Jump to content


Tiers - Subdivision and slow revision: Proposal


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

Sir_Armand #1 Posted 09 January 2019 - 01:39 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 20142 battles
  • 354
  • [FILO2] FILO2
  • Member since:
    06-26-2011
I propose that the current tiers should be expanded by one decimal. So we'd have Tier 1.9, Tier 2.0, 2.1, 2.2 .. 5.0, 5.1, 5.2 ..5.9 - 10.7, 10.8, 10.9.
I further propose that every month, vehicles that have underperformed for their (sub)tier would drop down one subtier, so a 5.4 that underperforms drops to 5.3.
The worst performing vehicle in every X.x tier, could either drop one tier, down to the next highest subtier i.e. 5.0 would drop to 4.9. Or recieve a (slight!) buff. Likewise the best performing vehicle in every X.9 tier could either recieve a slight nerf or be moved up one tier. so from 5.9 to 6.0.

I further propose that WG allows for gaps in tiers, so that every line does not _have_ to have exactly ten vehicles of tier 1-10, I believe that this is an unnessecary limitation on the game.

This way WoT would stay dynamic, since small changes would constantly be made to the tanks and the tiers. It would also slowly, slowly make the game more balanced, vehicles that prove OP for their tiers would either be nerfed or elevated in tier, or at least it would be obvious to the players tht the tier 8.0 really _is_ inferior compared to the 8.9.

Also, since the MM is a constant discussion point this could help in this regard. WG could use the decimals in weighting the MM say by giving four  7.9 Tanks a "weight" of =31.6 and four 8.0 tanks a weight of 32.0 in the MM. Allowing for a more subtle MM.

WG could also use these "softer" tier stats to be used as a medium to incorporate _tiny_ Skill adjustments. say that a 50%WR player is worth 0, and a 49% is worth -0.05 a 48% is worth -0.1, a 51% is worth 0.033  52% 0.066 etc. so a 48% (-0,1) facing a 59% (+ 0.3) would mean that to be equal the  48% would drive a 7.5 tank vs a 7.1 in the MM. Not HUGE differences, but those tiony tiny little adjustments. A 59% in a Tier 7 would still dominate a 485 in a tier 7, just as it is today, but the team with the 48% would get 0.4 tiers more, in order to give the 48%'s team little better fighting chance. 

On the topic of slight buffs/nerfs, I would suggest that WG always makes the vehicle in question more unique in it's role, not "valilla" buffed / tweaked. So a vehicle with poor vision and great pen, should not be nerfed on pen or buffed on vision, but the other way around, make it have even better pen if buffed, or even worse vision if nerfed.  There is right now a trend toward vanilla vehicles that IMO is pretty boring. 

Oh, and a final thing: EVERY vehicle needs to have at leat ONE weak point!  The current state of affairs is ludicrous.
Opinions, suggestions and comments are very welcome.

Edited by Sir_Armand, 09 January 2019 - 01:45 PM.


Steeleye_Spam #2 Posted 09 January 2019 - 02:28 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 34356 battles
  • 369
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    08-31-2014
sounds overly complex with little impact on outputs in battles to me.

Homer_J #3 Posted 09 January 2019 - 02:58 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 32251 battles
  • 35,312
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

WG have spent 8 years simplifying the matchmaking because people found it overly complicated.

 

I don't think they are suddenly going to make it 100 times more complicated than it ever was.  And I don't see what you are trying to achieve.

 

And every vehicle has at least one weak point already.  Sometimes it might not be on the side facing you but that's tank design for you.



Darky1029 #4 Posted 10 January 2019 - 09:28 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 14342 battles
  • 1,007
  • Member since:
    11-24-2010

It would be a good way to balance tanks without actually rebalancing the tanks themselves.

Warframe does this to riven mods.

 

It would take another overhaul of the MM, and it would require semi constant input from WG to keep up the balance, and i doubt that they want to do that.

 

But its bold of you to assume that someone who actually has any power in WG reads these threads. They seem to ignore even the suggestion thread, which is full of great ideas.

