Jump to content


Modification of random battles


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

Scanmen #1 Posted 05 July 2020 - 11:29 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 28021 battles
  • 296
  • [WNB] WNB
  • Member since:
    10-14-2011
What do you think about modifying random battles, where the losing team’s first three positions (based on XP) get 50% of the XP given to the last three players on the winning team. The winning team last three players will lose 50% of their XP. This can encourage more active play and reward those who did everything but lost because of the team.

GreenCamel #2 Posted 05 July 2020 - 11:33 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 23457 battles
  • 167
  • [ART-W] ART-W
  • Member since:
    03-18-2014
No. Penalty for last 2 might work.
But more xp for top 3 would ruin the game. Since players would prefer to farm damage instead of trying to win(e.g. cap)

Private_Miros #3 Posted 05 July 2020 - 11:35 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30121 battles
  • 12,009
  • [EMU87] EMU87
  • Member since:
    07-09-2011

I think that would encourage passive play rather, as people would risk dying first less (which paradoxically often puts them at a higher chance of dying without doing much at all).

 

If you do consistently well on losses, you will win more anyway (and if you don't, well, then either perception is tricking you or it's not really the team).



Scanmen #4 Posted 05 July 2020 - 11:43 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 28021 battles
  • 296
  • [WNB] WNB
  • Member since:
    10-14-2011
 

View PostGreenCamel, on 05 July 2020 - 11:33 AM, said:

No. Penalty for last 2 might work.
But more xp for top 3 would ruin the game. Since players would prefer to farm damage instead of trying to win(e.g. cap)

That’s why I wrote that the top three are based on XP and not the damage dealt.

10:46 Added after 3 minute

View PostPrivate_Miros, on 05 July 2020 - 11:35 AM, said:

If you do consistently well on losses, you will win more anyway (and if you don't, well, then either perception is tricking you or it's not really the team).

That’s true, but taking it away from those who don’t do anything would help make the game more active.


Edited by Scanmen, 05 July 2020 - 11:44 AM.


gunslingerXXX #5 Posted 05 July 2020 - 11:49 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 15357 battles
  • 4,673
  • [GUNSL] GUNSL
  • Member since:
    11-16-2014
Ranked has clearly shown that losing team should get nothing.

NekoPuffer_PPP #6 Posted 05 July 2020 - 11:52 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 37367 battles
  • 5,616
  • [VRTC] VRTC
  • Member since:
    09-13-2013

I wish the Ranked Battle XP system was applied to Random Battles. It actually rewards each particular class and sub-class of vehicle with extra XP for doing what they're meant to do (deal damage, block damage, assist, close shooting i.e. CQC).

 

It would mean that heavy tank camping with the TDs won't earn nearly as much xp as he would while actively fighting.



Private_Miros #7 Posted 05 July 2020 - 12:00 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30121 battles
  • 12,009
  • [EMU87] EMU87
  • Member since:
    07-09-2011

View PostNekoPuffer_PPP, on 05 July 2020 - 10:52 AM, said:

 

It would mean that heavy tank camping with the TDs won't earn nearly as much xp as he would while actively fighting.

 

Some heavy tanks are paper - and that is actually already the case now, even if you ignore the fact that bad play will net you less xp and credits as such, you do get less xp for shooting targets you don't spot.

And the bobs that park their Japanese top tier heavy in the corner really aren't going to care about a changed xp system.



ONE77ZERO13 #8 Posted 05 July 2020 - 12:01 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 11823 battles
  • 347
  • Member since:
    12-05-2016

I just want a separate league system like LoL 

 

keep randoms like they are T.T


Edited by ONE77ZERO13, 05 July 2020 - 12:01 PM.


saxsan4 #9 Posted 05 July 2020 - 12:11 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 27036 battles
  • 5,033
  • [-WR--] -WR--
  • Member since:
    11-08-2011
no, it works fine as it is
11:12 Added after 1 minute

View PostNekoPuffer_PPP, on 05 July 2020 - 10:52 AM, said:

I wish the Ranked Battle XP system was applied to Random Battles. It actually rewards each particular class and sub-class of vehicle with extra XP for doing what they're meant to do (deal damage, block damage, assist, close shooting i.e. CQC).

