Jump to content


Balance..


  • Please log in to reply
130 replies to this topic

eekeeboo #41 Posted 08 January 2019 - 03:35 PM

    English Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 45838 battles
  • 929
  • Member since:
    07-25-2010

View PostNoo_Noo, on 08 January 2019 - 11:41 AM, said:

 

I selected the Defender is its  basically another OP premium that WG introduced at Tier 8 as one example of where balance is way off. The fact that it doesn't happen every game is almost irrelevant Its in the game and it was put there deliberately.

That E8 meets tier 8 tanks a lot thanks to the current MM and as we are trying to tell you the gap between tier 6 and 8 is becoming too wide, especially with the current trend of all tier 8 premium tanks being very strong, if not OP or even broken. You can repeat this message across the whole game with the current 2 tier spread in the MM. 

Please note that I am not against two tier MM but I would like my -2 tier tanks to be able to contribute. 

That aside I find this attitude that everything is absolutely fine with the game a bit of a concern. Just look at this forum!!!!

 

You select any tier 8, it doesn't matter, a tier 6 doesn't JUST meet tier 8's, you don't go looking to go head to head with a tier 8, in a tier 6 and expect to win, if you do, you have drastically misinterpreted the tactics and style of the game and team play. I'm looking at the forum, the WHOLE forum and every post, not just ones that agree with my viewpoint. And the fact remains looking at the wider picture and why the game has different tiers, it doesn't matter how big the gap is in tier 6 and 8, it could be you get 1 shot in a tier 6 by a tier 8. You should not go hunting for a head to head with a tier 8 in a tier 6. You pick your fight, pick your target and help your team. Just as if you're top tier heavy you shouldn't be sat back sniping with your big lolzor gun, you should be absorbing hits for your team and being the player that lets your teammates do their job too. 

 

The game is a teamwork game, not a solo yolo hero game where every tank should damage every other tank with little or not effort/tactics involved. 

 

View PostGkirmathal, on 08 January 2019 - 12:55 PM, said:

 

Of course those gaps have become different and in some cases worse. Not between the some older content (tanks) that has never been readjusted/tweaked in the past few years. E8 being one of them, Type 58 as well to name but one extra.

 

But the influx of new premiums and adjustments to certain premiums/normal content has shifted the meta throughout the tiers. The addition of template MM, combined with the 9.19 priority changes to 3-5-7 template, has also changed the environment in which players play the game compared to before.

The decision to start even out armour profiles (removal of weak spot as it is called by many folks here) when tanks were remade into HD also adds to the gap in cases. The decision to up (turret) armour profiles on higher tier and certain nation tank lines, also adds to it.

 

Inter tier balance should be in order, which in some circumstances it is not. The E8 was given as just one highlighted example.

 

Each gap on itself is not stellar, but they all add up. Some more than others.

But to be fair, developers did address some power gaps in late 2016/early2017. To give an example or two, the German mediums were tweaked and given quality of life buffs. Like the Panther2 line and Indien Pz line. Or the Löwe, for example.

 

 

I hated the Cromwell as well to be honest! The tank did not fit my play style.

 

The 'simple change' and the skewing you talk about.

Let me give a clearer example to refute what you said: premium T-34-85M. That tank was given a huge buff that seriously skewed inter-tier 6 balance.

 

Besides seriously upping it's armor profile, it's ammo got changed as well to the one used by the tech tree 34-85. Which meant an increase of alpha.

This alpha increase was not offset versus it's old rate of fire, which was retained and was based on it's old 160 alpha rounds.

The result was an over armored tier 6 medium, compared to it's regular counterpart, almost as agile and a much higher dpm than almost any other tier 6 with the same alpha levels. Comparison: https://tanks.gg/compare/t-34-85m?t=rudy%7Et-34-85%7Ep43-bis%7Eskoda-t-40%7Etype-58

 

So what is and would be more skewing at that tier? The E8 getting a slight buff, through changing it's ammo, slightly increasing pen?

Or the changes that were given to the 85M, which is there to be sold and make money on?

 

Of course I expect you to take it up for your employer, no harm in that, I understand where it comes from (contracts yay).

So I'm not asking you to refute what I just posted, but do take in mind where players come from. Some of us have more knowledge that intersect with corporate life than you think.

 

I'm sure you'll remember the equally sizeable complaints from the forums that armour was too little and pointless and people couldn't use it (You have 3 threads today alone with this statement). 

 

And inter tier balance remains, each tank has a strength and a weakness. Some tanks excel in one role, while others excel in another. They play different roles in a battle usually. For me I remember "paying the price" on weak vehicles because the next tier was compentent and awesome (St Emil to the Borsig). Does that mean the St Emil is a bad tank and incapable of performing? No but I don't like its play style and I knew what came after it. Can I or could i still damage higher tier tanks? Yes if i waited and picked my fight. 

 

The game should not be about making life as easy as possible for everyone, it should be about getting the right level. You give 3-5-7, this is an example where is it perfect? No, but did it fix issues that were there before? A big yes! Is it still being worked on and final? No because it's not where the team or players would like it to be. 

 

When you balance a tank it's also looked at how the tank performs in a battle on average across all tanks, all maps, all players and on all servers. The damage potential output may have increased, but maybe that's to offset the quite large profile and glaring weakspots on the tank that are easy to exploit. 

 

With premiums you generally get less conflicting and varied data because it's got set modules and usually (presumably) not stock crew. People will kit premiums in equipment, good crew camo etc, why? Because they're going to keep it more than likely and can even afford those few extra premium rounds because they know they'll make silver. A tech tree needs to balanaced on not just the final state of the tank but looking at all the data on the way it's grinded and kitted out etc. In this case How many people set up the 85M like the 85? 

 

I've never said a person is not knowledge in corporate or even gaming life, but even minor over-sights are important in balancing. Based on what I read you didn' mention some of the above things stated. It's important to have informed opinions, and I'm all for this. As long as people remain constructive and open to discussion, that's all I can ask. But like previously, it's difficult to have this discussion and highlight the reasoning behind choices if a person is ignorant (not in a negative way but just the way people are because people can't know everything) about game balancing and development. 

 

View PostLordMuffin, on 08 January 2019 - 01:06 PM, said:

If you want to win your games, you are forced to fight T8 tanks like the Defender in like 30-40% of the games you play.

You can of course not try to win and only take engagements which have zero impact on outcome. Though some that play this game actually plays to win, which also means being forced into engagements with 2 tiered higher opponents more or less every game 2 tiered higher tanks are present.

 

So in my E8, or any other T6 tank, I am forced to fight T8 tanks if I want to maximize my chances of actually winning.

 

Balancing a game to boredome is a failure at balancing. Balance doesn't mean identical tanks nor symmetrical maps. You can achieve balance in asymmetrical maps and in non-identical tanks.

 

If you wanted WoT to be more about teamwork, you shouldn't ruin SH.

Also, teamwork is mainly non-existent in WoT, partly due to non rating based Matchmaker.  The skillevel difference is so huge in battles that teamwork gets very difficult to have.

I see the game way different from you.

This means, I can't rely on you.

Because if I make a certain move, which will work if you do a certain move. I won't do it, because I am fairly certain that you are not aware that the move I want you to do is possible. If you where a 60%+WR player, I would do it though, because at that point I can rely on you actually seeing what has to be done.

 

You can't say that "we must release very powerful T8 premium tanks due to the matchmaker".

That argument is just so stupid, and the only thing that comes from such thinking is powercreep, OP tanks and an increase in power difference between tiers and within tiers.

 

There have always been a gap between 2 tiers, but the gap have INCREASED since 2017.

Increased means that in 2016, a T6 tank had an EASIER time fighting a T8 tank compared to how a T6 tanks fare against T8 tanks today.

 

The challenge current WoT gives is not interesting for me. Since it is not mainly skillbased anymore. Earlier, I felt the challenge was mainly skillbased, and that if I improved, I could overcome the challenge.

Nowdays, I do not get that from WoT.

 

Old maps favouring high camo snipers over everything else????

The only time when TDs was strong was before they got the camo after shot nerf.

After that, the best tanks for winning games (on average) have ALWAYS heavy tanks, the difference now is that difference between heavy tanks and armoured assault TDs and the rest has vastly increased since 2017.

 

If you want to win games you work with your team, you focus on the biggest threats first, not easy damage. You are never forced into going head to head with a tank 2 tiers above you, you have a whole map to go around to avoid that and bide your time to work with teammates to take it out. Even artillery can help you immensly win that egagement if you're patient and use your tanks strengths like circle of death-ing. 

 

No balancing the way you stated is boredom because you state making it that tier 6 can damage tier 8 without taking into account a player shouldn't be able to do this with little to no effort. You're discouraging diverse play and promoting people to sit there and roll the damaga because they know they can. 

