Jump to content
EchelonIII

What Truly Breaks Arty: Yet another case study of Border Break and TF2 mechanics

Recommended Posts

I'm in Japan again, this time in Okayama, and I've been playing more Border Break to see how the arty mechanics could be implemented.

Since arty seems to be a major discussion point, I'm going to be writing on what makes arty frustrating to play against and difficult to play.

Artillery in BB is an ability of the Heavy Weapons class. Heavies also carry heavy guns (think LMG or Minigun), and a rocket/grenade launcher (exactly as it says), and a complement weapon, which is usually an ECM grenade (read: Flashbang)

 

http://www12.atwiki.jp/borderbreak/pages/108.html

Tl;DR: Artillery units in BB have (usually) the best armor, the best medium-range firepower, an explosive weapon, and are still good at close or long ranges depending on their layout. They're generally still weak against assault players (think a ~40% chance of winning given equal skill), but nowhere near as arty is to a medium/light in WoT.

Imagine if an SPG had a TD-grade gun with additional supporting roles. It'd STILL be broken as fuck even if all other classes were given a second gun or a splash damage weapon too.

Arty in BB shares many similar points with Arty in world of tanks, a splash hit is basically a kill on most light mechs. A direct hit is effectively a kill on any medium mechs. Worse still, arty is called in through pressing the overhead map, it's literally set-up, touch, and you can fire as many or as few shots as you want onto the radar map. So basically, artillery is just as easy to call in as WoT, except that BB uses a radar map and be fired in volleys (depending on the arty).

So how have they done arty right? Let's run through it

1. Respawning
Respawing is a HUGE way to deal with artillery, it makes artillery feel like part of the game rather than a game ender.

Is getting artied when trying to capture a point frustrating? Yes, but that's what arty is MEANT TO DO, you respawn, try again, respawn, try again.

 

Players don't have the time or reason to feel frustrated at artillery when you're back fighting in ten seconds. That's durs

In WoT, you get artied out of the blue, there is no payback, there is no compensation, there's only a big repair bill to pay for absolutely no fault of your own. That's frustrating.

 

The typical response of a border break team trying to take a key point under arty fire which is VERY likely to badly damage the whole group to hit them is to keep throwing more wrecks into the meat grinder until the point is captured.

 

The typical response of a world of tanks team trying to take a hill under arty fire which can only hit ONE of them is for ALL of them hide like motherfuckers.

That's the effect of respawning, when you allow players to respawn, you encourage risk taking and more aggressive play, this is probably the single-greatest reason we have the rock-humping playstyle of WoT.

TL;DR Part 1: Respawning accomplishes three things which takes the frustration out of random sky-oneshots.

1) It distracts players from frustration by getting them back into the fight

2) It gives players a chance to generate counterplay against the artillery (read: hunting the heavy down);

3) It lessens the opportunity cost of taking risks (therefore encouraging better and more dynamic play instead of static rock-humping).

2. Limited range and the Impact on Skill
This can be learned from WoT itself, low tier arty is balanced by its own range, high tier arty can be set up anywhere on any map and can generally hit anywhere (of course, firing lines are important to know, but are a minor issue).

Limited range also encourages skilled play, Heavies are still vulnerable at close range to both support (shotguns and repair) and assault classes (SMG beats LMG). To play a heavy, a player needs to be able to do quite a bit more than SPGs do in WoT, they need to be able to read the flow of the game and position themselves in such a way that they're both effective as a support fire class and as an artillery class.

The flaw with this in WoT is in making maneuvering in an SPG near-redundant. Range is one of the best ways you can introduce a huge amount of depth into artillery play (the gap between the top and bottom FV304 players is massive compared to most other arties).

 

TL;DR Part 2: Maneuvering is a critical part of the game.  The fact that bads can still do somewhat well in TX arty simply by sitting and clicking needs to be changed.

3. Spotting and arty "camouflage"
In WoT, we have spotting, you're either lit or you aren't, if you fire, your camo can still remain intact, for arty, firing across the map allows them to essentially wreck a player's game at zero risk to themselves. It's a simplistic mechanic, and yet it's one of the biggest flaws with artillery, there is no risk for artillery not to fire.

