Jump to content


Garbad's tunnelvision...


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

Element6 #1 Posted 11 September 2014 - 03:54 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29936 battles
  • 10,394
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

@Garbad

 

I get that you have a firm grip on WoT game mechanics, meta-game and whatnot. I also get that you are an authority on game balance. I do not even try do deny that. There is no reason to deny that either. What I do not get is your complete lack of understanding your own position in the WoT community, and how utterly unimportant your opinions are. Let me explain;

 

You argue from a perspective of a good player, a good player that has some expectations for what WoT is/should be. Herein lies the problem, and source of much of the pointless arguing back and forth between the pro-artillery and con-artillery camps. It is quite understandable that you, with regards to your own expectations, argue for a less RNG based game that has no artillery class available. I completely get your arguements. If you had paid any attention to what I try to tell you you would without doubt know that I have never said a word about what needs to be done to artillery as a class, I have always attempted to make people see that there are factors at work that quite easily tells us with a high degree of certainty that artillery won't be removed as a class. It is directly related to expectations of WoT that  in numbers outweigh your own, likely by factors of 10.

 

I will never ever accept your statements like "Artillery is not fun to play, or play against, for 90% of the playerbase" over the fact that WG has not removed artillery from the game, despite massive raging on the forums and in-game chat. I am much more inclined to believe WG has some serious volumes of server statistics that tell a different story than you. If artillery was hated by 90% of the playerbase WG would be aware of it, and they would know it poses a threat to the "health" of WoT. Oddly enough, the game has seen an increase in playerbase size despite all this artillery rage. Does that tell you that your opinion is correct and that WG is completely wrong? If artillery as a class was causing a decline in players, I think we would see different tactics from WG. Sadly, for you, the playerbase has actually (and still is?) grown despite this "broken" mechanic.

 

Joe Average does not share your expectations for WoT. He is not aware of the finer details in this game, and he doesn't (likely) give a crap about a 5% tweak to some tanks statistics, which you do, and many other good players along with you. In this regard you are "correct", his views of game balance is of little importance. But, this game is not about to be blanaced for the good portion of the playerbase. It is balanced for the playerbase as a whole. Why would they tweak tanks so that they get within a certain WR % range if that wasn't the case? The WR % of a tank is not made up by the good players alone, it is made up by all the players in the playerbase that own and play said tank. WG isn't interested in balancing this game so that it becomes "good" for the good players, they are interested in balancing it so that it is enjoyable for the majority of the playerbase, and the majority of the playerbase has as many expectations for this game as the number of times you have inhaled air into your lungs since the day you were born.

 

Just to point out one expectation that differ from your own; mine.

I do not give a crap about stats, nor wether a given tank is OP or not (I'm likely not even good enough to exploit that anyway, nor is Joe Average). I like to play artillery, and I often find it hillarious if I take an artillery shell to the turret and insta-detonate while going down hill at 60 kph. You can tell me from here to etenrity how stupid that is, with regards to your own expextations, but I'll likely just completely ignore you because I wouldn't find the WoT you seek to be much fun.

 

That is just one expectation that differs from your own. There are about 74.999.999 other accounts out there. I can say with a high degree of certainty that the majority of those accounts do not share your views.

 

Then there are WG's expectations. What could those be? Have you ever pondered that? Is it likely that WG wants to make a game that is highly skill based (like WoWP that "no one" plays compared to WoT), a game that would be held in high regard in the professional gaming/competition cummunity (how many pro eSports teams were there for WoT again?), over a game that attracts the masses, has no defined stage at where it is to be considered a finished product, is expanded upon constantly with the inevitable rebalance that follows, and has about the same format as it had when it was first opened to the public? Which of these two formats do you think gives WG predictability towards income? Which format do you think attracts the masses?

 

Why on earth do you think that, despite all actions taken by WG, the majority of the playerbase share your views? Isn't it blatantly obvious that you will never get what you crave for the simple reason that WG fears a sizeable reduction in WoT's playerbase? These arguements have nothing to do with game knowledge, meta-game knowledge, balance knowledge or anything remotely related to stats and what constitutes the "right" to hold an opinion. It is easily observable by anyone who has a slight capacity to reason.

