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

Mojo_Riesing #61 Posted Jun 19 2019 - 06:41

    Captain

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

.

 

 


Edited by Mojo_Riesing, Jun 19 2019 - 06:56.


Savage__Apples #62 Posted Jun 19 2019 - 09:18

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 39487 battles
  • 974
  • [F0CUS] F0CUS
  • Member since:
    05-14-2011

View Post13Disciple, on Jun 17 2019 - 12:15, 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 am going to have to disagree with you on this one.  1st off do you know of anyone that chooses what tank they are going to play based solely off of gold ammo damage potential?  I do not know one single player that does this. The only tank that was gold damage potential driven was the Type 5 and everyone agrees that it was way OP for a no skill easy mode tank but since it was hit with the nerf bat most are now rusting in the garage.    2nd you are saying the 140 is no longer viable due to lower gold damage potential so lets remove gold ammo all together is the 140 still no longer viable? The damage potential has not changed one bit gold or no gold since it is the same between the two. What i see in the pubs the most is generally what is currently considered OP or recently buffed vehicles that are suddenly competitive again. There are other variables that drive the pubs like on track missions or sudden sales like the 183 and 155 but those are short lived and the pubs end up returning to the normal status. 

 

 

Over the years we have heard numerous reasons for players leaving the game with arty the number 1 excuse and gold spam in there somewhere but probably the most detrimental thing i have seen is the seal clubbers padding their precious stats. There are alot of things wrong with this game and to be honest gold spam is at the bottom of the list of things that need to be fixed and balanced.   I run mostly tier 10 and maybe half the rounds fired at me are premium and out of those i bounce well over 50%. What i always find funny is when its AP bounce, AP bounce, premium bounce, premium bounce, HE, HE, HE........



Mojo_Riesing #63 Posted Jun 19 2019 - 15:31

    Captain

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

View Posttaugrim, on Jun 18 2019 - 07:22, said:

 

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, in which P4A ammo was not included in the game:

1. World of Warships

2. World of Tanks Blitz

 

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

 

View Posttaugrim, on Jun 18 2019 - 07:28, 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.

 

FIrst thing i want to say that i've viewed many of your videos and respect both your prowess and commitment to helping others improve performance in the game.  I also give great credit to the 13Disciple for a thoughtful and interesting proposal that honestly will take at least another re-read by me to fully process.

 

I've never said that Premium ammo use, over use really, does not present problems. It does.  However i think you, like many, gloss over the realities of this game for the overwhelming majority of players who do NOT have your skills, nor the access to "perks" that can be obtained BECAUSE you are skilled and can earn the in-game currencies that allow you to buy them. In my opinion there are a number of factors such as map design favoring head-on battles with heavy tanks, map size that given view range (and enhanced range) make "stealth" flanks extremely difficult, and general creep in armor strength. Overwhelmingly Match-Making that had led to 3/5/7 frequency has driven players to "premium" ammo because, simply put, it's the only other tool they have when facing a vehicle 2 tiers above theirs.  Fortunately MM is changing, for the better and my use of "premium" ammo went down accordingly.  

 

The clear obvious example of Frontlines supports the "multi-factor" role in over-use of "premium" rounds.  You have a LARGE map, that does not force battles excessively, that allows actual flank maneuvers (not just pull up along side and rotate your gun), actual stealth (given size appropriate to common view ranges) and most of all....single tier battles.  These factors make use of "premium" ammo less necessary and actually unfavorable from the standpoint of in-game profitability.  Simply put, this ammo isn't needed so much.  Obviously a lot of players have not changed habits nearly as much, i think that would take time (it took a while to get this bad) but common sense and economics will bring many, most possibly to realize they only need "premium" rounds for specific circumstances.  I think the point here is that WG created this problem over time, un-intentionally, but created it from a variety of factors over years.  To now believe that any single "fix" is going to change the dynamics of what Random battles have that lie at the root of the problem is probably foolish.  Unfortunately WG's current thinking of multiple buffs, nerfs and slight of hand are only likely to make things worse by complexity. It's more than fair to say that it will not stop the excessive complaining of players upset that ..yes, THEY have lost an in-game advantage of two-tier spreads.

