Jump to content


Artillery needs to be adjusted

Arty Artillery

  • Please log in to reply
153 replies to this topic

Kenshin2kx #41 Posted Apr 05 2018 - 00:30

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17909 battles
  • 5,950
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View Postpickpocket293, on Apr 04 2018 - 12:48, said:

Hmmm ... okay, I can understand your logic, but personally, I don't quite see it that way ... 

 

Thing is, I think that WG shouldn't have introduced the class to begin with ... but they did, and people <literally> bought into the concept. 

 

I agree that the game would probably be better without arty, but that's not what we're talking about. With a hard cap of 1 per team arty players can still play their games but less people's days are ruined when they're playing other tanks. The topic of total removal is the far end of the spectrum and I'm suggesting a middle-ground that would probably keep everyone happy. I'm not sure what your point is here-- they added it and incentivized people to play it (campaign missions, etc) and now most people play it in at least a limited capacity. That doesn't mean it's good for the game.

 

<Kenshin2kx> The point is the class based hard limit on the number ... are the other classes capped in such a way?  If so, the game would have 5 per side.  

 

 

Keep in mind that WG has implied and even stated a time or two that the classes should be equal (and rightly so for game and player rights consistency)  ... now limiting arty to 1 per match ... might seem tempting, the question becomes, is this fair.

 

Fair to whom? If there's only one light tank on each team in a game, do those light tank players feel like they're being cheated? I don't follow your logic here at all about fairness. It's not like 1 arty relies on the other arty teammates to do what they do. Furthermore, the argument could be made that artillery MUST be limited to 1 per game because the indirect fire mode that the class has inherently makes it that much more powerful than any other class.

 

<Kenshin2kx> The point is the potential for mandatory numerical marginalization ... 3 becomes 1 then 1 becomes pointless and then none?  I see an issue of inconsistency here and selective formula ... apply to one = apply or mitigate to all ... or none at all.

 

If anything, I propose the opposite ... make the game more random (this has the basic effect of nullifying the argument of contrived equality) Next, lessen the contrived nature of balance in favor of a more self regulating model of 'realistic' compromise in terms of applied vehicle tech and  performance.  Do this, and IMHO see the issue of artillery (and a lot of other issues) ... fade away because they become irrelevant and a non issue.  In short, the game would be more challenging, less predictable, and just possibly geared to a longer term of industry viability and profit.  

 

I don't understand any of what you're saying here, and I'd like to think I have a good grasp of the english language. 

 

<Kenshin2kx> It's simple really, you want to reduce to control, I want to expand and randomize ... we view the solution in almost diametrically opposed ways ... or to put it another way, for your consistent one arty (for fairness) ... I would propose a random selection of how many per class or 1+ per every class as a baseline.


Edited by Kenshin2kx, Apr 05 2018 - 01:05.


ket101 #42 Posted Apr 05 2018 - 00:40

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18441 battles
  • 9,115
  • [N-O-M] N-O-M
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011

View Postpickpocket293, on Apr 05 2018 - 01:06, said:

 

And while they're concentrating on one tank, the rest of the team is destroying theirs

 

Not necessarily, and that's not relevant to the conversation. That person being focused is having zero fun.

 

Everyone has zero fun in some match or another, and it doesn't even have to involve arty being in the match.  Tier 1 players have complained about being focused from nowhere.  Relevance.

 

Not every arty is a T92, either.  I've been focused on (gawd knows why, I'm not that good), so I've gotten better at going where arty can't get at me.  Learning experience.

 

There are plenty of maps where being "arty safe" is impossible while still impacting the battle. When I said "limit arty to 1 per battle" I wasn't soliciting advice from you (a worse player) or anyone else-- I was making a suggestion that I believe would truly make the game better for everyone.

 

I know I'm no great player.  But that doesn't mean I can't see what is going on.  So you want other people to back you up on your "decision" without discussion?  All righty then.

 

You can be removed from battle just as quickly by sticking your nose out in front of three TD's as you can by getting hit by three arty

 

The TDs have to see me to hit me. Arty can click on me from the other end of the map, where I have no chance of retaliating.

 

Arty has to see you too.  If you aren't lit, they aren't hitting you.  And arty are hardly the only ones that blind fire either.  And when you're in range of retaliating, arty has basically no chance of defending themselves.  Swings and roundabouts.

 

People forget that the medkits remove the stun effect, too

 

Med kits recharge every 90 seconds (or 60 seconds for the large ones). If you're being perma-stunned the med kit isn't helping you after the 2nd hit.

 

You have to pick your time, it's true.  Rather like the Repair consumable in World of Warships.

 

When the number of arty wasn't limited, people grinding out the lines would populate (later at night for the NA server) the teams with more arty than other tanks.  So be thankful you don't have that

 

So just because this game used to be even dumber, I should be happy that it's better but still awful? "It used to be worse" is not an excuse for any currently bad condition.

