Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Ways To Improve Wot


266 replies to this topic

#1 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,764 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 06 June 2013 - 1544 PM

Most of us have had thoughts on what we'd like to see done to the game to improve it.  Here's a thread to collect and discuss all of them.

 

Here are two of mine below:

 

1) Overhaul the chat system - Turn off chat in normal pub games and allow it to be used to talk to your team only in company battles and Clan Wars.

 

In pub games most chat is just vitriol to begin with.  What good does it serve to allow that to go on?  Even seemingly harmless discussion takes away from players' focus on the actual game.  How many times do we see a game start and someone asks another player whether they like their tank or not?  There's a place for discussions like that - the forums.  When in a game players need to be focused on the game.  Time spent typing is time not spent watching the minimap, moving, aiming, etc.

 

2) Add a combat log, if not this add an after-kill screen to show how a player died.

 

For whatever reasons, which are completely beyond my comprehension, WG aims to keep players in the dark about how their game works.  While that's a whole discussion of its own, the focus here is the total lack of information on how a player takes damage.  Lots of games have combat logs which display everything that happens.  A player can see it in real time as the game goes on or scroll back later to answer a question.

 

If WG won't do this, then copy an after-kill screen from games like LoL.  In LoL, after your champion dies, you get a button on your screen.  If you press it it details all the damage you took in a certain amount of time leading up to your death.

 

Doing this serves a few functions.  First, it stops those players from screaming 'cheater' and other ridiculous things (which only show how idiotic they are and clueless as to how the game works).  Second, it's some information where we currently have none which can only help players get better.  If players don't understand how the game works how do you expect them to get better?


  • 0

#2 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,764 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 08 June 2013 - 1449 PM

Here's the best way they can improve the game: get rid of arty.

 

Get rid of arty.  Go back to all maps and redo them to get rid of arty cover (mostly those annoying rocks that jut up everywhere that you never see IRL).  Get rid of the few maps with very limited avenues of approach that TDs could dominate.

 

I have yet to hear someone claim that playing arty and having them in the game is 'fun'.  The best defense is that arty helps against heavily armored opponents in a good defensive spot.  Translation - arty (bad) helps overcome bad map design.

 

Many of the maps I've seen in CW are nothing more than scouting and letting arty do most of the work.  The WoT subreddit has had a few posts lately lamenting how boring it is to watch competitive WoT games because of the work arty does and the camping players do on these poorly designed maps.

 

This patch was supposed to be a big overhaul of the game.  It's rather minor compared to what really needs to be done.


  • 0

#3 jwduquette1

jwduquette1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,018 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 11 June 2013 - 1406 PM

Yeah on the chat thingie -- or at least give me the global option to stifle the chat of dead guys.  

 

One suggestion for the game as a whole.  The Event Calender on the WoT web page -- make it "dynamic" or "interactive" -- whatever the proper word is.  So like when I click on an event bar it automatically takes me to the page that describes the event.  And if the event has not yet been detailed by WG -- ala weekly events that don't get announced till Thursday or Friday than there is no URL associated with that particular event bar -- i.e. you click the event bar and u just stay on the calender page.  


  • 0

#4 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,731 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 1456 PM

Arty is important, but limiting the numbers in each battle is the key. the problem of course is this will increase wait times for arty player. I think most WOT players have little idea how hard it is to play arty unless the other team cooperates heavily to make your day.


  • 0

#5 jwduquette1

jwduquette1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,018 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 11 June 2013 - 2007 PM

Yeah, I think SPGs are too in-grained in the basic WG design philosophy of WoT to be removed entirely.  However, everything in moderation.  Four and Five SPGs in a match is down right oppressive and ruins the entertainment value for 3/4 of the players participating in such a match.  The "entertainment math" in these cases makes no sense.  Eight to ten SPG drivers have tons of fun playing death star...20 to 22 players get to play bulls-eyes for satellite delivered nukes.   

 

Limiting SPG numbers would be a nice improvement.  Perhaps something like -- depending upon SPGs in queue:

 

0 SPGs in a match 25% of the time

1 SPG in a match 25% of the time

2 SPGs in a match 25% of the time

3 SPGs in a match 25% of the time

 

Or some sort of improvement to the current MM rules that further limits numbers of SPGs per match.


Edited by jwduquette1, 11 June 2013 - 2008 PM.

  • 0

#6 Fritz

Fritz

    Master of Panzer

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,598 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:WW2, armoured combat history, 3D CGI, motorsports

Posted 11 June 2013 - 2014 PM

Four and Five SPGs in a match is down right oppressive

 

LOL that's really the best way to put it.


  • 0

#7 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,688 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 12 June 2013 - 0445 AM

Only to set a baseline: How many of you have Tier VIII artillery?

 

Because playing arty is more fun whent there is a max. of 3 SPG per team. More than that, and you do not do so much damage. Too much competition, and more counterbattery.


Edited by sunday, 12 June 2013 - 0449 AM.

