Jump to content


The old artillery problem - a solution using different mechanics

World of Tanks Artillery SPG Mechanics View Mode Switch

  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

EmperorJuliusCaesar #21 Posted Nov 02 2018 - 07:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 31007 battles
  • 5,023
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostSnakePliskan, on Nov 02 2018 - 11:54, said:

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Nov 02 2018 - 05:45, said:

 

I agree that part of the blame is on WG for caving, and they deserved to lose 10k paying players after they nearly ruined the class(especially the bat chat arty).

As for stun, it was necessary for the arty class to earn XP and credits because the XP/credit earning is pretty standard so they had to have another way to earn.  I'm glad stun annoys them, it's what the whiners deserve for being such crybabies.  NA has so many crybabies it's pathetic, they actually cry about sales and the stuff they get for free, it's insanity.  So glad I don't live there.

 

Those of us that participated in the old Sand Box repeated told them that the change was going to make the issue even worse. The arty haters over whelmed us with the rabid emotional need to cut arty damage with the old one shot crying an reinforcing with WG the change was great. The stun was nothing...over an over. Actually laughing about how arty was now dead.. WG did not listen to any rational analysis of the change just forged ahead.

 

Well, the haters got what they deserved....and their cries about it....every thread makes me play arty more than I ever would without the threads.  They're so pathetic.



EmperorJuliusCaesar #22 Posted Nov 02 2018 - 07:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 31007 battles
  • 5,023
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostHeldar, on Nov 02 2018 - 12:58, said:

If the different mechanic isnt a complete removal of the broken class, its not a fix.  But instead, we will just get the standard circle jerk of "the mechanic is FINE!!!! learn to adapt!   Dont get lit, you cant be shot at by cancer" tripe.

 

Working EXACTLY as DESIGNED isn't broken....it's doing EXACTLY what it SHOULD be doing.  Learn some vocabulary.  The mechanic is fine....it was DESIGNED that way.  YOU have to ADAPT as it's not YOUR game.  It's WG's and they state it will ALWAYS be here and NEVER be removed.



Heldar #23 Posted Nov 02 2018 - 07:38

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 31825 battles
  • 46
  • [REL2] REL2
  • Member since:
    03-06-2012

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Nov 02 2018 - 00:32, said:

 

Working EXACTLY as DESIGNED isn't broken....it's doing EXACTLY what it SHOULD be doing.  Learn some vocabulary.  The mechanic is fine....it was DESIGNED that way.  YOU have to ADAPT as it's not YOUR game.  It's WG's and they state it will ALWAYS be here and NEVER be removed.

 

It was designed to do exactly what its doing - and as such is not broken - true.

Its function in the game is radically different from every other entity in the game and does not follow the same rules every other class does - namely does damage while never needing to put itself into danger - and with no chance for the receiving player to respond in kind.  This makes it broken.
Just because something does what it was designed, as designed, doesnt mean its not broken.



WhineMaker #24 Posted Nov 02 2018 - 07:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 34812 battles
  • 4,228
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011

View PostHeldar, on Nov 01 2018 - 22:38, said:

 

It was designed to do exactly what its doing - and as such is not broken - true.

Its function in the game is radically different from every other entity in the game and does not follow the same rules every other class does - namely does damage while never needing to put itself into danger - and with no chance for the receiving player to respond in kind.  This makes it broken.
Just because something does what it was designed, as designed, doesnt mean its not broken.

 

Just because you don't like arty, doesn't make it broken... :facepalm:

 

If arty was broken as you claim, the WoT client wouldn't load you into battle, would crash to desktop every time you hit the battle button or the dreaded BSOD syndrome...



BillT #25 Posted Nov 02 2018 - 08:05

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 27067 battles
  • 4,496
  • [F-3] F-3
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

I always enjoy discussing game mechanics, so I'm happy to approach this in the spirit Medicguy2 intended -- and thank you for the time and thought you put into it!

