nabucodonsor

Verified Tanker [EU]
  • Content count

    550
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About nabucodonsor

  • Rank
    Minimap Spam Clicker

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Server
    EU

Recent Profile Visitors

16,457 profile views

Single Status Update

See all updates by nabucodonsor

  1. GJ WG this is the definition of fun and good playerbase. Now do you understand why supertesters should have higher win ratio not lower? 

     

    1. Show previous comments  9 more
    2. FavreFan4ever

      FavreFan4ever

      @nabucodonsor From a testing perspective, think of how hard it is to balance a tank when it's only played by elite players. By only including the best players, your balancing results are confounded by the fact that you have no idea how most of the WoT population will perform in the tank. That's why you need the 48%ers in the supertest: to pull ridiculous numbers that a player of their skill should not be able to do and expose OP tanks. When a good player oveperforms in a tank, it's could be chalked up to skill. When an average player overperforms in a tank, perhaps its the tank and not the player. It's easy to deny opinions posted on the supertest forums, but it's hard to argue with hard data.

      That is the much-needed perspective that WG is getting by lowering the WR reqs.

       

    3. nabucodonsor

      nabucodonsor

      Sure and we all see what this method has given us: a Maus that has over 56% win rate, a defender with over 53, ecc. And you did not read at all what I wrote. If you want your game to be a competitive game, meaning that it is played as a sport, you must balance it around the best players. It is like building a Formula one car, but having me or you test drive it. It makes no sense and you will never see the full potential or full limit of the car. Meaning only good players understand the full competitiveness of a tank in different situations. So if said tank is capable of doing great things in great hands it means that tanks has the potential to do so. Which means you are awarding skill. If you balance the game around bad players you will never see what that tank is fully capable of. Hence why even a Maus driven by retard might still do worse than a Foch 155 driven by a unicum. But if the unicum plays the Maus he will have even a bigger advantage over any other player, even over a fellow unicum. So no you are not awarding skill but just if you have or not said tank in your garage. 

    4. FavreFan4ever

      FavreFan4ever

      I want a competitive game as much as you, but I think that WG needs the input of average players to better balance tanks. Why? Because the majority of their playerbase, are... average players. This is a case of using the right tool for the job, you don't use a sledgehammer to drive in a screw.
      What WG currently has in place is a supertest system that forces them to extrapolate their data and guess how the tank will perform in the hands of average/bad players based off how well good players do in them. And as any statistician can tell you, extrapolation is bad. 

      You can only apply your predictions (in this case, tank balance) to the population that you've studied, hence why I think that including 48%ers in the supertest is a good idea. Furthermore, I don't see that WG has a lot to lose by trying this out.