Jump to content


T110's Northern Migration


  • Please log in to reply
19357 replies to this topic

Apache1990 #18961 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 06:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 32674 battles
  • 6,285
  • [ATKRE] ATKRE
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011
Even standard penetration is starting to creep up for T8 mediums.  There are several heavies that had basically enough armor to make the average T8 medium bounce 50-70% of their shots if they didn't hit a weak point.  Now, the lowest T8 medium pen is slowly being crept up to 212 universal.

SpectreHD #18962 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 06:52

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16324 battles
  • 15,774
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostApache1990, on Nov 14 2017 - 13:40, said:

Even standard penetration is starting to creep up for T8 mediums.  There are several heavies that had basically enough armor to make the average T8 medium bounce 50-70% of their shots if they didn't hit a weak point.  Now, the lowest T8 medium pen is slowly being crept up to 212 universal.

 

But most are around 180 to 190 isn't it?

 

I mean Tier 8 meds did need a penetration increase. 212 seems just okay enough unlike the massive increases crutch ammo gives.


Edited by SpectreHD, Nov 14 2017 - 06:55.


Apache1990 #18963 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 07:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 32674 battles
  • 6,285
  • [ATKRE] ATKRE
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011

View PostSpectreHD, on Nov 14 2017 - 00:52, said:

 

But most are around 180 to 190 isn't it?

 

I mean Tier 8 meds did need a penetration increase. 212 seems just okay enough unlike the massive increases crutch ammo gives.

 

It kinda screws over the T32 and VK4502A hull armor though, which was reliable against 170-180ish pen guns.

SpectreHD #18964 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 07:20

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16324 battles
  • 15,774
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostApache1990, on Nov 14 2017 - 14:12, said:

 

It kinda screws over the T32 and VK4502A hull armor though, which was reliable against 170-180ish pen guns.

 

True but the VK4502A was more mobility than hull armour. That tank I barely expect to bounce anything. What I say it should have is better DPM to perform the heavium role better.

 

The T32 I say would be better accuracy and penetration. Either that better mobility and DPM to make up for the poor penetration and accuracy.  



Avalon304 #18965 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 07:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 16826 battles
  • 6,469
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View PostSpectreHD, on Nov 13 2017 - 22:11, said:

 

Yes, it has. Are you forgetting we are playing a game about tanks!? A game where the tanks are balanced around armour, firepower and mobility? A game about tanks incorporating the design philosophy of making a good tank based on the trifecta of protection, firepower and mobility. 

 

It is a core mechanic of this game and it is a core aspect of balance. Balance. Something YOU and everyone else defending crutch ammo seem to forget. And it is something YOU and everyone else fail to see as the cause of the overbuffing of armour on the Maus and Type 4/5. It is basic cause and effect.

 

Shell normalisation and overmatch is there to not make armour invincible when a vehicle is employing tactics like being hull down or side scraping. It is there to add some complexity and depth to gameplay. Heck, normalisation is there to add in some real world ballistics into this game. Just because it is there it doesn't mean armour is a terrible mechanic.

 

Armour doesn't rely solely on stupid people to work? Does it become more effective against those who are stupid? Sure. Does it make armour a terrible mechanic? No. It is just stupid people too stupid to learn the game. That still doesn't detract from armour being a balance metric and a core aspect of a tank game.

 

And really, stop with the tripe of players wanting to be invulnerable. Stop with the tripe of players wanting invulnerability causing the buffs to the Maus and Type 4/5 when you are ignorant to what caused them to be buff. I will give you a hint. Their armour being easily penetrated and them without the mobility or firepower to do anything about it. Very simple cause and effect.

 

How about we talk about the lazy premium ammo spammers. "Oh if I see a Maus or Type 4/5, or anything with armour, it is automatically code 2, 2." instead of thinking of how to defeat it through positioning or shooting weakspots or tracking it. Not like the Maus can chase them down and make it difficult for those faster vehicles, right? You want a damned terrible mechanic? Look at the one SCREWING UP BALANCE!