 

It's used in a lot of places in real life.  It's close to even odds you've used that reason yourself.

 

You are never going to get everything you want. 

 

That's not true-- if I decide that instead of playing this game while it has 3 arty focusing me each game, I would prefer to do something else, I've gotten what I wanted. Not only that, your argument isn't even logically based. You're saying "oh, you asked for something? Too bad, for no reason other than because you asked for it" and it makes no sense.

 

You've never been at school, I take it?  I can think of many occasions where people have asked for things and it's been refused, simply because they asked for it (usually, demanded it).  And leaving the game because you can't get arty reduced isn't getting what you want.  That doesn't make sense.  You want arty reduced, not to leave the game.

 

You can't remove arty these days,

 

Yes they can. Devs can do whatever they want with the game. 

 

Only within reason.  And sometimes they need really good reasons, such as with this situation.

 

there are a number of players who have invested time and effort into them

 

There are methods of compensation for people that have arty which have been discussed ad nauseam on this forum and in other places. I won't bother rehashing those arguments here, but suffice to say that there are plenty of methods of compensation.

 

Yes, and how many people have cried and ranted and vowed to do things that others wouldn't like in response?  It opens up a can of worms that WG would rather not deal with.

 

when they are so very bad at actually delivering damage these days (you really are lucky with most arty to actually hit a third of the time

 

Good players can still do damage in arty. Your point is a fallacy.

 

Good players can do damage in anything.  And they're more likely to do it in anything else than arty.  Fallacy?

 

Tanks and TD's, unless you're a really bad shot, average 66 to 75% hit rates. 

 

Not the point of this conversation and totally off topic, but false nonetheless. Plenty of players in plenty of different tanks have a higher hit rate than 60-75%. You have absolutely no data for the points you're making-- you've simply made up statistics that roughly correspond to what you think sounds right and jives with your personal, anecdotal experiences. 

 

Yes, individual players have individual tanks with higher percentages.  There are players with lower percentages too.  It was a rough average, for basic comparison purposes, and should be taken as such.

 

And the arty that are more accurate tend to be the less lethal. 

 

Again, false and also vague. Object 261s (the most accurate arty in the game) can still one-shot KO plenty of tanks.

 

Funny how people complain that it isn't the same since they took the AP rounds off it.

 

Rare for an FV304 to one shot a tank these days in my experience.  Usually have to whittle it down, because the other player doesn't move from where he is). 

 

Exactly, the "whittling down" means that player is being perma-stunned or perma-tracked. The player doesn't move because if they do they'll just be hit by other artillery or by other players by taking up a less advantageous position. Your highest tier arty is tier 7, so you really have no idea what you're talking about.

 

I have Tier 10 tanks, I know what arty does to them.  I've got plenty of idea.  It's not like the mechanics actually change as you go up the tiers.

 

How many times does arty actually take you out in the games you play?  1 in 10?  More?  Less? 

 

Many more. If you become skilled enough to be XVM-focused you'll start dying to arty more often.

 

Why are you focusing on XVM?  You should be focusing on the game.  Turn off XVM stats. You'll enjoy things more (yes, I deliberately misinterpreted that).  I feel the many more bit is an exaggeration.  I don't think I was taken out by arty at all yesterday.  No, I tell a lie.  It was once.  Other tanks got me in the other games. Played about 20 games or so yesterday. 

 

Treat them as another threat you have to look out for, and try your best to exploit it, like the best players do

 

You can't "look out" for arty, because they don't have to see you to hit you. You're missing the point completely, as is the tradition on this forum.

 

You can look out for arty.  You can see what arty are on the other team, and you can plan accordingly.  And while they don't have to see you to hit you, SOMEBODY has to see you.  Also see where the arty is likely to focus. That's where you're missing points.

 

 

 

 



pickpocket293 #43 Posted Apr 05 2018 - 02:03

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 26769 battles
  • 775
  • [FD_UP] FD_UP
  • Member since:
    05-14-2015

View Postket101, on Apr 04 2018 - 15:40, said:

 

yes, I deliberately misinterpreted that

 

 

 

 

That's the theme of your whole post. If you can't provide meaningful, logical counterpoints to my argument's points, I'll consider the discussion finished. 



ket101 #44 Posted Apr 05 2018 - 03:35

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18441 battles
  • 9,115
  • [N-O-M] N-O-M
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011

View Postpickpocket293, on Apr 05 2018 - 11:03, said:

 

 

That's the theme of your whole post. If you can't provide meaningful, logical counterpoints to my argument's points, I'll consider the discussion finished. 

 

Okay.  If you don't want discussion, that's your business.  Discussion finished.

DoNutDestroyer #45 Posted Apr 05 2018 - 05:37

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 14614 battles
  • 144
  • [TRED] TRED
  • Member since:
    07-20-2015

View PostKilIingblow, on Apr 03 2018 - 22:24, said:

First off let me say 1.0 is awesome. Love the music, love the new maps, love the physics, you almost hit this out of the park but one thing is left to adjust in my opinion....Artillery...

