Jump to content


Perfecting Preferential Premiums


  • Please log in to reply
3790 replies to this topic

Community #1 Posted 21 May 2018 - 03:28 PM

    Sergeant

  • Content Team
  • 0 battles
  • 24,767
  • Member since:
    11-09-2011
The team has been hard at work addressing balance issues.

The full text of the news item

MaxxyNL #2 Posted 21 May 2018 - 03:32 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 10782 battles
  • 685
  • [THEFF] THEFF
  • Member since:
    04-05-2013
:trollface::popcorn:

Ville67 #3 Posted 21 May 2018 - 03:34 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 20861 battles
  • 174
  • Member since:
    08-05-2013
So, it will be a faster, more armored KV-4 with a better gun? And more HP as well? Seems legit.

Rimsplitter #4 Posted 21 May 2018 - 03:40 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 22390 battles
  • 560
  • Member since:
    06-15-2016

*
POPULAR

"Since then, the [Matchmaking] tool has gone through several changes, until it reached a level of performance that met the expectations of both the community and the dev team."

 

From which alternate dimension did this news bulletin arrive?  The one where charging us an additional 2000 gold to swap tanks that WG broke after we paid money for them seems like a fair idea?



jimboz84 #5 Posted 21 May 2018 - 03:42 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 19835 battles
  • 66
  • Member since:
    07-04-2011

I would like to see the Scorpion G loose the "Special Camouflage" and give players the option of camouflage that actually is useful. Also improve frontal armour that's not paper thin and a quicker reload time. Mine is 10.75 seconds and that in a pressure/multiple enemy engagement is far too slow and you get reduced to a wreck in seconds!

 

Also please take T8 vehicles out of T10 matchmaker as they are just cannon fodder with some T8 being one-shotted by the big boys!


Edited by jimboz84, 21 May 2018 - 03:43 PM.


Grand_Moff_Tano #6 Posted 21 May 2018 - 03:42 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 1436 battles
  • 10,567
  • [BC28] BC28
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011
I hope you do the Type 59 next, since that tank needs its stats updating.

hopeasusi #7 Posted 21 May 2018 - 03:43 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 13029 battles
  • 218
  • Member since:
    11-24-2010

View PostVille67, on 21 May 2018 - 04:34 PM, said:

So, it will be a faster, more armored KV-4 with a better gun? And more HP as well? Seems legit.

 

Me like this XD as I have had a KV-5 since it's introduction. 

 

Looks maybe a tad too good, but hey it will still be meh compared to the Defender. 



_Sentinel_ #8 Posted 21 May 2018 - 03:44 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14183 battles
  • 271
  • Member since:
    05-08-2011

Give the StuG IV some tweaks! It's horrible! Even preferential MM doesn't make it competitive.

 

 

 

EDIT: On second thought if that's how you handle things, then better leave it like it is. The StuG IV is crap, but at least it's one of the few relatively historical tanks in the game. If you take away its preferential MM like you want to do with the KV-5, in order to make it competitive in tier 7 games you'll have to give it a StuK 42 L70 75 mm gun like the StuG IIIG, some sci-fi shells or something else completely ridiculous, turning it into yet another fantasy tank. If that's what you're planning, then no thanks!


Edited by _Sentinel_, 22 May 2018 - 12:49 AM.


SaltyScrubTears #9 Posted 21 May 2018 - 03:45 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 25308 battles
  • 63
  • Member since:
    09-27-2013

*
POPULAR

So the KV-5's weakest frontal area will be 190mm base? Bye bye frontal weakspots, good luck Tier 6s and 7s.

 

Also, charging people gold to change tanks is dirty in my opinion. Players should not be penalised if they don't like their rebalanced vehicle.


Edited by SaltyScrubTears, 21 May 2018 - 04:53 PM.


havoc764 #10 Posted 21 May 2018 - 03:46 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 18146 battles
  • 7
  • [ROFF] ROFF
  • Member since:
    03-17-2012

View PostRimsplitter, on 21 May 2018 - 02:40 PM, said:

"Since then, the [Matchmaking] tool has gone through several changes, until it reached a level of performance that met the expectations of both the community and the dev team."

 

From which alternate dimension did this news bulletin arrive?  The one where charging us an additional 2000 gold to swap tanks that WG broke after we paid money for them seems like a fair idea?

