Jump to content


'Give a man a fish........


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
177 replies to this topic

tajj7 #1 Posted 29 April 2020 - 05:04 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29617 battles
  • 17,927
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

*
POPULAR

............he will eat for a day. Teach a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime'

 

Block Quote

 Corridors, powerful closed positions on maps – such things are needed by certain players at a certain skill level in the game. And, if there are none, it will be very difficult for such players

 

https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2020/04/28/wot-egor-rodionov-stream-qa-28th-april-2020/

 

Yes,if you give a bad/new player an idiot proof position they might, once in a while have a good game because of it, but they are not going to learn anything. 

 

That above quote later says - 

 

Block Quote

 Plus, not all maps in the game are all the same corridors.

 

Which is true, but it also undermines the original point. We have a playerbase that, is bad, IMO a lot worse than it used to be, and not every map is a corridor, not every spot is a base line camping position that holds all advantages, not every tank these players play is a Bobject or Japanese heavy.

 

What all these idiot proof/dumbing down elements you have put into the game have done, is breed players, that are, when outside of these positions/maps/vehicles designed to compensate for their lack of ability, are completely clueless and fail hard because the game has not forced them to learn how to play without stabilisers. 

 

So not only do you not achieve the goal of not making it 'difficult for such players' but you also royally annoy your other players who have learnt the game, invested time etc. but lose to clueless players just because of poor design/balance.

 

So instead of changing/designing maps, positions and vehicles to compensate for lack of learning/skill (something I don't think was really in the game was originally, it's success in part lies with a steep learning curve that has kept players playing for thousands of battles) why don't you instead concentrate on things that might teach players how to play, improve and incentivise them to do that, and reward that learning and skill? 

 

Seems a better long term approach for the game, especially as it seemed to work previously. 

 



_GrooziN_ #2 Posted 29 April 2020 - 05:12 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 3616 battles
  • 139
  • Member since:
    01-10-2020

I see daily so many players that learned nothing over the course of 10-15-20 thousands battles that I have no hope. Don't know if you can blame the devs for tailoring the gaming experience to the needs of representatives of this population of gamers. 

 

What you described is clearly visible on maps like Prokhorovka, when once you get 2 clueless teams you have 3/4 of players camping 1 line and the rest running like headless chickens.

 

Still, I can't see a solution for this in the current stage of the game development, when all what they do is push players to get to high tiers faster. Heck, I have 3k games and alread have 6 tier 9s unlocked...



sid257 #3 Posted 29 April 2020 - 05:13 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 46722 battles
  • 385
  • [SYFY] SYFY
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011
:popcorn:

T3ddyBear #4 Posted 29 April 2020 - 05:14 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 28427 battles
  • 101
  • [-G0M-] -G0M-
  • Member since:
    02-20-2014

But there's no money in teaching, ask any teacher.

 

Far easier for WG to keep making corridor maps, throwing new players in to the proverbial meat grinder against those same super heavies, bobjects, 279e's and chieftans, leaving the players to resort to gold ammo, not realising it has no effect other than making your wallet lighter.

 

Asking WG to actually address the host of issues in the current game is like asking King Canute to hold back the tide (he failed miserably too).

 

TB.

 



LethalWalou #5 Posted 29 April 2020 - 05:20 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 35446 battles
  • 3,232
  • [OISPA] OISPA
  • Member since:
    09-17-2012

View Post_GrooziN_, on 29 April 2020 - 04:12 PM, said:

I see daily so many players that learned nothing over the course of 10-15-20 thousands battles that I have no hope.

 

There is no help for majority of the player base. They won't really learn anything and they will keep blaming all the outside sources they can instead of learning the game. Indeed, the developers can't fix it because it's the players' attitude that is the problem, not the game. For example on completely open maps, people will migrate mostly towards safety and an area that resembles the most a corridor, some will aim towards the main fighting positions they have learned and then blame everything else in the world if they die there. There is no tactical thinking in their play and again that is not the fault of developers, it simply is that there are a lot of bad players out there.



Long_Range_Sniper #6 Posted 29 April 2020 - 05:34 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 40780 battles
  • 11,617
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

View Posttajj7, on 29 April 2020 - 04:04 PM, said:

Yes,if you give a bad/new player an idiot proof position tank they might, once in a while have a good game because of it, but they are not going to learn anything. 

 

Change "position" to "tank" and it still makes perfect sense.

 

For "idiot proof tank", insert usually high alpha/high armour tank? Yet, WG should learn from all of their high alpha/armour tanks..........they had to nerf them. 

