Jump to content


Wargaming should think twice whose advice they heed

Maps Balance Weak spots Design Rant State of WoT Gold ammo

  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

Jigabachi #21 Posted 05 May 2018 - 09:00 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17948 battles
  • 19,546
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011
Good post.
I don't agree with some of the details (Mostly about the map sizes and the room we have to play, which turns both Kharkov and Pilsen into quite meh maps again, even with the more "open" corridors.), but apart from that... yeah. It's all old coffee, but still on spot.

About the "WG designs the game for 95% of the playerbase, not 5%":
That's true to some extend, but claiming that those 95% prefer or even need a completely broken game is nonsense. It's not only the unicorns who complain about the major problems, Joe Average does the same. The 95% would profit from a more balanced game, too.

NL_Jens #22 Posted 05 May 2018 - 09:11 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 35133 battles
  • 83
  • [OXIDE] OXIDE
  • Member since:
    03-14-2014

View PostStrappster, on 05 May 2018 - 01:29 AM, said:

 

1. My point about gold ammo is that right now, none of us have any idea what's planned...

 

2. Erlenberg.

 

1. Well, two things. For one, we may not know what is planned, but we kinda know what isn't. WG love talking about their plans, often times even plans for distant future that may or may not happen. In have stumbled over multiple mentions of premium/ammunition rework gathered from various statements, interviews and Q&As. Not one mention of any sort of general armour overhaul.

Second thing is just going by simple logic - would WG have plans for such armour rebalance, surely they would not spend a year releasing tanks which entirely contradict and poop on such design philosophy. It would make much more sense to just release them already balanced.

 

2. Well, your two options on Erlenberg are "You go left" and "You go right", both of these strategies limited by the universal "If I push past a certain spot, Imma get shot to bits." We may not know every detail, but it is clear the map does once again promote excessive camping, as once again camps are provided with plenty of hard cover as well as very dense concealment. Having to push through open grounds vs tanks too concealed to be spotted who also have the ability to comfortably slip into hard cover for reload does not give an incentive to push. It is an incentive to camp.



juonimies #23 Posted 05 May 2018 - 09:37 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 44432 battles
  • 397
  • [KARJU] KARJU
  • Member since:
    07-04-2011

View PostLordMuffin, on 05 May 2018 - 07:55 AM, said:

About player skill and who to care about.
If a company completely ignore the will of better players, these will just leave the game (and it already happens as seen by the decline in recent and average WR/wn8 of the active playerbase).
It kills longevity of the game, in most cases, players will improve over time and eventually get good at WoT, when that happens, and if the game is not intended for skillful play, then these good players will leave.

And while good players are like 5% of the players, they represent like 99% of the cumulative knowledge about tactics/tank balance/game mechanic etc on this game.

This is probably true. But from WG's point of view, more important than good players staying/leaving the game are most profitable players staying/leaving. 

 

The 99% of knowledge of the best 5% of players is totally irrelevant, except for those who belong to that 5%. But if the best 5% represent more than 5% of WG's income, then it is an asset for WG that should be persuaded to stay in game.   



Dorander #24 Posted 05 May 2018 - 10:28 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18669 battles
  • 3,221
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

I sincerely doubt WG plans anything based on how good some people are and whether or not that group is leaving. The only exceptions to these would be popular/endorsed streamers, who tend to be good players but which isn't always the case, they essentially provide free (or really cheap) advertising.

 

The reality of any online game is that experienced players eventually quit because they've achieved everything they want to achieve or they simply get bored. So at the top of the spectrum you always have an outgoing flow in your playerbase. This isn't exactly that 5% btw, though some of them may be. However the (near-)binary winsystem assures that there'll always be high stat players, if the best player leaves, the second best player not only automatically becomes number one, but his stats should rise proportionally because he'll not get beat by the best player again. Who is in that 5% will always change, but it'll also always exist. Heck, I've seen plenty unicums proclaim on these forums that they don't play with a premium account, so unless they're also streamers, or provide other media sensation through public tournaments or similar things, where's Wargaming's interest in that group of the 5%?

 

Far more important is the influx of new players at the bottom. They are the new potential customers/spenders. Without a steady influx of new players, your game can't grow, if it doesn't at least stagnate, your game dies. This is what the actual longevity of the game relies on. What's equally important is that if the division of a game's population based on skill is in any way representative, the influx of new players adheres to this division as well. That influx of new players will bring players with the aptitude and interest to become part of that 5%. In the grand scheme of things, that 5% isn't really interesting except for, as others mentioned, if they happen to be big spenders.