 

I have to take exception to the remarks about "Pay for Advantage".  To an extent i get your point, but a bigger part of the problem WG faces is the phony "free to play" claim for the game. This game is not free and never has been. SOMEONE pays for things here but some players do not pay real cash money at all.  The word for these players is "free-loader".  Much of what goes wrong in WG comes back to HOW the game is financed, such as the increased reliance on "premium"  tanks and the packages we see sold so commonly now.  None of that is "cosmetic". It is a set-up for conflict between those who truly ground their way thru the system and those who buy into it. The ammo is a small fraction of that.  The reality is those of us who actually pay money to play have long had to "get over" that some do not...it's not unfair to expect everyone else to "get over" their anxiety about "Pay for Play".  Ultimately the fix for this lies beyond any discussion of ammo, it goes to how this game is financed. Personally i think it's way past time for a subscription foundation for the game with cosmetic only adjuncts for purchase.

 

Lastly, i think discussion of player retention is a genuine topic of merit. However laying this at the feet of the ammo issue is foolish. There is far more at play here than that.  Game life-cycle, current interest in "Battle Royale" formats, steep learning curves without as much in-game tutorials, toxicity, clear bias of WG to the top few percent of players by skill all have a part in player recruitment and retention.  If the game drives out the players who actually pay for things, you're right this game is in for trouble.

 

Again thank you to you, 13Disciples and other thoughtful players for intelligent commentary. I do hope though that the concept of what in business a process called "root-cause analysis" is used more in working with the "premium" ammo issue. Failure to consider the global factors only increases the likelihood of an outcome unsatisfactory to all.


Edited by Mojo_Riesing, Jun 19 2019 - 15:34.


taugrim #64 Posted Jun 19 2019 - 15:56

    Staff sergeant

  • Community Contributor
  • 32188 battles
  • 312
  • [OTTER] OTTER
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013

View PostMojo_Riesing, on Jun 19 2019 - 14:31, said:

I have to take exception to the remarks about "Pay for Advantage".  To an extent i get your point, but a bigger part of the problem WG faces is the phony "free to play" claim for the game. This game is not free and never has been. SOMEONE pays for things here but some players do not pay real cash money at all.  The word for these players is "free-loader".

 

Please name a single top 20 PVP game in which there is a clearly better ammo type ("magic arrow") which outperforms normal ammo (normal arrows), and the clearly better ammo has a significantly higher cost (3-20x the normal ammo).

 

(To save you some time, there isn't any).

 

Every other major PVP game in the market - PUBG, Fortnite, all FPS, all MOBAs, Overwatch, etc - all sell strictly cosmetic items in the cash shop. None of them sell magic arrows that have a higher in-game currency cost. None of them.



Mojo_Riesing #65 Posted Jun 19 2019 - 16:45

    Captain

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

View Posttaugrim, on Jun 19 2019 - 06:56, said:

 

Please name a single top 20 PVP game in which there is a clearly better ammo type ("magic arrow") which outperforms normal ammo (normal arrows), and the clearly better ammo has a significantly higher cost (3-20x the normal ammo).

 

(To save you some time, there isn't any).

 

Every other major PVP game in the market - PUBG, Fortnite, all FPS, all MOBAs, Overwatch, etc - all sell strictly cosmetic items in the cash shop. None of them sell magic arrows that have a higher in-game currency cost. None of them.

 

Well, lets set aside "loot boxes" that really border on gambling ok?  They do provide advantages in advance of being obtained purely on skill.  But i'd point out that Wargaming indulges in that aspect of business quite liberally at least in the PC environment.

 

 haven't played all those games, unfortunately i've had real life stuff to do...working for a living, raising a family..that kind of thing. No excuse but...i just haven't played so many PVP games.  However i do know that many in fact allow in-game economies where "special" items are opently sold, even manufactured by other players specifically for sale, Elder Scrolls Online is one example i'm familiar with. There are others. Does it make a difference WHO you buy an "advantage" from?  Really?

