Jump to content


* * * - - 16 votes

[ST] Premium Ammo Rebalance


  • Please log in to reply
295 replies to this topic

DomoSapien #1 Posted Dec 20 2018 - 18:34

    Community Coordinator

  • Administrator
  • 14072 battles
  • 748
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    12-28-2012


 

Today we’re starting work on one of the hottest and the most discussed issues among those mentioned at WG Fest 2018: the overall 25–30% drop in damage for special rounds. We want to make the shell choice more thoughtful in every battle situation, and lower the damage dealt by special rounds(especially against well-armored targets).

 

It's worth noting that this is the very first testing iteration, aimed at general evaluation of our hypothesis described above.We'll start with a simple adjustment to Special Shell damage, without any adjustments to their cost.

 

We’ll conduct the Supertest with a limited selection of vehicles (a bit more than 30) to check:

  • the viability of the idea and the impact of its implementation on the game;
  • the effect lowering the special shells’ damage has on the total damage dealt;
  • the overall combat efficiency of the vehicles involved in testing.
     

Keep in mind, this decision isn't set in stone and will undergo additional changes and evaluations after the first wave of testing. Moving forward: we may change the amount of damage we slash off the special rounds, fine-tune the stats of individual vehicles, or enlarge the pool of tanks in the Supertest to gather even more data.

 

We will be keeping a close eye on Supertest feedback and Community feedback for all of these tests.

 

As for the testing pool, a variety of very different vehicles was selected—More variation in vehicle type will provide the most efficient data on the impact of this rebalance on battle stats. Vehicles with APCR as their basic rounds, will be receiving AP rounds with the same shell velocity in exchange. 

 

Conversely, vehicles with Special AP Rounds will receive APCR rounds in exchange. We’ll track the distribution of damage done per shell type, the changes in vehicles’ battle stats with regard to their class and role, as well as other parameters to ensure the changes will be a move in the right direction.

 

A few questions we hope to have answered after this test:

  1. How much will the special rounds’ damage (especially against well-armored targets) be reduced? This is one of the key areas the players on heavily armored vehicles asked us to address.
  2. How will the damage be re-distributed between the two other shell types? Our aim is to reduce the special rounds damage (against well-armored targets in particular). Thus the overall damage of other shell types could grow; we want to check whether it’s true during the test. We’ll monitor these parameters and modify them if needed.
  3. How will the share of HE shell damage change? Currently the total share of HE damage is small, and we don’t intend to change it. Overall, the combined special HE shell damage is mostly dealt by the Type 4 Heavy and the Type 5 Heavy tanks (we adjusted some stats of both of these for the test). The special round for the Type 5 Heavy will be substituted with a HESH with an alpha of 750 points and a penetration of 193 mm. During the tests, we’ll thoroughly monitor the changes in HE shells usage after the special rounds rebalance.
  4. How will the rebalance affect the battle performance of individual vehicles? We know that currently, certain tanks are played with a greater-than-average special to non-special rounds ratio, to increase their efficiency. So we want to assess how these vehicles’ performance changes.

 

Your feedback will be vital to ensuring that this ammunition rework is executed with the needs of our playerbase in mind.

 

On a personal note, I would also like to point out that you shouldn't let past experiences, stats, etc. discourage you from leaving feedback. We want information from all kinds of players, to make sure the transition is as comfortable as possible for as much of our audience as we can. 

You might have noticed all the Panhard EBR's running around on the live server lately. These are being tested in a live environment to make sure we get as much information and feedback on their performace as possible. With this in mind, I encourage you to leave your feedback about the ammo rework below; we're going to be conducting lots of testing so now is the time to have your opinion heard by our dev team.

 

FIRST ROUND OF VEHICLES: NEW VALUES

 


Edited by DomoSapien, Dec 20 2018 - 18:39.


