Jump to content


Suggested changes from a long term player


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

HoggieBear84 #21 Posted 19 January 2019 - 10:55 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 7478 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    11-09-2013
This is more effort than I'd thought it'd be.  I can't be bothered to reply to every sarcastic flame comment.  The issues are in the original post and I hope any devs looking at it can see where I'm coming from.

PhantomBlckGoat #22 Posted 20 January 2019 - 12:38 AM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 3576 battles
  • 69
  • Member since:
    06-25-2017

View PostTurboBeaver, on 19 January 2019 - 12:01 PM, said:

 

2500 battles isn’t enough to understand this game. Neither is 6000, especially when a high percentage of battles are in premiums. A lot is learned in this game through the grind. Jumping up to high tiers before you’ve learned things like how to angle your armour and how spotting and camo work can be a detriment to your team. Many of the purchasable premiums hide bad habits through being slightly better for your dollar and in using them, one would only really learn those specific tanks and not the larger concepts that cause those 15-3 routes. 

 

Sorry but no, 2500-3000 games is enough. If you can’t figure out weak points or how to best use certain vehicles by that time, it’s kind of on you. I was awful at this game for probably the first 1000 or so games, but all it takes is looking at some tutorials online to understand whatever is giving you trouble. The internet is a great tool and it shouldn’t be on the rest of your hard-working team to repeatedly carry you if you constantly refuse to learn. I won’t argue with you about some premium tanks being pay-to-win, but to say all of them are that glaringly idiot-proof is just wrong, unless we’re talking about the Defender or Chrysler K. Even then it would be naive to assume the majority of people own those vehicles, and it would be even more naive to assume all new players are buying premium tanks at all. I wasn’t even referring to new players in my first comment, I was referring to the players who have 2500, 3000, sometimes even 5000+ games under their belt sporting sub-48% win rates and still play like they’re blindfolded. By that time I don’t really think we can call them “new players.”

PHE0NIX RIS1NG #23 Posted 20 January 2019 - 02:05 AM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 11455 battles
  • 219
  • [D7CAV]
  • Member since:
    06-19-2017

View PostTurboBeaver, on 19 January 2019 - 10:55 PM, said:

 

Let’s  say there is 40 maps including variants, average 3 basic match types per map( standard, death match, assault and encounter. Some maps dont have all types) and 2 sides per match. That’s 240 matches just to get minimum one game, per map, per side, per game type. Say you win at 50%, there another 240 matches just to have one win per side per map per game type. (480 total so far). Then each class of tank plays differently, 5 classes of tanks so that is 2400 battles just to have 1 winning battle experience. Then you could account for various other factors such and survival rate, that each nations tanks in a class play differently, variations in MM like whether your top tier or bottom tier, and whether your platooning or not. And after all that it’s just 1 battle where you have a winning strategy maybe that doesn’t work the next time so you got to come up with something else. To me the numbers just get huge. This is a deep game and I used to think however many games I’d played were a lot and that I knew what I was doing then I use a different tank or a new tech tree comes in and there is always something to learn. 

So long story short to understand the game you need as many battles as it takes for you to learn the game, then think you know everything, then realize that you don’t.

 

good points but I’d also add knowing your tank is equally critical

TurboBeaver #24 Posted 20 January 2019 - 05:43 PM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 16008 battles
  • 14
  • Member since:
    02-08-2014

View PostPhantomBlckGoat, on 20 January 2019 - 12:38 AM, said:

 

Sorry but no, 2500-3000 games is enough. If you can’t figure out weak points or how to best use certain vehicles by that time, it’s kind of on you. I was awful at this game for probably the first 1000 or so games, but all it takes is looking at some tutorials online to understand whatever is giving you trouble. The internet is a great tool and it shouldn’t be on the rest of your hard-working team to repeatedly carry you if you constantly refuse to learn. I won’t argue with you about some premium tanks being pay-to-win, but to say all of them are that glaringly idiot-proof is just wrong, unless we’re talking about the Defender or Chrysler K. Even then it would be naive to assume the majority of people own those vehicles, and it would be even more naive to assume all new players are buying premium tanks at all. I wasn’t even referring to new players in my first comment, I was referring to the players who have 2500, 3000, sometimes even 5000+ games under their belt sporting sub-48% win rates and still play like they’re blindfolded. By that time I don’t really think we can call them “new players.”

