Jump to content


Join The New Ammo Tests on Sandbox!


  • Please log in to reply
138 replies to this topic

Community #1 Posted 05 July 2019 - 01:00 PM

    Sergeant

  • Content Team
  • 0 battles
  • 29,698
  • Member since:
    11-09-2011
A new iteration of ammo rebalancing tests is just around the corner!

The full text of the news item

ihateclowns #2 Posted 05 July 2019 - 01:05 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 34791 battles
  • 379
  • [TROP] TROP
  • Member since:
    05-17-2012
This is just a big mess at this stage, why not just limit the number of gold rounds that can be brought into each battle.

Homer_J #3 Posted 05 July 2019 - 01:12 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 31679 battles
  • 34,731
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postihateclowns, on 05 July 2019 - 01:05 PM, said:

This is just a big mess at this stage, why not just limit the number of gold rounds that can be brought into each battle.

 

Will they hurt any less?

Pixel91 #4 Posted 05 July 2019 - 01:15 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 6904 battles
  • 7
  • [KYA] KYA
  • Member since:
    11-23-2012

I'll leave alone the topic of simply nerfing the GOLD ammo since you guys have no intention of doing so and decided to go the long road to fixing this, and stick to what's wrong right off the bat with your changes.

 

1. SPGs are a broken class. They are not overpowered by any means, but they are broken. One shot from an enemy SPG that I cannot see and sometimes, based on the map, cannot hide myself from, gets me stunned for a very long time, damages me quite a bit more often than not, takes off my tracks more often than not, and kills at least a member of my crew (sometimes damages more than my tracks too...). And you want to increase the damage they output? No, that is a big NO... SPGs are a different subject, so lets stick to the ammo subject. Do NOT increase the alpha of SPGs...

2. Why reduce the HP pool of TDs that don't have any armor to defend them? Honestly it's like you're trying to damage the game intentionally...



p14b #5 Posted 05 July 2019 - 01:17 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 19558 battles
  • 112
  • Member since:
    06-22-2012

During the tests, standard shells performed much better than the special ones. As a result, our testers rarely used special rounds, even with unlimited resources

 

*edit*, just a quick tweak and then test! like knock the damage down on prem-rounds was all that was needed, BUT NO !!! WG can't do simple, the average WG developer would rather walk the whole circumference of the world! rather that just cross the road to get to the other side.

 

*edit*

 

   


Edited by _eLJay_, 06 July 2019 - 10:09 AM.
Forum Rules


MahoHRG #6 Posted 05 July 2019 - 01:43 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 10966 battles
  • 14
  • [-C-D-] -C-D-
  • Member since:
    10-18-2018

why there is no option to chose what kind of battle to join, for example (standard/special ammo) (cars/no cars) (3 arty/1arty)

if you do this you wont bother yourself updating the game and you will sleep early the next months :P



Mav75 #7 Posted 05 July 2019 - 01:44 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 33908 battles
  • 1,781
  • [-ZER0] -ZER0
  • Member since:
    10-04-2013

Overly complicated.

 

Low tier HP buff is the only thing making sense. Straight up -25% nerf on gold damage would have been better.



hotCROssbun #8 Posted 05 July 2019 - 01:48 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 5384 battles
  • 20
  • [K4E] K4E
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

agree with points above.way too much drama because few whiners cant handle that you are able to buy more than one type of shell. make it so that all vehicles have only two types of shells. one of them being he.

the type of other shell will be a sort of balancing factor. eg if u drive op i mean russian tank u dont get fast apcr just ap, snipers with no armour get apcr and so on. no need to test nothing and waste ton of hours and time



Luonteri #9 Posted 05 July 2019 - 01:49 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 21818 battles
  • 52
  • [-PJ-] -PJ-
  • Member since:
    03-25-2017
Sounds like it is time to retire from playing random battles :facepalm:

franar #10 Posted 05 July 2019 - 01:52 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 31743 battles
  • 32
  • [1DBFE] 1DBFE
  • Member since:
    03-01-2013
I think this will be the end of WOT, they will mess everything and players will quit.
It will be impossible to keep under control the game balance with changes at this scale.
More of that, it will take min an year until we will see some changes going live.
You need to find a simpler solution instead this, really now.