Mikosah #2 Posted Dec 20 2018 - 18:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 17582 battles
  • 4,172
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

Agreed that lower alpha should be the compromise for the higher penetration. But there's two remaining issues of great importance:

 

1- Why is the price still so much higher than standard ammunition?

 

2- What are we going to do about superheavies and other tanks that demand gold-spam? 

 

In regards to the first point, I understand the sentiment that WG doesn't want gold shells to be treated as the new standard ammo type but the damage compromise should solve that problem at any rate. Even for the tanks that rely on armor, the reduced alpha is still giving them a good bargain. Perhaps even too good a bargain. And there's always the option of balancing 'durability' through hit points instead of armor. But for now, I can't stress enough that the price of the shell should be reduced along with the alpha.

 

And in regards to the second, we only got into this problem in the first place when the dev team decided that for armor to be 'relevant' it had to be idiot-proof. But armor can in fact have obvious weakspots and still work. The very instant that a player takes his reticle off center mass and has to aim for a particular weakspot instead, armor has served its purpose. As of our current situation, the superheavies are a very real problem and cannot be brushed aside. And if their armor isn't going to be changed then the concept of the gold shell being a different standard shell is the only alternative we see right now. Its to a point where the biggest ongoing complaints with MM really could be rephrased as- "I'm going to have to spend a ton of credits to get a good score this match." 

 

So in summation, reducing gold shell alpha is a good first step. Step two is reducing the price and essentially making the gold shell into an alternate standard shell. And step three is giving us some weakspots to shoot at so that we don't have to balance the entire game around the gold shells, which has been a lose-lose situation for everyone. 



24_inch_pythons #3 Posted Dec 20 2018 - 18:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 26666 battles
  • 5,149
  • [HSOLO] HSOLO
  • Member since:
    03-28-2012

Because the Maus, Type 5, T95, etc. etc. need so much help!

Won't someone please think of the poor Type 5.

 

 

**edit**

From a thread I started:

Show me on these stats where and why heavily armored tanks need help. Forget about people complaining that their feelings were hurt by being penned, how are heavily armored tanks "suffering" because of gold rounds?

 

 !!!This is Noobmeeter Data, not global!!! ----> https://www.noobmeter.com/tankStats/na <----- !!!This is Noobmeeter Data, not global!!!

 I'll give you the highlights, but you should look and digest the stats yourself.

 

 Tier X Heavy Tanks:

Games played varies from 103k to 4k. Recent winrate varies from 66% to 49.1%. Only two heavy tanks have a winrate below 50%, the T110E5 and the FV215b.

 

 Tier X Medium Tanks:

Games played varies from 138k to 0k. Recent winrate varies from 58.7% to 48.6%. Only two medium tanks have a winrate below 50%, the 121 and the T-62A.

 

 Tier X Light Tanks:

Games played varies from 82k to 12k. Recent winrate varies from 53.9% to 49.6%. Only one light tank has a winrate below 50%, the RHM Panzerwagen.

 

 Heavies are played a little less than mediums but have a better winrate. Mediums are played more than light tanks and have a better winrate. Light tanks are played the least and have the least winrate.

 

Heavy tanks (most heavily armored) -----> Highest winrate

Medium tanks (middle of the road armor) -----> Second highest winrate

Light tanks (least armor) ----> Lowest winrate.

Looks like there's a direct correlation between armor and winrate.

 

Bottom line is Heavy tanks are still being played a lot and are winning a lot. What's the problem?



hikerjon1 #4 Posted Dec 20 2018 - 18:54

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 35809 battles
  • 370
  • Member since:
    04-28-2013
I'm probably being naïve here, but I think the issues with "special" rounds have more to do with cost than damage dealt. If you lower the damage by 25%, that just means that a player has to fire 25% more special ammo do kill a tank. If you want players to rely more on regular rounds you not only have to reduce the efficiency of the special rounds, but make them cost prohibitive as well. Make spending 25% more on special rounds unreasonable and players will look more to HE or regular rounds into weak spots. Lower the cost or HE/regular rounds or greatly increase the price of special rounds. Give well-armored tanks weak spots that standard rounds have at least a chance to penetrate. Otherwise, the plan to reduce damage to special rounds will only increase how often they are fired.

