Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, Fulcrous said:

Rather than a gold round nerf, a map rebalance would solve the need to sling premium with all the impenetrable-to-standard-round heavies/tds.

smh

you should know already that this would not change anything at all. If you played ranked last season, open maps like Mali and Prok had exactly the exact same gameplay as Abbey. Heavy tanks, 430U and 268V4s fighting hulldown for 6-10mins trying to control the key areas of the map. You can try to change maps as much as you want, but unless you make them much bigger, the gameplay will be the same. After a map gets defined by meta, unicums will know what counter meta positions, and what counter, counter meta positions. This is a problem that comes with the meta tanks, more than map related. During E5 meta,  tanks like E5, 215B, 113 and 50B were the strong heavy tanks. Maybe 113s could've been the only ones able to hold areas for long periods of time. Now you have the Metapod SC, 277, 5A, 430U, 268V4(probably should add IS-7 too) holding positions forever until the HE rain starts. Once again, if WG would have made tanks with 1 or 2 weakspots that can be hit consistenly with normal rounds, probably this shitstorm wouldn't have pissed off most of the community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mati_14 said:

you should know already that this would not change anything at all. If you played ranked last season, open maps like Mali and Prok had exactly the exact same gameplay as Abbey. Heavy tanks, 430U and 268V4s fighting hulldown for 6-10mins trying to control the key areas of the map. You can try to change maps as much as you want, but unless you make them much bigger, the gameplay will be the same. After a map gets defined by meta, unicums will know what counter meta positions, and what counter, counter meta positions. This is a problem that comes with the meta tanks, more than map related. During E5 meta,  tanks like E5, 215B, 113 and 50B were the strong heavy tanks. Maybe 113s could've been the only ones able to hold areas for long periods of time. Now you have the Metapod SC, 277, 5A, 430U, 268V4(probably should add IS-7 too) holding positions forever until the HE rain starts. Once again, if WG would have made tanks with 1 or 2 weakspots that can be hit consistenly with normal rounds, probably this shitstorm wouldn't have pissed off most of the community.

Also you forget type5s and Mauses flanked still bounce a big % of the shells when angled. Especially from lower tier tanks without 330-340 pen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mati_14 said:

gibberish

Prok and mali after the rework are complete dogshit designs. Sure it's an "open" map but the viability of map positions means its effectively a corridor map. The fuck are you smoking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fulcrous said:

Prok and mali after the rework are complete dogshit designs. Sure it's an "open" map but the viability of map positions means its effectively a corridor map. The fuck are you smoking.

pff  because old prok and mali were clearly different due to the map design and not because of the meta. BULBA is back and you already became a fucking egotistic bitch?. Oh wait, you already were. Come the fuck on, at least bring some fucking arguments to your shit, you talk like if you knew the game better or if you were a better than me when reality is quite the opposite, not even taking into account that you play with 100-120 ping less than I do with probably +100 FPS and you can barely keep up with me. The viability of map positions gets reduces when the meta shifts off to tanks that can do almost everything well. Do I need to remind you of a map that had a lot of playable positions and still got removed because pubbies complained? Stalingrad. Pure corridors but so many of them that you could always look for a different position to shoot X tank. Sure it wasn't good with lightly armored tanks, but you were far from useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was buried on our EU announcement thread for the changes -

Quote

Hello guys,

 

We have asked internally about some clarification about how the ammo changes will affect well-armored vehicles/super heavies. This is the answer:

 

At the moment, the effectiveness of well-armored vehicles, such as the E-100, IS-4 (we want to even improve them at the request of the players), Maus and Type 5 Heavy (we are also nerfing it) are at the same level as other heavy tanks. They don't have an outstanding performance. Yes, these vehicles have a good performance on blocked damage, but that is how they were designed. This change will improve the survivability, but not the chance to penetrate these vehicles (armor penetration of special shells will remain the same). After the changes happened vehicles will receive less damage from special shells, by 25-30%, but this is only a part (not a major part) of the total damage they take and the total damage taken will decrease slightly. The reduction will be situational when, in a specific situation, these tanks will inflict precisely the damage from special shells with increased penetration.

 

As a result: yes, these vehicles will receive not direct, but indirect improvements. But the volume of this improvement will be situational and not so significant that the vehicles go beyond the limits of balance. That being said, based on the results of the tests, we will closely observe such vehicles and if the changes have a stronger impact than we initially planed, then we will react to this.

