Jump to content


My Grunge on the new MT "changes" and above all, the supertest

Supertest Improvements Ideas

  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

Poll: Would you play on the new "Sandbox"? (33 members have cast votes)

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

Would you play on the new "Sandbox"?

  1. Yes, to help the game (12 votes [36.36%])

    Percentage of vote: 36.36%

  2. Maybe, if I get something in return (3 votes [9.09%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.09%

  3. No, I don't have the time (13 votes [39.39%])

    Percentage of vote: 39.39%

  4. No, I don't have the hard drive space (1 vote [3.03%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.03%

  5. No, I don't care about these rebalances (4 votes [12.12%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.12%

Vote Hide poll

swatdennis #1 Posted 28 April 2019 - 11:36 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 11858 battles
  • 29
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

So, on the Russian server there is news about the Sandbox not quite working out:

 

https://worldoftanks.ru/ru/news/updates/430-430u-izmeneniya/
 

"The first iteration of the supertest rebalance of medium tanks has come to an end, and we have news for you. We studied the statistics and reviews and concluded that the edits of all the machines indicated earlier did not show the proper result and require further study in the next iteration of the supertest. Therefore, we will continue to test changes in AMX 30B, Leopard 1 and STB-1. Detailed specifications for the next iteration we will add later.

According to the results of the performance test of the "Object 430" and "Object 430U" will remain the same as on the main server. Edits are canceled."

 

Now, this makes me sad and at the same time pretty damn mad. For one, the population of the supertest is super low, I personally don't remember the numbers anymore, but I thought it was around 300-400 players in total. (Dont quote me on this, if it is 5000 that is still pretty bad, numbers are numbers) Saying that, that means that at max 150-200 people test things for a current playerbase of around 4M players (Wot-News shows at about 3M for RU, 750K for EU, NA being around 140K)

Well, that means that that around 0.001% of players actually deside what is happening with balance. That is pretty appaling and even if it reaches live-servers of test-servers there wont be any major changes anymore.

 

So, here is my idea to fix that problem:
How about WG just created a sandbox server (Just like with the Arty changes)?

So then everyone who wants to join can join, but you give people their CURRENT WOT accounts, so that players who actually got to T10 can play for T10 rebalances and when WG finally comes around to the lower tiers, more players can join.

This (hopefully) also stops people from premspamming 100% of the time to dilute the results. (Thinking about the CT and why I don't play on the CT all that often)

Then, WG can change the parameters every 2 weeks or so in order to keep it fresh and test more things, if they feel a tank underpreforms they can buff it, if they go too far they can also change it without any hard feelings.

My biggest problem about the Supertest is that a lot of people complain about a lot of tanks (myself included) but that there is no way for me, Freddy in his M4 or Dave the IS-7 driver to actually change anything in the game. Don't get me wrong, but I think that as an "okay" WOT player, that everyone should be part of testing. If an average Joe sees a problem that the unicum doesn't see doesnt mean the problem isn't there. Maybe there is something that I don't see but Steve in his IS-7 does.

Why should he be excluded because he is a bad player? Feedback is feedback.

And really; why should I be excluded? I want to test ALL the rebalance changes on a global scale and would commit more time into WOT as a result, why should 400 people no-one knows test the game for the masses?

 

 

Maybe this kind of turned into a rant, but I'd like to know what you lot think, if the community actually wants to be a part of major testing and if there is any way to force WG to give more players a bigger voice in testing.
 

Thanks for reading and give me your idea's on this subject.
Good luck on the battlefield and hope to see you lot there!



Nishi_Kinuyo #2 Posted 28 April 2019 - 11:40 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 9325 battles
  • 6,626
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

No, because the majority of the players in WoT barely understand the game mechanics.

I'd rather have a limited number of players with a thorough understanding doing the testing than a larger number with no understanding.

 

If WG needs larger sample sizes, they can always open up sandbox again or some such server.


Edited by Nishi_Kinuyo, 28 April 2019 - 11:41 AM.


swatdennis #3 Posted 28 April 2019 - 11:42 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 11858 battles
  • 29
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 28 April 2019 - 10:40 AM, said:

No, because the majority of the players in WoT barely understand the game mechanics.