 

The idiot proof tank that can one shot the opposition once in a while eventually does not meet the needs of the game. The same with artillery. At high tiers for the majority of players it's an idiot proof way of engaging with the game. Same as the Deathstar player who would sit in a bush all game for that one chance to go "boom".

 

So lessons from those aspects of the game were that you can take an "idiot proof" aspect of design too far.



DaniulSims #7 Posted 29 April 2020 - 05:40 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 11471 battles
  • 882
  • [ELC3K] ELC3K
  • Member since:
    03-29-2014
I, personally, get reminded of this whenever a 10-people strong heavy tank lemming train fails miserably on a city flank against 3 tanks on the opposing team.

Claus_KeIIerman #8 Posted 29 April 2020 - 05:42 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 27153 battles
  • 3,736
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    07-20-2011

*
POPULAR

'Give a man a fish........

 

 

 

Came here expecting Dingers.  



qpranger #9 Posted 29 April 2020 - 05:42 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38889 battles
  • 6,442
  • [HAMMY] HAMMY
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013
World of Tanks is not about teaching, it is about milking.

shikaka9 #10 Posted 29 April 2020 - 05:44 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 78498 battles
  • 2,404
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    02-27-2013

I know other saying:

 

Give a gun for idiot... and he will p**p into gun barrel

 

:teethhappy:



Mimos_A #11 Posted 29 April 2020 - 06:08 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 31886 battles
  • 2,550
  • [SPESH] SPESH
  • Member since:
    05-30-2015

View Posttajj7, on 29 April 2020 - 05:04 PM, said:

............he will eat for a day. Teach a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime'

 

 

https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2020/04/28/wot-egor-rodionov-stream-qa-28th-april-2020/

 

Yes,if you give a bad/new player an idiot proof position they might, once in a while have a good game because of it, but they are not going to learn anything. 

 

That above quote later says - 

 

 

Which is true, but it also undermines the original point. We have a playerbase that, is bad, IMO a lot worse than it used to be, and not every map is a corridor, not every spot is a base line camping position that holds all advantages, not every tank these players play is a Bobject or Japanese heavy.

 

What all these idiot proof/dumbing down elements you have put into the game have done, is breed players, that are, when outside of these positions/maps/vehicles designed to compensate for their lack of ability, are completely clueless and fail hard because the game has not forced them to learn how to play without stabilisers. 

 

So not only do you not achieve the goal of not making it 'difficult for such players' but you also royally annoy your other players who have learnt the game, invested time etc. but lose to clueless players just because of poor design/balance.

 

So instead of changing/designing maps, positions and vehicles to compensate for lack of learning/skill (something I don't think was really in the game was originally, it's success in part lies with a steep learning curve that has kept players playing for thousands of battles) why don't you instead concentrate on things that might teach players how to play, improve and incentivise them to do that, and reward that learning and skill? 

 

Seems a better long term approach for the game, especially as it seemed to work previously. 

 


Not to mention the fact that it basically means if your fun consists of having reasonably good games, you're kinda bound to sticking to (somewhat)meta tanks. Cause if you dare to press battle in something that can't hang with the hull down corridor party, you're basically just hoping for your team not to suck too much,,,

 

Not everyone has to be very good, and this game is already pretty forgiving by design, but the current map design and tank balance combination really funnels gameplay into doing a certain thing over and over again and while there's more and more vehicles available, if you don't feel like having an uphill battle game after game, or just being fairly useless because the MM decided to throw you on a certain (set of) maps, the options are a lot more limited than the number of available tanks suggests...


Edited by Mimos_A, 29 April 2020 - 06:09 PM.


Bulldog_Drummond #12 Posted 29 April 2020 - 06:37 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 35829 battles
  • 11,946
  • [DRATT] DRATT
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

I think I have learned from my mistakes, yes, and I think I can probably repeat them almost perfectly.

I know my mistakes inside out.

And all this talk about metas

Yesterday, just for fun, I dug my AT8 out of mothballs, and it did surprisingly well.  I don't think that it is meta.


Edited by Bulldog_Drummond, 29 April 2020 - 06:45 PM.


Erwin_Von_Braun #13 Posted 29 April 2020 - 07:01 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 45794 battles
  • 7,218
  • Member since:
    01-25-2014

View Posttajj7, on 29 April 2020 - 04:04 PM, said:

............he will eat for a day. Teach a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime'

 

 

https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2020/04/28/wot-egor-rodionov-stream-qa-28th-april-2020/

 

Yes,if you give a bad/new player an idiot proof position they might, once in a while have a good game because of it, but they are not going to learn anything. 