 

Apparently buffing super heavies against premium ammo is situational and apparently buffing already strong tanks won't impact balance. :facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, tajj7 said:

This was buried on our EU announcement thread for the changes -

 

Apparently buffing super heavies against premium ammo is situational and apparently buffing already strong tanks won't impact balance. :facepalm:

WG doesn't know which tanks over/under perform because the majority of players are so retarded they make the game look balanced basically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mati_14 said:

pff  because old prok and mali were clearly different due to the map design and not because of the meta. BULBA is back and you already became a fucking egotistic bitch?. Oh wait, you already were. Come the fuck on, at least bring some fucking arguments to your shit, you talk like if you knew the game better or if you were a better than me when reality is quite the opposite, not even taking into account that you play with 100-120 ping less than I do with probably +100 FPS and you can barely keep up with me. The viability of map positions gets reduces when the meta shifts off to tanks that can do almost everything well. Do I need to remind you of a map that had a lot of playable positions and still got removed because pubbies complained? Stalingrad. Pure corridors but so many of them that you could always look for a different position to shoot X tank. Sure it wasn't good with lightly armored tanks, but you were far from useless.

I wasn't trying to shit talk you lmao and I don't see why you are bringing up stats in 2018 - especially when try harding is pointless nowadays with lack of a true competitive mode.

It should be obvious that superheavies/heavies are far more annoying to deal with now than in the past because of the corridor-like design of maps. Take for instance, using the same maps, prok.

Prok 1/2 now has a ridge that allows both super heavies and faster turreted heavies to be effectively hulldown in complete safety. In addition the second set of bushes down the road indirectly buffed heavies as well by providing significantly more camo. 9/0 now has hulldowns for the north and south spawns, when it previously didn't, making trades super safe now and concurrently a stale map to play. You can go 1/2, middle, or 9/0 and effectively control 2/3 of the map just by sitting there. 

While the changing meta (aka the introduction and overbuffing of new tanks) have a part to play, the core issues of gameplay are magnified by the changes in map design to make the game significantly more safe to play.

Erlenberg - 1/2 and 9/0 are even worse to play now than it used to be as you get fucked by anything in the A/K lines. Once again, magnified by the changes in map design that makes tanks significantly safer to play near the base. Sit in A9? You control middle and 9 line. Sit in middle? You control the side you are safe from getting shot from and the area in front. Sit in 1/2? You control 1/2 and middle. 

When one spot can overlook 2/3 areas of the map, an open map effectively becomes a corridor because you are forced into (typically) 1 of 3 positions. Proper map design can easily make the staleness of what occured in ranked disappear - and consequently the overdominance of superheavies/heaviums - entirely. The best example of this, or at least a map that comes close, is Stalingrad and the new Pilsen. No single tank class truly dominated as there were areas each could go to and be equally viable. The only real issues with the maps are the extremely safe corners of the map and the lack of flexibility in middle and 9/0 because if you are caught in those areas, generally you ended up being fully committed.

FFS. There's so many ways you can solve the problems of the game by map design alone. If map sizes are an issue, there is nothing stopping them from making them bigger. We have evidence from T8 Grand Battles (or w/e the mode was called) that allowed every tank class to be viable in each individual zone AND negate a lot of the OP nature of certain tanks purely off of map design. We also know this game is an arcade game. There's nothing stopping WG from having different layers/levels in the same map and it's vastly better than changing irrelevant issues (the shit pubbies complain about).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ammo changes are currently in supertest.  FFS the Panther II and T-69 just became a huge free-XP sinks if this goes through.  Was anybody complaining about the prem round on the T-100LT? The answer given above about the Type 5 along with this retarded spreadsheet = further proof that nobody in the WG Dev department has actually played this game in years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Fulcrous said:

I wasn't trying to shit talk you lmao and I don't see why you are bringing up stats in 2018 - especially when try harding is pointless nowadays with lack of a true competitive mode.

It should be obvious that superheavies/heavies are far more annoying to deal with now than in the past because of the corridor-like design of maps. Take for instance, using the same maps, prok.

Prok 1/2 now has a ridge that allows both super heavies and faster turreted heavies to be effectively hulldown in complete safety. In addition the second set of bushes down the road indirectly buffed heavies as well by providing significantly more camo. 9/0 now has hulldowns for the north and south spawns, when it previously didn't, making trades super safe now and concurrently a stale map to play. You can go 1/2, middle, or 9/0 and effectively control 2/3 of the map just by sitting there. 

While the changing meta (aka the introduction and overbuffing of new tanks) have a part to play, the core issues of gameplay are magnified by the changes in map design to make the game significantly more safe to play.

