Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'balance'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • General Posting Place
    • News and Announcements
    • Newbie Palace and New Users Introductions
    • Shenanigans
    • Patron Plaza
    • Ask Me Anything
  • Purple Player Interaction Centre
    • Casual Purple
    • Ask a Purple Poaster
    • Purple Poaster Replay Place
  • Serious-Face Enabled Discussions
    • Core Skills & Mechanics Discussion
    • Metagame Discussion
    • People, Platoons and Pwning
    • Vehicles
    • Upcoming Changes Discussion
    • Mathematics Corner
  • Improvement and Study
    • Mentor Meet-up
    • Tape Study
    • Articles
    • Tanks Media
  • Clam Rivalry and Posturing
    • Clam Wars Recruitment
    • [NA] The Drama Llama says: WTF Subversions?
    • [EU] Professional Pro Gamering: stronk tenks and stronk taktiks
    • [SEA] Low Server Population Clam Wars Edition
  • Related Games
    • World of Warships
    • World of Warplanes
    • World of Tanks Console
    • World of Tanks Blitz
    • Armored Warfare
    • War Thunder
  • The Archive


  • Never's Blog
  • Melol's Blog
  • Melol's Blog
  • bjshnog's Game Dev Blog
  • TayTay's Diary
  • Noobs corner
  • Evelyn's Biting Corner
  • Dire's Blog
  • Constie's Awesome Adventures
  • Deft Penk Hidey Hole
  • blerg
  • Mundane Things
  • Majestic's Blog
  • WoTLabs Blog
  • German fanboy sperg blog thingy
  • A cheesy blog
  • Kuroi's Clubhouse
  • B-log
  • Ollie Tabooger's House Of Buttpiracy
  • vonblogger
  • _Clickers Blog of Rando Things
  • Blog name *
  • The_Illusi0nist's Blog
  • Shitposting With Skittles
  • rojo180's Blog
  • Tomhwk's Titillating Teal Time
  • how do i use a Kv2 effectively when teamates refuse to help me in WOT?
  • my blob
  • my blog
  • Shoe's Blog
  • Grumpy fail purple siema player is here
  • No Bullshit Reviews
  • The Journey
  • TEST
  • Reports of a beginner
  • CSI: Chinese Server Insanity
  • Hallo1994: Simply, Me
  • Wanderjar's Notebook blog
  • My journey to being a better player


  • World of Tanks
    • Tank Reviews
    • Strategies
    • Videos
    • Mods
  • Game Theory

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL







Found 11 results

  1. So i thought of a stupid way to fix ranked battles. Every tank should get an exp modifier based on the tank's strengh, kinda like the with the wn8. So for example arty gets a 0,8 exp multiplier, chieftan/279 get a 0,6, whereas shit tanks like the RHM get a 2,2 ect. Ofc these are just some random numbers. With this system people could maybe try bringing non meta tanks and there could be a bigger variety of tanks and therefore games could be less cancerous. On the other hand it could backfire as people would a) just use tanks with a good strengh/exp ratio Or b) just use strong vehicles regadless as it is not worth it C) ????? What do you guys think? Would it make it more interesting and/or better or it would simply be worse?
  2. https://worldoftanks.eu/en/news/general-news/preferential-matchmaking-fixes/ According to WG they realized they were making a mistake by trying to change the pref MM tanks to regular premium tanks. So preferential MM will be kept but those tanks will be buffed to fit better the meta. (Lol FCM mobility and Type 59 buffs) Also they are studying a new algorithm to fix the MM: "In its current state, the matchmaker often fails to ensure proper rotation between the top/middle/bottom of the list. Getting matched at the same position for several battles in a row slows down progression and degrades the overall experience for absolutely all vehicles. Unfortunately, simply tweaking the current algorithm won’t fix it. We tried to artificially lower the probability of getting preferential Premiums in +1 Tier and same-tier battles. However, this created more problems by increasing the number of single-tier battles and waiting times for not only Tier VIII and IX but tanks tiered VI-X. So we’re looking into redesigning the underlying matchmaker rules to improve 3/5/7, 10/5, and 15 template distribution. This will aim to prevent cases of spending 80% of in-game time in 3/5/7 battles at the bottom of the list. As you can understand, to find the optimal solution will take some time (about half a year) and we ask for your patience. We have already laid down a plan and work on the matchmaker is underway. We will give more information when we have it in a separate article, so keep an eye out." Let's see how they will fuck this up.
