Verified Tanker [NA]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Pipinghot

  • Rank
    SerB Worshipper

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Server
  1. Pipinghot

    Regarding RNG in Games, in general

    That's fair, I did go to the extreme so maybe "dead" was going too far, but when you consider which players benefit most from RNG I feel confident in saying that the game would not have gotten as big as it has if the RNG was too small and shot dispersion was too accurate. A reasonable argument could be made for +/-20 or maybe even +/-15 RNG rather than the +/-25 we've always had, but going as low as +/-5 or even +/-10 would be too brutal for all of the bad/average & casual players, and they wouldn't have anything to compensate for that brutality. At that point WoT would have to use SBMM to placate the masses and it would be a significantly different game. If the publicly published numbers are to be believed (for example the 2015 & 2017 data in the link below) WoT has consistently made more money that DOTA, which either translates into being more popular globally, or making more money per player globally, and either of those answers translates into WoT beating Dota. It's pretty hard to take seriously the argument that WoT should be more like Dota, even though they've been consistently beating Dota each year. https://mmos.com/editorials/most-profitable-mmos-mmorpgs I suggest to you that you're arguing based on your personal preference rather than what the data says. You may prefer games that are "extremely" skill based, but that' doesn't mean the general game playing (and paying) public prefers them. Consider for a moment how many people who play WoT don't understand the battle mechanics, don't understand teamwork, and have no intention of ever being serious competitors. Their money spends just as well as yours, and they significantly outnumber you. I'm not trying to suggest that you should change your preferences or desires, but I am suggesting that you might be skewing your assessment of the game's success factors based on what you like or dislike. Also, I'm not suggesting that RNG is the only reason for WoT's success. Since there are many factors involved in a game's success I concede that it's possible you're right, maybe WoT could be more successful if they reduced the RNG, but when we consider which player demographics benefit the most from RNG I don't think it's probable that you're right. It would take some pretty serious evidence before I'd believe any claim that reducing the RNG would make WoT more popular and/or more profitable globally. Changes might make it more popular in NA, but we've always been a minority server. Consider the fact that the two games tied for #2 on that list linked above pretty much don't care about the West. Dungeon Fighter Online shut down their NA server a while back (two years ago?) without batting an eye, they simply don't need us, and Crossfire has a relatively small Western audience just like WoT. I've never played Dota, so I'll pretty much take your word on that assessment. Based on everything I've read about it, it seems like your assessment is pretty good, "in this sense ... Dota is more similar to WoT than it is to a FPS with respawn", sounds reasonable. Well, bads do leave Dota, just like they leave every other game. All games have player churn, the question is how much player churn, and how much to the retained players spend per player over time when they hang around. Having said that, I don't know the churn data for either game, so instead I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about how Dota presents itself to the player base. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know there are other elements that benefit bads in Dota: 1) Dota (like LoL) uses a form of SBMM so that people are almost always in a battle with people who are fairly close to their skill level. From what I've read you don't see the complaints about newbies vs. Unicums in Dota that you see in WoT, so I've always held the assumption that Dota uses skill brackets, much like LoL. 2) As far as I know Dota does not force people to see just how good (or bad) they really are. There are stats, but they're more focused on "how well did you do in this battle", which allows bad players to happily move from battle to battle with their Dunning-Kruger effect solidly wrapped around their egos to keep them happy. 3) How does Dota reward players for skill? WoT rewards player with more credits & XP when they win, and skilled players win more, so they earn more and progress faster than bads. Conversely, bads are subsidized by the pool of Team XP and Team Credits that they get a share of from every battle, which helps cushion the blow for their lower win rates. What compensation structure does Dota use that makes it palatable for both bads and goods? I tend to agree with what you've said, and am willing to join you in the same assumptions, which leads us mutually to the question... so what? And I don't mean that sarcastically, I'm not trying to give you a ration of s**t, that's a sincere question. WG presents the appearance of taking E-sports seriously, in spite of their own game's obvious weakness in that area, but do they really? From what I can tell their goal is to use E-sports as a marketing tool because publicity is good, but I don't see any reason to believe that they've ever thought e-sports were actually crucial to their business. Personally I think that WG's participation in E-sports is all smoke and mirrors because in the end it's not tied to their game's success in any truly meaningful way. Some games only successful because they are well suited to E-sport while others (like WoT) are successful in spite of the fact that they're entirely unsuited to E-sports. If WoT made significant modifications to the game to make it more worthy of E-sports would that actually help the game, and help their profitability? I, for one, doubt it and based on all of their actions over the last 7+ years so do they.
  2. Pipinghot

