Jump to content


[SandBox] Ammo Rework

supertest common test sandbox sandbox test premium ammo gold rounds

  • Please log in to reply
134 replies to this topic

Omega_Weapon #121 Posted Jun 07 2019 - 03:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 52922 battles
  • 2,603
  • [GRIEF] GRIEF
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

View PostMavHunterZ, on Jun 06 2019 - 17:07, said:

Most people don't even realize that the MS-1 is capable of penning ~47 tier 10s with its standard AP. Another fun fact: though it is a low percentile chance, most tier three tank destroyers can pen the E100 chassis with standard AP. Really destroys the argument that "YOU MUST FIRE 'SPECIAL' TO PEN", don't you agree?

 

Care to demonstrate the above examples in real battle conditions? Eager to see the replays you can provide.

MavHunterZ #122 Posted Jun 07 2019 - 06:01

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 24757 battles
  • 2
  • [-FKS-] -FKS-
  • Member since:
    04-30-2012

http://wotreplays.eu/site/413357#steppes-suchy2113-ms-1

 

http://wotreplays.eu/site/416822#mines-foxtantin-t1_cunningham

 

http://wotreplays.eu/site/435420#mines-da_bear_na-ms-1

 

http://wotreplays.eu/site/440936#lakeville-matyi14-t1_cunningham

 

Do these come close enough for you?


Edited by MavHunterZ, Jun 07 2019 - 06:17.


Mondochiwan #123 Posted Jun 07 2019 - 09:52

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 13970 battles
  • 215
  • [BOER] BOER
  • Member since:
    01-31-2013
He's talking about from behind. Which would be great, if 80% of maps weren't corridors with no way around the heavies' push

owlgator #124 Posted Jun 07 2019 - 15:13

    Captain

  • Players
  • 15476 battles
  • 1,719
  • [W--W] W--W
  • Member since:
    05-27-2011

Some great points in the thread so far, specifically around the impact to RNG and why the reduction in premium ammo damage wasn't implemented.

 

A few more issues (which may have been mentioned but I didn't catch them):

- Big discrepancy between HP and Alpha increase between tiers.  We already know tanks two tiers below are going to get wiped off the map in one shot (as opposed to two?), but even one tier below will have a huge disadvantage.  On average, you're basically giving the top tier tanks a higher percentage increase of HP and Alpha.

- Big discrepancy between HP and Alpha increase per tank.  Is there a concern that tanks survive for too long?  Aren't we at about 7 minutes per battle?  HP going up 26%.  Alpha going up 36%.  Assuming everyone pens at the same rate (which you can assume since they aren't changing armor profile), tanks will die faster.

- Tanks two tiers below are F'd.  Most players used premium ammo to begin with - not only will this continue, but they'll need to shoot more ammo due to the top tier HP increase, and to top it off the top tier tank will be firing a standard ammo round that's buffed.  Cool.



mastersKaaP #125 Posted Jun 07 2019 - 16:24

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 8651 battles
  • 9
  • Member since:
    06-22-2014

I suppose most of this has already been said, but I also want to add my voice to the choir.

 

The three ammo types should be balanced in value and purpose. AP to do medium damage and has medium pen. "Special" AP/APCR/HEAT with higher pen but with a damage penalty. HE with low pen, but higher damage.

 

At the moment they are not balanced. "Special" ammo defeats the purpose of standard AP, because it does the same damage, but has higher pen, so all-round just plain better. "Special" ammo is currently being "balanced" (but not really) by giving it a much higher resource cost, which has its roots in the pay-to-win element of the game (which it seems WG is trying to decrease, although I'm not sure). This is a very convoluted and complicated way to do things, but I can understand how they got to this point.

 

The "special" ammo rework should be their chance to start fresh and balance the game properly and make the whole business simple and less convoluted, They should introduce the inherent balance of Standard, "Special" and HE I mentioned above. But this should only be the start of the changes.

Armor needs to be revised.

Make it more viable to fire Standard ammo at heavy tanks, but not to such an extent to make super heavies pointless. Frontal weakspots that can be penned by all +2/-2 Standard ammo could be such a solution, but then not easily penned by HE.

 

Maps needs to be revised.

Flanking routes on corridor type maps should be added, but this shouldn't just be a tunnel straight to the heavy tanks' flank, but instead a route that the TD's must defend.

 

HP needs to be revised.

Of course if you are making the heaviest tanks harder to damage, you need to consider the amount of HP-tanking they can do.

