Jump to content


SPGs as a skillful support class (complete overhaul suggestion)

SPG suggestions smoke

  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

Pompous_Magnus #21 Posted May 08 2017 - 19:45

    Captain

  • WGLNA Gold League Player
  • 44886 battles
  • 1,732
  • [RUSHB] RUSHB
  • Member since:
    12-25-2011

View PostUzi_Does_It, on May 08 2017 - 13:42, said:

 

Why not? consider you are facing a mortar and know that - adjust your game play. do not camp and if you do camp - run when spoted. it will change game play, but I am not sure it will be bad.

anyway, Mortars will have to be tested in sandbox before release. I am not sure it is a good idea, but it sounds fun to play, even if not too much fun to face.

 

BTW - mortars are the only vehicles with absolute zero self defense capabilities. add this to their better effectiveness at short ranges (due to taller arc), and you get many dead mortars... 

 

yeah their is nothing wrong with using cover and then having the cover negated. Run while spotted TOP KEK. Plus who cares if they cant defend themselves they never have to be in line of sight to their target anyway. If anything arty has the best survivability. In the form of the entirety of the team to cover them.



Kenshin2kx #22 Posted May 08 2017 - 19:52

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 15221 battles
  • 4,230
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View PostMikosah, on May 08 2017 - 08:01, said:

The trouble with an indirect attack like arty is that when used to its full potential (firing over solid cover and outside of render range) then you get a lose-lose situation. If such a weapon is strong, then there's nothing the enemy can do to avoid it. For it to be weak enough to be balanced in this context, it would have to be practically useless. The more arty becomes different from the other classes, the harder it will be to balance according to the same set of rules. 

 

That said, the ability to lob smoke/flares indirectly is another matter. Pure support functions like these need not be constrained by the rules that we normally assign to damage. If arty is to remain indirect, then being a pure support class is the only way to realize this goal. But if arty is expected to deal damage and secure kills as everyone else is, then in a game like this that depends so greatly on positioning, cover use, and line-of-sight management is broken by indirect attacks. 

 

So those are the two viable options- remain indirect as a pure support class, or become a direct combat class that cannot use the overhead view modes. And just between you and me, I think the latter is far more likely and practical. If tanks like the KV-2 and Hetzer can do it, then arty could too (with the right re-balancing).

 

IMO, your first line encapsulates the major problem ...now, as I see it, the arty targeting mechanism makes it 'too strong' on a fundemental level that is very hard to tweak ...therefore, again in my opinion, WG should bite the bullet by reconfiguring the class to be more conventional in game play capability.  Thus, a streamlined, but a basically 'blind' coordinate system WITH all the perks and disadvantages this would imply.   ... So Uzi, if you mean coordinate based (but did not state it by accident ... then I agree, if not, the disagree for my point above.



Uzi_Does_It #23 Posted May 08 2017 - 19:57

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 2341 battles
  • 11
  • Member since:
    06-30-2015

View PostPompous_Magnus, on May 08 2017 - 19:45, said:

 

yeah their is nothing wrong with using cover and then having the cover negated. Run while spotted TOP KEK. Plus who cares if they cant defend themselves they never have to be in line of sight to their target anyway. If anything arty has the best survivability. In the form of the entirety of the team to cover them.

 

Arties do, mortars do not. just as the bishop must be close to the action, mortars will probably need to get closer. and you forget the rest of the changes I offered - unless you hide a glass TD (which is a possibility) than there is very little for you to be scared of mortars anyway. they can be a nuisance to HTs and MTs, but you will hardly see damage from them.
for glass TDs the name of the game will become camouflage and remaining unseen. and for LTs - run run run! unless it's a well armored LT, than just do not stay in one place over a minute so that mortar can actually aim at you.
And Mortars are the minor issue here. SPGs in general are the real one, and how to make them better for the game.

