Jump to content


It has to stop now!


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

NiteDog #21 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 04:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 26408 battles
  • 5,441
  • [CARTL] CARTL
  • Member since:
    08-09-2011

View Postrokinamerica, on Sep 12 2017 - 18:24, said:

I agree:

Spoiler

 

 

Spoiler


Nixeldon #22 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 04:49

    Captain

  • Players
  • 52500 battles
  • 1,258
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View Postzarg12, on Sep 12 2017 - 22:38, said:

 

Skill MM did not kill AW. many factors did, skill MM had nothing to do with it, the biggest cause of its death was how PVE was rolled out and never fixed, separating the playerbase in half, killing PVP and killing the game as a result of nobody being able to play PVP. Get your information right.

 

SIMM may not have been the sole culprit, but the additional parameters for the MM with a small player base that was competing with PVE didn't help queue times. SIMM also demonstrated no perceptible game play benefit. The matches were short and landslides were running at a 28% rate. Even the developers said a random MM was probably the better option.

FrozenKemp #23 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 04:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 41547 battles
  • 3,944
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View Post101MeatShield, on Sep 12 2017 - 21:01, said:

These stupid defeats with only 1 or 2 enemy tanks dead and your entire team wiped out has to end...

 

VICE-VERA too, tired of winning matches and only losing 2 friendlies....

 

 

JUST SLAUGHTERS.......

 

 

YAWN 

 

Ok, so educate the whole player base about how to deploy better...

NiteDog #24 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 05:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 26408 battles
  • 5,441
  • [CARTL] CARTL
  • Member since:
    08-09-2011

View PostNixeldon, on Sep 12 2017 - 19:49, said:

 

SIMM may not have been the sole culprit, but the additional parameters for the MM with a small player base that was competing with PVE didn't help queue times. SIMM also demonstrated no perceptible game play benefit. The matches were short and landslides were running at a 28% rate. Even the developers said a random MM was probably the better option.

 

HUH?

Spoiler

 



Shortcult #25 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 05:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 30150 battles
  • 3,899
  • Member since:
    08-21-2012

View PostGeorgePreddy, on Sep 12 2017 - 18:15, said:

Your request makes no sense because snowball effect battles are unavoidable without using dynamic rigging to ensure an even number of tanks die on each team throughout the battle which would be stupid.

 

If you believe SBMM will stop snowballs you are wrong, it would kill the game, though... it killed AW.

 

Thought that was what arty was...

flowerpower210 #26 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 05:36

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 18457 battles
  • 324
  • [TUF] TUF
  • Member since:
    02-25-2011

View Post101MeatShield, on Sep 12 2017 - 21:47, said:

 

lol, it was written on the forums so it must be true.........

 

no other reason will do!

 

​It has to be true... I'm the author of the thread. And, I'm always right. When I'm not, the fabric of reality rearranges itself to concord with my thoughts.

GeorgePreddy #27 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 05:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 14291 battles
  • 5,637
  • [L_LEG] L_LEG
  • Member since:
    04-11-2013

View Postzarg12, on Sep 13 2017 - 00:46, said:

 

You are wrong. I was an early alpha tester and I had connections with OE from the inside, I know everything that happened.

 

But I can't help it if I'm right about SBMM killing AW... I won't lie about it.

StiffWind #28 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 07:49

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 8476 battles
  • 128
  • Member since:
    03-15-2017

View PostGeorgePreddy, on Sep 13 2017 - 03:15, said:

Your request makes no sense because snowball effect battles are unavoidable without using dynamic rigging to ensure an even number of tanks die on each team throughout the battle which would be stupid.

 

If you believe SBMM will stop snowballs you are wrong, it would kill the game, though... it killed AW.

 

Didn't happen before 9.18 the way it does now = you don't know what you're talking about.

 



theSparatan117 #29 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 09:32

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 8385 battles
  • 621
  • Member since:
    12-26-2013

View PostGeorgePreddy, on Sep 12 2017 - 23:36, said:

 

But I can't help it if I'm right about SBMM killing AW... I won't lie about it.

 

You're clearly misinformed as to what happened with AW, so it would be beneficial if you would keep your mouth shut about facts that you don't know. SBMM had nothing to do with AW's downfall.

 

Educate yourself

https://www.reddit.c...hat_went_wrong/

 

AW didn't die because of lack of effort on Obsidian Entertainment's part... it died because MailRU wanted to make AW as close to World of Tanks, without getting Sued, but do it with Modern Tanks. However, OE was never allowed to finish anything, as the Russian server was the only thing that mattered. 

 

Stop trying to use AW as an excuse to backup your point of view. SBMM would alleviate a lot of the problems in this game when queued up solo, but it would also cause problems when people of different playing ranks would play together.... Think of it like The Division... dragging someone who is just high enough to get into the dark zone, up 4 levels to hang out with you, and then be annoyed when they get obliterated because they can't hang with you at your level. This is why SBMM will never be implemented. 

 

This is why a PVE and PVP mode would be great. Having a terrible day with MM? Switch to PVE mode. You'll make half the credits, but at least you will enjoy the games. 



SwedishEOD #30 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 10:12

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 53501 battles
  • 1,203
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    07-24-2010

If they ever make a PVE mode I sure hope you get nothing for it in regards to reward, no XP no Creds , but also not cost you anything. You should not be able to sit in a PVE enviroment and grind only to get back to PVP and use your poor skills from PVE in a higher tier just because you played a metric[edited]tonne of battles in PVE.

 

But thats just my opinion man.....



lionheart1118 #31 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 11:48

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12827 battles
  • 305
  • Member since:
    03-10-2011
Pve would be a terrible idea, skill based mm would be an improvement I think but the best answer is simply a +1/-1 mm. BUT nothing will ever stop snowball games from happening. Not even skill based mm.

