Jump to content


Why do I think that WOT is not enjoyable anymore and how do I stop myself from buying anything ever ...


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

EpicEU #1 Posted 22 May 2020 - 01:22 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 31325 battles
  • 97
  • [JDUN] JDUN
  • Member since:
    08-16-2011

I started playing wot shortly after beta ended.

Over time the game got through many challenges and changes, but overall it was enjoyable as it was.

Over the last 2 years, however, I can actually feel that all decisions that are taken, have one thing in common: sell as much today, without thinking about tomorrow.

But there is one decision that WG made that ruined the game beyond the point of return: accelerating the climb to tier 10 without a matchmaking system that takes into consideration player statistics.

This resulted in players without game experience flooding tier 8,9,10 and making high tier games some kind of Russian roulette.

Most games are not about skill anymore, but about who gets the worst players in their team.

 

So, I needed to do something, because I really loved this game, but I felt like a drug addict, every time I payed the monthly premium subscription.

I knew that the game became bad, that WG is like most Russian studios(you can check BattleState too. They are exactly the same), ignorant to player opinion, but I had to stop paying their salary.

Did I uninstall the game and be done with it? Many old players can confirm that this is just a temporary solution, after which, there will be a day when you'll want to give it another go. So no, I didn't.

Instead, I keep the game installed and every time I feel the addiction to login to the store and renew my subscription, I play a few tier 8,9,10 games before.

I can tell you that the game itself, as it is now, is extremely efficient in changing my mind in a matter of minutes.

So, if there is one good thing about WOT at the moment, it is the fact that it is the best tool for keeping me away from WOT, of from investing additional money.

 

Good luck to all of you and stay safe during the pandemic!

Cheers!

 



Ricox #2 Posted 22 May 2020 - 01:28 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 737 battles
  • 74
  • Member since:
    07-22-2010
They should be changing their direction, but implementing skill-based MM is one of the worse directions they could go with. Apparently Armored Warfare experimented with it and all it did was punish good players by always making teams rely on them (unicums would basically always be on the worst team against countless greens and blues - no system could prevent this without massively increasing queue time due to skill population spread) while bad players saw no improvements since they still played with/against bad players and whenever they got better the MM would punish them too. Maybe it would be nice if the MM puts a tiny bit of consideration to skill to avoid a match-up of unicums and blues vs. deep reds, but IMO it should never go beyond that.

Enherjaren #3 Posted 22 May 2020 - 01:29 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 75844 battles
  • 795
  • [EFE-X] EFE-X
  • Member since:
    05-04-2011
Skilled based MM is a terrible idea. (Ranked kinda shows why)
With that said... 
WG just doesn't deserve any support anymore. They are ignorant, doesn't listen to their customer base and are dumbing down their game. If there comes a day when they bring the game in the right direction I might consider supporting it again. I have during the last 6 months actually bought some small stuff from time to time, but nothing like before. Back in the day I was a complete whale. From now on I will play this game without buying skins, gold or premium tanks. It's gonna hurt coming next xmas to not buy xmas boxes.

WoT is like heroin right now. I'm addicted to it, but makes me like feel sh*t when I take it. 

Edited by Enherjaren, 22 May 2020 - 09:56 PM.


EpicEU #4 Posted 22 May 2020 - 01:31 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 31325 battles
  • 97
  • [JDUN] JDUN
  • Member since:
    08-16-2011

View PostRicox, on 22 May 2020 - 12:28 PM, said:

They should be changing their direction, but implementing skill-based MM is one of the worse directions they could go with. Apparently Armored Warfare experimented with it and all it did was punish good players by always making teams rely on them (unicums would basically always be on the worst team against countless greens and blues - no system could prevent this without massively increasing queue time due to skill population spread) while bad players saw no improvements since they still played with/against bad players and whenever they got better the MM would punish them too. Maybe it would be nice if the MM puts a tiny bit of consideration to skill to avoid a match-up of unicums and blues vs. deep reds, but IMO it should never go beyond that.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough.

What I meant is that the MM should take into consideration stats too and put an approximately even (as much as possible) number of skilled and less skilled players in both teams.

