Jump to content


3-5-7 is the reason this game sucks


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
60 replies to this topic

Jethro_Grey #21 Posted 28 April 2018 - 09:39 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 4290 battles
  • 534
  • [KAIN] KAIN
  • Member since:
    08-01-2015

No, it's not.

The main reason this game sucks is, that most players play for their stats like idiots, instead of playing like a team.

It's far more important to increase their e-penor ( because they only a tiny one in real life) than anything else.

 

 



Agent_327 #22 Posted 28 April 2018 - 09:45 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 16695 battles
  • 417
  • [CAF] CAF
  • Member since:
    09-20-2010
 

View PostD4wiD3K, on 28 April 2018 - 09:26 PM, said:

Yes, let's play the "historical" card so we can apply it in a very limited fashion to ignore the game balance. Historically battles weren't fought 15 vs. 15. Historically artillery hardly damaged tanks. Historically tanks didn't have hitpoints. Historically most high tier tanks didn't exist. Historically the Tiger I you bring up in your example wouldn't have been tier 7 and historically it wouldn't have its top gun. Actually historically there was no tier system. But let's forget about this historical stuff in general and just cherrypick one tiny "historical" detail to back up why the game should remain unbalanced. Sounds good to me. Great arguments there.

You wrote this right?

View PostD4wiD3K, on 28 April 2018 - 08:34 PM, said:

The reason why +2/-2 is [edited]ing [edited] is exactly because it puts into battles tanks that should never ever fight each other. If you think playing your own mini-game within the battle and ignoring the higher tier tanks is a solution... I don't think I can speak my mind about that without risking a ban. The point is that "avoiding the enemy high tier tanks" is as much a solution as limping instead of walking properly when you have a broken leg.

Historically allied artillery were big contributors in killing axis tanks. But it seems like history is not your strong side so lets not dwell anymore on that.

 

View PostD4wiD3K, on 28 April 2018 - 09:26 PM, said:

You're making it sound like it would be a bad thing to have balance in the game. I know right, WoT shouldn't be like Counter-Strike which is why it needs to be extremely broken in every area of the game. I think adding more RNG to the game, to let's say 75%, would further contribute to WoT being different from the other games so let's do that?

 

I also have no idea what forum bans you're talking about. Did I hurt someone by saying about the game solely catering for the needs of bots nowadays? I could imagine that hurting most of the player base, and the solution to make them less bots is to dumb down the game further. It would be a nightmare if balance was a thing and people had to learn the basic game mechanics.

You can have balance with +-2 tier battles. Yes it makes the game harder and types like you and Zyme comes to the forums whining about things you have clearly not freaking idea of why they are like things are.

The game does not cater anymore for bots than any other mmo does. Apparently it just have a lot of players like you that appear to be bots but they are in fact just very bad players that does not understand the basic concepts of the game. :P



D4wiD3K #23 Posted 28 April 2018 - 10:20 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 659 battles
  • 276
  • Member since:
    08-11-2012

View PostAgent_327, on 28 April 2018 - 08:45 PM, said:

You can have balance with +-2 tier battles. Yes it makes the game harder and types like you and Zyme comes to the forums whining about things you have clearly not freaking idea of why they are like things are.

 

No you can't. You have tanks with so vastly differing power levels that this very logically, unquestionably and naturally breaks balance. When you put Tiger II and E100 into the same battle you just can't expect to have balance. This is very simple.

 

+2/-2 doesn't make the game "harder". It adds more RNG and kills off interaction from the game because most tanks simply can't fight each other. It forces most tanks into a narrow role with little to no freedom or options. Less interaction and less options doesn't make the game harder, it dumbs down the game.


"More frustrating" is the term you are looking for and it's very different from "harder". There's nothing particularly hard about playing bottom tier tanks, it's very straightforward. It's just less efficient because the tank you're playing is underpowered. 


Edited by D4wiD3K, 28 April 2018 - 10:20 PM.


Artick_ #24 Posted 28 April 2018 - 10:46 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 29498 battles
  • 214
  • [BADD] BADD
  • Member since:
    05-16-2013

View PostZyme, on 28 April 2018 - 07:16 PM, said:

And is the reason why I uninstall the game after 1 month and try it again 3 years later and will never pay a single cent to this company.