    Regarding RNG in Games, in general

    If you want dead-on accuracy at 350m then maybe you should be playing FPS games instead. I'm not saying that you, or anyone, has to agree with me, and there is certainly a lot of room for discussing how much accuracy should be expected at different ranges, but 350m is a pretty large distance, that's a pretty darned reasonable range for a "perfect" shot to miss. It's important to remember that 350m in WoT isn't really 350m, all of the numbers in this game are significantly scaled down from real ranges.
  3. Pipinghot

    Regarding RNG in Games, in general

    Since this is a purely subjective topic, I'll feel free to weigh in here. I like the RNG for the following personal reasons (although I don't expect anyone to have to agree with me): 1) It's not a FPS. I don't want WoT to play like the 12 most popular, cookie-cutter, guaranteed accuracy first person shooters. When I'm in the mood for guaranteed accuracy I'll go play Call of BattleQuake FortressShockHalo WarfareStrike. When I play WoT it's because I want something different, not something the same as all the others. 2) It feels more like a WWII era. The 1930-1950's were not the stone age, but they were less precise than the current generation of armaments, and the demands of war time production lead to more flaws in the processes. The manufacturing process for every component of a tank was a bit less precise than it is today and more importantly every factory was cranking things out as fast as they possibly could, with whatever materials they had available. As we've seen from a lot of the data that has been unearthed by people like The Chieftan, weapons during WWII were less precise than most people think. Even some of the "factory perfect" testing that was done by the various War Departments showed a significantly higher degree of variability than we think there was. 3) Accuracy is a lot harder when people are trying to kill you. I've seen so many threads on the Official forums that talk about how easy it is to hit targets with weapon X,Y or Z, and none of them consider how hard it is to be that accurate when there are enemies trying to make you fail and die. I know guys at my local gun range who can kill a squirrel with a .22 rifle at 100 yards but... they don't have to worry about the other 40 squirrels shooting back at them while they're aiming. 4) War is chaos. A pretty fair definition of war is "Crazy shit is happening non stop oh god do whatever you have to do so you can get through it. Also explosions." WoT is by no means a simulation, it's practically a cartoon in some ways, but it does capture one essential essence of warfare, and that is the feeling of chaos. WoT is more of an emotional roller coaster than most games, amazing when you do better than you should, rage-inducing when you fail or lose despite doing everything right. Even when it's frustrating it's also more exciting, because WoT captures that fundamental chaotic nature of warfare that so many other games utterly fail to touch. 5) Skill is never a guarantee in war. I don't want to go down a maudlin path here, but ask any combat vet and they'll tell you that some of the best soldiers they ever knew didn't come back. Being good improves your odds, but there's never a guarantee. Why did the guy next to you get shot and you didn't? Because war is highly random. Why did that tank next to you get ammo racked and explode while yours didn't? Because war is highly random. Why did you do everything right and your shot failed? Because war is highly random. And a couple of points that are less subjective: 6) It's good for the game. This is a one-death-per-battle game, which automatically means that it's more brutal than every Respawn game in existence. When people play a respawn game they always have the illusion that they have a chance because they jump back in and keep fighting. Even when there's no chance in hell that they're going to win they always have that illusion to cling to. Respawn games are perfect for people who think they're better than they really are. Respawn games allow every player to cling to the illusion that they're doing well even when they're the worst player on the battlefield. WoT is much more brutal for the ego, when you die you're done. You suck, game over, good bye. Honestly, if WoT didn't let people immediately jump into another tank it never would have been this popular. I don't know if you've ever played the single-death battle mode in first person shooters, but all of them (that I can think of) are less popular than the Respawn modes and Respawn games. If it wasn't for the RNG allowing bad players to survive more than they should, and allowing them to have better battles than they should, this game would never have reached the global levels of popularity that it has, and the NA server might very well have died a long time ago. There's a reason why games like "America's Army" have never been as popular as "Any good FPS with Respawn battles", and that reason is single-death-per-battle. 7) It's good for the game, redux. RNG gives lower skilled players more of a chance. The RNG in WoT is deliberately designed to mitigate skill to some degree. Even the worst player can get a lucky ammo rack sometimes. And no matter how much you want skill to be rewarded, you also need all of those other players to keep playing because their money is just as important to keeping the game alive as your money is. Actually their money is more important, the number of Bad + Average players outnumbers the Good players, so the game absolutely has to give something to the Bad & Average players to keep them playing. There are so many threads by bad players complaining about RNG, but they don't realize that RNG is the only thing that keeps them in the game and prevents them from rage quitting after a month. This is much more important in WoT than in almost any other game, because WoT keeps track of your stats and actually forces you to look at how good (or bad) you are. Most bads already think they're better than they are, imagine how unhappy they would feel about the game if RNG was significantly reduced and suddenly skill became even more important than it already is. Think about all of the 40%-45% players who would suddenly drop 5%-10% off of their Win Rates, and how much more bitter ranting and vitriol there would be about good players, and how many of them would quit and stop spending money on this game. So there's my list of mostly-subjective and a couple not-so-subjective reasons.
  4. Pipinghot

