Most of the “higher dam + low rof vs lower dam + high rof” arguments are usually about either KV or SU-152 (including the question in this thread, which was in regards to SU-152). Which makes it an argument about 152 mm “derp gun” vs the alternatives (107 mm for the KV and 122 mm for the SU-152).

The derp gun for the KV has accuracy 0.6. This is not a sniping gun. The 107 mm gun has accuracy 0.39, which is obviously more suited for long distance shooting. Well, rather, “longer” because it’s not exactly a sniping gun either. Nevertherless, the difference in accuracy is tremendous.

Similarly, the derp gun for the SU-152 has accuracy 0.44, while the 122 mm has accuracy 0.36.

Quite obviously, the devs balanced the derp gun by giving it extraordinary bad accuracy. Which might be ok if you prefer close quarter combat but if you like sniping, you better get a different gun.

And remember, in this case (SU-152), we are not arguing some hypothetical guns with 7 rpm vs 5 rpm. We are talking about very real 3.8 rpm vs 9.2. That’s 16 seconds reload vs 6. And these numbers apply only if you have 100% crew, rammer and the vent, otherwise they increase proportionally. If you say “…because I’m one of the only tanks defending a particular front…”, it’s not a good idea to be the only tank in the area when your reload time is 19 seconds (IIRC that’s what you get without the rammer and vent).

OTOH, another popular (at least in the past) argument - for the JagdPanther, long 88 mm vs 105 mm. The 105 mm used to have better damage but worse rof and accurace and much worse price per shell. Which made the 88 mm a very popular choice. In the latest patch, the 105 mm became the second most accurate gun in the game and argument is pretty much resolved now in favor of the 105 mm. Although the difference in rof is not that drastic - 12 rpm vs 8.

Most other cases of “damage vs rof” are not really worth discussing IMO, since they are the cases of a pure and standard upgrade when damage, penetration and (most of the time) accuracy get increased at the expense of ROF.

[edit] And one more thing. When playing a TD, you gotta be good at detracking. :)

[edit 2] BTW, when you do use the SU-152’s stock gun, IIRC you are supposed to use mostly the HE ammo. Particularly against anything tier 7 and up. In which case, don’t look at 700 damage vs. 390. Think 455 (910/2) against 390. But then again, 85 mm HE penetration will allow you to one shot Ferdi’s when shooting at their side, which is always fun. If you actually hit him. :)

Speaking about TDs, what is the preferred items to buy for them? On my SU 100 I had the camouflage net, the binocular telescope and the rammer. I was planning on doing the same thing on the SU 152.

Also accuracy is very weird with that gun, I’ve hit enemies over 500 M away with it and missed enemies at 300 M.

edit: Also what do you mean by 910/2 ? I’m still not completely sure about the affects of armor pen on damage.

I brought up the high rof vs. low rof issue in the context of the German long 7,5 cm vs. the short 8,8 cm. While the long 75 has marginally higher penetration (138 vs. 132) and a fair bit higher accuracy 0.31 vs. 0.36, I concluded that even as a sniper, the short 8,8 cm is a better gun.

Other relevant stats: 8,8cm 220 damage vs. 7,5’s 135. 8,8cm rof 10 rpm, 7,5cm rof 15 rpm.

I keep thinking that what this game really needs is much better feedback on combat. I want to know who did what to whom for every hit on the battlefield–hell, there are only 30 tanks max, and that number decreases rapidly over time. I want to know who killed that tank that I shot at and apparently killed, but didn’t. I want to know, at least after the fact, what my shots did–did I do module damage to the ammo? the tracks? the gun? Most of all, I want the people on my time to know who is actually doing damage, not just who is getting the last shot in. IMO, this would go a long, long way towards making individual matches more fun, and remove a lot of theoretical carping.

Of course, just like damage meters I guess it would introduce an elitist strain, but at least it would be a data driven strain, rather than an impressionistic one.

I definitely do not want a damage meter in WoT. It is one of the reasons I grew to hate what happened with WoW. The focus in WoT should always be on teamwork rather than statistics.

ha-ha-ha-ha-ha

Good one.

In all seriousness, the lack of teamwork in WoT compared to almost any other FPS is really depressing. In WoT, it’s all about getting the kill, driving in front of others and taking their lane away (because hey, you’re just sitting there, so let me go up around that corner…BLAM…What a lemming).