 

Let me start by saying that I believe the issue is fundamentally intractable.  As long as artillery has an arc that allows shooting over obstacles, can fire from concealment, and has enough range to cover at least half the battlefield, the people who hate it now will still hate it and think it's unfair. Unless they're able to spot and shoot back at arty that shoots at them, they're going to think it's unfair.  And while it's possible to reinvent artillery as lame TDs with massive derp guns, at that point the class no longer bear any resemblance to actual artillery.  All you've got now is an SU-152 with a bigger gun and no armor.  Indirect fire is the essence of artillery.

 

And remember a fundamental point: arty may be hated now, but it's balanced.  It doesn't affect battle outcomes more than other classes; indeed, arty seems to have the least ability to actually carry a fight. People don't run arty to pad their stats to unicum levels.  So anything you do to make artillery do less damage or less stun in an average game is a nerf, and it would have to be married to buffs: increased alpha, ROF, burst radius, or penetration.  At the end of the day arty is still going to have to cause as much pain as it does now.

 

 

I don't really understand the "binocular view" you're describing.  Would that be based on the position of the SPG (e.g., as if someone with binoculars were standing on top of the SPG)?  Or are you talking about actual forward observers, men with radios and binoculars hiding close to the front line while the SPG sits in the rear?  

 

I very much like the idea of making radio range (and radio operator skills) important for artillery.  In the current game radio range actually does limit arty's draw range, because you don't see anything spotted by tanks outside your radio range.  It's just that the radio range is so large at medium and high tiers that it's never a problem.  A general nerf of radio ranges might make the game more interesting across the board.  Or (brainstorming  here), suppose we keep the sky view map, but the enemy tanks don't get updated in real time; the positions the SPG player sees are a few seconds old, reflecting how long it took for the spotter to relay the information to the gunners.  The exact time lag could depend on the distance from the spotter (or the target) to the SPG; the further away, the longer the lag.   Then you could use radio range and radio operator skills to decrease that time lag.  I think this would be realistic and challenging, but back to the fundamental rule: it would make it harder to hit, so arty would do less damage, so it has to be paired with buffs to keep arty at its current pain level.

 

I don't get your point about shrapnel.  The minimum standard armor requirement for tanks ever since WWI has been "protection from shell fragments.", and 10-15 mm is sufficient  for that.   That's less armor than it takes to protect from .50 caliber machineguns or antitank rifles.   If you want to increase HE penetration, just change the numbers (reversing what WG did when they introduced stun), there's no point using shrapnel as an explanation.

 

Increasing the health pool of arty... I don't think it will matter much.  Arty will take three shots to kill instead of just two, but it hardly matters because their reload is so slow.  They'll still only have time for one shot in self-defense before they get gunned down.  And  hey're still going to be slow and un-maneuverable, so actually getting your gun to bear on an approaching enemy tank will remain difficult -- even if you improve the accuracy and reduce the aim time with your "all hands on deck" direct fire mode.   And increasing their hit points makes counterbattery fire even more futile.  CB isn't worth trying unless you can one-shot the target with a good hit.  (But then, with your proposals to nerf view range and remove the sky view, there doesn't seem to be a way to do counterbattery, anyway.)   If your goal is to make it possible for arty to survive and be effective after it has been spotted, you have to give them enough maneuverability to escape to cover, or enough armor to deflect some fire.

 

I think WG could have handled arty differently from the start, making it both more realistic and less aggravating.  It needs to be off the map; these guns fired at ranges measured in miles, and for most of them the entire width of a 1500m WOT map is less than their minimum firing distance.  So they ought to be sitting  5 km or so behind the battle area, with shell arcs and time of flight consistent with that range.  And that means they're not a playable class: you don't drive a Hummel onto the battlefield in WOT.  Instead, players would have the ability to call in off-map artillery fire similar to how it's done in Strongholds or Frontline.  Then, because every player would have the ability to use indirect fire, nobody would complain that it's unfair.  But there's just no way to get there from where we are now without taking away peoples' SPGs and the play style they've grown to like and thus, chasing away customers.