 

Point is, in-game advantages are "sold" one way or another. Does it matter if that advantage is an improved optical set that can ONLY be obtained via bonds? Bonds of course are yes, obtainable by any, but functionally out of reach of most. Unfair? Hm...i don't know, and don't fret about it over much either.  If your argument is confined to the one item, ammo, that is "purchasable" via either of two in game currencies (gold and credits) that can be earned either by gameplay...or VISA card...well, ok.  It's being "paid for". I'm saying so is everything else in the game that is remotely an "advantage", and if someone plays the game, even successfully, without every spending real money?  Well, more power to you but the name is freeloader when it comes to keeping Wargaming in business. You can be sure WG pays attention to where real revenue comes from.  That's reality for you and you don't find it in front of the game screen.

 

You don't seem to have much more to say regarding what i'd consider root cause analysis of the issue.  The simpler solutions to ammo work only for a fraction of the player base.  I'd prefer more wholistic solutions that improve the game overall for the majority which quite frankly you aren't the best example of.  Like you, i want to see the game remain viable, even attract new players (who i might add won't be "unicum" right out of the gate).  We agree the ammo situation is a problem but differ on solutions.  Wargaming has  created a multi-faceted problem but i again don't think a "solution" that benefits a smaller percentage without offering an adequate offset to the rest of players (who've come to expect the ammo's availability who make up the majority and probably paying majority at that.

 

OH...and i am for a "cosmetic only" paid for component...but it will need some kind of specific guaranteed income stream of real money to work like a subscription or increased sales of bigger boomsticks to work.


Edited by Mojo_Riesing, Jun 19 2019 - 16:48.


taugrim #66 Posted Jun 19 2019 - 16:56

    Staff sergeant

  • Community Contributor
  • 32188 battles
  • 312
  • [OTTER] OTTER
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013

View PostMojo_Riesing, on Jun 19 2019 - 15:45, said:

 haven't played all those games, unfortunately i've had real life stuff to do...working for a living, raising a family..that kind of thing. No excuse but...i just haven't played so many PVP games.

 

IOW you aren't up on current game design.



Trauglodyte #67 Posted Jun 19 2019 - 17:51

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 21766 battles
  • 3,425
  • [GSH] GSH
  • Member since:
    06-04-2016

View PostMojo_Riesing, on Jun 19 2019 - 15:31, said:

 

I've never said that Premium ammo use, over use really, does not present problems. It does.  However i think you, like many, gloss over the realities of this game for the overwhelming majority of players who do NOT have your skills, nor the access to "perks" that can be obtained BECAUSE you are skilled and can earn the in-game currencies that allow you to buy them. In my opinion there are a number of factors such as map design favoring head-on battles with heavy tanks, map size that given view range (and enhanced range) make "stealth" flanks extremely difficult, and general creep in armor strength. Overwhelmingly Match-Making that had led to 3/5/7 frequency has driven players to "premium" ammo because, simply put, it's the only other tool they have when facing a vehicle 2 tiers above theirs.  Fortunately MM is changing, for the better and my use of "premium" ammo went down accordingly.  

 

 

For the sake of returning this discussion to point, what 13Disciples and Taugy are saying is that there shouldn't be an economic loss in choice of ammunition.  Choice should be predicated upon the specifics of the situation.  Whether you're bad or whatever, choosing the ammo type should be based upon how you have analyzed the encounter. 

 

Now then, speaking to your point, Taugy, and others, doesn't need special ammo because he's good enough and patient enough to wait for the prime opportunity to utilize his tank's strengths against his opponents.  It inherently can, and I'm sure does, have drawbacks in that use of special ammo would make his results more consistent and less energy intensive.  But, given his skill and WoT career, he's definitely shown that it isn't necessary.  Regardless of that, anyone can do that but the consistency and prevalence of doing so is dictated by your singular ability to learn and apply those skills.  In other words, you're smart enough to understand it and good enough to apply it BUT it isn't a zero sum game of you are or you aren't.  It simply comes down to consistency and repetition.  SO, the concept of "skill" isn't really an excuse for use of special ammo because playing without it is a learned ability that everyone can obtain and apply, with different levels of variance.

 

MM is also not an excuse, because all of us are exposed to it equally.  As I notated earlier, I will rely on special ammo because I've taken a bad encounter angle and/or I'm going up against an opponent that is stronger than me, either in totality or in the given situation.  Part of being good, or really good, at this game is knowing where to go, when to go there, and why to go there.  Taugy has the knowledge, skill, and understanding to make the most of his opportunities, thus not needing to rely upon special ammo.  Most people don't.  But, going back to the first paragraph, that is a learned skill that is open to everyone.

