Main page

Here is the real problem as far as I am concerned.  Look at groups of starting Positions.  In 7.4, we got the Top 10 places roughly 50% of the time and the bottom 5 50% of the time (48% top ten/52% bottom5).  In 7.5, that shifts dramatically.  Now we got in the top 10 spots only 26.7% of the time and we are in the bottom 5 spots 73.30% of the time.  In other words, in the new system, 3 out of 4 fights we are bottom of the barrel whereas before it was a 50/50 split.  In 7.4, roughly 1 in 10 fights, we were in the top 5.  In 7.5, we are top 5  1 in 50 fights.  Our top 7 spots lost 151 fights per 1000.  Our bottom 2 spots gained 139 fights per 1000.  What MM has done is take our best ranked fights and directly shifted a large number of them to our lowest ranked fights. HUGE nerf.  

To me, that is unacceptable.  Wargaming needs to take a serious look at the issue.  It goes beyond just these numbers.  When we are in those bottom 5 spots, we are also facing huge increases in numbers of top tanks.  We are also facing tanks which nearly match our speeds and have better view ranges.

While Wargaming thinks the Tier V scouts are balanced for the highest levels of play, the playing community thinks otherwise; witness the almost complete lack of tier V scouts in Clan War battles.  Yet, this change in MM is forcing the Tier V Scouts into exactly these types of battles with alarming regularity.

Wargaming states our speed and View Range makes us unique and capable of such battles but we have growing numbers of Mediums almost matching our speed and exceeding our View Ranges.  Worse, we have some Arty and TDs running around almost as fast as us and capable of matching our turns.

Every Tier X Medium matches or exceeds the View Range of the best View Range on a Tier V Scout: 400m.  The E50 Ausf.M goes faster than the Chaffee AND has better View Range - yet our speed and View Range are unique?  HARDLY!

I love what MM has done for the other tanks.  They are seeing much more balanced play and that is good for the game.  But the changes royally screw over the Tier V Scouts.  Our MM stayed the same, but our battles did not.
Edited by Tazilon, Aug 26 2012 - 08:52.

MM needs to change the light tanks to +-1 rank, anything more means death since light tanks typically aren't super fast and most bleed speed, and have under-powered engines.

Plus light tanks typically aren't armed well and there additional view soon wears off.

Ezz, on Aug 24 2012 - 05:53, said:

Maybe if the tier 10s weren't all screwball designs in WoT...

enoofu, on Aug 26 2012 - 12:33, said:

That would swing the pendulum the other way.  They don't need overreaction , just reaction and adjustment.

Tazilon, on Aug 26 2012 - 15:16, said:

I'd like the lower level restriction taken off scout tanks - so instead of an auotmatic +2 a tier 5 would fight tiers 5 through 10. The lower level tanks have a much better rate of fire than the highers and ought to be able to counter the physics defying T50 (-2)'s. (Although I do think that Tier 10 is far too high for a scout tank).

Letting a Chaffee/T-50-2 loose in a tier 5 fight would be ill advised IMO.
They are just too capable v opponents.

Nobody would hit the T-50-2, and could bounce anway.

The Chaffee would tear apart entire teams. When it comes to gunnery, it is essentially an IMPROVED E8, a tier 6 vehicle.

If you put them in tier 5 fights, be great for the tiers 3-4, LOL.

Starting them at tier 6/7 seems about right. Question is if they should be in tier 10s. I suppose THAT depends on the gameplay people are expecting.

Many will say "you chose to play a scout; it's all about NOT shooting, deal with it". I wouldn't go that far, but I doubt WG will do anything about it soon anyway.

I'm just a new student in the 'Tazilon School of Scouting', but I'm working my Luchs and Leo towards a Cougar.

It'd sure be a positive to see a bit of buff towards T4/5 scouts in terms of credits/exp earning power.

I don't mind going up against T9/10 tanks, and I'm learning to kill arty and pop shots into weak points on the big boys. But it's tough doing it for super-low exp/credit levels.

If someone's willing to play scout and go up FIVE tiers, doing so as a break-even activity is pretty miserable.

Doubly so when you know everyone else on the map is taking home 20K+ credits.

If you're going to call the scouts 'end of line' top tanks, I have no problem with that. But having them get T4/5 credit to go out and take a chance (a very high chance!) of getting 1-shotted for 5K credits and 300 exp is brutal and deeply discouraging.

I'd argue that they should have the earning power of the next lowest tier in the battle... So at least what the T7 arty is seeing, or a T8 TD in battles where scouts are with high-tier tanks. Presumably normal earning levels if playing +/-2 tiers.

that would bring a lot more people into the scout tanks and keep them there, IMHO.