 

Skill based MM is definitely NOT the answer for a whole array of answers and reasons, that I could go in to but would need a whole new topic. Skill based mm only suits those who don't want to improve and are happy stagnating. WoT is a game about randoms, SH are a mode to enhance the game, WoT is not a SH game with random games to enrich it. 

 

That statement there does a good job at highlighting my previous statement about your intentions and your thoughts about this game, it's not for the game, it's for you and what you want with no acknowledgement of the demands and requirements of other players. My job is that I need to look at the whole picture to give feedback, not just my own. The fact you look at winrate as a metric to see how a player plays the game, I would wonder how many games you play in a platoon or SH or with people you play with frequently. Maybe some of them are better at the game than your or on the same level. How many are played in stock tanks with people who are new or not so great at the game? It doesn't matter how good a teammate is, at the end of the day, they're all you've got in a game and you can use them to help you win or not. But it's not exactly stellar to blame them for a loss if you choose to ignore them. 

 

I never made the statement about a strong tier 8 because of MM. An interesting takeaway from something I didn't say. What I have said is that you can't sell a weak tank, you can't sell an "OK" tank. Why do you buy a new item? Why do you buy a new phone or car etc? You buy something that will perform and you enjoy. Make people suffer from this and why would they bother to buy things? 

 

The gap didn't increase in 2017, it's a gap that's been there forever and I remember being FAR worse when you were the stock tier 8 tiger 2 vs E100. When your scouts were a nightmare to play in many games. You say tanks had an "easier" time, based on what? Exactly what data are you using to extrapolate this other than your own first-hand observations and perhaps reports from other people on a second-hand basis. WoT balances on data and non-biased information. 

 

And after 50k ish battles, I'm pretty certain old challenges you used to face are no longer challenges you currently face. Like unlocking the next tank, grinding credits to afford the next upgrade or learning all the weak spots. 

 

Heavies were the best in organised team games because of the potential for HP pool sharing and high alpha, mediums were capable of spotting and farming for your damage more easily. One of the biggest complaints before like the WT E100 is their ability to sit there and literally stop an advance dead in its tracks and leave a wake of destruction. Same as Deathstar pre-nerfs. The Foch pre-nerfs. You had times when E3 toons would sit in base and form an impenetrable wall of death at the enemy spawn etc. 

 

 

 

 

14:39 Added after 3 minutes

View PostGixxer66, on 08 January 2019 - 02:17 PM, said:

 

You asked where I got 75% bottom Tier numbers from - by recording where in the MM my tank appeared for a couple of sessions, ie my own data. I think you took my reply regarding Defender / IS3A a little too literally, the point being you are likely to face up with something you have to rely heavily on RNG and the lack of skill of the driver to beat, it doesn't matter if it's a Defender, IS3A, Vk10.0001 etc.

.

You can actively try and avoid any of the above, but at some point you will have face up to a +2 Tier tank to win a match. If you think that tanks like the Defender are balanced, then we have very very different ideas of balance.

 

 

 

 

Please can you show me this over the amount of sample size, the amount of battles played solo etc? I took it literally because people are saying an E8 can't fight a defender, well it can, just not in the conventional mind-set way. An E8 isn't going to face just a tier 8 and nor should you try to go head to head. You can avoid and you can also spot and track and help your team take out the tier 8 so you never have to face it alone, will this work in every game? No, but when it does it's more of an achievement than if you had an easy time of it and had to contribute zero effort. 

View Postadameitas, on 08 January 2019 - 02:24 PM, said:

personally i missed old days when tds fought vs mediums, mediums vs heavies and so on. Now we have same number of tank types per game and that is just boring. For me the key is randomless in randoms. The more you try to control it the worse result you get imo. Every game should be as unique as possible.

 

This is very much true in that randomness can lead to more challenge, but this was likewise complained (I remember doing the same during the dreaded MT15 mission trying to farm TD's and never having them on the enemy team! :izmena:) But people/players wanted a more even spread and sharing of what team had the heavies etc. 

CorSeD #42 Posted 08 January 2019 - 04:07 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 9739 battles
  • 34
  • [LV_C] LV_C
  • Member since:
    12-22-2014

I see your point chicken eekeeboo :B

  • Technically that's normal if premium have advantage, cause i would not buy premium if it would be weaker then standard tank. And i have 5-8 premium tanks.
  • They mostly for missions and credit making but mostly i love tier X tanks. There the biggest problems (tier X) is making credits cause most games even if you win you are in negative credits.  In Christmas period playing with tier X is best cause its fun and even. And credit wise you don't lose.
  • MM should be +/- 1 MM then it would be really balanced and less work needed for dev team on WG side to do. Cause 3/5/7 is really bad. If your top it's easy. But not all players know what they are doing. There should be closer gaps between tiers.

 

Those are my two cents. :) 

Happy new year tankers.

Good luck on the fields of battle. :honoring:



Kejoz #43 Posted 08 January 2019 - 11:43 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 36522 battles
  • 55
  • [PRICE] PRICE
  • Member since:
    04-25-2011

View Posteekeeboo, on 08 January 2019 - 02:35 PM, said:

 

You select any tier 8, it doesn't matter, a tier 6 doesn't JUST meet tier 8's, you don't go looking to go head to head with a tier 8, in a tier 6 and expect to win, if you do, you have drastically misinterpreted the tactics and style of the game and team play. I'm looking at the forum, the WHOLE forum and every post, not just ones that agree with my viewpoint. And the fact remains looking at the wider picture and why the game has different tiers, it doesn't matter how big the gap is in tier 6 and 8, it could be you get 1 shot in a tier 6 by a tier 8. You should not go hunting for a head to head with a tier 8 in a tier 6. You pick your fight, pick your target and help your team. Just as if you're top tier heavy you shouldn't be sat back sniping with your big lolzor gun, you should be absorbing hits for your team and being the player that lets your teammates do their job too. 

 

Easy to say, hard to accomplish. Overdesigned maps force certain classes to certain places to be productive. You want it or not, you have to take your M6/T150/ARL44 for a brawl with Defender, and lets be honest, you don't stand a chance in this fight. Yes, you have your allies but you have to support them, with lack of hardcover (rocks, rubble disappeared from maps), you have to expose your tank and hope that that higher tier wont be looking at you.

 

Inter-tier gap rises dramatically between tiers 7 and 8, while tier 8 can fight tier 9 effectively, tier 7 is just free hp's. Moment ago i took my Comet for a spin, i had an encounter with two tier 5 tanks (t34 and crusader), i won but i've lost a fair amount of HP's. Now take a look at a similar brawl between a t54 mod 1 and any two tier 6 meds. They will struggle to penetrate him, i doubt that t54 mod 1 would lose more then 20% of his hitpoints. VK 100.01 vs any tier 6 heavy? Same story but it is basically immune to lower tier tanks. WG tried to balance tier 8 upwards and forgot about the fact that those tanks face tier 6 and 7.

 



eekeeboo #44 Posted 09 January 2019 - 07:09 PM

    English Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 45838 battles
  • 929
  • Member since:
    07-25-2010

View PostKejoz, on 08 January 2019 - 10:43 PM, said:

 

Easy to say, hard to accomplish. Overdesigned maps force certain classes to certain places to be productive. You want it or not, you have to take your M6/T150/ARL44 for a brawl with Defender, and lets be honest, you don't stand a chance in this fight. Yes, you have your allies but you have to support them, with lack of hardcover (rocks, rubble disappeared from maps), you have to expose your tank and hope that that higher tier wont be looking at you.

 

Inter-tier gap rises dramatically between tiers 7 and 8, while tier 8 can fight tier 9 effectively, tier 7 is just free hp's. Moment ago i took my Comet for a spin, i had an encounter with two tier 5 tanks (t34 and crusader), i won but i've lost a fair amount of HP's. Now take a look at a similar brawl between a t54 mod 1 and any two tier 6 meds. They will struggle to penetrate him, i doubt that t54 mod 1 would lose more then 20% of his hitpoints. VK 100.01 vs any tier 6 heavy? Same story but it is basically immune to lower tier tanks. WG tried to balance tier 8 upwards and forgot about the fact that those tanks face tier 6 and 7.

 

 

That's a fact and why map balancing takes so long and is so carefully considered and no sweeping changes made without very careful consideration. 

 

I'm not saying you will never fight a defender in your tier 6, but before you get to that stage and that engagement, you should have had a fair few more engagements before that event. Either moving to another part of the map etc. You going head to head with a tier 8 on full hp should not be something you seek, especially not alone. And that's the point of it in that you have a gap between tier 6 and 8 yes, but you have a lot of things you can affect in a battle and you're not going to be swamped by tier 8's as the lone tier 6 unable to do anything. 

 

In this case it's not quite accurate about balancing tier 8 upwards, but what happens when you buff the tier 6? You then have to buff all the tanks they can meet and so on and so forth. This is why it's important to balance in other ways and always make sure you can see opponents you can fight effectively and why you will see tanks of the same tier on the enemy team at the same time. 

