Jump to content


OK - Here's my Prediction


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

Mfezi #61 Posted May 19 2019 - 13:38

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 26983 battles
  • 1,617
  • [SADD] SADD
  • Member since:
    04-05-2016

View PostPipinghot, on May 19 2019 - 07:48, said:

It also would not help most of the player base, and something that neither helps nor hurts most of the player base is a pretty pointless idea.

 

The people it would hurt would be the good players who have victories stolen from them, and they would give away even more credits and XP to bad players than they already do).

The people it would help would be the bad players who get more victories, more credits and more XP that they haven't earned.

For players who are average (or very close to average) skill balancing wouldn't really make a difference either say.

 

The game already takes away credits & XP from good players and gives them to bad players. Why do you want a change that will neither help nor hurt most of the player base, and would only serve to punish good players?

 

Talk about entitlement,,,, :)

 



NeatoMan #62 Posted May 19 2019 - 14:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 27742 battles
  • 19,717
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostMfezi, on May 19 2019 - 07:38, said:

Talk about entitlement,,,, :)

30-40% win rate for doing absolutely nothing is more than enough reward for simply occupying space on the battlefield, IMO.  Why do they need more?



Mfezi #63 Posted May 19 2019 - 16:17

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 26983 battles
  • 1,617
  • [SADD] SADD
  • Member since:
    04-05-2016

View PostNeatoMan, on May 19 2019 - 15:54, said:

30-40% win rate for doing absolutely nothing is more than enough reward for simply occupying space on the battlefield, IMO.  Why do they need more?

 

Certainly better than mindlessly playing the same two tanks night after night  and watching your stats going down the drain!.... :)

spud_tuber #64 Posted May 19 2019 - 16:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 56818 battles
  • 7,746
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostMfezi, on May 19 2019 - 06:38, said:

 

Talk about entitlement,,,, :)

 

Nah, it's often those asking for SBalancedMM who have a sense of entitlement.   They feel they're entitled to win as often as a good player despite doing less than 1/3 of the work the good player does. 

 

Feeling you should keep what you worked for generally isn't considered entitlement. 



Exiledcrow #65 Posted May 19 2019 - 16:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 48928 battles
  • 2,390
  • [GURUS] GURUS
  • Member since:
    11-26-2011

Hmmm, scrubby nub OP with almost as many posts as battles says what?

 

(I refuse to acknowledge people who post form alts as anything other than what what the alt presents)


Edited by Exiledcrow, May 19 2019 - 16:54.


umkhulu #66 Posted May 19 2019 - 16:57

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 124 battles
  • 104
  • Member since:
    07-15-2017

Hmm - 4 pages later and you are still posting?

It looks as if you have made an exception for this thread.


Edited by umkhulu, May 19 2019 - 16:59.


DeviouslyCursed #67 Posted May 19 2019 - 16:58

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 3325 battles
  • 409
  • Member since:
    12-13-2018

View Postumkhulu, on May 17 2019 - 02:11, said:

Even Deputy George Preddy is not going to prevent the demise of the NA server unless WG does something about these grossly unbalanced games which spoil our enjoyment of a really great game.

 

View Postlow_bidder, on May 17 2019 - 02:20, said:

I agree with your comment.  Doubling down and tripling down with repeated unbalanced teams is not producing increased player counts and enticing new players to spend money.  It's doing just the opposite.

 

However, WOT needs to find alternative revenue sources in such a way as to not drive away paying customers.

 

I've always wondered at you people who think if WG just did X, Y, or Z, it would somehow prevent a 6 year old game from losing players.

 

Fact: the game is already an massive success by any metric, and that there is still anyone playing it is a testament to what a great game it was, and still is.



Exiledcrow #68 Posted May 19 2019 - 17:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 48928 battles
  • 2,390
  • [GURUS] GURUS
  • Member since:
    11-26-2011
Nope, you have 101 post vs 124 battles. That's who you are to me, nub. And since my post was directed at your OP, I can't say much for your reading comprehension either. 

Tao_Te_Tomato #69 Posted May 19 2019 - 17:47

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 26237 battles
  • 1,279
  • [TER] TER
  • Member since:
    02-28-2016

View PostExiledcrow, on May 19 2019 - 16:50, said:

Hmmm, scrubby nub OP with almost as many posts as battles says what?

 

 

 

Likes talking more than shooting?  It is indeed a wonder....

