Jump to content


Suggested game changes


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

GiveMeMyAccountBack #1 Posted 15 April 2018 - 10:16 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 9057 battles
  • 19
  • [CR8ZY]
  • Member since:
    02-16-2012

Hey evry 1000 batlles I try to think out how to improve game experience without touching matchmaking (as WG do not want it to be changed). So here is my 9th attempt. Please support it if you agree. If you agree only with one point support this point, and tell yout friends/clanmates about this.

 

  1.  Top 1 player of losing team is not punished for his teammates incompetence. He do not lose ranked points (got -0, while worst player in victorious team got +0 so sum of points added to / removed from both teams remain untouched). Also Top1 player recieves experience and credits as if it was a draw not a lose, and his WR is not lowered by this lost match.
     
  2. Rankeds are open to play if you have 5000+ battles and you can pass calibration for ranked only in non-premium vechicle (thanks to this players who have low tier and bought 8tier premium will be unable to ruin others stats in rankeds
     
  3. Let us play 3 vs 3 battles on randoms, PLEASE!!! It's randoms anyway, and it will always be hard for nerves to play, so at least let us choose like we are choosing supremacy and encountered battle now, add 2 more buttons there: 3vs3 and 7vs7.
     

ONLY CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM!!! If you don't have anything wise to say, be quiet.:sceptic:



Skullcandy #2 Posted 15 April 2018 - 11:22 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 19318 battles
  • 1,249
  • [1RTR]
  • Member since:
    05-02-2011

1) So a light tank that sat at spawn sniping instead of scouting for the tank destroyers, and ends up with most of the damage because the reds couldn’t see him, gets rewarded for it?

A good XP/Damage does not mean a good player. Could have been a useless, hard to find camper. Or a moron who blocks his allies and uses them as shields to protect himself.

No to this suggestion.

 

2) Would make for better teams. But the wait times for ranked battles to start is already ridiculously long. With people limited by number of battles, bear in mind 5k is a big number (top clans don’t even ask for 5k battles before you can apply, usually it’s 1k battles), you’ll be waiting even longer for the matchmaker to sort you into a game.

Lower the 5k to say, 500 battles, plenty of battles to get game experience, then you’re talking.

 

3) The maps are too big for 3x3 battles. 4 of the 7 minutes at least would be spent trying to find each other. You can do this in training rooms, though. Not sure WG would want to buy more servers specifically for 3x3 battles. Plus this will again lower the people that can be matched with others in the matchmaker.

 


Edited by Skullcandy, 15 April 2018 - 11:23 PM.

Leader of 1RTR. | 1RTR on Discord "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result." – Winston Churchill


reekoiler #3 Posted 16 April 2018 - 05:39 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 18863 battles
  • 1,192
  • [ACES_]
  • Member since:
    05-02-2017
Abolish platoons.
Knickerson, my apologies.

GiveMeMyAccountBack #4 Posted 16 April 2018 - 01:48 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 9057 battles
  • 19
  • [CR8ZY]
  • Member since:
    02-16-2012

@Skullcandy

  1. "A good XP/Damage does not mean a good player" RLY??? Well maybe you are right about tournaments, playing in platinium diamond leagues, there are more subtle things like team cooperation, giving info, spotting, etc. etc. but not in goddamn randoms. In randoms if I have in a camper who actually do dmg I am happy, because most of players do nothing,  0!!! or eventually 1-2 shoots then die. So sorry, but in randoms and low league rankeds DMG means good player.

    Honestly I don't see any reason why DMG can't mean good (not super ultra unicum, just good) player in every situation?

    He does DMG rest of team just have to stay alive for a minute or two and finish what he started, where is the problem? Especially on randoms/rankeds? It is not tournament, most of time ppl go where they want without tactic or planning, so if not EXP, and not DMG what would good player do in your oppinion?

    About "Or a moron who blocks his allies and uses them as shields to protect himself" well it can eventually happen BUT according to my expirience usually players doing like this die faster than their victims, and rarely do good result, not mentioning that I actually met a player like this maybe once per two weeks, while I have at least one player who do 0 - 300 dmg and 0 kills every battle.
    Thus I don't see anything in your argumentation that could really prove me wrong about this. In first thing I think you are simply wrong, in second, ok I might agree but players behaving like you described are some like 0,000001% of all, so I don't think they could seriously affect anything ingame in a longer time range...
     
  2. " times for ranked battles to start is already ridiculously long" dude if you think this is long go play armoured warfare. I waited 3 days for a battle once. XD But, seriously, want a quick one? There is actually no waiting time in randoms, you click, you play. Rankeds should be more differed from randoms. From my point of view 1 minute is not a long time to wait. And if I have a good team I can wait, no problem. The question is what you like more, get instantly into bad balanced, one side match that is actually lost (or won) before it even started, or wait longer but get more fair better balanced game? I prefer the second option.
     