 

One aspect worth mentioning in this discussion is how new players and experienced players tend to interact. If I see a cyan player or unicum on the opposite team, I'm surprised if they are 1) not driving a Russian medium, usually the Object 140, and/or 2) fire premium shells most of the time. One of the reasons I suspect they can is that players with high damage output also have high income, and experienced players need to buy fewer in-game items, so they have more credits to spend on premium shells. Compare this to the new player for whom firing a few premium shells is a realistic drain on their resources, and that experienced group suddenly becomes a problem for the enjoyment (and thus the stay) of the new player. If some of them leave the game there's a chance this HELPS longevity.

 

Incidentally my described experience here is part of the reason I'm sceptical about that premium shell currency change. I primarily get premium shells from people I highly suspect have the credits to be able to afford them. I really hope they'll push some mechanical changes through, and don't forget armour values even though those aren't announced. I don't think it's accurate to say that Wargaming tends to announce their plans, every time patchnotes get released or test server patchnotes announced, the playerbase on this forum gets in an uproar due to changes they did not predict or desire. Wargaming doesn't release things properly balanced, they tweak depending on... values only they seem to have. It doesn't make sense to release new tanks balanced because the point of releasing tanks is to make it appealing to drive the new tanks (and thus keep playing, keep grinding, and hopefully keep spending). This is the essence of powercreep. At times they will get nerfed after some time, but only once they're well established within the playerbase. WG very likely also takes into account how many people actually drive these tanks, if a tank is probably OP but underrepresented in battles (the VK1001 comes to mind, it's good but a lumbering slow piece of junk that I seldomly see in tier 8) I doubt they consider it a problem worth nerfing.



DracheimFlug #25 Posted 05 May 2018 - 11:41 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 9095 battles
  • 4,033
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014
Abbey people often seem to forget the town to the left of the abbey. There are also flanking positions from the left and right corridors to centre and vis versa. Just because there are corridors on a map does not mean left and right cease to exist.

Strappster #26 Posted 05 May 2018 - 12:19 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 25538 battles
  • 9,948
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostNL_Jens, on 05 May 2018 - 08:11 AM, said:

1. Well, two things. For one, we may not know what is planned, but we kinda know what isn't. WG love talking about their plans, often times even plans for distant future that may or may not happen. In have stumbled over multiple mentions of premium/ammunition rework gathered from various statements, interviews and Q&As. Not one mention of any sort of general armour overhaul.

Second thing is just going by simple logic - would WG have plans for such armour rebalance, surely they would not spend a year releasing tanks which entirely contradict and poop on such design philosophy. It would make much more sense to just release them already balanced.

 

Simple logic should dictate when we don't know what's planned for the rebalance, we also don't know if they have released them already balanced. You're evaluating unknown changes under the terms of old knowledge.

 

View PostNL_Jens, on 05 May 2018 - 08:11 AM, said:

2. Well, your two options on Erlenberg are "You go left" and "You go right", both of these strategies limited by the universal "If I push past a certain spot, Imma get shot to bits." We may not know every detail, but it is clear the map does once again promote excessive camping, as once again camps are provided with plenty of hard cover as well as very dense concealment. Having to push through open grounds vs tanks too concealed to be spotted who also have the ability to comfortably slip into hard cover for reload does not give an incentive to push. It is an incentive to camp.

 

Well, you could sum up all the maps in the same way if you generalise. You're saying the map promotes excessive camping, I'm saying that players are camping because a meta hasn't had time to develop. I agree that as it stands currently, trying to push through the open, flat fields is suicide so I'm tending not to do that and I'm looking for other options.



LordMuffin #27 Posted 05 May 2018 - 02:06 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 48529 battles
  • 11,268
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View PostDorander, on 05 May 2018 - 10:28 AM, said:

I sincerely doubt WG plans anything based on how good some people are and whether or not that group is leaving. The only exceptions to these would be popular/endorsed streamers, who tend to be good players but which isn't always the case, they essentially provide free (or really cheap) advertising.