I'd rather have a limited number of players with a thorough understanding doing the testing than a larger number with no understanding.

 

Still, if people don't understand the game mechanics, does that mean they shouldn't have fun? (Edit: in their eyes)

Edited by swatdennis, 28 April 2019 - 11:42 AM.


NUKLEAR_SLUG #4 Posted 28 April 2019 - 11:46 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 34531 battles
  • 4,881
  • [FISHY] FISHY
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015
The trouble with asking 20,000 players for their opinion on changes is that you'll get 20,000 answers.

Nishi_Kinuyo #5 Posted 28 April 2019 - 11:46 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 9325 battles
  • 6,626
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

View Postswatdennis, on 28 April 2019 - 11:42 AM, said:

 

Still, if people don't understand the game mechanics, does that mean they shouldn't have fun? (Edit: in their eyes)

If people don't understand the mechanics then they have no business testing stuff for others so the others can have fun by playing balanced tanks.

You're not out there on supertest to have fun, you're out there to make sure things get balanced properly.

And to do that you need to know how to game works.


Edited by Nishi_Kinuyo, 28 April 2019 - 11:47 AM.


swatdennis #6 Posted 28 April 2019 - 11:48 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 11858 battles
  • 29
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

View PostNUKLEAR_SLUG, on 28 April 2019 - 10:46 AM, said:

The trouble with asking 20,000 players for their opinion on changes is that you'll get 20,000 answers.

 

You don't need to know their answers, you can look at the statistics of the games, one thing WG seems to be all too good at in knowing.

You dont need to write something, you can test 99% of changes by letting people play games.

10:49 Added after 0 minutes

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 28 April 2019 - 10:46 AM, said:

If people don't understand the mechanics then they have no business testing stuff for others so the others can have fun by playing balanced tanks.

You're not out there on supertest to have fun, you're out there to make sure things get balanced properly.

And to do that you need to know how to game works.

 

I am going to be a massive B**** here, who says when someone doesn't understand the game? Who says when someone is competent or not?

Bordhaw #7 Posted 28 April 2019 - 02:18 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 15319 battles
  • 5,243
  • Member since:
    01-29-2017

View Postswatdennis, on 28 April 2019 - 10:36 AM, said:

So, on the Russian server there is news about the Sandbox not quite working out:

 

https://worldoftanks.ru/ru/news/updates/430-430u-izmeneniya/
 

"The first iteration of the supertest rebalance of medium tanks has come to an end, and we have news for you. We studied the statistics and reviews and concluded that the edits of all the machines indicated earlier did not show the proper result and require further study in the next iteration of the supertest. Therefore, we will continue to test changes in AMX 30B, Leopard 1 and STB-1. Detailed specifications for the next iteration we will add later.

According to the results of the performance test of the "Object 430" and "Object 430U" will remain the same as on the main server. Edits are canceled."

 

Now, this makes me sad and at the same time pretty damn mad. For one, the population of the supertest is super low, I personally don't remember the numbers anymore, but I thought it was around 300-400 players in total. (Dont quote me on this, if it is 5000 that is still pretty bad, numbers are numbers) Saying that, that means that at max 150-200 people test things for a current playerbase of around 4M players (Wot-News shows at about 3M for RU, 750K for EU, NA being around 140K)

Well, that means that that around 0.001% of players actually deside what is happening with balance. That is pretty appaling and even if it reaches live-servers of test-servers there wont be any major changes anymore.

 

So, here is my idea to fix that problem:
How about WG just created a sandbox server (Just like with the Arty changes)?

So then everyone who wants to join can join, but you give people their CURRENT WOT accounts, so that players who actually got to T10 can play for T10 rebalances and when WG finally comes around to the lower tiers, more players can join.

This (hopefully) also stops people from premspamming 100% of the time to dilute the results. (Thinking about the CT and why I don't play on the CT all that often)

Then, WG can change the parameters every 2 weeks or so in order to keep it fresh and test more things, if they feel a tank underpreforms they can buff it, if they go too far they can also change it without any hard feelings.