    The Case Against The 3/5/7 Match Maker (READY)

    Preface: I know I'm necro'ing an old thread (July 5, 2017), so if you're not interested in this topic now is your chance to move on. I was only just now made aware that this thread existed. It figures that the one time I get quoted & referenced extensively on WoTLabs is also a time when I made some pretty serious errors, and committed the sins I have argued against frequently when people write posts using tin foil hat thinking on the forums. Life is funny that way. 1) Confirmation bias. I was thoroughly convinced that the old MM had a lot more "awful" match ups than there really were, and confess that I was thoroughly surprised by seeing the numbers showing that being bottom tier was simply not much of a problem in the past. Relying on memory is relying on a faulty tool for discussions of this type. 2) Using intuition-math instead of actual numerical-math. I was using reasoning on how it seemed 3/5/7 was working, rather than looking for real data on how it truly was working. No matter what you feel is true, it's important to allow the data to tell you what's actually true. Feelings are not facts. 3) Got sucked in by Wargaming's marketing tricks. Never take it for granted that the game company is correct, even when you believe that their intentions are sincere. I still believe that WG's change to the 3/5/7 format was well intentioned, and was a sincere attempt to address long standing complaints from their player base. But even if they were honest and sincere that doesn't mean they got it right - and as it turns out they got it wrong. So first to @Liberty75 I would like to say, "Mea culpa", and then say that I'm thankful someone did the work, used good methods to gather data and then did a good analysis of the data to arrive at valid conclusions. /salute
  5. Pipinghot

    Comprehensive “Best Tank for Mission” List

    You're wrong! Maybe not about this one thing, I don't know, but c'mon we both know I'm smarter than you. So much smarter you guys.
  6. Pipinghot

    Make gold by buying camo/emblems

    It seems like there's something you're not accounting for, those numbers don't add up. 4 light tanks x 3 camo each = 1200 gold if purchased at 50% discount. Set of 2 Emblems and 2 Inscriptions for the T54ltwt = 256g, or if purchased at 50% discount or 512g if purchased at full price. Discount camo + discount emblems/inscriptions = 1456g or Discount camo + full price emblems/inscriptions = 1712g Neither of those match the 2040g that you were refunded. Just doing a quick and dirty check on the possible iterations of 100g, 200g (half-price and full-price camo) with iterations of 64g and 128g (half-price and full-price emblems/inscriptions) the most likely mathematical scenario looks like [(10x64)+(14*100)]. That could mean a variety of things, some combination of half/full price that adds up to 1400g plus some combination of half/full price emblems/inscriptions that adds up to 640g. But what it doesn't look like is the scenario that you originally described.
  7. Pipinghot

    Make gold by buying camo/emblems

    Not all of them - American, French, German, Russian. The Chinese Tier VII and VIII light tanks will not be affected by this change, they are adding the two new Chinese light tanks (IX & X) without any changes to existing Chinese lights.
  8. Pipinghot

    Kewei method prem?

