Haswell

WG.net Wiki Admin
  • Content count

    4,467
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Posts posted by Haswell


  1. 4 hours ago, Strigonx said:

    Shit premium to justify a month and half marathon.

    What else did you truly expect?

    Lots of people will go beyond what is considered reasonable just to get something marked "free". Doesn't matter what it is or what you need to do in order to get it, as long as it's "free" they will do anything.

    Including playing a dreadful game.

    Or forking money over to a dreadful company for "free" things.


  2. 3 hours ago, Rexxie said:

    Everspace also looks fun.

    Everspace is fun only to a certain extent. Beyond the space combat element, you'll mainly be experiencing a repetition of exploring, hoarding resources and crafting. Once you've played long enough you'll start seeing the same environments over and over again, stick to your ship loadouts and have little else to do except going through the same levels ad infinitum. You can't really stick with one run too long because the game is designed to push you to the end, which means you'll rarely be able to play around with different loadouts for too long before being forced to restart.

    The game does look pretty though, very pretty. That alone is enough to distract me from most of the aforementioned issues.


  3. 3 hours ago, Rexxie said:

    It's also very inactive though

    Wow.

    :upsetkitty:

     

    There are old threads littered around here, albeit with outdated discussions but there are probably bits that are still relevant. Perhaps if OP make new threads people who still play the game might respond.


  4. 2 hours ago, Folterknecht said:

    Not understanding that short term "bench stable" in this case leads to electromigration in the long run.

    Hear hear. I'm seeing more and more OC reviews only going so far as to cranking the clock speed as high as they can to pass one single benchmark, ignoring most of everything else and most certainly not stress-tested for stability. Getting 5GHz+ doens't mean much if you have to use a compressor to keep it working.

    Oh Intel.

    xjKBCkZ.png


  5. 9 hours ago, Jaegaer said:

    Well, that was an extreme example thats nevertheless is quite valid, opponent needs to stop to aim and that gives the stationary tank a huge advanateg - even more if you load the gold and roflpen everywhere.

    Your point is valid, though not relevant to RNG. Bush wookies and defender's advantage will exist regardless.


  6. 12 hours ago, Jaegaer said:

    First of all it makes the game less static. If you play WT you know what I mean. Without aim/pen RNG every well placed shot is deadly and that means the stationary tank thats ready to shoot has a HUGE advantage and that makes the game static and stale and not at all casual. 

    By saying lack of RNG will make the gameplay static you imply the presence of RNG is in opposition of static gameplay. And yet even with existing RNG gameplay is still observably static. For example, staring contest on (old) Campinovka, old Province, Lakeville valley camp. And of course there's constant cover hugging to avoid arty, where arty is already affected by RNG much more than any other vehicle class.

    If RNG makes the game less static, why do people camp all the way back and be useless? Why do frontally impenetrable tanks choose to sit BEHIND squishier allies instead of taking point? Why offer premium ammo that tends to defeat the entire purpose of RNG pen? Why doesn't arty presence make gameplay more dynamic?

    Static gameplay primarily results from poor map design and poorly balanced gameplay mechanics, where the fear of getting punished makes people sit still in the most useless positions. RNG may have a role in promoting dynamic gameplay, but it's effects are relatively inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

    13 hours ago, Jaegaer said:

    And second it gives you brutally great games sometimes where you perform well ahead of your average skill at the cost of perform below your average skill sometimes - just because of RNG. And this too is why WoT is so successful. WG knows that in order for some players to have great games their opponents need to have bad games - it's unavoidable. But humans usually remember the fond and great things longer/more than the bad ones and RNG helps capitalizing on that.

    See gambling and pleasure addiction.

    13 hours ago, Jaegaer said:

    SO discuss all you want about how WoT is too much RNG that hampers good players more than it helps them (which it does) but the game would be much less successful without it because 95% of all players benefit from the RNG.

