Jump to content


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

artillery

  • Please log in to reply
1650 replies to this topic

Murosuki #21 Posted May 03 2014 - 22:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 7067 battles
  • 4,214
  • Member since:
    02-02-2013

View Postwh1skybarrel, on May 03 2014 - 23:26, said:

 

So, so many words.  Do people really care this much?

 

Anyways, more people enjoy playing non-arty vehicles because the idea of navigating a tank across the battlefield, and engaging others in combat, is more fun than just sitting in birds eye view all game timing one-clicks on moving tanks.  

 

I'd wager to say that what brings most people to World of Tanks, is the idea of actually driving around and blowing stuff up.  You'd be hard up to find 'arty-view' being the focus of a World of Tanks commercial trying to attract new players.....  Wouldn't seem nearly as fun would it?

 

I'd also have to wager that firing at enemies while you are also driving your tank, rotating your turret, all while trying to avoid other enemy fire, is much more difficult than sitting in a bush and one-clicking.  So yes, which is the most skilled player going to enjoy actually doing the most, and vice versa?

 

The End.  

 

Now it's time to go out, have some beers, and enjoy my Saturday night, enjoy.

 

 

 

And you just summed up all the reasons why I do not play artillery.



_Intrepid #22 Posted May 03 2014 - 22:31

    First lieutenant

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

View Postwh1skybarrel, on May 03 2014 - 23:26, said:

So, so many words.  Do people really care this much?

 

I think anyone that has spent 300+ hours playing the game likely cares quite a bit about its gameplay. I cared enough to create the post, and it takes very little time to read. Certainly the level of care is nothing compared to other things in my life, but yeah, enough for this.



Donward #23 Posted May 03 2014 - 22:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 46957 battles
  • 7,083
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-29-2011
Oh look. Here are the long anticipated results using flawed math and faulty assumptions while trying to gussy up the end goal of a handful of elitists trying to tell others what tank they are ALLOWED to drive. And that's what it comes down to. Some players are so self-entitled that they don't think other players should be allowed to shoot them. Guess what? Arty is a game mechanic that has been with WoT since it's inception and will be with it until the end. No amount of whining - like the OP - will change this. Rather than continuing to beat this dead horse try spending 1/40th of the time learning how arty works and the tactics needed to overcome it on each different map.

_Intrepid #24 Posted May 03 2014 - 22:38

    First lieutenant

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

View PostDonward, on May 03 2014 - 23:36, said:

Oh look. Here are the long anticipated results using flawed math and faulty assumptions...

 

Please point out the flawed math and faulty assumptions.

 

View PostDonward, on May 03 2014 - 23:36, said:

Rather than continuing to beat this dead horse try spending 1/40th of the time learning how arty works and the tactics needed to overcome it on each different map. 

 

The results show players that are better at tactics, knowing how artillery works and overcoming them on each map are the players that like them least, not most. 

 



Cinphul #25 Posted May 03 2014 - 22:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 36481 battles
  • 5,395
  • [Y0L0] Y0L0
  • Member since:
    07-07-2012

View Post_Intrepid, on May 03 2014 - 16:57, said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I very specifically questioned you about what statistics you were going to use so that you wouldn't cherry pick only the data that fell in like with your predictions:

 

http://forum.worldof...71#entry7102071

But keep in mind, we haven't yet seen how he'll try to manipulate the data with his "skill level" adjustments, which will no doubt be picked based on the most advantageous skill measurements.

 

Your reply was very clear:

 

http://forum.worldof...89#entry7102189

The second set of variables will be WN8 and Winrate. If you have a skill measurement you'd prefer over those two, please recommend it. I intend on gathering as much data per person as time permits, but as with the previous look I did with this elsewhere, my plan was to grab:

 

  • Recent WN8
  • Recent winrate
  • Overall WN8
  • Overall winrate
  • Battles Fought
  • Average Tier

 

So now you present your results, and they ONLY show recent WN8.  You obviously ignored your previous statement and selected only the stat that gave you the conclusion you were seeking.  That is called MANIPULATING the DATA and is extremely deceitful on your part.

 

And while you claim you've provided the raw data, all you've done is post a document to a source that requires an EXE file download - I'm not installing garbage on my computer just because you're masking your dishonesty.

