Jump to content


* * * - - 17 votes

[ST] Premium Ammo Rebalance


  • Please log in to reply
328 replies to this topic

cavalry11 #261 Posted Jan 15 2019 - 17:17

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 49146 battles
  • 531
  • [11BAT] 11BAT
  • Member since:
    06-24-2013
Nerfing premium ammo is a bad idea. It is real frustrating to shot a tank where you should pen and get nothing. That is why I use premium , you only get so many good shots per game no matter how good you are.

TrevorsT112 #262 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 01:58

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 9104 battles
  • 395
  • Member since:
    10-31-2017

View PostHellsfog, on Jan 15 2019 - 05:29, said:

 

You know, you don't matter because you don't know anything. You go on but have nothing to of substance because you've not done anything.  Have fun droning on.

 

Heavy stuff from the idiotfog guy... Drone on. Thats telling him son:child:

Edited by TrevorsT112, Jan 16 2019 - 01:59.


RECON_RANGER #263 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 05:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 40572 battles
  • 2,014
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013

View PostBDNeon, on Jan 15 2019 - 04:13, said:

 

That's not how it works, they've rebalanced the game in the past and included premium vehicles, you can't argue they're nerfing premium vehicles when the change is being applied game-wide.

 

Stop trying to pull that excuse out your asses.

 

You are WRONG. 

 

WG has never nerfed a premium vehicle without offering refunds.

 

For instance, when WG did an across the board nerf to all TD's camo after they fired, premium TD's such as the E-25 were not affected. 

 

Also, when WG changed lights to +2 MM WG nerfed all tech-tree lights but did not nerf premium lights which is why the Type 64 and 4190 are so strong. 

 

If WG nerfs the alpha of premium tanks gold rounds I expect WG will face a torrent of lawsuits and requests for refunds.



tigerajk #264 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 14:15

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 67185 battles
  • 94
  • [ALERT] ALERT
  • Member since:
    05-15-2011

View PostRECON_RANGER, on Jan 16 2019 - 04:32, said:

 

You are WRONG. 

 

WG has never nerfed a premium vehicle without offering refunds.

 

For instance, when WG did an across the board nerf to all TD's camo after they fired, premium TD's such as the E-25 were not affected. 

 

Also, when WG changed lights to +2 MM WG nerfed all tech-tree lights but did not nerf premium lights which is why the Type 64 and 4190 are so strong. 

 

If WG nerfs the alpha of premium tanks gold rounds I expect WG will face a torrent of lawsuits and requests for refunds.

 

clearly you never saw the type 59 nerfs......

TrevorsT112 #265 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 16:55

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 9104 battles
  • 395
  • Member since:
    10-31-2017

View PostRECON_RANGER, on Jan 16 2019 - 05:32, said:

 

You are WRONG. 

 

WG has never nerfed a premium vehicle without offering refunds.

 

For instance, when WG did an across the board nerf to all TD's camo after they fired, premium TD's such as the E-25 were not affected. 

 

Also, when WG changed lights to +2 MM WG nerfed all tech-tree lights but did not nerf premium lights which is why the Type 64 and 4190 are so strong. 

 

If WG nerfs the alpha of premium tanks gold rounds I expect WG will face a torrent of lawsuits and requests for refunds.

 

I hope Wargaming follows a similar line again if they nerf the tier VIII Panther 8,8 because as it is now, this vehicle is hard to make work especially for less experience players. If they nerf the premium ammo for this tank, they should consider also renaming it the tier VIII Macgyver 8,8 because a shoe string and stick of gum is pretty much all you get to fight tier X Heavies.

RECON_RANGER #266 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 19:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 40572 battles
  • 2,014
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013

View Posttigerajk, on Jan 16 2019 - 14:15, said:

 

clearly you never saw the type 59 nerfs......

 

After WG nerfed the Type 59 and Super Pershing, WG lost a lawsuit in Europe and has not nerfed any premium tanks since then without offering a refund.  That is why the IS3A will not be nerfed despite the fact that is has an autoloader for which you can still play as a single shot.

 

Name one premium tank that was nerfed after the Super Pershing. 


Edited by RECON_RANGER, Jan 16 2019 - 19:43.