 

Finally, map design is also not an excuse because, again, we're all exposed to it equally.  Maps have harsh impacts on several different classes and some specific to team make-up.  But, we all have to manage it.  Just because you're on Malinovka in a Heavy/Super Heavy tank, facing off against 3 artillery, doesn't mean that you have to engage at the very top of the hill.  If you're not a hull down Heavy, you don't have to engage at the very top of the hill.  Know what your tank is capable of doing, how that relates to the map, and how it relates to the enemy team composition.

 

There is the old adage of, "there are very few problems that can't be solved with the careful application of high explosives".  Applying that to WoT, there are no situations in this game where damage cannot be done, intelligently and timely, by thinking the situation through and using the strengths of your tank at the right time in the right spots.  There is a massive difference between "I want to damage now because I want to" and "this isn't the best position to be in to succeed".  Bad players don't get that and, as a result, rely upon the crutch of special ammo.  The bottom line of what 13Disciples is suggesting is that one of the first means of bringing balance to this game is getting the economy of ammunition sorted and that can only be done if you take cost out of the equation.  Balancing normal and special ammo, without creating a normalized cost across both types, is bad for the game and it needs to be done in conjunction with any possible reduction in damage OR increase in damage (WG's supertest option).



Mojo_Riesing #68 Posted Jun 19 2019 - 21:36

    Captain

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

View Posttaugrim, on Jun 19 2019 - 07:56, said:

 

IOW you aren't up on current game design.

 

IOW...you don't actually respond to what i've said, other than to cherry-pick one peripheral part and use that to discredit a line of thought you don't agree with.  

 

View PostTrauglodyte, on Jun 19 2019 - 08:51, said:

 

For the sake of returning this discussion to point, what 13Disciples and Taugy are saying is that there shouldn't be an economic loss in choice of ammunition.  Choice should be predicated upon the specifics of the situation.  Whether you're bad or whatever, choosing the ammo type should be based upon how you have analyzed the encounter. 

 

Now then, speaking to your point, Taugy, and others, doesn't need special ammo because he's good enough and patient enough to wait for the prime opportunity to utilize his tank's strengths against his opponents.  It inherently can, and I'm sure does, have drawbacks in that use of special ammo would make his results more consistent and less energy intensive.  But, given his skill and WoT career, he's definitely shown that it isn't necessary.  Regardless of that, anyone can do that but the consistency and prevalence of doing so is dictated by your singular ability to learn and apply those skills.  In other words, you're smart enough to understand it and good enough to apply it BUT it isn't a zero sum game of you are or you aren't.  It simply comes down to consistency and repetition.  SO, the concept of "skill" isn't really an excuse for use of special ammo because playing without it is a learned ability that everyone can obtain and apply, with different levels of variance.

 

MM is also not an excuse, because all of us are exposed to it equally.  As I notated earlier, I will rely on special ammo because I've taken a bad encounter angle and/or I'm going up against an opponent that is stronger than me, either in totality or in the given situation.  Part of being good, or really good, at this game is knowing where to go, when to go there, and why to go there.  Taugy has the knowledge, skill, and understanding to make the most of his opportunities, thus not needing to rely upon special ammo.  Most people don't.  But, going back to the first paragraph, that is a learned skill that is open to everyone.

 

Finally, map design is also not an excuse because, again, we're all exposed to it equally.  Maps have harsh impacts on several different classes and some specific to team make-up.  But, we all have to manage it.  Just because you're on Malinovka in a Heavy/Super Heavy tank, facing off against 3 artillery, doesn't mean that you have to engage at the very top of the hill.  If you're not a hull down Heavy, you don't have to engage at the very top of the hill.  Know what your tank is capable of doing, how that relates to the map, and how it relates to the enemy team composition.

 

There is the old adage of, "there are very few problems that can't be solved with the careful application of high explosives".  Applying that to WoT, there are no situations in this game where damage cannot be done, intelligently and timely, by thinking the situation through and using the strengths of your tank at the right time in the right spots.  There is a massive difference between "I want to damage now because I want to" and "this isn't the best position to be in to succeed".  Bad players don't get that and, as a result, rely upon the crutch of special ammo.  The bottom line of what 13Disciples is suggesting is that one of the first means of bringing balance to this game is getting the economy of ammunition sorted and that can only be done if you take cost out of the equation.  Balancing normal and special ammo, without creating a normalized cost across both types, is bad for the game and it needs to be done in conjunction with any possible reduction in damage OR increase in damage (WG's supertest option).

