Jump to content


WOT vs GOLF , the +1 Explanation !


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

ABAOUIA #1 Posted 12 October 2019 - 04:53 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 46402 battles
  • 5,626
  • [ASYLM]
  • Member since:
    03-09-2015

So I chalenge every-body to look up the "Handicap-Rule" in the sport GOLF.

 

If you take away the "Handicap-Rule" , then the game will be a walkover for the best players and a said almost useless game for the worst players.

 

Now I know there is a difference here in WOT, cause the +2 / -2  basicly the "WOT-Handicap-Rule" ,  differs per match.

 

But if you take away the +2 / -2 you basicly take away the disadvantage the best players sometimes get.

 

And you also take away the advantage the worst players sometimes get.

 

Sure the above works 2 ways, so the best players also get the advantage and the worst the disadvantage, but if you make that difference smaller OR take it away completely wich PMM tanks do....

 

Then you basicly get the same story, as when you take away the "Handicap-Rule" in golf....

 

Think about that when you say it will make things better...

 



ATHFjman18 #2 Posted 12 October 2019 - 05:01 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 18351 battles
  • 7,276
  • [JOCO]
  • Member since:
    06-27-2014
I almost feel bad for the tier X seal that I wind up clubbing in a tier VIII tank. Almost...

Rotcat #3 Posted 12 October 2019 - 05:14 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 18814 battles
  • 104
  • [28-TL]
  • Member since:
    11-07-2013
It will make things better.

 

Acta non verba.


radonism #4 Posted 12 October 2019 - 05:17 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 16682 battles
  • 1,851
  • Member since:
    11-08-2014
Can they just give tier 8 PMM and leave it be?

Or, my choice, just leave it +2 / -2 and balance the outliers...
  

ABAOUIA #5 Posted 12 October 2019 - 05:29 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 46402 battles
  • 5,626
  • [ASYLM]
  • Member since:
    03-09-2015

View PostRotcat, on 12 October 2019 - 06:14 PM, said:

It will make things better.

 

For the better players it will...

 

For the worser players it will be worse...

 

Point of the explanation of the "Handicap-Rule"



ABAOUIA #6 Posted 12 October 2019 - 05:33 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 46402 battles
  • 5,626
  • [ASYLM]
  • Member since:
    03-09-2015

View Postradonism, on 12 October 2019 - 06:17 PM, said:

Can they just give tier 8 PMM and leave it be?

Or, my choice, just leave it +2 / -2 and balance the outliers...

 

Balancing tanks is needed, correct...

 

And with new MM there is a lot more ballancing needed...

 

But even without balancing the "Handicap-Rule" is very needed imo



Dyslexsticks #7 Posted 12 October 2019 - 05:46 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 34294 battles
  • 10,023
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014
I guess that makes the Cruiser II, KV-2, and 183 good drivers. Hole in one!

Did you manage to stand my post? You might like: My Twitter (fixed!)My Xbox to YouTube Guide


deadmeat1027 #8 Posted 12 October 2019 - 05:47 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 16808 battles
  • 484
  • [PCP]
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013
Good example! A handicap is needed since there is no way to match based on skills. 

If you are over 25 years old, play on the XBOX, and are tired of running solo in MP games, you are welcome to stop by and check out Pork Chop Platoon - an over 25 XBOX only community. www.fourm.porkchopplatoon.com

 

 


T00_Late_Checkm8 #9 Posted 12 October 2019 - 05:51 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 20299 battles
  • 2,506
  • [CCNL]
  • Member since:
    01-21-2016
wot doesnt have best or worst players. it has a giant heap of average players that are all equally inflicted by rng.

3 MOE: IS-6 - Aufkl Panther - Tiger 131 - Jackson - Pz.V/IV. 


lI_Redline_Il #10 Posted 12 October 2019 - 06:48 PM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 2333 battles
  • 56
  • Member since:
    11-01-2016

View PostABAOUIA, on 12 October 2019 - 04:53 PM, said:

So I chalenge every-body to look up the "Handicap-Rule" in the sport GOLF.

