Jump to content


Your favourites "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" by wg


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

CoDiGGo #1 Posted 27 July 2017 - 01:41 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 14715 battles
  • 557
  • [MOARR] MOARR
  • Member since:
    05-10-2015

 

- No nerf premiums policy.... but absolute kill pmm premiums (which strongest point was mm) with new mm... how is that not a nerf?

 

- Nerf E5 cupola because op and ultra buff Maus in same patch.... counter nerfed half year later

 

- We listen to players... but players, multiple forum posts, community contributors, you tube videos saying Defender was broken op during tests and they still BUFF (lol) it before release... now not selling it in long time because....guess.... broken op

 

 

 

 


Edited by CoDiGGo, 27 July 2017 - 01:43 PM.


Cobra6 #2 Posted 27 July 2017 - 01:55 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16298 battles
  • 15,138
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

WG doesn't listen to players, they listen to money only.

They care about the game as long as it does not negatively impact their profit, if it does the game can be damned and so can balancing.

 

We've seen this time after time after time after time, I'm really surprised people still don't see this.

 

Cobra 6


Edited by Cobra6, 27 July 2017 - 01:55 PM.


Balc0ra #3 Posted 27 July 2017 - 02:03 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 63369 battles
  • 14,804
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
Tbh the E5 nerf was since the E5 was overbuffed by a mistake, unlike the Maus that was planned. But still a mistake still if you will. As in the CT had one stat on the armor. But due to a typo, it got more on live. And it took them years to fix it. As the only people that complained about it was the people that had to fight E5's. Not the people that owned one.

Edited by Balc0ra, 27 July 2017 - 02:04 PM.


imendars #4 Posted 27 July 2017 - 02:08 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 10946 battles
  • 1,072
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    04-17-2014

WG listens to RUS community. Since i CANT read RUS i have no idea what they saying.

But if 1mil russians say they love this tank, but it could do with small buff, than gues what will WG do... :trollface:



Cobra6 #5 Posted 27 July 2017 - 02:29 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16298 battles
  • 15,138
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View PostBalc0ra, on 27 July 2017 - 01:03 PM, said:

Tbh the E5 nerf was since the E5 was overbuffed by a mistake, unlike the Maus that was planned. But still a mistake still if you will. As in the CT had one stat on the armor. But due to a typo, it got more on live. And it took them years to fix it. As the only people that complained about it was the people that had to fight E5's. Not the people that owned one.

 

If it was not deliberate (in both cases) they would (and should) have fixed it in a hot-fix.

 

All these "accidental" overbuffs are entirely on purpose to have people free-xp/convert XP to get to these tanks. Once the revenue dries up the tank will be nerfed back to normal levels and the next tank will be overbuffed, rinse and repeat.

 

It's cynical money grubbing and deliberate upsetting of game balance for money.

 

Cobra 6



MrConway #6 Posted 27 July 2017 - 02:38 PM

    Community Coordinator

  • WG Staff
  • 13046 battles
  • 862
  • [CIRC] CIRC
  • Member since:
    10-03-2013

View PostCoDiGGo, on 27 July 2017 - 01:41 PM, said:

 

- No nerf premiums policy.... but absolute kill pmm premiums (which strongest point was mm) with new mm... how is that not a nerf?

 

- Nerf E5 cupola because op and ultra buff Maus in same patch.... counter nerfed half year later

 

- We listen to players... but players, multiple forum posts, community contributors, you tube videos saying Defender was broken op during tests and they still BUFF (lol) it before release... now not selling it in long time because....guess.... broken op

 

 

 

 

 

Rather than this being proof that we are crazy I think it shows that we are more than willing to reverse some of the changes we make when we realize they have gone too far. :)

 

Tank balancing is extremely delicate and difficult to do perfectly and sometimes we just have to make a change and see how it pans out.



qpranger #7 Posted 27 July 2017 - 02:41 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 30865 battles
  • 5,061
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013

View PostCoDiGGo, on 27 July 2017 - 02:41 PM, said:

... but players, multiple forum posts, community contributors, you tube videos saying Defender was broken op ...

