Balance..
Дата: 10.01.2019 21:15:59
Noo_Noo, on 10 January 2019 - 09:08 AM, said: So in your opinion, a War Gaming employee there's nothing wrong with balance within the game and there are no other issues either? I honestly believe that if you asked everyone that plays this game if they feel it is balanced you'd get the same answer, no. Individual opinions on where an why that is is likely but I doubt anyone would say that this game is currently well balanced. I have no objections to Random MM or 2 tier spread in MM but at least balance it that way. To try and tell me that a E8 and a Defender is a two tier spread in anything but name is more than a little daft to be honest.
I believe +2 tier spread is fine provided the game is balanced that way. Its currently not.
Top tier tanks are, in many cases at least +2.5 tiers above those bottom tier tanks (if we're using tiers as a measuring unit) For example a Defender is more of a tier 9 tank than a Tier 8 one. Type 5 is probably Tier 10.5 or higher. Lots of examples of this throughout the game at every tier
eekeeboo: My opinions are stated clearly above, I advise you
read them more closely. It's not about asking "Is the game
balanced?" It's "What do you think is unbalanced?" - Watch the
variety of replies.
panter22, on 10 January 2019 - 01:57 PM, said: wow this is amazing you sad you like good
grind interesting https://worldoftanks...7737-eekeeboo/ type
59 interesting 
eekeeboo: It's also amazing I would use a type 59 and a Churchill III
to grind credits when the game had only a handful of
premiums!
LordMuffin, on 09 January 2019 - 11:44 PM, said: To win games you focus on winning the most important areas
of the map, regardless of which tanks are there. On most maps, only
1 or 2 areas are of any importance while the rest can be ignored.
For example: You never go beach on Overlord, regardless of
which tanks the enemy has put there, beach can be ignored. Like
1-line on cliff, Valley on Lakeville and so on. If then there are
T8 tanks also fighting for that area, I have to fight them. I don't
win games by giving up the important areas on maps, though on quite
a few of the new rebalanced maps, you can give up large parts of
the map and it doesn't matter much at all. Due to extremely strong
camping positions at Red lines (like Erlenberg). I
can avoid T8 tanks and go to some part which doesn't matter at all
to the outcome and farm useless damage from T6 tanks, but that is
not playing to win. So I won't do that, since I prefer playing to
win over not playing to win. 2nd paragraph. A T6 tank should
be able to damage a T8 tank frontally. Otherwise they shouldn't
meet in battle. It might not have to be easy, it might require some
luck with accuracy etc. But boring balance is when a top tiered
tank is impervious to bottom tiered tanks. Thinking like this is
removing diversity. You add diversity by making it possible for
bottom tiered tanks to damage top tiered tanks if they know what
they do or the top tiered tank play bad. Also, maps can be made to
add diversity by allowing flanking operations. What you
propose, I guess, is that top tiered tanks should be invournable to
bottom tiered tanks. Which just is a way to dumb the game down,
remove skill elements and decrease number of competetive and useful
tanks per battle. 3rd paragraph. SBMM is not something
that will stop players from wanting to improve. That is a
ridiculous claim without any basis. Dota 2/LOL/HS/SC2/WoW/Hots/CSGO
all have skillbased matchmakers. And it is not like these games are
less competetive then WOT or have a playerbase that doesn't want to
improve. In fact, I believe that the average WOT player is less
interested in improving then the average player for any of these
games. The issue with SH for me is not the skillbased matchmaker,
it is the useless tank balance at T8. It is get a Defender/IS-3A or
reduce your teams chances of winning, and if all players are of
similar skill, on average, the team with more Defenders/IS-3A will
win. My intentions with this game are as follows. 1: Skill
being an important factor in deciding who is winning a
battle. 2: All tanks of all tiers being a viable option. 3:
Maps that make sure that all tanks of all tiers are viable. 4: A
Matchmaker that put players equally often as bot/mid/top tiered
situations. 5: A powerlevel between tiers that is small enough to
make bottom tiers a threat to top (if bottom tiered is played
skillfully). Now I do know that these are not WGs intentions
(going by the changes done in past 2 years), nor do they seem to be
yours. I play to win, that is my only concern. I don't
use XVM in battle, because that mod should be banned, so I have no
clue how good a team mate is from xvm. Winrate is the best
metric when judging player skill. Then you can combine it with PR,
avg dmg, assistance damage, avg tier etc. But WR is the staple.