FrozenKemp #26 Posted Nov 02 2018 - 11:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 49165 battles
  • 8,136
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Nov 01 2018 - 23:36, said:

That wouldn't work, the server calculates all damage the same.  Tier x tank hits tier x tank = x xp and credits.  Tier x tank hits tier x+1 tanks = x xp and credits.  Having different parameters would cause server issues I think.  There's a lot of games being played at once and a lot of calculations.

 

XP is scaled based on your tank tier and the enemy vehicle tier.

thorus08 #27 Posted Nov 02 2018 - 13:02

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 26685 battles
  • 210
  • [WONKA] WONKA
  • Member since:
    12-28-2010

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Nov 01 2018 - 23:41, said:

 

It's at the point even WG refers to them as whiners.....that's pretty funny.  Not to mention WG keeps telling them it has a place in the game and will never be removed.  It is the players that must adapt, not the game.

 

There can be something wrong with change.....you can lose PAYING customers....of which we lost around 10k of after the arty nerf.  My wife being one of them.  Not a good thing, do we want to lose more?  The arty whiners will say yes because they are arty players while yet again being shortsighted and too stupid to realize that many are paying for them to play for free.

Sorry your wife found the change so negative that it outweighed the parts of the game she enjoyed.  I just want to point out though that many arty players do in fact give the exact advice to lose more.  "don't like it, play blitz!".

 

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Nov 01 2018 - 23:45, said:

 

I agree that part of the blame is on WG for caving, and they deserved to lose 10k paying players after they nearly ruined the class(especially the bat chat arty).

As for stun, it was necessary for the arty class to earn XP and credits because the XP/credit earning is pretty standard so they had to have another way to earn.  I'm glad stun annoys them, it's what the whiners deserve for being such crybabies.  NA has so many crybabies it's pathetic, they actually cry about sales and the stuff they get for free, it's insanity.  So glad I don't live there.

Yet just like the blitz option people that discuss balance often get thrown at them, you also have a choice.  You don't have to play on NA if other servers don't have "as many crybabies".  You have to remember, just like the OP that is discussing some balancing options, we all have investments made in the game.  Time, money, and friends over the years.  Those of us that are rational about balance(of any tank/class) are going to try and discuss it as an option that might make compromises, but not break either side's arguments or enjoyment of the game.  I find the OP's suggestions respectful and a good way to communicate ideas.  Not everyone is rational about it though...so you kind of have to filter that out.

 

I only post this because your posts, at least in this thread, are much more about players and posters rather than the suggestions or tank classes which is what a rational response would focus on.  



EmperorJuliusCaesar #28 Posted Nov 02 2018 - 13:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 31007 battles
  • 5,023
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostHeldar, on Nov 02 2018 - 13:38, said:

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Nov 02 2018 - 00:32, said:

 

Working EXACTLY as DESIGNED isn't broken....it's doing EXACTLY what it SHOULD be doing.  Learn some vocabulary.  The mechanic is fine....it was DESIGNED that way.  YOU have to ADAPT as it's not YOUR game.  It's WG's and they state it will ALWAYS be here and NEVER be removed.

 

It was designed to do exactly what its doing - and as such is not broken - true.

Its function in the game is radically different from every other entity in the game and does not follow the same rules every other class does - namely does damage while never needing to put itself into danger - and with no chance for the receiving player to respond in kind.  This makes it broken.
Just because something does what it was designed, as designed, doesnt mean its not broken.

 

"Its function in the game is radically different from every other entity in the game and does not follow the same rules every other class "

 

AS DESIGNED.....I.E. NOT BROKEN.

 

"namely does damage while never needing to put itself into danger - and with no chance for the receiving player to respond in kind"

 

Again, AS DESIGNED.  If they face no danger, then that is the fault of YOUR team for not reporting arty positions to your arty.  That, in no way is broken.

 

"Just because something does what it was designed, as designed, doesnt mean its not broken"

 

No, that means, by very definition......it is NOT BROKEN, it is working EXACTLY AS DESIGNED.  Learn some vocabulary. 



ProfessionalFinn #29 Posted Nov 02 2018 - 13:27

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 22405 battles
  • 1,088
  • Member since:
    02-23-2016

"The old artillery problem - a solution...."   NO
 

SPGs function as designed and as intended.  Arty remains unbroken.  As for me and, per WG, the silent WoT player majority:  Arty works great.



