Jump to content


Theorycrafting - Is dumbing down the game actually just making the playerbase worse?

warning this is long thats what she said

  • Please log in to reply
213 replies to this topic

Simeon85 #1 Posted 02 February 2018 - 11:04 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 1,369
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

*
POPULAR

Now to start off I don't have data to really support the assumption that this is based on, this is anecdotal based on my own observations and comments I have seen from multiple people, through multiple media (such as here, youtube etc. even QB, the eternal WOT optimist, was the other day commenting on how games are so short these days), but it appears to me that the general standard of play in the game and the 'average' player is a lot worse than it used to be. 

 

We have seen plenty of comments in the MM threads about people complaining about terrible teams, threads about bots, threads about one sided games etc. Leaving the rights and wrongs of those threads (and the people that tend to make them ;)) aside for one moment, I think we can safely assume that their is a feeling amongst many players (across all skill levels as well) at the moment, is that standard of play and players is bad, very bad. 

 

So if we assume that this correct, what could possible be causing this? 

 

Certainly many will point to the lack of tutorials, guides etc. within the game, not helping new players learn the key skills and I certainly think that is a factor that could and should be addressed. Others will point to learning based progression blocks, so you can only hit certain tiers if you achieve certain goals and again there is merit in this idea. However, I also think that the game itself, it's learning curve, the meta, the more recent design and balance choices is a big factor. 

 

The game used to have a steep learning curve, it was hard, the mechanics were hard, mistakes and lack of knowledge were punished and players were basically forced through an evolutionary process:

 

1. Adapt and overcome. You were forced by the environment and the learning curve to go seek tutorials, guides, wikis, youtube videos etc. to learn about tanks, learn the mechanics, apply what you'd learnt to try and improve, which would usually mean you'd have more success in the game. 

 

2. Quit. Players who didn't do the above, stumbled from crap game to crap game and in most cases gave up. Poor and stupid play was punished and their success was largely limited. Essentially survival of the fittest, except the weak don't die, they just go play an easier game, apparently 'Barbie' or 'Tetris' are the recommended titles base on all the messages I see from 'experts'.

 

3. Continue on oblivious. Some, and I think this was a smaller proportion of players 'back in the day', just played on being terrible and doing terribly, seemingly not knowing or not caring. 

 

I generally think though most players who started the game and didn't get put off by the terrible lower tiers, stuck with he game for a while, probably fitted into the first two categories. I am also not claiming that the people in category 1 all turned into unicums. People have different levels of what acceptable and fun games are that they will be happy with. I'd say most players in category 1 probably only got to a level of competency that allowed them to have some good games and generally do ok, and that was fun enough for them. 

 

There was never a shortcut before though really, yes there were some more forgiving tanks and there was the odd derp gun, but certainly not in the amounts, especially at higher tiers like we have now.  

 

So now we have tanks like Japanese Heavies, other over buffed heavies with little or no frontal weakspots, over buffed side armour, noob protection like in the Maus line where you can't be tracked and damaged. You also have min/maxed TDs that extremely balanced around one stat. All these require little knowledge or skill to have the odd decent game. We have a meta of brawling close range maps, where vision on 90% of maps is irrelevant, where flanking rarely happens because of protected corridors, where accuracy doesn't really matter, where base camping spots take all the decision making away from contesting key map spots or having map knowledge or situational awareness etc.

 

Where the skills and mechanics of the game are basically down to more base levels. 

 

This means those who didn't learn, your category 2 people, who often were forced to quit by the game's steep learning curve, suddenly have tanks, maps, and situations where their lack of skills and knowledge is not punished, where they can fluke good games, without going through that learning process. 

 

So they can have their Japanese heavy on Abbey, drive forwards, auto-aim at stuff and have a decent game, because the tank + map does most of the work for them. Or they can camp base in their Swedish TD with insane camo, that has overwatch over a large area and they'll do damage. 