 

 


Edited by Darky1029, 10 January 2019 - 09:29 AM.


Sirebellus #5 Posted 10 January 2019 - 11:25 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 23001 battles
  • 1,052
  • Member since:
    02-04-2016
Interesting idea... OP tanks get moved up tiers until they are run of the mill...
Would be fun to see where the leFH should really be...

LordMuffin #6 Posted 10 January 2019 - 12:37 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 52608 battles
  • 13,297
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011
I like, it is a way to balance how good a tank is without changing any of its stats.
Good tanks move up, worse tank move down. Matchmaker notices and make sure all numbers are even between teams.

Nothing that a normal player have to learn or care about in any way.

eekeeboo #7 Posted 10 January 2019 - 01:08 PM

    EU Video Content Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 46997 battles
  • 2,484
  • Member since:
    07-25-2010
I can assure you "WG" do read these threads, it's just impossible to introduce every idea and not all "good ideas" are actually good for the game or the player. It may seem arrogant but it's the truth. Though the lead developer may not read all the threads, people like me do, put it into feedback and off it goes up the chain of command. 

Gixxer66 #8 Posted 10 January 2019 - 01:52 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 18559 battles
  • 634
  • [-AWF-] -AWF-
  • Member since:
    01-11-2013

View Posteekeeboo, on 10 January 2019 - 12:08 PM, said:

I can assure you "WG" do read these threads, it's just impossible to introduce every idea and not all "good ideas" are actually good for the game or the player. It may seem arrogant but it's the truth. Though the lead developer may not read all the threads, people like me do, put it into feedback and off it goes up the chain of command. 

 

Even ideas that you personally are not overly keen on?

 

 



panter22 #9 Posted 10 January 2019 - 02:53 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 15188 battles
  • 472
  • Member since:
    05-23-2011

View Posteekeeboo, on 10 January 2019 - 12:08 PM, said:

I can assure you "WG" do read these threads, it's just impossible to introduce every idea and not all "good ideas" are actually good for the game or the player. It may seem arrogant but it's the truth. Though the lead developer may not read all the threads, people like me do, put it into feedback and off it goes up the chain of command. 

 

aha Right :sceptic:

Laatikkomafia #10 Posted 10 January 2019 - 03:35 PM

    Major General

  • Beta Tester
  • 23265 battles
  • 5,091
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    12-27-2010

View Posteekeeboo, on 10 January 2019 - 02:08 PM, said:

I can assure you "WG" do read these threads, it's just impossible to introduce every idea and not all "good ideas" are actually good for the game or the player. It may seem arrogant but it's the truth. Though the lead developer may not read all the threads, people like me do, put it into feedback and off it goes up the chain of command. 

 

If WG read the threads, we wouldn't have arty in the game anymore.

Sirebellus #11 Posted 10 January 2019 - 04:02 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 23001 battles
  • 1,052
  • Member since:
    02-04-2016

View PostLaatikkomafia, on 10 January 2019 - 03:35 PM, said:

 

If WG read the threads, we wouldn't have arty in the game anymore.

 

Why ? As the Eekeeboo said "not all "good ideas" are actually good for the game"... obviously the Devs don't see that removing arty is good for their game
 

eekeeboo #12 Posted 10 January 2019 - 08:17 PM

    EU Video Content Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 46997 battles
  • 2,484
  • Member since:
    07-25-2010

View PostGixxer66, on 10 January 2019 - 12:52 PM, said:

 

Even ideas that you personally are not overly keen on?

 

 

 

It doesn't matter what I am and am not keen on. It's not up to me what does and doesn't happen to this game. I'm a piece of the puzzle. 

 

View PostLaatikkomafia, on 10 January 2019 - 02:35 PM, said:

 

If WG read the threads, we wouldn't have arty in the game anymore.

 

​If you read posts (mine) you'd understand why your post is irony at it's finest. 

