Jump to content


Hard capping 1 arty per each team


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
51 replies to this topic

Venom7000 #1 Posted 15 November 2019 - 01:24 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 7592 battles
  • 487
  • Member since:
    03-10-2018

I was playing two completely different matches.  Match 1- one arty per team. And 3 arties per team in Match 2.

 

There is just no help if all 3 arties decide to focus on one tank or flank. Its zero fun.

 

However, 1 arty was almost fair. Yes its still annoying but livable.

 

Made me start thinking. Why WG doesnt just:

  1. hard cap 1 arty per team?
  2. Remove the possibility of no arty match. (To balance the MM and que times for the clickers if here is any need for that. Because from what I saw and heard they dont wait too long to get in to match)

Yes, we would lose the chance to ever have no arty game. But statistically we would benefit because it removes the 2 and the dreaded 3 arta per match MM.

 

P.s- face it guys, they wont remove arta 100% from the game. As much as we would like to. They ain gonna do it .


Edited by Venom7000, 15 November 2019 - 01:24 PM.


SaintMaddenus #2 Posted 15 November 2019 - 01:26 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 38874 battles
  • 2,806
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    03-04-2011
I'm in favour of this.   as posted in the SPG discussion thread many times :)

jack_timber #3 Posted 15 November 2019 - 01:29 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 41315 battles
  • 3,389
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    07-26-2014

Well this thread will be locked shortly but as an avid arty player I would support 1 SPG per team...

There said it:)



I_Gutmensch_Deluxe_I #4 Posted 15 November 2019 - 01:29 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 18675 battles
  • 296
  • [NASO] NASO
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

0 Artas.

And 0 Wheelchairs.

Thx and np.



Venom7000 #5 Posted 15 November 2019 - 01:47 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 7592 battles
  • 487
  • Member since:
    03-10-2018

View Postjack_timber, on 15 November 2019 - 01:29 PM, said:

Well this thread will be locked shortly but as an avid arty player I would support 1 SPG per team...

There said it:)

It should stay open as long as we are civil and mature about our open discussion.  :)

Also GG to both of you for being down for this idea despite being SPG players.

I feel like this is a good compromise .



Koriin #6 Posted 15 November 2019 - 01:58 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14795 battles
  • 240
  • Member since:
    11-02-2012

does not really matter to me, but doing this will result in every game having arty, over the occasional arty free game we have now (or atleast making them even less likely).

Also while we are at it we better hardcap everything because I already see it comming that we want a hardcap on TD's and Lights (which I both do not favour).



Homer_J #7 Posted 15 November 2019 - 01:58 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Moderator
  • 32940 battles
  • 36,139
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostVenom7000, on 15 November 2019 - 01:47 PM, said:

It should stay open as long as we are civil and mature about our open discussion.  :)

 

It should be closed and junked and you should be directed to the sticky thread.

 

Where's those new moderators?



jabster #8 Posted 15 November 2019 - 02:02 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12771 battles
  • 26,286
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostVenom7000, on 15 November 2019 - 12:47 PM, said:

It should stay open as long as we are civil and mature about our open discussion.  :)

Also GG to both of you for being down for this idea despite being SPG players.

I feel like this is a good compromise .


So what’s the point of having a pinned thread then if you think your point is so important it should be allowed its own thread especially considering this is not a new idea?



Venom7000 #9 Posted 15 November 2019 - 02:05 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 7592 battles
  • 487
  • Member since:
    03-10-2018

View PostKoriin, on 15 November 2019 - 01:58 PM, said:

does not really matter to me, but doing this will result in every game having arty, over the occasional arty free game we have now (or atleast making them even less likely).

Also while we are at it we better hardcap everything because I already see it comming that we want a hardcap on TD's and Lights (which I both do not favour).

True, but that no-arty match is only 25% of the time. Odds are not in our favour.

This way we get lesser of both evils. So to speak.

As for light or td capping. I dont know what to say. Its not the topic that bothers me so much. :)

13:08 Added after 3 minute
Homer_J Jabnster.
Instead of being condescending maybe explain what you mean?

My topic is about discussion, there are no right or wrong answers.
So we can complain about:gold ammo, 279e or 100 other toxic topics, where we are 4 posts in before people start grabbing each others throats and flexing their win % and battle count?
But we cant have a nice civil discussion?
13:12 Added after 7 minute

View Postjabster, on 15 November 2019 - 02:02 PM, said:


So what’s the point of having a pinned thread then if you think your point is so important it should be allowed its own thread especially considering this is not a new idea?

