Jump to content


⭐ The Problem of Special Ammunition, Why Proposed Solutions Don't Work, ​and How I Would Solve I...

gold premium ammo rounds shells problem fix solution 13disciple

  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

13Disciple #1 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 16:33

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 24085 battles
  • 147
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    12-05-2015

My Next Video and Article are Live!

 

I think the problem and solution of premium ammunition is extremely important for the long term health of the game. This topic was so important to me that I put together both a detailed article, and a video. (Also my first time experimenting with After Effects). It took a lot of work!

My hope is that people find them enlightening, and will use the information to challenge the devs to come up with a solution that is better for the health of the game and improves gameplay.

 

(The article and video have some differences and if you have time it's worth checking both out, otherwise the Video is probably a little more detailed)

 

You can read the article by following this link, and/or watch the embedded YT video below.

 

 

 

EDIT: Please keep the discussion friendly, no need to sling anger and insults.


Edited by 13Disciple, Jun 17 2019 - 16:39.


PunCzarBlintz #2 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 16:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 80666 battles
  • 2,920
  • [4HIM] 4HIM
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011
I consider this a well thought out article.

24_inch_pythons #3 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 17:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 28844 battles
  • 5,550
  • [HSOLO] HSOLO
  • Member since:
    03-28-2012

Didn't watch the vid but always appreciate people who put in effort on youtube.

My opinion on gold ammo - It's not a problem. Wargaming shouldn't change anything.



I_QQ_4_U #4 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 17:23

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 21790 battles
  • 6,108
  • Member since:
    10-17-2016
Easiest 'solution' is to limit how many you can carry and buff the pen on the standard rounds of the few tanks that rely on using premium. You still get to use them when you need them but can't spam them and make the kids cry.

Kramah313 #5 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 17:26

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 4133 battles
  • 188
  • Member since:
    01-26-2018

I like your solution. To summarize::

1. Use the reduction in alpha strategy for premium rounds (15-25%)

2. Rebalance armor, adding weak spots or reducing thickness as needed. Reduce HP of super heavies if needed. 

3. Make all rounds cost about the same

4. Add some further differentiation to the rounds. Increase AP normalization. Increase AP ricochet angle to 75. 

5. Reduce slightly RNG to further differentiate them and reduce alpha overlap caused by RNG. Maybe make RNG amounts slightly different for each round. 

 

I think this this a great idea. But I don’t think they will go for it. I don’t think they’ll touch RNG, though maybe just that part could be left out. I don’t think they will want to rebalance armor of premium tanks. And they are some of the ones in most need of it (Defender, even some low tier ones). How would you propose they handle armor of premium tanks?



KRZYBooP #6 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 17:33

    Community Coordinator

  • Administrator
  • 3820 battles
  • 115
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    08-10-2015
Our Dev team is not looking to turn the RNG nob. It can be argued that it's how three tier battles are possible, where a Tier 5 Lef can get lucky and block a shot from a Tier 7 Tiger getting a chance to fire back. 

YANKEE137 #7 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 18:01

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 13543 battles
  • 6,139
  • [6-ACR] 6-ACR
  • Member since:
    08-17-2015
Other than rationing (which was what actually occurred in WWII) I don't see how you can fix this. Good luck.

moogleslam #8 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 18:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 45076 battles
  • 4,895
  • [GURUS] GURUS
  • Member since:
    12-20-2013

View PostKRZYBooP, on Jun 17 2019 - 12:33, said:

Our Dev team is not looking to turn the RNG nob. It can be argued that it's how three tier battles are possible, where a Tier 5 Lef can get lucky and block a shot from a Tier 7 Tiger getting a chance to fire back. 

 

Hey KRZY, but how about the rest of what 13Disciple says?  Removing the cost variable, and balancing exclusively based on shell characteristics is the perfect solution in my mind.



Mojo_Riesing #9 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 18:07

    Captain

  • Players
  • 19509 battles
  • 1,293
  • [ACATS] ACATS
  • Member since:
    11-26-2011

View PostKRZYBooP, on Jun 17 2019 - 08:33, said:

Our Dev team is not looking to turn the RNG nob. It can be argued that it's how three tier battles are possible, where a Tier 5 Lef can get lucky and block a shot from a Tier 7 Tiger getting a chance to fire back. 

