Feb 20, 2013
Overlord answers some questions on 8.4 and other topics
Source: http://overlord-wot.blogspot.fr/2013/02/wot-84-test-impressions-post.html
As always, the questions were redacted by me. I'd also hereby like to express my thanks to Overlord for being the only developer who bothers with posting in English and keeps answering our sometimes silly questions :)
Q: How's it with Garage Battles?
A: No time frame for garage battles at this stage, we are thinking of a totally new concept for them and not ready to announce it just yet.
Q: New maps?
A: Neither mods nor maps were planned for 8.4. Next update will bring at least one new map.
Q: What about the E-sports and endgame?
A: Guess, you have already heard of our thoughts on promoting esports and competitive play in-game (possible new mode). We are thinking of an in-game support for 7/42 mode with skill-based matchmaking, ratings and such stuff. Full teams are much harder to find. We are going to promote other formats as well. As for CWs, I have said enough in the recent posts. We are planning a lot of changes. CW is becoming a high priority these days. Unfortunately it hasn't been so up until now.
Q: Yeah yeah ... CW. Many clans are giving up as there are some "old boys" just sitting on provinces for last two years with no way to get rid of them without nukes, so who cares anyway?
A: That's why we need regular wipes and seasons.
Q: What about duel battles for example?
A: Duels would require special maps and are likely to be a kind of entertainment for very few.
Q: What about the number of drawing/prototype tanks in World of Tanks, isn't that a problem?
A: I can't say that agree here. AT-series has got its place in game just like most of top tier German, American, Soviet, and especially French tanks that have seen no or little no service and/or combat use. If you take a closer look, I'm sure you are good at warfare history, you will see how limited was RL usage of tanks with most of the nations having only several highly reliable and popular models. Not dozens. With our numbers (200+ tanks), we don't plan to maintain 100% authenticity, borders have been watered down.
Q: Skill-based MM?
A: Skill-based MM-ing will work only for ranked battles - eg 7/42 mode.
Q: Why not skill-based MM in randoms?
A: Because ordinary player shouldn't be punished for its skill, getting the hardest possible competition in every battle.
Q: Historical battles in random?
A: As for historical battles, we dont think they are suitable for random. They should contain some nicely developed PVE element. That requires time.
Q: OMG, anti-German bias!
A: There should be smth anti-german in every update. ..... Everything is good apart from the "German tanks were superior on the battlefield because they communicated and teams that communicate are superior in WOT" thing. You really need to abandon all myths.
Q: How fast will the new tank branches come?
A: Allow at least 1.5 months for each tank line.
Q: About the 8.4 test Tortoise - I am a bit confused: it has quite a weak armor (or more specifically, a huge weakspot on one of its sides). Storm wrote that it's intentional and it's compensated by high HP pool, but some people claim he was being ironic and that the Tortoise is scheduled for an armor buff (and the weakspot is a bug). How is it really?
A: Armour groups on Tortoise are messed up - half of its front hull is 38mm. Guys will see to it and fix the bugs.
Q: What about the pre-battle countdown?
A: As for "countdown is supposed be used to make a plan" there was some discussion of how to improve the situation, but it hasn't been finalized and is not in development yet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Q: Yeah yeah ... CW. Many clans are giving up as there are some "old boys" just sitting on provinces for last two years with no way to get rid of them without nukes, so who cares anyway?
ReplyDeleteA: That's why we need regular wipes and seasons.
Simply fuck him and fuck wargaming too
in ESL everything is won by 5 or 6 teams, let's wipe every result in the middle of tournament from time to time, so others will feel better.
it pisses me over that WG caters to retards, noobs and idiots who whine that they are loosing every time when they play against better teams thene they.
Wargaming should answer "learn to play noobs" not help them over and over again.
I have an idea - if clan is too good force disbanding it and prevent more then 20 people from it to be in the same clan ever again.
That way those retards whining that CW is unfair will finally achieve something.
that also goes for their: No skill based MM desicion.
DeleteThat just to please the ordinary weekend player who doesnt hit a tank properly and pisses off his team by driving t10s like a retard, but invests alot of money.
Shame on that.