 

 

 

 



Alzamon #45 Posted 09 January 2019 - 11:26 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 6102 battles
  • 4
  • [NODWA] NODWA
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011
Then why the F is there still a +2 spread in the mm. There is literally no reason for this kind of spread. Other than the obvious one that is greed. You wanna know why this game is dying? +2 matchmaking, artillery and overpowered premium tanks that for some reason is never balanced. 

kubawt112 #46 Posted 10 January 2019 - 12:33 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 3378 battles
  • 249
  • [CSA-A] CSA-A
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View PostAlzamon, on 09 January 2019 - 11:26 PM, said:

Then why the F is there still a +2 spread in the mm. There is literally no reason for this kind of spread. Other than the obvious one that is greed. You wanna know why this game is dying? +2 matchmaking, artillery and overpowered premium tanks that for some reason is never balanced. 

 

There are very good reasons indeed - to make sure that everyone can get a 'memorable experience'. Apparently it wasn't enough to allow 'casual' players the occasional 'memorable experience' due to RNG and general randomness.

 

Most of the misbalance in WoT is heavily obfuscated by the high variation in the matchmaker, players, tanks, maps and RNG itself. That makes it hard to prove anything, especially since there are only unofficial (no comments!) global server statistics.

It's a matter of fact that most of the issues in WoT are very obvious, but generally easy to "disprove". Like that a T6 doesn't meet T8s that often (in particular a Defender), isn't supposed to fight the Defender (alone), is supposed to flank/support and/or have premium ammo as an option. Those are all vague non-arguments that doesn't do jack to prove that the game is enjoyable as a result.

Wargaming's thinking is well illustrated by the good old Thaine Lyman joke: That the TVP VTU (considered to be the weakest T8 by many) can defeat a Defender. It's of course 'techincally true'. It won't most of the time, though there are certainly situations where a TVP VTU would do better than a Defender. On that note it's also worth including the good ol' non-argument that a Defender isn't an actual problem because it doesn't ruin every game it's in (it's not top-tier too often and it's "not pay2win because you can't win every game").

 

(Fun fact: WoT is really random - to the point where you'd likely end up with a 20-25% winrate even if every team you were on had, say, 10-12 instead of fifteen players - and I don't mean missing 3-5 of the bottom-tier tanks in a 3-5-7 setup, rather 3-5 in a one/two-tier setup. Just like even the best platoons can't manage a 100% winrate.)

 

 

View PostNoo_Noo, on 08 January 2019 - 12:41 PM, said:

 

I selected the Defender is its  basically another OP premium that WG introduced at Tier 8 as one example of where balance is way off. The fact that it doesn't happen every game is almost irrelevant Its in the game and it was put there deliberately.
(...)

 

Lots of pandering to casual players. Wargaming's claim is that they have a core group of players that will stay no matter what. Apparently it doesn't quite work that way. I doubt most forum members are surprised about that. It follows logically that gradually reducing how much personal skill matters is bound to have an effect on the playerbase. Heck, the simplification of maps is bound to be boring for everyone - good luck sneaking a tank around the heavy flank to harass them nowadays.

Personally, I'm mostly surprised to see a WG staff member eager and invested enough to participate in the forums like this - though I'm intrigued why it's suddenly a priority.

 

Also, I really wanted to post this picture. Yes, it's an actual quote, and that is our dear Ph3lan stating his personal opinion about the Defender on stream. I'm sure he appreciates that I'm representing him after his lateral promotion, refocusing of skills or whatever it's called in France (I'm sure there's a nicer term for it, but I don't speak corporate - though I suspect Wargaming doesn't either).

 

 


Edited by kubawt112, 10 January 2019 - 12:35 AM.


LordMuffin #47 Posted 10 January 2019 - 12:44 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 48529 battles
  • 11,459
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View Posteekeeboo, on 08 January 2019 - 03:35 PM, said:

If you want to win games you work with your team, you focus on the biggest threats first, not easy damage. You are never forced into going head to head with a tank 2 tiers above you, you have a whole map to go around to avoid that and bide your time to work with teammates to take it out. Even artillery can help you immensly win that egagement if you're patient and use your tanks strengths like circle of death-ing. 

 

No balancing the way you stated is boredom because you state making it that tier 6 can damage tier 8 without taking into account a player shouldn't be able to do this with little to no effort. You're discouraging diverse play and promoting people to sit there and roll the damaga because they know they can. 

 

Skill based MM is definitely NOT the answer for a whole array of answers and reasons, that I could go in to but would need a whole new topic. Skill based mm only suits those who don't want to improve and are happy stagnating. WoT is a game about randoms, SH are a mode to enhance the game, WoT is not a SH game with random games to enrich it. 

 

That statement there does a good job at highlighting my previous statement about your intentions and your thoughts about this game, it's not for the game, it's for you and what you want with no acknowledgement of the demands and requirements of other players. My job is that I need to look at the whole picture to give feedback, not just my own. The fact you look at winrate as a metric to see how a player plays the game, I would wonder how many games you play in a platoon or SH or with people you play with frequently. Maybe some of them are better at the game than your or on the same level. How many are played in stock tanks with people who are new or not so great at the game? It doesn't matter how good a teammate is, at the end of the day, they're all you've got in a game and you can use them to help you win or not. But it's not exactly stellar to blame them for a loss if you choose to ignore them. 

 

I never made the statement about a strong tier 8 because of MM. An interesting takeaway from something I didn't say. What I have said is that you can't sell a weak tank, you can't sell an "OK" tank. Why do you buy a new item? Why do you buy a new phone or car etc? You buy something that will perform and you enjoy. Make people suffer from this and why would they bother to buy things? 

 

The gap didn't increase in 2017, it's a gap that's been there forever and I remember being FAR worse when you were the stock tier 8 tiger 2 vs E100. When your scouts were a nightmare to play in many games. You say tanks had an "easier" time, based on what? Exactly what data are you using to extrapolate this other than your own first-hand observations and perhaps reports from other people on a second-hand basis. WoT balances on data and non-biased information. 

 

And after 50k ish battles, I'm pretty certain old challenges you used to face are no longer challenges you currently face. Like unlocking the next tank, grinding credits to afford the next upgrade or learning all the weak spots. 

 

Heavies were the best in organised team games because of the potential for HP pool sharing and high alpha, mediums were capable of spotting and farming for your damage more easily. One of the biggest complaints before like the WT E100 is their ability to sit there and literally stop an advance dead in its tracks and leave a wake of destruction. Same as Deathstar pre-nerfs. The Foch pre-nerfs. You had times when E3 toons would sit in base and form an impenetrable wall of death at the enemy spawn etc. 

 

To win games you focus on winning the most important areas of the map, regardless of which tanks are there. On most maps, only 1 or 2 areas are of any importance while the rest can be ignored.

 

For example: You never go beach on Overlord, regardless of which tanks the enemy has put there, beach can be ignored.

Like 1-line on cliff, Valley on Lakeville and so on.

If then there are T8 tanks also fighting for that area, I have to fight them.

I don't win games by giving up the important areas on maps, though on quite a few of the new rebalanced maps, you can give up large parts of the map and it doesn't matter much at all. Due to extremely strong camping positions at Red lines (like Erlenberg).

 

 

I can avoid T8 tanks and go to some part which doesn't matter at all to the outcome and farm useless damage from T6 tanks, but that is not playing to win. So I won't do that, since I prefer playing to win over not playing to win.

 

2nd paragraph.

A T6 tank should be able to damage a T8 tank frontally. Otherwise they shouldn't meet in battle.

It might not have to be easy, it might require some luck with accuracy etc. But boring balance is when a top tiered tank is impervious to bottom tiered tanks. Thinking like this is removing diversity.

You add diversity by making it possible for bottom tiered tanks to damage top tiered tanks if they know what they do or the top tiered tank play bad. Also, maps can be made to add diversity by allowing flanking operations.

 

What you propose, I guess, is that top tiered tanks should be invournable to bottom tiered tanks. Which just is a way to dumb the game down, remove skill elements and decrease number of competetive and useful tanks per battle. 

 

3rd paragraph.

SBMM is not something that will stop players from wanting to improve. That is a ridiculous claim without any basis.

Dota 2/LOL/HS/SC2/WoW/Hots/CSGO all have skillbased matchmakers. And it is not like these games are less competetive then WOT or have a playerbase that doesn't want to improve.

In fact, I believe that the average WOT player is less interested in improving then the average player for any of these games.

The issue with SH for me is not the skillbased matchmaker, it is the useless tank balance at T8. It is get a Defender/IS-3A or reduce your teams chances of winning, and if all players are of similar skill, on average, the team with more Defenders/IS-3A will win.

 

My intentions with this game are as follows.

1: Skill being an important factor in deciding who is winning a battle. 

2: All tanks of all tiers being a viable option.

3: Maps that make sure that all tanks of all tiers are viable.