 

L.E. Ranked is not what I am talking about. It's about even distribution of players based also on skill. Example: If you have a team of 3 players, one is red, one blue and one purple, the MM should try to find players for the other team in order to make a red,blue and purple team composition there too. Ranked is completely different. Ranked will put you ONLY with players close to your stats.

 


Edited by EpicEU, 22 May 2020 - 01:34 PM.


Ricox #5 Posted 22 May 2020 - 01:36 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 737 battles
  • 74
  • Member since:
    07-22-2010

View PostEpicEU, on 22 May 2020 - 12:31 PM, said:

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough.

What I meant is that the MM should take into consideration stats too and put an approximately even (as much as possible) number of skilled and less skilled players in both teams.

 

L.E. Ranked is not what I am talking about. It's about even distribution of players based also on skill. Example: If you have a team of 3 players, one is red, one blue and one purple, the MM should try to find players for the other team in order to make a red,blue and purple team composition there too. Ranked is completely different. Ranked will put you ONLY with players close to your stats.

 

 

That's what I was talking about. Armored Warfare implemented exactly that, it was catastrophic, the community hated it and it did exactly that - punished players for being good while changing nothing for bad players.



Galan7891 #6 Posted 22 May 2020 - 01:44 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 10351 battles
  • 714
  • Member since:
    02-22-2018

View PostRicox, on 22 May 2020 - 01:36 PM, said:

 

That's what I was talking about. Armored Warfare implemented exactly that, it was catastrophic, the community hated it and it did exactly that - punished players for being good while changing nothing for bad players.


How were players punished exactly ?( i dont know anything about Armored warfare)...



Blubba #7 Posted 22 May 2020 - 01:50 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 63999 battles
  • 2,653
  • Member since:
    05-30-2011

View PostGalan7891, on 22 May 2020 - 12:44 PM, said:


How were players punished exactly ?( i dont know anything about Armored warfare)...


I was wondering that...

I understand that an MM based on WR would result in everyone becoming closer to 50% but not sure about other metrics.

For example, if two opposing unicums meet on a field of red/orange, their impact will still generally be higher than the others unless they meet each other first wouldn't it?

Don't honestly know. I am probably going to get ripped for it but thought I'd ask.



Galan7891 #8 Posted 22 May 2020 - 01:56 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 10351 battles
  • 714
  • Member since:
    02-22-2018

View PostBlubba, on 22 May 2020 - 01:50 PM, said:


I was wondering that...

I understand that an MM based on WR would result in everyone becoming closer to 50% but not sure about other metrics.

For example, if two opposing unicums meet on a field of red/orange, their impact will still generally be higher than the others unless they meet each other first wouldn't it?

Don't honestly know. I am probably going to get ripped for it but thought I'd ask.

The only issue i can think of that would be glaring with such a MM would be the vehicle balance actually.Can you imagine the enemy teams Unicum showing up in a 279 while your teams driving an IS4?

Fun times...



jabster #9 Posted 22 May 2020 - 01:57 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12836 battles
  • 27,632
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010
Who doesn't love a Friday whine thread.

Slyspy #10 Posted 22 May 2020 - 02:04 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 15301 battles
  • 17,956
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

"I dislike this game so much I'm only going to play a few games every now and then just to remind myself how much I dislike it". Just uninstall and be done with it, stop being so weak and pathetic. 

 

Oh, and what monthly subscription?



Gkirmathal #11 Posted 22 May 2020 - 02:13 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8692 battles
  • 1,872
  • [2VTD] 2VTD
  • Member since:
    01-14-2013

View PostEpicEU, on 22 May 2020 - 12:22 PM, said:

...snip...

 

accelerating the climb to tier 10 without a matchmaking system that takes into consideration player statistics.

This resulted in players without game experience flooding tier 8,9,10 and making high tier games some kind of Russian roulette.

Most games are not about skill anymore, but about who gets the worst players in their team.

 

So, I needed to do something, because I really loved this game, but I felt like a drug addict, every time I payed the monthly premium subscription.

I knew that the game became bad, that WG is like most Russian studios(you can check BattleState too. They are exactly the same), ignorant to player opinion, but I had to stop paying their salary.

 

...snip...

