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

moogleslam #21 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 19:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 45148 battles
  • 4,901
  • [GURUS] GURUS
  • Member since:
    12-20-2013

View Post13Disciple, on Jun 17 2019 - 13:57, said:

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

 

Yeah, and somewhere in my post history, I've said more or less the same thing a couple of times.  There has to be an advantage and disadvantage to using each shell type which forces us to make decisions on the battle field.  Do I want more penetration or more damage?  Cost should never factor into that decision.  It should be purely strategic.  It really puzzles me that Wargaming don't see this.

 

Also, I never knew you had a face until today, and I had a little chuckle at your Steve comment in the intro.  Side note, I met KRZY & Steve, and they're good people, and  probably agree with us more than we know.  They're just limited in what they can do (and say) by HQ.



RunDownBlaster #22 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 19:28

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10295 battles
  • 123
  • Member since:
    03-29-2012

View PostKRZYBooP, on Jun 17 2019 - 16:33, 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. 

 

Dude. RNG is not a balancing tool. Because of RNG, an FV4005/215 b (183) can oneshot vehicles of the same tier from full health if it pens with its gold HE. The fact that it doesn't happen constantly does not stop it from infuriating everybody.

 

If you want to actually fix things, you need to do one of two things.

 

1 - Mass rebalance everything so that the bottom tier is not as weak in comparison to the top tier. Yes, that would be a lot of work that would bleed down to I-III. Mopping up after badly implemented ideas tends to be a lot of work. Start from the top and work down, there's no need to change Xs if you do this. After this, close dispersion and damage ranges. Higher minimums, lower maximums.

 

2 - Just close matchmaking to +/-1 all around. That would be the faster solution, but would tear up the dynamics in place and potentially extend matchmaking times. Again, close dispersion and damage ranges after this.

 

Y'all are relying on RNG to clean up after your mess. That's like expecting a horde of flies to clean up after you. Yeah, in some respects it might, but it presents its own problem that is worse in several respects.



Numerius_Titurius_Sophus #23 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 19:40

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 14407 battles
  • 1,604
  • [GSH] GSH
  • Member since:
    05-07-2015

I like this video.  However, he gives WoT too much (or too little) credit.

 

When he comments that the change makes the problem worse and not better, it isn't incompetence from WoT.  THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING!  Firing more gold and not fixing the problem allows them to afford more hookers and blow.



13Disciple #24 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 19:41

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 24085 battles
  • 148
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    12-05-2015

View Postmoogleslam, on Jun 17 2019 - 13:27, said:

 

Yeah, and somewhere in my post history, I've said more or less the same thing a couple of times.  There has to be an advantage and disadvantage to using each shell type which forces us to make decisions on the battle field.  Do I want more penetration or more damage?  Cost should never factor into that decision.  It should be purely strategic.  It really puzzles me that Wargaming don't see this.

 

Also, I never knew you had a face until today, and I had a little chuckle at your Steve comment in the intro.  Side note, I met KRZY & Steve, and they're good people, and  probably agree with us more than we know.  They're just limited in what they can do (and say) by HQ.

 

I met Steven (Stephen?)  (for the second time) at Aquino a couple weeks ago. He's actually the one that suggested I try Adobe After Effects - which is what I used to animate every single part of this video. So I had to do some kind of nod :teethhappy:

 

One of my favorite tanks to play is the M41 90 lepkz because it exemplifies this fun nature. AP for shell velocity and good pen. HEP for high damage, okayish pen, slow shell. Knowing when to fire what is so freaking rewarding. Imagine that but on every tank? and with 3 rounds instead of 2? The game would have so much new life to it.



13Disciple #25 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 19:49

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 24085 battles
  • 148
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    12-05-2015

View PostNumerius_Titurius_Sophus, on Jun 17 2019 - 13:40, said:

I like this video.  However, he gives WoT too much (or too little) credit.