    I wonder where you got that 95% number from. Yes, RNG will theoretically allow a bad performing player to achieve results more rewarding than their low skill level would receive otherwise, but you failed to consider at what threshold does RNG start hampering the results of good performing players. For simplicity's sake I'll assume 50% win rate to be the threshold here, and that there is an equal distribution of players below and above the threshold. In this case the amount of players benefiting from RNG will be roughly equal to those who are hampered by it. I realize this is a gross simplification, but my point still stands.

    9 hours ago, Jaegaer said:

    Thats doesn't change the fact that the stationary tank has a huge advantage. Just play WT and see for yourself and also notice how it is not even 1/50th as profitable as WoT.

    WT's lack of success is not entirely due to their lesser RNG mechanics. For one, consider that WT has predominantly been focused on planes, and that by the time they decided to put tanks in the game they already face stiff competition from WoT, just like how AW failed to compete. For an opposite example, see WoWP vs WT.


  7. 1 hour ago, Jaegaer said:

    I didn't say it has - I said that this is the real problem of WoT and mostly also the real problem of the frustration players feel. That and the gamenot communicating your luck as well as your bad luck.

    I agree, the power difference across tier gaps is a major problem of the game, but I thought we're talking about RNG vs skill...?

    That being said, the MM is basically an RNG of its own. With 3/5/7 and soloqueueing (assuming sufficient players at each tier) you basically have 47% chance of being bottom tier, 33% mid and 20% top. Tiers 1-3, 9, 10 and stuff with pref MM have different probabilities, but the RNG in MM still stands.


  8. 5 hours ago, 8_Hussars said:

    Map strategy, macro and micro positioning, reading tank line-ups, exploiting tank strengths and weaknesses is the enjoyable part of the game

    These all fall under player skill, in which they are the few things that RNG have little to no effect on.

    5 hours ago, 8_Hussars said:

    so what if aiming, pen, and damage are modeled more realistically than not.

    Imagine playing a game where you need to plan your movements and adjust to your opponent's strategies, but after all that careful strategizing and execution you have no way of hitting, penetrating or damaging your opponent. Alas, the only way to achieve victory in this game is by damaging and destroying your opponent (not going to talk about capping here), but you can't do that because the game won't let you.

    These three things are the core mechanics of the game, in that if you can't hit, pen or damage your opponent you'll end up with a very frustrating time no matter what else the game allows you to do.

    To put it in more relatable terms, imagine playing paintball with a gun that doesn't shoot straight and rounds that don't burst properly. I applaud you if you'll still have fun playing that, because I sure as hell won't.


  9. 49 minutes ago, 8_Hussars said:

    The overall intuitive perception is that tank shots should go where they are aimed is false, and that is the problem for players and WG.

    That simple belief is counter-intuitively opposed by the reality of large projectile direct fire ballistics.  Notwithstanding, that the game is a game and that multiple real life "concepts" are modeled, simulated, and fudged to make it work within the game (engagement ranges for one), many more are not and RNG collectively makes up for those.

    Firstly, take a simple look at reported dispersion (gun accuracy) for example.  For weapon accuracy the military use this dirty little secret of Circular Error Probable defined as the radius of a circle, centered on the mean, whose boundary is expected to include the landing points of 50% of the rounds.  Full disclosure: I don't know what figure WG puts on dispersion so just making an assumption going by limited real life experience in airborne, bomb, rocket, and missile ballistic calculations.

    Secondly, moving on to the study of these principles called ballistics that generally consists of three parts: internal, external, and terminal ballistics.

    Interior ballistics is the study of a projectile's behavior from the time its propellant's igniter is initiated until it exits the gun barrel. The study of internal ballistics is important to designers and users of firearms of all types.  External ballistics or exterior ballistics is the part of ballistics that deals with the behavior of a projectile in flight.  Terminal ballistics is the study of how a projectile behaves when it hits its target and transfers its kinetic energy to the target. The bullet's design, as well as its impact velocity, plays a huge role in how the energy is transferred.