BDNeon #267 Posted Jan 17 2019 - 02:09

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 32494 battles
  • 873
  • [TLSC] TLSC
  • Member since:
    12-25-2010

View PostRECON_RANGER, on Jan 15 2019 - 20:32, said:

Also, when WG changed lights to +2 MM WG nerfed all tech-tree lights but did not nerf premium lights which is why the Type 64 and 4190 are so strong.

 

No, certain changes specific to light tanks were carried out to rebalance them, but the Type 64 and M41 90 DID get their matchmaking changed just like every other tank in the entire game. That's the same situation, a change was applied across the game and ALL tanks were included in it, INCLUDING premium tanks.

 

WHEN, not IF, as some of you idiots trying to shoot this down are so wistfully hoping, the gold ammo nerf happens, the premiums will BENEFIT from the nerf just as much as they lose from it, because that means the premium ammo FIRED AT THEM will also be less effective. As such it would be neither a buff nor nerf. Balance is a two way street.

 

And the TD after camo firing thing WAS applied to all TDs, you're making that crapup. I was here at the time, I remember that patch well.


Edited by BDNeon, Jan 17 2019 - 02:10.


TrevorsT112 #268 Posted Jan 17 2019 - 12:59

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 9104 battles
  • 395
  • Member since:
    10-31-2017

View PostRECON_RANGER, on Jan 16 2019 - 19:31, said:

 

After WG nerfed the Type 59 and Super Pershing, WG lost a lawsuit in Europe and has not nerfed any premium tanks since then without offering a refund.  That is why the IS3A will not be nerfed despite the fact that is has an autoloader for which you can still play as a single shot.

 

Name one premium tank that was nerfed after the Super Pershing. 

 

I did a very quick google using the terms "European" and "lawsuit" against Wargaming and didn't find anything. 

TrevorsT112 #269 Posted Jan 17 2019 - 13:19

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 9104 battles
  • 395
  • Member since:
    10-31-2017

View PostBDNeon, on Jan 17 2019 - 02:09, said:

 

No, certain changes specific to light tanks were carried out to rebalance them, but the Type 64 and M41 90 DID get their matchmaking changed just like every other tank in the entire game. That's the same situation, a change was applied across the game and ALL tanks were included in it, INCLUDING premium tanks.

 

WHEN, not IF, as some of you idiots trying to shoot this down are so wistfully hoping, the gold ammo nerf happens, the premiums will BENEFIT from the nerf just as much as they lose from it, because that means the premium ammo FIRED AT THEM will also be less effective. As such it would be neither a buff nor nerf. Balance is a two way street.

 

And the TD after camo firing thing WAS applied to all TDs, you're making that crapup. I was here at the time, I remember that patch well.

 

You are probably right, and it might be a forgone conclusion that the nerf will happen. When I read the OP's description, he does suggest that it is not carved in stone and that Wargaming is encouraging feedback on the issue, but my feeling is that he is more likely referring to the amount of decrease and not whether it will happen.

 

But you are discounting very valid points that were brought up, especially since no one here was able to raise an argument to counter them. Yes the proposed nerf would presumably be applied evenly across the board, but what you seem to want to ignore is that the proposed nerf will take some tanks from barely able to make points when confronting certain other tanks, to not being able to make points when confronting certain tanks. I think it is being referred to as, "make armor relevant again", or something along those lines. Meanwhile, the tier X player will not only have relevant armor, what ever that is supposed to mean, but he/she will have just about every other advantage in the game stacked in their favour. Seems like a two way street to me. 



GeorgePreddy #270 Posted Jan 17 2019 - 15:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 14680 battles
  • 13,055
  • Member since:
    04-11-2013

View PostBDNeon, on Jan 16 2019 - 22:09, said:

 

No, certain changes specific to light tanks were carried out to rebalance them, but the Type 64 and M41 90 DID get their matchmaking changed just like every other tank in the entire game.  But that was clearly a BUFF.

 

 

And the TD after camo firing thing WAS applied to all TDs, you're making that crapup. I was here at the time, I remember that patch well.

 

You don't remember so well... the small advantage that TDs had in that their camo value decreased slightly less than other classes when firing was removed and at that time, ALL PREMIUM TDs existing at that time were "grandfathered", i.e. not affected by the nerf. This is a fact. If you don't believe me you can check it for yourself with WotInfo's camo calculator.

 

The real truth is that ALL tanks lose a very large percent of their camo after shooting.