 

That above quote later says - 

 

 

Which is true, but it also undermines the original point. We have a playerbase that, is bad, IMO a lot worse than it used to be, and not every map is a corridor, not every spot is a base line camping position that holds all advantages, not every tank these players play is a Bobject or Japanese heavy.

 

What all these idiot proof/dumbing down elements you have put into the game have done, is breed players, that are, when outside of these positions/maps/vehicles designed to compensate for their lack of ability, are completely clueless and fail hard because the game has not forced them to learn how to play without stabilisers. 

 

So not only do you not achieve the goal of not making it 'difficult for such players' but you also royally annoy your other players who have learnt the game, invested time etc. but lose to clueless players just because of poor design/balance.

 

So instead of changing/designing maps, positions and vehicles to compensate for lack of learning/skill (something I don't think was really in the game was originally, it's success in part lies with a steep learning curve that has kept players playing for thousands of battles) why don't you instead concentrate on things that might teach players how to play, improve and incentivise them to do that, and reward that learning and skill? 

 

Seems a better long term approach for the game, especially as it seemed to work previously. 

 


Maybe, just maybe not everyone wants to be a 'better player' did you ever consider that?

Some people just want to drive around and blow stuff up which, the last time I checked, they were free to do.

Why don't you get off your high horse and stop preaching? You play the game the way you like and let others play how they like.

 



Joggaman #14 Posted 29 April 2020 - 07:17 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 26240 battles
  • 7,218
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-23-2011

View PostClaus_KeIIerman, on 29 April 2020 - 06:42 PM, said:

'Give a man a fish........

 

 

 

Came here expecting Dingers.  


much disappoint. :(



Element6 #15 Posted 29 April 2020 - 07:38 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 33475 battles
  • 12,035
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View Post_GrooziN_, on 29 April 2020 - 05:12 PM, said:

I see daily so many players that learned nothing over the course of 10-15-20 thousands battles that I have no hope. Don't know if you can blame the devs for tailoring the gaming experience to the needs of representatives of this population of gamers. 

 

What you described is clearly visible on maps like Prokhorovka, when once you get 2 clueless teams you have 3/4 of players camping 1 line and the rest running like headless chickens.

 

Still, I can't see a solution for this in the current stage of the game development, when all what they do is push players to get to high tiers faster. Heck, I have 3k games and alread have 6 tier 9s unlocked...

I said this in another thread recently; I have IRL friends that play WoT, and they all have battlecounts between 10k and 30k, and they do not care that their WRs are 46-47-ish and that their WN8 is low. They do however acknowledge that they are not very good at the game, that sub 50% WR is bad, but they do not really care. The interesting thing with them is that they are not retarded or dumb, they are intelligent people which I can have productive discussions and conversations with, they are all knowledgeable in various areas of interest, and at the same time they still seem to have even more fun than what I have when we toon. Mind you, I really do have fun when playing, but they never rage over things or other players like I can do at times when RNG decided to send my shell into the ground 3 shots in a row, or when some ally loses the battle in the end due to a clear lack of understanding of the situation he is in.

 

And that is key I think, and the reason is that they are not deeply involved with the game's mechanics or what is proper tactics, they just simply play and have a good time. I never hear them say things like "Oh, here that stupid tank comes that caters to bad players, I hate it". It's more along the lines of "I just couldn't pen him no matter where I shot, oh well, back to garage and it's your time to choose tank and tier Element".

 

They are not out to get better, they are out to have a good time, and they do have a good time. And since only 20% of players can ever be in the top 20% of the playerbase, be it 20 out of 100, 2000 out of 10.000 or 200k out of 1 million, I bet a lot of players realise that what they are up against if they want to try to get there is so massive that their time is better spent just shooting pixel tanks for fun, instead of getting involved with the humongous task it is to memorise all the stuff you need to know, learn all map positions in relation to the tank you play, gauging the setup of the enemy team etc. etc. etc. and then have your attempts at getting better be better than the attempts and natural progression of 80% of the other players before you can even dream of being in the top 20%.

 

I think that is some of the intelligence in the playerbase, the realisation that starting down that road is going to make the game appear like a job, a thing with milestones that will require dedication and effort, something that is quite likely to take away the fun and casual atmosphere that has lead them to press the battle button 10.000 times already.