 

The old proverb goes -

 

Block Quote

 Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

 

Now if we were to apply this to WOT and it's environment, we can alter this to -

 

Block Quote

Give a player a Type 5 + corridor map, you give him the odd good game, force him (through the environment and meta) to learn the core skills of the game, and you give him good games every day. 

 

It's not quite as catchy but you get the idea. 

 

The problem is when these players are not playing their 'shortcut' tanks or not in their comfort areas of the map, they are helpless, because those tanks and the game meta most of the time has not taught them any of the core skills of the game.

 

Yet they still grind and play tanks that have a higher skill floor and end up in situations where camping in base is just not going to cut it. Type 5 on Abbey is one thing, Leopard PTA on Redshire is completely different thing altogether, same with Strv 103B base camping on Mines, but then an E3 base camping on Steppes is pretty useless to the team. 

 

As an example we are about to have a new line of Italian medium tanks into the game, based on the details of the premium that have been released, this tank will be paper, meaning 95% of playerbase are going to be useless in it. WG are encouraging players to grind these new tanks, but creating a meta where at no point are these tanks able to shine for most players and where many of the players they are encouraging to get them are at no point forced into learning how to use them. 

 

So everyone else gets to enjoy players who will fail doing no shots of damage in their new Italian paper medium, because that player has been coddled through the games learning curve by corridor maps, idiot proof heavies, base camping spots and derp guns.

 

Not to mention it'll have an auto-loading system that 90% of them won't understand and will complain is OP when used by the 1% that can get it to work. 

 

Of course people will say having more and more casual players stick with the game is great for player numbers and thus WG's bank balance, so making the game more casual, more dumbed down is a good idea for them and Serb's moon base. 

 

But really is it? 

 

For a start, you annoy the invested players who have actually learnt the skills of the game because they lose to a Type 5 player who does dumb things, but gets away with it, then derps them for 500 through whilst they are hull down, that frustrates them.

 

But you also create terrible gameplay because so many bad players are in games dying, doing nothing, failing, base camping etc. because they haven't learnt any skills outside RRR, right click, left click in Japanese heavies or camping base in TDs. This means you have a huge proportion of awful players causing games to have no quality or substance, that often end in a few minutes and are no fun whether you are on the winning or losing team. 

 

So for everyone else, anyone semi-competent at the game this is not a particularly fun experience, it just becomes frustrating as you go from game to game fluctuating between incompetent allies or incompetent enemies that put up no fight. We can see all this in the MM threads and the repeated claims for skill based MM, sure some of these people making these claims are pretty awful themselves, but many are just average players who are maybe not good enough to influence the games massively, but still can do the basics well enough and have their game experienced dampened by the tomato masses. 

 

So for every super casual 'dad gamer' that WG seem to be after, that sticks with the game because the Type 5 will fluke him a good game every 10, are you not annoying a competent player fed up of having that 'dad gamer' fail in his top tier Leopard on their team or against them so even a win is a 3 minute rofl stomp? 

 

IIRC the game had millions of players when it was harder and had less forgiving tanks, players still seemed to be playing then and probably players stuck with the game longer. 

 

I think the dumbing down of the game is not just hurting the veterans and more competent players, I think it is hurting the game as whole and the super casuals the dumbing down is supposed to be helping. Those players, who might potentially be able to improve if forced, are not learning or experience the potential of the game. 

 

 



Hedgehog1963 #2 Posted 02 February 2018 - 11:17 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 50110 battles
  • 6,901
  • [DIRTY] DIRTY
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011
tl;dr

___Torpex___ #3 Posted 02 February 2018 - 11:26 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 52540 battles
  • 63
  • Member since:
    08-23-2011
Long text, but good to read and hits the nail on the head. Exactly my thoughts.

Simeon85 #4 Posted 02 February 2018 - 11:38 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 1,369
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostHedgehog1963, on 02 February 2018 - 11:17 AM, said:

tl;dr

 

You were warned. :P

clixor #5 Posted 02 February 2018 - 11:42 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 49563 battles
  • 2,922
  • Member since:
    08-07-2011

It's a complex issue. And first you have to realize that this game always was intended as a 'casual tactical shooter' where you could blow of steam playing a few battles after work/school/whatever.

