Jump to content


☼ Suggestion: My big list of suggestions. ☼ *Updated 8/30*


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

_Gungrave_ #41 Posted May 30 2018 - 04:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 43745 battles
  • 16,299
  • [-SRP-] -SRP-
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View Postbuzz6, on May 30 2018 - 04:23, said:

1. With the campaign against cheating, there should be a way to report it as one of the complaint options.

2. As I observe an increasing number of one sided battles 15/0, 0/15. 14/1/, 1/14 an so on, I think it cannot all be MM, but may involve real time meddling by WoT staff, or perhaps one or more cheaters on a team. Do not know, but something is not right.

3. Should I see my attorney about the value of my premium tanks, particularly my favorite being degraded from what I paid for? 

 

Your tin foil hat is on too tight.

buzz6 #42 Posted May 30 2018 - 18:46

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 29698 battles
  • 13
  • Member since:
    12-15-2013
Whatever your chart may indicate, you will definitely be considered as an opt out for the class action, and perhaps reality as well.

scHnuuudle_bop #43 Posted Jun 01 2018 - 00:33

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 19587 battles
  • 3,513
  • Member since:
    05-03-2016

Another possible solution for the blacklist numbers,

 

have a timer on entries. Say , 7 days and the player drops off the list, with a notice allowing you to keep the player permanently on the list.

Perhaps some sort of notice , as to whether he was a pinger or a PM addition to the list.

 

How many times do you actually run into the same map pinger more than once?


Edited by scHnuuudle_bop, Jun 01 2018 - 00:34.


_Gungrave_ #44 Posted Jul 05 2018 - 05:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 43745 battles
  • 16,299
  • [-SRP-] -SRP-
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View Post_Gungrave_, on May 22 2018 - 07:06, said:

 



64sherman #45 Posted Jul 05 2018 - 16:38

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 26545 battles
  • 626
  • [MOZZY] MOZZY
  • Member since:
    03-21-2013

I agree with everything except some of the tank re-balancing ideas.  

I'd rather see the KV-5 get it's historical armor configuration and dropped to tier 7 instead of heaving a fake gun and unrealistic armor.  

The KV-4 Dukhov needs to have its armor nerfed to historical values, lose it's fake gun and be dropped to tier 7 aswell, and have the KV-4 Proposal 11 replace it on the tech tree as the tier 8 for the multi turret/gun line.  T-12 >,T-22 >,T-35 >,SMK >,T-100/T-100Z >,T-103 >,KV-4 No.11> ,ST-II >,T.E.P. 

Basically this. 

Spoiler

 

The Object 268 version 4 needs to either be dropped to tier 9 and given its historical 180mm of frontal armor or be removed from the game altogether.  The Object 263 is actually supposed to have a much thicker lower plate than it does in game, so it could easily become the tier 10 again which would ultimately be best for everyone.  Except all the bobs.  Bobs will not like this idea.  

 

As for the 65T I almost agree, it needs to be given it's historical turret modules and dropped to tier 7 and a non premium amx 49 needs to take its place at tier 8. 

 

I'm not familiar with the irrelevant chinese medium you mentioned but what ever it's problem is it can probably be fixed with a simple DPM buff.  

 



buzz6 #46 Posted Jul 07 2018 - 08:08

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 29698 battles
  • 13
  • Member since:
    12-15-2013
I have never figured out why the dead can still talk/write.

_Gungrave_ #47 Posted Jul 07 2018 - 09:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 43745 battles
  • 16,299
  • [-SRP-] -SRP-
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View Postbuzz6, on Jul 07 2018 - 08:08, said:

I have never figured out why the dead can still talk/write.

 

Because this is a game and when a player gets killed they can give you relevant information of where they were shot from.

buzz6 #48 Posted Jul 07 2018 - 17:34

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 29698 battles
  • 13
  • Member since:
    12-15-2013

View Post_Gungrave_, on Jul 07 2018 - 08:43, said:

 

Because this is a game and when a player gets killed they can give you relevant information of where they were shot from.

 

I figured that out, as even a bigger dummy could, but aside from the obvious what is the reason for this large fantasy element in a game that in large part seeks realism while maintaining a rating (no gore)?

_Gungrave_ #49 Posted Jul 08 2018 - 09:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 43745 battles
  • 16,299
  • [-SRP-] -SRP-
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View Postbuzz6, on Jul 07 2018 - 17:34, said:

 

I figured that out, as even a bigger dummy could, but aside from the obvious what is the reason for this large fantasy element in a game that in large part seeks realism while maintaining a rating (no gore)?

 

WoT has always been gameplay first, historical accuracy second while not giving a flying ███ about realism.

buzz6 #50 Posted Jul 09 2018 - 00:03

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 29698 battles
  • 13
  • Member since:
    12-15-2013
Interesting juxtaposition  historically accurate without realism. Sort of the opposite of this thread.

The_Iron_Bullet #51 Posted Jul 09 2018 - 02:13

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 18003 battles
  • 557
  • [AORT] AORT
  • Member since:
    08-28-2014

I have a suggestion, what if you added assisted kills? Like assisted damage if you spot an enemy and he dies from your spotting you get an assisted kill. 

 

And this: http://forum.worldof...3#entry11707223


Edited by The_Iron_Bullet, Jul 09 2018 - 02:29.


