Jump to content


Does the opinion of an average(and below) player matter when it comes to balance?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
59 replies to this topic

BashNSmash #21 Posted Jul 31 2012 - 07:56

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 425
  • Member since:
    10-21-2011

View Postdwaindwarf, on Jul 31 2012 - 07:40, said:

To take your poor logic further.

I have played more games than you,  and therefore I am better qualified to comment than you.  Your "limited" amount of gameplay makes your comments irrelevant and your opions don't matter.
You have played many more games, yet have not demonstrated better results. Therefore; your understanding is lacking and your inability to improve significantly over a large time period(in game) relative to the general populace indicates you will likely have difficulties ever achieving a good understanding of the matter.

JumpingJezza #22 Posted Jul 31 2012 - 08:16

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 217
  • Member since:
    08-21-2011

View PostBashNSmash, on Jul 31 2012 - 07:04, said:

Let's correlate W/R to a test, say 60%=A, 50%=C, 40%=F. On this test who do you think shows the most understanding of the subject?

It's quite possible I have a bunch of holes in this theory, but the only one I can see right now is if people don't believe qualification=understanding and understanding=skill.

I believe that winrate as it is stated in profiles is such an incomplete part of the picture as to be meaningless. If you are part of a major clan which wins all their battles v smallfry clans - your winrate will increase, If you only drive a BT2 so you can pwn newbies - your winrate will increase. If you only run gold ammo, platooned, in an elited tank with 90fps and sub 50 ping using hitzones and target mods v solo newbs in stock tanks with 5fps and 300 ping - your winrate will increase.
Or maybe that should read : your winrate SHOULD increase - doesn't guarantee it. :P

BasilBrush #23 Posted Jul 31 2012 - 08:18

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 426
  • Member since:
    08-06-2011

View Postdwaindwarf, on Jul 31 2012 - 07:40, said:

To take your poor logic further.

I have played more games than you,  and therefore I am better qualified to comment than you.  Your "limited" amount of gameplay makes your comments irrelevant and your opions don't matter.

View PostBashNSmash, on Jul 31 2012 - 07:56, said:

You have played many more games, yet have not demonstrated better results. Therefore; your understanding is lacking and your inability to improve significantly over a large time period(in game) relative to the general populace indicates you will likely have difficulties ever achieving a good understanding of the matter.

BashnSmash - I think DwainDwarf was using sarcasm to get his point across and was not stating that he was actually better qualified to comment.

As I read it, in his post he was insinuating the problem lies in what metric do you use to determine better and therefore "understanding". W/R can be gamed to a certain extent and it is difficult to compare players due to platooning/TC/CW etc etc Not too mention hardware performance, ping/lag issues, use or premium a/c & free XP to ease the grind ad infinitum.

I still maintain that a better player (in this case using W/R) is more likely to have a better understanding and I would probably cut them more slack than someone with a lower winning percentage but in no way would ignore the lower ranked player.

For example there is a player on these forums whose name relates to fire. He has a decent W/R but the guy is also a fool and I would ignore any opinion he had as he has amply proved his foolishness in the past. His W/R means nothing in this context.

kllp101 #24 Posted Jul 31 2012 - 08:22

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 813
  • Member since:
    11-13-2010

View PostBashNSmash, on Jul 31 2012 - 07:56, said:

You have played many more games, yet have not demonstrated better results. Therefore; your understanding is lacking and your inability to improve significantly over a large time period(in game) relative to the general populace indicates you will likely have difficulties ever achieving a good understanding of the matter.

As you may know, the more games you play, the more likely your win % goes into the median of 50/50. If you were to play 9999999999999999999999 games, theoretically, considering there are only wins or losses, it would be almost identical in wins and losses.

That being said, a guy can have 100 games and have a 80% win ratio. Does that make him experienced? No, he only have 100 games. Now, for the players who played over 10,000 games, just because their win ratio is mediocre, does that make them less valuable than the 100 game player? No.

That being said, I believe that the number of games determine your true experience, one being that you have seen, fought, learned, frustrated through 4000 or more extra games than that of a player who has around 6k battles or so and often play in Clan Wars or use special "tools" such as gold shells or premium equipment to have an upper hand in the game. So does having a easy win against an obviously inexperienced and/or weaker team in Clan Wars validate one's win % as something that can be judged as experience?

