Jump to content


Are You Happy with RNG Percentage ? (Poll)

RNG Penetration Alpha damage Accuracy

  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

Poll: RNG (226 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battles in order to participate this poll.

Are you happy with recent RNG Percent?

  1. Yes (46 votes [20.35%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.35%

  2. No (180 votes [79.65%])

    Percentage of vote: 79.65%

If not, What should be?

  1. %5 (34 votes [15.04%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.04%

  2. %10 (93 votes [41.15%])

    Percentage of vote: 41.15%

  3. %15 (54 votes [23.89%])

    Percentage of vote: 23.89%

  4. %20 (9 votes [3.98%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.98%

  5. %30 (2 votes [0.88%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.88%

  6. %40 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  7. %50 lol (11 votes [4.87%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.87%

  8. I'm happy with recent percentage (23 votes [10.18%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.18%

Vote Hide poll

RamRaid90 #81 Posted 17 October 2017 - 09:02 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 17390 battles
  • 4,181
  • [-AWF-] -AWF-
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View PostMicoMorifi, on 17 October 2017 - 01:41 PM, said:

For me game is not fun anymore, without premium acc is unplayable even at my skill level and premium tanks, rng is too much so bye wg, milk money somewhere else.

 

39933

RamRaid90 #82 Posted 17 October 2017 - 09:05 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 17390 battles
  • 4,181
  • [-AWF-] -AWF-
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View PostMrBotosh, on 17 October 2017 - 12:01 PM, said:

 

 

 Because of these bad things, game losing too much players every year. 

 

Just a plain wrong statement. WoT is now one of the fastest growing games in the history of F2P.

 

The number of registered accounts in 2015 was 60,000,000, the number now is over 100,000,000. How many of those are active regularly is debatable, and those numbers are likely never to be made public. However saying this game is dropping in popularity is just plain misinformation.

 

I expected better from a "community contributor"...sadly it seems you know very little about the community.



ZlatanArKung #83 Posted 17 October 2017 - 09:15 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 3,780
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostRamRaid90, on 17 October 2017 - 09:05 PM, said:

 

Just a plain wrong statement. WoT is now one of the fastest growing games in the history of F2P.

 

The number of registered accounts in 2015 was 60,000,000, the number now is over 100,000,000. How many of those are active regularly is debatable, and those numbers are likely never to be made public. However saying this game is dropping in popularity is just plain misinformation.

 

I expected better from a "community contributor"...sadly it seems you know very little about the community.

 

Compared to this exact time last year, this game has lost ~50 000 active players.

From 895 000 to 848 000.

Compared to 2 years ago, it is roughly 90 000 players less. 

From 937 000 to 848 000.

 

Check wot-news


Edited by ZlatanArKung, 17 October 2017 - 09:15 PM.


Strappster #84 Posted 17 October 2017 - 09:26 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 20462 battles
  • 6,577
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015
In common with nearly every time this subject is raised, it's got very little to do with player skill and a whole lot about how unfair it is that a low-skill player can get a lucky roll and take out a blurple player. Rather than looking at those times when RNG has worked in his favour, OP would prefer to complain that it should be lowered across the board because of the times it doesn't.

Folau #85 Posted 17 October 2017 - 09:39 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 15232 battles
  • 2,548
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    05-19-2013

View Postjabster, on 17 October 2017 - 07:38 PM, said:

 

Personally if I want to play a competitive game then that's what I play. What I don't do is play one that isn't really and then expect it to be changed.

 

I don't think WoT is (or was, at least) categorically non-competitive. My basic beef with lots of WG's changes is that previously they had a nice balance between the two schools of thought. E-Sports was always a bit suspect however if you wanted clan wars they were fairly well competed. Stronghold was then a bit of a step down from that with the organisation of clan wars minus the time-heavy commitment.

 

Over time everything has been... well dumbed-down sounds harsh but it's how I feel. The key for me was seeing the original Sandbox proposals which were all about leveling the playing field and making skill less of a defining factor in the game. That was mainly the massive accuracy RNG changes, penetration nerfs, and horrendous "role" based balance. WG want maximum appeal to people who want to drive a tank around a bit, shoot some things, and generally play a very light PvP game. That's fine, it's their decision, and I understand what they want to achieve. It's not what I want, and I'm ultimately more annoyed that WG basically killed off -MM and my enjoyment of the game through that, but I've moved on to Arma 3 for the most part which I enjoy testing myself in.

 

I'll still hanging around because I'd like to enjoy WoT again, though I gave it a shot last weekend and was rapidly reminded why I hadn't played in months.


Edited by Folau, 17 October 2017 - 09:40 PM.


