Jump to content


The Anti-Arty Position (In Detail)


  • Please log in to reply
206 replies to this topic

Staz211 #1 Posted Sep 25 2018 - 23:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 27045 battles
  • 3,906
  • Member since:
    06-11-2012

Wait! Before you guys jump down my throat, just hear me out. 

 

The Pro vs Anti Arty debate has really picked up in intensity on the forums over the past month or two; more so than usual. With that, there has been a sharp transition from discussion to argument, insult, and mischaracterization from both sides of the debate. I'm not going to sit here and play innocent; I'm absolutely guilty of engaging in crap posting as well, and I'm not proud of it. However, I actually do want the discussion to begin to circle back to being an actual discussion. Truth be told I don't expect minds to change, and I don't expect for either side to see eye-to-eye with the other. What I do want, however, is for each side to at least accurately understand what the heck the other side it talking about. Both sides have gone into full blown mischaracterization mode, and that does no one any good. People are spending more time putting words into their ideological opponent's mouth than they are actually addressing their points. With that, mutual respect seems to have been lost. 

 

A few weeks ago, in one of the many arty threads, I posted a detailed breakdown of what I saw the anti-arty position to be. That post is buried in the middle of a very long thread, and I imagine the number of people to actual get eyes on was fairly small. I want to re-post that position presentation here, in its own topic, in an effort to break through some of the mischaracterization that's been flying around lately. From my admittedly bias position, I often see the pro-arty crowd attempt to dismiss the anti-arty position as simple "whining" or "crying," or by responding with "learn to play" or "go play blitz if you want easy mode." I believe some of these responses are the result of not fully understanding exactly what the anti-arty position is, and what arguments and issues it actually centers around. 

 

Again, I'm not looking for this post to convert pro-arty players into anti-arty players. I'm not looking to "win the debate." The intent is for people to understand what one of the positions in this debate actually is (at least, through my eyes) in an effort to reduce some of the mischaracterization that has been flying around lately. We don't have to agree with one another, but we can at least understand and respect each other's positions. 

 

So, here is my post as it was originally posted, word for word. This is my anti-arty hypothesis written out, in detail. It was written specifically in response to several other posts, so some context might be lost: 

 

The Anti-Arty Position

 

"As snarky as I can admittedly be towards the pro-arty crowd, I am going to make an honest attempt to bridge the fundamental disconnect between the pro and anti arty sides of this debate. This disconnect is over the fundamental nature of the argument; what is actually being said and disagreed over. Six years of going back and forth has made me quick to snarky and sarcasm, and it's been a while since I actually sat down and wrote it all out, in full. I ask that you read all the way to the end.

 

What I believe the three of you, and much of the pro-arty crowd, are failing to realize is that the anti-arty position has nothing to do with Win Rate or Stats (at least, not in the capacity that the pro-arty crowd tends to bring them up. Ill explain this in more detail later). Arty is not "broken" as a vehicle in and of itself, in the same way the 268v4 or wth-E100 are/were "broken." Arty is not hyper-carrying matches and supporting a 57%+ global WR; arty cannot hyper-carry matches due to the way arty is designed. No one that I've every seen on the anti-arty side has made this claim. When we (acknowledging that I'm making a broad assertion for an entire group and position) say that arty is "broken," we mean it is fundamentally broken as a game mechanic. As a concept. We mean that arty, as it is designed, breaks the rules of combat as they have otherwise been established by the developers and, consequently, has an overall negative impact on game play and player experience. I will break this down in to several basic categories and explain:

 

(please note that much of this is being presented from a game design standpoint. The YouTube channel "Extra Credits" has a lot of great videos to help orient the system of thinking being applied to this discussion if you are interested in learning about game design. Also, I'm writing this in one go, so please forgive any typos, grammatical or structural errors, odd idea flows, etc)

 

Combat Framework

Perhaps the most fundamental gripe that the anti-arty crowd has with arty is that it operates outside of the combat framework utilized by every other vehicle in the game. This is where I will likely spend most of my time in this post, so please bare with me. 

 

Arty does not abide by the same rules that every other class of vehicle must abide by. You've heard it a million times, but just to specifically point out a few examples, arty can: utilize an overhead view, ignore draw distance, fire over cover, damage through cover, damage on a clear miss, etc. Now, in a game, whether it be WoT, a MMO, a FPS, etc, there are going to be different "classes." This is good, because variety is a good thing. For example, in an MMO you may have a tank, a healer, a damage dealer, etc. However, in spite of their differences, each of these classes operates within the same "framework;" within the same combat system. They all abide by the same rules. Think of it as a chess board, or a basketball court. Think of those two entities not as a physical space, like a map, but as a system of rules or framework that the game is played within. There are different pieces, different players, on the board/court that fulfill different roles. They all, however, operate within the confines of that system or framework. The game is played within the boundaries of that system or framework. They cannot step outside that system or framework. In WoT, this framework is the "combat system." It is the system in which vehicles, and thus players, interact with one another. 

