Jump to content


Would it be a good idea to remove "classes" of tanks?


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

Hokum15 #1 Posted Yesterday, 11:01 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 36376 battles
  • 2,033
  • [HO_PO] HO_PO
  • Member since:
    06-06-2012

I'm tired of people telling other people how to play their tanks. if someone is in a FCM 50t, their not going to be tanking in an alley as they have no armour,  an STG  is going to be a second line sniper rather than an an aggressive ridge line warrior.
Why are some tanks nerfed cause "their a TD so they can`t be a replacement medium"? There should be significant overlap (and there is) between classes, enough that classes are pretty much irrelevant any longer. 

 

I understand that map markers help, but you could replace them with just weight classes (thinking battletech). 

 

 



The_Naa #2 Posted Yesterday, 11:09 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 7177 battles
  • 1,146
  • [QSF-L] QSF-L
  • Member since:
    11-10-2017

im getting really annoyed when im get constantly map pinged when i snipe in my Panther.

it is not a mid or close range support. it cant handle that.



Enherjaren #3 Posted Yesterday, 12:29 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 67770 battles
  • 613
  • [EFE-X] EFE-X
  • Member since:
    05-04-2011

View PostThe_Naa, on 16 August 2019 - 11:09 AM, said:

im getting really annoyed when im get constantly map pinged when i snipe in my Panther.

it is not a mid or close range support. it cant handle that.



It also works the other way. E4, E3, 268-4 ain't snipers.



tajj7 #4 Posted Yesterday, 01:40 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27757 battles
  • 15,614
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

IMO the 3 main and most played classes, heavies, meds and TDs, should basically be reclassified into 'Assault' and 'Support' and thus matched by the MM as that, so each team has a decent amount of Assault and support tanks.

 

Because an E3 or T95 should not be camping at the back, and Leo 1 is not designed for front line brawling

 

I'd also say 'support' can be played at any range, but you obviously need someone to support in the first place, so support doesn't mean sniper.

 

Then I think basically you should have a good balance, and therefore maximum number of 'assault', 'support', 'light' and 'arty' in a game.

 

Something like a min 3/max 6 Assault tanks in a game, min 3/max 6 Support tanks in a game, a min 1/max 3 light tanks in a game and just one arty. 



RockyRoller #5 Posted Yesterday, 01:57 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37266 battles
  • 1,529
  • [NR-NS] NR-NS
  • Member since:
    06-15-2016

Removing classes is like removing the rock, scissor or stone from that game.

 

There are ways to stop SPGs always killing you, or WV always going behind your lines. But you need to exercise the brain cells to think about how to solve problems rather than the easy solution of just remove them.



Nitro_Tank #6 Posted Yesterday, 02:28 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 6487 battles
  • 140
  • Member since:
    08-07-2011

View Posttajj7, on 16 August 2019 - 12:40 PM, said:

IMO the 3 main and most played classes, heavies, meds and TDs, should basically be reclassified into 'Assault' and 'Support' and thus matched by the MM as that, so each team has a decent amount of Assault and support tanks.

 

Because an E3 or T95 should not be camping at the back, and Leo 1 is not designed for front line brawling

 

I'd also say 'support' can be played at any range, but you obviously need someone to support in the first place, so support doesn't mean sniper.

 

Then I think basically you should have a good balance, and therefore maximum number of 'assault', 'support', 'light' and 'arty' in a game.

 

Something like a min 3/max 6 Assault tanks in a game, min 3/max 6 Support tanks in a game, a min 1/max 3 light tanks in a game and just one arty. 

Expand this separating wheeled and other lights so it is fair again. 

A problem might be increased queue times?



tajj7 #7 Posted Yesterday, 02:35 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27757 battles
  • 15,614
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostNitro_Tank, on 16 August 2019 - 01:28 PM, said:

Expand this separating wheeled and other lights so it is fair again. 

A problem might be increased queue times?

 

Yeh you could do that, but I wonder if we would need another WV line for that. There are still only 14k EBR 105 owners on EU and about 1.8k of those were played last month. 