 

Topic that have been discussed before and still are made daily: MM, GOLD ammo, new tech tree, tank x/y is OP!...etc..etc.

If you feel like topics that have been once discussed some 1 or 2 years ago shouldn't be repeated. Than ny friend the forum would have exactly 20 threads. Otherwise everything is just repeating. Right?



jabster #10 Posted 15 November 2019 - 02:12 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12771 battles
  • 26,286
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostVenom7000, on 15 November 2019 - 01:05 PM, said:

True, but that no-arty match is only 25% of the time. Odds are not in our favour.

This way we get lesser of both evils. So to speak.

As for light or td capping. I dont know what to say. Its not the topic that bothers me so much. :)

13:08 Added after 3 minute
Homer_J Jabnster.
Instead of being condescending maybe explain what you mean?

My topic is about discussion, there are no right or wrong answers.
So we can complain about:gold ammo, 279e or 100 other toxic topics, where we are 4 posts in before people start grabbing each others throats and flexing their win % and battle count?
But we cant have a nice civil discussion?


It has nothing about being condescending. There is an pinned arty thread so why do you think your idea, which has been put forward by many posters, deserves special treatment?



mpf1959 #11 Posted 15 November 2019 - 02:16 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 30107 battles
  • 1,808
  • [DRATT] DRATT
  • Member since:
    10-29-2017

Hard capping 1 arty per each team

 

I also wish it was so, as an arty player I have said the same for nearly 2 years, I believe it is the amount of spg's is what makes it unbearable.



Venom7000 #12 Posted 15 November 2019 - 02:17 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 7592 battles
  • 487
  • Member since:
    03-10-2018

View Postjabster, on 15 November 2019 - 02:12 PM, said:


It has nothing about being condescending. There is an pinned arty thread so why do you think your idea, which has been put forward by many posters, deserves special treatment?

 

Then move it to SPG thread if it disturbs you so much. I have no problem with that.

I rarely post in gameplay sub forum I didnt notice the spg thread.

Plus I feel like no one that doesn't play spg ever goes to hang out in SPG threads.

I wanted to hear opinions or all players. Not just SPG players.

 

Pls, consider that a person is new at something or did not have all the information/instructions at the moment they said/made something.

You made it sound like I feel entitled. And feel like my thread is holly grail. This was a shower thought. And an open friendly discussion that was going fine till you two decided to play moderators.



24doom24 #13 Posted 15 November 2019 - 02:17 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 8723 battles
  • 655
  • [WW3] WW3
  • Member since:
    10-20-2012
1 arta is good. There's an arty in every game anyway so they might as well.

Venom7000 #14 Posted 15 November 2019 - 02:22 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 7592 battles
  • 487
  • Member since:
    03-10-2018

View Postmpf1959, on 15 November 2019 - 02:16 PM, said:

Hard capping 1 arty per each team

 

I also wish it was so, as an arty player I have said the same for nearly 2 years, I believe it is the amount of spg's is what makes it unbearable.

Aha, so you think that number of spg players at each moment queuing is problem?

Interesting. 

Maybe then allow more +2 or -2mm for SPG players? Somehow allow them to have more options to join the match. Say, all tier 8 match eccept arta is tier 9 or tier 7 or tier 10 or tier 6. More times than not.

Every time I que to do missions in my s51 I see some 50spgs also queuing. Not more than that often. But I see what you mean.



jabster #15 Posted 15 November 2019 - 02:37 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12771 battles
  • 26,286
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostVenom7000, on 15 November 2019 - 01:22 PM, said:

Aha, so you think that number of spg players at each moment queuing is problem?

Interesting. 

Maybe then allow more +2 or -2mm for SPG players? Somehow allow them to have more options to join the match. Say, all tier 8 match eccept arta is tier 9 or tier 7 or tier 10 or tier 6. More times than not.

Every time I que to do missions in my s51 I see some 50spgs also queuing. Not more than that often. But I see what you mean.


Right then, the last time I looked the average population of arty per-team is 1.5 or three per-game. So let’s abstract it to 100 battles which can accommodate 200 arty using your idea of a hard cap. How long will it now take, on average, from pressing the battle button for an arty in the queue to being in a battle that it’s allowed to join?


Edited by jabster, 15 November 2019 - 02:38 PM.


