Should Tank Destroyers be weaker if they are not in camo?

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
Post Reply

Should tank destroyers have less damage and penetration if they are not in camo?

Yes
2
13%
No
13
87%
 
Total votes: 15

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 2029
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Should Tank Destroyers be weaker if they are not in camo?

Post by kwok »

Vote pls.

Context of the vote here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3575&p=33006#p33006

User avatar
Mantis
Posts: 30
Joined: 28 Dec 2019, 12:37
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Should Tank Destroyers be weaker if they are not in camo?

Post by Mantis »

Pls define "less". How much?

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 2029
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Should Tank Destroyers be weaker if they are not in camo?

Post by kwok »

20% less damage and penetration.

User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 4042
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Should Tank Destroyers be weaker if they are not in camo?

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

Hmm.. nerfing TDs on standard basis??

I don't think the basic values for TDs are anything problematic.

MEFISTO
Posts: 133
Joined: 18 Jun 2016, 21:15

Re: Should Tank Destroyers be weaker if they are not in camo?

Post by MEFISTO »

It's the same tank so it should work the same, the only difference should be when you are on camouflage you should be able to aim pretty good and have a good accuracy before to be detected by the enemy, but the damage should keep the same.

User avatar
TheUndying
Posts: 39
Joined: 11 Aug 2018, 22:55

Re: Should Tank Destroyers be weaker if they are not in camo?

Post by TheUndying »

The only thing camo should improve (imo) is range, so you can hit enemy tanks before they can hit you.
So non-camo TDs can still be strong but have a little less range, meaning they are more prone to enemy fire.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 2029
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Should Tank Destroyers be weaker if they are not in camo?

Post by kwok »

Welp. I think there's enough votes here to basically reveal this now. Somehow this post got 14 votes in the span on 1 day versus other votes required like 5 days to get even close to the same amount of viewing....

Fun fact. This already exists. You can go back to my original post that I linked at the top for everyone to read. Right now, when a tank destroyer is on camo it is 25% stronger than when it is not in camo (which is the same thing as saying when it is not in camo it is 20% weaker). Based on the votes, it's implied that players DO NOT want a different in performance between when in camo and not in camo.

So what does this poll mean?
1. If you voted "No" in the other post and "No" here you've basically contradicted yourself because it's the same question but flipped. Thanks for participating in the player logic check experiment... If you wonder why devs are so reluctant to take on community suggestions this is why. This poll shows the biases within the community and what they found their opinions on. Are you all voting "no" based on the person who posted? Are you voting "no" because you're going off feeling and not true logic? Did someone tell you to vote and you just trusted them blindly without thinking for yourself?
The irony is that despite taking on as many suggestions from the community, we STILL get the blame even though most the ideas were decided on by the community. For example, for all the players complaining about the new panzer support doc, that idea did not originate with the devs. Devs are now stuck trying to figure out how to change and balance it. We will do it the best we can, but need more opinions on the forum to decide which path to take. Most devs, including me nowadays, don't play the game because we specifically rely on the community and try to keep our own biases out. So what does this mean? Get on the beta, come to the forum, be a part of the community.

OR

This poll means that there are a lot of people not participating in the forum and the votes are being driven by just a few people pushing certain ideas and every time we poll we only get a small sample of the community instead of the aggregate. That only the "no" voters here voted and the "no" voters on the other thread are entirely different people with opposing views. But both views are not coming together on a combined view meaning the people with differing opinions aren't discussing the best solution.

What does this mean though? This means that the community REALLY NEEDS to participate on the forum more so that the devs can get a sense of aggregate data, not just words from the few loud spoken on the forum. It is IMPOSSIBLE for devs to look through every channel and place where the community talks and keep track of EVERY steam chat message sent in private. We do not look at youtube or discord to make decisions on balance because those are not proper FORUMS of discussion. Come participate more everyone. We need your opinions. So what does this mean? Get on the beta, come to the forum, be a part of the community.

User avatar
Mantis
Posts: 30
Joined: 28 Dec 2019, 12:37
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Should Tank Destroyers be weaker if they are not in camo?

Post by Mantis »

I think, is logical, when is any unit in camo and have bonuses, then this unit see other unit and have time and surprise for attack. this topic is really unnecessary...

User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 4042
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Should Tank Destroyers be weaker if they are not in camo?

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

kwok wrote:
18 Apr 2020, 21:03
Welp. I think there's enough votes here to basically reveal this now. Somehow this post got 14 votes in the span on 1 day versus other votes required like 5 days to get even close to the same amount of viewing....

Fun fact. This already exists. You can go back to my original post that I linked at the top for everyone to read. Right now, when a tank destroyer is on camo it is 25% stronger than when it is not in camo (which is the same thing as saying when it is not in camo it is 20% weaker). Based on the votes, it's implied that players DO NOT want a different in performance between when in camo and not in camo.

So what does this poll mean?
1. If you voted "No" in the other post and "No" here you've basically contradicted yourself because it's the same question but flipped. Thanks for participating in the player logic check experiment... If you wonder why devs are so reluctant to take on community suggestions this is why. This poll shows the biases within the community and what they found their opinions on. Are you all voting "no" based on the person who posted? Are you voting "no" because you're going off feeling and not true logic? Did someone tell you to vote and you just trusted them blindly without thinking for yourself?
i think this speculation isn't necessarily reflecting the reality.. i'm one of the people who voted NO for example, because for me.. it sounded like if the players are being given 2 different choices; either to NERF the basic values of TDs but keep the camo bonuses as they are.. or to keep the basic values untouched but then nerf the camo bonuses on the other hand.