4: A Matchmaker that put players equally often as bot/mid/top tiered situations.

5: A powerlevel between tiers that is small enough to make bottom tiers a threat to top (if bottom tiered is played skillfully).

 

Now I do know that these are not WGs intentions (going by the changes done in past 2 years), nor do they seem to be yours.

 

I play to win, that is my only concern. I don't use XVM in battle, because that mod should be banned, so I have no clue how good a team mate is from xvm.

 

Winrate is the best metric when judging player skill. Then you can combine it with PR, avg dmg, assistance damage, avg tier etc. But WR is the staple.

 

For the most successful time in WOT playing history (regarding playernumbers), WG sold premium tanks that was always slightly wraker then elite same tiered tanks, especially true at T8.

And it worked perfectly OK for WG to sell these tanks, it made the owner a billionaire after all.

So for the first like 5 or 6 years of WOT history, premium tanks didn't need to be stronger then regular tanks to be sold. Players bought these 'weaker' tanks on masse anyway.

 

You don't believe that the gap between an average T6 tank and an average T8 tank have increased in the past 2 years???

In the last 2 years, only the T-34-85M and AT-8 have received a buff.

The newly implemented T6 tanks are terrible, even compared with other T6 tanks.

At T8, Defender, VK100P, Polish T8, Italian T8, obj-432, ELC EVEN 90, IS-M, Centurion 5/1, Patriot, Liberte, Skorpion, Chrysler K, T-44-100, Somua, Lorraine 400,  have been introduced, all of which are top of their class in powerlevels except IS-M and maybe Cent 5/1

Buffs have happened to T8.

IS-6, KV-5, Löwe, Type 59, 112, WZ-111, Centurion 1, FV4202, T-44, T-54 mod.1, Pershing, 110, SU-100M1, Panther II, Indien Panzer, VK 45.02A, Ferdinand, maybe more.

Nerfs to T8: ISU-152.

 

When a wide array of tanks are buffed, and the newly introduced tanks are the best or close to the best of their respective class at T8, while almost none of the T6 tanks received a buff.

I can only come to one conclusion: The difference in powerlevel between T8 and T6 have increased over the past 2 years.

And as far as I know, when powerlevel increases between tanks, it makes it harder for the bottom tiered tank to compete with the top tiered tank, which also leads to the idea that it was easier to compete with a bottom tiered tank 2 years ago then it is now.

 

Now you might not agree, but then put some effort into proving it.

So now, show your non-biased data that my claim above it is false. That these buffs didn't happen or that as many T6 tanks was buffed roughly an equal amount.

 

If my memory is irrelevant, so is yours (about Tiger II and E100 and scouts MM).

Come up with data to why scouts where a nightmare to play back then, why a stock Tiger II was worse back then compared to now.


Edited by LordMuffin, 10 January 2019 - 12:42 PM.


Noo_Noo #48 Posted 10 January 2019 - 10:08 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 22116 battles
  • 2,378
  • Member since:
    05-05-2013

View Posteekeeboo, on 08 January 2019 - 03:35 PM, said:

 

You select any tier 8, it doesn't matter, a tier 6 doesn't JUST meet tier 8's, you don't go looking to go head to head with a tier 8, in a tier 6 and expect to win, if you do, you have drastically misinterpreted the tactics and style of the game and team play. I'm looking at the forum, the WHOLE forum and every post, not just ones that agree with my viewpoint. And the fact remains looking at the wider picture and why the game has different tiers, it doesn't matter how big the gap is in tier 6 and 8, it could be you get 1 shot in a tier 6 by a tier 8. You should not go hunting for a head to head with a tier 8 in a tier 6. You pick your fight, pick your target and help your team. Just as if you're top tier heavy you shouldn't be sat back sniping with your big lolzor gun, you should be absorbing hits for your team and being the player that lets your teammates do their job too. 

 

The game is a teamwork game, not a solo yolo hero game where every tank should damage every other tank with little or not effort/tactics involved. 

 


So in your opinion, a War Gaming employee there's nothing wrong with balance within the game and there are no other issues either? 

I honestly believe that if you asked everyone that plays this game if they feel it is balanced you'd get the same answer, no. Individual opinions on where an why that is is likely but I doubt anyone would say that this game is currently well balanced. 

 

I have no objections to Random MM or 2 tier spread in MM but at least balance it that way. To try and tell me that a E8 and a Defender is a two tier spread in anything but name is more than a little daft to be honest.
 


 

09:13 Added after 4 minutes

View PostAlzamon, on 09 January 2019 - 11:26 PM, said:

Then why the F is there still a +2 spread in the mm. There is literally no reason for this kind of spread. Other than the obvious one that is greed. You wanna know why this game is dying? +2 matchmaking, artillery and overpowered premium tanks that for some reason is never balanced. 

 

I believe +2 tier spread is fine provided the game is balanced that way. Its currently not. 
 

Top tier tanks are, in many cases at least +2.5 tiers above those bottom tier tanks (if we're using tiers as a measuring unit) 

For example a Defender is more of a tier 9 tank than a Tier 8 one. Type 5 is probably Tier 10.5 or higher. 

 

Lots of examples of this throughout the game at every tier
 



Element6 #49 Posted 10 January 2019 - 10:17 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30222 battles
  • 10,605
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View Postkubawt112, on 10 January 2019 - 12:33 AM, said:

Wargaming's thinking is well illustrated by the good old Thaine Lyman joke: That the TVP VTU (considered to be the weakest T8 by many) can defeat a Defender. It's of course 'techincally true'. It won't most of the time, though there are certainly situations where a TVP VTU would do better than a Defender. On that note it's also worth including the good ol' non-argument that a Defender isn't an actual problem because it doesn't ruin every game it's in (it's not top-tier too often and it's "not pay2win because you can't win every game").

I think you will find that it is the thinking of the players that is well illustrated with this "joke". The comment wasn't really about the TVP VTU being a "Defender killer", it was about the skill difference between two players. What he said was that even if he was in the Defender, the other player (of much higher skill) would probably still beat him even if he had to play the TVP.

 

It is of course implied in the comment that the Defender is a strong tank, but the comment doesn't imply that any player will be able to beat the Defender when playing the TVP, it implies that the Defender can be killed with the TVP, if played by a skilled player.

 

The community has of course made a fundamental attribution error and twisted the original meaning of the comment to reflect their own opinion of a tank.



Noo_Noo #50 Posted 10 January 2019 - 02:48 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 22116 battles
  • 2,378
  • Member since:
    05-05-2013

View PostElement6, on 10 January 2019 - 10:17 AM, said:

I think you will find that it is the thinking of the players that is well illustrated with this "joke". The comment wasn't really about the TVP VTU being a "Defender killer", it was about the skill difference between two players. What he said was that even if he was in the Defender, the other player (of much higher skill) would probably still beat him even if he had to play the TVP.

 

It is of course implied in the comment that the Defender is a strong tank, but the comment doesn't imply that any player will be able to beat the Defender when playing the TVP, it implies that the Defender can be killed with the TVP, if played by a skilled player.

 

The community has of course made a fundamental attribution error and twisted the original meaning of the comment to reflect their own opinion of a tank.

 

I remember that and it was pretty much an admission that the Defender was certainly streets ahead of the TVP ie you needed to be a very good player in the TVP to beat a Defender. 

panter22 #51 Posted 10 January 2019 - 02:57 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 15177 battles
  • 470
  • Member since:
    05-23-2011

View Posteekeeboo, on 07 January 2019 - 04:22 PM, said:

The challenge any game company faces is to not have enough balance to keep things challenging and allow players to motivate, not challenge too much to be futile in frustration. But this is why games generally settle on a set demographic of players who enjoy certain levels of challenge. 

 

I personally enjoy a good grind and a level of frustration, though I will become somewhat annoyed I thrive on the sense of achievement and accomplishment when I've completed a set objective/goal. 

 

wow this is amazing you sad you like good grind interesting https://worldoftanks...7737-eekeeboo/  type 59 interesting :sceptic:

Edited by panter22, 10 January 2019 - 02:58 PM.


Element6 #52 Posted 10 January 2019 - 03:11 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30222 battles
  • 10,605
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostNoo_Noo, on 10 January 2019 - 02:48 PM, said:

I remember that and it was pretty much an admission that the Defender was certainly streets ahead of the TVP ie you needed to be a very good player in the TVP to beat a Defender. 

Indeed.

 

Thing is, nobody in their right mind would think that WG doesn't know the Defender is a very good tank compared to many other T8 premiums and tech tree tanks, of course they do, they made it. This comment could have been used for a wide variety of tanks at T8, but since we have a community that likes hyperbole, it was made into a meme about the TVP being a good tank. Both WG and we do know that is not the case, but like with many of the others, it can win over the Defender with sufficient skill, and sometimes with lucky RNG.