    It seems fairly obvious that even theory-crafting manufacturing tolerances, propellant weights, round shapes, barrel wear and tear, optical sight issues, weather, gravity drop, temperature, etc (just check out   Ballistics: Theory and Design of Guns and Ammunition, Third Edition for more) all contribute negatively to aiming, hitting, penetrating, and damaging tanks. 

    Even though we all get the 25m dirt shots and the 500m snap shots on the move, from the many sigma changes over time I suspect that WG already fudges the numbers well in favour of the player via the aiming calculation mechanic while limiting RNG to +/- 25%.

    This is a fine explanation for what happens in real life, but last time I checked the game isn't a sim. Realism here is getting in the way of enjoyable gameplay, unless you enjoy being at the mercy of RNG, in which case refer to my explanation about addictive pleasure.

    7 hours ago, Jaegaer said:

    Whats "reasonable"?

    I guess the following numbers are true:

    Given equal player skill a VK36.01H will lose against an IS-3 in 999 times out of 1000

    In a IS-3 vs IS-3 fight a WN 300 player will lose 19 out of 20 times against an WN 2300 player.

    So, where is the problem? Shot RNG is sometimes frustrating - but mostly because the game does not communicate the near misses that other players suffered against YOU while you ALWAYS realize when RNG "denied" you your rightful hit. And THAT is the problem, not the RNG itself. 

    It is also a minor problem given the woes of the MM and the tier differences - VK3601H vs IS-3 is much more bullshittery than RNG can be in 999 out of 1000 cases.


    A tier 6 losing to a tier 8 given equal player skill has nothing to do with RNG, that's just a difference in power embedded in the game mechanics.

    A less skilled IS-3 losing to a more skilled IS-3 has nothing to do with RNG, as that is merely a difference in player skill (unless you count the RNG factor for the MM).

    Shot RNG is frustrating because it has absolutely nothing to do with player skill. You can be positioned in the right place, playing the right tank, teamed up with the right players against the right opponents, etc... If RNG decides your perfectly aimed shot will eat dirt and roll low pen there is absolutely nothing player skill can do anything about it except for hoping your next shot will go better. Except in this case you may not get a next shot after a lengthy reload.

    This may be a minor problem in pub battles, but it becomes apparent when it comes to professional play. Which is a major reason why WG never managed a solid foothold in esports.


  10. 2 hours ago, Proloser said:

    This is not really the issue though. The problem is WG's immediate change to the EULA in regards to nerfing/changing premium tanks. They were stuck for a while because the community is in uproar about it but they were like "haHAAAa LoL LeTS cHaNGE ThE EuLA, GoTTEM" and now are able to completely change said tanks without really worrying about refunding.

     

    :feelsbad:

    To be completely honest, that didn't stop them from outright nerfing the Type 59 back in the days. Multiple times. Before refunds or exchanges were a thing.


  11. @OOPMan RNG can easily be minimized in most card games, yes. This is where the primitive definition of "skill" comes in, where by building a good deck to maximize your chances of getting a good hand is a skill just as much as understanding the game mechanics and outplaying your opponent. In the grand order of things however, the first demonstration of skill would be building the deck, the second demonstration being whatever happens in the game after your hand is dealt.

    Marrying RNG and skill together successfully requires RNG to not get in the way of skill, and vice versa. For card games the major random factors are your hand and your opponent's skill. After the cards are dealt (assuming you or your opponent won't draw more cards from the deck later on) and you know who you're playing against, RNG ceases to be involved (in most cases). Card X won't need a probability roll to determine whether its effects will be activated, you can't "almost" kill an enemy card at random unless the game dictates such RNG mechanics.

    Using tanks as a counterexample, RNG actively works against player skill at the micro level. You can aim at something you want to hit and your shot can go anywhere within your reticule, making long distance shooting less of a skill and more of an RNG roll. Your target can have 390 hitpoints left and RNG low rolls you with 389 damage, nothing that skill can compensate for other than shooting your target again after a reload. Ditto for penetrations.