    Why would you even use a second account to do this, all you're doing is wasting time and money to lie and say, "Look how good I've always been, I was never a noob like other people." That's a complete gutless move. Every pro athelete you've ever seen had to play in high school (and most in college) before being pro's. And even pro-atheletes have good seasons and bad seasons with only a few of them being great for their entire career. Every grand master of chess had to start somewhere. Bill Gate and Warren Buffet have both made mistakes, even after becoming fantastically wealthy. Everyone has a learning curve, everyone makes mistakes. It's not like you're going to go down in history or win a Nobel prize based on what you accomplish in WoT, there is simply no benefit to lying about your history and learning curve. All you're doing is spending extra money to have a second account and splitting up your pools of tanks/crews with no benefit to yourself. Just be yourself, own your history, own your stats, own your learning curve. Sure, you could be a coward and pretend that you've always been amazing at tanks even though that's a lie, or you can say, "I used to be bad, then I got better, because hard work is how you improve". Stand up like a man (or a woman) and own your progress without being a weasel about it.
  9. Pipinghot

    No Grok TD, or how I really suck at TD's

    Of course you can. You can grok a concept, a philosophy, a language, a culture, an object, anything physical or conceptual that can be described can also be grokked. The direct translation from Heinlein's fictional Martian language is "to drink" something, but of course that is not literal. You metaphorically "drink" the idea, you merge with the concept of it, and a complete understanding of it infuses your very being, it becomes equal to you. You can grok TD's and applesauce, physics and the Martian language, all can be grokked. It looks like you don't grok grokking.
  10. Dating advice + hatred is about the hugest market that humanity will ever have. If you can't make money writing about a combination of those two things then you don't deserve money.
  11. Yeah, I'm with you. My assumption is that people would do some experiments using Company battles where they could arrange for matches in which they control all of the conditions and variables rather than trying to data mine from replays. I'm pretty sure that anyone who has the knowledge and tools to figure out this information by data mining replays has zero interest in doing the work that would be required.
  12. Yeah, this is pretty much why I'm not interested in attempting this work, but I figured that there might be some obsessive-compulsive Russians out of the millions on the RU server who had maybe tried to figure it out at some point.
  13. It wouldn't be all that difficult. Considering that hidden camo values have been worked out by player testing it's not a stretch to think that this testing might have also been done. Do you know where I can find those official formulas?
  14. Are there any sources that provide actual verified numbers showing credits/XP earned from damaging enemy tanks, capping, etc? Of course we have the descriptions in the wiki, but it's all phrased in non-numerical generalities. http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Battle_Mechanics#Tank_Experience_and_Credits "Small flat bonus", "flat bonus", small flat bonus", "Per point of damage", etc. Where this would matter most is when players are arguing in-game about whether it's better to cap or to track down and kill the last one or two players on the enemy team. I've seen tons of people arguing about which gives more XP and credits to the team, and to each individual, but I've never seen anything that quantifies exactly what those differences are. Right now all I see are a bunch of arguments about folklore, and have never seen hard data that backs up either point of view.
  15. vbaddict knows all, tells all. Top Tier X's in net income per battle http://www.vbaddict.net/statistics.php?tier=10&tanktype=0&nation=0&premium=0&modeid=0&team=0&battles=1000&groupby=0&fieldname=creditsn&server= Top Tier X's in net income per minute http://www.vbaddict.net/statistics.php?tier=10&tanktype=0&nation=0&premium=0&modeid=0&team=0&battles=1000&groupby=0&fieldname=credits_per_minuten&server= You will immediately notice that those pages have all negative numbers, but of course that's because they are averages that include lots of bad players. Having said that, it does tell you which tanks are most likely to be profitable if played well. if you are particularly good at any of those tanks you should be able to make money.