Does the opinion of an average(and below)...
rtp099
Jul 31 2012
As always there will be good and bad players in any aspect of life, including games, but the point of validity depends on the perspective shared. If someone with 50 games played starts trying to post advice on how to win at tier 10, he has no validity as there is no way he is playing tier 10 tanks with only 50 games played. On the other hand, if he posts an opinion about difficulty of the game controls for a new player, he offers a perspective which has validity as he is a new player. Every player can offer valid opinions, but it is dependent on their motivation and perspective.
boxtosser
Jul 31 2012
It depends - if they are aiming for balancing in the competitive sense, it's better to listen to the elite players. If they are aiming for a broader appeal/userbase, better to listen to the majority.
ButterBeard67
Jul 31 2012
boxtosser, on Jul 31 2012 - 10:10, said:
It depends - if they are aiming for balancing in the competitive sense, it's better to listen to the elite players. If they are aiming for a broader appeal/userbase, better to listen to the majority.
Which is why you need to try and listen to a little of both.
The_Exile
Jul 31 2012
i would like most be naturally inclined to consider the advice from someone with higher stats to carry more weight than somone with subpar stats when it comes to advice on how to play the game successfully.
however i wouldn't always be inclined to take that persons advice on what is or needs to be balanced.
No one person is perfect, that individual might have a problem with X tank, and claim it needs a nerf, when in reality it doesn't, it is just they struggle for some reason but have become so used to being good thatcannot accept the fault is theirs.
Or the other side, they perform very well in a bad tank and although everyone else underperforms and claims it needs a buff they claim it is ok becasue they are the 1 in 1mill that can do well.
In either of those situations the advice on balance is flawed regardless of their stats.
however i wouldn't always be inclined to take that persons advice on what is or needs to be balanced.
No one person is perfect, that individual might have a problem with X tank, and claim it needs a nerf, when in reality it doesn't, it is just they struggle for some reason but have become so used to being good thatcannot accept the fault is theirs.
Or the other side, they perform very well in a bad tank and although everyone else underperforms and claims it needs a buff they claim it is ok becasue they are the 1 in 1mill that can do well.
In either of those situations the advice on balance is flawed regardless of their stats.
Tishr
Jul 31 2012
Even a utterly daft person comes up with astute observations or bright ideas occasionally.
davewing
Jul 31 2012
Stat gathering doesn't mean you have experence in the data you are researching only you have the knowlege to formulate and present the results. So with this stated an average player can present a clear and concise break down of the information collected. Everyone has an opinion and is intitled to express thier opinion. You on the other hand do not have to agree with it as is your right. I fail to understand why people think that just because they have a higher win rate that they are better at understanding the game. So many factors come in to play each and every match. These are Pub matches after all. One expert player can not win a match when teamed with 14 random skilled players with any constant positive result. This is all my opinion and you do not have to agree with it but it is my right to post it. Have fun and good hunting.
Rickholm
Jul 31 2012
BashNSmash, on Jul 31 2012 - 07:04, said:
I believe they do not matter Edit* AS much and here is why:
1. assumption: Better opinions come from those with the most understanding of the situation.
2. assumption: Those that understand the situation perform better.
3. People who perform better win more games.
4. The more games you win, the better the understanding you demonstrate.
5. Therefore; the more games you win the better your opinion is.
(just giving this style a shot)
When you ask for a medical opinion who is more qualified to provide a correct answer?
1. Your best friend.
2. Your mother.
3. a family doctor.
4. a doctor that specialises in your area of inquiry.
I hope you would take the advise from person #4 with more confidence than the rest.
In WoT the qualification is player skill. In order to be skilled you have to understand the situation. Those without skill do not have an understanding of the situation and without being able to understand the situation how can you provide a reliable opinion? If you know nothing or next to nothing about the subject your opinion doesn't mean alot, or at least to me it doesn't.
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.
Also just to bring this into perspective with a few more examples.
