Jump to content

Jaegaer

Verified Tanker [EU]
  • Content Count

    595
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Downvote
    Jaegaer got a reaction from Madner Kami in Sandbox   
    Sorry, but you do not make much sense to me. There is no "core gameplay" that can "simply be fixed" without touching the fundamental roles and performances of tanks and ammo (prem and otherwise).
    Tanks, Tanksroles and Maps aka Range of Engagements
    The fundamental problem of WoT is currently that you can't be agressive unless you are VERY good. As almost all players aren't very good agressiveness is kill for them. WG tried to "fix" this by map design, which is stupid as it promotes boring linear gameplay. Almost all maps now are corridors, almost all maps have exactly one spot you should be. Boring.
    In order to fix this they MUST make the game easier on the average player. There is no other way. Stick nose out should not be immediate and brutal death 9/10 times.
    In order to create a wide variety of maps they also must limit the ranges of engagements.
    So WGs vision is clear. Heavies are the best tanks for mediocre players as they are quite forgivable but still require some basic skill to be ok in. TDs are for the real baddies. Meds and Lights are for the better players. This means games should be mostly heavies with a few of the rest.
    It has been like this since the start of the game. Heavies where the only tanks initially to run to tier X and SerB named the inclusion of other tier X tankslines "a mistake".
    This is the main problem now and WG is gonna fix it.
    Matchmaking and Progression
    I don't know wether you played WoWS but if you do you will notice something right away: tier differences are NOT as harsh as in WoT!
    But this in turn lessens the eagerness to grind a tier X! I play WoWS currently and my desire to reach tier X is way less than in WoT because of this. I feel quite comfortable in my tier VIII Atago in a tier X match. Part of this is better MM though, the pyramid is still not on it's head and game economy is still brutal on tier X ships (very high cost) so most players play low tier regularily.
    In WoT, grinding is currently awful!
    So while in WoT you have a STRONG incentive to go to at least tier IX it comes at the cost of enjoyment. Grinding tier VII and VIII tanks is really bad because you are mostly powerless and you are getting to tier IX and X constantly (especially when platooning).
    One way to lessen this is exactly what WG proposes, 3-5-7. So as a tier VIII you have at least 7 enemies you can take on equal footage. If they also adjust pen and hitpoints this might rekindle my interest of getting into new lines.
    Tier and player balance
    We can bitch as much as we want but we are only 1% of all the players that play WoT. Ofc, T-62A is balanced for a noob but anyone at least slightly above average will realize fast that this tank is better than most others. For sheer power there are like 5 tanks in the game that you should use, the rest is garbage compared to that.Look to what most SuperUnicums are driving to generate their recent 5k WN8 and tell em again that these tanks are balanced and all WG needs to do is to fix "core gameplay"...
    And as much as it hurts initially to be deprived of these 5 "can do it all" tanks, likely at least one of them is your personal favorite, it will, again, open up the game. No longer will you need to grind games in these in order to feel competitive. No longer are good tanks always slightly tanky meds or meddy heavies and nothing else. In the bright future you can go and play heavies or even TDs and still have the feeling of not only different but also viable gameplay.
    This is what could make me come back to WoT.
  2. Upvote
    Jaegaer got a reaction from BoilerBandsman in Sandbox   
    Hm, I don't know about you but I almost never used prem on my tier IX and X meds and used nothing but prem on E100 or IS-7. So only changing prem is certainly not doing much at tier X.
    The real problem starts when you throw tier VIII into tier X battles after you nerfed the pen of them all.
    The main reason why I stopped playing is the sheer amount of bottom tier battles in anything tier VI to VIII and the retarded powerlessness that ensues, especially when playing without top gun.
    With their current changes I don't see how this is lessened in any way. The incentive to play tier X (or tier IX) and nothing else will be even bigger after these changes. This in turn means that grinding your tier Vi-VIII tanks will feel even more shitty.
  3. Upvote
    Jaegaer got a reaction from Joebob73 in Sandbox   
    Hm, I don't know about you but I almost never used prem on my tier IX and X meds and used nothing but prem on E100 or IS-7. So only changing prem is certainly not doing much at tier X.
    The real problem starts when you throw tier VIII into tier X battles after you nerfed the pen of them all.
    The main reason why I stopped playing is the sheer amount of bottom tier battles in anything tier VI to VIII and the retarded powerlessness that ensues, especially when playing without top gun.
    With their current changes I don't see how this is lessened in any way. The incentive to play tier X (or tier IX) and nothing else will be even bigger after these changes. This in turn means that grinding your tier Vi-VIII tanks will feel even more shitty.
  4. Upvote
    Jaegaer got a reaction from Madner Kami in Sandbox   
    Hm, I don't know about you but I almost never used prem on my tier IX and X meds and used nothing but prem on E100 or IS-7. So only changing prem is certainly not doing much at tier X.
    The real problem starts when you throw tier VIII into tier X battles after you nerfed the pen of them all.
    The main reason why I stopped playing is the sheer amount of bottom tier battles in anything tier VI to VIII and the retarded powerlessness that ensues, especially when playing without top gun.
