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

Trauglodyte #41 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 15:06

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 23651 battles
  • 3,747
  • [GSH] GSH
  • Member since:
    06-04-2016

View Post13Disciple, on Jun 17 2019 - 21:15, said:

 

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.

 

I don't want to assume or infer point of view.  But, from what you wrote, I'm interpreting that you find it acceptable that a Medium tank should be able to pen a Super Heavy tank, from the front, despite the fact that that engagement should never happen and would, in all instances in all points of time, end up with a very dead Medium tank.  Am I correct in that?

 

I think that the community's biggest issue is that we're all of the opinion of things from different angles.  Unfortunately for us, there is no MMO trinity in this game and there is no rock-paper-scissors counter balance.  So, I see a lot of different points of view based upon a lot of different angles of opinion.  For me, balance should go:

 

  • Map size and configuration balance
  • Tank class balance
  • Tank balance
  • Ammo balance

 

Without any of the first three, you cannot balance ammunition problems.  Light tanks can't act appropriately and, as a result, are ghetto Mediums.  Medium tanks can't flank and, as a result, are forced into frontal engagements with inappropriate targets combined with poorly balanced concepts of "you're hull down or you're trash".  Heavy tanks and Super Heavy tanks aren't balanced because speed is considered an appropriate counter-balance factor, unless it is Russian/Chinese, and Heaviums are the worst red headed bastard child tanks ever.

 

That being said, I don't disagree with what your concept.  Truth is, it is less about balancing ammunition and more about balancing ammunition costs.  As Taugrim aptly said, P4A aspects of games are bad IF the advantages that they afford impact game play - premium accounts, camouflage, etc. are P4A but don't directly impact game action.  My only concern is that we're talking about balancing a point in the game when all other aspects of the game are in flux and the short and long term ramifications of any such changes.

 

EDIT:  I think that everyone is on the same page here, including WG.  We all want greater balance.  I think that we're all struggling to try to figure out what is the best course of action that requires the least amount of overall work and has the least amount of side effects.  Personally, I find the current changes on Super Test to be abhorrent - how do you increase alpha more than health?  And, more importantly, how do you increase the health of the IS-7 more than the Maus?  We need to get there, though.  Just not sure how.  And, to echo someone else's feelings as stated prior, I don't trust WG to be able to make educated and informed decisions on balancing 100s of tanks.  So, there needs to be a better way than doing what they're currently testing.


Edited by Trauglodyte, Jun 18 2019 - 15:13.


_ShakeNBake_ #42 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 16:12

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 14194 battles
  • 757
  • Member since:
    11-04-2012
The biggest issue I see is the time involved. After changes are made, it takes time for the player base to adjust and for the statistics to represent the actual effects of their changes. The more changes they make at any given time, the harder it is to tease out which changes did what. Even if you assume that the meta can fully adjust to changes in only a month, and assuming WG has the resources to change 2 tanks at every tier and 3 maps each month AND that the changes they make have the intended effect and don’t impact previous changes, we’re looking at a patch every month for probably over a year.

taugrim #43 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 16:22

    Staff sergeant

  • Community Contributor
  • 33333 battles
  • 317
  • [WASHD] WASHD
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013

View Postgolruul, on Jun 17 2019 - 22:26, 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.

 

What you clearly didn't understand from 13Disciple's line of thought - which I 100% agree with - is that premium ammo in its current state is a P4A ( "Pay For Advantage" ) mechanic that is a turn off to many players. Losing players is bad for the game's health and results in loss of revenue. The business parlance is "lifetime customer value" and premium ammo impacts that in meaningfully negative ways.

 

In addition, 3Disciple's proposal not only is to decrease the cost of premium ammo, it's to also increase the costs of what is currently silver AP and silver HE ammo, so that the costs for all shells is comparable, and this can be done in a way that WG does not see a meaningful change in re-supply costs from ammo. So your argument is invalid anyway.

 

Premium ammo is nothing more than a very subtle cash grab. Quickybaby posted an in-depth video 6 months ago talking about how whenever WG has made cash grabs, the game population tanked (pun intended) significantly.

 

 

If you want evidence that WG knows that premium ammo is a bad mechanic, look no further than subsequent game releases:

1. World of Warships has no P4A ammo

2. World of Tanks Blitz had the alpha on premium ammo nerfed

 

I don't expect WG to do the right thing in terms of game design, because WoT is their cash cow.