I for say, think not. There are just too many holes to even consider win % as a way to validate one's opinions. As for dwaindwarf's case, he has laid eyes on 3x more battles than you have. He has had ups and downs with fellow teamates in which either co-operate or fail to achieve victory. This is a team game. One player may leave an impact, but can never singlehandedly achieve victory without a team. Experienced players like him has 3x more potency to understand a situation better than most others, because he has been in those situations 3x and knows how it works.

Still, it is a common knowledge that a person with a high win % wins more often and thus has more opinion power. But I would say that a person with experience in the # of battles, has the same right and respect to share their voice to the community. So both the person who has the wins and the person who has the battles share similar or equal weight in their opinions. Ty for listening to my opinions. :)

Edited by kllp101, Jul 31 2012 - 08:27.


AdmiralDrake #25 Posted Jul 31 2012 - 08:28

    Captain

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 1,195
  • Member since:
    05-26-2011

View PostBashNSmash, on Jul 31 2012 - 07:04, said:

When it comes to your opinion, your opinion matters most.   I loved playing my M3 Lee, Blowing up tanks is fun
what do you mean by that? I played the lee and I enjoyed it, its not a bad at all when played by an experienced tanker, plus stock isn't as bad as other tanks


View PostBashNSmash, on Jul 31 2012 - 07:56, said:

You have played many more games, yet have not demonstrated better results. Therefore; your understanding is lacking and your inability to improve significantly over a large time period(in game) relative to the general populace indicates you will likely have difficulties ever achieving a good understanding of the matter.
6k battles should be enough to get a gist on how to play this game, unless all 6k were spent in the T1 tanks...


on another note, avg or below average players giving orders... Story time...
A few days after the 7.4 patch was out with the new game modes our team took and followed orders from a tanker. What we did was rush cap on encounter, all 15 tanks. That was before I had XVM and I didn't know that the person we were taking orders from was a 44% win guy. Now that I use XVM I can find out who to not follow/take orders from and to warn the team to heed warning.

Now some avg or below avg players give good advice like get off the hill on Prokhorovka so there is exception


View Postkllp101, on Jul 31 2012 - 08:22, said:

But I would say that a person with experience in the # of battles, has the same right and respect to share their voice to the community. So both the person who has the wins and the person who has the battles share similar or equal weight in their opinions. Ty for listening to my opinions.
well now what if this person has 15-20k battles with 40% or even lower win? would you still listen to that person with a same ear as someone who has a high win %?

Edited by AdmiralDrake, Jul 31 2012 - 08:31.


dwaindwarf #26 Posted Jul 31 2012 - 08:32

    Captain

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 1,956
  • Member since:
    06-18-2011

View Postkllp101, on Jul 31 2012 - 08:22, said:

As you may know, the more games you play, the more likely your win % goes into the median of 50/50. If you were to play 9999999999999999999999 games, theoretically, considering there are only wins or losses, it would be almost identical in wins and losses.

That being said, a guy can have 100 games and have a 80% win ratio. Does that make him experienced? No, he only have 100 games. Now, for the players who played over 10,000 games, just because their win ratio is mediocre, does that make them less valuable than the 100 game player? No.

That being said, I believe that the number of games determine your true experience, one being that you have seen, fought, learned, frustrated through 4000 or more extra games than that of a player who has around 6k battles or so and often play in Clan Wars or use special "tools" such as gold shells or premium equipment to have an upper hand in the game. So does having a easy win against an obviously inexperienced and/or weaker team in Clan Wars validate one's win % as something that can be judged as experience?

I for say, think not. There are just too many holes to even consider win % as a way to validate one's opinions. As for dwaindwarf's case, he has laid eyes on 3x more battles than you have. He has had ups and downs with fellow teamates in which either co-operate or fail to achieve victory. This is a team game. One player may leave an impact, but can never singlehandedly achieve victory without a team. Experienced players like him has 3x more potency to understand a situation better than most others, because he has been in those situations 3x and knows how it works.

Still, it is a common knowledge that a person with a high win % wins more often and thus has more opinion power. But I would say that a person with experience in the # of battles, has the same right and respect to share their voice to the community. So both the person who has the wins and the person who has the battles share similar or equal weight in their opinions. Ty for listening to my opinions. :)

Such common sense :Smile_great:

I was actually being sarcastic.

kllp101 #27 Posted Jul 31 2012 - 08:35

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 813
  • Member since:
    11-13-2010

View Postdwaindwarf, on Jul 31 2012 - 08:32, said:

Such common sense :Smile_great:

I was actually being sarcastic.