Make CW more challenging by allocating Tier limits to various territories. That way people will have to have a wider breadth of vehicles and skill sets to survive. It also opens up the map to less developed clans who have not maxed out.
ReplyDeleteJust makes it a broader challenge for everyone.
less developed clans will get raped anyway even on lower tiers, which are far worse balanced
Deleteand being able to use lower tier vehicles means ever less problem with tank locking for big clans.
so after your suggestion nothing will change, and "less developed clans" will still whine, that "old boys" kick their asses.
There is only one solution if you can't access global map. Improve.
Or die.
Well, there is one more - whine to wargaming so that ignoramus devs will screw CW limiting options for good clans even more.
Those who can play better kick other's ass, that should be the goal. Not "2 provinces for everyone"
While I disagree with how aggressive you're being, I do agree that you shouldn't be punished for skill.
DeleteI think occasional resets are fair, though, as it lets clans who weren't able to overcome the ridiculousness of fighting for a landing zone get their foot in the door. And then, as you say, if they don't deserve it, it'll be taken from them in time, anyway.
Less developed clans do always mean less developed or good players. Your attitude of grow or die is very nice -it makes for a long term established game that caters to all its customers....not!
DeleteLess players or clans mean dead CW... simples.
That should be don't
Delete@Gorreci
DeleteI am not aggressive towards weaker clans in general.
But people who are to weak to even land and blame others for their inability instead of improving deserve all the bashing they get.
People who don't bother to find out how much top clans have to fight to keep their lands and accuse everyone of napping and farming only are simply stupid.
Developers not realising consequences of what they are doing and reducing clans abilities to fight in order to promote more fight are simply incompetent.
People who never were able to land on map arguing they know better then me how CW should look like - come on, that's riddiculous.
Come on just look how long it took fusion to get back on map when they formed. Or how long it took Greys to be back on map after they were wiped.
The reason why there is no more clans on the map is that clans out of the map are simply too weak to win enough to stay there.
Wiping won't help there except for short period after wipe.
@ anonymous
If less developed clan has good players it will grow, train, improve and then capture and defend territories on map.
So where is the problem?
But if it is a clan like PATO who has weak players with weak commanders, then I don't see why they should be able to land and keep territories on the map.
CW are supposed to be COMPETITIVE PVP. So you can try, but if you are weak you will never be ablee to achieve something else then playing on landing.
Following your reasoning, let's make hard cap on 2 provinces per clan. Lets make every province a landing zone. Or let's make tournaments where everyone wins.
Then we will have long established game that caters for all it's customers.
@ Gorreci
DeleteI have nothing against weaker clans.
But I'm justified in being aggressive towards people who cannot win a fight so they blame those who play better making conspiracy theories that it's their fault.
When Fusion reformed from Rebellion they were back on map in no time.
When greys were pushed out of the map, they reclaimed half of western europe in less then 2 weeks.
Orange clans are back on map 3-4 days after they are wiped.
So it's not riddiculousnes of fighting for a landing that keeps weak clans from landing. It's them loosing practically all their battles after they land.
And with the way CW works - even best clan will struggle to go over 80% win ratio since there is a random factor ine very battle, limited number of tokens available, revolts, landing zones being unreachable when you are on map - recapturing your territory will take a week or two. Every 2 months if i remember correctly.
It's the same mechanism like: from time to time your tokens will disappear from the map so your opponent can take some of your land for free to make chances more even.
That's fair?
What is even more annoying is OL publicly stating that wipes are a way to squeeze in clans to weak to land on their own by removing good clans from the map (and by good clans I mean here 70-100 clans currently on the map, even thos who win 1 battle out of 4 against us)
@ Anonymous
if less developed clan has a decent players and someone capable to lead, they will not whine on the forums, they will appply for landing, fight and sooner or later they will be among best clans.
BIA
FBFU
IIBII
O-S-C
A-P
those clans were fresh and new or weak at some point and now they keep their land - I'm not talking about Kazna here for example which was created from veterans but about clans that started from scratch and are good enough or among top clans now.
if CW are supposed to be competitive PVP then some people will be to weak to achieve success and you can't tweak the game until even PATO will hold few provinces.