MrBotosh #86 Posted 17 October 2017 - 09:41 PM

    Colonel

  • Community Contributor
  • 41279 battles
  • 3,742
  • [3V] 3V
  • Member since:
    04-23-2012

View PostRamRaid90, on 17 October 2017 - 11:05 PM, said:

Just a plain wrong statement. WoT is now one of the fastest growing games in the history of F2P.

 

The number of registered accounts in 2015 was 60,000,000, the number now is over 100,000,000. How many of those are active regularly is debatable, and those numbers are likely never to be made public. However saying this game is dropping in popularity is just plain misinformation.

 

I expected better from a "community contributor"...sadly it seems you know very little about the community.

 

WoT losing players everyday. Registered accounts doesn't mean anything. Look at online players. Look at statistics from RU and EU server. Everyday less and less match playing. Less players online... Not too much but you can see trend

 

Spoiler

WoT has great potential to be a top game but WG can't manage it well. Maybe WG doesn't want it i don't know.

 

They are doing something nowadays but not enough.. They have changed MM but not enough. They will change and balance MM again tomorrow. They are changing tank balances. They will change HD graphics.  We said these things about 2-3 years. They are doing nowadays. Next step is RNG. They have to change RNG too. If they want more, they have to. Or players will leave game slowly as we can see about statistics..

 

You can check about all servers stats from;

http://wot-news.com/stat/server/ru/norm/en

 

Edit = Stupid spoiler error fixed.


Edited by MrBotosh, 17 October 2017 - 09:48 PM.


Long_Range_Sniper #87 Posted 17 October 2017 - 09:52 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 25263 battles
  • 6,176
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011
Maybe this poll shows the average skill of forumites. Because if you're not a good player the last thing you want is better players being more accurate.

Long_Range_Sniper #88 Posted 17 October 2017 - 09:57 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 25263 battles
  • 6,176
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

View PostMrBotosh, on 17 October 2017 - 08:41 PM, said:

 

WoT losing players everyday. Registered accounts doesn't mean anything. Look at online players. Look at statistics from RU and EU server. Everyday less and less match playing. Less players online... Not too much but you can see trend

 

I find this graph from Google quite interesting. On the one hand you could argue that existing players don't need to use Google to search for WoT things on the net.

 

On the other hand, if you're interested in the game where are you going to search for stuff?

 

But the fact it seems to track the server stats on games played is what's interesting, and could indicate a real trend.

 

Untitled.jpg



Homer_J #89 Posted 17 October 2017 - 10:08 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 25598 battles
  • 24,860
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postkomunistu33, on 17 October 2017 - 08:50 PM, said:

 

Wait, it's up to 30% now??? Are you shitting me?

 

View PostRamRaid90, on 17 October 2017 - 09:00 PM, said:

 

RNG is now, and always has been 25%. It has never changed.

Correct it has never been changed.  It is still and always was +67%.

 

View PostZlatanArKung, on 17 October 2017 - 09:15 PM, said:

 

Compared to this exact time last year, this game has lost ~50 000 active players.

From 895 000 to 848 000.

Compared to 2 years ago, it is roughly 90 000 players less. 

From 937 000 to 848 000.

 

Check wot-news

Figures calculated via the API are not relevant.  WG have the only figures which matter and they don't share them.

 

View PostLong_Range_Sniper, on 17 October 2017 - 09:57 PM, said:

 

I find this graph from Google quite interesting. On the one hand you could argue that existing players don't need to use Google to search for WoT things on the net.

 

On the other hand, if you're interested in the game where are you going to search for stuff?

Not really, I already know where to look for WoT related stuff and it's not Google.

 

Besides, when did you last Google anything to do with the game?



ZlatanArKung #90 Posted 17 October 2017 - 11:19 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 3,780
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostHomer_J, on 17 October 2017 - 10:08 PM, said:

 

Correct it has never been changed.  It is still and always was +67%.

 

Figures calculated via the API are not relevant.  WG have the only figures which matter and they don't share them.

 

Not really, I already know where to look for WoT related stuff and it's not Google.

 

Besides, when did you last Google anything to do with the game?

Every statistic I find for WoT points in same direction. WoT has lost some players during last 1-2 year.



Long_Range_Sniper #91 Posted 17 October 2017 - 11:20 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 25263 battles
  • 6,176
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

View PostHomer_J, on 17 October 2017 - 09:08 PM, said:

Not really, I already know where to look for WoT related stuff and it's not Google.

 

I did acknowledge that, but in terms of real player growth against re-rolls it may be a proxy indicator.

 

View PostLong_Range_Sniper, on 17 October 2017 - 09:57 PM, said:

On the one hand you could argue that existing players don't need to use Google to search for WoT things on the net.


Edited by Long_Range_Sniper, 17 October 2017 - 11:21 PM.


