Jump to content


Supertesters

Supertesters

  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

Thuis001 #1 Posted 27 April 2018 - 10:25 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5584 battles
  • 383
  • [-SBN-] -SBN-
  • Member since:
    05-29-2015

Hello WG, 

something I was wondering about this evening is this:

Who are the supertesters, why are they appointed specificly instead of someone else, and why did they allow certain things to pass in the last few months to a year.

 

More specificly, why didn't they state that the 268v4 was clearly better then any other tier X TD and should be nerfed, same for all tanks added or changed during 9.22, which are all better then the rest (all of them overperform on wr across the board, ranging from 1% with the IS-M to 5% with the SU-100M1). Why did stuff like the Patriot, the Skorpion, and all other P2W tanks pass?

This kinda makes one wonder wether they are really usefull for the job. (or was the original draw for the Obj. 268v4 even better then the one we have in game)

 

I would love to get a serious answer to this.

With kind regards,

Thuis001



Enforcer1975 #2 Posted 28 April 2018 - 12:10 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 18386 battles
  • 9,844
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014

Well they seem to be ignoring historical data when a russian tank isn't strong enough according to the most bottom comment on the wiki...

 

Block Quote

 * The frontal armor of the in-game Object 268 Version 4 is much stronger than its real-life specifications, which had a maximum frontal armor thickness of 180mm.

  • The in-game Object 268 Version 4 is 75 tons, way over the 50 tons that was planned. This is likely a reference to how the in-game version has much more armor.

 

 



Spurtung #3 Posted 28 April 2018 - 12:12 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 60111 battles
  • 5,479
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013
When OP realizes the CT can be accessed by anyone, we see the [edited]-ups coming up and still nothing happens, his head will implode.

Aikl #4 Posted 28 April 2018 - 12:48 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25141 battles
  • 4,013
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostEnforcer1975, on 27 April 2018 - 11:10 PM, said:

Well they seem to be ignoring historical data when a russian tank isn't strong enough according to the most bottom comment on the wiki...

 

 

 

 

They actually care about armor and weights? 

 

Looks at T-100 LT. :D

 

View PostThuis001, on 27 April 2018 - 09:25 PM, said:

(...)

 

Look, by now you should've realized that part of the whole WoT business model is based on powercreep. It's obviously intentional. Even if they did make a mistake with the 268v4, they're extremely unlikely to consider rebalancing it, or even mentioning 'rebalance', until they have earned enough cash from people free-XP-ing the tank gathered enough data. Usually takes four-five months, if they don't come up with something to eclipse it. 

 

Combine the tendency for powercreep with a RU-based testing environment with potential issues with player pools, and you might just get stuff like the 268v4.

 

Supertesters are supposedly not allowed to talk about the program. This thread is worth a read if you want to get an impression.

https://forum.worldo...comment-3524276

 

There's also some interesting information from a World of Warplanes supertester/volunteer contributor. 

http://forum.worldof...048#entry716048

 

While policy is unlikely to be identical for all Wargaming titles, it's likely sort of similar. Note how the volunteer for WoWp says "I was literally required to recruit players with less than 500 battles total in the game to shape the future of the project". Part of supertesters might be similar.

It's important to remember that Wargaming's goal isn't necessarily to make a game where you have a lot of fun as a good/dedicated player. Most likely it's the exact opposite - as indicated by e.g. the 3-5-7 matchmaking. Also, if we assume that the workload for WoT supertesters is the same as WoWp supertesters (~20 hours per week of work, not just playing the game), you might be able to draw some conclusions to what kind of people that are testing.

 

(As you might know, there's no EU supertest program. That probably doesn't matter too much, but while the cited reason was leaks from EU supertesters, the likely reason was that translating English to Russian feedback is kind of a pain in the behind. Can't really blame them for that, to be honest.)



Bulldog_Drummond #5 Posted 28 April 2018 - 01:10 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 27842 battles
  • 9,260
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

View PostAikl, on 27 April 2018 - 11:48 PM, said:

 

It's important to remember that Wargaming's goal isn't necessarily to make a game where you have a lot of fun as a good/dedicated player. 

