Jump to content


World of Tanks is not at its worst: true?


  • Please log in to reply
154 replies to this topic

PoIestar #1 Posted 25 June 2018 - 10:33 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 31707 battles
  • 4,078
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    05-02-2013

(start at 7:10 if it doesn't automatically)

 

So I was watching/listening to this video from Jingles. And in it, he discusses WoT in 2012 compared to WoT now. For those who don't have the time nor effort to watch the entire clip, here's his statement:

-World of Tanks is momentarily not in its worst state, possibly even the best. Arguments:

* salty comments or whining about the game (on the forums or elsewhere) isn't a measurement because it has always been that way

* The issues from now compare to issues like appearing in tier 8 games with your KV or Pz. IV which are noticeably similar to current issues.

 

In other words, World of Tanks isn't even half bad because in the measurable ways, the game has never been perfect, according to the community. Backed up by an army anecdote in which he describes that everyone thinks newcomers in the army are lame and respectless while that was what the seniors thought when they entered the army, etc etc.

 

While Mr. Jingles has a well elaborated and solid point, I am willing to beg to differ. Because while the argument of "salty comments on the forums have always been there" is possibly true, it's mainly the issues described that I think got nothing on the current issues. 

 

For example, using the forums as your dipstick. If you indeed dip this very gameplay section, a lot of salt will be on your stick. But the forums are not the way to reach the devs, so it's mainly a community. The oil on your stick is a fellowship, created under the knowledge of not being able to reach the developers. Which basically means people who whine here just need to release their feelings. Prove me wrong.

 

And yes, the MM with the template system, on paper, works fine compared to the +3/-3 MM from ye olden days. Jingles says: imagine driving a KV-1 and facing an Object 252U. That wouldn't be fun, would it?

Two key things wrong with this logic:

1) Back then, there was no such thing as the Object 252U. With arguably the exception of the IS-3, everything the "KV-1" faced has a weakspot, some even frontally. 

2) Back then, there was no such thing as the KV-1, it was called the KV. And it was a tier 5 HT with the 107 mm ZiS-6 or 152 mm M-10, which we would now call KV-2. Same for the Pz. IV, it had the Schmalturm turret with the 7.5 cm KwK L/70, which we now call Pz. IV S. Both of these are tier 6, currently also facing tier 8 tanks and both of them capable of dealing with tier 8 tanks under the right circumstances.

 

But the main reason is the bottom line of the issues. +3/-3 MM didn't work like they wanted but it was arguably a test phase. They removed it and it never returned. The other used example, premium ammo and consumables for gold only, was pay to win, so they made it available for credits. Arguably still pay to win, but in a lesser degree. 

The bottom line of current issues? Which in my eyes are the broken premium tank shenanigans, Object 268 V4 and other powercreep tier 10s, more gold than regular ammo flying around, terrible map design, to name a few? The bottom line of that is greed and ignorance. The ignorance of doing "what seems funny on paper" to then be received terribly by the community and persevering. In map design that means truly awful maps with terrible gameplay which take ages to get fixed. In vehicle design it simply means broken tanks get tested to oblivion, along the way thousand of times people say it's too stupid, remove it, to the common test and on, and they STILL persevere. Why? Greed. Pure greed. People will pay money, convert free exp, you name it. That wasn't the bottom line of the 2012 issues. 

 

So am I saying really stupid things here now and is Jingles right and the game IS at its best state at the moment, or because the issues are from a way different nature, are the issues from 2012 nothing compared to the current state of the game?

 

Discuss, but don't flame. Or the state of the game gets blamed for it :)



Homer_J #2 Posted 25 June 2018 - 11:03 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 28767 battles
  • 30,039
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostPoIestar, on 25 June 2018 - 10:33 PM, said:

 

1) Back then, there was no such thing as the Object 252U. With arguably the exception of the IS-3, everything the "KV-1" faced has a weakspot, some even frontally. 

 

Tier 5 heavies could meet tier 9 heavies and TDs (but not mediums), where we had the IS-4, and not the nerfed version we have today.



XxKuzkina_MatxX #3 Posted 25 June 2018 - 11:06 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 49647 battles
  • 1,764
  • [OXIDE] OXIDE
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

First off, Jingles likes to talk about the glorious old days. Look for a video where he kills an IS-4 in an IS because, according to him, the guys is an idiot and nothing is wrong with +3MM!

 

Doesn't matter if the game is crap now or was crap in 2012 and is better now. The game is almost 8 years old now and the devs needs to do a lot more than they are doing to keep old players invested and interested and hopefully attract new players.

