Jump to content


Shell balancing fiasko


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

Hechaton #1 Posted 29 February 2020 - 02:08 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 55564 battles
  • 254
  • Member since:
    06-25-2014

Wg just tested out shell balancing.

Just a suggestion, how about reducing some of the RNGs for existing shells instead? 

Problem: That would not be in line with WG's main goal of making the heavy tanks more durable. How about removing some of the frontal weak points for that tank class at the front as a compensation?



NekoPuffer_PPP #2 Posted 29 February 2020 - 02:35 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 36048 battles
  • 4,731
  • [VRTC] VRTC
  • Member since:
    09-13-2013
Heavy tanks aren't durable enough... Gold ammo negates their main strongpoint - armor. This makes them frustrating to play. A Type 5 in these days' meta is utterly useless.

LZ_Mordan #3 Posted 29 February 2020 - 04:27 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 19664 battles
  • 529
  • Member since:
    12-27-2012

View PostNekoPuffer_PPP, on 29 February 2020 - 01:35 PM, said:

Heavy tanks aren't durable enough... Gold ammo negates their main strongpoint - armor. This makes them frustrating to play. A Type 5 in these days' meta is utterly useless.

 

any armor is utterly useless.

 

completely idiotic game as soon as you start to play competitive.


Edited by LZ_Mordan, 29 February 2020 - 04:27 PM.


Supakadai #4 Posted 29 February 2020 - 05:12 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 57069 battles
  • 303
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011

[removed] and everything made sense ever since to be honest. :B

Had they been spending stirring milk instead of those ammo mechanics, they would have already rendered butter industry useless.

Instead of simply increasing silver income, they go and make some absolutely unnecessary vault mechanics. Instead of simply increasing experience gain, they go and make some absolutely unnecessary blueprint mechanics. :P

K(eep)I(t)S(imple)S(tupid) principle? Nope! Neverheard!

Even now when the aim is clearly to make premium ammo tiny touch less attractive, they go and start stirring up some HE mechanics, bringing back artillery AP shells....like...wtf? Is it really that hard to implement something simple?

Reduce the XP and/or silver gain from damage done with premium ammo, double/triple/quadruple/whatever premium ammo cost, remove damage made with premium ammo from the MoE calculations etc. Why trying to make simple things seem overcomplicated?

 

Muppets spamming premium ammo at 2 tiers lower vehicles deserve a hefty bill, not marks of excellence!


Edited by Homer_J, 03 March 2020 - 10:49 AM.
Insults


mgns #5 Posted 29 February 2020 - 05:21 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 42827 battles
  • 112
  • Member since:
    03-05-2011

View PostSupakadai, on 29 February 2020 - 04:12 PM, said:

 

Reduce the XP and/or silver gain from damage done with premium ammo, double/triple/quadruple/whatever premium ammo cost, remove damage made with premium ammo from the MoE calculations etc. Why trying to make simple things seem overcomplicated?

 

How much more should gold ammo cost before you prefer to bounce with silver?



Supakadai #6 Posted 29 February 2020 - 05:36 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 57069 battles
  • 303
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011

View Postmgns, on 29 February 2020 - 04:21 PM, said:

 

How much more should gold ammo cost before you prefer to bounce with silver?

 

I'm sure 10k to 20k a pop would make people consider if it's completely necessary. Because in vast majority of cases it is not.


Edited by Supakadai, 29 February 2020 - 05:36 PM.


Hechaton #7 Posted 29 February 2020 - 09:29 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 55564 battles
  • 254
  • Member since:
    06-25-2014

View Postmgns, on 29 February 2020 - 05:21 PM, said:

 

How much more should gold ammo cost before you prefer to bounce with silver?

 

All shell types would cost the same. Reduced alpha of the gold AP, and close to zero damage inflicted for HE if it doesn't penetrate.

 

The battles should be focused on saving or earning money, but to play well.

 

In the real world you would probably use the shell most suitable for the job.

That is if you meet a heavily armoured vehicle you SHOULD fire with the shell with the highest chance of penetrating.

I the rngs were reduced all toghether it would give us a bigger chance of hitting/pen'ing with the standard shells.

 

 



Balc0ra #8 Posted 29 February 2020 - 11:42 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 76437 battles
  • 22,432
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
Bad RNG is not a huge part of why most use gold. But reducing RNG will make it harder for some like the T32 to counter the VK 100.01 etc head-on. As he needs a high pen roll for that lower plate with AP. Thus vs +2, lower RNG will just put him outside the chance to pen most.

Edited by Balc0ra, 29 February 2020 - 11:42 PM.


Cobra6 #9 Posted 01 March 2020 - 12:01 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16613 battles
  • 18,235
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View PostHechaton, on 29 February 2020 - 01:08 PM, said:

 

Problem: That would not be in line with WG's main goal of making the heavy tanks more durable. How about removing some of the frontal weak points for that tank class at the front as a compensation?

