Jump to content


WG "does not consider artillery to be a problem"


  • Please log in to reply
414 replies to this topic

jabster #321 Posted 11 April 2015 - 05:29 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12660 battles
  • 25,347
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostBlue_Badger, on 11 April 2015 - 04:20 PM, said:

 

Rita's blog, as per the OP. The new official source of WG info after SS quit. 

 

Have you got aa link as I'm not sure in what context it was said or indeed how reliable it is?

 

Edit - the quote from the Op I don't put much store in as statement that says arty is fine but has issue we should solve doesn't mean that the devs think arty is broken.

 


Edited by jabster, 11 April 2015 - 05:33 PM.


Arty_Loves_You #322 Posted 11 April 2015 - 05:33 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 33869 battles
  • 3,565
  • Member since:
    05-10-2013

View Postjabster, on 11 April 2015 - 04:29 PM, said:

 

Have you got the link as I'm not sure in what context it was said or indeed how reliable it is?

 

http://ritastatusreport.blogspot.nl/2015/04/08042015-q.html

 

And

 

http://ritastatusreport.blogspot.nl/2015/04/07042015-q.html


Edited by Arty_Loves_You, 11 April 2015 - 05:34 PM.


jabster #323 Posted 11 April 2015 - 05:35 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12660 battles
  • 25,347
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

 

ta ... Looks a bit more interesting.

Blue_Badger #324 Posted 11 April 2015 - 05:35 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 14731 battles
  • 2,440
  • [3VS27] 3VS27
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

View Postjabster, on 11 April 2015 - 04:29 PM, said:

 

Have you got aa link as I'm not sure in what context it was said or indeed how reliable it is?

 

Edit - the quote from the Op I don't put much store in as statement that says arty is fine but has issue we should solve doesn't mean that the devs think arty is broken.

 

 

The quote from the OP was paraphrased to suit his agenda. The full quote is in the links Arty_Loves_you posted or can be found later on in this thread. 

jabster #325 Posted 11 April 2015 - 05:39 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12660 battles
  • 25,347
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostBlue_Badger, on 11 April 2015 - 04:35 PM, said:

 

The quote from the OP was paraphrased to suit his agenda. The full quote is in the links Arty_Loves_you posted or can be found later on in this thread. 

 

Yeh I've seen the full quote but as I say that's not the devs think it's broken.

Element6 #326 Posted 11 April 2015 - 05:45 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 31216 battles
  • 11,371
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostBlue_Badger, on 11 April 2015 - 05:20 PM, said:

The complaint against arty is the same from all corners, only the suggestions from the players vary. WG needs to address the complaint however they see fit, that is their job as developers. It doesn't change the fact that there is a issue with artillery.

 

WG are saying they are looking into solving it, not me. WG have stated there is an problem. So so far you are either lying or being willfully ignorant on WG's position on this. 

 

Also, that swimming pool analogy makes no sense whatsoever. As someone who has worked in a swimming pool the issue is this:

 

Too much chlorine and all normal people get burned. (I.e everyone who playes tier 8+ regularly, as per mine and Mungo's argument)

Too little and all people get could get sick. (I.e the removal of arty, which we don't really want. It's less bad than having too much of it in, but overall still bad)

There will always be some odd folk who are allergic to it but that's their problem not the swimming pool's. Trying to pander to them will harm everyone elses bathing to  the point it will harm the owner of the swimming pool. (The arty defenders who play tier 8+ )

 

And how about that. Suddenly the analogy makes sense.

 

Tier 8+ arty needs changed so that it is not game breaking. Below tier 8 it needs made more playable because it sucks.

 

So there we have it. You last bastion of foolishness is gone. You can no longer hide behind "but WG aren't doing anything" because they are. THEY said so. Not me. problem exists ---> problem will be solved.

 

I have never claimed to know the solution, only the current issues. 

The swimmingpool anology...yes.

 

My point was, not surprised you missed it, that people's desires are not neccessarily what is best for them. I.E, you do not grind much faster in artillery than you do in other tanks, yet people do it. Not because it is best for them, but because they want to. There will always exist people who would like to swim in a pool with too little cholrine, despite the fact that it can make them sick, because it is more comfortable. People like to drive fast in their cars, or at least some of them, despite the fact that lethality increases exponentially in an accident. What we argue about here are people's desires. Yes, it might technically be "best" for me to grind tanks in a game without artillery, as it might let me live longer and earn more XP, but that is not neccessarily what I desire.

