Jump to content


failing to understand WG's reasoning

why cap arty to 5 per side?

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
152 replies to this topic

Revanant #121 Posted Dec 28 2012 - 11:46

    Captain

  • Players
  • 8887 battles
  • 1,158
  • [REL-V] REL-V
  • Member since:
    10-10-2011

View PostGeneralDirection, on Dec 28 2012 - 11:43, said:

We didn't change the core matchmaker functionality, we just added tier 10 to medium and TD branches--much the same as we plan to do for SPGs. But until we make that change, this is the only workable solution. Because SPGs cap at tier 8, there's a lot of code at play specifically related to SPGs that would break matchmaking if we altered it too significantly.

The obvious solution is to introduce tier 9 and 10 SPGs, but unfortunately they aren't ready yet.

That makes total sense.  Kinda sucks thats the way it is, but I can completely see it happening.

ROMEU #122 Posted Dec 28 2012 - 11:47

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 10940 battles
  • 634
  • Member since:
    02-19-2011

View PostRevanant, on Dec 28 2012 - 11:33, said:

Hey sorry if I'm wrong but didn't you change the MM to accomidate t10 mediums and TD's? How was that significantly different from making t10 arty? I'm honoestly just curious, as I've seen some of these problems before and realize something added could have easily confused the process.
In the case of tier 10 meds and tds its only add the new tier 10, in the arty case all tree is gone to change;

1-You need 2 news arty models for nation in game today;
2-You need to balance all arty;

This take time.

Scav #123 Posted Dec 28 2012 - 11:51

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 20971 battles
  • 2,032
  • Member since:
    01-19-2011

View PostGeneralDirection, on Dec 27 2012 - 20:33, said:

There are a bevy of technical issues that spring up with a cap lower than 5. ....

Unless you want to get into battles with 12 SPGs on one team and none on the other.

I don't understand this reasoning. Just make Random Matches = 0 arty. Problem solved.

GeneralDirection #124 Posted Dec 28 2012 - 11:53

    Major

  • Administrator
  • 5829 battles
  • 3,011
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostScav, on Dec 28 2012 - 11:51, said:

I don't understand this reasoning. Just make Random Matches = 0 arty. Problem solved.

That would make it nearly impossible to play through SPG branches for the majority of the player base. We may as well remove them from the game at that point (No to that).

xxSLINKxx #125 Posted Dec 28 2012 - 11:54

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 6878 battles
  • 96
  • [UMB] UMB
  • Member since:
    03-01-2012
5 tank types. cap to 3 tanks of the same type.  If this ain't balance enough, I'm not sure about the game anymore.

cwjian90 #126 Posted Dec 28 2012 - 11:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 7012 battles
  • 7,241
  • [WANTD] WANTD
  • Member since:
    10-20-2012
Are you actually adding new Tier 9/10 artillery or just pushing up the current Tier 7/8s into Tier 9/10s? There seems to be some confusion about that?

Scav #127 Posted Dec 28 2012 - 11:57

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 20971 battles
  • 2,032
  • Member since:
    01-19-2011

View PostGeneralDirection, on Dec 28 2012 - 11:53, said:

...We may as well remove them from the game at that point ..

I like the way ya thinkin'. I think quite a few players are gonna be happy, if ya remove arty (well, atleast till ya introduce tier 10 arties and lower the cap from 5 to circa 2-3). No harm in posting a poll.

And yes, the devs certaintly can work on something that has been bothering the comunity since beta. We DON'T need anymore game braking auto-loader tanks.

Timbo911 #128 Posted Dec 28 2012 - 11:59

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 18599 battles
  • 243
  • Member since:
    07-03-2011

View PostGeneralDirection, on Dec 28 2012 - 11:43, said:

if we altered it too significantly

Thanks WG/WoT for the insights.
Regardless of my own position on current gameplay, it is only logical to progressively introduce minor amendments with each update rather than over-shooting for an intended outcome and potentially creating an unplayable or extreme version of the current game.

Despite this, there will always be those who feel aggrieved for whatever reasons and motivations related to expectations and interpretations, player skill, education and social upbringing, etc.