My biggest problem about the Supertest is that a lot of people complain about a lot of tanks (myself included) but that there is no way for me, Freddy in his M4 or Dave the IS-7 driver to actually change anything in the game. Don't get me wrong, but I think that as an "okay" WOT player, that everyone should be part of testing. If an average Joe sees a problem that the unicum doesn't see doesnt mean the problem isn't there. Maybe there is something that I don't see but Steve in his IS-7 does.

Why should he be excluded because he is a bad player? Feedback is feedback.

And really; why should I be excluded? I want to test ALL the rebalance changes on a global scale and would commit more time into WOT as a result, why should 400 people no-one knows test the game for the masses?

 

 

Maybe this kind of turned into a rant, but I'd like to know what you lot think, if the community actually wants to be a part of major testing and if there is any way to force WG to give more players a bigger voice in testing.
 

Thanks for reading and give me your idea's on this subject.
Good luck on the battlefield and hope to see you lot there!

 

View Postswatdennis, on 28 April 2019 - 10:36 AM, said:

So, on the Russian server there is news about the Sandbox not quite working out:

 

https://worldoftanks.ru/ru/news/updates/430-430u-izmeneniya/
 

"The first iteration of the supertest rebalance of medium tanks has come to an end, and we have news for you. We studied the statistics and reviews and concluded that the edits of all the machines indicated earlier did not show the proper result and require further study in the next iteration of the supertest. Therefore, we will continue to test changes in AMX 30B, Leopard 1 and STB-1. Detailed specifications for the next iteration we will add later.

According to the results of the performance test of the "Object 430" and "Object 430U" will remain the same as on the main server. Edits are canceled."

 

Now, this makes me sad and at the same time pretty damn mad. For one, the population of the supertest is super low, I personally don't remember the numbers anymore, but I thought it was around 300-400 players in total. (Dont quote me on this, if it is 5000 that is still pretty bad, numbers are numbers) Saying that, that means that at max 150-200 people test things for a current playerbase of around 4M players (Wot-News shows at about 3M for RU, 750K for EU, NA being around 140K)

Well, that means that that around 0.001% of players actually deside what is happening with balance. That is pretty appaling and even if it reaches live-servers of test-servers there wont be any major changes anymore.

 

So, here is my idea to fix that problem:
How about WG just created a sandbox server (Just like with the Arty changes)?

So then everyone who wants to join can join, but you give people their CURRENT WOT accounts, so that players who actually got to T10 can play for T10 rebalances and when WG finally comes around to the lower tiers, more players can join.

This (hopefully) also stops people from premspamming 100% of the time to dilute the results. (Thinking about the CT and why I don't play on the CT all that often)

Then, WG can change the parameters every 2 weeks or so in order to keep it fresh and test more things, if they feel a tank underpreforms they can buff it, if they go too far they can also change it without any hard feelings.

My biggest problem about the Supertest is that a lot of people complain about a lot of tanks (myself included) but that there is no way for me, Freddy in his M4 or Dave the IS-7 driver to actually change anything in the game. Don't get me wrong, but I think that as an "okay" WOT player, that everyone should be part of testing. If an average Joe sees a problem that the unicum doesn't see doesnt mean the problem isn't there. Maybe there is something that I don't see but Steve in his IS-7 does.

Why should he be excluded because he is a bad player? Feedback is feedback.

And really; why should I be excluded? I want to test ALL the rebalance changes on a global scale and would commit more time into WOT as a result, why should 400 people no-one knows test the game for the masses?

 

 

Maybe this kind of turned into a rant, but I'd like to know what you lot think, if the community actually wants to be a part of major testing and if there is any way to force WG to give more players a bigger voice in testing.
 

Thanks for reading and give me your idea's on this subject.
Good luck on the battlefield and hope to see you lot there!

