Jump to content


Armour VS Penetration


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

Poll: Armour VS Penetration (72 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battle in order to participate this poll.

Which one do you think is the problem?

  1. Too much Armour on tanks (29 votes [40.28%])

    Percentage of vote: 40.28%

  2. Too much Penetration on standard Ammo/Gold ammo (21 votes [29.17%])

    Percentage of vote: 29.17%

  3. There is no Problem (22 votes [30.56%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.56%

Should we Give (Heavy) tanks more Armour so they dont suffer from frontal penetrations when some one shoots Gold?

  1. Yes (13 votes [18.06%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.06%

  2. No (59 votes [81.94%])

    Percentage of vote: 81.94%

Should we Nerf Armour on tanks so we dont Need Gold?

  1. Yes (42 votes [58.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 58.33%

  2. No (30 votes [41.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 41.67%

Should we Buff tanks Penetration Values so players dont suffer from unkillable opponents?

  1. Yes (15 votes [20.83%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.83%

  2. No (57 votes [79.17%])

    Percentage of vote: 79.17%

Should we Nerf tanks Penetration values so that Armour becomes more effective?

  1. Yes (29 votes [40.28%])

    Percentage of vote: 40.28%

  2. No (43 votes [59.72%])

    Percentage of vote: 59.72%

Should all tanks have weakspots like Cupolas?

  1. Yes (58 votes [80.56%])

    Percentage of vote: 80.56%

  2. No (14 votes [19.44%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.44%

Vote Hide poll

The_Naa #1 Posted 14 July 2020 - 04:01 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 12968 battles
  • 2,634
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    11-10-2017

Heyo :)

 

kinda want to see on what train people are on in this Armour/Gold ammo train.

questions might be a little oddly pharased, i do apologise for that but i did not think any better way to phrase the questions.

 

but my stand in the matter is that Tanks have too much armour so you need Gold to penetrate them frontaly.

as tanks with armour have the luxury to sit still in hulldown positions and lob shells at you, hurting you while you cant hurt them.

the only options are that the heavy tanks breaks cover so you can get its sides, you can bum rush him and risk your tank or you can ask your friendly neighbourhood arty to start focusing him and lobbing fruit baskets in his general direction until his nerves crack and he rage quits and opens a forum post or something. those are the real options if you dont shoot gold.

 

a tanks like V 168.01 P or WZ-111 5A are the perfect example of how i would Heavy tanks in the future to look like. Cupolas on top so you are not unkillable if hull down as people can snipe your cupolas so you need to work you wiggling if you want to avoid getting shot, and a lower plate weakspot that people shoot at.

Dont need Gold if you just aim at it. but then we have tanks like IS-7 that you cant really do anything about if he decides to be hull down.

 

Comic relief :) Spoiler

 


Edited by The_Naa, 14 July 2020 - 04:31 PM.


Homer_J #2 Posted 14 July 2020 - 04:28 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Moderator
  • 33999 battles
  • 38,799
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostThe_Naa, on 14 July 2020 - 04:01 PM, said:

Heyo :)

 

kinda want to see on what train people are on in this Armour/Gold ammo train.

 

I can't complete the survey because there is no appropriate answer for the first question.  i.e. I don't think there is a problem.



NekoPuffer_PPP #3 Posted 14 July 2020 - 04:29 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 37354 battles
  • 5,609
  • [VRTC] VRTC
  • Member since:
    09-13-2013

A heavy tank's frontal armor, the part where you're not really meant to penetrate ever, should be impenetrable unless you're aiming at it at an uncommon angle (such as facehugging or on uneven terrain and such, you get the idea). Weakspots such as cupolas and others should be visible from the front of all such heavily armored tanks.

 

Tier 10 tanks do not need gold ammo.

 

Gold ammo should only be available on the non-top researchable guns of a tank, and its penetration value should either equal or not exceed the standard penetration of the top researchable gun.

 

All of this, with changes to armor functionality and limitation of premium ammo, would call for a global accuracy buff. How much though, should be discussed. I vote for a 25% buff, maybe more.