Armour groups are messed up for the tortiose? really? what is the magical side weakspot im only just hearing about? also...half the hull is 38mm? waahhhhhh? ive been using all sorts of guns and tanks when testing the tortoise and ive not noticed any such "weak armour" holes in it...but hey! if there gonna buff the armour even more im happy :P <3
ReplyDeletequote from overlord regarding skill based MM: "Because ordinary player shouldn't be punished for its skill, getting the hardest possible competition in every battle."
ReplyDeletehe's a moron! he has absolutely no idea how a skill based MM even works
apparently to him and to them, WG, pitting a player with and against a random set of players with skills batter to his (as current random MM does) is worse than putting the same player in and against players of similar skill
Zmeul - I won't censor this but be so kind and show at least some respect, after all Overlord is answering and making blog in his own spare time and he's the only dev that actually bothers to talk in english. Just easy on the profanities, thanks :)
DeleteZmeul and others have always communicated with overlord in rather forthright terms. OL never seems to mind - to his credit. As to making the blog in his own time, presumably that's speculation as I rather doubt that you are party to the terms of Mr Yudo's contractual arrangements with WG.
DeleteAnyway THIS is SS own blog, and if doesn't want you to behave HERE like the first human (known as homo WOTus) you should respect that.
DeleteBut Frank, OL's statement shows absolute ignorance on the topic.
DeleteEither he don't understand what he talks about or he had something completely else in mind and miscommunicated (though such assumption is quite improbable).
Come on, if someone says that earth is flat then you should be able to say that this is bulshit, not that "we have to agree to disagree on that".
I agree calling him a moron is not right, but ignorant on the topic and blatanty wrong - that no one can deny.
Zmeul, skill based MM can have many different forms. All are bad for good players. All versions of such MM have many flaws.
DeleteAnd balanicing skill in WoT is almost impossible. It adds extreme complexity to MM. Cause you not only have to balance tanks, but tanks need same players, so if one team will get X tier tanks with 2000 effi player, then MM need to find for other team the same tier tank with similar player. In many situations it will take ages. And it need to balance that way all tanks in both teams!
Skill based MM in WoT random battles is total fantasy. And if he would be introduced, then good players would have much less victories then now.
He's not a moron. His point is that you should feel rewarded for improving yourself in the game. If, in every match, you fought better and better players, you wouldn't want to improve yourself anymore, simply because there would be no difference. If you sucked at the game, you'd win/lose just as much as a guy who's really good at the game.
ReplyDeleteNon skill-based MM is ideal, I think. It lets good players flex their muscles a little more, and new/bad players can learn from players above their skill level.
Sure, it sucks having a team full of noobs and you're the only decent player on the team, but that's part of the game too. It's a challenge to see if you can pull your team out of the fire, or at least to see your name at the top of a scoreboard even if you lost.
what the ....
Deletehe has a point? he has no point
a bunch of morons will always be pitted against each other forever
in a skilled based MM, winning would not be the only factor driving their rank upwards - there is damage, kills, scouting, shots miss % and probably more
when a player truly wants to get better he will be raised in the ladder according to his performance
no, he has no point
I agree, winrate is not the decisive factor in skill. That doesn't change the fact that many players like to see their contributions in a more immediate manner than 'oh, now I'm only 12,000 players from the top, instead of 15,000.'
DeleteWhen I said what his point was, I was re-iterating what's been the explanation before, regarding skill-based MM.There is no right or wrong here, only opinions. I'm only stating mine because you're stating yours as if they're facts.
Regardless, many Wargaming devs (particularly SerB) have said (repeatedly and definitively) that there will never be skill-based MM in random matches. I can guess that you're looking forward to have skill-based MM for the special matches mentioned in this article.
not really.
DeleteOL's opinion was that skill based mm means "having hardest opponents possible"
While it's completely opposite: skill based mm means that you will never (ideally) have a team where you are 1 good players against 7 good players or that you have 7 great teammates and all enemies are weak.
I dont mind playing with all other players weak in both teams (with 1 player in opposing team being on my level).
I just hate the fact, that out of 10 battles 8 is decided (in my favour or against it) by who is on which side and it doesn't matter how I will play.