Yes, i have realized that (sorta) but I don't think BashNSmash did so that was my response :).

Fire_Horse #28 Posted Jul 31 2012 - 08:35

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 854
  • Member since:
    01-12-2012
when you say 'you need to be *this* leet for your opinion to matter', do you know how much of an ass you sound like?

kllp101 #29 Posted Jul 31 2012 - 08:37

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 813
  • Member since:
    11-13-2010

View PostFire_Horse, on Jul 31 2012 - 08:35, said:

when you say 'you need to be *this* leet for your opinion to matter', do you know how much of an ass you sound like?

Oh don't take him too personally, there are people who enjoy numbers more than the games ;).

BashNSmash #30 Posted Jul 31 2012 - 08:39

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 425
  • Member since:
    10-21-2011

View PostBasilBrush, on Jul 31 2012 - 08:18, said:

BashnSmash - I think DwainDwarf was using sarcasm to get his point across and was not stating that he was actually better qualified to comment.

As I read it, in his post he was insinuating the problem lies in what metric do you use to determine better and therefore "understanding". W/R can be gamed to a certain extent and it is difficult to compare players due to platooning/TC/CW etc etc Not too mention hardware performance, ping/lag issues, use or premium a/c & free XP to ease the grind ad infinitum.
Nearly every stat can be gamed. I prefer W/R because it's easy to see who "games" their W/R and the only way to increase your W/R is by winning, which bad players find very hard to do.

I still maintain that a better player (in this case using W/R) is more likely to have a better understanding and I would probably cut them more slack than someone with a lower winning percentage but in no way would ignore the lower ranked player.
I never said I would ignore them but that I would assign a lower weight to their opinion.
For example there is a player on these forums whose name relates to fire. He has a decent W/R but the guy is also a fool and I would ignore any opinion he had as he has amply proved his foolishness in the past. His W/R means nothing in this context.
You have addititional information on the individual. Context is always important.


VicariousFreak #31 Posted Jul 31 2012 - 08:48

    Private

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    03-28-2011
id like to think i have a pretty good understanding of this game. if i didnt i wouldnt be in one of the top clans in this game. win ratio is garbage, you dont take into account that 8 out of 10 a really good player might be in, he'll lose because of all the noobs and lemmings on his team. efficiency rating is a better thing to go by in my opinion,,,, oh but wait. i dont have perfect stats so according to the GOD of WOT...... my opinion doesnt matter... really guy?

holypk #32 Posted Jul 31 2012 - 08:51

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 240
  • Member since:
    11-12-2011
Well, imho, the balance of this game is decided by whichever server has the largest population, how a tank perform is based on the skill level of tankers playing that tank on that server. In light of that, I would say the RU server pretty much is the base for balance. Those guys rushes like crasy so it's only natural WG have to nerf all sniper/flanker/hull down tanks because the RU players can't deal with any of these types of tanks. WG has to buff all brawlers because these tanks failed in the hands of mad rushers. Just my 2 cent.

Eschaton #33 Posted Jul 31 2012 - 08:51

    Captain

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 1,283
  • Member since:
    05-13-2012
Bash, I am trying to help you refine your theory by poking at what I see as weaknesses in it. A theory that cannot stand up to poking is flawed, but one that isn't amended as new data flows in is even more flawed. I think there is some truth/merit to what you say, and please take any challenges from me in the spirit intended; constructive criticism.

Experience is no guarantee of success, but I am not so sure that understanding is either. Granted, lack of understanding makes success so highly improbable that success strongly implies understanding. However, I have seen players more successful and experienced than I that lack understanding of certain things. Personally, I consider intelligence to be not what you know, but your ability to know that there are things you don't know and learn them. An encyclopedia knows things, but is not intelligent. But I digress.

I can see how you equate success with understanding, though as previously mentioned I question whether lack of success necessarily means lack of understanding. There are many ingredients to success, and it's possible for someone with little understanding but great reflexes to be at least moderately successful.

Experience plays a role only insofar as experience usually brings greater understanding, but since some people learn quicker than others, especially those that have relevant experience with similar things, while some never learn, the relationship between experience and understanding is likewise tenuous.

In summation, I don't believe that you can just look at a players win rate or battles played and have a definitive measure of how well they understand the game and thus establish how much merit their words have. You may get a rough idea, but not definite proof.