 

Your conclusion is as worthless as your methods.


Edited by Cinphul, May 03 2014 - 22:40.


aqollo #26 Posted May 03 2014 - 22:39

    Major

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

View Post_Intrepid, on May 03 2014 - 15:28, said:

 

This would actually harm the relationship if this were true, in that there wouldn't be enough higher skilled players available in the poll to drag the prediction value for vote higher as skill increases. There were plenty of unicums in the sample set. When I combine data from the other data set, where it's a large percentage of unicums for 180+ votes, the relationship only gets stronger. The result is actually pretty solid. Sure, I'd like to have seen 1000 votes or so for the best possible accuracy, but the sample size is large enough and widespread enough in terms of demographics to be extrapolated to the larger population.

 

Please define what a unicum is first off and what is a "large percentage of unicums"

 

Here's another thing that may throw it off.

Are you aware of human nature to avoid middle grounds?
This is apparent back in the older versions of youtube where videos were rated from 1->5 stars. Almost everybody rated either a 1 or a 5 and very few bother voting in between. This is why the system was reworked to up thumb an down thumbs. I already see the trend in your graph except that the "1" in your graph is biased. The actual "bottom line" of your graph is actually number 2. This is because very few people actually "love" artillery and many are just ok with it and don't feel the need to play arty and like it. This is reflected ingame as many player avoid playing arty, they may try it for a while but they stop.

If I was to analyze your data to remove as much bias as possible, I would combine vote number 1-2 into their own category and number 9-10 into their own. This is where you start to see the biased trend of the human nature.



ArmoredCorps #27 Posted May 03 2014 - 22:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 58925 battles
  • 6,428
  • [REL2] REL2
  • Member since:
    02-07-2011

View Post_Intrepid, on May 03 2014 - 16:57, said:

Conclusion

 

This shows a relationship, an undeniable relationship that shows the more skill you have at WoT the less likely you are to be satisfied with artillery. What it doesn't show or explain is why. That is what is worth discussion. What might the reason be? I have my own thoughts as to why this is the case which I've shared on this forum previously. However, when I did so, some actually objected that this relationship existed to begin with. With that objection removed, I'm curious what their explanations for this relationship would be.

 

Why is it that the less skilled you are at World of Tanks, the more likely you are to be satisfied with artillery?

That graph is mesmerizingly pretty. But I'll bite. 

 

1) Lesser-skilled players don't know the game mechanics in any kind of in-depth way. They make bad decisions because of this, because a lack of situational awareness, and because they're not good team players.

Spoiler

2) When you're bad, everything is random. 

Spoiler

3) So why is artillery bad? Because it embodies all of the unpredictable -- capricious -- aspects of RNG, in addition to making irrelevant, the use of terrain. 

Spoiler

4) baddies like the "I win" button

Spoiler

 

TL;DR -- to the lesser-skilled and average players, artillery is no more capricious than anything else. To the better players, they are uniquely capricious and harmful elements of gameplay. Also, WG.net sucks at balancing the meta. 

 

PS -- the walls of greenicums thinking arty is fine is hilarious, I just noticed that. They're just good enough to make reasonable decisions and just smart enough to realize XVM + arty is their only trump card against unicums. 

Of course they see the situation fine -- they can finally have that game-swinging influence that's just out of their reach and they can really take advantage of the idiots in an artillery piece. 



_Intrepid #28 Posted May 03 2014 - 22:45

    First lieutenant

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

View PostCinphul, on May 03 2014 - 23:38, said:

I very specifically questioned you about what statistics you were going to use so that you wouldn't cherry pick only the data that fell in like with your predictions:... So now you present your results, and they ONLY show recent WN8.  You obviously ignored your previous statement and selected only the stat that gave you the conclusion you were seeking.  That is called MANIPULATING the DATA and is extremely deceitful on your part.

 

Bivariate analysis... that means vote representation + one other variable, not two other variables. I mentioned in the OP I'll be posting the second one later, winrate + vote. Your lack of comprehension of the subject continues to cause you great grief. There is no deceit here. There is no manipulation here. Only your inability to comprehend what was said. I will use WN8 and Winrate, but they cannot be used in the same bivariate analysis against votes or it wouldn't be a bivariate analysis...