 

 The confusion stems from the fact that all TDs used to have a slight advantage over other classes because they lost SLIGHTLY less camo after shooting. WG took away this slight advantage in a patch years ago... BUT DID NOT CHANGE ANY OF THE PREMIUM TDs. (because their policy is not to nerf premium tanks)

 

 Therefore, all premium TDs that existed at that time still to this day suffer SLIGHTLY less loss of camo after firing.

 

The E 25 is one of many TDs that has this slight advantage.

 

For instance, the E 25 has a camo rating of 25 when sitting still, when it fires, that rating drops to 9 (in round numbers found at WOTINFO-Camo Values & View Range Calculator).

 

A German non-premium TD using the same gun as the E 25, namely the JagPz IV has 24 that drops to 6.

 

So, when it's standing still and fires, the E-25 loses 64% of its non-firing camo and the JagPz. IV has a loss of 75%.

 

Measurable, but not a HUGE difference.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Da_Craw #271 Posted Jan 17 2019 - 17:50

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 27359 battles
  • 3,172
  • [DOG5] DOG5
  • Member since:
    05-30-2014

View PostRECON_RANGER, on Jan 15 2019 - 22:32, said:

 

If WG nerfs the alpha of premium tanks gold rounds I expect WG will face a torrent of lawsuits and requests for refunds.

I wouldn't.  Lawsuits that have no chance of winning are rarely pursued in appreciable numbers.  A change in premium ammo damage across the board is not a nerf to premium tanks any more than the dispersion nerf was or the physics change or taking away mountain goat spots.  It is a universal change in a game mechanic. 



RECON_RANGER #272 Posted Jan 22 2019 - 17:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 40572 battles
  • 2,014
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013

 

 

NERFING PREMIUM AMMO WILL MAKE STOCK TANK GRINDS EVEN HARDER, because you will not be able to fire full-alpha premium rounds out of the stock guns. 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by RECON_RANGER, Jan 22 2019 - 19:02.


latvius #273 Posted Jan 22 2019 - 22:03

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 32706 battles
  • 485
  • [-DIG-] -DIG-
  • Member since:
    11-26-2013
It is a pretty common recommendation to save up free xp and get the best gun or you are at a severe disadvantage, that's without even getting into the nerf discussion.

RECON_RANGER #274 Posted Jan 22 2019 - 22:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 40572 battles
  • 2,014
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013

View Postlatvius, on Jan 22 2019 - 22:03, said:

It is a pretty common recommendation to save up free xp and get the best gun or you are at a severe disadvantage, that's without even getting into the nerf discussion.

 

If you are free to play and don't spend money on the game, you will NEVER generate enough FREE XP to bypass stock tanks, NEVER. 

latvius #275 Posted Jan 23 2019 - 16:46

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 32706 battles
  • 485
  • [-DIG-] -DIG-
  • Member since:
    11-26-2013

View PostRECON_RANGER, on Jan 22 2019 - 22:15, said:

 

If you are free to play and don't spend money on the game, you will NEVER generate enough FREE XP to bypass stock tanks, NEVER. 

 

I have three answers to this

1. Sounds like a good reason to put some money in the game to get past pain points, like most games this is a normal way to make money.  If a player wants to get on the fast (easy) track it costs money.

2. Your argument for not nerfing gold rounds is because it will make it harder for players to effectively use a stock gun?  Is that all you got because that is not much of a show stopper.

3. Never is a big word, do you have facts to back up NEVER?  I would agree it is difficult but then again so is FTP.  The FTP model is to get you in the game to experience it and take it for a test drive it is not intended for players to forever play for free.



ArcticTankHunter #276 Posted Jan 23 2019 - 19:23

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 16406 battles
  • 668
  • [OSU-V] OSU-V
  • Member since:
    05-22-2014

Technically, WG should just put a cap on how much premuim rounds you can carry and not enough to destroy the entire team. Enough with these Obj 430 U spamming HEAT like a TD/Heavy. So players don't put a full premuim round load out and actually need to aim for weak spots saving ammo.

 

Out of premuim rounds? Too bad wasted it in the first few minutes of gameplay.


Edited by ArcticTankHunter, Jan 23 2019 - 19:26.


latvius #277 Posted Jan 23 2019 - 19:34

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 32706 battles
  • 485
  • [-DIG-] -DIG-
  • Member since:
    11-26-2013

View PostArcticTankHunter, on Jan 23 2019 - 19:23, said:

Technically, WG should just put a cap on how much premuim rounds you can carry and not enough to destroy the entire team. Enough with these Obj 430 U spamming HEAT like a TD/Heavy. So players don't put a full premuim round load out and actually need to aim for weak spots saving ammo.