  3. So WG is now testing the Polish tanks trying to milk their Polish player base, with a 750 alpha 2,6kHP and 2,4k dpm!!! (which was nerfed from the previous 2,5k same as the E5...as if 100dpm matters). Dispersion is not that bad (look at the turret rotation 0,096 on a 152mm gun) and with 8 degrees of gun depression it should comfortable enough. Practically a E100 with a turret that does not seem to be 2-2 pen. The crap part of it is the terrible 317 HEAT pen and bad power to weight, but good news it gets 1,1k HE dmg. Just like the old tds. Which means you can spam it and get 400-500 dmg if you are lucky enough. The armour looks strong but there is maybe a weakspot as it has a central view port, probably to allow Russian player to remind Polish players that Poland is just Russia's garden. https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2018/06/22/supertest-60tp-lewandowskiego-updated-stats/#more-64620 Thoughts?
  4. I've been playing since CBT and cruisers definitely seem underpowered with respect to other classes. There's a number of reasons that this may be the case and I thought I'd outline them and some potential fixes to see what people think. 1. Lack of carriers Cruisers, especially American ones, have defensive fire and mostly good aa. Obviously this only helps if there are planes around. The problem is that carriers are very rare, especially at higher tiers. The way carrier play forces out bad players also means that hardly any carriers will just fly their planes through your aa so you get very few plane kills per game. If cruisers have no planes to shoot down then one of the things they're "supposed" to do is unavailable and they are left lacking since good aa means slightly worse other stats. Even with the max of 2 carriers per game cruisers still don't usually see significant air attack. Possible solutions: Give cruisers defensive fire as a separate consumable so they can also take hydro acoustic search so you aren't penalised for taking aa when there aren't any planes. Remove defensive fire and just flat out buff cruiser aa, maybe a bit heavy handed but again it would stop penalising people for choosing aa. 2. Too ineffective against battleships HE spamming cruisers at long range can be ok but most of the time a same tier battleship will eat a cruiser, it's not even a contest. German cruisers especially have terrible HE and really struggle to burn a battleship down. This is all very well as part of the BB>CA>DD>BB triangle but it's much harder to kill a destroyer in a cruiser than it is to kill a cruiser in a battleship. Destroyers are also less common than battleships which just skews it even more, that's a meta issue though. Battleships were built to fight battleships so cruisers armour isn't even relevant half the time. Possible solutions: Decrease cruisers physical size. Some cruisers are the size of battleships, and almost as easy to hit. Coupled with their lack of armour they die much more easily. If they were harder to hit at long range then it would turn more into a game of dodging shells. This does happen already but you still get hit too often if the battleship can aim. Battleships could still wreck cruiser at close range though so cruisers would still be encouraged to keep their distance. It would also help at dodging torpedoes. Reduce the damage cruisers take from battleship citadels, maybe by half. They would still hurt but you wouldn't lose half(or even all) of your health due to a lucky hit or two. Increase the concealment of cruisers. My Atago has a 9.1km detection range and I don't have any issues with battleships. If I'm taking a lot of fire I just stop firing back and after 20 seconds I melt into the shadows until I've extricated myself from the situation. German cruisers again really struggle to hide, especially if a destroyer is spotting you. 3. Ineffectiveness vs destroyers Cruisers, especially HE spamming ones can murder destroyers at close range. That depends on the destroyer coming close though. With the addition of radar and the buffed hydro acoustic search this might no longer be an issue but considering that cruisers are supposed to counter destroyers it's a very passive counter when the destroyers can always see the cruisers first. Again, there's also the issue of low destroyer counts but that's again a meta issue. Possible solutions: None if the recent changes are effective. Nerf destroyers concealment, not so much that they can't stealth torp but enough to stop them being able to turn around unseen if they see a cruiser coming straight towards them. Nerf torpedo ranges. This would force destroyers into closer proximity where their chances of getting spotted go up. They should still be able to stealth torp but stuff like shimas 20km range would be gone. Maybe buff torpedo speed to compensate but around 12km max range if not less. That's it for the wall of text. Please let me know of any issues you can see or things you like! TLDR, make cruisers more effective at their roles and less vulnerable to battleships.
