Some misc info in this post.
Get Expert Opinion: Soviet Edition is now locked for new questions.
Follow the blog updates to check Pasholok's replies. Next week I'm going to post the last batch of Q&A with Doyle.
As a continuation of the famous hatred thread, below are the results of the related poll:
What annoys me most is ...
Get Expert Opinion: Soviet Edition is now locked for new questions.
Follow the blog updates to check Pasholok's replies. Next week I'm going to post the last batch of Q&A with Doyle.
As a continuation of the famous hatred thread, below are the results of the related poll:
What annoys me most is ...
- 0 damage hits - 786 (32%) - that's one of the persistent complex issues to be seen to in 2013
- Arty parties - 636 (26%) - going to post some more info on possible solution
- No skill-based matchmaking - 220 (9%) - just no way
- Lack of tactics in random - 181 (7%) - some pre-launch IQ test?
- Visibility / spotting system - 168 (7%) - no overhaul planned for now
- 25% randomization roll - 121 (5%) - not subject to change
- Insufficient optimization and bugs - 116 (4%) - 8.2 did a great job, however this is a continuous task
- lack of game modes - 93 (3%) - more game modes are in plans
- smth else - 40 (1%)
- Ramming / TK damage system - 30 (1%)
No skill-based matchmaking - 220 (9%) - just no way
ReplyDeleteno way? i´m sure there is a way to figure out a solution. in fact, you have all the data you need, you just dont want to take it into consideration.
+1
DeleteNo-way for standard battles, all the rest is not a complete no-go, but very unlikely to come.
DeleteWhy not give us the option? Then let people decide for themselves?
DeleteLike in Sc2 where you have both options? Ranked (skilled based mm) and unranked (current random mm) + a few others in the future.
There is no need in breaking the core mode without introduction of anything new. Such ranked battles could work for semi-eSport mode or smth like that, ie a more complicated mode than the current standard battles and intended for a smaller playerbase ready for a tougher competition.
DeleteBut thats the point of skill based matchmaking. It lets the newbies play amongst themselves while gradually giving you more complicated battles via more experienced/skillful opponents.
DeleteI had to sell my beloved Hetzer because I was just beating up on guys with under a thousand games and it stopped being fun anymore. I'm sure the players who are far better than I feel the same when they see me in a match.
No, regardless of you skill you always be forced to fierce competition. There won't be any easy battle, cos all you enemies of similar skill level. It can be very exhausting.
DeleteCurrent randoms shell stay as they are. For people who want more reliable teamates there are at this moment companies and clan wars. I think that WG will introduce in the future smth more for them.
DeleteThere could be for example "elite random battles" were could play only people who met some conditions (for example more then 1000 battles, average tier played - V, and at least 52 win ratio), but it shall work as an option for those who want more demanding enemies and better teammates.
True, its a little exhausting. But so is the current setup where I know I have to perform well most matches or my win rate drops. Playing on the test server is kinda fun because there are no stats to care about, just the battle.
DeleteAt least with good team mates I could rely on them. That and I wouldn't groan every time I see a platoon of three amazing players. Whichever team has three 60+% win rate people pretty much just wins, its not fun to be against them or allied to them. (Being allied is of course the preferable option.)
+1 for the option of skill based MM.
DeleteSuggestion for a next pool
ReplyDeleteLimit for max. arties in random should be set to:
2
3
4
5
6
Thanks for the idea.
DeleteSuper idea!!
DeleteIt would be nice to have a thorough explanation of why skill based MM is "just no way".
ReplyDeleteIt might go some way toward calming people's rage :)
I would be expensive to make. I think thats the real reason. :)
DeleteThe idea in itself is not a problem. Just give people the option for both modes. :)
MMing is not expensive from the resources point of view. It's the outcome of such change that can be.
DeleteIf you or somebody else could outline in detail exactly what outcome WG is worried about, it might help.
DeleteAudience & income.
DeleteIf its an income thing then add skill based MM to premium accounts. "enemies of similar skill level. It can be very exhausting." So long my own team is of similar skill and not full of muppets/clueless people as most matches today are then I would not mind.
DeleteOverlord I think you are misunderstanding me.
DeleteIn SC2 you have the option to play ranked and unranked. You can switch between the two as much as you like.
THAT is what I am asking of WoT. The option to switch between ranked and unranked.
That way, no one would get bored or scared away (or forced to something they dont like)!. :)
And by unranked games I mean the current mm for standard battles. :)
DeleteThere is no point in splitting the main mode that does work well.
DeleteYes its working. But that dosent mean that you shouldent add a 2nd option? :)
DeleteMost of the people I know want the option to play ranked. Those 15-5 games are pretty boring (and you will get them quite often). :)
You can always give it a public test and then decide if its worth going further with? :)
To test an entire new game mode public testing should be rather continuous like we did with the physics. Again, we are not planning to introduce ranked standard battles. This is possible only for a totally new mode.
DeleteI honestly think that WG is missing out by not allwoing for ranked games.
DeletePeople get frustrated and in the end - quit = no income for WG.