 

If you take away the "Handicap-Rule" , then the game will be a walkover for the best players and a said almost useless game for the worst players.

 

Now I know there is a difference here in WOT, cause the +2 / -2  basicly the "WOT-Handicap-Rule" ,  differs per match.

 

But if you take away the +2 / -2 you basicly take away the disadvantage the best players sometimes get.

 

And you also take away the advantage the worst players sometimes get.

 

Sure the above works 2 ways, so the best players also get the advantage and the worst the disadvantage, but if you make that difference smaller OR take it away completely wich PMM tanks do....

 

Then you basicly get the same story, as when you take away the "Handicap-Rule" in golf....

 

Think about that when you say it will make things better...

 

 

So much faulty reasoning here I don't know where to start..  But I'll give it a shot:  

 

"So I chalenge every-body to look up the "Handicap-Rule" in the sport GOLF.

 

If you take away the "Handicap-Rule" , then the game will be a walkover for the best players and a said almost useless game for the worst players."

 

Apples and oranges comparison and not even a proper analogy (rules vs tools).  A better comparison: imagine a sport or video game where some players have much better tools than others.  Imagine prime Roger Federer playing one of his peers with a modern racket while his opponent is forced to play with a wooden racket from the 1960's.  Imagine prime Tiger Woods being given a sci-fi golf club that is magnitudes of order more powerful than that of his opponents.  Now also imagine a game about jet fighters like oh I don't know Ace Combat or something and some players have F-22 Raptors while others get the F-4 Phantoms from the Vietnam era and then they're stuck together on a small map and told to destroy each other.. 

 

(Bad) Argument: Oh but the Phantom could occasionally hurt a Raptor therefore it means it can compete.  Let me show you some hyperselective data and use that to draw general conclusions way beyond the scope of that data   :facepalm:     #missing the point, no context (eg was the F22 distracted?), can compete =/= competitive, omitting vast amounts of other important criteria & considerations, ie who can compete, in what machine, how often are they able to compete, what is the player's rating, how does the average player compare to that, what are the success vs failure ratios, how competitive is that machine compared to one that is closer in class and technology to the other machine, etc etc 

 

"But if you take away the +2 / -2 you basicly take away the disadvantage the best players sometimes get."

 

But if you take away the +2/-2 you basically take away the advantage the best players sometimes get.  

 

"And you also take away the advantage the worst players sometimes get."

 

And you also take away their disadvantage... Speaking of advantages, how often do they get this advantage?  Is the mm really 33.3% / 33.3% / 33.3%?  Please show me the data that proves that it is.  Who puts tier 9/10's at a massive power parity disadvantage?  Are there tier 11/12's to keep them in check?  Of course not because this turns into a reductio ad absurdum argument.  ie who would check the tier 12's, tier 14's and so on to infinity.  So certain people always get to enjoy +2/+1/-1 or even +2/+1/0.

Also this argument ignores the ethical side of the question, which is why even give a massive advantage/disadvantage to anyone to begin with? Why not simply have better vehicle parity for everyone involved and simply let SKILLS dictate the outcome of a game??   *crickets*  I haven't seen anyone even come close to addressing this from a moral pov, using reason and arguing in good faith and actually addressing opposing points.  Instead it always regresses back to juvenile insults and nastiness (git gud, muh challenge implying as if others don't want challenges in life, etc) and straw man arguments that don't even address correctly the opponents' points. 

 

"Sure the above works 2 ways, so the best players also get the advantage and the worst the disadvantage, but if you make that difference smaller OR take it away completely wich PMM tanks do....

 

Then you basicly get the same story, as when you take away the "Handicap-Rule" in golf...."

