Jump to content


Endless Tweaks


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

Arf_84 #1 Posted Oct 18 2019 - 14:51

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 3817 battles
  • 140
  • Member since:
    04-19-2019

Why does WG devote such ongoing and massive resources and ultimately futile effort to tweaking everything in sight?  (I mean other than placating the Russian player base by nerfing everything not Russian?)  Even if they were striving for historical accuracy (which they are clearly not), how many revisions does it take?  If WG stopped obsessing about perfecting the balance of every tank and map and shell and armor pen and bush and ridge line in the game, they could devote some serious resources to the maps and deliver a metric ton (let's say fifty) of "okay balanced" maps in short order.  Something, I might add, which is desperately needed.

 

What possible rational reason is there for the interminable forking around with everything?  And, yes, I understand the need to introduce a new premium tank every seventeen minutes.



GenPanzer #2 Posted Oct 18 2019 - 14:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 44959 battles
  • 3,794
  • [EFFIT] EFFIT
  • Member since:
    08-15-2011

It's all for the sake of progress......

 

 

....and keeping the player base interested in the game.



__WarChild__ #3 Posted Oct 18 2019 - 15:01

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 33460 battles
  • 6,092
  • [OPIC] OPIC
  • Member since:
    06-03-2017

View PostArf_84, on Oct 18 2019 - 07:51, said:

Why does WG devote such ongoing and massive resources and ultimately futile effort to tweaking everything in sight?  (I mean other than placating the Russian player base by nerfing everything not Russian?)  Even if they were striving for historical accuracy (which they are clearly not), how many revisions does it take?  If WG stopped obsessing about perfecting the balance of every tank and map and shell and armor pen and bush and ridge line in the game, they could devote some serious resources to the maps and deliver a metric ton (let's say fifty) of "okay balanced" maps in short order.  Something, I might add, which is desperately needed.

 

What possible rational reason is there for the interminable forking around with everything?  And, yes, I understand the need to introduce a new premium tank every seventeen minutes.

 

Jobs.  If they made it and it stayed the same, they wouldn't need to pay people to come up with new stuff.  



Arf_84 #4 Posted Oct 18 2019 - 15:08

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 3817 battles
  • 140
  • Member since:
    04-19-2019

....and keeping the player base interested in the game.

 

But are players really more interested in a four percent change to five tanks' armor penetration than having twenty new maps???

 

Jobs.  If they made it and it stayed the same,

 

I'm not at all suggesting keeping everything the same.  And it can't really be about jobs.  They could just as easily assign those people to more useful tasks.  Endlessly digging potholes and filling them is hardly a productive use of their time.

 

 



Siergen #5 Posted Oct 18 2019 - 15:08

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 10239 battles
  • 248
  • [H_FUN] H_FUN
  • Member since:
    07-12-2016
In any large IT project, what ships will always have room for improvement in the eyes of the designers.  This could be something that doesn't work as intended (such as the HE change article mentioning that their existing code doesn't always find weak spots in armor).  Or it could be that the code does meet the original specification, but now that they see it in use, the designers see room for improvement.  As I often told the bean-counters at my old job, no complex software application that is  in wide-spread use is ever "finished".

Arf_84 #6 Posted Oct 18 2019 - 15:14

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 3817 battles
  • 140
  • Member since:
    04-19-2019

As I often told the bean-counters at my old job, no complex software application that is  in wide-spread use is ever "finished".

 

As an old software engineer and former game designer, I fully agree.  But you can't be suggesting that the bulk of changes WG makes are bug fixes and useful design improvementsMost of the "design improvements" to tanks result in the dreaded power creep syndrome.  My whole point is thatthese "design improvements" are generally unnecessary and, indeed, counter-productive in the sense that there are other projects that would be far more useful.