 

This is where the major gripes against arty come into play. The WoT combat system is centered around tank-on-tank engagements. Fundamentally, interaction between players is constructed around several basic, core elements: vision, armor, penetration. At the most absolute basic, reductionist level, player interaction is designed to play out as follows: a tank must see another tank; a tank must defeat another tank's armor. Now, the ways in which this happens become very complicated very quickly. The proficiency with which players can successfully complete this interaction vary greatly. A player's knowledge, or lack there of, of spotting and draw distance mechanics, armor profiles, armor angling, gun depression, vehicle mobility, terrain, penetration values, reload times, map positioning, enemy vehicle behavior, etc etc etc, shapes the way that they interact with other players. It's what makes the game dynamic, interesting, skillful and, dare I say, "fun." This is where we see the difference between a chess master and a chess novice, or a starting point guard versus a third string rookie. They all operate within the same system, but their knowledge and proficiency varies. 

 

Arty, as designed, operates outside of this combat system. It operates, quite literally, above the games framework as opposed to within it. The way in which arty engages with other vehicles, and thus and arty player engages with another player, does not follow the same set of rules utilized by every other vehicles class. Not only that, but the interaction is one-sided in this regard. It is not as if the interaction between arty and a tank has its' own sub-set of rules that both vehicles abide by. Rather, the arty is abiding by a completely different set of rules while the tank is still abiding by the original set of rules. Arty is operating above the framework while the tanks it interacts with must still operate inside of the framework. For example: tank must still abide by the limitations of draw distance while an arty does not (I will touch more on 'risk vs reward' aspect of this interaction later). As a result, you do not have two vehicles interacting with one another, but rather you have one vehicle interacting with another vehicle; a one-sided interaction. When two tanks engage each other they are, by the very limitation of draw distance, interacting with one another. Their draw distances are interacting; their view range is interacting; their camo values are interacting; their mobility is interacting; their penetration and armor values are interacting; their relationship with the surrounding terrain is interacting. Arty lives and operates above this interaction, and then inserts its' influence into the interaction without actually entering the interaction themselves. They receive the benefits of interaction without assuming any of the associated risks (again, more on this later). Think of it as a player on a basketball team who can take shots from outside of the sideline. The opposing players can't cover him, they can't block his shot, they can't steal the ball, but they must still burden the consequences of that player's actions. Think of it as a chess piece that exists outside of the board, or in the back row, that can take out other pieces without moving. There is no way to counter that; no way to out play it. It is a one-sided interaction, largely devoid of risk or "skill." This moves me into the next point.

 

Skill, Risk, and Effort vs Reward

The way in which arty operates outside of the general combat framework is the primary gripe against it as a game mechanic. What amplifies this issue, and is actually a byproduct of this issue, is the relationship between skill, risk, effort and reward. WoT is a skilled based, PvP multiplayer online game. That is a fact of life. As such the player base (largely), particularly highly skilled players, are invested in decisions and mechanics that enable skill to be accurately communicated during player interaction. Acknowledging that RNG takes a dump on us all from time to time, tank-on-tank interaction is largely skill based. By and large, over time, a "good" player will get more kills, deal more damage, out spot, etc, a "less good" player. The gap between skill floor and skill ceiling for a tank on the ground is fairly large. This gap is, however, significantly smaller for arty. That is not to say that there are not good arty players; there are, I've known some, but by and large the gap between skill floor and ceiling in an arty is much smaller than the gap between skill floor and ceiling in another vehicle. That, and because arty operates outside of the framework utilized by other vehicles, it allows "less good" players to "punch up," so to speak. Using Win Rate temporarily to frame my example, it is much more difficult for a 45%er to put damage onto, out play, and kill a 64%er when both players are in medium tanks thank when the 45%er is in an arty. When a 45%er and a 64%er engage on the battlefield they are interacting. Their map and vehicle knowledge is interacting; their position is interacting; their armor is interacting; their view range and camo are interacting. All of these things are interacting inside of a system, inside of the combat framework. Arty however, again, operates outside of this framework. When a 45%er in an arty engages a 64%er in a medium tank, the two players are not interacting. The 45%er is interacting with the 64%, but the 64%er is not interacting with the 45%er. It is a one-sided interaction, with no chance of it becoming a two sided interaction. It removes a large element of "skill" from the interaction, and allows the "less good" player to inflict more damage and influence on the interaction then they otherwise would be able to (this is also why so many anti-arty players are also opposed to large caliber HE derp spam, such as the Type 5. I have significant issues with the direction that WG has taken HE in this game, and with some of the vehicles platforms they have inserted into the game. This, however, is another topic for another time). 