 

Again rules vs tools and apples vs oranges.  But beyond that, there's absolutely ZERO proof of this and ZERO logic to back it up.  If anything, if the tools are at parity then the individual's skills come to the forefront, which is what competitive online gaming SHOULD be about.  

I still haven't seen anyone refute this logic or come close because it is simply solid logic.  All that I've gotten in response so far is git gud insults, unicum domination conspiracy theories, and muh challenge arguments used as veiled insults assuming that people who simply want slightly less vehicle disparities are somehow not into "challenges".

 

 


Edited by lI_Redline_Il, 12 October 2019 - 08:42 PM.


SightlessRogue0 #11 Posted 12 October 2019 - 06:52 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 19142 battles
  • 2,697
  • Member since:
    05-16-2017
The +/- 1 simply increases the pleasure of playing, it has no other goals. WG should have put it on permanent for at least a year or two, which would have curbed hemorrhaging and completely revived the game. Now I hope he will definitely do it at the next update.

I use Google translator for english language

Lots of juggling in french text, sometimes translator in trouble with that. If you do not understand what I write, tell me.


El Materdor43 #12 Posted 12 October 2019 - 08:28 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 32733 battles
  • 8,697
  • [HACKS]
  • Member since:
    03-02-2014

View PostSightlessRogue0, on 12 October 2019 - 01:52 PM, said:

The +/- 1 simply increases the pleasure of playing, it has no other goals. WG should have put it on permanent for at least a year or two, which would have curbed hemorrhaging and completely revived the game. Now I hope he will definitely do it at the next update.

I thought it was to negate as many of the inequities of being -2 in games. There are many reasons why the game has lost many players. You weren’t here for many of the things that precipitated it. To speculate that a 2 tier spread will “completely revive the game” is baseless, without fact or data to back it up. 
 

You do yourself no favors with posts like this 


   

 

                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                 

 


El Materdor43 #13 Posted 12 October 2019 - 08:32 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 32733 battles
  • 8,697
  • [HACKS]
  • Member since:
    03-02-2014

View PostSightlessRogue0, on 12 October 2019 - 01:52 PM, said:

The +/- 1 simply increases the pleasure of playing, it has no other goals. WG should have put it on permanent for at least a year or two, which would have curbed hemorrhaging and completely revived the game. Now I hope he will definitely do it at the next update.

In fact, allow me to give an example of a more thought out approach. 
 

In my opinion, the game has lost players due to poor decisions by WG. 
 

It is my opinion that bringing out new content, maps and tanks based on drawings or actual production models, will go farther in bringing back players than anything else. 
 

Please note the bolded text above


   

 

                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                 

 


El Materdor43 #14 Posted 12 October 2019 - 08:36 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 32733 battles
  • 8,697
  • [HACKS]
  • Member since:
    03-02-2014

View PostlI_Redline_Il, on 12 October 2019 - 01:48 PM, said:

 

So much faulty reasoning here I don't know where to start..  But I'll give it a shot:  

 

"So I chalenge every-body to look up the "Handicap-Rule" in the sport GOLF.

 

If you take away the "Handicap-Rule" , then the game will be a walkover for the best players and a said almost useless game for the worst players."

 

Apples and oranges comparison and not even a proper analogy (rules vs tools).  A better comparison: imagine a sport or video game where some players have much better tools than others.  Imagine prime Roger Federer playing one of his peers with a modern racket while his opponent is forced to play with a wooden racket from the 1960's.  Imagine prime Tiger Woods being given a sci-fi golf club that is magnitudes of order more powerful than that of his opponents.  Now also imagine a game about jet fighters like oh I don't know Ace Combat or something and some players have F-22 Raptors while others get the F-4 Phantoms from the Vietnam era and then they're stuck together on a small map and told to destroy each other.. 