 

The reality of any online game is that experienced players eventually quit because they've achieved everything they want to achieve or they simply get bored. So at the top of the spectrum you always have an outgoing flow in your playerbase. This isn't exactly that 5% btw, though some of them may be. However the (near-)binary winsystem assures that there'll always be high stat players, if the best player leaves, the second best player not only automatically becomes number one, but his stats should rise proportionally because he'll not get beat by the best player again. Who is in that 5% will always change, but it'll also always exist. Heck, I've seen plenty unicums proclaim on these forums that they don't play with a premium account, so unless they're also streamers, or provide other media sensation through public tournaments or similar things, where's Wargaming's interest in that group of the 5%?

 

Far more important is the influx of new players at the bottom. They are the new potential customers/spenders. Without a steady influx of new players, your game can't grow, if it doesn't at least stagnate, your game dies. This is what the actual longevity of the game relies on. What's equally important is that if the division of a game's population based on skill is in any way representative, the influx of new players adheres to this division as well. That influx of new players will bring players with the aptitude and interest to become part of that 5%. In the grand scheme of things, that 5% isn't really interesting except for, as others mentioned, if they happen to be big spenders.

 

One aspect worth mentioning in this discussion is how new players and experienced players tend to interact. If I see a cyan player or unicum on the opposite team, I'm surprised if they are 1) not driving a Russian medium, usually the Object 140, and/or 2) fire premium shells most of the time. One of the reasons I suspect they can is that players with high damage output also have high income, and experienced players need to buy fewer in-game items, so they have more credits to spend on premium shells. Compare this to the new player for whom firing a few premium shells is a realistic drain on their resources, and that experienced group suddenly becomes a problem for the enjoyment (and thus the stay) of the new player. If some of them leave the game there's a chance this HELPS longevity.

 

Incidentally my described experience here is part of the reason I'm sceptical about that premium shell currency change. I primarily get premium shells from people I highly suspect have the credits to be able to afford them. I really hope they'll push some mechanical changes through, and don't forget armour values even though those aren't announced. I don't think it's accurate to say that Wargaming tends to announce their plans, every time patchnotes get released or test server patchnotes announced, the playerbase on this forum gets in an uproar due to changes they did not predict or desire. Wargaming doesn't release things properly balanced, they tweak depending on... values only they seem to have. It doesn't make sense to release new tanks balanced because the point of releasing tanks is to make it appealing to drive the new tanks (and thus keep playing, keep grinding, and hopefully keep spending). This is the essence of powercreep. At times they will get nerfed after some time, but only once they're well established within the playerbase. WG very likely also takes into account how many people actually drive these tanks, if a tank is probably OP but underrepresented in battles (the VK1001 comes to mind, it's good but a lumbering slow piece of junk that I seldomly see in tier 8) I doubt they consider it a problem worth nerfing.

 

If a certain groups of players leave,  WG should care. Especially if it is a group that historicly are those who have played the longest time, make up the most part of CW/Global map etc.

 

Now WG have already declared that CW and global map and other clan related stuff are unimportant stuff.

 

There is a problem when a game completely lacks long-term game experience and/or a game experience for better players and/or a game experience for those interested in cooperative gameplay with tactics etc.

 

These are group of players that have been more or less ignored for quite some time now.

(Campaign removals, no tanks for it, removal of global map aswell as horrible T10 and T8 tank balance and a non-existent scene for really good players to duke it out in).

This game is more then ever before created for the average player who aren't interested in clan stuff, improving or playing for a long time. Only interested in getting players to install and hopefully buy a few tanks. And that is where WG stops caring.

 

There will of course always be top 5% players in WOT, but the skill level of that group is currently going down.

 

About premium ammo.

 

I do sincerely hope WG made the change to be able to more or less remove them (the spend more get higher pen idea), create different shells for different opportunities and combine this with an overall armour change to more or less every tank released or remade in last ~2 years. 

Though I am sceptical.

Why release op armoured tanks like 3 months before such a remake.



LordMuffin #28 Posted 05 May 2018 - 02:10 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 48529 battles
  • 11,268
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View PostStrappster, on 05 May 2018 - 12:19 PM, said:

 

Simple logic should dictate when we don't know what's planned for the rebalance, we also don't know if they have released them already balanced. You're evaluating unknown changes under the terms of old knowledge.

 

 

Well, you could sum up all the maps in the same way if you generalise. You're saying the map promotes excessive camping, I'm saying that players are camping because a meta hasn't had time to develop. I agree that as it stands currently, trying to push through the open, flat fields is suicide so I'm tending not to do that and I'm looking for other options.

Tanks like 430U, obj268v4, Defender, VK100P etc are not balanced in current game.

To get those tanks balanced, we would need to see the biggest buff ever seen to pretty much every tank (from like T1-T10) in the game except this bunch.