 

 

 

 

 

How many times do you have to be told:

Defender is not OP because

TVP VTU exists to counteract it.



Browarszky #8 Posted 27 July 2017 - 02:43 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 15149 battles
  • 3,068
  • [I-S-L] I-S-L
  • Member since:
    12-03-2013

View PostMrConway, on 27 July 2017 - 01:38 PM, said:

 

Rather than this being proof that we are crazy I think it shows that we are more than willing to reverse some of the changes we make when we realize they have gone too far. :)

 

Tank balancing is extremely delicate and difficult to do perfectly and sometimes we just have to make a change and see how it pans out.

 

And the more new tanks, nations and lines you launch, the more balls you will have in the air to worry about in your juggling act. :harp:

Dragonlordcv #9 Posted 27 July 2017 - 02:51 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 23968 battles
  • 856
  • Member since:
    03-10-2012

View PostMrConway, on 27 July 2017 - 01:38 PM, said:

 

Rather than this being proof that we are crazy I think it shows that we are more than willing to reverse some of the changes we make when we realize they have gone too far. :)

 

Tank balancing is extremely delicate and difficult to do perfectly and sometimes we just have to make a change and see how it pans out.

 

In short, you all are guinea pigs :trollface: . Thanks mate but we have already noticed two patches ago and yet no change to T8 MM. Tank balancing just created more mess, which i strongly doubt will ever be solved (its the experience derived from all these years). Am not even adding maps into the equation (new / old - circulation - BORDOM)

laulaur #10 Posted 27 July 2017 - 02:58 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 46451 battles
  • 986
  • [-WBZ] -WBZ
  • Member since:
    08-11-2011

View Postqpranger, on 27 July 2017 - 01:41 PM, said:

 

How many times do you have to be told:

Defender is not OP because

TVP VTU exists to counteract it.

 

Nah, using a TVP VTU against a Defender is overkill bro.

Even a regular tier 7 like A-44 can easy counteract him :trollface:



TankkiPoju #11 Posted 27 July 2017 - 03:01 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 20007 battles
  • 6,173
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

View PostMrConway, on 27 July 2017 - 02:38 PM, said:

Tank balancing is extremely delicate and difficult to do perfectly and sometimes we just have to make a change and see how it pans out.

 

Indeed. If only there was ways to test tanks before releasing them for live servers in actual patches.

Jigabachi #12 Posted 27 July 2017 - 03:14 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17846 battles
  • 17,917
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostMrConway, on 27 July 2017 - 02:38 PM, said:

Rather than this being proof that we are crazy I think it shows that we are more than willing to reverse some of the changes we make when we realize they have gone too far.

"We don't care about our players and ignore pretty much every bigger problem the game has in favor of milking more money, but... ONCE we went back and changed some of the crap we did! It took us several moth (a year?) to do so, but we did it!" 

 

Block Quote

Tank balancing is extremely delicate and difficult to do perfectly

"Tank balancing is extremely delicate and difficult to do. Believe us - we're doing that stuff since 6 years and still don't have a single clue about it..."

 

Block Quote

 and sometimes we just have to make a change and see how it pans out.

"We'll introduce some awesome changes that many many credible core players warned us about, so what could go wrong? And who needs proper testing? YOLO!"

 

 

I know that you're just doing your job there, but at this point it means nothing but adding insult to injury...

 

 


Edited by Jigabachi, 27 July 2017 - 04:06 PM.


Cobra6 #13 Posted 27 July 2017 - 03:21 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16298 battles
  • 15,138
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View PostMrConway, on 27 July 2017 - 01:38 PM, said:

 

Rather than this being proof that we are crazy I think it shows that we are more than willing to reverse some of the changes we make when we realize they have gone too far. :)

 

Tank balancing is extremely delicate and difficult to do perfectly and sometimes we just have to make a change and see how it pans out.