 

I just watched my son try artillery today and I was surprised at how well they can see and shoot without having to reposition during a game.

 

I want to maneuver with strategy not worry about getting triple shot from above by something I cannot see or stop. As a tanker we have to move, pivot, scrape, aim, wait, pull back, and then reposition constantly but as an artillery player you can sit still most of the game and fire without fear on all the tanks in the field. until the very end of course if you lose. This makes me stay away from artillery as much as possible.

 

I have several suggestions:

 

  • Only allow the arty to see Hvy, Md, Lt, At, and tank location with a symbol.
  • Don't allow arty to shoot outside its line of sight (yellow line) and only allow artillery to target "lighted tanks" 
  • The new fire mode is way to powerful. Allow sniper mode only (arial mode).
  • Or make the arty have to close the distance if it wants to fire in the new fire mode.
  • Do not allow more than (1 or 2) arty in a game. (3) is just over the top and can be a hindrance depending on how the game rolls.
  • Have an option for arty to switch to a light or medium back-up tank on city maps. 

 

I have only played a small handful of artillery games. I don't mind arty but too much is too much. Something needs to be adjusted to balance the fun of the game from the tanker perspective.

 

Thanks for any consideration,

Steve H.

Aka: KillingBlow - an below average tanker but still has lots of fun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I play arty a lot and really enjoy it.  I do agree that limiting arty to 2 per game would be a bit better.  I also like the idea of being able to jump into another tank on certain maps that are just not arty compatible.  Himmelsdork is a bad map except down the rail line. However, the most fun I have is shot spotting enemy arty when there's nothing else to shoot at.  Good challenge.  As for moving, I usually move every two shots just because of the shot spotting effect.  I do not agree that arty should be limited to line of sight as you put it.  Artillery, whether fixed or mobile, by its very nature is a BVR (Beyond Visual Range) weapon.  Since it usually isn't very well protected and is frequently set up at a fire base or rear echelon base, it has to be long range.  That's what it is for.  Even SPGs are usually far back from the battle line.  The only way to change the spotting of targets is by someone calling shots as they fall and correcting (in other words like is done in reality), but that isn't feasible in this game. Try playing it some more and learning about it.  It is not just point and click.  I just finished a game that was very fast moving and enemy tanks rarely sat still.  I fired 35 rounds during the match.  Missed a lot because most of the targets were moving, but still had fun.  It's a thrill to target a lit light tank running full speed, calculate lead and hang time, and hit him from the other side of the map.   As for hitting non-lit tanks, you can usually do that against other arty, but not regular tanks.  You have to be able to target a lit tank initially.  If he just sits there after his spot goes away and you shoot again and hit him, that's his fault.  Like I said, try it some more.



EmperorJuliusCaesar #46 Posted Apr 05 2018 - 09:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 26933 battles
  • 3,923
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostKilIingblow, on Apr 03 2018 - 13:24, said:

First off let me say 1.0 is awesome. Love the music, love the new maps, love the physics, you almost hit this out of the park but one thing is left to adjust in my opinion....Artillery...

 

I just watched my son try artillery today and I was surprised at how well they can see and shoot without having to reposition during a game.

 

I want to maneuver with strategy not worry about getting triple shot from above by something I cannot see or stop. As a tanker we have to move, pivot, scrape, aim, wait, pull back, and then reposition constantly but as an artillery player you can sit still most of the game and fire without fear on all the tanks in the field. until the very end of course if you lose. This makes me stay away from artillery as much as possible.

 

I have several suggestions:

 

  • Only allow the arty to see Hvy, Md, Lt, At, and tank location with a symbol.
  • Don't allow arty to shoot outside its line of sight (yellow line) and only allow artillery to target "lighted tanks" 
  • The new fire mode is way to powerful. Allow sniper mode only (arial mode).
  • Or make the arty have to close the distance if it wants to fire in the new fire mode.
  • Do not allow more than (1 or 2) arty in a game. (3) is just over the top and can be a hindrance depending on how the game rolls.
  • Have an option for arty to switch to a light or medium back-up tank on city maps. 

 

I have only played a small handful of artillery games. I don't mind arty but too much is too much. Something needs to be adjusted to balance the fun of the game from the tanker perspective.

 

Thanks for any consideration,

Steve H.

Aka: KillingBlow - an below average tanker but still has lots of fun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arty has been in the game from the beginning and WG has told me on many occasions that it's not going anywhere and changes are done.  They are already limited per side more than any other class.  Learn to drive in places they can't hit, when you are hit, move to a different locations, and report their position to players and your arty to take him out. 

