Jump to content


I'll be honest, I like Proving Ground


  • Please log in to reply
149 replies to this topic

Iron_Soul_Stealer #21 Posted Dec 16 2015 - 01:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 3183 battles
  • 9,777
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostBeesnest, on Dec 15 2015 - 16:39, said:

I've yet to try it.  Right now, I don't have any tanks of the tiers required to play and when I did, the server kept timing out on me. 

You should really try it. Honestly, I think it's a lot of fun! :D..Besides the obvious benefits of low tier training...it's like a race to see who can knock out the most tanks. If the server keeps timing you out...maybe we need more people to start playing..?

 

And as I said before, I'd like to see this Proving Ground go all the way up to tier ten.

 



Iron_Soul_Stealer #22 Posted Dec 22 2015 - 04:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 3183 battles
  • 9,777
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postgonxau, on Dec 13 2015 - 12:43, said:

 

As a game mode, I think this is the greatest leap forward Wargaming have made in the entire time I've been playing. Mostly because the new physics engine isn't in. I really wish it was better done, and like you say, at least up to tier 5 or 6, but preferably up to Tier 10.  It would also be nice if you were heavily encouraged (via annoying UI) to play 2-3 games in the new mode when you progressed up a tier for the first time, or maybe if you just bought a new tank.  This would also solve some of the, "I forgot to load ammo" problems.

 

I have a theory on how they can do that rather easily. WotReplays and equivalents have a stack of in-game movements of different tanks, and could use machine learning to start programming movements of tanks based off those.  There's a ton of data, so the only limitation is that they couldn't do it for maps that changed or were added. Solution? Map rotation removes maps without adequate data from the list of playable maps.

 

I would also like to see players that are suspected of being bots by being reported multiple times to be pushed to Proving Ground games, to see how they respond, especially if it takes the last replay of that game client and runs the same scenario 5x or so.  If the bot responds in the same way every time, ban the client. In the meantime it'll be a kind of Bot Olympics.

 

^..Good post, and I'm sorry I missed that the first time around.

And I have to agree that this AI training concept could, arguably, be a giant leap forward for WG, and our community {along with them removing that silly forum 'negative reputation thingy', of course..}. They just need to improve and enhance their AI a bit more...and move this concept all the way to tier ten.

 

 

 



Paul_Vario #23 Posted Dec 22 2015 - 06:10

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 1579 battles
  • 22
  • Member since:
    08-12-2015
I really like the idea of this. It would be nice to learn the game without slowing your team in public matches.  I will definitely practice in Proving Grounds now that I know about it.  I would like to see this go all the up to Tier 10. I have been playing the KV1 and having a tough time. It would be nice to run it in Proving Grounds.

WOT_MyrA #24 Posted Dec 22 2015 - 23:53

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 78 battles
  • 8
  • Member since:
    12-19-2015

Oh, noes! My secret has been discovered!!! ;)

 

Seriously, though, I think it should be hammered into new players that the Proving Grounds is a good place to get your feet wet with controlling your tank and shooting the gun without the higher level of competition that happens in Randoms.

 

Also, you can make some pretty good silver for early upgrades before you get out of your first 10 PG Battles.

 

Two examples:



Iron_Soul_Stealer #25 Posted Dec 24 2015 - 01:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 3183 battles
  • 9,777
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostPaul_Vario, on Dec 22 2015 - 00:10, said:

I really like the idea of this. It would be nice to learn the game without slowing your team in public matches.  I will definitely practice in Proving Grounds now that I know about it.  I would like to see this go all the up to Tier 10. I have been playing the KV1 and having a tough time. It would be nice to run it in Proving Grounds.

 

^..Yep, that's exactly why I think Wargaming.net should bring this AI training concept all the way to tier ten. And that way I could train a bit more with my higher tier tanks, and not "ruin the games of the superly-awesome-players" out there. Besides, nobody likes being a burden to their team, and this a great way for players like me to practice....  because honestly, I just don't feel comfortable playing my higher tier tanks in public battles...yet, but I still want to learn, play, and train with them. 

 

 

 



Badabingg #26 Posted Dec 24 2015 - 04:07

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 6928 battles
  • 312
  • [W-UN2] W-UN2
  • Member since:
    12-07-2015

I like the proving ground , but it has taken sooooooo long to load I move on 4 out of 5 times.

after 5 min wait 8-(.

I still sorely need simple training " calisthenics" for moving, aiming, and  situational awareness

The ProvingG is better but I am getting a choice between my 90 second game , hiding , and waiting out a game resolution,

vs clicking Battle in Proving grounds, going making coffee , coming back and still being  in the que.

My WN8 had soared from Very Bad to Bad. Sure would like something along the lines of a structured "motor"

skills training. The two practice zones are usable, barely , sort of.