ThePigSheFlies #32 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 13:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 59075 battles
  • 13,980
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    10-20-2012

View PostStiffWind, on Sep 13 2017 - 01:49, said:

 

Didn't happen before 9.18 the way it does now = you don't know what you're talking about.

 

 

confirmation bias.  I would wager that the number of blow outs prior to 9.18 is basically the same as it is now.

 

edit:  the causation is many factored, but one component of it is the tiny, small, funnel maps where teams are constantly lit brawling it out.  the player base whined about camping, and draws, so the developer's sped up game play by funneling everyone into tiny crappy maps forcing every tank class to brawl.  the few maps that might still lend themselves to 'slow play' are generally those where bad players have no patience, and they zerg forward into a TD nest and evaporate, and still end up with a steam-roll...

 

 



lionheart1118 #33 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 13:35

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12827 battles
  • 305
  • Member since:
    03-10-2011

View PostThePigSheFlies, on Sep 13 2017 - 12:31, said:

 

confirmation bias.  I would wager that the number of blow outs prior to 9.18 is basically the same as it is now.

I agree.



SOB_Tenato #34 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 13:39

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 18238 battles
  • 217
  • Member since:
    07-28-2014

New players tend to rush tiers. You enter a new game and you see others driving wonders while you drive a cardboard tank with no pen and no armor, you want THAT thank. It's natural, but it's also the biggest mistake. It was a lot harder to get to high tiers before all these "boosters" they give away for so low accomplishments and that makes the rushing faster so players get to T8 and above with absolute no idea what are they getting into. They get beaten, loss, their stats drop, their silver pile thins out.

 

Instead of going down a few tiers and learn at a lower cost for them they just get into high tier battles and... CAMP. Camp so hard in the hope most of enemy tanks will be wiped out before reds get to them. Sad really. This I see happening a lot more since servers merge. Mixed playstyles of "experienced" players (WS Camp and defend while ES aggressively push for the win) with the addition of total clueless noobs on T8-9-10 are the cause of these 1,2,3-15 losses, and losses, and losses, and losses.

 

Personally I'm playing T5-6. Lots of players with over 20k battles there. Battles often last until clock runs out and with very close scores than in high tiers. The blowout effect is there also but its the exception. Solution? Remove or make the darn boosters available ONLY from T6 and up! That would even up things a bit imho.



heavymetal1967 #35 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 13:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 58367 battles
  • 13,950
  • Member since:
    05-30-2012

View Postrokinamerica, on Sep 12 2017 - 22:24, said:

I agree:

Spoiler

 

 

View PostNiteDog, on Sep 12 2017 - 23:48, said:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

View PostNiteDog, on Sep 13 2017 - 00:01, said:

 

HUH?

Spoiler

 

 

He needs to edit that post, then sing this "refrain". :P

 

Stuff like this makes me yearn for a TARDIS.

 

Spoiler

 



Jer1413 #36 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 14:29

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 39440 battles
  • 724
  • [RR13] RR13
  • Member since:
    02-24-2013

View PostStiffWind, on Sep 13 2017 - 06:49, said:

 

Didn't happen before 9.18 the way it does now = you don't know what you're talking about.

 

 

​You've only been playing since March = you don't know much about before 9.18.

 

 



Markd73 #37 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 16:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 28419 battles
  • 3,172
  • [AOS] AOS
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View Postflowerpower210, on Sep 13 2017 - 04:36, said:

 

​It has to be true... I'm the author of the thread. And, I'm always right. When I'm not, the fabric of reality rearranges itself to concord with my thoughts.

 

I wish I had that super power.



spud_tuber #38 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 00:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 40671 battles
  • 3,717
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013
So, based on some interview quotes I've seen, apparently WG admitted that blowouts are more common post 9.18.  Far as I can tell, though, they didn't say by how much, or if it was across all servers, or specific to the RU servers, or what.  The only data I've seen on NA post 9.18 blowout rates was neatoman's, which did not support a higher blowout rate on NA server.

This leads to only a handful of possibilities.  One is that NeatoMan's data is too limited in some way to show the trend.  The other is that the different meta between different regions results in NA not experiencing the change, but either our lack of change is hidden under the mountain of data from the other servers or the interview was speaking specifically about the RU server experiencing it.

8bit_Gamer #39 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 01:29

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13901 battles
  • 637
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011

View PostGeorgePreddy, on Sep 13 2017 - 02:15, said:

Your request makes no sense because snowball effect battles are unavoidable without using dynamic rigging to ensure an even number of tanks die on each team throughout the battle which would be stupid.

 

If you believe SBMM will stop snowballs you are wrong, it would kill the game, though... it killed AW.

 

This is not what killed AW...

 

The rest of your posts seems accurate though.



rokinamerica #40 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 01:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 4741 battles
  • 2,919
  • Member since:
    04-20-2013

View PostNixeldon, on Sep 12 2017 - 19:49, said:

 

SIMM may not have been the sole culprit, but the additional parameters for the MM with a small player base that was competing with PVE didn't help queue times. SIMM also demonstrated no perceptible game play benefit. The matches were short and landslides were running at a 28% rate. Even the developers said a random MM was probably the better option.

 

View PostNiteDog, on Sep 12 2017 - 20:01, said:

 

HUH?

Spoiler

 

 

View Postheavymetal1967, on Sep 13 2017 - 04:52, said:

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

He needs to edit that post, then sing this "refrain". :P

 

Stuff like this makes me yearn for a TARDIS.

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

But the most important question in this is this:

Spoiler

 

 






3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users