 

It would mean that heavy tank camping with the TDs won't earn nearly as much xp as he would while actively fighting.


what is a stock VK or oho meant to do in tier 10 games with 3 arty?

 

personally I think leave randoms as they are in this regard and have ranked battles always  available 


Edited by saxsan4, 05 July 2020 - 12:12 PM.


ZlatanArKung #10 Posted 05 July 2020 - 12:12 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 1537 battles
  • 6,279
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostScanmen, on 05 July 2020 - 11:29 AM, said:

What do you think about modifying random battles, where the losing team’s first three positions (based on XP) get 50% of the XP given to the last three players on the winning team. The winning team last three players will lose 50% of their XP. This can encourage more active play and reward those who did everything but lost because of the team.

Nah. 

 

Just make all players in losing team get 100xp and 10k credit income.

This would discourage losing.

 

And then, dmg and assistance in lost games doesnt count towards MoE or tank avg dmg or tank avg assistance or any other statistic.


Edited by ZlatanArKung, 05 July 2020 - 12:13 PM.


Scanmen #11 Posted 05 July 2020 - 12:29 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 28021 battles
  • 296
  • [WNB] WNB
  • Member since:
    10-14-2011

View PostZlatanArKung, on 05 July 2020 - 12:12 PM, said:

Nah. 

 

Just make all players in losing team get 100xp and 10k credit income.

This would discourage losing.

 

And then, dmg and assistance in lost games doesnt count towards MoE or tank avg dmg or tank avg assistance or any other statistic.

No need to exaggerate. :)  It’s about the top three in the losing team, receiving a little extra reward from the worst three players on the winning team. 


Edited by Scanmen, 05 July 2020 - 12:30 PM.


Kdingo #12 Posted 05 July 2020 - 12:45 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 33570 battles
  • 9,166
  • Member since:
    07-05-2011

People nowadays, they can't accept a defeat without getting ideas on how the game should be changed to reward them more while loosing.

 



Scanmen #13 Posted 05 July 2020 - 01:02 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 28021 battles
  • 296
  • [WNB] WNB
  • Member since:
    10-14-2011

View PostKdingo, on 05 July 2020 - 12:45 PM, said:

People nowadays, they can't accept a defeat without getting ideas on how the game should be changed to reward them more while loosing.

 


:facepalm:I can’t believe... It’s so hard to interpret what I described in the first post?



Kdingo #14 Posted 05 July 2020 - 01:15 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 33570 battles
  • 9,166
  • Member since:
    07-05-2011

View PostScanmen, on 05 July 2020 - 01:02 PM, said:


:facepalm:I can’t believe... It’s so hard to interpret what I described in the first post?

 

Enlighten me if there is anything but free crapfor the best on the loosing team at the expense of the worst on the winning team.

You win, you loose, deal with it. 



NUKLEAR_SLUG #15 Posted 05 July 2020 - 01:31 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 37593 battles
  • 6,562
  • [FISHY] FISHY
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

View PostScanmen, on 05 July 2020 - 11:29 AM, said:

What do you think about modifying random battles, where the losing team’s first three positions (based on XP) get 50% of the XP given to the last three players on the winning team. The winning team last three players will lose 50% of their XP. This can encourage more active play and reward those who did everything but lost because of the team.

 

No.  What do you think about playing better yourself instead? There is already a Courageous Resistance bonus for doing well on a losing team, you don't need more.



ZlatanArKung #16 Posted 05 July 2020 - 01:39 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 1537 battles
  • 6,279
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostScanmen, on 05 July 2020 - 12:29 PM, said:

No need to exaggerate. :)  It’s about the top three in the losing team, receiving a little extra reward from the worst three players on the winning team. 

I don't think losers should get rewarded at all.

 

Not trophy for 'participation'.


Edited by ZlatanArKung, 05 July 2020 - 01:39 PM.