 

 To me 2600 battle is still a new player. If they've streaked up a tech tree or 2 they maybe have one maybe 2 tier 10 hardly any tier 9 and if you look at their profile and a lot of their games are played in tier 8 premiums, you can compare and see that 4 out of 5 non premium heavys they play most have a losing record. You could also see that their most recent purchase of a premium tank is of a play style they're not familiar with so they've taken a nice IS-6 and given it a nice 48% win rate. I guess my point its at there are too many variables within this game to blanket say people with a bad win rate should be put into a "minor league". I also think that the new player experience should be focused on improving skills and not rushing up to highers tiers through free xp or premium purchases.

PHE0NIX RIS1NG #25 Posted 20 January 2019 - 09:19 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 11455 battles
  • 219
  • [D7CAV]
  • Member since:
    06-19-2017
Win rate is team based not individual based... bad example. MM is problematic and everyone speaks to that. You can still three star a tank or get mastery badge with bad team... Assuming you play a fair amount of games on a given tank, if you have a star it shows that player has a decent idea how to play that vehicle. 

PhantomBlckGoat #26 Posted 21 January 2019 - 01:55 AM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 3576 battles
  • 69
  • Member since:
    06-25-2017

View PostTurboBeaver, on 20 January 2019 - 05:43 PM, said:

 

 To me 2600 battle is still a new player. If they've streaked up a tech tree or 2 they maybe have one maybe 2 tier 10 hardly any tier 9 and if you look at their profile and a lot of their games are played in tier 8 premiums, you can compare and see that 4 out of 5 non premium heavys they play most have a losing record. You could also see that their most recent purchase of a premium tank is of a play style they're not familiar with so they've taken a nice IS-6 and given it a nice 48% win rate. I guess my point its at there are too many variables within this game to blanket say people with a bad win rate should be put into a "minor league". I also think that the new player experience should be focused on improving skills and not rushing up to highers tiers through free xp or premium purchases.

 

You completely missed the point. Most new players aren’t buying premium tanks, there’s no excuse for players averaging 200 damage in a tier 8 tank with over 2500+ games. That “new player experience” you talk of is already happening for probably 75-80% of new players, I’d guruantee the thought of dropping real money on premium time/tanks probably hasn’t even crossed the majority of new players’ minds. And thanks to the cost of many of the tier VI and above tanks, most of those new players are likely sticking to just one or two tech tree lines for a while, so there’s no explaining away how someone could be completely incompetent after playing a significant number of games with a select few tanks. The only true variable for players who have played over 2500-3000+ games is learning, if you fail to learn or improve anything after that much time it’s completely on you, and other played shouldn’t be punished for that.

TurboBeaver #27 Posted 21 January 2019 - 04:53 AM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 16008 battles
  • 14
  • Member since:
    02-08-2014

View PostPhantomBlckGoat, on 21 January 2019 - 01:55 AM, said:

 

You completely missed the point. Most new players aren’t buying premium tanks, there’s no excuse for players averaging 200 damage in a tier 8 tank with over 2500+ games. That “new player experience” you talk of is already happening for probably 75-80% of new players, I’d guruantee the thought of dropping real money on premium time/tanks probably hasn’t even crossed the majority of new players’ minds. And thanks to the cost of many of the tier VI and above tanks, most of those new players are likely sticking to just one or two tech tree lines for a while, so there’s no explaining away how someone could be completely incompetent after playing a significant number of games with a select few tanks. The only true variable for players who have played over 2500-3000+ games is learning, if you fail to learn or improve anything after that much time it’s completely on you, and other played shouldn’t be punished for that.

 

I guess I was too subtle. Anyways I didn’t miss your point it’s just a really bad idea. Separating the player base because you think you aren’t a bad player is just a bad idea. You lack the experience in a variety of the free to play tanks at lower tiers and that makes me question whether you understand what it’s like to play this game without money. Once you’ve put away your wallet and progressed a little further you’ll realize the disadvantage of free to play and how money can make bad players look good.