 

I feel like WG might be on-route to make these kinds of sweeping changes, and I understand they can't fix a problem this complex overnight.

 

I would love to see a post or video of WG explaining their thoughts behind the changes they make and why they do what they do. If something like that exist, please link it to me.


Edited by mastersKaaP, Jun 07 2019 - 16:39.


Vladimir_Kisov #126 Posted Jun 07 2019 - 21:53

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 20220 battles
  • 11
  • [Y0L0] Y0L0
  • Member since:
    08-19-2016

View PostmastersKaaP, on Jun 07 2019 - 16:24, said:

I suppose most of this has already been said, but I also want to add my voice to the choir.

 

The three ammo types should be balanced in value and purpose. AP to do medium damage and has medium pen. "Special" AP/APCR/HEAT with higher pen but with a damage penalty. HE with low pen, but higher damage.

 

At the moment they are not balanced. "Special" ammo defeats the purpose of standard AP, because it does the same damage, but has higher pen, so all-round just plain better. "Special" ammo is currently being "balanced" (but not really) by giving it a much higher resource cost, which has its roots in the pay-to-win element of the game (which it seems WG is trying to decrease, although I'm not sure). This is a very convoluted and complicated way to do things, but I can understand how they got to this point.

 

The "special" ammo rework should be their chance to start fresh and balance the game properly and make the whole business simple and less convoluted, They should introduce the inherent balance of Standard, "Special" and HE I mentioned above. But this should only be the start of the changes.

Armor needs to be revised.

Make it more viable to fire Standard ammo at heavy tanks, but not to such an extent to make super heavies pointless. Frontal weakspots that can be penned by all +2/-2 Standard ammo could be such a solution, but then not easily penned by HE.

 

Maps needs to be revised.

Flanking routes on corridor type maps should be added, but this shouldn't just be a tunnel straight to the heavy tanks' flank, but instead a route that the TD's must defend.

 

HP needs to be revised.

Of course if you are making the heaviest tanks harder to damage, you need to consider the amount of HP-tanking they can do.

 

I feel like WG might be on-route to make these kinds of sweeping changes, and I understand they can't fix a problem this complex overnight.

 

I would love to see a post or video of WG explaining their thoughts behind the changes they make and why they do what they do. If something like that exist, please link it to me.

 

Totally agree. I'd say this is the decent first step in re-balancing ammunition. The idea was good, WG just need more time to resolve the problems as you mentioned. 

I'm really looking forward to see how they will balanced the armour of the super heavies, as well as the HE rounds. 



Vladimir_Kisov #127 Posted Jun 07 2019 - 23:21

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 20220 battles
  • 11
  • [Y0L0] Y0L0
  • Member since:
    08-19-2016

Sandbox ammunition rebalancing analyze video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSRRwd6YmL8

 

You can find some gameplay on the analysis video above (Please note that the video is my very personal opinion, and you guys might have different idea about this)

 

Basically, this allows more ammunition options for the players, instead of just pressing the “2” button. Meanwhile, the HP pool is buffed to compensate for the increase in alpha damage of regular rounds.

 

At low tiers, most players don’t use premium rounds (except for sealclubbers and statspadders), so the alpha difference doesn’t matter all that much. The main difference, compare to the live server, is the huge hit-point buff for vehicles from tier I to V. While the alpha damage of regular rounds doesn’t increase significantly, the low tier vehicles are now a lot more durable. (Take a look at gameplay sample in analysis video)

This change is probably aiming to support the new, unexperienced players, and to make the low tier battle more enjoyable. As a new player, the chance that you will make mistake, and the enemies punish you for it. In Sandbox server, it’s going to be the same thing, but more durability means you can take more shots before dying and have a better chance to survive and get back to safety; the mistake is going to be more forgiving for in low tier.

 

For vehicles from tier VI and above, the HP boost is not going to be that much. In fact, it is just enough to compensate for the alpha damage increase. While the alpha damage for premium rounds remains the same, using regular rounds will give you the advantage in trades. If the players use premium rounds unnecessarily, they will give away 25% of their alpha damage and DPM. However, there are also situations that you have no other option (such as dealing with a side scraping Maus, or facing the Japanese HT with the “weak spot” of 260mm).