Edited by hikerjon1, Dec 20 2018 - 19:20.


taugrim #5 Posted Dec 20 2018 - 18:56

    Sergeant

  • Community Contributor
  • 30742 battles
  • 217
  • [OTTER] OTTER
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013

Before talking about any solution, it's key to understand the two issues with premium ammo in its current state:

1. it is a huge credit sink that puts pressure on the player to spend real money on things (e.g. premium subscription, premium tanks) to boost their credit income

2. it invalidates the heavy armor of tanks, while leaving those tanks having to deal with all the downsides of bearing heavy armor (poor mobility, poor hull traverse, poor turret traverse, etc)

 

I'm going to focus on #1 above, because the proposed solution fails to address it.

 

Reducing the alpha on premium ammo, but still retaining the high cost, does not at all fix the "pay for advantage" (P4A) problem. There are many cases where the silver round won't penetrate, and even if you reduce the damage on the premium round, you're basically forcing the decision: 0 damage or some damage at a higher cost.

 

Anything that requires customers to pay more for particular ammo is a credit sink and therefore favors paying customers. It's incredibly unhealthy for F2P players, which keep a population healthy and may convert to paying customers.

 

Literally zero MMO PVP games with meaningful populations - and I do mean zero - support a "magic arrow that costs more" mechanic like WoT does. It's incredibly unhealthy for the game's population and gives WoT a bad reputation.

 

The best solution would for WoT to adopt a system like what Armored Warfare implemented:

I. all rounds cost roughly the same - therefore no P4A issue
II. all rounds have tradeoffs, so it forces decisions on the player based on the target

 

E.g.:
A. APCR: highest pen, low damage
B. AP: high pen, medium damage
C. HEAT: med pen, high damage
D. HE: low pen, highest damage

 

This is the most fair system for all players, paying or F2P.


Edited by taugrim, Dec 20 2018 - 19:05.


t8z5h3 #6 Posted Dec 20 2018 - 18:56

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 39462 battles
  • 1,121
  • [FUSON] FUSON
  • Member since:
    04-23-2013
I think the damage of the type 5 will go up because of the nature of HE to roll damage all over the board from like 100 to well over 1400 damage

DJFoxPY #7 Posted Dec 20 2018 - 19:11

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 37393 battles
  • 5
  • [-T1G-] -T1G-
  • Member since:
    01-03-2015
I hope that as the damage from premium bullets decreases, penetrations will increase... Why there tender X, that shame their penetration and damage...

JakeTheMystic #8 Posted Dec 20 2018 - 19:14

    Captain

  • Players
  • 22907 battles
  • 1,678
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    12-30-2011

If these nerfs reach the live server, I will leave the game for good. 

 

Seriously, you dare touch my KV-2 in any way and i'm out. Most of the proposed changes coming 2019 are dumb as is, but from the looks of these stats, things are just getting worse. 



hikerjon1 #9 Posted Dec 20 2018 - 19:24

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 35809 battles
  • 370
  • Member since:
    04-28-2013

View Posttaugrim, on Dec 20 2018 - 17:56, said:

Before talking about any solution, it's key to understand the two issues with premium ammo in its current state:

1. it is a huge credit sink that puts pressure on the player to spend real money on things (e.g. premium subscription, premium tanks) to boost their credit income

2. it invalidates the heavy armor of tanks, while leaving those tanks having to deal with all the downsides of bearing heavy armor (poor mobility, poor hull traverse, poor turret traverse, etc)

 

I'm going to focus on #1 above, because the proposed solution fails to address it.

 

Reducing the alpha on premium ammo, but still retaining the high cost, does not at all fix the "pay for advantage" (P4A) problem. There are many cases where the silver round won't penetrate, and even if you reduce the damage on the premium round, you're basically forcing the decision: 0 damage or some damage at a higher cost.

