Jump to content


Stop players progressing tiers unless they have experience


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

StinkySausage #1 Posted 04 August 2017 - 03:12 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 16089 battles
  • 13
  • [STORM]
  • Member since:
    05-12-2017

Played a game at tier 5 earlier where four players on my team scored zero, nada, zip, nowt, sweet FA! How does that happen? I then checked the player composition and all four of those players had less than 350 games between them if you combined all of their games.  No wonder they got wrecked.  

 

Would be good if WG introduced an experience requirement of a minimum of say 100 games at each preceeding tier before allowing progression to the next tier. That way we can stop players being completely out classed at the higher tiers. Dont even get me started on the state of tier 8 right now where the high number of easy to get premium tier 8s have given access to everyone. 



1OOJA #2 Posted 04 August 2017 - 03:33 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 16997 battles
  • 391
  • [ALBAC]
  • Member since:
    02-06-2014

The number of games doesn't mean anything. :P

 


Edited by 1OOJA, 04 August 2017 - 03:33 PM.


Precariat #3 Posted 04 August 2017 - 03:35 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14785 battles
  • 724
  • [B-B-B]
  • Member since:
    03-06-2017

Dear WG could you please stop letting players give you large sums of cash to progress quickly

Yeah that's going to happen


When you can't walk, you crawl and when you can't crawl anymore somebody will carry you

 


StrikeFIN #4 Posted 04 August 2017 - 04:18 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8404 battles
  • 803
  • Member since:
    03-05-2014
Wallet warriors need option, they drive this game online.

Bada__Bing #5 Posted 04 August 2017 - 08:16 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8184 battles
  • 303
  • [B-B-B]
  • Member since:
    09-22-2016
It's a problem, it always has been and probably always will be. Let's face it most of us have been that low battle count player in a tank we weren't ready for. I can only see two possibilities for change which would be acceptable to WG. The rated battles system is tweaked so it works and is introduced to all tiers or WG discover that new players leave the game because they feel outclassed despite spending money and leave before they get real enjoyment from the game and therefore spend more money long term. 

Blue_Snail #6 Posted 04 August 2017 - 10:32 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 4495 battles
  • 363
  • Member since:
    05-21-2017

I always hope there are more noobs on the red team than mine.

I love to see new players in tier 7 & 8 premium tanks. 

They are pretty easy to identify.  They pay for my gaming, and if they are on the red team,

they contribute to my stats.

We have the nice GuP tanks, which are actually OK.

Now WG should created My Little Pony tanks to encourage the Bronies.

Because of my 5 year old daughter, I put MLP skins on my WoT tanks for a while.

The Apple Jack LTP had a celery stick instead of the log on the side.

And my Pinky Pie KV-2 was awesome ! :D



 


Flashshark1980 #7 Posted 22 August 2017 - 10:16 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 2840 battles
  • 61
  • Member since:
    08-18-2017
What about a skill ranked system?
Low skilled players are satisfied because they have a chance to win and participate at battle.
High skilled players have no new players in own team and will get a hard and exciting battle against good enemys.

I play Mechwarrior online and like their pilot skill rating system.
It seems to work.

Also in WoT PC they added ranked battles for tier X.
In my opinion and I hope the results will show it,
skill-ranked MM+-0 is the best thing to do.

Chairman_merpug #8 Posted 23 August 2017 - 05:39 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 35917 battles
  • 7,986
  • [AFK]
  • Member since:
    03-05-2013

View PostFlashshark1980, on 22 August 2017 - 10:16 PM, said:

What about a skill ranked system?
Low skilled players are satisfied because they have a chance to win and participate at battle.
High skilled players have no new players in own team and will get a hard and exciting battle against good enemys.

I play Mechwarrior online and like their pilot skill rating system.
It seems to work.

Also in WoT PC they added ranked battles for tier X.
In my opinion and I hope the results will show it,
skill-ranked MM+-0 is the best thing to do.

Hy! You want the MM thread in Gameplay. And we have Rated battles here, too. 


Denoobing member of the Active Frontline Klan - and proud of it. Be nice to me..https://www.blitzstars.com/player/eu/Chairman_merpug


Birdistheword15 #9 Posted 07 September 2017 - 09:00 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 37693 battles
  • 1,227
  • [BRIT6]
  • Member since:
    01-11-2015
I know its a loss when I have three player 123s on my team.

ecaRUDE #10 Posted 21 September 2017 - 01:18 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 160 battles
  • 5
  • [MMR]
  • Member since:
    09-15-2017

View PostStinkySausage, on 04 August 2017 - 05:12 PM, said:

 

Would be good if WG introduced an experience requirement of a minimum of say 100 games at each preceeding tier before allowing progression to the next tier. 

 

No! I'm not gonna stay at each tier longer than it's needed for upgrading all the modules and getting the next tier's tank. 