So if you would be improving then 1 player on opposite team would be better each game - but your contribution will be crucial in almost every battle.
WG doesn't acknowledge that - either they can't or they don't want, they always assume that any suggestion with "skill" means "let's make noob ghetto and pro ghetto".
Now, when you say it like that, it makes a lot more sense. I guess I could get behind that. Typically I'm stubbornly rooted in my ways, but I'd be willing to try an MM like that, at least for a while.
DeleteWell let's be honest here, there wasn't any skill-based matchmaking in real life. ;)
ReplyDeletehuh?!!?
Deletewhat about the ELO rating system for chess
system that is the basis, of course with tweaks tailored to each type of game, for many skill based match makers
Riot's League of Legends has such a system, but Riot has spent a great deal of time and money to perfect their system
http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/wiki/Matchmaking
You need to wake up and shut up. "In real life". As in WWII, the actual fighting.
DeleteAnd yeah, I'm fine with the current matchmaking. And some of us are. I do see your point, but half of the reason I play this game is to pawn noobs.
WW2 is "real life" but chess is not?
Deletegood god the children of these times are complete ignorants
Well, chess is a game, like World Of Tanks...
Delete"WW2 is "real life" but chess is not?"
DeleteSo we mourn the thousands of chess pawns that die every day.
DasNiveau
Can someone please explain to me what the proposed "garage battles" are? -Cheers
ReplyDeleteA battle which you can enter with more than vehicles from your garage - you play one, when it gets destroyed you enter with another one etc. - at least that was the original plan.
DeleteSo they want to copy warthunder?
DeleteThey had this idea before anybody hard about War Thunder.
DeleteI would love every 6 month CW wipes I'd like to taste CW not look at the clan board to see the same person on the global map for 2 years or more, nobody likes that and to all the ones that get pissy about them doing/wanting CW wipes from time to time if you weren't Mr.best at WOT, then you would be in the same boat as us all, either way..
ReplyDeleteThanks for the bit of info!
Also what is Garage Battles i hear about it all the time but no clue what it is? Is it just another thing for Historical battles?
War Thunder has 'garage battles' in Arcade, players enter the battle with all planes in the garage (in that game every nation has it's own garage) When you get killed in one, you can jump into an other plane and continue until you run out of prepared airplanes or exit the battle.
Delete@ Christopher Hester
DeleteThe point is after the wipe the same clans will be on map.
Because they are simply way better.
Not because they are already there.
The only difference is that every wipe we will have some time of chaos reclaiming what was taken from us by wipe.
I can understand introducing wipes for some other reason (like making incentive for clans to start in completely different area or because first day when everything settles down are statistically more interesting then later ones)
But claiming that wipes are made to hurt best clans because others are too weak to get on map, that is riddiculous.
Everyone can play CW, because everyone can apply to the landing.
Everyone can play in the tournament.
But to get rewards from tournament / take land on CW, you need to prove yourself worthy.
The only way how regular wipes can change who will be on the map is if some of currently best clans will get discouraged by wipes from playing.
That's WG goal?
I want the Wipes so people who can't be proved "Worthy" over the constant losing such as my clan can at least earn some gold from a neutral land take but thanks for the response.
DeleteAbout Skill MM.
ReplyDeletewhy can't simply implement another game type such as
Winners of the day play against other winners until only 30 players are left.
This is the explanation of the best skill based MM ive seen so far
ReplyDeletehttp://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/838/skilllevelexplanation.png/
Together with bash points where low skilled players are honored with opportunity to be bashed and watch how the game is meant to be played.
"Bash Points are DotAlicious' new way of keeping people in their skill level.
Everybody starts with 10 bash points and will gain or lose points when playing games:
You pay Bash Points, when you play below your skill level. The formula is:
Bash Point Cost = Your skill level - the games skill level
This means,
you will get two Bash Points, when you play in your skill level,
you will lose one Bash Points when playing one level below your skill level and
you will lose two Bash Points when playing two levels below your skill level
and so on
You cannot have more than 10 BashPoints!
If you don't have enough BashPoints left, you cannot join the game!"
This is the pure skill ranking and its working great at Dotalicious. But, don't fool ourselves people, such things cant be implemented here, nor im keen to see it.