All of my real life friends have quit. The MM is one of the reasons why. :/
>>No skill-based matchmaking - 220 (9%) - just no way
ReplyDeleteIt's kind of ironic because I just came to check out the blog because I exited from a match during the countdown where the top 6 tanks on my team were all 42% or below with worthless efficiency ratings while the other team all had 53%+. On top of that it was a tier 8 match and I was in a tier 6. Guaranteed loss. Solution: Return to garage, play a different tank or check out a blog. Not going to frustrate myself with a pointless match. The annoying thing is how common matches like that are (I guesstimate about 1 in 5.. I exit out of a lot of matches these days).
See it from another side, you lost, someones won, there are always two sides. And it's better avoid the situation when both are suffering.
DeleteYes, the other side where I'm on the team that does the roflstomping isn't particularly fun either, because again the conclusion is effectively predetermined and there is no challenge there. Literally 2 out of 5 matches (one foregone win, one foregone loss) are pointless, because they're won or lost before they ever begin by virtue of how the MM distributes players. How is that supposed to be good design?
DeleteBased on comments I see from devs regarding skill based matchmaking, I'm left thinking that maybe you guys don't actually understand what advocates want from it. I don't know of any cogent supporter of stat-based matchmaking that wants a system that matches each player on a team with an identical player, stat-wise, on the other. No, what is desirable is to play in the same class of people. And there are really only two types of WoT players: Contributors and non-contributors. Non-contributors (evidenced by their 40% win rates and sub-1000 efficiency) are exactly that--non-contributors--and contributor-type players do not want them on their team. It's incredibly frustrating to watch non-contributors bounce shots that should be easy pens, use the rear of their tank for its excellent armor, or any of the other various characteristics of terrible players. In short, it isn't fun to play with them. No, don't give me an argument about tank companies if I want to control who my teammates are because TCs are so limited in scope (few tiers, few viable tanks within those tiers) that it's a meaningless suggestion.
If the cost of not having them on our team is not having them on the other team, that's a fair deal to me. In my experience playing this game (18k battles), matches loaded with contributor type players on both sides unfold differently than games like the above. Because what's the easiest way to get easy kills in WoT? Go to one of the map's optimal spots and wait for the 40%ers to do something stupid, which they quite reliably do. It's not particularly entertaining, frankly.
If 'suffering' means I actually have to play to win or avoid a loss, then inflict some pain please.
Overlord - it's not that simple, if you are playing for example 20 battles in row and trying everything, just to save the day and rest of the team are not skilled enough or just don't care, you can't just leave with deep breath and think "they won, good for them", just try to imagine how far from reality this is.
Deleteeverything else has been already told and +1 to dogdayz.
You are not getting the point Overlord. The point is that the MM keep setting up fights where there is no real competition.
DeleteIs it exiting to watch a football match between a top tier team and a bunch of disabled schoolkids? Sure the top team will win but there isn't any match and no reason to watch it.
It is putting skill vs. skill that is the lure of a match, not just winning for its own sake.
The no skill MM only favor people who do not like a fair match and like to slaughter poor players. They are not really gamers just griefers. Real gamers want a challenge.
And it is also bad for the poor players, they get ridiculed, shouted at and stomped on because their inexperience or ineptitude destroys the fun for the good players in their team.
No having a random factor determine your chances instead of skill is a really bad decision. It takes away the contest part of the game and leave a lot of battles to be boring slaughters where you don't feel good by winning and you feel cheated in the loosing side.
Nikolaj Lemche,
Deletehow many of those are you actually getting? 1% maybe.
The better you play, the more chances to win you have. And this is fair. If your personal performance improvement is always neutralized by MMing that always gives you tough opposition regardless of how well you play is definitely not the case we want to achieve. 48-49% win rate for the whole playerbase.
DeleteActually its more lke 40% of games that does not really contain any competition.
DeleteYou guys like to put in what we in our game group call "idiot roads" areas that attract poor players like flies are attracted to poo. If you see many players enter the valley in lakeside, the magic forest in Murovanka or the new idiot valley to the east of Dragon Ridge you know before the first shot is fired that the game is lost simply because you can see how many poor players there are on your team and my prediction is about 90 to 95% correct.
And its the same the other way, if you move along the areas where battles are determined (village in Prokorovka, town in lakeside, the green in Ensk and so on) and you don't see a lot of enemies there then you know the enemy team is full of idiots and all the excitement is gone.
It has become so bad that the good players now talk across teams about how stupid players are. I asked the enemy team 2 days ago in Murovanka if their mentally challenged players had entered the magic forrest and the answer was "a unicorn was spottet there so they all went looking for it". That is the scorn the good players feel for the "average" player these days.
It is not fun for the good players to mingle with the poor players and it is not fun for the poor players to be with the good players and it removes a LOT of the real contest of the game because the outcome is determined before the battle is even started.
"OverlordDecember 29, 2012 12:07 PM
DeleteThe better you play, the more chances to win you have. And this is fair."
Fully agree :)
With skillbased MM good players will have lower influance on their battles outcome. Also their XP and credits will get worse too.
But Dead Skin they will have more fun battles and get the satisfaction of seeing themselves getting better and knowing that they have won over good players instead of just turkey shooting poor players.