Seriously. How fun is it to be nothing but cannon fodder if you are trash tier in a match up?

 

I just rush in and suicide like a bot every single time so I can get a better match.


Is that fun gameplay to you?

 

The only reason this system is in place is so people have to pay for better ammo. But I'm not gonna spend my life savings on ammo in this game to have fun.

 

3-5-7 is great.

 

Why? Because 46% winrate players like you , will not be always toptier and lose my games.



Element6 #25 Posted 28 April 2018 - 10:49 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29305 battles
  • 10,394
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostD4wiD3K, on 28 April 2018 - 10:20 PM, said:

No you can't. You have tanks with so vastly differing power levels that this very logically, unquestionably and naturally breaks balance. When you put Tiger II and E100 into the same battle you just can't expect to have balance. This is very simple.

 

+2/-2 doesn't make the game "harder". It adds more RNG and kills off interaction from the game because most tanks simply can't fight each other. It forces most tanks into a narrow role with little to no freedom or options. Less interaction and less options doesn't make the game harder, it dumbs down the game.


"More frustrating" is the term you are looking for and it's very different from "harder". There's nothing particularly hard about playing bottom tier tanks, it's very straightforward. It's just less efficient because the tank you're playing is underpowered. 

If most tanks in the game can't fight eachother then it makes the game more team oriented, because one needs assistance to take out the foe. This should translate to more intertaction, and less one-man-army play.



Agent_327 #26 Posted 28 April 2018 - 11:11 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 16695 battles
  • 417
  • [CAF] CAF
  • Member since:
    09-20-2010

View PostD4wiD3K, on 28 April 2018 - 10:20 PM, said:

 

No you can't. You have tanks with so vastly differing power levels that this very logically, unquestionably and naturally breaks balance. When you put Tiger II and E100 into the same battle you just can't expect to have balance. This is very simple.

 

+2/-2 doesn't make the game "harder". It adds more RNG and kills off interaction from the game because most tanks simply can't fight each other. It forces most tanks into a narrow role with little to no freedom or options. Less interaction and less options doesn't make the game harder, it dumbs down the game.


"More frustrating" is the term you are looking for and it's very different from "harder". There's nothing particularly hard about playing bottom tier tanks, it's very straightforward. It's just less efficient because the tank you're playing is underpowered. 

-And yet more skilled people win more.:P Does that sound like RNG to you? Well it probably does as you most likely have no clue what RNG is. :child:

The +-2 tier battle setup makes the game more diverse and makes it more complex. Besides that a Tiger II can easily damage more than 90% of the tier 10's. Yes it struggles with the Type 5 and the Maus and some times it even have to flank them to do damage to them, but that's where player skill comes in.


Edited by Agent_327, 28 April 2018 - 11:12 PM.


D4wiD3K #27 Posted 28 April 2018 - 11:17 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 659 battles
  • 276
  • Member since:
    08-11-2012

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 28 April 2018 - 09:49 PM, said:

If most tanks in the game can't fight eachother then it makes the game more team oriented, because one needs assistance to take out the foe. This should translate to more intertaction, and less one-man-army play.

 

That's funny because there's a ton more teamwork in the aforementioned Counter-Strike than there is in World of Tanks even though Valve don't feel the need of having a dice roll in the beginning of every game where everyone gets a random amount of money with some being able to buy assault rifles while others being forced to play with pistols.


Defending a broken system by saying that it "gives tanks roles and encourages teamwork" is BS. We all know that teamwork in World of Tanks is non-existent and the players who are the best at the game are so partly because they've given up expecting any teamwork. 

 

There is absolutely nothing in +2/-2 that would encourage teamwork unless your definition of teamwork is having a tank that's so utterly bad that it can't perform any role other than trying to leech damage off your top tiers.



Balc0ra #28 Posted 28 April 2018 - 11:19 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 65898 battles
  • 16,062
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
For low tiers? No. They need something like that. As if not more ppl will come here to whine about to many targets they can't pen. On tier 8+? Nope. Not needed at all IMO. There they should go back to the normal old MM. Tier 8 was bad there to, but less bad IMO. Equal tier X and 8 games have spiked due to it. And on most tanks, they are the worst. As they have more targets of what makes the current meta bad vs in a +2 game on most of my tier 8's. Some have 260 pen so they don't care. But for the sub 200 pen tanks. It's far from ideal.