 

Queue times I doubt would be much issue on EU and RU at all but like 4am or other low population periods, but just let the MM have some flexibility if its struggling, that is what I think it does now with it matching tank types (like super heavy to super heavy etc.) 



PiFouX #8 Posted Yesterday, 02:54 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 27228 battles
  • 203
  • Member since:
    05-13-2011

Even though the idea of reorganising with "Support" and "Assault" sounds nice and would make more sense, it will still depend on the player's ability to play his tank as defined.

 

An example: yesterday, on Ghost Town, north spawn, tier9 battle. IS3 and Tiger2 go with TDs, behind the bushes. That led me to go spot with my SkopG... No matter how you classify the IS3 "heavy" or "assault", if the player doesn't know what he is doing, he will be flamed for it... And rightly so... ;-)

 

 

 



tajj7 #9 Posted Yesterday, 02:56 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27757 battles
  • 15,614
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostPiFouX, on 16 August 2019 - 01:54 PM, said:

Even though the idea of reorganising with "Support" and "Assault" sounds nice and would make more sense, it will still depend on the player's ability to play his tank as defined.

 

An example: yesterday, on Ghost Town, north spawn, tier9 battle. IS3 and Tiger2 go with TDs, behind the bushes. That led me to go spot with my SkopG... No matter how you classify the IS3 "heavy" or "assault", if the player doesn't know what he is doing, he will be flamed for it... And rightly so... ;-)

 

 

 

 

Of course, but not sure there is much you can do about that though, it was more to stop say having Bobject vs Grille 15 for example, because they are both 'TDs' and also to stop having games where most of both teams is paper tanks and no one wants to go forward. 


Edited by tajj7, Yesterday, 02:57 PM.


Xandania #10 Posted Yesterday, 02:57 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 41394 battles
  • 1,522
  • [-DGN-] -DGN-
  • Member since:
    05-16-2013

Long time ago they announced a change to the matchmaker regarding the vehicle roles - then we never heard anything about it again... - then again I think it was around the infamous rubicon-incident...

 

I agree that matchmaking via roles might be beneficial - but we get problems with vehicles being able to fill other roles as well - or none at all if we are talking about a bottom tier churchill in +2 matches.

So, the main problem is HOW it could be implemented.



SaintMaddenus #11 Posted Yesterday, 03:01 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 37361 battles
  • 2,373
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    03-04-2011

I support the separation of wv vs lights, they have very different play styles.

 

the reality is there are a lot of arseholes out there that think you have to play it their way or die, be pushed or spammed with clicks  just play and have fun...


 



Negativvv #12 Posted Yesterday, 03:02 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 12125 battles
  • 1,558
  • [KEKE] KEKE
  • Member since:
    08-08-2015

View PostThe_Naa, on 16 August 2019 - 11:09 AM, said:

im getting really annoyed when im get constantly map pinged when i snipe in my Panther.

it is not a mid or close range support. it cant handle that.

That was basically me when 3 Marking my Panther I...

 

People often complain about the class and not seeing the actual tank being played.

 

The classes are mostly there for the MM and to deny HTs their camo rating. Otherwise the classes intermingle a lot.



tajj7 #13 Posted Yesterday, 03:05 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27757 battles
  • 15,614
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostXandania, on 16 August 2019 - 01:57 PM, said:

Long time ago they announced a change to the matchmaker regarding the vehicle roles - then we never heard anything about it again... - then again I think it was around the infamous rubicon-incident...

 

I agree that matchmaking via roles might be beneficial - but we get problems with vehicles being able to fill other roles as well - or none at all if we are talking about a bottom tier churchill in +2 matches.

So, the main problem is HOW it could be implemented.

 

I think that is in place, the problem is its pretty loose and some of the tanks classed together are pretty odd.  You quite often see like TVp vs Bat Chat and stuff and that is where its working.

 

But you also see like bobject vs Strv 103b, which is either it not working or some bad tank classifications.