 

More usable armor, more accurate shots, more thinking about weakspots, more aiming at said weakspots (reduced snapshot ability), overall a not so dumbed-down game made for muppets WoT currently is. Don't you hate getting owned by a noob just because your carefully aimed shot landed in another postcode? It's so satisfying to have your shot land in the general area you're aiming at, something I learned during 2018's football mode with 0 dispersion guns.


Edited by NekoPuffer_PPP, 14 July 2020 - 04:31 PM.


The_Naa #4 Posted 14 July 2020 - 04:31 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 12968 battles
  • 2,634
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    11-10-2017

View PostHomer_J, on 14 July 2020 - 04:28 PM, said:

 

I can't complete the survey because there is no appropriate answer for the first question.  i.e. I don't think there is a problem.


How'bout now?



Kdingo #5 Posted 14 July 2020 - 04:40 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 33570 battles
  • 9,166
  • Member since:
    07-05-2011

A general buff to dispersion, as we had it prior to nerf, and actual frontal weakspots on tanks, as we had back in the days and i am not talking about 270mm "weakspots", would be appreciated.

I don´t carry or fire much prem ammo but there are just certain tanks you may run into that just make it a requirement, specially if you end up bottom tier.

 

Yet WGs rebalance idea seems to "buff" armor, which will just lead to more prem ammo fired and this buffs may even screw over anyone who is not top tier.

In that regard the game was much better balanced before a certain id*ot and his idea of "heavies need to be frontally impenetrable" slowly wrecked anything.



Dava_117 #6 Posted 14 July 2020 - 05:53 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Moderator
  • 24757 battles
  • 7,032
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

We just need viable weackspots on heavy armoured HTs/TDs/MTs and a balancing factor between standard and premium shells.

The old, more biased toward center sigma would be nice too...



shikaka9 #7 Posted 14 July 2020 - 06:18 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 80275 battles
  • 2,670
  • Member since:
    02-27-2013
Armour, what are you talking about ??? :trollface: :hiding:

ONE77ZERO13 #8 Posted 14 July 2020 - 07:22 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 11823 battles
  • 345
  • Member since:
    12-05-2016

View Postshikaka9, on 14 July 2020 - 06:18 PM, said:

Armour, what are you talking about ??? :trollface: :hiding:

 

british spelling is weird like that, they also write color as colour.

 


Isharial #9 Posted 14 July 2020 - 07:45 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 27474 battles
  • 2,796
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-19-2015

i chose what i could but some of the options were a bit... vague :amazed:

 

ill elaborate below:

 

1) i chose "no problem" as on the whole there isn't, its really just a few questionable tanks that need to be brought into line

 

2) No - but there was no option for a will smith's "oh hell no" :P

 

3) some tanks need weakspots really. VK100P says hi, given that some T6's have to load gold to have a low chance at penning them, not even a 50% chance, some are lower than that on the weakest spot....

 

4 & 5) not completely sure on these. if we buff pen, then its just powercreeping the game, and, if we nerf all the penetration across the board, i cant imagine T6 meds all with Type 58 AP rounds would be a fun experience either - the maps just dont allow for the low pen to be useful

 

6) they should. it doesnt even have to be cupola's, it could be turret cheeks or shootable hull roof or something. Tiger 2 turret roof against 122mm's for example. knowing every cupola is weak might be a little boring after a while, no?

 

 

Armour has and always will be countered by premium ammo. it is how it will always be, and how it should be. no tank should be unkillable and the only way it should be "immune" so to speak, should be if the driver is working for it. wiggling and angling to try to make it less likely to be damaged should be the skill that armour is, not a guaranteed thing - that is generally true for most, specially older tanks that have not been touched in years, but there are some major outliers to that. 

if you do have very strong armour, it should have major downsides, like the 183mm's on the FV's trading pretty much everything for it.

 

i think WG need to go backwards a little here and go back to the old ways of having 1 line with better viewrange and sucking in everything else, armour, and gun etc.. etc.. none of this progetto crap that has everything you want in a med and nothing you dont. 