 

Now WG could of course buff every tank except this selected few (20 something tanks).



Strappster #29 Posted 05 May 2018 - 02:17 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 25538 battles
  • 9,948
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostLordMuffin, on 05 May 2018 - 01:10 PM, said:

Tanks like 430U, obj268v4, Defender, VK100P etc are not balanced in current game.

 

That's why I said maybe the balancing process has already started and we shouldn't jump to conclusions of what might be on the basis of what currently is.

 

I'm prepared to be completely wrong about this and I'm speculating as much as anyone else in this thread but I don't understand how you can think the other way and continue playing the game. What's the point? Even if you're only playing the flavour of the month tanks, it's engaging easy mode and that's not what keeps me clicking the Battle button.



LordMuffin #30 Posted 05 May 2018 - 02:27 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 48529 battles
  • 11,268
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View PostStrappster, on 05 May 2018 - 02:17 PM, said:

 

That's why I said maybe the balancing process has already started and we shouldn't jump to conclusions of what might be on the basis of what currently is.

 

I'm prepared to be completely wrong about this and I'm speculating as much as anyone else in this thread but I don't understand how you can think the other way and continue playing the game. What's the point? Even if you're only playing the flavour of the month tanks, it's engaging easy mode and that's not what keeps me clicking the Battle button.

 

I don't play anymore.

Might start again sometime though, we will see.

 

I simply don't understand why you start a big rebalance by releasing tanks that are OP in current environment.



Strappster #31 Posted 05 May 2018 - 02:41 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 25538 battles
  • 9,948
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostLordMuffin, on 05 May 2018 - 01:27 PM, said:

I simply don't understand why you start a big rebalance by releasing tanks that are OP in current environment.

 

To start using up stocks of prammo purchased with gold, as noted in the latest patch notes as the reason why they're only changing the way you buy it right now.



Dorander #32 Posted 05 May 2018 - 03:11 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18669 battles
  • 3,221
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostLordMuffin, on 05 May 2018 - 01:06 PM, said:

 

If a certain groups of players leave,  WG should care. Especially if it is a group that historicly are those who have played the longest time, make up the most part of CW/Global map etc.

 

Now WG have already declared that CW and global map and other clan related stuff are unimportant stuff.

 

There is a problem when a game completely lacks long-term game experience and/or a game experience for better players and/or a game experience for those interested in cooperative gameplay with tactics etc.

 

These are group of players that have been more or less ignored for quite some time now.

(Campaign removals, no tanks for it, removal of global map aswell as horrible T10 and T8 tank balance and a non-existent scene for really good players to duke it out in).

This game is more then ever before created for the average player who aren't interested in clan stuff, improving or playing for a long time. Only interested in getting players to install and hopefully buy a few tanks. And that is where WG stops caring.

 

 

Your argument was that WG's choice to not cater to this group kills the longevity of this game. Given what you actually write I more get the impression that we're talking about different things. The longevity of the game I refer to is the game's continued existence as a viable product, but you seem to be talking about the length of time a single player may play this game. Those two aren't that closely related. Loyal customers are only interesting as long as these loyal customers generate more money than it costs to maintain the product environment. Our relationship with WG is a producer-consumer one, nothing else. If we're not paying for anything, we're not loyal customers, we're profiteers. There's room for that, obviously, and there's an inquantifiable factor about the effects of a total population base regardless of who of those people pays, but let's not pretend that Wargaming owes us any loyalty because we once bought something off them and have been enjoying it ever since.

 

The reason the game will cater more towards the average player rather than the top segment is because the far greatest number of potential customers are average players. Games that only cater to the narrow niche of a certain playertype either never get big or just end up being a disaster. Example of the former: EVE Online. Example of the latter...... that WoW clone meant for "hardcore players" of which I can't even remember the name. The subscription based market has been steadily dying, and a company will naturally seek the path that maintains their product the longest; ergo that gives the most long-term profits from the greatest amount of people. That top 5% isn't forgotten, they're just not very relevant to sustaining the product. So no, there actually isn't a problem. You're just misunderstanding the nature of the relationship between the playerbase and the developer.