Border break doesn't have the retarded spotting mechanics of WoT, every enemy within line of sight is visible, but only enemies within scan range show up on the minimap . A heavy setting up and firing its howitzer remains unlit on the map, but shows up to anybody looking in its general direction (humongous fucking fireballs a being fired skywards is hard to miss). It's a game mechanic accomplished through clever design.

This point synergizes with No. 2 to break artillery in WoT: You wind up with a class with little strategic depth, takes absolutely no risk to play, for a disproportionate reward, and fails to reward skill.

TL;DR Part 3: High-Reward, Low Risk is just plain wrong, nothing else needs to be said.

 

4. It's not "nothing's OP if everything's OP", it's whether skilled rock beats paper

Another area where WoT has sort of cornered itself is in every tank having one weapon only, thus lending to little flexibility to balance tanks; whereas in border break (and almost any other class-based shooter) balancing a mediocre primary weapon with a great secondary ability (e.g. medics) is a viable option. This is mostly an issue of the fact that there's nothing you can really do to change SPGs dramatically because the mechanic itself is broken.

BB isn't a case of "if everything is OP, nothing is", the time to kill in border break is low compared to WoT, but still much higher than a twitch-shooter (CS). What I've found is that lowering the time to kill increases the value of skill, but risks decreasing the depth of the game (i.e. turning it into twitch shooting).

Let's start by considering the effect of classes by using TF2 as an intermediate example. These are traditional rock-paper-scissors mechanics

- In WoT, a light versus a TD or SPG in close range has generally got a 90% chance of winning assuming equal skill, the time to kill is approximately 15 seconds
- In BB, an assault has maybe 55-65% odds of beating a heavy, and maybe 70% against a sniper
- In TF2, a scout has a very good chance of beating a sniper in close, the time to kill is perhaps about 3 to 4 seconds

Now, let's consider the effect of skill in to how these matchups are changed, and whether it's possible for skilled rock to beat paper.

- In WoT, a 70%er in an SPG or TD is still fucked against the average 50% light in close range
- In BB, a great heavy or sniper player can and often does reverse the odds against the average assault player
- In TF2 however, the best snipers will trash the average scout player

Looking at this seems to reveal a telling issue: WoT is a game where the effect of skill is greatly diminished, and combat outcomes can be determined by the classes being played, it's almost like rock-paper-scissors, which kills player interaction and frustrates people.

Let's consider the feelings of the loser when the favorite wins
- In TF2, your sniper being beaten by a scout feels like "I missed the headshot! Shit!" (read: you feel like you could have won it)
- In Border Break, an assault beating your heavy feels like "I should have spun up my minigun" or "I should have aimed my rocket better"
- In WoT, your TD being killed by a light slowly is not appropriate to be typed here. It's just plain frustrating, and is an exercise in futility 90% of the time.

And when you consider the reverse interactions of the underdog class winning, you see why there's so much rage in WoT
- In TF2, a scout feels like he's been completely outskilled by the sniper.
- In Border Break, an assault being beaten by a heavy can feel frustrating, but
- In WoT, a light being beaten by an SPG can be summed up as "fuck RNG and all who play it"

 

Only in world of tanks is the rock-paper-scissors system seemingly set in stone when it comes to SPGs

This is compounded by the next factor...

 

TL;DR Part 4: Rock-Paper-Scissors Mechanics are alright as long as they can be overturned reliably by skill, world of tanks fails in this

5A. One dimensional maps (or... Maps should not dictate Mechanics)
We've already established that WoT screws entire classes just through RNG, but random maps are just as bad.

Entire classes of tanks can be screwed out of a game in WoT (e.g. lights and arty in a city map, heavies in prok), you wind up with a much better chance of everything going to hell.

You don't feel like you've lost because you fucked up, you feel like you've lost because the random map selector god has cursed your tank because your tank can only really do a few things well, and yet entire maps can render you useless.

 

TL;DR: Building a cool map with no regard to game mechanics is bad

5B. .... Plus One Dimensional Classes... (Or... Mechanics should improve maps)

In BB, there are indoor and covered areas (arty can be neither from nor hit such areas), in those areas my howitzer becomes useless but my ECM systems become effective. Conversely, assault mechs have an easier time closing in and meleeing or SMGing me.