  5. I started ice skating casually after my sister brought me to the local indoor rink last December. I've gotten to the point where I can propel myself along the ice for a reasonable amount of time without falling over, but I can't do much apart from that. The snowplough brake doesn't seem to slow me down much (not that I'm any good at it) and I haven't been able to get the hang of other braking techniques yet. To any experienced ice skaters, what would you suggest a newbie do to improve? Any techniques I should try to learn in particular, and in what order? Thanks.
  6. I’m not a great player, or even good most of the time, but I’ve played a ridiculous amount of a games. And after 30k games I think I understood it: World of Tanks is foremost a broken slot machine, dominated by random number generators (RNG) that can be manipulated in your favor. I seriously got WAY more calm once I had accepted the fact that there are a LOT of elements you can’t influence in each game. You have no control over: · the players. Every player falls into all kinds of categories, ranging from · aimbots, · a busy father, changing his baby’s diapers which is why he is AFK for the first 3min, · bad computer performance and/or ping issues · different cultural backgrounds (RU/EU!) · not the smartest knife in the drawer · drunk unicum · and so forth. An endless number (well, 20-30k on NA) of humans playing this game at the same time you do. Hence, you have no control over: · the teams. 29 randomly chosen players, which make every game different. Because it brings together these player kinds with specific tank types which again you have no control over: · the tank composition. Often balanced, but too often it looks like 10 heavies versus 10 mediums. How this turns out in the end depends on the above (players driving them), but as importantly it depends on the map, which you have no control over. · Himmelsdorf and all the mediums win is the hill and lose to E3s and E100s, or · Malinovka with medium tanks ripping apart the 2 Maus and tier X TDs …and in each case you are driving a light tank. There are 30 (!) maps in the game, so getting Malinovka is like a 3% chance every time you click ‘Battle’. The recent change to corridor maps also increases RNG somewhat, because it funnels players together into a smaller playground, with more interactions and hence more chaotic outcomes than an open map with long firing lanes and smaller local stand-offs. Whichever tank you pick, in the engagement itself you don’t control whether RNG allows you · to hit (when the perfectly aimed shot flies right to edge of the aim circle) · to pen (those 10% of the time when the gold round just doesn’t go through) · to damage (“Fucking low roll”) · to kill (“Lol. 1HP left” [which is intentionally done by WargamingTM]). Did I mention artillery yet? The biggest nuisance, worst accuracy, extreme damage rolls (either way). And balancing good players driving one-shot mediums with bad players, that ‘point & click’, hence added randomness to the entire battle. Once you accept all these notions, is there really a reason to freak out when · arty one-shots you · you have 2 bots on the team · your top-tier heavy goes valley · your Object 140 says ‘Look, we bring an extra light tank’ and platoons with a Loltraktor. · a heavy tries to cap because he’s doing HT-7, which costs the game? Because it is all random. Rinse, pick the next tank, hit ‘Battle’ and repeat. Yes, over a large sample you WILL at times lose 20 games in a row, but you also will WIN 20 games in a row. Hard to not freak out, but really, there is no point to. So, where is this slot machine broken? Each time WG introduces a new tank, there is a great chance it is (slightly) imbalanced, resulting in better RNG or RNG compensation compared to its peers. Tanks may be OP for some time (and you see good players leveraging this for improved results), or are just blatantly good in the hands of a great player (T-62A). In other words, there are some tools that work better than others given the overall randomness. An E100 on Malinovka is worse than a T-62A on Himmelsdorf. Similarly, maps are not flat square fields, but have their own (inherent) imbalances, which may or may not favor one side. Knowing these maps give a player (and his team) a huge advantage from the get-go. In addition, platooning takes 2-3 random players out of the equation, which has multiple times been shown to improve winrate (or drive it even further down if it is a triple-43% platoon). But even playing solo, picking the right tools and knowing the maps is a huge asset that will result in an above-average WR over time. A great player finds ways to ameliorate RNG working against him. In a way, the slot machine is broken to keep your hopes up. As long as there is a chance of winning the next match, you will play the next game. Even 40% players will most of the time win every other match, and that makes them continue to play. 60% WR: you made the difference in 10 out of 100 games 40% WR: you made the difference in 10 out of 100 games 73% WR: you mostly defeated RNG, Sela. On a more serious note, it seems a large number of purple players have quit WoT, for various reasons. A lot of it sounds like increased frustration over 'WG catering to the masses', increasing RNG, 'nails to the coffin'. But my question is: Which game do you want to play? Broken game mechanics that are fundamentally imbalanced are a common complaint, but welcomed by good players abusing Hellcats, Waffles, Fochs before the nerfs. With all the randomness that is intrinsically to WoT it still stands that a great player finds ways to work against RNG. It may just be more difficult. Why does this seem to be less motivating to play the game though? How much RNG do you find acceptable? TL;DR Freaking out over randomness is like crying over spilled milk. It won’t affect your 60D WN8 in any way. Or does it?