 

The Maus was well balanced. It may be the most armoured vehicle in the game but it still required some thought to maximise its armour. So balanced that if it wanted to maximise protection, it cannot do damage and vice versa. At best it needed a DPM buff. But then it got spammed to death with crutch ammo. That is how we got to where we are now. If the Maus was garbage, why only now did it receive the buffs that it did? Previously, all it had were minor gun handling buffs because it still performed well. You think WG listened to those wanting invulnerable tanks over their own collected statistics? Shiieeet if that were the case I'd be having a M60A1 in my garage now and your precious Chieftain in yours.

 

Armour has always been an integral part of WoT. It is (used to be) one of the most historical aspect of this game and tanks were balanced around it before premium ammo came along and screwed it all up. That says it is one of the core aspects of WoT and is one of the stated main feature of this game. 

 

Imagine WoT with balanced higher penetrating ammo. The Maus and Type 4/5 wouldn't have been buffed and would be more common. The medium tanks' turret wouldn't be buffed. Tanks with just enough armour to have it as a safety net, which you like to claim it is nothing more than that, would actually work. Games would last longer and the snowball would get rolling later since time to kill isn't so short.

 

No. It hasnt. It hasnt ever been a core mechanic.

 

And Ive never defended premium ammo. But I dont think its an issue. (BTW: calling it a crutch weakens any argument you can make against it. It isnt a crutch, and it doesnt guarantee penetration.) Premium ammo didnt get us to where we are to day. This game existed for, literally, years with premium ammo for silver without us getting where we are today. Its been the player base complaining about "armor not working" when they play like idiots. Armor worked fine, even after premium for silver. It functioned as the safety net it always was, saving you from derp positioning moments sometimes, even against premium ammo.

 

This game isnt balanced around the trifecta like you think it is. That trifecta is what REAL tanks are designed using. The trifecta of Firepower/Mobility/Armor has NEVER held up in this game. Not in 2012. Certainly not now. Do you know why? Because mobility has ALWAYS trumped the other two.

 

Shell normalization and overmatch hardly apply when a tank is hull down. They very rarely apply when a tank is sidescraping. And on those tanks where it would apply, you probably shouldnt be sidescraping in the first place.

 

Armor does rely on stupid people. Im sorry, but it does. If people arent shooting you or arent willing to shoot you, your armor is MEANINGLESS. If they decide to go somewhere else, your armor is meaningless. The only time your armor matters is if its getting shot and blocking damage. At that point its basically temporary HP, that goes away once it gets penned and you take damage. A mechanic that doesnt rely on the player, but relies on something outside of a players control is a terrible mechanic. Period.

 

It isnt tripe. Go read reddit. Go read the comment sections of ANY FRACKING WoT blog. The number one request for every fracking tank, is "MORE ARMOR". People want to be fracking invulnerable. They dont want to think. They dont want to consider that not getting hit might be better than relying on a terrible mechanic. The Maus armor was fine, regardless of gold ammo, (and its gun, while not the best, wasnt exactly bad either). So were both the Type 4 and 5's armor. But players dont like it when they get penned, so they complain for more armor. If this wasnt the case we wouldnt be having people DEFEND the removal of weakspots (that can be penned by standard ammo) on tanks. I'll stop saying it when I stop seeing it fracking everywhere.

 

You can call people lazy, but with the meta we are in now, its a requirement. Period. You could have made an argument for laziness back in 2014 or 2015, but now? No... premium ammo is a requirement. Because thats where we are, we have tanks that can not be penetrated with standard rounds. Tanks like the Maus, where if you dont hit the exact right spot on even the fracking side of the tank from a perfect 90 degree angle, you'll bounce with 268mm pen APCR from a tier 10 medium. And this is beside the fact that dispersion in this game is garbage, and all gold actually does is increase the pennable area relative to the size of your aiming circle.

 

Yes, when the number one request for a tank is "MORE ARMOR" I do think WG listened to the player base. Because if WG had listened to their own internal numbers, armor wouldnt have gotten buffed, because WG has told us that premium ammo only makes up a small percentage of the total shots fired. If this is indeed the case (and while I admit that WG could have been lying or fudging the numbers, they really have no reason to do that), the only possible explanation for the numerous unneeded armor buffs weve seen in recent balance destroying patches is that WG is listening to the average 48% win rate player when they complain about getting penned in *insert tank here*.