Slyspy #92 Posted 18 October 2017 - 12:36 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 13831 battles
  • 15,784
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostMrBotosh, on 17 October 2017 - 09:41 PM, said:

 

 

WoT has great potential to be a top game but WG can't manage it well. Maybe WG doesn't want it i don't know.

 

 

Bless you, but it already has been. Perhaps it has simply had its day.



jabster #93 Posted 18 October 2017 - 05:04 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12111 battles
  • 19,061
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostFolau, on 17 October 2017 - 08:39 PM, said:

 

I don't think WoT is (or was, at least) categorically non-competitive. My basic beef with lots of WG's changes is that previously they had a nice balance between the two schools of thought. E-Sports was always a bit suspect however if you wanted clan wars they were fairly well competed. Stronghold was then a bit of a step down from that with the organisation of clan wars minus the time-heavy commitment.

 

Over time everything has been... well dumbed-down sounds harsh but it's how I feel. The key for me was seeing the original Sandbox proposals which were all about leveling the playing field and making skill less of a defining factor in the game. That was mainly the massive accuracy RNG changes, penetration nerfs, and horrendous "role" based balance. WG want maximum appeal to people who want to drive a tank around a bit, shoot some things, and generally play a very light PvP game. That's fine, it's their decision, and I understand what they want to achieve. It's not what I want, and I'm ultimately more annoyed that WG basically killed off -MM and my enjoyment of the game through that, but I've moved on to Arma 3 for the most part which I enjoy testing myself in.

 

I'll still hanging around because I'd like to enjoy WoT again, though I gave it a shot last weekend and was rapidly reminded why I hadn't played in months.

 

Although I do agree that WG have ‘dumbed’ the game down I just don’t think that RNG changes have anything to do with that aspect. Penetration and damage rolls have always been the same as far as I know. Accuracy, the last changes I remember was that RNG was reduced with 8.6 and then slightly increased wth 9.6.

jabster #94 Posted 18 October 2017 - 05:57 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12111 battles
  • 19,061
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostHomer_J, on 17 October 2017 - 09:08 PM, said:

 

Figures calculated via the API are not relevant.  WG have the only figures which matter and they don't share them.

 

 

They are relevant, even if they don’t show the whole picture in particular how much cash each of those customers generates. The problem really comes when posters try and link those figures to why changes are made. I doubt WG really knows why players leave the game yet people are expected to beleive that an individual player knows that unless specific change X is made many players will stop playing. Personally I’d find it difficult to really say why I play less than I used to so I’m not going to assume I know why others do. It’s very simple to focus onto single issues but why you enjoy something seems to be a bit more complex than that.

 

Most importantly, what difference does it make. Let’s say that reducing RNG increased or decreased the playerbase by 10%. Why should that change someone’s opinion on whether the like, or not, the current level of RNG. Surely we are talking about a game of pixel tanks here and not some scientific consensus.


Edited by jabster, 18 October 2017 - 06:11 AM.


Baldrickk #95 Posted 18 October 2017 - 07:35 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27344 battles
  • 11,449
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013
Every time someone says "let's get rid of RNG" a little past of me goes "hmm, good idea".

At which point the rest of my brain slaps me upside the head with instantly 100% accurate ISU-152s

Homer_J #96 Posted 18 October 2017 - 08:48 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 25598 battles
  • 24,860
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostZlatanArKung, on 17 October 2017 - 11:19 PM, said:

Every statistic I find for WoT points in same direction. WoT has lost some players during last 1-2 year.

 

The game went live in Russia eight years ago.  That might have a lot more to do with having a slight decline in players than anything else.



Folau #97 Posted 18 October 2017 - 08:54 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 15232 battles
  • 2,548
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    05-19-2013

View Postjabster, on 18 October 2017 - 04:04 AM, said:

 

Although I do agree that WG have ‘dumbed’ the game down I just don’t think that RNG changes have anything to do with that aspect. Penetration and damage rolls have always been the same as far as I know. Accuracy, the last changes I remember was that RNG was reduced with 8.6 and then slightly increased wth 9.6.

 

Oh I'm not saying RNG has really done that, other than potentially where "weakspots" have been set close to penetration values so it can be down to chance whether or not you pen. My points were just that whilst it would make the game better as a contest between two teams it wouldn't suit (arguably) the majority of players, and WGs various decisions over the past few years have all-but-confirmed to me that this the group they want to cater for.

Noo_Noo #98 Posted 18 October 2017 - 10:15 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 20346 battles
  • 1,239
  • Member since:
    05-05-2013
Didn't answer the poll because my view is that RNG on damage roll is OK. i can live with that even though it bites me sometimes. 

+-25% RNG on penetration just sucks in my book. 





Also tagged with RNG, Penetration, Alpha damage, Accuracy

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users