 

So there the Common Test for a limited time for regular players

The Supertesters are all Russian

There use to be a a Sandbox server but you have to apply to have access to that and I can't even remember if that server is even a thing. 



arthurwellsley #8 Posted 28 April 2019 - 03:27 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 54185 battles
  • 4,043
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

1. I play CT when it's up to try out changes, I always have. Sometimes I even post in the appropriate forum about it.

 

2. I played the sandbox when it was up. I also seem to recollect posting about it on the appropriate forum.

 

3. I am merely an averagish skill player rather than good.

 

4. However I am "invested" in the game (playing eight years), interested in tank history and so willing to give some of my time to WG for research (test servers). Although I am average as a player I am more capable than most of expressing myself in the English language, erudite, and I am used to composing logical statements in real life. Despite all of that I have every expectation that WG has ignored every word I have posted, because all the developers in Minsk, Belarus speak Russian, and I do not post my comments in that language.

 

5. It is interesting to note that all the Supertesters are from the RU server. I would assume that there are three reasons for this (a) ease of reading the feedback for the developers, (b) the ability to "police/apply coercion" to the Supertesters more easily from that region to stop them leaking, and (c.) the RU player base is the largest and most important to WG. WG have less interest in what players in other regions think of the game, suggest about it etc, as the primary source of WG profit are the RU servers. This last point leads into why 430 and 430U will not be nerfed, and why Defender/Object 252U is seen as perfectly acceptable on RU and yet unacceptable on EU.



WindSplitter1 #9 Posted 28 April 2019 - 04:40 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 19438 battles
  • 3,523
  • [ORDEM] ORDEM
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

By the way the poll is going, I don't see why WG should mount it up when the community itself lacks the motivation.

 

Then again I comprehend since EU's input has been largely ignored. Together with the Supertest leaks fiasco.

 

Either embrace Communism Soviet Bias or find yourselves another game with a less disrespectful publisher/developer seem like the sane options as we've been dabbing on these keys longer than what we probably should.


Edited by WindSplitter1, 28 April 2019 - 04:41 PM.


250swb #10 Posted 28 April 2019 - 09:06 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 23230 battles
  • 5,613
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-23-2015

View Postswatdennis, on 28 April 2019 - 10:36 AM, said:

 

why should 400 people no-one knows test the game for the masses?

 

 

Players get invited to take part in the Sandbox for reasons of experience and balance, and whining about anything WG do isn't 'balanced'. And they aren't re balance changes you are testing on the Sandbox, they are re balance proposals, they could be complete dead ends to gather a full range of stats like any good experiment would do to confirm or deny data. The point is on the Sandbox you don't know what is for real as an idea or what is the comparison scenario, so don't imagine you are helping design the game.



Homer_J #11 Posted 28 April 2019 - 10:54 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Moderator
  • 32940 battles
  • 36,146
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

I played on a couple of the sandbox servers and IMO the idea is flawed. 

 

No matter what you do you cannot recreate the live server conditions, people will play completely differently because it's all going to be wiped in a few days/weeks anyway.

 

It would be much better if WG had a faster turnaround with changes, they could tweak one tank on the live server, get a few days worth of data then adjust it some more.  Then you don't get the situation we have had so many times where something turned out not quite as expected and it takes several months to put right.



Japualtah #12 Posted 28 April 2019 - 11:19 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 32170 battles
  • 1,321
  • Member since:
    04-20-2012

Played the Sandbox.

Understood they have no clue about what they're doing.

Not going to bother anymore.



LordMuffin #13 Posted 29 April 2019 - 06:29 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 53499 battles
  • 13,409
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011
What a surprise that the planned nerf of the Ruski mediums got cancelled.
05:30 Added after 1 minute
What a surprise that the planned nerf of the Ruski mediums got cancelled.

tajj7 #14 Posted 29 April 2019 - 11:17 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28456 battles
  • 16,728
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View Postswatdennis, on 28 April 2019 - 10:42 AM, said:

 

Still, if people don't understand the game mechanics, does that mean they shouldn't have fun? (Edit: in their eyes)

 

Not at the expense of other people's fun. 

 

Most terrible players will still have games that are fun in balanced tanks, the MM and the RNG system will ensure that anyway. 

 

Tanks don't need to be balanced to compensate for the flaws of bad players.  Terrible players in an E100 for example will still get top tier games against tier 8s, where their shots hit, they get high rolls, they bounce a lot and they'll have a good game.

