Jump to content
Spinee

Sandbox: Ammo and Health Changes

Recommended Posts

I want to hope Wargaming is actually putting this out to test the water, wait for the backlash and then back up to what they always wanted, to reduce the damage of the gold rounds. Only after suggesting this they can do that as a concession to the players, have it "the will of the players" in their PR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whichever way they decide to go about this, they will have to adjust more parameters than just shell damage numbers. If they were to say... increase the TTK across T7-10 while they're at it, I wouldn't be opposed to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Assassin7 said:

its a decent idea, would need to be implemented on a tank by tank basis though. 

 

their current idea for a change however still isn't going to fix the problem, all its gonna do is make tanks like the 268v4 even more broken yet again. they have to fix fucking armour values, all these stupid drastic changes are pointless. Nerf the powercreeped armour, add actual weakspots back, nerf gold rounds alpha by 25%. boom done, go back to redesigning arty again. 

Oh yeah they are going to fuck it up pretty badly. But I believe alpha should not be nerfed they should rather increase the HP because: A) buffs are always better appreciated B) everyone likes big numbers and big booms.

Also I forgot to mention before that they would also have to tone down the RNG aspect on pen and accuracy as otherwise weakspots will always be hard to hit even at close ranges. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hp is going from about 16% - 29%.

But alpha is going up from 32% to 43%.

So things are actually going to die faster, especially anything that is easily penned by standard ammo, i.e paper meds, lights and tds.

Its why many of the big alpha TDs have gone from low chance of two shoting a lot of things they face to like two shoting more things they face reliably.

Like most tier 9 meds will now be two shot reliably by the old 750 alpha TDs, whereas before those TDs needed high rolls.

Why they are tying alpha increase to calibre is beyond me, it should be related to armour, because if you don't have any armour, you don't care about prem rounds and everything is now killing you faster, but in reality you can't now kill heavily armoured stuff as easily because your prem rounds are nerfed.

So a Maus vs tier 8, or Type 5 vs Leo 1, has gone more in the favour of the super heavies, because the former has more health and more alpha now with standard rounds, but the latter has no armour so gets penned by the increased alpha standard rounds, but either has to bounce lots of their standard rounds back, or has to use their lower alpha/DPM premium rounds back, so either way will take longer to kill the super heavy, whilst the super heavy kills them faster.

GG great balance there. 

Oh and I think I do know why, they are trying to keep the DPM differences the same, for example if you look at E100 and Leo, with their buffed alphas of 1060 and 525 on their standard rounds, the DPM difference has stayed at 458 as it is now between the two when they have 750 and 390, except when everything has more health that 458 DPM advantage is actually less beneficial because its less of all the targets HP (if that makes sense) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually wouldn't mind an aggressive HP buff to everything. Say 20% at tier 5 and below to rid of some oneshot-memes, and maybe 15-10% above on higher tiers. Gives you longer games which I honestly think nobody would mind, and would increase quality a bit more. 

That said I think it's the only change necessary, the change will scale better for armoured tanks unless you change alpha to match the HP change, but then it's pointless. With some bigger HP pools the 400-500 arty splash isn't as problematic, high alpha TD value goes down a little bit, more uptime (takes longer to kill) so active spotting, being the first to push, and trading gets easier across the board which I honestly think could be a very good thing for new player experiences and low-tier players while not ruining the top tier experience. 

The change proposed is honestly too aggressive. It tries to solve too many problems with WoT without considering its gameplay implications. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gold spam really started after the sigma nerf to accuracy.  We don't spam gold for the pen, we spam gold to compensate for RNG.  If we could reliably hit fully aimed shots on weak spots we'd go back to using AP again.  Instead, after missing the micro weak spot on a Type 5 with an entire clip of AP from my 50B - and then getting blapped for 1K with an HE round, I didn't just switch the next clip to APCR - I quit carrying AP in it altogether.