 

Out of premuim rounds? Too bad wasted it in the first few minutes of gameplay.

 

Problem with that is their is no balance (or at least none I see) to how many rounds a given tank carries.  So some will have more than others.  Reducing dmg provides a more uniform change and it gives players a choice of different shells, not just one that has more pen.

TrevorsT112 #278 Posted Jan 23 2019 - 20:06

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 9104 battles
  • 395
  • Member since:
    10-31-2017

View Postlatvius, on Jan 23 2019 - 19:34, said:

 

Problem with that is their is no balance (or at least none I see) to how many rounds a given tank carries.  So some will have more than others.  Reducing dmg provides a more uniform change and it gives players a choice of different shells, not just one that has more pen.

Agreed, for the higher tier players, uniform change means they will all experience less damage per shot. For the lower tier player, the uniform change means they will have less points heading back to the garage.

View PostArcticTankHunter, on Jan 23 2019 - 19:23, said:

Technically, WG should just put a cap on how much premuim rounds you can carry and not enough to destroy the entire team. Enough with these Obj 430 U spamming HEAT like a TD/Heavy. So players don't put a full premuim round load out and actually need to aim for weak spots saving ammo.

 

Out of premuim rounds? Too bad wasted it in the first few minutes of gameplay.

Good point. I personally would like to see Wargaming identify players that are carrying more then a set amount of premium ammo (15-20%), and offer bonus credits and XP for taking them out. Making players that carry excess amounts of premium ammo visible would help other players decide whether to engage, retreat, or wait for help. It would also give you a chance to decide whether you want to load it yourself for that specific player. If carrying premium ammo means you are going to attract attention to yourself, less people will probably do it. Those that continue would be helping every ones grind with the extra credits and XP up for grabs.



Mikosah #279 Posted Jan 24 2019 - 19:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 17582 battles
  • 4,430
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

View PostArcticTankHunter, on Jan 23 2019 - 12:23, said:

Technically, WG should just put a cap on how much premuim rounds you can carry and not enough to destroy the entire team. Enough with these Obj 430 U spamming HEAT like a TD/Heavy. So players don't put a full premuim round load out and actually need to aim for weak spots saving ammo.

 

Out of premuim rounds? Too bad wasted it in the first few minutes of gameplay.

 

The fundamental problem with gold shells is that on one hand it has become mandatory in some situations (bottom tier, superheavy in front of you, etc) and on the other hand it can break the game in other situations (you depend on armor, enemy negates it by gold-spamming you). Situations where standard shells already have reasonable chances of success but someone fires gold anyway aren't actually a significant problem. Limiting the supply of gold shells will probably just mean that gold will still be used in the situations where it causes real problems, and only reduce its use in situations where it wasn't really a problem to begin with. 

 

To truly get to the root of this issue, we need to prevent gold shells from being either mandatory or game-breaking in the first place. And that probably means not relying on armor nearly as much. The old scheme was playing a game of 'hit the weakspot', and that worked well. And there are other ways altogether of making a vehicle more durable, increasing its hit points for instance. 



docroberts #280 Posted Jan 25 2019 - 19:02

    Captain

  • Players
  • 19389 battles
  • 1,504
  • [HHOUR] HHOUR
  • Member since:
    03-08-2013

View PostMikosah, on Jan 24 2019 - 12:40, said:

 

The fundamental problem with gold shells is that on one hand it has become mandatory in some situations (bottom tier, superheavy in front of you, etc) and on the other hand it can break the game in other situations (you depend on armor, enemy negates it by gold-spamming you). Situations where standard shells already have reasonable chances of success but someone fires gold anyway aren't actually a significant problem. Limiting the supply of gold shells will probably just mean that gold will still be used in the situations where it causes real problems, and only reduce its use in situations where it wasn't really a problem to begin with. 

 

To truly get to the root of this issue, we need to prevent gold shells from being either mandatory or game-breaking in the first place. And that probably means not relying on armor nearly as much. The old scheme was playing a game of 'hit the weakspot', and that worked well. And there are other ways altogether of making a vehicle more durable, increasing its hit points for instance. 

 

Give you a plus one that . I miss the old game it used to be and having to study each and every tank to find out it's week points . 




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users