 

Part of the problem is the life-cycle this game is in. Even the 'casual' player who started a few years back has reached higher tiers or is playing tier10s these days. The result is much more dispersion between good and casual players in teams. High tier battles (tier8+ or so) were much more balanced skill wise in the past.

 

Second thing is that casual players just know they won't have a big impact on the game, and play accordingly. For instance if you know you only going to shoot once or twice every single battle you are not going to do your utmost best to perform, but just count on your team carrying you and if not, than that's fine for them as well. In other words, their 'goals' (getting XP, credits) are not alligned with the team goals (winning).

 

Another aspect is that everybody and their mom has premium tanks. So in the past credits may have been a barrier to play higher tiers, but i think that's no longer the issue for these types of players.

 

Lastly, dumbing down (aka syper heavies, corridors) is a two edged knife, for every tomato (or happy strawberry, sic) driving a TYPE, they will face one and are unable to deal with it.

 

 



Aikl #6 Posted 02 February 2018 - 11:49 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 25141 battles
  • 3,984
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

Good post. I think there's both cause and effect in play. Casual players quit, WG alters game to keep 'em - but scares away the more dedicated ones. Beyond that, you have the simply issue of matchmaking. The idea behind few top-tier tanks is allright on paper, but in practice (or for someone with even an extremely limited understanding of fundamental statistics) it's a terrible idea that every game results in hoping that three top-tier tanks on each team are not too mismatched (or that yours are better, which almost is less fun). Alas, 3-5-7 is the supreme receipt for the idea of the occasional awesome - carrying a game beyond your skill and abilities, enabled by a terrible enemy team, being top-tier and having the great RNGesus on your side.

 

 

 

As for the example about hulldown tanks, in my mind there's little difference between a sidescraping Maus, a hulldown Super Conker and a basecamping TD - when that's the main tactic they employ and exploit.

It is undeniably just camping in different forms - and is way more effective than a simple passive "tactic" should be. They all have in common that there's little to no counter. There's no 'risk vs. reward' idea in play.
Good players want to contribute. That usually means attacking, moving, flanking, distracting - there are simply too few maps that allow anything beyond passive play unless you can secure a huge overmatch at some point (to deal with the inevitable basecamping). Fixing the maps would probably allow for there to be elements for both casual players and dedicated ones. Many broken/overpowered tanks would struggle far more if the gameplay wasn't so incredibly linear. Many superheavies in particular, which I'm pretty sure is the core problem of the game nowadays. Not that a Type 5 wouldn't be annoying to play against still, but the damage output of a Type 5 is somewhat limited if it gets flanked or outnumbered. Whole other story if the enemies are dumb and sit right in front of you. That's literally what many people do, but it's a topic for another thread.


Edited by Aikl, 02 February 2018 - 11:54 AM.


HidesHisFace #7 Posted 02 February 2018 - 11:52 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17507 battles
  • 1,264
  • Member since:
    05-12-2012

You started with the wrong assumption that this game "used to" have a steep learning curve. As in it doesn't any more.

 

All the mechanics that were in the game from the start are still there, there are only some tweaks in the variables all things considered and the only truly significant change this game ever had mechanics-wise was addition of physics engine.

 

Add to this the fact that fist five tiers, that is HALF OF THEM are considered low tiers.

First 4 tiers have some of the most unfun, insufferable grinds in the game. So, any new player has to deal with tryhard statpadders, mechanics that are NOT explained in the game (and don't give me the youtube argument - the game design should be competent enough to explain own bloody mechanics at least in the basic sense - WoT doesn't do that)  and objectively some of the WORST vehicles this game has to offer tier for tier, because balance of low tiers SUCKS.