BasilBrush #34 Posted Jul 31 2012 - 09:09

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 426
  • Member since:
    08-06-2011
BashnSmash - you said above "I never said I would ignore them but that I would assign a lower weight to their opinion." but in your orginal post you said " I believe they do not matter much" which to my mind are two very different things.

So it would appear you are refining your theory a bit which is fine. On balance and all things being equal I would agree with you but there are a lot of caveats which I think tends to make it somewhat unworkable in real life.

Still, this thread is a welcome diversion from endless threads entitled  ............... is OP.

Windhover118 #35 Posted Jul 31 2012 - 09:12

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 430
  • Member since:
    05-20-2012
As a comparative noob I would still like to think my opinion matters to a certain point. My words may not carry as much weight as a more experienced player but that is to be expected. Win rate and games played is only part of the equation though. In order for a persons opion to really carry weight, they also have to have experience with the given topic. A person shouldnt say something is over powered until the have a good deal of experience playing both as and against a certain tank. What if I say arty is good the way it is and is good for the game? I cant really argue that cause I have only played as a low tier arty. Then we come to a more experienced player arguing that arty is OP?. What if there only experience with arty is getting shot by it. Does their opinion still matter more? I guess what I am saying is that for a persons opinion to really carry weight, the should have experience playing on both sides of the balancing issue regardless of total games played w/l ratio.

Dark_Sight #36 Posted Jul 31 2012 - 09:19

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 632
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011
Every ones opinion counts. I really don't see your argument on this subject other then mirror-mirror on the wall!

BashNSmash #37 Posted Jul 31 2012 - 09:19

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 425
  • Member since:
    10-21-2011

View Postkllp101, on Jul 31 2012 - 08:22, said:

As you may know, the more games you play, the more likely your win % goes into the median of 50/50. If you were to play 9999999999999999999999 games, theoretically, considering there are only wins or losses, it would be almost identical in wins and losses.
Nice attempt at trolling. The more games you play, the more representative your WR is of your true skill level. You won't magically gravitate towards 50% over more games unless that is your true skill level.

That being said, a guy can have 100 games and have a 80% win ratio. Does that make him experienced? No, he only have 100 games. Now, for the players who played over 10,000 games, just because their win ratio is mediocre, does that make them less valuable than the 100 game player? No.

That being said, I believe that the number of games determine your true experience, one being that you have seen, fought, learned, frustrated through 4000 or more extra games than that of a player who has around 6k battles or so and often play in Clan Wars or use special "tools" such as gold shells or premium equipment to have an upper hand in the game. So does having a easy win against an obviously inexperienced and/or weaker team in Clan Wars validate one's win % as something that can be judged as experience?
I'm going to make the assuption that this is directed towards me. I have played less than 30 CW matches. I beat weaker teams in pubs, and they are weaker because they have less skill. I am not usually playing inexperienced players but players who have done little with their experience. I mostly play T8 mediums right now, none of which are below 70% W/R. I never use gold rounds on these tanks or premium "equipment"(I think you meant consumables).

I for say, think not. There are just too many holes to even consider win % as a way to validate one's opinions. As for dwaindwarf's case, he has laid eyes on 3x more battles than you have. He has had ups and downs with fellow teamates in which either co-operate or fail to achieve victory. This is a team game. One player may leave an impact, but can never singlehandedly achieve victory without a team. Experienced players like him has 3x more potency to understand a situation better than most others, because he has been in those situations 3x and knows how it works.
How large of a positive impact you have is what I am talking about. His have not been positive. He has had trice my opportunity in experiences to learn and improve but has squandered the chances. He clearly does not know how it works.

Still, it is a common knowledge that a person with a high win % wins more often and thus has more opinion power. But I would say that a person with experience in the # of battles, has the same right and respect to share their voice to the community. So both the person who has the wins and the person who has the battles share similar or equal weight in their opinions. Ty for listening to my opinions. :)
I disagree with your reasonings, but the number of battles you have are important in determining statistical accuracy.

View PostAdmiralDrake, on Jul 31 2012 - 08:28, said:

what do you mean by that? I played the lee and I enjoyed it, its not a bad at all when played by an experienced tanker, plus stock isn't as bad as other tanks
It was an example of opinions. If I told you that you did not have fun in your Lee, I would obviously have less qualification to say so than yourself.