 

(Bad) Argument: Oh but the Phantom could occasionally hurt a Raptor therefore it means it can compete.  Let me show you some hyperselective data and use that to draw general conclusions way beyond the scope of that data   :facepalm:     #missing the point, no context (eg was the F22 distracted?), can compete =/= competitive, omitting vast amounts of other important criteria & considerations, ie who can compete, in what machine, how often are they able to compete, what is the player's rating, how does the average player compare to that, what are the success vs failure ratios, how competitive is that machine compared to one that is closer in class and technology to the other machine, etc etc 

 

"But if you take away the +2 / -2 you basicly take away the disadvantage the best players sometimes get."

 

But if you take away the +2/-2 you basically take away the advantage the best players sometimes get.  

 

"And you also take away the advantage the worst players sometimes get."

 

And you also take away their disadvantage... Speaking of advantages, how often do they get this advantage?  Is the mm really 33.3% / 33.3% / 33.3%?  Please show me the data that proves that it is.  Who puts tier 9/10's at a massive power parity disadvantage?  Are there tier 11/12's to keep them in check?  Of course not because this turns into a reductio ad absurdum argument.  ie who would check the tier 12's, tier 14's and so on to infinity.  So certain people always get to enjoy +1/-1 or even 0/+1.

Also this argument ignores the ethical side of the question, which is why even give a massive advantage/disadvantage to anyone to begin with? Why not simply have better vehicle parity for everyone involved and simply let SKILLS dictate the outcome of a game??   *crickets*  I haven't seen anyone even come close to addressing this from a moral pov, using reason and arguing in good faith and actually addressing opposing points.  Instead it always regresses back to juvenile insults and nastiness (git gud, muh challenge implying as if others don't want challenges in life, etc) and straw man arguments that don't even address correctly the opponents' points. 

 

"Sure the above works 2 ways, so the best players also get the advantage and the worst the disadvantage, but if you make that difference smaller OR take it away completely wich PMM tanks do....

 

Then you basicly get the same story, as when you take away the "Handicap-Rule" in golf...."

 

Again rules vs tools and apples vs oranges.  But beyond that, there's absolutely ZERO proof of this and ZERO logic to back it up.  If anything, if the tools are at parity then the individual's skills come to the forefront, which is what competitive online gaming SHOULD be about.  

I still haven't seen anyone refute this logic or come close because it is simply solid logic.  All that I've gotten in response so far is git gud insults, unicum domination conspiracy theories, and muh challenge arguments used as veiled insults assuming that people who simply want slightly less vehicle disparities are somehow not into "challenges".

 

 

The ethics part of this over-worded post is perhaps the funniest one in all these threads. It’s a video game. Not a movie or advertisement that promotes theft, belittled any gender or ethnic group. 
 

Ethics?  I guess nothing is off the table now 


   

 

                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                 

 


ABAOUIA #15 Posted 12 October 2019 - 11:20 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 46402 battles
  • 5,626
  • [ASYLM]
  • Member since:
    03-09-2015

View PostlI_Redline_Il, on 12 October 2019 - 07:48 PM, said:

 

So much faulty reasoning here I don't know where to start..  But I'll give it a shot:  

 

"So I chalenge every-body to look up the "Handicap-Rule" in the sport GOLF.

 

If you take away the "Handicap-Rule" , then the game will be a walkover for the best players and a said almost useless game for the worst players."

 

Apples and oranges comparison and not even a proper analogy (rules vs tools).  A better comparison: imagine a sport or video game where some players have much better tools than others.  Imagine prime Roger Federer playing one of his peers with a modern racket while his opponent is forced to play with a wooden racket from the 1960's.  Imagine prime Tiger Woods being given a sci-fi golf club that is magnitudes of order more powerful than that of his opponents.  Now also imagine a game about jet fighters like oh I don't know Ace Combat or something and some players have F-22 Raptors while others get the F-4 Phantoms from the Vietnam era and then they're stuck together on a small map and told to destroy each other.. 