 

Thank you for addressing points i actually try to make.  I get what you are saying and it's not that there isn't truth or merit to it.  In a nutshell i'm understanding your argument to be that IF a player gains knowledge, uses earned skills, and thoroughly evaluates the tactical situation...they can/should choose the "right" ammo (presumably NOT "premium") and prevail regardless of common factors such as maps etc.  That's probably true in concept, and worth as a goal but....when you look at this debate over ammo...it's clearly not happening that way.  Again, for that group of players who possess all those skills your are right, but that is not the bulk of the player base in this game.  It probably never will be either.

 

 I do think you miss the point over root cause.  It's not about how the "best example" would approach the problem, it's about what is actually happening right now and why players are making the choices they are.  It's also about just exactly WHY the issue is being considered a problem in the first place and by whom.  It is not about using pejorative terms like "bad player" or "excuses". Here's the thing.  "Average" players have learned that use of "premium ammo" helps to level the field against higher tier tanks, often more heavily armored that they most often encounter head on (because those tanks are STRONGER head on).  This belief is actually reinforced by all the complaining of those who drive those tanks being shot.  "Hey, he's complaining i'm gold spamming...this MUST be working!".  Regarding the economy of it all, and frankly it is a mess currently, my sense is the average player who pushes the two key has already done the math here.  They can afford it and the game economy isn't an issue for them. For myself i could load "premium" ammo exclusively, which i don't, because i can.  I don't though i actually TRY to use what fits the moment.  Interestingly when i did participate in Clan Wars at TierX...i was told to load as much "gold" as i could...because i was more likely to pen and cause damage.

 

Bottom line, does the average player take heart with advice that is basically "get gud", or as you say, have they found that no problem can't be solved with enough firepower?

 

I think we all want to see this game be enjoyable and challenging, and also to see it's player base grow and expand. How do you do that?  Will easing the complaints of accomplished players get you there?  Will the current WG concept of less alpha same pen (but more armor) work?  Will making the average Random player feel even more like target practice silhouettes work?   We'll see.



Flaming_Manatees #69 Posted Jun 20 2019 - 03:16

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 16709 battles
  • 405
  • Member since:
    11-09-2014

I agree with your assessments OP. Normalize premium shell costs while marginally raising normal and HE shell costs so that the total bill comes out to roughly the same as before. Win-win for both sides.

 

Personally I think the armor remodeling is the sticking point. I'm still at a loss as to why it takes WG so long to tweak armor models. Buffs / nerfs take forever and a day. I know you say that only a handful of tanks would really need tweaks but frankly I don't know if I trust that they'll handle that correctly.



jsn87xi76slk92mc802d7sk1 #70 Posted Jun 20 2019 - 13:00

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 3929 battles
  • 656
  • Member since:
    11-30-2017

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.

glancing over the text you are basically pushing forth the armored warfare system which was an epic autistic fail.

 

have you played that game back when it was possible to do so?  there is no way to have meaningful ammo in an arcade game. hit points are a balancing factor in this game. 

 

the alternative is to have a war thunder model - 1 shot, 1 pen, 1 death. do you think that is better?

 

or counter strike model. 0 rng. shot goes where you aim, does the same damage every time. armor blocks the same every time. fixed by gun and armor (vest/helmet).  have you played the awp? do you know why its banned on most servers? do you know what i can do with an awp? i will destroy your life. your team. your marriage. i will bury your family tree. 

 

do you want such a weapon in wot? because im ok with it. give it to me! 

 

tldr; you offer no actual solution. just another messed up personal view that nobody in their right minds would support. enjoy the pubbie upvote farming tho...



Kliphie #71 Posted Jun 20 2019 - 13:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 32218 battles
  • 4,539
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    07-20-2012

View Posttaugrim, on Jun 19 2019 - 10:56, said:

 

IOW you aren't up on current game design.

 

To be fair, the core mechanics of this game were designed a decade ago in a very different gaming market.  



