Single Status Update
I have some thoughts about winning/losing. It originates from Chess, been playing a lot lately. A game mostly, about precision than anything else. In Chess, you are neither winning or losing until a mistake is made. The mistakee is the loser, but the opponent doesn't win. He loses, but the opponent doesn't actually win. He just capitalises on a mistake. There is no RNG there, so precision is what matters. Higher precision means playing better.
WoT has RNG, but the same thing applies. You are in limbo until a mistake is made. How quick you are at spotting them is what makes a good player. A good example is the 7v7 Ruinberg defense. This was so hard to win as an attacker as you can hold everything fairly easily. Same as GMs in Chess - everything holds and results in a draw.
What about thinking the other way? That you are always winning until you make a mistake? I think it results in super heavy aggression. These are the types of people that fight their way to the top. And the other side - where I am. Passive approach - always in limbo until something shifts the balance in either favour. That's about precision. The former is about mechanics. Obviously they blend, but I think it's interesting to at least entertain the idea that my way of play is flawed, even if it ranked number one at one point.
I basically never take unnecessary trades in Chess to try and keep the board as complicated for as long as possible, mistakes are easier to make there. In WoT - mistakes happen every second but you physically cannot move to capitalise in time on all of them. I'm just curious if there's a method of being there for more of them. So I'm going to play like an asshat to push that limit and try to improve it (WoT). I want ways to push the limits and this is an idea I want to explore..
- Show previous comments 1 more
I think you misunderstand. I'm not talking about rushing in and dogfighting like a CW battle. I'm interested in if the knife's edge could be sharper. The method of sharpening that blade is what I'm interested in, and I think it might be worthwhile to look in new places.
Do you ever really know your mechanical limits until you push them to the brink? Knowing means precision, which is what I'm looking for. This is an area I used to be incredibly good at, but with playing less I rely much more on thinking to beat my enemy. I can still win every 1v1 I will ever come across on even ground, even some 1v2s - but 1v3s? No way. Doing them might be bashing my head against a wall, but upping the difficulty might lead to higher efficiency in those 1v1 and 1v2s that I can win in the long run.
I think I've mastered tempo as far as it goes, and mechanically I'm about as strong as RNG lets me. Decision making as well, but there's still something that makes me feel inadequate in games. So I'm going to try and find that needle.
Ah, you mean more in a personal way, and less in a meta way.
Well, i was always of the opinion, that by forcing the enemy to do something, you can force an opening, since, if they have to do something, there is a good chance they will fuck it up, so you can start ``a chain of events`` Especially when they are not in their camp spot yet, and they cant fall back on basic gameplay (like red shire aim for the crossing at start) many people are simply terrible in improvising, or getting out a self dug sh*thole.
(like how 90% of the arty player has no idea what to do late game in td mode, they simply never live long enough to be alive in the end and are toally clueless)
ps: However i think offensive play, aka forcing the enemy to make mistakes, is next to impossible nowadays, your playstyle, of beiing passive, seems to be the superior play now (on most maps and in most situations) except with Ebr, there you can still win by offensive play (once in a while, so far my ebr-90 games are glorious wins, or tragic defeats)
This is likely one of the reasons why breakthrough tanks are so hard to balance - they change the dynamic of the game by allowing more proactive action, meaning you are no longer dependent on the enemy team making obvious mistakes in a stalemate.
You can try to balance them by cutting back in the areas where they are strongest, which often results in them being unastounding in any role, or in the areas where they're just ok, resulting in what is often an unfun and one-dimensional tank. Introducing reasonable weakspots without going overboard would probably be a better idea, but WG is obviously reticent to actually do that