Jump to content


Block tier X from deep below average players?


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

Poll: Block tier X from deep below average players? (137 members have cast votes)

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

Should bot stat players be blocked from tier 10?

  1. Yes (62 votes [45.26%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 45.26%

  2. No (75 votes [54.74%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 54.74%

Vote Hide poll

AdmiraleKeineSchlafen #1 Posted 03 February 2018 - 11:09 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 11431 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    11-26-2013

Hi would like to know opinion of other players, 

 

I like my tier 8s and as we know currently in this tier you meet tier 10 a lot, fine, but I'm really loosing my s...ences when I should play with tier 10 in my team with 43% winrate and ~200wn8 standing whole time on base or die in first minute while whole team being dominated by enemies. I think this bot players should not be allowed to play at least tier 10 vehicles and this could bring at least a bit of balance.

 

I'm not a best player, but somebody with 200-400wn8 after 10k games can't be in my opinion named else then bot.

 

Thanks for your opinions and have fun on battlefield.



arthurwellsley #2 Posted 03 February 2018 - 11:22 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 51268 battles
  • 2,814
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

No

The abomination that is Ranked Battles already has too much camping, and tier X without a spinkling of exp pinatas would just lead to more of the same.



HeidenSieker #3 Posted 04 February 2018 - 12:07 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 10046 battles
  • 4,648
  • Member since:
    03-26-2016

View PostAdmiraleKeineSchlafen, on 03 February 2018 - 11:09 PM, said:

Thanks for your opinions and have fun on battlefield.

 

Aha. So you favour a skill-based MM.

AdmiraleKeineSchlafen #4 Posted 04 February 2018 - 12:33 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 11431 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    11-26-2013

View PostHeidenSieker, on 04 February 2018 - 12:07 AM, said:

 

Aha. So you favour a skill-based MM.

 

I would call it kick bots at least from one tier, because looking at stats of mentioned players, seeing 30% winrate on majority of their tanks with countless games and pathetic average exp so they bot-grind next tier is not skill. This players should not be allowed to play at minimum top tanks in the game.



imendars #5 Posted 05 February 2018 - 10:06 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 10958 battles
  • 1,086
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    04-17-2014

View PostAdmiraleKeineSchlafen, on 04 February 2018 - 02:33 AM, said:

 

I would call it kick bots at least from one tier, because looking at stats of mentioned players, seeing 30% winrate on majority of their tanks with countless games and pathetic average exp so they bot-grind next tier is not skill. This players should not be allowed to play at minimum top tanks in the game.

 

And by bots you meen everyone thats not pink, everyone thats not blue or everyone thats not green? Or everyone thats not yellow?

My math is not supperb, but if many have 70%, there must be many who have 30%.

If you drop all bots, you will become bot. your WR will drop like a fly after playing only against pink players.

 

Therefore you need bots so that you can shine with good WR.



NUKLEAR_SLUG #6 Posted 05 February 2018 - 10:32 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27518 battles
  • 1,969
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

View PostAdmiraleKeineSchlafen, on 03 February 2018 - 11:09 PM, said:

Hi would like to know opinion of other players, 

 

I like my tier 8s and as we know currently in this tier you meet tier 10 a lot, fine, but I'm really loosing my s...ences when I should play with tier 10 in my team with 43% winrate and ~200wn8 standing whole time on base or die in first minute while whole team being dominated by enemies. I think this bot players should not be allowed to play at least tier 10 vehicles and this could bring at least a bit of balance.

 

I'm not a best player, but somebody with 200-400wn8 after 10k games can't be in my opinion named else then bot.

 

Thanks for your opinions and have fun on battlefield.

 

This is an excellent plan which I fully support but it shouldn't be limited to just tier 10 but scaled across all tiers on a 200 WN8 per tier unlock basis. Regrettably for you this means that won't be allowed to play tier 8 any more as you currently aren't at a skill level that qualifies you to do so. Please refrain from playing any tank above tier 5 until your overall account WN8 is at least 1200 at which point you have permission to play a tier 6. 

 

I can understand if you feel this is a little unfair but just remember you'll just be doing your bit to keep bot players out of higher tiers and helping to "bring at least a bit of balance".  Also, on the plus side this would meantime allow you to statpad in your T67 to boost that overall, although your present WR/WN8 ratio in it suggests it might  actually compound your problem.

