Jump to content


THE Final Answer


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

WarMachine395 #81 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 17:58

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 481 battles
  • 7
  • Member since:
    08-31-2017

Hello new here, new at the game I'm one of the unskilled/bad/tomato players that have been the butt of the conversation for the last three pages (ouch!).

 

These are just some opinions, probably not really fully formed feel free to just scroll on past or just tell me I'm an idiot or something that has already been brought up a quarter of a million times already: 

 

I agree with the OP to a certain extent that if you are getting frustrated or just straight up not having any fun with a game, then you should probably just drop it for a bit go do something else.

That said if the reason you're not having fun is that you're not winning then that's simply just poor sportsmanship. At this point I would also point out that most of the commentators on this thread seem to be strutting a 50%+ winrate, for that to happen others need have a winrate less than 50% that's just basic math. Where there are winners there are losers simple as that.

 

From the little amount of time I have spent in this game, I doubt that skill based match making is the answer you're looking for. A difference in battle strength of a mere 10% is enough to decide a battle, and frankly I think War Gaming strikes pretty close to this pretty consistently.  

 

What I think a lot of you are dismissing is that WoT is a fundamentally a strategy game disguised as a shooter, where knowing the positions and timing for things on the map is essential for a win. I'm a new player, and I think the learning curve is for that is really quite steep, and quite honestly I just don't know the maps well enough to make any kind of move effective. I've picked up some of the basic game play mechanics like vision range, side scraping and making use of barrel depression, but wrong place wrong time is a killer.

 

A skilled player leading the strategy can make a huge difference in the performance of the unskilled ones. The problem I see most often is either a complete lack of any leadership or ten different players shouting ten different vague positions in the first 30 seconds of a match, and then the whole of team dispersing all over the map. What I would suggest is that one specific player selected by highest wn8 or something similar is made "Squad Leader" or something to that effect, extend the wait time by 30 seconds or so the commander has a full minute to give some basic directions (maybe some waypoints, if it could be integrated into the gameplay?) and it could be as simple as sending one group of five to hide behind an outcropping of rocks or a light tank to sprint up one edge of the map. The Squad leader could be compensated with extra XP/silver for a win and the players that do as they are told get extra XP as well. In this way the tomato players could benefit and learn from the more skilled players and actual be of some usefulness in a battle, basically knowledge sharing.



yoseogre #82 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 18:01

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 12636 battles
  • 30
  • Member since:
    03-24-2013

View PostSoTrue, on Jul 12 2018 - 00:50, said:

 

sbmm would save this game.  Imagine, every battle between 2 'roughly' equal teams.  There would be simply no room to say "it was the teams fault".  No one could cry "it's rigged".  That alone would be worth it.

 

3 types of games:

-

Your team is crap, the enemy is not.

Your team and the enemy team have the same level of crap.

Your team is good, enemy is crap.

-

The middle one is the only acceptable level of crap.  At the very least is you are the only decent player on your team (carrying 14 buckets of crap), you can at least take comfort that the enemy you face will have just one decent player having to shoulder the same 14 buckets of crap.

-

The only other way to look at this is if YOU NEED to BE HANDED a % of wins.  Which is just sad.  And I think that is what you are saying.  You are saying you are such a poor player, you NEED MM to give you 20% of all your battles.  Pathetic.

-

(Also, only 80 games in the last 60 days?  Maybe you should 'play more' and 'forum less', might just wean you off your need to be given wins)

 

I don't understand the logic behind your comment about being handed a win? In random MM you will be handed a loss just as often as a win unless your skill is capable of carrying a team. People that accept random MM understand that is just the way it is going to be. 

And it really isn't going to change with SBMM. People assume SBMM will be perfectly matched by skill so that teams will be equal. What in the history of this game leads you to believe that is actually going to happen? How well has tank balancing worked out? Yes it is a little closer but anyone can look at the types of tanks in the top tier and have a decent idea of which team has an advantage. You will not only have to balance overall skill, but skill by tank type, and by the specific tank and then attempt to balance that against a similar type but dis-similar tank on a map that might favor one of the tanks over the other type. I will only passingly mention map balancing and actual tank balancing as additional examples of past behavior predicting future results in the attempts to code for this. 