 

Come on man, I know you need to tow the company line but lets be realistic here. It took WG a *YEAR* or something to fix the T110E5, they kept insisting that it was absolutely fine for months on end and then suddenly they said: It's overperforming and we need to nerf it while nothing else had changed.

 

If you were willing to reverse them as soon as you noticed you had gone too far, the T110E5, and indeed the Maus and Type5 heavy now, would have been fixed in a hotfix.

 

Tank balancing is indeed extremely delicate which is why it's so utterly amazing that you keep consistently pulling stunts like this over and over and over and over again. These are not errors, these are deliberate changes.

If your players can tell you instantly that something won't work but you need a year to "find that out", maybe you should start employing these players to do your balancing for you because you are obviously not up to the task it would seem.

 

Cobra 6



Velvet_Underground #14 Posted 27 July 2017 - 03:33 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 22243 battles
  • 3,170
  • Member since:
    12-19-2014

View PostMrConway, on 27 July 2017 - 02:38 PM, said:

 

Rather than this being proof that we are crazy I think it shows that we are more than willing to reverse some of the changes we make when we realize they have gone too far. :)

 

Tank balancing is extremely delicate and difficult to do perfectly and sometimes we just have to make a change and see how it pans out.

 

Except that it was obvious to anyone with atleast half a brain and honest intentions that the Maus and Type 5 buffs went way too far, they shouldn't have left the drawing board in the first place and it is really one hell of a coincedence that both the E5 and the Grille got nerfed in the same patch that made the super heavies op, right? By the way, I guess it really took you guys more than a year of heard work to nerf the cupola of the E5:rolleyes:

 

PS: We are still waiting for you to fix the climbing issue. How is it possible that WG is incapable of forseeing or fixing such problems as soon as they are discovered? Again, the issue is known for several months now and there is still no real solution insight, the HD maps that afaik should have fixed it are postponed, what takes you guys so long?

 

 



Element6_TheSprout #15 Posted 27 July 2017 - 04:34 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28638 battles
  • 10,033
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostDragonlordcv, on 27 July 2017 - 02:51 PM, said:

Am not even adding maps into the equation (new / old - circulation - BORDOM)

View PostCobra6, on 27 July 2017 - 03:21 PM, said:

These are not errors, these are deliberate changes.

No change in maps = boredom

Changes to game balance = fail

 

Should they make changes, or make a static game? 

 

And people still do not know why WG has issues when we have 50.000 different personal ideas of what is fun and good. Causality?

 

If there were no changes whatsoever to WoT I would probably have been around for 1 year. Now I am on my 5th. year as a paying customer. Shift in balance every now and then is a damn good thing.

 



Cobra6 #16 Posted 27 July 2017 - 05:08 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16298 battles
  • 15,138
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 27 July 2017 - 03:34 PM, said:

No change in maps = boredom

Changes to game balance = fail

 

Should they make changes, or make a static game? 

 

And people still do not know why WG has issues when we have 50.000 different personal ideas of what is fun and good. Causality?

 

If there were no changes whatsoever to WoT I would probably have been around for 1 year. Now I am on my 5th. year as a paying customer. Shift in balance every now and then is a damn good thing.

 

 

See that is where you make the wrong equation.

 

I'm not saying that making changes to the game balancing is a fail. I'm saying that making deliberate changes *that negatively impact the game experience* but positively impact the bank account like they have done with the T110E5 and more recently the Maus/Type5 is bad.

 

And 50.000 opinions doesn't really matter, you look for the common consensus among players that are not terrible players to begin with and you get a rough idea of how stuff is received and where it needs to go.

 

The common consensus among good players is that the Maus is overpowered which is backed up by statistics.

The common consensus among good players is that the Type5 is broken (and Type4).