Uzi_Does_It #24 Posted May 08 2017 - 20:03

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 2341 battles
  • 11
  • Member since:
    06-30-2015

View PostKenshin2kx, on May 08 2017 - 19:52, said:

 

IMO, your first line encapsulates the major problem ...now, as I see it, the arty targeting mechanism makes it 'too strong' on a fundemental level that is very hard to tweak ...therefore, again in my opinion, WG should bite the bullet by reconfiguring the class to be more conventional in game play capability.  Thus, a streamlined, but a basically 'blind' coordinate system WITH all the perks and disadvantages this would imply.   ... So Uzi, if you mean coordinate based (but did not state it by accident ... then I agree, if not, the disagree for my point above.

 

Do you mean some ability to judge distance and shoot BLOS in regular sniper mode? I did not think about it... If you add enough reticle/minimap information than it might work and, again, separate skillful SPG players from noobs. 

 

I am not against it, but need to think about it some more...

 

Actually can't see why not except for being used to current situation. what would non-SPG players complain about then?



zarg12 #25 Posted May 08 2017 - 20:06

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 18210 battles
  • 544
  • [REL-A] REL-A
  • Member since:
    02-27-2011

View PostClydeCooper421, on May 08 2017 - 13:14, said:

 

I came to the game in 9.8--I am unfamiliar with pre 8.6 artillery. 

 

1 shot brain death. It was cancer.

Kenshin2kx #26 Posted May 08 2017 - 20:30

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 15221 battles
  • 4,230
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View PostUzi_Does_It, on May 08 2017 - 09:03, said:

 

Do you mean some ability to judge distance and shoot BLOS in regular sniper mode? I did not think about it... If you add enough reticle/minimap information than it might work and, again, separate skillful SPG players from noobs. 

 

I am not against it, but need to think about it some more...

 

Actually can't see why not except for being used to current situation. what would non-SPG players complain about then?

 

BLOS?  Sorry not sure what that means ... but to explain ... Arty (conventional role and mechanic) of Artillery was to utilize a group or battery of long range cannon ... to fire in coordinated concert - at a target that was spotted by forward observers AND radioed back to the arty (far from the active battle front).  Now, the game as its presently constructed, poses particular problems with Arty in general - Time and Vehicle limit.     The time limit, means that Arty need to operate faster in general to match the 15 minute pace requirement ... The Vehicle limit (a one for one shot limit versus a real battery of say 4-8 cannon) ...  To this, I suggest WG to make a single "in game" arty the core of an actual battery for saturation fire (think of the in game arty as the artillery captain) with the remaining arty visually 'off map' (that you could see if you panned the tank, but only as a visual).  The upshot is that the arty would ... well, act and perform like an arty.  It would/should be afforded the ability to defend itself (to the limit of its design capacity), and thus not be completely defenseless in an end game scenario.  Likewise, it could in theory go on the offensive, but by design not truly competitive with actual tank destroyers (in absolute ability - the consequence of vehicle optimization for all classes).  Now the big departure from the game ... this 'battery' now is truly dependent on the radioed arty requests (that the arty captain must choose from if more than one) ...  So, to put it bluntly, the arty would not 'see' actual targets for long range bombardment ... but it could see and target them if and when they come close enough for vehicle detection (and thus allow for the possibility of 'horizontal' TD functionality.  

 

I've thought about this problem for a fairly long time now, and I keep, circling back to the basic problem of balancing ... this begs the question, why do we need to artificially balance?  This question then lead me to the notion, what mode of game paradigm would be more efficient?  My best guess ... a formula for vehicle creation/capacity (all classes) to follow reality to a closer degree.  The closer (in theory) the less balance needed because the reality that imposed the limit in the first place would be preserved in spirit.   Now, IMHO, you will need to contrive some rule limits for the game ... but the goal here would be to make the game - part simulator (for the vehicle and environmental factors) ... while streamlining or constraining the potentially boring aspects of a simulator ... by way of arcade pizzazz ... 

 

The major ongoing focus should be based on the game model that presupposes a tank battle simulator that has been blended to the arcade version - TO THE EXTENT ... that you preserve the self corrective nature of realistic vehicles ... but ones put into a contrived 'match' context.   