For the most successful time in WOT playing history
(regarding playernumbers), WG sold premium tanks that was always
slightly wraker then elite same tiered tanks, especially true at
T8. And it worked perfectly OK for WG to sell these tanks, it made
the owner a billionaire after all. So for the first like 5 or 6
years of WOT history, premium tanks didn't need to be stronger then
regular tanks to be sold. Players bought these 'weaker' tanks on
masse anyway. You don't believe that the gap between an
average T6 tank and an average T8 tank have increased in the past 2
years??? In the last 2 years, only the T-34-85M and AT-8 have
received a buff. The newly implemented T6 tanks are terrible, even
compared with other T6 tanks. At T8, Defender, VK100P, Polish T8,
Italian T8, obj-432, ELC EVEN 90, IS-M, Centurion 5/1, Patriot,
Liberte, Skorpion, Chrysler K, T-44-100, Somua, Lorraine
400, have been introduced, all of which are top of their
class in powerlevels except IS-M and maybe Cent 5/1 Buffs have
happened to T8. IS-6, KV-5, Löwe, Type 59, 112, WZ-111, Centurion
1, FV4202, T-44, T-54 mod.1, Pershing, 110, SU-100M1, Panther II,
Indien Panzer, VK 45.02A, Ferdinand, maybe more. Nerfs to T8:
ISU-152. When a wide array of tanks are buffed, and the
newly introduced tanks are the best or close to the best of their
respective class at T8, while almost none of the T6 tanks received
a buff. I can only come to one conclusion: The difference in
powerlevel between T8 and T6 have increased over the past 2 years.
And as far as I know, when powerlevel increases between tanks, it
makes it harder for the bottom tiered tank to compete with the top
tiered tank, which also leads to the idea that it was easier to
compete with a bottom tiered tank 2 years ago then it is now.
Now you might not agree, but then put some effort into
proving it. So now, show your non-biased data that my claim
above it is false. That these buffs didn't happen or that as many
T6 tanks was buffed roughly an equal amount. If my memory is
irrelevant, so is yours (about Tiger II and E100 and scouts
MM). Come up with data to why scouts where a nightmare to play
back then, why a stock Tiger II was worse back then compared to
now.eekeeboo: Part of your statement is true, but if you don't control the
bigger threats, holding a "stronger" part of the map or let your
teammates get rolled and you face 1 v 5, it doesn't matter how good
your map position is, you'll suffer. Like never going
beach... tactically yes it makes no sense. Right until you get that
get the goomba lemming the beach and fast cap and win. Yes it
happens. Some parts of the map are simply impossible
to hold alone against numerous enemies and without the support they
are pointless. Like avoiding 1 line of cliff, but if your team's
big guns go there and only 3-4 go elsewhere, you're going to have a
bad time. But the act of when you engage, if you see
you're in a tier 6 and in a tier 8 game, would you really go solo
to the important parts of the map? More-so if you knew you'd face 1
or more tier 8s. A tier 6 can contribute in more ways
than just damage. If every tank could damage every tank, there's
absolutely no point in having variety or tactics. Highest roller
wins, vs tactical awareness and helping teammates. You talk of
diversity and you have it now. Can you damage the tank frontally?
No, can you damage him from the side? you have a chance, from the
back? Even higher chance. Can you circle him and out run his
turret? yes can you keep him tracked for teammate help? yes. Can
you spot him for teammate to help? Yes. That's diversity, not all
tanks can shoot all tanks. In those games, honestly
tell me how skill based MM works in them, I can tell you in LoL
ranked... yeah it doesn't solve any of the problems people complain
about. I've played enough games over enough time with so many
people that people play games for different reasons. Not everyone
wants to improve, that's fair enough, but demanding the game be
made easier for them personally is natural, doesn't mean it should
happen realistically for the health of the game. You need to appeal
to everyone or at least as much as possible. There are the same
demographics of competitive gamers and not in all games, some play
for fun and to relax, others take it seriously. There's some
serious over generalisation and presumption in your statement I'm
sorry to say. And unfortunately map making, it isn't
possible to have everyone have a good game you can make it so
everyone has a chance to do something, but it's up to the player.
That's why you have different maps of different styles and why maps
continue to try and have a little for everyone, but you do that and
you risk making it so that more people have OK games and less
people have those stand out games where their tank excels. Proho -
open, varied and "great" until you're in a slow heavy with a bad
accuracy gun... you're not going to have fun. The
danger of using winrate to judge how good a player is.... there are
many ways this can be abused and why Personal rating was never used
previously and why WN6+ was created because of the way this can be
manipulated. Playing in a platoon with 2 other good people doesn't
make you better for instance (I'm not insinuating this is you, but
an example of how it can be so easily skewed). As for
WoT's most successful time, look at the age of the game, the
competition in the F2P market, the trends socially at the time, the
economic state of the world. The age of the game and the level of
competition. There's A LOT of factors to look at for this. I
suggest you look at the natural life cycle that all games go
through. Let alone look at all servers. As for the "average
tier 6" vs "average tier 8" I found them to remain at the same
level/gulf in climb. There are different mechanics than previously
and the MM handles a lot more different than it used to be. You're
asking to compare two completely different ages of the game with
one another. Is the difference between the tanks or is it just
everything else mechanically that has also changed? As
for data... you know, and I sincerely you hope you really don't
expect me to provide sensitive data that you know for a fact no
gaming company provides? Do you? You're asking for
data to compare 2 different situations. Data that could be provided
but would need to be sensitive and is never shared by any company
in any game (that I'm aware of EVER). Now you can say
"HAH you can't prove it so I'm right!" that's fine, it still won't
change the truth.
Balance..