 

 

 

 



Bordhaw #13 Posted 10 January 2019 - 08:40 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 14893 battles
  • 4,842
  • Member since:
    01-29-2017

View PostSir_Armand, on 09 January 2019 - 12:39 PM, said:

I propose that the current tiers should be expanded by one decimal. So we'd have Tier 1.9, Tier 2.0, 2.1, 2.2 .. 5.0, 5.1, 5.2 ..5.9 - 10.7, 10.8, 10.9.
I further propose that every month, vehicles that have underperformed for their (sub)tier would drop down one subtier, so a 5.4 that underperforms drops to 5.3.
The worst performing vehicle in every X.x tier, could either drop one tier, down to the next highest subtier i.e. 5.0 would drop to 4.9. Or recieve a (slight!) buff. Likewise the best performing vehicle in every X.9 tier could either recieve a slight nerf or be moved up one tier. so from 5.9 to 6.0.

I further propose that WG allows for gaps in tiers, so that every line does not _have_ to have exactly ten vehicles of tier 1-10, I believe that this is an unnessecary limitation on the game.

This way WoT would stay dynamic, since small changes would constantly be made to the tanks and the tiers. It would also slowly, slowly make the game more balanced, vehicles that prove OP for their tiers would either be nerfed or elevated in tier, or at least it would be obvious to the players tht the tier 8.0 really _is_ inferior compared to the 8.9.

Also, since the MM is a constant discussion point this could help in this regard. WG could use the decimals in weighting the MM say by giving four  7.9 Tanks a "weight" of =31.6 and four 8.0 tanks a weight of 32.0 in the MM. Allowing for a more subtle MM.

WG could also use these "softer" tier stats to be used as a medium to incorporate _tiny_ Skill adjustments. say that a 50%WR player is worth 0, and a 49% is worth -0.05 a 48% is worth -0.1, a 51% is worth 0.033  52% 0.066 etc. so a 48% (-0,1) facing a 59% (+ 0.3) would mean that to be equal the  48% would drive a 7.5 tank vs a 7.1 in the MM. Not HUGE differences, but those tiony tiny little adjustments. A 59% in a Tier 7 would still dominate a 485 in a tier 7, just as it is today, but the team with the 48% would get 0.4 tiers more, in order to give the 48%'s team little better fighting chance. 

On the topic of slight buffs/nerfs, I would suggest that WG always makes the vehicle in question more unique in it's role, not "valilla" buffed / tweaked. So a vehicle with poor vision and great pen, should not be nerfed on pen or buffed on vision, but the other way around, make it have even better pen if buffed, or even worse vision if nerfed.  There is right now a trend toward vanilla vehicles that IMO is pretty boring. 

Oh, and a final thing: EVERY vehicle needs to have at leat ONE weak point!  The current state of affairs is ludicrous.
Opinions, suggestions and comments are very welcome.

 

 



fighting_falcon93 #14 Posted 10 January 2019 - 11:35 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View Posteekeeboo, on 10 January 2019 - 01:08 PM, said:

Though the lead developer may not read all the threads, people like me do, put it into feedback and off it goes up the chain of command. 

 

Thank you for sending the feedback up the chain of command. Although, I believe there's a problem in WG's system of communication between players and developers. From what I've understood, you summarize what you read on the forums and send this as a report to the developers. The problem with this approach is that:

 

1. The only information that gets across is the *what* component. Because when you summarize what players discuss, you leave out the *how* and *why* components in order to make the report size managable. This results in the developers only getting to know *what* problems there are, not *how* they should be solved, and not *why* they should be solved. I've seen countless examples of this. Take artillery or premium ammunition for example. The developers decided to rework it, because they knew players disliked it, but it seems they had no clue *why* players disliked it, and *how* players wanted to change it.

 

2. There's never coming any response back to the players. From a players perspective, it's impossible to know what WG thinks about their suggestion. Do they like it? Do they hate it? Will they implement it? Will they skip it? It's impossible to know, because all we hear is that information will be forwarded, but there's never any response. After a while it's starting to feel pointless, kind of like repeatedly calling in an air strike that never arrives. And I guess that's why so many players have this sceptic view when you write that WG does listen to their players. Even if WG do listen, it doesn't feel like that when there's no reply back.

