Jump to content


The game is ruined, and Wargaming doesn't care.


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

SpitYoYoMafia #61 Posted Oct 11 2017 - 19:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 17789 battles
  • 13,032
  • Member since:
    05-25-2012

View PostTolos, on Oct 11 2017 - 09:55, said:

 

Anyone else laugh at this part ?. 

 

OOOOOOO ME ME ME ME!

 

(sorry for posting like an autistic fellow)



Deputy276 #62 Posted Oct 11 2017 - 20:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 17259 battles
  • 4,584
  • [3_NZ] 3_NZ
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013

View PostTolos, on Oct 11 2017 - 11:55, said:

 

Anyone else laugh at this part ?. 

 

I didn't laugh, but my eyes did go "crossed". :)

Tolos #63 Posted Oct 12 2017 - 13:48

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25997 battles
  • 17,188
  • [GDF] GDF
  • Member since:
    09-22-2010

View PostDeputy276, on Oct 11 2017 - 19:32, said:

 

I didn't laugh, but my eyes did go "crossed". :)

 

Its almost like he didn't see the hypocrisy of his post lol. 

Panzerdoug #64 Posted Oct 15 2017 - 17:33

    Private

  • Beta Testers
  • 27241 battles
  • 9
  • [-R-O-] -R-O-
  • Member since:
    10-01-2010

Here is the response from Wargaming....

 

"Ray Adams

Dear Panzerdoug,

Thank you for contacting Wargaming Support!

The addition of skill-based conditions to the matchmaking equation would disrupt the very idea behind Random Battles. Although the mode has rules, there is an element of randomness to each battle, and the thrill that comes with it is what we all love about Random Battles.

Everyone gets a chance to become a hero, to prove their worth playing against people with different battle histories. It wouldn’t be possible with skill-based matchmaking."

 

So there it is!  With Random Battles, everyone has the chance to play for the 1998 New York Yankees or the 2003 Detroit Tigers.  Very rarely are you in a group right in the middle.  Just what Wargaming wants.



black_colt #65 Posted Oct 15 2017 - 17:35

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 3370 battles
  • 2,110
  • Member since:
    01-11-2015

View PostAugustus_GoldNoob_Sohn, on Oct 08 2017 - 21:44, said:

So- with your argument laid out as to why the game is ruined: how would you fix it?

 

Exactly - in a sane, cogent, concise, and relevant manner please

black_colt #66 Posted Oct 15 2017 - 17:37

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 3370 battles
  • 2,110
  • Member since:
    01-11-2015

View PostAugustus_GoldNoob_Sohn, on Oct 08 2017 - 21:44, said:

So- with your argument laid out as to why the game is ruined: how would you fix it?

 

Apologies to the Forum - thought that the Forum had not posted my last comment.

Edited by black_colt, Oct 15 2017 - 17:37.


black_colt #67 Posted Oct 15 2017 - 17:44

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 3370 battles
  • 2,110
  • Member since:
    01-11-2015

View PostBurglarOfBanff_ff, on Oct 09 2017 - 03:16, said:

I'm having fun, what did I miss?

 

Same here since I am no longer the sole -2 Tier vehicle in a match ...

 

The game is not perfect and will not be enjoyable for everyone since perfection and enjoyment is personal and different to each individual.

 

We, as players, must continually tell Wargaming, in a sane, cogent, concise, and relevant manner, what we feel [notice what word I used] is wrong and how we feel it can be fixed while taking into account other players.

 

 


Edited by black_colt, Oct 15 2017 - 17:44.


NeatoMan #68 Posted Oct 15 2017 - 17:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 24389 battles
  • 15,587
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

It has everything to do with the player base.  They are awful.   Play low tiers and it's obvious how terrible players are at that level.  That same lack of ability now extends all the way to tier 8.  

 

People keep complaining about all the goods being stacked on one team as being the cause of WoT misery and blowouts, but the truth is the blame can be laid squarely on the tomatoes that infest this game.    You get maybe one or two good players per battle, and a unicum every 10 to 20 games or so.   They can't possibly be the ones making a mess of game play when they are so few in numbers.   OTOH you get at least 1/3 to 1/2 of players in every battle that are just terrible.   They have a much greater affect on game play.   You can balance them all you want and they'll still have a terrible affect on game play.  

 

They should have instituted separate leagues or some kind of skill separation long ago.  Too late now.



21Blackjack #69 Posted Oct 15 2017 - 18:26

    Captain

  • Players
  • 18675 battles
  • 1,845
  • Member since:
    02-03-2012

View PostRedwave11, on Oct 09 2017 - 07:28, said:

High tiers are definitely the place to be.

 

I have to disagree with the comment on the win-loss margins. I think they are the same as they have always been if not a little better (at high tiers, haven't played low much lately)

 

High tiers are the place to be because of only one reason, you are guaranteed to be top tier.  That's it.