D4wiD3K #29 Posted 28 April 2018 - 11:22 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 659 battles
  • 276
  • Member since:
    08-11-2012

View PostAgent_327, on 28 April 2018 - 10:11 PM, said:

-And yet more skilled people win more.:P Does that sound like RNG to you? Well it probably does as you most likely have no clue what RNG is. :child:

The +-2 tier battle setup makes the game more diverse and makes it more complex. Besides that a Tiger II can easily damage more than 90% of the tier 10's. Yes it struggles with the Type 5 and the Maus and some times it even have to flank them to do damage to them, but that's where player skill comes in.

 

I have cleared all of this in multiple threads and writing a long post for someone like you who really believes +2/-2 adds skill and diversity to the game rather than breaks the game. I'll just let you die stupid. You're the typical player who's bought all the brainwashing around and who thinks every broken thing in the game. The only reasons why +2/-2 in the game is to dumb down the game so even bots can have good games, and to frustrate people into spending gold into free XPing modules or even entire tanks. And of course, to create bigger gaps between penetration and armor values so more people will spam gold shells. All the good stuff.

 

Yes, good players win more than bad. That's why my main account has 7-8% higher win rate than you and 10-11% higher recent win rate with well more than twice your recent WN8 than you. This is in spite of +2/-2, not because of it. With +1/-1 the difference would probably be 13-14%. Still your Tiger II is apparently farming tier 10s left and right and mine isn't. It's a shame how your vast understanding of the game just doesn't translate into good stats, isn't it?

 

It's remarkable how the people who tell about +2/-2 adding so much skill and challenge to the game seem to be pretty bad themselves. Could be because they don't understand the concepts they praise.


Edited by D4wiD3K, 28 April 2018 - 11:27 PM.


SnowRelic #30 Posted 28 April 2018 - 11:32 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 22820 battles
  • 589
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    11-14-2012

I'd way rather see 5/5/5. And have 1/3rd of my games as bottom tier, 1/3rd as middle tier and 1/3rd as top tier. I don't even mind if it takes 10 or 20 seconds longer to gobble together bunch of tanks. Even if it takes longer to create a line-up that can be compensated by not having a 30 second countdown timer, which has more or less become redundant.

 

(And the 5/10 template should be 7/8 or 8/7.)



HeidenSieker #31 Posted 28 April 2018 - 11:35 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 10046 battles
  • 4,649
  • Member since:
    03-26-2016

View PostD4wiD3K, on 28 April 2018 - 10:20 PM, said:

( stuff )

 

What about agent-327's other points?

Element6 #32 Posted 28 April 2018 - 11:45 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29305 battles
  • 10,394
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostD4wiD3K, on 28 April 2018 - 11:17 PM, said:

 

That's funny because there's a ton more teamwork in the aforementioned Counter-Strike than there is in World of Tanks even though Valve don't feel the need of having a dice roll in the beginning of every game where everyone gets a random amount of money with some being able to buy assault rifles while others being forced to play with pistols.


Defending a broken system by saying that it "gives tanks roles and encourages teamwork" is BS. We all know that teamwork in World of Tanks is non-existent and the players who are the best at the game are so partly because they've given up expecting any teamwork. 

 

There is absolutely nothing in +2/-2 that would encourage teamwork unless your definition of teamwork is having a tank that's so utterly bad that it can't perform any role other than trying to leech damage off your top tiers.

Because CS is a game where players grind their characters from level 1 to 10 and makes it comparable to WoT, right?

 

With 3-5-7 and 5-10 bottom tier tanks can fight 7 and 10 enemy tanks respectively, but they are not unable to fight te +1 tanks, and there will be at most 3 tanks they will potentially struggle with substantially, which is 1/5th of the tanks. I think you are blowing things a bit out of proportions, especially seeing as you do not even always encounter the 3 2+ tier enemy tanks before they are dead anyway.



