Jump to content


12 Reasons Why WOT 1.0 Might Not Be Such a Good Thing


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

WindSplitter1 #1 Posted 08 February 2018 - 11:56 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14279 battles
  • 1,716
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

The new patch has made many people upset although that's just the incomformation with what's new and how to deal with it. It has always have been like that and it's human nature to fear what one does not know.

 

Give it a month or so, and no one will ever talk about the 263 being downtiered and the 122-54 removed. Probably something better or worse will appear in their place. Knowing Wargaming, this is not a matter of if but rather when.

 

Still, what's further down the road may not be the bombshell people anticipate in Minsk, which will be the core of this post.

 

Each point is the TL;DR.

 


 

 

1 - Patch 1 doesn't fix anything.

 

 

2 - HD maps cut maps from rotation

 

3 - Moderation is improving, but...

 

4 - The Premium shop is obsolete

 

5 - Game renewal with stronger units overshadowing older ones (Powercreep)

 

6 - Game is becoming too stale and repetitive

 

7 - Clan Wars last very little nowadays

 

8 - Constant changes to aspects of the game that required no intervention/introduction

 

 

9 - Cheats, robot/farming accounts and other illegal uses or bad behaviour

 

10 - Promised and planned content

 

11 - Player feedback is not taken into account

 

12 - Elements "of skill" removed (Game "Dumbification")

 

 

Redeeming Factors

 

 

Final Word

 

Thank you for your time and have a nice weekend.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Balc0ra #2 Posted 09 February 2018 - 02:11 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 62749 battles
  • 14,361
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

Well hidden in spoilers not to make the topic scrolling harder then it needs to be.

 

Spoiler

 


Edited by Balc0ra, 09 February 2018 - 02:17 AM.


_T_1_T_4_N_0_ #3 Posted 09 February 2018 - 02:30 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27097 battles
  • 1,114
  • [SQCI] SQCI
  • Member since:
    02-17-2015
Prob as WoT 1.0 is little more than a HD paint job after the many we have had in each patch.
There is little else for such an iconic release and sets in stone WGs approach to the player base.
I am hanging in and will have a look but think at least the EU server is going the way of NA.
Struggling to enjoy the meta shift just isn't what WoT was and the playerbase seems to be decimated beyond repair.
Just went the wrong direction for me and its only time & spend that has me slightly curious how things will pan out in WoT 1.0
 

Edited by DumbNumpty, 09 February 2018 - 02:31 AM.


xPraetoriaNx #4 Posted 09 February 2018 - 08:28 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 20344 battles
  • 304
  • [_HOD_] _HOD_
  • Member since:
    05-15-2011
Well, the matchmaker can't be fixed, it will always have some bad side. All you can do is to decide wich one shall it be. Many people say everyone should fight in his / her own tier, but that aint gonna be balanced either because of OP/UP tanks in the given tier.

Thejagdpanther #5 Posted 09 February 2018 - 08:48 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 33016 battles
  • 4,235
  • [TKBS] TKBS
  • Member since:
    07-16-2012

Clearly in the part of dumbing down you miss the biggest point, but better don't write it; instead write what others think so stronky tryhard players of the forum will not write bad things on you.

;)


Edited by Thejagdpanther, 09 February 2018 - 08:54 AM.


Element6_TheSprout #6 Posted 09 February 2018 - 08:53 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 28075 battles
  • 9,650
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013
I'm not sure I agree to OPs #6. While I read it as a lack of new modes I do feel that the game is actually less stale now due to a number of new content, most notably new tech tree lines. While in the overall picture it still revolves around driving a tank to a map position, using cover and shooting our guns, the new content at the very least "force" you to rethink some of aspects of what we do in the game.

Homer_J #7 Posted 09 February 2018 - 09:10 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27001 battles
  • 27,652
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

I could pick through why each point is a load of rubbish but I'll start with my favourites.

 

1. It's a minority opinion that any of that needs fixing.

 

2. Some of the maps cut were duplicates, others were just rubbish, I was only expecting a dozen or so to be ready at all so I think WG need congratulating on this one.  And that's beside my personal opinion that there are too many maps and they are all the same anyway.

 

5. Powercreep is what the whiners want.  Look at the feedback for any balanced new tank.  It's overwhelmingly negative and they don't sell.

 

6. Sounds like you are burnt out after 12k battles.  Time to move on maybe?

 

8. Your opinion and you are entitled to it.  IMO the old personal missions interface was terrible, the new one is much easier to find your way around.

 

10.  That thread is an amalgamation of things which have been mentioned over the last eight years.  Many of them were no more than a "maybe we will think about this".  Barely anything in it is actually being considered for the future, nearly all of it was rejected.

