Jump to content


This Game and my opinion of it


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

wetdogsmells #1 Posted 19 June 2017 - 04:37 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 14835 battles
  • 43
  • [BOSE] BOSE
  • Member since:
    08-16-2011

Hello,

 

i have played WoT off and on for some years but recently i have lots of spare time and have been cracking the whip on WoT grinding out to tier 10 (because ranked is only T10..) on different lines and with the recent changes to many aspects of the game and "ranked" battles being tested i wanted to give an opinion on a few things mostly to do with ranked battles

 

i have played different games mostly Fps from the original unreal way back when to games like overwatch, i also own a console and play destiny among others but i wanted to start with my biggest problem that may or may not fix other issues,

 

1. Player skill MM..

 

almost every game i have ever played that has PVP has some form of basic skill based MM system to not only protect new or less skilled or time invested players from those higher unicum style players and to provide those higher skilled players a good game VS similar skilled so EVERYONE is enjoying them selfs from 1k players who are just breaking the ice on the game to 40,50,70k games played veterans wanting a challenge. 

 

in FPS games this is formulated based on kills to death ratio amongst other statistics, in WoT things like XVM and WoT own baked in PR system are in place to advise players on how good or bad they are doing or how well my enemy is going to play, as we know this leads to players giving up before the round start time even ends or players camping in back because they are trying to barrel mark and know the round is a white wash loss.

 

this tends to lead to many things mostly abuse from players calling the team mates things like tomatoes and noobs and even as much as TKing the player because "they were useless" or for those "poor" unicums being xvm sniped and harassed by arty because xvm told them too. 

 

now if players were matched by Skill and not what tank they have this would create issues im sure, but a lot of Wot problems which im sure keep fresh players away or stop them from continuing to play when there is vast amounts of other free to play titles or cheap indie titles out there that do much better in holding there player base because games feel fair and fun to play.

 

fair and fun right thats for me at least why i even bother to boot up my computer and spend my time and sometimes money playing these games, not when 3 minutes into the round its pretty clear your going to get steam rolled by the other team because one player has a mission to do that forces the player to do something irrational to achieve it or because of xvm tells the player its pointless trying and goes to drown himself so as to get out the round early to play another. 

 

it is the worst thing in ANY game playing against higher skilled opponents who clearly are wrecking there way through your entire team as if they were some bull in a china shop, and having played every day for 3-4 hours since early this year its clear to me this is the norm, one team totally slaughtering the other and hardly ever is there a game where its down to the wire, maybe if a good player(s) in a tank that can carry (and thats its own separate issue) might be able to pull off a win if all goes well, and in replays on youtube and submitted to wot replays shows that this is the norm..not teams duking it out down to wire but one players team melting before him and thus putting him into a 1-5 or more situation and having to carry his team purely because the skill pool per team is totally unbalanced.

 

now i can only assume the console versions have some sort of skill based mm, i played a few games on my xbox and it did feel that this might be the case, although i only played a few before hating not having a mouse and keyboard! 

 

So my opinion on these "ranked battles" 

 

after a few games and checking stats of other players being MM with me i realised its not the same sense of ranked battles you would expect, but in fact its just XX player plays enough games to progress be it the top 3 in the losing game (which again has its own issues) or the winning team enough times to progress to another so called rank, now for me overwatch has a good system not fool proof and its something the overwatch developers are constantly talking to there player base about but its still way better i feel then what might of been used, it is difficult to measure one players skill based on a team based game like overwatch or infact WoT because lets face it this game really does take some sort of team play, be it TD's covering lanes or heavies making sure certain flanks cannot be pushed while the rest of the team try to break other flanks in meds etc.

 

anyhow the arty changes were for the better and with vehicle type MM changes being tweak for the better as no one likes playing against 3 maus when you have a bunch of paper meds and one heavy or the other team having arty and you dont..yes those games do happen, i just feel like this game could be so much better and ultimatley more FUN! thus making players want to commit to staying and spending money on prem tanks and other items. 

 

im open to any ideas or comments on any of the ramblings, i understand other players may feel different about it being that i might not have 40/50k games played.

 

the very few games i played on console just reminded me that team work and balanced games do happen, with many players opting to use in game team speak with mics which in turn helped other players coordinate themselfs, which is fantastic! but this may be because game servers are local and not being used by multiple countries across the EU..