 

Look... I know you want the M60A1... but lets face it, the majority of even the NA player base probably doesnt give 2 [edited]  about the M60A1. I certainly dont, because the M48 was always good enough. And even regarding the Chieftain, the majority of the NA playerbase probably doesnt give 2 [edited]about it either. (Id even wager the majority of the much larger EU server doesnt actually care about the Chieftain). In the scheme of things the players wanting either of those tanks are drops in an ocean compared to the number of complaints about "armor not working". (Despite armor having always worked as it should have).

 

WoT with higher penetrating standard ammo would suffer the same fate that we are now. Players dont like having to think about stuff. They wont like having to rely on not getting hit and having armor as a safety net (they already dont like that). They want armor to save them from everything. We'd get to the same position we are in now, where players would start to complain that their armor wasnt working when they drive side on to an enemy tank thats loaded and looking at them. Because people do that now. And then WG would compensate by buffing armor, except the big difference here is that instead of players having another tool to use against these buffs WG would have to also buff penetration and then it would circle around to players complaining about armor again.

 

And Im going to give you some insight here: Longer games are not good. Especially for a game like this. (Not a tank game, but a F2P arena arcade shooter, which is basically what WoT is). Long games are boring and they result in less player engagement. (I remember the campy [edited]TD meta we had at one point, where matches lasted longer. It was boring.) Short matches, where tanks move quickly and are more active are more fun for players. Quick TTKs make for more dynamic games and the in game you envision above, the TTK wouldnt be any longer than it is now, unless there was also an accompanying HP buff OR alpha/DPM nerf.

 

In short, the reason we are where we are now solely falls on the shoulders of the playerbase.



Daigensui #18966 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 07:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 27239 battles
  • 29,474
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012
Day 13 done. Just two more days.

Zergling #18967 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 08:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 16721 battles
  • 7,701
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    02-09-2011

View PostGuy4123, on Nov 14 2017 - 15:08, said:

 

It's at 591k now. It doesn't seem to be stopping.

 

Definitely will be over 600k by the morning.

 

Past 600k now, I think it might make a million.

Daigensui #18968 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 09:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 27239 battles
  • 29,474
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostAvalon304, on Nov 13 2017 - 22:26, said:

In short, the reason we are where we are now solely falls on the shoulders of the playerbase.

 

:great:



SpectreHD #18969 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 09:28

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16324 battles
  • 15,774
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostAvalon304, on Nov 14 2017 - 14:26, said:

 

No. It hasnt. It hasnt ever been a core mechanic.

 

And Ive never defended premium ammo. But I dont think its an issue. (BTW: calling it a crutch weakens any argument you can make against it. It isnt a crutch, and it doesnt guarantee penetration.) Premium ammo didnt get us to where we are to day. This game existed for, literally, years with premium ammo for silver without us getting where we are today. Its been the player base complaining about "armor not working" when they play like idiots. Armor worked fine, even after premium for silver. It functioned as the safety net it always was, saving you from derp positioning moments sometimes, even against premium ammo.

 

This game isnt balanced around the trifecta like you think it is. That trifecta is what REAL tanks are designed using. The trifecta of Firepower/Mobility/Armor has NEVER held up in this game. Not in 2012. Certainly not now. Do you know why? Because mobility has ALWAYS trumped the other two.

 

Shell normalization and overmatch hardly apply when a tank is hull down. They very rarely apply when a tank is sidescraping. And on those tanks where it would apply, you probably shouldnt be sidescraping in the first place.

 

Armor does rely on stupid people. Im sorry, but it does. If people arent shooting you or arent willing to shoot you, your armor is MEANINGLESS. If they decide to go somewhere else, your armor is meaningless. The only time your armor matters is if its getting shot and blocking damage. At that point its basically temporary HP, that goes away once it gets penned and you take damage. A mechanic that doesnt rely on the player, but relies on something outside of a players control is a terrible mechanic. Period.

 

It isnt tripe. Go read reddit. Go read the comment sections of ANY FRACKING WoT blog. The number one request for every fracking tank, is "MORE ARMOR". People want to be fracking invulnerable. They dont want to think. They dont want to consider that not getting hit might be better than relying on a terrible mechanic. The Maus armor was fine, regardless of gold ammo, (and its gun, while not the best, wasnt exactly bad either). So were both the Type 4 and 5's armor. But players dont like it when they get penned, so they complain for more armor. If this wasnt the case we wouldnt be having people DEFEND the removal of weakspots (that can be penned by standard ammo) on tanks. I'll stop saying it when I stop seeing it fracking everywhere.