 

If you have paid attention to some of the Q&As you would have noticed that when the Q touches on things like an "OP" tank, where the question is loaded and implies that a tank is too strong, the A is almost never along the lines of "We monitor it, it is balanced for now", it's more often than not "We are monitoring it, there are no issues currently". So they are not saying that a strong tank is balanced, they are saying that there are no issues, which sort of implies that their idea of OK is a state with quite a bit of slack in each direction. This is why UP tanks take a long time to get buffs sometimes, and OP tanks take a long time to get nerfed. They are clearly not aiming for a mathematical balance among tanks, it is much more likely that they are looking for relative balance between tanks, with the player factor included in the calculation.

 

So a good player speaking with years of experience on tank balance is likely to be way off the mark when it comes to the type of balance that WG is seeking, because the very good player doesn't take the player factor and the huge skill gaps into the equation.



eekeeboo #53 Posted 10 January 2019 - 08:15 PM

    English Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 45838 battles
  • 929
  • Member since:
    07-25-2010

View PostNoo_Noo, on 10 January 2019 - 09:08 AM, said:


So in your opinion, a War Gaming employee there's nothing wrong with balance within the game and there are no other issues either? 

I honestly believe that if you asked everyone that plays this game if they feel it is balanced you'd get the same answer, no. Individual opinions on where an why that is is likely but I doubt anyone would say that this game is currently well balanced. 

 

I have no objections to Random MM or 2 tier spread in MM but at least balance it that way. To try and tell me that a E8 and a Defender is a two tier spread in anything but name is more than a little daft to be honest.
 

I believe +2 tier spread is fine provided the game is balanced that way. Its currently not. 
 

Top tier tanks are, in many cases at least +2.5 tiers above those bottom tier tanks (if we're using tiers as a measuring unit) 

For example a Defender is more of a tier 9 tank than a Tier 8 one. Type 5 is probably Tier 10.5 or higher. 

 

Lots of examples of this throughout the game at every tier
 

 

  My opinions are stated clearly above, I advise you read them more closely. 

It's not about asking "Is the game balanced?" It's "What do you think is unbalanced?" - Watch the variety of replies. 

 

View Postpanter22, on 10 January 2019 - 01:57 PM, said:

 

wow this is amazing you sad you like good grind interesting https://worldoftanks...7737-eekeeboo/  type 59 interesting :sceptic:

 

It's also amazing I would use a type 59 and a Churchill III to grind credits when the game had only a handful of premiums! 

 

View PostLordMuffin, on 09 January 2019 - 11:44 PM, said:

 

To win games you focus on winning the most important areas of the map, regardless of which tanks are there. On most maps, only 1 or 2 areas are of any importance while the rest can be ignored.

 

For example: You never go beach on Overlord, regardless of which tanks the enemy has put there, beach can be ignored.

Like 1-line on cliff, Valley on Lakeville and so on.

If then there are T8 tanks also fighting for that area, I have to fight them.

I don't win games by giving up the important areas on maps, though on quite a few of the new rebalanced maps, you can give up large parts of the map and it doesn't matter much at all. Due to extremely strong camping positions at Red lines (like Erlenberg).

 

 

I can avoid T8 tanks and go to some part which doesn't matter at all to the outcome and farm useless damage from T6 tanks, but that is not playing to win. So I won't do that, since I prefer playing to win over not playing to win.

 

2nd paragraph.

A T6 tank should be able to damage a T8 tank frontally. Otherwise they shouldn't meet in battle.

It might not have to be easy, it might require some luck with accuracy etc. But boring balance is when a top tiered tank is impervious to bottom tiered tanks. Thinking like this is removing diversity.

You add diversity by making it possible for bottom tiered tanks to damage top tiered tanks if they know what they do or the top tiered tank play bad. Also, maps can be made to add diversity by allowing flanking operations.

 

What you propose, I guess, is that top tiered tanks should be invournable to bottom tiered tanks. Which just is a way to dumb the game down, remove skill elements and decrease number of competetive and useful tanks per battle. 

 

3rd paragraph.

SBMM is not something that will stop players from wanting to improve. That is a ridiculous claim without any basis.

Dota 2/LOL/HS/SC2/WoW/Hots/CSGO all have skillbased matchmakers. And it is not like these games are less competetive then WOT or have a playerbase that doesn't want to improve.

In fact, I believe that the average WOT player is less interested in improving then the average player for any of these games.

The issue with SH for me is not the skillbased matchmaker, it is the useless tank balance at T8. It is get a Defender/IS-3A or reduce your teams chances of winning, and if all players are of similar skill, on average, the team with more Defenders/IS-3A will win.

 

My intentions with this game are as follows.

1: Skill being an important factor in deciding who is winning a battle. 

2: All tanks of all tiers being a viable option.

3: Maps that make sure that all tanks of all tiers are viable.

4: A Matchmaker that put players equally often as bot/mid/top tiered situations.

5: A powerlevel between tiers that is small enough to make bottom tiers a threat to top (if bottom tiered is played skillfully).

 

Now I do know that these are not WGs intentions (going by the changes done in past 2 years), nor do they seem to be yours.

 

I play to win, that is my only concern. I don't use XVM in battle, because that mod should be banned, so I have no clue how good a team mate is from xvm.

 

Winrate is the best metric when judging player skill. Then you can combine it with PR, avg dmg, assistance damage, avg tier etc. But WR is the staple.

 

For the most successful time in WOT playing history (regarding playernumbers), WG sold premium tanks that was always slightly wraker then elite same tiered tanks, especially true at T8.

And it worked perfectly OK for WG to sell these tanks, it made the owner a billionaire after all.

So for the first like 5 or 6 years of WOT history, premium tanks didn't need to be stronger then regular tanks to be sold. Players bought these 'weaker' tanks on masse anyway.

 

You don't believe that the gap between an average T6 tank and an average T8 tank have increased in the past 2 years???

In the last 2 years, only the T-34-85M and AT-8 have received a buff.

The newly implemented T6 tanks are terrible, even compared with other T6 tanks.

At T8, Defender, VK100P, Polish T8, Italian T8, obj-432, ELC EVEN 90, IS-M, Centurion 5/1, Patriot, Liberte, Skorpion, Chrysler K, T-44-100, Somua, Lorraine 400,  have been introduced, all of which are top of their class in powerlevels except IS-M and maybe Cent 5/1

Buffs have happened to T8.

IS-6, KV-5, Löwe, Type 59, 112, WZ-111, Centurion 1, FV4202, T-44, T-54 mod.1, Pershing, 110, SU-100M1, Panther II, Indien Panzer, VK 45.02A, Ferdinand, maybe more.

Nerfs to T8: ISU-152.

 

When a wide array of tanks are buffed, and the newly introduced tanks are the best or close to the best of their respective class at T8, while almost none of the T6 tanks received a buff.

I can only come to one conclusion: The difference in powerlevel between T8 and T6 have increased over the past 2 years.

And as far as I know, when powerlevel increases between tanks, it makes it harder for the bottom tiered tank to compete with the top tiered tank, which also leads to the idea that it was easier to compete with a bottom tiered tank 2 years ago then it is now.

 

Now you might not agree, but then put some effort into proving it.

So now, show your non-biased data that my claim above it is false. That these buffs didn't happen or that as many T6 tanks was buffed roughly an equal amount.

 

If my memory is irrelevant, so is yours (about Tiger II and E100 and scouts MM).

Come up with data to why scouts where a nightmare to play back then, why a stock Tiger II was worse back then compared to now.

 

Part of your statement is true, but if you don't control the bigger threats, holding a "stronger" part of the map or let your teammates get rolled and you face 1 v 5, it doesn't matter how good your map position is, you'll suffer. 

 

Like never going beach... tactically yes it makes no sense. Right until you get that get the goomba lemming the beach and fast cap and win. Yes it happens. 

 

Some parts of the map are simply impossible to hold alone against numerous enemies and without the support they are pointless. Like avoiding 1 line of cliff, but if your team's big guns go there and only 3-4 go elsewhere, you're going to have a bad time. 

 

But the act of when you engage, if you see you're in a tier 6 and in a tier 8 game, would you really go solo to the important parts of the map? More-so if you knew you'd face 1 or more tier 8s. 

 

A tier 6 can contribute in more ways than just damage. If every tank could damage every tank, there's absolutely no point in having variety or tactics. Highest roller wins, vs tactical awareness and helping teammates. You talk of diversity and you have it now. Can you damage the tank frontally? No, can you damage him from the side? you have a chance, from the back? Even higher chance. Can you circle him and out run his turret? yes can you keep him tracked for teammate help? yes. Can you spot him for teammate to help? Yes. That's diversity, not all tanks can shoot all tanks. 

 

In those games, honestly tell me how skill based MM works in them, I can tell you in LoL ranked... yeah it doesn't solve any of the problems people complain about. I've played enough games over enough time with so many people that people play games for different reasons. Not everyone wants to improve, that's fair enough, but demanding the game be made easier for them personally is natural, doesn't mean it should happen realistically for the health of the game. You need to appeal to everyone or at least as much as possible. There are the same demographics of competitive gamers and not in all games, some play for fun and to relax, others take it seriously. There's some serious over generalisation and presumption in your statement I'm sorry to say. 

