I have Joined Foxey. thanks to all who were interested. happy new Year!
So, many of my clanmates and I were sick of Fugitive, and by extension Evil Gaming in General.
I fell short of 3,000th position in the Campaign. Finished 3,200th. or something like that, which is pretty annoying.
The most frustrating thing is how badly we played Clan Wars during this campaign. I'm sure any halfway competent team that played Fugitive this campaign could confirm that.
So anyway. I was in TESLA while Footy was still CO, and once TESLA disbanded, moved over to VANDL, which was less serious, then to Fugitive. Long story short, I've been in EG for too long.
I'm.. not really sure what i want at this point. I'd like a CW team that is competent and confident, But i'm not sure about CW anymore. Platoon, strongholds, tourneys are fine, Etc.
Usually on 7-11 PM EST, almost every day
EDIT: All of us in Fugitive were just trash-talked and treated like shit by Sirvex and Thugz officers, for leaving. It's our choice to leave. STFU.
All of my T10 have over 300 battles
Batchat 25t: second T10. 58% WR, 3.24 k/d, 1.85 caused/received. 2521 avg. dam
E-50m: 59% WR, 2.84 k/d, 1.7 caused/received, 2727 avg. dam
STB-1: 58% WR, 2.74 k/d, 1.72 caused/received. 2777 avg. dam
IS-7: first T10. currently in stat recovery, don't play much anymore. 52%, 2.1k/d, 1.34 caused/received, 2100 avg. dam
Obj. 261: I'm bad@arty. don't play this anymore. 55% wr, 6.72 caused/received, 2100 avg. dam
Object 268: researched and probably won't ever buy
Currently grinding obj. 416 and obj. 430 II to get all of the Russian mediums.
I know I'm not great, but I'm always improving.
Tags have already been dropped. in cooldown.
CW campaign dropped my recents. specifically WR.
Also: I'm in the running 3rd year in a row for Voice most likely to haunt your dreams.
- respawning is utter BS and one of the reasons I dont touch things as WT arcade or these stupid shooters. It lessens the impact of skill and encourages the baddies even more to ignore their mistakes imo.
- comparing WoT and its game mechanics, which has a historical background based on facts to some extend, to fantasy mech-games, where different classes can be custumized nearly as in an RPG a character, makes absolutly no sense to me. If you want to play games like that, there are plenty to choose from.
- you are moaning and bitching about the fact that on one hand arti is unable to defend itself in close combat and on the other that its RNG if I take out tanks in infighting with my SPG calling it RNG. PMS much? The first thing to keep in mind is that arti lost a big part of its close combat abilities (which never where great to begin with), because of cry babies like you - WG nerfed it. And even after that you are still to stupid to take out an arti in infight? Now its RNG? Pls get real. How about just outspotting/outplaying arti - most arti players are fucking retards. Its telling that many people still complain. How about just waiting till a team mate arrives in the bottom corner of Mines for example, instead of going full speed frontally into the arti hiding behind the houses with your Batchat. And if your the only one left just go into the cap - if arti wants to win, it will have to crawl out of its hole.
- Low risk, high reward ... I said it hundrets of times by now probably but again: bring back the old tracer system, introduce SPG sub class, better suited for counter arti, thin out existing arti trees, change XP/economics (will never happen) ... .
- If you dont like rock, paper, scissors dont play it, entertain yourself with a Swiss Army Knife or whatever. If you cant live with the fact, that a LT drives circles around your TD, WoT isnt for you. Sure its frustrating sometimes, but instead of going mental better ask yourself how you ended up in that situation. Sometimes its your own fault, sometimes the MM decided to bless your with a team full of goat fuckers.
I'm in Japan again, this time in Okayama, and I've been playing more Border Break to see how the arty mechanics could be implemented.
Since arty seems to be a major discussion point, I'm going to be writing on what makes arty frustrating to play against and difficult to play.
Artillery in BB is an ability of the Heavy Weapons class. Heavies also carry heavy guns (think LMG or Minigun), and a rocket/grenade launcher (exactly as it says), and a complement weapon, which is usually an ECM grenade (read: Flashbang)
Tl;DR: Artillery units in BB have (usually) the best armor, the best medium-range firepower, an explosive weapon, and are still good at close or long ranges depending on their layout. They're generally still weak against assault players (think a ~40% chance of winning given equal skill), but nowhere near as arty is to a medium/light in WoT.
Imagine if an SPG had a TD-grade gun with additional supporting roles. It'd STILL be broken as fuck even if all other classes were given a second gun or a splash damage weapon too.