 

So, if there is one good thing about WOT at the moment, it is the fact that it is the best tool for keeping me away from WOT, of from investing additional money.

 

Sorry for the snipping OP. Besides the matchmaking part, I do fully agree.

Since 2016/2017 WG has maneuvered itself into a position through a kind of stubbornness, where they are convinced only solution X can keep things running. The pushing of players faster through the games regular content, to where the monetization becomes more apparent/needed and through constant & day one marketing overload (in the UI) of payed content and payed advantages.

 

But to be honest IMO it all started with the "promise" years back not to ever again nerf payed content. Through that single decision they cornered themselves far too much and this to a big part led to where WoT is now.

Same kind of stubbornness (for a lack of a better word) can indeed also be seen at Battlestate (Escape from Tarkov). Although they are two completely different and unrelated products and it is not yet clear how EFT will address keeping up revenue after they exit Beta.


Edited by Gkirmathal, 22 May 2020 - 02:14 PM.


Ceeb #12 Posted 22 May 2020 - 02:16 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Beta Tester
  • 35730 battles
  • 6,729
  • [BEXF] BEXF
  • Member since:
    01-14-2011
Im still enjoying after 10 years.  As for buying stuff have some self discipline, its not like its crack cocaine.

Ricox #13 Posted 22 May 2020 - 02:17 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 737 battles
  • 74
  • Member since:
    07-22-2010

View PostGalan7891, on 22 May 2020 - 12:44 PM, said:


How were players punished exactly ?( i dont know anything about Armored warfare)...

 

View PostBlubba, on 22 May 2020 - 12:50 PM, said:


I was wondering that...

I understand that an MM based on WR would result in everyone becoming closer to 50% but not sure about other metrics.

For example, if two opposing unicums meet on a field of red/orange, their impact will still generally be higher than the others unless they meet each other first wouldn't it?

Don't honestly know. I am probably going to get ripped for it but thought I'd ask.

 

View PostGalan7891, on 22 May 2020 - 12:56 PM, said:

The only issue i can think of that would be glaring with such a MM would be the vehicle balance actually.Can you imagine the enemy teams Unicum showing up in a 279 while your teams driving an IS4?

Fun times...

 

Think of it this way - a unicum has really, really good stats, and there's very few of them. Yet you have TONS of concurrent games in all tiers with TONS of players, meaning that the chances of balancing unicums against unicums is very, very low. And, since unicums are so good, in a skill-based MM their value is very high. That means once you put a unicum on a team, you can't really put many other good players there on the same side otherwise the overall skill value is too high, which means that many greens, blues etc. will go to the enemy team. Which also means that the unicum is not going to have much of an impact - 3 blue players are always better than 1 unicum simply because they'll have three guns, three HP pools and hold three different (or the same) positions while still having great game sense and positioning (and even if their positioning is worse that of a unicum's - again, there's 3 of them). Essentially, a unicum will always be facing teams much stronger than his/her own, while always having really bad teammates.

 

This is of course a strong example (most players won't care about a unicum's entertainment), but it really illustrates the key weaknesses of such a system. It means good players are always punished by giving them bad teammates to balance out their skill, and they always get good enemies. What benefit does it give to bad players? Nothing really, they're still playing out of their league and if anything, it will now be GUARANTEED that they will always have good players on the enemy team that will completely outplay them.

 

Once you go to lower tiers where there's less good players and more bad players ... the entire system just breaks down. How do you balance it? Only by giving really bad teammates to every good player.

 

What I think complaints about lack of skill-based MM miss is that implementing it is not going to change the pace of games, it won't stop blow-outs (since they happen because of snowball effects, which you may have more of if the one unicum on a team misplays and the entire team falls apart), it's not going to fix poor vehicle balance. If Wargaming focused on reversing their new map design philosophy, I think we'd have far more improvements in the game's playability than with skill-based MM.

13:21 Added after 4 minute
Oh, and can't forget the very important fact mentioned by a previous poster of not nerfing premium tanks - it creates a cursed loop of balancing where you have to constantly keep buffing and buffing tanks (to balance out against the OP premiums, instead of nerfing the premiums at their core), breaking balance every time and moving the game so far from its initial place that all sorts of unexpected behaviors occur. You can't have a good approach to balance if your philosophy excludes a large part of the game from balancing.

