Jump to content


Sandbox - Making the game more "forgiving"

sandbox matchmaking

  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

Cpt_Hacks #1 Posted 06 September 2016 - 05:19 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 36900 battles
  • 70
  • Member since:
    10-07-2012

So, as you all well know one of the so called sandbox server's 4 main goals was to "Reduce the cost of players’ mistakes, giving them better chances of survival and stay longer in battle."

 

Or in other words, change the game in a way that camping in the corner of the map is not the only solution for rookie players who don't want to die instantly. So basically, Wargaming wanted to change the game in a way that the gap between experienced and new players becomes smaller, and the game gets more fun for the latter.

 

The only "problem" is, that a game has to get more luck-based in order get less skill-based. Just think about card games for example.

 

So, what Wargaming did in order to make the game less skill-based was nerfing accuracy - you need more luck to hit - and introducing a harsh penetration drop - to support "dumb" brawling instead of positional warfare.

 

And, surprise, surprise! The experienced players were fed up when they started testing on sandbox - including myself. :angry:

 

These are the facts, and what's coming next is only up to SERB and the Russian community. :P

 

But this is what I think:

1. If Wargaming wants to enhance the survivability of tanks, why don't they just - let's say - duplicate the tanks' HP or halve the tanks' alpha? It ain't rocket science is it? Yeah, it sounds dumb, but no frustration cause of all the non-penetrating hits. Mission accomplished. :medal:

2. If the game is not literally a coin-flip better players will always do better and club rookies. What's more there are many games on the market that are much more cruel for new players than WoT is. But, of course, there is a method to fix the issue if WG is so inclined. The good old skill based matchmaking, which divides players into classes, leagues or how you want to call it. If you do too well, you jump a level up, if you do bad you jump a level down, and it is guaranteed that you will always find the challenge. And yes, the matchmaker should also take into account your tank, equipment and crew so that a full-spec E-25 won't get a stock SU-100M1 as opponent. I heard so many times from you that this MM would not work, but please, I want to see it for myself. (Don't get me wrong I like the current MM where I can deny totally clewless players. :trollface:)

 

That's all, feel free to leave comments, share your thoughts, call me an idiot, all the usual stuff.

 

And, as always: have fun on the battlefields!



Grimdorf #2 Posted 06 September 2016 - 06:07 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 11658 battles
  • 1,919
  • Member since:
    11-26-2012

Point 1 is worth a try on the sandbox imo, making it take more shots on average to kill a tank would certainly extned the game time and make simple mistakes less drastic.

 

Point 2 is moot, never going to happen regardless of the pro's and con's. WoT is designed to have a crap load of random elements to level the field.



Pandabird #3 Posted 06 September 2016 - 09:13 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 40005 battles
  • 4,757
  • [KOFF] KOFF
  • Member since:
    05-19-2013
Problem is that money matters and we are powerless against financial decisions. I have done what i can by reducing my financial support by 100% since two years back as well as provided regular feedback and constructive criticism and suggestions. Yet these dumbification changes keep happening. They simply don't want my money.

So why care, spend money elsewhere until they come crawling on their knees, good players can play for free anyways.

_maxdz_ #4 Posted 06 September 2016 - 09:40 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 5809 battles
  • 105
  • Member since:
    04-01-2016

View PostCpt_Hacks, on 06 September 2016 - 05:19 PM, said:

...The good old skill based matchmaking, which divides players into classes, leagues or how you want to call it. If you do too well, you jump a level up, if you do bad you jump a level down, and it is guaranteed that you will always find the challenge. 

 

Yes, this would be a nice soluton. Current "3-tiers" mm solves problems of fast gathering players for next match, even if there are not many players on server (say 20k and less) - skillbased mm may take long time in such a situation. But for time when there are many people (like 30k+) on server, fast matching using skill-based mm shouldn't be a big problem.



_maxdz_ #5 Posted 06 September 2016 - 09:47 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 5809 battles
  • 105
  • Member since:
    04-01-2016

View PostGrimdorf, on 06 September 2016 - 06:07 PM, said:

Point 1 is worth a try on the sandbox imo, making it take more shots on average to kill a tank would certainly extned the game time and make simple mistakes less drastic.

 

Point 2 is moot, never going to happen regardless of the pro's and con's. WoT is designed to have a crap load of random elements to level the field.