 

When he comments that the change makes the problem worse and not better, it isn't incompetence from WoT.  THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING!  Firing more gold and not fixing the problem allows them to afford more [Edited].

 

That's true, but the short term profit of increasing the problem of the pay for advantage mechanic, yields to a long term loss in players. The question is are they planning to run WoT for a long time (fix the problem), or milk it and get out(make it worse)?


Edited by 13Disciple, Jun 17 2019 - 19:49.


Volcanic_lobster_220 #26 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 20:31

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 7887 battles
  • 667
  • Member since:
    06-04-2016

Didn't watch the whole video but it seems you put a lot of work into it so i appreciate that.

 

What i think: they need to immediately scrap the current garbage method going on on the Sandbox ASAP, don't change tank HP or shell DMG, But keep the previously planned hp buff for Tier 1-6 tanks.

Limit premium ammo to 10% of your ammo capacity and boom the problem would be solved and no more spam.

OR

What i've heard a couple times which is interesting and is apparently how Blitz does it? it's: remove ammo constraints altogether, i don't really know how that works but i assume there would be a limit to the amount of prem you can fire.



13Disciple #27 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 21:15

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 24085 battles
  • 148
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    12-05-2015

View PostVolcanic_lobster_220, on Jun 17 2019 - 14:31, said:

Didn't watch the whole video but it seems you put a lot of work into it so i appreciate that.

 

What i think: they need to immediately scrap the current garbage method going on on the Sandbox ASAP, don't change tank HP or shell DMG, But keep the previously planned hp buff for Tier 1-6 tanks.

Limit premium ammo to 10% of your ammo capacity and boom the problem would be solved and no more spam.

OR

What i've heard a couple times which is interesting and is apparently how Blitz does it? it's: remove ammo constraints altogether, i don't really know how that works but i assume there would be a limit to the amount of prem you can fire.

 

I see this constantly so lets talk about it.

If we limit ammunition by 10% then lets compare the Obj 140, M48 Patton and the E100.

 

First off the gold damage potential:

Object 140 5 shells: 1600

M48A5 5.7 shells: 2223

E100 5 shells: 3750

 

Very clearly the Obj 140 is no longer a viable tank. so If you can't damage the full hitpoints of even a single Super Heavy by yourself with premium shells, then what options do you have when you go into your next battle? You either A) drive a super heavy because it'll always take more than a few tanks worth of gold shells to kill you. or B) you drive a super high penetration Tank Destroyer that doesn't require a lot of gold ammunition.

 

The more of A and B you get in random matches, the less and less viable mediums and heavyiums become. You have effectively disabled a player to choose which shell is the correct choice in a situation, and you've limited what tanks are viable in the game.

 

Do you want to play in matches where 90% of each team is super heavys, and tank destroyers? I sure don't. You make the game far less interesting, and take choice away from players.

 

Wot Blitz did what I suggested - they lowered the alpha damage of premium ammunition, but failed to adjust the shell cost.



Grey_ #28 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 21:38

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 29936 battles
  • 262
  • [OTT-V] OTT-V
  • Member since:
    04-27-2011

I did watch the video and thought all your points are valid.

 

I thought as an alternative to re balancing everything, changing armor and adding hit points, a simpler solution would be dropping the cost of high pen ammunition to match the cost of the regular AP ammunition and lowering it's damage done in relation by whatever is the increased percentage of armor penetration.

 

ie. AP = 100 damage with 0% pen

    APCR/HEAT = 90 with 10% pen

 

It might be argued that this inst "realistic", but that doesn't matter since everything in WOT revolves around hit points.

 

Good job on the video, I could tell you put a lot of work and thought into it.



ThePigSheFlies #29 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 23:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 71890 battles
  • 17,355
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    10-20-2012

View Post13Disciple, on Jun 17 2019 - 15:15, said:

 

 

 

Do you want to play in matches where 90% of each team is super heavys, and tank destroyers? I sure don't. You make the game far less interesting, and take choice away from players.