 

They also have 'role' XP in ranked where they have grouped similar tanks and then you get XP based on their 'role' but there are some odd ideas in there, for example IIRC they put the 268 v4 in the same role class as the regular 268 and the FV215b 183, as if all of those are assault TDs and they were supposed to gain XP by bouncing shots! Bouncing shots in a 268 or 183 is hilarious and screams someone who has never played the game.

 

Other odd ones were the UDES 15/16 was in with the paper sniper meds, so even though you could hull down like a boss in it if you wanted, you could get role XP by just spotting and sniping from the back. 



TheJumpMaster #14 Posted Yesterday, 03:06 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 50211 battles
  • 5,185
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2011

View PostHokum15, on 16 August 2019 - 12:01 PM, said:

I'm tired of people telling other people how to play their tanks. if someone is in a FCM 50t, their not going to be tanking in an alley as they have no armour,  an STG  is going to be a second line sniper rather than an an aggressive ridge line warrior.
Why are some tanks nerfed cause "their a TD so they can`t be a replacement medium"? There should be significant overlap (and there is) between classes, enough that classes are pretty much irrelevant any longer. 

 

I understand that map markers help, but you could replace them with just weight classes (thinking battletech). 

 

 


Two thoughts come to mind here.

1) The classification is for reference only. You would not play the FCM the way you play the T 34, nor would you play the T 34 the way you play the Type 5 heavy - yet they are all "Heavy Tanks". The player must decide how to play the tank as HE OR SHE sees fit, according to the circumstances as he or she understands them.

 

2) Considering this is a game and NOT a place of employment, I don't see where it is your position to tell others how to play. So if you are tired of telling others how to play, you have several options:

  • Don't play randoms, since you will have players that don't play the way you want.
  • Relax and play your game as you see fit and stop telling others what to do.
  • Continue to expect others to play as you think they should and suffer the outcome.
  • Find a game where everyone plays according to your outlook/understanding.

 

14:08 Added after 2 minute

View PostSaintMaddenus, on 16 August 2019 - 04:01 PM, said:

I support the separation of wv vs lights, they have very different play styles.

 

 

 

Scouts and lights should be in separate classes. A light is not necessarily a scout.


Edited by TheJumpMaster, Yesterday, 03:09 PM.


tajj7 #15 Posted Yesterday, 03:14 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27757 battles
  • 15,614
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostTheJumpMaster, on 16 August 2019 - 02:06 PM, said:

I don't see where it is your position to tell others how to play.

 

He's not, I think others are telling him how to play. It's the old 'heavies must go here', 'mediums must go here', 'TDs must camp', 'Lights must spot' mantra that many players have. 

 

Most players are not good enough at the game to appreciate the subtleties of each vehicle that might mean it does not play like others in it's class or that current game situation might call for a different response.

 

I don't think the classes particularly help with this, because it's like some sort of noob player knowledge that each class must do a certain thing.

 

So I think it would certainly help with all that random clicking on the map and people being called noob etc. if we had classes that grouped tanks by their roles not their tank type.

 

I also think role based incentive XP would also help as well incentivise players to use their tanks more correctly or to their strengths. 

 

It still probably wouldn't stop the terrible player camping in his T95 because 'it's a TD' but it might encourage 1-2 more players to take their T95 to the front for the good of their team. 

 

--------------------------------

 

IIRC wasn't there a reasonably infamous thread on the NA forums that highlighted this issue, that ran to 100s of pages where a unicum 113 player took his 113 north on Artic Region (now Mannerhiem line) and an average player in the same game basically said he was wrong because he didn't go to the heavy line and that is why they lost the game. 

 

Which is the problem with this class thing and how it impacts the average players mindset and probably causes the toxicity the OP speaks about. 


Edited by tajj7, Yesterday, 03:16 PM.


Nitro_Tank #16 Posted Yesterday, 03:15 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 6487 battles
  • 140
  • Member since:
    08-07-2011

View Posttajj7, on 16 August 2019 - 01:35 PM, said:

 

Yeh you could do that, but I wonder if we would need another WV line for that. There are still only 14k EBR 105 owners on EU and about 1.8k of those were played last month. 

