetration value and premium pen, i.e. for a M48A5, pen would be maybe 268+330 = 598/2 = 299mm)

The only issue I see with this idea is that tanks with okay-ish armor would be nerfed by this (like the T-44, Jagdpanthers, E-50 series etc.)

 

It would also make armor even more useless when you're matched as bottom-tier and promote guns with already high penetration.

 

View PostPaul_Kouadio, on 06 June 2019 - 03:34 AM, said:

Give all tanks the same shells (AP, APCR, HEAT), at the same price.

 

And now the key problem with all the ideas of this type: WG is a company that wants to earn money. Premium ammo is currently a main source of income (indirectly). You cannot just remove that without replacement. That means you either have to increase ammo costs in general, but that also means that you increase the pressure on F2P players to invest money as they no longer have the choice to play with cheap ammo. Or you have to implement another feature that provides a similar credit-drain. Or you want WG to increase their efforts to make money from selling (OP) premium tanks.

 

Any plan that involves changing multiple things in parallel on a global scale will have a massive impact on gameplay by definition. The right move is to change one thing at a time (like "reduce premium ammo alpha", not the nonsense WG is currently doing), evaluate its impact and then consider how to continue from that point.


Edited by Geno1isme, 06 June 2019 - 11:02 AM.


lnfernaI #4 Posted 06 June 2019 - 10:42 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 33970 battles
  • 4,769
  • Member since:
    09-15-2012
OP went missing the day the higher forces gave brains to everyone.

ValkyrionX #5 Posted 06 June 2019 - 10:45 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 52704 battles
  • 2,462
  • [RDDT] RDDT
  • Member since:
    02-07-2015
you should think more before writing


malachi6 #6 Posted 06 June 2019 - 11:22 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 50920 battles
  • 4,260
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011

View PostlnfernaI, on 06 June 2019 - 10:42 AM, said:

OP went missing the day the higher forces gave brains to everyone.

 

Said with zero irony.  Boorishness should not be considered a skill.

Zylon0 #7 Posted 06 June 2019 - 11:43 AM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 9765 battles
  • 188
  • Member since:
    01-06-2011

I tried to read the whole thing and make sense of it,

but it appears the OP was on its way of thinking about some alternative plan,

but stopped half way.

 

Its confusing to read and balance would be out of the window with these suggestions.

But above all else this seems like a hidden agenda to nerf armored tanks and buff light and medium tanks.

 

If it was really just about giving shells the same pen and price this would not have been mentioned,

now would it?



Paul_Kouadio #8 Posted 06 June 2019 - 04:12 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 6073 battles
  • 165
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-03-2017

View PostRobbie_T, on 06 June 2019 - 03:21 AM, said:

The thing i see here you want tier 8's to reliable pen tier 10's...... not even speaking of tier 9

Because tier 10 and most 9's can pen eachother in the weak spots.

 

Really? I thought that many players complained about the lack of weakspots, even in full-Tier X matchups.

 

View PostValkyrionX, on 06 June 2019 - 10:45 AM, said:

you should think more before writing

 

I respect you, and I find that you are usually pretty vocal and more detailed than this... Care to elaborate? I guess your response could also mean that this whole idea is utter trash (no sarcasm here).

 

View PostZylon0, on 06 June 2019 - 11:43 AM, said:

I tried to read the whole thing and make sense of it,

but it appears the OP was on its way of thinking about some alternative plan,

but stopped half way.

 

More input on this, please? How did I stop half-way?

 

View PostZylon0, on 06 June 2019 - 11:43 AM, said:

Its confusing to read and balance would be out of the window with these suggestions.

But above all else this seems like a hidden agenda to nerf armored tanks and buff light and medium tanks.

 

I am basically suggesting that perhaps giving AP, APCR and HEAT the same alpha and penetration, while increasing the differences between each shell type could be helpful, in addition to weakening the current "weakspots" (like cupolas, lower glacis plates, etc.). I have no hidden agenda, seriously.

 

View PostGeno1isme, on 06 June 2019 - 09:25 AM, said:

You're contradicting yourself:

"An important aspect of this is a change that wouldn't take months upon months to implement, "

"MOST IMPORTANTLY, give frontal weakspots to all tanks, while keeping their specialty."

 

Changing ammunition parameters is simple. Checking and adjusting armor models and other tank specific parameters on a global scale will take forever (we're talking about 500 tanks and their interactions here).

 

 

It would also make armor even more useless when you're matched as bottom-tier and promote guns with already high penetration.

 

 

And now the key problem with all the ideas of this type: WG is a company that wants to earn money. Premium ammo is currently a main source of income (indirectly). You cannot just remove that without replacement. That means you either have to increase ammo costs in general, but that also means that you increase the pressure on F2P players to invest money as they no longer have the choice to play with cheap ammo. Or you have to implement another feature that provides a similar credit-drain. Or you want WG to increase their efforts to make money from selling (OP) premium tanks.

 

Any plan that involves changing multiple things in parallel on a global scale will have a massive impact on gameplay by definition. The right move is to change one thing at a time (like "reduce premium ammo alpha", not the nonsense WG is currently doing), evaluate its impact and then consider how to continue from that point.