 

You can call people lazy, but with the meta we are in now, its a requirement. Period. You could have made an argument for laziness back in 2014 or 2015, but now? No... premium ammo is a requirement. Because thats where we are, we have tanks that can not be penetrated with standard rounds. Tanks like the Maus, where if you dont hit the exact right spot on even the fracking side of the tank from a perfect 90 degree angle, you'll bounce with 268mm pen APCR from a tier 10 medium. And this is beside the fact that dispersion in this game is garbage, and all gold actually does is increase the pennable area relative to the size of your aiming circle.

 

Yes, when the number one request for a tank is "MORE ARMOR" I do think WG listened to the player base. Because if WG had listened to their own internal numbers, armor wouldnt have gotten buffed, because WG has told us that premium ammo only makes up a small percentage of the total shots fired. If this is indeed the case (and while I admit that WG could have been lying or fudging the numbers, they really have no reason to do that), the only possible explanation for the numerous unneeded armor buffs weve seen in recent balance destroying patches is that WG is listening to the average 48% win rate player when they complain about getting penned in *insert tank here*.

 

Look... I know you want the M60A1... but lets face it, the majority of even the NA player base probably doesnt give 2 [edited]  about the M60A1. I certainly dont, because the M48 was always good enough. And even regarding the Chieftain, the majority of the NA playerbase probably doesnt give 2 [edited]about it either. (Id even wager the majority of the much larger EU server doesnt actually care about the Chieftain). In the scheme of things the players wanting either of those tanks are drops in an ocean compared to the number of complaints about "armor not working". (Despite armor having always worked as it should have).

 

WoT with higher penetrating standard ammo would suffer the same fate that we are now. Players dont like having to think about stuff. They wont like having to rely on not getting hit and having armor as a safety net (they already dont like that). They want armor to save them from everything. We'd get to the same position we are in now, where players would start to complain that their armor wasnt working when they drive side on to an enemy tank thats loaded and looking at them. Because people do that now. And then WG would compensate by buffing armor, except the big difference here is that instead of players having another tool to use against these buffs WG would have to also buff penetration and then it would circle around to players complaining about armor again.

 

And Im going to give you some insight here: Longer games are not good. Especially for a game like this. (Not a tank game, but a F2P arena arcade shooter, which is basically what WoT is). Long games are boring and they result in less player engagement. (I remember the campy [edited]TD meta we had at one point, where matches lasted longer. It was boring.) Short matches, where tanks move quickly and are more active are more fun for players. Quick TTKs make for more dynamic games and the in game you envision above, the TTK wouldnt be any longer than it is now, unless there was also an accompanying HP buff OR alpha/DPM nerf.

 

In short, the reason we are where we are now solely falls on the shoulders of the playerbase.

 

Yeah, you can believe that if you want. No tank in this game is balanced around their armour here. Don't know what reason the Churchills, T28/P, KV-4, and other slow moving vehicles aren't any faster. Must be their amazing DPM. Not too sure why we have this complicated armour and penetration mechanics in this game too. Should just be hitpoint based.

 

Sure, the trifecta is meant for real life. For this game based on tanks, it is still applicable whether you want to believe it or not. It is not like I have an IS-7 with medium like mobility that made mediums redundant during the Closed Alpha in the game right now. Why doesn't the Grille 15 have the armour of an E100? Stop deluding yourself. 

 

How can it weaken my argument if it is true? Crutch ammo. I want to penetrate the thickest and largest area of a tank with ease. I want to trade shots with that heavy in my medium. I don't want to move and let my TDs try to fight that heavy instead. I am too lazy to learn easily damageable weakspots with standard but just go through the thickest part of a tank instead. I want to have faster shell speed instead of leading a target. I want to increase my offensive capability in a close match and hope my enemy doesn't do the same. I want to get my shot off and still reliably penetrate before that heavy could even aim down enough to fire a shot. I want to increase the lethality of my already fast and high DPM vehicle and screw the balance; too bad that slow heavy tank cannot do something similar. This armour is a "safety net" argument just isn't enough to convince me when tanks balance around it have average to below average firepower and mobility.