Edited by taugrim, Jun 22 2019 - 16:00.


taugrim #44 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 16:28

    Staff sergeant

  • Community Contributor
  • 33333 battles
  • 317
  • [WASHD] WASHD
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013

View PostMojo_Riesing, on Jun 18 2019 - 04:42, said:

 

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.

 

To claim that you can't get ANY pens is a skill issue.

 

I get plenty of pens with 100% silver ammo in Random Battles.

 

I target weak spots when possible and flank wherever possible, and I don't go to places where I'll simply beat my head against a wall, e.g. in a light tank I don't challenge heavies frontally, that's sheer stupidity.



13Disciple #45 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 18:28

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 24495 battles
  • 148
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    12-05-2015

View PostKramah313, on Jun 18 2019 - 08:52, said:

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. 

 

Yes, this is the way I would do it, if I was forced to limit premium rounds. It's the most 'fair' however because tanks have different alpha's not all tanks will still have the exact same alpha damage potential from premium rounds. Secondly this would be really hard to balance with high alpha tanks because they will have fewer rounds - which means they will suffer the most from accuracy RNG. Imagine missing half of your already limited number of premium shells.

I think making different total alpha potential numbers based on tier would also be appropriate. However I still believe you would shift the meta.

 

To be an effective change, and not shift the meta I don't think is possible. you either give them enough shells that the change doesn't really matter to begin with, or you give them so few that the meta shifts in the way I've noted below. I'm not sure it'll be possible to find a middle ground. Nor a middle ground that's completely balanced.

 

The most important thing is you still don't address the root of the problem - Premium shells are balanced by their cost. All we address with this solution is a symptom of the problem. I'd urge players to consider WHY gold spam is a problem. Is it because you are not offered the same opportunity? Or is it because you can't afford the same opportunity to load full premium ammo?

 

View Post13Disciple, on Jun 18 2019 - 08:44, said:

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.

 



Trauglodyte #46 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 18:29

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 23651 battles
  • 3,747
  • [GSH] GSH
  • Member since:
    06-04-2016

View Posttaugrim, on Jun 18 2019 - 16:28, said:

 

I get plenty of pens with 100% silver ammo in Random Battles.

 

I'm going to publicly shame myself but that's ok.  I've been watching your games, via Youtube, for a long time.  It wasn't, but a few months ago, that I went, "Huh!  He doesn't have any premium ammo."  I didn't think anything of it, until the next video, when it dawned on me again.  So, I went back a few more vids, to double check, only to find that the "Road to Unicum" vids were all done without special ammo.  Makes the achievements all that much sweeter.

 

Premium ammo was, probably, a good idea, once upon a time.  But, as the game has evolved and tanks have changed, the concept of premium ammo is no longer a viable, in its given iteration.  Sadly, it has tainted too much of the game's balance.  The great thing about what is being tested on Super Test is that it'll allow WG the capability of balancing broken premium tanks - hello, Defender/Obj 252 U - through the massive reduction in health.  But, without a massive game-wide rebalance of tank lines, I'm afraid that all of this is a moot concept.  Case in point, the Centurion 1 has better armor, better pen, and more DPM for marginal downsides, when compared to the Panther II.  The problem is compounded by the fact that the Centurion 1 is a hull down-ish tank where as the Panther II is a...?  So, one tank has a game play definition while the other doesn't, short of us calling it a 'support' tank.  So, how do you end up balancing the Panther II, against the Centurion 1 and the other tier 8 Mediums (most of which are hull down types or auto-loaders/reloaders), with additional health, given that pumping up the alpha isn't a possibility against other similar sized bore guns?  Where does 13Disciple's thoughts come into play for balance?  Great ideas and, not to sound like I'm stealing anything, I was thinking about this over a year ago.  WE desperately need this to go live and then an immediate unbiased balance phase, there after - do you trust WarGaming to do that?

 

 

View Post13Disciple, on Jun 18 2019 - 18:28, said:

 

Yes, this is the way I would do it, if I was forced to limit premium rounds. It's the most 'fair' however because tanks have different alpha's not all tanks will still have the exact same alpha damage potential from premium rounds. Secondly this would be really hard to balance with high alpha tanks because they will have fewer rounds - which means they will suffer the most from accuracy RNG. Imagine missing half of your already limited number of premium shells.