Arty in BB shares many similar points with Arty in world of tanks, a splash hit is basically a kill on most light mechs. A direct hit is effectively a kill on any medium mechs. Worse still, arty is called in through pressing the overhead map, it's literally set-up, touch, and you can fire as many or as few shots as you want onto the radar map. So basically, artillery is just as easy to call in as WoT, except that BB uses a radar map and be fired in volleys (depending on the arty).
So how have they done arty right? Let's run through it
Respawing is a HUGE way to deal with artillery, it makes artillery feel like part of the game rather than a game ender.
Is getting artied when trying to capture a point frustrating? Yes, but that's what arty is MEANT TO DO, you respawn, try again, respawn, try again.
Players don't have the time or reason to feel frustrated at artillery when you're back fighting in ten seconds. That's durs
In WoT, you get artied out of the blue, there is no payback, there is no compensation, there's only a big repair bill to pay for absolutely no fault of your own. That's frustrating.
The typical response of a border break team trying to take a key point under arty fire which is VERY likely to badly damage the whole group to hit them is to keep throwing more wrecks into the meat grinder until the point is captured.
The typical response of a world of tanks team trying to take a hill under arty fire which can only hit ONE of them is for ALL of them hide like motherfuckers.
That's the effect of respawning, when you allow players to respawn, you encourage risk taking and more aggressive play, this is probably the single-greatest reason we have the rock-humping playstyle of WoT.
TL;DR Part 1: Respawning accomplishes three things which takes the frustration out of random sky-oneshots.
1) It distracts players from frustration by getting them back into the fight
2) It gives players a chance to generate counterplay against the artillery (read: hunting the heavy down);
3) It lessens the opportunity cost of taking risks (therefore encouraging better and more dynamic play instead of static rock-humping).
2. Limited range and the Impact on Skill
This can be learned from WoT itself, low tier arty is balanced by its own range, high tier arty can be set up anywhere on any map and can generally hit anywhere (of course, firing lines are important to know, but are a minor issue).
Limited range also encourages skilled play, Heavies are still vulnerable at close range to both support (shotguns and repair) and assault classes (SMG beats LMG). To play a heavy, a player needs to be able to do quite a bit more than SPGs do in WoT, they need to be able to read the flow of the game and position themselves in such a way that they're both effective as a support fire class and as an artillery class.
The flaw with this in WoT is in making maneuvering in an SPG near-redundant. Range is one of the best ways you can introduce a huge amount of depth into artillery play (the gap between the top and bottom FV304 players is massive compared to most other arties).
TL;DR Part 2: Maneuvering is a critical part of the game. The fact that bads can still do somewhat well in TX arty simply by sitting and clicking needs to be changed.
3. Spotting and arty "camouflage"
In WoT, we have spotting, you're either lit or you aren't, if you fire, your camo can still remain intact, for arty, firing across the map allows them to essentially wreck a player's game at zero risk to themselves. It's a simplistic mechanic, and yet it's one of the biggest flaws with artillery, there is no risk for artillery not to fire.
Border break doesn't have the retarded spotting mechanics of WoT, every enemy within line of sight is visible, but only enemies within scan range show up on the minimap . A heavy setting up and firing its howitzer remains unlit on the map, but shows up to anybody looking in its general direction (humongous fucking fireballs a being fired skywards is hard to miss). It's a game mechanic accomplished through clever design.
This point synergizes with No. 2 to break artillery in WoT: You wind up with a class with little strategic depth, takes absolutely no risk to play, for a disproportionate reward, and fails to reward skill.
TL;DR Part 3: High-Reward, Low Risk is just plain wrong, nothing else needs to be said.
4. It's not "nothing's OP if everything's OP", it's whether skilled rock beats paper
Another area where WoT has sort of cornered itself is in every tank having one weapon only, thus lending to little flexibility to balance tanks; whereas in border break (and almost any other class-based shooter) balancing a mediocre primary weapon with a great secondary ability (e.g. medics) is a viable option. This is mostly an issue of the fact that there's nothing you can really do to change SPGs dramatically because the mechanic itself is broken.
BB isn't a case of "if everything is OP, nothing is", the time to kill in border break is low compared to WoT, but still much higher than a twitch-shooter (CS). What I've found is that lowering the time to kill increases the value of skill, but risks decreasing the depth of the game (i.e. turning it into twitch shooting).
Let's start by considering the effect of classes by using TF2 as an intermediate example. These are traditional rock-paper-scissors mechanics
- In WoT, a light versus a TD or SPG in close range has generally got a 90% chance of winning assuming equal skill, the time to kill is approximately 15 seconds
- In BB, an assault has maybe 55-65% odds of beating a heavy, and maybe 70% against a sniper
- In TF2, a scout has a very good chance of beating a sniper in close, the time to kill is perhaps about 3 to 4 seconds
Now, let's consider the effect of skill in to how these matchups are changed, and whether it's possible for skilled rock to beat paper.