  3. You are partially right, but a few times on 4 A.M. I have played 3vs3 in blitz cuz there were too low ppl ingame to setup full teams I guess... and it wasnt that bad, because these maps are already very small. Ofc light can always run away from HT, that is why it exists, but HT can go cap and I won a game a few times doing so, so there is always an option. From the other hand I would be very happy to see separate maps for 3vs3 mode. It is good idea and if only enough players would want this I think it would not be a big stuff for WG to just simply cut exisiting maps in half.
    What you said about a training room I take as a joke. One not only get 0 exp and lost silver for battle like this but also in training rooms it is so empty that it takes 20 minutes to find someone for 1vs1. Finding more people would take half day, so... let's think it is a joke.

    Anyway thank you for time you spent on reading my thoughts and responding, I find your response very helpful even if not 100% agreeing with you . :)

Edited by GiveMeMyAccountBack, 16 April 2018 - 02:30 PM.


Titus_Scato #5 Posted 16 April 2018 - 02:35 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 36315 battles
  • 6,437
  • [1RTR]
  • Member since:
    10-18-2014

1. Top player of losing team should be ranked by base xp, not by damage.

 

2. Ranked battles should be abolished.  Ranking system should be applied to players who play in tournaments.  Clan leaders should be able to set up a simple challenge tournament for their clan by challenging 1 other clan, and also invite multiple clans to participate in a larger, multi-clan tournament.

 

3. No to 3 vs 3 battles, except when very few players active on the server at the required tier.



GiveMeMyAccountBack #6 Posted 16 April 2018 - 03:18 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 9057 battles
  • 19
  • [CR8ZY]
  • Member since:
    02-16-2012
@Titus_Scato
 
  1. 99% of games person with highest DMG also have most EXP especially when we talk about loosing team, and honestly for me it is not a problem, m8 be highest EXP as well
     
  2. Well none forces you to play ranked. You can abolish them for yourself by simple notplaying them.
     
  3. Yeah but, maybe you explain WHY do you think 3 vs 3 are bad idea? I never said it should be instead of 7vs7! Just another option to choose for people who want it! Why is it bothering you?


Titus_Scato #7 Posted 16 April 2018 - 04:32 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 36315 battles
  • 6,437
  • [1RTR]
  • Member since:
    10-18-2014

View PostGiveMeMyAccountBack, on 16 April 2018 - 03:18 PM, said:

@Titus_Scato
 
  1. 99% of games person with highest DMG also have most EXP especially when we talk about loosing team, and honestly for me it is not a problem, m8 be highest EXP as well
     
  2. Well none forces you to play ranked. You can abolish them for yourself by simple notplaying them.
     
  3. Yeah but, maybe you explain WHY do you think 3 vs 3 are bad idea? I never said it should be instead of 7vs7! Just another option to choose for people who want it! Why is it bothering you?

 

1.  xp takes account of active actions like spotting, base capping or defending, etc.  Pure damage does not.

 

2.  I don't play ranked battles.  And I wish no-one else did either, for reason see #3.

 

3.  The more different types of battles there are, the more the pool of available players will be divided up, the less available players there will be for each battle type, and the longer everyone will have to wait to start a battle.  So no, I want the players like you who want to play 3 vs 3 to be forced to play 7 vs 7, or go in a training room.


Edited by Titus_Scato, 16 April 2018 - 04:37 PM.


GiveMeMyAccountBack #8 Posted 16 April 2018 - 08:32 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 9057 battles
  • 19
  • [CR8ZY]
  • Member since:
    02-16-2012
Well you see I would like the players like you would be forced to wait for battle a little bit longer and in the meantime and think twice about game balance and matchmaking issues, because what you want is kinda reckless. You don't care about balance, about fairness of the game about simmilar skill levels of players in both team. You want only to start game as fast as possible (like it's working now), and as a result you get neverending series of absolutely pointless games, where in like 70% of games you cannot influence it's result in any way, it will be win or lost either you do something or not. And I honestly can absolutely not understand why some people would want something like this. I don't want to insult you in any way, I just want to emphasize that game where your action does not matter is completely pointless, and however blitz didn't achieved maximum of this state, it is going closer with each update. And that is the point of what should be changed in my oppinion, to make actions taken by player more significant.