 

Which weakspots? They've all already been removed or gotten more armor then same tier standard ammo penetration has penetration values. Honestly, home much more crutches would you like to play this game?

 

If anything, heavy tanks are *TOO* durable at the moment as there are hardly any viable ways to engage them frontally without spamming gold ammo.

 

Cobra 6



In_Flames90 #10 Posted 01 March 2020 - 12:27 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 13530 battles
  • 89
  • [DECOY] DECOY
  • Member since:
    12-05-2016
My suggestion. Make standard ammo viable, give it more competative pen.

Doesn't require buffing/nerfing armor.
Doesn't require touching premium ammo.

Patriot is a good example of a tank done right. 230 -> 259 APCR. A gain of 29! Pen for the premium round, and the standard round is still good enough for Tier 8.

T-54 on the other hand is a good example of a tank done wrong. 201 - > 330 HEAT. A massive gain of 129! Pen for the premium round, and the standard round is lower than a lot of Tier 8 meds.

Edited by In_Flames90, 01 March 2020 - 12:27 PM.


UrQuan #11 Posted 01 March 2020 - 12:28 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 22316 battles
  • 7,547
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

View PostCobra6, on 01 March 2020 - 12:01 PM, said:

 

Which weakspots? They've all already been removed or gotten more armor then same tier standard ammo penetration has penetration values. Honestly, home much more crutches would you like to play this game?

 

If anything, heavy tanks are *TOO* durable at the moment as there are hardly any viable ways to engage them frontally without spamming gold ammo.

 

Cobra 6

 

And quite some are pretty durable, even with gold ammo spammed at them. Unless players misuse the armored tank, but then any tank is bad.

 

The Gold does not harm me (the HE does tho)

 

 

Issue is that the shell balance attempts to tackle a problem that has been badly handled. Quite some armored tanks are very durable, especially since the gradual removal of most weak spots (there's a few left on some tanks). Not to mention it goes about it the wrong way. Buffing HP is a much bigger advantage to the armored tank then to a non armored tank. 

A good example is the period when the Maus had 3200 HP. That extra 200 HP allowed you so much more room in the endgame because alot of oneshot scenarios ceased to be, allowing you to play the Maus more aggressively longer.

Or the KV-4. That little extra HP it has compared to most HT's gives it that extra edge for me, surviving more situations.

Imo the buffing of the HP along with the shell rebalance will just create additional balance problems.

 

A better way would be to reintroduce classic weakspots, like cupola's & viewports & machinegun ports, allowing a better way to handle armored tanks & gives less incentive to shoot prem ammo as well.


Edited by UrQuan, 01 March 2020 - 12:37 PM.


kaneloon #12 Posted 01 March 2020 - 12:33 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32294 battles
  • 4,288
  • [RHIN0] RHIN0
  • Member since:
    11-18-2011

View PostCobra6, on 01 March 2020 - 11:01 AM, said:

 

Which weakspots? They've all already been removed or gotten more armor then same tier standard ammo penetration has penetration values. Honestly, home much more crutches would you like to play this game?

 

If anything, heavy tanks are *TOO* durable at the moment as there are hardly any viable ways to engage them frontally without spamming gold ammo.

 

Cobra 6

 

The problem is that most "good" players have your reasoning of spamming gold ammo, because why not ?

Hence this gold ammo rework asked by the players playing with fairness and trying to shoot sides.



Slyspy #13 Posted 01 March 2020 - 12:35 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 14987 battles
  • 17,651
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011
Play the AMX CDC and then tell me that armour is not still the meta.

ZlatanArKung #14 Posted 01 March 2020 - 01:28 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1537 battles
  • 5,563
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014
The first few posts in this thread shows why WG should ignore average at best players.

Nikka_Katajainen #15 Posted 01 March 2020 - 02:52 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16862 battles
  • 1,443
  • Member since:
    01-11-2013

View PostCobra6, on 01 March 2020 - 12:01 PM, said:

Which weakspots? They've all already been removed or gotten more armor then same tier standard ammo penetration has penetration values. Honestly, home much more crutches would you like to play this game?

 

If anything, heavy tanks are *TOO* durable at the moment as there are hardly any viable ways to engage them frontally without spamming gold ammo.

 

Cobra 6

 

It's ironic because while this is entirely correct for randoms and I suppose clanwar and ranked as well, in FL heavy tanks are easy picks for fast mediums and lights because the maps are so much bigger and flanking is actually a very viable strategy.

I guess we now know why WG will never make FL a permanent game mode? :)



AngelofAwe #16 Posted 01 March 2020 - 04:17 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 43051 battles
  • 3,394
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    12-24-2011

View PostCobra6, on 01 March 2020 - 01:01 PM, said:

 

Which weakspots? They've all already been removed or gotten more armor then same tier standard ammo penetration has penetration values. Honestly, home much more crutches would you like to play this game?

 

If anything, heavy tanks are *TOO* durable at the moment as there are hardly any viable ways to engage them frontally without spamming gold ammo.