 

Yeah that is [edited], making money off their MISTAKES what a bunch of total *edited* heads.

There is being dumb and then there is this, this is equal to purposely trying to anger the paying part of your community. 

 

How about we get to trade it in for a different premium and we only have to pay the potential difference or get it back.

For example trying to trade in your 27 euro super pershing for a 40 euro t34 or something, in that case you would have to pay the difference in price.

Likewise if you go the other way the difference should be turned out in gold.

This is fair, any other way is either being generous or actively trying to mislead your customer which is fraud.


Edited by NickMustaine, 22 May 2018 - 12:40 PM.
Inappropriate language


Red_Dragon_Firkraag #11 Posted 21 May 2018 - 03:47 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14983 battles
  • 1,683
  • Member since:
    08-13-2011

View PostSaltyScrubTears, on 21 May 2018 - 03:45 PM, said:

So the KV-5's weakest frontal area will be 190mm base? Bye bye frontal weakspots, good luck Tier 6s and 7s.

 

Just Flank It™

Panther_UK_1 #12 Posted 21 May 2018 - 03:48 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 29121 battles
  • 3
  • [9LEG] 9LEG
  • Member since:
    09-23-2014
Talking about matchmaker - when does WG stop punishing platoons? Over this week end I played 50+ battles as 2/3 man platoons, and in all but 3 battles, we were bottom tier.

HadurHun #13 Posted 21 May 2018 - 03:50 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 66355 battles
  • 574
  • [HADUR] HADUR
  • Member since:
    10-23-2011

*
POPULAR

So let me guess this straight!
You want us to pay 2000 gold per limited mm vehicle aka 8 euros to lose it's premium mm advantage?
no! if you really want to improve them! and I WILL MAKE A SUGGESTION HERE:
Buff them BUT leave them the option to mount and demount a secondary canon!
That secondary canon will get the tank into a t10 match! but if you demount it it will go to a t9 tops!
Example! IS-6 gets an IS-3 canon! Mounting or demounting will choose the tanks MM +1 or +2 at will not permanent!
and yes if you want money that bad you can ask for gold research for secondary +2 mm canon!
HOWS THAT FOR A SUGGESTION?

Edited by HadurHun, 21 May 2018 - 03:51 PM.


Red_Dragon_Firkraag #14 Posted 21 May 2018 - 03:51 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14983 battles
  • 1,683
  • Member since:
    08-13-2011

View PostHadurHun, on 21 May 2018 - 03:50 PM, said:

So let me guess this straight!
You want us to pay 2000 gold per limited mm vehicle aka 8 euros to lose it's premium mm advantage?
no! if you really want to improve them! and I WILL MAKE A SUGGESTION HERE:
Buff them BUT leave them the option to mount and demount a secondary canon!
That secondary canon will get the tank into a t10 match! but if you demount it it will go to a t9 tops!
Example! IS-6 gets an IS-3 canon! Mounting or demounting will choose the tanks MM +1 or +2

 

Wrong. You can either keep the buffed machine, or if still dissatisfied, change it for a more suitable one for ~8 euros.

HadurHun #15 Posted 21 May 2018 - 03:52 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 66355 battles
  • 574
  • [HADUR] HADUR
  • Member since:
    10-23-2011

View PostRed_Dragon_Firkraag, on 21 May 2018 - 02:51 PM, said:

 

Wrong. You can either keep the buffed machine, or if still dissatisfied, change it for a more suitable one for ~8 euros.

 

hell no, don't touch my kv-5!

SoupFork #16 Posted 21 May 2018 - 03:53 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 5044 battles
  • 184
  • Member since:
    11-07-2017

*
POPULAR

TL:DR Version:

 

- We're gonna take away your preferential MM.

- We wrote a loooooooong story about how we "buffed" your VIII Premium to distract you from this.

- We blamed MM for this.

- If you don't like this, too bad. You can exchange your now gimped VIII for another one for a mere 2000 gold... (which also won't have pref. MM anymore..)

- Please bend over and take this smiling

 

Any bets they'll probably release a bunch of brand new, more expensive T8 Prems after this is done that look a LOT more attractive than your newly gimped T8...?



