Jump to content


Reducing Non-interactivity of SPGs

SPGs arty artillery

  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

Tytos_Blackwood #1 Posted Aug 24 2019 - 04:47

    Private

  • Players
  • 12319 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    11-16-2012

The problem with SPGs is not related to the stats of the individual vehicles; they are probably more or less balanced in terms of damage per game, win rate, etc. The issue with SPGs has always been the fact that they do not allow meaningful counter play. Aside from a very small number of 'arty safe' places, the primary means of avoiding SPG fire reliably is not getting spotted, and fighting back is impossible. Artillery damage is a 'damage tax' that players pay for getting spotted. We saw a similar issue with the old tank destroyer camouflage bonus.

 

There are two potential solutions. First, remove all indirect fire from the game by turning all SPGs into derpy tank destroyers, changing their stats accordingly. This isn't a great solution, but it would be fairly simple to implement, since it doesn't involve developing any new mechanics.

 

Second, keep indirect fire, but implement the following changes:

1. Remove top-down view, and limit SPG range to the same render constraints as other vehicles. This would allow players a greater chance to retaliate against them directly.

2. Keep the 'drone view' or develop an indirect fire reticle.

3. Remove stun. It's a pointless, unrewarding mechanic. Get rid of it.

4. Increase rate of fire, reduce splash, reduce damage. The goal is to give them slightly less damage than tank destroyers of the same tier, to offset the advantages of indirect fire.

4. Increase speed, acceleration, traverse, and soft stats as needed on a per vehicle basis to reflect the increased risk to SPGs.

 

The biggest disadvantages here are the complex implementation, and the fact that it allows indirect fire, i.e. non-interactivity, to stay in the game. Still, since WG has stated repeatedly that indirect fire is here to stay, something like this is probably the best solution.



WhineMaker #2 Posted Aug 24 2019 - 05:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 38618 battles
  • 6,490
  • [WHAAA] WHAAA
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011

What?

 

You don't like to look absolutely STUNNING... :(



Sam_Sanister #3 Posted Aug 24 2019 - 05:41

    Captain

  • Players
  • 27868 battles
  • 1,841
  • [K0HAI] K0HAI
  • Member since:
    10-11-2013

Arty = siege engine, powerful from long range, best at whittling down slow/stationary targets over time

TDs = archers, supporting from the second line

LTs/MTs/HTs = melee units.

 

It'd be like removing trebuchets, catapults/onagers/mangonels, bombard cannons, cannon galleons/turtle ships, and ballistae/scorpions from Age of Empires.

Some units would need rebalancing due to the lack of good counters; defensive buildings and archers would be the norm.

 

 

Arty is a disadvantage you don't want to have to deal with, but in a balanced multiplayer game, you cannot always have the advantage.

That's how balanced multiplayer games work.

 

Arty only has the advantage in long range, drawn out battles, it can't do much in sub-7 minute battles.

Continuing the comparison to castle games, there's a Stronghold 3 mission where you get to siege a castle with a trebuchet(long range, low RoF, poor accuracy). However, due to the brutally short time limit, there is no safe strategy, it's one that forces you to move up or fail the mission.

(trebuchet=safe strategy)

 

Stop hemming and hawing, work with your team, and don't give arty the time to influence the battle.

But everyone is so out for themselves, wanting to extend the battle duration for their own personal gain, that they give arty the time it needs to contribute.

It's ironic that those same people get mad at other people playing the objective in Frontline instead of drawing the battles out for personal gain.

More battles/wins in the long run means more profits than few big-profit games.

 

Also the general masses hate teamwork, even though it makes things so much easier; case in point, the T-22sr rigging. (which required teamwork to even work at all)

 

Removing arty would solve nothing; the amount of rebalancing required would make armor, HP, firepower, and tier differences matter less.

This means making it near-impossible to farm damage safely from any given location, unless you're stealthed up.