 

Anything that requires customers to pay more for particular ammo is a credit sink and therefore favors paying customers. It's incredibly unhealthy for F2P players, which keep a population healthy and may convert to paying customers.

 

Literally zero MMO PVP games with meaningful populations - and I do mean zero - support a "magic arrow that costs more" mechanic like WoT does. It's incredibly unhealthy for the game's population and gives WoT a bad reputation.

 

The best solution would for WoT to adopt a system like what Armored Warfare implemented:

I. all rounds cost roughly the same - therefore no P4A issue
II. all rounds have tradeoffs, so it forces decisions on the player based on the target

 

E.g.:
A. APCR: highest pen, low damage
B. AP: high pen, medium damage
C. HEAT: med pen, high damage
D. HE: low pen, highest damage

 

This is the most fair system for all players, paying or F2P.

 

​^This. I think this fits well with the variety offered in the game, as well. Give players options for setting up their tanks that don't require a premium account. Level the playing field for all, give players good options, remove the P2W aspect from ammo. 

 

Well done, Taugrim!



BillDing1 #10 Posted Dec 20 2018 - 19:26

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 7028 battles
  • 415
  • Member since:
    03-01-2014
This is prob the worst change to wot I've seen in a wile nerfing prem without nerfing armor. I'll probably give wot one or two patches to try and fix it then be done I'm not going to wait 1/2 a year for the balance team to realize that they don't know what they're doing.

YANKEE137 #11 Posted Dec 20 2018 - 19:27

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 12014 battles
  • 4,715
  • [6-ACR] 6-ACR
  • Member since:
    08-17-2015
You want to get away from the pay to win tag, but if premium rounds still cost more they will always be open to the pay 2 win charge. If it costs the same but does less damage, then it's just a choice.  One round optimized for damage, another for pen, same price. 
Now that doesn't address all our other concerns directly but it may be a good start.
Rationing rounds is one scheme, but a lot people hate the idea that their T-54 will only get 6 HEAT rounds.  Personally I could live with rationing, at least in same tier MM, but in the current tier 8 versus tier ten meta you legitimately need a lot of gold ammo or you are only there for the tens to stat pad. 

I recall from my tabletop gaming days that tank ammo  was basically two types : KE or kinetic energy rounds which had highest pen at close ranges and like WoT  their pen drops as the range opens up.   Then  Chemical energy rounds which relied on an explosive to do constant damage at any range you could hit at (HEAT,HE). The trade off though for HEAT was that just as in real life, it didn't always detonate where it could do damage or even detonate at all. The rules we used had a 5% dud rate.

WoT already models spaced armor, so they could factor in a dud rate- so you'd have AP and HEAT to chose from at the same cost with the heat rounds suffering from higher RNG.

So no easy answers.


Everlasting_Chungus #12 Posted Dec 20 2018 - 19:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 32848 battles
  • 4,854
  • [200IQ] 200IQ
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013
Moderated by Volier_Zcit

Edited by Volier_Zcit, Dec 22 2018 - 07:20.


YANKEE137 #13 Posted Dec 20 2018 - 19:36

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 12014 battles
  • 4,715
  • [6-ACR] 6-ACR
  • Member since:
    08-17-2015
If the infamous light tank rebalance is any indication, we could end up with armor rebalanced tech tree heavies and  over armored un-nerfable premium heavies - nobody will be happy about that.  Well, almost nobody.

ThatTrafficCone #14 Posted Dec 20 2018 - 19:45

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 39640 battles
  • 127
  • [200IQ] 200IQ
  • Member since:
    06-11-2011

View Posttaugrim, on Dec 20 2018 - 10:56, said:

The best solution would for WoT to adopt a system like what Armored Warfare implemented:

I. all rounds cost roughly the same - therefore no P4A issue
II. all rounds have tradeoffs, so it forces decisions on the player based on the target

 

E.g.:
A. APCR: highest pen, low damage
B. AP: high pen, medium damage
C. HEAT: med pen, high damage
D. HE: low pen, highest damage

 

This is the most fair system for all players, paying or F2P.