Arty is great once you learn to avoid the enemy arty and use yours to your advantage.  If people play with arty and still manage high win rates and high wn8, it can be done.  This is the PC version, full difficulty level.  For those that want a lower difficulty level, there is WoT Blitz.  Low tier arty has to move to get shots, high tier arty doesn't, but if they don't move, they will have limited shots available.  Arties are tankers, I prefer 3 per side every match, it's boring without them. 



EmperorJuliusCaesar #47 Posted Apr 05 2018 - 10:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 26933 battles
  • 3,923
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View Postpickpocket293, on Apr 03 2018 - 17:19, said:

View PostKenshin2kx, on Apr 03 2018 - 14:35, said:

 

Going by my <best guess> formula ... 1 arty would then be mitigated with significantly higher dpm globally speaking ... more damaging, accurate, faster firing and possibly more durable ... consider the present formula with up to 3 artillery, now condense it down to a max of 1 ...

 

I'm not suggesting that the current formula be condensed to 1, I'm suggesting only ONE arty per match with no other balance changes. That arty can still support the team and dig out a hull-down tank but it isn't oppressive. 3 arty is oppressive, even moreso now than it was before the stun mechanic was added. 

 

View PostDirizon, on Apr 03 2018 - 15:44, said:

 

Your formula is quite incorrect. It would not work that way

 

..and he's missed the point, as is the tradition of this forum. I'm not saying "let's make arty 3x as powerful and just have one" because that wouldn't solve the problem. I'm saying keep all combat characteristics of arty the same as they are now, but only one arty per team, max. 

 

View PostKenshin2kx, on Apr 03 2018 - 16:06, said:

 

As stated previously, this is a guess on my part as to how a single SPG would be 'weighted' as the only artillery per side ... how do you see it working?

 

You're completely missing the point.

 

Their queue times would shoot up and WG would lose more arty players, they pay for the game too and WG isn't likely to do it.  I hope not, I wish they'd sell prem 8 arties so we could have 3 every battle.  Without arty the game is boring and predictable. 



EmperorJuliusCaesar #48 Posted Apr 05 2018 - 13:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 26933 battles
  • 3,923
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View Postpickpocket293, on Apr 04 2018 - 14:48, said:

Hmmm ... okay, I can understand your logic, but personally, I don't quite see it that way ... 

 

Thing is, I think that WG shouldn't have introduced the class to begin with ... but they did, and people <literally> bought into the concept. 

 

I agree that the game would probably be better without arty, but that's not what we're talking about. With a hard cap of 1 per team arty players can still play their games but less people's days are ruined when they're playing other tanks. The topic of total removal is the far end of the spectrum and I'm suggesting a middle-ground that would probably keep everyone happy. I'm not sure what your point is here-- they added it and incentivized people to play it (campaign missions, etc) and now most people play it in at least a limited capacity. That doesn't mean it's good for the game.

 

 

Keep in mind that WG has implied and even stated a time or two that the classes should be equal (and rightly so for game and player rights consistency)  ... now limiting arty to 1 per match ... might seem tempting, the question becomes, is this fair.

 

Fair to whom? If there's only one light tank on each team in a game, do those light tank players feel like they're being cheated? I don't follow your logic here at all about fairness. It's not like 1 arty relies on the other arty teammates to do what they do. Furthermore, the argument could be made that artillery MUST be limited to 1 per game because the indirect fire mode that the class has inherently makes it that much more powerful than any other class.

 

 

If anything, I propose the opposite ... make the game more random (this has the basic effect of nullifying the argument of contrived equality) Next, lessen the contrived nature of balance in favor of a more self regulating model of 'realistic' compromise in terms of applied vehicle tech and  performance.  Do this, and IMHO see the issue of artillery (and a lot of other issues) ... fade away because they become irrelevant and a non issue.  In short, the game would be more challenging, less predictable, and just possibly geared to a longer term of industry viability and profit.  

 

I don't understand any of what you're saying here, and I'd like to think I have a good grasp of the english language. 

 

What you don't understand is, or don't know, or more likely don't care, is that WG did an in-game poll.  And by far, people stated they enjoyed the game with arty.  It was only a small minority that didn't.  So they like it the way it is, the vast majority of players like it the way it is, why would they change it to make a small vocal minority happy?  The majority enjoys playing with arty, best to get used to it, the game was designed with arty in mind.  They've even stated the discussion is over and that no more changes are in the way for arty.  They said even if they ever did get rid of arty, the maps would have to be changed greatly because they were designed with arty in mind.



pickpocket293 #49 Posted Apr 05 2018 - 16:22

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 26769 battles
  • 775
  • [FD_UP] FD_UP
  • Member since:
    05-14-2015

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Apr 05 2018 - 04:12, said:

 

What you don't understand is, or don't know, or more likely don't care, is that WG did an in-game poll.  And by far, people stated they enjoyed the game with arty.  It was only a small minority that didn't.  So they like it the way it is, the vast majority of players like it the way it is, why would they change it to make a small vocal minority happy?  The majority enjoys playing with arty, best to get used to it, the game was designed with arty in mind.  They've even stated the discussion is over and that no more changes are in the way for arty.  They said even if they ever did get rid of arty, the maps would have to be changed greatly because they were designed with arty in mind.