Mojo_Riesing #72 Posted Jun 20 2019 - 13:52

    Captain

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

I've read through the OP's proposal..watched the video and really tried to understand what he's doing here.  The OP put a lot of work into this and deserves a ton of respect for his efforts.

 

That being said though i like the analysis and even some aspects of the solutions.  There is one kind of significant problem here, besides a level of complexity that i think just opens the door to new problems.  Ultimately though, i just don't think this fixes what most players perceive the problem to be. Player perception is huge part of the issue, and acceptance of any solution.

 

It's not about the "money".  People who "spam gold" already don't care about that.  People who have issues with overuse of "gold" ammo are not concerned with balance the are pissed off that they get penned by tanks they feel they should not fear.  Neither Wargamings, nor 13Disciples proposed changes .....alters either of those.  Despite what i think about how WG actually earns income or how, i don't think players care HOW others get ammo capable of penning them, they only care that they do.

 



HeraldricKnight #73 Posted Jun 20 2019 - 14:35

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 6615 battles
  • 709
  • Member since:
    11-05-2012

View PostMojo_Riesing, on Jun 20 2019 - 12:52, said:

It's not about the "money".  People who "spam gold" already don't care about that (1).  People who have issues with overuse of "gold" ammo are not concerned with balance the are pissed off that they get penned by tanks they feel they should not fear (2).  Neither Wargamings, nor 13Disciples proposed changes .....alters either of those.  Despite what i think about how WG actually earns income or how, i don't think players care HOW others get ammo capable of penning them, they only care that they do.

 

1 - This is undoubtedly true. The game has been around long enough that people have stockpiles of silver just lying around or locked up in consumables they never use. 

 

2- I wouldn't say 'fearless'. It's more out of frustration. You take the effort to scrape an IS-M so the front is covered and you're exposing as much of an angle as possible, absorbing/blocking shots using the armor, but then a Scorpion does more than full damage by pressing the 2 key. So now its a game of Auto-Bouncing or running away, and all that armor has been pretty much for nothing. 



KatzeWolf #74 Posted Jun 20 2019 - 21:05

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 30 battles
  • 848
  • Member since:
    09-10-2012

While I do like the proposed changes to "special ammo", and I like the fact that if someone uses a "high pen" round they will do less damage.

But what I think WG really need to do is outright remove premium ammo and actually balance their game. All tanks should have frontal weak spots so that even a bottom tier tank has ~50% change of penetrating.



taugrim #75 Posted Jun 21 2019 - 03:18

    Staff sergeant

  • Community Contributor
  • 32188 battles
  • 312
  • [OTTER] OTTER
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013

View Postjsn87xi76slk92mc802d7sk1, on Jun 20 2019 - 12:00, said:

glancing over the text you are basically pushing forth the armored warfare system which was an epic autistic fail.

 

AW failed for lots of reasons unrelated to the ammo. In particular, MBTs (equivalent to WoT heavies) were frontal fortresses and penning them required pixel hunting.

 

The combat at tiers 4-5 in AW was superb from a balance perspective. The upper tiers got gradually worse due to awful balance and the aforementioned pixel hunting.

 

View Postjsn87xi76slk92mc802d7sk1, on Jun 20 2019 - 12:00, said:

tldr; you offer no actual solution. just another messed up personal view that nobody in their right minds would support. enjoy the pubbie upvote farming tho...

 

I'm in my right mind, am a NA Community Contributor and Super Unicum, have interviewed a lot of developers over the years, and think what 13Disciple proposed makes a lot of sense.


Just because you disagree doesn't mean his view is "messed up".

 

The fact that WG's recent released games do not have premium ammo is pretty telling.

 

View PostKliphie, on Jun 20 2019 - 12:46, said:

 

To be fair, the core mechanics of this game were designed a decade ago in a very different gaming market.  

 

It's a poor excuse not to change with the times.

 

A lot of players who are in Community Contributor program and who spend time talking with WG staff on a regular basis believe that the #1 reason that WG is not doing what 13Disciple suggests has to do with greed.

 

I love WoT but am concerned that over time the game's population is going to gradually decline because of the P4A mechanics, and that would be a shame because I rarely find games that interest me as much as WoT does.


