Jump to content


Amo rebalancing


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

Firstcasuality #1 Posted 07 June 2019 - 10:30 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 36586 battles
  • 230
  • Member since:
    03-19-2013

Couldn;t they just adjust premium amo like increase reload by 20% or mybe restrict how much tanks can carry it. But completely rebalance tank hp and amo damage values seems a bit excesive.

Also wouldn;t it screw with all current statistics and personal missions.

Seems WG just gave themselfs a lot of work for no good reason.

 


Edited by Firstcasuality, 07 June 2019 - 10:31 PM.


ExclamationMark #2 Posted 07 June 2019 - 11:14 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 16788 battles
  • 4,415
  • [IDEAD] IDEAD
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013
Actually, yes, increasing reload for prem ammo would be far better than reducing prem ammo damage. Never thought of that... Then again WoT has far bigger issues than prem ammo.

Laur_Balaur_XD #3 Posted 07 June 2019 - 11:52 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 37107 battles
  • 856
  • [CTRL-] CTRL-
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostFirstcasuality, on 07 June 2019 - 09:30 PM, said:

Couldn;t they just adjust premium amo like increase reload by 20% or mybe restrict how much tanks can carry it. But completely rebalance tank hp and amo damage values seems a bit excesive.

Also wouldn;t it screw with all current statistics and personal missions.

Seems WG just gave themselfs a lot of work for no good reason.

 

 

Interesting idea: by increasing the reload you would keep alpha damage and cost/damage ratio intact, but lose dpm. Actually this can be the best idea, if thei really want to change something with premium ammo. Sadly with your idea WG would not have a increase in profits, like they will with their ideas - so once again it seems like financial dep > game balance dep...

 

And yeah, if WG will do the currently tested change of increasing alpha and dpm will srew up beyond repair all stats. Basically all old players with years in game an tens of thousands of battles will be royally screwed, because they will suddenly have a very low damage per game compared to what will be after change.



Zylon0 #4 Posted 08 June 2019 - 12:55 AM

    Corporal

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

View PostFirstcasuality, on 07 June 2019 - 09:30 PM, said:

Couldn;t they just adjust premium amo like increase reload by 20% or mybe restrict how much tanks can carry it. But completely rebalance tank hp and amo damage values seems a bit excesive.

Also wouldn;t it screw with all current statistics and personal missions.

Seems WG just gave themselfs a lot of work for no good reason.

 

 

On the first shot a longer reload would not matter.

Besides you can get into hiding --> reload. penalty gone.

 

Also the pen would still be higher then standard shells with the same damage and very expensive to the point F2P people can not afford to fire many of those,

compared to those that pay for premium and premium tanks can.


Edited by Zylon0, 08 June 2019 - 01:06 AM.


mgns #5 Posted 08 June 2019 - 12:58 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 38663 battles
  • 82
  • Member since:
    03-05-2011
we need to rebalance ammo rebalance threads

Gruff_ #6 Posted 08 June 2019 - 01:05 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 21595 battles
  • 1,096
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    09-22-2011
Good idea OP, I like it.

KanonenVogel19 #7 Posted 08 June 2019 - 01:45 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 390 battles
  • 539
  • Member since:
    04-05-2019

Sorry, but I don't like that idea. It's completely unlogical. An APCR round actually weighs less than an AP round, so why would the loader need more time to load one of those? :amazed:

 

And most importantly, you're forgetting the most important thing: To make all shells cost the same.


Edited by KanonenVogel19, 08 June 2019 - 01:46 AM.


Laur_Balaur_XD #8 Posted 08 June 2019 - 02:00 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 37107 battles
  • 856
  • [CTRL-] CTRL-
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostKanonenVogel19, on 08 June 2019 - 12:45 AM, said:

Sorry, but I don't like that idea. It's completely unlogical. An APCR round actually weighs less than an AP round, so why would the loader need more time to load one of those? :amazed:

 

And most importantly, you're forgetting the most important thing: To make all shells cost the same.