 

 



Lycopersicon #7 Posted 05 February 2018 - 10:35 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 10600 battles
  • 3,563
  • Member since:
    07-30-2014
The thing is that everyone considers all players 1000+ WN8 points below him to be complete [edited](or bots if you wish). Wherever you draw the line, it will be totally nonsensical for almost everyone.

unhappy_bunny #8 Posted 05 February 2018 - 10:38 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 17926 battles
  • 2,458
  • [-OC-] -OC-
  • Member since:
    08-01-2012

View PostAdmiraleKeineSchlafen, on 03 February 2018 - 11:09 PM, said:

Hi would like to know opinion of other players, 

 

I like my tier 8s and as we know currently in this tier you meet tier 10 a lot, fine, but I'm really loosing my s...ences when I should play with tier 10 in my team with 43% winrate and ~200wn8 standing whole time on base or die in first minute while whole team being dominated by enemies. I think this bot players should not be allowed to play at least tier 10 vehicles and this could bring at least a bit of balance.

 

I'm not a best player, but somebody with 200-400wn8 after 10k games can't be in my opinion named else then bot.

 

Thanks for your opinions and have fun on battlefield.

 

Do you consider that you are pulling your weight at TX?

When the enemy has TX "bots" do you complain?



Aikl #9 Posted 05 February 2018 - 11:19 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25167 battles
  • 4,253
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

Winrate and WN8 are awful ways of determining actual skill. There are plenty of 52-53% players with close to 2k-WN8 (plus rerolls) that have stats stemming almost single-handedly from T67/M2-padding and are awful at playing T10. Above-average players do stupid stuff all the time. They camp like idiots on maps where you're much better off bringing your gun into the fight, and they go close-range combat on maps where camping would actually be beneficial.

No real idea why - but I would bet it's the feeling of being so much "better" than "everyone else" that takes over and makes 'em believe they're hot crap (while they most definitely are not).

 

Beyond that, a ton of the same above-average players have mastered risk-management to the point where they'd rather take no risks. That's the kind of players that get bogged down by a single tank in a corridor - when all that's need is that the full-HP heavy tank is brave enough to eat a shot to bring it down. It's unfuriating - and a major cause of the 'passive-play disease' in WoT nowadays.

 

PS: Last week, I saw some super-purple FAME (or whatever) player in M48 climb the middle on Windstorm - a position that in that kind of tank gets punished harsh and swiftly. He survived for less than a minute, if memory serves me right. Even the very best can make mistakes.



Jethro_Grey #10 Posted 05 February 2018 - 11:44 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 4284 battles
  • 534
  • [KAIN] KAIN
  • Member since:
    08-01-2015
No. Red Bot stat players are here to make average bobs feel like unicums.

Gardar7 #11 Posted 05 February 2018 - 12:42 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22808 battles
  • 1,645
  • [VKG-] VKG-
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011
Don't forget that those players at the enemy team let you have better results. 
This is by far one of the most retarded topic I have read in the recent times.

SlyMeerkat #12 Posted 05 February 2018 - 12:46 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 15823 battles
  • 1,950
  • [FILO] FILO
  • Member since:
    01-29-2013
I would say yes but at the same time no because how would the good players get their special numbers up high enough if there was no bad players to help them get that by being farmed on? ;)

Edited by SlyMeerkat, 05 February 2018 - 12:48 PM.


malachi6 #13 Posted 05 February 2018 - 12:59 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 49222 battles
  • 3,235
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011
I love this idea.  Create a barrier.  Cut say 20% of the player base out of top tier.  Let's not consider the financial impact for WG. Let's just think what happens to the remaining people swimming in this exclusive pool.  We now have a new batch of upper and lower skill players. Meaning at some point we have to cull yet another 20% out of our new slightly shallower pool.  How long does this carry on for?  Until there are 30 people left? 

Edited by malachi6, 05 February 2018 - 12:59 PM.


Bora_BOOM #14 Posted 05 February 2018 - 01:06 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 21456 battles
  • 2,704
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    08-23-2014

Having 200 WN8 players like HP pinatas comes both way - you always have some on your team so that is kind of a lame argument. Basically, you have a 13 vs 13 game.

Really good players and unicas could be capable to farm on 50%-ish players most of the time, so that is something they should count on regardless.

Should it be solved? Yes.

Can it be solved? Maybe, but finding an ideal solution is not easy.

 

The main issue here is: ask WG what they think about not letting bad players to buy/play t8 premiums and getting a chance to spam gold, or have credit sinks "removed" at t9-t10 by not letting them progress up top tiers....

:sceptic:


Edited by Bora_BOOM, 05 February 2018 - 01:10 PM.


Uebergewicht #15 Posted 05 February 2018 - 01:09 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 11702 battles
  • 1,035
  • [ATD] ATD
  • Member since:
    11-15-2015

View Postimendars, on 05 February 2018 - 10:06 AM, said:

 

My math is not supperb, but if many have 70%, there must be many who have 30%.

 

 

Not really. You can have 70% players counter-weighted by 48%ers, as long as there are a lot more 48%ers than 70%ers.