When it comes to balance, a skilled players opinion matters more. The Lorraine is OP, The T14 is balanced
When it comes to your opinion, your opinion matters most. I loved playing my M3 Lee, Blowing up tanks is fun
1. assumption: Better opinions come from those with the most understanding of the situation.
2. assumption: Those that understand the situation perform better.
3. People who perform better win more games.
4. The more games you win, the better the understanding you demonstrate.
5. Therefore; the more games you win the better your opinion is.
(just giving this style a shot)
When you ask for a medical opinion who is more qualified to provide a correct answer?
1. Your best friend.
2. Your mother.
3. a family doctor.
4. a doctor that specialises in your area of inquiry.
I hope you would take the advise from person #4 with more confidence than the rest.
In WoT the qualification is player skill. In order to be skilled you have to understand the situation. Those without skill do not have an understanding of the situation and without being able to understand the situation how can you provide a reliable opinion? If you know nothing or next to nothing about the subject your opinion doesn't mean alot, or at least to me it doesn't.
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.
Also just to bring this into perspective with a few more examples.
When it comes to balance, a skilled players opinion matters more. The Lorraine is OP, The T14 is balanced
When it comes to your opinion, your opinion matters most. I loved playing my M3 Lee, Blowing up tanks is fun
You can't control people or who they are going to listen to. The only thing you can do is make well rounded arguments and hope they are persuasive.
Nepos
Jul 31 2012
I only have 1 point to make on the orignal post.
1, I have a better understanding of the world then my 5 year old. I can demonstrate that at every turn. yet even with all my understanding my five year old can and does make valid points and arguments.Sometimes the emperor is not wearing any cloths and only those not blinded by outside influences have to point that out ( <-- this is from a fairy tail for those not familiar)
Thank you for your time.
1, I have a better understanding of the world then my 5 year old. I can demonstrate that at every turn. yet even with all my understanding my five year old can and does make valid points and arguments.Sometimes the emperor is not wearing any cloths and only those not blinded by outside influences have to point that out ( <-- this is from a fairy tail for those not familiar)
Thank you for your time.
Biggsull
Jul 31 2012
Want to know why I dont have to read your post and I already know you are wrong, not that I support it but this is just how it is.
Call of Duty, the series, this is a perfect example.Did they balance the games around the professionals? No.. they balanced them around people who couldnt aim and have low reaction speed.. noob tubers... they also put in all sorts of cheesy things that dont take any skill, when bads ask for some total garbage that ruins the game, they put it in.(havent played that crap since MW2 btw.. not a CoD fanboy or anything..they ruined the game building it around bads)
World of Warcraft is another perfect example, they made at on of money.. building a game around total idiots.
Thats how game devs work, they cater to the bads and totally ignore the people at the peak skill level.
True balance is never achieved, things are balanced not around the skill cap, they are based around the idea that players will make a bunch of mistakes, RNG will be forgiving... etc etc..
Games are made for bads, this one is no exception... the goal is mass appeal, there's 100x more bads than there are highly skilled players.
When bads go out and get stomped by anyone with skill, they are less likely to buy that tier 3 premium or w.e
Call of Duty, the series, this is a perfect example.Did they balance the games around the professionals? No.. they balanced them around people who couldnt aim and have low reaction speed.. noob tubers... they also put in all sorts of cheesy things that dont take any skill, when bads ask for some total garbage that ruins the game, they put it in.(havent played that crap since MW2 btw.. not a CoD fanboy or anything..they ruined the game building it around bads)
World of Warcraft is another perfect example, they made at on of money.. building a game around total idiots.
Thats how game devs work, they cater to the bads and totally ignore the people at the peak skill level.
True balance is never achieved, things are balanced not around the skill cap, they are based around the idea that players will make a bunch of mistakes, RNG will be forgiving... etc etc..
Games are made for bads, this one is no exception... the goal is mass appeal, there's 100x more bads than there are highly skilled players.
When bads go out and get stomped by anyone with skill, they are less likely to buy that tier 3 premium or w.e
Garbad
Jul 31 2012
Expertise is always relevant. Demonstrated understanding of a game clearly adds weight to an opinion.
