category Let's Discuss Game Balance

[Aigaion 636]

There is nothing about this game that is realistic. Get over it dude.

umm... gravity? cause and effect? physics? all of newton's laws?

[Amagi 1,728]

umm... gravity? cause and effect? physics? all of newton's laws?

 

Because there's obviously something realistic about bouncing plasma cannons, or Smoky and Thunder shells that somehow have hitscan projectiles, or literally EVERY TURRET that has infinite ammo.

 

While you're at it, why not make Firebird's range at least 100m? Some flamethrower tanks in WWII had that as its maximum range. See: the Churchill Crocodile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_Crocodile.

 

You don't need realism to have fun, that's not what I signed up for when I joined this game. Go War Thunder if you want "realism".

Edited January 3, 2019 by Stinger911

[Aigaion 636]

 

Because there's obviously something realistic about bouncing plasma cannons, or Smoky and Thunder shells that somehow have hitscan projectiles, or literally EVERY TURRET that has infinite ammo.

 

While you're at it, why not make Firebird's range at least 100m? Some flamethrower tanks in WWII had that as its maximum range. See: the Churchill Crocodile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_Crocodile.

 

You don't need realism to have fun, that's not what I signed up for when I joined this game. Go War Thunder if you want "realism".

(first off, nice illustration xD rofl)

for the sake of the game, the fact that it is an arcade game, I have NO problem with infinite ammo, that is VERY acceptable to me.

 

God please not fire's range 100m (if you actually read the article, its actual range was 110m), oh, it won't, as the croc's flamethrower is centered towards anti-personal use, not anti-armor/tank use, as all flame tanks. Where it would never be effective against a tank, to quote wiki " the flamethrower was virtually useless on an open battlefield." and "the mechanical flamethrowers, although not impressive by themselves, struck horror into the minds of German troops, who feared them more than any other conventional weapon." the melting point of steel makes that very clear. That gladly gets me onto another point, I'm not for total realism, let me explain, I see this game as, mostly, if it where a genera of book, it would be sci-fi, by definition, sci-fi is a world that way be possible in the future, while fantasy.. is a world that will never be possible. this game is a safe borderline for the sake of fun, however, like I mentioned, it crossed the line too far into fantasy, you can't increase the burning temp of this turret's gasoline with its surrounding factors. But people where misunderstanding my point, I am 100% PRO fun, sci-fi like unrealism (a funny example I like to think of is firebirds working in space, where there is no air xD) but there is a limit where it becomes too unrealistically fantastical, and than leads to imbalance, than to no-fun as we see.

[a7x_Pedro48_TO 173]

Firebird afterburn is too OP.

[nick1styes 1]

Firebird has Incendiary mix

Freeze has Corrosive mix

Hammer has Dragon breath

Twins has Heavy plasmagun

Smoky has  Incendiary rounds  ( maybe and High-precision aiming system) 

Striker has Uranium

Vulcan has Incendiary Band

Railgun has Large caliber rounds

(Magnum has Mortar)

Shaft has  Short-band emitter and Heavy capacitors

 

All alts increase the damage. So it's unfair for the other turrets, meaning Isida,Ricochet,Thunder (maybe and Magnum) not to have also an alteration that increases their damage. 

 

And even though Isida is said to be a passive, healing turret, which is especially used healing a Vulcan with Incendiary band and in Assault blue team, however it's damage per second is the highest of all close-ranged turrets(without fires afterburn). So, it should be higher such as Corrosive mix for freeze (+20) with the proper alteration. Same for other turrets. 

[Amagi 1,728]

All alts increase the damage. 

Yea but those alts also decrease the effectiveness other parameters.

