Jump to content


Don't you think World of Tanks changes much to slow?


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

Ancybot #1 Posted 11 September 2019 - 08:53 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 21028 battles
  • 641
  • Member since:
    11-09-2014
Hi guys,
Lastly i was started thinking what is wrong with this game for couple of last years and why it loses its power besides its age. I feel like all changes in this game are too slow. Every sandbox or idea takes years to get brought into life. Even games with huge esport community do not "check" their ideas as long as World of Tanks, which is dead as esport and has corrupted balance by the way.

The question is, if there is no real risk in making changes in game faster, why they don't speed up to react for changes on whole gaming industry and community voices. It's quite obvious that Word of Tanks is evolving too slow comparing to other games making it unattractive to players

Some of things
1. Very bad entry level feeling. I brought couple of friends to game, but they got kicked off game after 500 games due to playing against experienced players with 20k battles and premium tank seaclubers
2. Rankeds going 24/7 is one of the things making games popular ->check games like Rainbow6 siege it was in very bad stats, but constant changes to make game fit into player expectations made this game grow constantly and it's already in top 5 played games on steam only, while uplay platform was another at least double of that count. People want ranked games to test their skill against others which boosts interest - OK WE HAVE """""RANKEDS"""""  but it's some kind of TESTING in seasons, which is an absolute joke in these times

3. Sandbox tested changes are getting introduced too being late Why is it so hard to put sandbox changes into life? Because game changes too slow on live, which makes a huge gap, which must be neutralized by big update tested on sandbox, but it takes a lot of time to check such massive changes and finally, changes from sandbox get on live servers with new gap already, then again. Development slows down, nothing happens and gap again becomes HUGE and another sandbox is needed with huge changes, which needs another year to test, so another huge gap appears

My conclusion
Actually i feel that whole sandbox existence in this form is a result of being to slow on game development in general. It's a way to fix this lack of development, but it will never work ,because this kind of changes is always late for about a year

And people leave

@ED
Actually simmilar issue touched CSGO. Valve didnt really do nothing serious with it for 3 years now. They added "battle royale" and made it F2P, but actually nothing changed, they expected that it will be a huge boost, but it didnt. One of the most popular games ever started dying and even making it f2p didn't really boost it's state. People found their evolution of csgo in R6 Siege

Edited by Ancybot, 11 September 2019 - 09:13 AM.


NoobySkooby #2 Posted 11 September 2019 - 09:58 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 17032 battles
  • 5,011
  • [D3NK] D3NK
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011
Unless a glutton for punishment,why would anyone play low tiers,let alone this game at all?

Stevies_Team #3 Posted 11 September 2019 - 10:36 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 12616 battles
  • 1,240
  • Member since:
    07-14-2016
IMO The entire industry in the west moves fast but in Russia things are a bit more sedate

I_Gutmensch_Deluxe_I #4 Posted 11 September 2019 - 10:49 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 18414 battles
  • 267
  • [NASO] NASO
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

WoT changed to much... its way to fast.

Racecars with Laserguns, Power creep...



PayMore #5 Posted 11 September 2019 - 11:01 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 27513 battles
  • 794
  • Member since:
    05-24-2013

 I dont want rainbow colours, or cartoon anime styled tanks, just fixx IS4 and E100!

 

Dont ever change WG!



JCD3nton #6 Posted 11 September 2019 - 12:01 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 27794 battles
  • 287
  • Member since:
    11-29-2013

WG is making so much money by abusing broken game mechanics. That's why they are doing everything to postpone fixing real problems of this game. Because balance is bad for business. Sandbox is there to give you the idea that "they are working on things."


Edited by JCD3nton, 11 September 2019 - 02:17 PM.


TungstenHitman #7 Posted 11 September 2019 - 12:03 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 30631 battles
  • 5,770
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

Generally yes. On some areas I understand why they will be slow to adjust something, like lets say new maps, where it's inevitable everyone is going to cry and whine about how they are terrible, since new maps are new and scary to established players and there's just no way players could have possible explored these new maps properly and so these players are complaining about things they don't yet properly understand so there's not point to make fast changes in these cases until players have lived with them for a proper sample size of battles, a proper duration of time and THEN if it's clear there is a genuine issue, make the changes, but not any sooner.