EmperorJuliusCaesar #30 Posted Nov 02 2018 - 14:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 31007 battles
  • 5,023
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostFrozenKemp, on Nov 02 2018 - 17:49, said:

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Nov 01 2018 - 23:36, said:

That wouldn't work, the server calculates all damage the same.  Tier x tank hits tier x tank = x xp and credits.  Tier x tank hits tier x+1 tanks = x xp and credits.  Having different parameters would cause server issues I think.  There's a lot of games being played at once and a lot of calculations.

 

XP is scaled based on your tank tier and the enemy vehicle tier.

 

That's EXACTLY what I said, just in maths to attempt to make it more obvious.  Having a separate calculation factor for one class would be dumb and would cause more stress on the server.



thorus08 #31 Posted Nov 02 2018 - 16:15

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 26685 battles
  • 210
  • [WONKA] WONKA
  • Member since:
    12-28-2010

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Nov 02 2018 - 08:50, said:

 

That's EXACTLY what I said, just in maths to attempt to make it more obvious.  Having a separate calculation factor for one class would be dumb and would cause more stress on the server.

 

In my experience with such things, different "factors", multipliers, or modifiers don't really add any stress to the system.  It's more likely that every tank has the same calculation(or equation if you like) run for it at the end of the battle, with the only differences being the modifiers from in-game performance and multipliers from a database.  If that's the case, there aren't any more or separate calculations needed, just a different multiplier for the vehicles that they might want this to affect would be pulled for that calculation.  The system doesn't "care" if it's pulling a 1, 2, or 3, or 100 from a spreadsheet, xml file, or more complex database.  It's just a number.  Now, if you were adding more to the equation itself, then certainly the resource calculation would go up, but changing a modifier/multiplier doesn't add parts to an equation, it's just substituting a number from a source it had to pull from anyway.  Creating a new equation to determine such things for each tank/class would be highly inefficient from a resource standpoint.  It's actually the point of most databases, not just to store information.

 

We do know that they use something similar for credit earnings for premium and non-premium tanks; as well as there being some evidence over the years that some premium tanks have a different "multiplier" than others for credit earnings.  Without seeing the background code, we obviously can't confirm it, but it is possible.  If that's the case, deciding to change multipliers for experience isn't actually something that would be that difficult.  In fact, they likely use something very similar with their background "soft stats" for vehicle performance, and most of those modifiers can be viewed on tanks.gg

 

I'm not arguing that it's a good idea, mind you.  I just have to manipulate and work with databases(more often than I want to) to accomplish similar goals in efficient ways.



Trauglodyte #32 Posted Nov 02 2018 - 17:20

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17043 battles
  • 2,695
  • [GSH] GSH
  • Member since:
    06-04-2016

View PostProfessionalFinn, on Nov 02 2018 - 13:27, said:

"The old artillery problem - a solution...."   NO
 

SPGs function as designed and as intended.  Arty remains unbroken.  As for me and, per WG, the silent WoT player majority:  Arty works great.

 

In actuality, artillery isn't functioning as designed or intended.  Artillery does work but it isn't doing so to the point of intent, as described to us by WarGaming.  Case in point, a WG dev went on record on the official site when the patch was released to say that they wanted artillery to NOT focus on singular targets.  Instead, they wanted artillery players to utilize the improved splash radius to focus on "packs" of players.  THAT was why the damage was reduced - pen was reduced to prevent and almost entirely eliminate 1-shot kills.  So, in reality-land, artillery rarely ever hits multiple targets because the splash isn't great enough to do that.  The splash isn't great enough to do that because the testing community raged at the original 20 meter splash radius screaming that the combination of damage, criticals, and the stun effect made the game not fun.  So, WG caved and reduced the splash.