 

Incendiary mix disables burning

Corrosive mix disables freezing

Dragon breath increases shot spread

Heavy Plasma Gun decreases projectile speed tremendously

Incendiary rounds simply substitute the normal critical hit for a burning effect, which can easily be countered by the Firebird protective module

Uranium reduces Striker's projectile speed to the point where its not viable for medium to long range combat

Incendiary Band reduces Vulcan's base damage by 10%

Large caliber shells increase Railgun's reload and shot preparation time

Mortar decreases Magnum's maximum damage by 20%

Short band emitter increases arcade reload and heavy capacitors decreases scope speed and increases shot charge time\

 

Also, there are alts that decrease damage to trade for faster reload time such as

Railguns Scout

Thunder Small Caliber Ammo

Smoky Autocannon

Shaft Light Capacitors

 

 They're called "alterations" for a reason. They simply adjust certain parameters to suit more specific play styles or to add more varied options to existing turrets. Although I must admit certain alts, such as Uranium, Incendiary band, and Duplet have more advantages than disadvantages that should really get remedied in a future patch.

Edited January 4, 2019 by Stinger911

[nick1styes 1]

Yea but those alts also decrease the effectiveness other parameters.

 

Incendiary mix disables burning

Corrosive mix disables freezing

Dragon breath increases shot spread

Heavy Plasma Gun decreases projectile speed tremendously

Incendiary rounds simply substitute the normal critical hit for a burning effect, which can easily be countered by the Firebird protective module

Uranium reduces Striker's projectile speed to the point where its not viable for medium to long range combat

Incendiary Band reduces Vulcan's base damage by 10%

Large caliber shells increase Railgun's reload and shot preparation time

Mortar decreases Magnum's maximum damage by 20%

Short band emitter increases arcade reload and heavy capacitors decreases scope speed and increases shot charge time\

 

Also, there are alts that decrease damage to trade for faster reload time such as

Railguns Scout

Thunder Small Caliber Ammo

Smoky Autocannon

Shaft Light Capacitors

 

 They're called "alterations" for a reason. They simply adjust certain parameters to suit more specific play styles or to add more varied options to existing turrets. Although I must admit certain alts, such as Uranium, Incendiary band, and Duplet have more advantages than disadvantages that should really get remedied in a future patch.

You are true, but I didn't say anywhere that those alts should have only advantages... My points is that all turrets deal damage and there's should be an alt that increases the damage (of course with disadvantages that goes without saying, simple logic :P) Otherwise, it wouldn't be alterations, just ''effective packets'' (lol),suitable for buyers (alts are too but this is another discussion).

This situation,however, isn't the same about the faster reload, because Twins has already really fast reload. 

[GetRektSkrub_II 29]

 They're called "alterations" for a reason. They simply adjust certain parameters to suit more specific play styles or to add more varied options to existing turrets. Although I must admit certain alts, such as Uranium, Incendiary band, and Duplet have more advantages than disadvantages that should really get remedied in a future patch.

Yeah thats why duplet, uranium and incendiary band all cost a junk ton of money. They we're adjusted to make the turret noticeably powerful. Incendiary band doesn't even have a negative change in the turret, Vulcan got nerfed so much that without the incendiary band its trash, so they really couldn't put any negatives on the alt. So, I say instead of nerfing vulcan, thunder, and hammer we should boost the stats of the other turrets with alts instead so make an op alt for isida rico etc. 

Edited January 4, 2019 by GetRektSkrub_II

[wolverine848 13,097]

Yeah thats why duplet, uranium and incendiary band all cost a junk ton of money. They we're adjusted to make the turret noticeably powerful. Incendiary band doesn't even have a negative change in the turret, Vulcan got nerfed so much that without the incendiary band its trash, so they really couldn't put any negatives on the alt. So, I say instead of nerfing vulcan, thunder, and hammer we should boost the stats of the other turrets with alts instead so make an op alt for isida rico etc. 

Incendiary band is accompanied by a 10% damage nerf. 

This was not mentioned when I bought the alt.  But it is there on WIKI now.  <_<

 

FYI... unless you have a heavy hull + fire module of 40% (or more) Incendiary band is not really useable - unless you like self-destructing.