Venom7000 #16 Posted 15 November 2019 - 02:46 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 7592 battles
  • 487
  • Member since:
    03-10-2018

Again fair point. 100% agree that it will be a possible issue.

However the scale of the que times/battles available is not exactly 1:1.

Because even today in 25% of the time. We have no-arta matches. Which in maximum theoretical scenario makes 6 arties (3 per each team) lose out on a match.

It would be a good thing to see in practice on a test server.

Not sure how (and again this is just speculation) if we joined EU1 and EU2. How that would help distribute the mm.

Also we can see the longer que times as an incentive for you to maybe give it a rest with SPG for few battles. 

 

Again the que time is a valid point non the less. :)

 



mpf1959 #17 Posted 15 November 2019 - 02:49 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 30107 battles
  • 1,808
  • [DRATT] DRATT
  • Member since:
    10-29-2017

View PostVenom7000, on 15 November 2019 - 02:22 PM, said:

Aha, so you think that number of spg players at each moment queuing is problem?

Interesting. 

Maybe then allow more +2 or -2mm for SPG players? Somehow allow them to have more options to join the match. Say, all tier 8 match eccept arta is tier 9 or tier 7 or tier 10 or tier 6. More times than not.

Every time I que to do missions in my s51 I see some 50spgs also queuing. Not more than that often. But I see what you mean.

 

I think I failed to get my point across, so I will try again.

 

I play arty, but I hate there being more than 1 spg per team per game, so I would like it to be capped to 1 per game, and have said as much for nearly 2 years.

 

You mention queues, well, my opinion on that is basically if we have to wait, it's tough. And since (i believe) WOT is the only place to play arty in a tank game, we will either get used to it, or stop playing arty!



tajj7 #18 Posted 15 November 2019 - 02:51 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28447 battles
  • 16,728
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

I prefer zero arty and it gone for the game, but 1 is better than 2 or 3, so I'd take it. 

 

At least you can plan around 1, evne if they are focusing you, especially at higher tiers you can be aware of their reloads, direction of fire etc. to mitigate their impact more but keeping track of 2 or 3 arties is much harder. 

 

From experience in ranked 2 does not make things better, if anything its worse than randoms because whilst you get some 3 arty a side games in randoms (which are horrible and pointless) you do at least get zero and 1 arty games as well, but the two cap in ranked EVERY game has two arties and with the combination of A LOT of campers (because they are scared to lose cheverons) anyone spotted or playing actively pretty much has both arties after them all the time anyway, so it feels like a 3 arty game anway.

 

So if a further cap is added it has to be one, not two IMO, otherwise its a pointless gesture and would just remove arty free games for good. 

 

It's got to the point where most heavies to me in ranked are pointless because they get constantly focused by arty, so I have tended to shift to lights just avoid being clicked on all the time (even then bad arty players still try to go for you).

 

IF we had -

 

  • 1 arty per side
  • No xvm or in-game stats
  • No HE pens (which seems to be happening for derps in the re-work so hopefully re-apply it to arty

 

Then I would probably be content with arty in the game, not happy, but I'd accept it (and long term would help WG would develop the class to be more skill based and have more counters). 


Edited by tajj7, 15 November 2019 - 02:52 PM.


jabster #19 Posted 15 November 2019 - 02:52 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12771 battles
  • 26,286
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostVenom7000, on 15 November 2019 - 01:46 PM, said:

Again fair point. 100% agree that it will be a possible issue.

However the scale of the que times/battles available is not exactly 1:1.

Because even today in 25% of the time. We have no-arta matches. Which in maximum theoretical scenario makes 6 arties (3 per each team) lose out on a match.

It would be a good thing to see in practice on a test server.

Not sure how (and again this is just speculation) if we joined EU1 and EU2. How that would help distribute the mm.

Also we can see the longer que times as an incentive for you to maybe give it a rest with SPG for few battles. 

 

Again the que time is a valid point non the less. :)

 


Ot doesn’t matter how many zero arty games there are, it matters how many players press that battle button in arty. Your idea means that the MM can accommodate 50% less arty pressing the battle button vs. the current demand. How would that work for the queue time?



tajj7 #20 Posted 15 November 2019 - 02:54 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28447 battles
  • 16,728
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View Postjabster, on 15 November 2019 - 01:52 PM, said:


How would that work for the queue time?

 

You put an asterisk next to the SPG numbers in the queue screen and say 'SPGs might be in for a longer wait, please be patient', that is what ranked already does. 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users