Jump to content


* * * - - 15 votes

[ST] Premium Ammo Rebalance


  • Please log in to reply
270 replies to this topic

TrevorsT112 #221 Posted Jan 10 2019 - 19:30

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 5794 battles
  • 77
  • Member since:
    10-31-2017

View Postlatvius, on Jan 10 2019 - 18:21, said:

 

First off your making this personal and personal attacks are against the forum rules.  This is my last response to you as most of your examples don't make sense to me and when I respond to them you tell me that it is off topic.

I'll take that part you wrote about the tier 10 vs the tier 8 and respond.  Some tier 8 tanks armor can bounce some tier 10's AP ammo, how it is fair to the tier 8 player who is angling his armor effectively against the tier 10 who is just going to bypass that with firing all premium shells?  The ammo nerf would reward the tier 8's effective use of armor and punish the tier 10 for using premium rounds when he could do more damage with AP if he figured out a way to pen the tier 8 with it.

 

 

I apologize if you have taken anything I said personal. I am just trying to understand how I would have any advantage over you if we were to meet in battle today. Unless I misunderstood you, that is what I think you we're saying. I can't see how I could come out on top unless I was able to catch you while you we're preoccupied with another player. But that can happen regardless of the amount of experience you have. What I understand from your previous post is that unless ammo gets a nerf, the new players here are going to be beating up on the experienced players, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me and is why I would say anyone feeling like that might be playing a little above their level and should maybe roll it back until they get more comfortable. I know I am playing a little above my level at tier VIII, but I need to grind my crews so it is probably still a lot faster then doing it in a much lower tier. I have no problems with the loses I am taking while doing that though and accept it as part of the games learning curve. 

 

To expand on the example you gave, you are right, some tier VIII armor can bounce a shot from a tier X, but a lot of it can't. As well, APCR ammo can also be bounced, and in fact, APCR has a smaller normalization angle. Regardless, while all of the issues you raise might come into play, making the less experienced player face opponents that he cannot PEN regardless of angle or ammo type is more of a certainty. One of the major benefits I have gotten from the premium tier VIII tanks I have is that it has shown me just how much more I have to learn and experience to be really comfortable playing higher tiers. I know first hand how hard it is to battle someone in a tier X tank, while I am in a tier VIII. If the object is to keep game play interesting for anyone participating in random battles, which are supposed to be the bare bones matches, then Wargaming needs to include in their considerations everyone that has not yet reached tier X. If the object of the game is to draw people in so that they can play the target practice tanks as a way of enriching the gaming experience of people already at tier X, then yeah, making the game harder for the less experienced players makers sense. 



1_Cyber_Sniper #222 Posted Jan 10 2019 - 19:43

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 65778 battles
  • 27
  • [TAC-D] TAC-D
  • Member since:
    06-09-2014
Should work on a the match making a tier 8 tank in a tier 10 battle with super heavies and premium ammo is a hot topic Really !!!

REDENG #223 Posted Jan 10 2019 - 22:50

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 24778 battles
  • 39
  • [REDU] REDU
  • Member since:
    09-06-2015

View Post1_Cyber_Sniper, on Jan 10 2019 - 19:43, said:

Should work on a the match making a tier 8 tank in a tier 10 battle with super heavies and premium ammo is a hot topic Really !!!

 

The focus of this forum is premium ammo as  WG wants feedback before they change it AKA look at the title lol

Edited by REDENG, Jan 10 2019 - 22:51.


Bronco272 #224 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 00:45

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 18734 battles
  • 8
  • Member since:
    10-05-2014

View Postlatvius, on Jan 10 2019 - 15:28, said:

 

How does one fire more than 100% premium shells?  Players already spend more than than the ingame economy supports on gold rounds by using real money in order to have all gold load outs.  I use gold/premium rounds judiciously and always have because of the cost, raising the cost will make me be even more stringent and less competitive than the all gold player who will pay whatever in order to be the "best".

So making premium rounds more expensive either flat or increasing will make it even more pay to win (or pay to pen easier).

Please explain why you do not want shell types having some type of balance like everything else in the game tries to do?

The game tries to balance Tanks, tank classes, maps, match makeup, consumables, skills, and equipment, why not shell type?  Their is a shell that is clearly superior to the others which is why it is spammed, please nerf it (i.e balance them).

 

So to break everything down:

1.) Players cannot fire more than 100% of a load out, regardless of whether it is premium or not (I think we both understand this).  The problem is that once the damage of premium rounds are decreased, people will beg for the cost to be lower (which enables players to use premium rounds more freely) and/or increase the number of shells in a tank to compensate for the loss in potential damage (which allows for players to load more premium and negate the 25% decrease in shell damage by simply carrying more shells).

2.) The theory behind the Staggered-Cost System is that is not supposed to punish players who "judiciously" fire premium rounds.  For players that fire premium rounds only when necessary, the cost will be relatively the same.  It is intended to punish the players who will take a full premium ammunition load out, and as you say, some idiots will still pay the price to have a fully premium ammunition load out.  However, the whales lose because they need to pay larger sums of money to be competitive with players like us, and I like to think that the number of player who use full premium ammunition load outs are a small minority.

3.) It is only pay for advantage for the people who fire large amounts of premium.  As a said above, the theory is that the people who use premium rounds responsibly/"judiciously" will see little change to their credit income.  However, players that use a premium-spam tactic will pay significantly more for the "advantage(?)" of a mainly premium load out and their irresponsibility.  

