Jump to content


Folks, its not MM or Players, its the game is unbalanced


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

NeatoMan #41 Posted Jan 15 2020 - 15:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 28785 battles
  • 21,272
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostFrreeeBird, on Jan 15 2020 - 09:42, said:

Had an all tier X match last night, my team won 15-0 and by 20k HP, random, da?

yes.  what about that ONE singular result indicates "not random"?



Jer1413 #42 Posted Jan 15 2020 - 16:23

    Captain

  • Players
  • 49077 battles
  • 1,647
  • [RR13] RR13
  • Member since:
    02-24-2013

View PostSquishySupreme, on Jan 15 2020 - 03:51, said:



My experience so far suggests ( and a business model as explained above requires it ) that free to play accounts are placed much more frequently in poorer positions in the MM than paying customers.  Non-premium tanks are in a lower position than normal tanks.  In fact, in one game I had last night, 100% of the enemy team was in a clan and 80% were premium tanks.  The rest of us were in normal tanks and only 3 were in clans.  It was absurdly lopsided if you looked at the MM in these terms.

Which is what you would expect in all other two-tier business model type games. Free to play accounts are almost never even as good as paying ones because in simple terms, they cannot be if the company wants to survive.  Free to play has to be playable but just barely so - and notably harder than a paid account to incentivise people to pay money to the company.

 

 

Having only spent less than $10 on this game, I heartily disagree.

 

 



ethics_gradient #43 Posted Jan 15 2020 - 16:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 42892 battles
  • 2,434
  • [DHO-X] DHO-X
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

I agree with the OP's points.  The game was much more balanced years ago, though it was tough because of the much bigger tier spreads.  Now between the auto loaders and the prevalence of gold rounds, there just isn't as much balance/give or take as there used to be. 

 

@hardicon:  as an aside, "hey there old comrade". 



hardicon #44 Posted Jan 15 2020 - 16:40

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 56387 battles
  • 5,661
  • [A-O-G] A-O-G
  • Member since:
    07-03-2010
sup Ethics

OLDIRTYBOMBER #45 Posted Jan 15 2020 - 17:39

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 12666 battles
  • 1,740
  • [DONKY] DONKY
  • Member since:
    09-05-2016
Actually the the correct answer is D 'all of the above' :medal:

SquishySupreme #46 Posted Jan 15 2020 - 20:10

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 3955 battles
  • 855
  • Member since:
    10-29-2018

View PostJer1413, on Jan 15 2020 - 16:23, said:

 

 

Having only spent less than $10 on this game, I heartily disagree.

 

 

You would be wrong, though.  For the average player on a free to play account, it is much harder.  Even Skill and QB admit it flat-out.  FTP is harder by far.  And it has to be.

Why am I right about this?  Because if you have a game that has a FTP option and a Pay option and both are equal, then the game becomes freeware and lives off of donations, essentially.  Wargaming has 17 offices worldwide and many millions invested in their various games and needs to make money to survive.  So by definition, they have to incentivise players to pay their salaries to stay in business.

It might not be much compared to other games, but it is there, and enough to make it worthwhile TO pay for their salaries.  Because if it was actually even, everyone would just leech off of them and pay them nothing.  Why pay for something when you can get the same thing for free?   This isn't about WoT, it's true with any business that relies on premium versus "normal" items to generate revenue.



Jer1413 #47 Posted Jan 15 2020 - 20:23

    Captain

  • Players
  • 49077 battles
  • 1,647
  • [RR13] RR13
  • Member since:
    02-24-2013

View PostSquishySupreme, on Jan 15 2020 - 15:10, said:

You would be wrong, though.  For the average player on a free to play account, it is much harder.  

 

 

But I am the average "free to play" player. I may not advance up the tree as fast as a paying player, but the game itself isn't any "harder" as far as wins and losses go. That's all due to my limited skill-set.

 

Now I will admit that "free" tournament gold isn't as available as it once was and that was where I earned most of the resources to build my account.

 

 



NeatoMan #48 Posted Jan 15 2020 - 20:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 28785 battles
  • 21,272
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostSquishySupreme, on Jan 15 2020 - 14:10, said:

You would be wrong, though.  For the average player on a free to play account, it is much harder.  Even Skill and QB admit it flat-out.  FTP is harder by far.  And it has to be.

Why am I right about this?  Because if you have a game that has a FTP option and a Pay option and both are equal, then the game becomes freeware and lives off of donations, essentially.  Wargaming has 17 offices worldwide and many millions invested in their various games and needs to make money to survive.  So by definition, they have to incentivise players to pay their salaries to stay in business.