 

Can you please suggest to the developers that they should start interacting with the EU forum aswell and not only the RU forum? There could be a development section on the forum, where players can write constructive suggestions for the developers. Moderators would help by removing rants etc. And the developers would write a short reply to each suggestion what they think about it. It would also present all 3 components, *what* *how* *why*, to the developers, so they would get a better insight into not only the current problems in the game, but also how players want the problems solved.



LordMuffin #15 Posted 11 January 2019 - 12:00 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 52608 battles
  • 13,297
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 10 January 2019 - 11:35 PM, said:

2. There's never coming any response back to the players. From a players perspective, it's impossible to know what WG thinks about their suggestion. Do they like it? Do they hate it? Will they implement it? Will they skip it? It's impossible to know, because all we hear is that information will be forwarded, but there's never any response. After a while it's starting to feel pointless, kind of like repeatedly calling in an air strike that never arrives. And I guess that's why so many players have this sceptic view when you write that WG does listen to their players. Even if WG do listen, it doesn't feel like that when there's no reply back.

It is also the issue that WG seems to ignore all/most forwarded stuff anyway.

 

For example the Obj 268v4.

Huge parts of the community said, before release. It is to good, nerf it.

It was released. 

Huge part of the community said: It is to good, nerf it.

6 months of players saying the Obj 268 v4 bring to strong, WG manages to nerf it.



fighting_falcon93 #16 Posted 11 January 2019 - 12:22 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View PostLordMuffin, on 11 January 2019 - 12:00 AM, said:

For example the Obj 268v4.

Huge parts of the community said, before release. It is to good, nerf it.

It was released. 

Huge part of the community said: It is to good, nerf it.

6 months of players saying the Obj 268 v4 bring to strong, WG manages to nerf it.

 

Yeah, not to mention a large portion of players didn't even want the Obj.263-Obj.268v4 swap in the first place :(



Somnorila #17 Posted 11 January 2019 - 10:56 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 57840 battles
  • 2,224
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012

View PostSteeleye_Spam, on 09 January 2019 - 02:28 PM, said:

sounds overly complex with little impact on outputs in battles to me.

 

I agree. I think that every improvement is by making things as simple clean and intuitive as possible. This i believe to be a general approach that fits in games too.

This is why i always said that WoT would be better if the game would have more sense. That's the balance i'm always referring to. tiers, classes, roles, maps and all the mechanics should be distinctive in a very clear and visible way. So less tanks that can take multiple roles, cleaner maps so that players find their way and targets easier and so on.

Make it too confusing and you get a big bowl of mush. What we currently have. In a way this is weird because WG seems to want as many players as possible, all ages, all kind of style and likes. But they make it pretty confusing for the new players to get in to it while seemingly rules change all the time with constant powercreep and kind of bad map design. Sure the maps look good but gameplay wise most of them are kind of bad, specially the new ones.



Somnorila #18 Posted 11 January 2019 - 11:09 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 57840 battles
  • 2,224
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012

View PostHomer_J, on 09 January 2019 - 02:58 PM, said:

WG have spent 8 years simplifying the matchmaking because people found it overly complicated.

 

I don't think they are suddenly going to make it 100 times more complicated than it ever was.  And I don't see what you are trying to achieve.

 

And every vehicle has at least one weak point already.  Sometimes it might not be on the side facing you but that's tank design for you.

 

I don't really think that the game is simpler if tanks have more weak spots. I'm ok with tanks being fortresses, but only that. If you able them to take additional roles then there is no logic to the game and its rules. I don't like games where you have a lot of variation in theory because you have only one or two viable best build. I want to be able to choose whatever build i like while still where all builds are equal. A rock paper scissors where you can be whatever of them if you make it so. Not in all your battles but in the same match. I for one would rather have more draw matches than not be able to change the course of the match because my tank can't fight back or run away. Just make draws be seen as wins and be done with it. Becouse most of the bad sentiments towards draws were just because players felt they lost something, silver, xp and so on. I mean the no cap kill all bs comes exactly from players feeling they lose some xp for their grind. 