I am using this as hand rehab, to a degree, and if anyone has a recommendation , inside or outside of the game for that, I would be most appreciative. Sort of like a cross between marching drill and figure skating, perhaps.

Thnx


Edited by Badabingg, Dec 24 2015 - 04:07.


crapcannon #27 Posted Dec 24 2015 - 04:36

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 20395 battles
  • 524
  • [-OGR-] -OGR-
  • Member since:
    04-16-2014

View Post_MakiseKurisu, on Dec 12 2015 - 22:50, said:

It's a great way to pad reroll stats to be sure.

 

Stats count in proving grounds? Never tried it.

Trailer_Tank_Boy #28 Posted Dec 24 2015 - 06:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 3436 battles
  • 2,634
  • Member since:
    02-03-2013
I can never get a battle.. it times out constantly on both east and west... if they're all bots why can't it make teams?  If everyone has to wait 20 minutes for a battle like I do it's a fail right there.

zed2204 #29 Posted Dec 24 2015 - 08:02

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 41110 battles
  • 2,178
  • [LIO] LIO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2014
Great idea but not taken far enough, they are maybe afraid PvE will take too many players away from the random queues but in my opinion they loose way more potential new players with the chaos the lower tiers are right now, if you just download the game because someone said something good and you get thrown into the the fire the first battle you may not see the potential and move on

Iron_Soul_Stealer #30 Posted Dec 25 2015 - 23:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 3183 battles
  • 9,777
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postzed2204, on Dec 24 2015 - 02:02, said:

Great idea but not taken far enough, they are maybe afraid PvE will take too many players away from the random queues but in my opinion they loose way more potential new players with the chaos the lower tiers are right now, if you just download the game because someone said something good and you get thrown into the the fire the first battle you may not see the potential and move on

 

^..Excellent point. I have to agree, but as another member also mentioned, something strange is certainly going on with these long queue times. And on that note, I have a quick question for you...

 

*Do you think they might be deliberately sabotaging their own idea {Proving Ground} ...with absurdly long queue times..? ... so that it "auto-fails" on purpose ....and they can later say..."see... it wasn't really a big seller"....:facepalm:  Or... do you think there's really that few people trying it..? And if that's the case, why not make them all bots? {except you}, as someone already mentioned... so there won't be any wait times.

 

I sure hope that's not the case, because many players out there, including myself, do like it. But, who knows what goes on behind that pixel curtain of theirs...

 



Canoso77 #31 Posted Dec 26 2015 - 19:05

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 2953 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    04-26-2014
No, I don't think there's any sabotage of the wait times.    I just played a proving ground and my wait time was about three minutes.  The longest I've waited is about five minutes, and I've timed out from the queue only twice after about 5 minutes.  So it may have to do more with the time of day when players who want proving ground are playing the game.  Late night or early morning may be when mostly experienced players who aren't interested in proving grounds are on.

Ricochet450 #32 Posted Dec 26 2015 - 19:50

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 8944 battles
  • 91
  • [TFO] TFO
  • Member since:
    07-30-2011

this is a good idea for all tiers including providing experience and credits.

 

Some players are getting tried of the pvp crap with other players. We all know other warfare games do it



gonxau #33 Posted Dec 27 2015 - 14:26

    Captain

  • Players
  • 19745 battles
  • 1,240
  • Member since:
    06-15-2013

View PostRicochet450, on Dec 26 2015 - 10:50, said:

this is a good idea for all tiers including providing experience and credits.

 

Some players are getting tried of the pvp crap with other players. We all know other warfare games do it

 

I'd be wary of doing that, because you can just write bot recording software to replay the game over and over again. If it does it, the credits and XP should be very, very, VERY low by comparison to regular games.

 

View Postcrapcannon, on Dec 23 2015 - 19:36, said:

 

Stats count in proving grounds? Never tried it.

Didn't count it for mine. I only play the T7 Car in Proving ground, and they never show up on my stats.

 

View PostTrailer_Tank_Boy, on Dec 23 2015 - 21:16, said:

I can never get a battle.. it times out constantly on both east and west... if they're all bots why can't it make teams?  If everyone has to wait 20 minutes for a battle like I do it's a fail right there.

The teams aren't entirely bots. Usually has 2-3 human players.



Iron_Soul_Stealer #34 Posted Dec 31 2015 - 23:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 3183 battles
  • 9,777
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Well everyone...:facepalm:

I've decided to drop out of playing higher/mid tiers until I can get a better handle on the basics of the game. As I stated earlier, I don't want to be a burden to my team, so I certainly hope Wargaming takes this Proving Ground concept to the next level.. and makes it available for all tiers. Because the way I'm playing right now....I certainly need the practice...especially in the mid/upper tiers.