 

Tier 8 is a joke really, so many Tier 7-8 Premiums that are clearly clearly better than anything else, then they also contend with Tier 9-10.  Whats a guy who plays a regular non-powercreeped Tier 7-8 to do?? You are so screwed you have to play like a Tier 6 and hide most of the game.

 

I'm thinking maybe I'll just go back to Tier 5 or something



VooDooKobra #70 Posted Oct 15 2017 - 18:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 6572 battles
  • 2,502
  • [1-185] 1-185
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011

View PostPanzerdoug, on Oct 08 2017 - 22:35, said:

With the new garbage match making, and combining of servers, anything below tier 9 is horrible to play (unless you are either an incredible player or cheating).  And, with all the new premium tanks, more and more non-skilled players and noobs are getting pushing into higher tier games.  Thus, the amount of 5-15, 4-15, 3-15, 2-15, 1-15 and 0-15 games are happening far more often.  This is supposed to be fun???  It is a joke, on all of us that Wargaming doesn't cater to (and who do they cater to?  Unicums).

 

Yes the MM still has a few things i do not like but if you bother to read the news portal you would see that some of the things are getting fixed.  personally i would like equal top bottom and middle tier but its a step in the right direction.  as for the amount of blowout games i find it funny how after every patch people complain about that patch being the one causing more blowout games when really there has been blowout games all along and the idea of the close games being frequent at any point and time is a myth

 

View Postfrontflip2cool, on Oct 09 2017 - 07:12, said:

 

This much is true. Right now WG is shooting their selves in the foot with World of Tanks. They are catering to the "super unicums", Russian players, and those who actually give them money for EVERY single premium tank in the game. So to make a long story short they are killing their own game and don't see that(or if they do they are not admitting it). I am actually going to take a 4-6 month break possible soon just to see if WG can get their SH*T straightened out with WoT.

 

 

wait paying money means i should be catered to?  so when does it kick in?  do i need a special code?  

 

View PostSlunt, on Oct 09 2017 - 15:40, said:

3 years of lies only to be undone by their own hands with the patent US 8425330 B1 filled by WarGaming in 2012 and published April 23, 2013 - Dynamic battle session matchmaking in a multiplayer game

 

"

As the player's win/loss ratio decreases, the player becomes more likely to be placed in battles having battle levels at the lower end of the allowable range, whereas as the player's win/loss ratio increases, the player becomes more likely to be placed in battles having battle levels at the upper end of the allowable range. Thus, when a player has been repeatedly put into too many difficult battles, the balancing is done in favor of easier battle sessions, thereby encouraging the player by providing an easier game environment. Similarly, when the player has been repeatedly put into too many easy battles, the balancing is done in favor of harder battle sessions, thereby keeping the player challenged instead of letting the player become bored with easy games. A first possible algorithm is to divide the permissible battle levels evenly across a range from zero (0) to two (2), and place the vehicle into the battle level corresponding to the win/loss ratio, where any ratio greater than two (2) automatically results in the vehicle being placed in the highest possible battle level. Another possible algorithm is to increase the battle level by one (within the permissible range) for a vehicle each time a player wins a battle with that vehicle, and decrease the battle level by one (within the permissible range) each time a player loses a battle with that vehicle. If the battle level is already at the upper end of the range and the player wins the battle, the battle level may remain constant. Similarly, if the battle level is already at the lower end of the range and the player loses the battle, the battle level may remain constant.


The MM is rigged to force players in the 50% win ratio.

 

 

WG also said in numerous Q&A's that the radio does not have an influence in detecting enemy ... ok, then why this:
An increased Signal Range value, in turn, may allow the vehicle to detect enemies at greater distances during game play, making the player more competitive against opponents and resulting in an enhanced gameplay experience for that player.
found in patent US 20130090161 A1 - Using and Exporting Experience Gained in a Video Game published April 11, 2013.
 
Another lie by WarGaming? bet your [edited]it is!

Funny how various aspects of the game get clearly described in patents rather than various Q&A sessions .
 
 
These are quoted from 4 years ago.  Don't know how true these are, could all be bull5hit,  but as a US patent holder myself, seems plausible.

 

the rigged to 50% is your conclusion as it says nowhere in the patent anything about balancing players to a certain wr.  as well if you look at the diagram you might be misreading the patent.  if you look at the diagram it looks like the diagram for the tiers tanks face therefore by using logic i conclude that when the gave is moving a tank through levels it is adjusting the frequency you get top bottom and middle tiers and not seeding the game with bad players.  again can you link any of the q and a where they say radio has nothing to do with view range?  

 

View PostStiffWind, on Oct 11 2017 - 10:43, said:

 

He's whining about who he considers to be a whiner.  The whining about "whiners" is the most common and consistent post in any thread where somebody voices a non-contented opinion around here.  Just let folks have their say...and don't post if you have nothing constructive to add.