 

View PostCinphul, on May 03 2014 - 23:38, said:

And while you claim you've provided the raw data, all you've done is post a document to a source that requires an EXE file download - I'm not installing garbage on my computer just because you're masking your dishonesty.

 

Your conclusion is as worthless as your methods.

 

It's an Open Office file. Someone else can post it to Google Docs, I do not have a google account I'm willing to share with the WoT crowd and, at least for today, do not want to dedicate the time creating a fake google account to do so. Your skepticism is misplaced. There is no masking going on, the data file can be downloaded by anyone. 

 

I'm not going to jump down into the mud with you again simply because you appear to be unwilling or unable to comprehend the words in nearly every post, or worse, just want to mangle and twist them into some monstrosity that you can do glorious battle with. 



earthman34 #29 Posted May 03 2014 - 22:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 49569 battles
  • 3,235
  • Member since:
    07-17-2013

View PostDrewDoughty, on May 03 2014 - 16:02, said:

 

Because you don't need to understand (or even know they exist) half the game mechanics to be able to 1 shot anyone. 

I am a fairly good artillery player, and I can tell you that one shot kills are fairly rare, unless the vehicle already has substantial damage. This image of tomato players wiping out unicum platoons is a myth. Red artillery players are usually so bad they don't even get a kill in a typical game.



_Intrepid #30 Posted May 03 2014 - 22:49

    First lieutenant

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

View Postaqollo, on May 03 2014 - 23:39, said:

Please define what a unicum is first off and what is a "large percentage of unicums"

 

Here's another thing that may throw it off.

Are you aware of human nature to avoid middle grounds?
This is apparent back in the older versions of youtube where videos were rated from 1->5 stars. Almost everybody rated either a 1 or a 5 and very few bother voting in between. This is why the system was reworked to up thumb an down thumbs. I already see the trend in your graph except that the "1" in your graph is biased. The actual "bottom line" of your graph is actually number 2. This is because very few people actually "love" artillery and many are just ok with it and don't feel the need to play arty and like it. This is reflected ingame as many player avoid playing arty, they may try it for a while but they stop.

If I was to analyze your data to remove as much bias as possible, I would combine vote number 1-2 into their own category and number 9-10 into their own. This is where you start to see the biased trend of the human nature.

 

  • Unicum is defined by WoTLabs as someone with a WN8 of 2350 or greater, and/or a winrate of 60% or better. A large percentage, spitballing, 58%-60% (I'd have to go check), of those other 183
  • Yes, people slide to the edges, and that's ok, it won't impact the outcome because those most likely to slide to one edge or the other would have also been likely to be in the middle on similar sides, so the balance is maintained. Only if we were to hypothesize that they would slide to an extreme on the other end of the spectrum does this become an issue, and then we'd have to explain why this happens for one extreme more than another... so yeah, pretty unlikely to cause the outcome itself to be off.

 



Cinphul #31 Posted May 03 2014 - 22:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 36481 battles
  • 5,395
  • [Y0L0] Y0L0
  • Member since:
    07-07-2012

View Post_Intrepid, on May 03 2014 - 17:45, said:

 

Bivariate analysis... that means vote representation + one other variable, not two other variables. I mentioned in the OP I'll be posting the second one later, winrate + vote. Your lack of comprehension of the subject continues to cause you great grief. There is no deceit here. There is no manipulation here. Only your inability to comprehend what was said. I will use WN8 and Winrate, but they cannot be used in the same bivariate analysis against votes or it wouldn't be a bivariate analysis...

 

You are dishonest.  If you're going to present data, you present all of the data you said you would provide at the same time, not one piece of it plus your already determined conclusion.  That's idiotic.

 

I do not care what stupid, self serving excuse you have for cherry picking the one you want, then immediately drawing your conclusion.  That is pure dishonest.  Deny all you want - you presented a plan and ignored it because you wanted to post your dishonest conclusion, which everyone knew was exactly the purpose of your original poll.