 

Recent events and updates to the game indicates otherwise. They're doing their best to chase new players away and piss off old players. Things like the template MM, the flood of new premium tanks, maps old and new, chat and sound bugs, random nerfs and buffs, etc.



m4inbrain #4 Posted 25 June 2018 - 11:12 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 13828 battles
  • 231
  • Member since:
    11-19-2010

As someone who made it basically through all stages of the game, it's neither better nor worse. It's different now than it was back then.

 

"Ye olden days" where i could one shot IS-7s with my T-92, i don't want them back. "Ye olden days" where a KV or IS for that matter was absolutely unbeatable if played right against same tier opponents, i don't want those back either. Matchmaking was horrid (nothing changed there, again it's just different now), TDs were absolutely the worst thing the world has ever seen, nah. That being said, autoloaders, autoreloaders, stun mechanic, better premiums than tech tree variant etc is arse too. 

 

At least in my opinion, the game progressed, in some ways good, in some ways bad. But it certainly wasn't better back in the days.



TANKOPPRESSION #5 Posted 25 June 2018 - 11:21 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 42310 battles
  • 765
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    04-25-2012
Why is he making these videos , whats up with him .

vcristi #6 Posted 25 June 2018 - 11:26 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 67110 battles
  • 472
  • [3NRGY] 3NRGY
  • Member since:
    08-10-2011

No one cares about how WOT was, we care about how WOT is now.

And the game now is not fun at all.

If you want to rage and rise your blood pressure, play WOT.  If you want to relax and have fun, play something else.



Element6 #7 Posted 25 June 2018 - 11:50 PM

    Field Marshal

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

View Postvcristi, on 25 June 2018 - 11:26 PM, said:

No one cares about how WOT was, we care about how WOT is now.

And the game now is not fun at all.

If you want to rage and rise your blood pressure, play WOT.  If you want to relax and have fun, play something else.

Of course people care about how it was, that is how you avoid errors of the past, among other things. 



Bulldog_Drummond #8 Posted 25 June 2018 - 11:56 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 29408 battles
  • 9,786
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

View Postm4inbrain, on 25 June 2018 - 10:12 PM, said:

As someone who made it basically through all stages of the game, it's neither better nor worse. It's different now than it was back then.

 

"Ye olden days" where i could one shot IS-7s with my T-92, i don't want them back. "Ye olden days" where a KV or IS for that matter was absolutely unbeatable if played right against same tier opponents, i don't want those back either. Matchmaking was horrid (nothing changed there, again it's just different now), TDs were absolutely the worst thing the world has ever seen, nah. That being said, autoloaders, autoreloaders, stun mechanic, better premiums than tech tree variant etc is arse too. 

 

At least in my opinion, the game progressed, in some ways good, in some ways bad. But it certainly wasn't better back in the days.

 

While this is my entirely subjective point of view, I have found the game a lot less fun since they messed around with the MM, so less fun for about a year now.  And I've been playing it since right after it went out of closed beta and I've seen its ups and downs.  The maps are a bit samey now also, they binned a lot that were not perfect but which I enjoyed, and I cannot feel that the changes to the remaining ones have been improvements.
 

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 25 June 2018 - 10:50 PM, said:

Of course people care about how it was, that is how you avoid errors of the past, among other things. 

 

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.
 

Edited by NickMustaine, 26 June 2018 - 12:28 PM.


m4inbrain #9 Posted 26 June 2018 - 12:10 AM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 13828 battles
  • 231
  • Member since:
    11-19-2010

As you said, it's subjective: i personally don't think they've got the MM ever right. It always was frustrating for certain kinds of tanks, especially if you're not playing heavies or mediums. Now it's just equally arse for everyone. Starting from a Panther going up against an IS-4, over +2 MM for LTs and arties, to the *edited* we have now for a matchmaker. 

 

It's frustrating, of course. But the game never was not frustrating. You always, always always always had crap that just took away the fun. Starting by arties which annihilated what they looked at, to autoloaders (specifically the Skodas when they came out and WTFe100 etc), and so on. You always had to have luck to get a match that didn't screw you right from the get go. That was the entire reasoning for pref MM tanks, because it was always that bad, people just tend to forget that. I remember vividly what an absolute  *edited* show it was, especially considering that you actually had to pay real money to be able to deal with things like the IS4, which was virtually indestructible (and on top it was a tier 9). 

 

Not that i would understand it, it's the simplest thing to get a concept for a decent match maker (i'm not a programmer so i couldn't code it, i certainly could lay it out for someone else to program though). 