Make aiming great again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possible reasons they are doing it this way:

  • HE needs to do something, and scaling up the damage could accomplish that. 400 vs 320 is the difference between 50 damage and 0 in a lot of situations. Might as well do all the rounds at the same time.
  • Sabotaging the validity of stats probably not the worst thing that could ever happen in WG's eyes, since stat shit brings out the worst in a lot of players.
  • It's a perfect way to do a lot of ninja nerfing of tanks in a way the pubbie brain cannot comprehend because it involves making comparisons. Expect bad tanks to get bigger HP boosts and good tanks to get less.
  • There's probably some obscure law in some country no one's heard of in Europe that could be a problem if they reduced gold ammo damage, but won't apply if they make other ammo types do more.
  • There's probably going to be some ammo price shell game. If they drop the advantage of gold ammo more people shoot AP=less need for premium account. Increasing the damage of the shells will give a pretext for disproportionate increases in AP shell price, and $5 says the credit cost per damage of AP will be higher when it's all said and done. If they just cut gold ammo damage they'd have to do a stark increase in AP costs and players would realize it and bitch.
  • EDIT: elaborating on balancing, they basically have to nerf heavy tanks and other heavily armored vehicles if they nerf gold ammo. This is another reason they're doing it this way, because they're going to increase the HPs of armored vehicles less to balance out the cuts to gold ammo. If they just cut gold ammo damage they would need to reduce heavy tank HPs and baddies would bitch if their Defender got "nerfed" from 1500 to 1350.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignoring the HP boost portion of tanks, just to talk about the guns... The tanks with high pen for standard shells = new padding tanks? Or... is this the return of TD meta?


The tier X tanks with sh*t pen values on standard shells...  yikes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"So while alpha gap is already a problem in our shitty corridor game, we'll widen it, and lower the TTK's for high tiers where it is already obvious we don't need to."

"2HK high armor tank destroyers in corridor meta are definitely healthy"

"Also fuck gold ammo and your precious f2p economy. We will effectively remove the option to play without premium acct."

"Oh look, we can 'secretly' nerf all the autoloader tanks so skill requirement can go even lower lol"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Matross said:

The tier X tanks with sh*t pen values on standard shells...  yikes.

It’s the tier 9s I’m thinking about. T-54/55a, E50, M46, UDES 16, etc will all be useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, sohojacques said:

It’s the tier 9s I’m thinking about. T-54/55a, E50, M46, UDES 16, etc will all be useless.

T-54/55a still have mad base DPM to compensate, but on the whole it's the exact same problem as the last round of premmo changes sans the legal implications I guess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, sohojacques said:

It’s the tier 9s I’m thinking about. T-54/55a, E50, M46, UDES 16, etc will all be useless.

They won't be overpowered anymore. Hardly useless. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandbox changes are focusing on the symptom, not the problem.

I think the rework of the ammo is fixing a symptom of the problem instead of the cause of the problem.  What Wargaming is doing by changing special/gold ammo is the equivalent of shoving gauze up the nose of someone who is bleeding and dying out from a hemorrhagic disease.  

The issue isn't gold/premium/special rounds.  The issue is map design, lack of real weak spots on many tanks, and RNG.  Wargaming loves corridor maps that make players fight frontally.  How many of their maps are two corridors that promote frontal engagements with an area in between that is a death zone for most tanks?  How many tanks/TDs have little to no frontal weak spots?  How many of them have weak spots that can be easily penetrated by standard ammo of the lower tier tanks they face?  How many times in a row have you fully aimed a shot at the weak spot of a stationary tank and have RNG send the shot too low or too high or too far too the side several times in a row?  How many times in a row have you fully aimed a shot at the weak spot of a stationary tank and have  a low penetration RNG roll that caused the shot to bounce off a weak spot.  Before attempting any changes to ammo, they need to fix the other areas first.  Wargaming is fixing the symptom, not the problem.  

Personally, I think Wargaming should change RNG to +/- 15% for damage and penetration.  WoT Blitz has 15% RNG if I remember correctly from playing it before.  In addition to that, many maps need some rework to allow more flanking opportunities.  With the current design of most maps your flanking choices are to go to another corridor to fight tanks frontally just as you were before, or crossing into an open area where most players get spotted easily and die quickly.  Tanks also need weak spots that can actually be hit and penetrated by lower tier tanks. 