Now imagine - we're talking newbies here, people learning the game - if the first impression they get is crappy balance and statpadders who have advantages so big that they look like cheating to them. How likely are these people to stay?

 

Another problem with the learning curve is the fact that lower tiers DON'T teach anything - viewrange is too crap to play with spotting mechanics reliably. Armour is generally too crap to even bother with angling. Guns are too unreliable or downright too overpowered to ever bother learning weakspots. This is not a cruve, this is a bloody 90deg slope.

 

People who suffer through this either quit or adapt - and those who adapt either end up being salty a-holes like myself or get positive attitude.

And even those more positive are still prone to all the persistent problems this game has and had for literally years - every couple of years WG tweaks RNG to insufferable levels, shifts meta to the point one class becomes overly dominant or fiddles with the already bad MM and makes lives of average Joes miserable.

That is what makes salty players, that is what creates a-holes like me - people who see bad situation in the game unfolding and are more likely to just quit in disgust rather than carry on, because there is really no reward in this game for trying. That is what creates toxic d-bags as well.

The fun factor spring just dried out over the years because of tons of unsolved and poorly addressed problems.


Edited by HidesHisFace, 02 February 2018 - 11:54 AM.


BicycleOfDeath #8 Posted 02 February 2018 - 11:57 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14490 battles
  • 344
  • [T-OG] T-OG
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

Bad players in world of tanks? Naaah, everything is fine Kappa

 

Posted Image

 

But if you wanted to try and "solve" this, it's not easy. There's two categories of bad players, and I am talking about red and below in general now, plus myself, I am garbage and should be tossed into a salty lake. One is the new players, and you could conceive say making it slower for them to reach higher tiers or putting a restriction on buying tier 8 premiums before they reach a certain number of games, neither of which is ever going to happen for obvious reasons. Then there's the red and black players with lots of games who will never improve. You can't stop those dudes from playing high tiers, they love it.

 

So for both these categories of players, the game is too hard. Let's pretend we split the game into game mode A, a corridorfest of superheavies and TD camping and arty, and game mode B, a paradise of open map flanking and brilliant dynamic tactics and bla bla bla. Maybe that's the way out? I just don't see it realistically happening. The game has gone too far down the road it's on.



ZlatanArKung #9 Posted 02 February 2018 - 12:06 PM

    Major General

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

This is another problem with the current game.

 

Spoiler

 

That whole battle was largely played by 2 players while the other 28 did next to nothing.

And those kind of results are not even uncommon. Those kind of results is the norm nowdays. You have like 1 or 2 players on each team who do pretty much everything, and then the rest are more or less onlookers. This especially becomes evident in the 3-5-7 MM.

I believe these kind of results are bad for the game as a whole, and for the experience of the players. Personally, I can't say I enjoyed that game. It was more or less holding down W and shoot enemies and kill them faster then the enemy O-Ni could kill my team. And that was it.

 

I think the difference between good players and the rest have increased lately, and not because the good players have improved, but more because the rest have become worse. An example is the ever increasing average damage good players get on tanks. Furthermore, Baldrickk had some data showing that the average wn8 on the server has gone down lately. Which is most probably caused by good players with high wn8 leaving the game while bad players remain or start playing the game.

A reason might be the dumbing down of the game, both with matchmaker AND tanks AND maps. WG are actively removing weakspots from tanks, removing flanking options on the new maps, giving very strong TD spots on new maps which you don't have to fight for, inserting an MM which gives even the worst player a good game once in a while (when top tiered, the O-Ni in the picture was a 46%-er I think, for example), reducing accuracy on newer tanks so they can't even snipe (forcing players into a certain type of engagements) and so on. And all these changes lately (like last 1-1.5 years) are becoming to get visible on the playernumbers, which are just going down (currently at 200k less than last year at this time).

 

This game has become to dumbed down and to casual for its own good.



TankkiPoju #10 Posted 02 February 2018 - 12:22 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19620 battles
  • 6,084
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

I feel the average player base isn't getting any dumber but it's not getting any smarter either.