 

These are essentially my own conclusions in regards to ammunition. However, I would suggest going further.

 

Two years ago, I actually wrote and submitted a 30-something page essay detailing some of the key issues with the game and some suggestions on how to fix them. On the topic of damage and health, my central focus was making the game more predictable (RNG aside). There are guns of different caliber sizes dealing different amounts of damage, and tanks at lower tiers are able to die so much quick than those at higher tiers. This is a very inconsistent model, and I think making damage dealt more predictable for players would only benefit the gameplay and game mechanics. It's outdated (I wrote this before Patch 9.15) but I could get around to updating the essay and presenting it again to Wargaming if they're interested.


 

Talking about gun damage. To calculate this, I used a simple rule that a Tier X medium tank should be able to destroy itself with an average of 6 shells. This is more or less true already at Tier X. Assuming a tank with 3000 HP, that equals 500 damage. I used the ever-popular 105 mm as a point of reference, but rounded down to 100 mm for simplicity. I also calculated that a 25 mm increase in gun caliber should equal around 200 points of damage, or a 1 mm increase in shell caliber would be equal to 8 points of damage, and rounded up to the nearest tenth. With this, I got the following:

  • A 250 mm AP shell should deal on average 1700 damage
  • A 225 mm AP shell should deal on average 1500 damage
  • A 200 mm AP shell should deal on average 1300 damage
  • A 175 mm AP shell should deal on average 1100 damage
  • A 150 mm AP shell should deal on average 900 damage
  • A 125 mm AP shell should deal on average 700 damage
  • A 100 mm AP shell should deal on average 500 damage
  • A 75 mm AP shell should deal on average 300 damage
  • A 50 mm AP shell should deal on average 100 damage
  • Sub-50 mm AP shells should deal less than 100 damage, at 2 damage per 1 mm

 

Now, here are some common shell calibers I've calculated. Feel free to calculate your own.

  • A 155 mm AP shell would do on average 940 damage.
  • A 152 mm AP shell would do on average 920 damage.
  • A 128 mm AP shell would do on average 720 damage.
  • A 122 mm AP shell would do on average 680 damage.
  • A 120 mm AP shell would do on average 660 damage.
  • A 105 mm AP shell would do on average 540 damage.
  • A 88 mm AP shell would do on average 400 damage.
  • A 76 mm AP shell would do on average 310 damage.
  • A 75 mm AP shell would do on average 300 damage.
  • A 57 mm AP shell would do on average 160 damage.
  • A 37 mm AP shell would do on average 75 damage.
  • A 20 mm AP shell would do on average 40 damage.

 

Now moving on to health, where those damage values can later be applied. Admittedly, the following rules are a little arbitrary. But with simple trial and error, I feel these are appreciable. Let's assume the following is true.

  • A Medium Tank should have on average 25% less HP than a Heavy Tank of the same tier
  • A Light Tank should have on average 50% less HP than a Heavy Tank of the same tier
  • A Tank Destroyer should have between the average HP of a Medium Tank and a Heavy Tank of the same tier
  • A Self-Propelled Gun should have on average 75% less HP than a Heavy Tank of the same tier

 

At Tier X, I've worked out the following.

  • The average HT has 4000 HP
  • The average MT has 3000 HP
  • The average LT has 2000 HP
  • The average SPG has 1000 HP
  • TDs can have anywhere between 3000 and 4000 HP
  • Account for a +/- 10% bound of HP, with exceptions (for example, the TOG II*)

 

With these new rules, we can calculate the health of all tiers and work out some examples. However, I will add a rule that as we go down in the tiers, the average HP for a Heavy Tank goes down 400 HP with tier, until we reach Tier III, where it goes down 300 HP. As there's more Light Tanks at these lower tiers, I also went and started assuming that Light Tanks have 25% less HP than a Medium Tank of the same tier.

