2020. 1. 24. 04:15ㆍ카테고리 없음
Blizzard seems committed to ability pruning as evident in the BfA alpha. Many of the changes leave tanks in a significantly worse state than Legion, with Magic DM and self-healing nerfed to a considerable extent.While I agree that tanks are probably too powerful in their current state (hello, 4 dps Mythic+ runs), they are still grossly underrepresented in the player population. Tanks are inherently more pivotal to the success of a group and require more coordination and mechanics than dps. Healers are probably not as stressful from that perspective, but it's still a thankless job. Perhaps most importantly, it's easier to look at a DPS meter and derive a measure of satisfaction from pumping out big numbers than it is to brag about damage reduced, interrupts, or healing done.Bearing all this in mind, Blizzard should revive the Cata-era satchel that incentivizes tanks and healers to queue for LFG and LFR. Dangling the carrot of rare mounts and pets is in line with the prevailing philosophy of using cosmetic rewards to entice players to play a game a certain way (see, Heritage Armor) plus scratches that same itch as loot boxes in other games (particularly for those who couldn't care less about gold or gear).
It may also indirectly increase the population interested in pet battles since so much of the barrier to entry is acquiring the must-haves such as Anubisath Idol (hell, let the pets drop at max level).Right now, Blizzard wants to drive players away from playing tanks, which would worsen already ridiculous queue times for LFG content. Buffed satchels could offset that attrition and bring better role parity to the game.
Adding in the pet and mount rewards will only give you more tanks when those satchels are offered. Right now under the current system, those satchels are offered to tanks about 10% of the time. And when the satchels are offered, tanks ques go from less than 30sec to 5-10min, or in the case of lfr 20-30min tank ques, because you get thousands queuing whey they're up in their current state.If the current system is good enough to get the number of tanks that blizzard wants, I don't think they'll feel the need to add in more rewards.The better way to get more tanks would not be to add more rewards into the satchels, but to reduce the threshold for which satchels are offered. How about they just get rid of LFR instead? LFR wait time is always way longer than LFG wait times for DPS as far as I have seen. LFR was a good experiment and I understand that is was meant to allow a bigger part of the player base to see and experience raiding. But right now it's just a toxic place for over geared but still can't follow mechanics people to shit on, complain about, and kick never raided before and not that great at the class/spec can't follow mechanic people.I'll tank for my guild and LFG/Timewalking but no amount of possible loot drop would get me to tank the shit hole LFR is right now.
Guaranteed mount or pet loot drop that I don't already have, maybe. But I would really have to be hating myself that day.LFG has a lot of the same issues but the smaller group size limits the crap on experience and dungeon mechanics are for the most part more forgiving than raid mechanics.
There's also the issue of range in CtA.At longer ranges, say 3,000m, the M1 tank would have a significant advantage versus a T-80. It might be difficult for the T-80 to frontally penetrate an M1A2 with APFSDS at longer ranges. But at close ranges, like 1,000-2,000m, the T-80's APFSDS would likely penetrate or severely damage the M1 tank.
In CtA a 1,000m or 2,000m shot would be incredibly long-ranged, so the pricey advantage of the M1 doesn't come into play.The other advantage of the M1 would be superior optics and fire control. But again, these benefits are only really useful at long range, and at closer ranges like in CtA the T-80 would have no problem seeing an M1 tank or hitting it.In the end, the M1 tank might just end up being much more expensive for fairly little benefit, mostly because tank fights in CtA are like knife fights. Originally posted by:There is also the issue of cost.The M1 tanks cost 1300/1600 MP for a M1A2 or M1A2 TUSK.The T-80 tanks cost 1100/1400 MP for a T-80BV or T-80U.On the other hand, a M1 tank costs $9 million or more, while a T-80 only costs a third to a half of that price.If we do significantly buff an M1 tank, then would we buff T-80s by making them substantially less expensive to field than an M1?