 

Cobra 6


Average HT player starting pack
 

Spoiler


The next step is wheelchair and then there's only arty left for you. 



Cobra6 #17 Posted 01 March 2020 - 05:40 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16613 battles
  • 18,235
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View PostUrQuan, on 01 March 2020 - 11:28 AM, said:

 

And quite some are pretty durable, even with gold ammo spammed at them. Unless players misuse the armored tank, but then any tank is bad.

 

The Gold does not harm me (the HE does tho)

 

 

Issue is that the shell balance attempts to tackle a problem that has been badly handled. Quite some armored tanks are very durable, especially since the gradual removal of most weak spots (there's a few left on some tanks). Not to mention it goes about it the wrong way. Buffing HP is a much bigger advantage to the armored tank then to a non armored tank. 

A good example is the period when the Maus had 3200 HP. That extra 200 HP allowed you so much more room in the endgame because alot of oneshot scenarios ceased to be, allowing you to play the Maus more aggressively longer.

Or the KV-4. That little extra HP it has compared to most HT's gives it that extra edge for me, surviving more situations.

Imo the buffing of the HP along with the shell rebalance will just create additional balance problems.

 

A better way would be to reintroduce classic weakspots, like cupola's & viewports & machinegun ports, allowing a better way to handle armored tanks & gives less incentive to shoot prem ammo as well.

 

Yeah classic weakspots and just give tanks that are supposed to take damage as a strength, a ton more HP. That works much better then making them nearly invulnerable to standard ammo.

 

View Postkaneloon, on 01 March 2020 - 11:33 AM, said:

 

The problem is that most "good" players have your reasoning of spamming gold ammo, because why not ?

Hence this gold ammo rework asked by the players playing with fairness and trying to shoot sides.

 

If gold ammo is becoming more and more compulsory like it has been the past 4 years or so, who can blame them.

I pretty much shoot only standard ammo until I come across one of these abominations without viable frontal weak-spots and then I load the gold. With the quality of teams we have nowadays I don't have time or room to drive around the map and try and flank.

 

View Postpihip, on 01 March 2020 - 01:52 PM, said:

 

It's ironic because while this is entirely correct for randoms and I suppose clanwar and ranked as well, in FL heavy tanks are easy picks for fast mediums and lights because the maps are so much bigger and flanking is actually a very viable strategy.

I guess we now know why WG will never make FL a permanent game mode? :)

 

Steve gets outplayed by other classes as they finally get some room to play their camo and viewrange, so no, it won't be a permanent mode. Steve might stop paying money otherwise.

 

View PostAngelofAwe, on 01 March 2020 - 03:17 PM, said:


Average HT player starting pack
 

Spoiler


The next step is wheelchair and then there's only arty left for you. 

 

Yeah something like that.... :D 10 crutches in a row!

 

Cobra 6



zamenik #18 Posted 02 March 2020 - 03:35 AM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 13495 battles
  • 38
  • Member since:
    01-12-2011

View PostIn_Flames90, on 01 March 2020 - 12:27 PM, said:

My suggestion. Make standard ammo viable, give it more competative pen.

Doesn't require buffing/nerfing armor.
Doesn't require touching premium ammo.

Patriot is a good example of a tank done right. 230 -> 259 APCR. A gain of 29! Pen for the premium round, and the standard round is still good enough for Tier 8.

T-54 on the other hand is a good example of a tank done wrong. 201 - > 330 HEAT. A massive gain of 129! Pen for the premium round, and the standard round is lower than a lot of Tier 8 meds.

 

This.

 

There are too many tanks(and one would be too many) that are horrible with standard rounds and OP when using gold ammo. I guess that only reason for not resolving that issue is that WG wants to people use as much premium rounds as possible, but I wonder how many players did abandon the game because of gold ammo spam, so maybe it's not the best thing for the company in the long run.



ZlatanArKung #19 Posted 03 March 2020 - 08:37 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1537 battles
  • 5,563
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View Postzamenik, on 02 March 2020 - 03:35 AM, said:

 

This.

 

There are too many tanks(and one would be too many) that are horrible with standard rounds and OP when using gold ammo. I guess that only reason for not resolving that issue is that WG wants to people use as much premium rounds as possible, but I wonder how many players did abandon the game because of gold ammo spam, so maybe it's not the best thing for the company in the long run.

Who cares about long run when you can squeeze out extra money in the short run and thus get a good quarterly result. 



HanZi #20 Posted 03 March 2020 - 04:10 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 49589 battles
  • 385
  • [-NFD-] -NFD-
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011

View PostHechaton, on 29 February 2020 - 02:08 PM, said:

Wg just tested out shell balancing.

Just a suggestion, how about reducing some of the RNGs for existing shells instead? 

Problem: That would not be in line with WG's main goal of making the heavy tanks more durable. How about removing some of the frontal weak points for that tank class at the front as a compensation?

Remove gold "idiot" ammo, and its all fine..






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users