[enri_chill 265]

I think hammer is annoying because it can destroy M4 viking in 1 second with duplet (although firebird and freeze are also insanely powerful). To stop being killed so easily by hammer I bought 1000+ double armor in the 50% sale... first time I've ever done that. I didn't have enough crystals for the hammer protection module and I bet tanki will make duplet weaker soon and then something else will become more powerful. From now on I will always look to buy supplies in the sales. Drones are probably out of reach for me because the best are expensive to buy and MU. I have 1736 batteries gathering dust in my garage.

For sure. I am nearing 2k. I thought about getting a drone, but decided to check the profile of players who were using them in battles. Wow! They have used over 10k batteries and not used their drones that many hours of battle time. There is no way I could afford to use them. So it is a purely buyer's market...unlike drugs. You can keep stocked fairly well with them if you are smart and patient.

Edited January 5, 2019 by enri_chill

[enri_chill 265]

Incendiary band is accompanied by a 10% damage nerf. 

This was not mentioned when I bought the alt.  But it is there on WIKI now.  <_<

 

FYI... unless you have a heavy hull + fire module of 40% (or more) Incendiary band is not really useable - unless you like self-destructing.

They added that nerf after about 36 hours of releasing the alt. The first day or so, the alt was so OP. It was a great change of pace for Vulcan users...who have been often marginalized in the power and turret rotation arena. If you have been using the alt since day 3 of its release, you shouldn't notice any diminished results with the vulcan alt IMO. I might be wrong, but I use it a lot and enjoy the vulcan game play.

[TheCongoSpider 8,942]

For sure. I am nearing 2k. I thought about getting a drone, but decided to check the profile of players who were using them in battles. Wow! They have used over 10k batteries and not used their drones that many hours of battle time. There is no way I could afford to use them. So it is a purely buyer's market...unlike drugs. You can keep stocked fairly well with them if you are smart and patient.

I envy the number of batteries you players have saved up...but then I would look at the number of batteries I used and the number of batteries I have now and it would total to about 1881 batteries right now. I wish I had 1k+ batteries. Some guys have more than 30k batteries and I'm here sitting on 615. 

[GetRektSkrub_II 29]

(first off, nice illustration xD rofl)

for the sake of the game, the fact that it is an arcade game, I have NO problem with infinite ammo, that is VERY acceptable to me.

 

God please not fire's range 100m (if you actually read the article, its actual range was 110m), oh, it won't, as the croc's flamethrower is centered towards anti-personal use, not anti-armor/tank use, as all flame tanks. Where it would never be effective against a tank, to quote wiki " the flamethrower was virtually useless on an open battlefield." and "the mechanical flamethrowers, although not impressive by themselves, struck horror into the minds of German troops, who feared them more than any other conventional weapon." the melting point of steel makes that very clear. That gladly gets me onto another point, I'm not for total realism, let me explain, I see this game as, mostly, if it where a genera of book, it would be sci-fi, by definition, sci-fi is a world that way be possible in the future, while fantasy.. is a world that will never be possible. this game is a safe borderline for the sake of fun, however, like I mentioned, it crossed the line too far into fantasy, you can't increase the burning temp of this turret's gasoline with its surrounding factors. But people where misunderstanding my point, I am 100% PRO fun, sci-fi like unrealism (a funny example I like to think of is firebirds working in space, where there is no air xD) but there is a limit where it becomes too unrealistically fantastical, and than leads to imbalance, than to no-fun as we see.

The use of gravity was added so we have something that we can relate with and to make gameplay easier just like there are trees and buildings to help us relate better to the game. I understand your frustration and where you are coming from with wanting the game to relate more to real life then fiction but that is your personal preference. There is a thing called amplification through simplification, the game is simplified enough so that your not supposed to relate to real life tanks or actual war but the gaming experience is amplified giving you less to think about other then playing the game. 

This game was made so you would not have to think about real life now here you are trying to do just that. 

