WoT is not broken...

Noo_Noo, on 07 January 2019 - 07:40 PM, said:   I'm sorry but I don't believe you, especially when WG, to my knowledge in the last 3 years have not released any UP premium or top tier tanks other than Tier 10 lights. Tests, CC opinions etc. all suggested that the OBJ268 V4 was OP. Strange that they were proved right based on a small number of battles yet the game designers were unable to establish this from all the world wide test data available. In fact you didn't really do anything for anything up to 5-6 months depending how long it takes to implement a nerf. This really suggests WG decided to ignore the issue.    It says a lot for the games balance when the best tier 10 light tank is actually a medium!!

This is a huge issue IMO - WG's response time. Instead of addressing issues WG ignore the issue for too long. Arty has been problematic for years but even though there have been changes its still problem. WG's solution? Sell the Lefe. As mentioned above 6 months to nerf the OBJ268 V4. Type 5 has been broken for how long now?? MM is still a problem despite the issues being revealed within the first couple of weeks of the 3-5-7 template system release. Premium ammo is regularly whined about. In this instance I agree the issue is a very complex one but we're still waiting for that fix, even though I remain hugely apprehensive of the current proposed solution.  


Gkirmathal, on 07 January 2019 - 10:45 PM, said:   Thank you for the wall ghehe, I do like good walls of text! And I think it is good someone with a red band is showing up on the forums.   One of your predecessors once finely explained how the process worked and also pointed out that inter team and department communication back in the days was scratchy. I do understand, I have worked in a major publishing firm last year so I am familiar with how big corporations run and TBH sometimes they hurt themselves more than they do good via such processes.     Onto 3-5-7, my memory serves this well on the subject, including what I posted back then. I was and am a proponent of the template system. But I would say the first iteration of 9.18 was the best iteration for the template system.   The issue came with 9.19, they changed the template priorities, prioritizing 3-5-7 for all tiers above 4. This was after feedback from RU who disliked that tier X saw too many single tiered battles and some queue time issues. This change led to all the complaints of seeing too many -2 games, especially on tier 8. Which is indicative if tier X got the same priority (weight) in building a session based on 3-5-7 first.   The olden days mm versus 9.19 mm, no I'd choose the randomness, disproportionate type balancing and the occasional flukes over 9.19. But if you would ask me olden days versus 9.18, I'd say 9.18 all the way. Purely because of priority were much better balanced in 9.18 than to what it was changed with 9.19 till currently.   Therefor I do seriously hope the team working on this recognize the feedback properly. Not that most folks dislike -2, but that prioritizing templates that are -2, as is the case with 3-5-7 now, is not the most proper way to rework the template system. A better tier spread must be maintained, through setting correct priorities, if not utilizing a governor/management system in the mm that track players placement over x nr of battles.     Depends on the subject I suppose. But minor tank rebalances can be done in short time frames in my honest opinion and through better/more exstensive testing phases. Like I mentioned with the E8 ammo in the other thread. Content like the 252U/Bobject would have been averted that way...unless, if I put on my tin foil hat, it was meant to be released as is.    It's late...we'll prolly be discussing this tomorrow as well.