Or, how no one plays defense, or if the entire team goes left and only two go right to be the sacrificial speed bumps and how a horde inches it’s way across the map so their team loses while the enemy trounces our weak side.

Or the horrible driving at the beginning, cutting people off, stopping on bridges…

Yeah, good one…LOL

I wanted to give some thought to complaints against arty.

I’m having a hard time picking a tank, so I’m playing a bunch of different ones. One of my tanks I’m doing the soviet SPG line and am up to a SU-8, which is a tier 5 arty. Let me give you my perspective, since I really do like arty but it’s a slog so I only play it 1/5 of my time:

Point #1: The reticle takes a good 10-15 seconds to settle down. how many tanks have an aiming reticle that takes 10-15 seconds to stabalize? And if I traverse, or god-forbid, the reticle passes over a building or tall tree? I get to start all over again. Yes, ladies and gentleman, 80% of my match is waiting for a reticle to resize before I can shoot with any accuracy at all. MOst of that time, my target disapears or moves and then I traverse and guess what? I get to wait for it to resize again.

Point #2: For me to get to the next tier6, the SU-14, I have to research 112K research. All my other tanks, I was able to get to Tier 6 with 25-30K of research. So the grind for arty is immense. It’s a slog like you’ve never slogged if you’ve never tried arty.

Point #3: because of Point #2, it’s easy to get the tier 4/tier 5 crew up to 100% before you can progress to the next level (provided you boost the initial training to 75%). Now, even at 75%, arty sucks big time. It’s the most innacurrate, most annoying tank to play because you are missing 8/10 times. Now, once you get your crew to 95%, things turn a corner and you begin to connect. To put this in perspective, how many crews do you get to 100% in a tank before you purchase the next level up? For all my tier 5 tanks besides my arty, my crews were in the low 90’s when I upgraded. So, while you’re progressing, we’re perfecting while we’re still slogging. In my SU-8, I’ve got roughly 60K saved towards my 112K needed for my upgrade to the SU-14 - and my crew is at 96%. If it’s a decent map and I can live a decent amount of time, I can be rewarded with an average of 2-3 kills + maybe 800 XP - pretty typical of a decent regular tank or TD.

Point #4: I routinely get put into Tier 8-9 matches. I can count on one hand in all the matches I’ve done with this tank (SU-8) where I was in the top 1/2 of the list at game start. In fact, all SPG’s are basically treated as +1 / +2 above their level in the matchmaker. So while the majority of you get pissed about the MM, arty players get it shafteed twice over.

Point #5: Some maps suck at arty. I’m looking at your himmelsdorf and ensk in particular, and another 2-3 I can’t recall. Playing Arty on himmelsdorf makes me want to rage QQ because all I can really do is wonder around and hope for some direct fire opportunities - which I only get damage and few if any kills because I get like one shot and tha’s it. On many other maps, I don’t have any cover - if a medium tank breaks through the lines, I try to move my arty, but more often that not, I’m a burned out hulk a short time later because of the other tanks targetting me.

Point #6: Arty has a “sweet spot” that is a rather long distance away - this is where the aiming reticle is a fairly tight circle. All other distances (+/- the 50 meters of this sweet spot) is an elongated oval, that gets more and more elongated the further you are from this sweet sopt and within 150M is basically impossible to hit anything unless you have two tanks going in a straight line towards you.

Point #7: I can’t look down the barrel in direct fire mode, so when you get one-shotted by an arty while you’re trying to take it out, the arty player only has a circle with only left/right aiming - the verticle is impossible to see because we have to estimate while in direct fire mode.

Final Point: if you move, you will rarely die with arty. But seeing this game is mostly about sitting in one spot, waiting for a red dot to appear so you can shoot at a red outline 400M away, so you can keep your precious aiming reticle small, you get hit by arty.

Addendum to his final point: If you jog back and forth in a small area enough times, you’ll get hit by good arty. If you move in a straight line, you’ll eventually get hit by good arty.

@tman

For me Random’s are throwaway matches and money making exercises only. The real teamwork happens in Ultimate Conquest with my clan. I’ve had some brilliant battles in UC.

