Jump to content


Tiers - Subdivision and slow revision: Proposal


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

eekeeboo #21 Posted 11 January 2019 - 02:04 PM

    English Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 45835 battles
  • 918
  • Member since:
    07-25-2010

View PostSomnorila, on 11 January 2019 - 12:15 PM, said:

 

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. 

 

 

You can make the distinction, but if you want to encourage draws in the way they were, that's what you can expect. You tend not to have that encouragement with the loss of xp, but you will still get people who would rather draw than win, those games are a nightmare to play! 

 

For attacking and defending you see the onus on attackers to win, defenders just gotta no mess up. But there's always a winner. 

 

As a game company with the need to make money, you will always find content to sell, or you won't remain alive as a game for much longer. And for choosing map, you'd end up with say every heavy clicking city map, every arty clicking open map and the queue times would go through the roof, something the MM was intended to fix. 

 

As you say and I'm glad to see you understand the difficulty in fixing these "issues" for all players, when you know no matter what you do, you'll alienate someone :( 



LordMuffin #22 Posted 11 January 2019 - 02:17 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 48529 battles
  • 11,440
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

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

 

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. 

 

 

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

 

 

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. 

 

 

It was obvious to everyone except WG balance department that the obj 268 v4 would be OP if released with the supposed stats.



ApocalypseSquad #23 Posted 11 January 2019 - 02:33 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 26855 battles
  • 2,149
  • Member since:
    07-31-2011
…..I actually quite like the concept - a sort of auto-balancing mechanism with some embedded compensation for those playing the weaker tanks in their tier.  I would stop short of promotion/demotion between tiers though, and certainly wouldn't leave gaps.  Imagine the horror of having to grind through all the way through to T8 in the ARL V39 or the Churchill GC, for example....

eekeeboo #24 Posted 11 January 2019 - 07:34 PM

    English Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 45835 battles
  • 918
  • Member since:
    07-25-2010

View PostLordMuffin, on 11 January 2019 - 01:17 PM, said:

It was obvious to everyone except WG balance department that the obj 268 v4 would be OP if released with the supposed stats.

 

The same as it was obvious to everyone that other tanks were OP broken going to ruin the game, end of the world OP before release, that turned out otherwise. That's why it's important to not just panic because the tank looks like it overperforms on a test server. 

 

It's better to not over nerf on release than end up with a tank no one is interested in. 



fighting_falcon93 #25 Posted 11 January 2019 - 10:29 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32139 battles
  • 4,310
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View Posteekeeboo, on 11 January 2019 - 07:34 PM, said:

It's better to not over nerf on release than end up with a tank no one is interested in. 

 

Sorry, but I don't agree. It's better to release a branch that very few people are interested in, because it's too weak, rather than release a branch that almost everyone rush-research because it's too strong, and then some months later you nerf the vehicles. How do you think it feels for the players that get their newly unlocked toy nerfed? I understand that WG as a company want to make money, but not at the expense of quality. If a branch turns out to be too weak, you can always buff it and almost nobody will complain. Buffing is a lot easier than nerfing.



LordMuffin #26 Posted 14 January 2019 - 09:34 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 48529 battles
  • 11,440
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View Posteekeeboo, on 11 January 2019 - 07:34 PM, said:

 

The same as it was obvious to everyone that other tanks were OP broken going to ruin the game, end of the world OP before release, that turned out otherwise. That's why it's important to not just panic because the tank looks like it overperforms on a test server. 

 

It's better to not over nerf on release than end up with a tank no one is interested in. 

You got 1 example where a huge part of the guys on this forums said that a tank was going to be OP and it turned out not to be?

 

Otherwise you are just fabricating arguments.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users