LordMuffin #33 Posted 29 April 2018 - 07:51 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 48094 battles
  • 10,988
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View PostNUKLEAR_SLUG, on 28 April 2018 - 07:39 PM, said:

 

If the +2s are killing you then you're fighting the +2s. Don't fight the +2s. Fight your own tier and support your own +2s and you'll do much better. If you can't handle tanks of even your own tier tho then problem isn't with the MM.

Problem is, if you want to win, you are forced to fight them.

 

Of course, you can hide and run away (give away map control) just to avoid them. But those kind of things don't make you win games.



Zyme #34 Posted 29 April 2018 - 08:15 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 1792 battles
  • 42
  • Member since:
    07-18-2011

View PostAgent_327, on 28 April 2018 - 07:33 PM, said:

You sir, are the worst type of player that this game has. Please go away and play something else.

WoT is a very complex type of strategy shooter and one of the main points of the game is to know who you can fight how you can fight them and who you cannot fight. If it was not for that it would just be another generic shooter game.

 

I already know I can't fight +2 tier. There is nothing complex about it.

 

The worst type of player is one that swallows all the garbage they are fed and accepts it.

 

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 28 April 2018 - 10:45 PM, said:

Because CS is a game where players grind their characters from level 1 to 10 and makes it comparable to WoT, right?

 

With 3-5-7 and 5-10 bottom tier tanks can fight 7 and 10 enemy tanks respectively, but they are not unable to fight te +1 tanks, and there will be at most 3 tanks they will potentially struggle with substantially, which is 1/5th of the tanks. I think you are blowing things a bit out of proportions, especially seeing as you do not even always encounter the 3 2+ tier enemy tanks before they are dead anyway.

 

It is if CS was pay to win and unbalanced. If everyone fights on the same tier the game would be more balanced.

 

Not every tank need to do the same amount of damage in the same tier. But if you "headshot" or hit the right places you can penetrate, unlike today. Where it doesn't matter what you do with +2 tanks.

 

View PostD4wiD3K, on 28 April 2018 - 10:22 PM, said:

 

I have cleared all of this in multiple threads and writing a long post for someone like you who really believes +2/-2 adds skill and diversity to the game rather than breaks the game. I'll just let you die stupid. You're the typical player who's bought all the brainwashing around and who thinks every broken thing in the game. The only reasons why +2/-2 in the game is to dumb down the game so even bots can have good games, and to frustrate people into spending gold into free XPing modules or even entire tanks. And of course, to create bigger gaps between penetration and armor values so more people will spam gold shells. All the good stuff.

 

Yes, good players win more than bad. That's why my main account has 7-8% higher win rate than you and 10-11% higher recent win rate with well more than twice your recent WN8 than you. This is in spite of +2/-2, not because of it. With +1/-1 the difference would probably be 13-14%. Still your Tiger II is apparently farming tier 10s left and right and mine isn't. It's a shame how your vast understanding of the game just doesn't translate into good stats, isn't it?

 

It's remarkable how the people who tell about +2/-2 adding so much skill and challenge to the game seem to be pretty bad themselves. Could be because they don't understand the concepts they praise.

 

Well said.
 

View PostAgent_327, on 28 April 2018 - 08:19 PM, said:

I guess that the forum ban have been lifted? You are so very wrong. Historically Pz IV and Tiger II fought side by side. +-2 mm is what  makes WoT otherwise it would just be counterstrike in tanks.

 

That is kinda funny. So you claim the "complexity" comes from +2 tiers in the battle. Wow, how complex.

 

If we would have same tier in battles with a balanced game, this game would not have any complexity? No strategy, no knowledge of where to shoot, no strategy in knowing what to shoot. No position strategy.

 

Interesting.


 

Edited by NickMustaine, 29 April 2018 - 01:13 PM.


NUKLEAR_SLUG #35 Posted 29 April 2018 - 08:56 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 28505 battles
  • 2,167
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

View PostLordMuffin, on 29 April 2018 - 07:51 AM, said:

Problem is, if you want to win, you are forced to fight them.

 

Of course, you can hide and run away (give away map control) just to avoid them. But those kind of things don't make you win games.