 

I did say it relied on stupid people. But not solely. That is some confidence you have there if you think it relies full 100% on stupid people to work. And are you kidding? Meaningless if an enemy is unwilling to shoot? I'd say it is working just fine. If the enemy have to move, they are wasting time allowing teammates to get in position or advance or get flanking shots. Tanks have armour not to do damage or flank because that is not what their "safety net" is for. Funny how you talk it does't rely on the player so it is bad. As far as I am concern, the same applies to crutch ammo. Doesn't rely on the player aiming at weakspots, doesn't rely on the player leading shots because faster shell travel time, doesn't rely on using mobility to flank. 

 

Well, I have been reading WoT blogs and the forums since TWO THOUSAND FRACKING TEN. Do I see people asking for more armour? Sure, but back then it is for when it is historical. Back then, buffs (and nerfs) were all based on historical accuracy. Sure, I don't read the Reddit but do the actual devs actually do as well? Or do they read their own RU forums or RU reddit equivalent. Did you count to see that it is the number one request? From what I see, players complain when armour DOES NOT WORK when the tank is balanced around it! This "safety net" doesn't work enough times to make up for the lack of firepower and mobility! Explain that. Why doesn't the Tier 7 Black Prince not have the best DPM of its tier? The KV-4? IS-4? Heck, I see players saying the weakspot given to the Type 4/5 were not enough! Players defending weakspot removal have their comment heavily downvoted.

 

Such a perfect scenario needed just to pen the side of a Maus. You think it came from whining players first or that it is the result of it being spammed excessively by crutch ammo from the front? I still maintain the buff to the Maus was the result of it underperforming because of premium ammo. Simple cause and effect. It wouldn't have gotten buffed if it weren't so easily defeated frontally. The devs say that only a small portion of shots fired is premium ammo. Then why would they say armour has lost its role and they want to increase it? I say they look at the numbers for all the shots fired. They don't separate to see the percentage fired on armoured vehicles but just lump them all together. Otherwise why would they buff the Maus and Type 4/5. Ah... Nothing like wrongfully analyzing stats.

 

The M60A1 was just an example of the devs not listening. Probably more hypothetical. But the Chieftain is modelled. I am not really interested in it but I do support to have it implemented asap because it is already modeled.

 

If you read my version of higher penetrating standard (rebalanced premium) ammo, they would have marginal increases especially at Tier X.10-20% at Tier X. The reason for this number percentage is to make the average penetration of this rounds the higher RNG roll of standard ammo. Furthermore, they would have an alpha reduction. Would it cause the scenario you mentioned? Maybe. But with only a modest increase in penetration, it wouldn't be premium ammo now and would still require player input to do well in. The other benefit is that we can now get sensible armour thickness. The Maus can be nerfed. The Type 4/5 can be nerfed, we can remove that awful 15cm gun. Balance is the main goal here. It is something premium ammo detracts from.

 

That insight is just too simplified. Because this game is about tanks and with actual historical basis to their balancing, and as a result, most tanks are different and unique each with different characteristics and nuances. This makes balance of the utmost importance and why I detest that WG has no standardised balancing procedure for the vehicles they put in. That is why the gun depression buffs the British tanks got last patch was just awful because it made the M103 and T110E5 unnecessarily worst off.

 

Short matches would be fun (one of my thoughts involve global DPM nerf but mobility and gun handling buff, with slow tanks like the Maus just getting better ground resistance or HP/t buffs). But where does that leave the slow tanks weighed down by their safety net and the players playing them? Is it fun for them? They cannot depend on their armour but don't have the mobility and firepower to take part in this high mobility shorter matches. I mention TTK is to bring back to normal. Slow tanks die more easily from before and they cannot do anything because they are slow to get into cover or don't have the firepower to fight their way out.

 

And just like with most things. Sole blame cannot rest on one entity. Nothing is that absolute. The devs are equally responsible. In my opinion, even more so because they allowed it to get to this point. If their game or product does not produce the desired outcome, the blame lies with them. 


Edited by SpectreHD, Nov 14 2017 - 09:32.


