Jump to content
Spinee

Sandbox: Ammo and Health Changes

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Oicraftian said:

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.

thats not the only thing I said.

but those things you said ARE related to range. imagine nothing else changed but the standard engagement range doubled. Moving tanks are harder to hit when further away. thats your first problem adjusted.

We all know about penetration dropoff. except with the current map sizes, those drop off values have practically never mattered in the slightest. Suddenly, with much more range due to bigger maps, that pen drop off becomes an actual valid stat. and suddenly, tanks have generally more armour due to everyone having generally less pen because of the longer engagement ranges.

tanks are too accurate? I mean I've legit never thought that but okay. changing just the map sizes, suddenly accuracy matters much more because you're taking way longer range shots. guns with low accuracy are suddenly having problems. meanwhile fast, accurate tanks have a lot more breathing room to play to their strengths. 

 

No, just making maps bigger and adjusting spotting and camo mechanics to be longer ranged wont work, and will bring about a whole heap of new problems with them. But what I am saying is that generally the problems you are talking about are occurring due to the generally short range nature of WoT battles. A quick google search found that general engagement ranges in WW2 tank battles were 700-900m or so. that is a bit shorter than the size of most WoT maps. Yet in WoT most fights are happening at under 300m. How hard is it sniping a moving light tank at max draw distance? yeah well standard engagement ranges back in WW2 were longer than max draw distance. It makes a big difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, simba90 said:

Thing like hitpoints?

Fire control, just like I listed

8 hours ago, Assassin7 said:

thats not the only thing I said.

but those things you said ARE related to range. imagine nothing else changed but the standard engagement range doubled. Moving tanks are harder to hit when further away. thats your first problem adjusted.

Already covered why its so much harder to shoot IRL as opposed to WOT. Remember range compression is a factor.

Try shooting tanks in War Thunder testing area, not battles. Try to hit a tank, 2000 meters out (this is about 500 meters equivalent in WOT I think) with a gun like say, the 5cm /60. If you do not have a WT account, then I can lend you one I have, simply PM me.

I believe wind was not a factor in WT, and you can imagine the amount of shells that could be lost to that.

We all know about penetration dropoff. except with the current map sizes, those drop off values have practically never mattered in the slightest. Suddenly, with much more range due to bigger maps, that pen drop off becomes an actual valid stat. and suddenly, tanks have generally more armour due to everyone having generally less pen because of the longer engagement ranges.

I already talked about how vast the gap is in relative armor effectiveness. While penetration loss over distance is a real factor, the relative armor difference is greater.

Further, armor penetration is, well, used to be all normalized to their angle performance, while subject to balance, reducing their vertical performance proportionately, causing turret armor to be strong.

tanks are too accurate? I mean I've legit never thought that but okay. changing just the map sizes, suddenly accuracy matters much more because you're taking way longer range shots. guns with low accuracy are suddenly having problems. meanwhile fast, accurate tanks have a lot more breathing room to play to their strengths. 

Already talked about why they are too accurate; it has almost nothing to do with the guns actual accuracy. The guns could be a laser cannon in acc and the accuracy (number of hits) could still go down.

No, just making maps bigger and adjusting spotting and camo mechanics to be longer ranged wont work, and will bring about a whole heap of new problems with them. But what I am saying is that generally the problems you are talking about are occurring due to the generally short range nature of WoT battles. A quick google search found that general engagement ranges in WW2 tank battles were 700-900m or so. that is a bit shorter than the size of most WoT maps. Yet in WoT most fights are happening at under 300m. How hard is it sniping a moving light tank at max draw distance? yeah well standard engagement ranges back in WW2 were longer than max draw distance. It makes a big difference. 

In game shell velocities, accuracy, etc, are not proportionate to real life. Penetration drop might not be proportional, but that means fuck all when a tank like Type 59's UFP loses over 80mm of its effective armor (250+ base)

Thus. Trying to equate the WOT combat distance to reality is a fallacy. 

 

I hope not to be rude, or insulting, but it appears you are trying to foist an interpretation or perceived solution to WOT's issues onto me. If I am incorrect about your action, I am sorry, but I think I am being spoken over, as opposed to being listened to. Ironic for a 54% to complain about sure, but I feel it is a problem.

Moreover, I apologize for not thinking through the theory more clearly.

The main points are this:

Armor is significantly less effective than real life

  • Armor penetration loss over distance is not scaled well
  • Relative armor equivalence is less than in real life, increasing the probability armor will be defeated
  • Armor penetration values are fantasy, and generally much higher than the given mechanics should allow

Guns are substantially more likely to hit than in real life

  • Improvements to the players fire control are huge
    • For instance, the automatic compensation for the drop of the shell, makes it much easier to hit a weakpoint over distance.
    • Sight magnification relative to combat distance
  • Players have vastly superior area awareness in the given combat distance
  • Soft cover provides little inhibition to player ability to track and engage a target, substantially improving their ability to engage and destroy a target that has already been detected

Mobility is directly based on real life

 

So. You aren't much faster, but the probability of getting hit when exposed is much higher. And the probability of other people hitting you is much higher.