 

Before:

Spoiler

 

After:  .....:facepalm:

Spoiler

 

^..I sincerely hope I don't get into trouble for 'naming and shaming' myself....:facepalm:

Like I said, WG....it's time to take this 'AI training' to the next level...yep, it's time.

 

   



Iron_Soul_Stealer #35 Posted Jan 05 2016 - 01:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 3183 battles
  • 9,777
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postgonxau, on Dec 27 2015 - 08:26, said:

 

I'd be wary of doing that, because you can just write bot recording software to replay the game over and over again. If it does it, the credits and XP should be very, very, VERY low by comparison to regular games.

 

Didn't count it for mine. I only play the T7 Car in Proving ground, and they never show up on my stats.

 

The teams aren't entirely bots. Usually has 2-3 human players.

 

^..Quick question here....

Why can't WG make them all bots..?  {Except for the real player that wants to practice, of course..}

Kind of like when Worf sometimes wanted to hone his Klingon battle skills in the holodeck, in Star Trek.

 

Wouldn't that completely eliminate the wait times..? ....but still allow for some pretty decent 'AI' battle training..?

Let me know what you think...

 



Iron_Soul_Stealer #36 Posted Jan 11 2016 - 03:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 3183 battles
  • 9,777
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostIron_Soul_Stealer, on Jan 04 2016 - 19:59, said:

 

*Quick question here....

Why can't WG make them all bots..?  {Except for the real player that wants to practice, of course..}

Kind of like when Worf sometimes wanted to hone his Klingon battle skills in the holodeck, in Star Trek.

 

Wouldn't that completely eliminate the wait times..? ....but still allow for some pretty decent 'AI' battle training..?

Let me know what you think...

 

 

^...anyone...anyone..?

 

 



Cryotoad #37 Posted Jan 11 2016 - 06:41

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 21842 battles
  • 604
  • [FGTVE] FGTVE
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostIron_Soul_Stealer, on Jan 10 2016 - 21:04, said:

 

^...anyone...anyone..?

Potentially having the server have to simulate a lot of bots (29 for each person that tries the mode this way) might be too taxing on the current system and force them to upgrade their hardware and they want to avoid the expense. Or maybe they're just afraid it'll leech too many people from the random battle queue. Both seem pretty hollow as reasons. idk. *shrug*



Mikosah #38 Posted Jan 11 2016 - 12:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 17582 battles
  • 4,083
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013
Of course it should go without saying that giving the new guys a place to practice is always a good thing. And honestly even after all the time I've spent in the randoms I would love to have a place to roll around and blast helpless bots just for target practice. The thing about the randoms is that playing there carries the risk that the game itself could suddenly squat down and take a dump on you in particular at any moment. Playing a PvE mode if only to avoid that risk is a valid way tactic to get some enjoyment. I really hope WG acknowledges that.

gonxau #39 Posted Jan 11 2016 - 15:33

    Captain

  • Players
  • 19745 battles
  • 1,240
  • Member since:
    06-15-2013

View PostCryotoad, on Jan 10 2016 - 21:41, said:

Potentially having the server have to simulate a lot of bots (29 for each person that tries the mode this way) might be too taxing on the current system and force them to upgrade their hardware and they want to avoid the expense. Or maybe they're just afraid it'll leech too many people from the random battle queue. Both seem pretty hollow as reasons. idk. *shrug*

 

It doesn't have to simulate that many bots though.  We already see 10v10 or 6v6 games when player base cannot support a full 15v15 game.  SerB has already given numerous comments about how he would not make changes to WoT that would slow down a player from entering battle.

 

In my opinion the answer for why they can't just make all the players bots is, "it's not a priority for Wargaming" and also because it has the potential to introduce a whole stack of battles running on the server with only 1 player each in them; depending on the server's capacity and other economics that are opaque to me (e.g. the cost of spinning up servers on demand, etc.) that might degrade the performance overall for very little payoff.



Cryotoad #40 Posted Jan 11 2016 - 17:39

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 21842 battles
  • 604
  • [FGTVE] FGTVE
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View Postgonxau, on Jan 11 2016 - 09:33, said:

 

It doesn't have to simulate that many bots though.  We already see 10v10 or 6v6 games when player base cannot support a full 15v15 game.  SerB has already given numerous comments about how he would not make changes to WoT that would slow down a player from entering battle.

 

In my opinion the answer for why they can't just make all the players bots is, "it's not a priority for Wargaming" and also because it has the potential to introduce a whole stack of battles running on the server with only 1 player each in them; depending on the server's capacity and other economics that are opaque to me (e.g. the cost of spinning up servers on demand, etc.) that might degrade the performance overall for very little payoff.

Effectively my reasoning. That said, I did admit it's a bit of a bad argument, as a server could probably host quite a few of these bot games. 






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users