That's already pretty much the case. Which is ironic, considering the T-80U is miles better than either M1A2 model thanks to the ATGM and a comparable armor value. Playing in armored combat mode, it's not even a contest most of the time, the T-80U's only major US threat is, out of all things, a TOW2 Humvee.Either tanks needs some sort of APS/ERA system to actually be functional in game, or ATGM's need to have their penetration values potentially tweaked.
War-torn Satchel Of Cooperation
The TOW-2 alone has a penetration value of a whopping 1500. Originally posted by:also how much RHAE would you say sloped armor puts on a modern tank, i have wondered about this before.It depends on so many factors that it's not even funny.For example, the type of penetrator matters to figure out if sloped armour works as intended or not. Some sloped armour, in addition to thickening the armour, at a certain angle of hit might bounce shallow shots. If those rounds happen to be older. Other sloped armour might get dug into (normalisation) with a modern APFSDS dart, so actually sloped armour might be LESS effective.It also depends on the armour and the materials its made from.
RHAe of course is just a approximation, but doesn't take into account that RHA, composite, and NERA will all behave differently when shot with different things.So long answer, you can't say. Short answer, some research suggests that sloping a plate to 60 degrees adds 17% RHAe. But see that long answer. Originally posted by:It is highly possible that armor values of those tanks are indication of developers perceptible misconception about nowaday armor.For example T-80U its front hull plate has effective 780mm protection against KE but because of the out-dated 'AS1 slope effect' it has maybe around 1320mm which is obviously ridiculous.Actually, I'm pretty certain real life statistics have very marginal, if any correlation to in-game stats, if MoW is anything to go. The stats of units are governed heavily by gameplay, not the composition of their real life counterparts. This is most profound in Assault Squad, where many platforms and munitions do not have the sort of symmetrical effect on armor that they would IRL(Otherwise mid-tier US tanks would actually do pretty well against tigers with their 76mm's for instance. Heck, even the 90mm on the slugger has laughable penetration compared to weaker guns on tanks like the KT).Personally, while this does lead to awkward circumstances occasionally, I believe it's largely for the best.
At the end of the day, it's much better to have a balanced, fun game than a strictly realistic one. Especially as far as multiplayer is concerned.
CtA abstracts a few things(Sometimes to laughable degrees, like technicals going nuclear from a 40mm grenade) for better or worse, but it's better than wasting a lot of time, energy, and resources trying to be perfectly exacting on every piece of military equipment when that's really not the point of the game's overarching 'goal' the moment you hop into an actual match. Originally posted by:Indeed, but developers do not need to know all about rocket science to build realistic and at same time balanced and coherent gameplay of both infantry/vehicle combat. Take a look over Arma franchise once again, there is a huge beauty in simplicity and still it is labeled as 'military simulator' and the interpretation of the infantry/vehicle behaviors in combat is just right, nothing is too strong nor too weak.Hence it would be really healthily to change this franchise from infantry centric non-sense to RTS.
While it bears a different name, the modern-themed Call to Arms may as well be a direct sequel, and has been lurking around Steam Early Access for some time now. Today, it officially launched. Rather confusingly, Digitalmindsoft have opted to go the way of Ubisoft and create several tiers of Call to Arms ownership. Dec 31, 2017 - Successor of Tanks of War. Now is in active development for Call to Arms.
Perhaps it could attract a lot more people. Which is in CtA case more than essential. I don't agree with that, personally. MoW has always been an RTT that focuses primarily on infantry play, and CtA is no different. That's never going to change, IMO, because the means for getting a vehicle in the first place makes them inherintly valuable and risky investments, rather than common and 'throw away'. They just can't really be the center-piece of the game without there being some special game mode like Armored Combat that circumvents the resource system of the game.
Assault Squad shook this dynamic up in a positive way through special point units, but CtA doesn't seem like it's going to ever go in that direction.There will undoubtedly be mods like Robz eventually made for CtA that crank up damage values and weapon ranges for the more 'semi-realistic' feel, but I feel like the core gameplay itself shouldn't wildly change. ArmA works the way it does because it's an FPS/TPS, not an RTT/RTS. What works in a totally different genre doesn't necessarily translate over well to a game about micromanaging dozens of units at once rapidly.