  7. If it is ST-I or ST-l, I'll probably never know. Don't care either, because this beast > World of Tanks. I like to compare it to the E-75, which is the one of the other 3 actual heavy tanks you can find in tier 9. Set-up is the same as all my other typical heavies (will put a nice picture here in the weekend - for now you'll have to enjoy the result of a ménage à troi that is integrated graphics, OS X and WoT) Main advantages Only tier 9 heavy tank that can actually hull down without converting cupola(s) to swiss cheese. Only high penetration guns can punch through the 'weak spot' on turret, but it's still extremely difficult to hit. Decent gun selection: if you're short on free xp you get the BL-9 from the IS-3 (unless for some reason you haven't got that one already) which is perfectly fine because USSR. Once upgraded to the top gun you shouldn't have a problem penning 9/10 things you'll meet. If you want to make things easier there are 340mm (because 330 has proven to be slightly unbalanced on the T-54) HEAT shells. Good gun depression, which helps 1 significantly. Pretty good DPM, it's probably my set-up and crew, but reloading quicker than 11s to derp an occasional 500dmg is nice. Side armor is ridiculously good against lower tiers (KV-13 in replay) Leads to super OP IS-4 Main disadvantages Russian heavies usually have bad view range, this bad boy gets 380m base. Which isn't bad. Until you check the E-75 that gets 400, or you get in tier X battles. Sluggish. Lower plate is much weaker than the germans, the track traverse (horrible compared to E-75) doesn't allow for quick angling either. Still feels stronger than other heavies (Conqueror, WZ 111-111111111), or maybe pubs just don't aim for it. Wurst dispersion. Premium ammo is HEAT (T30 in replay). The usual replay for educational bragging purposes. Couple of 'errors' I made Exposing my side to the hill while searching for shots on the 7/1, M103 or IS8. My brain put them on some kind of top priority... Not fully aiming in on the KV-13. Oh no, I missed some precious WN7 ratink!
  8. The Mother of all Derps, the SturmTiger. For years WG has been talking / testing about the sturmtiger, but now it seems it wont come, because `it cant be balanced`. While this would be true if WG is using the `normal` scaling for dmg and penetration, it doesnt mean those rules cant be bend. The sturmtiger is one of the more iconic tanks ever built, who cares for Pershing or IS3 if there is a sturmtiger? Most tanks are kinda boring or just an evolution of something, very few are ``special`` Just like the Maus is an absolute 100% must have in any ww2 tank game with prototypes, the sturmtiger is also a must have. The biggest most powerfull gun ever mounted on a `tank`!! There are 3 ``problems`` tieh Sturmtiger, according to many, including WG, but none is really problematic.... Too much alpha dmg! Historical, yes, in-game, why should it? It was a rocket, not a shell, which is enough reason to justify much lower dmg, with 2000/2800 dmg it should be ok... Penetration mechanics, overmatch etc etc Its a rocket and HE so: - no overmatch, HE doesnt overmatch in wot, stop with this bs myth, HE = never overmatch - Give it low penetration (50-90 or so), just to pen some paper tanks and thats it - Dont give it ANY shell with (high) penetration, only 1 type of shell and no gold ammo (Sturer Emil also has no gold shells, T49 has no AP, only derp shells so an exception can be made...) This means that it will almost never penetrate its targets, which means an effective 1000-1400 dmg, equal to a Jp-E100, it does have massive splash, so it can hit multiple targets. But big HE derps dont work / are no fun to use or fight against They do work in wot, and very well, look at SU-152 900 HE dmg on tier 7, 0,5 acc and 3,4 aim time, that is not much different as 2000 at tier 10, especially since the platform is worse (slower and less camo) and if SU-152 had no gold shells would people complain about it? Is KV2 a problem? NO!! But HE derps are OP!! No, the only reason they are ``OP`` are gold shells By NOT giving Sturmtiger gold shells and bad HE pen, on a slow, big, bulky, no camo vehicle it is no problem at all... The vehicle would simply play as a mix of SU-152 and Jp-E100. It has: - The size of a King- or JagdTiger, so bad camo - Same weight as a King Tiger, except more frontal loaded weight, at best JagdTiger mobility - Tall, so easy to hit - Shitty armor, its worse as KT armor, but on tier 10... So its a slow, big, relative weak armored TD with bad camo. It needs a good gun to compensate and