 

And unfortunately map making, it isn't possible to have everyone have a good game you can make it so everyone has a chance to do something, but it's up to the player. That's why you have different maps of different styles and why maps continue to try and have a little for everyone, but you do that and you risk making it so that more people have OK games and less people have those stand out games where their tank excels. Proho - open, varied and "great" until you're in a slow heavy with a bad accuracy gun... you're not going to have fun. 

 

The danger of using winrate to judge how good a player is.... there are many ways this can be abused and why Personal rating was never used previously and why WN6+ was created because of the way this can be manipulated. Playing in a platoon with 2 other good people doesn't make you better for instance (I'm not insinuating this is you, but an example of how it can be so easily skewed). 

 

As for WoT's most successful time, look at the age of the game, the competition in the F2P market, the trends socially at the time, the economic state of the world. The age of the game and the level of competition. There's A LOT of factors to look at for this. I suggest you look at the natural life cycle that all games go through. Let alone look at all servers.

 

As for the "average tier 6" vs "average tier 8" I found them to remain at the same level/gulf in climb. There are different mechanics than previously and the MM handles a lot more different than it used to be. You're asking to compare two completely different ages of the game with one another. Is the difference between the tanks or is it just everything else mechanically that has also changed? 

 

As for data... you know, and I sincerely you hope you really don't expect me to provide sensitive data that you know for a fact no gaming company provides? Do you? 

 

You're asking for data to compare 2 different situations. Data that could be provided but would need to be sensitive and is never shared by any company in any game (that I'm aware of EVER). 

 

Now you can say "HAH you can't prove it so I'm right!" that's fine, it still won't change the truth. 

 


Edited by eekeeboo, 10 January 2019 - 08:16 PM.


LordMuffin #54 Posted 11 January 2019 - 01:25 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 48529 battles
  • 11,459
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View Posteekeeboo, on 10 January 2019 - 08:15 PM, said:

Part of your statement is true, but if you don't control the bigger threats, holding a "stronger" part of the map or let your teammates get rolled and you face 1 v 5, it doesn't matter how good your map position is, you'll suffer. 

 

Like never going beach... tactically yes it makes no sense. Right until you get that get the goomba lemming the beach and fast cap and win. Yes it happens. 

 

Some parts of the map are simply impossible to hold alone against numerous enemies and without the support they are pointless. Like avoiding 1 line of cliff, but if your team's big guns go there and only 3-4 go elsewhere, you're going to have a bad time. 

 

But the act of when you engage, if you see you're in a tier 6 and in a tier 8 game, would you really go solo to the important parts of the map? More-so if you knew you'd face 1 or more tier 8s. 

 

A tier 6 can contribute in more ways than just damage. If every tank could damage every tank, there's absolutely no point in having variety or tactics. Highest roller wins, vs tactical awareness and helping teammates. You talk of diversity and you have it now. Can you damage the tank frontally? No, can you damage him from the side? you have a chance, from the back? Even higher chance. Can you circle him and out run his turret? yes can you keep him tracked for teammate help? yes. Can you spot him for teammate to help? Yes. That's diversity, not all tanks can shoot all tanks. 

 

In those games, honestly tell me how skill based MM works in them, I can tell you in LoL ranked... yeah it doesn't solve any of the problems people complain about. I've played enough games over enough time with so many people that people play games for different reasons. Not everyone wants to improve, that's fair enough, but demanding the game be made easier for them personally is natural, doesn't mean it should happen realistically for the health of the game. You need to appeal to everyone or at least as much as possible. There are the same demographics of competitive gamers and not in all games, some play for fun and to relax, others take it seriously. There's some serious over generalisation and presumption in your statement I'm sorry to say. 

 

And unfortunately map making, it isn't possible to have everyone have a good game you can make it so everyone has a chance to do something, but it's up to the player. That's why you have different maps of different styles and why maps continue to try and have a little for everyone, but you do that and you risk making it so that more people have OK games and less people have those stand out games where their tank excels. Proho - open, varied and "great" until you're in a slow heavy with a bad accuracy gun... you're not going to have fun. 

 

The danger of using winrate to judge how good a player is.... there are many ways this can be abused and why Personal rating was never used previously and why WN6+ was created because of the way this can be manipulated. Playing in a platoon with 2 other good people doesn't make you better for instance (I'm not insinuating this is you, but an example of how it can be so easily skewed). 

 

As for WoT's most successful time, look at the age of the game, the competition in the F2P market, the trends socially at the time, the economic state of the world. The age of the game and the level of competition. There's A LOT of factors to look at for this. I suggest you look at the natural life cycle that all games go through. Let alone look at all servers.

 

As for the "average tier 6" vs "average tier 8" I found them to remain at the same level/gulf in climb. There are different mechanics than previously and the MM handles a lot more different than it used to be. You're asking to compare two completely different ages of the game with one another. Is the difference between the tanks or is it just everything else mechanically that has also changed? 

 

As for data... you know, and I sincerely you hope you really don't expect me to provide sensitive data that you know for a fact no gaming company provides? Do you? 

 

You're asking for data to compare 2 different situations. Data that could be provided but would need to be sensitive and is never shared by any company in any game (that I'm aware of EVER). 

 

Now you can say "HAH you can't prove it so I'm right!" that's fine, it still won't change the truth. 

 

So you have nothing to back up your claim that the difference between T6 and T8 is same now as for 2 years ago except feelings. And feelings are irrelevant. 

 

The MM is different now, but is itimportant, no.

It doesn't impact the difference of powerlevel between T6 and T8 tanks. It just makes sure you see more T8 tanks in battle then before.

 

Game mechanics wise nothing have changed except arty, and arty got buffed.

 

Maps have changed, they are now forcing players into more frontal engagements with no or very few possibilities of flanking compared to 2 years ago.

This is bad for bottom tiered tanks.

 

You don't need to use hidden statistics, you just need to make a an argument to why you are correct in your assessment as to why T6 tanks and T8 tanks are just as close together now as they where 2 years ago from a powerlevel perspective.

You haven't done this yet.

 

So just because WG is getting older, it is fine to sell overpowered premium tanks?

WoT might be old and lose some players. But the speed at which it is happening is not due to WoT bring old, the speed is due to how WG have handled the game in the past 2 years in a combination with the game bring old.

Also, WOT have no competition in their genre, which should make the game sustainable far longer.

As for servers, the US is shrinking (got reduced from 2 to 1 aswell), the russian is shrinking, the EU is shrinking. Havent checked SEA or China.

 

First you check WR and PR.

If you want a better picture you can use MoE percentages, tank specific statistics, average tier etc, maybe even the rather useless wn8 system.

I don't check beyond WR and eventually PR, they give a good enough picture of the skill of any player.

 

Prokhorovka is a fine map for my slow heavies with low accuracy guns as long as arty is not in the game. It just requires some skill.

 

The problem with the current map design is that you are going at it the wrong way by saying "Heavies go here, mediums there, TDs camp here etc". This idea just produces in general bad maps with stale meta game and low possibilities of out-of-meta tactics.

It removes freedom from the player and forces a certain play upon the players of the map.

Maps shouldn't have little for everyone, they should have plenty for everyone. 

 

When I play Dota 2, I don't care about improving, neither do I do in this game. But it is not because of different MM types. I am not interested in getting better.

As for SBMM in Dota 2, I would most probably not play it if it didn't have a SBMM system, since in that game, team work is crucial, which means, I want the players around me to be of similar skill as myself.

I have played with the equivalent of tomatoes in Dota 2  (some of my friends), and in those games, it is like I and them are playing 2 entirely different games.

For example: can't rely on them to make correct decisions without me telling them what to do.

In WOT this is not much of an issue since team play is not as important.

 

A SBMM will not fix WoT though, but saying it will make things easier for those who don't want to improve is just wrong.

Though if you from WG wanted to promote teamplay, a league/rating system is probably the most effective method.

 

As for your first paragraphs, they mostly highlight the difference in tactical thinking between a good player and an average player.

 

1: if you let the enemy get the strong position,  you lose even harder.

2: A lemming train on beach into cap circle has never worked in any of my games on Overlord. It takes to long, you get into stupidly bad positions if you go beach. You easily get scouted, which makes it very easy to stop.

So in a game with 2+ competent players on the non-beach team, a lemming train push on beach will always lose.

Sometimes, some think that they did a good job on the beach because they get up behind enemy tanks and can shoot their back. This is a false idea.

The battle is already decided if they get to do this, and if the battle isn't decided, they easily get killed as they try to do it.

 

If your team's big guns go 1 line on cliff, and only 3 or 4 go high-ground, it takes some seriously stupid players on the enemy team to not win it. And yet, it is still better to go high-ground, since the enemy might be seriously stupid so you can win it anyway.

