Jump to content


Quick fix suggestions

Remove Ensk+Abbey Nerf Type 4+5

  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

Poll: Should they... (14 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battles in order to participate this poll.

Remove Ensk and Abbey

  1. Yes (5 votes [35.71%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 35.71%

  2. No (9 votes [64.29%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 64.29%

Nerf Type 4 and 5

  1. Yes (8 votes [57.14%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 57.14%

  2. No (6 votes [42.86%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 42.86%

Would some "quick" fixes such as above help keep you engaged whilst longer term fixes are implemented?

  1. Yes (6 votes [42.86%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 42.86%

  2. No (8 votes [57.14%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 57.14%

Vote Hide poll

sabresteel #1 Posted 12 December 2018 - 09:20 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16556 battles
  • 1,321
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

So there's been a lot of coverage around negative press on WOT recently.

 

If wargaming want some quick short term fixes can I suggest:

 

1) Get rid of Ensk (for good) and Abbey (could be redesigned and reintroduced if more flanking options and fields of fire added). Am sure there are other maps people don't like - I just can't see anyone voting to keep them.

 

2) Nerf armour of Type 4 and Type 5. These tanks just don't belong in game... lots of threads on this... they jar more than any of the other make believe or blueprint tanks. But most of all they are just broken. I can handle a tank with idiot proof aiming (just spam premium ammo for damage) OR with idiot proof armour (just press W). But both in one package is ridiculous. Surely all the people who were going to free XP them have by now and if you just nerf armour with some decent weak spots then the owners will still use premium ammo. We will however see less of them over time if you do this and also we will hate them less when we do see them.

 

Like everyone else I am also looking forward to the revised matchmaker too (currently I only play three tanks to try and get round the current MMs limitations: crom b and T71 because speed and premium ammo means they can be relevant in +2MM and type 59 because of special MM meaning it misses T10).

 

However am suggesting above as I think they would be quick to implement and show your customers you are doing something.

 

In longer term as cobra said please prioritise fun with an eye to the accountants (we know you are a business) rather than other way round. Am sure your data shows Ensk makes good from a money perspective due to quick games and Abbey due to premium ammo use. Likewise Type 4 and 5 due to free XP grind and premium ammo use by both users and people shooting them.

 

However much your accountants tell you they are good for the business, they are a real negative on the pleasure people take from the game... So long term cost you money from lost customers.


Edited by sabresteel, 12 December 2018 - 09:24 AM.


Gardar7 #2 Posted 12 December 2018 - 09:36 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 23544 battles
  • 2,023
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011
Bad map designs generate the Japanese heavy problem. I would never call a Japanese heavy OP on Malinovka, but the case is different on Paris for example. I'm not saying that those tanks are not broken in some way, but maps, MM and arty are more broken.

malachi6 #3 Posted 12 December 2018 - 12:12 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 50920 battles
  • 3,862
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011

Please don't remove maps, there are few enough as it is.  On balance if a map is "handed" then if you play it a few times you should get both spawns.  Yes they need balancing but I would rather have more maps than fewer all the time.  Indeed, one of the reasons I consider quitting over, is a lack of maps.

 

Your final question needs an I am already engaged category.  Sure I want change, but for me atm, the bad does not outweigh the good.


Edited by malachi6, 12 December 2018 - 12:13 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users