6k battles should be enough to get a gist on how to play this game, unless all 6k were spent in the T1 tanks...
It was 19k or so in the example. Sadly not everyone learns from experience.
on another note, avg or below average players giving orders... Story time...
A few days after the 7.4 patch was out with the new game modes our team took and followed orders from a tanker. What we did was rush cap on encounter, all 15 tanks. That was before I had XVM and I didn't know that the person we were taking orders from was a 44% win guy. Now that I use XVM I can find out who to not follow/take orders from and to warn the team to heed warning.

Now some avg or below avg players give good advice like get off the hill on Prokhorovka so there is exception
Don't take this as bad players being always wrong. Very few people score 0% on a mulitple choice test.

View Postkllp101, on Jul 31 2012 - 08:35, said:

Yes, i have realized that (sorta) but I don't think BashNSmash did so that was my response .
I saw the sarcasm I just didn't see what the sarcasm was about.


View PostSephiroth363, on Jul 31 2012 - 08:48, said:

id like to think i have a pretty good understanding of this game.
I know you would.
if i didnt i wouldnt be in one of the top clans in this game.
Top clan is subjective, and not everyone in a good clan is a good player.
win ratio is garbage, you dont take into account that 8 out of 10 a really good player might be in, he'll lose because of all the noobs and lemmings on his team.
A really good player wins 20% of his battles... mmkay.
efficiency rating is a better thing to go by in my opinion
Figures as much
,,,, oh but wait. i dont have perfect stats
nobody does over any reasonable sample size.
so according to the GOD of WOT
Haha, hardly
...... my opinion doesnt matter... really guy?
I would disqualify your opinion based on things other than stats easily enough.


Tank50us #38 Posted Jul 31 2012 - 09:27

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 284
  • Member since:
    07-16-2011

View PostEschaton, on Jul 31 2012 - 07:30, said:

True; just having worn the uniform does not make you an expert at WoT. For instance, Air Force and Navy people learn nothing of proper use of cover, overlapping fields of fire, or the specific type of teamwork required to succeed at this sort of game, and your 0311s and 11Bs are not going to be as good at this as 19Ks, but both often have an advantage over casual gamers... or potato-peeling PFCs.


Thank you, but I actually have to agree. I served with people who didn't know tactics from thumbtacks.

Well, I may have been a 11B, but I still understand armored warfare better then the a good chunk of the player base (specifically those that have yet to serve at all due to age, or those without the teamwork = survival/victory mentality.). You have to remember, this is a free game, and it's going to draw in people from all walks of life, ergo, you're going to get complete idiots mixed with those that will work as a team, can accurately judge a battle early on, and figure out how to both win it, and survive it.

At the same time, it doesn't take much of a rocket scientist to figure out that shooting a tank in the front is likely not going to have much of an effect, yet there are players who are in tier 10s that STILL shoot tanks in their frontal armor, and then claim that the tank their shooting at is OP, or their tank is UP. Hell, I make my choices on tanks based on this: "how easy am I to hit and damage?" Which is why I sold my KV-2 when the split came, I don't like the huge turret which everyone can and will see, and light me up for artillery, simple as that. To me, what makes a good player is one that can take what he/she has, work with it, adapt as needed, and stay alive as long as possible.

Notice, I do not say win.
Why?
Because a victory doesn't show YOUR skill, it just shows you were on a winning team. I don't know how many battles I've been in where my team won it quickly, and I hardly got to do anything (either too slow on the draw when engaging an enemy, or my shots just bounced off, or even lag, any reason goes here). Yet, there have been battles where I've gotten multiple achievements, but still lost the match. The most recent of which was in the T-32HT, I got seven kills, top gun, sniper, and steel wall, but I was also the last man standing and my team lost due to base capture. That battle was on Abby, and what it boiled down to was just how -I- used the terrain to my advantage (remaining hull down). But, some people will still view me as a bad player because my team lost that fight.

In conclusion, I feel that those who can supply PROOF of a tank being overpowered should get the megaphone, but those who cannot, and/or will say things like 'I heard it from this guy' should be ignored. For example: Having played through the T-32, I feel that the 105mm gun should have some slightly better penetration then it does. I know I've shot some targets in known week points and the shot failed to penetrate each time, and in some cases, even HE rounds failed to do anything but burn the paint. Most of these cases were against other Tier 8 tanks (The Fracking Lowe!, and the side of the KV-5), Tier-9s (shooting the tracks and lower glacious of the E-75, and just hitting the IS4 when it was a t9), and some tier 10s (specifically, the T110 and IS7, shooting at the side by their engines and all I do is bounce).

gremlin181 #39 Posted Jul 31 2012 - 09:40

    Captain

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 1,167
  • Member since:
    03-15-2012
Depends on the motivation of the experienced person making the statements.