Zergling #18970 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 10:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 16721 battles
  • 7,701
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    02-09-2011
Destiny 2 weekly reset just occured; New Monarchy won the faction rally.

GoldMountain #18971 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 10:30

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 41 battles
  • 7,545
  • Member since:
    01-06-2011

View PostRitaGamer, on Nov 14 2017 - 00:48, said:

I am struggling to even answer the smallest of things to people online today.

Feeling a bit numb after coming from Portugal.

 

It's a bit difficult to adapt, from blue to grey sky. The fact that is not even 5 pm and is already night when in Portugal sun only sets after 5 right now.

Also, coming from a natural reserve to back on the city.

 

At least I come back knowing I am with people that love and are supportive...It's being easier this time around.

 

 

 

Sadly it also severely limits what activities you can do during the day which only exacerbates the problem.

Though plenty of time left for other activities. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°


Edited by GoldMountain, Nov 14 2017 - 10:42.


Apache1990 #18972 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 10:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 32674 battles
  • 6,285
  • [ATKRE] ATKRE
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011

View PostSpectreHD, on Nov 14 2017 - 03:28, said:

If you read my version of higher penetrating standard (rebalanced premium) ammo, they would have marginal increases especially at Tier X.10-20% at Tier X. The reason for this number percentage is to make the average penetration of this rounds the higher RNG roll of standard ammo. Furthermore, they would have an alpha reduction. Would it cause the scenario you mentioned? Maybe. But with only a modest increase in penetration, it wouldn't be premium ammo now and would still require player input to do well in. The other benefit is that we can now get sensible armour thickness. The Maus can be nerfed. The Type 4/5 can be nerfed, we can remove that awful 15cm gun. Balance is the main goal here. It is something premium ammo detracts from.

 

My prefered style of premium ammo is pretty much the 88mm L/71.  Very noticeable penetration boost (depending on range/slope, puts you at the next tier AP pen or slightly higher), but not anything crazy.  I don't mind TDs having insanely high pen values on all their ammo though, since contesting front armor is pretty much their job (and usually their one option, since a lot of TDs don't get to determine their engagement angle if they're not at point blank).

 

Anyhow, Avalon, people didn't really complain about armor not being good enough before premium ammo for credits, but for a couple particular situations (Maus getting overmatched above the tracks, VK4502B being placed at too high a tier [and already having had artificially strong armor even before it got buffed to be invulnerable]).  Heck, the only widespread complaints were that US heavies had the same hull for T7, T9, and T10 (from people who were bad and didn't also note that the T30 could pen anything it wanted in return).



SpectreHD #18973 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 10:51

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16324 battles
  • 15,774
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostApache1990, on Nov 14 2017 - 17:36, said:

My prefered style of premium ammo is pretty much the 88mm L/71.  Very noticeable penetration boost (depending on range/slope, puts you at the next tier AP pen or slightly higher), but not anything crazy.  I don't mind TDs having insanely high pen values on all their ammo though, since contesting front armor is pretty much their job (and usually their one option, since a lot of TDs don't get to determine their engagement angle if they're not at point blank).

 

Well, that was another option I was thinking about. The premium shell would have the same penetration of the standard round one tier up. This would address the argument that players need premium shells because of the +2 tier MM.

 

The TD one really depends though. I think the Ferdinand and JP2 I feel have enough pen as is. Although I would argue that they don't need the 12.8cm guns even if I do love that they have them. But other nations definitely.


Edited by SpectreHD, Nov 14 2017 - 10:55.


stalkervision #18974 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 12:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 51006 battles
  • 8,040
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostDaigensui, on Nov 14 2017 - 01:33, said:

Day 13 done. Just two more days.

 

Pretty good. Are you doing them all?

stalkervision #18975 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 12:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 51006 battles
  • 8,040
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostSpectreHD, on Nov 14 2017 - 03:28, said:

 

Yeah, you can believe that if you want. No tank in this game is balanced around their armour here. Don't know what reason the Churchills, T28/P, KV-4, and other slow moving vehicles aren't any faster. Must be their amazing DPM. Not too sure why we have this complicated armour and penetration mechanics in this game too. Should just be hitpoint based.