24cups #83 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 18:30

    Captain

  • Players
  • 22558 battles
  • 1,843
  • [D-DAY] D-DAY
  • Member since:
    01-25-2013

View Postspud_tuber, on Jul 12 2018 - 11:22, said:

Welcome to the "banging your head against a brick wall club".  I think Neato sells shirts.

That was a drink spitter.



24cups #84 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 18:42

    Captain

  • Players
  • 22558 battles
  • 1,843
  • [D-DAY] D-DAY
  • Member since:
    01-25-2013

View PostWarMachine395, on Jul 12 2018 - 11:58, said:

Hello new here, new at the game I'm one of the unskilled/bad/tomato players that have been the butt of the conversation for the last three pages (ouch!).

 

These are just some opinions, probably not really fully formed feel free to just scroll on past or just tell me I'm an idiot or something that has already been brought up a quarter of a million times already: 

 

I agree with the OP to a certain extent that if you are getting frustrated or just straight up not having any fun with a game, then you should probably just drop it for a bit go do something else.

That said if the reason you're not having fun is that you're not winning then that's simply just poor sportsmanship. At this point I would also point out that most of the commentators on this thread seem to be strutting a 50%+ winrate, for that to happen others need have a winrate less than 50% that's just basic math. Where there are winners there are losers simple as that.

 

From the little amount of time I have spent in this game, I doubt that skill based match making is the answer you're looking for. A difference in battle strength of a mere 10% is enough to decide a battle, and frankly I think War Gaming strikes pretty close to this pretty consistently.  

 

What I think a lot of you are dismissing is that WoT is a fundamentally a strategy game disguised as a shooter, where knowing the positions and timing for things on the map is essential for a win. I'm a new player, and I think the learning curve is for that is really quite steep, and quite honestly I just don't know the maps well enough to make any kind of move effective. I've picked up some of the basic game play mechanics like vision range, side scraping and making use of barrel depression, but wrong place wrong time is a killer.

 

A skilled player leading the strategy can make a huge difference in the performance of the unskilled ones. The problem I see most often is either a complete lack of any leadership or ten different players shouting ten different vague positions in the first 30 seconds of a match, and then the whole of team dispersing all over the map. What I would suggest is that one specific player selected by highest wn8 or something similar is made "Squad Leader" or something to that effect, extend the wait time by 30 seconds or so the commander has a full minute to give some basic directions (maybe some waypoints, if it could be integrated into the gameplay?) and it could be as simple as sending one group of five to hide behind an outcropping of rocks or a light tank to sprint up one edge of the map. The Squad leader could be compensated with extra XP/silver for a win and the players that do as they are told get extra XP as well. In this way the tomato players could benefit and learn from the more skilled players and actual be of some usefulness in a battle, basically knowledge sharing.

A new player thinking outside the box. How refreshing.  Your idea is interesting but it would require a lot of cooperation. You don't see that much in randoms unfortunately. 



Siege_Engine #85 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 18:55

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 9772 battles
  • 931
  • [CNCRD] CNCRD
  • Member since:
    01-26-2015

View PostWarMachine395, on Jul 12 2018 - 17:58, said:

Hello new here, new at the game I'm one of the unskilled/bad/tomato players that have been the butt of the conversation for the last three pages (ouch!).

 

These are just some opinions, probably not really fully formed feel free to just scroll on past or just tell me I'm an idiot or something that has already been brought up a quarter of a million times already: 

 

I agree with the OP to a certain extent that if you are getting frustrated or just straight up not having any fun with a game, then you should probably just drop it for a bit go do something else.

That said if the reason you're not having fun is that you're not winning then that's simply just poor sportsmanship. At this point I would also point out that most of the commentators on this thread seem to be strutting a 50%+ winrate, for that to happen others need have a winrate less than 50% that's just basic math. Where there are winners there are losers simple as that.

 

From the little amount of time I have spent in this game, I doubt that skill based match making is the answer you're looking for. A difference in battle strength of a mere 10% is enough to decide a battle, and frankly I think War Gaming strikes pretty close to this pretty consistently.  

