Overlord, on Nov 23 2010 - 18:17, said:
smokntuesdays, on Nov 22 2010 - 13:00, said:
Before I start, I would like to point out that you have simply ignored the entire reason for my post(and others like it). All I(and others) have tried to do is to point out that the current method of trying to balance units is extremely flawed. You would be better off not doing anything at all than trying to balance the game off meaningless numbers, which by default gravitate to 50/50 given enough time to gather stats, and that to think that a few % points difference in limited stats points to balance changes being needed is like flipping a coin X times and then saying heads has more weight than tails because your results netted 55% heads and 45% tails. Eventually given enough flips it would even out to 50/50, which is what you get with the other nations you think are "balanced".
But hey, I'll give it a shot.
...
What you suggest requires too much work and looks like complete rework/redesign. At this stage, we can't afford that.
That is a very peculiar thing to say or even mutter. You can always afford to make changes to the development process if it means making it beyond launch or falling flat on your face.
Warhammer Online thought they could a lot of the things you folks are trying with balance, three months after release they had lost over a million paying subscribers.
Want percentages to show a point that you have failed to grasp?
A tier 10 Russian tank and a tier 10 German tank, when meeting head to head, should each have a 50% chance of winning the encounter. A Tier 9 Russian tank when meeting a Tier 10 German tank should have decreased odds. With the matchmaking system it should not be too far off from the 50/50 split but enough that the advantage goes to the Tier 10 tank. This is baseline balance based on percentages. This does not count player behavior as that is a stat, percentage or figure you can not nor should not even try to consider.
When you factor in the other tanks in a match the baseline factor equates into more simple balance. Two tier 7 tanks going against a Tier 10 should normalize and give the advantage to the two tier 7 tanks. Say you give a tier 7 tank a 35% chance of taking down a Tier 10 tank. When two tier 7 tanks are put together against a tier 10 it should be a 70% chance of taking it out.
Do you see the problem yet?
This is not even close to how the game plays out. Why? Because there is too much of a drop off between tier 10 and tier 7. This is also why using your current system for balance and taking the numbers you are taking can not and will not work over the short term or long term. People are not going to pay for something that sets them up to be mediocre in winning and losing. Which is exactly what you are doing by trying to balance winning and losing. People unable to play this game because they can not grasp the concept of aiming, firing, hiding, etc, etc, etc should not get a benefit of a skewed system that is going to insist their chances of winning to a losing must equal 50/50.
What does this system lead to under the current format? In the matchmaking system? Not much of anything. But in the competitive scene it will lead to more trouble than it is worth. Care to bet on what happens when enough people are able to field say 5 tier 10 tanks vs. 5 tier 10 tanks in a league or ladder that does not allow for arty?
The only way to balance a game like this so it works is to balance within tier and weight, i.e. damage, armor and speed and then set the values for that so each tier above or below it falls in line. If a tier 10 tank has the ability to have 100 max damage, 100 max armor and 100 max speed then a tier 9 should have 90 max damage, 90 max armor and 90 max speed. Those are base numbers in order to allow for changes and balancing for other things. Those being guns that have a higher fire rate would not be at 100 or 90 damage but dps should equate to 100 damage for a tier 10 regardless if it is using a higher rate of fire gun or lower rate of fire.
Want to talk about time vs. cost. It is a heck of a lot easier to plug in a new nations tanks this way instead of trying to figure out what would balance out in your system. You plug in the French, British or whoever in the game and they share the same values across the board for weight and tier that any of the other nations have. It also removes the problem of people crying foul that Russian tanks are better armored, do more damage or whatever over German or US tanks.
As for slope, height of tank, etc...................Slope is a nice thought but fails in its basic method of usage in this game. Where a tank should have less armor but has a high degree of slope it can be used to skew the balance and is used exactly for that. Height is something that falls into the same category as aim and skill. A taller tank can use the advantage to fire over things where as a smaller tank can hide more easily or even fire under some things. That is where the different variety or flavor of the different nations should come into play, not the basic game combat elements such as armor or damage.
With almost 20 years of both personal and professional experience I can tell you exactly what I have seen as both a tester and someone who has worked on everything from MUDs and MUSHs to what we play today with the knowledge of where something is headed from that experience.