Jump to content


Does WG care about there averadge / above averadge players?


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

DirkDikler #1 Posted 17 June 2017 - 02:36 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 20360 battles
  • 53
  • [DHS] DHS
  • Member since:
    03-18-2016

Hello fellow tankers.

 

I want to ask how you people look at the following matter. I see WG putting a lot of effort in all sorts of changes to the game, often based on complaints from players. Atleast it's how it's communicated to us players pretty often. Some examples:

 

  • manny players had problems with the open maps, they felt they had no chance vs camo "abusing" tanks so WG changed a lot of maps into corridor maps, deleted some older open maps and now it's mostly corridor maps.
  • people complained about the MM. Many felt it was unfair due to the spread in tiers and tank types. It was unfair that tier 7 lights had to fight vs tier x. WG then changed MM to make the composition of the teams different and lessen the ammount of high tier tanks + make the type of tanks more even between teams. They introduced tier x lights.
  • People complained during the testphase that the new light tanks were too strong so they were nerfed even before they came out. Now most tier x light tanks have worst gun handling and less dpm then some of the previous tier 8 light tanks.

 

Yet in my opinion it seems like those complaints mostly came from the below average players. Most averadge to good players I know think:

 

  • They want more open maps, they miss the old maps and think there's too little tactical possibilities on some of the changed maps.
  • The problem with the MM was not the tanks faced, it is the sheer ammount of bad players you have to cope with. They want skill based MM, a problem ignored by WG.
  • The changes to light tanks are a shame, they want there tier x lights to be competitive.

 

I feel like WG is puttting a lot of effort in tailoring the game to Joe averadge, wich i understand and is logical, they need to attract new players who spend money in the premium stores. To me it feels like it is at the expense of the players who played the most games, invested the most money in the premium store and invested lots of time to improve there personal rating etc.

 

Manny people I have spoken with want skill based MM, they want the nerfs to tier x lights undone, they want more open maps and there old maps back. So who agrees that it looks like WG is mostly turning it's attention to Joe averadge but leaves it more commited players in the cold? I just want to know if people agree on this so we can communicate these matters to WG and claim back "our game".

 

Greetings Dirk



brumbarr #2 Posted 17 June 2017 - 02:39 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,326
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostDirkDikler, on 17 June 2017 - 02:36 PM, said:

Hello fellow tankers.

 

I want to ask how you people look at the following matter. I see WG putting a lot of effort in all sorts of changes to the game, often based on complaints from players. Atleast it's how it's communicated to us players pretty often. Some examples:

 

  • manny players had problems with the open maps, they felt they had no chance vs camo "abusing" tanks so WG changed a lot of maps into corridor maps, deleted some older open maps and now it's mostly corridor maps.
  • people complained about the MM. Many felt it was unfair due to the spread in tiers and tank types. It was unfair that tier 7 lights had to fight vs tier x. WG then changed MM to make the composition of the teams different and lessen the ammount of high tier tanks + make the type of tanks more even between teams. They introduced tier x lights.
  • People complained during the testphase that the new light tanks were too strong so they were nerfed even before they came out. Now most tier x light tanks have worst gun handling and less dpm then some of the previous tier 8 light tanks.

 

Yet in my opinion it seems like those complaints mostly came from the below average players. Most averadge to good players I know think:

 

  • They want more open maps, they miss the old maps and think there's too little tactical possibilities on some of the changed maps.
  • The problem with the MM was not the tanks faced, it is the sheer ammount of bad players you have to cope with. They want skill based MM, a problem ignored by WG.
  • The changes to light tanks are a shame, they want there tier x lights to be competitive.

 

I feel like WG is puttting a lot of effort in tailoring the game to Joe averadge, wich i understand and is logical, they need to attract new players who spend money in the premium stores. To me it feels like it is at the expense of the players who played the most games, invested the most money in the premium store and invested lots of time to improve there personal rating etc.

 

Manny people I have spoken with want skill based MM, they want the nerfs to tier x lights undone, they want more open maps and there old maps back. So who agrees that it looks like WG is mostly turning it's attention to Joe averadge but leaves it more commited players in the cold? I just want to know if people agree on this so we can communicate these matters to WG and claim back "our game".

