Jump to content


Restricted access to tanks balancing

Restrict access balance rate

  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

Schepel #21 Posted 17 September 2019 - 10:49 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 65859 battles
  • 3,739
  • Member since:
    05-13-2013

View PostFlicka, on 17 September 2019 - 09:53 AM, said:

But wouldn't removing of some vehicles from the game in itself influence other vehicles performance, and just skew the statistics.

 

Look at it this way, if you take away all the bad vehicles to good ones would get balanced just by that, because everybody would just play those, and then the players themselves would be the balancing factor.

All we have now is the global winrate, and it is already wrong because it takes the winrate of the vehicle itself, not the players playing it, so you still have some vehicles that are really powerful but statistically balanced cause they are played mostly by bad players. 

WG have all the statistics they need to balance the game, but the really poor player base and the environment they created over the years just makes the game hard to balance.

 

WG have allowed the Russian server to determine what tanks to 'rebalance' and how. They probably think they are doing a jood job listening to their customers, but it is the worst thing that could ever happen. By and large, the customer simply doesn't know what is good for him. He wants his favourite tank to be OP and forgets other people will be playing in it, too. (The same would happen if they would listen to us, sadly. We'd just favour different tanks, but the call to buff/nerf is mostly dominated by which tank one was killed last.)



Flicka #22 Posted 17 September 2019 - 11:12 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 23427 battles
  • 221
  • [CELL] CELL
  • Member since:
    10-25-2011

Yeah, that is what I meant, they have the statistics and can do all the balancing according to that.

Long time ago armor was the balancing factor, something made that one irrelevant..wonder what.

Can not see how they will ever fix the gameplay issues, really cant.

None of the changes we have incoming will do anything significant to improve the gameplay.

Guess catering to their skill diminishing playerbase just made the game kinda hard to enjoy.



CmdRatScabies #23 Posted 17 September 2019 - 11:16 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 38551 battles
  • 5,214
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015

View PostSchepel, on 17 September 2019 - 10:49 AM, said:

 

They probably think they are doing a good job listening to their customers, but it is the worst thing that could ever happen. By and large, the customer simply doesn't know what is good for him.

Very true.  Not to say that you don't listen to what customers feedback but you don't just do what they say and expect to come out of it with anything other than short term iterations on what you already have.



Flicka #24 Posted 17 September 2019 - 11:29 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 23427 battles
  • 221
  • [CELL] CELL
  • Member since:
    10-25-2011

Can somebody bring out Leo1 and STB stats pre and post changes.

From the forums it seems those changes made the tanks better, and quite playable without making them the same as every other.

And did that improve their global wr or not.

All I can say that from the patch I saw alot if horrible Leo1 and Type61 plays, hoooooooorrible...

Imagine a system that takes the global wr of a tank and adds/substracts the difference from 50% to that tan statistics.

Like if a tank is at 47% wr it gets a 3x3% boost to all characteristics. Crazy crapaint it.



SaintMaddenus #25 Posted 17 September 2019 - 11:43 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 38505 battles
  • 2,694
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    03-04-2011

"the customer simply doesn't know what is good for him."

My motto at work is "never underestimate the stupidity of the customer"   and to quote someone else "there is no such thing as "common" sense. "


 



Whisky_Tango #26 Posted 17 September 2019 - 12:05 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 9252 battles
  • 247
  • Member since:
    09-14-2013

View PostInstallingPatience, on 16 September 2019 - 02:59 PM, said:

What about losing access to certain tanks once an overall win ratio gets above a certain level say 50% in randoms you lose access to defender, above 55% lose access to 430U.... or along those lines. Tanks with highest win rate are rotated in sequence so 'balancing' can be maintained. You can on a prem account select 1 tank to exclude maybe so regaining access to one of the above.

Not sure if it has been tried or mentioned as can't find similar on forums so correct me if I've missed it.

Just a shower thought...

WOT u think?:popcorn:

so you are saying that if a player who have the knowledge and doing good in battles should have restricted acces to the tanks ?!! are you mad ??? 

how about **FLOOR IS LAVA** for players with 46% like you.... plz stay in the shadows and spare add new topic option for someone who is doing something more productive ...



Orkbert #27 Posted 17 September 2019 - 03:36 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 28364 battles
  • 2,184
  • Member since:
    08-29-2013

Oh, and another problem of the suggestion:

 

The inherent threat of not being able to play a tank bought with money would surely effect further sales.

 

We all know the occasional 100€ Package where you get a Pz.II J on top of a heap of gold. Now who would get that package if there were a risk that you can't play with the included tank?

 

Not to mention all those tierVIII premiums. There would surely be a number of customers who would decide against spending 40+€ for a tank that they can't play whenever they want.

 

Would the OP please elaborate how Wargaming should compensate those losses?

 

 

 

 



LordMuffin #28 Posted 17 September 2019 - 05:43 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 53493 battles
  • 13,409
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View PostSchepel, on 17 September 2019 - 10:49 AM, said:

 

WG have allowed the Russian server to determine what tanks to 'rebalance' and how. They probably think they are doing a jood job listening to their customers, but it is the worst thing that could ever happen. By and large, the customer simply doesn't know what is good for him. He wants his favourite tank to be OP and forgets other people will be playing in it, too. (The same would happen if they would listen to us, sadly. We'd just favour different tanks, but the call to buff/nerf is mostly dominated by which tank one was killed last.)

If you remove everyone outside top 1% from having influence on balance discussion, you should do fairly well.