 

I take it you are aware that your take on the swimming pool anology is founded in reseach relating to the health of a human being, right, not it's desires?

 

Saying that you are looking into a problem isn't the same as saying you will be able to find a solution that doesn't impact the players idea of the game. Herein lies perhaps the reluctance to take action? I'm not hiding behind anything, I am asking questions that people do not want to speculate about.

 

When and if the issue is "solved", we'll surely see a lot of threads on the forums like "What did we say?" It's going to be a fun read :)



Blue_Badger #327 Posted 11 April 2015 - 05:45 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 14731 battles
  • 2,440
  • [3VS27] 3VS27
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

View Postjabster, on 11 April 2015 - 04:39 PM, said:

 

Yeh I've seen the full quote but as I say that's not the devs think it's broken.

 

Corporate/ political speak. By claiming there is no issue they absolve themselves of blame and make it purely the player's issue. Which is only half true. Player issue = WG issue. Most big bodies do it

 

"We are fixing something" means "something is broken". There is no confusion on this in the English language. 



zakiscool #328 Posted 11 April 2015 - 05:50 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 703 battles
  • 115
  • Member since:
    12-10-2012

View PostBlue_Badger, on 11 April 2015 - 04:35 PM, said:

 

The quote from the OP was paraphrased to suit his agenda. The full quote is in the links Arty_Loves_you posted or can be found later on in this thread. 

 

i think you'll find what i said is absolutely correct........WG does not consider arty to be a problem.........what i take from the rest is the are looking to solve 'a problem'......it does not say what the problem is..............the problem may be that WG are sick of all the whiny bitches

jabster #329 Posted 11 April 2015 - 05:51 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12660 battles
  • 25,347
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostBlue_Badger, on 11 April 2015 - 04:45 PM, said:

 

Corporate/ political speak. By claiming there is no issue they absolve themselves of blame and make it purely the player's issue. Which is only half true. Player issue = WG issue. Most big bodies do it

 

"We are fixing something" means "something is broken". There is no confusion on this in the English language. 

 

 

Saying that something could be improved/needs to be improved does not mean something is broken. You seem to be reading into their statements what you want to believe.



RogDodgeUK #330 Posted 11 April 2015 - 05:51 PM

    Player

  • Player
  • 10827 battles
  • 1,627
  • Member since:
    01-19-2013

View PostEvil_Mungo, on 11 April 2015 - 01:35 PM, said:

I'm out of this thread.

 

What can clearly be seen is that better gamers that want to maximise the potential of this game are willing to discuss changes and explain issues to other forumites as best as they can.  They are met with absolute morons of the highest order that don't even try to engage in civil debate.  We are met with dishonest posters like Element6 pretending to be neutral while constantly nit-picking and lying about the issue, posters like Bloodrose or RogDodge who are clearly so woefully uninformed about the game they play and simple logical processes that it's virtually impossible to have any sort of real dicussion with them at all, or TalkinJibberish who's sole contributions to the discussion are 'I've had a poo' or 'blah blah blah' in response to a reasoned argument.  No doubt I'll be labelled an elitist for not taking Talkinjibberish's comments with the same value as I would a normal person's.  

 

These are your peers, arty defenders.  These are the type of people that defend arty.

 

You have not offered anything tangible to this thread from the beginning anyway. Your posts make is quite clear why you do not like arty, even if others cannot see it in your posts,I can and thus you have just followed the time honored tradition of arty haters by whining and moaning that you want arty changed so YOU can better your individual performance. For over 3 years now this forum has been inundated with whiners and moaners about arty and it always come back to the same thing, those doing the complaining are the ones who care more about their stats and own performance. A few years back WG, under pressure from the whiners and moans did a major balance of arty. This had the knock on effect of making TD's look over powered so some TD's got re-balanced and now here we are again with players complaining about arty and the same argument, the same charts are used time and time again to try and justify their arguments that arty needs to be re-balanced AGAIN. 