 

Greetings Dirk

 

I agree with msot stuff but this is where you are horribly wrong:

Block Quote

 

  • The problem with the MM was not the tanks faced, it is the sheer ammount of bad players you have to cope with. They want skill based MM, a problem ignored by WG.

 That is not true, good players do not want skill based MM, only bad players ask for that, good players want balanced tank composition.



DirkDikler #3 Posted 17 June 2017 - 02:46 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 20360 battles
  • 53
  • [DHS] DHS
  • Member since:
    03-18-2016
Really? that's pretty confusing to me since most people I've spoken with were very deliberate about the MM, as in it being broken due to the huge number of unskilled players playing tier 8-10 these days.

jack_timber #4 Posted 17 June 2017 - 02:55 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 33449 battles
  • 2,081
  • Member since:
    07-26-2014
Oops wrong block quote

Edited by jack_timber, 17 June 2017 - 02:57 PM.


Enforcer1975 #5 Posted 17 June 2017 - 02:58 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 20760 battles
  • 10,865
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014

View PostDirkDikler, on 17 June 2017 - 02:46 PM, said:

Really? that's pretty confusing to me since most people I've spoken with were very deliberate about the MM, as in it being broken due to the huge number of unskilled players playing tier 8-10 these days.

I don't mind bad players because they are what better players like us mainly feed on. I do mind tomatoes failing their way to tier 10 in half my battlecount especially when they are driving broken sometimes top tier tanks because "skill" and have no idea what to do...people can argue "but that leaves more damage for you" but nope it doesn't. You HAVE TO DO MORE DAMAGE because they don't is what it is.


Edited by Enforcer1975, 17 June 2017 - 03:05 PM.


jack_timber #6 Posted 17 June 2017 - 02:59 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 33449 battles
  • 2,081
  • Member since:
    07-26-2014

View Postbrumbarr, on 17 June 2017 - 01:39 PM, said:

 

I agree with msot stuff but this is where you are horribly wrong:

 That is not true, good players do not want skill based MM, only bad players ask for that, good players want balanced tank composition.

So true more interested in spread within the tiers not skill of player, don't use XVM so can't determine skill at outset of battle.



brumbarr #7 Posted 17 June 2017 - 03:00 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,326
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostDirkDikler, on 17 June 2017 - 02:46 PM, said:

Really? that's pretty confusing to me since most people I've spoken with were very deliberate about the MM, as in it being broken due to the huge number of unskilled players playing tier 8-10 these days.

 

1) They might think that but in reality that has nothing to do with it,  the problem with MM is the OP tanks.

2) Even if it was a problem, skill based MM wouldnt solve that.



Wayneable #8 Posted 17 June 2017 - 03:04 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 43434 battles
  • 1,994
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    06-26-2011

Skilled base MM would be bad for the game, all playere, and i do me all, would slowly but surly get there winrate to around 50%

 

Do you realy want that?

 

Not to menation the time it would take for the MM to get two evenly matched teams together, especially for the realy good players.

 

And what would you use to diced how good players are? Win8, or WG own Persanl rating?



DirkDikler #9 Posted 17 June 2017 - 03:05 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 20360 battles
  • 53
  • [DHS] DHS
  • Member since:
    03-18-2016

Hmm that suprises me. Ofc OP tanks are a problem, yet it's the more experienced players who know how to work around it, either hit weakspots, flank or simply ignore a tank for the moment.

 

Personally the major grief for me, is the sheer amout of games wich are lost before you even get to influence the outcome. And yes, I can live with it at lower tiers but at tier 8-10 it starts to annoy me to no end. This morning 37 games, 26 lost due to bad teams, there's just no fun in that and having a skill based MM would have certainly helped there.

 

Block Quote

 

Skilled base MM would be bad for the game, all playere, and i do me all, would slowly but surly get there winrate to around 50%

 

Do you realy want that?

 

Not to menation the time it would take for the MM to get two evenly matched teams together, especially for the realy good players.

 

And what would you use to diced how good players are? Win8, or WG own Persanl rating?