 

There was no need to basically make an E100, that had no weakspots, and had a gun that didn't need to be aimed, just because terrible players can't use armour properly or aim properly. I.e. the Type 5 just made the game worse for experienced and competent players because it was so dumb and frustrating to play against, just because it was trying to make idiot players play better.

 

Whereas the meta and tank design should force idiot players to either learn and improve, or get out of the game, survival of the fittest, that is how you ensure long term health of the game and playerbase, as player competence will be higher, the players you have are more invested and committed in the game and the standard of gameplay is higher.

 

If you make everything pander for casuals, your players who try harder, who learn the game, will go, because they get bored being beaten by casuals and there is nothing to challenge them because learning is pointless if any casual can just beat you with game choice.

 

Like what is the point in learning to angle, sidescrape, hide weakspots, and learn about enemy weakspots, if any idiot can play the Type 5, sit in the open bouncing shots and still do massive damage to even the strongest armour being used correctly? 

 

You are just annoying the players who are invested in the game, and long term casuals are casuals, if they are not committed or invested in the game, they are not a good source of income.

 

Testers IMO should be the top 20-25% of players, players who have shown they are competent at the game and understand the mechanics, who have good broad experience and no clear biases. 

 

Otherwise you end up with Type 5s, you end up with light tanks being nerfed because terrible players don't understand view ranges.

 

Most of the problems with the game right now, bad maps, bad positions on maps, poorly balanced tanks etc. IMO comes from WG trying to pander to casuals and bad players, not their hard core fans who are more invested in the game. 



Cobra6 #15 Posted 29 April 2019 - 11:23 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16531 battles
  • 17,656
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

WG needs to re-open the EU super testing branch again, there is literally no valid excuse to not have one.

 

Besides, as Taj points out the average player quality of the testers is ensuring skewed bias in the balancing results as WG is balancing tanks to artificially compensate for player "badness".

"But the game wouldn't be fun if tanks were balanced only for good players" is an utter rubbish argument as the game would be more fun in general if it was properly balanced, *FOR EVERYONE*.

Tanks need to be balanced according to the best players as those are the people getting the most out of the machines so they test each tank to it's hypothetically highest potential.

 

Cobra 6

 


Edited by Cobra6, 29 April 2019 - 11:28 AM.


HundeWurst #16 Posted 29 April 2019 - 11:37 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 75605 battles
  • 4,628
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

View Postswatdennis, on 28 April 2019 - 11:48 AM, said:

 

You don't need to know their answers, you can look at the statistics of the games, one thing WG seems to be all too good at in knowing.

You dont need to write something, you can test 99% of changes by letting people play games.

10:49 Added after 0 minutes

 

I am going to be a massive B**** here, who says when someone doesn't understand the game? Who says when someone is competent or not?

 

This first statement is the reason for that much bad balancing.

 

I am not saying that balancing should not be done on statistics, no actually it very much should happen like this. However there is a seemingly neglected second part to balancing which is quality data. Aka having a look at what does a certain entity (here tank of vehicle) do with the gameplay.

I dont think WG really gives much of a thougth about that, or at the very least does not asked the playerbase about certain tanks (ok maybe the pretend by "gathering feedback" but lets be real... They dont care about it).

 

Things like the sheitbarn and the former WT E100 should have never even entered the game (same goes with the Japanese tier 9 and 10 heavies) as they are not all that healthy for the gameplay. And adding them for "diversity" reasons, even though this diversity is destructive for the game, seems to be just mindboggling stupid.

 



pecopad #17 Posted 29 April 2019 - 11:41 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29785 battles
  • 2,262
  • [UGN] UGN
  • Member since:
    09-04-2015

I honestly think that one major problem with WoT is the attachment people ha to nations,even if the customization and flags of most countries are there for players to slap them on tanks.

 

In all games there will be tanks that are in the meta, and tanks that are out of meta. I have no problems changing the game Meta, its part of the evolution, but I'm against nerfing tanks or changing lines just to fit some players agendas,specially when this rebalancing is done months after the tanks are changed.

