tango_delta

Verified Tanker [EU]
  • Content count

    512
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About tango_delta

  • Rank
    Owns 500 Farms

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Interests
    stronk tektiks
  • Server
    EU
  1. I'm not really disagreeing but for me the game has been unplayable after the hesh guns and broken tier 10. Getting rid of tier 10 TDs, getting rid of prem ammo, getting rid of of type 5 and bringing back old physics would already cure a ton of big issues in wot. The idea of vanilla wot is not really to roll back time but to roll back some features. Getting all those shitty maps tanks map back along with the old arty and mm would be just retarded decisions. But for example getting rid of hesh guns along with tier 10 TDs would allow more aggressive gameplay when single mistake won't mean getting oneshotted by bushkemper. Type 5 and its prem ammo is just one of the worst things you can do to this game. Removing all that horrible shit would effectively remove oneshotting from top tier gameplay which has 0 negatives. Old physics would kill boosting and would help massively with map balancing. It would also help bringing back really mobile small tanks. It would also help medium tanks when in 1vs1 situation the td can not escape as easily as it can with later physics. Getting stuck to terrain was shitty when it happened with old physics but it was so rare that I don't really mind. Wot vanilla is pretty stupid idea though because there is 0 chance wg will ever do it. And the average potato loves his arties and TDs and the hesh ammo. Taking that away would just end up in massive tantrums. Even as a separate game mode it would be massively controversial. And might not even work at all. Plus going back to something would be seen as downgrade. But still it might be enough for me to play wot again. I'm not sure about others.
  2. I think the old game balance was pretty poor compared to today. Not sure if I'd prefer the old balance. There were some absurdly op tanks. Old hellcat, old kv and old su-85 among other things were just on wrong tier. Old tanks is a bit like the old maps. Nobody wants old kampinovka, old el halluf or old murovanka... old redshit.... I mean nobody wants those things back for sure??
  3. So wow is going to make vanilla servers. I have never played wow so idk but I have watched some really old wot replays on youtube and got a stupid idea. What about wot:vanilla? Like dis: Heavy tanks go up to tier 10 Medium tanks go to tier 9 (I'm not really against tier 10 mediums tho) Tank destroyers go to tier 9 (This I definitely do want) Artillery tanks go to tier 8 (basically to current tier 8 arty Light tanks I don't know. Ideally I'd want the old light tanks back. Old physics: Tanks get stuck whe driving into each other Sidescraping against other tank slows down both tanks Can't drive up or down steep slopes Can't flip over Old aiming system with 20% of the shots going to the edge of the reticle. Not so sure about this but would help light tanks, especially with old physics so you can motocross around the map. No premium ammo or consumables No 6th sense Shell normalization from 2 to 5 (ap) Matchmaker as it is today (no 5 tier mm) Does it sound bad to you? I'm kind of semi serious about this. Maybe as a separate game mode so you could choose whether to play in standard servers or in vanilla servers. Credit and exp progression would be the same on both servers.
  4. 1. I don't think there is necessary reason why tier 11+ tanks must be more expensive than tier 10. It could work just fine if the tier 11+ tanks had the same exp and credit cost as tier 10s. It is already a lot. The bigger issue is that grinding tier 11 tanks with tier 10 does not really work in the economy model. Tier 9s have been adjusted so that it still makes sense to grind the t10s with premium account but grinding tier 11s in your is7 or maus would need some more economy adjustments or not everyone could get into t11+ in reasonable amount of time 2. putting imaginery or paper tanks into the game has not been an issue for wg. Don't see how it would become an issue now. The main issue is that it is kinda difficult to put modern mbt in the same game as e100s and such. It does kinda break the game a bit. Not gameplay-wise but thematically. Theme of wot is very specifically older tanks. Even if none of the tanks in wot are like they were in real life it still makes the game a bit odd if you have 40s and 50s supertenks fighting a against 60 years newer designs. From hard balancing there really is no issue. Just take tier 10 and add more bouncyness and more pen and it's a tier 11. Do it again and it is tier 12.
  5. 3x E100+loltractor+loltractor platoon. Great success.