 

I don't go solo anywhere, because that is a very bad move. I always make sure I have support with me.

 

5th paragraph:

Yes, T6 tanks can contribute in more then 1 way.

No, being able to damage enemy tanks you face frontally doesn't mean that you remove tactics. It gives you more opportunities to do stuff.

We got diversity now? Some, but it gets less and less with the new maps (making certain tanks obsolete). Some new tanks and tank rebalances have also lowered diversity (making certain tanks obsolete).

 

Do the map allow me to get to the tanks side/back or to circle it for the most important part of the battle. No, the maps in general don't. 

Sometimes you can find out of position tanks (which is thus obviously played by bad players, because they are out of position) and do this.  But it is only possible due to the bad play of the enemy, not due to my good play.

And when you can start to find these possibilities, you are either losing or winning, at which point these maneuvers doesn't really matter that much anymore. The result have already been decided.

 

Diversity is not the number of tanks in the game.

Diversity is not forcing a meta on the players.

Diversity is not removing tactical options from players.


Edited by LordMuffin, 11 January 2019 - 01:35 AM.


m1x_angelico #55 Posted 11 January 2019 - 02:25 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 23668 battles
  • 1,045
  • [-VETO] -VETO
  • Member since:
    01-04-2015

I'm proponent for balancing in-game. I understand it is not easy. in fact, it can be quite hard, and any new change in-game can disrupt already achieved balance. Still, it has its rewards, and it is not by accident that balancing is the holy grail for most of the games.

 

From what I see on the forum, we have a "big" divide in the player base - 1) some players are just focused on winning (winrate), and dont care about anything else, 2) some are focused on grinding being hard (so not all can achieve some tanks and accomplishments), 3) some are focused on WN8 (dmg), and 4) there are those who play this game purely for fun and dont care about other things.

 

It appears that for the first 3 groups, balancing is really not that significant, in fact, for the first group it can seem counter-productive.

 

It is hard to assess based on forum how much players there is in each of these groups. Based on my experience as a gamer and posts on this forum I think that the there are lots of players in the "fun" group. However, what is the real question is whether this group is also the profit group - do these players buy more boxes, tanks, prem time, compared to the other 3 groups.

 

The sheer number of threads on the forum tells us that people are upset when the only option is between being the meat grinder and meet grindee, or a seal clubber and the seal. 

 


Edited by m1x_angelico, 11 January 2019 - 02:26 AM.


Somnorila #56 Posted 11 January 2019 - 11:21 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 56543 battles
  • 2,091
  • [4-YOU] 4-YOU
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012

View Postm1x_angelico, on 11 January 2019 - 02:25 AM, said:

 

 However, what is the real question is whether this group is also the profit group - do these players buy more boxes, tanks, prem time, compared to the other 3 groups.

 

 

Unlikely. My experience tells me that there is an increased chance to sell to people who are invested rather than to people who throw money for fun. Sure it's possible that a "whale" will hear about the game, log in and first buy some premium things. Thing is that it's not really certain that he would remain your customer. Usually this type of players migrate to what it's hot right now and are easy to be influenced by popular subjects. Such as arty "issues" or like it happens on US market, WoT has the image of a pay to win game and people stay away. i'd say that you will probably sell more down the line to some free player who keeps playing. I'd say that is more probable that from the RU market or EU market where number of players are high, small fish are the ones who fill the nets and not whales. Of course if they keep playing and feel invested in the game to at least spend that 10 euros every month or once every several months, occasionally buys a tank, maybe some gold. In time it adds up way more than what a whale would spend for a few months then take his attention on other things.



eekeeboo #57 Posted 11 January 2019 - 04:09 PM

    English Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 45838 battles
  • 929
  • Member since:
    07-25-2010

View PostAlzamon, on 09 January 2019 - 10:26 PM, said:

Then why the F is there still a +2 spread in the mm. There is literally no reason for this kind of spread. Other than the obvious one that is greed. You wanna know why this game is dying? +2 matchmaking, artillery and overpowered premium tanks that for some reason is never balanced. 

 

There is a reason, just one I can think of - queue times. Next would be the way the game is balanced. And by greed do you mean create an element of challenge to encourage players to grow and also invest in the game? I hope you are aware of how Free to Play games make money and keep being Free to Play. 

 

View PostLordMuffin, on 11 January 2019 - 12:25 AM, said:

 

 

You can read what I said about data (or not), what will and can be provided and what your conclusion will be. Doesn't change the fact. 

 

MM is important if your concern is meeting tier 8's, meeting less of them than before would be a solution to fix the complaint you meet too many, for instance. 

 

Arty got changed, not buffed, buffed would say they got better, they just changed in their effect in the battle. Mechanics have changed A LOT from autloaders, reloaders, physics, armour, the way spaced armour is now more of a thing than it used to be etc. 

 

In terms of map changes, it was mentioned a long time ago that there would be an attempt to make it so every tank class could perform on a map, having an all or nothing map design lead to complaints from one tank class or another. Many complaints were maps too open, heavies can't do anything, for instance. 

 

And I have made the statement, I've also suggested things that you do now, that you did then and have always done, you appear to have chosen to selectively not read them. 

 

If you're going to summarise my statement incorrectly (it's stated as literally as it can be), then there will be little to no point in my typing an answer for you to also not read but then misinterpret what you do. WoT has always sold premiums, they have always had accusations of P2W and OP (Type 59 onwards). Just because your player base naturally declines as with any game, doesn't mean you should change to not selling competitive premium tanks. Why would anyone sell a tank that doesn't perform as well or is no different to a previous tank. 

You are making an assumption about the reason for the player decline on numbers you have, not all the numbers. Effect does not determine cause. Just because 98% of prisoners eat bread, doesn't mean 98% of people will be prisoners. 

A little for everyone is the same as a lot for everyone, it's just proportionate reduction. 

For shrinking server numbers, I am going to assume (please correct if I'm wrong) that you still haven't researched natural game life cycle and about player churn. 

 

You give an example of teamwork in dota, now increase the team size, change you don't know the people and add more mechanics to master. 

 

And that's how *you* judge a player, is it accurate though? No. Why? Because PR and WR can be vastly affected by just player comfy tier 6 and below tanks and always playing in a platoon. Always playing with people who are good and getting carried. I hope this should highlight and point out to you the importance of a full picture. 

 

Lemming trains will fail if they don't keep pushing or progress, they have worked on beach, including moments when people say "OMG beach rush worked!". Going solo on a map, good player or not, won't help you in the engagement you say you shouldn't be forced in to. You're making the decision to go there not being forced there. You can go with your team for help or go head to head with the defender, if you choose to go there alone.. is that game design? So like you say you don't go solo anywhere, and how do you do this if your team literally just kemps bush or lemming trains, would you consider "not solo" still a thing if it's still only you and some tier 6s vs tier 7/8s. Knowing they too will go for the strong point. 

 

And by just making it so you can do damage doesn't mean you can do "more stuff" it just means you can do more damage. You can see this effect by giving people HE high damage, do they consider doing more things, or just take what they can get by hitting you i the face and taking the easy approach. Players (as is human nature) will take the path of least resistance and the easiest effort for maximum outcome. 

 

Balance is not making it easier for people to make no effort for maximum outcome. By making it so you can do damage, look what happens with noob tubes, snipers and HE spamming tanks. Diversity in principle is different to diversity in practice. 

 

View Postkubawt112, on 09 January 2019 - 11:33 PM, said:

 

There are very good reasons indeed - to make sure that everyone can get a 'memorable experience'. Apparently it wasn't enough to allow 'casual' players the occasional 'memorable experience' due to RNG and general randomness.

 

Most of the misbalance in WoT is heavily obfuscated by the high variation in the matchmaker, players, tanks, maps and RNG itself. That makes it hard to prove anything, especially since there are only unofficial (no comments!) global server statistics.

It's a matter of fact that most of the issues in WoT are very obvious, but generally easy to "disprove". Like that a T6 doesn't meet T8s that often (in particular a Defender), isn't supposed to fight the Defender (alone), is supposed to flank/support and/or have premium ammo as an option. Those are all vague non-arguments that doesn't do jack to prove that the game is enjoyable as a result.

Wargaming's thinking is well illustrated by the good old Thaine Lyman joke: That the TVP VTU (considered to be the weakest T8 by many) can defeat a Defender. It's of course 'techincally true'. It won't most of the time, though there are certainly situations where a TVP VTU would do better than a Defender. On that note it's also worth including the good ol' non-argument that a Defender isn't an actual problem because it doesn't ruin every game it's in (it's not top-tier too often and it's "not pay2win because you can't win every game").

 

(Fun fact: WoT is really random - to the point where you'd likely end up with a 20-25% winrate even if every team you were on had, say, 10-12 instead of fifteen players - and I don't mean missing 3-5 of the bottom-tier tanks in a 3-5-7 setup, rather 3-5 in a one/two-tier setup. Just like even the best platoons can't manage a 100% winrate.)