 

What is changing is the gap between the good and the bad.

 

Being good or bad in a video game is never absolute. If you are getting better, everyone else is getting worse.... from your perspective.


Edited by TankkiPoju, 02 February 2018 - 12:22 PM.


DracheimFlug #11 Posted 02 February 2018 - 12:28 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 8920 battles
  • 3,694
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014

View PostZlatanArKung, on 02 February 2018 - 12:06 PM, said:

This is another problem with the current game.

 

Spoiler

 

That whole battle was largely played by 2 players while the other 28 did next to nothing.

And those kind of results are not even uncommon. Those kind of results is the norm nowdays. You have like 1 or 2 players on each team who do pretty much everything, and then the rest are more or less onlookers. This especially becomes evident in the 3-5-7 MM.

I believe these kind of results are bad for the game as a whole, and for the experience of the players. Personally, I can't say I enjoyed that game. It was more or less holding down W and shoot enemies and kill them faster then the enemy O-Ni could kill my team. And that was it.

 

I think the difference between good players and the rest have increased lately, and not because the good players have improved, but more because the rest have become worse. An example is the ever increasing average damage good players get on tanks. Furthermore, Baldrickk had some data showing that the average wn8 on the server has gone down lately. Which is most probably caused by good players with high wn8 leaving the game while bad players remain or start playing the game.

A reason might be the dumbing down of the game, both with matchmaker AND tanks AND maps. WG are actively removing weakspots from tanks, removing flanking options on the new maps, giving very strong TD spots on new maps which you don't have to fight for, inserting an MM which gives even the worst player a good game once in a while (when top tiered, the O-Ni in the picture was a 46%-er I think, for example), reducing accuracy on newer tanks so they can't even snipe (forcing players into a certain type of engagements) and so on. And all these changes lately (like last 1-1.5 years) are becoming to get visible on the playernumbers, which are just going down (currently at 200k less than last year at this time).

 

This game has become to dumbed down and to casual for its own good.

 

But what about that is dumbed down? If it was really dumbed down, shouldn't everyone have an easier time contributing? That is what dumbed down means, after all, that the game is made easier so that less intelligent players can achieve things.

 

If it is common for only a small fraction of the team to be doing most of the work, it would be the opposite, where it is difficult for the masses to contribute and only the significantly skilled and/or dedicated can manage to do so.



ZlatanArKung #12 Posted 02 February 2018 - 12:34 PM

    Major General

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

View PostDracheimFlug, on 02 February 2018 - 12:28 PM, said:

 

But what about that is dumbed down? If it was really dumbed down, shouldn't everyone have an easier time contributing? That is what dumbed down means, after all, that the game is made easier so that less intelligent players can achieve things.

 

If it is common for only a small fraction of the team to be doing most of the work, it would be the opposite, where it is difficult for the masses to contribute and only the significantly skilled and/or dedicated can manage to do so.

The only reason the O-Ni did good that battle was because he was top tier in an O-Ni on a map that is good for that tank.

You could have put any player in the O-Ni in that situation and he/she would have performed that good.


Edited by ZlatanArKung, 02 February 2018 - 12:34 PM.


DracheimFlug #13 Posted 02 February 2018 - 12:53 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 8920 battles
  • 3,694
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014

View PostZlatanArKung, on 02 February 2018 - 12:34 PM, said:

The only reason the O-Ni did good that battle was because he was top tier in an O-Ni on a map that is good for that tank.

You could have put any player in the O-Ni in that situation and he/she would have performed that good.

 

And the winning team, which had no such 'OP tank' and their best performer was an AMX M4 45, which is middle of the pack for tier VII heavies and performs approx server average? A little hard to make too many meaningful observations just on the end results.