4.) There are several reasons as to why there probably shouldn't be any change to the statistics of premium rounds: a.) All tanks, especially heavily armored tanks, in the game have been balanced around premium rounds, so any change to premium shells would also have to be reflected in rebalancing the 500+ tanks already in the game.  b.) Nerfing either penetration or damage will lead to lower costs for premium shells and/or expanded ammunition capacities (which I outline above along with some of the ensuing consequences).  c.) premium rounds are often a helpful tool used by more inexperienced players.  If the premium shells are rebalanced, they will be less helpful, and it will be more difficult for inexperienced players to fight effectively.

I hope this helps explain some of my logic on premium rounds.



Bronco272 #225 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 01:31

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 18734 battles
  • 8
  • Member since:
    10-05-2014

View PostTrevorsT112, on Jan 10 2019 - 18:59, said:

 

 

Great posts guys. Personally, the more I listen in on these discussion, the more I think that most of the complaints being voiced are not really warranted. In a lot of cases, it almost seems like people are complaining that they lost a match without considering the real reason why. I mean if we think about it, the common complaint seems to be that people are spamming gold rounds, which implies to me that the people making the complaint think that gold rounds are being used when there is no need to actually use them. Well if this is the case, then there is no reason to complain because the person using the gold rounds would have PEN'd his opponent anyway. And since there is no difference in the amount of damage dealt between AP and APCR, what is the major crisis? Other then the extra credits used to shot gold rounds, how is the Heavy tank jockey being abused? Is the complaint that Wargaming is making money off the game? If on the other hand, an AP shell won't go through, isn't that the reason you would use an APCR round? So why is that spam? And there is no guarantee that the an APCR round will go through either if the opponent you are shooting at is a super Heavy and you have to hit an area so small that you need 25x magnification just to see it.

 

One of the other contributors here brought up the Type 5 Heavy as the basis for his argument. Sure the Type 5 is a little OP, but it is also slower then funk, so its trade-off is speed and a huge side silhouette. When compared to the tier X Object 705A, the Type 5 can't PEN the frontal armor of its turret regardless of the shell used. So in a head-to-head where both hulls are protected, neither tank has much of an advantage. The Panther 8,8 can PEN the back of the Type 5's turret as well as the side and back of its hull. Even the tier VIII leKpz M 41 can PEN the rear hull of the Type 5, the trick is you have to get around it first, and if the Type 5 still has its large HP pool when you do, you likely won't be staying there for long. This is a game where you are bound to win and lose some. IMO, Wargaming has game balance issues, but I don't see how giving a nerf to APCR rounds will fix it. In reality, I wouldn't mind so much if they were talking a small token decrease as a trade for the better PEN, but 20 - 30% is way over the top. 

 

 

The "major crisis" is that people are abusing the power of premium rounds, both by their own fault and Wargaming's.  Premium rounds should only be used as compensation for a lack of skill and/or necessity.  As such, the players that lack the most skill are generally those who have limited amounts of credits.  Thus, less experienced players are theoretically limited in their usage of premium rounds.  Unfortunately, a common trend now is that very skilled players that generally have large amounts of credits (and are more likely to swipe their credit card) are also using premium rounds instead of trying to use their superior skill.  Mainly, this widens the gap between the casual-player population and the highly-skilled-player population.  Problem 2 is that due to premium-spam tactics (ie where a player sees a Maus and instantly taps the "two key" for most of the battle), Wargaming has had to buff many tanks such as the Maus and the Type 5 Heavy.  However, these buffs have only made the tanks stronger against standard rounds, while premium rounds are still competitive.  Thus, both good and bad players have to use more premium rounds.  Problem 2 is easily solved by giving weak points back to very strongly armored tanks, mainly the Type 5 Heavy.

 

Now on the Type 5 Heavy, it is overpowered, and not by a small margin.  I could probably live with the P2W premium rounds on that tank if it played like a KV-2.  However, it doesn't.  For a quick comparison, let's look at the Maus with respect to the Type 5 Heavy.  To oversimplify, they both have similar mobility and armor.  The main difference is in their guns.  The Maus will have extremely high difficulty in penetrating the Type 5 Heavy with standard rounds due to the thickness of its armor.  This would be balanced if the Type 5 Heavy would also bounce off of the Maus' superior angled armor.  However, the Type 5 Heavy does around 500 dmg to the Maus every 25-30 seconds while the Maus struggles to penetrate the Type 5 Heavy.  For your example of the Obj 705A, there is a similar problem.


Edited by Bronco272, Jan 11 2019 - 02:22.


Riker_SGT #226 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 16:41

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 35059 battles
  • 10
  • [IHB] IHB
  • Member since:
    07-27-2013
Have you ever played a KV-5 in an 8-10 match and looked at the other side to see Maus. From the front a KV-5 can't pen the Maus with any of it's rounds. It is not fast enough to get to the side or rear of the tank. If you rush the Maus in hopes of getting by it so you can do damage you will take 1 to 3 shots until you are in place to take one side shot and then die. Now if you want to start talking about making tier 10 Heavy tanks vulnerable to frontal attacks by all tier 8 Heavy tanks then lets talk. Otherwise, keep the premium rounds as they are and quite listening to the few complainers.