How do heavies cope in areas where fighting is closer-in or when enemies are in areas of arty cover? 1. Replace the howitzer with attack drones, 2. Airburst ammo, 3. Replacing the howitzer with an assault shield, 4. Replace the howitzer with a drone system. etc.

This works with any other game: How do we get around outright fucking players? By allowing players the option to compensate for situations they would ordinarily be fucked in.

More options don't always mean one is OP beyond all doubt, instead, the diversity of combat situations in border break means that you'll have the advantage in some fights on a certain match and not in others.

Contrast WoT where you can be screwed all match just for being in the wrong tank, and you have an all-or-nothing system where your tank can often be rendered completely irrelevant no matter your skill level.

 

TL;DR: Build your mechanics first, then build a map that suits it.

 

5C. Equals RIP
Maps in WoT on the other hand can completely fuck entire classes (e.g. himmels/ensk compared to something like prok). Why does this happen? Look at the abilities of each class: Arty in WoT has one trick - click on red from sky and watch things blow up.

As much as we like to see arty tears when arty players get such maps, Wargaming's maps have removed the depth from artillery play. Wargaming giving each tank one gun and one "ability" to speak of have removed the depth of the game.

Is it good for business? Hell yes. Is it a good gameplay decision? Fuck no.

 

TL;DR Part 5: Each class in WoT having precisely one optimal playstyle means that it's a game of how closely the map conforms to that playstyle.

6. "Fuck This Guy in Particular"

We've already established a few things

1. Artillery in border break is nowhere near as frustrating as WoT
2. Artillery in border break is even more likely to randomly wipe you out (and the group you're with) in a barrage or even a single shot

We've tackled how respawning solves the frustration, but here's another key aspect of it.

The key is this: When I shoot an area in border break, I only see the classes of the units on my radar, I designate an aim point, and my howitzer starts shelling around that aim point. All on my radar screen

When I use arty in World of Tanks, I decide WHO I want to shoot, I aim exclusively at him, I fire, and his game gets ruined.

Dying to an arty in border break feels like dying to an enemy player who wants to win just as much as you do, there's literally nothing personal about it.

Dying to an arty in WOT feels like dying to someone who just wants to grief your game. That's a huge difference.

 

TL;DR Part 6: Unilateral interaction is bad for games, WoT arty is the pinnacle of unilateral interaction.

7. Clearly Defined Mechanics

In WoT, if I'm behind a rock, I'm immune to a 261 but fodder for an FV304 but can be splashed by a T92 but could be easily hit by a Bat arty which has moved.

You might say that that number of options in world of tanks increases the stategic depth of the game, but this isn't.

Do I take the route through the open field or go through town where it may be safer for arty? I don't know, because there's no way to weigh my options. Fuck all if I go town and their CGC can still hit me anyway.

 

Depth is only depth when the mechanics are clear to all, without clear mechanics, arty cover becomes a lottery of "Pray their arty has no arc on me".

In Border Break, your status with regard to artillery comes in one of three forms.
1. You have a clear view of the sky and am susceptible to a direct hit
2. You don't have a clear view of the sky and are therefore immune to arty

3. You're on the thin border of a sheltered area and may be splashed for light damage (this is more of an exceptional case)

 

Clear rules that everybody understands.

"Do I take this sheltered route through the building or save time by rushing the field" is now a clear strategic decision. Everybody knows they WILL be arty safe in town, and they need to weigh it up against if they think they can make it through field

 

TL;DR Part 7: One class should not get to break the rules that everybody else abides by, depth is only depth when it's understood by players

 

 

TLDR Compilation

 

1: Respawning accomplishes three things which takes the frustration out of random sky-oneshots. 

- It distracts players from frustration by getting them back into the fight
- t gives players a chance to generate counterplay against the artillery (read: hunting the heavy down); 
- It lessens the opportunity cost of taking risks (therefore encouraging better and more dynamic play instead of static rock-humping).
 
2: Maneuvering is a critical part of the game. The fact that bads can still do somewhat well in TX arty simply by sitting and clicking needs to be changed.
 
3: High-Reward, Low Risk is just plain wrong, nothing else needs to be said.
 