And honestly what is your problem with waiting time on randoms? In normal gaming hours 7 AM - 2 AM there is no waiting time at all, you click battle and it start loading. I highly doubt that adding 3vs3 battles would change something about this, in big WoT you have if I remember well 5 separated modes and it works fine. But ok, lets just this one time assume you are right with this waiting time. Lets think what would be scale of this change. If another mode would be added (and I assume just for randoms cuz 3vs3 rankeds don't seem to be that  good idea) then we would have 3 diffrent modes, (ranked, 3vs3 and 7vs7) compared to current 2 so the waiting time would be 1/3 longer than now. Mostly waiting time for random is below 1 second. For easy math assume it's 0,6 second 0,6s x 1,3(3)= ~0,8s. So you want to argue with me about 0,2s???

Ok you say it is not always that fast, so go hardcore now. Playing in not popular hours I usually wait for random 10s - 40s. Average it is 25s. @5s x 1,3(3)=33,33... so 8,3 second longer than usual? Is this really a problem? Wait 8 second to have better game?

Edited by GiveMeMyAccountBack, 16 April 2018 - 08:33 PM.


Qnubis #9 Posted 16 April 2018 - 08:58 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 2981 battles
  • 81
  • [STAR]
  • Member since:
    02-24-2013

I like the MM how it is, with randomness and stomp games and close games and facepalm games. It's part of the fun. A total homogeneous MM with equal skill will be very boring to play because nobody will do something unexpected and just grind it out. I just had 6 losses in a row. I laughed it off and got a couple wins and just enjoy the game. If you want truly fair games then play games that are actually BUILD to be fair. Like CS:GO, or LoL, or Dota2, they were built to not have a lot of RNG and be eSports. WoT "eSports" is pretty laughable because not everyone is on equal footing with varying crew skill progress for example, the major RNG reticle and 15% pen variance. This game is meant to be enjoyed with randomness. I like it, I want it to stay like this. All my favorite games have quite a lot of RNG in them, it makes them fresh and unpredictable.

 

What I would suggest, is that losing should not be as punished as it does now. Missions should all lose the "win" condition. A loss should yield 75% of the XP/Credits that a win would yield. It would also reduce ranting about loss streaks because it won't really negatively impact you if you win or lose. They can even make it equal and simply reduce win bonus and make loss/win equal in terms of earnings. If I killed 2 tanks, dealt 1,5k damage and some spotting and the game says "nah, wasn't valiant effort" you get almost no pay for your doings.

 

I vote for equalize loss/wins in terms of earnings. That's all I would want to change atm.


Edited by Qnubis, 16 April 2018 - 08:59 PM.


DumbApe #10 Posted 17 April 2018 - 12:09 AM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 10189 battles
  • 149
  • [HRG]
  • Member since:
    08-10-2017
The experience this evening grinding my Black Prince wasn't a great advert for the game when time after time I had terrible luck with AFKs, two or even three players just not in the game at all - nil damage and no active spotting. :rolleyes: 

Old dog with new tricks ...  and a few tanks. Still mostly sh*te at this game

Bananas in aures habeo. Non possum te audiunt.

sixty_three #11 Posted 17 April 2018 - 06:08 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8292 battles
  • 691
  • Member since:
    04-29-2017

View PostGiveMeMyAccountBack, on 15 April 2018 - 10:16 PM, said:

Hey evry 1000 batlles I try to think out how to improve game experience without touching matchmaking (as WG do not want it to be changed). So here is my 9th attempt. Please support it if you agree. If you agree only with one point support this point, and tell yout friends/clanmates about this.

 

  1.  Top 1 player of losing team is not punished for his teammates incompetence. He do not lose ranked points (got -0, while worst player in victorious team got +0 so sum of points added to / removed from both teams remain untouched). Also Top1 player recieves experience and credits as if it was a draw not a lose, and his WR is not lowered by this lost match.
     
  2. Rankeds are open to play if you have 5000+ battles and you can pass calibration for ranked only in non-premium vechicle (thanks to this players who have low tier and bought 8tier premium will be unable to ruin others stats in rankeds
     
  3. Let us play 3 vs 3 battles on randoms, PLEASE!!! It's randoms anyway, and it will always be hard for nerves to play, so at least let us choose like we are choosing supremacy and encountered battle now, add 2 more buttons there: 3vs3 and 7vs7.
     

ONLY CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM!!! If you don't have anything wise to say, be quiet.:sceptic:

 

When I played Blitz, I never used the ranked battle mode.  I have therefore no comments to make about your points 1. and 2.

 

The 3 v 3 random mode suggestion is interesting.  It would favour stronger players as they’d have fewer teammates to carry.  That however means the WR % for the more skilful player would increase.  And for the weaker player it would drop.  A good, competitive player with an eye on their stats would therefore have to play most of their random battles in this 3 v 3 mode.  Unless that is, WR stats for these battles were not collected, as it was for the recent WarDuck event.  I think I’d try playing the game again if this is how this mode was implemented.