 

I enjoy the game more as it is right now than i did back in the day, that's simply because i calmed down over the course of 8 years. A little bit at least. Tiny bit.


Edited by NickMustaine, 26 June 2018 - 12:31 PM.
Inappropriate remarks


NUKLEAR_SLUG #10 Posted 26 June 2018 - 02:58 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29181 battles
  • 2,264
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

MM is fine. People like to complain about being bottom tier because it's 'unfair' having to fight tiers +2 but how was it any better before when you could literally end up in games being the only bottom tier tank on both teams?

 

3-5-7 isn't the issue, it's people going into games with the expectation that they should be able to fight everything there frontally. How many threads have there been of '3-5-7 sucks because I can't fight Maus'. Why are you facehugging a Maus in a tier 8 and expecting to have a good day?? What are your own tier 10 doing while you're busy being a speedbump???

 

I've heard it claimed that 3-5-7 means you're relying on the top tiers too much and something like 5-5-5 would be fix everything. News flash, it won't. If your top tiers suck then they suck. Having two extra green players to prop up your top tier tomato platoon isn't going to change anything when it just means the enemy team gets two extra green top tiers as well. You're still likely to get facerolled, you'll just have a couple extra Maus to go toe to toe with (and complain about) when it happens.



DrEsqueleto #11 Posted 26 June 2018 - 03:01 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 22237 battles
  • 672
  • [DSNL] DSNL
  • Member since:
    06-29-2011

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 25 June 2018 - 11:50 PM, said:

Of course people care about how it was, that is how you avoid errors of the past, among other things. 

 

The problem is just this... People care and try learn and to avoid errors of the past, but WG doesn't. And if they do, they for sure don't show it.

XxKuzkina_MatxX #12 Posted 26 June 2018 - 03:24 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 49647 battles
  • 1,764
  • [OXIDE] OXIDE
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View PostNUKLEAR_SLUG, on 26 June 2018 - 03:58 AM, said:

MM is fine. People like to complain about being bottom tier because it's 'unfair' having to fight tiers +2 but how was it any better before when you could literally end up in games being the only bottom tier tank on both teams?

 

3-5-7 isn't the issue, it's people going into games with the expectation that they should be able to fight everything there frontally. How many threads have there been of '3-5-7 sucks because I can't fight Maus'. Why are you facehugging a Maus in a tier 8 and expecting to have a good day?? What are your own tier 10 doing while you're busy being a speedbump???

 

I've heard it claimed that 3-5-7 means you're relying on the top tiers too much and something like 5-5-5 would be fix everything. News flash, it won't. If your top tiers suck then they suck. Having two extra green players to prop up your top tier tomato platoon isn't going to change anything when it just means the enemy team gets two extra green top tiers as well. You're still likely to get facerolled, you'll just have a couple extra Maus to go toe to toe with (and complain about) when it happens.

 

MM is far from fine and it was worse before but that's not our concern now, is it?

 

3-5-7 amplified the problems with +2 MM. Not only the dependency on the 3 top tiers but also the uselessness of some tanks as mid and bottom tier. The "speed bump" concept plus tier and class imbalances.

 

What your post describes is called +1 MM. Where the differences between tiers and classes aren't that big to make a tank, or more, useless to the team. In other words, a 5-10 priority or same tier battles.

 

Can a bottom tier tank get good results from a 3-5-7 battle regardless of the top tiers performance? Sure it can, but not consistently and with varying degrees of success depending on the class and the map.


Edited by XxKuzkina_MatxX, 26 June 2018 - 03:30 AM.


Alex_Connor #13 Posted 26 June 2018 - 06:30 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 16272 battles
  • 213
  • Member since:
    11-29-2012

I'm playing WoWS now instead of WoT and god but it feels good to go back to MM where you have a fairly even chance of being top, middle or bottom tier. Probably helps that the gap between tiers is also smaller in WoWS, and most weaponry still works even if 2 tiers down, but getting away from the relentless misery of being bottom tier match after match really makes a difference.

 

Honestly though I think WoT makes the problem of +2/-2 worse than it needs to be. In WoWS hitpoints aren't inflated going up tiers, you can have for example a tier 6 cruiser with more HP than most tier 8 cruisers, but in WoT the T-34-85 has 720 hp and the T-44 has 1300 hp. So the T-44 has more pen, more alpha damage, better armor and just for fun 80% more hp, I mean how badly is that T-44 going to have to screw up to lose a 1v1 against it's tier 6 predecessor? In WoWS that tier 6 cruiser might well have the same guns (just perhaps 8 instead of 12 of them), torpedoes that can wreck a tier 8, comparable levels of armor and only 20% less hp. The tier 8 definitely has the upper hand (might well have consumables like radar to stretch the advantage) but the fight is definitely not forgone, being 2 tiers down in WoWS is more like being 1 tier down in WoT.