    If tanks want to balance skill and RNG, they should make it so the consequences of RNG fucking you over isn't as severe, and let skill be able to counter the effects of micro RNG. Loading prem rounds just to make sure RNG can't fuck you over is not the way to go, because then the question becomes why have this sort of RNG fuckery in the first place when you can bypass it.


  12. RNG plays into your neural pathways very much like gambling. Most of the time you ignore your low and average, unrewarding rolls, but in the off chance of rolling high with great rewards you get an instant surge of pleasure from the dopamine release. This pleasure is addictive, once you have experienced this "feel good" response you'll want more of it.

    Relating the above to RNG in games, on a macro scale there are team compositions. Games are boring when you know for certain what the outcome may be. Knowing that you will win or lose because everything happened exactly as you expected doesn't give you as much pleasure on winning than having a surprise win. On the micro level there are damage rolls, knowing that you will hit for 390 exactly every single time gives you less pleasure than the occasional high roll.

    Then there are lootboxes, which is basically RNG-facilitated gambling with or without actual money involved. The same principles can also be applied here: it's more exciting to win an unexpected reward than it is to know in advance what you'll win.

    Skill-based gameplay is a different story, but since underlying mechanics of RNG precludes skillful manipulation we can leave skill out of this for now. Any sort of skill revolving around an RNG environment primarily boils down to minimizing the effects of RNG, outplaying your opponent is secondary.


  13. 10 hours ago, MagicalFlyingFox said:

    In Australia at least, we own it. This has been established with legal precedent. 

     

    Steam provide a marketplace in which we buy digital goods from.

    Any legal action taken in Australia will likely result in setting up a concrete precedence for in-game items or in-software items such as e-books since no company is stupid enough to have let these things go to court. 

    WG are subject to bait and switch laws which is why ANZ EULA specifically does not have clauses such as 5.4.

    http://legal.asia.wargaming.net/en/end-user-license-agreement-new-aunz/

     

    7 hours ago, Assassin7 said:

    oh, yeah I see that. though, does that still cover it? Its not "I agreed to buy the tank with these stats and changing them is not what I agreed to buy" its "I agreed to buy the tank under this contract, I did not agree to have the contract changed and to own the tank under the new contract" 

    not arguing about changing the tank, arguing about changing the contract itself to terms I disagree with. Unless WG has a claus that states they are allowed to change the contract if they so desire after I have agreed to it, (which kinda sounds illegal in itself tbh) 

    In New Zealand at least, I would imagine that there is some part of the consumer garuntees act that would at least have some form of defence against this. But Im not sure myself. And Im not sure whos laws would apply if im buying from an American company based in America and playing on an American server. though I am pretty sure that the Australian law Fox mentioned for digital goods is similar or the same in New Zealand. 

    7 hours ago, MagicalFlyingFox said:

    This would be covered under bait and switch, which is probably just as illegal in NZ as it is in Australia. 

    I'm not 100% sure about the jurisdiction but I'd assume that you as a New Zealander buying a product online while in New Zealand, that it would still have to adhere to New Zealand laws. 
    Amazon for example has stopped Australia from accessing every other amazon site besides amazon.com.au because of the new laws regarding GST on online purchases or something like that because allowing us to purchase from overseas amazon sites would be in breach of our laws. 

    The main distinction is that if you were to file a suit, it would be to WG NA specifically. 

     

    I admittedly know nothing about Aussie law, but there is this tidbit from the Asia ToS in 2015