 

Wetdogsmells. x



Enforcer1975 #2 Posted 19 June 2017 - 05:24 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 18386 battles
  • 9,845
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014

About your "protection for new players".....ever played battlefield where you are thrown into battle as a newb with players that already have hundreds of hours grinding through different equipment? Call of Duty? I even have a MMO that allows players with high levels to gank low levels... ( PotBS as an example that i have played ;)...i'm sure other players can list more unbalanced games.

Skill MM can and shouldn't happen. Imagine a player rerolling 100 times just so he can club new players if they ever introduced skill / battlecount based MM. What i would love though is a system that protects higher tiers from players who fail up the tiers.



unhappy_bunny #3 Posted 19 June 2017 - 05:38 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 17409 battles
  • 2,134
  • [-OC-] -OC-
  • Member since:
    08-01-2012

While i can understand what you are saying, and I agree that MM is far from perfect, I have to disagree with some aspects of your post.

 

I don't think there is much of a problem with WoT attracting new players and retaining older ones. There are a lot of players with 20, 30 40+K battles.

What the problem really is, is that so many players do not understand the structure of WoT. It is not a First Person Shooter. It is also not the sort of game with an end objective. It is designed so that the player evolves with time, learning at each tier, finding tanks that he enjoys playing, basically playing for the enjoyment of a tank based game. Progressing up the tiers merely opens up more tanks, more challenges. I see so many players complaining about the state of battles at Tier 10 or 9 or even 8, and they look down on the idea that Tier 5 or 6 can provide a great deal of fun. So, many players get the idea that Tier 10 is the object of the game, and they therefore rush through the tiers, missing the enjoyment and seeing the "grind" as being a chore rather than part of the whole experience. They want instant crew skills, instant equipment upgrades and many expect instant success.

 

Then there is the assumption, as you have just made, that arty deliberately targets players according to XVM colours. I don't know how arty operates at Tier 10, but from experience at lower tiers, I would say that is a false assumption. For a start, arty can only hit targets that have been spotted. Maybe, the advanced view range of tanks at higher tiers allows more tanks to be spotted. Sometime Arty will pre-aim at certain positions on the map, maybe blind firing, or waiting for an enemy to be spotted. I very much doubt that any arty player sits there, looking at the enemy team list  and thinking "I will wait for Player A" to be spotted, and spends 5 minutes watching for that to happen. Certainly, if this situation exists, then Skill Based MM would not change it. 

 

What is needed, in my opinion, is for WG to promote the game in a different way, for players to adapt their expectations, and for less emphasis on Stats (which are fine, everyone like to know how well or how bad they perform at times) and on getting the biggest, most OP tank possible. Also, it would be nice if WG were to review the new tanks a bit more and ensure that there is a bit more equality within the Tiers/classes. I know each tank needs to have different strengths and weaknesses from the others, otherwise there is no point in having such an array of tanks, but there are some vehicles that seem to be over the top compared to their peers.

 

Ranked Battles, to me, are a work in progress. I haven't ventured into them as yet, and to be honest, I probably won't. What I will do, is to continue to play all the tanks I enjoy playing, regardless of their Tier, and continue, hopefully, to enjoy this game. 

 



Hedgehog1963 #4 Posted 19 June 2017 - 05:52 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 50143 battles
  • 6,921
  • [DIRTY] DIRTY
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011
What you want is for everyone to gravitate to a 49% WR, because that is what your skill based MM would mean.

wetdogsmells #5 Posted 19 June 2017 - 06:27 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 14835 battles
  • 43
  • [BOSE] BOSE
  • Member since:
    08-16-2011

View PostEnforcer1975, on 19 June 2017 - 04:24 PM, said:

About your "protection for new players".....ever played battlefield where you are thrown into battle as a newb with players that already have hundreds of hours grinding through different equipment? Call of Duty? I even have a MMO that allows players with high levels to gank low levels... ( PotBS as an example that i have played ;)...i'm sure other players can list more unbalanced games.

Skill MM can and shouldn't happen. Imagine a player rerolling 100 times just so he can club new players if they ever introduced skill / battlecount based MM. What i would love though is a system that protects higher tiers from players who fail up the tiers.

 

Hi,

 

yes i have played Cod and the BF series plus titan fall both PC and console. the BF series especially i played through almost all iterations a part from the early 1942 and 2042 even the console peasant versions of bf2 MC right up to bf4.

these to me had a MM type skill or other wise as far as i can tell but of course not all players can be top tier 2 star generals as in bf4 given its high player count, 64 in total in the newer versions. 