 

Problem is, there are parts of this game, map failings, OP, broken tanks, faults etc that have either become undeniably obvious after an adequate amount of time and sample size, or were just immediately obvious from the start to everyone, and yet they STILL don't make the changes or took way too long, needlessly. They should have enough experience and data to know where and what goes wrong or needs fixing, is doing too well, is not doing well enough, is a bad location for a cap, is blocking too many shots for its role, isn't blocking enough, is doing too much damage, isn't doing enough etc etc to not need these lengthy delays to make the right changes though, so it just comes across as sloppy, amateurish and at times, clueless... all of which removes any confidence or trust I would place in this company with the consequence being, I don't run a premium account where I certainly would have if I was confident this company knew what they were doing and could be trusted to invest in a long term premium account which would obviously be the best value. As it stands, I don't and ... I don't lol. 



VarzA #8 Posted 11 September 2019 - 12:05 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 26314 battles
  • 2,015
  • [USAGI] USAGI
  • Member since:
    06-17-2011

View PostAncybot, on 11 September 2019 - 08:53 AM, said:

My conclusion
Actually i feel that whole sandbox existence in this form is a result of being to slow on game development in general. It's a way to fix this lack of development, but it will never work ,because this kind of changes is always late for about a year

And people leave

@ED
Actually simmilar issue touched CSGO. Valve didnt really do nothing serious with it for 3 years now. They added "battle royale" and made it F2P, but actually nothing changed, they expected that it will be a huge boost, but it didnt. One of the most popular games ever started dying and even making it f2p didn't really boost it's state. People found their evolution of csgo in R6 Siege

 

Changes very fast when it affects their bottom line, otherwise ... yes.



Balc0ra #9 Posted 11 September 2019 - 01:16 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 72911 battles
  • 20,718
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

1: There was a new player protection system. But if they could not face 20K players, then you could not join them either and have to make an alt account to join them. And thus... why WG did feel the new player protection they had was mostly pointless.

 

2: Yes it worked for R6. But that doesn't mean ranked will be a good fix for every game. And tbh I'm not too sure it would be the magical fix for this game to make the same impact. That and R6 is a better spectator sport if you will. WOT never was, ranked 24/7 won't fix that aspect and make it more interesting to watch.

 

3: Most changes take time for a reason. As if the players on sandbox don't like it. Or feel it's not working. It won't make it to CT for us to test, and they start again or even cancel the idea. And somethings don't even make it past CT that was planned for a live release in a few weeks due to bad feedback there. Last one is rare, but has happened. 



Ancybot #10 Posted 11 September 2019 - 01:37 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 21028 battles
  • 641
  • Member since:
    11-09-2014
You unnecessarily focus on esport aspect in 2nd point. It's not the case. It's about changes that revive game. Noone watched rainbow6 on twitch and WOT was always in top 10 watched. Now it turned. No suprise, WOT dosn't evolve. It stopped long time ago and nothing changed if we cut off moneygrabs. Nothing big happened in wot, which could make some positive impact

Do users test such changes in other games? Y, there is PTR like public test in wot, but other games dont need sandbox because these games are constantly developed. WOT development is a joke. It stands in place for years and then devs are trying to fix that by huge changes tested for another year /-s. In correct game development such thing as sandbox shouldn't exist, because all changes would be introduced fluently to make game better. Changes come in smaller parts and community gives their feedback on each part which results in constant growth. Even esport games do that, while it's much more vulnerable to changes. WOT is totally dead esport wise, devs decided to totally kill it instead of trying to look at feedback of pro players - it lasted years and everything said by pro scene got totally ignored. The problem is, people want to play games which have esport in good condition. Killing esport in game means game starts dying. Noone streams it, new players stop coming, old players start getting bored and game falls

Edited by Ancybot, 11 September 2019 - 01:40 PM.


unhappy_bunny #11 Posted 11 September 2019 - 05:43 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 19810 battles
  • 3,530
  • [-OC-] -OC-
  • Member since:
    08-01-2012

View PostAncybot, on 11 September 2019 - 12:37 PM, said:

