Jump to content


* * * - - 15 votes

[ST] Premium Ammo Rebalance


  • Please log in to reply
270 replies to this topic

strike_07 #21 Posted Dec 20 2018 - 20:31

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 45698 battles
  • 552
  • [-T1G-] -T1G-
  • Member since:
    11-30-2012

View Posttaugrim, on Dec 20 2018 - 13:26, 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.

 

Your solution is great but this generates another problem, is that if all the tanks came to use the 4 types of ammunition. In tier 8 onwards there is no problem because most of them are post WWII tanks and if they had accessibility to those munitions. It is a balanced solution but it remains to be investigated whether it is possible to do this or not

Markhamwaxers #22 Posted Dec 20 2018 - 20:35

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 18624 battles
  • 183
  • [BULBA] BULBA
  • Member since:
    07-14-2012
way to make the batchat more useless in this meta... i really hope this isn't implemented or damage is reduced by 10-15% as this is only gonna create more problems especially when there is no plan to nerf armour on super heavies...

YANKEE137 #23 Posted Dec 20 2018 - 20:39

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 11692 battles
  • 4,381
  • [6-ACR] 6-ACR
  • Member since:
    08-17-2015

View PostMarkhamwaxers, on Dec 20 2018 - 20:35, said:

way to make the batchat more useless in this meta... i really hope this isn't implemented or damage is reduced by 10-15% as this is only gonna create more problems especially when there is no plan to nerf armour on super heavies...

 

Yeah, could be a balance issue for lots of autoloaders.

Da_Craw #24 Posted Dec 20 2018 - 23:18

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 26635 battles
  • 3,129
  • [DOG5] DOG5
  • Member since:
    05-30-2014

View Postthandiflight, on Dec 20 2018 - 13:02, said:

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.

 

Except that Taugrim actually supports the change WG is making to give prammo a downside.  What he is railing against is the high cost of prammo.  From a game-play standpoint are you for lowering prammo damage or against it?

Da_Craw #25 Posted Dec 20 2018 - 23:21

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 26635 battles
  • 3,129
  • [DOG5] DOG5
  • Member since:
    05-30-2014

View PostMarkhamwaxers, on Dec 20 2018 - 13:35, said:

way to make the batchat more useless in this meta... i really hope this isn't implemented or damage is reduced by 10-15% as this is only gonna create more problems especially when there is no plan to nerf armour on super heavies...

 

If only there was a mixed magazine.

Seguita #26 Posted Dec 20 2018 - 23:38

    Captain

  • Players
  • 47617 battles
  • 1,227
  • [RUSH-] RUSH-
  • Member since:
    07-14-2012
The best way is teach too noob player angle armor correctly. I have never had problems with premium ammunition. A well-angled E-100 or maus can bounce almost everything.

Crypticshock #27 Posted Dec 21 2018 - 01:02

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 18288 battles
  • 582
  • [TROBS] TROBS
  • Member since:
    03-13-2011
  • I think 25-30% is too severe for some tanks, certainly 90mm guns. Tier 8 going against 3 or 4 or 5 tier 10's in the new MM system with be slinging bb's at large health pool tanks.
  • Tier 6 going up against Defenders... It really hurts the -2 in games. It's just going to create more want for +/-1 MM to be in the forefront of the matchmaker priority.
  • Also - Type 4/5 get 900a/75p HE with 750a/193p HESH. That is 17% - outside if the 25-30% change. 630a/193p would be better, no?
  • Whatever the changes come out to be, please don't make the snowflake ammo 300%+ on the cost of standard. 200% might even be pushing it, certainly if you lose 25-30% alpha
  • Sorry, I will never say "special" ammo. It is now, and forever, known as snowflake ammo. I know no snowflake is the same but with 25-30% reduction on top of +/-25% RNG no snowflake ammo many never be the same
  • Can we get lower RNG on the snowflakes damage? So it is a more consistent low damage; high big high rolls but no crazy low rolls. I'd fall off my chair if I am shooting a Maus for 135 damage roll in a Pershing.

 

10-20% maybe a more suitable damage reduction. I would also tone down some of the crazy boomsticks and then apply the 10-20% reduction. 



