Jump to content


Why We Quit

balance match making premium mechanics skill

  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

Uthak #1 Posted Nov 01 2019 - 00:15

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 8029 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    11-14-2015

I love tanks. play every WW2 game under the sun and even most tabletop or otherwise even just vaguely related games -  as long as it got (ww2) tanks. I come back to WOT every so often but always get pushed back out of the game within days of re-installing for the ever-same reasons. Reading up on some changes that happened since i last played early this year i found myself laughing at the feedback section of this game with thousands and thousands of ever repeating points. Mine being no different, but i couldn't help myself to pour gasoline into the fire.

I think to be fair one has to always consider if one is playing a free account or a premium account. I see droves of people being upset by advantages premiums have over non-premium players, but really i think that is unfair to wargaming. they made a huge (and hugely expensive) game and instead of charging everyone a mandatory subscription it gives fans the option to play for free. Take it or leave it - paying for the game you want to play is available to all.
That being said i prefer different monetization forms over wargamings pay-to-win (or pay-for-avantage). Plenty of other games have optionally purchasable options - the great ones offer great content that does not change your ingame performance (like Doat2). That being said, I play on a free account, but am not overly mad about it as i get to play for free - there is other parts of premium like premium ammo that i dislike, but not neccesarily for their money barrier (or high silver barrier)

Pro's and Con's for why i come back and why i turn right back around and leave:

PROS:
- #1 reason to come back hands down: no planes! artillery does not even compare to that bullsh*t! (looking at you war thunder)
- easy, arcardy and fast game pace. very forgiving compared to eg War Thunder where any hit kills you 4/5 times
- great look and feel rumbling around in your favorite tanks

CONS:
- #1 HANDS DOWN: terrible match making.99/100 pub-games are massive, one-sided stomps. skill SHOULD be accounted in MM, but it clearly isn't or doesn't work. and closely related to non-existing-skill-based-MM: the 3-tier-game range... i would like to try playing wot in a single tier. possibly 2. three is (WAY) to much and heavily contributes to the stomping grounds. two equally skilled players meet at a 3 tier difference in brawlers and the higher tier will just automatically win unless he plays unusually bad. Both play an excellent game and there is defacto no way for the low tier to beat the higher one. You rely on your team which usually is too outclassed or out-skilled or both - as skill doesn't seem to matter for MM. that is bad design right there. equally skillful players should enjoy fair competition, but the differences of 2 tiers easily mean up to 100% difference in vehicle performance over all criteria. tier 8 heavy non-prems are utterly unplayable all together in the crossfire of all-powerful-magic-premium-ammo and being caught up in t9/t10 games (that need to fill their games) literally 9 of 10 games. It becomes unplayable and moreover impossible to enjoy. Your playing a super heavy bully tank with huge repair costs - and lose facehugging light tanks every single time due to their rof and 50mm gun auto-penning every piece of your 200+armor you got. like, what? sure, every of my hits pens and damages, i dont suck, but he has as much life as i do in his light tank and fires 6times for every of my shots. cant match 2.2k dpm gainst 1k at same hp if armor is no factor (like in this game).

- premium ammo: light tanks being able to kill super heavies angled in cover with autoaim by paying for ammo? dumb and counter-immersive mechanic!

- fantasy and blueprint tanks rule this game. I play a ww2 tank game to play ww2 tanks. period. My overwhelming experience outside of tank destroyers & arty is that conceptual tanks rule the game 99% of the time. They will beat your historical ride to a bloody pulp with their paperstats. You will see one tiger for every thousand T29s. Why? They didnt build that tank for deployment for a reason - it didnt pass. Why make fantasy tanks more powerful than tanks that were deemed worthy for deployment? sure, include them, great idea, but why ruin immersion by having actually famous, historical tanks take the backseat to some weird, flawed, untested design found scrambled-on-a-dirty-napkin in the trash of some nobody-tank-designer with half a degree in water-shoveling? just why? why not include them a niche-alternatives with a clear debuff ('experimental';) to their on-paper-excellent-stats? I want to play pz4 vs sherman, tiger vs e8 jumbos and fireflys. not type 758-e4-d2 (frank mentioned this one to dimitry once) vs concept P33-xyz (fantasy tank that Mary dreamt up in a fever) every damn round? I carefully ground out my tiger one and then tiger 2 to find them virtually non-present. and rightfully so. they scrape the bottom of the barrel of actually playable heavy tanks who get killed by most lighttanks in autoaim. premium ammo not even needed. why? heaviest armor of their time doesn't mean anything when someone once suggested a 600mm fantasy 500t tank that in this game will run the same tier and bash your head in. (rant point)
 