I'm not saying every tank needs large weak spots that every tank 2 tiers lower can easily hit and pen at 200+ meters.  However, the weak spots of many higher tier tanks are small enough that when you are less than 100 meters away, your aim circle is 2 to 4 times the area of the weak spot. Regularly having fully aimed shots at a tank's weak spots miss at under 100 meters because the weak spots are so small they can't easily be hit is a problem.  Skill in learning weak spots and aiming for them is negated by RNG in many circumstances.  It also works the other way.  There are tanks that have been relegated to being useless after nerfs or changes because their weak spots are so large and easy to hit.  The T110E5 is one example of this.  

Before touching gold/special ammo, Wargaming should look at the other major issues with the game with map design, armor, and RNG.

The changes on sandbox are an over complicated way of fixing a symptom of the real problems.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bavor said:

Before touching gold/special ammo, Wargaming should look at the other major issues with the game with map design, armor, and RNG.

Careful what you wish for. Almost every map WG has reworked recently came back worse than its previous iteration. 

I don’t understand why there is any RNG on shell penetration. Learning the mechanics of this game (auto-bounce angle for different shell types, etc) is complicated enough. Then you watch your shell fly true and bounce anyway? Fuck off WG.

RNG on accuracy: I don’t have a solution. Didn’t play the game before the notorious accuracy nerf so don’t have that as a reference point. But I know that the hard stats on gun handling in the game tell you absolutely nothing about how the gun will behave. I also know that 25% RNG makes every shot iffy at longer ranges ( let alone point blank) so tanks with supposedly good final accuracy as their thing are invariably shitter than tanks with good soft stats.* It doesn’t matter if you miss by a little or a lot. 

Blah blah. I’ve run out of rant. Time to make pancakes.

*I haven’t played the cheese wedges.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a theory WOT started off with features that already tend towards 'corridor' gameplay.

The accuracy system is just there to reduce the probability of hits at long range, so you are forced to get closer. In that they have succeeded.

Because of WarGays insistence on accessibility, they made driving and shooting tanks too easy, and as a result, factors (including battlefield size) that inhibited a tanks ability to turn the battle into a campfest, barely exist. Like for instance, shooting range, and manually accounting for bullet drop. This results in a very heavy reliance on hard and soft cover.

The accuracy system is the way it so, so that long ranged shots are inhibited, to prevent everyone from dying.

Vision meta used to be... OP (like 2011/2012). That is, if you had enough vision, because on the relatively open maps, getting spotted just meant you were fucked, though presuming the enemy spotted had support, which in WOT is not really a thing.

Also because Wargay fucked with how bullets behave against angled armor, ingame armor is much more easily shot open. So you die easier in WOT than IRL for some strange reason.

For instance. At 60* from vertical, WOT effectiveness is ~1.7x. IRL, it exceeds 2.5x, and it rockets upwards past 30. So ingame, Type 59 UFP is 'just' 170mm. But IRL even 20 pdr gold ammo won't pen that shit. Head on. Past 25 degrees and you are almost certain to smash full cal AP. APDS is even worse. This means you have to rely on buildings and stuff, hills, etc. Even smoke grenades won't help the fundamental issues.

Sure in the context of WOT it can become better, but traditionally, WOT relies on clutter to make armor reliant tanks relevant. Most of which they fucked in the first place because armor mechanics. The reason Soviet meds like Object 140 which historically relied on angles to push their armor stats up to the max are fast, I think also is part of this.

  • To begin with, they don't (realistically) have bad guns. D-10T will slay a 190 ton tank, a Maus with AP ammo through the turret front. The tank its on is like 36 tons empty. D-25T is about the same. A D-54 is the gun that can shoot up a Chieftains precious turret with standard AP... L7 is weaker than all of the above. I won't need to go into more detail I think.

So much inaccuracy is there to reduce the impact of weakspots, so that armor is strong, and now Wargay is trying to remove weakspots wholesale and make it something closer to a fantasy MMO.

Yeah, futility is fun amirite?

I am not sure if Unis know there is a real solution to WOT's "design problems", maybe you do. At first it was kind of not really OK because of the lack of alpha, but it also kind of was not OK because there was not really a counterplay once you got yourself into a bad place and some fuckers decided to preaim that spot until you die or they die. 