 

But go ahead and continue to blame me for not accepting your dishonesty, which has been pervasive throughout all of your whiny anti-arty hissy fit posts - clearly that's the only tactic you have left because you can't defend the garbage you post here.

 

 

Quote

It's an Open Office file. Someone else can post it to Google Docs, I do not have a google account I'm willing to share with the WoT crowd and, at least for today, do not want to dedicate the time creating a fake google account to do so. Your skepticism is misplaced. There is no masking going on, the data file can be downloaded by anyone. 

 

I'm not going to jump down into the mud with you again simply because you appear to be unwilling or unable to comprehend the words in nearly every post, or worse, just want to mangle and twist them into some monstrosity that you can do glorious battle with. 

 

 

Why should anyone else be responsible for your data?  You are the definition of slimy.   You are in the one that is in the mud - you are the one that calls out people's stats, then turns around and accuses them of being first to sling mud.  You are the one that leaves out your entire stats analysis from your original post, then turns around and starts accusing others of not reading it until woops, you figure out once again you are wrong.  How many times do you have to apologize to me for your mistakes before you get your head out of your butt?  We're at 3 already.



aqollo #32 Posted May 03 2014 - 22:51

    Major

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

Let me demonstrate why this polling can be off because of lack of sample size of unicums

 

Look at the 3500-4000 Recent Wn8 section.

Now I did not vote in said poll, but now I will technically demonstrate what happens and the power I have over small sample size.

 

As you can see in the chart there is one vote for the number 9 by some 3700 recent unicum guy.

 

Now to be extremely honest, if I would have voted in the poll, I would vote number 2 because I could care less about arty. Now if you plotted my vote in your data, the trend towards the end goes crashing INTO THE GROUND. After writing this, I went and voted on your poll.


Edited by aqollo, May 03 2014 - 22:53.


No_I_Git #33 Posted May 03 2014 - 22:52

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 48792 battles
  • 50
  • Member since:
    06-24-2011

Why? Because arti is inaccurate and has low DPM.

You cannot reliably carry games with arti and noone uses it in clan wars. If you have a very high WN8 it will drop while playing arti because you cannot rely on DPM, gun accuracy, armor or view range. Arti is more luck than skill.



Donward #34 Posted May 03 2014 - 22:53

    Major

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

View Post_Intrepid, on May 03 2014 - 14:38, said:

 

Please point out the flawed math and faulty assumptions.

 

 

The results show players that are better at tactics, knowing how artillery works and overcoming them on each map are the players that like them least, not most. 

 

A sample size of 193 votes for a player population size in the millions has a shockingly large error rate approaching the double digits. Adding to the issue is that these forums are a poor way of measuring the playerbase's attitude to arty in general. It would be like polling the town of Hayden Lake, Idaho and using those numbers to extrapolate America's views on race relations. So you have a poor sample size and poor sample subject.

 

All your results show is that the anti-arty war has slowly come to an end and your side has lost. Even in the WoT forums - once a fever swamp for arty hate - you were unable to garner more than 1/3 of the votes to remove arty.

 

But do go on with your delusions that good players hate arty and baddies love it because - herpa durr - they can't play "real" tanks.



_Intrepid #35 Posted May 03 2014 - 22:54

    First lieutenant

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

View Postaqollo, on May 03 2014 - 23:51, said:

Now to be extremely honest, if I would have voted in the poll, I would vote number 2 because I could care less about arty. Now if you plotted my vote in your data, the trend towards the end goes crashing INTO THE GROUND.

 

Not at all. Look at how regression analysis are done and you'll see why this single vote would cause no more of a crash for the end than the 6 unicums between 1-3 did. It's a trend line, not a representative/mean/averaged line. You'll notice the points don't actually line up with anyone. Really, these are pretty solid tools used in everything from healthcare to budgeting etc, they're not so finnicky as to fall apart over a single changed variable.



_DANARCHY_ #36 Posted May 03 2014 - 22:54

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 25476 battles
  • 483
  • Member since:
    03-21-2012
I love you _Intrepid haha These arty topics are beautiful. 

deathmachine16 #37 Posted May 03 2014 - 22:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 23152 battles
  • 7,643
  • [RELIC] RELIC
  • Member since:
    12-21-2011

View PostNo_I_Git, on May 03 2014 - 17:52, said:

Why? Because arti is inaccurate and has low DPM.