DeleteIf you want to feel that play companies and clan wars, take part in ESL :)
DeleteOverlord, its far more than 1%.
DeleteDead Skin Mask, the problem with your solution is that to play companies, CW or ESL, effectivly you have to be in a clan. Many people are not social gamers, and do not want to join a clan.
After almost 2 years of WOT (more in RU), about 28% of players (across all servers) who have played more than 1000 games are in a clan. That leaves 72% of non-casual players (and potential paying customers), for who Random games are the only option. That's why it is so important that each and every match be somewhat competitive and enjoyable.
Why do you think that those 72 prc are interested with more competitive matches? As we see only 9 prc of people decided that lack of skill based MM is the biggest problem of that game.
DeleteNikolaj Lemche and jediwomble,
Deleteit depends on what the criteria on unbalanced battle is. What is it for you?
in TC or CW one is very limited to certain tanks, I don´t want to spend the whole evening driving 2-3 tanks
DeleteThere are several things that unbalance a game. The tiers of tanks often have little relevance to how powerful they are on different maps. But it is the skill level of the individual players on each team that causes the biggest unbalance.
DeleteIf one team has 6 competent players and the other has 3 the first team will almost always win and there is nothing the 3 good players on the other team can do about it and that is frustrating and unfair.
If you are not willing to put in a skill tiered matchmaking then you HAVE to consider the overall effectiveness of the players in each team during the MM process so that each team get the same number of competent players.
Notice that I don't even count the bad players. The new after battle screen has shown the harsh reality that 2/3 of players never do anything useful in the game.
I understand that 2/3 poor players is a better source of income than the 1/3 good players so you really don't have any incentive to change things except maybe a certain pride in your product.
But back to criteria:
There should be a point value to tanks in MM depending on their exact current power in movement, visibility, armor and lethality. Getting a stock Tiger 2 as your top tier makes the game rather frustrating to your team unless you knew you were compensated somehow. Use a similar algorithm to the one you use when platoons have weak members in it to compensate the team.
Then there should be a balance in the skill level of the tankers on each side. I suggest that you use the average XP each tanker has in his tank in that battle once they have fought 20 or so battles in it and before that assume they are not that good players.
We know you can do stuff like this, for example you have the extremely generous matchmaking you always get the first 2 to 3 battles in a new tank where you are more or less sure to win those battles.
Anyway losing to a competent enemy is not frustrating, losing because of poor team mates is.
Just lost 4 games in a row 15:4. Again. So no 1% here. And no, it wasn't my fault, I did my share. As I said, it's getting really frustrating.
DeleteThe 1% you are talking about is when you are the more or less only good player in your team, and you know the map, and your place on it. You kill 9-10 enemies and still loose because of teammates...
DeleteI know what you are talking about. This can be painful indeed.
Deleteoverlord, what yoe are saying is a load of crap, with all due respect.
DeleteIt's one thing not to be forced to play with newbies, retards and bots - would be nice not to , but if I have to I have to.
But what makes experienced player quit the game or stop caring about the result are unbalanced teams, where your contribution can change the result from 3:15 when you play bad to 9:15 if you play good. Or from 15:9 to 15:3.
And such games are not 1%. It's about 1/4 of all battles usually and about 3/4 on the days with x5 for the first win and similar.
you wrote:
"See it from another side, you lost, someones won, there are always two sides. And it's better avoid the situation when both are suffering."
wtf?
If my team won without my effort, such win is no fun at all.
If my team won thanks to my effort, that's why I am playing this game.
If my team lost despite my effort and excellent performance I'm frustrated and hate the game.
If my team lost even though I could have changed the result but I failed, I am angry at myself and want to improve.
You see the difference?
Battles that are obvious rapage are no fun for winners and frustrating for losers, fierce battles won by an inch are amazing for winners and motivating for loosers.
And that is the thing you want to avoid?
You are 1/30 of the battle, you cant decide each one.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhy dont you guys just add an OPTION for us who want to play ranked games?? Let people chose themselves?
ReplyDeleteAlso, here are some numbers on the current map balance:
http://www.atonet.se/wotsup/public/matchStats.php
Dosent look too good.
At a sample size of only 1k, you are still looking at a +/- of, what, 5%? None of those numbers is outside of 8% from 50, and most of them are within 5. So...no, nothing shocking there.
DeleteThe exception of course is the Assault maps. They are worthless, and anyone with half a brain has that box unchecked by now, which only amplifies the advantage of the defending team.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNo, you are thinking of a sample pool of 400. At 1K its +/- 3%.
DeleteAll info on the math part here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination
But lets take a closer look at the maps shall we?
Ensk and himmeldorf are good examples. Both sides are pretty much a mirror of each other, both stat and layout wise. Both have 51% vs 49%. Thats a 1% diffence. Just like we would expect mathematically.
Now lets take a look at a map that isent mirrored layout wise.
Fjords: 56% vs. 43% (1% draws).
We suddenly jump from a 1% diffence to a wopping 5%!
If the the map really was balanced, the diffence should have been 1%. Max 3%.
But it aint = its not ballanced. :)
Some maps are not nicely balanced indeed. We are going to see to the issue in future.