I think making different total alpha potential numbers based on tier would also be appropriate. However I still believe you would shift the meta.

 

To be an effective change, and not shift the meta I don't think is possible. you either give them enough shells that the change doesn't really matter to begin with, or you give them so few that the meta shifts in the way I've noted below. I'm not sure it'll be possible to find a middle ground. Nor a middle ground that's completely balanced.

 

The most important thing is you still don't address the root of the problem - Premium shells are balanced by their cost. All we address with this solution is a symptom of the problem. I'd urge players to consider WHY gold spam is a problem. Is it because you are not offered the same opportunity? Or is it because you can't afford the same opportunity to load full premium ammo?

 

 

 

How would you feel about a "space science" based concept?  Dynamic Premium Ammunition.

 

Use Case:  You're a tier 8 Medium tank that has a 240 alpha and 203 mm of penetration, on the standard round (400 silver per round).

 

- When top tier, your special ammunition has +5% pen, +25% cost, and -5% alpha (213 mm of pen and 228 alpha for a 500 silver cost)

- When middle tier, your special ammunition has a +10% pen, +25% cost, and a -10% alpha (223 mm of pen and 183 alpha for a 500 silver cost)

- when bottom tier, your special ammunition has a +15% pen, +25% cost, and a -15% alpha (234 mm of pen and 173 alpha for a 500 silver cost)

 

From there, you adjust the RNG, on special ammo, to +/- 15%.  The concept is that, when you don't need it, using it only ensures you less RNG with almost no hit.  But, when it is absolutely needed, you get everything that you need from it and accept the overall cost.  The cost is standardized, across all formats, but you're still paying for an advantage while accepting limitations upon the ammo.  Spamming it, when not needed, provides you with nothing but RNG security at a cost.

 

Personally, I was always a big fan of what Bioware did with SW:TOR PvP.  You could be bottom level with ghetto green gear and your stats would be pumped up to near max level.  The only thing that separated you from the PvP alpha dogs was a small percentage of stat difference and any powers gained, from level differences.  WarGaming could utilize the same thing and then widen the tiers for groupings.

 

Just a pacing thought...


Edited by Trauglodyte, Jun 18 2019 - 18:44.


ArcticTankHunter #47 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 18:35

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 16680 battles
  • 697
  • [OSU-V] OSU-V
  • Member since:
    05-22-2014
The major problem with premuim rounds is that some guns only have 1 type of premium rounds like 17pdr. Tier 7+ tanks should be shooting APCR all the way to be historically more accurate and challenging for the weak damage. APCR wasn't mass produced after WW2 which firefly tanks barely had any. Same goes for American tanks. This would've have fix majority of the British tanks tier issues by just forcing them to fire APCR instead of standard rounds. The FV201 could be tier 8 with prem MM using APCR only(that is enough pen to penetrate IS6/112 armour also prem MM heavy tank buffed hull). Challenger would've been completely fine just firing APCR like an actual TD for the 200+ pen.

Edited by ArcticTankHunter, Jun 18 2019 - 18:40.


taugrim #48 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 18:41

    Staff sergeant

  • Community Contributor
  • 33333 battles
  • 317
  • [WASHD] WASHD
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013

View PostTrauglodyte, on Jun 18 2019 - 17:29, said:

 

I'm going to publicly shame myself but that's ok.  I've been watching your games, via Youtube, for a long time.  It wasn't, but a few months ago, that I went, "Huh!  He doesn't have any premium ammo."  I didn't think anything of it, until the next video, when it dawned on me again.  So, I went back a few more vids, to double check, only to find that the "Road to Unicum" vids were all done without special ammo.  Makes the achievements all that much sweeter.

 

Thanks for your honesty and the props.

 

When I started playing WoT back in 2013, I thought it was poor game design to have "magic arrows" purchasable only with gold - it was clear P4A. Every major PVP game (MOBAs, FPS, etc) that has launched in the past 5 years have cash shops for items that are strictly cosmetic / don't confer an in-battle advantage.