on the up side:
contrary to some premium vehicles dont bother me that much. when i last played they usually were slightly worse than their regular tier counter parts (outside of massive gold/exp advantage). however looking more content behind pay walls is always an imperfect solution to me - not for those playing for free, but i feel paying for premium should give you access to ALL game content. this is the reason i would never buy premium for this money-put game. Id be happy to buy the game for 60 bucks for an inclusive and balanced experience, or pay a 15$ subscription to get this. Or even pay subscription and have optional skins available for surcharge - which dont impact the game mechanics. But i refuse to pay premiums AND buy new tanks with money.

in short:
fix match making.
- consider overall skill of player and players stats on chosen tank + limit tiergaps (erradicate all together better yet)
- dont fix premium ammo, dont make it available to all - just get rid of this auto-aim no-skill mechanic
- re-balance historical tanks to be viable in their respective tiers over blueprint fantasies 



JakeTheMystic #2 Posted Nov 01 2019 - 00:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 25135 battles
  • 3,046
  • [OPIC] OPIC
  • Member since:
    12-30-2011
Yes

alphadogg64 #3 Posted Nov 01 2019 - 00:25

    Captain

  • Players
  • 1163 battles
  • 1,198
  • Member since:
    08-17-2012
All I see is a bunch of over exaggerating

Vulcan_Spectre #4 Posted Nov 01 2019 - 00:55

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 6088 battles
  • 1,675
  • [TCM] TCM
  • Member since:
    12-25-2017
I would like to see a more historical gamemode, like the home front, as a more permanent thing, like frontlines

GeorgePreddy #5 Posted Nov 01 2019 - 01:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 14680 battles
  • 13,843
  • Member since:
    04-11-2013

View PostUthak, on Oct 31 2019 - 20:15, said:


99/100 pub-games are massive, one-sided stomps.   When you type extreme hyperbole into your post, it doesn't help your "believability" at all.  This statement of yours is just not even close to true.

 

skill SHOULD be accounted in MM, but it clearly isn't or doesn't work.   Player skill is purposely NOT accounted for in Random Battles because that is part of the reason they're called "random", because the MM is skill-random. there are many reasons why skill-random MM is best for Random Battles Mode, but I'll just paste WG's reason they give when players complain with a CS ticket about MM:

 

You have reached Wargaming Customer Support.

 

Thank you for sharing to us your concern. We are always here to aid you.

 

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.

 

If you have any other concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us.

 

For more information please visit our Player Support Page.

 

Have a great day!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



RickPatton #6 Posted Nov 01 2019 - 01:06

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 34375 battles
  • 1,347
  • [ANV] ANV
  • Member since:
    03-13-2014
Glaucoma drops anyone.

Mojo_Riesing #7 Posted Nov 01 2019 - 01:35

    Captain

  • Players
  • 20406 battles
  • 1,724
  • [ACATS] ACATS
  • Member since:
    11-26-2011

As others have noted, use of hyperbole does not help your case.  Matchmaking is what is and has been. We have less 3/5/7 so i think it's improved but not quite there yet. SBMM will never be. Premium ammo is more a reflection of the failure of the game to grow maps larger as tanks have become more capable.  Lights killing heavies like you say...well sure i suppose sometimes but methinks you exaggerate.  Mediums killing heavies, yes that i'd believe.  Fantasy/blueprint/napkin tanks are a bit out of control but just think of it as WWII in an alternate timeline.  Kind of like the air combat games that extend WWII into 1946.  Many would like a more realistic to history option but i don't think that's going to happen.

 

I do think a subscription might decrease WG's need to sell "premium" vehicles but....that's not gonna happen either.

 

 



goldfinger_555 #8 Posted Nov 01 2019 - 01:39

    Captain

  • Players
  • 27768 battles
  • 1,257
  • [FFWC] FFWC
  • Member since:
    10-17-2013
+1 for a nicely worded well thought out post. Little too long but hey.

