WoT is not broken...
Дата: 07.01.2019 20:29:11
Noo_Noo, on 07 January 2019 - 05:16 PM, said: So you put the OBJ 268 V4 in game knowing it was
"balanced " then? Same with the Defender, Type 5 Heavy, WT AUf E100
or whatever it was. Type 59 back in the day etc. Do you
honestly expect us to believe that? eekeeboo: *I* didn't put anything in the game, but on the other hand
*I* will explain that tanks go through common testing and stats
looked at. It's not until they hit the live server and you get to
see the real performance you can truly judge just how a tank will
perform. While you list all those tanks, I wonder how many you
didn't list that were released and were fine, OK and those that
were UP? Do you try to be objective in this or...?
Gkirmathal, on 07 January 2019 - 05:55 PM, said: 'Done right' is in the eye of the beholder of course. If we
ought to believe a lot of the CC feedback, lots of thing have not
been 'done' especially 'right' since early 2017. I won't go into
individual examples of content and features in this thread.
Ongoing balancing should have been/be on/at/near the top of the
list. Especially with a product like WoT, that has so much content
and content having been/being created. This has not been handled
exceptionally well in my opinion over the past few years.
Okay, one example. Early forum feedback showed that, after 9.19,
the 3-5-7 priority change resulted in much higher negative
perception of players on gameplay enjoyment regarding mm. It did
take WG until very recently, aprox. two years, to openly recognize
this and start re-addressing it (and still missing the boat by
readding many new 2+ templates on SEA servers).All the while it added to player boredom (3/4 of my old clan left within 1,5 years of 9.19), thus it hurt player retention (me included) and that can be seen in 3rd party site server statistics. If the above was rather clear early on, based on early global forum feedback, why let that linger for 2 years? The current Asia mm experiment, if resources were have been diverted from X/Y/Z, the same could have been done in summer 2017. A fix rolled out in fall 2017. Player enjoyment (perception/retention/boredom) would not have taken such a hit. And that is what I meant. Some things take too unnecessary long (years) while they shouldn't. A simple rebalancing of a tanks parameter for ample, rof/ammo pen/aim time/etc value change, to bring something out of a prower creeped state should not months. This can be analysed in a week+1, rolled out in two+1. And I am not talking about some ridiculous value changes, as we have seen in some changes in the past 2 years,
eekeeboo: Prepare yourselves, wall of text is coming! :
But there's a lot of lists for a lot of people. There's not just 1
list for 1 group of people. A team is made up of different
departments and workgroups. One is balancing another is developing
another is mapping etc. And with the MM changes in
mind, regardless of how it is received now, is it better than what
was before? Did it fix the main issues of before? Has it introduced
other issues not popular with the community? Yes and that's why
they have been worked on and continue to be, but these changes are
not short-term things they take months and years to address, hence
why if you remember the 3-5-7 was explained as being developed as
the best solution from testing taking place over a protracted
period of time. Unfortunately, in gaming and gamers, there is a
tendency for short memories on only remember recent negative things
and ignoring all the negatives that went away. As far
as I can see there was open recognition that 3-5-7 wasn't perfect
but was an attempt to fix prior problems. The fact the MM changes
were announced should highlight not that they're just starting work
on it now because of all the feedback, but because there's a tonne
of work already been done on various things and the team believe
that there's a solution they hope will address more issues after a
lot of work over a long period of time. Data analysis
takes WAY longer than a week when you sit down and think about all
the different data you would need to gather over the different
parameters and then all the different sets of analyses required.
For rolling out, assessing and solution generation, then you have
testing, then you have an assessment of that testing, you will
never get it right the first time, so you go back to evaluation and
you repeat this until it gets somewhere. All the while keeping
resources on other projects. It takes significantly more than 3
weeks to assess data over millions of players over numerous
permutations of matchups and maps etc. Then coming up with
solutions, testing and assessing and making sure none of those
solutions break anything else and address the issue you intend to
address. There needs to be an element of realistic expectation and
knowledge of just how much work is involved in game
development.
WoT is not broken...