 

This game is, quite clearly, made for the masses that spend real world money, It is not made for the professional players. There are faaaaaar too many RNG elements in this game for any reasonable person to consider it a pro game. It is riddled with randomness that counter skill, and that tells you what? It opens up for people with little to no skill. That is the way this game is designed. It has managed to attract a very large playerbase. WoWP has not. WoWP is skill, WoT is randomness.

 

You have dug yourself so deep into the theorethical aspects of this game that you have completely lost the bigger picture. And the grasp on reality. 

 

 

TL;DR - Garbad is of the opinion that "most" players agree with him that artillery should be removed from the game. WG says that 80-95% of the players own and play artillery. Something doesn't add up.


Edited by RandomNonsenseGenerator, 13 September 2014 - 01:30 PM.


Animistic #2 Posted 11 September 2014 - 04:03 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 22017 battles
  • 386
  • [EFE] EFE
  • Member since:
    10-22-2010

Oh, more Garbad drama... you guys certainly are bloating his oversized pony shaped ego like a hot balloon, soon he will challenge Graf Zeppelin and cross the atlantic on his own. Though nothing wrong with it considering usual quality of these forums so atleast new fresh usually well written drama around.

 

Anyways, i heard rumours Garbad tried to go also introduce himself on RU forums, here is the result:

Spoiler


Element6 #3 Posted 11 September 2014 - 04:41 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29936 battles
  • 10,394
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostAnimistic, on 11 September 2014 - 05:03 PM, said:

Oh, more Garbad drama... you guys certainly are bloating his oversized pony shaped ego like a hot balloon, soon he will challenge Graf Zeppelin and cross the atlantic on his own. Though nothing wrong with it considering usual quality of these forums so atleast new fresh usually well written drama around.

Rofl, epic picture :)

 

Thing is, even repeated walls of texts that Garbad seems to misinterpret on purpose, are dismissed as being of "little to no consequence", without any reasonable explanation. And he misinterpret it to the extent that he completely fails to see what I'm trying to tell him. He thinks that when I mention Joe Average, I do so because I think that Joe Average's opinion of a game element is important, while what I try to convey to him is that no, his opinion is not important, but his expectations for the game are. If his expectations are not met sufficiently, he ceases to be a paying customer of WG. The issue here is that Garbad is so delusional that he thinks his view of what WoT should be like is shared by 90% of the players. On top of that he is of the opinion that his ideal version of the game is what should prevail, even if it would be risking a sizeable reduction of the WoT playerbase, despite things like 80% of players own artillery pieces. It doesn't even strike him as odd that that is the case when he holds the opinion that he does. Something doesn't add up and he fails to accept that.

 

He is a self centered crybaby that doesn't in any way understand that he is playing tanks in the local sandbox, along with his retired 80 year old neighbor, the ADHD kid on the other side of town, the pseudo-war-historian interested in tanks and not performance statistics. I look at Garbad and see Lionel Messi crying his eyes out that the nerfball team he's on doesn't aim for the pro league rather than just simply have some fun.

 

And the best part of it all?

Garbad is a good player that rages all the time over a product he uses constantly, wherein there are people that he despise for their gaming attitude, while at the same time he's failing completely to see that it is not unlikely that he is the one having a miserable gaming experience while the masses ignore him and tank on for fun. He is a good player located in the wrong game, because he thinks the game is something it is not.

 

 

 



Harland #4 Posted 12 September 2014 - 12:22 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 16648 battles
  • 450
  • Member since:
    07-26-2012

1. I don't trust WG more or less than any random guy on the internet. They have repeatedly shown that they are incapable of balancing the game.

 

2. So you think Garbad should stop voicing his opinion, just because you think the majority doesn't agree with him? If everybody would think like that democracy would be doomed... cause that's how it works: people voice their individual opinions against each other.