Edited by taugrim, Jun 21 2019 - 03:19.


jsn87xi76slk92mc802d7sk1 #76 Posted Jun 21 2019 - 03:32

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 3929 battles
  • 656
  • Member since:
    11-30-2017

View Posttaugrim, on Jun 21 2019 - 03:18, said:

 

AW failed for lots of reasons unrelated to the ammo. In particular, MBTs (equivalent to WoT heavies) were frontal fortresses and penning them required pixel hunting.

 

The combat at tiers 4-5 in AW was superb from a balance perspective. The upper tiers got gradually worse due to awful balance and the aforementioned pixel hunting.

 

 

I'm in my right mind, am a NA Community Contributor and Super Unicum, have interviewed a lot of developers over the years, and think what 13Disciple proposed makes a lot of sense.


Just because you disagree doesn't mean his view is "messed up".

 

The fact that WG's recent released games do not have premium ammo is pretty telling.

 

 

It's a poor excuse not to change with the times.

 

A lot of players who are in Community Contributor program and who spend time talking with WG staff on a regular basis believe that the #1 reason that WG is not doing what 13Disciple suggests has to do with greed.

 

I love WoT but am concerned that over time the game's population is going to gradually decline because of the P4A mechanics, and that would be a shame because I rarely find games that interest me as much as WoT does.

 a big reason it failed is because ammo damage was stupid. you had the equivalent of an ebr  with the gun of a jpeg running around...   it made playing anything other than apcs pointless tbh. war thunder went for the ultra realistic 1 shot 1 kill. that doesnt work either. why do people want to turn this game into proven failures? thats why im saying his proposal is flawed/terrible/use whatever word you want.

 

yes money is a GREAT balancing factor. we have said for years playing tier 10 has to be prohibitively expensive. that will clean up the tier and fix mm for 8/9/10. 500k credit repair bill per game. see what happens...  but alas, meh. pubbies dont want that. they want to bot their mice and whine about  only blocking 6k while randomly driving around shooting he.   the problem with t10 is that it is too accessible, too easy to just bot in it which makes it near impossible to balance. thats where the biggest whine comes from. nobody started whining about ammo until the 40%ers started LIVING in tier 10. so they get their crappushed in and omg its the ammo. guess what.. you "fix" that, they will still get their crappushed in and then whine about something else. OMG MEd tankZ op plZ nerf!! so we kill meds. hmm.. OMG TdZ RuiN All. remove tds. zeeeeeeee heavies rammig each other for 15 minutes. perfect!

 

it is a tier and player issue, not an ammo issue. it is the ultimate distraction campaign being perpetrated by people who dont understand better. they are looking at the result, not the cause. wg is playing up to them by trying to band aid the result, which will further inflame the cause. 

 

abstract: aw went through many changes. i was in the closed beta and let me tell you, the game went to total crapby the time it was open to the public. they couldnt balance the entire killing system worth a damn. and a big reason for that was because they took the same ammo approach 13d is raving about. it doesnt work! its been proven! \

 

you being a CC is a codeword for WG schill and means absolutely nothing. in fact, its a detriment because anything you say has to be taken with the inherent bias of you playing favorites. 

 

 



Mojo_Riesing #77 Posted Jun 21 2019 - 11:55

    Captain

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

View Posttaugrim, on Jun 20 2019 - 18:18, said:

 

AW failed for lots of reasons unrelated to the ammo. In particular, MBTs (equivalent to WoT heavies) were frontal fortresses and penning them required pixel hunting.

 

The combat at tiers 4-5 in AW was superb from a balance perspective. The upper tiers got gradually worse due to awful balance and the aforementioned pixel hunting.

 

 

I'm in my right mind, am a NA Community Contributor and Super Unicum, have interviewed a lot of developers over the years, and think what 13Disciple proposed makes a lot of sense.

 

MOJO: The proposal 13Disciple outlined is well thought out, rational and has both good information and suggestions. That's unusual around here and for that reason gets attention. That does not however mean it is any more likely to be workable or effective in dealing with the problem "special" ammo use presents.


Just because you disagree doesn't mean his view is "messed up".

 

The fact that WG's recent released games do not have premium ammo is pretty telling.

 

It's a poor excuse not to change with the times.

