Jump to content


What happened in the last 12 months till today

nothing

  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

Jigabachi #21 Posted 30 November 2016 - 10:57 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17858 battles
  • 18,479
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostGkirmathal, on 30 November 2016 - 10:54 AM, said:

OFF TOPIC, but on his first point, technically it might be easy. Could be just two variable changes in a DB..

Yes, THAT would be easy, but keep in mind that globally changing an important balance variable would require a whole rat's tail of balancing work.



Gkirmathal #22 Posted 30 November 2016 - 11:19 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8125 battles
  • 1,492
  • Member since:
    01-14-2013

View PostJigabachi, on 30 November 2016 - 09:57 AM, said:

Yes, THAT would be easy, but keep in mind that globally changing an important balance variable would require a whole rat's tail of balancing work.

 

I hear you and that is a thing to be considered indeed. Might be a good case to build a Sandbox server on, to really test this large, the effects and be able to make clear where it needs, or not, adjusting.



HundeWurst #23 Posted 30 November 2016 - 11:43 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 67720 battles
  • 4,275
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

Well was this not supposed to be the year of fixing the game? Close to a year ago there was this "Cyprus meeting" thing and all the fancy stuff was discussed. Arty needed a rework, lights as well, maps might need some adjustments, balancing at an all time low... All these things were discussed.

So what was the first step Wargaming made happen after that meeting? Buff the IS6. Its like spitting in the face of every single player who was interested in the development of the game.

Well ok after all the impact of that buff was not all that great.

Now on a positive side they actually developed the engine a lot. They updated the stoneage based engine to something which could be considerer around the peek of the Roman Empire. We are getting places. It is a good and needed change, however had little to no impact on the gameplay.

Then Wargaming proceeded to add quit a lot of know mods into their vanilla client. Yet again another just cosmetic change. While nice it still did not change or adress ANY of the core problems players have with this game. It is a mere treatment of the symptoms, not even that, just a thing to overshadow the still existent problems.

The SandBox was somewhere inbetween... The only good thing coming from that was the fact that even Wargaming understood that close to nobody liked their ideas, most even "hated" them. After that it was #RIP SandBox. They did not even try again. Maybe they do. But besides the arty changes they just adjusted already implemented game mechanics or parameters. No one can explain why it took them 6 !!SIX!! month to come up with another idea.

Now if you want to go back in time... Wargaming already promised an arty overhaul back when Armored Warfare went into closed beta and it looked promising. That is 18 month ago. Since then NOTHING has changed. I am not the guy who says something like "Easy way to fix arty..." stuff as I am well aware that complex problems need complex solutions which might take a while to come up with. However one cannot justify a single change to arty in 18 month. Even some more temporarily changes might have helped already but NOTHING has happened till this day.

And to top it all of Wargaming wanted to release the Swedish tanks as some kind of a Christmas gift. However in order to make the Swedish tier 10 tank destroyer, which by the way should be a medium tank to begin with, valid they decided to change a core game mechanic just for that: The overmatching:

Just to make 3 or 4 tanks a valid choise they decided to change this core mechanic. However they also decided to COMPLETLY ingnore the MAJOR impact this change has on all the existing tanks. This is showcasing Wargamings incompetence in a nutshell. They dont know what they are doing. As far as I understood they pulled the "new" overmatch mechanics from the testserver right now. So now we have a completely useless tier 10 Swedish tank destroyer. Well all things considered this is still better than another even more screwed up game balance for all the other tanks.


Edited by WundeWurst, 30 November 2016 - 11:46 AM.


HeidenSieker #24 Posted 30 November 2016 - 11:50 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 10046 battles
  • 4,648
  • Member since:
    03-26-2016

View PostGkirmathal, on 29 November 2016 - 12:44 PM, said:

HeidenSieker, see you started in 2016?

 

( 8< )

 

Has he outgrown WoT, I think not as the game has not grown. It evolved yes, but it has not grown.

 

Yes, I started playing this year. I have not played as much as the OP and I'm not as proficient as the OP.

 

That's the point of "perhaps he's outgrown the game". If he's reached whatever he considers is the peak, and it's becoming dull, then surely something else beckons.

 

What has or hasn't happened in terms of game development is only relevant insofar as there may be future possibilities for return to play. If, currently, it's no fun, or not enjoyable, then that's that. Who'd continue with something dull when there must be something else?



Hedgehog1963 #25 Posted 30 November 2016 - 12:12 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 50856 battles
  • 7,356
  • [DIRTY] DIRTY
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

View PostHeidenSieker, on 29 November 2016 - 11:18 AM, said:

 

It seems pretty enjoyable to me.

 

Perhaps you've outgrown it, and should try something different?

 

He has.  He's stinking up the WoWS forum too.

Murro_the_One #26 Posted 30 November 2016 - 01:03 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 33242 battles
  • 1,333
  • Member since:
    11-07-2013

View PostHedgehog1963, on 30 November 2016 - 12:12 PM, said:

 

He has.  He's stinking up the WoWS forum too.