 

WarGays main efforts to compress battle distance are

  • Raw deviation
  • Shell velocity
  • Clutter
  • Reduction to accuracy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So WG came up with a bass-ackwards way of nerfing gold shell alpha. Weird flex but ok. But there's a lot of other things going on here. One thing to think about is that if the typical shell does more alpha and there's more hit points laying around, won't that mean that (if all else stays the same) profitability will be much higher? Which would be nice but knowing WG they've probably already done something to put a stop to us having nice things.

Another matter is that the low and middle tiers are positively THICC with hit points in that test version, which is something WG wanted to test for other reasons anyway. Even with the new alpha buffs, many guns seem to take ages to kill anything. Might be a good thing to help prevent random one-shots, but then again it also makes certain tactics like seal clubbing in a T67 more viable because it now has stamina. Not sure if this is a good idea.

And for whatever reason, arta was the only class that got buffs to its HE. For everyone else, HE is obsolete in the sandbox because the AP has pretty much the same alpha. Hard to tell if that was deliberate. I normally would have said that this would be a great opportunity to rebalance howitzer memes, but the FV4005 and Type 4/5 were already nerfed last patch.

As for the actual gold spam problem itself, still the issue that if the target in front of you has armor, gold may still be the best option on the table and if so, you'd be crazy not to use it. Its good that gold now has a tangible alpha disadvantage, but the other half of the equation will be getting rid of the excessive armor that mandated gold spam to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tanks are too accurate, 0,4 wasn’t uncommon on tier 10 heavies back when the IS-4 was good. IMO when the game was at its peak in quality.

Blame the russian playerbase for being braindamaged alcoholics for pushing the game in the pixelsnipe/CQC direction because they genuinely like that gameplay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/updates/sandbox-ammo-revision-2/

 

So Round 2 is up and it seems like they've addressed the problem of alpha damage gains vastly outpacing HP gains at higher tiers, which IMO was the only really serious BROAD drawback of this whole scheme.

Now all they have to do is individually re-balance vehicles that have been specifically overbuffed for the spremmo-rich meta right now. Granted, that's easier said than done, but I still think that this is a good change overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm honestly amazed people are still playing this game, I come back every so often to see whats happening. 

 

I mean look at yourselves, you are obviously talking and thinking about these changes far more than the people hired to do the job, that should seriously tell you something about whoever is at the wheel of this game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minor necro, I just skimmed the old Sandbox thread because I have no life. Here's what I think is happening.

The first sandbox was to test the ongoing armor creep approach which WG had already begun to see if it yielded the results they wanted. The question they were trying to answer was, "how do we balance the game better without removing gold ammo and arty while still being fun to play?" As most people on this forum know, the answer is, "you can't". Those mechanics inherently make balancing the game a shitshow. Their answer was, "you increase armor to the point where armor feels meaningful again even in the face of gold ammo."

6 months later I'm hull down in a T28 Prototype with a Defender 300m standing in the open and I realize I can't reliably pen him in any way other than shooting gold at his lower plate. The power creep which became the defining aspect of the game after sandbox was the chosen method of implementation, with results favoring armor. Even buffs which didn't increase armor directly had the effect of increasing armor in the game; buff the mobility and soft stats of tanks like the T59, Super P, and T54 Proto and you see more of these armor-centric tanks being played. It had many advantages over a dramatic, sweeping global change: subtle instead of overt, selling new tanks for more cash than ever, no stated goal so players don't have a mission statement to judge.

Within a couple of years the number of players tanked. Checking the numbers they lost about 25% of their players in the two years after the sandbox, with heavier losses in the profitable NA market. Bottom line is players didn't like the changes.

This is the year they're finally backtracking on things they would never do, because their revenue is finally hurting at this point. You can see it in the increasingly desperate pace of tank sales, the huge boosts to premium account, the exceptional drop in pricing this Christmas, and all the features that should have been in the game years ago like crew books and removing team damage. They tried it their way, and it failed. Some of the things people are complaining about now like the huge, open lanes of fire on maps like Glacier, Fisherman's Bay, Erlenberg, Ghost Town, Studzianski, Kharkov, this is all trying to make sniping more effective and roll back what they've already done which can't be easily undone. Yet again, these changes don't make the game more enjoyable, because the core mechanics are the real problem: arty, gold ammo, big tier spreads, etc.

The question at this point is how far are they willing to go in walking back what they did and giving players what they want? Will the gold ammo reduction ever see the light of day? Is there really some huge rebalance in the works or are they so internally divided it never happens? Are they even finally considering removing artillery?

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...