 

(Bad) Argument: Oh but the Phantom could occasionally hurt a Raptor therefore it means it can compete.  Let me show you some hyperselective data and use that to draw general conclusions way beyond the scope of that data   :facepalm:     #missing the point, no context (eg was the F22 distracted?), can compete =/= competitive, omitting vast amounts of other important criteria & considerations, ie who can compete, in what machine, how often are they able to compete, what is the player's rating, how does the average player compare to that, what are the success vs failure ratios, how competitive is that machine compared to one that is closer in class and technology to the other machine, etc etc 

 

"But if you take away the +2 / -2 you basicly take away the disadvantage the best players sometimes get."

 

But if you take away the +2/-2 you basically take away the advantage the best players sometimes get.  

 

"And you also take away the advantage the worst players sometimes get."

 

And you also take away their disadvantage... Speaking of advantages, how often do they get this advantage?  Is the mm really 33.3% / 33.3% / 33.3%?  Please show me the data that proves that it is.  Who puts tier 9/10's at a massive power parity disadvantage?  Are there tier 11/12's to keep them in check?  Of course not because this turns into a reductio ad absurdum argument.  ie who would check the tier 12's, tier 14's and so on to infinity.  So certain people always get to enjoy +2/+1/-1 or even +2/+1/0.

Also this argument ignores the ethical side of the question, which is why even give a massive advantage/disadvantage to anyone to begin with? Why not simply have better vehicle parity for everyone involved and simply let SKILLS dictate the outcome of a game??   *crickets*  I haven't seen anyone even come close to addressing this from a moral pov, using reason and arguing in good faith and actually addressing opposing points.  Instead it always regresses back to juvenile insults and nastiness (git gud, muh challenge implying as if others don't want challenges in life, etc) and straw man arguments that don't even address correctly the opponents' points. 

 

"Sure the above works 2 ways, so the best players also get the advantage and the worst the disadvantage, but if you make that difference smaller OR take it away completely wich PMM tanks do....

 

Then you basicly get the same story, as when you take away the "Handicap-Rule" in golf...."

 

Again rules vs tools and apples vs oranges.  But beyond that, there's absolutely ZERO proof of this and ZERO logic to back it up.  If anything, if the tools are at parity then the individual's skills come to the forefront, which is what competitive online gaming SHOULD be about.  

I still haven't seen anyone refute this logic or come close because it is simply solid logic.  All that I've gotten in response so far is git gud insults, unicum domination conspiracy theories, and muh challenge arguments used as veiled insults assuming that people who simply want slightly less vehicle disparities are somehow not into "challenges".

 

 

 

Not even sure if you understand the "GOLF" part or if you replied to my post cause your way up there in space if you ask me.

 

But let me react to 1 of your socalled solutions to why I'm basicly talking fairy-tales.

 

Rodger Federer and his match with the oponent.

 

Sure he will win with the super racket.

 

But you forgot the point of the "GOLF" , there is also the game where he has to play with the '60s wooden racket and at that point his oponent has the super racket ;)

 

Thats what +2 is about and where the link comes in with the "GOLF".

 

What +1 creates is simple you give Rodger the same racket as his oponent...

 

There ya go, you see the problem ? On a bad day Rodger will loose some games...

But in the end it will be 9-10 game - set and match for Rodger...

 

Basicly this 1 brakedown comment can be aplies to all your other "better" examples. (You bring in air-plaines ? Realy ?) 

 

Cause you only highlight 1 side of the story, that never works lol

 

And yes I shorted the "GOLF-handicap" into "GOLF" just to make sure I'm clear about that ;)

 

Also questioning if you looked up what and why it is ?

 

I do agree the percentages for being top tier in sertain tiers are messed up, but I never talked about that so don't push numbers in I haven't mentioned and rethink why it's messed up for a while now.......

 

Merc contracts might have something to do with that ;)

 

Trying to be smart is not working when you only highlight 1 side, I highlighted both and gave an example of a sport where the handicap works to make all players pretty equal... 

 

Sure material quality has something to do with performance, but where you here when there where treads of players who where 3 marking stock tanks ?