I can tell pretty quickly when a Random will be good or bad. I don’t get too cut up about it since I can just go out in a blaze of glory and cause maximum damage even if I die early. It’s not like we have a shortage of tanks to switch to.

Sean brings up a good point. I’ve never played a clan match (not in a clan). Never played a UC match (not in a clan). Only play random matches (not in a clan). There’s definitely a bifurcation of the playerbase happening, where you have the elite clan players who slum around in random matches occasionally, and the hoi polloi, who grind their way up the tiers through randoms maybe or maybe not hoping to join a clan but many of whom probably don’t even really know about the whole clan/conquest thing. This I think sets up very different expectations.

Yes, the game should be about teamwork, but in randoms that doesn’t happen very often. The chat system sucks, the level/map/mission design sucks (from the point of view of allowing/compelling people to work together), and the reward/feedback system sucks for the same reasons. Lacking the overarching structure of clan-based warfare and a campaign of sorts, there is no incentive for people to work together in random matches. You can get your credits and exp, especially your first doubled match of the day, by doing dumb stuff, dying, and going on to another match, as long as the (maybe a fifty-fifty shot) the rest of the team picks up the slack.

Which is one reason I think they really, really need better feedback. Right now the ONLY in-game metric you get–the only one, there is no other–is how many kills you get. At the end of the match, yes, it will tell you who you detected or damaged, but never does it tell you what you hit, how you damaged it, what percentage of your shots did what beyond a basic hit/missed percentage, or who hit you and for what type of damage. In short, you NEVER get the type of info you need to figure out what the hell you’re doing wrong (or right). And the lack of in-game feedback simply encourages people to devalue teamwork and cooperation in pursuit of 1v1 duels and stupid play designed to get that elusive kill–I’ve seen lots of people (and done it myself, sadly) fight stupidly to the death to kill that lowly T-28 or something while surrounded by Tigers because, well, it’s a KILL damn it, when the proper response would be to zoom off and live again. But you get no reward for that unless you’re cerebral and focused enough–and in a group that reinforces that behavior–to process things on a different, more team-oriented, level.

It’s becoming more and more clear to me that the main focus of WoT is in fact on the clan system and clan warfare, which makes the game much, much less attractive to me. I have little desire to find yet another community of internet denizens to endure horrible Vent chat with.

Mostly I play because I love blowing stuff up and driving tanks. It’s just a lot of fun.

It would be nice if they highlighted the 50% xp and credit bonus you get for winning. Maybe list what you would have gotten without the win and then on a separate line “but wait, because you won, you get even more xp and credit.” Maybe that would make people play more for the team win.

I think there’s less stupid stuff going on in the higher level matches. Although sometimes you got to wonder what some of these players are thinking (*** cough *** Lakeville, assaulting through the valley). The other thing I still see is very few players will turn around and defend base even when it’s exceedingly clear that if they don’t it will cost us the match.

True enough. Much of this echoes what happens in Battlegrounds/Warfronts/Scenarios in PvP aspects of MMOs. Mission objectives are ignored because the reward structure makes it more profitable to simply whack on other players and go it solo. You get more experience in WoT if you win, but you can pretty much make up for that by getting your individual kills in, die, and do another match, ad nauseum, and there is little incentive beyond what you bring to the match yourself, internally, to not play like a lone wolf.

Random’s can still be good. Just takes one or two people to type some basic instructions and get people organised. Plus it isn’t hard to stay together. Where Random’s fall apart is due to impatient players going solo and getting picked off one by one.

You have a great setup for the Soviet TD’s, I am using the same.

One thing to remember though is how the moment you shoot you are not stealthed anymore. So having the net is not the “I can hide all day long in this bush” card anymore. You simply use it to have a nice uninterrupted first shot and then you need to start moving. 5 seconds after the shot, you can settle in (preferrably another) bush.

High tier German TD’s (starting with JgdPanther) IMO don’t have enough camo to begin with, so net is not that helpful to them. Their role changes a bit - they become second line assaulters instead of the ambushers. Which means positioning closer to fight and using hard cover. But you don’t care about that since you drive SU-152. :)

Other equipment alternatives are IMO not that useful to a TD (meaning they are great but you only have 3 slots). Vent provides too little benefit (~2.5% faster reload, aiming, etc. is IMO not worth it comparing to other modules). Liner is great (especially for Germans) but it’s more geared towards lower tier arty/HE (still useful), it’s heavy and slows you down a lot. Optics are great but the effect is a bit redundant if you already have the binocs and is probably overkill.