This replay speaks for itself at the very beginning I think!

http://www.spearnetw...novka.wotreplay

CrunchyCruncher, on Aug 28 2012 - 04:23, said:

There is no problem with credits and earning power.  Tier Vs are fine where they are with that.

The problem is the changes to MM dramatically lowered our Battle Starting Rank AND the introduction of newer faster Mediums, TDs, and Artys has taken away our advantages we once used to be competitive in high Battle Tier fights.  The stated reason for MM not changing for us was our speed and view range gave us enough advantage to be viable in the highest tier fights.  But so many other tanks now nearly match or exceed us in those categories, our advantage is gone.

Having us fight exceedingly challenging fights is fine.  But when you shift the majority of our easier fights directly to our toughest fights AND toss in more tanks much stronger than us and nearly able to match our best attributes, you have severely nerfed our entire class.

Tazilon, on Aug 28 2012 - 07:28, said:

This.

Hey all -

I suspect this has been asked before (sorry, I can't read the last 20 pages of replies), but could there be a tweak made to add in the W/L ratio of the players to the MM? That way those of us who suck (looks in mirror) play other bad players, and the good players actually get challenging games. Just a thought....

Taphoo, on Aug 28 2012 - 17:56, said:

PLEASE do not.  It is a sekf defeating idea anyway, since pitting only god players against good players will lower many of their WRs and pitting bad players against bad players will raise many of theirs.

Taphoo, on Aug 28 2012 - 17:56, said:

I've got a similar idea. But instead of only letting bad players play other bad players, the MM should make both teams have roughly the same amount of good/bad players on each team. That way players of all skillsets still play together, but it would prevent the MM from putting all the good players on one team and all the bad ones on the other.

I just come from a game with 18 arty,   whats going on wargaming??  You killing the game !

Tazilon, on Aug 28 2012 - 20:34, said:

I think it should be a point system or even winrate. But when MM constantly stacks 7-10 of the good players on one team and puts one on the other team you know what is going to happen before the match starts. Low win rate team is going to get rolled. Instead of having bad vs bads and good verses good I think it should simply try to somewhat even out the 2 teams with eqaul number of bads and goods.

Crap like this is an automatic loss for 15 players. We stood no chance on a standard map but to make it even worse it gives them the hill defence on top of a vastly superior team.

You can guess how it ended. For a game that is supposed to be balanced, it has turned into something far from that.

Notice our top 2 tanks between them13K battles, 800 efficiency and a 44.5% win rate.

I own a SU-100 with the top 2 guns, the 100mm and the 122mm (I switch between the two every few battles). Quite honestly, I can understand how the MM is ocasionally a little unfair, but when I'm using the SU-100 with either gun, I appreciate being in higher battles with it because it gives me a challenge. Even if I die most of the time, I enjoy learning my mistakes and what I could do better next time. And plus, the 122mm gun is brutal on T7-9 tanks, so I need not worry.

Destroyer, given tier 6 seems to have excellent MM in my experience(by which I mean a high chance of tier 6-7 battles), I suggest you use the 100mm.

Same pen, greater RoF, more accurate, lower aim time. Cheaper to run, too.

I have a friend with near 60% wins on his with 300 battles, and he took to using the 100mm when 0.7.5 came out and found, as I expected, it is usually the better option in nearly every case.

It's interesting because it's a bit like the ARL V39. The biggest gun, with 219mm pen (!!), has a punishing aim time and lower RoF yet same shell damage as the earlier 90mm. In tier 6-7 battles, the LOWER gun is in fact almost always better as it still pens and you do more DPM. Incidentally, if you change the gun on your TD then hold mouse over the portrait at the bottom of the garage, it will show you the DPM. For the ARL, it's a touch over 2,000 with the lower 90, and mid 1600's for the top one. That's a BIG difference where the ONLY reason to use the bigger one is if you are facing opponents where the earlier 90mm 135mm pen (I think) isn't enough.


Just a suggestion.

Cheers

Hi,

I am curios to get peoples opinion of this games setup.  I have played on and off all day to day and this kind of match up has happened at least 3 times today to me.  Is this how MM is supposed to work?  Is there anyone here who would think this is even or close?  BTW..we lost....badly

FYI, if you cannot tell.  My team has 6 T10's and 0 T9's while the other team has 5 T10's and 4 T9's

Mephto

YellowRubi, on Aug 28 2012 - 22:16, said:

How much better would you have done if you didn't go into the game thinking you were going to lose?  Delete XVM.  Play WOT, not XVM.

Tazilon, on Aug 30 2012 - 05:37, said:

In reality... they probably wouldn't have done any better at all. Top tier players with sub par ability still can draw a team down. The tier spread reduction may have lessened that to a degree, but i suspect the maturation of the player base has played a role in that even the worst players will have failed their way to tier 10 by now.

(and yes, this thread needs moar yang!)