luckily it has.... To balance give it a shell with 2500 dmg (due to HE mechanics, this will be cut in half, so 2500 alpha means 1250 in practice!!!) and 50-90 pen (or even lower, penetration should be so low, that it NEVER penetrates!!), enough to 1 shot anything from behind but to weak for frontal / side penetrations, which means splash dmg is all it deals... - Alpha dmg: 1000-1300 (depending on target, if it deals more on stuff like JT front, nerf alpha to 2400 or 2300, just as long that non-pen hits deal 1300 as ``max`` (random troll shots excluded) - pen: 0-50-90, some paper tanks might suffer, but for the rest its always too little (so it never penetrates its target!) - Reload: slightly longer reload as Fv-183 (35-40 sec) - Accuracy : 0,5-6, Su-152 has 0,5, KV-2 0,6, but it has turret, Fv-183 has 0,4, but is supposed to hit weakspots, so 0,5 should do for sturmtiger - Terrible shell speed - Aim time: 4 sec, a little more as Fv-183 or other big derps - MASSIVE bloom to frontal moving, on the move shooting should be impossible - normal bloom to turning / moving gun It would turn out to be a Jp-E100, in terms of mobility, camo and alpha dmg, except it uses a derp gun and no AP, HE has the advantage of always big dmg, but the con of bad accuracy and aim time (and shell speed). When compared to Fv-183, it is slower, worse accuracy / bloom and no turret. When compared to SU-152, more dmg, but way slower and worse camo Yes, suchs `fast` reload is not historical, Yes, suchs low dmg is bs, Yes, giving only 1 ammo type is `strange` but so are many other tanks, reload and dmg are pure balance parameters... 1 This tank would be balanced and playable to play 2 This tank wont be anything more annoying to fight as a T57, Jp-100 or E3, its a Jp-E100 who deals always dmg, but has almost no armor, it cant snipe and has worse reload as even the Fv-183 3 It has almost no gun depression, limiting it in many ways 4 SU-152 aim time / accuracy with worse shell speed is not really game-breaking... 5 Due to massive splash, it will offer unique playstyle, its capable of hitting multiple targets at once (while not beiing OP...) while having the worse accuracy of the game (if shell speed is taken into account) 6 It is one the most ``wtf is that oO?`` vehicles ever made, its an icon, its like the Maus or the Jagdtiger, a game full of prototypes without Sturmtiger is just fail 7 The game is full of unbalanced OP / lame bs vehicles some beiing outright fake (WTF-E100) Sturmtiger was actual built, it fought and its less unbalanced as fantasy bs like WTF... TL:DR Sturmtiger is historical and can be implemented in a balanced way, only some arbitrary game-rules have to be bend (like dmg / calibar ratio), and since Sturmtiger is trully a one-of-a-kind vehicle, it can trully stay the only exception... (its NOT a slippery scale like smooth bore guns since nobody else ever built a tank which could shoot rocket-assisted shells...) I can understand that WG wants more `historical accuracy` but NOT adding an iconic vehicle as the Sturmtiger pure for `balance` reason is a perfetic joke... especially if fake bs tanks like WTF-E100 are no problem, it will most likely turn out as a Maus, different as anything else, fun to play for people who like the tank but not really game-breaking (and only good in specific situations) ps: and it is a good hardcounter against stuff like E3 / E100, tanks which are close to OP, it will also be good vs dug in enemys like hull down IS7 or big cluster f**k on Himmelsdorf death alley GIEF STURMTIGER NOAW
  9. Many of us are not fans of the current meta. There has been some discussion already as to what sort of changes could be made to improve gameplay and balance. One idea that I am very much a fan of is reworking of the maps. I want larger maps with much more variety than there is now. I would much less mind areas like Tundra if there were areas similar to Prokhorovka surrounding it, where camo, vision and mobility could be used to influence operations within the area through Area control, where battles are one not only through vision control but maneuver warfare on a slightly larger scale than there is now. There are concerns over persistent issues like (1) camping, (2) a dim playerbase, and (3) less mobile vehicles which may have difficulty being useful in such an environment, but these sorts of things will either always be present and/or be remedied with some attention. Camping is the MO for some tanks, should you be advancing aggressively on the enemy with a Church GC or a Sturer Emil? Isn't Arty cancer camping