NekoPuffer_PPP #17 Posted 05 July 2020 - 02:18 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 37367 battles
  • 5,616
  • [VRTC] VRTC
  • Member since:
    09-13-2013

View PostKdingo, on 05 July 2020 - 01:15 PM, said:

Enlighten me if there is anything but free crapfor the best on the loosing team at the expense of the worst on the winning team.

You win, you loose, deal with it. 

 

There's only one o. Unless you need something tightened...

 

If this game wasn't so team-dependent, I'd agree. Unfortunately, a single player cannot defeat 15 tanks on their own. Therefore, some level of compensation for the best-scoring losing player is necessary, and it's already in the game - Courageous Resistance.

 

As for the worst on the winning team...a next-to-nothing level of contribution to a victory is not something worthy of reward.



Private_Miros #18 Posted 05 July 2020 - 02:21 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30121 battles
  • 12,009
  • [EMU87] EMU87
  • Member since:
    07-09-2011

View PostNekoPuffer_PPP, on 05 July 2020 - 01:18 PM, said:

 

There's only one o. Unless you need something tightened...

 

If this game wasn't so team-dependent, I'd agree. Unfortunately, a single player cannot defeat 15 tanks on their own. Therefore, some level of compensation for the best-scoring losing player is necessary, and it's already in the game - Courageous Resistance.

 

As for the worst on the winning team...a next-to-nothing level of contribution to a victory is not something worthy of reward.

 

Actually there are three compensations already if you are consistently among the best scoring on the losing team.

 

1. more xp and credits than other on the losing team.

2. more often courageous resistance than others.

3. unless you have elevated camping and limiting yourself to late game damage only, you don't lose as often as others, which is the main reward for playing well.



Kdingo #19 Posted 05 July 2020 - 02:39 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 33570 battles
  • 9,166
  • Member since:
    07-05-2011

View PostNekoPuffer_PPP, on 05 July 2020 - 02:18 PM, said:

 

There's only one o. Unless you need something tightened...

 

 

Tell that to my smartphone which happens to often have its own idea on how to autocorrect words, or its a problem with the mobile version of the forum, at times it just duplicates words for no reason. Quite weird stuff.

So there is definitely room for some tightening.



Bulldog_Drummond #20 Posted 05 July 2020 - 02:42 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36552 battles
  • 12,582
  • [DRATT] DRATT
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

I read an interesting review recently of a new book on Poker 'The Biggest Bluff: How I Learned to Pay Attention, Master Myself, and Win' by Maria Konnikova

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/keeping-poker-faced-is-no-use-it-s-the-hands-that-give-the-game-away

A few brief quotes below that I think are relevant to WoT (and most games) especially the last on how passive play is just slow death (my bold).

 

This is not a rip-roaring, gonzo gambling adventure. By page 66 this cautious, thoughtful author has still never played a hand of poker in her life. She has read, re-read, dissected and annotated poker textbooks. She has scribbled notes while trying to keep up with her power-walking mentor, the poker legend Erik Seidel, as he tells her she’ll need to develop the ability to be reckless. This is a swot’s progress, a fish-out-of-water experiment. It’s hard to imagine her taking on, say, Devilfish in Vegas. As she finally joins a charity tournament on page 115, I’ll admit to thinking, this had better go somewhere.

 

And it does. Within 18 months she has turned pro, recruited by Poker Stars after winning an $84,000 trophy and another $60,000 game. She becomes one of the top five women tournament players of 2018. The wager paid off: Maria Konnikova asked if diligence, intelligence and training could conquer chance, bluff and mind games — and the answer was a triumphant yes. A welcome story for a generation questioning the ‘work hard and prosper’ promise of the American dream.

 

In time she sheds what she calls her female socialisation and brings aggression into her game; because in poker, as in life, there is a ‘false sense of security in passivity’. ‘You think that you can’t get into too much trouble — but really, every passive decision leads to a slow but steady loss of chips.’ Lean in, in other words. Or, as they used to say, nothing ventured, nothing gained. 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users