Slyspy #14 Posted 22 May 2020 - 02:46 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 15301 battles
  • 17,956
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostRicox, on 22 May 2020 - 02:17 PM, said:

 

 

 

Think of it this way - a unicum has really, really good stats, and there's very few of them. Yet you have TONS of concurrent games in all tiers with TONS of players, meaning that the chances of balancing unicums against unicums is very, very low. And, since unicums are so good, in a skill-based MM their value is very high. That means once you put a unicum on a team, you can't really put many other good players there on the same side otherwise the overall skill value is too high, which means that many greens, blues etc. will go to the enemy team. Which also means that the unicum is not going to have much of an impact - 3 blue players are always better than 1 unicum simply because they'll have three guns, three HP pools and hold three different (or the same) positions while still having great game sense and positioning (and even if their positioning is worse that of a unicum's - again, there's 3 of them). Essentially, a unicum will always be facing teams much stronger than his/her own, while always having really bad teammates.

 

This is of course a strong example (most players won't care about a unicum's entertainment), but it really illustrates the key weaknesses of such a system. It means good players are always punished by giving them bad teammates to balance out their skill, and they always get good enemies. What benefit does it give to bad players? Nothing really, they're still playing out of their league and if anything, it will now be GUARANTEED that they will always have good players on the enemy team that will completely outplay them.

 

Once you go to lower tiers where there's less good players and more bad players ... the entire system just breaks down. How do you balance it? Only by giving really bad teammates to every good player.

 

What I think complaints about lack of skill-based MM miss is that implementing it is not going to change the pace of games, it won't stop blow-outs (since they happen because of snowball effects, which you may have more of if the one unicum on a team misplays and the entire team falls apart), it's not going to fix poor vehicle balance. If Wargaming focused on reversing their new map design philosophy, I think we'd have far more improvements in the game's playability than with skill-based MM.

13:21 Added after 4 minute
Oh, and can't forget the very important fact mentioned by a previous poster of not nerfing premium tanks - it creates a cursed loop of balancing where you have to constantly keep buffing and buffing tanks (to balance out against the OP premiums, instead of nerfing the premiums at their core), breaking balance every time and moving the game so far from its initial place that all sorts of unexpected behaviors occur. You can't have a good approach to balance if your philosophy excludes a large part of the game from balancing.

 

Agreed. WG made a mistake selling their premium vehicles for actual cash. Had they sold them for in-game currency (ie gold) alone then they would not have backed themselves (or at least their product) into the corner where they feel unable to nerf that which clearly needs rebalancing.



Karasu_Hidesuke #15 Posted 22 May 2020 - 02:55 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 17492 battles
  • 4,906
  • [I-S-L] I-S-L
  • Member since:
    12-03-2013
My wallet stays closed till they put Hype 59 for sale. So far WeeGee has helped me to save a hefty bundle. I call that a win-win for myself, at least. :B

EpicEU #16 Posted 22 May 2020 - 02:59 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 31325 battles
  • 97
  • [JDUN] JDUN
  • Member since:
    08-16-2011

View PostRicox, on 22 May 2020 - 01:17 PM, said:

 

 

 

Think of it this way - a unicum has really, really good stats, and there's very few of them. Yet you have TONS of concurrent games in all tiers with TONS of players, meaning that the chances of balancing unicums against unicums is very, very low. And, since unicums are so good, in a skill-based MM their value is very high. That means once you put a unicum on a team, you can't really put many other good players there on the same side otherwise the overall skill value is too high, which means that many greens, blues etc. will go to the enemy team. Which also means that the unicum is not going to have much of an impact - 3 blue players are always better than 1 unicum simply because they'll have three guns, three HP pools and hold three different (or the same) positions while still having great game sense and positioning (and even if their positioning is worse that of a unicum's - again, there's 3 of them). Essentially, a unicum will always be facing teams much stronger than his/her own, while always having really bad teammates.