RECON_RANGER #227 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 17:55

    Captain

  • Players
  • 39338 battles
  • 1,943
  • [FATE] FATE
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013

View PostRiker_SGT, on Jan 11 2019 - 16:41, said:

Have you ever played a KV-5 in an 8-10 match and looked at the other side to see Maus. From the front a KV-5 can't pen the Maus with any of it's rounds. It is not fast enough to get to the side or rear of the tank. If you rush the Maus in hopes of getting by it so you can do damage you will take 1 to 3 shots until you are in place to take one side shot and then die. Now if you want to start talking about making tier 10 Heavy tanks vulnerable to frontal attacks by all tier 8 Heavy tanks then lets talk. Otherwise, keep the premium rounds as they are and quite listening to the few complainers.

 

A KV5 has preferential so you don't see a Maus, but 186 standard is garbage and won't pen any tier 9 heavies or even meds like the T54/430/Patton,7/1/WZ all of which have strong frontal armor and you are correct that you can't flank in a KV5/112/IS6. 

 

Not only that, 186 won't reliably pen many tier 8 premium, notice I said PREMIUM, heavies such as the DEFENDER, AMX, Maubreaker, Somoa or even the T26E5 or tech tree VKP and you will even struggle to pen these tanks with KV5 GOLD which only has 219 pen.  

 

Leave premium rounds alone WG until you fix MM.  Once 3,5,7 CANCER MM is changed to 5,5,5 or with much more +1 then wait a couple of months to see if premium round spam declines.  If it does decline, then most likely no changes will be needed.   I

 

 


Edited by RECON_RANGER, Jan 11 2019 - 18:02.


TrevorsT112 #228 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 18:00

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 5794 battles
  • 77
  • Member since:
    10-31-2017

Excellent post @Bronco272. I appreciate the time you took to give such a well placed explanation. Your point is well taken, the Type 5 Heavy outclasses the Maus in pretty much every aspect of tank performance. But that problem is one that Wargaming created, and if I understand your explanation correctly, they did that in part because they were listening to the community gripe and complain about gold ammo. But I still can't help feel after having listened to the argument from so many different angles now, that the crisis being debated has been fabricated out of subjective feelings rather then solid proof of any real concern. There is no doubt in my mind that the concept of gold ammo got its start here as part of the business model used to monetize the game. Then some intelligent soul decided to write a program that could monitor for anyone interested exactly what type of round caused damage to their tank, or knocked them out. At first, the monitoring software might have even helped Wargaming reap benefit from the gold ammo revenue stream as golden perceptions became an overstated awareness, but eventually, it seems to have also help popularize the explanation people would naturally be looking for, that being why they lost the match. My belief is that the perception of gold ammo has been turned into some sort of golden scape goat for a growing number of people in this community.

 

Take the video that someone linked in this thread a few pages back; if the guy in the video is an accurate description of general public opinion on the topic of gold ammo, then what he was saying is that players can get some huge advantage by simply pressing the "2" key, while mocking Wargaming for calling it "balance". So in other words, the real problem he is suggesting is actually two-fold, a sly money grab by Wargaming and a perception of the unfair advantage it created. But is the problem he suggests really a problem at all? From a business point of view, my guess would be that Wargaming has the right to decide which services they want to offer and how, in the same way we as customers have the right to decide which services we intend to consume. I can't think of a single gaming platform that wouldn't want a backend to support the games continued development. I mean lets face it guys, while the original team have probably traded in their Lada's and are now sporting something more... Italian if you know what I mean, the minute this community tells Wargaming there is no need to show up to work, I imagine their response would be like everyone else in the biz, turn the key to lock the door and call it a day. But going back to the Youtuber, all of the tanks he PEN'd in the video using APCR rounds could have also been PEN'd using AP shells. So if the damage dealt by both shell types is the same, then the tanks he hit are no worse for ware. In fact, using Wargaming's own description of how the game mechanics handle ammo penetration, APCR rounds have a smaller normalization angle, and will therefore correct less, or potentially have to pierce through more armor. So while they inherently have higher penetrating capacity, depending on the angle of the players shot, APCR ammo may actually have to penetrate more armor then if the player had shot an AP shell. But because APCR ammo is known for its gold status as the Dope, because if you are spending gold it must be better right, its effect is being blown out of proportion so to speak with no pun intended. Take my recent discussion with @latvius as an example. He is under the impression that when you use APCR ammo, you dismantle a players ability to side scrape, or bounce shots. Again, unless someone from Wargaming can chime in here to correct me, taking their own explanation on how the game mechanic handles ammo penetration, both shells use the 70 degree rule. It shouldn't matter what shell your opponent is using, if your armor is angled correctly, it will bounce the shot unless it is overmatched by the caliber of a shell that is 3x the thickness of the armor being hit. And overmatching with caliber will favour AP shells because it has a larger normalization angle to begin with. Again, I don't see the crisis.