 

You know, really, truly...that's just not gonna happen.

 

Meanwhile in the Universe WE live in...the low Tier in 3/5/7 get absolutely creamed ALL the time by the Top Tier.  The ONLY good thing to say about 3/5/7 is it doesn't happen as much.

 

No matter WHAT convoluted "solution" WG concocts...if i'm in the low Tier situation whether i get as MUCH damage as as shell that won't pen..i'm gonna PUMP premium rounds out like nobodies business.



Trauglodyte #10 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 18:14

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 21705 battles
  • 3,403
  • [GSH] GSH
  • Member since:
    06-04-2016

View Post13Disciple, on Jun 17 2019 - 16:33, said:

My Next Video and Article are Live!

 

I think the problem and solution of premium ammunition is extremely important for the long term health of the game. This topic was so important to me that I put together both a detailed article, and a video. (Also my first time experimenting with After Effects). It took a lot of work!

My hope is that people find them enlightening, and will use the information to challenge the devs to come up with a solution that is better for the health of the game and improves gameplay.

 

(The article and video have some differences and if you have time it's worth checking both out, otherwise the Video is probably a little more detailed)

 

You can read the article by following this link, and/or watch the embedded YT video below.

 

 

 

EDIT: Please keep the discussion friendly, no need to sling anger and insults.

 

The problem with both your solution and WG's solution is that they're assumign that both maps and tanks are balanced and they aren't.  IF this game was in the state of perfect balance, changes to ammunition could be discussed.  Anything done, until that occurs, is purely whitewashing the issue.  Case in point, it takes longer for the Tiger II to kill the E 100, assuming everything pens, than it does the E 100 to kill the Tiger II.  Such issues gets worse the earlier in the nation trees that you get.  That issue has little to do with ammunition and has everything to do with a semi-linear strength gain in gun stats as you advance.  Ergo, even if you could penetrate everything, the -2 tier tank doesn't have the staying power to afford to overcome the worse gun stats to hunt for smaller and smaller, if they're existent at all, weak spots.

 

I really don't get why we keep having this discussion.  Special ammunition spamming is caused by lazy people, bottom tier players, and people trying to work through the lack of weak spots.  You cannot call this game balanced, when you have massive tumor cupolas for American, German, and British tanks and cupolas that are microscopic and turret roofs that can't be overmatched.  Fix the real problem and then look at ammunition.  Anyway, all of this is academic, as long as WarGaming wants to allow Light tanks to pen Super Heavy tanks frontally.



I_QQ_4_U #11 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 18:40

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 21790 battles
  • 6,108
  • Member since:
    10-17-2016

View PostMojo_Riesing, on Jun 17 2019 - 18:07, said:

 

You know, really, truly...that's just not gonna happen.

 

 

 

But it does happen. You see people whining about it here constantly.



atila_xD #12 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 18:41

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 7817 battles
  • 734
  • [200IQ] 200IQ
  • Member since:
    10-13-2014

Honestly thank you for clarifying one side of the argument rather than people spazzing on most threads on the assumed "indirect" gold shell change



Mikosah #13 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 18:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 17582 battles
  • 4,417
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

View PostKRZYBooP, on Jun 17 2019 - 10:33, said:

Our Dev team is not looking to turn the RNG nob. It can be argued that it's how three tier battles are possible, where a Tier 5 Lef can get lucky and block a shot from a Tier 7 Tiger getting a chance to fire back. 

 

That argument works both ways. For every time RNG might save the underdog, it could well do the opposite. Imagine a situation where your tier 5's only hope in fighting a tier 7 is if he can hit and penetrate a weakspot, and his gun decides that's just not happening.

 

As of the OP's article, I generally agree with it but I will bring up a couple caveats. One is that it probably isn't a good idea to raise the cost of standard shells, we already have a problem that some of the most outstanding matches outside of the low tiers are unprofitable even with a bare minimum of premium goods in use. If the goal is to garner enthusiasm, then if anything there should be a ray of hope that free-to-play players can sustain themselves even in the high tiers if they're competent. 