You unnecessarily focus on esport aspect in 2nd point. It's not the case. It's about changes that revive game. Noone watched rainbow6 on twitch and WOT was always in top 10 watched. Now it turned. No suprise, WOT dosn't evolve. It stopped long time ago and nothing changed if we cut off moneygrabs. Nothing big happened in wot, which could make some positive impact

Do users test such changes in other games? Y, there is PTR like public test in wot, but other games dont need sandbox because these games are constantly developed. WOT development is a joke. It stands in place for years and then devs are trying to fix that by huge changes tested for another year /-s. In correct game development such thing as sandbox shouldn't exist, because all changes would be introduced fluently to make game better. Changes come in smaller parts and community gives their feedback on each part which results in constant growth. Even esport games do that, while it's much more vulnerable to changes. WOT is totally dead esport wise, devs decided to totally kill it instead of trying to look at feedback of pro players - it lasted years and everything said by pro scene got totally ignored. The problem is, people want to play games which have esport in good condition. Killing esport in game means game starts dying. Noone streams it, new players stop coming, old players start getting bored and game falls


I can agree with some aspects of your post but I disagree with others. 

I can see that some people will like the esport aspect of games. I do not think that people play a game because of it's esport aspect though. People play games for various reasons. Just as some people like to watch streamers, others don't. Personally, I would prefer to play the game than to watch others playing it, although I have watched the occasional stream in order to learn from it. And, correct me if I am wrong, there are quite a number of people who do stream WoT. 

However, you are right in one thing. IF there are no new players coming into the game, then numbers will drop as older players drift away. 

I am not an expert in game design so I cannot directly compare the development on WoT against other games, but I feel, and it is only a feeling, that WoT differs greatly to other games. Things like the vehicles and the maps, I would think, need a lot more testing to ensure they work in the way the designers imagine them, than some of the updates to many of the esports orientated games do. 



Flicka #12 Posted 12 September 2019 - 03:34 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 23427 battles
  • 211
  • [CELL] CELL
  • Member since:
    10-25-2011

I think the speed is fine, but the mistakes do take a bit longer to fix then they should have.

The core of the game stayed the same through all it's years, tanks fighting tanks.

Some tanks being OP does not ruin the game as much as in other games where somethin new and "OP" is accessible to almost everybody from the start.

The stats they use to "balance" stuff are quite special, it takes time to see how much something is causing a problem, and at the end they are skewed by the skill of the players playing them.

Take the new clan chieftain, it is a really powerful tank, but in the wrong circumstances is as useless as any other decent same tier tank.

I would like to see more brave changes to the game, more risk taken, and if it doesn't work just revert it.

Prime example are the special ammo changes, at the moment I don't not see anything that will benefit anyone except WG in finances. But we will probably see changes like that go live. 

And I am ok with that, it's just that if it is so obvious to everybody that they do not work, that they just get reverted, and something new is tested.

What I am scared of the the old politicians trick, people are unhappy, you say you will raise taxes by 20% and they all riot, then you say ok, I'll just raise them 10% and the people settle down, without even realizing you just raised the taxes by 10%.



250swb #13 Posted 12 September 2019 - 03:58 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 23230 battles
  • 5,612
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-23-2015

View PostAncybot, on 11 September 2019 - 07:53 AM, said:

The question is, if there is no real risk in making changes in game faster, why they don't speed up to react for changes on whole gaming industry and community voices. It's quite obvious that Word of Tanks is evolving too slow comparing to other games making it unattractive to players
 

 

Here is how it works. A new player joins WoT and after a few battles they find they like it and decide to stick around and devote some time to playing better and enjoying what the game offers. After some more time they see some changes have been made to the game and these are enough for the player to decide that it isn't the same game they once enjoyed. So they decide to leave the game. As soon as you understand that simple principle then all the subsequent moans and complaints about things like wheeled vehicles, new game modes that don't work for the player, etc. fall into place and make sense, players do not want the game to radically 'evolve', they want to play the same game they started out loving.



Homer_J #14 Posted 12 September 2019 - 04:12 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 32461 battles
  • 35,428
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostAncybot, on 11 September 2019 - 08:53 AM, said:


3. Sandbox tested changes are getting introduced too being late Why is it so hard to put sandbox changes into life?

Could it be that when they tested the ideas they found out that we were right all along and the unintended consequences were worse than the current situation?