 

What we have is a more consistent artillery that is still hunting single targets.  What's more, the added splash, improved reload, and improved aim time allow for players to RNG snap shot fast moving targets in a way that is inconsistent with how artillery has ever functioned in game or in reality.  There is a distinct difference between leading a target and hitting and quickly moving to an area on the other side of the map from which a player was originally targeting and putting a shot into a Light.

 

None of the above is to say that artillery needs to be nerfed.  Rather, things need to be changed around.

 

  1. Artillery needs to focus more on pack damage and less on single targets - I'd remove the current base round and add a new round with slightly less damage but with 50-60% more splash
  2. Artillery needs to have its soft stats for hull and turret rotation nerfed into the dirt and then compensated by the next option
  3. Artillery needs to have its aim time buffed to the hilt to compensate for nerfed soft stats
  4. SPG health should be on part with Light tanks so that
  5. Artillery should be able to, via a new 3rd round added, act as a ghetto TD so as to help the team in instances when their normal actions aren't the primary need or in the case of self defense

 

There is room to make artillery more.  The foundation is there but we keep kind of dancing around the overall problem.  As the OP said, you're NEVER going to get the anti-artillery crowd to accept indirect fire because it directly contradicts the aspect of FPS play.  But, you could get the anti-artillery crowd to buy in less single target damage and I'd be willing to bet that they'd also accept bigger splash radius IF it meant something being done with the double whammy of the stun effect and the ease of tracking tanks on splash.  To that last point, HE splash has a 100% chance to hit tracks.  Combining that with a daze effect is a bit of an issue.

 

Again, artillery isn't broken.  But, it would be naive of anyone to indicate that it is working as intended when it is clearly not working as publicly stated by the developers.



BillT #33 Posted Nov 02 2018 - 17:29

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 27067 battles
  • 4,496
  • [F-3] F-3
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Nov 02 2018 - 08:50, said:

View PostFrozenKemp, on Nov 02 2018 - 17:49, said:

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Nov 01 2018 - 23:36, said:

That wouldn't work, the server calculates all damage the same.  Tier x tank hits tier x tank = x xp and credits.  Tier x tank hits tier x+1 tanks = x xp and credits.  Having different parameters would cause server issues I think.  There's a lot of games being played at once and a lot of calculations.

 

XP is scaled based on your tank tier and the enemy vehicle tier.

That's EXACTLY what I said, just in maths to attempt to make it more obvious.  Having a separate calculation factor for one class would be dumb and would cause more stress on the server.

 

No,  it's not what you said.  You said that you earn x credits whether the target is your same tier or one tier higher.   X is a variable, but you can't have it mean two different things in the same context.  You really should have written it this way:

 

Tier N tank hits tier N tank = X xp and credits.  Tier N tank hits tier N+1 tanks = Y xp and credits, where Y > X,

 

I  honestly don't think having a separate calculation for arty would cause significant server load increase.  When you think of all the calculations servers have to do just to figure out where your tank moves in half a second -- figuring your tank's ground resistance, the terrain type and slope  at the exact point on the map you're at, your HP/wt ratio, acceleration, turning ability, what tree you knocked over and how much that slowed you down... and doing that simultaneously for  all 30 tanks in the  battle, many times per second.... compared to  that load, an even that  only happens once in 30 seconds (like an arty shot) doesn't even register.  You could make the calculations take twice as long and I don't think it would be noticeable  in terms of server load.

 

For comparison, consider camouflage.  Scout tanks retain their camo on the move, while no other class does.  WG did that by making camo two fixed values (moving and stationary) that the server has to pull from its cached data every time it calculates spotting against a tank.  Then they just give scout tanks the same moving camo as their stationary camo... easy peasy.  So if they made a variable "XP and Credits  per  damage done" and gave each tank its own value, it would be only half as much work as what's already being done for camo (or any other vehicle-specific calculation: accuracy, aim time, spotting distance, % chance for engine fire, you name it).

 

So I think it's definitely feasible -- but I add that I still don't like the idea of nerfing arty and then offsetting it by making the payout larger for less damage.   That will reinforce the people who say arty is just here to coddle bad player, and who insult arty players.  "You're so bad you need to get bonuses so you can keep up."   But worse than that... guys, I don't play these tanks to get XP and credits, I play them to blow stuff up and win battles.  If you make  a tank ineffective then it's just no fun to play.  

