Jump to content


NEW NERF TO PC PLAYERS UNACCEPTABLE


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

Roberto577_One #81 Posted 30 March 2020 - 05:58 PM

    Chungus Supreme

  • Players
  • 8481 battles
  • 458
  • [CURSD]
  • Member since:
    06-17-2018

I do feel alpha damage could be more consistent... Honestly, if they made +/- 10% rolls rather than +/- 25% rolls I feel like that would solve a ton of problems with RNG.

 

Just so you understand what I'm saying, maybe they could change it so that 400 alpha shots do 360-440 damage rather than 300-500. No more juicy high rolls, sure, but I'd be willing to sacrifice that for less RNG.


Excuse me while I club your double T-49 platoon with my SP I C.

 

Proud owner of the Leeroy Jenkins-Mobile.

 

I don't always club, but when I do, it's in stock Tier 9 Mediums.


j_rod #82 Posted 30 March 2020 - 06:06 PM

    Better Looking Than Cletus

  • Players
  • 27601 battles
  • 1,821
  • [H0B0S]
  • Member since:
    05-04-2011

View PostRoberto577_One, on 30 March 2020 - 11:58 AM, said:

I do feel alpha damage could be more consistent... Honestly, if they made +/- 10% rolls rather than +/- 25% rolls I feel like that would solve a ton of problems with RNG.

 

Just so you understand what I'm saying, maybe they could change it so that 400 alpha shots do 360-440 damage rather than 300-500. No more juicy high rolls, sure, but I'd be willing to sacrifice that for less RNG.

 

This will benefit stronger players a lot more than weaker ones. Stronger players by their nature play the numbers much better than weaker players so by removing the variability of high/low rolls, they'll be able to win more by managing the risks even better. 


If running my mouth determined my winrate, I'd be a Super Unicum
 

It was never fair... but it was fun! - Krietenstein34 

 


ODDEO_GUY #83 Posted 30 March 2020 - 06:08 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 5993 battles
  • 52
  • [EZCOM]
  • Member since:
    08-30-2019

View PostTexas_Tyrant, on 30 March 2020 - 01:02 PM, said:


He is right with the numbers being all over. In my M6 I had a shot do 177dmg. Then the next did 250, then 190 too random. Its supposed to be like 250 a shot.

Texas_Tyrant


The randomness is just like "random" MM. It's how players are manipulated. Haven't got a new tank in a while? Here's your low rolls, misses, and bottom tier....

 

I agree it would be nice if the game was tilted more in the direction of skill and less reliant on luck, but this is the hand we're dealt. It's sort of like life in general. 

Just gotta remain calm, get gud, and carry on.

Or quit.

But it "Is what it is".

 



j_rod #84 Posted 30 March 2020 - 06:12 PM

    Better Looking Than Cletus

  • Players
  • 27601 battles
  • 1,821
  • [H0B0S]
  • Member since:
    05-04-2011

View PostODDEO_GUY, on 30 March 2020 - 12:08 PM, said:


The randomness is just like "random" MM. It's how players are manipulated. Haven't got a new tank in a while? Here's your low rolls, misses, and bottom tier....

 

I agree it would be nice if the game was tilted more in the direction of skill and less reliant on luck, but this is the hand we're dealt. It's sort of like life in general. 

Just gotta remain calm, get gud, and carry on.

Or quit.

But it "Is what it is".

 

 

I see you recently bought the T14 back in November. Did WG fail to send you your RNG/MM upgrade? You should probably file a ticket. 


If running my mouth determined my winrate, I'd be a Super Unicum
 

It was never fair... but it was fun! - Krietenstein34 

 


Gavidoc01 #85 Posted 30 March 2020 - 06:17 PM

    Platinum Card Wallet Warrior

  • Players
  • 46543 battles
  • 3,975
  • [III]
  • Member since:
    10-12-2014

View Postj_rod, on 30 March 2020 - 01:06 PM, said:

 

This will benefit stronger players a lot more than weaker ones. Stronger players by their nature play the numbers much better than weaker players so by removing the variability of high/low rolls, they'll be able to win more by managing the risks even better. 

 

Yep. IN this instance the attempt at greater equality would decrease the equality. If the RNG was +/- 10%, that means a greater chance a good player would only need 1 shot to finish a low health tank vs. two and allow that player to then focus on more targets. 


Edited by Gavidoc01, 30 March 2020 - 06:17 PM.

My Blitzstars

 

I'm a Platinum Card Wallet Warrior.

You’re welcome for supporting the game. 


Texas_Tyrant #86 Posted 30 March 2020 - 06:24 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 9628 battles
  • 907
  • [UTC]
  • Member since:
    08-02-2018

View PostGavidoc01, on 30 March 2020 - 12:17 PM, said:

 

Yep. IN this instance the attempt at greater equality would decrease the equality. If the RNG was +/- 10%, that means a greater chance a good player would only need 1 shot to finish a low health tank vs. two and allow that player to then focus on more targets. 

 

View Postj_rod, on 30 March 2020 - 01:06 PM, said:

 

This will benefit stronger players a lot more than weaker ones. Stronger players by their nature play the numbers much better than weaker players so by removing the variability of high/low rolls, they'll be able to win more by managing the risks even better. 

 

Good points from both of y'all.


Edited by Texas_Tyrant, 30 March 2020 - 06:24 PM.

We Want Israeli Tanks In Game! Merkava MK 1 Fits In Game!

"Remember the Alamo, remember Goliad" and tank with Vengeance!

Fun fact: There are 15 MBT in game already!

 


King__David #87 Posted 30 March 2020 - 09:43 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 47261 battles
  • 313
  • [KNELL]
  • Member since:
    09-20-2015
Just to be clear I'm not saying to get rid of low and max rolls. Just to make it happen less. It wasn't that long ago when it was super rare to get a max roll or even a max low roll. 

Valkyrie04 #88 Posted 31 March 2020 - 02:58 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 2718 battles
  • 95
  • [AGOGO]
  • Member since:
    09-06-2019
OP doesn't know what a simple Gauss Bell is




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users