 

All aspects of arty in this game are completely illogical, irl no wheeled vehicle goes with 100km/h on off-road terrain shooting things in the same time and having a better acceleration than a supersport bike...

A lot of things are illogical in WOT, this is just a arcade game that has absolutely nothing to do with reality.



KanonenVogel19 #9 Posted 08 June 2019 - 02:29 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 390 battles
  • 539
  • Member since:
    04-05-2019

View PostLaur_Balaur_XD, on 08 June 2019 - 02:00 AM, said:

this is just a arcade game that has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

 

Then why do we have APCR shells? Might aswell replace them with laser beams instead?

 

Please, drop it, the "arcade game, can't be realistic" excuse is getting old and boring...



7thSyndicate #10 Posted 08 June 2019 - 02:36 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 46932 battles
  • 690
  • Member since:
    10-09-2012

Thats how WG balance things, "fix" one thing creating 10 other ones



xx984 #11 Posted 08 June 2019 - 07:42 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 63993 battles
  • 3,358
  • [SHEKL] SHEKL
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

View PostKanonenVogel19, on 08 June 2019 - 01:29 AM, said:

 

Then why do we have APCR shells? Might aswell replace them with laser beams instead?

 

Please, drop it, the "arcade game, can't be realistic" excuse is getting old and boring...

 

and you stop using the excuse that it’s not realistic when talking about possible balancing factors in a game that has HP pools, 25% rng, etc.. it’s getting old and boring.

 

if you want something more realistic than wot go play WT or sign up as a tank crewman in your military. Don’t choose to play a game that has never once attempted to be realistic and then complain when it’s not 



Ilija22 #12 Posted 08 June 2019 - 09:35 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 22549 battles
  • 5
  • [CROVS] CROVS
  • Member since:
    04-17-2011
Why don't they reduce the penetration for 20-30% and buff the damage by that same amount?

KanonenVogel19 #13 Posted 08 June 2019 - 09:47 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 390 battles
  • 539
  • Member since:
    04-05-2019

View Postxx984, on 08 June 2019 - 07:42 AM, said:

Don’t choose to play a game that has never once attempted to be realistic and then complain when it’s not 

 

My point still remains: Why do we have APCR then?

 

Why use a name from reality if we have no intentions to make it realistic? Might aswell call it APURCA then?

 

Also, why are you guys so afraid of realism? When will you understand that these fantasy solutions are exactly what's causing these issues. If this game was more realistic than it's today, then we wouldn't even have issues like premium ammo, artillery, corridor maps etc. You're causing these issues yourself just because for some reason you think it's bad to make a game realistic. The only time it's bad is if you do it at the expense of the games fun factor or the games simplicity.



shikaka9 #14 Posted 08 June 2019 - 09:55 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 70675 battles
  • 970
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    02-27-2013

View PostKanonenVogel19, on 08 June 2019 - 08:47 AM, said:

 

Why use a name from reality if we have no intentions to make it realistic?

 

 

+/- 400 tank names were used from reality. None become realistic.



KanonenVogel19 #15 Posted 08 June 2019 - 10:01 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 390 battles
  • 539
  • Member since:
    04-05-2019

View Postshikaka9, on 08 June 2019 - 09:55 AM, said:

+/- 400 tank names were used from reality. None become realistic.

 

And the point of your argument is? So because they've done it wrong in the past they should continue to?



Laur_Balaur_XD #16 Posted 08 June 2019 - 10:10 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 37107 battles
  • 856
  • [CTRL-] CTRL-
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostKanonenVogel19, on 08 June 2019 - 01:29 AM, said:

 

Then why do we have APCR shells? Might aswell replace them with laser beams instead?

 

Please, drop it, the "arcade game, can't be realistic" excuse is getting old and boring...

 

And why would we not have apcr or heat shells? If we have them you think that makes wot a historically accurate simulation or what? This is the worst argument i have ever heard on this forum....