 

Skill-based mm will have random element too - because of wide range of ladder. Say, (very simplified example): for the same "3-tiers" sistem, skill-based mm could add skill as an average made+assisted damage per game. And ladders could be like 0..750, 500..1250, 750....1500, 1000...1750, 1250..2000, 1500+

 

Thus a lot of people will be coming in 2 different ladders.



Coldspell #6 Posted 06 September 2016 - 10:19 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 20976 battles
  • 2,139
  • [CAVIA] CAVIA
  • Member since:
    08-12-2013
I am just hoping the sandbox will be like other WG promises and take years to implement 

omgdontkillme #7 Posted 06 September 2016 - 10:45 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 40364 battles
  • 409
  • Member since:
    03-20-2015

Want the newbs to have more fun? Want the newbs to enjoy more?

 

- increase hp pool for all tanks

or

- reduce huge alpha dmg (once got killed by 4 shots in my Maus and im experienced player and couldnt avoid that. What are newbs supposed to do against that?)

or

- limit arty dmg / limit arty module dmg (max X amount of modules / crew can be damaged).

or

- mild nerf  for meds across the board ( too good compared to all other tank classes )

or

- change speed for tanks ( slow down meds / lights / tds ) or ( lower the speed punishment for tanks with big armor) .

 

There are so many ways to make the game more enjoyable for newbs without alienating the vets.

 

PS : Why not add description to a tank, if its hard / average or easy to play it? So newbs avoid painfull experience with unforgiving tanks. Just off topic note.


Edited by omgdontkillme, 06 September 2016 - 10:48 PM.


Hyster #8 Posted 06 September 2016 - 11:02 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 27584 battles
  • 598
  • Member since:
    02-14-2012

I like but dt like skill based MM

I'm principal MM Is a good idea but we all know how easy it is to manipulate WN8


 

I also think meds need a nerf

guns with as good or better alpha than most heavys

more accurate than heavys

in some case's more effective armour than heavys


 

in my view a med should not be able to take on a heavy frontally and win, meds should be about manoeuvrability, supporting friendly heavys by trying to flank enemy heavys



_Grim_ #9 Posted 06 September 2016 - 11:08 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22990 battles
  • 1,427
  • [-DFA-] -DFA-
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostHyster, on 07 September 2016 - 12:02 AM, said:

guns with as good or better alpha than most heavys

 

Citation needed.

Velvet_Underground #10 Posted 06 September 2016 - 11:17 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 22243 battles
  • 3,195
  • Member since:
    12-19-2014

View Postomgdontkillme, on 06 September 2016 - 10:45 PM, said:

- mild nerf  for meds across the board ( too good compared to all other tank classes )

 

Ehm... at which tier?

brumbarr #11 Posted 07 September 2016 - 12:55 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 40078 battles
  • 6,326
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostHyster, on 06 September 2016 - 11:02 PM, said:

I like but dt like skill based MM

I'm principal MM Is a good idea but we all know how easy it is to manipulate WN8


 

I also think meds need a nerf

guns with as good or better alpha than most heavys

more accurate than heavys

in some case's more effective armour than heavys


 

in my view a med should not be able to take on a heavy frontally and win, meds should be about manoeuvrability, supporting friendly heavys by trying to flank enemy heavys

Meds can not engage a heavy frontally and win. 



Kdingo #12 Posted 07 September 2016 - 01:20 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 31984 battles
  • 7,372
  • Member since:
    07-05-2011

Whoever is responsible for sandbox he should ask himself one question. Why do all esl games wg features have teams that spam prem ammo?

The answer is simple, to lower rng as much as possible, cause rng is bad in any competetive play.


With this knowledge in mind, why would anyone sane increase rng (accuracy is part of that) even more? 

From what has leaked so far from sandbox it looks far more like an "EA" attempt to dumb down a game instead of an attempt to improve it.

So the result of sandbox may look like this:


"Battlefield of tanks - the 2 braincell edition"



Coldspell #13 Posted 07 September 2016 - 03:48 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 20976 battles
  • 2,139
  • [CAVIA] CAVIA
  • Member since:
    08-12-2013

View PostGundam_Zero_X, on 07 September 2016 - 12:20 AM, said:

Whoever is responsible for sandbox he should ask himself one question. Why do all esl games wg features have teams that spam prem ammo?