 

Just because they where that good and wanted a challenge ? Equipment / Skills / Prammo it all helps...

 

But it can only bring you to a certain position in the game and from that position the player quality will decide if you can move on or get stuck at that position.

 

+1 and Specially +0 will make the difference between those players much much more noticible because of the above reasons.



lI_Redline_Il #16 Posted 13 October 2019 - 01:57 AM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 2333 battles
  • 56
  • Member since:
    11-01-2016

View PostABAOUIA, on 12 October 2019 - 11:20 PM, said:

 

Not even sure if you understand the "GOLF" part or if you replied to my post cause your way up there in space if you ask me.

 

But let me react to 1 of your socalled solutions to why I'm basicly talking fairy-tales.

 

Rodger Federer and his match with the oponent.

 

Sure he will win with the super racket.

 

But you forgot the point of the "GOLF" , there is also the game where he has to play with the '60s wooden racket and at that point his oponent has the super racket ;)

 

Thats what +2 is about and where the link comes in with the "GOLF".

 

What +1 creates is simple you give Rodger the same racket as his oponent...

 

There ya go, you see the problem ? On a bad day Rodger will loose some games...

But in the end it will be 9-10 game - set and match for Rodger...

 

Basicly this 1 brakedown comment can be aplies to all your other "better" examples. (You bring in air-plaines ? Realy ?) 

 

Cause you only highlight 1 side of the story, that never works lol

 

And yes I shorted the "GOLF-handicap" into "GOLF" just to make sure I'm clear about that ;)

 

Also questioning if you looked up what and why it is ?

 

I do agree the percentages for being top tier in sertain tiers are messed up, but I never talked about that so don't push numbers in I haven't mentioned and rethink why it's messed up for a while now.......

 

Merc contracts might have something to do with that ;)

 

Trying to be smart is not working when you only highlight 1 side, I highlighted both and gave an example of a sport where the handicap works to make all players pretty equal... 

 

Sure material quality has something to do with performance, but where you here when there where treads of players who where 3 marking stock tanks ?

 

Just because they where that good and wanted a challenge ? Equipment / Skills / Prammo it all helps...

 

But it can only bring you to a certain position in the game and from that position the player quality will decide if you can move on or get stuck at that position.

 

+1 and Specially +0 will make the difference between those players much much more noticible because of the above reasons.

 

The Federer/Woods examples were to illustrate what happens when you give a unicum a 'tools' advantage.  Given enough practice, Federer will still do great with a wooden racket against a bad tennis player with a modern graphite composite.  And likewise a bad tennis player will not do so hot against a pro even if he had a modern racket and the pro a 60's racket (given enough practice).  But a skills-focused competition should avoid gimmicky material handicaps like this to begin with.  Or at least seek to minimize them (+1/-1).  I'm not sure why this simple concept is so difficult to grasp.. 

 

And I think if you read my post in its entirety you'll notice that that was only one part of my argument.  I went on to say that players in any game can also be given some advantage in 'tools' and I used a popular air combat simulator as an analogy to WoT (eg F22 vs F4, eg E75 vs Tiger 1).  Likewise roles can be reversed and all these players can be given disadvantages and that is implicit in my point..     

 

I made those points here: 

__________________________________________________________________________________________

 

"But if you take away the +2 / -2 you basicly take away the disadvantage the best players sometimes get."

 

But if you take away the +2/-2 you basically take away the advantage the best players sometimes get.  

 

"And you also take away the advantage the worst players sometimes get."

 

And you also take away their disadvantage...

________________________________________________________________________________

 

So not sure why you say that I didn't highlight that when I literally highlighted it in my post while showing you the counters to your points.  Speaking of 'one-sided' and 'smart'.   

