Jump to content


Higher Skilled Players Like Artillery Less - Confirmed, But Why?

artillery

  • Please log in to reply
1652 replies to this topic

aqollo #121 Posted May 04 2014 - 01:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 21725 battles
  • 3,327
  • Member since:
    02-21-2011

 

Look this is the problem I have with your data. The area in red has ZERO correlations whatsoever. The votes are spread out and the predicted value for it is wrong. Absolutely wrong. The only part of your data that proves your point is the area in blue which I question since there isn't a large sample size.



Battlecruiser #122 Posted May 04 2014 - 01:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 21391 battles
  • 7,012
  • Member since:
    04-16-2011
I don't have a problem with artillery because I've been playing long enough to know to move my vehicle, and I've put time into developing that skill.  People who complain about arty are just mad they can't sit in one spot and farm the whole game, so maybe the reason so many high wn8 players are against arty is because they probably want to just sit around and farm points in their waffles without impunity.


arty is a challenge included in the game design by developers. Accept the challenge, or don't play, or complain uselessly, the choice is yours.

Guest_Canadian_Mano_* #123 Posted May 04 2014 - 01:28

  • Guest

And now, the relevant post.

 

Arty is here because it makes the game accessible, and accessibility means profits. More players= More money. Having a class in-game that functions at 8 fps, or at 800 fps really widens that computer gap between non functional play, and exceptional play.

 

Arty also uses primarily HE, which, as everyone knows, on-hit, or on near hit will do damage, or crit, or both. This means even a miss has the potentiality to kill tanks. This is much rarer with Horizontal firing arcs, they hit tracks or dirt. But it is still possible, and skilled players use this to their advantage.

 

Arty has also seen class-wide nerfs and rebalances that, to date, is far beyond what any other class has seen, Player cap per game, global survivability nerf, aim time and RoF nerf, and a decrease in shell velocity, a long with some traverse and acceraltion changes, and some complete rehauls to specific pieces.

 

 

TL:DR I hate arty, but these threads are getting old, and are only providing data that anyone with half a brain will realize anyway. Still entertaining to read though.

 

 



_Intrepid #124 Posted May 04 2014 - 01:32

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9878 battles
  • 927
  • Member since:
    06-26-2012

View Postaqollo, on May 04 2014 - 02:24, said:

 

Look this is the problem I have with your data. The area in red has ZERO correlations whatsoever. The votes are spread out and the predicted value for it is wrong. Absolutely wrong. The only part of your data that proves your point is the area in blue which I question since there isn't a large sample size.

 

It's not going to do whole number predictions and also be aware I do not have 10 vote options, though the scale is 1-10 to try and make the numbers better represent the spread of opinion. There are not millions of vote options. If someone could drag their opinion along a scale and register that as a vote, the correlation in the middle would look far more in line with actual votes, but they can't. The doesn't mean the relationship doesn't exist nor does it mean that recent WN8 cannot be used as a reliable predictor of their vote. I also disagree that there is no correlation in the red area. It's just infrequent. If you look at where the votes are in quantity, sitting either at 6/3, they do appear relatively aligned with where you'd guess they would be based on the relative distance of the predicted outcome between the two. But, of course that's the case... that's how these things work. :)

 

Least squared regression methods are going to curve and better align as a result, but they're still going to have a huge gap between 4-6 and 6-8. The way to look at the line in the desolate areas is to imagine them as a % predictor for which whole number vote would have been more likely for that WN8. I respect that you know enough about the process to request what you requested (possibly more than I do about the subject, my day to day job is not as a statistician though I do a great deal of data analysis), and perhaps there is a point that is beyond my expertise you're raising here. If so, I apologize and hope that any effort you can put against the data can better illustrate this point. However, on a surface level, it just sounds like you're looking for the chart to provide you something it cannot provide with this data set. We're not working with two variables with infinite variation between minimum and maximum values.

 

 

 



Orion3 #125 Posted May 04 2014 - 01:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 10534 battles
  • 2,801
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

If arty didn't have overhead view, I'd say keep them. But, as it is now...no. The only thing that should have an overhead view is a blimp or airplane. They could come up with an arched system like the tanks and bikes did in Battlezone II. If they did, they wouldn't of had to nerf arty before. If WG wants to keep it more realistic, I think they could've come up with a better targeting/aiming system for the spg's. So, my thoughts would be keep them ( because they were actually there and real ) but, overhaul them ( by coming up with something other than overhead view ). You then could increase their ROF, splash and give them more HP.  If they want to keep overhead view, they could incorporate something like a sub-grid system to where they only saw the sub-grid and not the enemy tanks. As it is now, we have an A4. They could have something like A4-10...or use letters for the sub-grids. Only the arty would see this sub grid ( it would work because they're the only ones with overhead view now). Regular tanks and TD's, once they target an enemy, arty could pick which target on the mini map to engage. Once arty clicks which target to engage from the mini map, it could automatically go into overhead view and only see this "sub-grid" location and not an enemy tank. This would be more realistic because once an enemy was spotted, friendlies would relay the coordinates. I think the biggest factor in people not liking arty ( including myself ) is the fact that we can be seen from above. These are just my thoughts and opinions. 

