Jump to content


I don't care HOW you fix it, but fix it allready


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

St4n #1 Posted 16 September 2017 - 08:16 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 19511 battles
  • 956
  • [WU36] WU36
  • Member since:
    07-12-2011

First off, I have a job and a family and I play this game casually. I did spend some money on this game, but not much. So basicly I'm the model target person this game tries to appeal to. (At least that is what they allways say.) I don't play much lately and have a lot of breaks in between. And there is a specific problem with this game, that imediatelly drives me even more away from the game than, trying to pull me back into it.

 

Today, and that is not the first time this happens, I wanted to get some first wins. 1st match - 2min - 8 players of my team dead. 2nd match - my teammates die one after another and manage their first kill after 7 of them are allready dead. And there was no 3rd match as I know that will be the same and I have other games and other things that give me more pleasure for my time than this [edited]. (Venting my frustration here for example.) The poor teams you get multiple times in a row and on top of that, you get punished by the game trough unavoidable cost of time and credits. Just balancing maps and tanks on its own will not help here. Even a match with only the same tank with exactly the same loadout and a plain field will not net a balanced experience if one team has better players than the other. And the bigger the difference is, the worse it gets for the other team. Period.

Ergo, this game has just proven to me that it is indeed not worth playing. Not the best way to get a casual like me back into the game. And offcourse I will not buy premium time or a tank knowing that I might play this game only some hours a month.

 

Since I play Battlefield at the time I just want to compare why their system is way better (even if not perfect):

respawn:
- WoT has no respawns and so each gun lost is another disadvantage for the allready inferior team

- BF has respawns so you can try again and again, no team is in a disadvantage just by losing more people in the beginning

leaving:

- WoT does punish you for leaving, so you have to waste your time on an allready lost match

- BF lets you leave to your hearts pleasure so if you get a team that really can't play well, than you don't need to waste your time on that (that has a positive effect, since if one team gets steamrolled enough players leave and get replaced by other players which might be better than the ones that left)

punishment:

- WoT does punish you for losing by paying credits and getting nearly no exp (compared to winning)

- BF does not punish you for losing, you don't have to pay anything that you allready own and winning multipliers are not that big to make your efforts a waste if you lose

handicap:

- WoT has no handicaps to thwart a steamroll

- BF the losing side gets a behemoth (super strong vehicle) to balance a match, the bigger the difference in score, the earlier they get it

staying:

- WoT doesn't let you "stay on the server" so you play with the same people on another map, offcourse, because every lowtier would leave

- BF you can stay on the same server and play the next map with the same people and they got swapped between teams according to their performance overall and in the last game (so yeah, they get f*cking balanced by skill and it f*cking works most of the time!)

 

I know that they can't overhaul their system with respanws and such, but implementing features like handicaps for the winning team (They still win, just not by that big of a margin.) and/or swapping people by their skill (They still win more, just not by that big of a margin.) or simply stopping to punish the losing teams members that much would make a lot of a difference. If I lose a match in BF I could still have a fun time and get some rewards in the end. In WoT I see that the match is lost after 2min, but are forced to play it or I get punished even more than I allready get punished for the loss itself - that match has wasted my lifetime since I had no fun at all.

 

TL;DR:

In WoT you have steamrolls because the game misses every feature that would prevent them. And steamrolls don't appeal to people who just want to play a few games (since the nature of randomness can give you multiple steamroll-losses in a row) and drives them away from the game even more. Too much time of playing WoT is no fun and there are games and things that have a way better time-to-fun-ratio. And for WG this comes down to a very simple rule: If you can't deliver fun, you wont get money. (Except you create a disguised skinner-box and trap people in it so they play the game even if it is no fun.)

 


Edited by St4n, 18 September 2017 - 04:28 PM.


DaddysLittlePrincess #2 Posted 16 September 2017 - 08:22 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 24659 battles
  • 212
  • Member since:
    08-14-2012
Just go play BF if it's so perfect for you.

jack_timber #3 Posted 16 September 2017 - 08:32 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 33432 battles
  • 2,069
  • Member since:
    07-26-2014

Yes the game has its flaws but on the whole I enjoy playing WoT. So you get a bad team never mind, like London buses, there will be another battle along shortly.

 



cro001 #4 Posted 16 September 2017 - 08:35 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29529 battles
  • 1,920
  • Member since:
    10-21-2012

I already  Edited by RNG to agree to any of your points.

 

This post has been edited by the moderation team due to swearing. 