The common consensus among good players was that the T110E5 armour was too good.

The common consensus among good players is that the Defender was a huge mistake.

 

And yes you might say that good players are not the only audience in this game and that the majority of paying customers is average. And true as that may be we are talking about game balance here, not income. It's simply the case that good players don't need broken vehicles to perform well whereas average/worse/whateveryouwant players *do* have stakes in keeping tanks like the Maus like they are now, because they win more games in them.

 

For game balance decisions it's safer to listen to good players than it is to listen to all players.

 

Cobra 6


Edited by Cobra6, 27 July 2017 - 05:13 PM.


Element6_TheSprout #17 Posted 27 July 2017 - 05:54 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28638 battles
  • 10,033
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostCobra6, on 27 July 2017 - 05:08 PM, said:

 

See that is where you make the wrong equation.

 

I'm not saying that making changes to the game balancing is a fail. I'm saying that making deliberate changes 1) *that negatively impact the game experience* but positively impact the bank account like they have done with the T110E5 and more recently the Maus/Type5 is bad.

 

And 50.000 opinions doesn't really matter, you look for the common consensus among players that are not terrible players to begin with and you get a rough idea of how stuff is received and where it needs to go.

 

The common consensus among good players is that the Maus is overpowered which is backed up by statistics.

The common consensus among good players is that the Type5 is broken (and Type4).

The common consensus among good players was that the T110E5 armour was too good.

The common consensus among good players is that the Defender was a huge mistake.

 

And yes you might say that good players are not the only audience in this game and that the majority of paying customers is average. And true as that may be we are talking about game balance here, not income. It's simply the case that good players don't need broken vehicles to perform well whereas average/worse/whateveryouwant players *do* have stakes in keeping tanks like the Maus like they are now, because they win more games in them.

 

For game balance decisions it's safer to listen to good players than it is to listen to all players.

 

Cobra 6

1. Do you know anything about the ratio of players who think that it impacts the game experience negatively, in relation to the ratio of players who don't?

 

So, how do you as an outside player look for, and find, a representative common consensus? That would be one you can trust applies to a majority in all skill groups.

One of the issues with this perfect balance that people cry for is that it requires you to take every tank in the game and tune it so that QB overperform/underperform at the same ratio, in any given tank, that I will. That will be a daunting taskt to say the least. That is, the ideal WR graph for the tanks should stay more or less paralell to the reference curve. Or should all tanks see this effect mostly for players in the 55%+ WR category and swing wildly for the majority of players below them?

I wonder how long it would take before people got bored. 

One guy up there is bored because the maps are getting stale and old. The same would happen with tanks. When you reach balance, whatever balance that might be, there would be no more changes. It would be static. But everybody would love that, right? I guess you know the general consensus of that too, for good players... 



Cobra6 #18 Posted 27 July 2017 - 06:21 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16298 battles
  • 15,138
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

 

Block Quote

One of the issues with this perfect balance that people cry for is that it requires you to take every tank in the game and tune it so that QB overperform/underperform at the same ratio, in any given tank, that I will.

 

Just to briefly address this specific statement, you need to tune it so that the majority of good players (that know how to properly play the vehicle) perform roughly the same in it than they do in their other vehicles. If they overperform its too good and if they underperform its too bad.

 

Anything below a good player is irrelevant (I'm sorry to say this) because that is the territory where you start to balance a vehicle in such a way that it makes up for terrible playstyle which is something you should never do. A vehicle that lets bad players perform better or keeps them alive longer artificially will completely over-perform in the hands of a skilled player. Like we see now with the Maus and we did see before with the T110E5.

 

Tanks should be balanced according to players that know how to play it, that way you ensure that a tank itself is properly balanced. Any player who then does badly in said vehicle just has his own playstyle to blame.

 

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 27 July 2017 - 04:54 PM, said:

1. Do you know anything about the ratio of players who think that it impacts the game experience negatively, in relation to the ratio of players who don't?