Verilogus
Jul 31 2012
Eschaton, on Jul 31 2012 - 07:10, said:
Stephen Hawking understands sports. I don't see him hitting home runs or dunking.
I may not be great at this game, mostly due to dexterity/reflex issues, but do not take my lack of agility to imply a lack of understanding. I'd like to think that after >25 years of gaming and >30 as a computer geek, I know a few things about gaming, rules, and computer gaming. And given my success in turn-based strategy games that do not exploit my issues with "twitch" games, I am pretty sure I am correct.
But if you wish to disregard my opinion as an experienced gamer with a military background just because you have a higher win rate at WoT than I do, well, I can't do anything about that.... except shake my head and chuckle.
I may not be great at this game, mostly due to dexterity/reflex issues, but do not take my lack of agility to imply a lack of understanding. I'd like to think that after >25 years of gaming and >30 as a computer geek, I know a few things about gaming, rules, and computer gaming. And given my success in turn-based strategy games that do not exploit my issues with "twitch" games, I am pretty sure I am correct.
But if you wish to disregard my opinion as an experienced gamer with a military background just because you have a higher win rate at WoT than I do, well, I can't do anything about that.... except shake my head and chuckle.
In a game that is so slow paced like this one you use the 'twitch reflex' argument? Pathetic.
Sonos
Jul 31 2012
I hope they care what 60%+ers think on balance. I dont expect them to care what I think about balance...but hopefully they'd listen on game direction in terms of gold, game ideas, etc.
MaxMike
Jul 31 2012
prince_machiavelli, on Jul 31 2012 - 07:32, said:
He wasn't saying it made him good at this game. He was saying it meant he could make valid comments on balance. You missed the whole point of his post.
His point is bad business, devoid of logic, and would destroy the game.
Only a very very stupid company ignores or minimizes the opinions of the majority of its player base. A internet game that operates under dynamic arbitrary circumstances and serves a diverse customer base is in no way the same as the medical field which operates on a individual with fixed medical conditions.
Who defines skill/good. Is a 53% that strictly platoons and concentrates on clan wars as good as the 49% player who plays strictly plays pubs. Is a player that concentrates on one tank for 10,000 games the same as a player that grinds everything. This is a far more complex subject than just who is assumed to be good and who is not.
Only a company composed of fools would cater their internet game and changes made to that game to a few that would undoubtedly slant game play toward that few, that is a plan for utter and total failure.
Sonos
Jul 31 2012
MaxMike, on Jul 31 2012 - 16:11, said:
Only a very very stupid company ignores or minimizes the opinions of the majority of its player base. A internet game that operates under dynamic arbitrary circumstances and serves a diverse customer base is in no way the same as the medical field which operates on a individual with fixed medical conditions.
Only a worse company defines balance from people who dont know how to play the game. Are you going to ask someone with a 42% win rate if the lower glacis of a M103 armor should be upped 10mm? Do you know what play balance is?
Biggsull
Jul 31 2012
Quote
Stephen Hawking
lol@someone stealing my argument from another thread last night
I dont remember the thread but I used him to demonstrate the ad-hominem attacks being used dont argue against the point and sound rediculous.
MaxMike
Jul 31 2012
Sonos, on Jul 31 2012 - 16:13, said:
Only a worse company defines balance from people who dont know how to play the game. Are you going to ask someone with a 42% win rate if the lower glacis of a M103 armor should be upped 10mm? Do you know what play balance is?
Ironic you want to discus balance while proposing a unbalance approach.
Do you know anything about dealing with customers? Do you know you are advocating ignoring the core of the games players.
The question was average and below players which are 80%+ of the player base, the OPs proposal is absurd and destructive on its face.
If this game is balanced according to the wants and whim of the top players it will not last long.
Skpstr
Jul 31 2012
I believe that judging one's opinion based on WR% shows a lack of experience in critical thinking, or perhaps just plain laziness.