Edited by VMX, 16 September 2017 - 12:44 PM.


Jigabachi #5 Posted 16 September 2017 - 08:45 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17923 battles
  • 19,005
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011
The comparisons with BF are nonsense of course, but I see your point and I agree with the frustration that the game creates with the never-ending stream of boring steamroll.
But instead of giving the losing team a Ratte, WG should do the obvious things first that the players request since years. I'm talking about new maps, fixing old ones, fixing gamebalance, fixing rewards, fixing player guidance, etc.pp.

malachi6 #6 Posted 16 September 2017 - 09:08 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 49855 battles
  • 3,444
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011
Another well considered post.  Guy, if you don;t know how to fix your perceived problems.  How do you assume WG will know what to do?  Anybody can create a list of problems.  Indeed people so all the time.  I assume they and you dodge the fixing part because you know, no matter what you do.  People will still complain.

TungstenHitman #7 Posted 16 September 2017 - 09:08 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 22089 battles
  • 4,041
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

I know what you mean but unfortunately I don't think your comparison or proposed changes would change a whole lot and here's why

 

Respawn- This would certainly not influence a team of bad players losing. As much as they would constantly re-spawn they would just keep getting killed and not only that, if they finally managed to kill a few good players on the other team those good players would just re-spawn too so instead of 15-0 massacre it would be 60-5 or something hilarious like that lol! Believe me, going back to the garage is the best option here!!

 

Leaving- would be nice option sometimes but unfortunately would be abused and spammed by players that "don't like the look" of pretty much every team they draw that isn't stocked with purple players so most battles would be 6vs9 or 3vs15 before the countdown even finishes, terrible idea.

 

Punishment- getting little credits and XP for losing can cause problems and conflict between teammates no doubt about it. That said, I think the better reward for winning kinda makes sense and makes players naturally want to improve and win though I could be wrong. Personally it makes me want to win every battle with a side effect of saltiness in most battles win lose or draw.

 

Handicap- Not sure how that would work.. if 3 remaining teammates are arty they turn into Type5's? Lol!

 

Staying-You answered why that wouldn't work yourself



Cannes76 #8 Posted 16 September 2017 - 09:32 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 66450 battles
  • 1,721
  • [ORIGN] ORIGN
  • Member since:
    04-16-2011

As others have pointed out, it sounds like you should migrate to BF if WoT isn't your cop of tea.

WoT is what it is, and definitely has its flaws, but the ones you point really aren't. Majority of WoT players do not want WoT to become BF.



XOR42 #9 Posted 16 September 2017 - 09:46 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 16912 battles
  • 349
  • [-AWF-] -AWF-
  • Member since:
    04-18-2015

View PostSt4n, on 16 September 2017 - 08:16 AM, said:

The poor teams you get multiple times in a row and on top of that, you get punished by the game trough unavoidable cost of time and credits

 

Hi there!

 

When you apply the word "random" to the battle you play and you know that the mass of average to not so good players far outweighs those that are competent or above, coupled with how janky the MM can be at times, why would you expect it to be otherwise? Yes, you could argue that MM could be more balanced, but as it does not take player skill into account, how could it really do that?

 

You say punished through time and credits? I've had my fair share of games and stretches of games that I had no business winning but did - I'm not arrogant enough to complain when it doesn't go my way. When you press that battle button, you accept that you may win, you may lose. You may even lose several times in a row, but you still pushed the button and accepted that you wish to "gamble" your time and money.

 

Ultimately, it may not be correct or fair, but we all get the same level of correct or fair.

 

o7



AliceUnchained #10 Posted 16 September 2017 - 09:55 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 38414 battles
  • 8,928
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View PostSt4n, on 16 September 2017 - 08:16 AM, said:

First off, I have a job and a family and I play this game casually.

 

Thanks fore starting with this, as it's a clear signal we can just ignore the rest. And not bother reading any of it.