It kind of worked before, mostly because you guys are smart (ingame), and the enemies are pretty stupid for the most part (again ingame), but your ability to club nubs in the first place is really disproportionate. So it is not really a valid sample. That is, your opinions are valid, but your 'complaints' won't align with bad player complaints. Though theirs are already invalid for the reason that they are bad.

But it kind of shows in the pre-req's. A good crew, a premium tank, premium time to accelerate all progress, armor is not that meta except for in corridor maps, etc. Then talking about the really bad maps, and such.

Making the map larger is still viable, but then slow tanks are too slow. So you want to spawn them closer, but that still does not work, they lack too much flex and can't react, they need an open space, which you have been actively removing by compressing map and adding more lanes which are immediately viable for flank in a given situation. Though that is presuming advantage spawning, if everyone spawn closer that's an interesting possibility. Making the corners open fields still does not work, because then its useless space where no one goes.

Though, the idea of making spawns closer so that the heavier tanks don't have to move as much kind of works?

Now you could say, "well its just the retarded Maus, E-100, formerly weaksauce tortoise and stupid proof T95 etc, just shaft em".

Though you can just cap which is another thing... Well it all depends anyways. Then caps would have to be some kind of defensible fortress because the enemies would just be able to overwhelm you, and you'd have to shorten TTK to increase impact of terrain (in the many vs few) advantage to make them viable, and given that its a corridor meta that might have a positive impact provided its not based on alpha.

The map itself can be more compact and waste less space to add more flanking areas but there is only so much you can do...

It is perhaps ideal to make the maps have more depth to them then, perhaps underground? IDK, whatever. That is really strange but it has the potential to work. Maybe just add subways to many maps...

Anyway, good luck with your open maps.

But it's just a theory, and I'm a blue. So its not worth much. Just wanted to share. Pls no downvote. Lol

I already have only +1.

 

In WOTB penetration RNG reduced to +/- 15%, however, penetration skin indicator relies on 50% not 67% penetration probability, and does not account for auto pen or auto bounce.

T110E5's cupola issue could be mitigated by buffing the accuracy & or aim time.

TBH there has not been a time when WarGay neglected to fuck with historical accuracy. For instance, the German line, to give them any valid tier 9's, and more than 1 or 2 tier X lines. Or reality, like how bullets interact with armor, resulting in a 'rip angled armor' situation, and allowing gold spam to be a real problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2019 at 12:27 AM, Assassin7 said:

Fuck WN8 I guess. All DPGs now mean nothing and nothing will change all those legacy stats. Every metric ever just became permanently innacurate if it goes live.

They don't mean nothing anyhow. They never reflected the evolution of the game (maps, balance, progression speed & cost and so on) and also never reflected how much effort someone put towards getting those stats (solo or platoon, playing to get better or playing and hoping to get better and so on).

As an analogy, just imagine Michael Jordan's stats in today's NBA, a lot of the players from today would simply loose their superstar status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is kind of, that armored tanks rely on the corridors a lot, and the mechanics rely on cutting battle distances, I cannot think of a feasible way to make World of Tanks have distance combat.

Unless the map design actively inhibits the ability of campers to shoot tanks that are moving through cross country, factors that in real life inhibited their ability to kill you. Like for instance, their snail rate turret traverse, 2.5x magnification sights, no 'fire control' (account for drop) and only eyeballs to range find, at longer distances. Even the aiming reticle is a QOL improvement that has improved their accuracy against you.

Additionally, the mechanics screwed with everyone's armor, meaning that, across the frontal arc, the probability that armor would be defeated is higher. This means that when actual gun fire starts to hit, you have your armor breached more often than it would under 'similar' firepower. Like the example I stated, shooting at a Type 59's UFP with a 20 pdr ingame, you see about 170 eff, but IRL, its over 250 eff on a good day. This is before you mention the armors thickness advantage over the 20 pdr's (84mm) diameter. I believe it pushes relative armor equivalence towards 3.

Other technical factors like many but a few guns (ie Russian 122's) shooting too quickly, are also involved.

Larger maps with large rolling fields and environments don't really work, because crossing the open field in anything other than super speed is most likely going to get you killed, and very quickly.