Edited by Arf_84, Oct 18 2019 - 15:25.


omi5cron #7 Posted Oct 18 2019 - 15:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 23903 battles
  • 4,451
  • Member since:
    04-01-2013

even if they MADE 50 new maps...they would NEVER put them all into rotation at the same time. i dont know what the map-rotation-load is, but increasing it is either impossible or may need server capacity upgrades.

 

upgrades cost money...money for infrastructure canNOT be used for vodka,cocaine and hookers.

 

there will be NO infrastructure upgrades!



Garandster #8 Posted Oct 18 2019 - 15:50

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 6134 battles
  • 1,273
  • Member since:
    04-12-2018

You do realize how companies work right when it comes to development? The work is divided to teams, there is a map team, balance team, modeling team, etc. if they stopped doing other things to just make maps everyone else gets fired.

 

The game needs constant development to stay fresh and not die. Making a new map every month is not what will keep the game alive. The game needs balance, new modes like Frontline or Steel Hunters or Historical Battles, events like the Holiday Ops or Halloween or smaller ones like marathons or the festival, it needs new tanks added, etc.



OLDIRTYBOMBER #9 Posted Oct 18 2019 - 15:59

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 12009 battles
  • 1,687
  • [DONKY] DONKY
  • Member since:
    09-05-2016

View PostArf_84, on Oct 18 2019 - 14:51, said:

 If WG stopped obsessing about perfecting the balance of every tank and map and shell and armor pen and bush and ridge line in the game

 

What game are you playing?

Shooting though solid objects and being blocked by invisible terrain, unable to make shots because bouncing reticle bug  = sign dev's obsessed with perfection :trollface:

 

 


Edited by OLDIRTYBOMBER, Oct 18 2019 - 16:01.


KRZYBooP #10 Posted Oct 18 2019 - 17:10

    Community Coordinator

  • Administrator
  • 4112 battles
  • 271
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    08-10-2015

View PostArf_84, on Oct 18 2019 - 07:51, said:

Why does WG devote such ongoing and massive resources and ultimately futile effort to tweaking everything in sight?  (I mean other than placating the Russian player base by nerfing everything not Russian?)  Even if they were striving for historical accuracy (which they are clearly not), how many revisions does it take?  If WG stopped obsessing about perfecting the balance of every tank and map and shell and armor pen and bush and ridge line in the game, they could devote some serious resources to the maps and deliver a metric ton (let's say fifty) of "okay balanced" maps in short order.  Something, I might add, which is desperately needed.

 

What possible rational reason is there for the interminable forking around with everything?  And, yes, I understand the need to introduce a new premium tank every seventeen minutes.

 

World of Tanks is an ever changing game with many mechanics and new features introduced throughout it's lifetime. Over 550 tanks to pick from, so the challenge is to make them feel a little different and balance them against each other. Some changes are to reflect a historical aspect. Such as the STB1 being given the hydraulic suspension, or Kanonenennenenenen getting a non historical gun to be competitive at tier 8. The changes are implemented to improve gameplay, and you may not have noticed, but many players on the forums make many requests to nerf this or buff that. Some are Valid, which are included in feedback reports we send to HQ. 



I_QQ_4_U #11 Posted Oct 18 2019 - 17:16

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 23406 battles
  • 7,317
  • Member since:
    10-17-2016

View PostArf_84, on Oct 18 2019 - 14:51, said:

Why does WG devote such ongoing and massive resources and ultimately futile effort to tweaking everything in sight?  (I mean other than placating the Russian player base by nerfing everything not Russian?)  Even if they were striving for historical accuracy (which they are clearly not), how many revisions does it take?  If WG stopped obsessing about perfecting the balance of every tank and map and shell and armor pen and bush and ridge line in the game, they could devote some serious resources to the maps and deliver a metric ton (let's say fifty) of "okay balanced" maps in short order.  Something, I might add, which is desperately needed.

 

What possible rational reason is there for the interminable forking around with everything?  And, yes, I understand the need to introduce a new premium tank every seventeen minutes.