_Gungrave_ #52 Posted Jul 09 2018 - 05:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 43745 battles
  • 16,299
  • [-SRP-] -SRP-
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View Postbuzz6, on Jul 09 2018 - 00:03, said:

Interesting juxtaposition  historically accurate without realism. Sort of the opposite of this thread.

 

I'm just stating facts because WoT has always been an arcade game that tries for historical accuracy in how tanks look and play so long as it doesn't cause issues gameplay wise.

 

View PostThe_Iron_Bullet, on Jul 09 2018 - 02:13, said:

I have a suggestion, what if you added assisted kills? Like assisted damage if you spot an enemy and he dies from your spotting you get an assisted kill. 

 

And this: http://forum.worldof...3#entry11707223

 

I kind of think that should be something done for scouts only. WG could even get another parameter to use for LT personal missions because of it.


Edited by _Gungrave_, Jul 09 2018 - 05:08.


scHnuuudle_bop #53 Posted Jul 13 2018 - 08:14

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 19587 battles
  • 3,513
  • Member since:
    05-03-2016

Use XVM for good.

 

Automatically request the top ranked player to become  a leader, Captain or whatever, for that battle.

 

Those who wish, can observe, follow or even ask questions. It would make it easier to decide who's requests to look at . Not that all , or even a majority would listen to him, some would find it useful and it would probably help the team. Also it may cut down on the rage, most of these tactical rants seem to be targeted at these higher ranked players.

 

Maybe even provide some small incentives like consumables or an XP boost for that game. Medals for wins as the leader

 


Edited by scHnuuudle_bop, Jul 13 2018 - 08:24.


scHnuuudle_bop #54 Posted Jul 13 2018 - 08:20

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 19587 battles
  • 3,513
  • Member since:
    05-03-2016

A co-op mode like warships. All the way up the tiers.

 

Always a short queue, and back-filled with bots.

 

Sometimes people just want a quick game without drama, or to test out a new boat or tactic.

Heck , in WOWS there are people who only play co-op.


Edited by scHnuuudle_bop, Jul 13 2018 - 08:22.


_Gungrave_ #55 Posted Jul 13 2018 - 09:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 43745 battles
  • 16,299
  • [-SRP-] -SRP-
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostscHnuuudle_bop, on Jul 13 2018 - 08:20, said:

A co-op mode like warships. All the way up the tiers.

 

Always a short queue, and back-filled with bots.

 

Sometimes people just want a quick game without drama, or to test out a new boat or tactic.

Heck , in WOWS there are people who only play co-op.

 

I'm generally against any sort of PvE mode because its one of the major things that killed Armored Warfare PvP. All the casual players stopped playing the PvP modes which made PvP que times insanely long. Besides that PvE modes by design are intended to give less rewards and thus increasing any grind which leads to people becoming bored and frustrated with the game.

scHnuuudle_bop #56 Posted Jul 13 2018 - 22:36

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 19587 battles
  • 3,513
  • Member since:
    05-03-2016

View Post_Gungrave_, on Jul 13 2018 - 09:58, said:

 

I'm generally against any sort of PvE mode because its one of the major things that killed Armored Warfare PvP. All the casual players stopped playing the PvP modes which made PvP que times insanely long. Besides that PvE modes by design are intended to give less rewards and thus increasing any grind which leads to people becoming bored and frustrated with the game.

 

I know, the player base for ships is minuscule compared to tanks, and somehow is still going. I like the PvE to try things out, or I just have to kill a short time period. I usually play 1 or 2 in Co-Op before actually entering a battle, just to get the feel again. It is interesting, to see the bot fleet win games, and it is not rare.

 

I play these games for just that reason though, for the human factor, unpredictability etc. 

I guess what I was going for, use it like the map testing we had, but instead of waiting for another person to enter with, it just manufactures a team, check out maps , new tanks etc. Even a place to help out a friend. There really is nowhere else to practice or just wander anymore.



Kenshin2kx #57 Posted Jul 13 2018 - 22:43

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 18111 battles
  • 6,214
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View Postbuzz6, on Jul 06 2018 - 21:08, said:

I have never figured out why the dead can still talk/write.

 

... well they are only 'mostly dead'  ... :D ... but seriously, we literally have ressurection in the game, along with ESP, Insta-track repair to name a few of the gaming 'anomolies' ...

_Gungrave_ #58 Posted Jul 20 2018 - 16:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 43745 battles
  • 16,299
  • [-SRP-] -SRP-
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View Post_Gungrave_, on May 22 2018 - 07:06, said:

 



scHnuuudle_bop #59 Posted Jul 22 2018 - 08:13

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 19587 battles
  • 3,513
  • Member since:
    05-03-2016
You should paste a link to this thread on Private_Public's question request.

_Gungrave_ #60 Posted Jul 22 2018 - 17:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 43745 battles
  • 16,299
  • [-SRP-] -SRP-
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostscHnuuudle_bop, on Jul 22 2018 - 08:13, said:

You should paste a link to this thread on Private_Public's question request.

 

His thread is for questions and honestly I don't think WGNA would want to comment on the wall of text that I have. WGNA does seem to check suggestions but I would surmise that they only do it when a thread has a certain amount of activity and upvotes showing the demand for it.

 

You also have to remember that there are other people asking questions and these Q&A things tend to not last too long when the intended party they're for likely won't be spending more than an hour or two reading and answering. Just speaking from experience from seeing AMAs on reddit .


Edited by _Gungrave_, Jul 22 2018 - 17:49.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users