 

This is where the conversation transitions over to risk, effort and reward. One of the elements that governs player interaction is risk vs reward. As a general rule of thumb, in almost every competitive event, higher risk yields greater rewards while lower risk yields lower rewards. In almost every competitive event, higher skilled individuals tend to be better at managing risk vs reward and lower skilled individuals. As it relates to this game, for example, in WoT movement has associated risks. However, without movement you cannot put out damage or get kills. There are different types of movement in game. Movement around the back of the map carries very little risk, and subsequently very little chance for significant damage or kill rewards. Movement in close proximity to enemy vehicles carries significant risk, and with that the possibility of significant reward in terms of damage and kills. In order to do well a player, generally speaking, must takes risks. "Good" players tend to recognize and utilize appropriate risks better than "less good" players. As such, "good" players tend to be more aggressive than "less good" players, as they attempt to exploit identified opportunities deemed worthy of the associated risks. This, again, is where arty separates itself from the rest of the vehicles in the game. Arty operates outside and above the combat system and framework. Arty assumes no risk when it interacts with other vehicles. When firing from outside of draw distance, over cover, with large caliber HE from an elevated angle, there is no "risk." There is no risk of retaliation (counter-battery acknowledged, which is exceptionally rare, extremely difficult to pull off, and very easy to avoid), no risk of a bounce, etc. Even the risk of the miss is minimized by splash damage and stun. No other class of vehicle can take a bad shot, miss, and still be rewarded with 400+ damage. No other vehicle class can miss and put out the average alpha of a Tier X heavy tank, plus stun and critical damage, and do so with little to no risk to themselves. The relationship between effort/risk and reward, as it relates to arty, is broken. A normal tank is high risk, high reward, low risk, low reward; high effort, high result, low effort, low result. Arty is, across the board, low risk, high reward; low effort, high result. The amount of effort and risk it takes to do damage or get kills in a normal tank is significantly more than the amount of effort and risk it takes to do damage or get kills in an arty. It requires more focus, effort, attention, and skill to do 2,000 damage in a Tier IX medium than it does a Tier IX arty. Not to be snarky, but to help illustrate my point, you would be hard pressed to pull 2,000 damage in a Tier IX medium while eating your dinner. The same cannot be said about pulling 2,000 damage in a Tier IX arty while eating your dinner. In summation, this unconventional relationship between skill, effort, risk and reward is another issue that the anti-arty crowd has with arty in WoT.

 

(side note before it comes up: I acknowledge that the gap between skill floor and ceiling varies by tank class, not just arty vs regular tanks. From largest gap to smallest, I would argue that it goes Light Tanks, Medium Tanks, Tank Destroyers, Heavy Tanks, Artillery. I will also argue, however, that arty is still the outlier. LTs may have a larger skill floor/ceiling gap than HTs, but both of them still have a significantly larger gap than SPGs). 

 

Map Denial and Game Pace

The two topics listed above, I would argue, are the core of the anti-arty position. I'm now going to move on to issues and gripes that are more about game play experience than core game design, mechanics, player interaction, etc. These topics will be shorter and less detailed. 

 

It is the position of the anti-arty crowd that arty negatively impacts map use and game pace. I have more to say about map use, so I'll get game pace out of way quickly. Generally speaking, the more arty there are in a match, the slower it plays out (and not in a good way). I remember the days before the arty cap. There were so many Draws as players sat behind cover, unmoving, afraid of being nuked the second they left hard cover. Even now, three arty per team can paralyze a match. Both teams become afraid to move, and the match grinds to a sluggish halt. Now, on to map use.

 

Simply put, I would argue that arty "shrinks" the map and makes game play more predictable (acknowledging that WGs map design can be absolute garbage; arty doesnt help this issue). Arty, by its very presence, alters the landscape of the entire battle field. Entire swaths of the map become unusable, as doing so will results in arty annihilation. This channels players into small, predetermined segments of the map that are the most "arty safe," and game play becomes stale and predicable. If players want to avoid being smacked from the sky they must go to certain locations on every map. This limits creativity, match variety, and the dynamic nature of the game play and player interaction. From personal experience, the matches I've played without arty (generally speak) are some of the most fun, dynamic, unpredictable matches of WoT I've played. Players use the map in creative and unexpected ways. Players take more risks, and combat becomes less predictable and more dynamic. Sections of the map normally left barren suddenly contain enemy vehicles that I need to account for. It opens up the map and increased the options available to the players in the battle. I think this is healthy for the game and the players game play experience. I would argue that artyless matches increase variety while matches with arty stifle it. The more arty in a match, the less creative players can be. 

 

XVM/"Good Player" Focus

I almost didn't put this section in my post, as it is not one of the core arguments against arty as a game mechanic, but the fact of the matter is that it is an argument routinely utilized by the anti-arty crowd. It is only fair that I address it here.  Let me get the XVM bit out of the way first, and let me start by saying that I personally oppose the use of XVM statistics in the game, as do many other players of all skill levels that I know. All I've seen it do is increase toxicity. I don't think it's good for the game or the player base. 

 