In this case, its possible to spawn heavy tanks closer to the enemy, with mediums further out towards the flanks, but in WarGay world, maps are designed so that separate vehicles always go to their own unique places. Just as planned.

That is objectively retarded.

But that is just my theory.

In a nutshell, without explaining anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Oicraftian said:

It is kind of, that armored tanks rely on the corridors a lot, and the mechanics rely on cutting battle distances, I cannot think of a feasible way to make World of Tanks have distance combat.

Unless the map design actively inhibits the ability of campers to shoot tanks that are moving through cross country, factors that in real life inhibited their ability to kill you. Like for instance, their snail rate turret traverse, 2.5x magnification sights, no 'fire control' (account for drop) and only eyeballs to range find, at longer distances. Even the aiming reticle is a QOL improvement that has improved their accuracy against you.

Additionally, the mechanics screwed with everyone's armor, meaning that, across the frontal arc, the probability that armor would be defeated is higher. This means that when actual gun fire starts to hit, you have your armor breached more often than it would under 'similar' firepower. Like the example I stated, shooting at a Type 59's UFP with a 20 pdr ingame, you see about 170 eff, but IRL, its over 250 eff on a good day. This is before you mention the armors thickness advantage over the 20 pdr's (84mm) diameter. I believe it pushes relative armor equivalence towards 3.

Other technical factors like many but a few guns (ie Russian 122's) shooting too quickly, are also involved.

Larger maps with large rolling fields and environments don't really work, because crossing the open field in anything other than super speed is most likely going to get you killed, and very quickly.

In this case, its possible to spawn heavy tanks closer to the enemy, with mediums further out towards the flanks, but in WarGay world, maps are designed so that separate vehicles always go to their own unique places. Just as planned.

That is objectively retarded.

But that is just my theory.

In a nutshell, without explaining anything.

Well, this may come as a surprise to you, but WoT isn't a realistic tank simulator, it's a fucking arcade game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, LamaLeif said:

Well, this may come as a surprise to you but WoT isn't a realistic tank simulator, it's a fucking arcade game.

That's not my point.

When they streamlined WOT's fire control so much, they made it much easier for everyone to shoot you, without increasing many of the tanks agility by enough to maintain a favorable ratio of exposure time (for some combat movements), so that the amount of shots they take is reduced compared to the current game. By directly nerfing armor through normalization, they fucked with armor in general, making it more likely you will die.

Example for armor, angle your 80 mills at 60* from perpendicular, ingame that's not over 160. IRL, you are pushing past 200. Complain about armor? Lol

Tiger (example tank) would be quite powerful even with its square armor and bloated shape.

If mechanics resembled that at all, angling would be very powerful, armor would be very powerful. 

Example for fire control, shooting through bush lines with highlighted enemy tanks. Realistically, you would not be able to get a fix on that tank easily through the better part of a grove of trees. Ingame, you can just bush camp. This substantially increases the effectiveness of say, flank fire.

Another example. Lets suppose that WOT's 550 meters represents realistic 1500 meters. In WOT, if the tank is within render distance, just line up your gun, click, and shoot. With more accuracy, you can aim for specific parts, reducing his relative armor effectiveness.

In real life, you would need to estimate his range, etc. This costs time. This is time that could be spent, you know, shooting. This is not reflected in WOT by any mechanism but raw inaccuracy.

Just suppose for a moment that its a tank sitting in an open field one of your allies spotted.

So, in real life, that 1500 meter tank is most likely aware you shot at him say, once, and without effect. He has taken no damage (presume you have elevation wrong), and you estimate again, wasting more precious time. This is ignoring that you are using your pathetic 4x max magnification gun sight to find him, and lay the gun upon him.

Perhaps he moves in a direction that will cause your shell to strike say, his turret at a poor angle, it is very likely that it will be defeated by the armor protection

In WOT, you switch to 2 key, and armor is defeated there goes 1/6th of his HP. Again, you fire as he begins moving, probably 1/3rd is gone now. He is in cover. Though supposing amazing accuracy RNG. Being realistic, probably only 1 shell will have hit. So, suppose 2 shells fired, only 1 hit. Oh look, 16x magnification.

The expensive armor is not achieving its goal of reducing the probability that you will die.