 

The only realistic weapons in this game are smokey, thunder, vulcan, and magnum and even they were changed a bit to look cartooney and cute.

 

I could se flames burning tanks before bouncing balls of plasma are made.

 

Lastly, you may be right, a flamethrower might not have any effect on the tank but it would certainly greatly damage the electronics inside the tank, would cook the people piloting it and if the flames reached the gas tank at all the tank would explode.

[Aigaion 636]

The use of gravity was added so we have something that we can relate with and to make gameplay easier just like there are trees and buildings to help us relate better to the game. I understand your frustration and where you are coming from with wanting the game to relate more to real life then fiction but that is your personal preference. There is a thing called amplification through simplification, the game is simplified enough so that your not supposed to relate to real life tanks or actual war but the gaming experience is amplified giving you less to think about other then playing the game. 

This game was made so you would not have to think about real life now here you are trying to do just that. 

 

The only realistic weapons in this game are smokey, thunder, vulcan, and magnum and even they were changed a bit to look cartooney and cute.

 

I could se flames burning tanks before bouncing balls of plasma are made.

 

Lastly, you may be right, a flamethrower might not have any effect on the tank but it would certainly greatly damage the electronics inside the tank, would cook the people piloting it and if the flames reached the gas tank at all the tank would explode.

first off, thanks for replying, I love discussion.

 

second, my reply is in a spoiler, since... its pretty long, and I would like to keep the mods happy  :ph34r:

 

I DONT want a totally realistic game, I don't know why people are saying this, I want a REASONABLY, SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE GAME, and an ACCEPTABLY UNREALISTIC GAME so I'm OK with pretty much EVERYTHING we already have, the exception being, the competently un-balanced, not even remotely possible firebird, I understand that it SHOULD be a turret, I do NOT want to remove it, being a turret in this game, it has a responsibility to be fun, acceptably unrealistic, and effective, otherwise no one would buy them xD and I would also point out you seem like a very intelligent person. About your first argument... how are we not supposed to think about real tanks and war,... if this is a game about tanks as war...? :ph34r: we should think about them, and I'm willing to bet the devs did probably research real tanks while making there most present-day based turrets, in fact, I wrote an entire paper on real tanks that are like the most real-life based turrets in TO, I don't get your amplification reasoning here, why aren't I supposed to be doing this, and... so what? when I tried to research it, all I found is that it was applied to comic books... and web design, and it was also an acronym? But back to the REAL problem at hand (and the more fun problem, and problem I would much rather talk about rather than comic books and web design), the balance of Firebird, The thing is, flame tanks like the Firebird, are already real, or rather where real, they could, in theory, destroy another tank. It could disable a tank by cutting off the oxygen for the engine and the crew. But that presumes that the tank wielding the flamethrower can somehow get in position without being seen, aim accurately at the intakes which are generally on the rear deck, and deliver enough of the napalm-like substance to smother the engine. But, before I get your hopes up, flame tanks came from WWII, and they were only effective on tanks from WWII, and only, in theory, they would have been, as I had said. Moving on to the modern tank (let alone near-future ones of TO). Modern tanks are made for biological/chemical warfare and because of that, they are airtight. This means that no smoke or fuel will get inside the tank to cause damage. On top of that, they are designed to withstand napalm and thermal attacks anyway. So no, and if you read my facts on the melting point of tank armor composite alone, a flamethrower won't even melt the outer hull, and rendering your "would cook the people piloting it and if the flames reached the gas tank at all the tank would explode." argument null, I'm afraid. Now, back to the Firebird, it's not that I want it removed because it's too "unrealistic" or "too un-scientific" I like it, but it should stay within some flexibility of unrealism, and its not that the fact that it exists that I'm saying "crosses the line" its that its too powerful, for its idea (really the afterburn) that crosses the line, and I think a lot of people agree. Now I think you noticed I did not complete your entire quote a little earlier.