 

Show me the results of the in-game poll please. Also, once again you've misunderstood my comments (as is tradition on this forum). I never advocated for removing arty--

 

 

my suggestion was to cap it at 1 per team.

 

 

Queue times are already longer for arty, but they'd still get to play. If some leave because arty gets a longer queue, I would bet that many others would come back because they won't get sky-cancered as hard when they play other things.



Kenshin2kx #50 Posted Apr 05 2018 - 17:26

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17909 battles
  • 5,950
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Apr 05 2018 - 02:12, said:

 

What you don't understand is, or don't know, or more likely don't care, is that WG did an in-game poll.  And by far, people stated they enjoyed the game with arty.  It was only a small minority that didn't.  So they like it the way it is, the vast majority of players like it the way it is, why would they change it to make a small vocal minority happy?  The majority enjoys playing with arty, best to get used to it, the game was designed with arty in mind.  They've even stated the discussion is over and that no more changes are in the way for arty.  They said even if they ever did get rid of arty, the maps would have to be changed greatly because they were designed with arty in mind.

 

... actually to be fair, I'm looking for this data as well ... do you have a link?  I would like to examine the parameters of how the poll was taken and in what context.  Forum? / Forum + Wider Community (x) / Percentile participation or confirmation of receipt .. thing is, I've been advocating for a 'participating player base' wide survey as a means to determine consensus.  As in verifiable majority by a reasonable to large margin - Now if they did this ... I think it would be a big step in the right direction, so please point me to the link or data for my edification and likely incorporation into my database/view/argument.  

 

Now I gave you a plus 1 in the hopes that you can provide the link or source that I can see ... IMHO, the MOST important aspect to any assertion or request ... is that the individual(s) making it, have an accurate picture of what is going on AND reliable intel on what others want in the game as well ... this context tends to lead one to the valuable perspective regarding personal wants vs the external grouping in question.


Edited by Kenshin2kx, Apr 05 2018 - 17:31.


Kenshin2kx #51 Posted Apr 05 2018 - 17:48

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17909 battles
  • 5,950
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View Postpickpocket293, on Apr 05 2018 - 05:22, said:

Queue times are already longer for arty, but they'd still get to play. If some leave because arty gets a longer queue, I would bet that many others would come back because they won't get sky-cancered as hard when they play other things.

 

Now lets examine your statement, and in particular the highlighted segment ...

 

"Que times are already longer for arty, but they still get to play ... "   Clarify your motivation for this ... because it really sounds to me like you are okay with longer que times for arty (no other class is mentioned in mitigation) AND ... it also seems that for arty, it should be sufficient to play at all (they still get to play)    Recall my previous projected evolution to this trend ... 3 to 1 > 1 becomes irrelevant >  1 to virtual 0 due to contributory pressures.   One could easily come to the motivational conclusion that the intention of 'just 1' ... really amounts to 'none over time' as the ultimate and truthful goal or desire.

 

Now, personally, I likewise want change in the game for all classes ... and yes, this would include changes to artillery as well ... but I don't find singling out the class for extinction to be the fair and proper route for WG - the very company that created and endorsed the class to begin with ... but yes fair and consistent 'global' change that affects all players in terms of any potential reduction of inconsistent mechanics paradigm or play advantage.



pickpocket293 #52 Posted Apr 05 2018 - 19:02

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 26769 battles
  • 775
  • [FD_UP] FD_UP
  • Member since:
    05-14-2015

View PostKenshin2kx, on Apr 05 2018 - 08:48, said:

 

Now lets examine your statement, and in particular the highlighted segment ...

 

"Que times are already longer for arty, but they still get to play ... "   Clarify your motivation for this ... because it really sounds to me like you are okay with longer que times for arty (no other class is mentioned in mitigation) AND ... it also seems that for arty, it should be sufficient to play at all (they still get to play)    Recall my previous projected evolution to this trend ... 3 to 1 > 1 becomes irrelevant >  1 to virtual 0 due to contributory pressures.   One could easily come to the motivational conclusion that the intention of 'just 1' ... really amounts to 'none over time' as the ultimate and truthful goal or desire.

 

Now, personally, I likewise want change in the game for all classes ... and yes, this would include changes to artillery as well ... but I don't find singling out the class for extinction to be the fair and proper route for WG - the very company that created and endorsed the class to begin with ... but yes fair and consistent 'global' change that affects all players in terms of any potential reduction of inconsistent mechanics paradigm or play advantage.

 

because it really sounds to me like you are okay with longer que times for arty (no other class is mentioned in mitigation) AND

 

Yes, I am. As I mentioned, there is already a notice when you queue up for arty stating that arty queue times may be longer. I thought that part was fairly clear. We're discussing arty here, not other classes.