incarnate? Besides, to camp and be effective, one must still consider the situation and act in an intelligent manner. In other words, a proper ambush must be planned. In a larger setting, these can be set up in a number of places, they must also be set up in such a way that if the enemy never appears, the forces can relocate to where they do appear and still support the war effort. Tutorials... could be MUCH better. Why couldn't there be ingame mini-guides for each vehicle? Ex: "With poor accuracy, gun depression, and penetration, but fair mobility and camouflage and alpha, the T-34-3 should be operated as a Flanker rather than a Sniper or Front Liner." And how difficult would it be to condense a good deal of the basic mechanics into the tutorials? Before I even began playing WoT, I knew more about the vision mechanics than 95% of the players just from reading the wiki and watching Jingle's "How not to Suck". That video in particular could very easily be made into a tutorial mission, where the player is required to observe an enemy, find a suitable place to engage him from stealth, and do so successfully without being spotted and attracting return fire. The same sort of thing could be done for, say, "How to engage a lone Heavy with a Medium/light (How to circle)" or something along those lines. In WoWP, more information was provided to the player about when to engage and how than a player in WoT receives, it went over things like Altitude advantage, how to engage a faster plane, a more maneuverable plane, etc, why could this not be done for WoT? Now, there will always be retards and there will always be slow tanks. Often times, people get left behind as it is, others run off and die by themselves. Why not introduce a recommended path system and a squad system? "With this tank, you should go this way, we've taken the liberty of grouping tanks that would perform well in this area into a squad, stick together and take advantage of your attributes!" Don't want to go that way? Don't like your squad? Take a page from Battlefield, you can reassign yourself to another squad. 'But Cuni! People will get abandoned and be left on their own anyway!' Not necessarily, there will always be idiots, but don't you think more people would catch on if they were exposed to features like this? If nothing else, when the pubbies coagulate, they coagulate into groups that tend to go a certain way conducive to the success of the mission. A pub in a Chinese medium with poor gun depression will be less likely to go somewhere very inhospitable to such vehicles, such as an area where fire can only be effectively exchanged by vehicles with gun depression. Another route could be taken, one where the enemy's position could possibly even be engaged from more suitable terrain. This system could even help average players begin to understand the operation of a map. Of course, it is difficult to predict what would be the best implementation of these ideas, and how positively they'd affect the game, but there are many other games to which we can look and point to and say, "See there? It can work." These changes, ofc, would very much change the operation of the game... But a map 1.5x, 2x the size of Kharkov with a good amount of variation could contain environments and features reminiscent of every other map in the game. Every tank could find a place to be useful. Things like signal range, view range will become important again. There could still be choke points, there would still be passages and cover. A CQB squad could advance into a passage and rock it, as the Vision Squad is destroyed, at which point either the enemy will advance on the base or attempt to engage the heavies, the heavies also deciding what to do. Also affected would be Artillery, they will now have to consider their positioning deeply as they must reposition to remain relevant but consider safety as they do so. 'Won't there be more draws? More camping? Won't this be more broken?' Doesn't have to be. Why have draws? Why can't we have "Narrow Victories, Narrow Defeats, Overwhelming Victories, etc" where 'Narrow' is more or less a draw where a team has operated more efficiently but failed to eliminated the majority of the enemy or capped out.Say that a battle takes place, and one team is left with 2/3rds of its participants, the other with 1/3rd. This could be considered a 'Victory', the winning team receives a nominal amount of xp and credits. However, say a team obliterates the other or performs far better in some respect, an 'Overwhelming Victory' occurs and there is a significant bonus