People I knew who played WoT told me I'd never do well without gold ammo and without mods. So I made it a point to never use either in Random Battles and see how well I could perform. The best mod functionality has been incorporated over the years into the client UI, which is great. So I don't think not having legit mods is a meaningful disadvantage now.

 

View PostTrauglodyte, on Jun 18 2019 - 17:29, said:

 

Premium ammo was, probably, a good idea, once upon a time.  But, as the game has evolved and tanks have changed, the concept of premium ammo is no longer a viable, in its given iteration.  Sadly, it has tainted too much of the game's balance.

 

Premium ammo purchasable with credits is better than purchasable with gold, but it's still poor game design, for the reasons below...

 

https://taugrim.com/2015/02/19/road-to-unicum-guide-videos-for-world-of-tanks/#no-gold-ammo

 

Block Quote

I don’t use gold ammo in pubs because it’s very problematic for tank balance. No judgement on players who use it, it is a built-in game mechanic and is a powerful tool.

 

Tanks with heavy armor give up a lot for that armor: acceleration, top speed, hull traverse, turret traverse, etc. Gold ammo greatly reduces the effective armor of such tanks while leaving those tanks with all the downsides of bearing that armor.

 

For the purpose of these educational videos, I think it’s more illustrative and helpful to viewers to show how to perform well with silver ammo, as opposed to firing a lot of gold.

 

For full premade contexts (e.g. strongholds, and if I ever do them, Clan Wars, etc) and for Ranked battles, I do load and fire some gold ammo. Keep in mind that WN8 only measures stats from Random Battles.

 

https://taugrim.com/2015/02/19/road-to-unicum-guide-videos-for-world-of-tanks/#gold-ammo-credit-sink

 

Block Quote

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 


Edited by taugrim, Jun 18 2019 - 18:43.


Kramah313 #49 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 18:43

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 4820 battles
  • 250
  • Member since:
    01-26-2018

View Post13Disciple, on Jun 18 2019 - 18:28, said:

 

Yes, this is the way I would do it, if I was forced to limit premium rounds. It's the most 'fair' however because tanks have different alpha's not all tanks will still have the exact same alpha damage potential from premium rounds. Secondly this would be really hard to balance with high alpha tanks because they will have fewer rounds - which means they will suffer the most from accuracy RNG. Imagine missing half of your already limited number of premium shells.

I think making different total alpha potential numbers based on tier would also be appropriate. However I still believe you would shift the meta.

 

To be an effective change, and not shift the meta I don't think is possible. you either give them enough shells that the change doesn't really matter to begin with, or you give them so few that the meta shifts in the way I've noted below. I'm not sure it'll be possible to find a middle ground. Nor a middle ground that's completely balanced.

 

The most important thing is you still don't address the root of the problem - Premium shells are balanced by their cost. All we address with this solution is a symptom of the problem. I'd urge players to consider WHY gold spam is a problem. Is it because you are not offered the same opportunity? Or is it because you can't afford the same opportunity to load full premium ammo?

 

 


Good point about the more pronounced impact of RNG and dispersion for those tanks with fewer shells. I also think that cost is a big part of the equation, and honestly why they’re still “premium shells” by my definition of premium - that is - something that costs more but is better overall. 

 

I have not personally been too bothered by gold spam (with the caveat that I’ve not played above tier 8, and many are saying it’s the worst at tier 10), but I think coming up with a good fix for it would be good for the game. I just hope that they try some different ideas on the test server and give some different approaches a chance. To me your idea is as worth trying out as any I’ve seen.  

 



Trauglodyte #50 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 18:58

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 23651 battles
  • 3,747
  • [GSH] GSH
  • Member since:
    06-04-2016

View Posttaugrim, on Jun 18 2019 - 18:41, said:

 

Thanks for your honesty and the props.

 

When I started playing WoT back in 2013, I thought it was poor game design to have "magic arrows" purchasable only with gold - it was clear P4A. Every major PVP game (MOBAs, FPS, etc) that has launched in the past 5 years have cash shops for items that are strictly cosmetic / don't confer an in-battle advantage.


People I knew who played WoT told me I'd never do well without gold ammo and without mods. So I made it a point to never use either in Random Battles and see how well I could perform. The best mod functionality has been incorporated over the years into the client UI, which is great. So I don't think not having legit mods is a meaningful disadvantage now.