This is not an excuse, this is just me being realistic. If you want 'simulation' and 'historical accuracy' go play WT.

WOT is as close to reality as it is 'Girls und Panzer' anime...



shikaka9 #17 Posted 08 June 2019 - 10:12 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 70675 battles
  • 970
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    02-27-2013

View PostKanonenVogel19, on 08 June 2019 - 09:01 AM, said:

 

And the point of your argument is? So because they've done it wrong in the past they should continue to?

 

I guiding you where you should start arguing about reality. start from basics. relistic APCR in unrealistic tank is same *edit.

 

 

 

09:18 Added after 5 minutes

View PostLaur_Balaur_XD, on 08 June 2019 - 09:10 AM, said:

 

 If you want 'simulation' and 'historical accuracy' go play WT.

WOT is as close to reality as it is 'Girls und Panzer' anime...

 

exactly. WOT is oriented to kids and their parents wallets. those who needs historical and reality just wasting time over here, on purpose or not its their decision.

 


Edited by xP4_warrior, 08 June 2019 - 11:16 AM.
*This post has been edited by the moderation team due to inappropriate remarks.


KanonenVogel19 #18 Posted 08 June 2019 - 10:22 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 390 battles
  • 539
  • Member since:
    04-05-2019

View PostLaur_Balaur_XD, on 08 June 2019 - 10:10 AM, said:

If we have them you think that makes wot a historically accurate simulation or what? This is the worst argument i have ever heard

 

Did you even bother to read what I wrote?

 

No, WoT is not realistic because of the names, but one expects something with the same name to work as it does in real life. Just like if there's a toaster in a game, a person by default expect it to toast bread and not wash clothes. Stop making the game unlogical because it's not helping anyone and it just looks silly. 

 

You have the worst argument that I've ever heard. Let's call it APCR but let's not make it behave like real APCR.

 

Seriusly, stop making the game unrealistic just for the sake of it being a game. If it's not hurting the fun factor or ease of play factor, why still insist to make in unrealisc? Just to mess with peoples heads? I really don't understand how some people think.

 

And you can stop telling people to go play WT. It's not helping anyone. And to be honest, I already play WT and they have their owns sets of problems. So no thank you, I'd still prefer if WoT got more realistic.

 

View Postshikaka9, on 08 June 2019 - 10:12 AM, said:

I guiding you where you should start arguing about reality. start from basics. relistic APCR in unrealistic tank is same sh*t. 

 

Why should I start discussing realism of historical tanks when we're in a thread about premium ammo?


Edited by KanonenVogel19, 08 June 2019 - 10:26 AM.


Laur_Balaur_XD #19 Posted 08 June 2019 - 10:30 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 37107 battles
  • 856
  • [CTRL-] CTRL-
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostKanonenVogel19, on 08 June 2019 - 12:45 AM, said:

Sorry, but I don't like that idea. It's completely unlogical. An APCR round actually weighs less than an AP round, so why would the loader need more time to load one of those? :amazed:

 

This shows how much you know about real tanks and things. 

A APCR will will be for sure much heavier than a normal shell, because unlike 'normal' shells APCR has a high density/high rigidity core that has 2 benefits over softer and lighter materials used in 'normal' one:

1. has a higher impact/wear/deformation strength that allows it to maintain the shape better when impacts armor

2. has greater weight (because off the core) that allows it to have a greater impact energy

 

So yeah, even considering realism (as you want) - the APCR shells would be loaded slower.



shikaka9 #20 Posted 08 June 2019 - 10:31 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 70675 battles
  • 970
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    02-27-2013

View PostKanonenVogel19, on 08 June 2019 - 09:22 AM, said:

 

Why should I start discussing realism of historical tanks when we're in a thread about premium ammo?

 

yeah that would be unrealistic :teethhappy:

 

and unhistorical

 

 

 

 

but dont weed need realistic gun to shoot realistic shells?


Edited by shikaka9, 08 June 2019 - 10:33 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users