One thing you will need as you get higher (on the Object IIRC) is stabilizer for your gun. It’s a tough choice what to replace and depends mostly on your playstyle but always keep the rammer. Every tank must have the rammer, period.

Accuracy, yeah. That’s the low accuracy for you. When the accuracy approaches 0.4, it becomes very random. IIRC this kind of accuracy gives you a ~ 50/50 chance to hit the inner vs outer circle of your reticle, meaning that you have as much chance to hit thebull’s eye of your reticle as to hit its outer border or close to it. Which most of the time means 50/50 chance to hit the enemy.

About 910/2. That’s how the HE rounds work, as opposed to the AP ones. AP rounds either penetrate or not. If they do, they deal their full damage (plus change if they hit something inside the enemy) and if they don’t, they deal 0 damage (there are more details but I won’t go there sicne we are talking about HE’s).

HE rounds work differently. If they penetrate, they deal their full damage plus they deal massive damage to internal modules (ammo, engine, etc.) and crew (which also produces damage to the tank’s generic hp’s). If they don’t penetrate, they deal half of their damage anyway (reduced by the enemy’s armor, so for low caliber HE’s it won’t be half damage against Maus) and they also deal massive damage on any nearby external module (track, gun, turret ring, etc.) and they also have a pretty good chance to splash inside the tank and do some damage to the internal modules and crew.

For the SU-152, with its massive 152 mm stock gun, HE damage is 910 and pen is 85 mm. Which means that if you hit Ferdi’s side (80 mm armor), you will definitely penetrate it (HE rounds’ penetrate does not decrease with range like it does for AP) and deal at least 910 damage, plus lots of internal damage, which will most like add enough damage to one shot the poor Ferdi.

If you hit the Ferdi from the front, let’s say at its thickest armor, 200mm, your HE round won’t penetrate it, so it will deal half damage (910/2=455) reduced a little bit due to the massive armor to, let’s say 400 (the actual reduction formula is unknown).

So when you think HE or AP, compare half damage of the HE with the full damage of the AP and think how likely you are to penetrate the enemy with the AP. With the SU-152’s stock gun (AP penetration 135), you are not likely to penetrate anything tier 7 and up (plus the tier 6 KV-3), remember AP penetration goes down with range (plus penetration varies +/- 25%), plus enemy’s armor is most likely sloped, which makes that 700 AP damage a pretty illusive thing.

So most of the time it’s a good idea to switch to HE and do guaranteed 350-450 damage (with an occasional 1000+ damage “Gotcha!” when you get a lucky position on the unlucky enemy).

Whew, huge post. :)

Huh? Lots of words and it seems a few of you guys got wooped a few too many times yesterday. :)

“Level/map/mission design sucks (from the point of view of allowing/compelling people to work together)”? What does it even mean? How can the same map allow for the teamwork in clan matches (and they do) and don’t allow it in randoms?

Feedback, shmeedback. Firstly, games like WoW or Rift provide LOTS of feedback and you can slice it any way you want. It still doesn’t prevent dumb people from doing dumb stuff. Secondly, this kind of games (and this IS Counterstrike on tanks) historically don’t provide much feedback and it doesn’t make Counterstrike or Battlefield or Red Orchestra any less tactical and team oriented. Thirdly, what kind of feedback do you expect? How do you expect the game to reflect the fact that you were lighting up enemies for your arty in the valley? Or intimidating enemies from that hill, preventing them from adavncing? Or sliping through enemies on your Stug and cap their flag without shooting once?

And do you expect people to go through that feedback to see how awesome TheWombat was that match even though he got zero kills? Who cares? Or do you think people need to go through that log to realize “Oh! It looks like all those “we didn’t penetrate them” shots don’t do any damage”?

Yes, a thorough log of a fight would be interesting. To maybe 0.5% of the people. Including probably me. For maybe first 10 fights. Is it worth sending out megabytes of text? Probably not. One little tiny 1v1 encounter can produce dozens of lines in that log. One single freaking penetration can produce a dozen of lines. Who would ever go through all those lines to say “Oh, it looks like I’ve hit his transmission when I dinged him? I wonder what kind of damage the other 3 of my teammates did to him!”. Who cares, you killed him (or optionally, he killed you), move on! Maybe you could have turned your hull additional 25 degrees to the right and increase the chance of the ricochet by 17% but really who cares.