 

What I see is a lot of confusion about how different elements of the game interact with each other. There are huge imbalances in the game, and they have nothing to do with the four different types of ammo. In fact, if the game mechanic is true to the explanation given by Wargaming, it might be about the only thing that is still truly balanced in the game. IMO, things like the Type 5 Heavy should not happen, and it is up to Wargaming to make sure it doesn't. Did that situation result from all the complaining about gold ammo, or is it just the prize to help wean people into tier X? The Japanese tech tree is very small comparatively speaking, and getting to tier X to reach the Type 5 Heavy is little more then a short sprint in this game. I am considering researching the Japanese line for this reason alone. But regardless, I find that people have very unreasonable in-game expectations here. Some people apparently believe that the thick armor of the Heavy tank class is made irrelevant when it is penetrated by an opponent. Take a step back to fully appreciate what is being suggested here. Yes it is true, the big heavily armored guns of the Heavy class are slower and less mobile, but it doesn't mean that players in Heavy tanks don't have to strategize their game play. Heavy tanks usually have bigger caliber guns that give them a huge advantage in armor penetration mechanics, with thicker armor and larger hit point pools to balance the low maneuverability. They should rightly be able to absorb more shots and last longer on the field, but it would be unreasonable to expect them to be invincible. I think the WoT platform is based on solid mechanics, and Wargaming should remain true to that solid foundation. The four different shell types in the game have advantages when used in very specific situations, and when they are not, the perceived advantage may be all that is there, a perception. In most cases, armor penetration will favor AP rounds unless the armor being hit is thicker then the shells penetration metrics. Then the only option is to switch to the higher penetrating APCR shell and try to hit your opponent as directly as you can because both shell types use the 70 degree rule. If some are taking 100% gold ammo load outs, then in most cases, they aren't gaining much in terms of damaging their opponent through the game mechanic of penetrating armor alone, because AP rounds would have been just as effective, and depending on the angle and caliber, may even have been more effective. What they are gaining instead by using APCR shells is an advantage in convenience and aim time. Since I myself am not doing this, I am assuming the rational for it is the following, by always having APCR loaded, they remove the need to evaluate the armor they are trying to pierce and focus just on the angle of their shot. I get how this is seen as being more convenient, but in fact, it may not be as effective when strictly speaking about armor penetration. The second advantage is aim time. There is a very slight reduction in aim time when using gold ammo, and I refer anyone interested to the WoT wiki where they can compare the reduction in aim time for any tank. IMO, it should be at the players discretion to decide if he/she wants to pay for the extremely small advantages of convenience and aim time, while realizing that he/she may actually be giving up better penetration value.

 

Finally, I will end with premium vehicles and how it relates to the threads topic in my case. The whole purpose of premium vehicles especially when coupled with a premium account is the increased ability to grind crews and accumulate credits. And I bought the Panther 8,8 to do just that. But other then being beautifully modelled from the actual tank that saw actual battle in WWII, its in-game capability in WoT is very limited when considering the MM battles it is setup to play, especially in the hands less experienced players. This tank probably shines best when the player knows exactly which part of the map it should be placed to farm the most damage. Without that knowledge, the results can be dismal and its purpose severely limited. And because of its assigned play style, APCR ammo use is central to Panther 8,8 tactics, but it is higher velocity and not penetrating power per say that makes it so. Penetration and damage values between the two shells in the Panther 8,8 are 203/237 and 240/240 respectively. If Wargaming goes through with the proposed reduction in damage, it will essentially have severely dampened one of the key elements of the premium Panther 8,8, and maybe even more importantly, broke one of the key fundamental aspects of game play because of why?  Because apparently the WoT community is carrying around a false perception on what is a real advantage and what is imagined. I think Wargaming should go back to the basics on this one, and reinforce the concept of game mechanics and the value of each shell type when used for its intended purpose. The in-game advantage of using APCR for every situation 100% of the time is an imagined one if Wargaming's explanation of how game mechanics actually work are true.     



RECON_RANGER #229 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 18:05

    Captain

  • Players
  • 39338 battles
  • 1,943
  • [FATE] FATE
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013
You might want to add an introduction or conclusion to your long post in which you concisely state whether you are for or against nerfing premium rounds which is difficult to determine from your post.  I think you are against it. 

RECON_RANGER #230 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 18:12

    Captain

  • Players
  • 39338 battles
  • 1,943
  • [FATE] FATE
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013

View PostBronco272, on Jan 11 2019 - 01:31, said:

 

The "major crisis" is that people are abusing the power of premium rounds, both by their own fault and Wargaming's.  Premium rounds should only be used as compensation for a lack of skill and/or necessity.  As such, the players that lack the most skill are generally those who have limited amounts of credits.  Thus, less experienced players are theoretically limited in their usage of premium rounds.  Unfortunately, a common trend now is that very skilled players that generally have large amounts of credits (and are more likely to swipe their credit card) are also using premium rounds instead of trying to use their superior skill.  Mainly, this widens the gap between the casual-player population and the highly-skilled-player population.  Problem 2 is that due to premium-spam tactics (ie where a player sees a Maus and instantly taps the "two key" for most of the battle), Wargaming has had to buff many tanks such as the Maus and the Type 5 Heavy.  However, these buffs have only made the tanks stronger against standard rounds, while premium rounds are still competitive.  Thus, both good and bad players have to use more premium rounds.  Problem 2 is easily solved by giving weak points back to very strongly armored tanks, mainly the Type 5 Heavy.

 

Now on the Type 5 Heavy, it is overpowered, and not by a small margin.  I could probably live with the P2W premium rounds on that tank if it played like a KV-2.  However, it doesn't.  For a quick comparison, let's look at the Maus with respect to the Type 5 Heavy.  To oversimplify, they both have similar mobility and armor.  The main difference is in their guns.  The Maus will have extremely high difficulty in penetrating the Type 5 Heavy with standard rounds due to the thickness of its armor.  This would be balanced if the Type 5 Heavy would also bounce off of the Maus' superior angled armor.  However, the Type 5 Heavy does around 500 dmg to the Maus every 25-30 seconds while the Maus struggles to penetrate the Type 5 Heavy.  For your example of the Obj 705A, there is a similar problem.