NeatoMan #70 Posted May 19 2019 - 19:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 27742 battles
  • 19,717
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostMfezi, on May 19 2019 - 10:17, said:

Certainly better than mindlessly playing the same two tanks night after night  and watching your stats going down the drain!.... :)

At least I can narrow it down to one specific tank (one that is by far the worst tier 10 LT in game) rather than an overall decline.  I guess if I were at all concerned I could always stop playing that one tank and return to business as usual.   Still, you don't see me demanding better players or tanks be stuffed on my teams to compensate



Pipinghot #71 Posted May 20 2019 - 00:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 9,777
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostMfezi, on May 19 2019 - 05:18, said:

View PostKelly_Semaka, on May 17 2019 - 21:14, said:

As a bad player myself, I don't think that SBMM would be any benefit to the bad players of this game. The reason for this is because without the challenge of playing against good players - the bad players cannot become good players.   You will/may become just as good as the highest rated bad player.  no further advancement in skills or knowledge of how to play the game.  Yes I'm a low stat player but my numbers & skills are coming up - ever so slowly- but they are coming up because of the fact that I have to battle against good players.

Just my 2 cents.

I don't think that anybody is asking WG to put good players against good players and bad players against bad players

Yes they are, and many of them have been for a long time, that's the very definition of what SBMM (skill based matchmaking) is. It's true that some people are asking for skill balancing instead of SBMM, but it's important to be honest about the fact there are more people asking for SBMM than are asking for skill balancing.

 

Pretending that there more people asking for SBMM than asking for skill balancing does not advance the discussion, and it's not an accurate portrayal of the demographic distribution of the people who are asking for changes.

View PostMfezi, on May 19 2019 - 05:18, said:

just to balance the teams so that each has an equal chance of winning.

And even though SBMM and skill balancing seem to be different, the net results on the player base would still be the same. Bad players would be subsidized by good players even more than they already are, and everyone's win rate would be pushed towards the average even more than it already is. SBMM and skill balancing are technically distinct, but it's a distinction without a difference, the results would be the same.

View PostMfezi, on May 19 2019 - 05:18, said:

This would ensure that you have some good players on your team to learn from.

Not even remotely true. People already have plenty of opportunities to learn from having good players on their teams, because everyone has the same amount of good luck and bad luck with team mates. in the current game, exactly the way it is now, every bad player has many, many (many) opportunities to learn from the good players they get on their teams. If they're not already learning now then no change to the MM would ever make them learn more effectively. Anyone who currently fails to learn from the good players on their teams would continue to fail to learn even if the MM was changed.



Fractured_Raptor #72 Posted May 20 2019 - 00:48

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 23463 battles
  • 1,407
  • [O-VER] O-VER
  • Member since:
    05-28-2016
Artillery, RNG, Premium Rounds, and other things aside the game is dwindling because of age. The other things might play a factor when it comes to retention and new comers but even World of Warcraft has seen a significant decline in activity. Once games get so old the fan base that's left is usually the hard core people.

Pipinghot #73 Posted May 20 2019 - 00:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 9,777
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostMfezi, on May 19 2019 - 07:38, said:

View PostPipinghot, on May 19 2019 - 07:48, said:

It also would not help most of the player base, and something that neither helps nor hurts most of the player base is a pretty pointless idea.

 

The people it would hurt would be the good players who have victories stolen from them, and they would give away even more credits and XP to bad players than they already do).

The people it would help would be the bad players who get more victories, more credits and more XP that they haven't earned.

For players who are average (or very close to average) skill balancing wouldn't really make a difference either say.

 

The game already takes away credits & XP from good players and gives them to bad players. Why do you want a change that will neither help nor hurt most of the player base, and would only serve to punish good players?

Talk about entitlement,,,,

You are clearly confused about what "entitlement" means. The people who are happy to earn victories with the skill they worked hard to earn are not the people with an entitlement problem, the problem is people who think they deserve to have more victories (and more credits, and more XP) than they actually earn for themselves, that's what entitlement really looks like.



Pipinghot #74 Posted May 20 2019 - 00:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 9,777
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostTreeburst, on May 19 2019 - 06:50, said:

View PostPipinghot, on May 19 2019 - 00:48, said:

It also would not help most of the player base, and something that neither helps nor hurts most of the player base is a pretty pointless idea.

 

The people it would hurt would be the good players who have victories stolen from them, and they would give away even more credits and XP to bad players than they already do).

The people it would help would be the bad players who get more victories, more credits and more XP that they haven't earned.

For players who are average (or very close to average) skill balancing wouldn't really make a difference either say.

 

The game already takes away credits & XP from good players and gives them to bad players. Why do you want a change that will neither help nor hurt most of the player base, and would only serve to punish good players?

It would undoubtedly help "good" players that play solo, and make it harder (but probably not that much harder) for platoons of three "good" players.

This is interesting coming from you. With your Avg Tier played of 7.03, your base defense, kill ratio, and other stats, you certainly present the appearance of someone who has earned your Win Rate the honest way, by developing your skills. You're exactly the kind of person who would see your Win Rate suffer (along with your credits and XP earned) if WG was to implement either SBMM or skill balancing. So why is it that you're seemingly arguing in favor of it, or have I misinterpreted your post?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users