 

 

 

Lots of pandering to casual players. Wargaming's claim is that they have a core group of players that will stay no matter what. Apparently it doesn't quite work that way. I doubt most forum members are surprised about that. It follows logically that gradually reducing how much personal skill matters is bound to have an effect on the playerbase. Heck, the simplification of maps is bound to be boring for everyone - good luck sneaking a tank around the heavy flank to harass them nowadays.

Personally, I'm mostly surprised to see a WG staff member eager and invested enough to participate in the forums like this - though I'm intrigued why it's suddenly a priority.

 

Also, I really wanted to post this picture. Yes, it's an actual quote, and that is our dear Ph3lan stating his personal opinion about the Defender on stream. I'm sure he appreciates that I'm representing him after his lateral promotion, refocusing of skills or whatever it's called in France (I'm sure there's a nicer term for it, but I don't speak corporate - though I suspect Wargaming doesn't either).

 

 

 

 

For the staff investment and interaction is that I'm new to the WoT team, I believe it's all down to the way a CM is and how they envisage interacting with the community. As someone who's been on the forums and run them on other games, I understand how important it can be to get this information in modern era gaming, in the old days you just took what you got ! :D 

 

View Postm1x_angelico, on 11 January 2019 - 01:25 AM, said:

I'm proponent for balancing in-game. I understand it is not easy. in fact, it can be quite hard, and any new change in-game can disrupt already achieved balance. Still, it has its rewards, and it is not by accident that balancing is the holy grail for most of the games.

 

From what I see on the forum, we have a "big" divide in the player base - 1) some players are just focused on winning (winrate), and dont care about anything else, 2) some are focused on grinding being hard (so not all can achieve some tanks and accomplishments), 3) some are focused on WN8 (dmg), and 4) there are those who play this game purely for fun and dont care about other things.

 

It appears that for the first 3 groups, balancing is really not that significant, in fact, for the first group it can seem counter-productive.

 

It is hard to assess based on forum how much players there is in each of these groups. Based on my experience as a gamer and posts on this forum I think that the there are lots of players in the "fun" group. However, what is the real question is whether this group is also the profit group - do these players buy more boxes, tanks, prem time, compared to the other 3 groups.

 

The sheer number of threads on the forum tells us that people are upset when the only option is between being the meat grinder and meet grindee, or a seal clubber and the seal. 

 

 

The thing to balance, and by balancing that is easily misunderstood is that it shouldn't be about balancing making everything easy to do or even, but balancing the challenge with output that's the core game design to keep players engaged, not make everything even that leads to player boredom. 

 

For the "casual" gamers you mention, the thing is from the forum, these people generally (simplification and generalisation) don't come to the forums and contribute, why? Because they're here to relax and fun, they don't want or really care about the massive changes required for skill based pro leet plays etc. These people though can be extremely high spenders as they are also the people who view their time as valuable with expendible income. (Another stereotype and generalisation but hopefully it can show you how a player base demographic breaks down further). And these player numbers and spend values etc are all gathered by WG and influence the decision making process, it's dangerous to look at just the forums, because they are usually there for complaints not praise. 

 

I will say there are some rare eggs who wear their "waller warrior" badge with pride and I feel like empowering them. It's their money, their time, you can do with it as you please, you've earned both. 

 

View PostSomnorila, on 11 January 2019 - 10:21 AM, said:

 

Unlikely. My experience tells me that there is an increased chance to sell to people who are invested rather than to people who throw money for fun. Sure it's possible that a "whale" will hear about the game, log in and first buy some premium things. Thing is that it's not really certain that he would remain your customer. Usually this type of players migrate to what it's hot right now and are easy to be influenced by popular subjects. Such as arty "issues" or like it happens on US market, WoT has the image of a pay to win game and people stay away. i'd say that you will probably sell more down the line to some free player who keeps playing. I'd say that is more probable that from the RU market or EU market where number of players are high, small fish are the ones who fill the nets and not whales. Of course if they keep playing and feel invested in the game to at least spend that 10 euros every month or once every several months, occasionally buys a tank, maybe some gold. In time it adds up way more than what a whale would spend for a few months then take his attention on other things.

 

For the most part the pay-to-win image is actually a more "new player" perspective and comes from those who don't truly understand what pay to win and as the lines have been grayed over time on the way Free to play games monetise. Like gold ammo, if it was real money only, that's pay-to-win. If it's for in-game credits, it's not really pay-to-win you can grind those with more time. But people still argue pay-to-win because people can get credits easier with money..... but is it really?  

Gkirmathal #58 Posted 11 January 2019 - 05:09 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8125 battles
  • 1,549
  • Member since:
    01-14-2013

View Posteekeeboo, on 11 January 2019 - 03:09 PM, said:

...snip... 

 

And these player numbers and spend values etc are all gathered by WG and influence the decision making process, it's dangerous to look at just the forums, because they are usually there for complaints not praise.

 

...snip...

 

My apologies for snipping most of your in depth post away Eekeeboo, sorry!

...but this single sentence spoks volumes, specially the underlined part. It sort of explains the why/what/how, reading between the lines, what has happened since summer 2016. And for that I want to thank you.

 

Regarding the Asia matchmaker experiments, I am very interested in it's development and proceedings. As I do want to come back to this game, despite shortcomings I see (that is contrary to my overall critical tone on balance and content related subjects. I know, I know :teethhappy:). Matchmaking for me is a major contributing factor to this choice.

 

Do you perhaps have any new news regarding it progress, shared updates between regional offices, that might not have been published yet but are not under NDA to share here? Besides the article that was released on the Asia portal.


Edited by Gkirmathal, 11 January 2019 - 05:10 PM.


Mimos_A #59 Posted 11 January 2019 - 05:38 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 25130 battles
  • 2,061
  • [QSF-L] QSF-L
  • Member since:
    05-30-2015

Balance would mean that every time you press battle you have a realistic chance of achieving the objective of the game.

 

Which is very much not the case at the moment. On some maps the side you spawn on have a drastic effect on the chance to win. Tank imbalance means often one team has a huge advantage. Sure, an e8 vs a Defender is a bit silly, but tanks like the 110 also have a disproportionate disadvantage against it, which is amplified even more by map design choices.

 

I enjoy the challenge of this game and the puzzle of figuring out how to maximise the chance to win the game. I do not enjoy the fact that recently more and more the answer to that puzzle is "well, my team has to be braindead to screw this up" or "well unless the enemy team goes full potato, might as well go make coffee".



eekeeboo #60 Posted 11 January 2019 - 07:10 PM

    English Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 45838 battles
  • 929
  • Member since:
    07-25-2010

View PostGkirmathal, on 11 January 2019 - 04:09 PM, said:

 

My apologies for snipping most of your in depth post away Eekeeboo, sorry!

...but this single sentence spoks volumes, specially the underlined part. It sort of explains the why/what/how, reading between the lines, what has happened since summer 2016. And for that I want to thank you.

 

Regarding the Asia matchmaker experiments, I am very interested in it's development and proceedings. As I do want to come back to this game, despite shortcomings I see (that is contrary to my overall critical tone on balance and content related subjects. I know, I know :teethhappy:). Matchmaking for me is a major contributing factor to this choice.

 

Do you perhaps have any new news regarding it progress, shared updates between regional offices, that might not have been published yet but are not under NDA to share here? Besides the article that was released on the Asia portal.

 

No worries these replies are getting VERY long and hopefully people can see why I normally just delete the previous content of text! 

 

I don't have any personal knowledge of the experience and data from there, I'm still relatively new to the team and I still have a lot of catching up to do while also trying to bring in as many of my ideas and help the community team introduce their awesome ideas as a whole too! 

 

View PostMimos_A, on 11 January 2019 - 04:38 PM, said:

Balance would mean that every time you press battle you have a realistic chance of achieving the objective of the game.

 

Which is very much not the case at the moment. On some maps the side you spawn on have a drastic effect on the chance to win. Tank imbalance means often one team has a huge advantage. Sure, an e8 vs a Defender is a bit silly, but tanks like the 110 also have a disproportionate disadvantage against it, which is amplified even more by map design choices.

 

I enjoy the challenge of this game and the puzzle of figuring out how to maximise the chance to win the game. I do not enjoy the fact that recently more and more the answer to that puzzle is "well, my team has to be braindead to screw this up" or "well unless the enemy team goes full potato, might as well go make coffee".

 

You always have a realistic objective of winning the battle. You have a 100% chance of playing a game where you drive a tank and shoot another tank. - In the way the game currently looks at MM in that there's no rigging or use of player stats to influence how they distribute on teams, mostly because it wouldn't work and that's a whole new barrel of worms! But yeah, the game at it's core: drive tank, shoot tank, blow up tank, profit! 






7 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users