I love it when Silentstalker gives his "expert" opinion about WoT gameplay. This time he proceeds to enlighten us why corridor maps are actually great: http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/09/26/corridors-really-such-a-problem/#more-17539
A few highlights apart from his usual envy-driven rants about good players and their whining:
He argues (rightfully imho) that corridors are easier to manage for noobs. However he completely fails to understand what good players want instead. Very few would want open "flat" maps "filled only with obstacles". I don't have an issue with corridors per se but rather with corridors that are completely cut off from the other areas of a map. What I want is a degree of interconnectedness between different map areas allowing to influence the fight on one part of the map from other parts.
Examples for "bad" corridors according to that definition would be: Valley on Lakeville, Western corridor on Severogorsk, the Western one on Tundra, the Eastern one on Abbey.
Playable corridors would be: Eastern corridor on Abbey (firstly its a double corridor with 2 crossroads, secondly it has openings towards the middle of the map), the reworked Pearl River also povides improved corridors since there are a lot more connections allowing for flanking and repositioning.
He fails to grasp any of the inherent problems with corridors:
They reduce engagement ranges which - while not per se problematic - will turn into a major issue if a map offers nothing but corridors. In that case certain tanks or even entire tank classes become obsolete or at the very least much harder to play. This applies to scouts and soft TDs but also to a lot of non-turreted TDs and soft meds.
The lack of a sensible role for scout tanks in the current meta is thus at least in part attributable to recent map changes.
If you get too many corridor maps, the tank balancing as a whole is affected. The Leopard I and Leopard PTA are examples of tanks that are suffering a massive nerf by proxy.
In other words: closed corridors cater only to a limited number of tank types. However, any map that only caters to some specific tank types is bad in my book. The game offers a wide variety of different tanks, the best maps cater to as many of them as possible by offering diverse terrain features (Ruinberg is a good map in that regard).
The gameplay gets stale. Corridors don't provide for very exciting battles. Have you ever fought the valley on Lakeville? It's as one-dimensional as the game can get. The only tank class in which working the valley is fun is artillery since tanks will fight almost completely exposed. But that applies only if your teammates provide spots which they will be very hesitant to do since any tank peaking over the central valley ridge will immediately get shit on by enemy arty. Tanks in the valley will thus often just sit there and hope that someone else will peak.
Again: while Silentstalker is correct when he argues that WoT needs to be accessible to new players in order to work as a business model, at least the mid and higher tiers are almost exclusively filled with players that have several thousand battles on their accounts. If you want to keep these players entertained you need to keep the maps interesting. If you dumb down map after map until it is nothing but two or three seperated corridors you greatly cut down the different ways in which a map can play out and players get bored.
Moreover, the game stops catering to all types of different players: people who enjoy playing softer tanks that rely on speed or camo to avoid hits will lose interest.
According to Silentstalker corridors prevent camping because they allow tanks to advance without taking fire from camping TDs. He uses Sverogorsk as an example. Unfortunately that is not entirely true. At least not of the corridors I defined as "bad" above. Closed off, one-lane corridors create an inherent stalemate that is extremely hard to crack. I explained that effect for the Lakeville valley already but the Western corridor on Severogorsk is an another great example: It is so narrow that only 2-3 tanks can fight there at any given time (of which only 1-2 will have any cover). The fight cannot be influenced from any other part of the map (except for artillery shelling) and flanking takes considerable time since you have to cross the entire map. In consequence, the only way to break through is a potentially costly frontal assault from which most players shy away. What players will do instead is just a different sort of camping. They will hope that their opponents are dumb enough to push first and play very defensively. At worst they will just stay in cover and do nothing; at best they will try to slowly grind their opponents down in a protracted peak-a-boom fight. Multi-lane corridors that are interupted by crossroads and provide openings towards other parts of the map avoid this issue and are therefore what I defined as "workable" or "good corridors".
Corridors can induce a massive concentration of tanks and leave the rest of the map completely deserted. El Halouf is the main example. In the current meta you will see at least two thirds of each team head to the North-Western Corner (A1-2/B1-2). The map has completely lost its equilibrum and could just as well be cut down to the size of 300m x 300m.
Kharkov is apparently a bad map since it is too complicated to grasp for new players. Granted, it might be too complicated for SS, but for some reason it was nevertheless chosen as one of the most popular maps in a recent survey on RU. Apparently, it's not just the elitist players that enjoy a challenging map ...
Open maps according to Silentstalker invariably lead to camping. That is not true. Admittedly, an open map can result in camping if that map suffers from design flaws - Prokorovkha is such an example. However other open maps work very well. The Eastern half of Steppes offers hardly any hard cover, yet it is exactly that area where the gameplay is usually the most aggressive and dynamic. Some well placed terrain depressions make the map work. Silentstalker (of course) has a very different view: to him this map examplifies why open maps are bad since half the terrain isn't used (not quite true, for example scouts often go to the rock+bush in the middle of the field). Moreover, there are very few maps that haven't stretches of terrain that are rarely used (how much of the terrain on Severogorsk is actually used?). The nice point about Steppes is that there aren't any impassible barriers that block you from switching flanks. The fight can thus remain fluid and is likely to shift across the entire map as the battles progresses.