The answer is simple, to lower rng as much as possible, cause rng is bad in any competetive play.


With this knowledge in mind, why would anyone sane increase rng (accuracy is part of that) even more? 

From what has leaked so far from sandbox it looks far more like an "EA" attempt to dumb down a game instead of an attempt to improve it.

So the result of sandbox may look like this:


"Battlefield of tanks - the 2 braincell edition"

 

Forget EA this is a Sega level attempt to dumb down a game, once sega buy into a strategy franchise they systematically dumb down each new incarnation..... to the point where A total war game on launch looked like it was designed to be played on tablets and smartphones.... (Rome 2).



Kdingo #14 Posted 07 September 2016 - 04:24 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 31984 battles
  • 7,372
  • Member since:
    07-05-2011

Sega was publisher number one since total war games started, so you cant really say they dumbed the franchise down (keep in mind rome 1 was already published by sega and hardly dumbed down). Rome 2 has been dumbed down cause CA thought its a good idea, sega was just partialy responsible for the "faked" video footage that looked kinda 10 times better then the actual graphics on release.

Sega is far less of a bad publisher then EA, EA is simply trying to ruin games. Every game. Im pretty sure wargaming already received a letter in which EA offered them to buy out their company for quick coins. If EA would run WoT it would be full of retarded popup achievements for every second you play, while also offering a ripoff ingame shop that only accepts blood or organs as currency. And off course prem ammo would be 10 times as good and 50 times as expensive and only available if you buy crates in which they drop randomly.



TankkiPoju #15 Posted 07 September 2016 - 06:37 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 25335 battles
  • 7,776
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

Not only did WG try nerfing accuracy, they also made most tanks slower. Because if the game is slower in general especially in high tiers, newbie players have more time to actually think what they are doing. But the problem with both nerfing accuracy and making the game slower is it also lowers the skill cap: Good players can't p0wn bad players if their tanks are slower and shells miss more.

 

I think these sandbox ideas are just plain terrible, and will make the game even more arcade. Also, duplicating tank hit points and/or lowering alpha will also make the game more arcade like. Also a terrible idea.

 

The main point of this is good players should be able to p0wn. If you remove this aspect from the game, there is no incentive to git gud anymore, which means players have no motivation to grind high tiers: Many players play the game because they have goals to get good. That's the motivation they have. It would be a bad mistake to remove that motivation.



Soifon99 #16 Posted 07 September 2016 - 08:04 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 41228 battles
  • 422
  • [KITTY] KITTY
  • Member since:
    01-21-2013

The problem with skill based mm is that every game will be a challenge..but wargaming wants some games to be fun and easy.. sort of seal clubbing so the bad player feels better about himself..  and yes i do enjoy the seal club now and then.. but when every game is a challenge around your own skill leven it would not be fun..  i have 2340 wn8.. i would not like it if i have to play against 15 blue players all the time.. i would be drained of energy after 10 hard matches where everyone is a good player...

 

so no..  skill based mm will not work.. for diff reasons..

 

tho -1 +1 mm will work!..  it will make the game more noob friendly and less frustrating..   



TankkiPoju #17 Posted 07 September 2016 - 08:15 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 25335 battles
  • 7,776
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

View PostSoifon99, on 07 September 2016 - 08:04 AM, said:

so no..  skill based mm will not work.. for diff reasons..

 

tho -1 +1 mm will work!..  it will make the game more noob friendly and less frustrating..   

 

I agree with this fully. +2/-2 MM is absolutely retarded especially for new players.

 

I have no idea what WG is even thinking putting new players against KV-1s and O-i Exps suddenly on tier 3, and not even explain why this happens. It's like they don't even want new players to the game.

 



vixu #18 Posted 07 September 2016 - 09:19 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 46473 battles
  • 3,891
  • [-AWF-] -AWF-
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View PostCpt_Hacks, on 06 September 2016 - 05:19 PM, said:

 

But this is what I think:

1. If Wargaming wants to enhance the survivability of tanks, why don't they just - let's say - duplicate the tanks' HP or halve the tanks' alpha? It ain't rocket science is it? Yeah, it sounds dumb, but no frustration cause of all the non-penetrating hits. Mission accomplished. :medal:

Cause, one of the main causes of high cost of exposure mistakes for tanks (i.e. getting blasted out of the field while picking over the top) is that everything in this game is going to penetrate you, just add silver into the barrel. Different classes of tanks are relying on armor value on different levels. Tanks that compromised every other stat for armor should have the benefit of bouncing the shots. Increasing HP is not the same. Having big HP pool and a air-gun will not make your opponent to go around you. They will just be in front of you for a bit longer taking you apart. Having a non-pen armor in front will make your opponents try to go somewhere else. 