 

The other caveat is that a major contributor to this issue is map design. There's currently an emphasis on front-to-front brawling at relatively short range and that simplifies combat into 'who pens who'. In that environment, gold shells are disproportionately useful. And if armor is balanced around gold shells, then the standard shells become obsolete. And we've seen first hand that even in the sandbox where the standard shells did possess an alpha advantage, if they can't pen then they're no better off than before. Reducing armor and adding weakspots is a great thing to do, but the other half of the equation will be opening up more situations where you're not trading front-to-front for a change and might actually want a shell that has less pen but more damage. 



atila_xD #14 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 18:45

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 7817 battles
  • 734
  • [200IQ] 200IQ
  • Member since:
    10-13-2014

View PostI_QQ_4_U, on Jun 17 2019 - 18:40, said:

 

 

But it does happen. You see people whining about it here constantly.

/snip/


Edited by atila_xD, Jun 17 2019 - 18:46.


I_QQ_4_U #15 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 18:48

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 21790 battles
  • 6,108
  • Member since:
    10-17-2016

View PostMikosah, on Jun 17 2019 - 18:42, said:

 

That argument works both ways. For every time RNG might save the underdog, it could well do the opposite. Imagine a situation where your tier 5's only hope in fighting a tier 7 is if he can hit and penetrate a weakspot, and his gun decides that's just not happening.

 

 

 

 Without RNG the 2 tier down tank chances are pretty much nil, with it it at least gives him a chance. RNG will always favour the underdog in the long run, that's why a lot of better players don't like it.



atila_xD #16 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 18:49

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 7817 battles
  • 734
  • [200IQ] 200IQ
  • Member since:
    10-13-2014

View PostTrauglodyte, on Jun 17 2019 - 18:14, said:

 

The problem with both your solution and WG's solution is that they're assumign that both maps and tanks are balanced and they aren't.  IF this game was in the state of perfect balance, changes to ammunition could be discussed.  Anything done, until that occurs, is purely whitewashing the issue.  Case in point, it takes longer for the Tiger II to kill the E 100, assuming everything pens, than it does the E 100 to kill the Tiger II.  Such issues gets worse the earlier in the nation trees that you get.  That issue has little to do with ammunition and has everything to do with a semi-linear strength gain in gun stats as you advance.  Ergo, even if you could penetrate everything, the -2 tier tank doesn't have the staying power to afford to overcome the worse gun stats to hunt for smaller and smaller, if they're existent at all, weak spots.

 

I really don't get why we keep having this discussion.  Special ammunition spamming is caused by lazy people, bottom tier players, and people trying to work through the lack of weak spots.  You cannot call this game balanced, when you have massive tumor cupolas for American, German, and British tanks and cupolas that are microscopic and turret roofs that can't be overmatched.  Fix the real problem and then look at ammunition.  Anyway, all of this is academic, as long as WarGaming wants to allow Light tanks to pen Super Heavy tanks frontally.

agreed i think the first issue is the whole jap line and some of the prem shell or bounce a **** ton tanks, such as the 430u chieftain and super heavies in general. Tbh this spam was never an extreme issue by users until WG started adding tanks strictly countered by best by heat shells


Edited by atila_xD, Jun 17 2019 - 18:54.


13Disciple #17 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 18:57

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 24085 battles
  • 147
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    12-05-2015

View PostPunCzarBlintz, on Jun 17 2019 - 10:50, said:

I consider this a well thought out article.

 

This is a well thought out comment ^.^

 

View Post24_inch_pythons, on Jun 17 2019 - 11:13, said:

Didn't watch the vid but always appreciate people who put in effort on youtube.

My opinion on gold ammo - It's not a problem. Wargaming shouldn't change anything.

 

So you believe a pay for advantage mechanic in a free to play game is ok, and either doesn't effect server population, or you don't care if it does.

 

View PostI_QQ_4_U, on Jun 17 2019 - 11:23, said:

Easiest 'solution' is to limit how many you can carry and buff the pen on the standard rounds of the few tanks that rely on using premium. You still get to use them when you need them but can't spam them and make the kids cry.

 

Still doesn't fix the problem -> Premium shells are balanced by their cost.