 

Personally, I’m quite enjoy this “new meta”. This is going to be a place for unicums to show off their skills, out-trading the enemies with the right choice of ammunition. I would say this is a decent beginning of ammunition rebalancing. It encourages players to aim for weak spots with regular rounds instead of spamming premium ones. Players will now have more choice for ammunition, and they have to consider it responsibly. However, there are several issues that WG have to resolve. This change mostly benefits the super heavies (Maus, Type 5…;), and well armoured-TDs (T110E3, Bobject…;) The Maus and Bobject are the two vehicles that already appeared in the Sandbox, and they are performing really well, if not saying overpowered. These vehicles will have to be balanced in terms of armour and hitpoint.  

 

However, I noticed that not everyone is happy with these changes. The question that has been asked a lot recently is “Why messing around with all the new alpha damage and boosted hitpoints? Now players have to do all the studying again. It is just way more simple to nerf the alpha damage of premium rounds”. As far as I know, WG doesn’t have any specific answer for this, but I assume the reason for all of these mess is Premium vehicles. For premium vehicles that only be sold on Premium shop, players have to spend Real money to get them, and they expect the vehicle’s performance to, at least, remain unchanged. That’s why Premium tank can NOT be nerfed. Just think about it this way, you bought a smart phone a couple months ago, and now the manufacturer start to limiting the phone’s abilities (or in other word, “nerf” it). You would definitely not happy about the change, and might sue the Manufacturer. This is the issue that WG probably doesn’t want to encounter, so they came up with the idea of buffing the regular round instead.

 

I agree that the change in regular alpha damage can cause some troubles. In the first few battles in the Sandbox, I found it quite hard to do damage calculation, and sometimes I underestimate the enemies’ alpha damage, and I ended up in a big pile of [edited]. But later on, after a few hundred battles, I’m not pretty familiar with the new alpha damage, and it’s no longer an issue.

 

All in all, this is a positive rebalancing by WG, the idea was reasonable, even though there is a long way to go, this seems to be rather promising. I’m looking forward to see the next iteration of Sandbox with the full tech tree, new HE rounds, and vehicles rebalancing.

 

 

-Vladimir_Kisov-


Edited by Vladimir_Kisov, Jun 07 2019 - 23:42.


Omega_Weapon #128 Posted Jun 08 2019 - 03:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 52922 battles
  • 2,603
  • [GRIEF] GRIEF
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

 

Can't actually view any of them so I can't see if the realistic battle conditions test is met. Theoretically any tier 1 tank can kill a Maus without even firing a shot. Just have to land on it from above and slowly crush it to death. That would not be considered realistic battle conditions though.

Mikosah #129 Posted Jun 08 2019 - 04:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 17582 battles
  • 4,433
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

Some additional thoughts after having played some more in the sandbox:

 

The low tiers received tons of hit points, making them disproportionately more durable even considering the standard shell alpha buffs. I'm not sure what the ramifications of that will be long-term, but for now I'll be optimistic and hope that it prevents instant random deaths and helps flatten the durability curve between the tiers. It isn't easy to measure precisely, but what I really want to know is if thought has been put into earnings. If the typical shell does more damage and there's more hit points to eliminate, that would suggest that if all else stays the same then credit profitability will rise considerably and that would be wonderful news. I would hope that WG allows that to be the case and doesn't increase the cost of standard shells or reduce any of the credit earning multipliers to otherwise compensate.

 

The high tiers on the other hand are in a different situation because the firepower gained is a little bit larger than the increase in durability. But to make it more complicated, what we see in practice is that a significant percentage of engagements happen front-to-front by tanks that don't have high odds of penetrating one-another with standard ammo. Even though gold shells now have less alpha they're still anywhere between advantageous and mandatory in cases like these. The net effect is that in situations where the standard shell already works, it'll now work a little bit better than before. But those are situations where this entire issue was irrelevant to begin with. There's still all the other situations where it doesn't matter how much alpha the standard shell has if it never penetrates. So yes, progress has been made, but the next step is to make the standard shell viable more often. More weakspots, more flanking routes, fewer corridors, less excessive armor.

 

I've also confirmed one of my earlier suspicions, that outside of arta, HE shells haven't been buffed at all. They're now much weaker than before because there's more hit points and because AP has more or less the same alpha. Not sure if this is deliberate. If it is, I strongly disagree with it. The typical gun's HE should have been improved by the same ratio as its AP. Some howitzers were questionable and perhaps deserved a smaller ratio, but better that than nothing.



mechanizedmarauder #130 Posted Jun 08 2019 - 04:34

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 28748 battles
  • 307
  • Member since:
    01-09-2013

View Postscottie_, on Jun 05 2019 - 21:32, said:

 

It's a good point, the gap between +2 tier's just got wider.  What happens now in a 4-6-5 MM, or whatever the template is now days.  I'm 2 tier's lower and shooting special ammo, the tank two tier's higher is shooting regular ammo and doing a lot more damage to me.  MM needs to be spot on for this ammo rebalance to work. 