DeleteAnders -
DeleteThough its been awhile since I've used it, I do have a degree in research design. There is zero certifiable control in the survey my man. Those 1800 matches could be the same 300 matches reported by 6 different people. While I have no doubt that some of the maps are unbalanced, there is no way I would trust that information from anyone other than Wargaming.
The odds of all the mod users ending up in the same battle are very small. ;) So I dont see that as much of a problem.
DeleteMy point was that the odds of their being a control issue in the data are very high. I do see that as a problem.
DeleteIts not very high? You dont need a degree in research design to understand basic statistics. :)
DeleteI don't understand the rage here about that skill-based MM.
ReplyDeleteyeah, it looks nice on the paper, but from the bigger picture perspective it would sucks. and btw who is pro? the guy who doesn't play for the team and is just gathering cap points? or the other selfish idiot that cares only about his stats and kills?
If every of you that is complaining here is such pro, you should welcome 'noobs' in your matches as source of easy xp/credits. And if you get killed by a 'noob' - are you sure you are such pro and want to compete with real pros?
There is no need to FORCE everyone to play ranked/skilld based MM.
DeleteJust give us the OPTION to do so.
Then no one will have anything to whine about. :)
Again, not within the main game mode.
DeleteSo will there actually be an option to chioose another gamemode where this is the case? one that you can play on your own? Because all my friends stopped playing, mainly because they got frustrated with 0dmg hits and the high random factor (not hitting/penetrating a target although the odds mainly speak for it, and also because of the fairly bad MM. They weren't that good themselves, so they maybe would have preferred games where there are no uberpros/roflstompers. Also you said that you don't want the skill based MM nullifying the improvement the player makes. But is it really better if your own skill gets nullified by a team that can't do anything right and leaves you against an opponent you cannot defeat alone? Never felt this as much as now, as I reached Tier9 and a loss really starts to hurt.
DeleteNew game modes are a must in mid-term future. We have included them into the WoT game concept. As well as 0 dmg hits.
Deletehttp://overlord-wot.blogspot.com/2012/11/wot-live-long-and-prosper.html
Caernarvon's camouflage multiplier is very poor.
ReplyDeleteI know it is a large tank, but even larger tanks do not get spotted as easily as this does. Such as Getting spotted before the T34 that 100 meters in front of you.
Can you Confirm that the camouflage bonus of this tank is abnormally poor?
pro skill based matchmaking!
ReplyDelete-> im totally sure that there is a answer on this "y not?"-question whcih wont be made public.
But if you know sth about how-to gather money from folks its easy to get the answer why WG wont implement this option.
How are you getting ppl to pay money easiest? If theys are pissed off.. !!
bad players about good ones bc they get pwned, good players on bad ones by they dont help and team-up, all in one room/one battle...
What is the solution for the normal guy if hes pissed?
Easy! :) He gets prem (or freexp, or premammo or 100% crew, etc.) to get rid of this stupid tier, stupid tank, stupid gun, bad crew (yeah think about it, its true..) in hope there is a solution with this investment (which isnt)
Thats why you will NEVER EVER see skill based matchmaking, because folks wont be as much pissed of anymore. ;) And wg wont do as much money.. smiling ppl dont spend as much as angry ppl bc they are happy with as it is.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMaking people @pissed off@ is not the best way to incentivize payments. It can more likely scare players away altogether.
DeleteSome balanced suffering can only urge you to rush for higher tiers, so as to decrease suffering. But it's not directly linked to payments.
"Making people @pissed off@ is not the best way to incentivize payments"
DeleteA huge majority of players that doesn't use gold ammo is really pissed off when they get killed by a small minority of players with gold ammo. Why does this not apply here? When you create the feeling for a lot of players that the enemy plays unfair (allowed != fair) you don't incentivize them to spend more money on the game. Wouldn't the positive long term effects of the removal of premium ammo (players won't rage quit because they think the enemy "cheated", game would look less "Pay2Win") create more revenue than the ammo itself?
Use credits to purchase prem ammo. There are options.
DeleteEspecially with the combination of a premium account and a T8 premium vehicle you can easily make the money necessary to switch from normal ammo to premium as soon as you see something armored. In the end you pay more real money and you get a distinct advantage. And this should not be the case.
DeleteHi Overlord,
ReplyDeleteIs L3gi correct about why you won't consider Skill based matchmaking?
The least you could do is offer us a detailed reasoning as to why its so unappealing to WG. All we ever get is drivel like "Skill is your priviledge", which is something of an insult to intelligence. If you have legitimate reasons, be they technical, economic or otherwise, some sort of proper explanation might help your customers to understand this odd decision.
From my point of view (and I am not alone, I think), having as much as 25% of random games be totally uncompetitive is a major disincentive to play and pay in the long term.
Replied above.
DeleteHow exactly do you define uncompetitive game?
Not a very clear answer.... are you saying the principal reason WG rejects any skill based MM is because it would act as a disincentive to carry on to higher tiers? This seems very odd, as seriously unbalanced (by skill) matches are just as likely at high tiers as at lower tiers.
DeleteBy uncompetitive, I mean where one team is so much more experienced than the other, that the outcome is inevitable. Some mismatch is OK, good even, but the extreme mismatches, which do occur much too regularly, just create boring games.