 

But the idea of a vehicle-specific bonus for XP and credits has merit in two ways I can see immediately:

1) That would let WG give an earnings bonus  to players who had to spend a long time in the MM queue, to compensate them for their wait.  "I had to wait over a minute to get into the battle, but that's OK because  I got a 20% bonus on top  of my personal reserves and premium bonus.  Sweet!"

2) WG could use this to help the tanks that statistically are awful.  Tanks like the Churchill Gun Carriage, for example, usually considered the worst tank in the game.  WG out to buff  it, but they refuse; but they could take some of the sting out of that awful grind by giving it, say, a 10% bonus on earnings in every battle.  That bonus could even be  mechanically calculated based on server data like the tank's overall win rate or average damage done server-wide.   It could also be applied to the overpowered tanks that have exceptionally high win rates; "The Obj 268-4 is winning 55% of its games for a 3-month average, so it's clearly OP, so now it only gets 90% of the credits/XP that an average Tier 10 gets."  It would be one more balancing factor to level the playing field, albeit, one with no combat impact.



BillT #34 Posted Nov 02 2018 - 18:47

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 27067 battles
  • 4,496
  • [F-3] F-3
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View PostTrauglodyte, on Nov 02 2018 - 11:20, said:

 

In actuality, artillery isn't functioning as designed or intended.  Artillery does work but it isn't doing so to the point of intent, as described to us by WarGaming.  Case in point, a WG dev went on record on the official site when the patch was released to say that they wanted artillery to NOT focus on singular targets.  Instead, they wanted artillery players to utilize the improved splash radius to focus on "packs" of players.  THAT was why the damage was reduced - pen was reduced to prevent and almost entirely eliminate 1-shot kills.  So, in reality-land, artillery rarely ever hits multiple targets because the splash isn't great enough to do that.  The splash isn't great enough to do that because the testing community raged at the original 20 meter splash radius screaming that the combination of damage, criticals, and the stun effect made the game not fun.  So, WG caved and reduced the splash.

 

 

That's a very interesting point and it implies many things.

 

WG never said anything about splashing packs of players back in 2011, and breaking up packs has nothing to do with the traditional "prevent camping" mission that WG has always claimed arty fills.   I'm hesitant to trust a single dev comment as a statement of WG's strategy, but if we accept this new statement as fact it means the 9.18 change didn't happen because arty wasn't working as intended: it happened because WG identified a new problem with game play and adapted arty to solve it.  They added a new job for the support class.   So maybe the change wasn't just an appeasement for arty haters, even if WG made it sound that way.

 

Second, the fact that arty currently rarely hits multiple targets doesn't mean it's failing to break  up packs.  So it could mean that arty has already succeeded in breaking up packs of tanks, because the WG devs don't consider  it a "pack" if the tanks aren't close enough so one arty shot hits 3 or more of  them.  (Admittedly, I don't think 9.18 changed how tightly people pack together here on NA, but maybe things were different in RU and  EU.)

 

(Obligatory war story: Last night I was on Abbey in my GW Tiger, spawned north, and went to A2 where I could shoot down the 1-2 line  to support the heavy side.  My team's heavies were slow getting  into position and the enemy pushed three tanks (a 50TP, T110E5, and Obj 268-4) all the way up to E1, where they got stopped by the arrival of my team's heavies.   I was getting multiple splash damage on almost every shot, and got the killing shots on all three of them -- and a Bombardier medal for killing the last two with the same shot.  My teammates did most of the damage to all three, but my stunning all three of them with every shot really put them at a disadvantage.  So that's an example of arty doing its new job as intended.   Oh, and that game was even more fun because I was being counterbatteried, too (and dodging it).  So not only was I dishing out  damage and assist, I was drawing fire that would have hurt my teammates.)