 

View Postphasor4, on Jun 06 2019 - 01:19, said:

 

ATTENTION WG! READ THIS POST!

 

YES! YES! YES! Exactly what is occurring! 

Not participating in this but, as a veteran player I can tell you that this is just way too complicated for the average player and is possibly one of the reasons that so many veteran players have left the game. I have taken multiple breaks over the past year or so myself and every time I come back I just see new reasons to stop playing. Making the game more complicated is just one of those reasons. I have no interest in learning yet more new game mechanics. You are driving players away by listening so much to the whiners.

There is a really simple solution to this perceived problem, stop making "super tanks"! Matching tanks against ones they can't damage is just stupid, so I suppose I am talking about matchmaking as much as anything. This is a game, and people want to play a game they can have fun in as well as be competitive.

"Power creep" is the real problem in this game not ammunition choices. Yes, the free to play players will all cry about "gold rounds" and call people no skill because of it. So what? If you aren't skilled enough to manage your rounds and battle costs then too bad for you. You'll always have issues making credits. 

A bit of a rambling rant but hey I don't want to waste any more time here as WG won't listen anyway since I am telling them that their agenda is stupid!

View Postowlgator, on Jun 07 2019 - 08:13, said:

Some great points in the thread so far, specifically around the impact to RNG and why the reduction in premium ammo damage wasn't implemented.

 

A few more issues (which may have been mentioned but I didn't catch them):

- Big discrepancy between HP and Alpha increase between tiers.  We already know tanks two tiers below are going to get wiped off the map in one shot (as opposed to two?), but even one tier below will have a huge disadvantage.  On average, you're basically giving the top tier tanks a higher percentage increase of HP and Alpha.

- Big discrepancy between HP and Alpha increase per tank.  Is there a concern that tanks survive for too long?  Aren't we at about 7 minutes per battle?  HP going up 26%.  Alpha going up 36%.  Assuming everyone pens at the same rate (which you can assume since they aren't changing armor profile), tanks will die faster.

- Tanks two tiers below are F'd.  Most players used premium ammo to begin with - not only will this continue, but they'll need to shoot more ammo due to the top tier HP increase, and to top it off the top tier tank will be firing a standard ammo round that's buffed.  Cool.

 

a quick synopsis of most of the major points here.

.

and as I noted earlier, the problems are really tank specific. there are otherwise fun vehicles with low ap pen values that constantly find themselves in face to face confrontations with power creep heavies and tds 2 tiers higher. and they want/need to do enough damage to earn some income and  help their team.     ,,,,so hey lets limit the hp loadout on the matilda black prince, relatively lower the damage caused, and increase the shell costs!

.

and flanking is awesome.  on frontline.    .....yeah,,  ruinberg not so much.



The_Mad_Witch #131 Posted Jun 08 2019 - 07:21

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 367 battles
  • 35
  • Member since:
    11-18-2014

I hope with the extra HP buffs, tanks with limited rounds get more ammo.

 

like a buff for the St Emil or S51.

 



Bavor #132 Posted Jun 08 2019 - 21:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 33935 battles
  • 3,170
  • [REL-A] REL-A
  • Member since:
    04-21-2013

View PostLeaveIT2Beaver, on Jun 05 2019 - 12:24, said:

WarGaming is not going to get far. People are spamming premium rounds at tier 2, pushing people out into lanes of fire, ramming teammates, etc... It's a Russian joke.  Deleted it from my computer.

 

I had the same experience on the Sandbox server starting at tier 2 and continuing up through the tiers.  75% of what is shot at me is premium rounds.  Players prefer guaranteed penetration with lower damage over higher damage with reduced risk of penetration.

 



Bavor #133 Posted Jun 08 2019 - 21:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 33935 battles
  • 3,170
  • [REL-A] REL-A
  • Member since:
    04-21-2013

I've said this in other posts about the topic....