Erlenberg - 1/2 and 9/0 are even worse to play now than it used to be as you get fucked by anything in the A/K lines. Once again, magnified by the changes in map design that makes tanks significantly safer to play near the base. Sit in A9? You control middle and 9 line. Sit in middle? You control the side you are safe from getting shot from and the area in front. Sit in 1/2? You control 1/2 and middle. 

When one spot can overlook 2/3 areas of the map, an open map effectively becomes a corridor because you are forced into (typically) 1 of 3 positions. Proper map design can easily make the staleness of what occured in ranked disappear - and consequently the overdominance of superheavies/heaviums - entirely. The best example of this, or at least a map that comes close, is Stalingrad and the new Pilsen. No single tank class truly dominated as there were areas each could go to and be equally viable. The only real issues with the maps are the extremely safe corners of the map and the lack of flexibility in middle and 9/0 because if you are caught in those areas, generally you ended up being fully committed.

FFS. There's so many ways you can solve the problems of the game by map design alone. If map sizes are an issue, there is nothing stopping them from making them bigger. We have evidence from T8 Grand Battles (or w/e the mode was called) that allowed every tank class to be viable in each individual zone AND negate a lot of the OP nature of certain tanks purely off of map design. We also know this game is an arcade game. There's nothing stopping WG from having different layers/levels in the same map and it's vastly better than changing irrelevant issues (the shit pubbies complain about).

Never played 1-2 line on Prok as I feel that the hill is so much more important and you have to rely too much on your scouts to play effectively. So you say it has hulldown spots? Where? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fulcrous said:

I wasn't trying to shit talk you lmao and I don't see why you are bringing up stats in 2018 - especially when try harding is pointless nowadays with lack of a true competitive mode.

It should be obvious that superheavies/heavies are far more annoying to deal with now than in the past because of the corridor-like design of maps. Take for instance, using the same maps, prok.

Prok 1/2 now has a ridge that allows both super heavies and faster turreted heavies to be effectively hulldown in complete safety. In addition the second set of bushes down the road indirectly buffed heavies as well by providing significantly more camo. 9/0 now has hulldowns for the north and south spawns, when it previously didn't, making trades super safe now and concurrently a stale map to play. You can go 1/2, middle, or 9/0 and effectively control 2/3 of the map just by sitting there. 

While the changing meta (aka the introduction and overbuffing of new tanks) have a part to play, the core issues of gameplay are magnified by the changes in map design to make the game significantly more safe to play.

Erlenberg - 1/2 and 9/0 are even worse to play now than it used to be as you get fucked by anything in the A/K lines. Once again, magnified by the changes in map design that makes tanks significantly safer to play near the base. Sit in A9? You control middle and 9 line. Sit in middle? You control the side you are safe from getting shot from and the area in front. Sit in 1/2? You control 1/2 and middle. 

When one spot can overlook 2/3 areas of the map, an open map effectively becomes a corridor because you are forced into (typically) 1 of 3 positions. Proper map design can easily make the staleness of what occured in ranked disappear - and consequently the overdominance of superheavies/heaviums - entirely. The best example of this, or at least a map that comes close, is Stalingrad and the new Pilsen. No single tank class truly dominated as there were areas each could go to and be equally viable. The only real issues with the maps are the extremely safe corners of the map and the lack of flexibility in middle and 9/0 because if you are caught in those areas, generally you ended up being fully committed.

FFS. There's so many ways you can solve the problems of the game by map design alone. If map sizes are an issue, there is nothing stopping them from making them bigger. We have evidence from T8 Grand Battles (or w/e the mode was called) that allowed every tank class to be viable in each individual zone AND negate a lot of the OP nature of certain tanks purely off of map design. We also know this game is an arcade game. There's nothing stopping WG from having different layers/levels in the same map and it's vastly better than changing irrelevant issues (the shit pubbies complain about).