LordMuffin #33 Posted 05 May 2018 - 04:10 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 48529 battles
  • 11,268
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View PostDorander, on 05 May 2018 - 03:11 PM, said:

 

Your argument was that WG's choice to not cater to this group kills the longevity of this game. Given what you actually write I more get the impression that we're talking about different things. The longevity of the game I refer to is the game's continued existence as a viable product, but you seem to be talking about the length of time a single player may play this game. Those two aren't that closely related. Loyal customers are only interesting as long as these loyal customers generate more money than it costs to maintain the product environment. Our relationship with WG is a producer-consumer one, nothing else. If we're not paying for anything, we're not loyal customers, we're profiteers. There's room for that, obviously, and there's an inquantifiable factor about the effects of a total population base regardless of who of those people pays, but let's not pretend that Wargaming owes us any loyalty because we once bought something off them and have been enjoying it ever since.

 

The reason the game will cater more towards the average player rather than the top segment is because the far greatest number of potential customers are average players. Games that only cater to the narrow niche of a certain playertype either never get big or just end up being a disaster. Example of the former: EVE Online. Example of the latter...... that WoW clone meant for "hardcore players" of which I can't even remember the name. The subscription based market has been steadily dying, and a company will naturally seek the path that maintains their product the longest; ergo that gives the most long-term profits from the greatest amount of people. That top 5% isn't forgotten, they're just not very relevant to sustaining the product. So no, there actually isn't a problem. You're just misunderstanding the nature of the relationship between the playerbase and the developer.

For me there is a problem, a game I once found to be fun and entertaining that offered some chance of team play and also play in a balanced environment is gone (so I don't play anymore, but with some changes might return).

 

I think it is important to have a game that have long time players, or have a gameplay experience long time players experience when 'all else is done'. Otherwise you will only get short term players that play a few games and leave (which is what WG seems to be trying to achieve).

The total number of active players and games played are going down in WoT aswell.

 

There are games with way better balance (my main issue with WoT), that have survived for like 7 years and have same or higher population.

Getting a balanced product doesn't harm the average player. The experience of a better player is improved though.



NL_Jens #34 Posted 05 May 2018 - 05:00 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 35133 battles
  • 83
  • [OXIDE] OXIDE
  • Member since:
    03-14-2014

View PostStrappster, on 05 May 2018 - 12:19 PM, said:

 

Simple logic should dictate when we don't know what's planned for the rebalance, we also don't know if they have released them already balanced. You're evaluating unknown changes under the terms of old knowledge.

 

Well, I'll bite afterall. These new tanks becoming the new standard would be a catastrophe. Making everything broken does not fix a problem, it only leaves you with a heap of broken. Driving a 268 v4 does not make dealing with other 268 v4s fine and fun. You are still facing a 268 v4. Furhermore, this total rebalance is just completely and entirely unlikely as 1) even among the newer releases the tank quality is highly inconsistent, 2) If you make all TXs gamebreakingly OP, you then have to make all T9s and 8s gamebreakingly OP and for those you also need to do 7s and 6s, etc. We'd be talking World of Tanks 2.

 

@Dorander I gotta agree with Muffin on "balanced game is good for everyone". Way too many people are leaving WoT because of balance issues. I also agree on WG targeting short term audience, rather than trying to tie seasoned players closer. Now I ain't no economy expert, but it seems to me a player who will take up WoT for his "main game" and play it for X years is generally more profitable than a player who will leave after few months. The former is imo slightly more likely to spend cash as he likes the game. (Also, higher tiers want premium account more urgently.) He also may be a complete freeloader, but then take some irresistible offer (let's say Christmas or something). And the biggest difference is the paying player who buys premium and premium tanks. He spends money all the time for 3 years, whereas the other spends money for few months.

The problem is that players who have played the game for a long time will be louder and more demanding. They don't wanna leave, they care, so they'll go and demand a change and be vocal about problems in the game and we all know how WG hate that.



fighting_falcon93 #35 Posted 05 May 2018 - 07:06 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32010 battles
  • 4,136
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

I read through your post and it's so long and so wrong :(

 

I'm not going to bother replying to it all, because it will take a lot of time, and at this time, it's just speculation, but:

 

1. Corridors are not needed to make a good map. Neither is an open map good if the open fields are no-go zones. WG should create a map creation tool so that players can send in map suggestions, because explaining in words what a good map should look like is near impossible. And so far, I can't say that WG has done 1 single good map. Some maps are better than others, but none of them are really optimal.

 

2. The only reason S.Conq is good is because it follows the all-or-nothing armor schematic, which almost no other tank does in this game. Put a hulldown S.Conq against a hulldown IS-7, and the S.Conq will struggle. Not because the IS-7 is OP, but because the IS-7 can't be penned in its turret by premium ammo. Also, HE works quite decent against a hulldown S.Conq, but then I guess the pride of some players is too high to switch from their skill ammo to the pleb ammo, right?