Block Quote

The issue isn't gold/premium/special rounds.  The issue is map design, lack of real weak spots on many tanks, and RNG.  Wargaming loves corridor maps that make players fight frontally.  How many of their maps are two corridors that promote frontal engagements with an area in between that is a death zone for most tanks?  How many tanks/TDs have little to no frontal weak spots?  How many of them have weak spots that can be easily penetrated by standard ammo of the lower tier tanks they face?  How many times in a row have you fully aimed a shot at the weak spot of a stationary tank and have RNG send the shot too low or too high or too far too the side several times in a row?  How many times in a row have you fully aimed a shot at the weak spot of a stationary tank and have  a low penetration RNG roll that caused the shot to bounce off a weak spot.  Before attempting any changes to ammo, they need to fix the other areas first.  Wargaming is fixing the symptom, not the problem.  

 

Personally, I think Wargaming should change RNG to +/- 15% for damage and penetration.  WoT Blitz has 15% RNG if I remember correctly from playing it before.  In addition to that, many maps need some rework to allow more flanking opportunities.  With the current design of most maps your flanking choices are to go to another corridor to fight tanks frontally just as you were before, or crossing into an open area where most players get spotted easily and die quickly.  Tanks also need weak spots that can actually be hit and penetrated by lower tier tanks. 

 

I'm not saying every tank needs large weak spots that every tank 2 tiers lower can easily hit and pen at 200+ meters.  However, the weak spots of many higher tier tanks are small enough that when you are less than 100 meters away, your aim circle is 2 to 4 times the area of the weak spot. Regularly having fully aimed shots at a tank's weak spots miss at under 100 meters because the weak spots are so small they can't easily be hit is a problem.  Skill in learning weak spots and aiming for them is negated by RNG in many circumstances.  It also works the other way.  There are tanks that have been relegated to being useless after nerfs or changes because their weak spots are so large and easy to hit.  The T110E5 is one example of this.  

 

Before touching gold/special ammo, Wargaming should look at the other major issues with the game with map design, armor, and RNG

 

The sandbox changes are not fixing the problem with the game, they are fixing symptoms of the main problems.



mechanizedmarauder #134 Posted Jun 10 2019 - 19:56

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 28748 battles
  • 307
  • Member since:
    01-09-2013

View PostBavor, on Jun 08 2019 - 14:24, said:

I've said this in other posts about the topic....

 

The sandbox changes are not fixing the problem with the game, they are fixing symptoms of the main problems.

 

The issue isn't gold/premium/special rounds.  The issue is map design, lack of real weak spots on many tanks, and RNG.  Wargaming loves corridor maps that make players fight frontally.  How many of their maps are two corridors that promote frontal engagements with an area in between that is a death zone for most tanks?  How many tanks/TDs have little to no frontal weak spots?  How many of them have weak spots that can be easily penetrated by standard ammo of the lower tier tanks they face?  How many times in a row have you fully aimed a shot at the weak spot of a stationary tank and have RNG send the shot too low or too high or too far too the side several times in a row?  How many times in a row have you fully aimed a shot at the weak spot of a stationary tank and have  a low penetration RNG roll that caused the shot to bounce off a weak spot.  Before attempting any changes to ammo, they need to fix the other areas first.  Wargaming is fixing the symptom, not the problem.  

 

Personally, I think Wargaming should change RNG to +/- 15% for damage and penetration.  WoT Blitz has 15% RNG if I remember correctly from playing it before.  In addition to that, many maps need some rework to allow more flanking opportunities.  With the current design of most maps your flanking choices are to go to another corridor to fight tanks frontally just as you were before, or crossing into an open area where most players get spotted easily and die quickly.  Tanks also need weak spots that can actually be hit and penetrated by lower tier tanks. 

 

I'm not saying every tank needs large weak spots that every tank 2 tiers lower can easily hit and pen at 200+ meters.  However, the weak spots of many higher tier tanks are small enough that when you are less than 100 meters away, your aim circle is 2 to 4 times the area of the weak spot. Regularly having fully aimed shots at a tank's weak spots miss at under 100 meters because the weak spots are so small they can't easily be hit is a problem.  Skill in learning weak spots and aiming for them is negated by RNG in many circumstances.  It also works the other way.  There are tanks that have been relegated to being useless after nerfs or changes because their weak spots are so large and easy to hit.  The T110E5 is one example of this.  

 

Before touching gold/special ammo, Wargaming should look at the other major issues with the game with map design, armor, and RNG

 

 

 

and this exactly. in a furious brawl you get just so many shots. too much rng magnifies the need to pen every shot that Does hit.



latvius #135 Posted Jun 12 2019 - 13:50

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 33311 battles
  • 498
  • [GFLC] GFLC
  • Member since:
    11-26-2013
Weak spots are a problem but that won't stop gold spam.  Please WG continue with the gold round nerf!




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users