It might not be much compared to other games, but it is there, and enough to make it worthwhile TO pay for their salaries.  Because if it was actually even, everyone would just leech off of them and pay them nothing.  Why pay for something when you can get the same thing for free?   This isn't about WoT, it's true with any business that relies on premium versus "normal" items to generate revenue.

It just takes longer to get to the same point, that's all.  Where the premium account will be fully upgraded by 50 battles it may take you 75-100 battles on f2p.  So make comparisons with that in mind. 

 

Once you both get there it isn't much of an advantage.  What you do with it will matter more.

 

I think the error with QB and others is that they are trying to match what happens on a premium account in the same number of battles.  Instead use the progress up the trees as the comparison point, i.e. where will each player be at the midpoint of a grind through tier 7, at tier 9, etc.  rather than after 1k or 2k battles.   You'll find they are probably quite similar for pay vs f2p



Korvick #49 Posted Jan 16 2020 - 08:28

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 2665 battles
  • 345
  • Member since:
    05-02-2013

View PostSquishySupreme, on Jan 15 2020 - 07:51, said:



My experience so far suggests ( and a business model as explained above requires it ) that free to play accounts are placed much more frequently in poorer positions in the MM than paying customers.  Non-premium tanks are in a lower position than normal tanks.  In fact, in one game I had last night, 100% of the enemy team was in a clan and 80% were premium tanks.  The rest of us were in normal tanks and only 3 were in clans.  It was absurdly lopsided if you looked at the MM in these terms.

Which is what you would expect in all other two-tier business model type games. Free to play accounts are almost never even as good as paying ones because in simple terms, they cannot be if the company wants to survive.  Free to play has to be playable but just barely so - and notably harder than a paid account to incentivise people to pay money to the company.

 

I have both played with both prem and non prem accounts.  I find zero difference between them.  I in fact specifically made an account and put zero dollars into it years ago just to prove this point.  I make no distinction in a game between prem and non prem tanks anymore.  I own enuf prem tanks to know they don't win you games.  If they did, there would be plenty of wallet warriors out there with much much better stats.  If all it took was for me to upgrade my account to premium, I would certainly have a lot better stats.  This entire premise has been debunked many times by many people.

 



SquishySupreme #50 Posted Jan 16 2020 - 12:51

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 3955 battles
  • 855
  • Member since:
    10-29-2018

View PostNeatoMan, on Jan 15 2020 - 20:31, said:

It just takes longer to get to the same point, that's all.  Where the premium account will be fully upgraded by 50 battles it may take you 75-100 battles on f2p.  So make comparisons with that in mind. 

 

Once you both get there it isn't much of an advantage.  What you do with it will matter more.

 

I think the error with QB and others is that they are trying to match what happens on a premium account in the same number of battles.  Instead use the progress up the trees as the comparison point, i.e. where will each player be at the midpoint of a grind through tier 7, at tier 9, etc.  rather than after 1k or 2k battles.   You'll find they are probably quite similar for pay vs f2p

True about the time required.  That it is such a small difference is actually a bit amazing compared to many other games that outright cripple you/level cap you or block off entire areas of the game.

The MM is biased.  It has to be and therefore just stop complaining about it.  Adjust your tactics if you are free to play (realizing that you are the underdog) or cough up some cash and have the MM treat you more fairly.


 



Korvick #51 Posted Jan 16 2020 - 13:01

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 2665 battles
  • 345
  • Member since:
    05-02-2013

View PostSquishySupreme, on Jan 16 2020 - 11:51, said:

True about the time required.  That it is such a small difference is actually a bit amazing compared to many other games that outright cripple you/level cap you or block off entire areas of the game.

The MM is biased.  It has to be and therefore just stop complaining about it.  Adjust your tactics if you are free to play (realizing that you are the underdog) or cough up some cash and have the MM treat you more fairly.


 

 

HOW is MM more biased?  Does it pick it based on if you are Prem right now or if you've ever been Prem?  How do you account (no pun intended) for the multiple times people on this forum have shown that their non prem accounts do just as good?  My Skizzic account is almost never prem, I havent spent any money on it since i started and the only gold I bought was used primarily for garage slots and 1 prem tank.  Everything else aside from the Super Pershing have been event rewards.  Its got a better winrate than my Havlock main account which is almost always Premium.  And both accounts have sucky stats compared to my ZERO MONEY EVER SPENT on it account.