 

Wot Blitz did what I suggested - they lowered the alpha damage of premium ammunition, but failed to adjust the shell cost.

 

I've all but sworn off playing tier 10s because all too often the MM at tier 10 is 6 or 7 TDs, and 3 SPGs. already in the all tier 10 battles.

 

I don't mind the full tier weight, but that much of each team invested in campy/passive play is punishingly boring.

 

and yes, from what I've seen of the attempt wargaming is headed down, folks will gravitate towards more high penetration tanks (cough) TDs (cough) because the nature of the game actually punishes players that attempt to aim for the rare "weakspots", and the tiny crappy map meta sure doesn't promote flanking opportunities on most maps for anything but perhaps a couple of shots of damage.



golruul #30 Posted Jun 17 2019 - 23:26

    Captain

  • Players
  • 22080 battles
  • 1,608
  • Member since:
    11-05-2011

There's been a whole lot of suggestions/solutions to premium ammo.  From an actual game balance perspective, many of these suggestions are excellent.  So then why hasn't anything been changed in 5+ years?

 

Every single suggestion I've read ignores the following:

Premium ammo generates revenue for WG.  All of these suggestions result in either completely wiping out this revenue stream or significantly reducing this revenue stream.  No one talks about replacing it with something else.  Do you really think a company is going to just slash a significant stream of revenue just because of "game balance"?  No, they won't -- which is why they haven't implemented any of these excellent suggestions throughout the years.

 

WG's current round of premium ammo rebalance (same damage for premium round, more hp for tanks) probably results in roughly the same amount of revenue or maybe even more.  That's why it's being considered. 

 

If you want a business to seriously consider a proposal, do not have the proposal's foundation to be eliminating one of the business' revenue streams.



Sir_Hunter #31 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 00:49

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 14517 battles
  • 332
  • [PC] PC
  • Member since:
    08-27-2011

interesting. i started playing this game all the way back to 2010 when open beta hit. back then premium rounds cost real gold, but there was never any meta in the game. i don't remember see Maus in every single match, and i also don't remember seeing the teams that had a Maus won all the matches. the current gold spam problem is mainly due to laziness, and people having too much in game credits.



Blade2322 #32 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 01:18

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 17302 battles
  • 412
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    03-20-2015

My one big issue with this, is i have absolutely zero confidence in WG to go through and balance the armor profiles of 100's of tanks, without nerfing some in uselessness, and others not getting nerfed enough, therefore being indirectly overbuffed, keep in mind WG is the company who brought us the V4 as a (balanced and tested tank).

 

Imo best solution is limit the number of gold rounds that can be carry to some percentage, e.g. 25%, and reduce there cost in half so they are more accessible to F2P players.



taugrim #33 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 04:36

    Staff sergeant

  • Community Contributor
  • 32212 battles
  • 312
  • [OTTER] OTTER
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013

View Post13Disciple, on Jun 17 2019 - 15:33, 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.

 

Agree 1000000% with what you said and wrote.

 

P4A (Pay for Advantage) mechanics are very bad for the long-term health of any F2P game, especially as F2P players grow increasingly aware that paying customers enjoy a meaningful in-battle advantage due to the latter's capacity to afford premium ammo.

 

Thanks for laying out your argument and thoughts so articulately.



Protechtinium #34 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 05:07

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 8622 battles
  • 9
  • [-IMP] -IMP
  • Member since:
    10-22-2016

While I’m all for finding a solution to the gold craze in WoT, the problem with “limiting” gold rounds, or even nerfing the damage of the shots while reworking other stuff is that there are currently too many tanks in game that have to use copious amounts of gold ammo just to be competitive (T-54 with DPM gun, T-44, American mediums and heavies at tier 8 (especially the T69), Chinese heavies, etc...). A nerf to the amount of ammunition these tanks can carry, or worse, the damage they do per shot (in the case of American 90mms, which already feel gimped, we are talking near sub 200 damage per shot) would completely destroy the little feasibility that these tanks have right now in this meta.