In these games, bad players learn nothing, good players arn't challenged and no one earns much EXP. Its a shame that such a great game is marred by this basic flaw.
It is disincentive, cos it becomes hard for you to track your progress and see how your skill grows because you will always be matched against similar players. Your W/R percentage will tend to 48-49% while your credit / exp income may be decreased if you had higher W/R before.
DeleteThanks for the reply.
DeleteThis highlights one of the problems with discussing skill based MM. People often have different ideas of how it would work.
I DO NOT want a system where you only play against similarly skilled players (Ladder System). This would be dull and, as you say, would 'flatten' W/R etc.
I DO WANT a system which balances, to a reasonable but not exact extent, the total skill of each team. This would, as currently happens, alow matches of two high skilled team, two low skilled teams or (much more likely in practice) two teams comprised of a mixture of high and low skill. The only change would be that you would not have matches comprised of one high skill team and one low skill team.
When it comes to such adstract and non-concrete thing as skill, it's really hard to balance it, especially 2nd scenario.
DeleteNo it's not.
DeleteThe skills in question are easily quantifiable. In fact, one of the core components of your game (the experience system) already does exactly that.
You can measure skill by average experience earned by player on his tanks against server average on those tanks. You already have a very similar system in operation for measuring the award of Mastery badges.
As a possible solution for the skilled based MM system IF there are enough players on a particular server would it be practical/possible to segment the player base into 2 or more segments effectively splitting the player base into leagues. If your WR was to get to a certain high or low level you either move up or down a league(segment) of the player base.
DeleteThis still leaves it possible for people to view their progress as the WR would not be 49-50% for every player it would just eliminate (the vast majority) of 40% or 60% players appart from in the top or bottom league. anyone who gets neat 40% in the bottom league would need congratulating for switching on their PC/Laptop. Anyone still ataining 60%+ in the top league would deserve a medal.
Inferior and superior players? Hell no.
DeleteInferior and Superior players are already in the game. They might not be labeled as such but they are here already. I guess WG already have data that sugests this would lessen the playerbase and I know the number of paying customers is your number one goal. I just find it illogical that tiering players would have a bigger negative impact on the player base size than people being put off by constantly being slaughtered. How many people quit after a week or two from getting beaten badly every game.
DeleteUnless you're worried that your stats show that some of the worst players do also have very good games too. Although this would suggest that they might be using automation if performance differs to that extent between games.
You can have this division subconsciously but giving out official labels with grades is somewhat different.
DeleteActually a skilled based MM is already in effect (to a degree). As when you join a game in a platoon you are always paired up against a lot of other platoons. This by default is making the assumption that people in platoons are more skilled so you take this into account. By your reasoning that skill averages out and you should just try harder to win (rather insulting by the way) making special consideration for platoons is wrong. Unless there is some other reason behind the MM. I'm a cynic so you can guess where my money is.
DeleteOh Overlord, while i'm at it, have a word with Serb & Storm and get them to make experience award for medals a permanent feature. It's rather good. ;)
ReplyDeleteIt also messes up the way the game is played. People give up the match to go for whatever the bonus is. Winning is no longer the biggest reward bonus, instead it's getting whatever that reward is. This was particularly obvious in some people's play when Defender was the featured award, where I saw 3 people in one day throw the match and hide to ensure the other team would build up the cap points. Then they'd pop out and get some damage in, rest the cap to get the award, and then lose. (Since it's very rare if you're capping that much in a Standard battle for the outcome to be in doubt.)
DeleteTrue that. That's why we didn't include such rewards on permanent basis in the first place.
DeleteI think it could still be rewarded, just not as much as in the special
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteOk.
DeleteWhat annoys me the most is not something which is listed in the poll . (But also)
ReplyDeleteI still think that WG is a party of evil eastern soviets guys . If there will be an bigger office in London UK and the game balance will come from there it would be fine and excellent .
Also about the video WG published in the portal , With the "Western" topic .. I liked it , Because then i understood that WG knows their position and their opinion of Western players .
Also we would like to have a new UK server , to see there less as possible IS3 and other soviet OP tanks , And also be able to speak English with each other in the team . Otherwise i can not team up with my teammates because they simple does not speak English . (and i do my try)
I have another great idea , i know you will not do it but still i want to suggest . Let the MM gather teams by their speaking language , That meas if i speak English i will fall into team of English speaking guys and then i would be able to speak with them at battle time and see these "siemka kurwa salut" in chat anymore ..
I Had many friends in the beta who decided to run to the NA server . because they knew that the real difficulty would be to communicate in the European server . But i was preferring more Ping vs Analphabets .
and *NOT see these ... in chat anymore .
DeleteIS-3 is not OP. And what would be the purpose of UK server.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSkilled match-making has disadvantages.
ReplyDeleteIt punishes a player from getting better, for the better he gets the tougher his competition. He or she still needs xp and credits, so the extra work is for nought.
It splits the player base which hurts the server match-making.
It makes players care about their stats more than playing the game and winning. The latter two I believe are far more important. I don't want ranking and stats to become more important than killing tanks.