 

 

Premium ammo purchasable with credits is better than purchasable with gold, but it's still poor game design, for the reasons below...

 

 

I find, in hindsight of analyzing my game play, that I utilize premium ammo, simply because of my angle of attack or a situation where I shouldn't be engaging a target, given the tier/tank class disparity.  And, as much as I hate to admit it, I'll use it as a crutch, given that I'm 100% German tanks - weak turret fronts on schmulturms makes for difficult situations against peak-and-pop hull down Russian tanks with zero weak spots.  I still argue with myself, over whether or not that is a good thing for the game.  Should this game be built upon Medium tanks engaging Heavy/Super Heavy tanks, frontally?  Should we finally do away with the concept of class niches and just accept that this is a shooter, therefore balancing classes in other means?  On the one hand, Heavy tanks should be the line holder and should only be frontally countered by TDs and other Heavy tanks.  But, on the other hand, that kind of thinking would relegate the game to nothing but Heavies, TDs, and arty, given that the maps are too small and too poorly designed to allow for actual mobile warfare (flanking and such).  Should WarGaming reduce the number of tanks, per side, to open up game play and then rebalance?

 

Even though I have my opinions, I don't know if they're right, given that WoT balance feels like a snake eating its tail.


Edited by Trauglodyte, Jun 18 2019 - 18:59.


13Disciple #51 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 20:34

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 24495 battles
  • 148
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    12-05-2015

View PostTrauglodyte, on Jun 18 2019 - 12:58, said:

 

I find, in hindsight of analyzing my game play, that I utilize premium ammo, simply because of my angle of attack or a situation where I shouldn't be engaging a target, given the tier/tank class disparity.  And, as much as I hate to admit it, I'll use it as a crutch, given that I'm 100% German tanks - weak turret fronts on schmulturms makes for difficult situations against peak-and-pop hull down Russian tanks with zero weak spots.  I still argue with myself, over whether or not that is a good thing for the game.  Should this game be built upon Medium tanks engaging Heavy/Super Heavy tanks, frontally?  Should we finally do away with the concept of class niches and just accept that this is a shooter, therefore balancing classes in other means?  On the one hand, Heavy tanks should be the line holder and should only be frontally countered by TDs and other Heavy tanks.  But, on the other hand, that kind of thinking would relegate the game to nothing but Heavies, TDs, and arty, given that the maps are too small and too poorly designed to allow for actual mobile warfare (flanking and such).  Should WarGaming reduce the number of tanks, per side, to open up game play and then rebalance?

 

Even though I have my opinions, I don't know if they're right, given that WoT balance feels like a snake eating its tail.

 

This is why my plan is so good. If you find yourself in bad situation and require special ammunition then you are punished with lower DPM/Lower Alpha. If you are a player like Taugrim, then you'll be rewarded with more DPM/Alpha. The changes accentuate good play and armor knowledge, while still giving an opportunity to deal with heavier armor or bad play. All of this is combined with not tying cost to shell type, so you are free to choose which shell is most appropriate for your situation.

 

My idea is to create choice and opportunity.

By removing this link between adding armor, and profit, WG can balance the game better.

 

So much of WG's profit is tied to risking game balance. Every new Premium tank introduced risks game balance. Increasing armor in order to sink more credits from the player base also risks game balance. This plan, and also my (TBA plan for premium tanks) is to separate game balance from profitability.

 

Separating this means WG won't risk game balance when seeking more profits with additional content updates.



Trauglodyte #52 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 22:46

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 23651 battles
  • 3,747
  • [GSH] GSH
  • Member since:
    06-04-2016

View Post13Disciple, on Jun 18 2019 - 20:34, said:

 

This is why my plan is so good. If you find yourself in bad situation and require special ammunition then you are punished with lower DPM/Lower Alpha. If you are a player like Taugrim, then you'll be rewarded with more DPM/Alpha. The changes accentuate good play and armor knowledge, while still giving an opportunity to deal with heavier armor or bad play. All of this is combined with not tying cost to shell type, so you are free to choose which shell is most appropriate for your situation.

 

My idea is to create choice and opportunity.

By removing this link between adding armor, and profit, WG can balance the game better.