Even though all you said about prok is true, how does this make a big difference between pre 1.0 and post 1.0? The only tank that could push 1/2 safely  it was E3 or T95 if had a good matchup, talking before Maus overbuff. Let's not forget when STRV came out, it made this even harder, because you would have a TD penning you 9/10 times at 250m and you never had chance of spotting it by yourself. 9/0 hasn't changed too much either. Now you can hulldown safely on hill from south, but if you overpeek you are dead. From north, you sit in the other side waiting to have shots over mid. And that's why most of experienced players would play mid most of the time. You can influence both sides of the fight putting tanks mid. But this doesn't mean there is no counterplay to it. You always had/have to be checking for none of your flanks to fall, or suddenly mid become a death sentence. A few days ago, I just got shit on in a 3/5/7 game because after 3 mins a 268V4 literally stomped 1/2 line, pre 1.0 only slow tanks could steamroll, at least you had a time to react and relocate. In the other hand, you have long and slow games because so many tanks now can poke safely. And we both know we are not adding arty to all this shit, which makes even less positions playable in most of the maps, unless you want to sacrifice your tank.
Please, don't use erlenberg as an example, we all know how WG fucked that map for no reason at all, even I remember some players(here) complaining about the old one. Nothing but 5-6 line should have been modified. I'm quite surprised you brought Pilsen tho. Personally I can't stand that map now, and I used to like the old version a lot, because I could make most of the tanks work unlike now.
And while I agree Frontline proved that bigger maps bring more healthy gameplay, the map was designed exclusively for that game mode. I think 1500x1500 it would be the biggest map you could built for 15v15, otherwise if the game pace is too quick you wouldn't have a chance to be relevant on something that can't pass 35kph. Frontline just plays completely different than all the other gamemodes, but once again I think what we try to achieve here is the good feeling about old patches, where your decisions was what made you have a good performance, whatever you wanted to play.
As the last comment, I get what you might be trying to change, but you'll might end up creating a different type of gameplay instead of getting back what made you play for +30k games. Whether that's good or not, I'm not sure, and I don't think there's a way to predict how it would go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Archaic_One said:

The ammo changes are currently in supertest.  FFS the Panther II and T-69 just became a huge free-XP sinks if this goes through.  Was anybody complaining about the prem round on the T-100LT? The answer given above about the Type 5 along with this retarded spreadsheet = further proof that nobody in the WG Dev department has actually played this game in years.

'became'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ham_ said:

WG doesn't know which tanks over/under perform because the majority of players are so retarded they make the game look balanced basically.

When you look at stats type5 is still overperforming. WG are just retards in looking at data

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ham_ said:

Yep massive stealth nerf to tier X tds, already lost 850 alpha. Object 268 is going to be even worse than bad now.

Not necessairly. High standard pen TDs kinda got a buff given that anything else firing at heavies will have reduced alpha if they want to fire prem while most tds get 290-310 pen standard without losing alpha. 

 

Biggest nerf to lights. Now late game you can't carry in a light vs a type5. Not only your pen is shit and you bounce your prem rounds off its sides but you will run out of ammo before you kill it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh shit, speaking of light tank guns, T-54 is getting fucked without good HEAT.

201 AP or 330 HEAT at the cost of almost a 1000 dpm if we are to presume the alpha will be 250.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before we all get too apocalyptic I think people need to keep in mind anything WG does to address the trash mechanic that is gold ammo is 98% likely to be a dumpster fire in the short run. They SHOULD have addressed gold ammo in this way 3 years ago, but they tried the armor inflation route instead and it didn't work. Now it will be twice as messy to fix because they made the wrong initial choice. But ultimately I'd still rather they pull the bandage off and clean out the wound than keep going with this gangrene-riddled limb until it finally has to be amputated. It's going to suck, but much as exactly as enough monkeys typing long enough will bang out Shakespeare, so too can WG fix* a problem with enough time once they actually want to.

*and by "fix," I mean, "make somewhat better but why the fuck would you do it this way?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity are there are lot of lightly armored tanks running around in tier 10 on other servers? A typical battle on SEA at tier 10 is about 16 - 20 heavies, 6 - 10 TDs and a smattering of lights / med / arty to fill in the rest. That will only get worse if they make armor even more effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, nabucodonsor said:

Never played 1-2 line on Prok as I feel that the hill is so much more important and you have to rely too much on your scouts to play effectively. So you say it has hulldown spots? Where? 

From the north, A2/B1. If your team controls 1/2 then you are hull down to anyone in fingers (middle ridges). Point primarily being that you are extremely safe and can hold pushes single-handedly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Armored Warfare had some good ideas, I'd love to see Wargaming adapt the best ones. For example, the benefits of premium tanks that I enjoy are that I can put crews for other vehicles in them and earn lots of credits. I don't need the tank to be OP, just fun to play many battles in. Armored Warfare would let you premium-ify tech tree vehicles for a fee. I'd be happy to pay a fair amount of money to premium-ify some of my favorite tech tree tanks at tiers 5-8. That would let me move up a tech tree and keep a lower tier tank without training two crews, and would let me grind credits in whichever vehicles I find to be the most fun. Wargaming could test this out as a time limited event with no promise to bring it back and see what the earnings look like. It might give them a way to encourage more premium vehicle purchases without having to release OP premiums. 

Share this post


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...