ZlatanArKung #14 Posted 02 February 2018 - 01:06 PM

    Major General

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

View PostDracheimFlug, on 02 February 2018 - 12:53 PM, said:

 

And the winning team, which had no such 'OP tank' and their best performer was an AMX M4 45, which is middle of the pack for tier VII heavies and performs approx server average? A little hard to make too many meaningful observations just on the end results.

The AMX M4 45 was driven by a decent player.

The O-Ni wasn't. 

If you replaced the AMX M4 45 player with the O-Ni, he would fail in it. 

Since the AMX M4 45 requires some amount of skill to get working. And it is, by a bit, the worst T7 heavy in game.

the AMX was also introduce quite some time ago, before the great dumbing down of Japanese heavies etc started.

 

And it is not just that battle, the common result in battles these days look like that.

1-2 guys on each team doing stuff while the rest are more or less spectators.

And those kind of results are bad for the game.

 



Long_Range_Sniper #15 Posted 02 February 2018 - 01:08 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 29433 battles
  • 7,503
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

I concur with the OP, and this has been my experience over the last few months. 

 

By definition a tank is a vehicle designed for offensive action. The game does have TD's and arty but they are for support. The game as a whole and the meta should reward offensive action.

 

But at the moment it doesn't seem to do that.

 

Power creep on aspects like view range, map design, and changes to the tech trees that have promoted armour have created a tilt towards a new meta.

 

This new meta is one where defensive tactics and waiting for the enemy to make a mistake seem to be more favourable than offensive action. I have had too many games where the enemy have taken advantage of poor map design, and new vehicles to decide that parking at the back and waiting for tanks to throw themselves onto their guns is the best way forward.

 

You might expect it with an STRV, but I've been seeing heavy tanks doing it more recently, and even a game on airfield yesterday where a BatChat camped, and cleaned up the low health tanks trying to push.

 

I think on balance taking the initiative still wins more game than losing, but the meta seems to be changing. 

 

For the game to grow and survive it must keep true to the foundations of tank warfare and that is where offensive action is rewarded. This means a tilt away from the heavy armour, TD camping locations on maps and more towards maps and tanks that have variety and can exploit situations better.



DracheimFlug #16 Posted 02 February 2018 - 01:33 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 8920 battles
  • 3,694
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014

View PostZlatanArKung, on 02 February 2018 - 01:06 PM, said:

The AMX M4 45 was driven by a decent player.

The O-Ni wasn't. 

If you replaced the AMX M4 45 player with the O-Ni, he would fail in it. 

Since the AMX M4 45 requires some amount of skill to get working. And it is, by a bit, the worst T7 heavy in game.

the AMX was also introduce quite some time ago, before the great dumbing down of Japanese heavies etc started.

 

And it is not just that battle, the common result in battles these days look like that.

1-2 guys on each team doing stuff while the rest are more or less spectators.

And those kind of results are bad for the game.

 

 

But again, then the team with the better skill won and the team with the lesser skill lost. So what is your point then? That someone on a losing team did better than you think they should have done, and that it should have been a complete blowout, and that since it was not the game is therefore dumbed down?

Thejagdpanther #17 Posted 02 February 2018 - 01:45 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32999 battles
  • 4,230
  • [TKBS] TKBS
  • Member since:
    07-16-2012

View PostTankkiPoju, on 02 February 2018 - 12:22 PM, said:

I feel the average player base isn't getting any dumber but it's not getting any smarter either.

 

What is changing is the gap between the good and the bad.

 

Being good or bad in a video game is never absolute. If you are getting better, everyone else is getting worse.... from your perspective.

 

Also pressing a button it's devastating the gap between players.

But it seems that everyone here above has forgotten it.

 



ZlatanArKung #18 Posted 02 February 2018 - 02:03 PM

    Major General

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

View PostDracheimFlug, on 02 February 2018 - 01:33 PM, said:

 

But again, then the team with the better skill won and the team with the lesser skill lost. So what is your point then? That someone on a losing team did better than you think they should have done, and that it should have been a complete blowout, and that since it was not the game is therefore dumbed down?