That said, XVM/Clan Tag focus does happen. It might not be to the pervasive extent claimed by some, but the fact is that it does happen and it happens enough to be noticeable. People have openly admitted to doing it, both in game and on this forum, and to those of us at the statistical upper end of the spectrum it can get quite noticeable. To a degree it makes sense; if I have a shot on a player from -G- or EOR, you can bet your butt that I'm going to shoot the -G- player 99 times out of 100. However, again, the way in which arty operates outside of the combat system and general framework of WoT significantly amplifies this issues. If I am driving my Cent 7/1 and I want to focus down a -G- player, I have to out play him/her. I must out position them, out view range them, out maneuver them, out shoot them. They might be getting extra special attention, but I still have to assume significant risk and out play them. There is still a very good chance that they will turn around and spank me six ways to Sunday if I decide to give them my undivided attention. Arty does not have this issue. Arty can harass a player with impunity across the entire map,  for the entire game, without risk of retaliation or recourse. This is while you will see Tier X arty chasing Tier VIII mediums around the map while ignoring other significant targets. Trust me when I say that it gets old, and it gets old real fast. I experienced it like crazy when I still had clan tags, and I still experience it to this day. Now, to tip my hat to you guys, I will also admit that "good" players tend to play more aggressively (as discussed above, when they attempt to exploit opportunities after weighing risks). This will naturally put additional arty focus on "good" players as they are the ones lit, moving, and engaging. XVM/Clan tag focus is absolutely a thing, but by the very nature of their play style "good" players will draw additional arty attention. These two things together contribute to why so many "good" players grow to dislike arty over time. It punishes good play that keeps the pace of the battle moving along; it punishes opportunity creation and exploitation. This is also why the notion that "arty prevents camping" is, excuse my break in tone, utter BS. Campers don't get lit; campers don't leave hard cover; campers don't receive the brunt of the arty focus. The only way to avoid arty focus is to stay "arty safe." The only way to stay arty safe is to remain un-lit and behind hard cover. 

 

Driving Players Away

I shouldn't include this, as it breaks the theme of the post, but it's been brought up so I will briefly address it. Does arty drive players away from the game? Maybe, maybe not. I personally know players who have quite WoT, and one of the main reasons they quite was because of arty. Does arty drive players away in droves, as claimed by some? I have absolutely no idea. No one has any idea. Even WG has no idea. The only way to gain that kind of knowledge would be to administer an exit survey to every single player that stops playing the game. By and large I think this is a weak argument against arty, and one that can safely be dismissed when presented since it is unprovable and undebatable on conceptional grounds. Again, I do personally know players who have quite WoT with arty as a significant reason, but I still find this to be a weak argument against arty.

 

Compromise

I will openly admit that I am a member of the #removearty crowd. That said, I understand that complete removal is a one-sided position. Though I want and advocate for complete removal, here are some changes that I honestly believe would make arty tolerable (I use the word "tolerable" because, as stated, my position posits that arty is fundamentally broken as a  game mechanic because of how it operates outside of the combat system and general framework):

 

-Make arty abide by maximum draw distance

-Restrict arty to some variation of the "G" overhead view (as opposed to true satellite view); possibly a modified normal "sniper view." 

-Remove stun

-Cap at one per team

-Slightly buff arty HP

-Reduce current splash radius 

-Nerf the M44, Leafblower, and GW Panther (I think we can all agree, these three guys are OP as hell)

 

(I have other gripes with the current general state of HE and premium ammo that would play into these changes as well, but I'll save that for another day. This post is long enough as it is). 

 

Conclusion

So there is my post. Thank you for taking the time to read it in in full (hopefully). These are my observations and arguments laid out in full, with complete honesty. Doing this in one shot I know that I've likely glossed over some things and can provide better details, examples, and explanations of others. I have to head out the door, and can't take the time to really sit down and iron this thing out. If you have any questions, or wish to discuss further, please let me know. Again, I'm making a genuine attempt to take a step back and lay out the complete discussion and disconnects on the table. 

 

Cheers."



Hurk #2 Posted Sep 26 2018 - 00:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 55850 battles
  • 17,382
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

lets take one of your first references and use it against you:

this is why all Howitzer tanks exist. 

more importantly, since Arty is not a First order strategy (in fact, it cannot be since arty start at tier 2 and arent available in every line), and since its not nearly as useful as later tactics. its not broken at all. you just dont like it countering skill. 


Edited by Hurk, Sep 26 2018 - 00:09.


shinglefoot #3 Posted Sep 26 2018 - 00:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 25015 battles
  • 3,478
  • Member since:
    02-07-2013

     This just in!!!

 

 

     I just checked...it's still here.

 

...still



pickpocket293 #4 Posted Sep 26 2018 - 00:13

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 34450 battles
  • 1,521
  • [CLAWS] CLAWS
  • Member since:
    05-14-2015

I agree with the OP-- I think they summarized the viewpoints of the anti-arty crowd very clearly and succinctly. 

 

 

I'm now prepared to hear a bunch of the same old faces piling in here to say "get good" or "go play something else if you don't like it"



_Tsavo_ #5 Posted Sep 26 2018 - 00:19

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 45852 battles
  • 19,520
  • [BRVE] BRVE
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011
I am squarely in the anti arty camp and neither hell or high water will sway me.

WeAreOU #6 Posted Sep 26 2018 - 00:31

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 29701 battles
  • 178
  • [_ICH_] _ICH_
  • Member since:
    01-03-2015
your post is too long...plus arty is not going away per WG. just deal with it. just my  2 cents worth.

tonyhack #7 Posted Sep 26 2018 - 00:45

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 40628 battles
  • 13
  • [RO-TD] RO-TD
  • Member since:
    12-10-2013
At least Wg should do this: 1. One arty per team. 2. Maximum shooting distance , 500m. 3. Reduce the explosion sound ( i think is one of the most annoying part) 4. Reduce the stuning time.