 

I don't know the effects of electronics within the tank, but it makes sense to me that, the outer hull, is, like I said, not meltable by a gasoline fire, and is airtight.so... why would a fire, that CAN'T get through the outer hull, affect the electronics inside, fire isn't like radiation, how beta particles and gamma rays can pass through paper, without damaging it, but it will still harm you, even though the paper itself was not destroyed, fire is not like that, fire must destroy an obstacle in its path, before it can harm you, however, that's not a very great example so don't quote me on it xD but I don't see how tank electronics would be harmed if its already air-tight, designed against thermal attacks, and already made out of composites and elements that are chosen for there heat resistance and tolerance. But, its something I've never really thought of, and if you find something on electronic equipment reaction and tolerance inside a modern tank to outside gas-burning heat, I would love to see it. Now, my last point (I promise xD) is, why would you see burning tanks before balls of plasma, I guess this is just a matter of opinion, as "flying balls of plasma" are not a fact yet xD but, I don't see governments spending on like 70-year-old ideas of cooking a tank with flamethrowers, there are other ways to do it, granted, but those are for the disassembly method of tanks in a factory or junkyard, not on the battlefield. Ideas that have already been abandoned by the US army (my country) since the Vietnam War. Instead of "improving" old, already proven tech governments and contractors should look to new ways of blowin' up some other guys tank, and if that means "flying balls of plasma" so be it xD *note, this last part had nothing to do with the Firebird argument, just my thoughts on you saying "I could see flames burning tanks before bouncing balls of plasma are made.", even though I later said, they can't. And I did not reply to your list of already realistic weapons, as, even though I have stances on those, and will be happy to tell you my thoughts on them, I am not bothered by them, because they all are well within being fun, acceptably unrealistic, arcade-like, and are not related to the Firebird argument, and are really also just a matter of opinion on if you think they're realistic or not*

 

Edited January 5, 2019 by Aigaion

[splitterpoint 10,986]

Incendiary band is accompanied by a 10% damage nerf. 

This was not mentioned when I bought the alt.  But it is there on WIKI now.  <_<

Really? Ohh well that's a classic situation.. and now brace for staff members pointing at the vague EULA rule.

The whole EULA is a hoax anyway, a minority is exploiting bugs while the rest tries to gather crystals to join them.

 

And then they nerf the stuff and buff something else lol 

[GetRektSkrub_II 29]

I agree discussions are nice. Out of curiosity of wanting to learn more about tanks through the research you have done, I would like to look at the paper you have written on them.

 

I will attempt to defend my second argument the first one is not of much importance with where the discussion is heading. The way I see it, modern cars have a tendency to break down faster in heat and dust with both things damaging their electronics faster, it was in a BBC show. The heat from the flames, the infrared radiation, is capable of effecting the internal environment of the tank. Though dust may not be of effect, heat from the flames of a flamethrower mounted on a tank, not a conventional flamethrower like the one made by elon musk, but an actual anti-tank weapon would damage the tank by raising its internal temperature. Even in the game you do not see the flames penetrating the tanks armor but rather heating it up. now the animation of the tank being destroyed just symbolizes its immobility. Defending that claim, even if a shaft were penetrate through the tank the tank would not spontaneously explode, it would just kill the people inside. 

 

That could also lead to that this game is not realistic because wherever you shoot the tank, the tank seems to take equal damage; whereas in real life you would have to strategically hit the tanks weak points, which is what people did. So let us say the shaft, at max power, hits the tank in the periscope, in real life that tank would still be fully functioning but would lose its efficiency at scouting other tanks which could be fatal but in this game if you were to hit a piece of equal importance the tank would just explode which is highly unrealistic.

 

However, the argument you are stating would be better suited if you limit the argument to just nerfing the firebird, with your claims based on its stats being unbalanced in relation to the stats of other tanks forgetting about realism. 

