Реклама | Adv
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
Сообщения форума
Реклама | Adv

Type 5 Heavy review - why this tank is extremely bad for the game, very poorl...

Дата: 26.09.2017 12:41:48
View PostCobra6, on 25 September 2017 - 09:30 PM, said:     It's pretty simple; If competent players like us can tell you something is broken without even having to play it whoever is in charge of "balancing" these tanks should maybe be replaced with people like us for some reason seem to have the magical insight which they lack. Making armour completely invulnerable to regular ammo is terrible for gameplay but you have to do that because you insist on keeping premium ammo a thing in this game. You can not properly balance armour for regular 250mm pen ammo and 330mm pen HEAT at the same time, this is impossible. The solution is not to make it invulnerable to regular ammo, it's to get rid of the factor that consistently throws a spanner in the works (premium ammo) and then at the same time rebalancing armour against regular ammo.   If the balancing department had run tanks like the Defender past us it would never have been released in the broken state it was released in either.   There really indeed seems to be no other reason to these balancing changes and tanks than to make money and damn the long term consequences on this game (which we all love I might add).   Cobra 6

Ph3lan:   For this I have to go into story telling mode, so bear with me please :) I am not that old, but I have tried out a couple of jobs in my life, I worked as a translator, teacher, I used to be (and sometimes still am) a streamer, I helped my father in law install the electrical systems in a couple of buildings and helped paint quite a few rooms together with my painter friend. Doing all those jobs I learnt one thing: even the simplest job or task is quite complicated and has a surprising amount of intricacies beneath the surface especially when you want to do it well. Let's take something quite simple like splitting logs for example. Just by looking at it, it looks easy enough:  you hit the log with the axe, split it and then put the pieces in a neat pile. It is extremely easy to criticize someone if the logs are not all the same size or if the pile leans towards one side. When you do it yourself however, you realize that hitting the log is not actually easy, you are running out of stamina and don't know how to make your motions economical to conserve your strength, your hands are getting bloody since the handle is chaffing your skin, you get the picture. Now compare splitting logs with balancing a huge game like WoT.   My point is: It is really easy to be critical and smart when you are looking at something from the outside and don't have to deal with all the little intricacies and restrains that are only apparent when you are actually doing something. The devs have to deal with under a lot of other things: - the expectations of a lot of very different player types (a hardcore player like you and a casual have very different expectations, the are a lot of people who value historic accuracy over gameplay etc) - the expectations of a lot of different departments - deadlines - the peculiarities of the game engine   - etc (I am not a dev, so I am sure I didn't even list the most annoying ones)   I am not saying you are wrong, maybe you could be the chosen one who brings balance to WoT :) But, expect that if you really became the guy responsible for balancing, your decisions would be just as much criticized as our current ones.   

View PostGkirmathal, on 25 September 2017 - 10:30 PM, said:   Just few ideas, if possible, besides your goal to become more visible in individual discussions.   Do some weekly/monthly summary update, in a new special pinned thread. Give TL:TR's on what feedback has been send and how it was received. What kind of feedback would they like to see, which topics, etc. Give the player base (EU/NA/SEA) a thick thumbs up by some dev (in name), if feedback from a 'discussion' was received and really helpful for very well received by said dev and was useful for them. Share that.   Or, start a weekly/monthly "developers diary" thread on general (for all regions, separately written), with some developers who might be interested in such a thing. A bit like how the development team of Helion or KSP does it in their blogs.   This could show this player base that Minsk is actually listening, taking EU/NA/SEA feedback and proposed solutions actually serious. A lot can be gained here.     On point 2/3. You don't have to take risks in order to generally better inform folks. It just depends on how you bring it, plain upfront honesty will currently go farther I recon then a prefabbed PR explanation.    Taking your two examples above. Let Minsk share what 'the technical reason was' (without getting too technical ofc), or 'which tested solution didn't work out for issue X' and what other solutions are still being considered by naming them. Like if they have tested solution X (gathered through player feedback) for problem A and solution X made their local test hamster die....but with B, H and T the furry critters lived. This is good, insightful and interesting information (albeit a bit gruesome). It shows us, Minsk has actually listened and is actually acting upon received EU/NA/SEA feedback (...and that player solution X has killed a hamster).   Laughs aside, such info can be so helpful to increase the following: it builds customer confidence, in ones development process and company.   Feedback on feedback, well Q&A's are a bit like that. Be it the translated ones or not. In my opinion their current quality is below par (be it the chosen question or trolling non answers) and this leads players not taking those guys serious or actually getting to thinking they are inept.     Yeah I noticed and I think it is positive Ph3lan! Though (I hate thoughs), try to make it a new way of working that will last! :izmena: You know as well as me (and many others who added to this discussion), that we have been on this road before a couple of times.   About the MM you mentioned above. This will be a very good case to start that development diary thing I talked about. A good way to proactively show what is being considered/tested/etc!     P.s damn this went off topic fast....

Ph3lan:   You raise a couple of pretty good ideas. A couple of reasons why we are not doing them, or doing them differently: - The main job and focus of developers is to develop the game (captain obvious strikes again). If we make them write blogs and feedback on feedback, they are not doing that. Can we find a better balance so we can get more info but they can still do their jobs? Probably, and we are constantly pushing for this.The Q&A stream sessions are one step in this direction and we will do them in much better quality and format in the future. To give you a bit of insight, we did a pretty cool Q&A with our WoWS executive producer the other day answering a lot of questions from both the forums/FB and the chat. That stream had a huge amount of information compared to our earlier ones and there was a lot more interaction with the chat and the forums. I think this is the way forward for WoT streams as well.  - We have to deal with our own internal workload/resource and workflow limitations as well in the office. This is not an excuse, just stating the fact. This is something that we have to deal with and try to improve.     

Реклама | Adv