 

Sure, the trifecta is meant for real life. For this game based on tanks, it is still applicable whether you want to believe it or not. It is not like I have an IS-7 with medium like mobility that made mediums redundant during the Closed Alpha in the game right now. Why doesn't the Grille 15 have the armour of an E100? Stop deluding yourself. 

 

How can it weaken my argument if it is true? Crutch ammo. I want to penetrate the thickest and largest area of a tank with ease. I want to trade shots with that heavy in my medium. I don't want to move and let my TDs try to fight that heavy instead. I am too lazy to learn easily damageable weakspots with standard but just go through the thickest part of a tank instead. I want to have faster shell speed instead of leading a target. I want to increase my offensive capability in a close match and hope my enemy doesn't do the same. I want to get my shot off and still reliably penetrate before that heavy could even aim down enough to fire a shot. I want to increase the lethality of my already fast and high DPM vehicle and screw the balance; too bad that slow heavy tank cannot do something similar. This armour is a "safety net" argument just isn't enough to convince me when tanks balance around it have average to below average firepower and mobility.

 

I did say it relied on stupid people. But not solely. That is some confidence you have there if you think it relies full 100% on stupid people to work. And are you kidding? Meaningless if an enemy is unwilling to shoot? I'd say it is working just fine. If the enemy have to move, they are wasting time allowing teammates to get in position or advance or get flanking shots. Tanks have armour not to do damage or flank because that is not what their "safety net" is for. Funny how you talk it does't rely on the player so it is bad. As far as I am concern, the same applies to crutch ammo. Doesn't rely on the player aiming at weakspots, doesn't rely on the player leading shots because faster shell travel time, doesn't rely on using mobility to flank. 

 

Well, I have been reading WoT blogs and the forums since TWO THOUSAND FRACKING TEN. Do I see people asking for more armour? Sure, but back then it is for when it is historical. Back then, buffs (and nerfs) were all based on historical accuracy. Sure, I don't read the Reddit but do the actual devs actually do as well? Or do they read their own RU forums or RU reddit equivalent. Did you count to see that it is the number one request? From what I see, players complain when armour DOES NOT WORK when the tank is balanced around it! This "safety net" doesn't work enough times to make up for the lack of firepower and mobility! Explain that. Why doesn't the Tier 7 Black Prince not have the best DPM of its tier? The KV-4? IS-4? Heck, I see players saying the weakspot given to the Type 4/5 were not enough! Players defending weakspot removal have their comment heavily downvoted.

 

Such a perfect scenario needed just to pen the side of a Maus. You think it came from whining players first or that it is the result of it being spammed excessively by crutch ammo from the front? I still maintain the buff to the Maus was the result of it underperforming because of premium ammo. Simple cause and effect. It wouldn't have gotten buffed if it weren't so easily defeated frontally. The devs say that only a small portion of shots fired is premium ammo. Then why would they say armour has lost its role and they want to increase it? I say they look at the numbers for all the shots fired. They don't separate to see the percentage fired on armoured vehicles but just lump them all together. Otherwise why would they buff the Maus and Type 4/5. Ah... Nothing like wrongfully analyzing stats.

 

The M60A1 was just an example of the devs not listening. Probably more hypothetical. But the Chieftain is modelled. I am not really interested in it but I do support to have it implemented asap because it is already modeled.

 

If you read my version of higher penetrating standard (rebalanced premium) ammo, they would have marginal increases especially at Tier X.10-20% at Tier X. The reason for this number percentage is to make the average penetration of this rounds the higher RNG roll of standard ammo. Furthermore, they would have an alpha reduction. Would it cause the scenario you mentioned? Maybe. But with only a modest increase in penetration, it wouldn't be premium ammo now and would still require player input to do well in. The other benefit is that we can now get sensible armour thickness. The Maus can be nerfed. The Type 4/5 can be nerfed, we can remove that awful 15cm gun. Balance is the main goal here. It is something premium ammo detracts from.

 

That insight is just too simplified. Because this game is about tanks and with actual historical basis to their balancing, and as a result, most tanks are different and unique each with different characteristics and nuances. This makes balance of the utmost importance and why I detest that WG has no standardised balancing procedure for the vehicles they put in. That is why the gun depression buffs the British tanks got last patch was just awful because it made the M103 and T110E5 unnecessarily worst off.