WindSplitter1 #16 Posted 29 April 2020 - 07:41 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 21410 battles
  • 3,959
  • [WINDY] WINDY
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

I kid you not, stopped reading the article right there.

 

But then again, WG is predictable. Everyone always suspected they wanted to cater the most for the bad player that requires crutches to perform. Now we simply have the confirmation.

It's Steve. It always has been.

 

I for one defend that, if a player is caught in the open and plays bad, should be punished. Instead we're rewarding campers, braindead HT drivers while enabling them with corridor maps.

With that said from a Dev, expect even more broken OP TD spots with soft and hard cover and more corridors than a Wallmart...



Bulldog_Drummond #17 Posted 29 April 2020 - 07:52 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 35829 battles
  • 11,946
  • [DRATT] DRATT
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

View PostElement6, on 29 April 2020 - 06:38 PM, said:

I said this in another thread recently; I have IRL friends that play WoT, and they all have battlecounts between 10k and 30k, and they do not care that their WRs are 46-47-ish and that their WN8 is low. They do however acknowledge that they are not very good at the game, that sub 50% WR is bad, but they do not really care. The interesting thing with them is that they are not retarded or dumb, they are intelligent people which I can have productive discussions and conversations with, they are all knowledgeable in various areas of interest, and at the same time they still seem to have even more fun than what I have when we toon. Mind you, I really do have fun when playing, but they never rage over things or other players like I can do at times when RNG decided to send my shell into the ground 3 shots in a row, or when some ally loses the battle in the end due to a clear lack of understanding of the situation he is in.

 

And that is key I think, and the reason is that they are not deeply involved with the game's mechanics or what is proper tactics, they just simply play and have a good time. I never hear them say things like "Oh, here that stupid tank comes that caters to bad players, I hate it". It's more along the lines of "I just couldn't pen him no matter where I shot, oh well, back to garage and it's your time to choose tank and tier Element".

 

They are not out to get better, they are out to have a good time, and they do have a good time. And since only 20% of players can ever be in the top 20% of the playerbase, be it 20 out of 100, 2000 out of 10.000 or 200k out of 1 million, I bet a lot of players realise that what they are up against if they want to try to get there is so massive that their time is better spent just shooting pixel tanks for fun, instead of getting involved with the humongous task it is to memorise all the stuff you need to know, learn all map positions in relation to the tank you play, gauging the setup of the enemy team etc. etc. etc. and then have your attempts at getting better be better than the attempts and natural progression of 80% of the other players before you can even dream of being in the top 20%.

 

I think that is some of the intelligence in the playerbase, the realisation that starting down that road is going to make the game appear like a job, a thing with milestones that will require dedication and effort, something that is quite likely to take away the fun and casual atmosphere that has lead them to press the battle button 10.000 times already.

 

Indeed.  My primary concerns in life are, in no particular order, family, job, managing my investments, and recreational stuff (of which tanks are a very minor part)

The game is fun, and if I can sneak an edge by running an OP low tier tank I will take it, but I have no ambitions actually to be a good player.

I think of it as being rather like languages, golf or maths.  Some have a natural talent for such things, others do not, and will never acquire it.

So far as WoT goes, it reminds me of someone's comment on a knack for languages: "Yes, a useful facility in a head waiter"



G01ngToxicCommand0 #18 Posted 29 April 2020 - 08:03 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 37465 battles
  • 871
  • Member since:
    11-03-2011

View Posttajj7, on 29 April 2020 - 05:04 PM, said:

............he will eat for a day. Teach a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime'

Teach the average WOT player how to fish and he will starve...
 



Bulldog_Drummond #19 Posted 29 April 2020 - 08:10 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 35829 battles
  • 11,946
  • [DRATT] DRATT
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

View PostG01ngToxicCommand0, on 29 April 2020 - 07:03 PM, said:

Teach the average WOT player how to fish and he will starve...
 

 

I have seen this line of argument innumerable times over the years and what it boils down to is:

  • I am very good at WoT so I am very clever
  • People who are not very good at WoT are very stupid

I think that the flaws in this line of argument are fairly apparent.



NUKLEAR_SLUG #20 Posted 29 April 2020 - 08:21 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 36972 battles
  • 6,119
  • [FISHY] FISHY
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015
I think something people are overlooking here is that 75% of the playerbase of every game you could name are beyond terrible at it. But then we're talking about games here. It's entertainment, not a profession. It isn't a requirement to be good at a game to be allowed to participate, much tho some might like to think it should be.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users