LieutenantGeneral_A #28 Posted Dec 21 2018 - 01:45

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 8772 battles
  • 132
  • [-GNZ-] -GNZ-
  • Member since:
    12-05-2014
What about Premium Tanks? If you don't Re-Balance those, you'll Break the Game. 

Crypticshock #29 Posted Dec 21 2018 - 02:10

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 18288 battles
  • 582
  • [TROBS] TROBS
  • Member since:
    03-13-2011

View PostLieutenantGeneral_A, on Dec 20 2018 - 17:45, said:

What about Premium Tanks? If you don't Re-Balance those, you'll Break the Game. 

 

...because it is a change to a core game mechanic the premium tanks will get the same treatment in regards to their snowflake ammo.

bravo9er #30 Posted Dec 21 2018 - 02:17

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 21997 battles
  • 489
  • [FATE] FATE
  • Member since:
    04-21-2013
I remember reading long time ago, a study done on premium ammo that said, on average, it effectively increases damage output by roughly 30% or so if you shoot nothing but prem ammo. Premium ammo that does less damage basically means net zero gain, so unless WG reduces the cost of premium rounds to be the same as standard rounds, I'm basically done paying for premium account and buying premium tanks (so that I can grind the credits to afford prem rounds).  I mean what's the point of paying so much credits to shoot premium ammo that has effectively been neutered to zero advantage, yet costs 10x more credits?  I might as well run standard account and shoot nothing but base rounds... and play nothing but super heavies,which are effectively getting a huge buff.

taugrim #31 Posted Dec 21 2018 - 03:19

    Sergeant

  • Community Contributor
  • 30491 battles
  • 214
  • [OTTER] OTTER
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013

View Poststrike_07, on Dec 20 2018 - 19:31, said:

 

Your solution is great but this generates another problem, is that if all the tanks came to use the 4 types of ammunition. In tier 8 onwards there is no problem because most of them are post WWII tanks and if they had accessibility to those munitions. It is a balanced solution but it remains to be investigated whether it is possible to do this or not

 

Easy solutions to this:

1. limit tanks to ammo types they had access to (if we want to focus on realism)

2. we could continue to allow up to 3 types of ammo in a loadout - it's the players decisions to choose which ammo types and how much of each

 

Again, tradeoff choices are what should be emphasized, not having some ammo cost more than others.



24_inch_pythons #32 Posted Dec 21 2018 - 05:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 26170 battles
  • 5,066
  • [-P-] -P-
  • Member since:
    03-28-2012

View Postbravo9er, on Dec 20 2018 - 19:17, said:

I remember reading long time ago, a study done on premium ammo that said, on average, it effectively increases damage output by roughly 30% or so if you shoot nothing but prem ammo. Premium ammo that does less damage basically means net zero gain, so unless WG reduces the cost of premium rounds to be the same as standard rounds, I'm basically done paying for premium account and buying premium tanks (so that I can grind the credits to afford prem rounds).  I mean what's the point of paying so much credits to shoot premium ammo that has effectively been neutered to zero advantage, yet costs 10x more credits?  I might as well run standard account and shoot nothing but base rounds... and play nothing but super heavies,which are effectively getting a huge buff.

 



Summers1000 #33 Posted Dec 21 2018 - 06:51

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 26328 battles
  • 188
  • [YOUJO] YOUJO
  • Member since:
    05-20-2012
Nice, a buff for already brain dead to play super heavy tanks. 

WileyCat #34 Posted Dec 21 2018 - 09:59

    Captain

  • Players
  • 30122 battles
  • 1,874
  • [K_UN7] K_UN7
  • Member since:
    02-09-2012

https://worldoftanks...57_Object_279R/ tanks like this exist and only for clans and thats [edited]stupid

 

every tech tree tank is cookie cutter bare minimum interesting and crapall around stats compared to these so called reward vehicles that the same top 20 clans have had a monopoly on since the rewards were even announced 

 

now those same [edited]ters are whining about this gold nerf because they cant press 2 to win anymore and they know they will be heard over everybody else I hope this game sincerely dies and regret all the time I ever spent on it because it hasnt and wont ever change the players are toxic the maps are linear 3 lane [edited]posts you have to pay irl money to progress or do anything and even doing that it takes years to get new crapthen they release broken prems and nerf them after a lot buy them 