Maybe WG could make the grind less time consuming or more fun somehow. Maybe have tanks with all modules enabled but still have same xp requirement for next tanks. Or tweak MM so that players have similar level or modules installed, they all have tiers too. I don't know, just spitballing here.



eekeeboo #19 Posted 11 January 2019 - 12:05 PM

    EU Video Content Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 46997 battles
  • 2,484
  • Member since:
    07-25-2010

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 10 January 2019 - 10:35 PM, said:

 

Thank you for sending the feedback up the chain of command. Although, I believe there's a problem in WG's system of communication between players and developers. From what I've understood, you summarize what you read on the forums and send this as a report to the developers. The problem with this approach is that:

 

1. The only information that gets across is the *what* component. Because when you summarize what players discuss, you leave out the *how* and *why* components in order to make the report size managable. This results in the developers only getting to know *what* problems there are, not *how* they should be solved, and not *why* they should be solved. I've seen countless examples of this. Take artillery or premium ammunition for example. The developers decided to rework it, because they knew players disliked it, but it seems they had no clue *why* players disliked it, and *how* players wanted to change it.

 

2. There's never coming any response back to the players. From a players perspective, it's impossible to know what WG thinks about their suggestion. Do they like it? Do they hate it? Will they implement it? Will they skip it? It's impossible to know, because all we hear is that information will be forwarded, but there's never any response. After a while it's starting to feel pointless, kind of like repeatedly calling in an air strike that never arrives. And I guess that's why so many players have this sceptic view when you write that WG does listen to their players. Even if WG do listen, it doesn't feel like that when there's no reply back.

 

Can you please suggest to the developers that they should start interacting with the EU forum aswell and not only the RU forum? There could be a development section on the forum, where players can write constructive suggestions for the developers. Moderators would help by removing rants etc. And the developers would write a short reply to each suggestion what they think about it. It would also present all 3 components, *what* *how* *why*, to the developers, so they would get a better insight into not only the current problems in the game, but also how players want the problems solved.

 

That's true in that you risk this, but I can assure you that we as a community team work together and it goes through multiple stages. So it's never just x is y, we don't catch everything, but the reason I am so active on the forums is so that I can get the best picture possible with all the info and perspectives I can. 

 

Once it goes from there, sometimes, though something is unpleasant there's a reason for it. But the feedback will still be passed on that "players are unhappy." The reason I value constructive feedback so highly and prefer it, it's better to say "Players don't like x because y and would prefer z". Will it help? Not guaranteed, but it's more to go on. 

 

For answers in return, that's part of my job in communicating back the responses that are given and have been given as well as the reasoning for these choices. We are currently working on improving the communication between developers and players to be clearer and more concise, but there's already a lot of information coming, it's just in a lot of different formats. 

 

For the suggestions, I understand your point, but you also have to acknowledge that you will see there are suggestions made now on the thread, even though they've been suggested a million times before, answered a million times before and the answer stays the same. Not all suggestions can be introduced, I do my best to explain why, but there gets to a stage where you repeat yourself because people believe only their suggestion matters, that their view is the only one that matters, especially of things like arty, maps, OP tanks etc. 

 

When the community management team interact with you, we are also doing this on behalf of WG and the developers, we don't always have the answers, and likewise, have to wait for this. Developers have a lot of work to do already and asking to interact on multiple platforms in different languages detracts work away from their "main job" to a job others should be doing. It's an idea I want to improve on and hopefully, we can drive this information sharing more in 2019, but I can assure you that any developer that interacts is usually swamped and you then have complaints why they don't get all the attention over another person. Let alone that the answer a developer gives, a player may not like, but that answer is the truth and is a raw answer, with business reasoning and information a player doesn't/can't have. This then affects the view, that's why it's important for community managers and the community team to be as engaging as possible (hence my forum spam and walls of text). I will try to answer any topic and give the answers I am told to give as well as pass on the information I have to share, people may not like it, but I will do it. 