In this example, you have reduced their health in game, but in real life, it is unlikely you have damaged them.

This is 'relatively' higher survivability.

 

Creating a combination of dying too easily, being hit more often, and reduced survivability is not good for the game I think.

 

Some vehicles are just faster than realistically, like every tier 10 medium tank, by quite a bit, and that speed is what they use to survive many situations.

 

They could have compensated, for instance, remove automatic range finding, add exaggerated bullet drop, and then, it is perfectly fine to have better accuracy at distance.

Instead, WarGay I think has a handle on this issue, and has decided to nerf the fuck out of the accuracy for every single tank they are going to rework to allow more aggressive plays. Except for role specific tanks like Leo. Which 'naturally' got 420 alpha in test because fuck China

Remove rangefinder too of course. This makes distant shots much more difficult.

They could have required that you yourself must have LOS with the target to see it. A bonus % to make it easier to detect if it is already detected, and so bush camp would not be so powerful. Etc.

 

Their own game design is lacking key features that improve your survivability. And so they will resort to acc nerfs and more ground clutter, walls to block direct LOS, and reduce the your ability to use positions...

A coincidence I think, that I came to the this conclusion (an extension) their bright minds at gameplay & map design HQ appear to have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Oicraftian said:

It is kind of, that armored tanks rely on the corridors a lot, and the mechanics rely on cutting battle distances, I cannot think of a feasible way to make World of Tanks have distance combat.

Unless the map design actively inhibits the ability of campers to shoot tanks that are moving through cross country, factors that in real life inhibited their ability to kill you. Like for instance, their snail rate turret traverse, 2.5x magnification sights, no 'fire control' (account for drop) and only eyeballs to range find, at longer distances. Even the aiming reticle is a QOL improvement that has improved their accuracy against you.

Additionally, the mechanics screwed with everyone's armor, meaning that, across the frontal arc, the probability that armor would be defeated is higher. This means that when actual gun fire starts to hit, you have your armor breached more often than it would under 'similar' firepower. Like the example I stated, shooting at a Type 59's UFP with a 20 pdr ingame, you see about 170 eff, but IRL, its over 250 eff on a good day. This is before you mention the armors thickness advantage over the 20 pdr's (84mm) diameter. I believe it pushes relative armor equivalence towards 3.

Other technical factors like many but a few guns (ie Russian 122's) shooting too quickly, are also involved.

Larger maps with large rolling fields and environments don't really work, because crossing the open field in anything other than super speed is most likely going to get you killed, and very quickly.

In this case, its possible to spawn heavy tanks closer to the enemy, with mediums further out towards the flanks, but in WarGay world, maps are designed so that separate vehicles always go to their own unique places. Just as planned.

That is objectively retarded.

But that is just my theory.

In a nutshell, without explaining anything.

Its because of spotting and camo mechanics.

 

Max spotting range is 445, max draw distance is what? 650 or something I forget. You cant phyiscally see enemy tanks beyond that point.

 

Even in frontlines, or grand battles. Thats the limit. So you can never have truely long distance fighting to the point you are describing.

And thats what influence all those other points you made as well about mobility and stuff. They'd have to change the spotting system in its entirety to get what you are describing, but then they'd also have to double or more the size of every map in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Assassin7 said:

Its because of spotting and camo mechanics.

 

Max spotting range is 445, max draw distance is what? 650 or something I forget. You cant phyiscally see enemy tanks beyond that point.

 

Even in frontlines, or grand battles. Thats the limit. So you can never have truely long distance fighting to the point you are describing.

And thats what influence all those other points you made as well about mobility and stuff. They'd have to change the spotting system in its entirety to get what you are describing, but then they'd also have to double or more the size of every map in the game.

OK.

I said they streamlined target acquisition and firing, gave a bunch of QOL improvements that real life tanks never had, and reduced armor. Basically. You can die easier. Because tanks ingame are like what? 3x more likely to hit you than IRL?

I didn't say "Oh you should make map larger lel"

More shots pen, more shots connect, you fire more shells, etc

These problems aren't just solved by multiplying map size or whatever shit.

These problems are solved by making it harder to kill shit in the given map size.

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...