The same people who play the clan wars, also play randoms. The same morons also play random and clan matches. There are many many many more random matches played comparing to clan or company matches. No one is leveling up their tanks in clan wars, you are expected to have at least a fully researched tier 9 (well, maybe tier 8, if someone didn’t show up and they need to fill the spot). The game doesn’t promote any kind of play over the other, it’s just two different kinds of play. Like in WoW. You can try and dedicate your time to raids/clan wars. You can try and make a PUG/random match work. Or you could just go solo and do whatever you want.

But no matter what you do, some PUG’s will suck. Some raids will fail. And when soloing, sometimes it will be awesome, sometimes you’ll get caught with your pants down. Relax, it’s a game.

Like in any other game, like in real life (look at all those drivers who shouldn’t have a license), the world is full of dumb people. And they will remain dumb and will do dumb stuff no matter of the incentives, feedback, whatever. There are also nice and smart people and it’s a pleasure to meet them in both real world or World of Tanks.

And remember, every time your team sucks and losesc miserably, some shmucks on the other side of the Internet go “Yes, our team ruled this match, that was awesome!”. And vice versa.

No offense intended. :)

Believe me, there is enough stupidity at higher tiers as well, especially since the introduction of M6A-whatever, Lowe and KV-5.

As for the valley assault in Lakeville, just two days ago our clan had perfomed a very successful one in a clan match. Also yesterday, in a random match, the enemy team did a successful valley attack against my team. Historically, I’ve seen lots of successful attacks through that valley, although statistically, the situations when the valley assult would work have a pretty small chance to occur (there are requirements for both teams that should be met for the valley attack to have a chance at success).

It’s all about teams’ composition and disposition. Different things will work or fail in different situations.

None taken, though I disagree with pretty much everything you said :).

In Clan matches, there are external motivators for teamwork and cooperation, beyond the simple experience/credits calculation. One of those is the fact you’re playing against another group of people working together who also want to win for something more than mere individual advancement. Another is the metagame of clan matches that gives actual meaning to winning and losing per se, rather than as a vehicle for experience and credit gain. In Randoms, none of that applies. The maps themselves, and the flag placement and mission (CTF) design do not in and of themselves do anything to encourage team play, because the rewards or doing so are not commensurate with the costs (as defined by subordinating individual short term gain). Maybe not the geography so much, which I guess is sort of neutral, but certainly the mission design.

And I disagree strongly about feedback. This isn’t just CounterStrike, for simple reason you have tanks, and enough historical data/detail to make it a reasonable expectation of the player base to view combat through the lens of tank sims and wargames than have gone before, even if ever-so-dimly. And the game gives YOU information in that format–penetrates X mm, has Ymm armor, etc. Yet the feedback you get is essentially “you hit it,” or "you killed it, " or “you hit it but someone else did to and they got the kill.” Very vague, and to me unsatisfying and out of sync with the game’s metastructure.

And it wouldn’t take anywhere near “megabytes” of data. Just crappy text is fine, like any combat log in an MMO. Even a bog-standard MMO has a running combat log that tracks exactly who did what damage with what ability to whom, in your immediate area. No reason that couldn’t be in this game. Even Warhammer’s scenarios had decent post-scenario breakdowns of who did what. In WoT, you immediately lose chat ability, get a static and very uninformative screen to look at, and often wind up none the wiser as to just what happened during the match.

I really don’t care that much about wins/losses in the sense of ego or my own accomplishments, though I do think there’s a lot to be gained by all players having a more realistic view of what others are doing. This is as much an MMO as it is an FPS, because of the hard-core leveling/grinding aspect, and that means IMO it needs more MMO style data tracking and feedback. It’s also at least 20% a wargame or sim, so it needs some form of grognard-style data as well, IMO.

In a pickup match it really doesn’t matter what you do, as long as you do it in concert.

When you ‘re-train’ a crew, can they still use the old tank, or are they only able to use the new tank?

One tank only. They forget their qualification with the old tank. The devs wanted to avoid situations when players would train up one “elite” crew and simply move it from one tank to another as needed.