 

It goes without saying that I don't speak for all "Anti Aarty" players :D ... but what I propose, IMHO, would go a long way to eliminating a key weakness to the game ... in the form of a truly broken mechanic.  My logic is this ... NO person/soldier in their right mind ... enjoys the risk of artillery bombardment ... that said, it was and is a reality in terms of existing.  So, like death and taxes, one can come to grips with WHY we have it ... and so the bulk of the dissatisfaction becomes fairly harmless wishful thinking ... not true resentment.

 

Now, lets take the situation we have in WoT ... we have the base discontentment, well because arty can kill you ... but now add to this, an artificially contrived method of aiming that greatly increases the accuracy of said 'peroid based' artillery ... far beyond what they could actually do (why? ... well just because).  So, as compared with the first scenario ... its actually easy to see ... inevitable really, that actual resentment will start to grow, over this blatantly broken mechanic (and I'm not even factoring in XVM) ... 

 

So there you have it, "as I see it".


Edited by Kenshin2kx, May 08 2017 - 20:46.


Uzi_Does_It #27 Posted May 08 2017 - 20:51

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 2341 battles
  • 11
  • Member since:
    06-30-2015

View PostKenshin2kx, on May 08 2017 - 20:30, said:

 

BLOS?  Sorry not sure what that means ... but to explain ... Arty (conventional role and mechanic) of Artillery was to utilize a group or battery of long range cannon ... to fire in coordinated concert - at a target that was spotted by forward observers AND radioed back to the arty (far from the active battle front).  Now, the game as its presently constructed, poses particular problems with Arty in general - Time and Vehicle limit.     The time limit, means that Arty need to operate faster in general to match the 15 minute pace requirement ... The Vehicle limit (a one for one shot limit versus a real battery of say 4-8 cannon) ...  To this, I suggest WG to make a single "in game" arty the core of an actual battery for saturation fire (think of the in game arty as the artillery captain) with the remaining arty visually 'off map' (that you could see if you panned the tank, but only as a visual).  The upshot is that the arty would ... well, act and perform like an arty.  It would/should be afforded the ability to defend itself (to the limit of its design capacity), and thus not be completely defenseless in an end game scenario.  Likewise, it could in theory go on the offensive, but by design not truly competitive with actual tank destroyers (in absolute ability - the consequence of vehicle optimization for all classes).  Now the big departure from the game ... this 'battery' now is truly dependent on the radioed arty requests (that the arty captain must choose from if more than one) ...  So, to put it bluntly, the arty would not 'see' actual targets for long range bombardment ... but it could see and target them if and when they come close enough for vehicle detection (and thus allow for the possibility of 'horizontal' TD functionality.  

 

I've thought about this problem for a fairly long time now, and I keep, circling back to the basic problem of balancing ... this begs the question, why do we need to artificially balance?  This question then lead me to the notion, what mode of game paradigm would be more efficient?  My best guess ... a formula for vehicle creation/capacity (all classes) to follow reality to a closer degree.  The closer (in theory) the less balance needed because the reality that imposed the limit in the first place would be preserved in spirit.   Now, IMHO, you will need to contrive some rule limits for the game ... but the goal here would be to make the game - part simulator (for the vehicle and environmental factors) ... while streamlining or constraining the potentially boring aspects of a simulator ... by way of arcade pizzazz ... 

 

The major ongoing focus should be based on the game model that presupposes a tank battle simulator that has been blended to the arcade version - TO THE EXTENT ... that you preserve the self corrective nature of realistic vehicles ... but ones put into a contrived 'match' context.   

 

BLOS = beyond line of sight.

 

So that an SPG battery will only be able to shoot what the battery commander (the actual player) can see? than why use an in game SPG and not just add a "call artillery strike" command for light tanks/ scouts? that is closer to reality than a SPG needing to see its target. generally, an SPG at a range of less than 3 km from target is nonsensical. if going for reality - there should be no SPGs, only mortar carriers.