 

Because if you look at it, there are other turrets that you could argue in the same way as you are doing with firebird. Hammer for example should not be as effective as it is right now. It is a simple shotgun loaded on to a tank at max it would leave some dents on the tank after three shots; further it being able to produce enough impact force to flip a tank is equally unrealistic. Moreover, thunder's splash damage should not be as effective as it is right now and if it is then thunder should be one shoting every tank in this game because splash damage is just shrapnel hitting another tank along with maybe a small explosion which should not damage a tank as much as it now. This is the same logic you are applying, essentially, to firebird, the fire should not be as effective as it is in Tanki because it would not effect the tank as much as it would in real life.

 

Well let us say that Tanki staff decide to take your advice for it, then firebird users would have to face the burden of having a seriously underpowered tank and the turret would have to be removed from the game, which would lower the relative happiness of the people who have gotten used to playing with or alongside this turret for all this time. Firebird brings its own unique tactics and gameplay to the game.

Edited January 5, 2019 by GetRektSkrub_II

[fordmustang12345 3,910]

Tanki development plan:

Step 1: Make turret super OP

Step 2: Players buy crystals to buy turret and / or protection modules

Step 3: Nerf turret into the ground and repeat process with a different turret

Step 4: ?????????

Step 5: Profit

basically, for awhile it was Railgun and Isida (Isida needed a Nerf but they completely fked it, even with the supposed damage buffs Firebird out damages it), then it was Firebird immediately after the release of the first Alterations same with Hammer, then it was Twins (though Twins never really changed much until recently cause it was always OP) now it's Thunder and Smoky and Hammer Edited January 7, 2019 by fordmustang12345

[GetRektSkrub_II 29]

Tanki development plan:

Step 1: Make turret super OP

Step 2: Players buy crystals to buy turret and / or protection modules

Step 3: Nerf turret into the ground and repeat process with a different turret

Step 4: ?????????

Step 5: Profit

woah, now that you mention it...so true though I really don't want them to nerf hammer because it has always been my main turret and I cannot afford to buy another plus MUs and Alts.

[TheCongoSpider 8,942]

They need to just nerf Duplet. Stock Hammer is already struggling with all these Hammer Protection Modules around. It doesn't need any more struggles than that. 

[GetRektSkrub_II 29]

I just think all turrets with the highest alt should be evenly op, right now though I would agree that hammer vulcan and fire are op with the alts.

[ghost-guns 1,486]

Incendiary band is accompanied by a 10% damage nerf. 

This was not mentioned when I bought the alt.  But it is there on WIKI now.  <_<

 

FYI... unless you have a heavy hull + fire module of 40% (or more) Incendiary band is not really useable - unless you like self-destructing.

I feel like I wasted 60,000 crystals on incendiary band.

[FrozenRailgun 1,771]

I feel like I wasted 60,000 crystals on incendiary band.

It's worth it to be honest.

[rus0806 265]

No Protections for Juggernaut in JGR

 

My idea is to get rid of all your protections when you become Juggernaut. It would make the juggernaut easier to kill, giving a fair chance for a less powerful player to become the juggernaut. I have seen players with 50% against striker, firebird, hammer, which basically makes the juggernaut invincible.

 

 

*Edit:

Maybe the developers can alter the mode slightly, so that the Juggernaut will be invincible for 1 minute from the moment the player spawns as juggernaut, but after that minute the invincibility will be removed and a 15-25% (depending on the rank of the player) module will be added instead of the player's original modules to prevent the player being too overpowered. This way its more controlled and gives everyone a fair chance.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Hate

[Maf 32,300]

Oh hell no! It's impossible to play JGR battles without good modules nowadays. Even 50% isn't enough against M4 Strikers and Shafts with Booster drones. Although, the current balance situation in JGR is weird, because a lot of players die within 20 seconds of becoming Juggernaut, but some can stay alive for the whole game.

 

The game mode needs a smarter change to improve balance, such as a one-time shield with 10k extra HP that you get once you spawn as Juggernaut, which would help you survive and get your bearings.

[loginci 877]

In my opinion, this mode should be removed with Rugby mode, because they ruin MMs