 

 

 



jeb2 #52 Posted Jan 16 2020 - 15:39

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 53507 battles
  • 722
  • [HU] HU
  • Member since:
    08-07-2015

Vehicle speed and firing rate have increased a LOT over the years.  The effects of that are many.  There is less time to react, and reduced chances to mitigate.  It has, by analogy, gone from team wrestling on a 10-foot plank to a 2-foot one.  It's over faster, tipping points are reached quicker, teammates cannot help each other, etc.  This is a quite predictable result of spamming mach speed and auto-loaders.

 

The effects of the N-squared Law happen faster, meaning more fast blowouts.


Edited by jeb2, Jan 16 2020 - 15:39.


ShadowDancer27 #53 Posted Jan 16 2020 - 16:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 32066 battles
  • 4,091
  • Member since:
    07-26-2013

My kids played League of Legends.  The contrast with WoT struck me that they were constantly tuning the balance of their champions so anything too dominant was brought down a peg and seldom played champions fluffed up a bit.  It seems there is underlying intent and other factors at WG that prevents them from doing so.  The embrace power creep as a business model except to create new OP tanks out of old ones if there is a highly underplayed line.



ShadowDancer27 #54 Posted Jan 16 2020 - 16:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 32066 battles
  • 4,091
  • Member since:
    07-26-2013

View Postjeb2, on Jan 16 2020 - 08:39, said:

Vehicle speed and firing rate have increased a LOT over the years.  The effects of that are many.  There is less time to react, and reduced chances to mitigate.  It has, by analogy, gone from team wrestling on a 10-foot plank to a 2-foot one.  It's over faster, tipping points are reached quicker, teammates cannot help each other, etc.  This is a quite predictable result of spamming mach speed and auto-loaders.

 

The effects of the N-squared Law happen faster, meaning more fast blowouts.

Except tracked scouts...with physics they brought LTs down toward MT speed range.



ShadowDancer27 #55 Posted Jan 16 2020 - 18:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 32066 battles
  • 4,091
  • Member since:
    07-26-2013

My kids played League of Legends.  The contrast with WoT struck me that they were constantly tuning the balance of their champions so anything too dominant was brought down a peg and seldom played champions fluffed up a bit.  It seems there is underlying intent and other factors at WG that prevents them from doing so.  The embrace power creep as a business model except to create new OP tanks out of old ones if there is a highly underplayed line.



ethics_gradient #56 Posted Jan 16 2020 - 18:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 42892 battles
  • 2,434
  • [DHO-X] DHO-X
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

ShadowDancer is right, but not for the reasons that he thinks.  The game does not differentiate between premium and non-premium players as far as RNG, MM, or other gameplay mechanics.  That is not to say that there are no advantages to the premium account that can lead to higher win rates or WN8.  For example, a premium account accumulates credits and experience much quicker than a standard account.  This means that the premium player spends much less time playing stock tanks than does the standard player.  Playing stock tanks is a recipe for losing as they are inevitably underpowered, undergunned, and therefore, underperforming.  Another example is crew training.  Again, the premium player can train crews much quicker than the standard player, which improves the performance of his tanks.  In other words, WoT does not need to hide the fact that premium player gets advantages for their money, it's just that the mechanisms are not weighted in battle per se -- they are in the lead-up to the battle.

 



NeatoMan #57 Posted Jan 16 2020 - 20:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 28785 battles
  • 21,272
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostSquishySupreme, on Jan 16 2020 - 06:51, said:

The MM is biased.  It has to be and therefore just stop complaining about it.  Adjust your tactics if you are free to play (realizing that you are the underdog) or cough up some cash and have the MM treat you more fairly.

Or adjust your grind accordingly.   I stayed at tier 5, 6, 7 for a long time, and gathered plenty of equipment and skills before moving higher.  If you insist on moving up the tiers quickly you're going to have a harder time.  

 

The only time I spent cash was to grind credits for tier 9 and 10 vehicles. Once there it was always f2p.  



SquishySupreme #58 Posted Jan 16 2020 - 22:13

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 3955 battles
  • 855
  • Member since:
    10-29-2018
Exactly.  You adjust and realize that they have to make money.
Typically I do recommend that new players get *one* premium vehicle to start - and this can be done with the combined gold from Airplanes and Tanks pretty easily.  Get a nice T6 - T7 tank with that gold and make credits in it.  The game is really designed around you having at least one T6-T8 money-maker and/or premium time.  I use my occasional 30% off coupon to buy it 90 or 180 days at a time.  Life is amazingly easy with it enabled for a new player - or even us bitter vets ;)  $30 to save my brain 80% of its stress and support the company/pay for the game ever 60 months or so?  That's a week's worth of coffee.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users