- In WoT, a 70%er in an SPG or TD is still fucked against the average 50% light in close range
- In BB, a great heavy or sniper player can and often does reverse the odds against the average assault player
- In TF2 however, the best snipers will trash the average scout player
Looking at this seems to reveal a telling issue: WoT is a game where the effect of skill is greatly diminished, and combat outcomes can be determined by the classes being played, it's almost like rock-paper-scissors, which kills player interaction and frustrates people.
Let's consider the feelings of the loser when the favorite wins
- In TF2, your sniper being beaten by a scout feels like "I missed the headshot! Shit!" (read: you feel like you could have won it)
- In Border Break, an assault beating your heavy feels like "I should have spun up my minigun" or "I should have aimed my rocket better"
- In WoT, your TD being killed by a light slowly is not appropriate to be typed here. It's just plain frustrating, and is an exercise in futility 90% of the time.
And when you consider the reverse interactions of the underdog class winning, you see why there's so much rage in WoT
- In TF2, a scout feels like he's been completely outskilled by the sniper.
- In Border Break, an assault being beaten by a heavy can feel frustrating, but
- In WoT, a light being beaten by an SPG can be summed up as "fuck RNG and all who play it"
Only in world of tanks is the rock-paper-scissors system seemingly set in stone when it comes to SPGs
This is compounded by the next factor...
TL;DR Part 4: Rock-Paper-Scissors Mechanics are alright as long as they can be overturned reliably by skill, world of tanks fails in this
5A. One dimensional maps (or... Maps should not dictate Mechanics)
We've already established that WoT screws entire classes just through RNG, but random maps are just as bad.
Entire classes of tanks can be screwed out of a game in WoT (e.g. lights and arty in a city map, heavies in prok), you wind up with a much better chance of everything going to hell.
You don't feel like you've lost because you fucked up, you feel like you've lost because the random map selector god has cursed your tank because your tank can only really do a few things well, and yet entire maps can render you useless.
TL;DR: Building a cool map with no regard to game mechanics is bad
5B. .... Plus One Dimensional Classes... (Or... Mechanics should improve maps)
In BB, there are indoor and covered areas (arty can be neither from nor hit such areas), in those areas my howitzer becomes useless but my ECM systems become effective. Conversely, assault mechs have an easier time closing in and meleeing or SMGing me.
How do heavies cope in areas where fighting is closer-in or when enemies are in areas of arty cover? 1. Replace the howitzer with attack drones, 2. Airburst ammo, 3. Replacing the howitzer with an assault shield, 4. Replace the howitzer with a drone system. etc.
This works with any other game: How do we get around outright fucking players? By allowing players the option to compensate for situations they would ordinarily be fucked in.
More options don't always mean one is OP beyond all doubt, instead, the diversity of combat situations in border break means that you'll have the advantage in some fights on a certain match and not in others.
Contrast WoT where you can be screwed all match just for being in the wrong tank, and you have an all-or-nothing system where your tank can often be rendered completely irrelevant no matter your skill level.
TL;DR: Build your mechanics first, then build a map that suits it.
5C. Equals RIP
Maps in WoT on the other hand can completely fuck entire classes (e.g. himmels/ensk compared to something like prok). Why does this happen? Look at the abilities of each class: Arty in WoT has one trick - click on red from sky and watch things blow up.
As much as we like to see arty tears when arty players get such maps, Wargaming's maps have removed the depth from artillery play. Wargaming giving each tank one gun and one "ability" to speak of have removed the depth of the game.
Is it good for business? Hell yes. Is it a good gameplay decision? Fuck no.
TL;DR Part 5: Each class in WoT having precisely one optimal playstyle means that it's a game of how closely the map conforms to that playstyle.
6. "Fuck This Guy in Particular"
We've already established a few things
1. Artillery in border break is nowhere near as frustrating as WoT
2. Artillery in border break is even more likely to randomly wipe you out (and the group you're with) in a barrage or even a single shot
We've tackled how respawning solves the frustration, but here's another key aspect of it.
The key is this: When I shoot an area in border break, I only see the classes of the units on my radar, I designate an aim point, and my howitzer starts shelling around that aim point. All on my radar screen
When I use arty in World of Tanks, I decide WHO I want to shoot, I aim exclusively at him, I fire, and his game gets ruined.