 

3. I can disagree with someone's opinion, no matter how provocatively he/she voices it, without getting upset. Can you?

 

4. You really think Garbad cares about what random forumites think of him or his views? This is not meant as an offense, but you are just a random guy on the internet to him, just like I'm just a random guy on the internet to you (or him, for that matter).



1ncompetenc3 #5 Posted 12 September 2014 - 02:22 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 37004 battles
  • 11,492
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013
Dat forum drama.

John_Preston #6 Posted 12 September 2014 - 02:44 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 17436 battles
  • 6,373
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012

Sooo...who's Garbad?

 

Also can i get a tl;dr version? Thread looks interesting, but no way i'm going to read all that.



yanunge #7 Posted 12 September 2014 - 10:34 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 13344 battles
  • 301
  • Member since:
    10-27-2012

View PostRandomNonsenseGenerator, on 11 September 2014 - 05:41 PM, said:

The issue here is that Garbad is so delusional that he thinks his view of what WoT should be like is shared by 90% of the players.

 

That sums it up in one phrase. Just another ordinary random human that falls into that trap. I'd rather read more stuff from Gooples.

 



VeryRisky #8 Posted 12 September 2014 - 02:38 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 17943 battles
  • 8,692
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-11-2012

If Garbad returns, we need to get Gooples in on the thread.



Element6 #9 Posted 12 September 2014 - 04:24 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29936 battles
  • 10,394
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostHarland, on 12 September 2014 - 01:22 AM, said:

1. I don't trust WG more or less than any random guy on the internet. They have repeatedly shown that they are incapable of balancing the game.

 

2. So you think Garbad should stop voicing his opinion, just because you think the majority doesn't agree with him? If everybody would think like that democracy would be doomed... cause that's how it works: people voice their individual opinions against each other.

 

3. I can disagree with someone's opinion, no matter how provocatively he/she voices it, without getting upset. Can you?

 

4. You really think Garbad cares about what random forumites think of him or his views? This is not meant as an offense, but you are just a random guy on the internet to him, just like I'm just a random guy on the internet to you (or him, for that matter).

1. You can trust one thing though; WG hasd not removed artillery due to loud voices on forums, even if they have been persisten for years. They are perfectly capable of balancing the game to suit their business model, though they might such hard at balancing the game with regards to a professional gamer. The professional gamer is, in this case, hopelessly outnumbered in the WoT playerbase and as such is not that important to WG. 

 

2. No, I do not think Garbad should stop voicing  his opinion, because his opinion is just as valid as mine or anyone elses's, because it is a personal opinion. On the other hand, in a democracy we go to vote, much the same as leaving statistical traces on WG's servers, and by those results we reach solutions. That is democracy. I'm simply saying that Garbad and his followers are a minority and thus have less to say in the overall WoT "politics". Tell me then, if Garbad has the correct knowledge to make this game "great", why hasn't WG listened to him and done some of the things he suggests? Could it be due to the fact that the user statistics on the servers tells WG a different story then the one Garbad is trying to convey? The key thing about a democracy is majority vote. Garbad has been at it for years it seems, and he is clearly not managing to rally a majority vote in this case.

 

3. I never even argue with any arty-hater regarding game mechanics or game balance, not even if an entire class are to be removed or not. And people fail to see that all the time, they think I do. What I do is try to point out that there is something that doesn't add up between the claims of the artillery haters and the actions of WG. If artillery was detrimental to the game in such a way that players left in numbers, WG would likely take action quickly. The playerbase is growing though, which tells WG that what the artillery haters say isn't true. They have server statistics on tank usage and frequency, they know infinitely more about the desires of the playerbase as a whole than any of us can attempt to claim.

 

4. Why would I be concerned about what he thinks of who other people regard him? That is completely irrelevant and not on my list of interests. I do not take offence by people saying that my opinion is just an opinion, when in reality is nothing more than logical deduction that is (should be) easily spotted. I never argue with him regarding game knowledge, I argue with him about how he perceives the playerbase compared to how WG perceives them. One of them is off by miles, and it's likely that in this case it is Garbad. If anything I get a good chuckle by people failing to see that, that at the same time try to insinuate that I shouldn't have a thing to say because I do not know the game mechanics intimately. Game mechanics are irrelevant if WG balances it's game on user statistics. 