 

There's a big difference between helping your tier 10 deal with the Maus and fighting the Maus yourself. If you can't hurt the Maus work on removing his support instead, the tanks that are your tier. OP has half the enemy team to shoot at and his own top tiers to assist but prefers to believe MM is his problem.

 

At no point have I suggested running off to the other side of the map to hide behind a rock but if your tier 10s aren't where they need to be for you to support them then going it alone just because that happens to be an important map point and getting roflstomped as a result is no smarter than trying to hold a flank alone when the rest of your team has decided to lemming the other way.



Zyme #36 Posted 29 April 2018 - 09:00 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 1792 battles
  • 42
  • Member since:
    07-18-2011

View PostJigabachi, on 28 April 2018 - 07:44 PM, said:

Your example is just bad. You described a classic p2w game. WoT isn't like that at all.

 

But it is. The bottom tier exists as a reason for players to become frustrated and paying for gold ammo, xp and premium tanks to progress higher in the tree to get away from being trash tier and become top tier. Only to find themselves in mid or bottom tier in the next tier aswell. This is the illusion of progress.

Jigabachi #37 Posted 29 April 2018 - 09:37 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17923 battles
  • 18,914
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostZyme, on 29 April 2018 - 09:00 AM, said:

But it is. The bottom tier exists as a reason for players to become frustrated and paying for gold ammo, xp and premium tanks to progress higher in the tree to get away from being trash tier and become top tier. Only to find themselves in mid or bottom tier in the next tier aswell. This is the illusion of progress.

That isn't entirely wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that it's perfectly possible to play and shine as a bottomtier tank. The concept around tier spread stems from the RPG-part of the game and is perfectly fine. The problem is the actual gamebalance that gets worse every update.

 

Again: If you aren't open for different game concepts and a bit of a challenge, just leave. Noone Wil miss you and your childish attitude. Go play CoD. 


Edited by Jigabachi, 29 April 2018 - 09:38 AM.


GreatSuprendo #38 Posted 29 April 2018 - 10:37 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 21557 battles
  • 31
  • Member since:
    09-13-2014

View PostJigabachi, on 29 April 2018 - 08:37 AM, said:

That isn't entirely wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that it's perfectly possible to play and shine as a bottomtier tank. 

 

Possible, but not probable (unless your tank is in a small subset of OP tanks or you get a lucky map like Fiery Salient in a bottom tier light).

 

View PostJigabachi, on 29 April 2018 - 08:37 AM, said:

The concept around tier spread stems from the RPG-part of the game and is perfectly fine. 

 

I'm confused.  Please explain what the RPG element of this game is?  Taking on the role of an unarmed Russian peasant faced by a Tiger tank?  Because that's what +2/-2 MM is pretty much like for most tanks.

 

 



Element6 #39 Posted 29 April 2018 - 11:35 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29305 battles
  • 10,394
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostZyme, on 29 April 2018 - 09:00 AM, said:

But it is. The bottom tier exists as a reason for players to become frustrated and paying for gold ammo, xp and premium tanks to progress higher in the tree to get away from being trash tier and become top tier. Only to find themselves in mid or bottom tier in the next tier aswell. This is the illusion of progress.

There is progression, the illusion is thinking that you will progress to a stage where you have better equipment than your opponents. 



Jigabachi #40 Posted 29 April 2018 - 12:26 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17923 battles
  • 18,914
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostGreatSuprendo, on 29 April 2018 - 10:37 AM, said:

Possible, but not probable (unless your tank is in a small subset of OP tanks or you get a lucky map like Fiery Salient in a bottom tier light).

You can have a positive impact with every tank. Even if you are a tI in a tX match.

 

Block Quote

I'm confused.  Please explain what the RPG element of this game is?  Taking on the role of an unarmed Russian peasant faced by a Tiger tank?  Because that's what +2/-2 MM is pretty much like for most tanks.

The whole idea around "leveling up" and improving the "character" you play in order to fight harder enemies are core mechanics of pretty much every RPG. Would you fight a RPG boss or an elite monster alone? No, you wouldn't. Why would you do it here?

As mentioned countless times, the game is 15vs15, not 1Loltracktor vs 1Maus.

 

I always have to wonder if WoT is the first game you guys ever played...


Edited by Jigabachi, 29 April 2018 - 12:28 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users