 

Given that those are about 5% of the player base or less WG would be insane to attempt anything along those lines as it would make no business sense whatsoever.

 

It would be like the Sun deciding that a viable business plan would be to sell its readers the Financial Times instead.



XxKuzkina_MatxX #6 Posted 28 April 2018 - 06:01 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 44833 battles
  • 907
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View PostBulldog_Drummond, on 28 April 2018 - 02:10 AM, said:

 

Given that those are about 5% of the player base or less WG would be insane to attempt anything along those lines as it would make no business sense whatsoever.

 

It would be like the Sun deciding that a viable business plan would be to sell its readers the Financial Times instead.

 

That's not a good analogy neither is accurate. Also there are common subjects that annoy both good and bad players like MM, stock grind, OP tanks, arty, etc. The best business plan is to have a healthy player base where most of the players are enjoying the game but i guess the Russian mentality doesn't conform.



Jumping_TurtIe #7 Posted 28 April 2018 - 07:17 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 5357 battles
  • 535
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    02-26-2015

View PostThuis001, on 27 April 2018 - 10:25 PM, said:

 

I would love to get a serious answer to this.

 

Storm once said that the devellopment and testing dept had some great ideas for the game but that they were shot down by the financial dept.

 

When you just think on every move WG makes how they will make money from it, you have your answer. It perhaps started about making a good game, it has evolved into a primary making money business, as most other companies do, and so they make choices not logical for the gameplay but are good for their wallets.



jabster #8 Posted 28 April 2018 - 08:35 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12516 battles
  • 21,691
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostJumping_TurtIe, on 28 April 2018 - 06:17 AM, said:

 

Storm once said that the devellopment and testing dept had some great ideas for the game but that they were shot down by the financial dept.

 

When you just think on every move WG makes how they will make money from it, you have your answer. It perhaps started about making a good game, it has evolved into a primary making money business, as most other companies do, and so they make choices not logical for the gameplay but are good for their wallets.

 

Isn’t that true of a lot of successful games, indeed you could say the whole games industry. If you read about some of the stories of developers in the 80’s they talk about making games because they were games they wanted to play. I can’t imagine that happens a lot nowadays.

 

Unfortunately I think it’s going to get even worse so instead of the norm being a financial model built around a game it will be a game built around a financial model. I’m happy with the idea of parting with my money in return for entertainment but I’m not happy with doing the same to obtain a vehicle designed to extract more money out of me.



Baldrickk #9 Posted 28 April 2018 - 10:11 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29031 battles
  • 12,860
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View PostBulldog_Drummond, on 28 April 2018 - 01:10 AM, said:

 

Given that those are about 5% of the player base or less WG would be insane to attempt anything along those lines as it would make no business sense whatsoever.

 

It would be like the Sun deciding that a viable business plan would be to sell its readers the Financial Times instead.

In terms of balancing, WG should be aiming to produce content for everyone.

 

Think of each if those papers like a single tank. All papers together create the news, which you could think of as the whole game in this analogy.

 

To explain what I mean, lets simplify:

 

Lets imagine two tanks. Anyone can play either one, but we're going to make one more attractive to less skilled players, and more attractive to more skilled players:

 

Tank 1:

We're aiming for a low skill floor, to make it easy to play.

How about we give this tank a metric butt-ton of armour?

Great, now poor players wont instantly die and have a chance to something.

But what about the really good players? They can also play this tank and just run around killing everything and taking nothing in return (because they can use the armour even more effectively).  

Ok, lets make it really slow, to balance it out.

This limits what even a good player can do in it because it takes time to do anything.

We now have an easily accessible tank that is limited.

  • Low skill floor
  • Low skill ceiling

 

Tank 2:

Ok, we just made a tank with loads of armour. Lets make one with less.

"But isnt that going to make it easy to kill?"

Why yes, thats why it's going to take some skill to play effectively.

But how to make the tank rewarding to those who play it well? 

Well if we make it fast, it can get to the next fight quickly and help there. It'll still die quickly if shot. 