Cowcat137 #9 Posted Nov 01 2019 - 02:17

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 14548 battles
  • 6,911
  • [6-ACR] 6-ACR
  • Member since:
    08-17-2015
It's not exactly quitting when you keep coming back.

Cerbium #10 Posted Nov 01 2019 - 02:30

    Captain

  • Players
  • 19399 battles
  • 1,376
  • Member since:
    10-15-2012
yeah thats pretty true

Edited by Cerbium, Nov 01 2019 - 02:31.


Omega_Weapon #11 Posted Nov 01 2019 - 03:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 53547 battles
  • 2,700
  • [GRIEF] GRIEF
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

View PostVulcan_Spectre, on Oct 31 2019 - 18:55, said:

I would like to see a more historical gamemode, like the home front, as a more permanent thing, like frontlines


Love that idea. Let's make it happen Wargaming.



TornadoADV #12 Posted Nov 01 2019 - 04:18

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 26201 battles
  • 799
  • [ESC] ESC
  • Member since:
    01-05-2012
They tried the historical game mode. Nobody played it and the very few that did only wanted to play the top tier tank slots.

Uthak #13 Posted Nov 01 2019 - 05:10

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 8029 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    11-14-2015

View PostYANKEE137, on Nov 01 2019 - 02:17, said:

It's not exactly quitting when you keep coming back.



you're right of course. 'keep quitting' i guess would be more accurate.

To be fair, the title would be correct and I would probably not be coming back to WOT if War Thunder had a realism mode without planes or an arcade mode with lifepoints instead of modules and no penetration indicator.

i think, even with hyperbole, the points i make are palpable. and the stomping of course is an exaggeration, if not a big one, i definately stomp or get stomped more often than seing a tight nailbiter game - by a very large margin. Im not a crying noob neither - I win decently more than i lose, but there is much fun in a well rounded tit-for-tat-game rather than in a 15-1 bummrush on all fronts. to me at least. to he who says random battle is good as random battle: that is but a lazy excuse to not build in a proper algorithm and there is no argument one can make that would rectify bad matchmaking that obviously is frustrating to thousands of players (looking around the forum with the ever same MM criticism). random as in random tanks, random people, random objective, random maps sure. they dont fully randomize the class-spread, so why not also regulate skill-spread? to enable stomping? who enjoys that? stomping people in under 2 minutes is little challenge and little fun. getting stomped for being teamed up with a bunch of reds is even less fun. simple to fix. virtually every game ever has balancing mechanism to their matchmaking - and rightfully so. They have paywalls for premium tanks, vehicles and ammo, sure. gotta make money. nothing sells as easy as an advantage. but not balancing your random matchmaking is poor business on all levels. 



Machisman #14 Posted Nov 01 2019 - 15:28

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 37133 battles
  • 126
  • Member since:
    10-27-2011

View PostUthak, on Oct 31 2019 - 22:10, said:



you're right of course. 'keep quitting' i guess would be more accurate.

To be fair, the title would be correct and I would probably not be coming back to WOT if War Thunder had a realism mode without planes or an arcade mode with lifepoints instead of modules and no penetration indicator.

i think, even with hyperbole, the points i make are palpable. and the stomping of course is an exaggeration, if not a big one, i definately stomp or get stomped more often than seing a tight nailbiter game - by a very large margin. Im not a crying noob neither - I win decently more than i lose, but there is much fun in a well rounded tit-for-tat-game rather than in a 15-1 bummrush on all fronts. to me at least. to he who says random battle is good as random battle: that is but a lazy excuse to not build in a proper algorithm and there is no argument one can make that would rectify bad matchmaking that obviously is frustrating to thousands of players (looking around the forum with the ever same MM criticism). random as in random tanks, random people, random objective, random maps sure. they dont fully randomize the class-spread, so why not also regulate skill-spread? to enable stomping? who enjoys that? stomping people in under 2 minutes is little challenge and little fun. getting stomped for being teamed up with a bunch of reds is even less fun. simple to fix. virtually every game ever has balancing mechanism to their matchmaking - and rightfully so. They have paywalls for premium tanks, vehicles and ammo, sure. gotta make money. nothing sells as easy as an advantage. but not balancing your random matchmaking is poor business on all levels. 