 


For my military knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury,
Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century;
But still in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-General.

reekoiler #12 Posted 17 April 2018 - 06:33 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 18863 battles
  • 1,192
  • [ACES_]
  • Member since:
    05-02-2017
10-a-side +/-9 MM
Knickerson, my apologies.

JJSawry #13 Posted 17 April 2018 - 08:14 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 24678 battles
  • 1,275
  • [EU]
  • Member since:
    11-21-2016

View PostGiveMeMyAccountBack, on 16 April 2018 - 03:18 PM, said:

@Titus_Scato
 
  1. 99% of games person with highest DMG also have most EXP especially when we talk about loosing team, and honestly for me it is not a problem, m8 be highest EXP as well
     
  2. Well none forces you to play ranked. You can abolish them for yourself by simple notplaying them.
     
  3. Yeah but, maybe you explain WHY do you think 3 vs 3 are bad idea? I never said it should be instead of 7vs7! Just another option to choose for people who want it! Why is it bothering you?

 

1. Definitely not happening as you're saying. Play a st1 or e75 and land bottom tier a lot. You'll often end up top xp with half the damage.

2.ranked first needs to be more enticing to play. More people playing=waiting less

3.it would reduce the amount of players from ranked queue into two separate queues. Even longer time. And 3v3 would need some map overhauling most likely.



soulinthemachine #14 Posted 17 April 2018 - 09:17 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 29360 battles
  • 714
  • Member since:
    04-02-2015

View Postsixty_three, on 17 April 2018 - 06:08 AM, said:

 

When I played Blitz, I never used the ranked battle mode.  I have therefore no comments to make about your points 1. and 2.

 

The 3 v 3 random mode suggestion is interesting.  It would favour stronger players as they’d have fewer teammates to carry.  That however means the WR % for the more skilful player would increase.  And for the weaker player it would drop.  A good, competitive player with an eye on their stats would therefore have to play most of their random battles in this 3 v 3 mode.  Unless that is, WR stats for these battles were not collected, as it was for the recent WarDuck event.  I think I’d try playing the game again if this is how this mode was implemented.

 

Then all the more skilled players would play 3  vs 3 and those battles would be harder to win. 



sixty_three #15 Posted 17 April 2018 - 02:26 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8292 battles
  • 691
  • Member since:
    04-29-2017

View Postsoulinthemachine, on 17 April 2018 - 09:17 AM, said:

Then all the more skilled players would play 3  vs 3 and those battles would be harder to win. 

 

Hmmm...good point.  I think this would likely be the case for higher tier battles, say VI+? 

For those where beginners and the fairly inexperienced predominate (I-III) I think it would favour the sealclubbers.

 

Thinking about the rock-scissors-paper game, a 3 v 3 mode would increase the likelihood of one team being really ill equipped to defeat the opposition.  I'm thinking here of a team with tanks with poor pen guns facing a team of heavily armoured opponents.  I could imagine "serious" tankers (not me then!) having yet more to moan about on the MM thread...

 

I'd like a game mode similar to the World of Ducks event, but featuring real tanks.  Not necessarily anything that exists in the game now.

So, no collated stats and randomly allocated vehicles.  Something for beginners to practice shooting, and casual gamers who just wanted a low-stress battle.  

 


For my military knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury,
Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century;
But still in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-General.

Titus_Scato #16 Posted 17 April 2018 - 03:39 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 36315 battles
  • 6,437
  • [1RTR]
  • Member since:
    10-18-2014

View Postsixty_three, on 17 April 2018 - 02:26 PM, said:

 

I'd like a game mode similar to the World of Ducks event, but featuring real tanks.  Not necessarily anything that exists in the game now.

So, no collated stats and randomly allocated vehicles.  Something for beginners to practice shooting, and casual gamers who just wanted a low-stress battle.  

 

 

That’s what WG should do with Tier I tanks.  Just give -0/+0 MM for Tier I, so they are always top tier.

 

I’d be happy for Tier II to be as Tier I is now - either all same tier, or bottom tier.



SAX0N_WARRI0R #17 Posted 18 April 2018 - 02:29 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 32525 battles
  • 202
  • [IRMA]
  • Member since:
    03-19-2013
my constructive criticism would be that you don't understand the game well enough to make any kind of informed decision on what would make the game better, 9k games just isn't that much. Really, the idea that a player on a losing team would not have their win rate affected by that loss is absurd, completely. Ranked has mechanisms to ensure players are playing with players at their level, also the changes you suggest would make MM times longer, no changes are needed. 3 vs 3 random battles would make MM times longer, so again no. 




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users