 

Great post.

 

You are correct.  If a Maus and Type 5 only fire standard rounds the Type 5 will easily destroy the Maus doing damage with every HE shot while shooting AP the Maus only has a 35% chance to pen the cupola/gun port, both of which are very, VERY, small and hard to hit targets.  The only choice the Maus driver has is to load GOLD and even then the Maus only has a 70% chance to pen turret/lower plate.  If WG gives Type 5 HESH but not WEAKSPOTS, Maus still has to fire GOLD but now low ALPHA GOLD and Type will still win battle with consistent HESH HE spam.  If WG adds a larger WEAKSPOT to the Type 5 such as a slightly larger cupola/drivers hatch or shoulders that the Maus can pen even 50% of the time with AP, then the tanks are more equal, but just like WG won't nerf ARTY because of fear bad players will quit the game, it is the same with Type 5.  WG put ARTY and Type's in the game for bad players because you can play both without using much skill, and WG is afraid to nerf either in fear the bad players that play them will quit the game in a mass exodus.    


Edited by RECON_RANGER, Jan 11 2019 - 18:59.


TrevorsT112 #231 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 18:13

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 5794 battles
  • 77
  • Member since:
    10-31-2017

View PostRECON_RANGER, on Jan 11 2019 - 18:05, said:

You might want to add an introduction or conclusion to your long post in which you concisely state whether you are for or against nerfing premium rounds which is difficult to determine from your post.  I think you are against it. 

 

You are right. I am against the proposed APCR nerf for the stated reasons. APCR ammo has nothing to do with what people are suggesting. It has a specific purpose and will shine when used for that purpose, but will offer very little advantage and may even be a  disadvantage when used in the wrong circumstance. Thanks for pointing that out.

GeorgePreddy #232 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 20:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 14345 battles
  • 10,943
  • Member since:
    04-11-2013

View PostRECON_RANGER, on Jan 01 2019 - 16:41, said:

 

Do you even play the game on the NA Server or just troll the forms?

 

First of all, over 20K players is certainly anything but pathetic and NA has never been below 20K.

 

Secondly, numbers are up since 50-2 was released and are now over approaching 30,000 in prime time (22,000 at 2PM eastern).

 

Third, NA has enough players to have THREE servers at the moment, East, Central and LATAM. 

 

Forth, the LATAM has server populations between 500-2000 and the que is rarely longer than 3-4 minutes unless you are in preferential tanks or odd tiers. 

 

Haters have been saying NA is dead for 3-4 years, but NA is THRIVING going into 2019. 

 

Personally, I like RNG just the way it is since it gives some variety to the game and what part of the game is P2W?  I don't support OP tier 8 premiums but WG is doing it to make money, I don't care about tier 8 and even though they are OP at tier 8 most are cannon fodder against tier 9's and especially tier 10's.  Aside from OP tier 8 premiums, nothing else about this game is P2W or do you care to enlighten me what you feel is P2W about the game. Bonds and Gold rounds are NOT P2W because they are either available for credits or for playing well rather than for CASH.  For me, P2W is only things you can only buy for CASH

 

Lastly, you were a red 47% player but with yellow 744 WN8 which was at least decent, but your recents are 39% and 145 WN8.  A145 WN8 means you are suiciding or just BOT'ing.  Have you just completely given up on the game and are you now just BOT'ing? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



REDENG #233 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 22:09

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 24778 battles
  • 39
  • [REDU] REDU
  • Member since:
    09-06-2015

View PostRECON_RANGER, on Jan 11 2019 - 18:12, said:

 

Great post.

 

You are correct.  If a Maus and Type 5 only fire standard rounds the Type 5 will easily destroy the Maus doing damage with every HE shot while shooting AP the Maus only has a 35% chance to pen the cupola/gun port, both of which are very, VERY, small and hard to hit targets.  The only choice the Maus driver has is to load GOLD and even then the Maus only has a 70% chance to pen turret/lower plate.  If WG gives Type 5 HESH but not WEAKSPOTS, Maus still has to fire GOLD but now low ALPHA GOLD and Type will still win battle with consistent HESH HE spam.  If WG adds a larger WEAKSPOT to the Type 5 such as a slightly larger cupola/drivers hatch or shoulders that the Maus can pen even 50% of the time with AP, then the tanks are more equal, but just like WG won't nerf ARTY because of fear bad players will quit the game, it is the same with Type 5.  WG put ARTY and Type's in the game for bad players because you can play both without using much skill, and WG is afraid to nerf either in fear the bad players that play them will quit the game in a mass exodus.    

 

I checked on tanksgg and the maus has 45% chance against the view port and almost %60 chance against the cupola. with prem rounds it is 85% against the view port and 90% against the cupola...... thats not so bad

the thing you have to remember is if the type is going 500 damage a shot with a great crew and equipment that is only 16.5s reload giving it 1800 dpm where the maus rocks a 2687 dpm so in a one vs one fight the maus will win even with bouncing the occasional shot. what drivers dont realize is the type is slow speed and reloading and they try to trade with it instead of getting in its face and out dpm it. yes the type needs a nurf and i find few people dont know how to pen it (drives me nuts when doing blocking missions (easier in a is7 lol) ) 

the only benefit of the type is you dont need to aim to do damage where as all other t10 tanks just spam prem rounds and not really aim anyways so lets stay on topic about getting away from prem rounds somehow whether its nurf the rounds or put a cap on amount you can carry.