PhantomBlckGoat #28 Posted 21 January 2019 - 08:54 PM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 3576 battles
  • 69
  • Member since:
    06-25-2017

View PostTurboBeaver, on 21 January 2019 - 04:53 AM, said:

 

I guess I was too subtle. Anyways I didn’t miss your point it’s just a really bad idea. Separating the player base because you think you aren’t a bad player is just a bad idea. You lack the experience in a variety of the free to play tanks at lower tiers and that makes me question whether you understand what it’s like to play this game without money. Once you’ve put away your wallet and progressed a little further you’ll realize the disadvantage of free to play and how money can make bad players look good.

 

Or maybe I just didn’t like playing lower tiers because everything feels too similar and the map rotation is kind of limited? I played a number of those lower tier vehicles when I started out as a beginner so obviously those stats aren’t going to be very good. Also not sure where you’re getting the idea I’m some type of wallet warrior spamming premium ammo all over the place, I don’t run a premium account and many of the premium tanks I have were bought on sales so your point is kind of invalid. In fact, my top 4 favorite tanks (Tortoise, Badger, M4A3E2, and E75) are all tech tree tree vehicles that I do fairly well in, so that doesn’t really help your argument here. I think the fact you immediately went to personal attacks just shows you really have nothing constructive to say to make your point anymore. I also never claimed I was a unicum at this game but to say a 54% win rate is “bad” seems a bit inaccurate, especially when we have people with 45% win rates that make you wonder if they even know that RT is the fire button.

PHE0NIX RIS1NG #29 Posted 21 January 2019 - 09:06 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 11455 battles
  • 219
  • [D7CAV]
  • Member since:
    06-19-2017
Win rate is a poor reference for individual effort... nobody can account for team quality. If you base skill on win percentage with this current MM then I would suggest reevaluating ones perspective in this game. 

PhantomBlckGoat #30 Posted 21 January 2019 - 09:19 PM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 3576 battles
  • 69
  • Member since:
    06-25-2017

View PostC3NTURI0N PR1ME, on 21 January 2019 - 09:06 PM, said:

Win rate is a poor reference for individual effort... nobody can account for team quality. If you base skill on win percentage with this current MM then I would suggest reevaluating ones perspective in this game. 

 

Never suggested win percentage to be the determining factor. I think average damage/assisted damage should be, this would prevent streaks of countless 15-3 beat downs where one side is 50% tomatoes with 400 average damage against teams with most players in the 900-1000 range (what I like to call the competent range).

PHE0NIX RIS1NG #31 Posted 22 January 2019 - 12:39 AM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 11455 battles
  • 219
  • [D7CAV]
  • Member since:
    06-19-2017

View PostPhantomBlckGoat, on 21 January 2019 - 09:19 PM, said:

 

Never suggested win percentage to be the determining factor. I think average damage/assisted damage should be, this would prevent streaks of countless 15-3 beat downs where one side is 50% tomatoes with 400 average damage against teams with most players in the 900-1000 range (what I like to call the competent range).

 

It’s rare when I see a solid match with the game lasting until 2-3 tanks left. It’s horrible how many games are blowouts. I have no idea what factors determine team balance but as we know it’s broken badly at this point. PC is making big changes to matchmaking at least for team balance and I hope we see that here. 

P6X330 #32 Posted 22 January 2019 - 01:47 AM

    Major

  • Supertest - PS4
  • 15298 battles
  • 3,952
  • [AMXS]
  • Member since:
    07-02-2017

There is no preset amount of experience required to become a good player and to know the maps;

 

Some players will learn the maps in no time, and they will be top players in 5k games. Other players will need a lot more time.


                Bad teams are in the same battle. Good teams work together! don't complain, contribute.

 


gregori190 #33 Posted 23 January 2019 - 01:39 AM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 19566 battles
  • 10
  • [RECON]
  • Member since:
    03-29-2018
My view is similar about light tanks, they are simply ridiculous and run around the battle field like gods. Clips are becoming more problematic as tanks are tracked and taken out in a few seconds for points farming. Preferred ranking needs to go. Tier 7 tanks have no place in a battle with Tier 9, the power/tech gap is too wide, it is just stupid.

decapolis97 #34 Posted 23 January 2019 - 06:47 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 69247 battles
  • 364
  • [WOTU]
  • Member since:
    08-08-2013
This is not Left 4 Dead, the game is run on a centralized server, I don't believe that cheating is possible. 
I'm only as good as the map they give me.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users