 

This is of course a strong example (most players won't care about a unicum's entertainment), but it really illustrates the key weaknesses of such a system. It means good players are always punished by giving them bad teammates to balance out their skill, and they always get good enemies. What benefit does it give to bad players? Nothing really, they're still playing out of their league and if anything, it will now be GUARANTEED that they will always have good players on the enemy team that will completely outplay them.

 

Once you go to lower tiers where there's less good players and more bad players ... the entire system just breaks down. How do you balance it? Only by giving really bad teammates to every good player.

 

What I think complaints about lack of skill-based MM miss is that implementing it is not going to change the pace of games, it won't stop blow-outs (since they happen because of snowball effects, which you may have more of if the one unicum on a team misplays and the entire team falls apart), it's not going to fix poor vehicle balance. If Wargaming focused on reversing their new map design philosophy, I think we'd have far more improvements in the game's playability than with skill-based MM.

13:21 Added after 4 minute
Oh, and can't forget the very important fact mentioned by a previous poster of not nerfing premium tanks - it creates a cursed loop of balancing where you have to constantly keep buffing and buffing tanks (to balance out against the OP premiums, instead of nerfing the premiums at their core), breaking balance every time and moving the game so far from its initial place that all sorts of unexpected behaviors occur. You can't have a good approach to balance if your philosophy excludes a large part of the game from balancing.

 

You don't have to balance unicum vs unicum. You have to balance people with similar stats in an even manner. Meaning(simplified) that for 2 teams of 2 players, if mm finds in the queue a purple, a blue, a yellow and a red, it will try to match purple&red vs blue and yellow. And avoid if possible purple&blue vs yellow&red 



Ceeb #17 Posted 22 May 2020 - 03:02 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Beta Tester
  • 35730 battles
  • 6,729
  • [BEXF] BEXF
  • Member since:
    01-14-2011

View PostKarasu_Hidesuke, on 22 May 2020 - 01:55 PM, said:

My wallet stays closed till they put Hype 59 for sale. So far WeeGee has helped me to save a hefty bundle. I call that a win-win for myself, at least. :B

 

That was me in 2012... Accepted WG royaly fkeced the 59 debarcle,  I moved on.  Type 59 has become the poster boy of WoT... why havent they brought it back... only they know.... but you can bet it comes back when this game finally begins to die... 



dUG1 #18 Posted 22 May 2020 - 03:15 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35798 battles
  • 1,072
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011

The turning points for me has been the moment that premium tanks went from "Good, but not as good as tech tree counterparts" to "Outperforming/making obsolete everything in its tier".

While it may seem like I am salty for not owning EBR 75, Defender or Progetto 46, actually I dont care anymore at this point.

 

Their game, their decisions - my only call is not to support them financially for those and go f2p :great:



Kingfish__ #19 Posted 22 May 2020 - 03:19 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 8150 battles
  • 72
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    07-08-2016
Be interesting to see if MM would be improved by factoring in player + vehicle combinations into some kind of "battle effectiveness" weighting which then feeds into MM . So a T29 with a yellow in it is (for example) is similarly weighted to a Black Prince with a purple in it — etc. Maybe I'm being naive, but wouldn't that help even teams up a bit, without creating the problems seen with skill-based MM models?

Venom7000 #20 Posted 22 May 2020 - 03:20 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 8649 battles
  • 841
  • Member since:
    03-10-2018
I dont see anyone explaining:
  1. Why skill/rank/player rating based MM is bad?
  2. how is skill/rank/player rating base MM "punishing" good player? (since it will only bring the game to a close 50%50% win/lose chances for each team). Window lickers vs window lickers (no body gets hurt), avg pl vs avg pl and you unicums vs other unicums.

    For the last 2 months increase in roflstomp plays and uneven MM player distribution per team has caused such a quick burn out for me in this game. (faster than usual)
    However when I get in to a close match that lasts 14 minutes. Win or lose I remember them and I cherish them. Because its a great mix of challenge vs what is realistically possible to do.

I just dont see the downside of the skill based MM where WG will stop balancing teams with 70% 30% chances to win. Who likes those?!
I dont like to be murdered in first 4 minutes. Nor do I enjoy roflstomping clueless players. There is zero honor or satisfaction in that. 


Edited by Venom7000, 22 May 2020 - 03:22 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users