Dying to an arty in border break feels like dying to an enemy player who wants to win just as much as you do, there's literally nothing personal about it.
Dying to an arty in WOT feels like dying to someone who just wants to grief your game. That's a huge difference.
TL;DR Part 6: Unilateral interaction is bad for games, WoT arty is the pinnacle of unilateral interaction.
7. Clearly Defined Mechanics
In WoT, if I'm behind a rock, I'm immune to a 261 but fodder for an FV304 but can be splashed by a T92 but could be easily hit by a Bat arty which has moved.
You might say that that number of options in world of tanks increases the stategic depth of the game, but this isn't.
Do I take the route through the open field or go through town where it may be safer for arty? I don't know, because there's no way to weigh my options. Fuck all if I go town and their CGC can still hit me anyway.
Depth is only depth when the mechanics are clear to all, without clear mechanics, arty cover becomes a lottery of "Pray their arty has no arc on me".
In Border Break, your status with regard to artillery comes in one of three forms.
1. You have a clear view of the sky and am susceptible to a direct hit
2. You don't have a clear view of the sky and are therefore immune to arty
3. You're on the thin border of a sheltered area and may be splashed for light damage (this is more of an exceptional case)
Clear rules that everybody understands.
"Do I take this sheltered route through the building or save time by rushing the field" is now a clear strategic decision. Everybody knows they WILL be arty safe in town, and they need to weigh it up against if they think they can make it through field
TL;DR Part 7: One class should not get to break the rules that everybody else abides by, depth is only depth when it's understood by players
1: Respawning accomplishes three things which takes the frustration out of random sky-oneshots.
- It distracts players from frustration by getting them back into the fight
- t gives players a chance to generate counterplay against the artillery (read: hunting the heavy down);
- It lessens the opportunity cost of taking risks (therefore encouraging better and more dynamic play instead of static rock-humping).
2: Maneuvering is a critical part of the game. The fact that bads can still do somewhat well in TX arty simply by sitting and clicking needs to be changed.
3: High-Reward, Low Risk is just plain wrong, nothing else needs to be said.
4: Rock-Paper-Scissors Mechanics are alright as long as they can be overturned reliably by skill, world of tanks fails in this
5: Building a cool map with no regard to game mechanics is bad. Build your mechanics first, then build a map that suits it. The problem is that each class in WoT having precisely one optimal playstyle means that it's a game of how closely the map conforms to that playstyle
6: Unilateral interaction is bad for games, WoT arty is the pinnacle of unilateral interaction.
7: One class should not get to break the rules that everybody else abides by, depth is only depth when it's understood by players
Things progress well, we have a strong side and weak side but we are eliminating tanks on the strong side quickly and its their strong tanks we're destroying
More strong tanks destroyed (missed the screenshot on the Jagzilla)
I call for cap the first time, timestamp 11:06. We are down tanks and HP, but with TDs in good position, and the enemy is committing to base. M41 and Leo1 alive.
I have the best shots on the 704, so I take him out, while spamming for the cap to be controlled. Note the Leo1 is still lingering in a 4v1 vs a 704 with less than 1k hp.
40 seconds later.... Our Leo1 hero has engaged a 1390 who screen cap, but presented no threat, and stopped to shoot him but its now too late
And another loss on the books
But we had a better team, right? Why didn't our fast tanks, specifically our healthy speed tier 10 medium go spot/reset?
Uh oh, he was a hellcat padder, fuck XVM you've fucked me again.
And the nail in the coffin. 48% wins in the Leo1 with 2800 dpg. I reminded him of this via the PM you see open. I doubt it had any effect.
Don't be a M18 padding shitlord
Don't be a Leo1 dmg padding shitlord
Don't assume XVM has anything meaningful to tell you except that your team or theirs are padded shitlords
Blues are cancer
Tactics > DPG
Do you hate love your T-34-3? Do you want to publicly express your hatred love for this Beautiful Machine? Are you looking for other crazy tasteful pilots to field this cheap knockoff coffin Sexy Beast with?
Then you're fucking nuts you've come to the right place!
Feel free to bitch comment about the vehicle or ask for advice in its operation. or request that your name be added to the List of Active Pilots with a deathwish, which shall exist to facilitate the creation of T-34-3 wolfpacks!
History done on Google Spreadsheet now, less cluttered and easier to keep track of:
This is my reply to a question about fame points vs clan fame points, but since it goes into very specific mathematical detail I figured I'd make a topic out of it to help those who are bad@math but good@tanks, or to help newer clans/players who haven't fought in a campaign yet. Or of course, if you just can't read WG's poorly written rules that span 3 different pages for some reason...