 

 

... it also seems that for arty, it should be sufficient to play at all (they still get to play

 

 

Again, yes. My comment of "they still get to play" is used as a comparison to the 'far' end of the spectrum of people stating that arty should be removed. I'm saying that with my suggested path forward, people that like to play arty will still get to play their arty, but in a way that is less toxic on a per-match basis.

 

Recall my previous projected evolution to this trend ... 3 to 1 > 1 becomes irrelevant >  1 to virtual 0 due to contributory pressures.   One could easily come to the motivational conclusion that the intention of 'just 1' ... really amounts to 'none over time' as the ultimate and truthful goal or desire

 

I'm still not quite sure how you're rationalizing that by reducing the max arty to 1 per team that that would somehow make people not want to play it at all. This vague "contributory pressures" argument doesn't hold water. In the current system (3 max per team) one person playing their arty has "X" influence on the game. Since there are 3 per team, the total impact on any given outcome by arty is "3X" which I'm asserting is too high. My proposed "1 max" system would not limit any individual's impact on the game (X per arty is still the same-- that arty player has the same impact they always did), however the total impact on any given outcome of a game as a whole is now "X" rather than "3X". Basically, clickers still get to click to their heart's content, but the rest of the players on both teams won't be perma-stunned. Does this make sense?



Whistling_Death_ #53 Posted Apr 05 2018 - 19:18

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 57962 battles
  • 2,562
  • [13-AD] 13-AD
  • Member since:
    11-09-2014
You artillery-whiners flooding this forum with your bologna over and over are way out of bounds and violating forum rules by starting new threads on topics that already exist!  Learn to use the Search function and knock off the flooding/spam!

Whistling_Death_ #54 Posted Apr 05 2018 - 19:19

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 57962 battles
  • 2,562
  • [13-AD] 13-AD
  • Member since:
    11-09-2014

Every battle, without fail, my artillery is outnumbered by 12-14 tanks! It's not faiiirrrrrr! Tanks are broken and need to be removed from the game! I'm telling mommy Wargaming! It's not faiiiirrrrrrr mommmyyy!!!



Whistling_Death_ #55 Posted Apr 05 2018 - 19:23

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 57962 battles
  • 2,562
  • [13-AD] 13-AD
  • Member since:
    11-09-2014

View PostKilIingblow, on Apr 03 2018 - 17:18, said:

This was a the feedback section of the WOT web site. I am not mad or angry and I don't think arty needs to be removed just adjusted.

 

There has to be one or two of my suggestions that makes sense. example having vision over the entire map is too powerful when no other tank has that capability.

 

Maybe you link to a tank at the beginning of the game and use his visual to shoot at tanks.

 

Some buffs to arty would be welcome if it made the play less sit and click.... 

 

 

 

 

Artillery was already ruined in the hated 9.18 patch and the result was over 10,000 players quit the North American server alone.

 

Being good at artillery is a lot more than just, "sit and click".  With all due respect, your comment is very ignorant.

 

Stop flooding/spamming the forum with this artillery-whining crap!  It's against forum rules.



Kenshin2kx #56 Posted Apr 05 2018 - 19:23

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17909 battles
  • 5,950
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View Postpickpocket293, on Apr 05 2018 - 08:02, said:

I'm still not quite sure how you're rationalizing that by reducing the max arty to 1 per team that that would somehow make people not want to play it at all. This vague "contributory pressures" argument doesn't hold water. In the current system (3 max per team) one person playing their arty has "X" influence on the game. Since there are 3 per team, the total impact on any given outcome by arty is "3X" which I'm asserting is too high. My proposed "1 max" system would not limit any individual's impact on the game (X per arty is still the same-- that arty player has the same impact they always did), however the total impact on any given outcome of a game as a whole is now "X" rather than "3X". Basically, clickers still get to click to their heart's content, but the rest of the players on both teams won't be perma-stunned. Does this make sense?

 

<Kenshin2kx>  How about this then ... Say you started Wot when artillery was considerably less constrained (larger numbers, greater lethality and wider tier inclusion) ... then the class is nerfed (to the point of present condition)  - with the pronounced note that que times will likely increase for the foreseeable future.  

 

Now add in (your) suggestion on further reducing it to a mandatory 1 (with the same capacity as the latest nerf) ... so do you know announce,  "even longer que times" along with the mandate that there is only one?  So, if one does the 'practical playability map" what do we have?

 

1.  Even longer cue times (that were fairly long to begin with)  

2.  Even less vehicles with potential reduction to the lowest number possible 3 to 1 

3.  No possibility to interact with any other's of your class (outside of the silent opposing arty)

4.  'Contributory Pressures" = Hey with only 1 arty, you can't make mistakes (its not like you get 3 shots or anything)

 

Now I don't play arty ... at all, and I don't agree with how WG incorporated it into the game (but its there game so that point is moot) ... but what isn't moot to me is the treatment of players or rather a segment of players ... and yet, you propose a forced reduction to 1 per side per game?  I continue to fail to see how this translates into 'fair and equitable" for all players.  Your avoidance of the gaming ripple effect is damaging your argument IMO.