 

How about if you can shoot stuff that you cannot see, but in regular sniper mode? just line up the sight, elevate the gun and shoot into the sky? that is more realistic for SPGs. in such a case the shells will have to be super effective (as in real life) and most players will hate not seeing the effects of their shots (as in real life, again...). I am not sure that would make the game so much fun to play.



n4cer67 #28 Posted May 08 2017 - 21:00

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 15189 battles
  • 1,619
  • [NAAP] NAAP
  • Member since:
    10-18-2010
Don't agree with the aim time being 20-30 sec or more for best accuracy. Would be better if the current aim time was used for best accuracy. The Spg haters just want one sided battles where everything is in their favor. So what if supposedly there is no where for them to get cover, it's no different than an Spg not being able to get cover once it's spotted. Many also forget that Spg's don't pick and choose targets from the map, they can only shoot at what's spotted.

Edited by n4cer67, May 08 2017 - 21:01.


Kenshin2kx #29 Posted May 08 2017 - 21:14

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 15221 battles
  • 4,230
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View PostUzi_Does_It, on May 08 2017 - 09:51, said:

 

BLOS = beyond line of sight.

 

So that an SPG battery will only be able to shoot what the battery commander (the actual player) can see? than why use an in game SPG and not just add a "call artillery strike" command for light tanks/ scouts? that is closer to reality than a SPG needing to see its target. generally, an SPG at a range of less than 3 km from target is nonsensical. if going for reality - there should be no SPGs, only mortar carriers.

 

Spoiler

 

 

Not see, as chosen by the coordinate strike requests coming in ... with the same limits of IRL arty ... as for Arty or Mortar carriers, I agree with you ... for me, either way (technically the mortar would fit the map size requirements better than the much longer range arty, but given the propensity by WG to 'balance' ... of little real consequence as to sub type) 

 

Here's a thought ... now the "Arty Strike" as consciously requested by the player would/could be supplemented by the Radio Operator/Commander that (based on his skill level) could report in targets spotted by the player - independent of the player (say the ones you are shooting at, or have detected in a given area)  ... now the frequency and fine tuned accuracy of the coordinates would in part depend on the skill of the crew as applied by perks.

 

Blind fire in general, I could see that as well (I'm sure it happened in war often enough) ... heck take the SU-152 ... by rights it should have 'semi' arty ability (in terms of makeshift trajectory fire), ... as for formula, I'd knee-jerk to a documented historical ability in performance of feat.   

 

... but to DIRECTLY answer your 'spoiler' question ... 

 

"How about if you can shoot stuff that you cannot see, but in regular sniper mode? just line up the sight, elevate the gun and shoot into the sky? that is more realistic for SPGs. in such a case the shells will have to be super effective (as in real life) and most players will hate not seeing the effects of their shots (as in real life, again...). I am not sure that would make the game so much fun to play.

 

How would I feel? ... well take the context that I never got into playing artillery because I felt the mechanic SO BROKEN ... that it wasn't satisfying for me.  Now keep in mind, ALL vehicles in WoT, are exaggerated in some way, but Arty ... is almost total fabrication in capacity (too powerful and accurate as long range artillery, and also too vulnerable in terms of self defense = completely contrived role.  So, fun?  Honestly, that did not factor in for me.  This, IMHO, WG, got wrong FROM THE START in terms of arty ... they would have been far better off, not introducing the class to begin with ... for this very reason ...  HOW DO WE MAKE ARTY FUN?  The simple "Trump Answer" is, we make stuff up in order to make the deal.   Now for a game, you could argue, is this ... such a bad idea?  Make the Arty folks happy? ... well no, if the game ONLY had one class ... but the reality is that Arty is only one vehicle class among many ... and WG's often stated goal is to promote global balance  ... in other words, to keep one class or type from overly dominating in terms of game play.   So, to make a long answer (even longer) ... if I had to put Arty in the game ... it would be with a different "desirable" feature(s) ... not ones that would counteract both realism and balance.


Edited by Kenshin2kx, May 09 2017 - 00:24.


Mikosah #30 Posted May 08 2017 - 23:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 17448 battles
  • 2,863
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

View PostUzi_Does_It, on May 08 2017 - 12:22, said:

 

You can also say that some TDs are actually LOS AT artillery. But I think arties should have a role in the game as support. they should be able to kill soft targets, but mostly a nuisance for heavily armored ones (with NO damage done unless by direct hit, and that should be very rare). SPGs should change the dynamics of the game, but as support and not as main damage dealers (as they sometimes were before 9.18) that leads to worse camping than ever...