Well said. Its very easy to implement. From the 30 odd players chosen for the battle, algorithm can easily spread the players on each team based on their PR. However, if WG does that each game will last long and with the current population, people will have to wait longer.

However WG is not realizing that the loss of player base is due to the ill conceived logic of MM. 

Due to high number of TD's in every battle, no body wants to go the front. Everytime TD's outnumber Heavy and Medium tanks. No wonder the Meta has changed and everyone wants to camp or hide behind a building to avoid arty. 

I kind of feel that there are way too many problems in this game now than it was before and not sure if there is a magic wand to satisfy everyone.



dunniteowl #15 Posted Nov 02 2019 - 15:23

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 31544 battles
  • 8,691
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

I like this game.  Very much.

 

 

MM?  No worries.

Gold (Special) Rounds?  No worries.

Seal Clubbing?  Pish posh, really no worries.

Stat Padders?  Let them camp the redline.

BOTS?  What's a bot?  (I am kidding, people, I know bots are people, too)

ROLLSTOMPS?  Single death per battle game concepts sort of foster the rollstomp concept -- ever heard the phrase, like a snowball rolling downhill?

 

In short, there are all manner of things you can focus on in this game.  You can look at all the "problems" and "express your frustration" with them, but please, accept that the difference between a positivized experience and a negativized experience are just the way you see things in general.

 

I see all the stuff that folks complain about.  It's like watching people walk down the street littering stuff while they glibly pass by trashcans every 60 feet downtown.  Lots of people do it without even thinking about it, but if you asked them, they'd say littering is bad.  This is the level of Human Condition that also exists in this game.

 

You got people who think they are really good at things and cannot fight their way out of a wet pixel paper bag with a Sherman Jumbo using the #2 key.  They will also tell you littering is bad, but they are the ones doing the littering -- just like in my sidewalk example above.

 

I see all that negative stuff, but for me?  That's ALL it is: Stuff.

 

This is a game.

 

A game is:

 

    A purposely challenging environment with limitations on your actions such that, by following the rules of what you are allowed, plus your skill with the units, plus a bit of luck that you don't meet more skilled opponents, allows you to overcome those challenges in some fashion.

 

The objective of this game?

 

Survive

Do Damage

Help Your Team

 

Win?

 

And that's the best, most concise description of this game as I can possibly present to any of you.

 

You gotta focus on YOU.  How YOU play.  How YOU understand the game concepts.  How YOU deal with adversity.  How YOU LOOK at things, even when not playing the game.

 

All of these things are things you have control over while playing -- if you are aware that you are in control of ONLY ONE THING IN THIS GAME -- YOU.

 

If you get mad and cannot play well, then stop playing.  If you are tired and are making poor choices, then stop playing.  If you are getting rekt repeatedly and are not having fun, then stop playing.  Just for a little while.

 

You can accept that the game is inherently UNFAIR to every player equally and it's the talent in each player, their skill and knowledge AND a healthy dose of some luck, that makes the difference in your outcomes.  The only thing you can do to make that difference is play your best.

 

You can't do that if you are excusing, blaming or pointing the finger of responsibility at someone or something else.  Even if you are right.  Let's say that for a second:

 

The OP and anyone else making these claims is right.  Let's go with that.

 

What now?

 

 

How does being right about any of that change anything?

 

 

It does not change anything.  It just is a finger of pointing that says, "This is the reason for..." and nothing more.  Recognizing it doesn't change it.  Crying at it or at the Devs to 'fix' something won't change anything.  You have two rational choices, three if you're also a bit like those sidewalk examples I pointed out.

 

1) Stop Playing -- after all, the game is 'unfair' and thus 'unfun' -- you should quit.

 

2)  Learn to Play better.  None of that other crap is going to change, so if you want it better, guess what?  It's all on you to make that happen.

 

*3)  Keep Playing Like Now and Keep Complaining, don't change how you play and continue to point a finger of blame while not having much fun.

 

 

Now I advocate option number 2.  If you don't want to do that, then I suggest option 1.

 

That said, there are a lot of people tossing litter on the sidewalks these days, even with plenty of trashcans available, so I'm going to guess that, even when presented with the rational choices, many of those making posts such as these will, in all point of fact, choose Option 3, simply because they cannot see the trashcans while they are busy trying to crumple up a gum wrapper while chewing -- it's all they can manage at the time.