GeneralDirection #129 Posted Dec 28 2012 - 12:02

    Major

  • Administrator
  • 5829 battles
  • 3,011
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View Postcwjian90, on Dec 28 2012 - 11:54, said:

Are you actually adding new Tier 9/10 artillery or just pushing up the current Tier 7/8s into Tier 9/10s? There seems to be some confusion about that?

It's still being decided. In some cases you'll probably see the tier 8s move to tier 10. It's not like we're going to drop harder hitters on you (exception potentially being the SturmTiger...).

cwjian90 #130 Posted Dec 28 2012 - 12:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 7012 battles
  • 7,241
  • [WANTD] WANTD
  • Member since:
    10-20-2012

View PostGeneralDirection, on Dec 28 2012 - 12:02, said:

It's still being decided. In some cases you'll probably see the tier 8s move to tier 10. It's not like we're going to drop harder hitters on you (exception potentially being the SturmTiger...).

I see. If the Germans get the Sturmtiger, I hope the Soviets get the Tyulpan. :)

Steelpumpkin #131 Posted Dec 28 2012 - 12:51

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 580 battles
  • 184
  • [7-H] 7-H
  • Member since:
    02-28-2011

View PostGeneralDirection, on Dec 28 2012 - 11:53, said:

That would make it nearly impossible to play through SPG branches for the majority of the player base. We may as well remove them from the game at that point (No to that).

Interesting, So even WG knows most of us would rather play WITHOUT arty... and, of course, this isn't telling you anything? Like it's a bad mechanic that hurts your game in the long run? I guess I'll have to join my friends and leave. It's obvious you really have no plans to fix anything arty related. Oh and just so you know and it can't be misrepresented later we left because of this games arty mechanics.

Edited by Steelpumpkin, Dec 28 2012 - 12:58.


HighPitch #132 Posted Dec 28 2012 - 12:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 37880 battles
  • 6,057
  • [HAVOK] HAVOK
  • Member since:
    05-24-2011
Well, any cap is better than no cap, I guess.

ShivaX #133 Posted Dec 28 2012 - 12:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 29138 battles
  • 4,341
  • [3PZG] 3PZG
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011
Can we also make the MM pretend to balance the teams again?

As much fun as it is for once team to be better across the board than the other... it gets old fast.

Its like Team A gets an extra Tier8 arty, 2 extra Tier10s and an extra Tier9 and MM says "that looks fair".

Tolos #134 Posted Dec 28 2012 - 13:02

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 23885 battles
  • 11,427
  • [RELIC] RELIC
  • Member since:
    09-22-2010

View PostSteelpumpkin, on Dec 28 2012 - 12:51, said:

Interesting, So even WG knows most of us would rather play WITHOUT arty... and, of course, this isn't telling you anything? Like it's a bad mechanic that hurts your game in the long run? I guess I'll have to join my friends and leave. It's obvious you really have no plans to fix anything arty related. Oh and just so you know and it can't be misrepresented later we left because of this games arty mechanics.

Where do you people get the " Most of us would rather play without arty ", in EVERY single poll ever done on these forums, its only a number cap that ALWAYS comes out on top but a HUGE margin.  Very few people want arty removed, most of us want a number cap, that being said, I still think 5 is to high.

If you REALLY want to play no arty games just make a TC.

Steelpumpkin #135 Posted Dec 28 2012 - 13:08

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 580 battles
  • 184
  • [7-H] 7-H
  • Member since:
    02-28-2011

View PostTolos, on Dec 28 2012 - 13:02, said:

Where do you people get the " Most of us would rather play without arty ", in EVERY single poll ever done on these forums, its only a number cap that ALWAYS comes out on top but a HUGE margin.  Very few people want arty removed, most of us want a number cap, that being said, I still think 5 is to high.

If you REALLY want to play no arty games just make a TC.

You obviously can't or don't read. The WG guy said they won't add a no arty mode because they believe few would play with arty enabled and SPGs would become very hard to level. So if they know that given the option that most players would turn it off it's obvious not many people like it. I think most arty players know that given the choice they'd be extinct.

Edited by Steelpumpkin, Dec 28 2012 - 13:12.


dance210 #136 Posted Dec 28 2012 - 13:48

    Associate eSports Manager

  • Administrator
  • 18269 battles
  • 1,891
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    05-31-2012

View PostSteelpumpkin, on Dec 28 2012 - 13:08, said:

You obviously can't or don't read. The WG guy said they won't add a no arty mode because they believe few would play with arty enabled and SPGs would become very hard to level. So if they know that given the option that most players would turn it off it's obvious not many people like it. I think most arty players know that given the choice they'd be extinct.