 

and they remove the most played tanks from the tech tree and give them to us 6 years later as a [gift]

this company has no hope and all we can do is watch this train wreck happen



SparkyGT #35 Posted Dec 21 2018 - 16:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 47628 battles
  • 4,260
  • [-NHL-] -NHL-
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012
why not just limit every vehicles loadout of premium shells to a percentage of  total amount of shells carried

Crypticshock #36 Posted Dec 21 2018 - 17:55

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 18288 battles
  • 582
  • [TROBS] TROBS
  • Member since:
    03-13-2011

View PostWileyCat, on Dec 21 2018 - 01:59, said:

https://worldoftanks...57_Object_279R/ tanks like this exist and only for clans and thats [edited]stupid

 

Uhm. Obj 279 isn't a clan reward tank.

 

Block Quote

 now those same [edited]ters are whining about this gold nerf because they cant press 2 to win anymore

 

Nah. That ain't it. They know how to play the game and take advantages when someone makes the smallest error. The 2 2 is not why the top players are on the top. With these changes you could argue that these players can live longer in their strong positioned areas and take advantages longer. They know when and where to shoot - the ammo type means little unless they are in tanks that have really bad standard rounds. They can read and react to situations better than most players so they are always in a position to abuse positions for damage. They don't use 2 2 because they need it, they use it to avoid those -25% rolls on pen. Overtime after the changes are live, if they get added, the top of the top will still be the top of the top.



SKurj #37 Posted Dec 21 2018 - 22:17

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 13512 battles
  • 1,292
  • Member since:
    09-05-2010

still gives an advantage to those who can afford to pay for it...  It is still not an option...     to have a better chance at pen i have to pay more...    

 

I am with Taugrim on this one... 

 

And yeah... all the super heavies just got a buff in their life expectancy... this will need to be balanced as well...


Edited by SKurj, Dec 21 2018 - 22:18.


LordTankerRules #38 Posted Dec 21 2018 - 22:26

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 2155 battles
  • 30
  • Member since:
    12-26-2015

 

This is the DUMBEST idea WG has EVER had.  

 

A NERF to premium ammo is a BUFF to all ARMORED tanks and a NERF to all NON-ARMORED tanks.  

 

WG is BUFFING HEAVIES and SUPER-HEAVIES and NERFING lights and mediums.

 

Leave premium ammo alone and fix MM, maps and nerf ARTY.  Fix the REAL problems with the game. 



LordTankerRules #39 Posted Dec 21 2018 - 22:32

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 2155 battles
  • 30
  • Member since:
    12-26-2015

View Posttaugrim, on Dec 21 2018 - 03:19, said:

 

Easy solutions to this:

1. limit tanks to ammo types they had access to (if we want to focus on realism)

2. we could continue to allow up to 3 types of ammo in a loadout - it's the players decisions to choose which ammo types and how much of each

 

Again, tradeoff choices are what should be emphasized, not having some ammo cost more than others.

 

This is an ARCADE game and nobody cares about realism since most tanks are FAKE or were developed but never built.

 

Your recommendation is to leave it the way it is but make it all FREE?  

 

BRILLIANT!

 

 

WG should leave premium ammo alone or make it slightly more expensive.  

 

The REAL problems with this game are MM (3,5,7), ARTY and maps.  If you fix MM, design better maps and nerf ARTY this game would be FANTASTIC!

 

 

 

 

 

 



Eowen #40 Posted Dec 21 2018 - 23:44

    Private

  • Players
  • 18740 battles
  • 3
  • [E-201] E-201
  • Member since:
    12-04-2013
Si van a tomar en cuenta el exeso de uso de la municion especial una buena planteacion seria tambien poner un limite en cuantas se pueden cargar para cada tanque por ejemplo yo que no soy de recurrir mucho a la municion especial no suelo llevar mas de 10 piezas en mis tanques de tier 10 puesto que no siempre las llego a necesitar realmente sin envargo mirando streamings de algunos jugadores supuestamente "pros" me doy cuenta que lo que no tienen cargado en el tanque es municion normal o explociva si no que van completamente cargados con municion especial asi que ese tambien seria una buena manera de abordar dicho problema




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users