 

TL;DR   Keep arty but rework it's targeting system/ overhead view.



_Intrepid #126 Posted May 04 2014 - 01:44

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9878 battles
  • 927
  • Member since:
    06-26-2012

View PostCanadian_Mano, on May 04 2014 - 02:28, said:

TL:DR I hate arty, but these threads are getting old, and are only providing data that anyone with half a brain will realize anyway. Still entertaining to read though.

 

This is likely the last effort I myself will put into any artillery thread. I was, correctly, questioned when I said essentially the same thing, that anyone that's been around will know that players at higher skill levels are more likely to strongly dislike artillery. I thought that, of all the opinions I have about artillery, this one I least expected to have to support but also one fairly easy to support. And so here we are. 

 

Sorry that any of your time was wasted as a result.



aqollo #127 Posted May 04 2014 - 01:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 21725 battles
  • 3,327
  • Member since:
    02-21-2011

View PostOrion3, on May 03 2014 - 18:42, said:

If arty didn't have overhead view, I'd say keep them. But, as it is now...no. The only thing that should have an overhead view is a blimp or airplane. They could come up with an arched system like the tanks and bikes did in Battlezone II. If they did, they wouldn't of had to nerf arty before. If WG wants to keep it more realistic, I think they could've come up with a better targeting/aiming system for the spg's. So, my thoughts would be keep them ( because they were actually there and real ) but, overhaul them ( by coming up with something other than overhead view ). You then could increase their ROF, splash and give them more HP.  If they want to keep overhead view, they could incorporate something like a sub-grid system to where they only saw the sub-grid and not the enemy tanks. As it is now, we have an A4. They could have something like A4-10...or use letters for the sub-grids. Only the arty would see this sub grid ( it would work because they're the only ones with overhead view now). Regular tanks and TD's, once they target an enemy, arty could pick which target on the mini map to engage. Once arty clicks which target to engage from the mini map, it could automatically go into overhead view and only see this "sub-grid" location and not an enemy tank. This would be more realistic because once an enemy was spotted, friendlies would relay the coordinates. I think the biggest factor in people not liking arty ( including myself ) is the fact that we can be seen from above. These are just my thoughts and opinions. 

 

TL;DR   Keep arty but rework it's targeting system/ overhead view.

 

Why don't we nerf the 3rd person views of tanks? It kinda makes sense that arty has it since most arty is not completely enclosed and crewmen operates the gun from outside. But tanks with small view ports and you get a third person view?

 


Edited by aqollo, May 04 2014 - 01:46.


Hurk #128 Posted May 04 2014 - 01:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 55853 battles
  • 17,382
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012
people with high skill dont like things that counter skill.... news at 11. 

Morder #129 Posted May 04 2014 - 01:51

    Captain

  • Players
  • 11434 battles
  • 1,195
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011
The scrubs always think artillery is fine cause they're not the one dealing with it the entire match, every single match.

I don't think it's unbalanced but 2000 damage is just too much. Batchat arty tier 9 is probably what is closest to a perfect artillery. The damage isn't too high on a direct hit and it the reload is acceptable.

Draconis76 #130 Posted May 04 2014 - 01:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 21676 battles
  • 4,729
  • Member since:
    09-20-2012

View Post_Intrepid, on May 04 2014 - 01:37, said:

 

  • If there were 1000 "Remove Artillery" options, people would still only vote for one of them that best represents them
  • I didn't make anyone vote for anything. If they liked it more than they said they did, they should have voted differently
  • 5 votes could result in artillery sticking around. 3 without any major changes
  • I'm not the one spinning, I tried to give a vote option for every possible opinion bucket

 

Spin spin spin

 

People taking polls do not always answer completely rationally. The construction of the poll can bias those taking it towards specific results.

 

One vote for ever possible opinion would only be relevant if your intent was really to analyse all the options. It is not however. Your intent is clearly to try to produce evidence against the existence of arty in game.

 

This thread treats the results as binary.

 

Even in the unlikely event your poll wasn't deliberately biased (which I'd be very skeptical of based on your other threads), the fact remains that your poll is biased.



_Bagheera_ #131 Posted May 04 2014 - 01:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 36887 battles
  • 5,744
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    12-23-2011
You cant carry in artillery (usually, there are exceptions)....your impact on the battlefield is dependent on your team, the map, and how good your scouts are. Too many variables out of your control to have a huge impact on the game...a good artillery with some good scouts out front in the right map will absolutely decimate teams. but those planets very seldom align.