 

wot has far less players but still cannot manage to at the very basic level manage its player base allowing as even a game as possible for the benefit of its players, many new nation lines i play through and mostly in the lower tiers there is always that one or two players that have 2/3/4 kills with the most dmg done and probably in a t67 but after game you check and yes they have 10k games in a tier 5 tank but have completed that tanks line all the way to tier 10. now of course its up to the player to play lower tiers but i find it quite crazy to think that literally new 5 games played players will be thrown to the wolfs against people who like seal clubbing for fun. 

 

that is why there is skill based MM purely to stop players trolling on new or less skilled ones so they too can enjoy there game and not feel as if its an impossible task to win one game out of hundreds.

 

PS you mentioned about the countless hours of grinding for new equipment in BF, i remember the days when i could use bare bones weapons and even those deemed the anti meta and still do well so to me its a non issue.



wetdogsmells #6 Posted 19 June 2017 - 06:39 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 14835 battles
  • 43
  • [BOSE] BOSE
  • Member since:
    08-16-2011

View Postunhappy_bunny, on 19 June 2017 - 04:38 PM, said:

While i can understand what you are saying, and I agree that MM is far from perfect, I have to disagree with some aspects of your post.

 

I don't think there is much of a problem with WoT attracting new players and retaining older ones. There are a lot of players with 20, 30 40+K battles.

What the problem really is, is that so many players do not understand the structure of WoT. It is not a First Person Shooter. It is also not the sort of game with an end objective. It is designed so that the player evolves with time, learning at each tier, finding tanks that he enjoys playing, basically playing for the enjoyment of a tank based game. Progressing up the tiers merely opens up more tanks, more challenges. I see so many players complaining about the state of battles at Tier 10 or 9 or even 8, and they look down on the idea that Tier 5 or 6 can provide a great deal of fun. So, many players get the idea that Tier 10 is the object of the game, and they therefore rush through the tiers, missing the enjoyment and seeing the "grind" as being a chore rather than part of the whole experience. They want instant crew skills, instant equipment upgrades and many expect instant success.

 

Then there is the assumption, as you have just made, that arty deliberately targets players according to XVM colours. I don't know how arty operates at Tier 10, but from experience at lower tiers, I would say that is a false assumption. For a start, arty can only hit targets that have been spotted. Maybe, the advanced view range of tanks at higher tiers allows more tanks to be spotted. Sometime Arty will pre-aim at certain positions on the map, maybe blind firing, or waiting for an enemy to be spotted. I very much doubt that any arty player sits there, looking at the enemy team list  and thinking "I will wait for Player A" to be spotted, and spends 5 minutes watching for that to happen. Certainly, if this situation exists, then Skill Based MM would not change it. 

 

What is needed, in my opinion, is for WG to promote the game in a different way, for players to adapt their expectations, and for less emphasis on Stats (which are fine, everyone like to know how well or how bad they perform at times) and on getting the biggest, most OP tank possible. Also, it would be nice if WG were to review the new tanks a bit more and ensure that there is a bit more equality within the Tiers/classes. I know each tank needs to have different strengths and weaknesses from the others, otherwise there is no point in having such an array of tanks, but there are some vehicles that seem to be over the top compared to their peers.

 

Ranked Battles, to me, are a work in progress. I haven't ventured into them as yet, and to be honest, I probably won't. What I will do, is to continue to play all the tanks I enjoy playing, regardless of their Tier, and continue, hopefully, to enjoy this game. 

 

 

Hi,

 

im interested to know why you wont venture into ranked? at least to even test it yourself?

 

You mention the arty focus through xvm and yes it does happen of course it does, if you have a way to shoot over something and a way to see which player is likely to win the game for everyone else wouldn't it be human nature to try stop that player in what ever way you can? plus i see it on stream all the time QB foch circ to name a few are all targeted and in some cases "stream sniped" which is of course another issue.

 

i mentioned i play Destiny a 3+ year old console game soon to be coming to pc finally, in the twitch directory destiny will at most times have more viewers then WoT, yes an older game 5 yrs or so and yes not an FPS but still its free to play and if you use a free to play model you need new blood coming in and staying right? that way money is most likely going to be spent on Wot.

 

so for example a lot of issues on the game, tank balancing new maps and better game modes are only now getting worked on 5 years on, the t110e5 was most broken for a long long time, and there is hardly any new maps being implemented on a regular basis. tank balance is always a thorny subject but i feel WG are using the community as fuel for those to spend money on these tanks (defender), who knows maybe there sandbox team have different opinions to those playing. 