WhineMaker #8 Posted Sep 26 2018 - 00:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 38046 battles
  • 6,167
  • [WHAAA] WHAAA
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011

A simple and viable workaround already exists... :ohmy:

 

Can you say "WoT Blitz"?

 

Sure you can... 

 

 

It'll save the stress of having to play the full pc version of WoT that includes arty... :arta:

 

 

Don't want to use the workaround, you'll have to deal with arty in WoT... :great:

 

 

 

 

I know I will continue to play arty, just to make your games more dynamic and enjoyable... ;)



commander42 #9 Posted Sep 26 2018 - 00:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 26839 battles
  • 5,231
  • [T-R-P] T-R-P
  • Member since:
    07-08-2013
"Pro vs Anti Arty debate has really picked up in intensity on the forums over the past month or two; more so than usual. With that, there has been a sharp transition from discussion to argument, insult, and mischaracterization from both sides of the debate"

not gonna quote your whole post since so long.  for years it has been insults and mischaracterization rather than legitimate discussion.  Of course there was some civilness and talking about the actual issue it was always few and far between. 

As for the arguments laid out within, some of those aren't very valid arguments others are somewhat more valid.
1.The xvm argument is null and void, it is an outside mod and should not effect class balance.  If the mod is bad for the game the mod itself should be banned.
2. The map denial and game pace one- most games whether there is arty or not are played extremely similar.  It might change how a few people play but not the game as a whole.  This of course varies based on map and vehicle type too.  But in general there isn't much difference in pace.
3. Driving players away- I agree with you as a whole it doesn't hold much merit, Nobody knows for sure what the actual numbers are, some might have left cause arty was too powerful, some left upset at nerfs, some left for a reason not even related to arty at all. 
4.skill cap/floor- this is the first of the legitimate arguments.  The mechanic itself caps the impact a player can have, especially on certain maps.  Because it can only do one thing(got nerfed in most aspects), it gives worse players less to worry about so they cant screw up as much, and it gives better players less that they can take advantage of.  It leaves only a few aspects to consider, such as positioning and shot prioritization.  However you offered nothing to solve this, your "solutions" do not allow arty to do anything more, still have terrible view range, camo, if they only receive alittle health buff they can still be oneshot by many tanks, two shot for many others.  That is not a compromise.  A compromise would be having a balanced class, not a completely useless one.
 

WhineMaker #10 Posted Sep 26 2018 - 00:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 38046 battles
  • 6,167
  • [WHAAA] WHAAA
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011

View Postcommander42, on Sep 25 2018 - 15:52, said:


 A compromise would be having a balanced class, not a completely useless one.
 

 

A completely useless class is all the anti arty whine club will ever accept, or complete removal. 

 

 

Anything else damages their precious stats... :ohmy:

 

 



Double_O7 #11 Posted Sep 26 2018 - 01:00

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 6060 battles
  • 655
  • Member since:
    01-29-2012
Well said dude. Pro arty players really can't argue with that

shoe123 #12 Posted Sep 26 2018 - 01:01

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 30775 battles
  • 509
  • Member since:
    10-05-2013

Great OP. I was thinking about this today. Put simply, albeit very simply; excluding arty... WOT IS a game of angles. Arty isn't the only problem but for me its the biggest. WOT isn't a war game, its an arcade tank game. Its about trying to out play your opponent through the use of armor, tank attributes, vision, skill, map awareness and angles. lol, I mean really, is anyone on earth going to argue that an artillery shell cant defeat nearly any tank from a direct hit? no!. the top of the tank is the weakest part, there's no question. Arty in WOT is a spoiler, plain and simple. it removes the direct contest of skill between players.

 If this was a war game with aircraft, mines, troops, traps, AA, etc. then arty would be an important part of the game. as it is now, it just doesn't work. Honestly its why I play this game less, my breaks are longer and longer between jumping on and my purchases have dropped to next to nothing. Honestly I don't know why there isn't a box to check or uncheck for arty. This would solve the issue entirely because, you give us, the customer the ability to choose the game play we want. if I had a box I would spend money on this game again and I'm not alone.

 



shoe123 #13 Posted Sep 26 2018 - 01:06

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 30775 battles
  • 509
  • Member since:
    10-05-2013

View PostWhineMaker, on Sep 26 2018 - 00:50, said:

A simple and viable workaround already exists... :ohmy:

 

Can you say "WoT Blitz"?

 

Sure you can...

 

 

It'll save the stress of having to play the full pc version of WoT that includes arty... :arta:

 

 

Don't want to use the workaround, you'll have to deal with arty in WoT... :great:

 

 

 

 

I know I will continue to play arty, just to make your games more dynamic and enjoyable... ;)

 

Come on man I see the same response from you every time. just ask, just ask, don't be mean... im sure someone will pitch in and get you a keyboard so you can play tanks. it will make your gaming experience more dynamic and enjoyable

scHnuuudle_bop #14 Posted Sep 26 2018 - 01:09

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 21003 battles
  • 3,720
  • Member since:
    05-03-2016

 

The first major disconnect with those who object, this is NOT a tank game, never was, nor will it ever be. It is,  as WG has said many times , a simulation of WWII Armoured warfare. This does not mean just tanks, and a huge factor in WWII armoured warfare like it or not was artillery, then as it is a Russian game, and td da, we got WOT. When it came to armoured battles , ever since armoured warfare has existed, long range support has been there every single time, slings, archers, trebuchets to cannons and artillery. Some of the biggest fans were the Russians. Saying artillery does not belong in a game based on WWII battles is as absurd as the identical heated debates in the Warships forum.