 

Short matches would be fun (one of my thoughts involve global DPM nerf but mobility and gun handling buff, with slow tanks like the Maus just getting better ground resistance or HP/t buffs). But where does that leave the slow tanks weighed down by their safety net and the players playing them? Is it fun for them? They cannot depend on their armour but don't have the mobility and firepower to take part in this high mobility shorter matches. I mention TTK is to bring back to normal. Slow tanks die more easily from before and they cannot do anything because they are slow to get into cover or don't have the firepower to fight their way out.

 

And just like with most things. Sole blame cannot rest on one entity. Nothing is that absolute. The devs are equally responsible. In my opinion, even more so because they allowed it to get to this point. If their game or product does not produce the desired outcome, the blame lies with them. 

 

The game can never ever be balanced because it's basic premise is completely faulty. Tanks of one era almost NEVER met tanks of another on the battlefield and if they did on rare occasions it was a predictable slaughter. That's what the gold ammo is for to try to balance out this flawed ridiculous idea. What surprises me is few of you see this. :facepalm:

GoldMountain #18976 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 12:58

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 41 battles
  • 7,545
  • Member since:
    01-06-2011
Apparently EA removed the refund button for star wars battlefront. Only way to get the refund is by calling a number and going through a 15 minute wait/process.

FrozenKemp #18977 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 13:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 42648 battles
  • 4,673
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View PostDaigensui, on Nov 14 2017 - 01:33, said:

Day 13 done. Just two more days.

 

Yeah, me too :) Took me about 3 hours - one in the morning and two in the evening.  Not entirely sure I will get today's mission done or not due to my need to clean and pack for a short trip... then again it's damage 50, and I'm hoping it will take an hour or an hour and a half.  I'm probably wrong and it'll take longer! 

Edited by FrozenKemp, Nov 14 2017 - 13:24.


KilljoyCutter #18978 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 13:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 23,491
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostZergling, on Nov 14 2017 - 02:50, said:

 

Past 600k now, I think it might make a million.

 

I love watching EA's mouthpieces get slapped in the face. 

 

(Yes, I'm bitter about the ruination of SWTOR and the toxic "community" their "community managers" encouraged.)

 

 

View PostGoldMountain, on Nov 14 2017 - 06:58, said:

Apparently EA removed the refund button for star wars battlefront. Only way to get the refund is by calling a number and going through a 15 minute wait/process.

 

Of course -- they'll never admit it, but they were likely flooded with refunds and had to stop the bleeding by increasing the hurdle height that their customers had to jump over.  This of course should just make the backlash all the more vocal and aggressive. 

 


 

On the question of armor in WoT, my recollection is that armor used to be an integral part of this game. 

 

Furthermore, as a tank game, armor SHOULD be an integral part -- armor, firepower, mobility. 

 

 



SpectreHD #18979 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 13:27

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16324 battles
  • 15,774
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View Poststalkervision, on Nov 14 2017 - 19:19, said:

 

The game can never ever be balanced because it's basic premise is completely faulty. Tanks of one era almost NEVER met tanks of another on the battlefield and if they did on rare occasions it was a predictable slaughter. That's what the gold ammo is for to try to balance out this flawed ridiculous idea. What surprises me is few of you see this. :facepalm:

 

Yeah nah. Even the most modern tank in WoT (if I am not mistaken the Strv 103b) still uses RHA instead of composite armour and has a rifled gun. The tank with the thickest armour in the game is still a WW2 vehicle.

Life_In_Black #18980 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 13:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 24488 battles
  • 10,901
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostSpectreHD, on Nov 14 2017 - 07:27, said:

 

Yeah nah. Even the most modern tank in WoT (if I am not mistaken the Strv 103b) still uses RHA instead of composite armour and has a rifled gun. The tank with the thickest armour in the game is still a WW2 vehicle.

 

The UDES 03 is from around 1973, the Type 64 is from 1975, the M48A5 Patton is from August of 1976, the STB-1 is from 1968/69, and the Leopard 1, AMX-30, and Strv103b are all from sometime in the mid 1960s, IIRC.




26 user(s) are reading this topic

7 members, 17 guests, 2 anonymous users


    SpectreHD, godofdun, EmpressNero, RitaGamer, LittleJoeRambler, GoldMountain