Rammste1ner #17 Posted 21 May 2018 - 03:54 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 29850 battles
  • 91
  • Member since:
    02-16-2013
Looking forward to this....type 59 is so inferior to t44......make it like t44 and remove preff mm....am happy

iKnewIT #18 Posted 21 May 2018 - 03:56 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 69828 battles
  • 572
  • Member since:
    10-07-2012

I wrote this question here http://forum.worldof..._st__20#topmost and some more times more. ;)

But Ivana_Drago and Ph3lan had no courage to give it to Andrey Biletskyi.......

​Oh, they "tried" to begin to talk about MM, but the "answer" was "we are improving MM from patch to patch".

So it seems that 3/5/7 is TABU for WoT developers and for WG staff too.

But I really do not understand why it's not possible to have a discussion about it.... :(

 

-------------------------------------------------------

 

Dear WoT developers,

 

I know this question is not about changes of 1.0, but... changes of 0.9.18 are still 'quite new' for me.


The changes of MM, LT's and SPG's in 9.18 changed the gameplay very much.
I adapted with changes of LT's and SPG's somehow in a year and now I play with tier V-X LT's mostly.
But changes of MM still have some disadvantages comparing with 9.17.


So I have an idea.
And I hope to hear Your oppinion about it.


If You want to 'repair' MM, simply change numbers in templates and some their forming rules (in this order priority):
1. Three levels' battles - 3/5/7 -> 7/5/3 (and do not let there to be less highest tier tanks per team, but not more than 8 of them).
2. Two levels' battles - 5/10 -> 7/8 (and do not let there to be less highest tier tanks per team, but not more than 10 of them).
3. One level battles.

I see only POSITIVE moments because of these changes:
1. We will have back 3 levels battles in priority. (With bigger HP amount per team than now)

2. It should solve tier 10 and tier 8 tanks players problems. (And tier 8 premiums with preferred MM problems too. Everyone should be more times on top in 3 levels battles, those with preferred MM too, so there won't be necessity to do any changes with them)

3. It may help in solving turbo battles problem a little bit. (Because it will be bigger HP amount and because there will be less "minions" per team. And because there will be less responsibility for a single top tier player in a battle, there will be more of them)

4. There will be still what to do for lower and lowest tier tanks in a battle.
5. But we should be more times on top in a battle list with these changes.
6. It may solve highest battle tier LT and SPG problems too; without any other restrictions.
(2 or 3 support vehicles {TDs, LTs and SPGs] are on top in every second battle in 3/5/7 now. Even 4 from 5 in 5/10 is not a rare case).

7. It would be more possibilities to do missions with lower tier tanks. (I did LT-15-4 with WZ-131 and MT-15-3 with Cromwell B in 9.17. Now it's almost impossible because of too little HP amount even when You are in the bottom of a battle list)


I may be not right about exact numbers in templates, but I think that that changes would be affected the gameplay in a good way only.

I may be wrong too....
But, anyway, I want to know Your opinion, even if it is very very negative.

If Your opinion is negative, I want You to tell the reasons why mine idea (and/or the way of thinking) is wrong, what mistakes I've done in mine reflections.


Regards

 

-------------------------------------------------------

 

The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed on from one generation to the next, says that when you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount....

​But there are many others ways to solve this problem. ;)

​Some of them:

* Reclassifying the dead horse as "living-impaired". .
* Providing additional funding and/or training to increase the dead horse's performance.
* Doing a productivity study to see if lighter riders would improve the dead horse's performance.
* Rewriting the expected performance requirements for all horses.

:P

 

Cheers.



Maauru #19 Posted 21 May 2018 - 03:58 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 18118 battles
  • 660
  • [WIFI] WIFI
  • Member since:
    03-29-2014

While you are changing pref MM tanks can you give my 112 gun from 113 please?

:)



LandserSkin #20 Posted 21 May 2018 - 03:58 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 29112 battles
  • 200
  • [HTKL] HTKL
  • Member since:
    05-12-2011
Everyone excited about the changes. If you think about it they are crap. Every tier 8 and up will still pen your front like cheese and also if the side armor is reduced bye bye sidescraping. This will turn the tank to crap. I would rather they leave it as it is than ruin it like this. If they would have made the front turrets 23-250 that would have been nice since the tank is slow and outflankable. Also 218 pen on normal with 330 alpha? sure nice joke.




12 user(s) are reading this topic

5 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users


    sefhyro, 5igns, Mugen6, djchopper1, koulla