to the spoils they receive, considering it may occur with less frequency, tis will provide incentive to move the game rather than camp. (Btw, this'd certainly solve the light tank problem, wouldn't it? They'll be much more than gimped mediums, with the proper rewards system they could regularly begin to operate in their role and be the eyes for the team.) That's all I have for now, its not fullproof, but I like my ideas, they're mostly things I've seen in other games that I have appreciated and enjoyed, and think could be worthwhile features in WoT. It would certainly make things more interesting, and if done right it could improve the game immensely. Nothing ventured, nothing gained
  10. I shall start with the timeline and description of PP Weight Rating. I realize it started terribly, didn't really show things properly at first, and is only in the most recent version getting better. Now that dossier files (and by extension, VBAddict) now have a better statistic I can use for defensive rating of the tanks (Shots Taken Without Damage vs. Damage Received Ratio), it will really help boost heavily armored tanks and hurt lightly armored tanks, like the rating should. Anyway, back in the beginning, I had this bright idea of finding a formula that would show overall balance of the tanks we play in a class/tier. I figured this would do 2 things: Prove 'subjective experience' from the unicums right, and give a better insight into how WG nerfs/buffs tanks (they don't do it purely off winrate, but some sort of internal formula showing unbalance). I decided to use VBAddict as the basis for the stats. It is not perfect (unless you have access to the internal WG Database, no method for obtaining stats is perfect). However, it offers an easily accessible method for obtaining stats, and also helps that it shows only the past 30 days stats, so that it is not just an 'overall that adds up over time', but a more dynamic rating that changes from patch-to-patch and more readily shows how patches change things. __________________ THE FIRST ATTEMPT In April of 2013, PP Weight Rating was born. http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/229413-pp-weight-rating-what-is-it-and-how-does-it-work/page__fromsearch__1 My first attempt was terrible. I started with raw data and got results that really didn't jive with reality. After rough going, I got the formula into a basic version which ended at Version 4. That formula is as follows: {[(RAW DPG/THEORETICAL DPG)*100]+[(ASSIST DPG/1000)*100]+WINRATE+[(POTENTIAL RECEIVED DPG/ACTUAL HP)*100]+SURVIVAL RATE}/5 = NORMALIZED PP WEIGHT The WGForums rejoiced that someone was taking time to attempt to do this, even if their attempt was sloppy. _________________ THE SECOND ATTEMPT In May of 2013, the second set of ratings came out. http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/238867-pp-weight-rating-may-2013-edition/page__fromsearch__1 I continued to use Version 4.0 of the formula, as by that time, I had setup my spreadsheet with it and it was easy to just plug-n-run numbers. However, my methods were still called into question by those with better knowledge of the workings of the game, as I had some strange anomalies in the results. However, Congratulations were given as I was not giving up despite initial detractors, was willing to work on the formula (did not claim to be a know-it-all), and was giving some sort of basis to show balance that players otherwise had no real ability to do. ________________ THE TWEAKING A couple of days after the May 2013 post, the Formula was tweaked. http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/239806-pp-weight-rating-formula-help-me-tweak-it/page__fromsearch__1 I got most help in PM's either on the WGForums or from Reddit. The formula ended up with Version 5 as follows: [Damage Ratio + {Assist DPG/(Tier * 100)} + Winrate + Damage Received Per Match Ratio]/4 = PP Weight ________________ FORMULA TWEAKED AGAIN AND THE THIRD RUN OF THE RATINGS I missed posting a rating in June for some reason. But by the end of June, I had worked hard on the formula and had tweaked it even further and it is currently on Version 6. The tweaking helped to normalize it for tier weights. The ratings were well received this time as the new, tweaked, version 6.0 formula really got the charts much more in line with what is accepted reality, though there were some shockers thanks to 8.6 and the intial 1 1/2 weeks of stats from 8.6. http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/255957-pp-weight-rating-july-2013-edition/page__p__4920781#entry4920781 