 

3. Making different kinds of shells is a good change. I have no idea why you call it dumb and why you think the added micro would be a bad thing. Really? What's bad is players loading one type of shell (regardless if they go full HE or full premium), and then just spam it. Choosing the right ammo for the job should be a very important part of any tank game, and no, it's not guesswork, it's skill.

 

Personally I look forward a lot to the planned ammo changes. I played through ranked battle season 1 and reached league 1 without firing a single premium ammo shell and without using food either, so I don't fall for the excuse that it's needed for the game. Then I also know that people crap their pants and load premium ammo as soon as they see an IS-4, so I'm not surprised that some players are worried already.



SidewalkOfPain #36 Posted 05 May 2018 - 07:07 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 24784 battles
  • 169
  • Member since:
    05-19-2011
OP has a very valid point. I really wish power-creep would be brought under control and the maps made more tactical.

Strappster #37 Posted 05 May 2018 - 07:16 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 25538 battles
  • 9,948
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostNL_Jens, on 05 May 2018 - 04:00 PM, said:

Well, I'll bite afterall. These new tanks becoming the new standard would be a catastrophe. Making everything broken does not fix a problem, it only leaves you with a heap of broken. Driving a 268 v4 does not make dealing with other 268 v4s fine and fun. You are still facing a 268 v4. Furhermore, this total rebalance is just completely and entirely unlikely as 1) even among the newer releases the tank quality is highly inconsistent, 2) If you make all TXs gamebreakingly OP, you then have to make all T9s and 8s gamebreakingly OP and for those you also need to do 7s and 6s, etc.

 

Please don't "bite". I thought we were having a mature discussion for once, not looking for opportunities to throw in barbs and traps for each other to prove who's got the biggest e-peen. :facepalm:

 

I thought I'd made it clear in my earlier post. We don't know what's coming up, not even a hint has leaked so any speculation is exactly that and no more. I've tried to recognise that in my posts and your responses are variations on a theme of, "but what if < current problem >".

 

Yes, some tanks are broken at the moment. I agree. We agree. We have common ground, there's no need to repeat the point endlessly, I get it. If we go into the rebalance and the proposals are to keep the status quo as of this moment right now, I agree that would be a bad thing. You don't know any more than I do what shape those proposals are going to take though, so why do you keep reiterating the points about how broken they are?

 

View PostNL_Jens, on 05 May 2018 - 04:00 PM, said:

We'd be talking World of Tanks 2.

 

It wasn't that long ago that WoT 1.0 was a joke; haha Rubicon amiright?

 

We never thought tier 8 PMM tanks were going to change, now we've got a Q&A with talk of taking away PMM and offering refunds to those who want them. We never thought gold ammo would change because WG loves money too much and now you can't buy it with money any more (unless you go through the conversion process of gold ⇒ credits ⇒ ammo, of course) and we've got an update that says it's going to be rebalanced.

 

Why is WoT 2.0 such a stretch?



Bulldog_Drummond #38 Posted 05 May 2018 - 07:17 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 30300 battles
  • 9,786
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

As a general rule even the most complex point can be adequately and accurately summarised for the general reader lacking specialised knowledge in 2 or 3 simple sentences.

 

If someone needs more than that I take as my starting point that the point or argument is most likely hopeless.



Bordhaw #39 Posted 05 May 2018 - 07:58 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 11966 battles
  • 2,802
  • Member since:
    01-29-2017

View PostNL_Jens, on 04 May 2018 - 02:12 PM, said:

Hello fellow tankers!

 

Disclaimer: this will be LONG. Please spare me the tl;dr gifs. Just don't read if not interested.

 

 

Instead of the paint graphics how about using the heat maps to show where tanks go etc - http://www.vbaddict.net/heatmaps/malinovka/2/moving-team



Element6 #40 Posted 05 May 2018 - 08:11 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29816 battles
  • 10,394
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostBordhaw, on 05 May 2018 - 07:58 PM, said:

Instead of the paint graphics how about using the heat maps to show where tanks go etc - http://www.vbaddict.net/heatmaps/malinovka/2/moving-team

It's worth noting this from that link;

 

Block Quote

 Showing most frequent movement of Tanks recorded during 150 Battles in April 2015.

 

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users