4: Rock-Paper-Scissors Mechanics are alright as long as they can be overturned reliably by skill, world of tanks fails in this
 
5: Building a cool map with no regard to game mechanics is bad. Build your mechanics first, then build a map that suits it. The problem is that each class in WoT having precisely one optimal playstyle means that it's a game of how closely the map conforms to that playstyle
 
6: Unilateral interaction is bad for games, WoT arty is the pinnacle of unilateral interaction.
 
7: One class should not get to break the rules that everybody else abides by, depth is only depth when it's understood by players
Link to post
Share on other sites

If only some of the people on the official forum would read this. Very well done   :thumbup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you also play War Thunder Ground Forces? It features respawns and their inherent problems:

kill all is no longer viable since you simply respawn. You need to find another way to decide the game. Make respawns bleed tickets? Team with less retards wins and you cannot carry if they lemming fast enough to their deaths. You can get a Radleys in an utter monster game and still suffer a crushing defeat without any chances of turning the tide.

Force ticket bleeding via control zones? Pubs need to go for those zones. If they camp and snipe you are done since you can't solo all the defenders of one cap since they will just come at you again.
--> Respawning also goes a long way towards minimizing an individuals influence of the game since team mates can screw you over even more.

I really like your other points tho.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well written. Gotta go look up Border Break now, I like TF2 too and how it never feels like you're screwed by the mechanics.

I did two other case studies on the same game last year too

 

 

You have too much free time
 
I was in Japan and couldn't play Tonks
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a TF2 vet, someone who considered entering the comp scene, the maps are still awful. Dustbowl is a bad (read: worthy of ragequitting) map for Scout and Spy because you have run through one choke point after the other. A GOOD map would be the community-made Gullywash. Last isn't terribly hard to defend and it has a lot of flanking routes.

Also, random crits. You lose the match because the opposing gibusvision Soldier rolled for 3x damage and instagibs your Scout then proceeds to cap last.

Also, I can choose whoever the hell I want to kill as Scout and make their Medic or Demo ragequit.

I can smell the whine in the post at the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a TF2 vet, someone who considered entering the comp scene, the maps are still awful. Dustbowl is a bad (read: worthy of ragequitting) map for Scout and Spy because you have run through one choke point after the other. A GOOD map would be the community-made Gullywash. Last isn't terribly hard to defend and it has a lot of flanking routes.

Also, random crits. You lose the match because the opposing gibusvision Soldier rolled for 3x damage and instagibs your Scout then proceeds to cap last.

Also, I can choose whoever the hell I want to kill as Scout and make their Medic or Demo ragequit.

I can smell the whine in the post at the end.

generally the good servers have random crits disabled, and its not about targeting people, its about the demo having the skill to air shot you or the medic getting the ubersaw and running

Link to post
Share on other sites

Negrepped because you wrote a fucking novel about something that doesn't require more than 2 paragraphs.

Kind of have to agree

 

+1 for quality -1 for converting Ulysses to a book about arty

 

Pity put it the best

Link to post
Share on other sites

- respawning is utter BS and one of the reasons I dont touch things as WT arcade or these stupid shooters. It lessens the impact of skill and encourages the baddies even more to ignore their mistakes imo.

 

- comparing WoT and its game mechanics,  which has a historical background based on facts to some extend, to fantasy mech-games, where different classes can be custumized nearly as in an RPG a character, makes absolutly no sense to me. If you want to play games like that, there are plenty to choose from.

 

- you are moaning and bitching about the fact that on one hand arti is unable to defend itself in close combat and on the other that its RNG if I take out tanks in infighting with my SPG calling it RNG. PMS much? The first thing to keep in mind is that arti lost a big part of its close combat abilities (which never where great to begin with), because of cry babies like you - WG nerfed it. And even after that you are still to stupid to take out an arti in infight? Now its RNG? Pls get real. How about just outspotting/outplaying arti - most arti players are fucking retards. Its telling that many people still complain. How about just waiting till a team mate arrives in the bottom corner of Mines for example, instead of going full speed frontally into the arti hiding behind the houses with your Batchat. And if your the only one left just go into the cap - if arti wants to win, it will have to crawl out of its hole.