 

 

reread his post, he wasnt whining he was stating in point form he thinks this MM is better and so on.  

 

 


Edited by VooDooKobra, Oct 15 2017 - 18:29.


KryptoKnight #71 Posted Oct 15 2017 - 19:48

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 24164 battles
  • 300
  • [X-T7] X-T7
  • Member since:
    06-23-2012
defender and obj252U have made them game less fun. why grind to a high tier 8, only to be killed by a wallet warrior

JA_Pinkerton #72 Posted Oct 15 2017 - 20:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 30204 battles
  • 4,279
  • Member since:
    08-12-2013

View PostBlazin_JOH, on Oct 09 2017 - 06:04, said:

I'd take the one in FIVE HUNDRED games you refer to for the 33% of the time my tanks were top tier in the former matchmaking and how anyone can think this superior mystifies me.

 

Old MM : 33% of the time your tier VIII had to fight against 12 tier X enemies.

New MM : 50% of the time your tier VIII has to fight against 3 tier X enemies.

 

So yeah,I'd call that an improvement.



JA_Pinkerton #73 Posted Oct 15 2017 - 20:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 30204 battles
  • 4,279
  • Member since:
    08-12-2013

View PostStiffWind, on Oct 11 2017 - 12:43, said:

 

He's whining about who he considers to be a whiner.  The whining about "whiners" is the most common and consistent post in any thread where somebody voices a non-contented opinion around here.  Just let folks have their say...and don't post if you have nothing constructive to add.

 

 

Yo dawg I heard you like whining!  So I posted a whine about whining about whiners so you could whine about whining while you whine about whiners whining!



jpli #74 Posted Oct 15 2017 - 21:17

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 40270 battles
  • 535
  • [HAFR] HAFR
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

Hi,

 

I think the main problem with the game actually is the lack of diversity. We don't need more new tanks because with a few exceptions, it is more or less always the same thing.

 

But developers acknowledged that it's almost 2 years we didn't get a new map and this is _unacceptable_.

Of course a map doesn't make money but I call this a short term vision because many players have had enough of the already seen and so leave the boat.

 

Cheers.

 



vonshaunus #75 Posted Oct 15 2017 - 21:20

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 26840 battles
  • 115
  • [555TN] 555TN
  • Member since:
    01-04-2011

Lots wrong with the game (stupid prems mostly), but lack of a disastrous and awful skill based matchmaker is not one of those things.

 

(I'm not an amazing player and I don't cheat but I do have fun whether playing with noobs, regular grunts like me, or purples.)

 

 



Fractured_Raptor #76 Posted Oct 15 2017 - 21:35

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 14921 battles
  • 306
  • [-RISK] -RISK
  • Member since:
    05-28-2016
Putting everyone under one roof has some good and some bad. 

NeatoMan #77 Posted Oct 15 2017 - 21:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 24389 battles
  • 15,587
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostSlunt, on Oct 09 2017 - 17:40, said:

As the player's win/loss ratio decreases, the player becomes more likely to be placed in battles having battle levels at the lower end of the allowable range, whereas as the player's win/loss ratio increases, the player becomes more likely to be placed in battles having battle levels at the upper end of the allowable range. Thus, when a player has been repeatedly put into too many difficult battles, the balancing is done in favor of easier battle sessions, thereby encouraging the player by providing an easier game environment. Similarly, when the player has been repeatedly put into too many easy battles, the balancing is done in favor of harder battle sessions, thereby keeping the player challenged instead of letting the player become bored with easy games. A first possible algorithm is to divide the permissible battle levels evenly across a range from zero (0) to two (2), and place the vehicle into the battle level corresponding to the win/loss ratio, where any ratio greater than two (2) automatically results in the vehicle being placed in the highest possible battle level. Another possible algorithm is to increase the battle level by one (within the permissible range) for a vehicle each time a player wins a battle with that vehicle, and decrease the battle level by one (within the permissible range) each time a player loses a battle with that vehicle. If the battle level is already at the upper end of the range and the player wins the battle, the battle level may remain constant. Similarly, if the battle level is already at the lower end of the range and the player loses the battle, the battle level may remain constant.

I would like for once anyone who posts that paragraph to go through it sentence by sentence to describe what it means.  Copy and paste is easy.  try understanding it.  They never do

 

here are some guides to help.

  • What is a "battle level"?   hint: you'll find the answer earlier in the patent, clear as day.
  • What is "Thus" in the second sentence referring to?  hint: it's the sentence before it.


Mezurashi #78 Posted Oct 16 2017 - 00:52

    Moderator

  • Moderator
  • 1975 battles
  • 179
  • [WGA-B] WGA-B
  • Member since:
    03-31-2016
Locking this topic due to it's non-constructive nature.




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users