It (reducing tier differences) wouldn't be in WG's best interest either, they want the player to feel outclassed by higher tiers to incentivize moving up in tiers.



choSenfroZen_1 #4 Posted Aug 24 2019 - 06:25

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 6346 battles
  • 422
  • [GITS] GITS
  • Member since:
    12-26-2015

View PostTytos_Blackwood, on Aug 23 2019 - 19:47, said:

The problem with SPGs is not related to the stats of the individual vehicles; they are probably more or less balanced in terms of damage per game, win rate, etc. The issue with SPGs has always been the fact that they do not allow meaningful counter play. Aside from a very small number of 'arty safe' places, the primary means of avoiding SPG fire reliably is not getting spotted, and fighting back is impossible. Artillery damage is a 'damage tax' that players pay for getting spotted. We saw a similar issue with the old tank destroyer camouflage bonus.

 

There are two potential solutions. First, remove all indirect fire from the game by turning all SPGs into derpy tank destroyers, changing their stats accordingly. This isn't a great solution, but it would be fairly simple to implement, since it doesn't involve developing any new mechanics.

 

Second, keep indirect fire, but implement the following changes:

1. Remove top-down view, and limit SPG range to the same render constraints as other vehicles. This would allow players a greater chance to retaliate against them directly.

2. Keep the 'drone view' or develop an indirect fire reticle.

3. Remove stun. It's a pointless, unrewarding mechanic. Get rid of it.

4. Increase rate of fire, reduce splash, reduce damage. The goal is to give them slightly less damage than tank destroyers of the same tier, to offset the advantages of indirect fire.

4. Increase speed, acceleration, traverse, and soft stats as needed on a per vehicle basis to reflect the increased risk to SPGs.

 

The biggest disadvantages here are the complex implementation, and the fact that it allows indirect fire, i.e. non-interactivity, to stay in the game. Still, since WG has stated repeatedly that indirect fire is here to stay, something like this is probably the best solution.


Your entire list contains the purposeful primary design elements of the class.


Edited by choSenfroZen_1, Aug 24 2019 - 06:26.


Tiocfaidh_Arla #5 Posted Aug 24 2019 - 13:33

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 4207 battles
  • 456
  • [IRE] IRE
  • Member since:
    01-04-2015

View PostchoSenfroZen_1, on Aug 24 2019 - 06:25, said:


Your entire list contains the purposeful primary design elements of the class.

 

People create poor design all the time. Some people even throw good money after bad because they think their design is awesome. 


Edited by Tiocfaidh_Arla, Aug 24 2019 - 13:35.


Tiocfaidh_Arla #6 Posted Aug 24 2019 - 13:50

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 4207 battles
  • 456
  • [IRE] IRE
  • Member since:
    01-04-2015

View PostSam_Sanister, on Aug 24 2019 - 05:41, said:

It (reducing tier differences) wouldn't be in WG's best interest either, they want the player to feel outclassed by higher tiers to incentivize moving up in tiers.

 

This is nonsense. You can put my M-44 into a battle with T10 and I would still rule. Arty is really OP. It is how I complete my damage missions and missions in which I need to hit many targets. I only play it for the missions because it is too easy.  The M-44 is the most ridiculously overpowered vehicle in this game. Why level if you have the M-44 and all you play is arty?



Sam_Sanister #7 Posted Aug 24 2019 - 21:12

    Captain

  • Players
  • 27868 battles
  • 1,841
  • [K0HAI] K0HAI
  • Member since:
    10-11-2013

View PostTiocfaidh_Arla, on Aug 24 2019 - 06:50, said:

 

This is nonsense. You can put my M-44 into a battle with T10 and I would still rule. Arty is really OP. It is how I complete my damage missions and missions in which I need to hit many targets. I only play it for the missions because it is too easy.  The M-44 is the most ridiculously overpowered vehicle in this game. Why level if you have the M-44 and all you play is arty?

Yes, the M44 is definitely overtuned and could use some nerfs (like 2-3 more seconds added to its reload time).

But, SPGs suffer the least when bottom tier due to their large caliber HE/splash.

I'm talking about non-SPGs.



WeSayNotToday #8 Posted Aug 25 2019 - 07:23

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 23913 battles
  • 1,179
  • Member since:
    04-08-2015

Reducing Non-interactivity of SPGs

 

Non-interactivity is more a trait of the player, although arty does cater to that type. 

 

Block Quote

  they are probably more or less balanced in terms of damage per game, win rate, etc

 

This is a good thing, and all that is necessary.