 

Why would skill based MM be bad for the game? it's a teambased game, having a team close to your own performance just levels the playing field? For the exceptionally good players and the exceptionally bad players, yes it's hard to match them. Although i think having one ultra good player in the top segment wont  immediatly throw MM off balance, as does having onme excepptionally bad player in a beginners group.


Edited by DirkDikler, 17 June 2017 - 03:08 PM.


How_hard_can_it_be #10 Posted 17 June 2017 - 03:10 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 40280 battles
  • 2,024
  • Member since:
    09-18-2012

#Fact no.1 :

Most of the roflstomps we suffer or inflict on enemy teams are caused by highly imbalanced tank composition, not by "evil unicums vs baddies "



ZlatanArKung #11 Posted 17 June 2017 - 03:10 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostDirkDikler, on 17 June 2017 - 03:05 PM, said:

Hmm that suprises me. Ofc OP tanks are a problem, yet it's the more experienced players who know how to work around it, either hit weakspots, flank or simply ignore a tank for the moment.

 

Personally the major grief for me, is the sheer amout of games wich are lost before you even get to influence the outcome. And yes, I can live with it at lower tiers but at tier 8-10 it starts to annoy me to no end. This morning 37 games, 26 lost due to bad teams, there's just no fun in that and having a skill based MM would have certainly helped there.

 

Most of the games that are lost are so due to tank distribution.

1 team gets top tier like Defender/Chrysler/Maus/E3 etc while you get CDC/Patton Kr/Leopard 1/Fv4005 on a random city map. This puts you at a huge disadvantage.

 

This is a much more important thing to balance for MM to create good balance then skill differences.



Bitter_Kipper #12 Posted 17 June 2017 - 03:22 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 23747 battles
  • 393
  • Member since:
    07-10-2014

View Postbrumbarr, on 17 June 2017 - 02:00 PM, said:

 

1) They might think that but in reality that has nothing to do with it,  the problem with MM is the OP tanks.

2) Even if it was a problem, skill based MM wouldnt solve that.

 

​I have to agree with brumbarr on this one.

Having watched the rank play (skill matchmaking) the one thing it has really highlighted, to me, is the number of games decided not by player skill, but by one team having more of certain tanks.

Several games stuck me as unwinnable for one side or the other.

In randoms you might have idiots in the broken tanks, who will get out of position, but when it is all good players the tank balance quickly comes into focus.

Look at strongholds where the top clans used to play any tank they wanted.

In came ranked play and suddenly it all had to be try hard setups, because it became more about tank balance than player skill.

Not played ranked myself, because I am an average player and don't need ranks to tell me that.



DirkDikler #13 Posted 17 June 2017 - 03:23 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 20360 battles
  • 53
  • [DHS] DHS
  • Member since:
    03-18-2016

Block Quote

 #Fact no.1 :

Most of the roflstomps we suffer or inflict on enemy teams are caused by highly imbalanced tank composition, not by "evil unicums vs baddies "

 

Well my grief personally is not with facing them good players, it's having a team full of bad players. When your team looks afk because they all camp the spawn, you know the game is lost already.



DirkDikler #14 Posted 17 June 2017 - 03:25 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 20360 battles
  • 53
  • [DHS] DHS
  • Member since:
    03-18-2016

Block Quote

 ​I have to agree with brumbarr on this one.

Having watched the rank play (skill matchmaking) the one thing it has really highlighted, to me, is the number of games decided not by player skill, but by one team having more of certain tanks.

Several games stuck me as unwinnable for one side or the other.

In randoms you might have idiots in the broken tanks, who will get out of position, but when it is all good players the tank balance quickly comes into focus.

Look at strongholds where the top clans used to play any tank they wanted.

In came ranked play and suddenly it all had to be try hard setups, because it became more about tank balance than player skill.

Not played ranked myself, because I am an average player and don't need ranks to tell me that.

 

My personal view on the ranked battles is, that there's so much bad players playing ranked battles, it's almost impossible to have influence on the game and procede through the ranks. I started playing with my type 5 heavy just because that shitbrick is so OP, it negates the problem slightly by making you almost always in the top 3 of dmg getting you your chevron annyway.