  6. Game mode with the old T-50. Just replace the gun with the T92's howitzer, give it 8s reload and give the tank 2000hp. Matches played on small maps where everybody can instantly spot everyone (map size something like 300x300 with some cover and terrain). No cap zones. Game starts as 15vs15. After one team is killed the rest of the players are divided into two new teams and this keeps going on until there is one player left.
  7. It is not watered down version of skill based mm just like current mm with 2 tier spread is not watered down version of the old 4-5 tier spread mm. Once again I'm explaining to you just try to listen, try to understand. Skill based mm can have many purposes, many ways to chieve that goal and many ways to fail it. Just like any other kind of mm. Sbm can focus on reducing the variance or it can focus on totally removing any variance of skill difference between two teams. Just like rng mm can just take 15 random tank from the queue and make two teams it can also aim to make the tier spread of both teams somewhat similar. Even if the current wg mm fails even that very basic goal it at least is designed around that principle. And the rigged mm. You did not say that. You look the more like stat denier the more words come out of your mouth. Rigged is derogatory term used by morons who don't understand basic statistics. Don't be that person and stop using that moronic word... More bullshit. We do not want equality of results. We want to reduce roflstomps and battles which are insanely skewed towards one team. Not all battles but just the most imbalanced ones.
  8. I did (or at least tried to) calculate it here: In order to figure out how the system treats someone we need to find player to compare in different systems. To do that we obviously want to focus on some player with above average skill but still not extreme enough so we can get meaningful sample size. In this sample we have 41 players with skill rating of 7.00e+1. For the sake of simplicity let's assume there are no tiers and no platoons. Of course I admit that platoons can be problematic but that is platoon specific problem, not mm specific problem. How can we compare the systems? What numbers to use? I think the team total value difference between you and the enemy team shows pretty well how much the system punishes you for your skill. The better you are the worse team you need to bring down the average enough. Basically just (the sum of enemy team)-(the sum of your team). Overall negative means your team is worse, overall positive means your team is better. Either because of your own skill or because of mm. 1. current wot system, pure rng: Average team mate: 4,67 Average team total: 49,0 Average enemy team total: 47,1 Average difference for the teams for our above average player: +1,9 variance for the team total difference: 18,06 2. Bad player numbers balanced for both teams: Average team mate: 4,62 Average team total: 48,6 Average enemy team total: 47,5 Average difference for the teams for our above average player: +1,1 variance for the team total difference: 6,1 3. Total sum of both teams equal: Average team mate: 4,56 Average team total: 48,1 Average enemy team total: 48,1 Average difference for the teams for our above average player: 0 variance for the team total difference: 0,01
  9. I have no idea why you still only assume two versions of skill based mm exist. What you said is simply not true if the sbm for example only balances bad players for example. I have absolutely no idea why you have that idea that in sbm the full teams need to be balanced. You do not need to balance full teams, you can balance only parts of the teams for example. Equal amount of wins (in badly designed sbm) is not really a problem in itself. It is only a problem if its negative consequences are not balanced (reduced income for above average players, increased income for below averages). 2nd and 3rd points sound like typical stat denier stuff though. Your actions will always positively effect the game. Non-action always has negative effect. Always. Claiming anything else is statdenier nonsense. The first one is just an assumption. Good players are rare. Seeing good player is rare. And when a bad player sees a good player he doesn't even understand why the good player does certain things. People get better from putting effort into improving. Smashing the battle button and getting into match with good player you may never even see during the match teaches nothing. Moving up from the ladder is not going to be a shock. You can divide the wot player base in trillion different ways and you still have majority of the people in the middle of the skill distribution. Going from one division to another is simply not possible to be statistically big difference. The brackets need to be certain size to work in the matchbreaker and as such the rarity of good players will always guarantee that the top slot of the ladder will start from somewhere 53-54 area so that there are enough players in it to even make it work without huge queues. So going from 49-53 division to 53+ is huge shock? Simply not true. Those two points are also contradictory. If going up in the ladder is a shock then why doesn't the increased amount of good players in the higher skill ladder make you play better and make you learn to play better at expotential rate? Good old anecdotal evidence! We agree with one thing though. Both of those sbms you mentioned are indeed shit.
