Jump to content


Some noteworhty bits of a Q&A.


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

brumbarr #1 Posted 10 October 2017 - 12:04 PM

    Lieutenant General

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

Just read the Q&A on the armoured patrol and there are 3 things I think are noteworthy:

 

1)the RNG is based on a normal distribution system where we can tune the probability, where there is at the moment it is set to have 67% chance within the +/- 10% RNG, where the extreme number has a smaller chance to happen. 

 

 

2)Wargaming has also collected statistics from all the regions on the correlations between XVM and toxicity in the game. They are very to find out that players with XVM tends to be less toxic in the game. (This also surprise WG themselves)

 

3)Fate of the Chieftain Mk 6. – unfortunately, it is unlikely for us to introduce the Chieftain into the game. As much as we want to implement to it into the game, we don’t want to just make it simply able to research from the Conqueror. If we can find some lower tiers that can fir to the similar playstyle to the Chieftain, then we will consider implementing the Chieftain into the game.

 

 

Source:

 

https://thearmoredpa...-qa/#more-58521

 



jabster #2 Posted 10 October 2017 - 12:18 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12532 battles
  • 22,807
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

For XVM, I’d be interested to now how they determined that the level of toxicity not to mention that they have a record of who uses it.

 

The one that did make me chuckle was the black tanks were released to celebrate Black Friday. They’re celebrating a sale, what’s that all about?



Kozzy #3 Posted 10 October 2017 - 12:21 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 38855 battles
  • 2,705
  • [EAB2] EAB2
  • Member since:
    06-29-2011

View Postjabster, on 10 October 2017 - 11:18 AM, said:

a) For XVM, I’d be interested to now how they determined that the level of toxicity not to mention that they have a record of who uses it.

 

b) The one that did make me chuckle was the black tanks were released to celebrate Black Friday. They’re celebrating a sale, what’s that all about?

 

a) They made that up, so they don't have to be seen to be addressing a proven 'non issue'.

 

b) Come on, Jabster, you really have to ask?



leggasiini #4 Posted 10 October 2017 - 12:21 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 12328 battles
  • 6,071
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

"We are aware the players has very negative feedback on the Type 4 and 5 HE guns and the armour. However, at this point it hasn’t reach a critical point so we will not further change them for now. We are closely monitoring these 2 tanks."

 

Im kinda curious what they consider as "critical point", because currently the Type 5 in especial is brought in forms of new topics almost every day. I hear that Russians have bit less negative attitude to it (mostly because they apparently care less about P2W than we do).

 

I just wish that the tank had actually a good gun that doesnt involve "SPAM GOLD AND YOUR DAMAGE INCREASES BY ~30-40% axaxaxaxa))))))", either by reducing reliance on P2W factor on derp gun (remove gold HE, possibly reduce normal HE alpha but buff gun stats so its more a beefed up O-Ho derp) or buffing the 14 cm AP gun. Just do something actually relevant (and not a pathetic excuse of "fixes" that was 9.20 changes to Type 5) and I would be so, so happy already.



shishx_the_animal #5 Posted 10 October 2017 - 12:22 PM

    Colonel

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 30697 battles
  • 3,861
  • [FAIME] FAIME
  • Member since:
    04-06-2013
Why doesn't any of this surprise me?

Schmeksiman #6 Posted 10 October 2017 - 12:31 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 16275 battles
  • 6,601
  • [INC] INC
  • Member since:
    03-10-2012

View Postjabster, on 10 October 2017 - 12:18 PM, said:

For XVM, I’d be interested to now how they determined that the level of toxicity not to mention that they have a record of who uses it.

 

I guess they have some kind of program that tracks which files are used, maybe a part of anti cheat or something. If that point stands then it's pretty easy for the to simply compare how many times one was reported for insult and provocation.



dennez #7 Posted 10 October 2017 - 12:32 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 16822 battles
  • 4,755
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    02-26-2013

View Postbrumbarr, on 10 October 2017 - 12:04 PM, said:

 

3)Fate of the Chieftain Mk 6. – unfortunately, it is unlikely for us to introduce the Chieftain into the game. As much as we want to implement to it into the game, we don’t want to just make it simply able to research from the Conqueror. If we can find some lower tiers that can fir to the similar playstyle to the Chieftain, then we will consider implementing the Chieftain into the game.