Edited by franar, 05 July 2019 - 01:53 PM.


DeadLecter #11 Posted 05 July 2019 - 01:52 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 30509 battles
  • 1,732
  • Member since:
    05-28-2016

View Postihateclowns, on 05 July 2019 - 03:35 PM, said:

This is just a big mess at this stage, why not just limit the number of gold rounds that can be brought into each battle.

 

That's not a solution. They are on the right path. Right now different shells have different stats, like bouncing angle, shell velocity and normalization but none of these have ever been important since all you have to do is press 2 and gain huge advantage without much too lose other than credits. Differentiating the damage of each shell is a wise move they just have to find a way to balance it properly. Now imagine if the number of ammo is limited and in a match you don't have super heavies but the enemy has 2~3. What are you gonna do? Lots of people play the game completely f2p and can't afford to spam gold so if you are the only one doing it, you won't have enough ammo to deal with multiple heavily armored tanks.

DrunkBritain #12 Posted 05 July 2019 - 01:53 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 14454 battles
  • 2
  • [UKT] UKT
  • Member since:
    06-13-2013

View PostMav75, on 05 July 2019 - 12:44 PM, said:

Overly complicated.

 

Low tier HP buff is the only thing making sense. Straight up -25% nerf on gold damage would have been better.

 

This i couldn't agree more with,
To have a high amount of penetration you must sacrifice damage caused  

KanonenVogel19 #13 Posted 05 July 2019 - 01:57 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 390 battles
  • 529
  • Member since:
    04-05-2019

May I ask why you're even bothering with this Sandbox if you obviously are determined to go your own path instead of listening? :mellow:

 

"According to the results of our surveys, many players who had taken part in the ammo rebalancing tests on the Sandbox server agreed with the suggested changes."

 

Yeah, I bet they agreed with the changes very much, we could clearly see that on the forum :sceptic:

 

Sorry WG, but it's obvious for me by now that you won't listen, you will go your own way instead, can you please spare us the time with these pointless tests? You will just "listen" to your surveys anyway that will say whatever you want it to say and obviously something entirely different to what was said on the forums.

 

So many players pointed out the importance that you completely remove the concept of (premium) special ammo, yet you're determined to keep them, and yet you're determined to keep the economy as now with shells that are much more expensive and thus not affordable by all players.

 

Until you make proper tests on the Sandbox, I will not waste more time on it, because you won't listen anyway. You already know what changes you want to do, you're just trying to create an illusion of feedback to minimize the amount of frustration when it hits the live server.



Dava_117 #14 Posted 05 July 2019 - 01:58 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 21976 battles
  • 4,470
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014
Nicely done WG. My main concern was the huge increase in alpha on high caliber gun. The new proposal looks far more reasonable. Go on with the good job! :great:

LF61 #15 Posted 05 July 2019 - 02:01 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 49808 battles
  • 17
  • Member since:
    03-05-2013

Just counting these buffs by nation: just more Soviet/Russian bias?

 

I am only waiting for a buff of damage done by arty.... (and a nerf for the Mario Karts (sometimes called WV's)

 

 

 



Weak_man #16 Posted 05 July 2019 - 02:03 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 7137 battles
  • 839
  • [AMURG] AMURG
  • Member since:
    12-31-2017

View PostPixel91, on 05 July 2019 - 02:15 PM, said:

I'll leave alone the topic of simply nerfing the GOLD ammo since you guys have no intention of doing so and decided to go the long road to fixing this, and stick to what's wrong right off the bat with your changes.

 

1. SPGs are a broken class. They are not overpowered by any means, but they are broken. One shot from an enemy SPG that I cannot see and sometimes, based on the map, cannot hide myself from, gets me stunned for a very long time, damages me quite a bit more often than not, takes off my tracks more often than not, and kills at least a member of my crew (sometimes damages more than my tracks too...). And you want to increase the damage they output? No, that is a big NO... SPGs are a different subject, so lets stick to the ammo subject. Do NOT increase the alpha of SPGs...