Also how will skilled MM mix with platoons?
Yes, being on a 'noob' team is rough, but I think this proposed cure will hurt the patient more.
+1 for that IQ test idea... ;) Or maybe some training/lesson about simple tactics and then test to pass before starting the game for the first time ;)
ReplyDeleteIt can be done by some mini-game to not discourage new players...
Hopefully the battle tutorial will help, tho I wouldn't rely on it much personally. It will cover only newbies.
DeleteMaybe I am a minority... but honestly, I don't find anything that tragic or bad with the game. Now that the arty parties of the high tier battles are dealt with (well, sort of, but it'll come with the tier 10 arties), I really can't complain too much. The game is fun to play and that's how it should be.
ReplyDeleteWell, maybe one thing that bothers me a bit is the lack of banned mod controls. A few days ago I ran into a thread about a *certain* mod (I won't name that here, but it's definitely gamebreaking) - considering the fact there is no mechanism to actually control this sort of thing, haven't the developers actually thought about making some elements of the game totally inaccessible? Namely the models and skins (interface is fine I guess?).
Thank you developers again for making such a wonderful game :)
PS: Overlord, if it doesn't bother You too much, I left a PM at the EU forum, regarding the issue we talked about... but if You want to leave it after (Orthodox) Christmas, that's fine of course :) Thank You for Your time.
With kind regards and best wishes into the new year
Silentstalker
Thanks again for the support.
DeleteI will see to your message in a few days max. No worries.
I am slightly dissapointed that there is no solution for derp premium ammo in 0.8.3. It seriously spoils battles in tier IV, V and VI tanks and keeping such situation for so long is mistake IMO.
ReplyDeleteI tested that ammo in Pz IV and Hetzer. It is big "easy mode". Hetzer twoshooting KV-1 or T1 HT is not normal.
That's mainly because W/R and avg exp of those vehicles didn't skyrocket since this change, however there was some increase.
DeleteWhen can we expect introduction of optional per match higher speed, maneuverability, damage, camo, barrel depression, ROF etc for credits, in line with higher penetration (via gold ammo) for credits?
ReplyDeleteI love penetrating even the thickest armour by freely using gold ammo for credits, and would be happy if you could allow us to circumvent all the other tedious gameplay elements. Perhaps a single shell that automatically hits, penetrates and kills any tank for 50,000 credits.
(In case it's not obvious, one thing that annoys me is that you have got the economic balance of gold ammo for credits wrong.)
Don't see the reasoning why it is wrong.
DeleteGiven that I don't have access to your in-game financial data, it's more of a 'gut-feeling' than fully reasoned argument based on following:
Delete1. There seems to be a lot more gold ammo flying around in most games.
2. Using myself as an example. I'm a good, but not exceptional player, I have used only 2 weeks premium time & I have 5 low tier Premium tanks. Over the last month I have played 60 games on the VK2601H with Konich, all using only gold ammo, running at a profit of -20,000 per match. I was also able to fire an average of approx 6 gold rounds in every match with all my other tanks (or approx 1/3 to 1/5 of total rounds fired in each match. Despite the expense of the gold ammo, during that period my in-game balance went up by 750K.
You may have a problem if sufficient numbers of your player base realise that using lots of gold ammo makes the game much easier. On that basis they may not want to bother with all the grief and expense (both in-game and RL) of grinding high tier tanks when they can just spam gold at mid tiers, or on premium tanks.
It's no problem for me, and I guess you are monitoring customers spending habits closely, so will make changes when problem becomes apparent.
1. The was some increase since the known ammo change, however the % of prem ammo is still very low.
Delete2. Prem-ammo sprees will inevitably bring you in the red credit-wise, espeically for standard account. Avg credit expenditure went up since the change.
Have you been tracking what targets those few more premium shells are getting shot at in each battle?
DeleteThe few tanks that shoot premium rounds on a regular basis are obvious, the mid tier derpers and the E-100 (which has always been known to be reliant on the premium rounds to perform optimally). I have the feeling that if you look at who those shells get used on by everyone else, the ones who only shoot a shell a match if that, it'll be equally obvious who they get used on. The high armor tanks like the KV series, the tier 10 German heavies, and high frontal armor TDs.
I'm on both sides of this equation. I've always carried a small load of premium shells in my high tier tanks for when I come across the especially tough to penetrate opponents, and I've never paid credits for them. (Always bought large enough quantities during the sales I haven't needed to.) The ability to buy them with credits just means there is a selection of low tier tanks I was unwilling to spend gold on that I may actually load premium rounds on now. (Ironically the only tanks on that list are ones with such poor penetration that even their premium rounds weren’t reliable against the targets I was having trouble with, so I still ended up not buying any premium rounds with credits.) I point out the fact that I’ve never used the credit option to make clear that my discussion is not about the economics of the shells, only the effects of their greater proliferation. The economics, requiring real money to get them, was a way of limiting that proliferation and may still be if the credit price is changed.