Bla bla, they have a different game mechanic, bla bla bla, they are unfair, bla bla, they are a broken mechanic, bla bla, I cannot shoot back at them bla bla. Their major sticking point is the same. They operate different, and somehow this is a bad thing. Of course the real rolloverandlaugh argument. They do not belong in a game where where it is about warships shooting at each other, you have to know , armour thickness, shell strenghts, map knowledge.

They believe the same thing, that it is a gun battle simulation, at it is nothing of the sort. Both classes in both games do exactly what they were designed to do, exactly how they want them to accomplish it.

 

Abiding by the rules like all the other players, you mean similar to a goalie in soccer, where he is the only one who can use his hands, he is the only one who cannot be interfered with in his private space, I do not see other players with a crease around them. All games have some factor that does not match the others.

 

Risk and reward, well many seem to like using this as an example. What seems to always missing from the wonderful list of things you must learn to become a pro, is, there are 5 classes in the game, and that has been so, since BEFORE you started. So, part of that risk is the 5th class and factoring it in, forgetting about it, lessens the reward, and that is where all this comes from. A td sitting in a bush, far away from the action faces the same risk as I do, shooting may, and frequently does give away my position. So to lessen my risk, I do not shoot from the regular places, ever. I try to move after every shot. Another risk, because of the nature of the accuracy and splash, I have to be very careful with my shots, since it may be 45 seconds til the next one, do I shoot, wait, or find someone else to target. Risk, watching for the inevitable fallen flank, lots get tunnel vision and lose sight of the big picture, it takes some effort to keep up to date, sort targets, and try and help out the area that needs the most support.

 

Map denial and game pace, see this is the strangest one to bring up.

Start with one key the purpose of artillery, it is useful to deny areas of the map, and slow down enemy advances. It is literally the purpose of the class, so of course it is going to sometimes accomplish its goal. A T29, sitting behind a rock, it's turret is the only thing visible, and is pretty well invulnerable. From where he sits, say the corner of death on Mannerheim.

How is this not a fine example of map denial and slowing game pace?

The channels are not created by the class either, that is WOT map design.

As for making people park, I wish I still had the replay where Guido, blew that argument out of the water in spectacular fashion. He moved from spot to spot to spot, avoiding fire not only from me, but several td's and medium tanks. I may have slowed him down, but that is what I wanted to do. Him having to avoid my BC155 58, had nothing to do with his careful approach, I was just one of many shooting, so if I was not there, he would have had to proceed the same pace and basically the same route.

Dynamic game play, what does that even mean? Creativity, it adds to the requirement, not detracts, knowing I am there, will need more creative thinking, not less. I assume dynamic game play means, these fast moving , sweeping battles, with large rushes and speedy flanking maneuvers. That must be another game, this one has , as you said corridor maps, every corridor with multiple players targeting each one, and behind them are more pre-aimed, waiting for the dynamic attempt.

The open maps, well are open, and artillery can only affect so much of it, and since you appear to have a lot of experience. How much of Prok can you deny to the enemy? 50%, 25%, 10%, 0.5%. You can deny a small portion to one enemy, for a few  seconds, then deny absolutely nothing at all for 30 seconds, then maybe for another sparse period of time affect another single enemy. Basically, the class has a limited effect, but it is slightly higher on open maps, and pretty well zero on city maps, seems very balanced to me.

 

XVM, sorry just an exaggeration, bordering on pure myth. I have XVM, it shows who has it installed. Very few have it installed, so how can you ALWAYS be focused on?

I have it installed, but if you think I wait around all game just to shoot at you, you are very mistaken.

In game I do not display a players list, and just use vanilla OTM with nothing more than HP and type, so I really have to want to know what ranking a player is by using the TAB, and since I do not bother to display names, 3 hellcats, one a purple ranked person, I will only know by how they play.

That is the nub of this XVM focus. You are not being focused on because of a display system that few use, it is because you are the most dangerous enemy, the subject of more requests for fire and calls for help. Why, because you are up front, spotted, aggressive and hurting things. It is your style of play, not XVM. I would view it as a backhanded compliment.

Now focus of fire, you could be the worst/best player in the world, as artillery, what happens when you get spotted, that is focused fire.

 

Camping and artillery, http://forum.worldof...posedly-solves/

there is a very lengthy thread, and this controversy is nothing more than a problem with the definition of camping. A camper is a player who occupies a position of advantage, and remains static for a period of time. A camper is a tank who pops out from a rock, shoots and backs up, more than a couple of shots, he is a static camper, hulldown , camper, the T29 mentioned above , a camper. So when this quote happened, the developer was referring to this definition. The T29 mentioned, in the right place, would you  target him? Of course you would, he is just sitting there, and you would encourage him to set up a tent somewhere else.