Edited by REDENG, Jan 11 2019 - 22:11.


LpBronco #234 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 22:15

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 40581 battles
  • 2,536
  • [O-VER] O-VER
  • Member since:
    11-19-2010
Average damage with premium rounds IF you hit weak spots might get close to your stated number but normally the damage output between the Type and the Maus is closer to 300.  The problem isn't premium rounds, it's the growth of HE as a principle round where it wasn't viable in the past. You would carry a few for SPG's and for cap resets. Now there is a plethora of tanks including the Type that use a different shell meta to be viable. At the end of the day, it's not the use of different ammo that's causing the issue, it's a lack of being able to properly distinguish between vehicle characteristics and tier them appropriately for the games they see. There was always something to be said for vehicle weighting and a return to the former matchmaking with the new evidence for comparison would illustrate how good it really was. 

TrevorsT112 #235 Posted Jan 12 2019 - 17:22

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 5794 battles
  • 77
  • Member since:
    10-31-2017

View PostREDENG, on Jan 11 2019 - 22:09, said:

 

I checked on tanksgg and the maus has 45% chance against the view port and almost %60 chance against the cupola. with prem rounds it is 85% against the view port and 90% against the cupola...... thats not so bad

the thing you have to remember is if the type is going 500 damage a shot with a great crew and equipment that is only 16.5s reload giving it 1800 dpm where the maus rocks a 2687 dpm so in a one vs one fight the maus will win even with bouncing the occasional shot. what drivers dont realize is the type is slow speed and reloading and they try to trade with it instead of getting in its face and out dpm it. yes the type needs a nurf and i find few people dont know how to pen it (drives me nuts when doing blocking missions (easier in a is7 lol) ) 

the only benefit of the type is you dont need to aim to do damage where as all other t10 tanks just spam prem rounds and not really aim anyways so lets stay on topic about getting away from prem rounds somehow whether its nurf the rounds or put a cap on amount you can carry.

 

Hi @REDENG, you raise an interesting point, and I am happy to gain from all the experienced players here. I am having a lot of fun learning all the intricate, and at times idiosyncratic workings of the WoT platform, so bare with me if I have misunderstood, or confused some of the principles at play here. Just for my own understanding, shouldn't the exampled differences you show between AP and APCR shells be expected since the frontal armor of the Type 5 Heavy exceeds the penetrating power of the AP shell in the Maus? It seems to me that when considering a battle between these two tanks, it would be unfair to the driver in the Maus if Wargaming gives its APCR ammo a nerf, or limits the amount it can carry. Both are super Heavy tier X tanks, and your comparison serves as the perfect example why premium ammo should not see a nerf. In your explanation, the scenario you give demonstrates a strategy that would allow the Maus to win using APCR ammo if the driver gets in close to slug it out instead of letting the Type 5 equalize reload times by trading shots from a covered position. But then you conclude your post by asking the reader to "stay on topic", suggesting that premium rounds should either have a nerf, or be limited in number. You realize that by giving APCR a nerf, you negate the strategy you offered as a way for the Maus driver to overcome the Type 5. I understand how this view would please any Japanese nationalists intent on convincing Wargaming that anyone driving the Maus should be penalized, but if we stay on topic here, is it really fair that one tier X tank from the same class as another tier X tank would have almost no chance of winning following the proposed nerf? If we play out your suggestion to its conclusion, it doesn't appear to me that anyone who invested hundreds if not thousands of hours to unlock the Maus would have any reason to keep playing WoT. So how does the argument, "make armor relevant again", work here?

 

But take another example using tanksgg to compare APCR and AP rounds. Take the KV-3 or the T29 as two tier VII Heavy tanks and compare them against the tier IX Medium E50. To focus on penetrating power and eliminate the effects of angle as much as possible, turn either of the tier VII Heavies on their side so that the shot fired from the E50 contacts the armor as direct as possible. Now we should see very little difference in penetration between the two shells as the armor thickness is less then the penetrating power of the E50's AP shell. It seems to me that in most cases when the penetrating power of the AP shell exceeds the armor thickness of his opponent, there is very little advantage gained by firing an APCR shell if any at all. I know in general, a large number of people seem to exaggerate that there is some big advantage given to the guy or gal spamming gold rounds, but this is simply not true in reality.  

 

Going back to your original example, when an AP shell cannot pierce your opponent's armor, why would it be unreasonable for the driver in the Maus to use APCR ammo?   



Hellsfog #236 Posted Jan 12 2019 - 18:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 35186 battles
  • 5,483
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011

View PostREDENG, on Jan 11 2019 - 16:09, said:

 

I checked on tanksgg and the maus has 45% chance against the view port and almost %60 chance against the cupola. with prem rounds it is 85% against the view port and 90% against the cupola...... thats not so bad

the thing you have to remember is if the type is going 500 damage a shot with a great crew and equipment that is only 16.5s reload giving it 1800 dpm where the maus rocks a 2687 dpm so in a one vs one fight the maus will win even with bouncing the occasional shot. what drivers dont realize is the type is slow speed and reloading and they try to trade with it instead of getting in its face and out dpm it. yes the type needs a nurf and i find few people dont know how to pen it (drives me nuts when doing blocking missions (easier in a is7 lol) ) 

the only benefit of the type is you dont need to aim to do damage where as all other t10 tanks just spam prem rounds and not really aim anyways so lets stay on topic about getting away from prem rounds somehow whether its nurf the rounds or put a cap on amount you can carry.