 

 

Just a perspective shift is all it takes.

 

 

OvO



ATruk #16 Posted Nov 03 2019 - 03:33

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 58979 battles
  • 184
  • Member since:
    03-16-2013

View PostMachisman, on Nov 01 2019 - 07:28, said:

Well said. Its very easy to implement. From the 30 odd players chosen for the battle, algorithm can easily spread the players on each team based on their PR. However, if WG does that each game will last long and with the current population, people will have to wait longer.

However WG is not realizing that the loss of player base is due to the ill conceived logic of MM. 

Due to high number of TD's in every battle, no body wants to go the front. Everytime TD's outnumber Heavy and Medium tanks. No wonder the Meta has changed and everyone wants to camp or hide behind a building to avoid arty. 

I kind of feel that there are way too many problems in this game now than it was before and not sure if there is a magic wand to satisfy everyone.


 Of course it would be easy enough to sort a single number skill rating into roughly equal teams. The difficulty would be in arriving at that number. PR is one way. 
 Then what about the tanks? Skill 4580 in a Tier VIII is different than Skill 2580 in a Tier X. Do we swap these two players to balance the team skill, thereby giving one team the extra Tier X tank advantage? 
 So you would need a larger pool than 30 players to choose from. Finding enough Skill 2580 players all in Tier VIII tanks at the same time increases the difficulty. ConsiderIng that there are ten Tiers of tanks, the possible combinations becomes a huge number. 

 The pixel tank parameters are the same for every Hellcat in everyones garage. Much effort has been expended to balance tanks and Tiers of tanks with these parameters. Battle balancing is now done by Tier and type of tank. The Tier limits seem to be a better thing than no Tier limits. 

 

 As it is now, sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you. In the long run, it is player skill that gets that PR number. Individual battles can be terrible, though I do not believe they are terrible only because of skill imbalances. Even good players make mistakes. As we used to say in my other sport hobby, “S#1% happens, then you score it.”. 

 Each new battle is like a box of chocolates. My first thought is “Now how can I un4uck this?”. And then have fun doing it. 
 



ChaseR392 #17 Posted Nov 03 2019 - 04:47

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 9224 battles
  • 822
  • Member since:
    04-20-2018

Gonna have say -1 on another attempt to shamelessly start another freaking SBMM debate.

 

WG official position is flat out NO. Its been hashed out on this forum, and re-hashed, and re-hashed to death, then the horse it rode in on was re-hashed to death, and then that dead horse has been kicked.... numerous times.

 

Historical mode? I'd love it if it was viable... but it isn't. To even approach historical accuracy.... you'd end up with a Tiger or 2, a few Panthers, and a decent number of Pz.IVs and Stugs against hordes of 75mm Shermans and T-34s with a few other historic tanks scattered about. How exactly would it be fun to be in one of the numerous Shermans that's gonna get wrecked near max render range? Or would it really be all that fun to be in the Tiger, being in the strongest tank only to be eventually smothered by overwhelming numerical superiority?

 

Everybody would love to be the guy driving a Tiger in a 2:1 match-up against a couple of Shermans or T-34s, but that is the problem.... nobody wants to drive the weaker tank in a historical mode. The truth is placing tanks and in a Tiered tree and adjusting them when to needed to achieve (relative) balance is really the only the way to make a game like this work, as are added prototypes and some "napkin" tanks to complete the trees. Its a shame the German tree gets the short end a bit because their higher tier tanks are often placed with next generation tanks specifically designed to counter them but it is what it is.... doesn't mean the German tree is crap.

 

The ever increasing supply of new premium tanks? Love it or loathe it.... that's what keeps the servers on. I do wish WG would be a little more timely buffing some of the older premiums to keep them relatively competitive.... but the truth is offering new ones that are better, stronger or more unique is what keeps them selling. Everybody is free to spend their own money however they choose.... and I chose spend money on this game as if it was a "hobby", which usually cost money that you aren't going to get a return on.... unless your entertainment is important to you. 