 

 

 

Translates to "We know a LOT of people want it, and since we're not completely retarded, we want to make sure there's a whole line to grind for it with lots of XP sinks."



Sfinski #8 Posted 10 October 2017 - 12:36 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 30928 battles
  • 2,347
  • [-PJ-] -PJ-
  • Member since:
    09-26-2013

View Postbrumbarr, on 10 October 2017 - 01:04 PM, said:

 

3)Fate of the Chieftain Mk 6. – unfortunately, it is unlikely for us to introduce the Chieftain into the game. As much as we want to implement to it into the game, we don’t want to just make it simply able to research from the Conqueror. If we can find some lower tiers that can fir to the similar playstyle to the Chieftain, then we will consider implementing the Chieftain 

 

 

So the tank itself is fine and ready to be implemented but cause they cant get money from us grinding a new line they wont put it in? How about WZ A5? 

 

How low can they go? 

 

 



jabster #9 Posted 10 October 2017 - 12:37 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12532 battles
  • 22,807
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostKozzy, on 10 October 2017 - 11:21 AM, said:

 

b) Come on, Jabster, you really have to ask?

 

Knowing WG they probably thought it was similar to Black Lives Matter so decided to do their bit.



jabster #10 Posted 10 October 2017 - 12:39 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12532 battles
  • 22,807
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostSchmeksiman, on 10 October 2017 - 11:31 AM, said:

 

I guess they have some kind of program that tracks which files are used, maybe a part of anti cheat or something. If that point stands then it's pretty easy for the to simply compare how many times one was reported for insult and provocation.

 

Doesn’t activation of XVM ingame have some proxy authentication with WG so they know who has done that?

Schmeksiman #11 Posted 10 October 2017 - 12:40 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 16275 battles
  • 6,601
  • [INC] INC
  • Member since:
    03-10-2012

View Postjabster, on 10 October 2017 - 12:39 PM, said:

Doesn’t activation of XVM ingame have some proxy authentication with WG so they know who has done that?

 

It has been two years since I've used XVM or any similar mod. I honestly don't have a clue but that could be the case.



Spurtung #12 Posted 10 October 2017 - 12:45 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 61582 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostSfinski, on 10 October 2017 - 01:36 PM, said:

How low can they go? 



jabster #13 Posted 10 October 2017 - 12:47 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12532 battles
  • 22,807
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostSchmeksiman, on 10 October 2017 - 11:40 AM, said:

 

It has been two years since I've used XVM or any similar mod. I honestly don't have a clue but that could be the case.

 

Haven’t used it for a long time myself either so it was more a question of where WG get their information from is an XVM user.



brumbarr #14 Posted 10 October 2017 - 12:50 PM

    Lieutenant General

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

View Postjabster, on 10 October 2017 - 12:39 PM, said:

 

Doesn’t activation of XVM ingame have some proxy authentication with WG so they know who has done that?

Yes, in order to activate the xvm stats you have to login to theri website with the WG ID and press a button to activate stats.



TankkiPoju #15 Posted 10 October 2017 - 12:52 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 20014 battles
  • 6,192
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

View Postjabster, on 10 October 2017 - 12:39 PM, said:

 

Doesn’t activation of XVM ingame have some proxy authentication with WG so they know who has done that?

 

You need to authenticate at modxvm.com so that XVM can get your Wargaming ID (account ID). This ID is given as parameter when XVM fetches your WoT history details.

 

So I would guess WG doesn't probably know who actually uses XVM, but they can tell whose stats are being fetched often... like people who use XVM stats.

 



Long_Range_Sniper #16 Posted 10 October 2017 - 12:53 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 30539 battles
  • 8,264
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

This is the full section on XVM below and my thoughts.

 

Data from two years ago is hardly relevant now, and 50% of what? If 50% of players use XVM without stats what's the percentage of the playerbase using XVM with stats? If they were serious about looking at XVM they'd gather the data now, and the fact they tried to explain it with two year old data shows they really aren't that bothered.

 

Another aspect about toxicity would be the removal of cross-team chat. But the fact is you don't need XVM to tell you someone's a poor player on your team. You can generally guess that anyway from their play.