 

for example the chrysler K, all that craziness when it was revealed it had no frontal weak points or at least to lower tiers it may meet, this bad press will of course fuel players into rash purchases because they might see it as a way to stomp players with ease, only to find its not like that at all, but money has been spent so mission success

 

 


Edited by wetdogsmells, 19 June 2017 - 06:43 PM.


wetdogsmells #7 Posted 19 June 2017 - 06:53 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 14835 battles
  • 43
  • [BOSE] BOSE
  • Member since:
    08-16-2011

View PostHedgehog1963, on 19 June 2017 - 04:52 PM, said:

What you want is for everyone to gravitate to a 49% WR, because that is what your skill based MM would mean.

 

Hi,

 

what is win rate? what actually does it mean in terms of one players attribute to a game and his team? lets say your luck has it you were carried in multiple games and your WR goes up but your actually fairly average of a player like myself so does WR really mean anything? i dont think it does at all but thats my opinion of it and alot of the stats players look to in WoT. if i want to pretend im a good player all i have to do is ReRole and bobs your uncle now everyone thinks im carrying god.

 



Ikmens #8 Posted 19 June 2017 - 07:00 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 24328 battles
  • 78
  • [LATTD] LATTD
  • Member since:
    03-05-2015
You wrote so much but said nothing.

Enforcer1975 #9 Posted 19 June 2017 - 07:24 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 18386 battles
  • 9,845
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014

View Postwetdogsmells, on 19 June 2017 - 06:27 PM, said:

 

Hi,

 

yes i have played Cod and the BF series plus titan fall both PC and console. the BF series especially i played through almost all iterations a part from the early 1942 and 2042 even the console peasant versions of bf2 MC right up to bf4.

these to me had a MM type skill or other wise as far as i can tell but of course not all players can be top tier 2 star generals as in bf4 given its high player count, 64 in total in the newer versions. 

 

wot has far less players but still cannot manage to at the very basic level manage its player base allowing as even a game as possible for the benefit of its players, many new nation lines i play through and mostly in the lower tiers there is always that one or two players that have 2/3/4 kills with the most dmg done and probably in a t67 but after game you check and yes they have 10k games in a tier 5 tank but have completed that tanks line all the way to tier 10. now of course its up to the player to play lower tiers but i find it quite crazy to think that literally new 5 games played players will be thrown to the wolfs against people who like seal clubbing for fun. 

 

that is why there is skill based MM purely to stop players trolling on new or less skilled ones so they too can enjoy there game and not feel as if its an impossible task to win one game out of hundreds.

 

PS you mentioned about the countless hours of grinding for new equipment in BF, i remember the days when i could use bare bones weapons and even those deemed the anti meta and still do well so to me its a non issue.

The problem is that bad players will always be bad. There will be 50% players in BF as well as many sub 48% and above 52%. There are losers when there are winners that's how it works - just looked at my old stats from 2006 on BF2: I had a W/L ratio of 2.48 then i took a random player and he had 0.65. Some will manage to swim in the middle regardless but a lot will not recover. They simply lack the skill to rise to the challenge. You are basically asking WG to rig your games so you will eventually meet the bad player around 50% wr, do you really want that? 



Hedgehog1963 #10 Posted 19 June 2017 - 07:39 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 50143 battles
  • 6,921
  • [DIRTY] DIRTY
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

View Postwetdogsmells, on 19 June 2017 - 05:53 PM, said:

 

Hi,

 

what is win rate? what actually does it mean in terms of one players attribute to a game and his team? lets say your luck has it you were carried in multiple games and your WR goes up but your actually fairly average of a player like myself so does WR really mean anything? i dont think it does at all but thats my opinion of it and alot of the stats players look to in WoT. if i want to pretend im a good player all i have to do is ReRole and bobs your uncle now everyone thinks im carrying god.

 

 

It's a thing that matters to many players, which is why it is the first stat you see in those stat boasting sigs on this forum. People with good WRs aren't going to go for your idea.

 

I am a very average player as well yes yes.



 



Zoltan1251 #11 Posted 19 June 2017 - 08:22 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 11068 battles
  • 538
  • [SPIKE] SPIKE
  • Member since:
    02-27-2013
first... learn to write in points

wetdogsmells #12 Posted 19 June 2017 - 09:51 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 14835 battles
  • 43
  • [BOSE] BOSE
  • Member since:
    08-16-2011

View PostZoltan1251, on 19 June 2017 - 07:22 PM, said:

first... learn to write in points

 

View PostIkmens, on 19 June 2017 - 06:00 PM, said:

You wrote so much but said nothing.