 

So much of WG's profit is tied to risking game balance. Every new Premium tank introduced risks game balance. Increasing armor in order to sink more credits from the player base also risks game balance. This plan, and also my (TBA plan for premium tanks) is to separate game balance from profitability.

 

Separating this means WG won't risk game balance when seeking more profits with additional content updates.

 

I agree with you.  I'm all for reducing the damage done by the percentage gain on pen and then increasing the cost of base ammo by a factor commensurate with the average use of premium ammo (ie. if the base ammo is 10 silver and the stats show that players use 20% premium ammo, you'd reduce the cost of premium ammo to equal base ammo and then increase the price of both by spreading the 20% increased cost across both, thus coming back to the same overall investment).  Now, the downside is that this hurts players, like Taugrim, because he's now going to be spending more for the same ammunition that he'd normally be using OR you bake in the cost for repairs.  Either way, there is a bigger overall cost for someone that wasn't otherwise using the premium ammo.  For everone else, nothing changes other than the fear of having spent too much on premium ammo.  Am with you and was right there with you like a year or so ago. :)

 

My fear, though, is the next step.  Change begets change.  Thus, we now have to rebalance tanks.  The question has never been about whether your change has or doesn't have merit.  It does.  The question stems from the fallout from the changes.  In either case, whether it be your idea of WG's, there is going to be a plethora of changes that would need to be done, after the fact.



Blade2322 #53 Posted Jun 19 2019 - 00:09

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 17460 battles
  • 413
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    03-20-2015

You cant directly nerf prem rounds without going through and adjusting every armor profile in the game that warrants  the use of prem rounds against it, and expect to have a balanced game. And i dont trust WG to do that effectively.

 

Also basing the amount of prem rounds a tank can carry on a percentage is just a refection of that tanks damage potential, yes to low of a number would be overly restricting. Also you could balance it by class, making the percentage lower for some classes likes TDs that really dont need them as much and allowing for more for tanks like light tanks that struggle with penetration the most in general. Some thing around 25-35% would be fine, and would keep players from having full gold load outs. Making players have to decide when is the best time to use the prem round and when not.

 

Also keep in mind i would cut the cost of prem rounds in half.


Edited by Blade2322, Jun 19 2019 - 03:00.


AnArmyofBun #54 Posted Jun 19 2019 - 01:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 13127 battles
  • 4,102
  • [SUX] SUX
  • Member since:
    12-08-2012

View Post13Disciple, on Jun 17 2019 - 08:33, 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.


I agree with all of this if it were implemented properly.



Messerschmitt_Masser #55 Posted Jun 19 2019 - 02:48

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 10183 battles
  • 211
  • [BTU-A] BTU-A
  • Member since:
    05-30-2015
There's really people creating youtube videos and discussing about something that's not even a problem? Damn

taugrim #56 Posted Jun 19 2019 - 05:16

    Staff sergeant

  • Community Contributor
  • 33333 battles
  • 317
  • [WASHD] WASHD
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013

View PostTrauglodyte, on Jun 18 2019 - 21:46, said:

 

I agree with you.  I'm all for reducing the damage done by the percentage gain on pen and then increasing the cost of base ammo by a factor commensurate with the average use of premium ammo (ie. if the base ammo is 10 silver and the stats show that players use 20% premium ammo, you'd reduce the cost of premium ammo to equal base ammo and then increase the price of both by spreading the 20% increased cost across both, thus coming back to the same overall investment).  Now, the downside is that this hurts players, like Taugrim, because he's now going to be spending more for the same ammunition that he'd normally be using OR you bake in the cost for repairs.

 

Oh man, I would happily pay more for ammo costs to have premium ammo re-worked as 13Disciple suggested, so that ammo usage is a tradeoff decision in terms of functionality, which isn't the case today.

 

It would mean a more fair game for all players, including the ones who don't pay but are critical for a healthy population and advocacy to attract new players.