 

They're right that a lot of users use XVM stats to plan their battles and so if WG are going to use that as rationale for not removing access to the stats then why not publish the stats themselves on the loading screen. How hard would it be to configure it to show WR and PR, which are two WG stats. If there's enough justification for retaining XVM access to the stats then there's justification to give it to everyone and make it an equal playing field.

 

Franky it reads more like,

 

"We don't think it's a priority, we're not that bothered, we're going to change bits of the client anyway, and so here's some old stats and waffle to hopefully show we're interested."

 

Q: Will you consider the option of banning XVM? (Community Contributors are discussing XVM focus)

A: We are aware the XVM statistics part are leading grievance in the game, not only XVM focus. However, we cannot simply just ban XVM from the game. XVM also provided many functions on top of showing players’ statistics. We work closely with the XVM developers. Some people use to XVM statistics to plan their battle (e.g. following unicums into battles and as well as focusing good players on the enemy team – unfortunately).

2 years ago, we have collected statistics about XVM and we realise there are over 50% of the players uses XVM without the statistics functions. This is why we work hard to incorporate those functions into the game client itself, in the way of making XVM obsolete. Recently, we have introduced our new rating system, as we believe if we are able to make a better metric system, this will allow players to have a fairly accurate assessment of other players and comparison between players.

Wargaming has also collected statistics from all the regions on the correlations between XVM and toxicity in the game. They are very to find out that players with XVM tends to be less toxic in the game. (This also surprise WG themselves)

At the same time, Wargaming did research about the options of not allowing third parties to fetch data from the WG API, it leads to a problem of data analysis for many useful services. We are working on it.



HundeWurst #17 Posted 10 October 2017 - 12:53 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 67720 battles
  • 4,280
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

About point 3....

 

Ofc they fill the game with Russian copy paste prototypes and blueprints.

But an iconic tank which actually existed and plenty of British are very much interested in is not going to fit... I mean really? The excuse that the Chieftain does play a bit different then then Conqueror is the biggest bull$hit I have ever heared.

These devs.... Someone should stop the vodka supply at some point.



Long_Range_Sniper #18 Posted 10 October 2017 - 12:59 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 30539 battles
  • 8,264
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

View PostWunderWurst, on 10 October 2017 - 11:53 AM, said:

About point 3....

 

Ofc they fill the game with Russian copy paste prototypes and blueprints.

But an iconic tank which actually existed and plenty of British are very much interested in is not going to fit... I mean really? The excuse that the Chieftain does play a bit different then then Conqueror is the biggest bull$hit I have ever heared.

These devs.... Someone should stop the vodka supply at some point.

 

Especially considering the work they're now putting into the Russian heavy tech tree line to remove the T-10, with more Russian tanks that were nowhere near as real or iconic as the Chieftan.

Gremlin182 #19 Posted 10 October 2017 - 01:01 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 46634 battles
  • 7,926
  • Member since:
    04-18-2012

What is this pay to win you speak of I can see pay to do damage either more chance of damage or more actual damage.

 

I got the death star 2 days ago and have played a few games.

I can pay 2250 credits and fire a shell with 310 pen and 1150 damage

8000 credits gets me a HESH shell with 230 pen doing 1750 damage

1900 gets me a HE shell with 92 pen and 1750 damage

 

None of those are pay to win all of them are pay to gain a particular effect.

You could argue that given the death start ammo load is 12 rounds that 12 rounds of HESH will mean far more damage and kills than 12 rounds of SP.

Though given the aiming time and accuracy you are not always certain to damage a tank and its painful to aim at the front of a tank and not pen or overmatch the armour.

or aim for the side and hit the tracks 8000 credits for maybe 500 damage.

 

You might actually do better firing AP and pen tanks more consistently.

The way I look at it everyone has access to this ammunition and is free to use it

If you use it too much you lose credits on the game and no one can do that all the time it has to be funded in some way.

 

 

 



NOPANs_Bicycle #20 Posted 10 October 2017 - 01:10 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 1471 battles
  • 58
  • [NOPAN] NOPAN
  • Member since:
    03-11-2017

"no chieftain"

 

[edited][edited], the only reason I played the shitty brit heavies is because they hinted years ago that chieftain would be added to this line and the tank is even in the game files since forever. I want a refund of all the credits and xp I spent on all these dogshit tanks






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users