K_A #11 Posted 16 September 2017 - 10:09 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 13641 battles
  • 4,665
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    04-18-2013

Let's now compare WoT to CS:GO, shall we? Let's use your exact pointers to keep things equal:

 

respawn:
- WoT has no respawns and so each gun lost is another disadvantage for the allready inferior team

- CS has no respawns making player skill during each round vital to their team's success. Fail early and you'll need to really step it up to win!

leaving:

- WoT does punish you for leaving, so you have to waste your time on an allready lost match

- CS does punish you for leaving a competitive match, as is right to do because by leaving you put your team at an even bigger disadvantage.

punishment:

- WoT does punish you for losing by paying credits and getting nearly no exp (compared to winning)

- CS does punish you for losing by dropping your elo rating and thus your hard earned rank.

handicap:

- WoT has no handicaps to thwart a steamroll

- CS has no handicaps to thwart steamroll, it's all down to you and the enemy team's skill

staying:

- WoT doesn't let you "stay on the server" so you play with the same people on another map, offcourse, because every lowtier would leave

- CS does allow you to keep your own team to the next game if you want, but enemies will always be random

 

 

Now, when I last checked CS was a way more popular game than any BF game ever, so that's good then, right? So that would mean that a game that checks almost all the same boxes as CS would have it's ground principles pretty well laid down, right? :honoring:



St4n #12 Posted 16 September 2017 - 10:21 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 19511 battles
  • 956
  • [WU36] WU36
  • Member since:
    07-12-2011

View PostDaddysLittlePrincess, on 16 September 2017 - 07:22 AM, said:

Just go play BF if it's so perfect for you.

If you have read carefully, you would have drawn the conclusion that I will do exactly that. I don't need someone like you telling me the obvious, lol.

View Postmalachi6, on 16 September 2017 - 08:08 AM, said:

Another well considered post.  Guy, if you don;t know how to fix your perceived problems.  How do you assume WG will know what to do?  Anybody can create a list of problems.  Indeed people so all the time.  I assume they and you dodge the fixing part because you know, no matter what you do.  People will still complain.

So "Bruh steamrolls are bad, remove them!" Is better criticism, since it tells you to remove the problem? This isn't a list of problems, but a list of causes for said problem and therefore a way beter criticism than you trying to make it look. The solution is obviously to work on this causes. And I do not dodge anything. I even admit that some causes can't be fixed, but that doesn't make them less of a cause for the problem and therefore they must be named regardless. On others you can work. What is the obvious solution to too much punishment? Less punishment offcourse.


How about you stating arguments of value instead of trying to devalue mine? Otherwise you look like the guy with the "anybody can create" post that was so "well considered" like the thousand others in this forum that don't agree with someone else.

View PostTungstenHitman, on 16 September 2017 - 08:08 AM, said:

I know what you mean but unfortunately I don't think your comparison or proposed changes would change a whole lot and here's why

 

Respawn- This would certainly not influence a team of bad players losing. As much as they would constantly re-spawn they would just keep getting killed and not only that, if they finally managed to kill a few good players on the other team those good players would just re-spawn too so instead of 15-0 massacre it would be 60-5 or something hilarious like that lol! Believe me, going back to the garage is the best option here!!

 

It doesn't work linear. If a team of 15 can kill 2 tanks per minute and the other can kill 1 per minute, than the score would have a 2-1 ratio in the end. But without respawns some of the counterkills of the team with the lower kills per minute are taken away since they have less players. This stacks over the whole game and therefore the game will end with a much higher difference.

 

Leaving- would be nice option sometimes but unfortunately would be abused and spammed by players that "don't like the look" of pretty much every team they draw that isn't stocked with purple players so most battles would be 6vs9 or 3vs15 before the countdown even finishes, terrible idea.

 

Not if other people can fill in and the game doesn't start before both teams are full. This is tied to "no respawn" because if respawn would be possible, than people could fill in slots even while a game is progressing. And that they want to leave is mostly because of the punishment for losing. In BF losing teams are not suddenly empty, people stay regardless since they don't have their efforts wasted by punishments for losing.

 

Punishment- getting little credits and XP for losing can cause problems and conflict between teammates no doubt about it. That said, I think the better reward for winning kinda makes sense and makes players naturally want to improve and win though I could be wrong. Personally it makes me want to win every battle with a side effect of saltiness in most battles win lose or draw.

 

Offcourse, lessen the weight of a win will increase the amount of players switching their attention and goals to other things. This increases frustration for thos who want to win. But forcing people into trying to win when matches are allready lost bears even more frustration, since you can't midgate that by other actions and you know that you will not get any meaningfull rewards for your efforts.

 

Handicap- Not sure how that would work.. if 3 remaining teammates are arty they turn into Type5's? Lol!

 

No, but simply manipulating RNG. And no, I don't mean they pen every shot but having a pen RNG of +55/-45 instead of +50/-50 would be enough of a buff. They could also temper with skill values. There are many ways to flexibly buff or nerf to create soft handicaps.

 

Staying-You answered why that wouldn't work yourself

 

Reward it porperly to stay as lowtier and enough people will do that.