 

Queue times I doubt would be much issue on EU and RU at all but like 4am or other low population periods, but just let the MM have some flexibility if its struggling, that is what I think it does now with it matching tank types (like super heavy to super heavy etc.) 

I guess yeah, it doesnt need to be too stringent, just a general guide for the matchmaker to at least attempt to match similar roles together. If it just doesnt pan out you can give some leniency so that the queues in low pop times dont go too long



SaintMaddenus #17 Posted Yesterday, 03:22 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 37361 battles
  • 2,373
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    03-04-2011

"Most players are not good enough at the game to appreciate the subtleties of each vehicle that might mean it does not play like others in it's class or that current game situation might call for a different response"

Yep, I tried playing my Japanese Chi-Nu the same as my Cromwell...  guess how that turned out....



tajj7 #18 Posted Yesterday, 03:22 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27757 battles
  • 15,614
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostNitro_Tank, on 16 August 2019 - 02:15 PM, said:

I guess yeah, it doesnt need to be too stringent, just a general guide for the matchmaker to at least attempt to match similar roles together. If it just doesnt pan out you can give some leniency so that the queues in low pop times dont go too long

 

Also whilst you are restricting numbers and putting minimum amounts in, in terms of 'Assault' and 'Support' you are basically combining 3 current classes into two, so you are slightly increasing the pool of options, so you could have a 'top' rule where it's trying to get say at least 3 'assault' tanks, at least 1 top tier, then if server population is good it then ideally looks to match say super heavy to super heavy.

 

So you could have say it wants to make a tier 9 and 10 game, then it wants to find for each team two tier 10 assault tanks and at least 1 if not 2 tier 9 assault tanks. Then if the population is decent you might say have it find a Maus, Bobject, E75 for one team and then a Type 5, E3 and ST-I say for the other team and you have matched tank types.

 

But in low population times you might have say the Maus, Bobject, E75 matched against a Bobject, E3 and a Conqueror or something, so at least both teams have their armoured tanks even if they don't match say super heavy to super heavy or autoloader to autoloader. 



4nt #19 Posted Yesterday, 03:27 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 28153 battles
  • 1,095
  • Member since:
    04-09-2013
I support this notion. Nothing wrong in having ht-mt-lt-td-arty but indeed it creates wrong impression in particular to abilities of a tank. Many rpgs have distinctions between tank-support-healer etc. that have nothing to do with classes but build of the character, f.e. in 3rd ed DnD one could build an near Immortal melee character out of mage/cleric, neither which was exactly first line materiel.

TheJumpMaster #20 Posted Yesterday, 03:28 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 50211 battles
  • 5,185
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2011

View Posttajj7, on 16 August 2019 - 04:14 PM, said:

 

He's not, I think others are telling him how to play. It's the old 'heavies must go here', 'mediums must go here', 'TDs must camp', 'Lights must spot' mantra that many players have. 

 

Most players are not good enough at the game to appreciate the subtleties of each vehicle that might mean it does not play like others in it's class or that current game situation might call for a different response.

 

I don't think the classes particularly help with this, because it's like some sort of noob player knowledge that each class must do a certain thing.

 

So I think it would certainly help with all that random clicking on the map and people being called noob etc. if we had classes that grouped tanks by their roles not their tank type.

 

I also think role based incentive XP would also help as well incentivise players to use their tanks more correctly or to their strengths. 

 

It still probably wouldn't stop the terrible player camping in his T95 because 'it's a TD' but it might encourage 1-2 more players to take their T95 to the front for the good of their team. 

 

--------------------------------

 

IIRC wasn't there a reasonably infamous thread on the NA forums that highlighted this issue, that ran to 100s of pages where a unicum 113 player took his 113 north on Artic Region (now Mannerhiem line) and an average player in the same game basically said he was wrong because he didn't go to the heavy line and that is why they lost the game. 

 

Which is the problem with this class thing and how it impacts the average players mindset and probably causes the toxicity the OP speaks about. 


He did write, "I'm tired of people telling other people how to play their tanks."






2 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Blackadder83