Bulldog_Drummond #10 Posted 14 July 2020 - 07:54 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36552 battles
  • 12,578
  • [DRATT] DRATT
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

I think we need more tanks in which I can pen them and they can't pen me

Thank heavens for the KV220



WindSplitter1 #11 Posted 14 July 2020 - 08:03 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 21937 battles
  • 4,262
  • [WINDY] WINDY
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

View PostNekoPuffer_PPP, on 14 July 2020 - 03:29 PM, said:

A heavy tank's frontal armor, the part where you're not really meant to penetrate ever, should be impenetrable

 

Hello, Murazor.

I cannot express how greatly I disagree with this stance. The fact that one of the balance "heads" had such a philosophy has had consequences that we, players, are reaping to this day.

All vehicles should be penetrable from the front. The issue with balancing resides on how great or small the effort that such an endeavour takes. Many want this for Heavy Tanks while they have absolutely no problems penetrating other vehicles.

 

Under that ruse, no vehicle should ever outspot a LT, out-DPM a Medium, etc.

 

It's quite fortunate that it is not like that but on the other hand, the margin isn't in favour of balance.

WG should really stop making HT players the "teacher's pet".


Edited by WindSplitter1, 14 July 2020 - 08:08 PM.


UrQuan #12 Posted 14 July 2020 - 10:10 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 22582 battles
  • 7,703
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

Filled in the poll & will elaborate on it:

 

First question I voted:*Too much armor on tanks*

 

Reason being that plenty of tanks got very good armor, from HT's to meds to TD's. In itself it isn't an issue, but it becomes one if very good armor gets combined with other very good features. Good armor is a strong force multiplier as it allows you to survive situations that others cannot (or at the least endure)

Hence combining this with other very good features (especially mobility & alpha damage) it creates very problematic tanks to deal with/balance.

It is not without reason that most over-performing tanks have armor as one of their strong points

 

 

Second I voted: 'No' on more armor for frontal armored HT's

 

I feel most armored tanks got plenty of armor these days & most are already pretty resilient to prem ammo already. Yes that TD can still pen you fairly well, it is a TD after all. No need to boost armor, because then you risk lower tiers to be completely helpless against higher tier armored tanks (something that is already the case against certain tanks)

 

 

Third I voted 'Yes' on Nerf armor

 

This is mainly as a vote to implement proper weakspots (visors, machinegun ports etc) on various armored tanks, but also to down grade the armor (or mobility) on various speedier tanks. Either you get a well armored tank/turret or you are mobile, not both (and if you really want both, then you get to enjoy a potato gun/viewrange, for balance)

 

 

Fourth I voted 'yes' on buff pen values & I also voted 'yes' on nerfing the pen values for the fifth question.

 

Mainly votes to bring penetration more in line with current wot for older tech tree tanks & to reduce the pen gap between standard & prem ammo as it can be very big on some tank, making it hard to justify standard shells when the prem shells are just so much better.

In short: do away with very low pen shells when the prem variant is so much better, but also lower pen value of prem shells if it just outclasses the regular ammo. A good example of such tank is the T8 Obj 416, which has a large pen gap between standard 'shell (201 mm) and prem (330mm pen), in such case i'd buff the standard pen, & reduce the prem pen, bringing it closer together, without the tank losing its feature of being a med with a high pen gun.

 

 

And last 'should all tanks have weakspots', I voted predictably 'yes'

 

All armored tanks should have weakspots one way or another, to prevent them from exposing themselves for a prolonged time without impunity. Best way to go around is by having visual clues on their model for the location of these weakspots (visors, machinegunports, patches of welded/riveted armor, cupola's). Don't make them too big, or they just make the tank too hard to play (see various way to big US tank cupola's, hampering their ability to be hulldown masters)

Nor too small, else it just isn't a proper weakspot as seen with defender cupola's, or the IS-7 tiny gun mantlet weakspot (with no visual clue, double bad)

 

 

Last bit, armor should be considered for balancing tanks when WG designs new ones. They did away with that for a while, gifting us the VK-100 as armor wasn't considered for balance (so it got a big alpha gun + good viewrange)

It's just very hard to balance a tank when it has good armor coupled with other featured that rank in the good category. See various armored tanks that have been released that carried a good gun/nice mobility along with strong armor.