 

Seeing as how WG plans on following through with the damage rework though, I’m hoping (but not expecting unfortunately) to see buffs to certain tanks. As I see it, if a tank already has poor DPM as of right now, expect it to be even worse under these upcoming changes.


Edited by Protechtinium, Jun 18 2019 - 05:11.


Zwinmar #35 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 05:09

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 17744 battles
  • 130
  • [80PRF] 80PRF
  • Member since:
    07-29-2011
The problem is people think they need gold constantly. Yeah, you cant pen every shot, so get smart, move around. But nooo, they have to pen every shot no matter what armor they are facing.

Mojo_Riesing #36 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 05:42

    Captain

  • Players
  • 19509 battles
  • 1,303
  • [ACATS] ACATS
  • Member since:
    11-26-2011

View PostZwinmar, on Jun 17 2019 - 20:09, said:

The problem is people think they need gold constantly. Yeah, you cant pen every shot, so get smart, move around. But nooo, they have to pen every shot no matter what armor they are facing.

 

The problem with what you say is that on a lot of maps, Random Maps in a 15v15...there just isn't that much room to move around/flank etc.  Sneaking up on someone is virtually impossible.

 

And it's not wanting EVERY round to pen, it's wanting ANY rounds to pen.



Norseskald #37 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 08:14

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 20965 battles
  • 350
  • [SKALD] SKALD
  • Member since:
    12-27-2013

i watched your video, and i struggle because i hate every one in your clan, but it was well thought out, had some really great points and over all just really good.

i think the major problem with premi ammo , is the maps, lights (for the most part) are afraid to get a side of the super hvy so wg made it pretty easy just mash that 2 key. for what ever reason people go up a heavy line expecting to be able to soak up some damge, to trade speed, turret speed, reload speed, ect ect for the chance to soak up some damage and help their team. as it sits now with the 2 key a super heavy is a hp pinata on most maps. in all honesty they should have kept the premi ammo for gold purchase, was way less premi ammo spent. part of the problem is seal clubbing, i challenge you to make a new account and try and play through to tier 6. 90 pct of the matches are players with 20k battles mashing the 2 key, while having 5 plus crews. no one, and i do mean no one will stick a round on a game that they have very little to no chance. all that being said, your video was well thought out and good.



OLDIRTYBOMBER #38 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 14:27

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 11206 battles
  • 1,597
  • [DONKY] DONKY
  • Member since:
    09-05-2016

View Postmoogleslam, on Jun 17 2019 - 18:05, 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.

 

First rule of cherry picking is move on if they taste sour, second rule is ignore any suggestion that removes any pay to win from the game's core design principal of.....  pay to win :coin:



13Disciple #39 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 14:44

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 24085 battles
  • 148
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    12-05-2015

View PostGrey_, on Jun 17 2019 - 15:38, said:

I thought as an alternative to re balancing everything, changing armor and adding hit points, a simpler solution would be dropping the cost of high pen ammunition to match the cost of the regular AP ammunition and lowering it's damage done in relation by whatever is the increased percentage of armor penetration.

 

ie. AP = 100 damage with 0% pen

    APCR/HEAT = 90 with 10% pen

 

This is a reasonable method for deciding what % lower alpha a vehicle should have. I would have investigate the impact on high alpha, low alpha, and those thanks that have penetration very close in value, and very far apart in value. But overall, pretty reasonable. Good suggestion :great:

 

View Postgolruul, on Jun 17 2019 - 17:26, said:

Every single suggestion I've read ignores the following:

Premium ammo generates revenue for WG.  All of these suggestions result in either completely wiping out this revenue stream or significantly reducing this revenue stream.  No one talks about replacing it with something else.  Do you really think a company is going to just slash a significant stream of revenue just because of "game balance"?  No, they won't -- which is why they haven't implemented any of these excellent suggestions throughout the years.