2. Why reduce the HP pool of TDs that don't have any armor to defend them? Honestly it's like you're trying to damage the game intentionally...

 

I took more than 900 hp damage in one shot in S Conq and T 10 and there is still 3 arty in the game/team. Really bad. Also when we would be able to hide our stats in battle and in garage ? Arty players with xvm, no comment about these people

Edited by Weak_man, 05 July 2019 - 02:10 PM.


Dava_117 #17 Posted 05 July 2019 - 02:07 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 21976 battles
  • 4,470
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View PostPixel91, on 05 July 2019 - 01:15 PM, said:

 

2. Why reduce the HP pool of TDs that don't have any armor to defend them? Honestly it's like you're trying to damage the game intentionally...

 

From what I understood, the HP reduction is based on the suggested buffed HP, not a straight nerf on the HP they have now. And it looks like it come from a different rounding formula, so very few tens of HP. Nothing to get upset at.



Weak_man #18 Posted 05 July 2019 - 02:07 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 7137 battles
  • 839
  • [AMURG] AMURG
  • Member since:
    12-31-2017
There is no need for such huge ballance of special ammo in +-1 mm. But when you have in front of a tier 8 medium one T110E3 or Bobject 264.4 or Type 5, etc  you need allien shell to do something.

Celution #19 Posted 05 July 2019 - 02:16 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 27989 battles
  • 1,708
  • [SENSE] SENSE
  • Member since:
    09-26-2010

Once again, this doesn't accomplish ANYTHING over than the previous iterations.

 

The true problem that remains is situations where the game forces the use of premium shells to have an even somewhat reliable chance against overly armored targets. This is especially the case when fighting bottom tier vs top tier (2 tier difference). 

 

Regardless of the increased hitpoints across all tiers, it still means you'll be fighting higher tiers at a reduced DPM potential relative to them firing regular ammo at you at maximum DPM potential.

 

Another huge issue is that a full overhaul to alpha damage and hitpoint numbers across the board severely alienates the players from the game.

The game will feel entirely different because of these changes, Years of knowledge and baked in damage numbers will be thrown out of the window in an instant, meaning players have to relearn everything with regards to surivability and how hard your gun hits vs potential incoming fire. Having different damage on standard and premium is another factor here.

 

In my mind, the only way of improving the situation and gold spam issue is fixing each and every individual armor layout across the board, implementing weakspots that are EASILY penetrated by nearly any regular ammo it can face. By doing this, The absurdly high penetration numbers of of many premium rounds can then be reduced effectively. If standard shells are nearly always a viable choice, you THEN can think about a slight damage reduction on premium shells that have higher penetration (so, a trade-off system).

 

Furthermore, there are plenty of tanks that must be fixed individually that have "broken" ammo (e.g. the classic T-54 being nearly useless with 201 mm pen but having infinite capabilities with 330 mm HEAT). Additionally, there should be a significant downside for using premium shells over default shells, especially with regards to APCR vs AP (Since HEAT has some downsides already).
 

TL;DR;

The true issue is that standard ammo is useless in many situations, and with that premium shells being way too effective, effectively making even the strongest parts of the tank easily penetrable.

 

I think premium rounds should make it easier to penetrate tanks in some areas while having downsides. True downsides could be stuff like lower normalization, more drop-off, worse accuracy, lower shell velocity, not going through spaced armor/tracks (HEAT), etc. In other words, premium shells should not have the "I can just hit center mass now and pen it anywhere" effect like it does in many situations right now.



Duck_of_Death #20 Posted 05 July 2019 - 02:21 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 23157 battles
  • 804
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    11-08-2012

 

The proposed changes are just overly complicated(forcing us to relearn all of the HP and Alpha values) and will just ruin the game balance ,have fun playing badly armored or bottom tier tanks,when you have to face tanks like the 279,430u etc. that require gold to even stand a chance against them...

 

The game is balanced around premium ammo already anways,so at this point it would probably be the best idea to just make Prem. ammo the new standard ammo.

 






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users