SkeletonDenial #132 Posted May 04 2014 - 02:01

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 28604 battles
  • 554
  • Member since:
    03-23-2011
Pizza

Hurk #133 Posted May 04 2014 - 02:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 55853 battles
  • 17,382
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

View PostMorder, on May 03 2014 - 17:51, said:

The scrubs always think artillery is fine cause they're not the one dealing with it the entire match, every single match.

I don't think it's unbalanced but 2000 damage is just too much. Batchat arty tier 9 is probably what is closest to a perfect artillery. The damage isn't too high on a direct hit and it the reload is acceptable.

interesting you should say that, its also one of the most powerful artillery in game. 


Edited by Hurk, May 04 2014 - 02:12.


Cinphul #134 Posted May 04 2014 - 02:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 36509 battles
  • 5,395
  • Member since:
    07-07-2012

View PostHurk, on May 03 2014 - 20:23, said:

facts:

there are 4 million+ registered users.

there are 400,000+ active users with over 500 battles. 

 

there are less than 10,000 unicums. 

there are over 3 million "yellow/orange/red" players. 

 

Yet the vast majority of respondents to the poll are Green+, and there are 9 unicom / purple players out of the 193 total votes, or ~4.6%.  The survey clearly only includes a small and highly skewed portion of the overall population.

 

Then there are the strongly bias questions:

 

10 = I strongly dislike artillery. Remove them or the puppy gets it.

9 = Remove artillery

8 = Overhaul, but remove artillery if that's not enough

6 = Overhaul, but keep artillery

3 = Modify artillery, but no overhaul needed

2 = Artillery is fine

1 = I love artillery

 

9 & 10 are basically the same thing, with one having a joke to solicit extra troll votes.  8 and 6 are also basically the same, with only a slight difference.   As has been pointed out, that is 4 potential vote options against, and only 3 vote options for.  It really can't get any more bias then that.



Dianeces #135 Posted May 04 2014 - 02:36

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 19983 battles
  • 684
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    07-26-2011

View PostDraconis76, on May 03 2014 - 15:51, said:

 

Spin spin spin

 

People taking polls do not always answer completely rationally. The construction of the poll can bias those taking it towards specific results.

 

One vote for ever possible opinion would only be relevant if your intent was really to analyse all the options. It is not however. Your intent is clearly to try to produce evidence against the existence of arty in game.

 

This thread treats the results as binary.

 

Even in the unlikely event your poll wasn't deliberately biased (which I'd be very skeptical of based on your other threads), the fact remains that your poll is biased.

 

Yes, his conclusion that more skilled players don't like arty is definitely a scathing indictment of arty in WoT and the final piece of evidence we needed to remove it forever. Either that or it is literally someyhing that 90% of the forum already knew, except now with some numbers to prove it.

 

And his question wondering why more skilled players tend to dislike arty and less skilled players tend to like it is definitely one small step away from a multiple page manifesto denouncing arty as the opiate of the pubbies.

 

Either that or your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills are equally as challenged as your tanking skills. Which, come to think of it, would explain so very, very much.



alex08060 #136 Posted May 04 2014 - 02:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 6350 battles
  • 9,980
  • [_UP_] _UP_
  • Member since:
    09-05-2012
Still need Arty to deal with campers but they need to completely overhaul it so it actually helps prevents camping not promote it. 

Orion3 #137 Posted May 04 2014 - 03:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 10534 battles
  • 2,801
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

View Postaqollo, on May 03 2014 - 20:45, said:

 

Why don't we nerf the 3rd person views of tanks? It kinda makes sense that arty has it since most arty is not completely enclosed and crewmen operates the gun from outside. But tanks with small view ports and you get a third person view?

 

I wouldn't mind it.



aqollo #138 Posted May 04 2014 - 03:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 21725 battles
  • 3,327
  • Member since:
    02-21-2011

View PostOrion3, on May 03 2014 - 20:12, said:

I wouldn't mind it.

 

Are you sure ?



Solar_Dynasty #139 Posted May 04 2014 - 03:22

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 11789 battles
  • 101
  • Member since:
    11-28-2010
Artillery and td's like the waffle and 183 exist so players with less skill can kill players with more skill. In my opinion that's the case, at least with my own empirical observation. 

Donward #140 Posted May 04 2014 - 03:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 46957 battles
  • 7,083
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-29-2011

View PostBattlecruiser, on May 03 2014 - 17:28, said:

I don't have a problem with artillery because I've been playing long enough to know to move my vehicle, and I've put time into developing that skill.  People who complain about arty are just mad they can't sit in one spot and farm the whole game, so maybe the reason so many high wn8 players are against arty is because they probably want to just sit around and farm points in their waffles without impunity.


arty is a challenge included in the game design by developers. Accept the challenge, or don't play, or complain uselessly, the choice is yours.

Quoted again for truth.







Also tagged with artillery

4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users