 



AliceUnchained #13 Posted 16 September 2017 - 10:22 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 38414 battles
  • 8,928
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

*edited*

 

Oh and 19.355.

 

 


Edited by Daxeno, 18 September 2017 - 09:18 AM.
This post has been edited by the moderation team due to being conflict inducing


St4n #14 Posted 16 September 2017 - 10:30 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 19511 battles
  • 956
  • [WU36] WU36
  • Member since:
    07-12-2011

View PostK_A, on 16 September 2017 - 09:09 AM, said:

Let's now compare WoT to CS:GO, shall we? Let's use your exact pointers to keep things equal:

 

respawn:
- WoT has no respawns and so each gun lost is another disadvantage for the allready inferior team

- CS has no respawns making player skill during each round vital to their team's success. Fail early and you'll need to really step it up to win!

No, but a round is very short and you respawn for the next round.

leaving:

- WoT does punish you for leaving, so you have to waste your time on an allready lost match

- CS does punish you for leaving a competitive match, as is right to do because by leaving you put your team at an even bigger disadvantage.

What punishment? Do I lose credits or something? I don't think so. If it is elo, look at the next question.

punishment:

- WoT does punish you for losing by paying credits and getting nearly no exp (compared to winning)

- CS does punish you for losing by dropping your elo rating and thus your hard earned rank.

If you don't care about your rank you lose nothing? You can't buy anything for your rank so it's just for showing off? It's compareable to getting a worse winration, but not to losing in actual ingame currency.

handicap:

- WoT has no handicaps to thwart a steamroll

- CS has no handicaps to thwart steamroll, it's all down to you and the enemy team's skill

That's the only thing that is exactly the same.

staying:

- WoT doesn't let you "stay on the server" so you play with the same people on another map, offcourse, because every lowtier would leave

- CS does allow you to keep your own team to the next game if you want, but enemies will always be random

Can I stay in a good team in WoT to have less bad teams? CS does give you that choice.

 

 

Now, when I last checked CS was a way more popular game than any BF game ever, so that's good then, right? So that would mean that a game that checks almost all the same boxes as CS would have it's ground principles pretty well laid down, right? :honoring:

While I agree that CS is closer to WoT than BF it is still not the same and so the argument could as well be that CS is working better than WoT is because the mechanics are going into the right direction. (away from the ones of WoT)


Edited by St4n, 16 September 2017 - 10:51 AM.


jabster #15 Posted 16 September 2017 - 11:20 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12537 battles
  • 23,372
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostAliceUnchained, on 16 September 2017 - 09:22 AM, said:

 

 Oh and 19.355.

 

 

It's the problem I have with all this type of posts. I can understand new comers saying this, I can understand old timers asking for minor changes but what I can't understand is old timers asking for fairly fundamental changes. Just how long does it take to realise that there's a major issue that means you don't like a game?



Kartoshkaya #16 Posted 16 September 2017 - 11:27 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 23531 battles
  • 335
  • [5FPS] 5FPS
  • Member since:
    01-01-2015

View Postjabster, on 16 September 2017 - 11:20 AM, said:

 

It's the problem I have with all this type of posts. I can understand new comers saying this, I can understand old timers asking for minor changes but what I can't understand is old timers asking for fairly fundamental changes. Just how long does it take to realise that there's a major issue that means you don't like a game?

 

Yeah I was thinking about his. Why did you even play in the first time ? You're comparing games wich are fundamentaly different. And this thread is a non sense you're just saying you don't like this game, and you're a casual. Why would a casual would claim a game to change completly, just move on another game like all casuals. Instal yourself candy crush and play in toilet when taking a dump.

tajj7 #17 Posted 16 September 2017 - 11:47 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 25404 battles
  • 13,836
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

Aside no re-spawns none of those 'problems' cause steam rolls.

 

And re-spawns isn't going to change any time soon, well at least with most modes. They've tried a mode with re-spawns and most players barely played that mode. 

 

One sided results are basically the consequence of multiplayer gaming with a random mix of people of different abilities, ages etc., no re-spawns and the other random factors that occur in game.  Not to mention as well because the majority of players are just bad and make stupid mistakes over and over.

 

None of that will really change, it's been a part of this game (and other games) since forever and you deal with it and move on.  Sh*t happens basically. 

 

People claim all these fixes for it but they won't work, skill based MM has been shown by AW not to work. 