 

2. If the game is not literally a coin-flip better players will always do better and club rookies. What's more there are many games on the market that are much more cruel for new players than WoT is. But, of course, there is a method to fix the issue if WG is so inclined. The good old skill based matchmaking, which divides players into classes, leagues or how you want to call it. If you do too well, you jump a level up, if you do bad you jump a level down, and it is guaranteed that you will always find the challenge. And yes, the matchmaker should also take into account your tank, equipment and crew so that a full-spec E-25 won't get a stock SU-100M1 as opponent. I heard so many times from you that this MM would not work, but please, I want to see it for myself. (Don't get me wrong I like the current MM where I can deny totally clewless players. :trollface:)

 

Why is it so hard to project such a system on paper, just to see how "well" it will work? Even if we dont take the technicalities into account and that wait queues will be huge just to satisfy the particular MM requirements. Cant you see, that once you put the players into different leagues, you will loose the common stats basis, which will render the whole system useless.

 

That's all, feel free to leave comments, share your thoughts, call me an idiot, all the usual stuff.

 

And, as always: have fun on the battlefields!

 

 



tajj7 #19 Posted 07 September 2016 - 09:31 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29334 battles
  • 17,558
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

They did reduce alpha, JPE100 and Deathstar alpha's went down, the E3 lost the 750 gun, the 750 alpha guns went down to 700 and all the arty alphas went down.

 

They just laddled too much and too many changes, the most silly ones being the penetration nerfs and accuracy changes which are totally unneeded and massively harm tanks like the 50b, Cent AX, Fatton, Leopard 1 etc. those tanks need to be to able to reliably pen and kill tanks from medium ranges, not get into massive close range brawls.

 

They should (and hope they do going forward) forget about the accuracy and pen over distance nerfs, leave standard penetration as is and instead stick with their other plans -

 

If they stuck with 

 

1. Reduce high alpha guns (TDs and arty mainly)

2. Nerf arty

3. Change premium ammo to a lower penetration value (on tier 10 so 330 - 340 pen HEAT becomes 290-300) and at the same time reduce the damage of premium rounds (20-25% damage reduction) 

 

Then you'd increase suitability without massively dumbing down the game.

 

The idea was sound enough but they went far too far, making heavy tanks near idiot proof and making it so whole classes of vehicles couldn't do their role. 



Anthony_1972 #20 Posted 07 September 2016 - 09:44 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 11089 battles
  • 172
  • Member since:
    03-29-2016

I agree that -1/+1 Matchmaking would help enormously to make the game more forgiving. 

 

The other problem is the one-hit kills.   That has a lot to do with the stupid alpha/hitpoints system.  

Why does a tier 6 tank has more than double the hitpoints as a tier 4 tank?   For example 600 HP for the Jagdpanzer IV vs. 270 HP for the Hetzer !     This simply means that the Hetzer has almost no chance, regardless if it has a skillful player.   I've had it many times in games that I played my Hetzer much more skillful than the enemy tank did his.   But with such a difference in HP, it is a very unfair match.   I needed to hit and penetrate twice as much.  Thus be twice as skilled, to kill the tier 6 tank!   That simply doesn't make sense.

 

There is no good reason for an increase in HP per tier.   That's only necessary, because WoT has given all tanks far too powerful (and non-historic) guns, so that armor is irrelevant.   And as a result, a tank becomes a heavy tank due to its HP, and not it's armor.    And because WoT gives absurdly high alpha damage to large caliber guns, they then had to increase the HP's per tier.

 

Remove the high alpha silliness, and you don't need to increase the HP per tier.   And then you immediately make the game more newbie friendly.  Because then they can also take a few hits in their tier 4, and not just the experienced player in his tier 6.

 

 

Remove the non-historical guns.  Remove the insane alpha.    Reduce HP difference.

 

 

 

 







Also tagged with sandbox, matchmaking

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users