I assume a person with loads of wot experience who says something about the game is being trutheful and doesnt have an agenda

The important thing to me about posts here is that no one makes blunt statement such as xxx tank is OP, arty is OP, and my favourite one "The vast majority of players believe that xxxx is true"

You can say you believe something is true and if you don't want to be flamed ask the opinion of others to see if they agree.

I see many posts here that come down to "I don't like xxx and therefore it should be altered buffed or removed"
They don't often phrase it like that but its fairly obvious.

BashNSmash #40 Posted Jul 31 2012 - 10:05

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 425
  • Member since:
    10-21-2011

View PostEschaton, on Jul 31 2012 - 08:51, said:

Bash, I am trying to help you refine your theory by poking at what I see as weaknesses in it. A theory that cannot stand up to poking is flawed, but one that isn't amended as new data flows in is even more flawed. I think there is some truth/merit to what you say, and please take any challenges from me in the spirit intended; constructive criticism.
I am changing it a bit as I go along. I enjoy sharing my opinions with everyone in this thread and am doing my best to answer every question asked.

Experience is no guarantee of success, but I am not so sure that understanding is either.Granted, lack of understanding makes success so highly improbable that success strongly implies understanding. However, I have seen players more successful and experienced than I that lack understanding of certain things.
I would assume that they have a better understanding of other aspects of the game.
Personally, I consider intelligence to be not what you know, but your ability to know that there are things you don't know and learn them. An encyclopedia knows things, but is not intelligent. But I digress.
I consider intelligence as the what you know and understanding as the application of said knowledge.

I can see how you equate success with understanding, though as previously mentioned I question whether lack of success necessarily means lack of understanding. There are many ingredients to success, and it's possible for someone with little understanding but great reflexes to be at least moderately successful.
I agree that understanding is only 1 ingredient in the dish of success, but I believe it to be the most important one. If you had great reflexes but aimed at a spot you can't penetrate, your reflexes didn't help you very much..

Experience plays a role only insofar as experience usually brings greater understanding, but since some people learn quicker than others, especially those that have relevant experience with similar things, while some never learn, the relationship between experience and understanding is likewise tenuous.
Agreed. I view experience as the opportunity to learn.

In summation, I don't believe that you can just look at a players win rate or battles played and have a definitive measure of how well they understand the game and thus establish how much merit their words have. You may get a rough idea, but not definite proof.
You cannot have a definitive measure, but I believe the rough idea assists greatly in qualifying.

View PostBasilBrush, on Jul 31 2012 - 09:09, said:

BashnSmash - you said above "I never said I would ignore them but that I would assign a lower weight to their opinion." but in your orginal post you said " I believe they do not matter much" which to my mind are two very different things.
I edited my original post to relfect this change.

So it would appear you are refining your theory a bit which is fine. On balance and all things being equal I would agree with you but there are a lot of caveats which I think tends to make it somewhat unworkable in real life.
As long as there are choices and options it is very hard for all things to be equal. The only real restrictions the game puts on general equality is Gold. Everything else inside the game is free for the player to make their choices. You can choose your tank, how you play it, who you platoon with, where to allocate exp, ect.

Still, this thread is a welcome diversion from endless threads entitled  ............... is OP.
My intention was to generate a good discussion with this thread.

View PostWindhover118, on Jul 31 2012 - 09:12, said:

As a comparative noob I would still like to think my opinion matters to a certain point. My words may not carry as much weight as a more experienced player but that is to be expected. Win rate and games played is only part of the equation though. In order for a persons opion to really carry weight, they also have to have experience with the given topic. A person shouldnt say something is over powered until the have a good deal of experience playing both as and against a certain tank. What if I say arty is good the way it is and is good for the game? I cant really argue that cause I have only played as a low tier arty. Then we come to a more experienced player arguing that arty is OP?. What if there only experience with arty is getting shot by it. Does their opinion still matter more? I guess what I am saying is that for a persons opinion to really carry weight, they should have experience playing on both sides of the balancing issue regardless of total games played w/l ratio.
That is an important point you bring up. Having a perspective on all sides of the issue would be a great asset.