Anyway, my main concern is the fact that SPG players cannot learn how to better play their vehicles simply because it's impossible to do so.

 

You're referring to the gap between the 445m spotting limit and the 564m render limit. If the distance between two opposing tanks is anywhere between these values, then some weird things happen. No matter what their view ranges are, or what their camo values are, they cannot spot one-another. But if someone else spots them, they certainly can see and attack one-another. This is the golden distance at which other classes can potentially fire as much as they want with complete impunity. And its broken as hell. 

 

The situation where a TD is closer than 445m but still invisible because of its camo rating is a little different. He is within the spotting limit so therefore every time he fires his gun he's lowering his camo rating, the one thing that keeps him safe. If he fires at the wrong time or if someone with high view range happens to be around, he gets spotted. And since he can't lob shells over solid cover, there will be a clear line of sight between him and his target. And that means his enemy can immediately retaliate. 

 

The camping meta arose because there used to be a lot more foliage in the maps than there is now. Anyone could just hang out in the bushes and activate their cloaking device, even the heavies. Arty neither encouraged nor discouraged this trend. It was simply a random punishment for anyone who happens to be lit. Truth be told, that part hasn't changed. If arty gain the ability to lay down smoke and flares, then in the end it'll continue to be a neutral influence on passive play.  



WillyPete67 #31 Posted May 10 2017 - 23:14

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 32114 battles
  • 138
  • [XILES] XILES
  • Member since:
    11-02-2011
Just do arty buy back and everyone will be happy. They arty players get back what they wasted in grinding it. The seal clubbers get to roll around the map in OP heavys and smash everything with impunity... HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY!!!

JRingo20 #32 Posted May 18 2017 - 02:31

    Captain

  • Players
  • 31178 battles
  • 1,848
  • Member since:
    11-06-2011

View PostClydeCooper421, on May 08 2017 - 12:14, said:

 

I came to the game in 9.8--I am unfamiliar with pre 8.6 artillery.

 

All they needed to do was limit arty to 2 per game. Instead, the nerf'd the crap out of it, doubled load times, doubled the aim time and took the accuracy away.

Yea, it's really broken now.



Ravenpaw3 #33 Posted May 19 2017 - 01:35

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 799 battles
  • 73
  • Member since:
    04-16-2016
OP your suggestion to fix artillery is great I hope someone from wargaming looks at this and it gets added to the game.  :)

UnDeadDemon956 #34 Posted May 19 2017 - 01:38

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 27354 battles
  • 341
  • [-ETU-] -ETU-
  • Member since:
    06-24-2013

View Postxrays_, on May 08 2017 - 12:54, said:

 

It's actually easier to remove people like you from the game because they don't add a single positive element to begin with. If only they'd just learn how to play the game as it's delivered to their computers instead of constantly whining that this and that is unfair or broken. By Jove, is that how they live their lives as well?

 

Adapt or quit.

 

x..

 

Don't worry all the "players like him" which includes me and most of the player base will eventually walk out the door. Then you can enjoy waiting 5 hours in queue for a pvp match like some other tank game.

xrays_ #35 Posted May 19 2017 - 02:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 41817 battles
  • 2,335
  • [FELOW] FELOW
  • Member since:
    08-02-2013

View PostUnDeadDemon956, on May 18 2017 - 19:38, said:

Don't worry all the "players like him" which includes me and most of the player base will eventually walk out the door.
Then you can enjoy waiting 5 hours in queue for a pvp match like some other tank game.

 

Don't make empty threats... Just leave. Why play if you can't play within the rules and have some fun?

 

x.



UnDeadDemon956 #36 Posted May 19 2017 - 03:47

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 27354 battles
  • 341
  • [-ETU-] -ETU-
  • Member since:
    06-24-2013

View Postxrays_, on May 18 2017 - 20:56, said:

 

Don't make empty threats... Just leave. Why play if you can't play within the rules and have some fun?

 

x.

 

Blah blah blah, keep saying that when your game is dead fanboy lmbo.







Also tagged with SPG, suggestions, smoke

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users