    With their current changes I don't see how this is lessened in any way. The incentive to play tier X (or tier IX) and nothing else will be even bigger after these changes. This in turn means that grinding your tier Vi-VIII tanks will feel even more shitty.
  5. Upvote
    Jaegaer got a reaction from FreddBoy in Sandbox   
    Which they stated was their plan all along. Start extreme, then chip off till you find the equilibrium of newand fresh gameplay that is still recognized as WoT by the playerbase.
    And that means all the players but especially the average joe.
  6. Upvote
    Jaegaer got a reaction from leggasiini in Sandbox   
    Which they stated was their plan all along. Start extreme, then chip off till you find the equilibrium of newand fresh gameplay that is still recognized as WoT by the playerbase.
    And that means all the players but especially the average joe.
  7. Upvote
    Jaegaer got a reaction from Tarski in WN9 poll 2, scale + account WN9   
    200 + battles/50 currently.
    So if you have 20k battles overall, a single tank can "weight" no more than 600 battles for your overall. If you have more than 600 battles in a single tank, this tank will still count as of having "only" 600 battles.
    This is turn means that playing this tank more will have proportionally less effect on your Account/Overall WN9 while playing tanks with less than 600 battles (and ofc raising ther stats) has a bigger effect.
    And this in turn is ciritzed by people who wish to raise their stats in their most beloved (tier X) tanks rather than new tanks.
    Maybe making the cap depend not only on number of battles but also on tier would also work well. For instance (tier*50)+(battles/50).
  8. Upvote
    Jaegaer got a reaction from TheMarine0341 in WN9 poll 2, scale + account WN9   
    200 + battles/50 currently.
    So if you have 20k battles overall, a single tank can "weight" no more than 600 battles for your overall. If you have more than 600 battles in a single tank, this tank will still count as of having "only" 600 battles.
    This is turn means that playing this tank more will have proportionally less effect on your Account/Overall WN9 while playing tanks with less than 600 battles (and ofc raising ther stats) has a bigger effect.
    And this in turn is ciritzed by people who wish to raise their stats in their most beloved (tier X) tanks rather than new tanks.
    Maybe making the cap depend not only on number of battles but also on tier would also work well. For instance (tier*50)+(battles/50).
  9. Upvote
    Jaegaer got a reaction from OnkelAlfa in WN9 poll 2, scale + account WN9   
    200 + battles/50 currently.
    So if you have 20k battles overall, a single tank can "weight" no more than 600 battles for your overall. If you have more than 600 battles in a single tank, this tank will still count as of having "only" 600 battles.
    This is turn means that playing this tank more will have proportionally less effect on your Account/Overall WN9 while playing tanks with less than 600 battles (and ofc raising ther stats) has a bigger effect.
    And this in turn is ciritzed by people who wish to raise their stats in their most beloved (tier X) tanks rather than new tanks.
    Maybe making the cap depend not only on number of battles but also on tier would also work well. For instance (tier*50)+(battles/50).
  10. Upvote
    Jaegaer got a reaction from micKee in WN9 poll 2, scale + account WN9   
    200 + battles/50 currently.
    So if you have 20k battles overall, a single tank can "weight" no more than 600 battles for your overall. If you have more than 600 battles in a single tank, this tank will still count as of having "only" 600 battles.
    This is turn means that playing this tank more will have proportionally less effect on your Account/Overall WN9 while playing tanks with less than 600 battles (and ofc raising ther stats) has a bigger effect.
    And this in turn is ciritzed by people who wish to raise their stats in their most beloved (tier X) tanks rather than new tanks.
    Maybe making the cap depend not only on number of battles but also on tier would also work well. For instance (tier*50)+(battles/50).
  11. Upvote
    Jaegaer got a reaction from 3MAJ86 in WN9 poll 2, scale + account WN9   
    200 + battles/50 currently.
    So if you have 20k battles overall, a single tank can "weight" no more than 600 battles for your overall. If you have more than 600 battles in a single tank, this tank will still count as of having "only" 600 battles.
    This is turn means that playing this tank more will have proportionally less effect on your Account/Overall WN9 while playing tanks with less than 600 battles (and ofc raising ther stats) has a bigger effect.
    And this in turn is ciritzed by people who wish to raise their stats in their most beloved (tier X) tanks rather than new tanks.
    Maybe making the cap depend not only on number of battles but also on tier would also work well. For instance (tier*50)+(battles/50).
  12. Upvote
    Jaegaer reacted to Buckyball in WN9 candidate prototype   
    The retention level at 65% was not chosen by polling, it was chosen by a push pole that could only give the result desired. A pole that had started at %50 and ended at 100% would have returned a
    result of %75 for instance.
     
    Wn9, in its current implementation, will give a clear road map on which tanks to play in order to improve  rating.
    People will be mandated to "fix" their old often hated tanks (within the threshold) or new tanks and discouraged from playing their favorite tanks they wish to be virtuosos of.
    Jack of all trades will win for what seems like a purely arbitrary view.
    Could we get a real overall without throwing out data along with this hybrid system? That way people could choose for themselves which to use.
     
×
×
  • Create New...