 

11. Good since this thread is the usual standard.


Edited by Homer_J, 09 February 2018 - 09:10 AM.


Cobra6 #8 Posted 09 February 2018 - 09:44 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16295 battles
  • 14,996
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

New paint on a broken car does not fix the car being broken.

 

Wargaming however, the multi-million powerhouse that it is, seems to be completely oblivious to something a primary school pupil can see. Guess we know the mental capacity of the people calling the shots.......

 

View PostHomer_J, on 09 February 2018 - 08:10 AM, said:

5. Powercreep is what the whiners want.  Look at the feedback for any balanced new tank.  It's overwhelmingly negative and they don't sell.

 

Exactly, and who created this problem? Wargaming, by releasing broken/OP (premium) tanks when the community made clear it was going to be a mistake to do so.

It's a prime example of one of the areas in which Wargaming is digging itself into a pit.

They decided to release broken tanks so now tanks which would be considered balanced 2-3 years ago are seen as underpowered and don't sell. Had they not made this grave error in the first place these tanks would be seen as normal and sell.

 

They made a few extra dollars selling broken/OP vehicles in the short run but in the long run they will make less unless they keep releasing more and more broken/OP premiums. It's a sliding scale that they tipped themselves out of rampant short term greed.

If they'd kept it balanced they'd have a steady income over the years and would not have broken the balancing of this game in the process.

 

Cobra 6


Edited by Cobra6, 09 February 2018 - 09:53 AM.


xPraetoriaNx #9 Posted 09 February 2018 - 10:31 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 20344 battles
  • 304
  • [_HOD_] _HOD_
  • Member since:
    05-15-2011

View PostHomer_J, on 09 February 2018 - 09:10 AM, said:

5. Powercreep is what the whiners want.  Look at the feedback for any balanced new tank.  It's overwhelmingly negative and they don't sell.

 

So I'm not the only one who thinks this is happening? Thank god... Everytime someone bashes the Mauerbrecher I go to tanks.gg only to repeatedly end up at the same conclusion, that it's a quite decent and balanced tank.

RamRaid90 #10 Posted 09 February 2018 - 10:55 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 19657 battles
  • 5,841
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

Powercreep is nothing more than natural progression in a game such as this.

 

Newer tanks need to be slightly better/different to others in order to be worth having and to tempt people to purchase them.

 

If all new premium tanks were the same as the old ones they wouldn't sell. Afterall, if there was no upgrade the T34 would have been the be all and end all of premium tanks since back in the day it was a powerhouse, and all who owned one would never have needed to purchase anything else.

 

Most of the people who complain about this kind of aspect of the game would destroy the game within a month if they had any sort of influence in these decisions.

 

You're also complaining that Wargaming don't listen to "the players" and the very reason for that is the 500+ whinge and cry threads they get every week. There is no substance to this "feedback" in the majority of cases since the people giving the feedback generally have zero ideawhat they're talking about. Wargaming do listen to the players who matter, and IMO this is the way forward. Good players will naturally give far better feedback since they actually understand the game and they are more likely to be listened to over the 44% bottom feeder who doesn't understand the basic mechanics he's complaining about.



pipik_roman #11 Posted 09 February 2018 - 11:04 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 17266 battles
  • 396
  • [2SH] 2SH
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

Did not read all the points, maybe some make sense, but they are some kind of irrelevant to 1.0 release. This is all about software development. WG commited to 1.0 really long time ago. I do not even remember what year Rubicon was promised and failed, and they had to commit to it long time before that. 

So releasing 1.0 is like finishing long term trouble making task and is not comparable to many tasks on OP list.

Page about "technical debt" seems relevant to this, since 1.0 is almost ready and not releasing would create such technical debt.



clixor #12 Posted 09 February 2018 - 11:13 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 49581 battles
  • 2,923
  • Member since:
    08-07-2011

View PostRamRaid90, on 09 February 2018 - 10:55 AM, said:

 

You're also complaining that Wargaming don't listen to "the players" and the very reason for that is the 500+ whinge and cry threads they get every week. There is no substance to this "feedback" in the majority of cases since the people giving the feedback generally have zero ideawhat they're talking about. Wargaming do listen to the players who matter, and IMO this is the way forward. Good players will naturally give far better feedback since they actually understand the game and they are more likely to be listened to over the 44% bottom feeder who doesn't understand the basic mechanics he's complaining about.

 

Good players are the minority in this game, why should WG listen to them? What you want as a gaming company is people to play your game (lots, and then buy lots), so obviously they will start to cater the game for the masses.



RamRaid90 #13 Posted 09 February 2018 - 11:22 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 19657 battles
  • 5,841
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View Postclixor, on 09 February 2018 - 10:13 AM, said:

 

Good players are the minority in this game, why should WG listen to them? What you want as a gaming company is people to play your game (lots, and then buy lots), so obviously they will start to cater the game for the masses.