Actually, if you look back to the quote GD was responding to, the ONLY suggestion was to remove arty from Random Battles, not to have arty and arty-free modes. Removing arty from Random means you can only play in TC, Clan Wars - which would make it hard/impossible for the majority of the players to go through the branches and level up.

View PostScav, on Dec 28 2012 - 11:51, said:

I don't understand this reasoning. Just make Random Matches = 0 arty. Problem solved.

View PostGeneralDirection, on Dec 28 2012 - 11:53, said:

That would make it nearly impossible to play through SPG branches for the majority of the player base. We may as well remove them from the game at that point (No to that).


Tolos #137 Posted Dec 28 2012 - 13:53

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 23885 battles
  • 11,427
  • [RELIC] RELIC
  • Member since:
    09-22-2010

View PostSteelpumpkin, on Dec 28 2012 - 13:08, said:

You obviously can't or don't read. The WG guy said they won't add a no arty mode because they believe few would play with arty enabled and SPGs would become very hard to level. So if they know that given the option that most players would turn it off it's obvious not many people like it. I think most arty players know that given the choice they'd be extinct.

And you obviously do not know what reading comprehension is. It might be an idea to read what was written before you comment .

What you think is irrelevant, the facts point to that nearly every player wants a CAP ( yes even arty players ), not for them to be removed.

And yes there IS an option to play none Arty games, they are called TC's, if arty bothers you that much, go play those.

PlayMp1 #138 Posted Dec 28 2012 - 14:57

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 2299 battles
  • 682
  • Member since:
    07-06-2012

View PostGeneralDirection, on Dec 27 2012 - 20:33, said:

There are a bevy of technical issues that spring up with a cap lower than 5. Once we introduce tier 9 and 10 SPGs we might be able to lower the cap, but right now 5 is the lowest it can be set to with the way the matchmaker works.

Unless you want to get into battles with 12 SPGs on one team and none on the other.

This helps me understand much better. I was one of those advocating a cap at 3, but if there's a ton of issues that would require an overhaul of the matchmaker to lower the cap that much, I'll deal with the 5 artillery cap.

buras #139 Posted Dec 28 2012 - 15:57

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 17798 battles
  • 77
  • Member since:
    09-26-2010
When you introduce Tier 10 arties without changing matchmaker, will this situation be possible:
1x Tier 10 arty VS 1x Tier 10 Heavy/med/td
14x Tier 9 and lower tier tanks VS 14x Tier 9 and lower tier tanks
?
ninjaedit: Thats a 15v15 match
because that would be totally retarded

Dent781 #140 Posted Dec 28 2012 - 15:59

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 11099 battles
  • 589
  • [N-E-S] N-E-S
  • Member since:
    06-26-2011

View PostGeneralDirection, on Dec 27 2012 - 20:33, said:

There are a bevy of technical issues that spring up with a cap lower than 5. Once we introduce tier 9 and 10 SPGs we might be able to lower the cap, but right now 5 is the lowest it can be set to with the way the matchmaker works.

Unless you want to get into battles with 12 SPGs on one team and none on the other.

MM is a horror show if that is the case. Is it really so hard to include an exception into the MM code stating no more than X number of Y vehicle types (arty) per game?

5 Arty per game is a nightmare. 4 Arty in a game typically ruins the match. 3 is the most I can work with without being so distracted that I'm not enjoying the game.

I don't even know why you people even bothered to change the cap to 5, when 3 would of been significantly better. Putting work into MM making 5 the max seems like a giant waste of time. Should of kept going on the work till it was down to 3.

This sounds like a SWTOR dev team excuse, where the dev team gives weird technical reasons that sound like "the product we invented is so complicated we dont know how to modify it efficiently"  which eventually lead that game being where it is today - dead. Please dont do that, WG. You're so much better than that as a company.

Arty is a major problem. The problem is not that it has to much HP, or it can drive around to much. The problem is there is to much arty in a match, and people get smoked by them in seconds. 5 is more than enough to smoke any tank in the game seconds after being spotted, even if 2 or 3 of the 5 hit.




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users