 

If WG simply normalized hitpoints and damage across tiers they would make being uptiered so much less unpleasant.



SuperOlsson #14 Posted 26 June 2018 - 06:47 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 21141 battles
  • 897
  • [E-5OM] E-5OM
  • Member since:
    08-07-2012
I don’t understand why +-3 or +-4 mm is even an argument today, can someone explain?

It’s like “Hey! They just introduced a ridiculous op tank, but it’s fine because 7 years ago we had +-3 mm”???

Element6 #15 Posted 26 June 2018 - 07:14 AM

    Field Marshal

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

View PostBulldog_Drummond, on 25 June 2018 - 11:59 PM, said:

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.

Would that be because People that care about history < People that don't care about history perhaps?

 

View PostDrEsqueleto, on 26 June 2018 - 03:01 AM, said:

The problem is just this... People care and try learn and to avoid errors of the past, but WG doesn't. And if they do, they for sure don't show it.

I think the only way we can judge if WG learn from mistakes or not is in relation to our own opinions which lack metadata for the entire playerbase with verified causality, which makes this statement a little odd. 

 



NoobySkooby #16 Posted 26 June 2018 - 07:16 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 13067 battles
  • 2,810
  • [TFMB] TFMB
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 25 June 2018 - 11:50 PM, said:

Of course people care about how it was, that is how you avoid errors of the past, among other things. 

 

Seems that WG themselves do not care if we go by your statement, if they were to avoid mistake of the past whatever they were, how is it now we have crap decisions and  deafening silence from them, and forum threads that slate them and their game. Why is it that people seem to leave and maybe go to WoW's or elsewhere?

 

 

Simple answer is that WG EU just does not care, they see us as mugs in the same light a devious sociopathic conman would see his victims.



Element6 #17 Posted 26 June 2018 - 07:24 AM

    Field Marshal

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

View PostNoobySkooby, on 26 June 2018 - 07:16 AM, said:

 

Seems that WG themselves do not care if we go by your statement, if they were to avoid mistake of the past whatever they were, how is it now we have crap decisions and  deafening silence from them, and forum threads that slate them and their game. Why is it that people seem to leave and maybe go to WoW's or elsewhere?

 

 

Simple answer is that WG EU just does not care, they see us as mugs in the same light a devious sociopathic conman would see his victims.

Are more players leaving, or does it just appear so for the bystander?

 

Players have always left WoT, it has happened since the day it was launched, but this rate has been outweighed by the number of players entering the game, so the playerbase has grown. Nothing grows forever, and at some point the stream of new players that was once a river dries up and turns into a small creek, but the dam at the other end still leaks like it always has and that leakage is now larger than the creek, so it appears that more players are leaving the game.

 

Trouble is, us players can't prove this, and we get biased because we do not like some of the changes and attribute a decline in players directly to these issues, and there doesn't even need to be causality there at all.

 

Can you prove that more players are leaving WoT now in 2018 than they did in 2016 for example? 



Mr_Burrows #18 Posted 26 June 2018 - 07:26 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 45103 battles
  • 1,963
  • Member since:
    02-17-2012

Thing is that WG does not want to improve their game. All they want is to increase profit. See the difference?

 

Jingles part in all this I can only speculate about, but I have been playing this game since 2012 and I can tell you that I have never been as frustrated with it as I am now. Never. 

 



XxKuzkina_MatxX #19 Posted 26 June 2018 - 07:30 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 49647 battles
  • 1,764
  • [OXIDE] OXIDE
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View PostSuperOlsson, on 26 June 2018 - 07:47 AM, said:

I don’t understand why +-3 or +-4 mm is even an argument today, can someone explain?

It’s like “Hey! They just introduced a ridiculous op tank, but it’s fine because 7 years ago we had +-3 mm”???

 

Yeah, the "kids these days" argument. :)

 



Nethraniel #20 Posted 26 June 2018 - 07:32 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 13222 battles
  • 2,012
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    05-30-2012
Well, Jingles does not state that WoT is in a good state. He just says, that it is (in his opinion) by far not in the worst state ever (as many seem to state nowadays). There was always something wrong with WoT and there were always people complaining about something. In direct and fair comparison, WoT in earlier days and now is not worse. I think WoT made a lot of improvements but some things did not work out well. Is it in the worst state ever? No. I still have fun playing. 




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users