Object 257 comes with decent armor, a nice gun & nice mobilty
This combo makes the Object 257 a perfectly balanced tank

 


Edited by UrQuan, 14 July 2020 - 10:46 PM.


Thejagdpanther #13 Posted 15 July 2020 - 10:29 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 40392 battles
  • 5,093
  • [TKBS] TKBS
  • Member since:
    07-16-2012

It is a snake biting its tail.
There is too much of both on too many tanks.



Cobra6 #14 Posted 15 July 2020 - 11:18 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16624 battles
  • 18,562
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

First question needs: "Gold ammo has too much penetration", standard ammo penetration is never too much, some tanks have to little but on average it's ok.

 

It's not really a chicken<=>egg situation:

1) In 2012 the game was fine, all tanks had viable frontal weakspots that tanks from the same tier could penetrate with standard ammo.

2) Slowly, viable weak spots were removed so premium ammo became ever more compulsory in normal engagements.

3) Currently premium ammo spam is rampant and tanks were over-armored to compensate for this meaning that standard ammo became completely unviable in a lot of engagements

 

We need to go back to 2012, add weak spots, completely remove premium ammo and balance for 1 parameter, standard ammo.

 

Cobra 6


Edited by Cobra6, 15 July 2020 - 11:21 AM.


ExistanceUK #15 Posted 15 July 2020 - 01:04 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 23327 battles
  • 265
  • [NAMES] NAMES
  • Member since:
    08-29-2015

Armour should not work automatically, it should take skill to use correctly just like everything else in the game (e.g. side scraping etc). 

 

If people really want gold ammo gone from the game then accuracy needs buffing and weakspots need reintroducing. 

 

 



Thejagdpanther #16 Posted 15 July 2020 - 01:47 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 40392 battles
  • 5,093
  • [TKBS] TKBS
  • Member since:
    07-16-2012

View PostCobra6, on 15 July 2020 - 11:18 AM, said:

It's not really a chicken<=>egg situation:

Well back then no, but now it is. For me was and it is super clear what start it all: prem ammo for credits. Now is just an avalance consequence from that point.

I agree on what you said but it took a huge work from wg to go back to some sanity. And you know how much they dislike some hard work.

 

 

View PostExistanceUK, on 15 July 2020 - 01:04 PM, said:

Armour should not work automatically, it should take skill to use correctly just like everything else in the game (e.g. side scraping etc).

Neither the penetration.


Edited by Thejagdpanther, 15 July 2020 - 03:38 PM.


frange #17 Posted 15 July 2020 - 02:32 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 33743 battles
  • 346
  • [FRNR] FRNR
  • Member since:
    10-25-2013
When talking about armor - are we talking about german "armor", or Rashan super-stalinium-instabounce-armor?

SlyMeerkat #18 Posted 15 July 2020 - 03:27 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 21144 battles
  • 3,862
  • Member since:
    01-29-2013
Ive always been one to learn weak spots as i found that most fun with how to deal with and how to play a certain tank..... Im not one to spam premium rounds, cant stand doing that and much rather shoot it if and when needed but nowadays, its almost as if you have no choice sadly :/

The_Naa #19 Posted 15 July 2020 - 03:33 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 12968 battles
  • 2,634
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    11-10-2017

View Postfrange, on 15 July 2020 - 02:32 PM, said:

When talking about armor - are we talking about german "armor", or Rashan super-stalinium-instabounce-armor?

 

the generalization of ''Armour'' when the word Armour comes to my mind i think of IS-7, Defender, S Conqeror Turret, Chieftain.

Heavy tanks in the meaning of Armor. thats what comes to my mind first. im not talking about tanks like FCM 50t as its not a heavy tank that yells ARMOR!

thats how imagine it, but take it as you please. 



The_Naa #20 Posted 25 July 2020 - 03:42 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 12968 battles
  • 2,634
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    11-10-2017

so for me it looks like the Armour is kind of a problem here.

not so much about the gold spam






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users