 

Grinding a tier X tank is a big investment in time and resources, nothing more unpleasant than grinding a tank and then having it nerfed when you are near the end oft the grind, that's why I was against the first change on the 430 line (which was the high DPM tank) and was also against the re-balanced that would completely change the tanks. I'm also against the nerf on the Type's and in the FV, if they are going to change completely the tank, I was also against the change in the E5, which rendered the tank obsolete for no reason.

 

The rule should be, any regular player should be able to grind,buy or win any tank in the game... so If anyone thinks some particular tank is OP, then what he should do is grind the tank and stop complaining. Once a tank is in the game, and after a period of 2-3 months to stabilize the characteristics, it shouldn't be nerfed.

 

Discussion should be around the meta and not the national tanks.

 

To end this post, I just want to say that CW tanks are a problem now, seeing all clans fielding non grindeable tanks is a major problem in my eyes. I have nothing against CW reward tanks, providing they are not the best tanks in the game.


Edited by pecopad, 29 April 2019 - 11:46 AM.


HundeWurst #18 Posted 29 April 2019 - 11:47 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 75605 battles
  • 4,628
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

View Postpecopad, on 29 April 2019 - 11:41 AM, said:

I honestly think that one major problem with WoT is the attachment people ha to nations,even if the customization and flags of most countries are there for players to slap them on tanks.

 

In all games there will be tanks that are in the meta, and tanks that are out of meta. I have no problems changing the game Meta, its part of the evolution, but I'm against nerfing tanks or changing lines just to fit some players agendas,specially when this rebalancing is done months after the tanks are changed.

 

Grinding a tier X tank is a big investment in time and resources, nothing more unpleasant than grinding a tank and then having it nerfed when you are near the end oft the grind, that's why I was against the first change on the 430 line (which was the high DPM tank) and was also against the re-balanced that would completely change the tanks.

 

The rule should be, any regular player should be able to grind,buy or win any tank in the game... so If anyone thinks some particular tank is OP, then what he should do is grind the tank and stop complaining.

 

Discussion should be around the meta and not the national tanks.

 

To end this post, I just want to say that CW tanks are a problem now, seeing all clans fielding non grindeable tanks is a major problem in my eyes. I have nothing against CW reward tanks, providing they are not the best tanks in the game.

 

This is such a stupid comment, I cant even....

If you do that then your game dies in mere month. Any of WGs so precious "diversity" is gone in seconds? Do you know why people dislike the tier 10 ranked battles so much? Because only a handfull of tanks can be played. And that is boring.

So no. Balancing should come first. If WG would actually care for it and not abuse it for additional monetisation you would not even need to think twice which line to grind as every like would be just as good as another but different in its playstyle.



Cobra6 #19 Posted 29 April 2019 - 12:35 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16531 battles
  • 17,656
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View PostHundeWurst, on 29 April 2019 - 10:47 AM, said:

So no. Balancing should come first. If WG would actually care for it and not abuse it for additional monetisation you would not even need to think twice which line to grind as every like would be just as good as another but different in its playstyle.

 

It's funny because you describe exactly what WoT used to be back in 2010-2012'ish when it was just Ger / RU / US trees, each unique in their play style and due to the big difference in accuracy each with their own strength and weaknesses.

 

Funny and tragic at the same time that it's fallen so much since then. 

 

Cobra 6



BlackBloodBandit #20 Posted 29 April 2019 - 12:41 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 7537 battles
  • 808
  • Member since:
    12-23-2018

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 28 April 2019 - 11:46 AM, said:

If people don't understand the mechanics then they have no business testing stuff for others so the others can have fun by playing balanced tanks.

You're not out there on supertest to have fun, you're out there to make sure things get balanced properly.

And to do that you need to know how to game works.

a lot of supertesters have no clue about the game. not strange that a lot of changes they proposed, or things that they said were "balanced" are received negatively by the community and also by a lot of CC's.


Edited by BlackBloodBandit, 29 April 2019 - 12:43 PM.






Also tagged with Supertest, Improvements, Ideas

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users