 

View PostKramah313, on Jun 17 2019 - 11:26, said:

I like your solution. To summarize::

1. Use the reduction in alpha strategy for premium rounds (15-25%)

2. Rebalance armor, adding weak spots or reducing thickness as needed. Reduce HP of super heavies if needed. 

3. Make all rounds cost about the same

4. Add some further differentiation to the rounds. Increase AP normalization. Increase AP ricochet angle to 75. 

5. Reduce slightly RNG to further differentiate them and reduce alpha overlap caused by RNG. Maybe make RNG amounts slightly different for each round. 

 

I think this this a great idea. But I don’t think they will go for it. I don’t think they’ll touch RNG, though maybe just that part could be left out. I don’t think they will want to rebalance armor of premium tanks. And they are some of the ones in most need of it (Defender, even some low tier ones). How would you propose they handle armor of premium tanks?

 

Heh, funny you bring that up. As it were the only way to really address it is either balance other characteristics outside of armor/HP, or buff all tanks around them (neither are really great).

In honesty the best solution to this problem, is the best solution for the problem of premium tanks as a whole. You should make every single premium tank in the game avialable in the tech tree as a tech tree tank. And then sell upgrades for those tanks to turn them into a premium tank.

1) all (free to play) players have access to the same tanks.

2) all players can try and test a tank before upgrading it/purchasing it's premium status.

3) you don't risk game balance in terms of pay to win/pay for advantage with the release of any new tank.

 

 

View PostKRZYBooP, on Jun 17 2019 - 11:33, said:

Our Dev team is not looking to turn the RNG nob. It can be argued that it's how three tier battles are possible, where a Tier 5 Lef can get lucky and block a shot from a Tier 7 Tiger getting a chance to fire back. 

 

I would never expect the dev team to change this. I just wanted to point out you can adjust it by shell - not just across the board. And they must recognize there is a careful balance between an expectation of consistency, and crazy RNG. I think current RNG really skirts that line.

 

View Postmoogleslam, on Jun 17 2019 - 12:05, said:

 

Hey KRZY, but how about the rest of what 13Disciple says?  Removing the cost variable, and balancing exclusively based on shell characteristics is the perfect solution in my mind.

 

He has a point ^.^ - glad to see you understand and support my argument.

 

View PostTrauglodyte, on Jun 17 2019 - 12:14, said:

 

The problem with both your solution and WG's solution is that they're assumign that both maps and tanks are balanced and they aren't.  IF this game was in the state of perfect balance, changes to ammunition could be discussed.  Anything done, until that occurs, is purely whitewashing the issue.  Case in point, it takes longer for the Tiger II to kill the E 100, assuming everything pens, than it does the E 100 to kill the Tiger II.  Such issues gets worse the earlier in the nation trees that you get.  That issue has little to do with ammunition and has everything to do with a semi-linear strength gain in gun stats as you advance.  Ergo, even if you could penetrate everything, the -2 tier tank doesn't have the staying power to afford to overcome the worse gun stats to hunt for smaller and smaller, if they're existent at all, weak spots.

 

I really don't get why we keep having this discussion.  Special ammunition spamming is caused by lazy people, bottom tier players, and people trying to work through the lack of weak spots.  You cannot call this game balanced, when you have massive tumor cupolas for American, German, and British tanks and cupolas that are microscopic and turret roofs that can't be overmatched.  Fix the real problem and then look at ammunition.  Anyway, all of this is academic, as long as WarGaming wants to allow Light tanks to pen Super Heavy tanks frontally.

 

I would never expect a tier 8 to go toe to toe with a tier 10. I do expect a tier 8 to have a reasonable chance against most other tier 8s. I'm not looking to solve all game balance problems. There is really only 1 goal with these changes.

 

Remove the pay for advantage mechanic. Which my solution would do.

 

Even if this is no magic bullet to solve the rest of the balance problems. It does remove the incentive of adding more and more armor to the game.



Trauglodyte #18 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 19:04

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 21705 battles
  • 3,403
  • [GSH] GSH
  • Member since:
    06-04-2016

View Post13Disciple, on Jun 17 2019 - 18:57, said:

 

I would never expect a tier 8 to go toe to toe with a tier 10. I do expect a tier 8 to have a reasonable chance against most other tier 8s. I'm not looking to solve all game balance problems. There is really only 1 goal with these changes.