HassenderZerhacker #15 Posted 17 June 2017 - 03:31 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 27227 battles
  • 2,398
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View PostDirkDikler, on 17 June 2017 - 02:46 PM, said:

Really? that's pretty confusing to me since most people I've spoken with were very deliberate about the MM, as in it being broken due to the huge number of unskilled players playing tier 8-10 these days.

 

yes.. what I would like is that both teams receive good and bad players in similar proportions to avoid roflstomps. and open maps of course, because these corridor maps are really bad and not enjoyable unless playing an over-armored tank.

Shivva #16 Posted 17 June 2017 - 03:33 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29800 battles
  • 1,958
  • [J_A_G] J_A_G
  • Member since:
    05-20-2012

we all play with the same mix of good/bad/useless team-mates so continually blabbering away about how much more games you'd have won if your team had been better is nonsense....hey guess what if you and me were 60% winrate players that would be extra good  players for our team yeah?...but we're not. Only thing you can affect is how you perform, that is what shows in your overall winrate. So stop with the paranoia that mm is screwing you over.

 

You posted some garbage earlier about losing 26/37 games because of your team-mates.. how about accepting some responsibility for the losses yourself?..absolute nonsense from you.

 

edit: post is replying to the OP.


Edited by Shivva, 17 June 2017 - 03:33 PM.


DirkDikler #17 Posted 17 June 2017 - 03:42 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 20360 battles
  • 53
  • [DHS] DHS
  • Member since:
    03-18-2016

Block Quote

 we all play with the same mix of good/bad/useless team-mates so continually blabbering away about how much more games you'd have won if your team had been better is nonsense....hey guess what if you and me were 60% winrate players that would be extra good  players for our team yeah?...but we're not. Only thing you can affect is how you perform, that is what shows in your overall winrate. So stop with the paranoia that mm is screwing you over.

 

You posted some garbage earlier about losing 26/37 games because of your team-mates.. how about accepting some responsibility for the losses yourself?..absolute nonsense from you.

 

I am working on getting my "spg15: war gods" mission, fot the t55. I have been playing mostly arty for this (duh, arty mission). Where I had roughly 50/50 games yesterday over 81 games played, I now have 11 wins out of 37 games. Mind you being an arty I can only support players based on what they spot, on how they assault etc. Besides that, I have to reposition accordingly either to stay in range or avoid trouble. Today I was avoiding trouble 24/7, due to lemmingtrains, half your team dying in the first 2 minutes etc. There where games were my team was half dead before someone even spotted a tank etc.

 

I'm sorry you can claim i have to be responsible for that, but no. In this case, it was purely bad teams. Call it RNG or whatever, there was no way in hell I could have changed this.



brumbarr #18 Posted 17 June 2017 - 03:49 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,326
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostBallisticgel, on 17 June 2017 - 03:22 PM, said:

 

​I have to agree with brumbarr on this one.

 

Why do you sound so surprised :trollface:



Jigabachi #19 Posted 17 June 2017 - 04:17 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17935 battles
  • 19,095
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostDirkDikler, on 17 June 2017 - 02:46 PM, said:

Really? that's pretty confusing to me since most people I've spoken with were very deliberate about the MM, as in it being broken due to the huge number of unskilled players playing tier 8-10 these days.

And how exactly do you get from "people complaining about MM" to "people want skill-based MM"?

 

And why do you even find it surprising that the game caters the kind of players that make up 80% of the playerbase?



DirkDikler #20 Posted 17 June 2017 - 04:33 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 20360 battles
  • 53
  • [DHS] DHS
  • Member since:
    03-18-2016

Block Quote

 And how exactly do you get from "people complaining about MM" to "people want skill-based MM"?

 

And why do you even find it surprising that the game caters the kind of players that make up 80% of the playerbase?

 

I get from people complaining to wanting skill based MM, because many of the complaints are about having a team with too many unskilled players. When half your team remains on the spawn point or tries to back off the map, when the whole team lemmingtrains left when the cap is right, that sort of stuff. These things get less and less fun the closer you get to tier x, where a bad loss cost several thousands of credits.

 

Further more I clearly stated I do NOT find it strange when the game is catered to the larger player base. What does strike me though, is that most of the better players have really invested time and money in the game, my statement is WG does not take there opinions in consideration enough.

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users