 

- Low risk, high reward ... I said it hundrets of times by now probably but again: bring back the old tracer system, introduce SPG sub class, better suited for counter arti, thin out existing arti trees, change XP/economics (will never happen) ... .

 

- If you dont like rock, paper, scissors dont play it, entertain yourself with a Swiss Army Knife or whatever. If you cant live with the fact, that a LT drives circles around your TD, WoT isnt for you. Sure its frustrating sometimes, but instead of going mental better ask yourself how you ended up in that situation. Sometimes its your own fault, sometimes the MM decided to bless your with a team full of goat fuckers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1: Respawning accomplishes three things which takes the frustration out of random sky-oneshots. 

- It distracts players from frustration by getting them back into the fight
- t gives players a chance to generate counterplay against the artillery (read: hunting the heavy down); 
- It lessens the opportunity cost of taking risks (therefore encouraging better and more dynamic play instead of static rock-humping).
 
2: Maneuvering is a critical part of the game. The fact that bads can still do somewhat well in TX arty simply by sitting and clicking needs to be changed.
 
3: High-Reward, Low Risk is just plain wrong, nothing else needs to be said.
 
4: Rock-Paper-Scissors Mechanics are alright as long as they can be overturned reliably by skill, world of tanks fails in this
 
5: Building a cool map with no regard to game mechanics is bad. Build your mechanics first, then build a map that suits it. The problem is that each class in WoT having precisely one optimal playstyle means that it's a game of how closely the map conforms to that playstyle
 
6: Unilateral interaction is bad for games, WoT arty is the pinnacle of unilateral interaction.
 
7: One class should not get to break the rules that everybody else abides by, depth is only depth when it's understood by players

 

 

Agree, but wot arty is much easier to fix:

1: remove HE penetration, perhaps unrealistic, but thats frustration nr 1, HE should NEVER penetrate, WTF-E100 with 2mm armor vs T92 shell, bad luck, no penetration... 

2: arty can only see targets which are active spotted, the ``delay`` in spotting does not apply to arty, so the 5 tanks spotted by a suicide scout will all be camoed the moment the scout is dead, dead scout = no active spotting = no targets in arty mode!!

3: bring back tracer system so countering is more rewarding

4: nerf range of most arties a lot, give arty terrible viewrange

5: buff mobility a lot

6: give arty 2x more bloom as they now have, but also (much) faster aim time and better accuracy, so switching targets or hitting movign stuff is much harder, but hitting stationairy targets is easier

 

a ``new`` GW Panther should be:

- much more mobile

- more accuracy

- (much) faster aiming

- less range 

- no penetration, ever

- much, much worse bloom, making hitting while moving impossible

- able to counter fire enemy arty

 

TL:DR: remove HE penetration and implement ``active spotting`` in the god-view, the moment the scout is dead, everything he spots get despotted, no 5 sec delay, just instand despot

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite frankly, Folterknecht, your proposal for arty is complete nonsense. I've said it a bunch of times already, and I'm sure you remember, but I can't believe you're still posting the same proposal everywhere. Why on earth would you want to design a class in a game just to have it play its own little game instead of playing the same game as everyone else. With your suggestion, arty would fight each other rather than participate in the actual battle. If you want arty to live in their own little universe then just make an arty-only game mode for all the mouthbreathing mr sexiis.

 

What exactly is the difference between removing arty completely and reworking arty in a way that excludes them from the game everyone else plays and makes them play their own game instead (as you propose)? Answer: There is no fucking difference. And we all know removing arty is not a good idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite frankly, Folterknecht, your proposal for arty is complete nonsense. I've said it a bunch of times already, and I'm sure you remember, but I can't believe you're still posting the same proposal everywhere. Why on earth would you want to design a class in a game just to have it play its own little game instead of playing the same game as everyone else. With your suggestion, arty would fight each other rather than participate in the actual battle. If you want arty to live in their own little universe then just make an arty-only game mode for all the mouthbreathing faggots.

 

What exactly is the difference between removing arty completely and reworking arty in a way that excludes them from the game everyone else plays and makes them play their own game instead (as you propose)? Answer: There is no fucking difference.

 

So you are claiming that this aspect didnt work in beta and after release? I cant remember any arti parties from back than, beside the ones we created in companies ... .