 

If you cannot reply with meaningful content why bother? i am not a writer no, actually a motorcycle mechanic but hey i had an opinion on something i wanted a discussion on it  and i got that.

Captain_Kremen0 #13 Posted 20 June 2017 - 08:48 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 36204 battles
  • 1,121
  • Member since:
    06-04-2011

As a strictly Orange average player, whilst it seems nice to play against tomatoes all the time, what's the point?

Players will never get better playing against WORSE players, plus I enjoy the challenge of knowing that i'm going up against better players as it keeps me on my toes (even if I might lose out).



Xandania #14 Posted 20 June 2017 - 11:27 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 34345 battles
  • 707
  • [-DGN-] -DGN-
  • Member since:
    05-16-2013

View PostCaptain_Kremen0, on 20 June 2017 - 07:48 AM, said:

As a strictly Orange average player, whilst it seems nice to play against tomatoes all the time, what's the point?

Players will never get better playing against WORSE players, plus I enjoy the challenge of knowing that i'm going up against better players as it keeps me on my toes (even if I might lose out).

 

​True. There is still much to be learned by watching other players still alive after ones demise, as well as keeping an eye on the minimap to check for unusual movements. 

Yes, from time to time it is fun to stomp someone who doesn't know the strengths and weaknesses of the tank they're in (Especially in Japanese heavies), but the "how can I do that?"-question arises more often against better players.



Enforcer1975 #15 Posted 20 June 2017 - 11:48 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 18386 battles
  • 9,845
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014

View PostCaptain_Kremen0, on 20 June 2017 - 08:48 AM, said:

As a strictly Orange average player, whilst it seems nice to play against tomatoes all the time, what's the point?

Players will never get better playing against WORSE players, plus I enjoy the challenge of knowing that i'm going up against better players as it keeps me on my toes (even if I might lose out).

That's the thing. They think they are better because they beat equally bad players in their league but it's like throwing non swimmers into a lake and see who comes out on top, meaning survives. Then match that person with athletes who swim day in day out...Who will most likely fail if not even drown? 



signal11th #16 Posted 20 June 2017 - 02:05 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 33901 battles
  • 5,249
  • [E-BAY] E-BAY
  • Member since:
    07-14-2011

Why would I want to play a game that tries it's best to force me to lose just because I seem to be good at it, it does a good enough job of that with the other 14 players it puts me with.


Edited by signal11th, 20 June 2017 - 02:05 PM.


Captain_Kremen0 #17 Posted 20 June 2017 - 02:26 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 36204 battles
  • 1,121
  • Member since:
    06-04-2011
Yeah - a lot of people claimed STALKER was too hard too. Bloody Russkis

unhappy_bunny #18 Posted 20 June 2017 - 03:31 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 17409 battles
  • 2,134
  • [-OC-] -OC-
  • Member since:
    08-01-2012

View Postwetdogsmells, on 19 June 2017 - 06:39 PM, said:

 

Hi,

 

im interested to know why you wont venture into ranked? at least to even test it yourself?

 

 

 

Well, I have 1 Tier 10 vehicle, the IS-7, and I bought that fairly recently, and have only a couple of battles in it, all while platooning.

I know that I am not really ready for T10, solo, at the moment, I don't feel that I could compete, or even contribute effectively to my team, so I certainly don't want to venture into Ranked Battles. To be honest with you, the mode doesn't really appeal. Too much negativity on the forum doesn't inspire me either.

 

I play this game to enjoy myself, therefore I am happy to play solo at levels and with tanks that I get enjoyment out of, and I am more than happy to play with fellow clan members, because, although we like to win and we strive to win, we also see that winning without enjoyment is just a big chore. We play games to have fun, to let off steam, to have a laugh and a joke with each other. Isn't that what games should be about, even team based games like WoT?



DracheimFlug #19 Posted 20 June 2017 - 04:04 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 8925 battles
  • 3,725
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014

View PostHedgehog1963, on 19 June 2017 - 05:52 PM, said:

What you want is for everyone to gravitate to a 49% WR, because that is what your skill based MM would mean.

 

To be fair, rank can replace WR in terms of status.

jabster #20 Posted 20 June 2017 - 04:10 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12516 battles
  • 21,699
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostCaptain_Kremen0, on 20 June 2017 - 01:26 PM, said:

Yeah - a lot of people claimed STALKER was too hard too. Bloody Russkis

 

Well I died a few times with the opening combat encounter until I realised that you couldn't just go in guns a blazing like other games. Once you learnt that lesson it became a lot easier.  






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users