  • 0

#8 Marek Tucan

Marek Tucan

    Powerpoint Ranger, Chairborne

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Versailles, France

Posted 12 June 2013 - 0728 AM

Limiting SPG numbers would be a nice improvement.  Perhaps something like -- depending upon SPGs in queue:

 

0 SPGs in a match 25% of the time

1 SPG in a match 25% of the time

2 SPGs in a match 25% of the time

3 SPGs in a match 25% of the time

 

Or some sort of improvement to the current MM rules that further limits numbers of SPGs per match.

 

Which would result either in 3 SPGs in almost each match, or insanely high wait times. Already with limit of 5 it is not unusual for SPGs (esp. at high tiers) having to wait for 5 minutes and then being kicked out of the queue. Unfortunately "simple solutions" aren't (and that goes also for matchmaking by rank). About the only solution that would be "drop in" and would not lead to significantly long waiting times would be returning MM to +-3 tiers (with obvious impact). 

 

I would say that removal of XP penalty for SPGs would be the most important change re. arty numbers after 8.6, as there will be less need to grind it that long. 


  • 0

#9 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,764 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 13 June 2013 - 1653 PM

How many of you have gotten into one of those games with no arty and gone "aww, man... no arty... this is going to suck"?  How many have rejoiced inside when you get games like that (especially when in a high tier where most of the 5 arty games are occurring)?

 

You just can't get rid of arty and make things work, you need to do other things too.  However, if you did get rid of arty and we actually got some maps that weren't awful I think the majority of WoT players would have a better time while playing.


  • 0

#10 Marek Tucan

Marek Tucan

    Powerpoint Ranger, Chairborne

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Versailles, France

Posted 13 June 2013 - 1751 PM

And how many went "Well, another battle, this time no arty, so that means I can move here, but I shouldn't really try to scout this line as there is nobody who would be able to go for targets"? Yes, battles with no arty sometimes end up more mobile than average - and sometimes they end up far more campy.

 

It is better for me (then again i enjoy mobile things) to have some games with 5 art and some with no arty instead of all with 3 arty. At the same time I manage usually to survive quite long unless I do something stupid, so I do not have this visceral hatred of artillery. And I also know there are no easy solutions.

 

Take "removed arty and more open maps without silly rocks". Who moves first dies even more reliably, as little cover, open maps and no arty means side that opts for defense has even more aces. While I like open maps, they have also this drawback and movement is channeled anyway into areas that offer cover.


  • 0

#11 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,764 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 13 June 2013 - 1908 PM

And how many went "Well, another battle, this time no arty, so that means I can move here, but I shouldn't really try to scout this line as there is nobody who would be able to go for targets"? Yes, battles with no arty sometimes end up more mobile than average - and sometimes they end up far more campy.

No.  Not on the NA server.  Battles with 4-5 arty are guaranteed camp-fests.  Games with no arty are more mobile.  That's just the reality.

 

It is better for me (then again i enjoy mobile things) to have some games with 5 art and some with no arty instead of all with 3 arty. At the same time I manage usually to survive quite long unless I do something stupid, so I do not have this visceral hatred of artillery. And I also know there are no easy solutions.

The hatred isn't just from dying.  It's from games where nothing is happening.  It's no fun hiding behind a rock or building the entire game.  As jwduquette1 put it, "Four and Five SPGs in a match is down right oppressive."  Those games are also longer.  Hiding for ten minutes is hardly my definition of fun.

 

Take "removed arty and more open maps without silly rocks". Who moves first dies even more reliably, as little cover, open maps and no arty means side that opts for defense has even more aces. While I like open maps, they have also this drawback and movement is channeled anyway into areas that offer cover.

I don't buy it.  Not for a minute.

 

With current map design and matches with lots of arty you have very limited places where you can go.  Take out arty and your options are now expanded.  You have more places to move and the enemy has more places he has to cover, and vice versa.  How can that make it more dangerous?  In fact, I don't know how you can make the map more predestined, boring, and dangerous than some of the funneling ones we have now.  Pearl River, anyone?  After the game being out for two years that's the best their experience with map design can give us?  Really?!


  • 0

#12 Marek Tucan

Marek Tucan

    Powerpoint Ranger, Chairborne

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Versailles, France

Posted 14 June 2013 - 0553 AM

On open map, without arty... He who camps commands all the "new terrain you can use". So movement gets anyway channeled into places that provide direct fire cover (unless you have enough unrealistic annoying rocks - Karelia middle can be used... But then again these work just as well if there is arty).

 

The only difference is that without arty, you end up hugging sides of them sometimes instead of backs.


  • 0

#13 FlyingCanOpener

FlyingCanOpener

    Kakistocrat

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,120 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Iberia, LA USA
  • Interests:Geomatics // Naval History // Soccer // Teaching

Posted 14 June 2013 - 0901 AM

Improvements? Have Chieftain as a top tier British medium.

 

I like the cut of your jib. :)


  • 0

#14 Max H

Max H

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,656 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dorset

Posted 14 June 2013 - 1008 AM

I've heard rumor of a line of light tanks with 20-pdrs leading to the chief. No idea what they could be though, when I hear "light tank" I assume fv300 and AFAIK the only 20-pdr considered for that was in a casement mounting.