Gkirmathal #15 Posted 13 September 2019 - 08:38 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8602 battles
  • 1,708
  • [2VTD] 2VTD
  • Member since:
    01-14-2013
It changes at a glacial and non-agile pace.
Especially regarding content balance, that gets changed even slower, compared to the overall products evolution.

Nethraniel #16 Posted 13 September 2019 - 08:46 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 14542 battles
  • 2,571
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    05-30-2012

View PostGkirmathal, on 13 September 2019 - 08:38 AM, said:

It changes at a glacial and non-agile pace.
Especially regarding content balance, that gets changed even slower, compared to the overall products evolution.

Actually, balancing changes are the only real concern I have. I would appreciate much more changes to existing tanks (including Premiums) and maps, instead of new additions. But this is me, daydreaming. 



Kohlebagger #17 Posted 13 September 2019 - 08:21 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 19728 battles
  • 36
  • Member since:
    08-26-2012
no need to balance or introduce a new meta when there is no active, big e-sports scene

Ancybot #18 Posted 13 September 2019 - 09:41 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 21028 battles
  • 641
  • Member since:
    11-09-2014
They killed it themselves. But why would anyone complain when now they can place 3x more premium tanks for 50 eur in shop

I remember when we played ESL and it just went gone. Admins said that WG cancelled all brackets, they also didnt listen pro players who told many times about issues of game

It was easier to murder it instead of fixing game. More premiums solve problem. Money >>> community

BeefCrtinBandit #19 Posted 13 September 2019 - 10:59 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 7204 battles
  • 702
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    05-03-2016
i don't think it changes too slow but on the contrary. This company including their ships section, tends to want to throw so many things into the ring that they don't focus enough on gameplay, rewards and balance.  The more they put into it, the harder it is to balance. I get that it's a business and they have to make money but ffs.  Just look at successful franchises like WoW.  I know it's got it's faults as well but the game has unprecedented longevity and endless things to do even being a grind fest. The older this game gets, the worse it becomes because they want to ignore the important things. It's like they're playing a great short game but their long game is terrible.  I mean look at the next season of FL. It starts on a Monday and not the weekend to profit from the most?  Are *edited running this thing?

Edited by flashmove_iron, 14 September 2019 - 10:22 AM.
*This post has been edited by the moderation team due to disrespectful comments.


Dorander #20 Posted 13 September 2019 - 11:21 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 21025 battles
  • 6,041
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostBeefCrtinBandit, on 13 September 2019 - 09:59 PM, said:

i don't think it changes too slow but on the contrary. This company including their ships section, tends to want to throw so many things into the ring that they don't focus enough on gameplay, rewards and balance.  The more they put into it, the harder it is to balance. I get that it's a business and they have to make money but ffs.  Just look at successful franchises like WoW.  I know it's got it's faults as well but the game has unprecedented longevity and endless things to do even being a grind fest. The older this game gets, the worse it becomes because they want to ignore the important things. It's like they're playing a great short game but their long game is terrible.  I mean look at the next season of FL. It starts on a Monday and not the weekend to profit from the most?  Are *edited running this thing?

 

Er.... you realize that FL lasts a full week so if it starts on a Monday it ends at the end of a weekend, and that every week of seven days only gets to have one weekend in it?

 

Yeah WoW has longevity but then anything that's still alive does. "Unprecedented" is a bit hard to say, there's quite possibly a game out there still alive that's been around longer. "Unprecedented" within its niche maybe, but then, that can be said of WoT as well. Let's not forget that WoW has, much like WoT, faced massive population drops as well as most of the complaints and doom-predictions we typically see on this forum. It turns out that it's pretty difficult to predict the longevity of a game.

 

When it comes to WoT and changes I think most people are less concerned with the speed of changes and more concerned with what's being changed. There seems to be a large focus on content and convenience changes, but not so much a focus on fixing long-term problems. Some of those might be complex situations that take a lot of time and effort to fix but it frequently seems from the playerside that it just got shoved to the bottom of the priority list or simply completely off it.


Edited by flashmove_iron, 14 September 2019 - 10:23 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users