 

The masses are the average players, as is obvious.

 

However, when trying to improve a product particularly for the playerbase as a whole.Listening to those who actually know what they're talking about is the only way to improve the game in a positive way.

 

Sports are constantly being changed and improved (old rules removed/updated etc) for the benefit of all those who play. However, when deciding upon a rule change the players in the lower leagues of football would not be consulted for example. They would consult with the representatives of the top clubs.

 


Edited by RamRaid90, 09 February 2018 - 11:22 AM.


Homer_J #14 Posted 09 February 2018 - 11:25 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27001 battles
  • 27,652
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostRamRaid90, on 09 February 2018 - 10:22 AM, said:

 

However, when trying to improve a product particularly for the playerbase as a whole.Listening to those who actually know what they're talking about is the only way to improve the game in a positive way.

 

 

Good players who genuinely want what is best for the game as a whole, not just for good players, are like hen's teeth (or rocking horse poop).



TJ72 #15 Posted 09 February 2018 - 11:28 AM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 14695 battles
  • 208
  • [E-T-U] E-T-U
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010

This game has, without a doubt, some of the most depressing pessimistic, but yet strangely entitled players I have ever encountered.

 

Makes me realise real life is really not that bad lol.

 

I wonder what the suicide rates for players of this game are compared to others?

Has XVM stared factoring quantity of salt into the rating or something?

 



RamRaid90 #16 Posted 09 February 2018 - 11:28 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 19657 battles
  • 5,841
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View PostHomer_J, on 09 February 2018 - 10:25 AM, said:

 

Good players who genuinely want what is best for the game as a whole, not just for good players, are like hen's teeth (or rocking horse poop).

 

Maybe so, but they can still come up with better ideas than "STOP PEOPLEZ HAXING?!" "NURF TONK CUZ IT KILT ME!" "BUFF TONK CUZ I DROOL ON KEYBOARD!" etc.

 

Look at it this way.

 

10 players with 55%+ win rates and good stats across all tiers.

 

10 players with 45% or less win rates and bad stats across the board.

 

Each group asked the same question. How do the vision mechanics need to be improved?

 

Whose answer is more likely to be more valuable?


Edited by RamRaid90, 09 February 2018 - 11:39 AM.


DracheimFlug #17 Posted 09 February 2018 - 11:33 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 8920 battles
  • 3,697
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014

View Postclixor, on 09 February 2018 - 11:13 AM, said:

 

Good players are the minority in this game, why should WG listen to them? What you want as a gaming company is people to play your game (lots, and then buy lots), so obviously they will start to cater the game for the masses.

 

The game has to cater to the masses, but that does not mean the opinions of the good players should be ignored. Better players do have a better understanding of mechanics and their opinions are very valuable.

DracheimFlug #18 Posted 09 February 2018 - 11:38 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 8920 battles
  • 3,697
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014

View PostTJ72, on 09 February 2018 - 11:28 AM, said:

This game has, without a doubt, some of the most depressing pessimistic, but yet strangely entitled players I have ever encountered.

 

Makes me realise real life is really not that bad lol.

 

I wonder what the suicide rates for players of this game are compared to others?

Has XVM stared factoring quantity of salt into the rating or something?

 

 

Much like the voter base in pretty much every country in the world..... 

Dehtre #19 Posted 09 February 2018 - 11:50 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 24893 battles
  • 16
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

You have to understand that people that recreate the maps on a new graphics engine are not the same people that balance tanks / desing new game modes / moderate etc.

 

I see the 1.0 patch as a huge step up and a clear sign that game is far from dying - this is a huge commitment from Wargaming, certainly far greater than releasing new premium once in a while. Also there are many people that care about the graphics - this patch will surely increase the number of both new and returning players, at least for some time.

 

The only thing I wish they would improve before/with 1.0 release is the new player experience. Low tiers are terrible, derpy, sealclubby, very fast paced and punish mistakes much more than high tiers due to low HP pools compared to DPM. This decreases player retention for sure and is overall bad for the game.



CmdRatScabies #20 Posted 09 February 2018 - 12:17 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 35172 battles
  • 3,538
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015

Must admit that I don't like 1.0 so far:

1. Not finding the new visuals easy on the eye & might be an issue for longer sessions - colours, textures and brightness seem off for something that's viewed at such close range.  Still playing with settings to tone everything down but 0.9.22 still seems more playable without the non functional visual clutter that 1.0 brings.

2. Changes to shell tracers - can't see where shots are going.  At far as I can tell this is a deliberate change, unlike the sound bug and makes it a pain to adjust shots.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users