 

You are confusing DPM with effective DPM. Basically, you are assuming that both tanks are sitting still in the open and trading shots, which is not very realistic. You are also assuming that ever shot fired by the Maus hits the weak spot, which is also unrealistic. The Type 5 does not have to aim at weak spots and will still do damage. The Type 5's effective DPM is higher than the Maus and with the premium round nerf, significantly higher.

 

View PostTrevorsT112, on Jan 12 2019 - 11:22, said:

 

Hi @REDENG, you raise an interesting point, and I am happy to gain from all the experienced players here. I am having a lot of fun learning all the intricate, and at times idiosyncratic workings of the WoT platform, so bare with me if I have misunderstood, or confused some of the principles at play here. Just for my own understanding, shouldn't the exampled differences you show between AP and APCR shells be expected since the frontal armor of the Type 5 Heavy exceeds the penetrating power of the AP shell in the Maus? It seems to me that when considering a battle between these two tanks, it would be unfair to the driver in the Maus if Wargaming gives its APCR ammo a nerf, or limits the amount it can carry. Both are super Heavy tier X tanks, and your comparison serves as the perfect example why premium ammo should not see a nerf. In your explanation, the scenario you give demonstrates a strategy that would allow the Maus to win using APCR ammo if the driver gets in close to slug it out instead of letting the Type 5 equalize reload times by trading shots from a covered position. But then you conclude your post by asking the reader to "stay on topic", suggesting that premium rounds should either have a nerf, or be limited in number. You realize that by giving APCR a nerf, you negate the strategy you offered as a way for the Maus driver to overcome the Type 5. I understand how this view would please any Japanese nationalists intent on convincing Wargaming that anyone driving the Maus should be penalized, but if we stay on topic here, is it really fair that one tier X tank from the same class as another tier X tank would have almost no chance of winning following the proposed nerf? If we play out your suggestion to its conclusion, it doesn't appear to me that anyone who invested hundreds if not thousands of hours to unlock the Maus would have any reason to keep playing WoT. So how does the argument, "make armor relevant again", work here?

 

But take another example using tanksgg to compare APCR and AP rounds. Take the KV-3 or the T29 as two tier VII Heavy tanks and compare them against the tier IX Medium E50. To focus on penetrating power and eliminate the effects of angle as much as possible, turn either of the tier VII Heavies on their side so that the shot fired from the E50 contacts the armor as direct as possible. Now we should see very little difference in penetration between the two shells as the armor thickness is less then the penetrating power of the E50's AP shell. It seems to me that in most cases when the penetrating power of the AP shell exceeds the armor thickness of his opponent, there is very little advantage gained by firing an APCR shell if any at all. I know in general, a large number of people seem to exaggerate that there is some big advantage given to the guy or gal spamming gold rounds, but this is simply not true in reality.  

 

Going back to your original example, when an AP shell cannot pierce your opponent's armor, why would it be unreasonable for the driver in the Maus to use APCR ammo?   

 

I don't read any of your walls of text but I think I just said in three sentences what you said in three paragraphs.  At this point anything you write is white noise. 

 

 

 

 



TrevorsT112 #237 Posted Jan 12 2019 - 18:50

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 5794 battles
  • 77
  • Member since:
    10-31-2017
Well I guess we can conclude that @Hellsfog can read... it is his ability to comprehend that will require further testing. The suggested strategy wasn't assuming anything about tank position, it was recommending a strategy to rush the Type 5 while the Maus still has a chance. Nor was it assuming anything about where shots would hit, it was giving specific information regarding penetration at specific spots. I can expand this further if 3 lines isn't enough. 

Bronco272 #238 Posted Jan 12 2019 - 18:57

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 18734 battles
  • 8
  • Member since:
    10-05-2014

View PostTrevorsT112, on Jan 12 2019 - 17:22, said:

 

Hi @REDENG, you raise an interesting point, and I am happy to gain from all the experienced players here. I am having a lot of fun learning all the intricate, and at times idiosyncratic workings of the WoT platform, so bare with me if I have misunderstood, or confused some of the principles at play here. Just for my own understanding, shouldn't the exampled differences you show between AP and APCR shells be expected since the frontal armor of the Type 5 Heavy exceeds the penetrating power of the AP shell in the Maus? It seems to me that when considering a battle between these two tanks, it would be unfair to the driver in the Maus if Wargaming gives its APCR ammo a nerf, or limits the amount it can carry. Both are super Heavy tier X tanks, and your comparison serves as the perfect example why premium ammo should not see a nerf. In your explanation, the scenario you give demonstrates a strategy that would allow the Maus to win using APCR ammo if the driver gets in close to slug it out instead of letting the Type 5 equalize reload times by trading shots from a covered position. But then you conclude your post by asking the reader to "stay on topic", suggesting that premium rounds should either have a nerf, or be limited in number. You realize that by giving APCR a nerf, you negate the strategy you offered as a way for the Maus driver to overcome the Type 5. I understand how this view would please any Japanese nationalists intent on convincing Wargaming that anyone driving the Maus should be penalized, but if we stay on topic here, is it really fair that one tier X tank from the same class as another tier X tank would have almost no chance of winning following the proposed nerf? If we play out your suggestion to its conclusion, it doesn't appear to me that anyone who invested hundreds if not thousands of hours to unlock the Maus would have any reason to keep playing WoT. So how does the argument, "make armor relevant again", work here?