 

 



pickpocket293 #57 Posted Apr 05 2018 - 19:48

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 26769 battles
  • 775
  • [FD_UP] FD_UP
  • Member since:
    05-14-2015

<Kenshin2kx>  How about this then ... Say you started Wot when artillery was considerably less constrained (larger numbers, greater lethality and wider tier inclusion) ... then the class is nerfed (to the point of present condition)  - with the pronounced note that que times will likely increase for the foreseeable future.  

 

Now add in (your) suggestion on further reducing it to a mandatory 1 (with the same capacity as the latest nerf) ... so do you know announce,  "even longer que times" along with the mandate that there is only one? 

 

 

It's not my concern how they present the information. WG could probably just leave the in-queue note about arty having longer queue times and that would be sufficient (along with patch notes documenting the change, of course). I'm not sure why this is a sticking point.

 

 

So, if one does the 'practical playability map" what do we have?

 

1.  Even longer cue times (that were fairly long to begin with)  

 

Ok. Queue times for some tiers/classes are already long, so it's not like arty is the only class that has to wait sometimes. I consider this a non-issue.

 

 

2.  Even less vehicles with potential reduction to the lowest number possible 3 to 1 

 

Less artillery in each game, yes. The 15v15 game mode would remain, of course. I'm not sure why you're still bringing this up again. I've literally said this a half dozen times already. Yes, there would be less artillery per game.

 

 

3.  No possibility to interact with any other's of your class (outside of the silent opposing arty)

 

So you're saying that artillery need to be around other artillery to have fun? I'm not sure what straws you're grasping at here, and we've already addressed this earlier on.

 

4.  'Contributory Pressures" = Hey with only 1 arty, you can't make mistakes (its not like you get 3 shots or anything)

 

These "pressures" you're referencing wouldn't change at all from how they are now-- one player gets one shot every X seconds. If they miss they miss, just like before. Artillery's (as a class) impact on any given game will decrease (as I've said at least 3 times before in this thread) but an individual's performance will be unchanged.

 

 

Now I don't play arty ... at all, and I don't agree with how WG incorporated it into the game (but its there game so that point is moot) ... but what isn't moot to me is the treatment of players or rather a segment of players ... and yet, you propose a forced reduction to 1 per side per game?  I continue to fail to see how this translates into 'fair and equitable" for all players.  Your avoidance of the gaming ripple effect is damaging your argument IMO.

 

 What are you getting at here? Are you suggesting that because there's a cap on the number of arty in a game (and not a cap on other classes) that it's somehow unfair to the people that play artillery? I don't follow your logic here at all. You talk about how I need to explain some "ripple effect" and honestly I think you're just grasping at straws and bringing up the same arguments over and over and over just to have something to say. The fact is that no other class has an indirect-fire mode, so by its very nature, arty needs to be treated differently than other classes. I don't think there's anything unfair about having queue times being longer for a particular class-- unfairness would indicate that someone is being cheated. Everyone can play every class if they want to, but for [what I believe to be] the optimal balance on a per-game level, there should be no more than 1 arty per team. Players will choose what they want to do from there, but it's not like anyone is being cheated out of anything. 

 

 

 

 

Lastly, if you have no valid counter-points to the points I've made above and earlier in this thread, I'll consider the conversation over. I've repeated myself several times to you in this thread and I won't do so again.



Kenshin2kx #58 Posted Apr 05 2018 - 21:17

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17909 battles
  • 5,950
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View Postpickpocket293, on Apr 05 2018 - 08:48, said:

 

It's not my concern how they present the information. WG could probably just leave the in-queue note about arty having longer queue times and that would be sufficient (along with patch notes documenting the change, of course). I'm not sure why this is a sticking point.

 

<Kenshin2kx>  This is true, but it will likely be a point of consideration for the owners/and those tasked with implementation, so you can say its not your problem, but I submit it can be a problem for actual consideration (which makes it a 'sticking point;)

 

 

Ok. Queue times for some tiers/classes are already long, so it's not like arty is the only class that has to wait sometimes. I consider this a non-issue.

 

<Kenshin2kx>  Okay, in fairness, what would you say the comparative wait times are?  Add to this, would this change likely increase or decrease wait times for arty players ... I think it would or could increase times by way of game bottleneck participation (you would need up to 3 times more games to match the play throughput for the mandatory  limit of one?  

 

 

Less artillery in each game, yes. The 15v15 game mode would remain, of course. I'm not sure why you're still bringing this up again. I've literally said this a half dozen times already. Yes, there would be less artillery per game.