 

Remove the pay for advantage mechanic. Which my solution would do.

 

Even if this is no magic bullet to solve the rest of the balance problems. It does remove the incentive of adding more and more armor to the game.

 

We don't expect that but that is often what happens.  The new MM helps with it but it still exists.  I wouldn't want to get caught in my Tiger II vs an E 75 because that still isn't a fair fight.  I get and appreciate your angle and, from the stand point of normalizing the cost, it makes sense to me.  Any change in the mechanics would require an equivalent change in the economy.  IF, and that is a big if, WG feels like balance is ok'ish enough, why not simply alter the damage component of "special ammo" by an equal percentage of the increase in penetration?  Then you flatten the cost and, if needed, increase the cost of repairs to balance out the use of a secondary type of ammo.  Again, I completely agree with your desire and I also agree that WG is going around the world for what is an overall easy fix.  Though, I'm betting that they're trying to solve other issues, such as TTK (time to kill), especially as seen at the lower levels.  This goes back to my question of "how do we solve any aspect of the game when the game isn't balanced?".  Which, I find ironic given that, as you said and as we all know, WG is inverting the increase of health to damage, thus creating an even faster TTK problem*.

 

This could all get solved with dynamic stating, where you get uptiered to highest possible stats.  But, that it probably too hard for most developers to understand so let's take that off of the table.

 

*EDIT:  For the life of me, I still cannot fathom them increasing the health on the IS-7 MORE than the Maus and thinking that it is a good idea.


Edited by Trauglodyte, Jun 17 2019 - 19:10.


Mikosah #19 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 19:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 17582 battles
  • 4,417
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

View PostI_QQ_4_U, on Jun 17 2019 - 11:48, said:

 

 

 Without RNG the 2 tier down tank chances are pretty much nil, with it it at least gives him a chance. RNG will always favour the underdog in the long run, that's why a lot of better players don't like it.

 

Absolutely untrue. For one, you're presuming that the top-tier is always the one who has his sights on target and that RNG will therefore benefit his victim. But every time a bottom-tier fires back, the same RNG has the potential to help the top-tier instead. If anything, RNG is more beneficial for the top-tiers because they're relatively safer to begin with. The bottom-tier's job of trying to hit and penetrate an enemy with superior armor gets disproportionately harder if his gun has to overcome RNG to do this. 

 

Moreover, what the high-RNG environment does overall is exaggerate the value of good positioning and cover use. Imagine that two of the same tank are fighting eachother. One is in a perfect hull-down, the other is completely in the open and showing his whole flat side. In a low-RNG hypothetical, the guy in the open can still hit and pen the other's cupola, so both will damage eachother at the same rate. But in a high-RNG environment like ours, the unreliability of the guns will mean that the hull-down position does actually offer a great deal of relative safety. And this means that an advanced player could dominate the underdogs by out-positioning them. But with less RNG, then at any time the underdog could retaliate by just returning fire even from bad positions.



HomeRum #20 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 19:14

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 71 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    06-16-2019

View Postatila_xD, on Jun 17 2019 - 18:49, said:

agreed i think the first issue is the whole jap line and some of the prem shell or bounce a **** ton tanks, such as the 430u chieftain and super heavies in general. Tbh this spam was never an extreme issue by users until WG started adding tanks strictly countered by best by heat shells

pretty sure the problem of gold spam is caused by xvm and stat padding in general. Which is a natural thing to happen... I mean, why not use a round that will insure you'd pen almost every time? That's why they need to nerf them by either nerfing them directly or by just buffing standard, he rounds and HP pool. I think that if what they are proposing is implemented with care and in a 1 by 1 basis the game is going to greatly improve, the gameplay is going to be smarter and armor will start to make sense again. I'm all in for the changes.

The only thing I would add to WG proposal is to even out the different shell costs. After the changes a premium price for gold rounds will not make any sense at all.

Cause if I am a good player and know the weak spots and how to build opportunities to flank the good armored vehicles I would shoot standard rounds every time for the extra dmg.


Edited by HomeRum, Jun 17 2019 - 19:17.






Also tagged with gold, premium, ammo, rounds, shells, problem, fix, solution, 13disciple

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users