 

At Tier X, the average HP of a HT is 4000

  • The average MT has 3000 HP
  • The average LT has 2000 HP
  • The average SPG has 1000 HP
  • TDs can have anywhere between 3000 and 4000 HP

At Tier IX, the average HP of a HT is 3600

  • The average MT has 2700 HP
  • The average LT has 1800 HP
  • The average SPG has 900 HP
  • TDs can have anywhere between 2700 and 3600 HP

At Tier VIII, the average HP of a HT is 3200

  • The average MT has 2400 HP
  • The average LT has 1600 HP
  • The average SPG has 800 HP
  • TDs can have anywhere between 2400 and 3200 HP

At Tier VII, the average HP of a HT is 2800

  • The average MT has 2100 HP
  • The average LT has 1400 HP
  • The average SPG has 700 HP
  • TDs can have anywhere between 2100 and 2800 HP

At Tier VI, the average HP for a HT is 2400

  • The average MT has 1800 HP
  • The average LT has 1200 HP
  • The average SPG has 600 HP
  • TDs can have anywhere between 1800 and 2400 HP

At Tier V, the average HP for a HT is 2000

  • The average MT has 1500 HP
  • The average LT has 1000 HP
  • The average SPG has 500 HP
  • TDs can have anywhere between 1500 and 2000 HP

At Tier IV, the average HP for a HT is 1600

  • The average MT has 1200 HP
  • The average LT has 800 HP
  • The average SPG has 400 HP
  • TDs can have anywhere between 1200 and 1600 HP

At Tier III, the average HP for a HT is 1300

  • The average MT has 980 HP (rounded up from 975)
  • The average LT has 740 HP (rounded up from 735)
  • The average SPG has 330 HP (rounded up from 325)
  • TDs can have anywhere between 980 and 1300HP

At Tier II, the average HP for a HT is 1000

  • The average MT has 750 HP
  • The average LT has 560 HP (rounded down from 562)
  • The average SPG has 250 HP
  • TDs can have anywhere between 750 and 1000 HP

At Tier I, the average HP for a HT is 700

  • The average MT has 530 HP
  • The average LT has 400 HP (rounded up from 397)
  • The average SPG has 180 HP (rounded up from 175)
  • TDs can have anywhere between 530 and 700 HP

 

Now, with ALL of this together, let's calculate some engagements.

Currently, if we pit a T32 (Tier VIII HT) up against a M4A3E2 (Tier VI MT)…

  • The T32 takes 2.4 shots to eliminate the M4A3E2’s 770 HP with its 320 damage 105 mm gun
  • The M4A3E2 takes 13.5 shots to eliminate the T32’s 1550 HP with its 115 damage 76 mm gun

In my proposed system, however…

  • The T32 takes 3.3 shots to eliminate the average Tier VI MT with its 540 damage 105 mm gun
  • The M4A3E2 takes 10.3 shots to eliminate the average Tier VIII HT with its 310 damage 76 mm gun

 

It’s important to realize here that the Tier VI MT now has a better chance of surviving against the Tier VIII HT, and makes itself a bigger threat in return. This isn’t a nerf to HTs, mind, rather it’s a way to give lower tiered tanks a better chance to fight against higher-tiered opponents. This will hopefully decrease the amount of complaints about the +2/-2 MM and create a better experience for newer players. It should also put greater emphasis on armor, penetration, and shell choice.