 

Arty works and it always has but many refuse to comment to support it because as seen in this thread and many before it, anit-arty players use verbal abuse as a weapon to silence others. The only reason WG will re-balance arty again is because they are worried too many players will leave the game, nothing more, nothing less



zakiscool #331 Posted 11 April 2015 - 05:52 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 703 battles
  • 115
  • Member since:
    12-10-2012

View PostBlue_Badger, on 11 April 2015 - 04:45 PM, said:

 

Corporate/ political speak. By claiming there is no issue they absolve themselves of blame and make it purely the player's issue. Which is only half true. Player issue = WG issue. Most big bodies do it

 

"We are fixing something" means "something is broken". There is no confusion on this in the English language. 

 

so where does it say they are fixing something??

zakiscool #332 Posted 11 April 2015 - 05:52 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 703 battles
  • 115
  • Member since:
    12-10-2012

View Postjabster, on 11 April 2015 - 04:51 PM, said:

 

 

Saying that something could be improved/needs to be improved does not mean something is broken. You seem to be reading into their statements what you want to believe.

 

thats arty haters for ya

Blue_Badger #333 Posted 11 April 2015 - 05:53 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 14731 battles
  • 2,440
  • [3VS27] 3VS27
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

View PostElement6, on 11 April 2015 - 04:45 PM, said:

The swimmingpool anology...yes.

 

My point was, not surprised you missed it, that people's desires are not neccessarily what is best for them. I.E, you do not grind much faster in artillery than you do in other tanks, yet people do it. Not because it is best for them, but because they want to. There will always exist people who would like to swim in a pool with too little cholrine, despite the fact that it can make them sick, because it is more comfortable. People like to drive fast in their cars, or at least some of them, despite the fact that lethality increases exponentially in an accident. What we argue about here are people's desires. Yes, it might technically be "best" for me to grind tanks in a game without artillery, as it might let me live longer and earn more XP, but that is not neccessarily what I desire.

 

I take it you are aware that your take on the swimming pool anology is founded in reseach relating to the health of a human being, right, not it's desires?

 

Saying that you are looking into a problem isn't the same as saying you will be able to find a solution that doesn't impact the players idea of the game. Herein lies perhaps the reluctance to take action? I'm not hiding behind anything, I am asking questions that people do not want to speculate about.

 

When and if the issue is "solved", we'll surely see a lot of threads on the forums like "What did we say?" It's going to be a fun read :)

 

Oi, that's my point!

 

This is why most successful games developers listen to the players who understand the game, i.e the best ones. Name a single issue this game has faced the good players haven't spotted first. 

 

Most people don't know what's best for them. That's why you listen to the professionals, be they gamers or skin biologists. You may note that all sin biologists have a united opinion on what conc. of chlorine is safe. You may also note that the opinion on artillery for unica is unified also. 

 

SC2 has the same development approach. Blizzard (or whoever) aks the pro gamers for feedback on patch notes and future releases. The gamers tell them what they think and the game is adjusted accordingly. Some among the wider community protest at the time but overall the game is left in a better state. 

 

Please note: I'm not unica or pro. I just wave the banner as it were. 



Blue_Badger #334 Posted 11 April 2015 - 05:58 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 14731 battles
  • 2,440
  • [3VS27] 3VS27
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

View Postjabster, on 11 April 2015 - 04:51 PM, said:

 

 

Saying that something could be improved/needs to be improved does not mean something is broken. You seem to be reading into their statements what you want to believe.

 

Did you actually read what they said?

 

"We are looking into solving the issue". Issue implies problem, not simply room for improvement. We had this convo in the first half of the thread. I'm sorry you missed the opportunity to add your opinion then. I'm just relaying the outcome.

 

Also a "need" implies a problem too. 

 

Do you even English brah? 



Element6 #335 Posted 11 April 2015 - 06:05 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 31216 battles
  • 11,371
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostBlue_Badger, on 11 April 2015 - 05:53 PM, said:

 

Oi, that's my point!

 

This is why most successful games developers listen to the players who understand the game, i.e the best ones. Name a single issue this game has faced the good players haven't spotted first. 

 

Most people don't know what's best for them. That's why you listen to the professionals, be they gamers or skin biologists. You may note that all sin biologists have a united opinion on what conc. of chlorine is safe. You may also note that the opinion on artillery for unica is unified also. 

