Jump to content


Balancing Tanks - How hard can it be?


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

CircleOfSorrow #1 Posted 11 August 2017 - 12:59 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29236 battles
  • 2,136
  • Member since:
    12-26-2012

Yeah, ok; a lot of activities are easier said than done, but I don't see the difficulty with this one.  Surely every vehicle is a sum of the dynamic between armour, firepower, and mobility.  These three would obviously break down into sub-factors that make the product.  Armour type, thickness, angling, and distribution.  Gun penetration, damage, rof, handling, arcs of movement, ammo types/behaviour.  Acceleration and top speed in both directions and in rotation, on differing terrain types, and at varying grades.

 

If these attributes had values, and each value was within a range, and the sum total was very similar between vehicles of the same tier, would we not have a far more balanced game than we see today?

 

Please feel free to discuss the topic, explain the complexity that I'm missing, or just insult my intelligence.  All three are valid and welcome.



qpranger #2 Posted 11 August 2017 - 01:02 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 33833 battles
  • 5,061
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013
Balancing tanks (and players) for a balanced fight is indeed hard. But Wargaming is no more interested in properly balanced matches than I am interested in becoming a homeless person.

CircleOfSorrow #3 Posted 11 August 2017 - 01:04 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29236 battles
  • 2,136
  • Member since:
    12-26-2012

View Postqpranger, on 11 August 2017 - 12:02 PM, said:

Balancing tanks (and players) for a balanced fight is indeed hard. But Wargaming is no more interested in properly balanced matches than I am interested in becoming a homeless person.

 

Where is your sense of adventure? :/



ricoBenitez1 #4 Posted 11 August 2017 - 01:07 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 508 battles
  • 611
  • Member since:
    10-29-2013

View PostCircleOfSorrow, on 11 August 2017 - 12:04 PM, said:

 

Where is your sense of adventure? :/

 

his sense of adventure is here on forum making strange replyes to otherwise ok topic`s

eldrak #5 Posted 11 August 2017 - 01:17 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 48619 battles
  • 1,092
  • [NE-VO] NE-VO
  • Member since:
    01-27-2011

No, a points system wouldn't work. Balance is far too complicated in this game for that.

 

The largest factor contributing to making it nonviable imo is the very different geometry of different tanks. It could work for arty and perhaps lights due to their function not largely dependent on their shape but not for other classes.



ZlatanArKung #6 Posted 11 August 2017 - 01:19 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,166
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014
Well. The complexity you are missing is that WG is interested in balance.

While balance is difficult.
Some of WGs  (many) decisions are not made out of balance but out of how much money they can make.

If balance was priority, Defender wouldn't exist, Maus wouldn't be extremely overpowered.
And the new Foch 50B wouldn't have the proposed gun.

CmdRatScabies #7 Posted 11 August 2017 - 01:22 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 37626 battles
  • 4,516
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015
You could argue that WG have been very skillful at balancing some tanks so that they can perform in average / below average hands and others so that skillful players get satisfaction from tanks that are very good but only in skillful hands.  That way they get a huge variety of players in the game spending vast amounts of money.

zulu_261 #8 Posted 11 August 2017 - 01:27 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 15820 battles
  • 132
  • [-RSGG] -RSGG
  • Member since:
    12-10-2011

And you must take into account, that regardless of all balancing, the russian tanks always need a advantage over all others. Because Russia is strong. So the Obj. 140 turret gets buffed a good bit, despite the fact that it can and will bounce even JgPzE100 shells 85% of times with the current armor.

 

If the developers could, they would introduce a russian autoloader with 390mm penetration, a clip of 10 shots with a average damage of 600. Viewrange of 900m, going 65 km/h on all terrains, sporting an all around sloped armor of 450mm.



Geno1isme #9 Posted 11 August 2017 - 01:27 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 44106 battles
  • 8,541
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

View PostCircleOfSorrow, on 11 August 2017 - 01:59 PM, said:

If these attributes had values, and each value was within a range, and the sum total was very similar between vehicles of the same tier, would we not have a far more balanced game than we see today?

 

Sure you could try to do that, but the first question is: how do you put comparable numbers to those stats? Has a Tiger more or less firepower than an IS or a St. Emil for example? Is a KV-4 better or worse armored than a T32 or a T28?

 

And second, summing up of different stats doesn't work at all when you consider extreme values. The WTE was the prime example: Basically perfect values for firepower, but everything else was crap. Yet if you'd put that into simple numbers, the sum likely would come out as average or even below average for its tier.


Edited by Geno1isme, 11 August 2017 - 01:32 PM.


Lil_Dimitry #10 Posted 11 August 2017 - 01:33 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 2318 battles
  • 220
  • Member since:
    12-07-2014

View PostCircleOfSorrow, on 11 August 2017 - 12:59 PM, said:

Yeah, ok; a lot of activities are easier said than done, but I don't see the difficulty with this one.  Surely every vehicle is a sum of the dynamic between armour, firepower, and mobility.  These three would obviously break down into sub-factors that make the product.  Armour type, thickness, angling, and distribution.  Gun penetration, damage, rof, handling, arcs of movement, ammo types/behaviour.  Acceleration and top speed in both directions and in rotation, on differing terrain types, and at varying grades.

 

If these attributes had values, and each value was within a range, and the sum total was very similar between vehicles of the same tier, would we not have a far more balanced game than we see today?

 

Please feel free to discuss the topic, explain the complexity that I'm missing, or just insult my intelligence.  All three are valid and welcome.

 

 

 

  Do you really believe a company that introduced Swedish TD's in this game care about the gameplay or balance in general?