Sounds great!

  • High skill floor,
  • High skill ceiling

 

That's just with two stats.

 

Balanced tanks will have a similar skill window magnitude, but it can/will be offset due to how it is balanced.

An unbalanced tank is weak (one trick pony) if the window is too small (positives are not good enough to make up for the weakpoints of the vehicle)

An unbalanced tank is too strong if the window is too big (the vehicle is far too good for how easy it is to play)

 


Edited by Baldrickk, 28 April 2018 - 10:13 AM.


Aikl #10 Posted 28 April 2018 - 12:15 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25141 battles
  • 4,013
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostBulldog_Drummond, on 28 April 2018 - 12:10 AM, said:

 

Given that those are about 5% of the player base or less WG would be insane to attempt anything along those lines as it would make no business sense whatsoever.

 

It would be like the Sun deciding that a viable business plan would be to sell its readers the Financial Times instead.

 

No, that's quite obvious. In and by itself it's a bad business strategy to appeal to good/dedicated players only. Most likely Wargaming knows very well that 'casual adult' gamers are the primary income source, and it's not really a secret. However, 'alienating' certain groups in favour of others makes little sense if they can avoid it. I doubt WoT can have an even broader appeal if it becomes "simpler".

 

Most games have some room for both 'casual' and more dedicated players. Ideally a game should be easy to get into, but hard to master. Counter-Strike is one example of that. It's dead simple, but takes a lot of time to become decent. WoT is both hard to get into and hard to master. That's a major problem in my mind - that severly limits the potential of the game. It's arguably as hard to get into as more 'realistically' oriented games like War Thunder, despite being a 'mechanically' much simpler game.
There's definitely potential for satisfying more or less every player group in WoT too. The issue most of the more 'dedicated' players have is the oversimplifaction of many aspects of the game. If there's no room to improve or get better (or rather that you don't get rewarded for it), the game might become rather uninteresting.

 

While I'm not an expert on tabloid analogies, the ones in Norway tend to combine (a lot of) easily digested gossip with more 'heavy' journalism - for good reasons.



Bulldog_Drummond #11 Posted 28 April 2018 - 12:24 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 27842 battles
  • 9,260
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

View PostAikl, on 28 April 2018 - 11:15 AM, said:

 

No, that's quite obvious. In and by itself it's a bad business strategy to appeal to good/dedicated players only. Most likely Wargaming knows very well that 'casual adult' gamers are the primary income source, and it's not really a secret. However, 'alienating' certain groups in favour of others makes little sense if they can avoid it. I doubt WoT can have an even broader appeal if it becomes "simpler".

 

Most games have some room for both 'casual' and more dedicated players. Ideally a game should be easy to get into, but hard to master. Counter-Strike is one example of that. It's dead simple, but takes a lot of time to become decent. WoT is both hard to get into and hard to master. That's a major problem in my mind - that severly limits the potential of the game. It's arguably as hard to get into as more 'realistically' oriented games like War Thunder, despite being a 'mechanically' much simpler game.
There's definitely potential for satisfying more or less every player group in WoT too. The issue most of the more 'dedicated' players have is the oversimplifaction of many aspects of the game. If there's no room to improve or get better (or rather that you don't get rewarded for it), the game might become rather uninteresting.

 

While I'm not an expert on tabloid analogies, the ones in Norway tend to combine (a lot of) easily digested gossip with more 'heavy' journalism - for good reasons.

 

I think where WOT scores is that you can have a lot of fun playing it even if you are rubbish because you wouldn't even notice that you were rubbish.  The detailed frustrations only come in with much experience, knowledge and time invested.  And from a purely business perspective I would say that WG could within reason ignore such concerns.  And there are easy workarounds, e.g. avoid high tiers, play OP tanks, etc.

jabster #12 Posted 28 April 2018 - 12:34 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12516 battles
  • 21,691
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostBaldrickk, on 28 April 2018 - 09:11 AM, said:

In terms of balancing, WG should be aiming to produce content for everyone.