 

Precariat #11 Posted 21 September 2017 - 03:14 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14785 battles
  • 724
  • [B-B-B]
  • Member since:
    03-06-2017

View PostecaRUDE, on 21 September 2017 - 01:18 PM, said:

 

No! I'm not gonna stay at each tier longer than it's needed for upgrading all the modules and getting the next tier's tank. 

 

If it's a re-roll account that's fair enough. I'm seeing a lot of players in tier V tanks with hardly any battles and low WR. It's obvious they have no idea what they are doing.

As a result I have a tier IV tank with low WR but above average stats (Damage etc.), not much to be done about it.


When you can't walk, you crawl and when you can't crawl anymore somebody will carry you

 


VonPottypoop #12 Posted 21 September 2017 - 04:32 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 16678 battles
  • 1,186
  • [FTC-1]
  • Member since:
    08-16-2016

It's the same for everyone, if they made it a level playing field it wouldn't be long before everyone was 50% and it would soon become boring.

 


​Very proud leader of the Fun-Tan-Clan 


TheDudeAbidesBlitz #13 Posted 21 September 2017 - 04:49 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 597 battles
  • 914
  • [IRMA_]
  • Member since:
    08-26-2017

View PostecaRUDE, on 21 September 2017 - 01:18 PM, said:

 

No! I'm not gonna stay at each tier longer than it's needed for upgrading all the modules and getting the next tier's tank. 

 

33% WR with Leichttraktor? I am disappointed.

 

 



bunnybun123 #14 Posted 29 September 2017 - 11:05 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12214 battles
  • 668
  • [FTC-1]
  • Member since:
    08-20-2016

While I was the same in the very beginning as you described, I learned from it, and know I know i have to master the lower tiers before getting higher. In fact, I still can't win more than 50 percent of tier 5 matches, so atm I'm still sealclubbing in tier 3 and 4. 

 

I think it should be impossible to buy any tank that has a higer tier than you already grinded to. That would make already a big difference.



sixty_three #15 Posted 01 October 2017 - 10:10 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12321 battles
  • 1,354
  • Member since:
    04-29-2017

One day in August I examined, over a course of that day, the total battle count of the other 13 players who had fought in my battles.  Noting also what was the tier of the vehicle they had chosen for the battle.  I then noted down the median battle count value by tier.

 

The results were:

 

Tier III, about 100 battles (lowest had just 12 battles, highest 677)

Tier IV, about 700 (lowest just 13 battles, highest 7238)

Tier V, about 1000 (low of 139, high of 7036)

Tier VI, about 3000 

Tier VII, about 7000 (low of 966, high of 52K.  50% of these players had fought in rating battles)

 

Of course, people will learn this game at different rates.  The data above also doesn't differentiate between people with one account and the rerollers.  But as a rough guide to what battle experience your average opponent at a given tier may have, I thought it better than nothing.  FYI, with a battle count of c. 5000, I am an above average Tier I - V player, and a below average Tier VI player. I have therefore ruled out jumping up to play Tier VII for now.

 

I don't however believe you can legislate against low experience players jumping up the tiers.  I think they just have to learn the hard way that it frequently won't be a successful policy.

 


One of life’s challenges — knowing enough to think you are right, but not enough to know that you are wrong.

 


petes85 #16 Posted 02 October 2017 - 08:09 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 40773 battles
  • 1,010
  • [KORPI]
  • Member since:
    05-22-2014
You can use gold and free XP to get all tanks. You just need to play 1 tank to gain XP. So it's pointless to resrict cause players can use free XP to get higher tier.

Birdistheword15 #17 Posted 25 October 2017 - 02:28 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 37693 battles
  • 1,227
  • [BRIT6]
  • Member since:
    01-11-2015

They need training. There is some interesting discussions about this on the NA forum at the moment. Maybe we should start up a thread about it on this forum as well and maybe even contact the NA forum?



RoninCRV #18 Posted 17 November 2017 - 07:25 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 77 battles
  • 7
  • [AVO]
  • Member since:
    09-22-2017

If you do (200 * current tier) damage you can move to the next tier. When someone does 1000 damage in tiers V and VIII he should play tier VI.

 



TheDudeAbidesBlitz #19 Posted 19 November 2017 - 07:49 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 597 battles
  • 914
  • [IRMA_]
  • Member since:
    08-26-2017

View PostRoninCRV, on 17 November 2017 - 07:25 AM, said:

If you do (200 * current tier) damage you can move to the next tier. When someone does 1000 damage in tiers V and VIII he should play tier VI.

 

 

 

200? Why not 178 x current tier? 



sixty_three #20 Posted 19 November 2017 - 12:11 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12321 battles
  • 1,354
  • Member since:
    04-29-2017

View PostTheDudeAbidesBlitz, on 19 November 2017 - 07:49 AM, said:

 

 

200? Why not 178 x current tier? 

 

Ah, 178 is a deficient number, unlike 200.

 

https://en.m.wikiped...eficient_number

 

:P


One of life’s challenges — knowing enough to think you are right, but not enough to know that you are wrong.

 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users