 

<Kenshin2kx>  Yes, a convenient less of a class you are arguing against on principle ... so for the 'half dozen times' in reiteration, less arty in the game per mandatory reduction due to subjective bias is unfair ... could not any class say, oh, I don't like this class and it is too effective thus, reduce it to 1 participant?  Would that be fair?  

 

So you're saying that artillery need to be around other artillery to have fun? I'm not sure what straws you're grasping at here, and we've already addressed this earlier on.

 

<Kenshin2kx>  In part yes, basic interaction with anything approaching a social potential tends to start with the comfort zone of grouping into like or similar associations ... this being the case, a part of the game can very well be linked to a grouping like clans, those who like mediums ... those who swear by lights and any variation therof ... so while its not the only reason, it is a valid contributory reason for those who play the game.  Example can be found of very real desired groupings - husband and wife, best friends, class adoration etc.    I could just as well ask ... so tankers need to be around other tankers to have fun?  Well, in WoT I'd say yes ... now narrow it down a bit and the same basic rule is also valid for smaller values as well (such as I like class x or type x ... who else likes it, its great isn't it)  

 

 

These "pressures" you're referencing wouldn't change at all from how they are now-- one player gets one shot every X seconds. If they miss they miss, just like before. Artillery's (as a class) impact on any given game will decrease (as I've said at least 3 times before in this thread) but an individual's performance will be unchanged.

 

 

<Kenshin2kx>  The pressures won't change?  I don't agree, reduce the capacity of a vehicle based role, while maintaining the present strategy would, if anything increase the expectation and pressure put on the class ... now if the player does not care at all for results ... then sure, on a player level it won't matter, but as for the team expectations it would matter significantly what the class could produce for global contribution to the team.

 

 

 What are you getting at here? Are you suggesting that because there's a cap on the number of arty in a game (and not a cap on other classes) that it's somehow unfair to the people that play artillery? I don't follow your logic here at all. You talk about how I need to explain some "ripple effect" and honestly I think you're just grasping at straws and bringing up the same arguments over and over and over just to have something to say. The fact is that no other class has an indirect-fire mode, so by its very nature, arty needs to be treated differently than other classes. I don't think there's anything unfair about having queue times being longer for a particular class-- unfairness would indicate that someone is being cheated. Everyone can play every class if they want to, but for [what I believe to be] the optimal balance on a per-game level, there should be no more than 1 arty per team. Players will choose what they want to do from there, but it's not like anyone is being cheated out of anything. 

 

<Kenshin2kx>  Im saying that an arbitrary cap based on a subjective view WOULD by definition be unfair for what ever class is involved.  To distill your argument, you are saying ... arty is too strong, reduce it to one ... why?  because they are too strong.

 

 

Lastly, if you have no valid counter-points to the points I've made above and earlier in this thread, I'll consider the conversation over. I've repeated myself several times to you in this thread and I won't do so again.

 

<Kenshin2kx>  ... when one repeats a point, it usually is because of one of two reasons ... 1.  Their reason is sound beyond reproach and there is no need to change.  2.  An individual is so ingrained as to their own 'unassailable view" they either don't feel the need to consider other possibilities, or they literally cannot imagine different.

 

Now, you and I, being 'vested' and adamant in our views should not champion our own cause for obvious reasons ... thus I leave it up to those who have read both sides to render their opinion.   I welcome the critical review and look forward to additional input.

 


Edited by Kenshin2kx, Apr 06 2018 - 19:56.


pickpocket293 #59 Posted Apr 05 2018 - 21:32

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 26769 battles
  • 775
  • [FD_UP] FD_UP
  • Member since:
    05-14-2015

View PostKenshin2kx, on Apr 05 2018 - 12:17, said:

text

 

 

 

This has been a surprisingly civil and logical exchange. I suppose you're right-- at this point you've said your piece and I've said mine. From here we leave it up to readers or devs (lol) to decide what they think is right. 

 

GG, good debate sir.



scHnuuudle_bop #60 Posted Apr 05 2018 - 21:37

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 16662 battles
  • 2,330
  • [MUG-T] MUG-T
  • Member since:
    05-03-2016

The entire spotting mechanic is wonky to begin with. 

 

What is needed is for LOS to be followed. No one can see an enemy unless in direct line of sight, period. No more of the no skill tank players, shooting at a red outline that in reality is impossible, yet so so many think they have these SKILLS, (HA LOL) . 

A spotted enemy appears on the mini map, and only in game, to those with actual LOS. If anyone wants to fire on a lit, but unseen enemy, it must be a blind shot, ALL players have this restriction. With these new tracers, those in sight can correct a teammates fire, 

Cammo, would be an actual feature, not just pretty. It would be possible for 2 enemies actually bump into each other without lighting up. There would be actual spotting skill involved , again not just a mathematical formula.


Edited by scHnuuudle_bop, Apr 05 2018 - 21:38.






Also tagged with Arty, Artillery

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users