So, in this context.. a vote of NO means that the players simply do not want to see basic values of TDs being touched, neither do they agree on nerfing the camo bonuses as a whole... Not necessarily that they are not aware of how the camo bonuses are definitely boosting all TDs by 25% or 20% as it's clearly what the discussion is all about since the start. Therefore; saying that players contradicted themselves.. doesn't seem like a valid conclusion, not to mention for a fact.. that saying how TDs are actually 20% weaker without camo right now, isn't the same as just saying they will be 20% weaker without camo... Because this way as i stated, everyone would understand the poll as if you are willing to keep the camo bonuses untouched, while in return nerfing the basic values... So, you either couldn't specify the poll questions clearly enough, or that the players recieved it the way i described.

Anyways, for me... i would be very cautious nerfing TDs any further.
Let's not forget that TDs already received a lot of nerf recently.. the reload time for Axis TDs became longer, then they were made to be revealed after just a single shot from camo, then the re-camo time was increased dramatically.. then the same was later applied for Allied TDs as well.

I don't want to see TDs being OP, but i surely don't want to see TDs being useless either.
Nevertheless, at the end of the day... i could agree that all camo bonuses could be removed; except the accuracy and range boost. Other than that; damage and penetration should be always the same.. regardless with or without camo... However, i don't think the re-camo time should be very long, or that TDs need to re-move after being revealed.. as this would make little sense from a game-play perspective in my opinion, keeping in mind that the player could just move his tank an inch away, then simply re-position his tank right at the same location it was previously using for ambush, leading to silly situations of unnecessary micro.

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 362
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Should Tank Destroyers be weaker if they are not in camo?

Post by CGarr »

Krieger Blitzer wrote:
19 Apr 2020, 04:22
kwok wrote:
18 Apr 2020, 21:03
Welp. I think there's enough votes here to basically reveal this now. Somehow this post got 14 votes in the span on 1 day versus other votes required like 5 days to get even close to the same amount of viewing....

Fun fact. This already exists. You can go back to my original post that I linked at the top for everyone to read. Right now, when a tank destroyer is on camo it is 25% stronger than when it is not in camo (which is the same thing as saying when it is not in camo it is 20% weaker). Based on the votes, it's implied that players DO NOT want a different in performance between when in camo and not in camo.

So what does this poll mean?
1. If you voted "No" in the other post and "No" here you've basically contradicted yourself because it's the same question but flipped. Thanks for participating in the player logic check experiment... If you wonder why devs are so reluctant to take on community suggestions this is why. This poll shows the biases within the community and what they found their opinions on. Are you all voting "no" based on the person who posted? Are you voting "no" because you're going off feeling and not true logic? Did someone tell you to vote and you just trusted them blindly without thinking for yourself?
i think this speculation isn't necessarily reflecting the reality.. i'm one of the people who voted NO for example, because for me.. it sounded like if the players are being given 2 different choices; either to NERF the basic values of TDs but keep the camo bonuses as they are.. or to keep the basic values untouched but then nerf the camo bonuses on the other hand.

So, in this context.. a vote of NO means that the players simply do not want to see basic values of TDs being touched, neither do they agree on nerfing the camo bonuses as a whole... Not necessarily that they are not aware of how the camo bonuses are definitely boosting all TDs by 25% or 20% as it's clearly what the discussion is all about since the start. Therefore; saying that players contradicted themselves.. doesn't seem like a valid conclusion, not to mention for a fact.. that saying how TDs are actually 20% weaker without camo right now, isn't the same as just saying they will be 20% weaker without camo... Because this way as i stated, everyone would understand the poll as if you are willing to keep the camo bonuses untouched, while in return nerfing the basic values... So, you either couldn't specify the poll questions clearly enough, or that the players recieved it the way i described.

Anyways, for me... i would be very cautious nerfing TDs any further.
Let's not forget that TDs already received a lot of nerf recently.. the reload time for Axis TDs became longer, then they were made to be revealed after just a single shot from camo, then the re-camo time was increased dramatically.. then the same was later applied for Allied TDs as well.

I don't want to see TDs being OP, but i surely don't want to see TDs being useless either.
Nevertheless, at the end of the day... i could agree that all camo bonuses could be removed; except the accuracy and range boost. Other than that; damage and penetration should be always the same.. regardless with or without camo... However, i don't think the re-camo time should be very long, or that TDs need to re-move after being revealed.. as this would make little sense from a game-play perspective in my opinion, keeping in mind that the player could just move his tank an inch away, then simply re-position his tank right at the same location it was previously using for ambush, leading to silly situations of unnecessary micro.
I think the question was worded poorly, I assume they're probably going to buff TD's in some way if they remove camo bonuses since some like the M10 and marder are hilariously bad without camo. I'll write more on how this could be reworded tomorrow.

User avatar
idliketoplaybetter
Posts: 307
Joined: 26 Feb 2016, 19:55

Re: Should Tank Destroyers be weaker if they are not in camo?

Post by idliketoplaybetter »

The real question is:

Why unit whilst in camo, overperform itself in terms of damage and crit chances for like 100%?

And that is somehow logical.

BUT.

taking it off, however, and buffing/balancing unit as well with whole class of TD's is not?

TD's will probably become even stronger without camo and they remain strong with newer-updated stats after for camo mode.
All you guys will finally have to do, is maybe buying AP rounds of all kind. I know, clicking is bothersome.

Voting for masses is useless? would never think
"You can argue only with like-minded people"

Post Reply