 

A lot of players who are in Community Contributor program and who spend time talking with WG staff on a regular basis believe that the #1 reason that WG is not doing what 13Disciple suggests has to do with greed.

 

MOJO:  Like many i value and respect the contributions of volunteers including the CC group.   I've read up some on how games are monetized and what i've gathered are that the model of who pays/who rides for free is murky at best and bound to displease most everyone...though at different times.  I do not believe wanting to be profitable is  equal to "greed".  A lot of people perceive this game as a charity service, it is not.  Wargaming is here to make money, pay employees, grow a business.  Greed/avarice is a vice, running a good business is not.  

 

I love WoT but am concerned that over time the game's population is going to gradually decline because of the P4A mechanics, and that would be a shame because I rarely find games that interest me as much as WoT does

 

MOJO:  Being "P4A" is a subjective judgement you make. It may or may not impact the games popularity but to imply it is/could be responsible for the game's possible decline disregards a lot of other things that are going on in WoT that include "P4A" but are not limited to that.



Zwinmar #78 Posted Jun 21 2019 - 12:11

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 17739 battles
  • 129
  • [80PRF] 80PRF
  • Member since:
    07-29-2011

One flaw I keep seeing in peoples arguments is that they assume non-premium players are playing for free. Sure, some are, however, I can guarantee you that many have spent money on this game. More many than would be spent on a AAA title in fact. So, how is it they are derided for not having a premium account? 

 

I personally think that all tanks should never run in a deficit provided you actually do something useful. I can see and understand the argument that consumables negate this, however, it should never effect basic things like regular ammo and the cheap consumables, i.e. the basic stuff. I personally think getting rid of repair costs would be enough, and make the game more accessible to everyone. Yeah, you get bad players at tier X with this, but you already have them, just consider them something to farm.

 

My problem with gold ammo (or whatever politically correct bs you want to call it) is that it negates armor. I consider it a legal cheat. Take one of the slow British TD's, they pay through the nose  to get heavy armor only for someone to hit the 2 key and all of a sudden they are down not just maneuverability but also that armor. It is an unfair mechanic in a game that is supposedly built around tanks being roughly matched together. You do not need gold to do well in this game, you just have to get good. 

 

A couple things I think would help, just a basic outline on thought process:

First: No tier X gun should every have gold ammo, it has enough penetration as it is and should always be enough to go against a tier X tank.

Second: Tier IX guns, if they have gold ammo, should be something like HEAT, so yeah, it is an advantage, but it isn't overwhelming as spaced armor makes it its b*tch.

Another option would be to bring back tier 12 matchmaking.



Blackstone #79 Posted Jun 21 2019 - 12:42

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 20969 battles
  • 2,130
  • [ITKU] ITKU
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

I love to see all of the pipe dreams people come up with, where they think they have THE solution to the alleged ammo problem.

As if all of a sudden Serb and Co will read these threads and say "OMG, they're right! We should have the non-payed genius design the game! Remove/fix the premium ammo just as they said!"

Really, people? Are you really that naive and narcissistic? 

Guess what? Not. gonna. happen. You voice doesn't matter.

WG is going to continue to do whatever they want. You can rant and cry and give all of the "awesome" solutions you want, but in the long run it really doesn't mean much.

either play or don't play. simple as that.

It's not worth getting your undies in a bunch over a pixel tank game.

If the passion some people have for this game was redirected it into things that really matter in life, then that would be something.



LpBronco #80 Posted Jun 21 2019 - 12:54

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 43586 battles
  • 2,748
  • Member since:
    11-19-2010

If Wargaming follows through and reassesses the hit points of lower tiered vehicles which would allow the matchmaking to function properly across all tiers then some of the original justification for more costly ammo is mitigated but just leave it alone. I turned off the gold shell notifications and haven't had a problem with "special" ammo sense.

 

Plus, ultimately there shouldn't be so much difference in tanks two tiers apart or for that matter 3 or 4. If they brought all the tanks into more or less parity with differences specifically in era so that most of the truly historical WWII tanks mostly saw each other then the ability to contribute regardless of the tank selected would mitigate some of the other "issues". Personally, would like to see them raise the tier cap and restructure all the tech trees.

 

( I like playing bad tanks  'cause what have you done when you're good in a good tank.)







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

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users