 

I m not claiming that arti was balanced between each other or that it wasnt undertiered in many cases, but thats a balancing matter and not game mechanic.

 

You can run around your christmas tree and sing Garbads song all day long, WG wont remove arti and they wont transform it into a TD subclass.

 

And your argument regarding game in a game is stupid - otherwise no arti player back than would have had above 1500 dpb

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are claiming that this aspect didnt work in beta and after release? I cant remember any arti parties from back than, beside the ones we created in companies ... .

 

Even if they had not changed a single thing between the point when you argue everything was alright and the point when arty had become so big of a problem WG decided to nerf it to hell, arty would still have become a problem. The removal of tracers wasn't the reason. It just takes quite a while until a considerable amount of players unlock the end game content.

 

Following the exact same logic, CGC is no more OP now than it was at its release, but people simply needed ages to finish the grind, so people only realized how gamebreaking it is very recently when there started to be a CGC in every single fucking battle. That's how shit works in games with end game content.

 

 

 

You can rund around your christmas tree and sing Garbads song all day long, WG wont remove arti and they wont transform it into a TD subclass.

 

I can't remember making any such implications.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like respawns, but I still think arty needs to be more agile, aim faster, etc... and be forced to shoot either direct fire like everyone else, or angle up to extremely high arc (read: 70 degrees or other mortar-like levels) and shoot via a big minimap that blocks the middle of the screen. You paid too much attention to the targets on the minimap? Too bad, the LT rushing you got behind you and killed you. Unless firing by map, it's a glassier TD with ONLY HE/premium HE (counterbalances the ludicrous gun calibres, firing frontally at enemy vehicles means not penning...), less HP, somewhat worse ROF, but the gimmick of firing by a blow-up minimap if you so choose.

 

Occasional indoor tank battles would be hilarious, particularly if using Havok and with bringing the building down on all of the vehicles inside (The northwest train station on Himmels, anyone?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

And your argument regarding game in a game is stupid - otherwise no arti player back than would have had above 1500 dpb

 

Your proposal is about reverting some of the changes made to tracers (totally ineffective) and adding some more incentive to play their own little cancerous shit game in their parallel universe made for special mouthbreathing windowlicking snowflakes. Can't really compare that to the situation "back than (sic)".

Link to post
Share on other sites

regarding brit arti - I already posted that.

 

1) brit arti tree was unnecessary to beginn with, and I dont see any sense in adding more. I m for thinning out the existing ones.

2) while all other trees got nerfed nearly across the board with 0.8.6, the brit SPG tree is a desaster balancing wise, being a mix of OP (Bert) and pre 0.8.6 vehicles (stat/performance wise  t9 -10) on one hand and total rubbish on the other. Only 1 arti they is more or less balanced in my book, thats the t8. But again - balancing is not a game mechanic

 

And yes the tracer removal in 2011/12 plays a big part in the ever increasing number of arti noobs and TD faggots. For a very big part of the playerbase with low and avg stats it makes no difference if they sit in an arti or TDs gameplay wise. They drive into their bush at the start and wont move until they return to garage. Some like the tank aim more than the satellite view or the other way around, but that make no difference for the game play.

And with the old system it was much easier to hasten their return to garage without neglecting the rest of the game, making it easier to obtain higher WRs in arti. While at the same time it was also easier for tanks to locate enemy arti and take it out - something no one seems to remember here. Which in turn forced arti players to move more, if they wanted to have an impact on the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a TF2 vet, someone who considered entering the comp scene, the maps are still awful. Dustbowl is a bad (read: worthy of ragequitting) map for Scout and Spy because you have run through one choke point after the other. A GOOD map would be the community-made Gullywash. Last isn't terribly hard to defend and it has a lot of flanking routes.

Also, random crits. You lose the match because the opposing gibusvision Soldier rolled for 3x damage and instagibs your Scout then proceeds to cap last.

Also, I can choose whoever the hell I want to kill as Scout and make their Medic or Demo ragequit.

I can smell the whine in the post at the end.

 

As an actual former TF2 comp player, excuse me while I laugh at you for thinking that Dustbowl is played competitively and that random crits are in comp play.

 

- respawning is utter BS and one of the reasons I dont touch things as WT arcade or these stupid shooters. It lessens the impact of skill and encourages the baddies even more to ignore their mistakes imo.