You cannot reliably carry games with arti and noone uses it in clan wars. If you have a very high WN8 it will drop while playing arti because you cannot rely on DPM, gun accuracy, armor or view range. Arti is more luck than skill.

That statement about clan wars is completely wrong. It's almost guaranteed each team has at least 1 arty normally the CGC



aqollo #38 Posted May 03 2014 - 22:56

    Major

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

View Post_Intrepid, on May 03 2014 - 15:54, said:

 

Not at all. Look at how regression analysis are done and you'll see why this single vote would cause no more of a crash for the end than the 6 unicums between 1-3 did. It's a trend line, not a representative/mean/averaged line. You'll notice the points don't actually line up with anyone. Really, these are pretty solid tools used in everything from healthcare to budgeting etc, they're not so finnicky as to fall apart over a single changed variable.

 

You have to realize that not everything is linear. This can be a quadratic relationship and crash down at the end but that is not plotted because of lack of sample size. 



Aethon #39 Posted May 03 2014 - 22:58

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 15198 battles
  • 400
  • [-CHH-] -CHH-
  • Member since:
    07-09-2010

The reasons I loathe arty:

 

1.  It requires extremely little actual skill, as compared to tank/TD gameplay.

2.  Arty units don't put themselves at any sort of risk, unless the team is already losing badly, or if an entire flank collapses...by which point they should be moving anyway, if they're paying attention to their map.

3.  Artillery uses some sort of satellite view system that is, frankly, a bit ridiculous for the time period.  I can see third-person aiming, and some sort of special artillery aiming sights, but not satellite view...especially when it shows them where trees, fences, etc. have been knocked over, thereby allowing free limited recon without risk.

4.  No more tracers; when the old arty tracers were in, I found artillery fun to play, because one's attention had to be divided between counter-battery fire, and team-support fire.  It was interesting, it was fun, and I actually somewhat enjoyed playing artillery at the time, as I found counter-battery fun to do.  Once the tracers were changed, the risk to arty became negligible.  You just fire, move a bit, then fire, unless the enemy artillery is dead...the risk of counter-battery is almost nil at this point.

5.  It allows really terrible players a random chance to one-shot really good players, regardless of what reasonable steps the good players take.  Sure, the tankers can reduce the risks if they stay in one spot, but as soon as they move, they're targets again.  Arty is supposed to reduce camping how, exactly?

 

Just my $0.02; nothing against the people who actually enjoy it, etc; I just dislike the game mechanic.


Edited by Maschinengeist, May 03 2014 - 22:59.


aqollo #40 Posted May 03 2014 - 22:59

    Major

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

View PostMaschinengeist, on May 03 2014 - 15:58, said:

The reasons I loathe arty:

 

1.  It requires extremely little actual skill, as compared to tank/TD gameplay.

2.  Arty units don't put themselves at any sort of risk, unless the team is already losing badly, or if an entire flank collapses...by which point they should be moving anyway, if they're paying attention to their map.

3.  Artillery uses some sort of satellite view system that is, frankly, a bit ridiculous for the time period.  I can see third-person aiming, and some sort of special artillery aiming sights, but not satellite view...especially when it shows them where trees, fences, etc. have been knocked over, thereby allowing free limited recon without risk.

4.  No more tracers; when the old arty tracers were in, I found artillery fun to play, because one's attention had to be divided between counter-battery fire, and team-support fire.  It was interesting, it was fun, and I actually somewhat enjoyed playing artillery at the time, as I found counter-battery fun to do.  Once the tracers were changed, the risk to arty became negligible.  You just fire, move a bit, then fire, unless the enemy artillery is dead...the risk of counter-battery is almost nil at this point.

5.  It allows really terrible players a random chance to one-shot really good players, regardless of what reasonable steps the good players take.  Sure, the tankers can reduce the risks if they stay in one spot, but as soon as they move, they're targets again.  Arty is supposed to reduce camping how, exactly?

 

Just my $0.02; nothing against the people who actually enjoy it, etc; I just dislike the game mechanic.

 

Arty tracers are still ingame...







Also tagged with artillery

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users