 

This must be your first online video game.



Arf_84 #12 Posted Oct 18 2019 - 17:25

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 3817 battles
  • 140
  • Member since:
    04-19-2019

The work is divided to teams, there is a map team, balance team, modeling team, etc. if they stopped doing other things to just make maps everyone else gets fired.

 

Well, to oversimplify a fraction, the teams consist of managers, designers and coders.  Any manager who can't roll around onto different teams on the same overall project should be fired.  Any designer who can't perform at designing at least a couple of different areas of the game should be fired.  As for coders, they simply code what the designers design and can work in any area.  And I am specifically not saying don't do other things, just shift the focus away from attempting to tilt endlessly and futilely at the windmill of perfect balance.  Stop the labor-intensive tweaking of removing bush X312 from Malinovka and making the ridgeline eight inches higher.  The maps will never be perfectly balanced.  Other improvements will add more to the game.



Arf_84 #13 Posted Oct 18 2019 - 17:27

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 3817 battles
  • 140
  • Member since:
    04-19-2019

This must be your first online video game.

 

Heh.  You couldn't be more wrong.  I've been designing and playing computer games since before you were born.



I_QQ_4_U #14 Posted Oct 18 2019 - 17:38

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 23406 battles
  • 7,317
  • Member since:
    10-17-2016

View PostArf_84, on Oct 18 2019 - 17:27, said:

This must be your first online video game.

 

Heh.  You couldn't be more wrong.  I've been designing and playing computer games since before you were born.

 

No, you haven't and if you really have had anything to do with video games, especially online multiplayer ones, you'd know they are constantly being changed.



Arf_84 #15 Posted Oct 18 2019 - 17:48

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 3817 battles
  • 140
  • Member since:
    04-19-2019
I guess I haven't been clear.  So, for the third time:  I am not suggesting that nothing should change.  I understand that ongoing change is inevitable and useful.  I just think that WG is applying its resources in sub-optimal ways.  There are other tasks that would benefit both WG and the player base more.  I am a bit surprised to learn that I am apparently in a decided minority on this issue.  So be it.  Carry on.

Garandster #16 Posted Oct 18 2019 - 17:58

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 6134 battles
  • 1,273
  • Member since:
    04-12-2018

View PostArf_84, on Oct 18 2019 - 11:25, said:

The work is divided to teams, there is a map team, balance team, modeling team, etc. if they stopped doing other things to just make maps everyone else gets fired.

 

Well, to oversimplify a fraction, the teams consist of managers, designers and coders.  Any manager who can't roll around onto different teams on the same overall project should be fired.  Any designer who can't perform at designing at least a couple of different areas of the game should be fired.  As for coders, they simply code what the designers design and can work in any area.  And I am specifically not saying don't do other things, just shift the focus away from attempting to tilt endlessly and futilely at the windmill of perfect balance.  Stop the labor-intensive tweaking of removing bush X312 from Malinovka and making the ridgeline eight inches higher.  The maps will never be perfectly balanced.  Other improvements will add more to the game.

 

So basically you want them to stop putting in efforts to balance the maps and cranking them out at a higher rate (with assumptive less quality control since the map development time frame has been reduced)? Frankly that's a PR nightmare, everyone will be more angry about the imbalanced maps that produce significantly stronger sides. It's not hard for a side to have a significant advantage over another, a single ridge of a certain incline or height, or a bush in a certain spot could be "broken" in the sense of map balance. While some degree of imbalance is fine, when a spawn shows an advantage to form a 70/30 or 60/40 difference it needs to be addressed and that issue can be as small as a difference in terrain or bush placement. 