 

Moving on..  The argument revolves around which format is more competitive and that is where I pointed out that big disparities in 'tools' during matchmaking can muddy the water and move the competition away from a skills focus to something else entirely.  Hence my point that material advantage OR disadvantage doesn't change the dynamic of individual skills.  Good players will be good, average players will be average and bad players will still be bad.  The only thing you're doing is shifting the material handicaps around from match to match.  It doesn't make the bad players any more competitive when they are +2 than it does the good players any less competitive when they are -2.  It does however raise questions as to whether there is an equal opportunity to succeed in a battle irrespective of material qualitative advantages/disadvantages and it does muddy the water and the 'ethical' aspect of this debate.  

 

The final point is that I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that it will be less competitive when there is greater parity in 'tools'.  Not one iota of evidence.  Many people keep insisting on this as if it's some point of fact when it's anything but.  Whereas there is much evidence to the contrary.  Countless other competitive games and their MLG pro circuits do not give massive material advantages OR disadvantages to their players either way.  And these happen to be some of the most brutally competitive MLG circuits in the world.  This is why I have repeatedly argued that when you minimize the tank tier power disparities, ie players' tools, during the mm, it is the skills which come to the forefront and therefore the game will become much more competitive.  The idea that unicums will somehow take advantage and dominate much more in +1/-1 is pure conspiracy theory with zero evidence.  In the absence of a +2, the unicum will be marginally more of an unchecked threat, but also in the absence of a -2, the unicum will also be marginally less of an unchecked threat.  He can hurt more and he can be hurt more.  The pendulum swings both ways.  So your last sentence does not logically follow. 



ABAOUIA #17 Posted 13 October 2019 - 02:55 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 46402 battles
  • 5,626
  • [ASYLM]
  • Member since:
    03-09-2015
For a moment I thought you saw what I meant .

That was when you said that when you level all players down to simular tiers it would just become a matter of how skilled the player is.

But I guess where gonna keep our own opinion..

But I did not insult you, I did however missed the part where you said that the roles could be reversed :(

I can blame that simply to the fact that I'm sick, having a fever and am using medication for that atm, but that's basicly the same as saying sorry I was drunk so I could not help myself....

But when I read your post about the airplaines and % numbers I was lost in what you where saying, might be a popular game but not for me, I play tanks...

Ive never talked about numbers or equipment, not the point of my tread, point was to show that if you never give a disadvantage to a great player he will always do better then others..

And vice versa, the game will not be more compettitive , it will become more static and the better players will shine more overall messured.

But that's my opinion , if I could make WG adjust my MM I would love to be :

-2 tiers down 5 times
-1. tier down 2 times
Same tier 1 time
+1 tier 1 time
+2 tiers. 1 time

Out of 10 games, so that others can be the oposite. But then your talking skill based games, wich btw is not mine eighter cause I ain't no super uni.

But MM issn't gonna do that or will it be skillbased :(


MaximusBoonie #18 Posted 14 October 2019 - 08:47 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 63571 battles
  • 530
  • Member since:
    09-14-2013
Just make all the tiers have the same stats. That will fix it. To me unbalanced play is where the fun factor comes from.

allhavoc #19 Posted 14 October 2019 - 09:31 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 50343 battles
  • 2,314
  • [10SR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

Golf analogy makes no sense to me.  In golf, players are assigned a handicap based on their skill.  In WoT, players are just randomly put as top/bottom/middle tier.

 

But I do hope we keep +2/-2.  I want variety to keep me entertained.

 

Maybe, +1/-1 is best for players that want to turn their brains off and shoot red tanks until RNG decides a victor.  I don't see the appeal.  'Player retention' seems like a weak argument, seeing as we all have been playing +2/-2 for five years.

 

 


[10SR]  


Potato QQ #20 Posted 14 October 2019 - 09:41 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 21935 battles
  • 4,639
  • [FEN1X]
  • Member since:
    04-15-2014

Players are assigned a Player Rating and Players are assigned a WN8 which both can be used to determine skills. The only problem is that stats can be manipulated by playing in a platoon and over performing tanks.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users