Sylvansight #10 Posted 12 September 2014 - 04:32 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 29486 battles
  • 507
  • Member since:
    01-01-2013

View PostRandomNonsenseGenerator, on 12 September 2014 - 04:24 PM, said:

Game mechanics are irrelevant if WG balances it's game on user statistics. 

 

from reading FTR, I have the impression that WG mostly just look at overall winrate for a tank + how popular a tank is.

 

So you can get something which is broken when used correctly, then becomes popular with players who can't use it properly which ends up suppressing the overall WR, while the tank itself remains broken and unnoticed by WG - until players start complaining and bringing the issue to their attention.



VeryRisky #11 Posted 12 September 2014 - 04:39 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 17943 battles
  • 8,692
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-11-2012
In his posts here I didn't see much of his opinion on anything other than himself.

Sylvansight #12 Posted 12 September 2014 - 04:44 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 29486 battles
  • 507
  • Member since:
    01-01-2013

View PostVeryRisky, on 12 September 2014 - 04:39 PM, said:

In his posts here I didn't see much of his opinion on anything other than himself.

 

I'm talking about the general issue being raised (WG always know best), not a specific player (got to keep these threads constructive or they get binned right?)

 

WG, when given these (player-created) graphs for the first time were like 'oh cool, we'll investigate:

 

http://ftr.wot-news....nk-performance/

 

Note the bit:

"recent Storm statement that T57 Heavy dropped significantly in winrate and thus doesn’t need to be nerfed. "

 

9mths later = T57 Heavy is getting nerfed :)



Element6 #13 Posted 12 September 2014 - 04:52 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29936 battles
  • 10,394
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostSylvansight, on 12 September 2014 - 05:32 PM, said:

 

from reading FTR, I have the impression that WG mostly just look at overall winrate for a tank + how popular a tank is.

 

So you can get something which is broken when used correctly, then becomes popular with players who can't use it properly which ends up suppressing the overall WR, while the tank itself remains broken and unnoticed by WG - until players start complaining and bringing the issue to their attention.

That is probably why some tanks that previously received a nerf is later re-buffed, because it has in the meantime become popular by a different skill group within the playerbase than what caused the tank to be nerfed in the first place. Incidentally this means that it is impossible, when you mix any skill level like in random battles, to give a tank stats that will stick to it. Once a different group of players that among them have a different overall skill level than the one preceding them, starts playing the tank, adjustments are likely to be required. In theory, in this setup, any tank will need a nerf/buff, likely multiple of each, over a longer period of time. This is one of the issues with WoT that indicates it will never be a finished product, especially since they introduce new tank lines all the time, and change a tank's tier every now and then. This is also an idication that even after WoT has entered eSports, it's not going to be something they focus heavily on, since it seems this game isn't really suited for professional gaming in the first place.



Sylvansight #14 Posted 12 September 2014 - 04:56 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 29486 battles
  • 507
  • Member since:
    01-01-2013

View PostRandomNonsenseGenerator, on 12 September 2014 - 04:52 PM, said:

That is probably why some tanks that previously received a nerf is later re-buffed, because it has in the meantime become popular by a different skill group within the playerbase than what caused the tank to be nerfed in the first place.

 

 

possibly.  It's also possible that sometimes WG swing the nerfbat too hard and have to wait for 18mths of data to show that global WR for that tank is now down to 49% before re-re-balancing it :)



Masquerade717 #15 Posted 13 September 2014 - 09:54 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 3088 battles
  • 1,174
  • Member since:
    10-23-2013

View PostVeryRisky, on 12 September 2014 - 02:38 PM, said:

If Garbad returns, we need to get Gooples in on the thread.

^This



_Antipathy #16 Posted 13 September 2014 - 02:10 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 651 battles
  • 6,921
  • Member since:
    10-29-2013

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/09/02/hall-of-shame-garbad-edition/

 

It's just a arty-hater.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users