His 52% winrate places SS amongst the top 5.7% of players. WoT god Silentstalker! Shame he still doesn't understand the game.
There is no corridor whine about Himmelsdorf. SS finds this odd. It isn't: Himmelsdorf has not a single corridor that is completely cut off from the rest of the map. It is the definition of a map with interconnected corridors. You can snipe from the hill down all the way to the West of the map and vice versa. Every street has opening and crossroads.
It is a shame that the small piece of fame that Silentstalker has gained by translating developper statements from Russish to English has made him think he is competent to comment on all issues concerning WoT. It is just as regrettable that he seems to believe that anybody better than him in WoT is an arrogant whiner or evil statpadder. Last but not least the silly obsession with good clans in his hall of shame just seems spiteful. Besides, how can somebody who branded EXNOM and EXN0M as the worst of the worst for months suddenly join RI3E, the renamed EXN0M, and still believe in his own objectivity?
Basically, Daigensui (who acts as a historical advisor for Wargaming, mainly for Japanese tanks, but also German ones) was told by WG to use "power to weight ratio / terrain resistance = effective hp/t" as a reference when many German high tier tanks were going to lose their top engines but gain hovertraxTM in 8.8, so she would have an idea how they are going to be affected in terms of mobility.
I myself questioned the formula when I compared the T-62A and T-54, which move about the same in terms of acceleration, while they have vastly differring mobility (~26 and ~16 eff hp/t, respectively) according to the calculation. I asked her for the source, and she replied with what's in the above paragraph.
Because the numbers are borked beyond belief, I can only deduce that WG grossly oversimplified the calculation to the point of pointlessness (?), and through Daigensui's posts, the myth perpetuated across the forums, mainly NA.
Mobility calcs are probably so complex (and possibly affected by hidden values that we aren't even aware of) that trying to figure it all out is futile. Just start from hp/t and cross-reference with tanks with similar terrain resistance to get an approximation.
The "statisticians" at WG are probably forgetting to chronologically check the IS-7(Example) battles against the account sampled. If someone went up the IS-7 line, the IS-4 line and then the E-100 line, for most players their stats would be better for each successive line played. However, if you just checked the 5000 battle player with these 3 tier 10s by their stats page, it would look like the Russian tanks are underpowered due to performance.
Measures like "class-tier WR" are useful for tanks which tend to be fairly randomly played throughout an account's lifetime - they assume that the skill of the player has not changed for the duration of the study. Taking a sample of greater then ~10% of an account's games poses a severe risk of introducing this type of bias.
The best way to mitigate this is to take a large sample of accounts with more then 10,000 games played (therefore multiple tier 10s for the most part) and then check only the last ~10% of their battles. (A player with 40K games is probably not getting better or worse in the last 4K, while a 10K likely would). They can then measure the play frequency and relative performance of every tank played with a reasonable assumption that the player skill is the same for all vehicles within any one account.
This would allow measures such as class-tier WR to be effective, and to draw statistical studies on play frequency versus account WR, play frequency vs 1000 battle WR and to determine other advanced performance metrics using factorial analysis. OFAT is shit - WG probably uses it to balance tanks.
If it turns out that not many people are using the IS-7 in their last 1000 battles, but a lot more are using the E-100, a simple comparison to account wide play frequency will easily reveal the type of chronological bias which we suspect exists.
P.S: The IS-7 is not underpowered. The IS-4 is probably below average, as is the KV-4 and maybe KV-3. The ST-I and KV-IS are above average (or broken for the IS) and the IS/IS-3/IS-8 and T-150 are all fairly well balanced. They are just not that noob friendly.
Barely Armoured Ammo Rack (Leo 1)
Bat Shit (BatChat 25t)
Fat Man (JPE100)
Ground Cancer (FV215b 183)
Machine Cancer (WTE100)
AP Cancer (Obj. 261)
Auto Cancer (B-C 155 58)
Cancer (GW E100)
Cancer (Conqueror GC)
Ok, assuming there are enough users for the mod to actually matter, that would basically give players a way to ban people single handedly.
Step one : pick a nifty generic sentence from the Hall of Shame of FTR with "cancer" and "jew" in it
Step two : take a screenshot where your target talks
Step three : photoshop the two together
Step four : send the result to SilentStalker
Step five : wait for the Hall of Shame and the mod DB to update
Step sixth : ???
Step seventh : PROFIT
There you go, you got an innocent player banned.
Thus, I'm against this mod.