 

What would be perfect would be if arty were an off-map mechanism.  Then you could just say the arty player controls a battery of four guns.  Every thirty seconds or so all the guns in the battery fire and four rounds hit the target area in the course of a few seconds, then there's 30 seconds of silence while they reload.   Each round would be less harmful than what WOT's arty currently slings, and its burst radius could  be at pre-9.18 levels,  The barrage pattern would be larger than the arty's current aiming circle, and the odds of hitting a single tank with more  than one round would be small, so for the arty player to maximize his impact he has to focus on  groups of tanks.  (And with the battery being kilometers behind the red line, the shells  could fall at a steeper angle so hills and houses wouldn't be as much protection.  That would really punish people who want to play peek-a-boom... I guess you could say it would force a very active play style.)   The effect would be a lot like the  artillery barrage modules we got in Frontline, but with fewer shells and a much larger pattern.  To a single tank it's just a nuisance, but it would punish clusters.   But as I commented previously, I don't see any path  to such a fundamental change from the current SPGs that wouldn't anger a lot of customers.



Anublister #35 Posted Nov 02 2018 - 21:39

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 65725 battles
  • 630
  • [--T--] --T--
  • Member since:
    05-26-2013

Kudos to OP for a well presented and thought out post, but I personally don't see a major problem with SPG's and yes, I have played them all (except for the premi-french one).

 

They are good for game balance against super heavy tanks. They (try) to teach by example map awareness and the proper use of cover. They are as you say a strictly supportive tank class and the most dependent class by far. I don't think of them as the most fun to play, but they also don't require twitch reflexes and a constant need to poke and hide. They fit well with a laissez-faire play style, or just a desire not to be in the thick of battle all the time. I think of them as a non-caffeinated alternative for those players not wanting to go all-in for a battle. I also don't think they are the prime factor in winning or losing a battle, so those haters need to look in the mirror.

 

As an analogy if you drive a car you might not like buses or trucks, but they serve a roll in transportation. So OP, I disagree that there is any problem, less so an old one.



ArtemusGordon #36 Posted Nov 02 2018 - 23:31

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 4861 battles
  • 89
  • [W-UN2] W-UN2
  • Member since:
    02-17-2014

There is no way that an M44 should be given the same HP's as a T37, where it could absorb TWO clips from a Luchs and still laugh at him while he blows him away with a 1 shot for giggles.

Artillery is the literal definition of "Glass Cannon".  
 



Shortcult #37 Posted Nov 03 2018 - 05:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 37471 battles
  • 5,287
  • Member since:
    08-21-2012

OP I do like the WoWS view analogy idea.  I think the coding to make it another rebalance to the class is probably prohibitive.  I'm a big fan of anything that gets self defense back for SPG's.

 

I think there are a lot of bits and pieces of really good ideas in a lot of the presented posts.  Three types of ammo that are task specific, hell yeah.  Spotters on map with arty being off map, I like but think the presented numbers should be a little different.

 

In the end, the ideas that are easiest to put in are the ones I think will get a chance.



Zwinmar #38 Posted Nov 03 2018 - 14:35

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 16295 battles
  • 42
  • [80PRF] 80PRF
  • Member since:
    07-29-2011
Yall would be pissed if Arty actually got the overmatch mechanic....152 mm gun firing at a skorp g from 3m away..doesnt pen, yeah right.

13Jake55 #39 Posted Nov 03 2018 - 15:04

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 17318 battles
  • 460
  • Member since:
    02-02-2017
The one simple fix is to limit arty to 2 per battle. Getting focussed by 3 at a time is really annoying, espaicially when nobody else can hit you. Two I can live with but 3 (20% of tanks) is wrong.

Bavor #40 Posted Nov 03 2018 - 15:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 31871 battles
  • 2,984
  • Member since:
    04-21-2013

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Nov 01 2018 - 22:47, said:

Just FYI, WG said they are done making changes to arty.  All these changes do is make arty less useful and that isn't what the majority of players or WG wants.  Every poll reveals this.  It's in the game and it's the PLAYERS that must ADAPT to the game, NOT the game that must adapt to them.

 

THe problem isn't arty is less useful, its that 95% of pub battle arty players are useless.  They ignore the map and have no clue about target prioritization.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users