TooFast4Radar #17 Posted Oct 18 2019 - 18:10

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 10856 battles
  • 104
  • [HAPPY] HAPPY
  • Member since:
    04-19-2014

This HE change is really disappointing.  I don't own a KV2.  Does it suck when I get railed by a KV2?  Absolutely, but it's a part of the game I actually like and adds to the excitement of the shell blowing by you or if you're unlucky taking you back to the garage.  I do have an M4 and the only way that tank is fun is with HE.  After seeing the QB video I'll never play it again if they put the sandbox changes into the game.  I will say they know how to ruin a good thing - remove fun 5 fun maps, introduce 2 crap maps, nerf fun tanks, buff Russian tanks.  Ugh...

 

I will say the graphics upgrades with 1.0 were great so they have done some good things, but sometimes I just don't understand them.  This is one of those times.  I quit playing Warships when they made carrier gameplay essentially World of Warplanes and removed some of my carriers.  I played one game of that and uninstalled.  Granted I like World of Warplanes, but why would I be flying planes around in 3rd person instead of commanding the movement of my squadrons?  Why would anyone play a tank like the M4, KV2, or 4005 if you destroy the only fun aspect of the tank?

 

Please WG - STOP!!!!



Arf_84 #18 Posted Oct 18 2019 - 18:11

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 3817 battles
  • 140
  • Member since:
    04-19-2019

So basically you want them to stop putting in efforts to balance the maps

 

Not exactly.  i have long believed in three related ideas.  First, perfect balance is unachievable and WG is wasting a lot of effort trying to get there.  Second, slightly even somewhat unbalanced maps are fine because, over many games, the imbalance will even out.  You will play approximately as many games on the "slightly better" side as on the "slightly worse" side.  Thus, your overall performance should not be affected.  And, third, I proposed long ago that WG adopt a "12-hour clockface" spawn system which distributes the starting locations around the map but with the two teams always opposite.  This would add a great deal of variety and reduce the "always take my heavy to rock B14" starting scheme.

 

Finally, I know this will never occur.  Sometimes it's fun to speculate.



largeelvis #19 Posted Oct 18 2019 - 18:13

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 20186 battles
  • 784
  • Member since:
    02-03-2017
Added a highly pennable hatch to every russian heavy and medium tank. There, see how that tweak goes over with the playerbase.

3nr0n #20 Posted Oct 18 2019 - 19:56

    Captain

  • Players
  • 23301 battles
  • 1,339
  • [1VETS] 1VETS
  • Member since:
    06-11-2012

View PostTooFast4Radar, on Oct 18 2019 - 11:10, said:

This HE change is really disappointing.  I don't own a KV2.  Does it suck when I get railed by a KV2?  Absolutely, but it's a part of the game I actually like and adds to the excitement of the shell blowing by you or if you're unlucky taking you back to the garage.  I do have an M4 and the only way that tank is fun is with HE.  After seeing the QB video I'll never play it again if they put the sandbox changes into the game.  I will say they know how to ruin a good thing - remove fun 5 fun maps, introduce 2 crap maps, nerf fun tanks, buff Russian tanks.  Ugh...

 

I will say the graphics upgrades with 1.0 were great so they have done some good things, but sometimes I just don't understand them.  This is one of those times.  I quit playing Warships when they made carrier gameplay essentially World of Warplanes and removed some of my carriers.  I played one game of that and uninstalled.  Granted I like World of Warplanes, but why would I be flying planes around in 3rd person instead of commanding the movement of my squadrons?  Why would anyone play a tank like the M4, KV2, or 4005 if you destroy the only fun aspect of the tank?

 

Please WG - STOP!!!!


I agree with the proposed HE nerf then the KV2, M4 and a few other tanks that are fun to play with derp guns will be obsolete.  I even use HE in my T95 when faced with a hull down heavy tank, sure it doesn't pen the turret but it damages modules and crew members after a couple of shots with HE to the face most heavies will either retreat or think twice about poking.  

 

HE on light tanks and lightly armored TD's is good and if they nerf the damage dealt then I guess they will want everyone to press #2 so you make less credits/lose more per battle.  Another way of them changing the game economics in an attempt to raise revenue. 






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users