Version 6 of the formula is as follows: {Damage Ratio + {[(Assist Radio + Assist Tracks)/(Tier * 100)]*100} + Winrate + Recieved Damage Ratio}/4 = PP Weight _______________ FOR THE 7TH TIME, THE FORMULA IS TWEAKED By the time I was partially done doing the July 2013 rating, I noticed that VBAddict had a new stat for defense: Shots Received Without Damage. Instead of a formula for Damage Received divided by Hitpoints Multiplied by 100 to get the ratio from 1-100%, This instead was a straight up "How much armor do you have as this is the percent of shots you took that did 0 damage." Thus, a better stat for defensive ratings of tanks was found. But, for completion sake, I finished up the ratings with version 6.0 of the formula. Version 7.0 is as follows: {Damage Ratio + {[(Assist Radio + Assist Tracks)/(Tier * 100)]*100} + Winrate + Shots Received Without Damage}/4 = PP Weight ______________ August 2013 PP Weight Rating Released http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/274823-pp-weight-rating-august-2013/ ______________ WHAT IS EACH PART OF THE FORMULA REPRESENTING? Damage Ratio = Percent of Damage Output Compared to Hitpoints. It is commonly accepted that a 'good tanker' puts out at a minimum as much damage a match as he/she has hitpoints. This is a hindrance to tanks with a lot of Hitpoints (like German Heavies, the TOG II*, etc.) and a boost to tanks with fewer Hitpoints. This is a Measure of Offensive Ability of that tank. Assist Ratio = Now that 8.6 is here, Assist Damage is broken up into 2 Categories. As before, I have found that without exception, that even combined together, both assist damage stats do not equal more than Tier * 100, so that is the ratio used to get a scale of 1-100% for this category. It is commonly accepted that a 'good tanker' can stay alive and get a lot of spotting damage or keep a target tracked (if he has no other shot) so that his teammates can finish off the tank if he is currently unable to do so. This is a boost to tanks with good view range/speed, and a hindrance to tanks with poor view range/speed. This is a measure of Support Ability of that tank. Winrate = Self explanatory. Measure of player skill that can 'override' all other stats the tank has. However, sometimes winrate comes into play in ways that are unexpected: Some tanks that Unicums consider great have poor winrates, for example, despite Unicum skill. Shots Received Without Damage = A measurement of how many shots a tank took directly that did 0 damage to that tank. It is commonly accepted that a 'good tanker' knows his tank well and can thus angle it to reduce or even completely eliminate damaging shots. This is a tremendous boost to heavily armored tanks, like say, German Heavies, and a hindrance to less armored tanks, like say, French Heavies. This is as it should be as German Heavies have much better armor than French Heavies. _____________ STRANGENESS ENCOUNTERED WHILE RUNNING STATS Something that was shocking the first time I ran the stats was how well the Maus stacked up as a Support tank, with it's massive spotting damage ratings (at the time, 7th on the NA server). As each iteration of the formula came along, and as the past few months have gone by, it has gone up in rating. As of the July 2013 run of the stats, the Maus is currently #2 overall on the NA server for being a Support Tank, behind only the Bat Chat 25t. Hard to believe, but the Maus is the 2nd best 'scout' in the game. LOL. Another shocking thing was how much winrates changed over time. Whenever a tank became 'flavor of the month', it's winrate would drop, while others around it would raise up. 8.6 was a massive shock to winrates. Out of over 230+ tanks, less than 20 had winrates go up since 8.6. Winrates were down across the board an average of 3%. Even the Foch 155, known for being OP, was sitting at an 'awe-inspiring' 50% winrate. The sigma changes really had a massive effect on tank balance that I don't think we will really see until September. I'm sure the August ratings will start to really show it, but September is probably where we will see new 'leaders' for best tank in many class/tier combos.
  11. According to Verilogus's post, 8.6 brought some rather significant camo changes. He says he stopped playing the 268 and T-62A because their camo no longer cuts it like it once did. What do the rest of you all think? Has any tank been winning or losing the vision control arms race since the new patch? I'd assume the Fatton is winning, since it relies less on its camo and more on its view range advantage.
  • Create New...