 

Driving players away, I think the re-balance drove a lot of artillery players away, as for artillery itself. As the CEO said, "Everyone hates the ENEMIES artillery." I get far more comments about helping, or nice shot, and requests for help, than I do angry rantings.

 

Draw distance, would sort of defeat the "long range", indirect fire of the class.

The overhead view, simply put is a very reasonable simulation of ballistic maps, aerial photos, air and ground recon. If you want an example of a real broken game mechanic, it is the "god" mode of all the other vehicles. That red outline that by magic lets you see through bushes and forests. It shows nothing more than ano other tank sees, just a different view, the information is the same. How about the ability of anyone to zoom out and see which way an enemy is pointed behind a rock?

The Stun, was placed in to force players into a support role instead of searching for HP. They wanted to ensure there was relevance maintained, and it is based on qualities of large HE explosions. In reality, a lager explosion beside or on a large steel can, would not stun the crew, it would turn them all into blood porridge.

I think all HE shells should get the stun.

The cap has already been decided, 3 is great, way better than 5 or more. If there is a cap, TD's need a cap. Played a game last night, 6 per side tier ten, what a boring game that was.

Buff the HP, well again, that was already decided, and because the HP damage had crept up to OP levels.

Splash Radius, wow, you should have seen what was initially proposed, these are 1/2, and the stun is reduced in intensity by distance. It is there as part of it role in discouraging camping,

 

 

 


Edited by scHnuuudle_bop, Sep 26 2018 - 01:20.


ArmorStorm #15 Posted Sep 26 2018 - 01:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 37543 battles
  • 8,492
  • [F__R] F__R
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

Holy wall of text Batman!

 

It really comes down to what is good for high-skill players vs what is good for the majority.  High skill players oppose arty mainly because it is a hazard that cannot be mitigated by good play.  I will contend that watching 1-3 star players mow down your team is more disappointing than an occasional arty shell. 

 

Organized game modes are available for skill-based play and if one team decides to bring an arty you have the opportunity to teach them the error of their ways.  Pub matches are for everyone, including arty players. 



Double_O7 #16 Posted Sep 26 2018 - 01:11

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 6060 battles
  • 655
  • Member since:
    01-29-2012

View PostWhineMaker, on Sep 25 2018 - 17:50, said:

A simple and viable workaround already exists... :ohmy:

 

Can you say "WoT Blitz"?

 

Sure you can... 

 

 

It'll save the stress of having to play the full pc version of WoT that includes arty... :arta:

 

 

Don't want to use the workaround, you'll have to deal with arty in WoT... :great:

 

 

 

 

I know I will continue to play arty, just to make your games more dynamic and enjoyable... ;)

If you mean "enjoyable " I think you mean enjoyable for yourself.  Arty does not make this game more enjoyable, fun, or dynamic. Personally, I hate everything about it. I hate playing it, and I hate getting trolled by it. 

 

Now, before some angry player decides not to read this full post I'm writing and chew my fluffy tushy, please hear me out.  I don't want arty removed from the game. Too many players have spent a large amount of time playing them. It wouldn't really be fair to them for WG to just remove the SPGS.

 

If anyone is to blame for arty, it's not the players people should be mad at. The arty problem is solely Wargaming's fault. They introduced the mechanics,  and they introduced that bloody seal clubbing leaf blower, which they said they would never sell it again, and yet it's on sale in the premium shop right now. 

 

One arty per match is certainly enough for everyone, but an option  to play with or without arty is good too 

 

Happy Hunting 



Double_O7 #17 Posted Sep 26 2018 - 01:13

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 6060 battles
  • 655
  • Member since:
    01-29-2012

View PostWhineMaker, on Sep 25 2018 - 17:50, said:

A simple and viable workaround already exists... :ohmy:

 

Can you say "WoT Blitz"?

 

Sure you can... 

 

 

It'll save the stress of having to play the full pc version of WoT that includes arty... :arta:

 

 

Don't want to use the workaround, you'll have to deal with arty in WoT... :great:

 

 

 

 

I know I will continue to play arty, just to make your games more dynamic and enjoyable... ;)

If you mean "enjoyable " I think you mean enjoyable for yourself.  Arty does not make this game more enjoyable, fun, or dynamic. Personally, I hate everything about it. I hate playing it, and I hate getting trolled by it. 

 

Now, before some angry player decides not to read this full post I'm writing and chew my fluffy tushy, please hear me out.  I don't want arty removed from the game. Too many players have spent a large amount of time playing them. It wouldn't really be fair to them for WG to just remove the SPGS.

 

If anyone is to blame for arty, it's not the players people should be mad at. The arty problem is solely Wargaming's fault. They introduced the mechanics,  and they introduced that bloody seal clubbing leaf blower, which they said they would never sell it again, and yet it's on sale in the premium shop right now. 

 

One arty per match is certainly enough for everyone, but an option  to play with or without arty is good too 

 

Happy Hunting 



Desyatnik_Pansy_NA #18 Posted Sep 26 2018 - 01:13

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 20 battles
  • 161
  • Member since:
    10-05-2016

My only personal disagreement with you is that I feel you don't touch the subject of "arty-safe" enough, explaining it only as such:

Block Quote

The only way to avoid arty focus is to stay "arty safe." The only way to stay arty safe is to remain un-lit and behind hard cover. 