 

You're right in that I could have written the article from the position of profitability for the company. My solution keeps the same credit drain that was previously seen at high tier play. Frankly though P4A mechanics will lose you players in the long run. This is not a good way to run your business. If you can improve the health of the game, you'll improve your bottom line overall.

 

View PostBlade2322, on Jun 17 2019 - 19:18, said:

My one big issue with this, is i have absolutely zero confidence in WG to go through and balance the armor profiles of 100's of tanks, without nerfing some in uselessness, and others not getting nerfed enough, therefore being indirectly overbuffed, keep in mind WG is the company who brought us the V4 as a (balanced and tested tank).

 

Imo best solution is limit the number of gold rounds that can be carry to some percentage, e.g. 25%, and reduce there cost in half so they are more accessible to F2P players.

 

I'm not sure you watched the whole video or read the whole article. You don't need to address every armor profile. My suggestion you really only *NEED* to address the high armor/high HP tanks. Also you must have missed my previous explanation on limiting premium ammo:

 

First off the gold damage potential:

Object 140 5 shells: 1600 (or 25% would be 4000)

M48A5 5.7 shells: 2223 (25% would be 5557.5)

E100 5 shells: 3750 (25% would be 9375)

 

Very clearly mediums won't be viable. You will either A) drive a super heavy because it'll always take more than a few tanks worth of gold shells to kill you. or B) you drive a super high penetration Tank Destroyer that doesn't require a lot of gold ammunition. Or C) a Tank like the E100 won't be impacted by the change at all (with 25% ammo limit)

 

The more of A and B you get in random matches, the less and less viable mediums and heavyiums become. You have effectively disabled a player to choose which shell is the correct choice in a situation, and you've limited what tanks are viable in the game.

 

View Posttaugrim, on Jun 17 2019 - 22:36, said:

 

Agree 1000000% with what you said and wrote.

 

P4A (Pay for Advantage) mechanics are very bad for the long-term health of any F2P game, especially as F2P players grow increasingly aware that paying customers enjoy a meaningful in-battle advantage due to the latter's capacity to afford premium ammo.

 

Thanks for laying out your argument and thoughts so articulately.

 

Taugrim Approved! :great:

 

View PostProtechtinium, on Jun 17 2019 - 23:07, said:

While I’m all for finding a solution to the gold craze in WoT, the problem with “limiting” gold rounds, or even nerfing the damage of the shots while reworking other stuff is that there are currently too many tanks in game that have to use copious amounts of gold ammo just to be competitive (T-54 with DPM gun, T-44, American mediums and heavies at tier 8 (especially the T69), Chinese heavies, etc...). A nerf to the amount of ammunition these tanks can carry, or worse, the damage they do per shot (in the case of American 90mms, which already feel gimped, we are talking near sub 200 damage per shot) would completely destroy the little feasibility that these tanks have right now in this meta.

 

Seeing as how WG plans on following through with the damage rework though, I’m hoping (but not expecting unfortunately) to see buffs to certain tanks. As I see it, if a tank already has poor DPM as of right now, expect it to be even worse under these upcoming changes.

 

You bring up a very valid point. My article did not touch on tanks who's AP shells are nearly useless. These changes would indirectly nerf any tank who's standard shell simply doesn't have enough penetration to have reasonable chance at penetrating same tier moderate armor. These tanks would definitely require a minor penetration buff to their standard rounds.



Kramah313 #40 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 14:52

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 4174 battles
  • 190
  • Member since:
    01-26-2018
Another spin on the limiting the number of premium rounds approach - limit the number to the number needed to inflict a certain HP of damage, which would be different at each tier. Also, what if the allotted number was greater for bottom tier vehicles? You could even allow two different setups per tank - one for bottom tier and one for same and top tier. Might be kind of a pain to manage, but some people might want a DPM gun with less pen when top tier and a gun with more damage or pen when bottom. 





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