 

SC2 has the same development approach. Blizzard (or whoever) aks the pro gamers for feedback on patch notes and future releases. The gamers tell them what they think and the game is adjusted accordingly. Some among the wider community protest at the time but overall the game is left in a better state. 

 

Please note: I'm not unica or pro. I just wave the banner as it were. 

You will always get to a point where there is room for improvement, according to good players that know a lot about the game, but such an improvement is not guaranteed to be liked by people. Thing is, related to the cholrine and and researchers, a researched can find what is best for your organism, but your desires doesn't need to be in line with what is best for you organism. Alcohol is a prime example. It is very bad for you in high dosages, yet people go out on the weekends and has to be dragged home by their friends. They even know that it is harmful to them before they start drinking, they might even agree with the scientists, but they still do it out of desire. If there is no room for desire but only what is technically best for you...expect people to get bored. Prohibition era in the US is a testiment to this. They removed alcohol, and people brought it back again themselves, despite breaking the law. And today, in my country, aclohol is a major influence on people's health, yet it is sold to any and all citicens that have passed the age of 18. Why doesn't society listen to the expets, researchers, and adhere to their suggestions? Because they do not want to.

 

That is mybe why a unified unica distaste for artillery is not automatically shared by all players. It has something to do with what your goals in this game are. Unica goals are, for example, likely to differ from mine.

 

And that they can attempt to "fix" with game mechanics all they want.



jabster #336 Posted 11 April 2015 - 06:11 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12660 battles
  • 25,347
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostBlue_Badger, on 11 April 2015 - 04:58 PM, said:

 

Did you actually read what they said?

 

"We are looking into solving the issue". Issue implies problem, not simply room for improvement. We had this convo in the first half of the thread. I'm sorry you missed the opportunity to add your opinion then. I'm just relaying the outcome.

 

Also a "need" implies a problem too. 

 

Do you even English brah? 

 

Issue does not mean broken does it. For someone who bangs on about understanding English, yours is pretty woeful. Frankly your come across as a bit of thick deluded [edited]. Have you considered organ donation?

 

Edit - the filter removed the tw*t part.


Edited by jabster, 11 April 2015 - 06:18 PM.


blickoo #337 Posted 11 April 2015 - 06:25 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 56262 battles
  • 107
  • Member since:
    06-24-2011

I think the solution to arty is not  to remove it completely but to restrict it. all arty above tier 5 should be removed, being nuked by high tier artys is no fun at all.

Arty adds a element of caution to the game but once you get beyond tier 5 arty is way to powerful, think how much more enjoyable the game would be in the higher tiers  if you knew that you wouldn't be obliterated by OP arty. Tier 5 arty can still do significant damage to tier x tanks.



Blue_Badger #338 Posted 11 April 2015 - 06:27 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 14731 battles
  • 2,440
  • [3VS27] 3VS27
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

View Postjabster, on 11 April 2015 - 05:11 PM, said:

 

Issue does not mean broken does it. For someone who bangs on about understanding English, yours is pretty woeful. Frankly your come across as a bit of thick deluded [edited]. Have you considered organ donation?

 

Edit - the filter removed the tw*t part.

 

Ok, so it doesn't mean "broken", but it does mean problem, which is the whole point. 

_b_ #339 Posted 11 April 2015 - 06:37 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 56726 battles
  • 4,155
  • Member since:
    04-06-2011

Could be just a coincidence ... but having checked what tanks and tiers ppl play ... those saying that nothing need to be done and arty isn't broken at all ... they don't play any tanks affected by them much :D

 

Like close to 1/3 of total in pz1c last 1k battles or 1/2 low/mid tier td's .... no wonder arty isn't an issue at all :D



XPuntar #340 Posted 11 April 2015 - 06:39 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14529 battles
  • 1,967
  • Member since:
    08-19-2012

FFS this is just retarded

 

4 battles in Hummel and not even one with damage done with direct hits  and mostly only because of that stupid RNG

 

dafuck is this 24 shots and only 4 damage done (by splash) total in all those battles

 

HTF I can actually do anything when RNG so heavily influence your contribution and I manage 5 shots at max per battle






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users