We’ll use my M103 as the example tank for the shooter’s side because I’m pretty sure it’s the tank I’ve used the most premium ammo on (though 3601 with Konisch for the laughs probably comes close due to its rate of fire). I only load 5 rounds of premium shells on my M103, the majority is still regular AP with a couple HE. I don't actually shoot very many of those premium shells per match. Often you'll go a number of matches in a row before ever needing to use one, and then use 3 that match taking out whatever that target was. Account average, that's only 1 premium shell per match, if not lower, so it doesn’t look like those premium shells are having much of an impact on the game as a whole. But for that one match, I just ruined that target's match because I spent some money to defeat the big armor advantage.
This made my time in my M103 great. But seeing as I drive a Ferdinand I also know just how pissed off the person on the other end gets when they get themselves perfectly set up, take on a tank that they would normally easily defeat with little damage taken due to getting themselves so well set up, and then die as that target penetrates with every shot. I used to love my Ferdinand, precisely because it was so nice to be able to bounce shots from lower tier opponents and even some equal tier ones after the many squishy German TDs leading up to it. It was one of my keeper tanks from Beta, and one I never expected to get rid of now either. But as I'm getting ever closer to unlocking the JPII, I am starting to debate it. Sure the Ferdi's armor could be penned by most equal tier tanks so it wasn't invulnerable, but it was reliable enough to count on as a factor in the fight. Every once in a while you’d run across someone running Gold rounds for the LOLs and that could mess up that match, but it was just one match in a week of otherwise good ones if not only once a month. Now my Ferdi gets shot by premium rounds in the majority of matches. The armor advantage, the reason to keep it over the JPII which trades armor for better mobility, doesn’t really count anymore. And I don’t even have the consolation that at least that other person had to spend money to beat me anymore either.
True that there are several vehicles, whose prem ammo usage went up more than for the rest, brining their W/R and avg exp higher. However even for the most dependant on prem ammo vehicles the percentage of regular ammo is still 95+.
DeleteI think you missed the core of my question. Have you noticed a concentration in what vehicles premium rounds are used AGAINST? The target, not the shooter.
DeleteIt was too long for a question.
DeleteReply: I think it's not being tracked.
That would be why I asked the actual question as the very first sentance of the post. "Have you been tracking what targets those few more premium shells are getting shot at in each battle?" The rest was my comments on the situation. Sorry if it wasn't clear.
DeleteChoose one, please:
ReplyDelete1. 0 dmg hit especially in the side of Bat Chat 25t from E-100 with premium ammo. Hits for 0 damage do not need repair. Remove them completely !!!
2. Permanent nerfing of T34. The tank has become so sluggish that I expect soon his controls to start working backwards!
3. Permanent nefing of artyes - this is not the soution. Just limit their number in MM per match.
4. Lag between server and client reticle.
5. The fake promotions.
6. Ignorance to gamers opinion.
7. Insignificant pecentage of new skills (after repair, camo and firefight)
Hey Overlord,
ReplyDeleteWhat about the following alternative of skill-dependent MM?:
In order for a player to be allowed to buy a tier T tank, his average experience gained in tier T-1 tanks should exceed a certain minimum.
To exclude a great part of the playerbase from progression and competition? No.
DeleteIt would not exclude them from competition, as they could continue to play in tier T-1 forever.
DeleteProgression would still be possible for them too - after they improved their playing skill.
@as they could continue to play in tier T-1 forever.@
DeleteMany of those would rather leave which is not acceptable for us ofc.
Seems it will never happen. Players that have been in game a long time are less likely to leave. We might bitch and moan but WG know most of us are not going anywhere so our oppinion counts for less than new people that can and do easily leave. WOT is about making money and the business model WG are using is to get a little money from a lot of people. When you throw your net that wide you will get a very big difference in the quality of people. This i can understand but I still see no reason WG cant (even in the back ground) try and seperate the skill base slightly.
DeleteI think I'v ejust had my morst team mates ever as Even doing 7K damage with 8 kills in a Tier 8 battle we still lost as 6 people or BOTs on my team didnt hit a single thing. Hell two of them didnt even move.
I know people cant be punished for disconnects but there must be a way for WG to see if people just press return to garage and start a new match in a different tank straight away. This should be punished. and not just with a repair bill for a lost tank but something harsh enough to stop this practice.
Correct, those who belong to the core player group ie have stayed in WoT for a few months or so are unlikely to leave all of sudden. Here I'm taking about new players and those who have been playing a few days/weeks, they are more vulnerable in this respect and are more likely to leave because of many things, even relatively minor ones for core players.
DeleteHey Overlord,
ReplyDeleteI was wondering: wouldn't it be better if the B1 french heavy could use the chasis gun instead of the tower gun like the M3 Lee? It is mobile enough (turning and speed is quite good for that) and it would be more like a heavy, but with the current gun it is a pain in the...
Thanks in advance.
Regarding 4. the lack of tactics. It can be combated, by allowing in game voice comms in randoms for the teams, with an option to mute selected players. This way experienced players can educate the inexperienced, and the overall quality of the games can improve imho. The only text option is very limiting in the heat of battle. Just my 2 cents.
ReplyDeleteOverlord, will you ever let us transfer our gold to friends (or via some kind of Clan bank). Even if there's some kind of hardcap of say 1000 gold per week.
ReplyDeleteI've got my dad into the game and it deeply sucks that i can't help him out with my own gold supply.