 

Quite frankly the idea that a game this massive (that has been continuously upgraded and expanded with new content for the last decade) should be completely accessible with no grinding to you for the $60 (roughly the cost of one new console game that will be worth $5 to trade in at the game store in 6 months) or a small monthly fee is LAUGHABLE



Sam_Sanister #18 Posted Nov 03 2019 - 09:46

    Captain

  • Players
  • 27951 battles
  • 1,846
  • [K0HAI] K0HAI
  • Member since:
    10-11-2013

View Postdunniteowl, on Nov 02 2019 - 08:23, said:

 

*snip because this is a very long comment*

 

 

 

It's hard-coded into (not just human) nature to look for and dislike things that threaten your safety, that's just survival instinct.

When faced with something you perceive as a threat (sure, most of the time it is a threat, but there are exceptions), you usually want to reduce its influence or remove it entirely.

 

Combat by its very nature is unsafe; and a game revolving around combat will obviously limit the safety of the player-controlled units.

 

This is just a game; a reasonably* balanced multiplayer one at that. (yes, there are games with better balance, but there are also games with worse balance)

And to keep games moving along, ways to reduce safety must be better than ways to increase safety.

Wheelies, gold rounds, and large caliber HE (arty falls under this) are the most prevalent.

 

So many players forget that this is a multiplayer shooter; everybody's objective is to shoot the enemies.

You're going to get shot at and take damage, regardless of whether you want it or not.

You're not complaining about balance or fairness when you're coming out ahead; yet multiplayer balance dictates that cannot always be the case.



dunniteowl #19 Posted Nov 03 2019 - 14:59

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 31544 battles
  • 8,691
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

View PostSam_Sanister, on Nov 03 2019 - 02:46, said:

 

It's hard-coded into (not just human) nature to look for and dislike things that threaten your safety, that's just survival instinct.

When faced with something you perceive as a threat (sure, most of the time it is a threat, but there are exceptions), you usually want to reduce its influence or remove it entirely.

 

Combat by its very nature is unsafe; and a game revolving around combat will obviously limit the safety of the player-controlled units.

 

This is just a game; a reasonably* balanced multiplayer one at that. (yes, there are games with better balance, but there are also games with worse balance)

And to keep games moving along, ways to reduce safety must be better than ways to increase safety.

Wheelies, gold rounds, and large caliber HE (arty falls under this) are the most prevalent.

 

So many players forget that this is a multiplayer shooter; everybody's objective is to shoot the enemies.

You're going to get shot at and take damage, regardless of whether you want it or not.

You're not complaining about balance or fairness when you're coming out ahead; yet multiplayer balance dictates that cannot always be the case.

 

I know all that.

 

The POINT was that's the issue.  Most folks simply cannot see that the only difference is really in how you view things in the first place.  This environment that we call a game is the PERFECT PLACE to learn to adapt new ways of looking at things, new ways of dealing with the same old same old and new ways of seeing how things can play out by NOT DOING IT LIKE WE'VE ALWAYS DONE.

 

That's the WHOLE POINT of my post.  Sorry if you didn't get that, because it was too long and maybe you skimmed it looking for something that was implied instead of directly stated.  Oh wait, I did directly state it with that comment about people dropping trash while walking by trashcans.

 

 

I hope that is clear enough now.  I do apologize if that wasn't as clear as I thought it was.

 

 

OvO



Sam_Sanister #20 Posted Nov 04 2019 - 00:37

    Captain

  • Players
  • 27951 battles
  • 1,846
  • [K0HAI] K0HAI
  • Member since:
    10-11-2013

View Postdunniteowl, on Nov 03 2019 - 07:59, said:

 

I know all that.

 

The POINT was that's the issue.  Most folks simply cannot see that the only difference is really in how you view things in the first place.  This environment that we call a game is the PERFECT PLACE to learn to adapt new ways of looking at things, new ways of dealing with the same old same old and new ways of seeing how things can play out by NOT DOING IT LIKE WE'VE ALWAYS DONE.

 

That's the WHOLE POINT of my post.  Sorry if you didn't get that, because it was too long and maybe you skimmed it looking for something that was implied instead of directly stated.  Oh wait, I did directly state it with that comment about people dropping trash while walking by trashcans.

 

 

I hope that is clear enough now.  I do apologize if that wasn't as clear as I thought it was.

 

 

OvO

No, I was agreeing with you.

It is just a game.







Also tagged with balance, match making, premium, mechanics, skill

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users