The problem is that the game gets easier to play and that results are currently often bad (1-2 tank doing everything on both teams).

And that having the luck to have right tank on right map is almost as important as being good.

 

Another of the aspect of the dumbing down. 

 

Before, you needed to check the matchup to see what tanks you had and in which number,  since teams where unequal. And then use that knowledge to make a tactic which exploited your teams strengths.

 

Now, that skill is completely irrelevant,with the template and 'balanced MM'


Edited by ZlatanArKung, 02 February 2018 - 02:06 PM.


VsUK #19 Posted 02 February 2018 - 02:04 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14288 battles
  • 1,301
  • Member since:
    06-19-2012
I remember when you could flank an enemy, remain undetected & come around behind them & turn the battle in your teams favour. I also remember when mods we're solely about tank skins. Players who knew how to play the game, how to position themselves to stop the enemy trying to flank. People who considered the minimap the most important tool in the game. You know, smart players who do their best for the good of the team. 
Im the sort of player who, if I saw a team member in a good tank in trouble, low on HP & has his tracks taken out & another hit by the enemy & hes dead. If I had the HP, I would put myself between them, take the hit & return fire, saving a team member & go on to win. Because a tank on 1% HP can still do as much damage as a tank on 100% HP. 

Now, all I see is tier 10s. Crossing in open field & getting killed for no reason. Meds charging in to the enemy line, taking on the entire enemy team solo. Players who refuse to help you, because it would risk them being shot at & players who just go about deliberately pushing you, getting spotted & hiding behind you to take the shots & so forth. I don't believe people are getting more stupid. I think more stupid is being injected into the game. It's just too easy to play this game. You have lights that can sit in a bush & remain undetected for the entire game. Heavy's who behave odd at best & TDs who seem to think its wise to expose their sides to the enemy as they try & shoot at a scout whizzing around. 

I haven't played platoon games in a long time. Because I'm never on when other's are. But i'm starting to think, maybe its time to start. 3 good players working together, in a team of idiots. I won't say bots. Because bots have a role, a purpose to fulfill within the game. Stupid players have no purpose, no role or any use what so ever.

To put it bluntly. WG have dumb down the game, so to broaden it's appeal with people who call themselves Pro gamers on things like Roblox!

Rati_Festa #20 Posted 02 February 2018 - 02:06 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 40097 battles
  • 712
  • Member since:
    02-10-2012

Excellent post OP. It encapsulates a lot of my thoughts as well. It's very hard from a single persons perspective to get a view of the rest of the game but I also feel the player base as a whole is going backwards. The emphasis on Jap Heavies and Strvs both classes I think have spoiled this game and tarnished the game play is teaching new players or bad players to follow a toxic meta.

 

On a side note I was playing my LT-100 last night and was watching the influx of ELC even drivers, some of the new owners are very good players and some of the new tactics ( or rehashed old ones ) are great to watch. I saw a scorp struggling to deal with an ELC sheer speed and size as it encircled it and spattered it with gun fire. The ELC was on the enemy team and I actually left him to taunt my ally, I was that impressed with his play. In the old days you would see this kind of maneuver far more in the old ELC or the SP1C perhaps, nowadays the battles are slowing down and bravery/skill/speed of thought are less rewarded. I'm in my 40's so my eye hand/co-ordination problem isn't as good as some but I appreciate it as much if not more than someone relying sitting on a bush behind a rock for 10 mins and then spamming heat at someone.

 

On the theory crafting idea personally I think the campaign missions set the game on the wrong path as it forced people to play classes they previously wouldn't have touched or been interested in. This then amplifies the poor in game choices, if you need to do 3k dmg unspotted in your td, your going to camp forever. If you need to do splash dmg in arty... you start moving up the arty tree etc etc. WG basically encouraged people to play classes they weren't ever going to be good with, so we have a % of players in every match begrudgingly completing missions not have "fun" and then the toxicity sets in.


Edited by Rati_Festa, 02 February 2018 - 02:08 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users