 

Best that can happen is tank balance (both the power of tanks and what tanks line up on either team) and map balance is improved.  There is no fix to some idiot player yoloing his tank into 5 enemies, even with a re-spawn he'll just do it again.

 

Also Battlefield has one sided games ALL the time, I have played all the Battlefields extensively going back to BF2 and you always get one sided games and teams dominating. The behemoth system is stupid and a bad addition to the game because it doesn't help as it generally just takes more players out of the game and most players have learnt to just steer clear of it. 

 

Finally the punishment system for leaving is there to stop people bailing on their team mates before the game even starts because they don't like the map or MM. Dealing with what the game throws at you be it a crap team, a map not suited to your tank or bad MM is part of the challenge of the game. 



St4n #18 Posted 16 September 2017 - 11:48 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 19511 battles
  • 956
  • [WU36] WU36
  • Member since:
    07-12-2011

View Postjabster, on 16 September 2017 - 10:20 AM, said:

 

It's the problem I have with all this type of posts. I can understand new comers saying this, I can understand old timers asking for minor changes but what I can't understand is old timers asking for fairly fundamental changes. Just how long does it take to realise that there's a major issue that means you don't like a game?

 

Because I was trapped in the skinner box WoT for a fairly long time.
Thats the reason why people don't realise it right at the start. They get pulled in and than they are trapped. It's not that it takes long to realise flaws, it takes long to realise that you do not have fun. So maybe that broadens your "understanding".

jabster #19 Posted 16 September 2017 - 11:52 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12537 battles
  • 23,372
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostSt4n, on 16 September 2017 - 10:48 AM, said:

 

Because I was trapped in the skinner box WoT for a fairly long time.
Thats the reason why people don't realise it right at the start. They get pulled in and than they are trapped. It's not that it takes long to realise flaws, it takes long to realise that you do not have fun. So maybe that broadens your "understanding".

 

Really, well besides the rather lame Skinner box reference (there really should be an internet law for that) maybe it's because they enjoy it or are you one of those posters that thinks as they no longer enjoy the game anybody who does is clearly stupid and/or deluded?

Balc0ra #20 Posted 16 September 2017 - 11:52 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 66239 battles
  • 16,231
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

You can't really compare the two. BF is a drop in game, wot is not. As most play 1 or 3 wot matches between stuff now and then, and your average match is not over 10 min long. If you play BF you only get time for half a match between stuff if you lack time.  Matches are intended to last longer, and some have points you need to push. As in the map changes dominance... thus why they call it domination. Imagine how fun that would be if you did not re-spawn there? Because then you would more or less have Counter Strike, on a bigger map. And BF do punish you for losing kinda, most of them have had a small bonus xp for winning. As they do want to motivate team play, not just sitting at the back farming sniper xp because then he will get the same XP as the winning team.

 

So what you are suggesting is that the current 15 vs 15 modes will allow you to leave at will, re-spawn, get a Ratte P 1000 if you get steam rolled, and for your last point to work.. well... again, BF don't have tiers. And most do a daily 2x run, on different tiers. So most would leave on the next map anyway. So you would start with a 3 vs 10. Some points contradicts your other points. As then you would never have a 15 vs 15 game most times. And imagine if suddenly 8 of your 15 team mates "left" when you won because they had to go, or just wanted to troll. Or having re-spawn on the maps we have when they steam roll, and your team gets spawn killed constantly? It won't work for WOT, not on anyone of the current game modes. And fixing "steam rolls" by giving them a big tank works on BF when you have 32 players on a team all firing on it with planes, tanks and everything around. As your map location is not always a hinder in terms of you being allowed to hit it.  Not when you have 6 on one flank, because the others are behind the hill on the other side of the map, or in base. So then the only thing they would fix is truing all sure wins you had, into a sure loss.

 

You said you were a casual gamer. Many here are, because you can take the one round now and then. Because it's the game you can even play when you don't have to much time just to get one daily in etc. BF is not.. well you can, but you rarely do finish a match then, and WOT would not work if you suddenly got into a game that was just about to be done, that's fun when you play your T95, don't even get out of base before it's over. So I suggest you keep to BF then, as you said you would. BF is fun, but fun in a different way. Not all games need to be alike, or would work if they were alike.

 

If you want tank action like that, I suggest BF 3's tank DLC that still has a fairly big population on PC still. Big maps, re-spawns, just tanks and a few helicopters and rather fun. Or BF 1942's Desert Combat with modern tanks. Still highly populated and with modded servers so you have 200 vs 200. Hysterical fun. And it's free.

 

 

 

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users