 

Thanks for your input. I was thinking that perhaps weakening "weakspots" on heavily armored tanks could be relatively quick compared to revising whole armor layouts. I mean, if a weakspot has a 50% chance of being penned currently, increasing it to 60% or 75% would maybe be useful?

 

"Any plan that involves changing multiple things in parallel on a global scale will have a massive impact on gameplay by definition".

This is definitely true... I guess it's very easy for me to consider the opinions of the most vocal of forumites to be representative of the whole.

 

As for WG's revenue model for WoT, I can't say much...


Edited by Paul_Kouadio, 06 June 2019 - 04:12 PM.


Geno1isme #9 Posted 06 June 2019 - 05:08 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 48124 battles
  • 10,223
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

View PostPaul_Kouadio, on 06 June 2019 - 05:12 PM, said:

Thanks for your input. I was thinking that perhaps weakening "weakspots" on heavily armored tanks could be relatively quick compared to revising whole armor layouts. I mean, if a weakspot has a 50% chance of being penned currently, increasing it to 60% or 75% would maybe be useful?

 

Any armor model changes are by definition more complex than just entering numbers in a database. Even if the weakspot area already exists in the model, the pure act of modifying a model isn't trivial.

 

And for penetration chance you don't just have a single number, it changes based on the gun/ammo involved and the impact angles. Even excluding stock guns, premium ammo and HE, penetration values at T8 currently range from 175mm to 288mm. Add a slight angle and penetration dropoff and a 150mm weakspot is already very strong against some lower-penetration guns, but on the other hand even a (flat) 220mm weakspot is a sure penetration for guns at the upper end of the penetration range.



vasilinhorulezz #10 Posted 06 June 2019 - 05:59 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 28027 battles
  • 1,997
  • Member since:
    09-26-2014
What's the point of different shells then?

ExclamationMark #11 Posted 06 June 2019 - 06:06 PM

    Brigadier

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

View Postvasilinhorulezz, on 06 June 2019 - 05:59 PM, said:

What's the point of different shells then?

 

You have played 24k games for 5 years and do not know the difference between shell types?

vasilinhorulezz #12 Posted 06 June 2019 - 06:10 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 28027 battles
  • 1,997
  • Member since:
    09-26-2014

View PostExclamationMark, on 06 June 2019 - 06:06 PM, said:

 

You have played 24k games for 5 years and do not know the difference between shell types?

 

OK, I will rephrase the question to OP, because people got confused,

If all shell get the same pen and cost, what will be the difference in-between shell types?

 



AvengerOrion #13 Posted 06 June 2019 - 06:15 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27635 battles
  • 1,333
  • Member since:
    12-21-2013

This is what you get when the only requirement to join a clan is being able to draw a fish.

Dinger standards clearly are dropping.

 

:rolleyes:



ExclamationMark #14 Posted 06 June 2019 - 06:29 PM

    Brigadier

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

View Postvasilinhorulezz, on 06 June 2019 - 06:10 PM, said:

OK, I will rephrase the question to OP, because people got confused,

If all shell get the same pen and cost, what will be the difference in-between shell types?

 

Phrased differently but it suggests the exact same thing.



Paul_Kouadio #15 Posted 06 June 2019 - 08:52 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 6073 battles
  • 165
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-03-2017

View PostAvengerOrion, on 06 June 2019 - 06:15 PM, said:

This is what you get when the only requirement to join a clan is being able to draw a fish.

Dinger standards clearly are dropping.

 

:rolleyes:

 

​Good one! But why aren't you in a clan? Besides, there are clans that don't even have requirements.

Edited by Paul_Kouadio, 06 June 2019 - 09:03 PM.


Bordhaw #16 Posted 06 June 2019 - 09:19 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 14894 battles
  • 4,892
  • Member since:
    01-29-2017

View PostPaul_Kouadio, on 06 June 2019 - 01:34 AM, said:

Okay guys, here are a few thoughts on the madness that is premium ammo. Please share your own thoughts, I'd really appreciate it. And sorry if there are too many threads on this stuff.

 

Give all tanks the same shells (AP, APCR, HEAT), at the same price. 

Make sure all shells have the same penetration, but retain the differences in overmatching, ricochet angle etc.

  • APCR would retain its better shell velocity (maybe buff this to make it more noticeable) and keep the worse pen dropoff (which isn't massive, but still present) and normalisation (maybe also remove overmatch capability due to smaller caliber of penetrator).
  • HEAT would be the right shell for sniping due to no pen dropoff at range with better ricochet angle but have lower velocity
  • AP would remain what it currently is.
  • HE would remain as is (this is a whole other debacle, and is a little harder to sort out).

 

 

 

 



onderschepper #17 Posted 06 June 2019 - 10:38 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 2168 battles
  • 698
  • [BOF] BOF
  • Member since:
    05-17-2019

They should revert to purchasing via Gold, give one day of Premium Account for every 100 purchased, and a Premium Tank for every 10,000 purchased. :popcorn:

Spoiler

 



Balc0ra #18 Posted 07 June 2019 - 12:47 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 72874 battles
  • 20,713
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

Same pen? That helps how? The only thing you would "fix" then. Is that everyone would play the tanks with enough armor to counter that equal pen everyone has. Why play anything else? Just play the one tank no one can pen. And jobs done. 

 







Also tagged with ammo, premium ammo

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users