Bullshit, respawning would be one of the things that would allow carries MUCH more often simply by reducing the variability of luck.

Think of the old argument, it's a lot easier for a bad to beat a good 1-0 than it is for a bad to beat a good 2-1 or 2-0. The more respawns, the more likely it is for the good player to have an overall advantage over a bad.

 

- comparing WoT and its game mechanics,  which has a historical background based on facts to some extend, to fantasy mech-games, where different classes can be custumized nearly as in an RPG a character, makes absolutly no sense to me. If you want to play games like that, there are plenty to choose from.

Don't pull that historical background bullshit. Historical authenticity went out the window the moment Wargaming applied for and was issued an actual fucking patent for the E-50M.

We both know WG gives zero fucks about "historical accuracy", so don't bullshit.

 

- you are moaning and bitching about the fact that on one hand arti is unable to defend itself in close combat and on the other that its RNG if I take out tanks in infighting with my SPG calling it RNG. PMS much? The first thing to keep in mind is that arti lost a big part of its close combat abilities (which never where great to begin with), because of cry babies like you - WG nerfed it. And even after that you are still to stupid to take out an arti in infight? Now its RNG? Pls get real. How about just outspotting/outplaying arti - most arti players are fucking retards. Its telling that many people still complain. How about just waiting till a team mate arrives in the bottom corner of Mines for example, instead of going full speed frontally into the arti hiding behind the houses with your Batchat. And if your the only one left just go into the cap - if arti wants to win, it will have to crawl out of its hole.

Wrong, what I'm saying is that SKILL should be able to cause reverses more often.

SPG vs light of equal skill should STILL be a light crushing an SPG. But a highly skilled SPG should be able to reverse the balance more often.

 

- Low risk, high reward ... I said it hundrets of times by now probably but again: bring back the old tracer system, introduce SPG sub class, better suited for counter arti, thin out existing arti trees, change XP/economics (will never happen) ... .

We had tracers before, arty parties were still on, arty was still cancer. Returning tracers is like pouring a bucket of water on a forest fire.

Good arty will still wreak havoc, XVM targeters will still be XVM targeters, and it'll be like 2fort sniper duels: arty playing ping pong with arty,.

 

- If you dont like rock, paper, scissors dont play it, entertain yourself with a Swiss Army Knife or whatever. If you cant live with the fact, that a LT drives circles around your TD, WoT isnt for you. Sure its frustrating sometimes, but instead of going mental better ask yourself how you ended up in that situation. Sometimes its your own fault, sometimes the MM decided to bless your with a team full of goat fuckers.

Which implies that MM fucking you over is your fault. A skilled player should generally be able to beat a player of a lower skill, with the general difference being one skill level. e.g. Purple level TDs beating a green light

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As an actual former TF2 comp player, excuse me while I laugh at you for thinking that Dustbowl is played competitively and that random crits are in comp play.

 

Bullshit, respawning would be one of the things that would allow carries MUCH more often simply by reducing the variability of luck.

Think of the old argument, it's a lot easier for a bad to beat a good 1-0 than it is for a bad to beat a good 2-1 or 2-0. The more respawns, the more likely it is for the good player to have an overall advantage over a bad.

 

Don't pull that historical background bullshit. Historical authenticity went out the window the moment Wargaming applied for and was issued an actual fucking patent for the E-50M.

We both know WG gives zero fucks about "historical accuracy", so don't bullshit.

 

Wrong, what I'm saying is that SKILL should be able to cause reverses more often.

SPG vs light of equal skill should STILL be a light crushing an SPG. But a highly skilled SPG should be able to reverse the balance more often.

 

We had tracers before, arty parties were still on, arty was still cancer. Returning tracers is like pouring a bucket of water on a forest fire.

Good arty will still wreak havoc, XVM targeters will still be XVM targeters, and it'll be like 2fort sniper duels: arty playing ping pong with arty,.

 

Which implies that MM fucking you over is your fault. A skilled player should generally be able to beat a player of a lower skill, with the general difference being one skill level. e.g. Purple level TDs beating a green light

 

Here you have wrong assumptions:

1: WG does care for historical accuracy, like it or not, when needed** they will fabricate fantasy stuff but overall virtually anything in-game is possible (especially german / russian stuff, but those counties could into engineering...)