 

But take another example using tanksgg to compare APCR and AP rounds. Take the KV-3 or the T29 as two tier VII Heavy tanks and compare them against the tier IX Medium E50. To focus on penetrating power and eliminate the effects of angle as much as possible, turn either of the tier VII Heavies on their side so that the shot fired from the E50 contacts the armor as direct as possible. Now we should see very little difference in penetration between the two shells as the armor thickness is less then the penetrating power of the E50's AP shell. It seems to me that in most cases when the penetrating power of the AP shell exceeds the armor thickness of his opponent, there is very little advantage gained by firing an APCR shell if any at all. I know in general, a large number of people seem to exaggerate that there is some big advantage given to the guy or gal spamming gold rounds, but this is simply not true in reality.  

 

Going back to your original example, when an AP shell cannot pierce your opponent's armor, why would it be unreasonable for the driver in the Maus to use APCR ammo?   

 

First, "It seems to me that when considering a battle between these two tanks, it would be unfair to the driver in the Maus if Wargaming gives its APCR ammo a nerf, or limits the amount it can carry."  You just nailed why a premium ammunition nerf is probably not the best solution.  

 

Second, to answer your question "when an AP shell cannot pierce your opponent's armor, why would it be unreasonable for the driver in the Maus to use APCR ammo?"  The point of premium rounds is for that exact purpose: it increases the probability of penetrating an enemy's armor.  The "unreasonable" part of premium rounds is that 1.) premium rounds are often fired unnecessarily as in your E 50 example.  Now, the only loser in that situation is the E 50 that is wasting credits on premium shells.  2.) premium rounds are fired to compensate for a non-existent lack of skill.  From my perspective, main reason that premium rounds were implemented was to give less experienced or casual player the opportunity to compete in a battle without having to memorize the armor model of every tank.  Their premium load outs are limited by their lower numbers of credits.  However, many skilled players (ie players that do not lack skill) are using their exorbitant amounts of credits to just spam their way through a battle.  In the past, these players would just aim for weak points that they would have memorized/remember (such as from tanks.gg).  Unfortunately, now they just load premium to go through upper plates, lower plates, turret fronts, etc. because their chance of penetrating has increased.  Sure this can sometimes be negated by skillful angling or movement, but there are times when this is not enough against premium shells.

 

Also, I'm pretty sure you could find at least a half-dozen more reasons why players have problems with premium rounds.

 



Hellsfog #239 Posted Jan 12 2019 - 22:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 35186 battles
  • 5,483
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011

View PostTrevorsT112, on Jan 12 2019 - 12:50, said:

Well I guess we can conclude that @Hellsfog can read... it is his ability to comprehend that will require further testing. The suggested strategy wasn't assuming anything about tank position, it was recommending a strategy to rush the Type 5 while the Maus still has a chance. Nor was it assuming anything about where shots would hit, it was giving specific information regarding penetration at specific spots. I can expand this further if 3 lines isn't enough. 

 

The top part of my post was directed to the quote immediately above it. The second part was directed to your habit of rambling like a mental patient. Reading comprehension, like concise writing, eludes you. As for your strategy, since you don't have a Type 5, a Maus, any tier 10 or any tank above tier 6 that you didn't buy, I think it's safe to assume game mechanics are just as hard for you to understand.  

taugrim #240 Posted Jan 13 2019 - 00:09

    Sergeant

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

View PostRECON_RANGER, on Jan 04 2019 - 19:12, said:

 

It is NOT P2W if everybody has access to the same thing by playing the game rather than spending CASH which is why WG changed GOLD rounds to purchasable by SILVER because it was P2W when they were GOLD, but NOT NOW! 

 

You're forgetting that premium ammo is a huge credit sink.

 

----------------------------------------------------------

https://taugrim.com/...mmo-credit-sink

 

Like I said previously, gold ammo is very problematic for tank balance, not just player balance. Beyond that, it’s important to recognize gold ammo for what it is: a cleverly-designed credit (money) sink.

 

Money sinks are typically implemented in games with an economy (e.g. MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft that have auction houses) to prevent inflation. There is no player-based economy in WoT per se (i.e. you can’t buy/sell/trade stuff with other players), but credits are used in WoT for paying for many things in-game: new tanks, tank upgrades, equipment, post-battle repairs, ammunition, consumables, crew training/re-skilling, camouflage, etc.

 

The effect of a credit sink such as premium ammo – which is typically 3-20 times more expensive than silver ammo – is to make it less likely that a player will turn a profit, and without a profit, a player can’t accumulate credits to pay for new things (upgrades, tanks, etc). So players are pressured into spending real money to boost their in-game income: e.g. with premium tanks, premium subscription, buying credits with real money, etc. This fosters a P4A (Pay for Advantage) environment. Nowadays most PVP games (e.g. MOBAs, Overwatch, PUBG, Fortnite, etc) sell in-game items that are cosmetic / don’t confer any in-battle advantage.

 

Credit sinks such as gold ammo are why WoT has the highest ARPU (by a mile) of any F2P MMO in history.


Edited by taugrim, Jan 13 2019 - 00:10.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users