 

View PostLordMuffin, on 10 January 2019 - 11:00 PM, said:

It is also the issue that WG seems to ignore all/most forwarded stuff anyway.

 

For example the Obj 268v4.

Huge parts of the community said, before release. It is to good, nerf it.

It was released. 

Huge part of the community said: It is to good, nerf it.

6 months of players saying the Obj 268 v4 bring to strong, WG manages to nerf it.

 

But that's an assumption of ignoring, not that it's prioritisation and other processes taking place. 

 

View PostSomnorila, on 11 January 2019 - 10:09 AM, said:

 

I don't really think that the game is simpler if tanks have more weak spots. I'm ok with tanks being fortresses, but only that. If you able them to take additional roles then there is no logic to the game and its rules. I don't like games where you have a lot of variation in theory because you have only one or two viable best build. I want to be able to choose whatever build i like while still where all builds are equal. A rock paper scissors where you can be whatever of them if you make it so. Not in all your battles but in the same match. I for one would rather have more draw matches than not be able to change the course of the match because my tank can't fight back or run away. Just make draws be seen as wins and be done with it. Becouse most of the bad sentiments towards draws were just because players felt they lost something, silver, xp and so on. I mean the no cap kill all bs comes exactly from players feeling they lose some xp for their grind. 

Maybe WG could make the grind less time consuming or more fun somehow. Maybe have tanks with all modules enabled but still have same xp requirement for next tanks. Or tweak MM so that players have similar level or modules installed, they all have tiers too. I don't know, just spitballing here.

 

The problem with encouraging draws is that you have the campiest game styles possible from this. You saw this from the old style WGL games, whereby a team would prefer to draw than lose, so kemp it up. 

 

 



Somnorila #20 Posted 11 January 2019 - 01:15 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 57840 battles
  • 2,224
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012

View Posteekeeboo, on 11 January 2019 - 12:05 PM, said:

The problem with encouraging draws is that you have the campiest game styles possible from this. You saw this from the old style WGL games, whereby a team would prefer to draw than lose, so kemp it up. 

 

We probably can make a distinction between game modes. WLG and Random Battles. Even if the game is the same the rules can differ a bit. But sure, to have player investment in Pro matches, same as football if you may, players should be able to play the same game in their spare time and dream of being Pro, some of them will even do make this transition.

Thing is that now we already have this difference. There are two different game modes. One with two bases, one base, attack/defend one base. And one with just attack defend one base. One is with 15 players per team one with 7. The 15 player pro battles i don't find them interesting at all. Maybe if i would gamble for who's going to win but not to watch. It's too much information, too  much movement while still really visible when things start to snowball. Snowball action is not interesting, we already said that 15-3 type of matches are not fun even if you win or lose.

 

I was talking about draw battles in Random Battles. I remember when the forum was talking about many draws where players used to take sniping positions and if the team had no scouts, bad scouts or they were dead, no one will advance because the win was decided when one team pushed and were annihilated. So the game was changed but from one problem got in to another. Vehicles needed rebalance and many didn't got around to be modified. I understand that devs more than likely didn't had time to get around them. But i'm annoyed that they still had time to bring new premiums and branches.

The bottom line is that the camping/draw problem was resolved by erasing sniping/spotting. From somewhat open maps we have more corridor like with choke points. 

I don't know, both are good and bad depending on point of view. Maybe a better choice would had been ability to chose map before pressing battle. Which will come in a certain way this year i understand. But this thing comes with its own potential problems. Like crumbled player pool which could mess up with MM and ultimately with waiting times. Or draw cries for lack of variation. I already experienced and seen reactions on same tier matches. I for one say they are good enough, granted that they take out the sense of power you get when bully a lower tier but i'd say is still more than enough variation. Would actually like to see all tiers giving same game experience. If you play tier 10 or tier 2 to still have same class and role variation. But then again why would players go up the line? I would have some ideas but not so sure are kid friendly or even that easy to implement in a fair and safe way. I like the approach poker sites take on rooms and recurrent tournaments. But there are not many games where the game economy is linked in a direct way with IRL economy. 

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users