 

Also, 30%? Botting or afking gets better wins than that, is 30% even possible over a significant number of games?



Balc0ra #16 Posted 05 February 2018 - 01:10 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 64364 battles
  • 15,423
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

And what would the min requirement be? As over half the players on tier X are below average vs WN8. But then again WN8 is not a WG made product. And WG would never based anything of that rating.

 

But it's gonna make everything worse then better tbh I suspect in the long run. Not for us, but for the game. As having a skill ceiling for tier X, most people leave the game faster then anything WG have done before. As then they would only be allowed to be cannon fodder in their tier 8's etc for tier X. And considering how tier 8 MM is atm, it won't help. As it would take way to many games for some with even low tier padding to get their WN8 or WR high enough for tier X. And if the end game content is locked. Why play at all?

 

View Postimendars, on 05 February 2018 - 10:06 AM, said:

My math is not supperb, but if many have 70%, there must be many who have 30%.

 

 

Two 70's don't make a 100 sure. But since the 70% don't face the same team all the time. It will flux and variate a bit still vs the good players. But then again it's why I suspect "skilled based MM" won't work the way most want it to. As having 60% players face off all day, some of them are bound to drop down in WR at some point to drop down to 55% even.


Edited by Balc0ra, 05 February 2018 - 01:13 PM.


Rati_Festa #17 Posted 05 February 2018 - 01:11 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 41407 battles
  • 1,079
  • Member since:
    02-10-2012
I agree with Op if they have super bad stats they shouldnt plat t8 or above imo. It would flush out all the people using low end pcs with 100 + ping, genuine bots and the low intelligence fools who cant grasp the basic concepts. There  are far to many crap players in the higher games they need removing.

Hero_of_Tython #18 Posted 05 February 2018 - 01:19 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 23559 battles
  • 818
  • [UP-EM] UP-EM
  • Member since:
    04-19-2014

I doubt such an approach would fit the ethos WG has for the progressions system. I.e. if you invest enough time (obviously the worse you are the more time you will need to invest) you will eventually make it to the top of the tree. That simple idea that it isn't about skill but simply time & effort is IMO a fundamental part of the progressions system because it doesn't discriminate against people based on skill. Obviously a side affect is that it does leave the door open to bots, but people would probably bot anyway even if they couldn't play tier 10s, they might bot for credits or free XP (to unlock tanks bellow tier 10) or crew XP.

Restricting tank tiers based on skill would mean fundamentally changing the ethos of the current progression system and I seriously doubt WG want to make such a big change.

 

To be honest there are bigger issues for WG to concentrate on right now (lousy map design, unbalanced tanks and the MM all rank higher up the list IMO) than dealing with bots and players intolerance to bad players.



Gardar7 #19 Posted 05 February 2018 - 01:28 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22808 battles
  • 1,645
  • [VKG-] VKG-
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostHero_of_Tython, on 05 February 2018 - 10:19 AM, said:

I doubt such an approach would fit the ethos WG has for the progressions system. I.e. if you invest enough time (obviously the worse you are the more time you will need to invest) you will eventually make it to the top of the tree. That simple idea that it isn't about skill but simply time & effort is IMO a fundamental part of the progressions system because it doesn't discriminate against people based on skill. Obviously a side affect is that it does leave the door open to bots, but people would probably bot anyway even if they couldn't play tier 10s, they might bot for credits or free XP (to unlock tanks bellow tier 10) or crew XP.

Restricting tank tiers based on skill would mean fundamentally changing the ethos of the current progression system and I seriously doubt WG want to make such a big change.

 

To be honest there are bigger issues for WG to concentrate on right now (lousy map design, unbalanced tanks and the MM all rank higher up the list IMO) than dealing with bots and players intolerance to bad players.

Exactly! 

Take my father in law for example. He is 70+ years old, retired, so he has tons of time. He served on some high tier tanks which are in the game. Of course, he would like to get those tanks and have some battles in them. Because of his age, his reflexes are not the best and of course he didn't grow up with a mouse in his hand. But he made his way to the up tiers, although with terrible results. But who cares, he is HAVING FUN and that is the most important thing. Why would anybody want to take away an old man's hobby, because his E-pen*s is not big enough?


Edited by Gardar7, 05 February 2018 - 03:32 PM.


ExistanceUK #20 Posted 05 February 2018 - 03:07 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 14438 battles
  • 149
  • Member since:
    08-29-2015
I can see why you suggest this idea Op but it wouldn't work as many have pointed out, I would suggest an alternative:

That the 3 top tiers in the 3/5/7 template are roughly skill matched. This way at least if your team has top tiers bots the other team will as well (and conversely both would be good players) and across all tiers.

However I guess this idea would get pooped on by most as well.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users