Any gold transfers are a potential threat to fraud, we are going to be very careful with it.
DeleteIsent there alredy a giftshop where you can buy tanks and gold for other players?
DeleteThere is, but the items in it constantly rotate so the package you want may not be available. Plus, if you already have a large balance of gold sitting on your account it can be aggrivating to have to pay more money to give some to friends when you've already paid so much for so little return. At least at that time, the balance is sure to get used in time.
DeletePersonally I'd be happy just being able to transfer credits. It'd be awesome if I could just give any new players I get into the game 100000 credits to get started. That's a barely noticable hit for someone advanced in the game, but enough to let a new player play a number of tier 2 tanks and maybe a couple tier 3s, and hopefully find a playstyle they like, before ever worrying about thier credit balance.
It does sound ok "on paper" but opens a whole new field for hackers and fraud: get access to another person's mail, loot the account, tranfer the resources.
DeleteTransfer of items would be terrible for the game. If WOT had an economy that could convert in game currency for real money which this would the number of BOTs would rocket. The ones already in game are frustrating enough as it is. Server performance would also take a substantial hit from this due to the additional number of accounts logged in at any one time. WG want as many premium accounts as possible BUT as few of them logged in at any one time. Transfering items would as Overlord has stated increase hacking and decrease game performance. It'd be a loose loose.
DeleteThe bots are there for the XP climb IMO.
DeleteIt'd be incredibly dissapointing if a cool Quality of life community feature is held ransom because of a perceived threat from dipshit hackers.
I've got over 19k gold lingering, the tanks that i want are gift-shop only (another bizarre disconnect there in the "economy", but that's a different topic entirely). Me sat here like Scrooge McDuck atop a mountain of gold while my Dad's struggling to buy consumables and modules while they're on offer is a sorry sight.
Put a limit on the amount transferable per week/month, and only for those who have an account using your new mobile authentication service? I think that's a good place to start.
I understand where wargaming is coming from definately, but it's cool if you're thinking about it.
Happy new year.
BOTs are currently for XP climb because there is no real value to silver. If silver and or gold were made transferable. Bot would then start to farm Silver, this would then via an out of game third party be sold to people for real money at a value less than that of Gold that you can buy from WG.
DeleteEnd result, more BOTs, WG get less money. More stupidly controled vehicles in game from the BOTs, worse server performance from the extra server load.
Please point out the advantage here as all I see are a big list of negatives.
Basically you guys haven't discussed the winner of the poll at all in this wall of text so far.. Overlord is saying that the 1 thing that's the shittiest part of the game is something they are not even considering dealing with and that we're gonna continue to see it in the new year.. Blasting BL-10 rounds into the sides of lights and there beeing left anything other then rubble is nothing else then faulty programming or just a really bad mechanic that is in place to help bad players last longer in games..
ReplyDeleteMaybe you should reread Overlord's comment on the 0 damage crits again. He's saying trying to fix that problem is already part of thier plans for the comming year. And if you'll remember, they've been working on it for months now. The 0 damage crit problem had gotten a lot better in either 7.5 or 8.0 (can't remember which one now) but unfortunately broke again after that.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteActually I have something that didnt even make the top 10 but it gets on my nerves more than anything else. I dont know what was done to the sound in 8.1 but the terrible sound from small guns and the sound in the Garage are driving me round the bend.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what your quality control is like but there was a plethora of posts on the test server about the sound glitch yet you still chose to release the "Upgraded" sounds. I'd get fired if I did something like that.
8.3? This is what the test is intended for.
DeleteNo I'm talking about the distorted sound that was in the 8.1 test one. Many posts were made about it. It was still present in 8.1 test two. More posts were made about it. It was rolled out to live yet more pasts were made about it. in 8.2 it was made slightly better(fixed for some people but not not all)BUT the fireworks set it off so it is there in the garage all the time.
DeleteI just tried the 8.3 public test and it is STILL there. so sofar an issue has been reported in 3 public tests and two live rolled out versions of the game and what looks like a third live version when 8.3 comes out.
"0 damage hits - 786 (32%) - that's one of the persistent complex issues to be seen to in 2013"
ReplyDeleteI really hoped more people did vote this.
Playing KV-1S and KV-2 i can take plenty of "red" hits and receive no damage.
I got used to this already but...
Forums are full of complaints of 0damage hits. Is there way to make tracks modules what would just let ammo go trough?
Will serene coast get kicked out of rotation in 8.3?
ReplyDeleteThis map is costing you guys money (same deal with dragon ridge). :)
http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/183881-unified-serene-coast-discussion-thread/#top
The problem with the skill match-making is that the matchmaker doesn't even try to balance players between the 2 teams. Many times I see one team RED (full of bad players) and the other team green. Nobody say to force the MM to pick players from the queue based only by skill but after it picks the 30 players it should have an efficiency algorithm to try to balance the teams. It's not that hard. It will not be perfect but at least we will not see one team with all the good drivers. I don't care that I have bad players in my team but at least split them even between the two teams. Also I've seen matches were 1 team had scouts and medium tanks and the other team only heavies and TDs. This also should be corrected.
ReplyDelete