 

So, how do you as an outside player look for, and find, a representative common consensus? That would be one you can trust applies to a majority in all skill groups.

One of the issues with this perfect balance that people cry for is that it requires you to take every tank in the game and tune it so that QB overperform/underperform at the same ratio, in any given tank, that I will. That will be a daunting taskt to say the least. That is, the ideal WR graph for the tanks should stay more or less paralell to the reference curve. Or should all tanks see this effect mostly for players in the 55%+ WR category and swing wildly for the majority of players below them?

I wonder how long it would take before people got bored. 

One guy up there is bored because the maps are getting stale and old. The same would happen with tanks. When you reach balance, whatever balance that might be, there would be no more changes. It would be static. But everybody would love that, right? I guess you know the general consensus of that too, for good players... 

 

Not coming up against tanks that are arbitrarily better than yours or having to play tanks which are arbitrarily inferior to what is on the enemy team? Yeah that would be great actually.

 

There are very few tanks which are so vastly underperforming that they needed a massive buff like the Maus/Type5 got and before that the T110E5. The Maus was fine before it got buffed, sure it could use a DPM buff but it was nowhere near the bottom of "worst tanks ever". There was no balancing reason to give it such a massive buff a part from the reason of wanting to get more players to *want* one by making it overperform and thus getting more xp conversion=>money.

 

No one asks for tanks to be balanced to perfection, what is asked is for WG to stop tinkering in massive steps with tanks that need minor corrections.

 

edit: I said common consensus among good players, simply by listening when playing with them in clans/skirmishes/randoms/platoons. You will find *VERY* little good players that will honestly agree that the Maus is fine now or that the T110E5 was fine before it.

 

Cobra 6


Edited by Cobra6, 27 July 2017 - 06:33 PM.


Sfinski #19 Posted 27 July 2017 - 06:27 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 30104 battles
  • 2,107
  • [-PJ-] -PJ-
  • Member since:
    09-26-2013

View PostCobra6, on 27 July 2017 - 03:21 PM, said:

 

Come on man, I know you need to tow the company line but lets be realistic here. It took WG a *YEAR* or something to fix the T110E5, they kept insisting that it was absolutely fine for months on end and then suddenly they said: It's overperforming and we need to nerf it while nothing else had changed.

 

If you were willing to reverse them as soon as you noticed you had gone too far, the T110E5, and indeed the Maus and Type5 heavy now, would have been fixed in a hotfix.

 

Tank balancing is indeed extremely delicate which is why it's so utterly amazing that you keep consistently pulling stunts like this over and over and over and over again. These are not errors, these are deliberate changes.

If your players can tell you instantly that something won't work but you need a year to "find that out", maybe you should start employing these players to do your balancing for you because you are obviously not up to the task it would seem.

 

Cobra 6

 

Exactly this. The amount of time WG takes to fix any problem is insane. There are games that update once in a week or two to keep the game in best condition possible.

 

Something like changing the armour or gun values of a few tanks takes few minutes. Boom, put them in the live server in a micropatch and you've fixed a crapton of problems. But no, it takes a bloody year to type in couple numbers. 

 

Like it has been said, that cannot be incompetence anymore. It's purely deliberate. You know it, we know it. 



ZlatanArKung #20 Posted 27 July 2017 - 07:05 PM

    Major General

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

View PostMrConway, on 27 July 2017 - 02:38 PM, said:

 

Rather than this being proof that we are crazy I think it shows that we are more than willing to reverse some of the changes we make when we realize they have gone too far. :)

 

Tank balancing is extremely delicate and difficult to do perfectly and sometimes we just have to make a change and see how it pans out.

 

Even someone who has never played this game would realise Maus buff was way to much before you decided to increase the buff by adding extra HP aswell.

Well, everyone except WG realised Maus would be stupidly overpowered.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users