Mikosah #57 Posted Jun 19 2019 - 05:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 17582 battles
  • 4,449
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

View PostTrauglodyte, on Jun 18 2019 - 11:58, said:

 

I find, in hindsight of analyzing my game play, that I utilize premium ammo, simply because of my angle of attack or a situation where I shouldn't be engaging a target, given the tier/tank class disparity.  And, as much as I hate to admit it, I'll use it as a crutch, given that I'm 100% German tanks - weak turret fronts on schmulturms makes for difficult situations against peak-and-pop hull down Russian tanks with zero weak spots.  I still argue with myself, over whether or not that is a good thing for the game.  Should this game be built upon Medium tanks engaging Heavy/Super Heavy tanks, frontally?  Should we finally do away with the concept of class niches and just accept that this is a shooter, therefore balancing classes in other means?  On the one hand, Heavy tanks should be the line holder and should only be frontally countered by TDs and other Heavy tanks.  But, on the other hand, that kind of thinking would relegate the game to nothing but Heavies, TDs, and arty, given that the maps are too small and too poorly designed to allow for actual mobile warfare (flanking and such).  Should WarGaming reduce the number of tanks, per side, to open up game play and then rebalance?

 

Even though I have my opinions, I don't know if they're right, given that WoT balance feels like a snake eating its tail.

 

The trouble is that the current map design seems to encourage brawling and often there are corridors that keep the combat front-to-front. Late game flanking opportunities may start to open up if only because there's unoccupied space and therefore more movement routes, but the general trend is that most players die before they're given that chance. (Incidentally, lowering the player count would be an interesting way to potentially solve this.) If the default mode of combat is the front-to-front brawl, then the sort of superheavy that's deemed to require total frontal invincibility for 'balance' is going to end up being overpowered or even outright idiot-proof in this meta. And even if that weren't necessarily the case, I'd argue one of the maxims that should be considered an absolute necessity is that there should be no such thing as frontal invincibility, even for superheavies.

 

Keep in mind that even if a frontal weakspot does exist, the armor isn't suddenly invalidated. Quite the contrary, the moment you take your reticle off center mass and have to aim for a particular spot instead, armor has just served its purpose. If anything, a proper weakspot should be so tempting that the typical player may even try to load HE for it. But if he doesn't hit it, then his choice of using a low-pen shell will backfire. And if the low-pen shell doesn't have good velocity, then the counterplay is to use movement to make your weakspot hard to hit. If the other guy does still manage to hit it while you're moving, then he's earned that damage. That actually sounds like a game, whereas the current status quo of frontal gold trading does not.



Ophrys12 #58 Posted Jun 19 2019 - 05:53

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 11415 battles
  • 133
  • Member since:
    02-25-2016

Not sure if anyone has ever thought of this crazy idea... but how about making "special"/"expensive" ammo take up more space (say 2 slots)? If a tank can carry 40 normal rounds (also includes HE), they can carry only 20 special rounds (and that's it, no more space for other rounds). So you can opt to go for 40 normal rounds, or 20 normal + 10 (x2 slot) special rounds, or with 10 normal + 15 specials or go special all the way with only 20 rounds. 


Edited by Ophrys12, Jun 19 2019 - 05:54.


Tedsc #59 Posted Jun 19 2019 - 06:02

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 44564 battles
  • 939
  • Member since:
    10-14-2015

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

3 tier battles are miserable!  They should NOT be possible.  Do you want to watch a basketball game that is half high school varsity players, some college players and a few pros?  OF course you don't because it is a horrible for both the pros and the high school kids.  I don't want to watch formula 1 cars race against go karts either.   The concept of having tanks as disparate as 2 tiers apart compete against each other is just awkward and horrible!  This is not even 1 in 50 games when MM just doesn't have enough players online to make a couple teams.  This is like EVERY OTHER battle!  Battles should be competitive and 3 tiered battles are NOT!



Tedsc #60 Posted Jun 19 2019 - 06:06

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 44564 battles
  • 939
  • Member since:
    10-14-2015

View Posttaugrim, on Jun 18 2019 - 16:28, said:

 

To claim that you can't get ANY pens is a skill issue.

 

I get plenty of pens with 100% silver ammo in Random Battles.

 

I target weak spots when possible and flank wherever possible, and I don't go to places where I'll simply beat my head against a wall, e.g. in a light tank I don't challenge heavies frontally, that's sheer stupidity.

If you are flanking on current meta maps then you are spending a lot of time hiding first.  You just don't have the kind of flexibility to move around like that on wide open maps without getting spotted unless you wait to engage until the herds are thinned.







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

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users