 

Think of each if those papers like a single tank. All papers together create the news, which you could think of as the whole game in this analogy.

 

To explain what I mean, lets simplify:

 

Lets imagine two tanks. Anyone can play either one, but we're going to make one more attractive to less skilled players, and more attractive to more skilled players:

 

Tank 1:

We're aiming for a low skill floor, to make it easy to play.

How about we give this tank a metric butt-ton of armour?

Great, now poor players wont instantly die and have a chance to something.

But what about the really good players? They can also play this tank and just run around killing everything and taking nothing in return (because they can use the armour even more effectively).  

Ok, lets make it really slow, to balance it out.

This limits what even a good player can do in it because it takes time to do anything.

We now have an easily accessible tank that is limited.

  • Low skill floor
  • Low skill ceiling

 

Tank 2:

Ok, we just made a tank with loads of armour. Lets make one with less.

"But isnt that going to make it easy to kill?"

Why yes, thats why it's going to take some skill to play effectively.

But how to make the tank rewarding to those who play it well? 

Well if we make it fast, it can get to the next fight quickly and help there. It'll still die quickly if shot. 

Sounds great!

  • High skill floor,
  • High skill ceiling

 

That's just with two stats.

 

Balanced tanks will have a similar skill window magnitude, but it can/will be offset due to how it is balanced.

An unbalanced tank is weak (one trick pony) if the window is too small (positives are not good enough to make up for the weakpoints of the vehicle)

An unbalanced tank is too strong if the window is too big (the vehicle is far too good for how easy it is to play)

 

 

I tend to think of it in rather more simply terms. You want a range of tanks where at one end you have not that effective but are forgiving of mistakes and at the other end the opposite.

Simeon85 #13 Posted 28 April 2018 - 12:56 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 1,375
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

More transparency in the super test/balancing system I think would be a good thing, WOWs has this, players can more see what is going on, who is testing and get more early information from those testers.

 

IIRC back in the day the European super tester programme was shut down because of apparent leaks, that later transpired to have come from the Russian super testers, and these days stuff is leaked super early anyway, often by WG themselves so it begs the question why there isn't a European super tester programme and why more isn't known about those who are testing.

 

IMO they current super testers are either A. terrible players or B. their feedback is ignored by the devs, those are the only two options IMO that can explain some of the recent additions to the game, the 268v4 for example can only be explained by terrible players testing it and think its fine because it boosts their meagre ability or the super testers told WG it was OP AF and WG just ignored them. 



Thuis001 #14 Posted 28 April 2018 - 01:42 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5584 battles
  • 383
  • [-SBN-] -SBN-
  • Member since:
    05-29-2015

View PostSimeon85, on 28 April 2018 - 12:56 PM, said:

More transparency in the super test/balancing system I think would be a good thing, WOWs has this, players can more see what is going on, who is testing and get more early information from those testers.

 

IIRC back in the day the European super tester programme was shut down because of apparent leaks, that later transpired to have come from the Russian super testers, and these days stuff is leaked super early anyway, often by WG themselves so it begs the question why there isn't a European super tester programme and why more isn't known about those who are testing.

 

IMO they current super testers are either A. terrible players or B. their feedback is ignored by the devs, those are the only two options IMO that can explain some of the recent additions to the game, the 268v4 for example can only be explained by terrible players testing it and think its fine because it boosts their meagre ability or the super testers told WG it was OP AF and WG just ignored them. 

or both XD, you never know



Balc0ra #15 Posted 28 April 2018 - 05:20 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 62806 battles
  • 14,399
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View PostThuis001, on 27 April 2018 - 10:25 PM, said:

Who are the supertesters, why are they appointed specificly instead of someone else, and why did they allow certain things to pass in the last few months to a year.

 

Instead of you? Well that's a separate issue too. That everyone thinks they can balance the game better. As the last one that thought that, more or less shifted focus to armor. As he played HT's mostly.

 

Then again you are also assuming that super testers have the final say on what is passed, or even a big finger in it. They say their meaning, and it still has to sit well with the main balance team after that. Even if they think it's UP or OP.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users