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

WindSplitter1 #21 Posted 29 April 2019 - 08:51 PM


  • Player
  • 20414 battles
  • 3,640
  • Member since:

View Posttajj7, on 29 April 2019 - 10:17 AM, said:


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. 


View PostCobra6, on 29 April 2019 - 10:23 AM, said:

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



Exactly these two points.


And spot on, Taj.

Also tagged with Supertest, Improvements, Ideas

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users