 

cool, at least your comment is relevant to the original topic and presented in very sensitive way. thanks dude

clixor #27 Posted 30 November 2016 - 01:36 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 50380 battles
  • 2,995
  • Member since:
    08-07-2011

View PostWundeWurst, on 30 November 2016 - 11:43 AM, said:

Then Wargaming proceeded to add quit a lot of know mods into their vanilla client. Yet again another just cosmetic change. While nice it still did not change or adress ANY of the core problems players have with this game. It is a mere treatment of the symptoms, not even that, just a thing to overshadow the still existent problems.

The SandBox was somewhere inbetween... The only good thing coming from that was the fact that even Wargaming understood that close to nobody liked their ideas, most even "hated" them. After that it was #RIP SandBox. They did not even try again. Maybe they do. But besides the arty changes they just adjusted already implemented game mechanics or parameters. No one can explain why it took them 6 !!SIX!! month to come up with another idea.

Now if you want to go back in time... Wargaming already promised an arty overhaul back when Armored Warfare went into closed beta and it looked promising. That is 18 month ago. Since then NOTHING has changed. I am not the guy who says something like "Easy way to fix arty..." stuff as I am well aware that complex problems need complex solutions which might take a while to come up with. However one cannot justify a single change to arty in 18 month. Even some more temporarily changes might have helped already but NOTHING has happened till this day.

 

Well, you could at least say WG tried to test some new stuff with the sandbox. And, yes, it failed, but at least they tried. The core idea (making tanks more survivable) still stands though, and now WG opted for just buffing armor (and releasing almost impenetratable premium tanks), That idea of balancing is quite debatable (understatement).

 

However, it's pretty clear that balancing such a complicated set of diverse tanks is extremely difficult (without pissing a lot of players off who invested a lot of time and effort to get them). IMO the whole balancing thing isn't the big priority now, it should be about finding a way to help newish players to get better at the game as apparently currently the game is just too difficult for the majority as they are only firing one or two shots each battle they enter.



Sukebe_2016 #28 Posted 30 November 2016 - 04:20 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 4580 battles
  • 100
  • Member since:
    01-27-2016
I haven't checked, but does WOT now use multi-cores in a CPU?  Thought that was another planned update.

HundeWurst #29 Posted 30 November 2016 - 04:34 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 67720 battles
  • 4,275
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

View Postclixor, on 30 November 2016 - 01:36 PM, said:

 

Well, you could at least say WG tried to test some new stuff with the sandbox. And, yes, it failed, but at least they tried. The core idea (making tanks more survivable) still stands though, and now WG opted for just buffing armor (and releasing almost impenetratable premium tanks), That idea of balancing is quite debatable (understatement).

 

However, it's pretty clear that balancing such a complicated set of diverse tanks is extremely difficult (without pissing a lot of players off who invested a lot of time and effort to get them). IMO the whole balancing thing isn't the big priority now, it should be about finding a way to help newish players to get better at the game as apparently currently the game is just too difficult for the majority as they are only firing one or two shots each battle they enter.

 

Well the premium tank part aside, that is no real point here. Dont take any of this personally. It is directed towards WG and not you as a player. "They tried", this is as sad as a million or even billion dollar company can get it to be.

Till this point most did not understand most of the things they tested on the SandBox. Nobody asked for them. Besides the artyrework nobody asked for a complete change of the game, what the SandBox basically was. There were outlined statements what people wanted: Arty rework (as said ignore that for now), armor should be better, and gold ammo was wanted to be changed.

What they did? They made armor better, by completly overbuffing it due to worse aiming RNG and insane penetration drop, while actually hiding just another gold ammo buff by "nerfing" it on paper. Did they really thing people would that stupid and buy this?

They completely threw away the good, already existing parts of the game and came up with THAT? After 6 month? Like really?

Yes balancing is a bit more complicated than what many might think. However it is not rocket science after all. There are certain does and donts, and certain boundaries for everything. Playing around with these would have been enough. Also there already is lots of good in the current game balancing wise, however also quit some bad. Instead of concentrating fixing the bad they tried to remake everything.



dennez #30 Posted 30 November 2016 - 04:38 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 16822 battles
  • 4,755
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    02-26-2013

View PostSukebe_2016, on 30 November 2016 - 04:20 PM, said:

I haven't checked, but does WOT now use multi-cores in a CPU?  Thought that was another planned update.

 

They can offload the audio processing to a different core since a couple of patches back. The rest is still on a single core.

 



Tony_EU #31 Posted 30 November 2016 - 08:20 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 50 battles
  • 2,519
  • [RASHA] RASHA
  • Member since:
    04-27-2016
I would tell the developers the same as I tell dennez almost every day - uninstall the game. But based on some of the changes lately the chances are they already have.

shane73tank #32 Posted 30 November 2016 - 10:25 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27305 battles
  • 1,987
  • [USAGI] USAGI
  • Member since:
    03-01-2014
It's quite disappointing that they changed sod all, but it's also disappointing that this is not at all surprising 





Also tagged with nothing

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users