StinkyStonky #11 Posted 11 August 2017 - 01:45 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29546 battles
  • 2,248
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    11-02-2015

I've some basic questions and an explanation ...

 

What should be balanced ?  All tanks at a tier ?  Should all tank types be equal or should one class (mediums) be more powerful than another (TDs) ? What about all tanks of a class at a tier (e.g. all tier 8 heavies) ?  Or should it be all trees, so that it is OK for the T32 to be bleargh as long as the T110E5 makes up for it, such that the T110E5 line is equall to the IS7 and E100 line (all tanks in the line not just the Tier 10) ?

 

Now imagine they implement you your multi param system and then after 1 month they analyse all the tanks with >10M battles and notice that the Maus has a 48% win rate, does 53% of the average damage for tier 10 heavies, gets 51% of the XP and earns 42% of the average silver.  What should WG do ?  Buff turret rotation ?  Rear armour perhaps ?  What about engine HP, perhaps that would help ....

What if they notice that on Fishermans Bay those stats change to 41%, 55%, 49% and 45% but on Himmelsdorf they become 51%, 48%, 48% and 52%.  What should they do now ?  Buff the commanders hatch armour ?  Increase HE pen by 5mm ?

What if they notice that in Random battles the stats are ...,...,...,... but in Skirmishes they become ...,...,...,....

What if they notice that in pure tier 10 battles the stats are ...,...,...,... but in 8-10s they become ...,...,...,....

What if they notice that in zero arty battles the stats are ...,...,...,... but in 3 arty battles they become ...,...,...,....

 

The complexity is eye watering and this is just one tank.  There are 400 tanks and most of the players on the forums are moaning that the maps are too small ....



CoDiGGo #12 Posted 11 August 2017 - 01:47 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 15024 battles
  • 570
  • [NEUR0] NEUR0
  • Member since:
    05-10-2015

Balancing tanks is more art and game knowledge than maths imo.

 

The best way is just nerfing overpowered tanks and buffing underpowered tanks. 



pathed91 #13 Posted 11 August 2017 - 03:13 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 18249 battles
  • 266
  • Member since:
    03-09-2014

View PostLil_Dimitry, on 11 August 2017 - 01:33 PM, said:

 

 

 

  Do you really believe a company that introduced Swedish TD's in this game care about the gameplay or balance in general?

 

The high tier swedish TDs get avarage winrates and don't overperform according to wot news. It's more that they promote camping because of how inflexible they are with the siege mode.

SABAOTH #14 Posted 11 August 2017 - 03:14 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 37366 battles
  • 2,915
  • [-133-] -133-
  • Member since:
    08-28-2011
I tried to balance one on the tip of my nose, however it fell and crashed for 780 damage. :(

Gkirmathal #15 Posted 11 August 2017 - 03:26 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8125 battles
  • 1,524
  • Member since:
    01-14-2013

WG balance = WG balancing their bank account /s

 

On a serious note though.

No it is not that difficult to create a workable balance and no it is not needed to analyze things for months/years in order to do so.

IMO balance updates should be made much more frequent, for instance monthly balance updates and not in the order of a year before addressing a wrongful buff done earlier.

 

For example the E5, Maus and Type for instance could have been analyzed in 1 month and addressed by an update in the second month. The same goes for vehicles which are under par for years on end.

 

Sadly this only applies: WG balance = WG balancing their bank account /s


Edited by Gkirmathal, 11 August 2017 - 03:28 PM.


Derethim #16 Posted 11 August 2017 - 04:31 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17784 battles
  • 1,997
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

It is quite difficult to create balance between tanks, but it can still be done by a single person over a few months. WG however is trying to balance the tanks, not to be perfectly balanced, because there have to be stronger and weaker tanks, but to get some cash flow out of the game (altough they are pushing it really hard).

 

The reason there being stronger and weaker tanks is variety - BF4 has a perfect balance, but it's cookie-cutter and all guns feel the same.

They also change balance once in a while to make people grind certain lines, that's why no lower-tier tank can be OP - they get no revenue and in a few weeks everyone is going to drive for example, the KV-1s.



RamRaid90 #17 Posted 11 August 2017 - 04:53 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 22473 battles
  • 6,688
  • [D0NG] D0NG
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View Postzulu_261, on 11 August 2017 - 12:27 PM, said:

And you must take into account, that regardless of all balancing, the russian tanks always need a advantage over all others. Because Russia is strong. So the Obj. 140 turret gets buffed a good bit, despite the fact that it can and will bounce even JgPzE100 shells 85% of times with the current armor.

 

 

 

No, no it does not.

Derethim #18 Posted 11 August 2017 - 11:32 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17784 battles
  • 1,997
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

View PostRamRaid90, on 11 August 2017 - 04:53 PM, said:

 

No, no it does not.

 

Depends on the dispersion, but it's turret is indeed well-armored.

RamRaid90 #19 Posted 11 August 2017 - 11:45 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 22473 battles
  • 6,688
  • [D0NG] D0NG
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View PostDerethim, on 11 August 2017 - 10:32 PM, said:

 

Depends on the dispersion, but it's turret is indeed well-armored.

 

Simply no.

 

The statement was it will block 85% of incoming Jageroo shells. The answer is no, it will not.



Cannes76 #20 Posted 11 August 2017 - 11:45 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 68756 battles
  • 1,769
  • [TAKE] TAKE
  • Member since:
    04-16-2011

Your idea of assigning specific values to each parameter of a tank is too simplistic to work in as complex an environment as WoT.

 

They should go their current route with more moderation and decisiveness than they are instead. So when a tank over or under perform it should receive immidiate, but moderate, attention to being the winrate curves within acceptable margins.

Instead of the current over reactions that sometimes takes years to correct.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users