CmdRatScabies #29 Posted 17 September 2019 - 07:48 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 38551 battles
  • 5,214
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015

View PostLordMuffin, on 17 September 2019 - 05:43 PM, said:

If you remove everyone outside top 1% from having influence on balance discussion, you should do fairly well.

That approach would probably be the fastest way to a game that no one plays anymore.



LordMuffin #30 Posted 17 September 2019 - 08:24 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 53493 battles
  • 13,409
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View PostCmdRatScabies, on 17 September 2019 - 07:48 PM, said:

That approach would probably be the fastest way to a game that no one plays anymore.

No.

It would be a fast way to a rather balanced game though.



CmdRatScabies #31 Posted 17 September 2019 - 08:55 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 38551 battles
  • 5,214
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015

View PostLordMuffin, on 17 September 2019 - 08:24 PM, said:

No.

It would be a fast way to a rather balanced game though.

A balanced game that hardly anyone wanted to play.  No reason to think that being good at the game means knowing how to design a game.  Didn't WG make that mistake when they hired an ex player to balance tanks a couple of years back?



LordMuffin #32 Posted 18 September 2019 - 10:50 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 53493 battles
  • 13,409
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View PostCmdRatScabies, on 17 September 2019 - 08:55 PM, said:

A balanced game that hardly anyone wanted to play.  No reason to think that being good at the game means knowing how to design a game.  Didn't WG make that mistake when they hired an ex player to balance tanks a couple of years back?

Well, 1 player doesn't provide good feedback on how to create good gameplay however good he is, as that guy showed.



tajj7 #33 Posted 18 September 2019 - 11:05 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28261 battles
  • 16,506
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostCmdRatScabies, on 17 September 2019 - 07:55 PM, said:

A balanced game that hardly anyone wanted to play.  No reason to think that being good at the game means knowing how to design a game.  Didn't WG make that mistake when they hired an ex player to balance tanks a couple of years back?

 

He was a bad ex player, Muffin has a fair point, how can people that cannot grasp or understand the game mechanics, get certain tanks to work, have little knowledge of the game balance the game?

 

I think the reason we have such poor balance now and such a clear bias towards forgiving/easy mode mechanics, whilst tanks like lights are butchered to uselessness is in large parts due to the RU super test community containing a lot of bad/below average players.  That is the only explanation I can give to tank like the Bobject going through super test and coming out the state it came out in and tanks like the British lights going through and coming out the state they came out in. The super testers are very clearly largely bad players who favour heavies/armour and need that forgiving nature of OP armour to do competently at the game, so give a pass to clearly too good tanks because they don't have the skill and game knowledge to recognise how powerful these tanks can be when some skill and knowledge is applied to them. 

 

Thus making it a pre-requisite that people involved in shaping the balance and strength of a tank should have a decent level of skill and knowledge to properly assess that tank in the first place to know what impact it would have on the game.

 

That is IMO, based on what has come out of the super test, is clearly lacking from the super testers, at the very least IMO no one sub 51-52% should be testing tanks for balance IMO. 

 

-----------------------------------

 

As for the OP's point or at least Muffin's interpretation of the OP's point, I think that would be a good idea, you could at least do it with non-premiums, take them out of the game whilst you balance them.

 

But IMO they could just balance them faster, like I said in another thread, have a CTE, do balance changes there, quickly test them and roll them out, if they don't work make changes in another patch, keep trying to fix the game like that. From what I understand LOLs works like that, if a hero or whatever they are called is too good or too bad they are quickly patched in micro-patched, so the game is constantly updated trying to achieve good balance. 


Why can't WG just do that? 

 

Patch the 430U, nerf it down, see how it does, if its too much buff it up again.

 

I saw in the recent WGFest Q&A that they said the 430U proposed nerfs weren't the right ones so they cancelled them because they didn't want a cycle of nerfs and buffs, but surely a potential cycle of buff and nerfs is more preferable to the playerbase than just letting OP tanks run riot for months and months, whilst underpowered tanks just sit uselessly gathering dust in the garage.

 

I'd much rather WG tired to nerf OP tanks and get it wrong, than not do anything at all. Who cares if the 430U became a little weak for a month or so? How is that a worse scenario than it being too strong for over a year? 


Edited by tajj7, 18 September 2019 - 11:08 AM.


Flicka #34 Posted 18 September 2019 - 11:27 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 23427 battles
  • 221
  • [CELL] CELL
  • Member since:
    10-25-2011

LOL does indeed change heroes rather quickly, in most cases. But LOL also has test servers where people actually try to play the same as on normal server.

We don't have that here, Test Serves are just a cesspool of human behaviour, making the process so much harder.

No idea what supertesters are doing, but clearly most of them are not playing the same game as us, also have a feeling that a lot of them changed over the years, so there are probably just the same players that do not get the test server, and why it is there.

 

Hey, remember when test server was like just tier X spamming gold because the huge amount of credits and gold, and players said it was impossible to actually test because of the G spam.

Well, atleast today the test server G spam is really close to live server...………...:sceptic:



CmdRatScabies #35 Posted 18 September 2019 - 11:37 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 38551 battles
  • 5,214
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015

View Posttajj7, on 18 September 2019 - 11:05 AM, said:

Thus making it a pre-requisite that people involved in shaping the balance and strength of a tank should have a decent level of skill and knowledge to properly assess that tank in the first place to know what impact it would have on the game.

Although I don't like what they've been doing with tank balance I think it depends on who they are balancing the tanks for and what game play they are going for.  I don't like it but I suspect they have a plan.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users