Set in a spoiler for length
Total CLAN Fame points for this game for [sHIT]:
The fame points for every member in the battle = 4719*15 = 70785
The fame points for capturing a convoy, +40000 = 110785
Total Clan Fame Points for [sHIT] for this match = 110,785
Total Clan Fame points for [GOOD]
The 40k xp for capturing a convoy goes to the CLAN Fame points, and has no effect on PLAYER Fame points. The only effect the convoys have on PLAYER Fame points is if you beat a clan that has AT LEAST 1 convoy after the results of said battle. This is a x1.1 coefficient.
Landing Mission fame points.
These are a bit harder to calculate because you don't just have to fight in the battle, it accounts for your total contribution vs the clans total contribution.
For Landing Missions, the clan is awarded the stated CFP (http://worldoftanks.com/content/third_campaign/3rd-campaign-regulations/#5-8) and then players are awarded the FP based on this formula:
Total Fame Points Earned = (Fame points Awarded)*(Fame Points Earned)/(Clan PLAYER Fame Points Earned)
Total Fame Points Earned = The Player Fame Points you get for having participated in the Clan's Landing Mission
Fame Points Awarded = Specified here http://worldoftanks.com/content/third_campaign/3rd-campaign-regulations/#5-8
Fame Points Earned = ALL of the Player Fame Points you have earned from ALL battles since the beginning of the campaign or since finishing the last Landing mission
Clan PLAYER Fame Points Earned = ALL of the Player Fame Points YOUR WHOLE CLAN has earned from ALL battles since the beginning of the campaign or since finishing the last Landing mission
As an example for this, lets say that somehow you miraculously battle in EVERY battle your clan fights in, you will have X fame points, and your clan player total will be exactly X*15 fame points
If you complete the largest Landing Missions (100,000 FP), you would get 100000*(X)/(15X) FP, this is the absolute best scenario and has almost no possibility of happening, but your Total Earned Fame points would be 6667
(Even if you have less than 15 players in your clan (or less than 15 contribute), and you somehow complete a Landing Mission, the total xp has a 1/15 cap.
Second Stage Changes
The second stage brings little change to the calculation of fame points from the first stage. The formula is as follows:
Total Fame Points = (Total clan xp for battle/15)*(campaign stage coefficient)*(battle type coefficient)*(coefficient for Supremacy)*(coefficient for Offensive Reconnaissance)*(coefficient for Hall of Fame)*(Coefficient for Defiance)
campaign stage coefficient: x1.5 for Stage 1 | x1.1 for Stage 2 | x1.0 for Stage 3
battle type coefficient: x1 for landing tournaments/riots NOT with owner | x5 for everything else
coefficient for secondary missions:
(all stages) Supremacy: x1.1 if you win and the opponent clan has MORE clan fame points than your clan
(all stages) Offensive Reconnaissance: x1.5 if you win and this is the FIRST time your clan has won on this map (Malinovka, Ensk, etc./NOT Provinces) for any reason (landing battle/province battle/riot landing battle etc.)
(stage 2) Hall of Fame: x1.1 for all battles inside a fortress (not including landing battles (Bridgeheads))
(stage 2) Defiance: x1.2 for all battles inside a fortress with the current owner of the citadel
The stage 2 missions are the only changes for player fame points during stage 2 from stage 1. However, several changes were made to Clan Fame Points.
During the second stage a clan is able to earn more fame points by battling inside of a fortress. For each approach province a clan gets a one time 100k, 200k, or 300k CFP bonus depending on fortress type, Bronze, Silver, and Gold respectively. The clan gets a x4 bonus applied to these once they own the citadel. Meaning if a clan can land on a fortress, fight through 1 approach province, take the citadel, and then while holding the citadel, capture the other 3 approach provinces, the clan will earn a total of 1300000, 2600000, or 3900000 CFP. This is based on the example given in the rules, where there are 4 approach provinces, until the second stage rolls around, and we see fortresses pop up, we won't know if some fortresses will have more than 4 approach provinces, which would mean an even greater potential CFP bonus per fortress.
All of these bonuses are for Clan Fame Points only, the players will get no additional Fame Points.
The Third Stage
The G coefficient is the 3rd stage change. It adds a multiplier based on the number of provinces you have (minimum of 1 even if you have 0) vs. the number of provinces your opponent has (once again, minimum of 1 even if they have 0). This multiplier is tagged onto the end of the Fame Point equation the same way any of the other stage coefficients were.
TDs are overpowered simply because they are capable of acting as an independent unit when they should not, they have camo, better guns, and not-terrible mobility in exchange for a negligible loss in survivability and absolutely no loss in view range.