 

needed:

- tier 8 prem for money making (real money for WG not credits for players)

- filler tanks to built a line (t28 proto)

- tier 10 tanks to finish a line (Fv 215b, WTF-E100)

 

But even WTF-E100 is not totally fake, the chassis was built and the gun (a autoloading 128mm) was also real, so what if its februari 1945, you have a huge turretless chassis (the E100) and a huge ass autoloading 128mm gun, put the gun on the chassis, weld a shield around it, put en engine in and you have WTF-E100

128cmFlaK40-dziasup3oplot_zpsb4244893.jp

 

 

p1000419_190.jpg

 

Many people grossly under-estimate how ``real`` german and russian tech trees are, Flakbus, Sturer Emil, Rhm borsig, WTF-p4, all are real tanks, yet on forum many cry ``fake tanks``, same for many ru tanks, most of the totally idiotic things where built (and they often even fought...)

 

2: respawning is bad, since it would grossly widen the gap between good and bad, and WG will never do that, WG is since day 1 making the game as noob-friendly as possible, i thus also dont get all the hate for corridor maps and dumbind the game down, this was policy since day 1, arty, tier 10 tds, gold ammo, the maps, WG does everything to make it easy for ``bad players``, yet since past summer ppl all of a sudden start to rage about ``idiot proof maps`` ``world of heavys tanks`` ``WG dumbs game down`` while they did this since the beginning....

 

3: Wot is a team-game, like it or not, so rock-paper-scissor will always stay, eat and / or get eaten, high tier heavys should murder kill 2 tier lower meds (so fuck gold ammo) a TD in good camp spot should wreck anything stupid enough to attack it from that side, a E3 / maus / E100 should 1vs1 anything head on no problem.

 

Wot beta with tier 5 vs IS4 worked, because the small tanks had to support their big tank because else:

- if the small tanks let the big one die, they get raped by the enemy big tank

- if the big tanks lets the small ones die, he get swarmed / capped and dies / looses

 

So big and small had to help eachother, same for TDs, light, heavys and meds, beta was a though learning school, so bads left, good stayed, leading to far superior gameplay, because a big tank not helping the small tanks would gets defeat after defeat (there was no way to compensate) same tier 6 tanks not helping the IS7 would all get raped by the enemy maus:

 

the game forced teamplay, adapt or die.... (to quote StormSuffer mr. sexii, your suffering makes us happy!” )

 

With current idiot teams this ofc wont work, but the current balance between all-round and specialist is imo fine, low tier tanks are often more then effective enough vs high tier tanks and the class balance is also fine (except tier 10)

 

Aerty is the outliner, and arty needs special reworks, to reduce randomness, to lower skill floor and to increase skill ceiling:

- no HE penetration (less randomness)

- tracers (to punish bads)

- mobility buff (to reward goods)

- bloom nerf (to reduce randomness and punish bads)

- buff acc and aim time (buff goods and reduce randomness)

 

and it would be fine, more or less

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here you have wrong assumptions:

1: WG does care for historical accuracy, like it or not, when needed** they will fabricate fantasy stuff but overall virtually anything in-game is possible (especially german / russian stuff, but those counties could into engineering...)

[picture and text snipped out]

 

Many people grossly under-estimate how ``real`` german and russian tech trees are, Flakbus, Sturer Emil, Rhm borsig, WTF-p4, all are real tanks, yet on forum many cry ``fake tanks``, same for many ru tanks, most of the totally idiotic things where built (and they often even fought...)

"Adhering to historical accuracy" on some points and fabricating fantasy stuff when necessary, is the very definition of not adhering to historical accuracy.

 

Imagine watching Braveheart watching William Wallace pull out an MP40 and mowing down the English, and the film directors saying "well we stayed historically accurate when needed but felt that we needed to fabricate stuff when possible". (of course, the movie was hardly historically accurate, but you get the point).

It's like Genji 2, you can't adhere to historical armor, historical outfits, historical weapons, and then throw in a fucking giant enemy crab and call it historically accurate. (see also this vid at 1:05

 

 

)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...