  • 0

#15 Stefan Fredriksson

Stefan Fredriksson

    Goldmember

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,543 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 14 June 2013 - 1416 PM

You should really get Black Prince!
So much better than Churchill VII, even though figures dont differ much.

But imo you can stop there. Caernarvon is a nasty grind... leading to a tank with even worse grind from the looks if it.

BP is in a few aspects more fun than T29 (!)
  • 0

#16 Max H

Max H

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,656 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dorset

Posted 14 June 2013 - 1525 PM

You should really get Black Prince!
So much better than Churchill VII, even though figures dont differ much.

 

^^this

 

But imo you can stop there. Caernarvon is a nasty grind... leading to a tank with even worse grind from the looks if it.

 

I've heard good things about caernarvon and conq when fully upgraded. Problem with church 7 is it never really gets out of the stock grind


  • 0

#17 Allan Wotherspoon

Allan Wotherspoon

    Radamanthine

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,849 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Military History and Wargaming

Posted 14 June 2013 - 1534 PM

I have to disagree with you on that. Caenarvon is a fun tank to play an the 20 pdr type B is a good weapon. The grind to the Conqueror, for me at least, went pretty quickly. The Conqueror with the 120mm is deadly and actually reloads quicker than my Centurion with the 105mm.
  • 0

#18 FlyingCanOpener

FlyingCanOpener

    Kakistocrat

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,120 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Iberia, LA USA
  • Interests:Geomatics // Naval History // Soccer // Teaching

Posted 14 June 2013 - 1541 PM

You should really get Black Prince!
So much better than Churchill VII, even though figures dont differ much.

 

^^this

 

>But imo you can stop there. Caernarvon is a nasty grind... leading to a tank with even worse grind from the looks if it.

 

I've heard good things about caernarvon and conq when fully upgraded. Problem with church 7 is it never really gets out of the stock grind

 

 

Caernarvon is a very different--but at the same time very good--Tier 8 than the other Tier 8 heavies. The B-model 20-pounder will tear through anything, and the armour it has makes it perhaps the only tank which DPM actually is a plus. You can sit there, take a beating, and pound in an opponent with your high ROF. I've permatracked heavies to death with the Caernarvon and they sat there helpless because they couldn't repair in time. The Conqueror is undergunned at Tier 9 until you get the 120mm, but when you do, it is sweet, glorious ownage on tracks. I'd argue that it is as good or if not better than the M103, and second only to the E-75 among Tier 9 heavies.

 

As far as the mediums, the Centurion at Tier 8 is a more maneuverable and less armoured Caernarvon, but the Centurion Mk 7/1 desperately needs a ROF buff. Apart from bouncing the odd turret shot, it's a Leo Prototype without the ability to run away. I'd gladly give up the APCR as a standard round for regular AP if they sliced at least over a second off of the reload. It would put it in line with the M46 Patton which gets to zip about dropping 390 damage per shot with a great rate of fire.


  • 0

#19 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,764 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 14 June 2013 - 1637 PM

On open map, without arty... He who camps commands all the "new terrain you can use". So movement gets anyway channeled into places that provide direct fire cover (unless you have enough unrealistic annoying rocks - Karelia middle can be used... But then again these work just as well if there is arty).

 

The only difference is that without arty, you end up hugging sides of them sometimes instead of backs.

Again, without arty there's more to cover.  There's no way you cover everything better than you cover the few approaches we have now.  That makes no sense.

 

Also, this is an issue of poor map design.  If WG would stop giving us easily defensible bases with no-mans-land inbetween there would be less of an issue.  One of the few good maps they gave us (by accident I imagine) is Fisherman's Bay.  The easily defensible locations are middle center and middle east.  Only the west suffers from the wide open area inbetween two decent defensive spots.  Still, there's lots of open terrain to shift between and enough terrain height difference that you don't have to move along predetermined areas.

 

Like I said, you just can't take away arty as is.  However, do that with some other changes and you have a better game that most of your players would enjoy more.  Are there people on here that really think they would miss arty?  In pubs at that?  (Assuming the other changes I've mentioned.)  :blink:


Edited by Skywalkre, 14 June 2013 - 1638 PM.

  • 0

#20 nexus6

nexus6

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 609 posts
  • Interests:military history

Posted 14 June 2013 - 2117 PM

  • the 2 ideas I have for arty is either
  • remove artillery units, but give everyone the ability to call in a certain number of artillery shots themselves . this could be skill based so those that spend more points in it get more shots or something.  

          or massively reduce artillery's damage, but massively increase the cash reward so that the actually earn more money than they do now even if they do far less damage . also you could add some kind of "suppression" effect which is like temporary damage to your tank. this would encourage people to play because of the cash rewards and make them useful in battle, without annoying the hell out of people because of their ability to do so much damage in a single shot.


Edited by nexus6, 14 June 2013 - 2121 PM.

  • 0



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users