 

While true, I feel like the topic could've been expanded on a little bit more than just that. In a very rough way of putting it:

-as you mentioned, arty-safe only exists in the form of not being spotted or hard cover. However, just saying "hard cover" is a little loose sadly as while a large rock is hard cover, it's not enough cover against arty from any angle really due to splash. Hard cover that is actually arty-safe is a large hill or mountain, or a large building (or numerous). Even then, depending on map, while such cover may exist, it may not actually be usable as hard cover against arty due to the way it is positioned versus the available artillery positions.

-"arty-safe" becomes even more stretched when you factor in more arty. A position that may be safe from one artillery in one position, may not be safe from another. We're not even going to try to encroach on the subject of artillery relocating (especially late-game) and focus on how a lot of maps have enough space for artillery to relocate within the general safety of their base. Take Cliff for example, where arty may go to A1/2, but can also go to A4/5. This is just one example, but I used it since the positions themselves are very obvious. Something like Steppes has in general the entire A/K Lines available and that's not the only map where that is the case (sure Prok is a more obvious example I could've used here, but Prok has no hard cover, so it's not really as good as an example on how it affects being arty-safe).

-perhaps the most important part of the topic, saved for last, is how positions that are typically vital to map control often are not arty-safe (I don't feel you really touched upon this with your "Map Denial" part). Most of the map hotspots you can probably think of do not have hard cover against arty, and some of them that do (the aforementioned Steppes and the west flank for example) are again really ineffective when you factor in available arty positions. This is something which definitely affects the higher skilled playerbase because often a game can be decided by winning those positions, but winning those positions means being constantly exposed to artillery fire. You cannot win most of those positions with a single clap of your hands in the average game, so for however long it takes to win that position, you are exposed to artillery fire which combined with multiple arty, makes it incredibly frustrating since even though you can outplay the opponents in front of you, you will still lose hitpoints to the enemy arty who you can do nothing against, meaning even if you win the position or even the game, you're still likely frustrated as a result (before someone jumps on this and says "What about the feeling of winning a hard-fought victory"? Yes, winning a hard-fought victory is fun, but mostly when it's against other players who are also interacting with you, not the one-sided interaction from the artillery player to you, that's just annoying)

 

Just my two cents, otherwise great post.


Edited by Desyatnik_Pansy_NA, Sep 26 2018 - 01:16.


9999bc #19 Posted Sep 26 2018 - 01:17

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 38559 battles
  • 705
  • Member since:
    07-01-2014

OP wrote a lot stuff in this long post; however, all of them are questionable in my view. Guess this makes me a Pro-Arty guy.

1.Combat Framework: Arty is still in the same combat framework as other tanks: HP, penetration, alpha, armor, etc. Arty's ability to use indirect-fire mode is designed by game developers, and is included in the game from the beginning. This game is shoot-to-kill, and arty is no exception to this rule. Arty obeys all the rules set by the game developers, and are no exception to balances set by the developers. A goal keeper is the only person who can touch a soccer ball by hands, and this does not make him an exception to the game framework. The unique ability of a goal keeper is allowed by the game, just like arty in this game.

 

2. Skill, Risk, and Effort vs Reward: Arty is within the same framework as other tank classes, so it has same skill, risk, and effort requirement. Different tank classes use different skills; arty players rely more on map knowledge, situation awareness, and prediction of game flow. You can't do well in arty if you don't know where to go. Will you get 2000 damage in Himmer if you park you arty in the tank alley? Will you do well in Pork if you tried to drive your arty to the top of the hill? Will you do well in arty if you drive your arty to a weak flank that will be overrun in 2 minutes?

 

Arty require skills just like other tanks. You're snarky if you think you can pull 2000 damage in arty every game just because you can do 2000 damage in a medium. I'll skip your rant about "no bounce" ( HE and 0 dmg, google it), " no other tank can miss and do 400 dmg" ( Type 4, type 5, KV2 say hi), and other BS in this section ( you need vbaddict data here, not your assumption).

 

3. Map Denial and Game Pace: Again, no facts to support your " generally speak". Is this what Anti-arty camp is all about?

 

 

 

Many player would agree some of the best maps are arty-friendly maps because they are open maps. Moreover, arty adds another variable, dimension to this game. You may enjoy your arty-free corridor maps, I don't. Maybe you need to learn how to deal with arty in open maps?

 

4.  XVM/"Good Player" Focus: Blame XVM not arty. Also, you don't understand 'camping", google it please ( hint: think hull-down).

 

5. Driving Players Away: pretty sure there were more players before arty nerf in 9.18; even more players before arty nerf 8.6. Game loses more player with each arty nerf, so maybe we need to buff arty to bring back player.

 

#MakeArtyGreatAgain

 

 


Edited by 9999bc, Sep 26 2018 - 01:22.


Boxhawk #20 Posted Sep 26 2018 - 01:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 31190 battles
  • 3,574
  • Member since:
    04-23-2012

when you spend two hours writing a thesis and nobody reads it.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users