  10. This is imho a very important point. Having the 6th sense at least taught to me a lot about how the vision system works in practise. Maybe one idea for the 6th sense is to have it on all tanks below tier 6 and then not have on tanks above that tier? It is a good tool for teaching the most nonsensical game mechanic to people who have no idea why tanks disappear and appear randomly.
  11. How different does it need to be to be different? Maus is not different from loltractor. Both are tanks. Both have turrets, guns, tracks and move with wasd keys. Yet from the game perspective they are two very different tanks. The thing is skill based mm in itself is not a huge difference to what we have now! And skill based mm can not be something totally different as it is always going to be something that in some way takes skill consideration when creating teams and battles. Still, from statistical perspective all those produce different outcomes. Which is why they are indeed different.
  12. Should have just removed it. Or reworked it. It might have been interesting to make the light bulb only appear after you have been spotted and restealthted. That way you don't know when you are being spotted but once you are no longer being spotted the light bulb would appear letting you know you were spotted just moments ago. I think other way is to just have the skill for light tanks above tier 5. Still bad idea to make the skill work once radioman reaches 100%. Should have been that it is always on. But the incentive to use gold to get 100% radioman is kinda too obvious... Buy skills for gold. This will probably be implemented for the rest of crews as well with the coming "rework".
  13. All you need is little bit of imagination:1) only balance the number of reds in both teams 2) same as above but reds+oranges (or purples, blues, yellows...) 3) only balance top tier tanks (or top 5 etc.) 4) never put purples and reds in same battle 5) look which tank types are most effective on that map and balance them 6) you can try to balance lots of things: a) try to counter all skill (mirror matching, overall team averages) b) try to counter the ability of people to lose games c) focus on extremes only d) focus on platoons only e) balance only certain tank type (like heavies) f) balance full teams for overall equality g) balance part of teams h) when creating a battle always try to get create teams/battles that fulfill certain statistical parameters (variance, average, weighed average) i) use preset team rosters as base when creating teams (kinda like mirror matching) 7) ladder based system sbm as separate gamemode (can/can not opt out) 9) ignore players above certain skill and balance everybody else 10) use number of players in teams for balancing That's what I could come up with after 5 minutes of writing. Dear servant,there is no point to put any effort into it because it will not lead anywhere. It can be fun just to figure out various ways to do various things. Different ideas do exist and just because lots of people only see stupid solutions to wrong problems does not mean there are not alternatives (that may or not work better or worse than full randomness we have now). After all the goal of sbm is not be perfect but to just be better what we have now...
  14. They key element of skill based mm is which players it tries to control. If sbm is supposed to reduce the effect of skill it focuses on countering the upper and lower parts of the skill. Meaning really good and really bad players. However the system can also be made so that it leaves the high skill players untouched and focuses only on low skill players. This could be a system for example that balances the number of reds. For the most part this means that overall the variation (smaller variance in skill difference between teams) in team skill is reduced because extreme examples are removed (especially if you only balance reds). For good player the effect is the same as for the average player. His carry potential is not changed because the average is still the same (I think) but the overall skill of the teams are closer. However the skill of good player is not countered in any way. You are just too tied to the idea that you need to balance everything and everybody in sbm. You don't. You can focus on certain groups of players whose effect you want to increase or decrease. If you want to make reds lose even more games then you simply move them all into one team everytime. If you want to make purples lose more then you give them shittier teams and make their opposing teams better.
  15. We are now talking about tier 10 CWs??? What happened to the topic? There is no need to take away the pubbies. This whole skill based mm for me is like groundhog day. All the time people only see two versions of skill based mm and it seems almost impossible to make them understand that there are more ways to have skill based mm than to just balance the teams (the better you are the worse team mates you get) or mirrormatch people (purples vs purples)... The whole discussion seems to be just a competiton who can come up with the stupidest reason to not have skill based mm. Because it is socialism seems to be clear winner so far. Probably need to get back to official forums to see anything stupider but I really doubt it.