 

Block Quote

 The issue with SPGs has always been the fact that they do not allow meaningful counter play

 

Aggressively spot, use arty-shadows, control the map, shrink the area the enemy is confident in,shorten the battle..., oh you mean the individual has fewer options for meaningful counter-play.  Well, arty is the most team-dependent in both offense and defense, and this is a team game, albeit one that allows very good individual play to noticeably affect the battle.

 

Your suggestions have many variables to change for arty, and they do not really reflect well the things that arty itself brings to the game balance, like indirect fire in chokepoints, tracking of heavily armored targets to allow better flanking, tracking/ stunning/ damaging strong hull-down targets with upper surface damage, etc.

 

You suggest changing many variables, and more would need to be looked at beyond the ones you mention...., ...pretty complicated changes.

 

On the bright side, you may have good ideas for a fresh start in a new game that features indirect fire of a sort you propose...., ...good luck with the capital.

 

 



Ratnikk #9 Posted Aug 25 2019 - 11:43

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 13543 battles
  • 406
  • [DSRTD] DSRTD
  • Member since:
    07-20-2017
More nerfs and no advantages? No thanks, Spgs are already obsolete unless you get a good open map.

EmperorJuliusCaesar #10 Posted Aug 26 2019 - 13:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 37052 battles
  • 5,744
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostTytos_Blackwood, on Aug 24 2019 - 10:47, said:

The problem with SPGs is not related to the stats of the individual vehicles; they are probably more or less balanced in terms of damage per game, win rate, etc. The issue with SPGs has always been the fact that they do not allow meaningful counter play. Aside from a very small number of 'arty safe' places, the primary means of avoiding SPG fire reliably is not getting spotted, and fighting back is impossible. Artillery damage is a 'damage tax' that players pay for getting spotted. We saw a similar issue with the old tank destroyer camouflage bonus.

 

There are two potential solutions. First, remove all indirect fire from the game by turning all SPGs into derpy tank destroyers, changing their stats accordingly. This isn't a great solution, but it would be fairly simple to implement, since it doesn't involve developing any new mechanics.

 

Second, keep indirect fire, but implement the following changes:

1. Remove top-down view, and limit SPG range to the same render constraints as other vehicles. This would allow players a greater chance to retaliate against them directly.

2. Keep the 'drone view' or develop an indirect fire reticle.

3. Remove stun. It's a pointless, unrewarding mechanic. Get rid of it.

4. Increase rate of fire, reduce splash, reduce damage. The goal is to give them slightly less damage than tank destroyers of the same tier, to offset the advantages of indirect fire.

4. Increase speed, acceleration, traverse, and soft stats as needed on a per vehicle basis to reflect the increased risk to SPGs.

 

The biggest disadvantages here are the complex implementation, and the fact that it allows indirect fire, i.e. non-interactivity, to stay in the game. Still, since WG has stated repeatedly that indirect fire is here to stay, something like this is probably the best solution.

 

WG has stated MANY times that arty is here to stay.  It's operating as designed and intended. 



CanadianPuppy #11 Posted Aug 27 2019 - 15:31

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 414 battles
  • 186
  • Member since:
    06-22-2019
Why would a gun that fires a shell 24cm across and weighs 160kg, achieving speeds of 700m/s, do less damage that a gun that is HALF THE CALIBRE?

GrandMasterRaziel #12 Posted Aug 28 2019 - 16:37

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 15976 battles
  • 215
  • Member since:
    05-29-2011
I dislike arty as well. However, balanced against that, I LOVE when I manage to get sight of them and give it back to them. Nothing's more satisfying than slipping or fighting past defenders and ventilating the SPGs. I think it's worth having the annoying arty mechanic just for the pleasure of enacting sweet, sweet revenge on them when the opportunity presents itself.

CanadianPuppy #13 Posted Sep 04 2019 - 20:59

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 414 battles
  • 186
  • Member since:
    06-22-2019
Stun does contribute, since the big nerf of 9.18 (R.I.P T92 HMC's 4k alpha), SPGs cannot reliable do extreme amounts of damage. Hitting high tier tanks with a 203mm gun will do around 300-400 on average. Stun makes the enemy an easier target for friendly players, and makes it more difficult for the enemy to engage back. It allows the SPG player to receive a bit more EXP for hitting a target, and the team helping out.





Also tagged with SPGs, arty, artillery

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users