 

What I think a lot of you are dismissing is that WoT is a fundamentally a strategy game disguised as a shooter, where knowing the positions and timing for things on the map is essential for a win. I'm a new player, and I think the learning curve is for that is really quite steep, and quite honestly I just don't know the maps well enough to make any kind of move effective. I've picked up some of the basic game play mechanics like vision range, side scraping and making use of barrel depression, but wrong place wrong time is a killer.

 

A skilled player leading the strategy can make a huge difference in the performance of the unskilled ones. The problem I see most often is either a complete lack of any leadership or ten different players shouting ten different vague positions in the first 30 seconds of a match, and then the whole of team dispersing all over the map. What I would suggest is that one specific player selected by highest wn8 or something similar is made "Squad Leader" or something to that effect, extend the wait time by 30 seconds or so the commander has a full minute to give some basic directions (maybe some waypoints, if it could be integrated into the gameplay?) and it could be as simple as sending one group of five to hide behind an outcropping of rocks or a light tank to sprint up one edge of the map. The Squad leader could be compensated with extra XP/silver for a win and the players that do as they are told get extra XP as well. In this way the tomato players could benefit and learn from the more skilled players and actual be of some usefulness in a battle, basically knowledge sharing.

 

I really like this!!!!  Brilliant.  One of the first posts that clearly breaks a paradigm.  It's also a nice compromise between the two different camps of opinions.  Thank you.  More like this, please!  

 

I would please encourage you to elevate your idea as a serious suggestion to WOT.   


Edited by Siege_Engine, Jul 12 2018 - 19:02.


WarMachine395 #86 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 19:48

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 481 battles
  • 7
  • Member since:
    08-31-2017

View Post24cups, on Jul 12 2018 - 13:42, said:

A new player thinking outside the box. How refreshing.  Your idea is interesting but it would require a lot of cooperation. You don't see that much in randoms unfortunately. 

First, thank you very much!

 

I think the only way I think you could really get it to work consistently is have some sort of positive reinforcement. Bonus XP for following the orders you are given, it would have to be integrated with some sort of way point system for this to work correctly. Plus the increased odds of winning (in theory). If implemented you would probably be at a disadvantage playing against a team that was doing this.

 

@Siege_Engine Thank you very much for the compliment, I've been mulling it over for a couple of days and it kind of clicked together when I was reading this thread.



owlgator #87 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 20:22

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14300 battles
  • 1,224
  • Member since:
    05-27-2011

View PostWarMachine395, on Jul 12 2018 - 12:48, said:

First, thank you very much!

 

I think the only way I think you could really get it to work consistently is have some sort of positive reinforcement. Bonus XP for following the orders you are given, it would have to be integrated with some sort of way point system for this to work correctly. Plus the increased odds of winning (in theory). If implemented you would probably be at a disadvantage playing against a team that was doing this.

 

@Siege_Engine Thank you very much for the compliment, I've been mulling it over for a couple of days and it kind of clicked together when I was reading this thread.

 

Unfortunately I think the experienced player base - high battle totals, not high win totals - are well past this point in the marriage.  Really good players don't want to bother telling everyone what to do, bad players don't want to listen to advice, and the rest (myself included) can barely put together a run of good games that my team will fail miserably if I'm coordinating an entire team.

 

This was tried before, and the amount of hate directed at those giving legit advice was mind-blowing.  And all of this doesn't account for those who just want to "have fun" and aren't interested in working towards a team victory.



Siege_Engine #88 Posted Jul 18 2018 - 03:04

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 9772 battles
  • 931
  • [CNCRD] CNCRD
  • Member since:
    01-26-2015

View Postowlgator, on Jul 12 2018 - 20:22, said:

 

Unfortunately I think the experienced player base - high battle totals, not high win totals - are well past this point in the marriage.  Really good players don't want to bother telling everyone what to do, bad players don't want to listen to advice, and the rest (myself included) can barely put together a run of good games that my team will fail miserably if I'm coordinating an entire team.

 

This was tried before, and the amount of hate directed at those giving legit advice was mind-blowing.  And all of this doesn't account for those who just want to "have fun" and aren't interested in working towards a team victory.

 

Sigh.  I can imagine that what you are saying rings true.  This game is seriously toxic.  Alas.  

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users