Currently, if we pit a T-50 (Tier IV LT) up against a Cromwell (Tier VI MT)…

  • The T-50 takes 13.6 shots to eliminate the Cromwell’s 750 HP with its 55 damage 45 mm gun
  • The Cromwell takes 2.6 shots to eliminate the T-50’s 360 HP with its 135 damage 75 mm gun

In my proposed system, however…

  • The T-50 takes 20 shots to eliminate the average Tier VI MT with its 90 damage 45 mm gun
  • The Cromwell takes 2.6 shots to eliminate the average Tier IV LT with its 300 damage 75 mm gun

 

It’s important to note here that the Cromwell has about a firing rate of around 15.4 rounds per minute, while the T-50 fires closer to 30 rounds per minute. So while 20 rounds might seem like a terrible nerf, it really isn't. However, this demonstrates LTs being less effective damage-dealers, as they should be in my opinion, especially when scouting starts to really become important. In a direct engagement they are better suited to be annoyances, not game-carriers. Meanwhile, the amount of shells it takes the Cromwell to eliminate a typical Tier IV LT is unchanged.

Currently, if we pit a T-54 (Tier IX MT) up against a Panther (Tier VII MT)…

  • The T-54 takes 4.1 shots to eliminate the Panther’s 1300 HP with its 320 damage 100 mm gun
  • The Panther takes 11 shots to eliminate the T-54’s 1650 HP with it 150 damage 75 mm gun

In my proposed system, however…

  • The T-54 takes 4.2 shots to eliminate the average Tier VII MT with its 500 damage 100 mm gun
  • The Panther takes 9 shots to eliminate the average Tier IX MT with its 300 damage 75 mm gun

 

Again, this shows that the lower-tiered opponent stands a better chance against the higher-tiered opponent, while still keeping the amount of shots necessary for a higher-tiered tank to destroy a lower-tiered tank the same, if not requiring one or two extra shells. This better balances the two tanks between the +2/-2 MM spread.


 

I think and would hope that these changes, at the very least, would make the game a little more predictable and in fact make the game less punishing for lower-tiered tanks, especially when up against higher tiers. And this is just a fraction of my original paper of suggestions: I also cover SPGs, different shell types, HE splash, and more. It's a whole lot more formal than Quickybaby's video, but I think even after two years it may have some solutions to some of the problems he raises. I could get around to updating it for 2019 and re-releasing it if anyone's interested.



Nefermandias #15 Posted Dec 20 2018 - 19:53

    Captain

  • Players
  • 33008 battles
  • 1,481
  • [NUFFS] NUFFS
  • Member since:
    09-11-2011

A lot of my friends still refuse to play WoT because of premium ammo. The game's ridiculed for it and back in fochgate a lot of people heard the name "Premium ammo" and rightfully tore the concept to shreds. WoT is the only game with this dumb "feature" and it actively damages both gameplay and reputation.

 

My main gripe is that there's no serious drawback for premium ammo besides "losing" credits. When some tier 10s can fire premium ammo (with premium account) exclusively and still pull a profit something's off with the concept. Nerfing damage is an option, but that opens up lots of other questions and issues. The problem now becomes because of Wargaming's long time refusal to balance vehicles based on the presence of premium ammo (and in some egregious examples over buffing tanks with new premium shells coughtype5cough) what will now happen with damage reductions. Will some superheavies be more powerful with the nerfs to premium ammo's damage and dominate the field? This remains to be seen. This test should not be restricted to merely supertesters, this needs to be the subject of an open Sandbox Server test.

 

The way I see it premium ammo should not be present in guns with 240 or higher base penetration on a standard round. So basically completely nonexistent on every tier 10 tanks. Why do tier 10 tanks have to have premium ammo at all? In a supposed "skill level" where people should *ideally* know their vehicles strengths and weaknesses and should know when and where to aim when the time comes to pull the trigger.

Or rather if a tank damages something with a premium round the next shot the offender receives should be a max damage roll of that particular shell. I mostly just want people to be punished for rampant spam.

 

 


Edited by Nefermandias, Dec 20 2018 - 20:06.