Judge an opinion based on its merits, not on the merits of the provider of the opinion.
If a low WR% and a high WR% player have the same opinion, is it valid or invalid? Better to avoid such potential paradoxes and think for yourself, rather than letting a somewhat vague statistic do it for you.
If you need to use a number for balancing, use 50%. That is, the middle 50% of those who play the game. Balancing should be based on the average, not the upper or lower echelon.Balancing based on what the most skilled players think is fine if the vast majority of players are that skilled.
Judge an opinion based on its merits, not on the merits of the provider of the opinion.
If a low WR% and a high WR% player have the same opinion, is it valid or invalid? Better to avoid such potential paradoxes and think for yourself, rather than letting a somewhat vague statistic do it for you.
If you need to use a number for balancing, use 50%. That is, the middle 50% of those who play the game. Balancing should be based on the average, not the upper or lower echelon.Balancing based on what the most skilled players think is fine if the vast majority of players are that skilled.
KilgorSoS
Jul 31 2012
Opinions are judged based on the premise, or substance. If a terrible player says that Tank XXX sux, and needs a Buff..And many good players have driven that tank and done very well then the opinion is deemed moot. When players whine about game mechanics that they have failed to understand, they are deemed wrong.
The problem is that the worst players have the least knowledge of game mechanics, strats, and the worst ability to form any team cohesion. Their opinions are scoffed at because their assertions are laughable by skilled players.
A high WR does not grant carte blanche "Expert" in every facet of the game, however When a topic arises about a specific tank, i.e the Ferdi, and a player opines about it that has 150 battles 35 kills and a 40% WR, and another player with 450 battles 900 kills and a 57% WR in his Ferdi gives a different opinion. I'll say that it is safe to assume the latter opinion is more sound.
The OP is saying that DEMONSTRATED proficiency outweighs a layman's opinion.
I agree
Edited by KilgorSoS, Jul 31 2012 - 17:07.
The problem is that the worst players have the least knowledge of game mechanics, strats, and the worst ability to form any team cohesion. Their opinions are scoffed at because their assertions are laughable by skilled players.
A high WR does not grant carte blanche "Expert" in every facet of the game, however When a topic arises about a specific tank, i.e the Ferdi, and a player opines about it that has 150 battles 35 kills and a 40% WR, and another player with 450 battles 900 kills and a 57% WR in his Ferdi gives a different opinion. I'll say that it is safe to assume the latter opinion is more sound.
The OP is saying that DEMONSTRATED proficiency outweighs a layman's opinion.
I agree
Edited by KilgorSoS, Jul 31 2012 - 17:07.
Juicifer
Jul 31 2012
Given all the counter examples i would like insert one that backs the OP. League of Legends exclusively balance the game based on the top guys(those devs and many of the top players are on first name basis).
Balance should be based on those who can play a tank to its fullest potential, it just makes sense. Even if the majority cannot play something perfectly, there will be a handful that can, to an extent that makes it game-breaking.
Balance should be based on those who can play a tank to its fullest potential, it just makes sense. Even if the majority cannot play something perfectly, there will be a handful that can, to an extent that makes it game-breaking.
Nepos
Jul 31 2012
Juicifer, on Jul 31 2012 - 17:37, said:
Given all the counter examples i would like insert one that backs the OP. League of Legends exclusively balance the game based on the top guys(those devs and many of the top players are on first name basis).
Balance should be based on those who can play a tank to its fullest potential, it just makes sense. Even if the majority cannot play something perfectly, there will be a handful that can, to an extent that makes it game-breaking.
Balance should be based on those who can play a tank to its fullest potential, it just makes sense. Even if the majority cannot play something perfectly, there will be a handful that can, to an extent that makes it game-breaking.
I see your point
I sometimes feel balance is a myth. for example tank 1 is killing tank2 to often, so WG consults whoever and in the name of balancing tweaks tank 2. Now tank 3 is getting wiped by tank 2 where it use to be an even fight. The issue is not the feedback and not even the change, it is player of different skills are forced to play against each other.