    Quote

    8.2 We set out below the rules that apply to Virtual Goods:

    • (a) Virtual Goods have no real world monetary value and do not constitute real world currency or property of any type; however if and to the extent that any Virtual Goods are determined by law to constitute real world currency or property, then they are the property of Wargaming;
    • (b) Virtual Goods may only be redeemed for other Virtual Goods where permitted in the Services;
    • (c) once you have purchased Virtual Goods, those Virtual Goods are non-refundable and non-exchangeable (whether or not you use them), unless otherwise provided for by the laws of your country;
    • (d) Virtual Goods cannot be sold or transferred to anyone, but you may buy Virtual Goods for another user of a Game through the gift shop applicable to that Game;
    • (e) Virtual Goods cannot be exchanged for cash or any goods or services (except other Virtual Goods as permitted in the Services);
    • (f) to acquire Virtual Goods, you need to follow the instructions provided in the Services; this can include making a payment and providing personal and financial details (which you should ensure are complete and accurate);
    • (g) the price payable for the Virtual Goods (including any value added tax or other applicable taxes of duties) will be as set out on our Sites or as part of the Services (as applicable), but we reserve the right to change the price of Virtual Goods at any time at our discretion;
    • (h) we do not make any promises about how or when Virtual Goods may be available and can update or change Virtual Goods at any time;
    • (i) you may only acquire Virtual Goods from us (or from any person that we authorise for this purpose) or from another user of a Game as a gift through the gift shop applicable to that Game, and you must not obtain Virtual Goods from any other person or in any other way or attempt to do so; and
    • (j) we may limit or block a request to acquire Virtual Goods for any reason.

    Although you can challenge 8.2c given your legal precedent, 8.2h basically says WG can change whatever they want at any time, where 8.2a reinforces the fact you don't actually own any of the virtual goods.

    The following concerns NA users only. Bolded parts are my emphasis.

    Quote

    8.1 Virtual Goods. The Services may permit you to acquire and accumulate certain virtual goods as made available by Wargaming ("Virtual Goods"). Virtual Goods constitute a limited, non-transferable, revocable right to use features of the Services when, as, and if allowed by Wargaming and solely as governed by and permitted under these Terms of Service. Subject to these Terms of Service, Virtual Goods may be exchanged for access to upgraded features, may be exchanged for other Virtual Goods, or used in connection with other features made available by Wargaming through the Services. Virtual Goods are not real-world currency, have no monetary value, and cannot be used, exchanged, or redeemed except as provided in these Terms of Service, and cannot be transferred, in any case. For avoidance of doubt, Virtual Goods are not redeemable or refundable for any sum of money or monetary value from Wargaming or any third party at any time; provided, however, if and to the extent that any Virtual Goods are determined by applicable law to constitute real world currency or property, then they are the property of Wargaming.

    8.2 Acquiring Virtual Goods. You may accrue Virtual Goods in a variety of ways. Wargaming may distribute Virtual Goods in exchange for taking certain actions (either directly within the Services, or in connection with a third party service), for a fee, or without any fee or required action, in its sole discretion. Wargaming may charge fees for the right to exercise rights associated with Virtual Goods. You agree that you do not "own" the Virtual Goods and that Wargaming has the absolute right to manage, regulate, control, modify and/or eliminate such Virtual Goods in its sole discretion, in any general or specific case, and that Wargaming will have no liability to you based on its exercise of such right. Wargaming allows you to accumulate and manage your Virtual Goods, and may use terms such as "buy" and "sell" to refer to the grant or transfer of rights to use the Services. Use of terms such as "buy" or "sell" does not indicate any ownership right. The total amount of a purchase may be adjusted by adding a fee, if any, applicable to the payment method you selected and for mandatory tax payments, if any, required by law. If adjusted, the total amount of the purchase will be recalculated automatically and displayed before you confirm the purchase. If your payment is in a currency other than that of the purchase amount shown on the website, the exchange rate applied on the payment date will depend on the selected payment method.

    NA users don't "own" anything, at least not since 2016.

     

    Links for ease of access:
    http://legal.na.wargaming.net/en/
    http://legal.eu.wargaming.net/en/
    http://legal.asia.wargaming.net/en/

     

    1 hour ago, Fulcrous said:

    A lot of it means shit barring recent purchases and so forth as its EULA. Only matters on official WG sites.

    Totally differs from the signing of a contract, which WG needs to remember that a certain WGLNA player has material to sue WG for trying to violate said written contract if said player truly wanted to go through with it (and did have funds for).

    RIP Fulcrum Gaming (aka Fnatic).