Da_Craw #16 Posted Dec 20 2018 - 20:02

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 26685 battles
  • 3,142
  • [DOG5] DOG5
  • Member since:
    05-30-2014

View Posthikerjon1, on Dec 20 2018 - 11:54, said:

I'm probably being naïve here, but I think the issues with "special" rounds have more to do with cost than damage dealt. If you lower the damage by 25%, that just means that a player has to fire 25% more special ammo do kill a tank. If you want players to rely more on regular rounds you not only have to reduce the efficiency of the special rounds, but make them cost prohibitive as well. Make spending 25% more on special rounds unreasonable and players will look more to HE or regular rounds into weak spots. Lower the cost or HE/regular rounds or greatly increase the price of special rounds. Give well-armored tanks weak spots that standard rounds have at least a chance to penetrate. Otherwise, the plan to reduce damage to special rounds will only increase how often they are fired.

 

Making the rounds even more expensive is a meta-game fix to an intra-game problem.  If expense is not factored in, the special rounds are still always* better than regular AP.  It turns out that there are a lot of people who have the credits to fire as much prammo as they want, because they are willing to buy premium time and premium tanks (me) or they have just played long enough to amass more credits than they could ever use.  For those people, there is no real choice.  Use the advantage of prammo.  It is a pay for advantage situation.  Raising the price just makes it even more so. 

 

Good game design requires meaningful choices.  HE vs. AP is good game design.  Fighting against a heavy in the early game, I want AP to punch through his weakspots.  Fighting against a light tank I want HE to possibly get through his armor for massive damage but also to track him and take away his mobility.  APCR vs. AP is bad game design.  APCR is always better.  Yes, it costs more but that is a consideration for the garage, not the battle.  If I'm sitting on 20million credits and a year of premium time, I don't give a rat's [edited]about the cost, I'm firing APCR.  If APCR does less damage, the cost is irrelevant.  I might want to fire AP instead.  Do I lower my chance to pen in exchange for more potential damage?  Back to good game design.  

 

* Yes, there are corner cases where AP is better than prammo.  Outside of spaced armor eating HEAT, they are few and far between.



thandiflight #17 Posted Dec 20 2018 - 20:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 82041 battles
  • 4,199
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    07-10-2011
A change to "premium ammo" represents a buff to every heavily armoured tank and a nerf to the rest. It fundamentally alters game-play by being more forgiving to poor play in heavily armoured heavy tanks and raises the skill-cap considerably on other tanks. Effectively - in combination with predictable corridor maps - it makes game play more predictable and uninteresting. Essentially, Wargaming, this is a terrible idea. Taugrim has offered the best solution. Whilst others have offered more complex solutions, Taugrim's solution is essentially Occam's Razor.

MagillaGuerilla #18 Posted Dec 20 2018 - 20:13

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 25440 battles
  • 4,077
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostJakeTheMystic, on Dec 20 2018 - 19:14, said:

If these nerfs reach the live server, I will leave the game for good. 

 

Seriously, you dare touch my KV-2 in any way and i'm out. Most of the proposed changes coming 2019 are dumb as is, but from the looks of these stats, things are just getting worse. 

 

Don't worry, with 500 tanks it should only take them 100 years or so to crunch the numbers.

YANKEE137 #19 Posted Dec 20 2018 - 20:16

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 12014 battles
  • 4,715
  • [6-ACR] 6-ACR
  • Member since:
    08-17-2015
KV 5 can't pen anything with it's standard round currently,  so if you nerf the gold round you need to buff the standard round to a realistic level. Chrysler K has the same problem.

Tibbs_ #20 Posted Dec 20 2018 - 20:27

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 15110 battles
  • 165
  • Member since:
    07-08-2013

One key aspect of this game that I have not seen mentioned is RNG.

You can low roll or high roll for damage plus or minus 25%.

Add that to a 25% damage nerf and you may be looking at a 50% lower than standard damage "special" round!

Not acceptable unless you want to see 15 Type 5s vs. 15 E-100s shooting HE at each other.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users