Jump to content

Silentstalker

AW Official Staff
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    169

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Posts posted by Silentstalker

  1. Posted

    Just now, Hellcat said:

    Sorry I know but I measured its value based on how the community sees it. You can put a new T6 vehicle for 1000€ but if the vehicle is not really worth it as a content and falls in to the oblivion forgotten you can call it expensive but community will not value it in the same way, and lets be honest, the prices are high compared to other games, I know is a expensive stuff based on the dev work but in the end ppl will buy vehicles that are "worth it" not those that have lots of hours in dev work.

    You measured the value on how this particular sub-set of the community sees it. For a old veteran of 5 years who's been with us through Balance 2.0, it's boring. For a new player? Oh boy. New players may try finding AW's Reddit and the lists came from there.

    What bothers me more though is that the list is in our My.com format, including bundle names. This is internal stuff. As a pre-caution, we may have to disable every single older bonus code, including the Alienware ones. Who knows what sort of stuff's flying out there. Would be a shame (players often recommend these as "invite codes"), but this could be really dangerous to us.

  2. Posted · Edited by Silentstalker (see edit history)

    Just now, darkrai said:

    Only that the "price" is just an arbitrary number someone farted out, and deemed acceptable. The Price shouldn't be that different in production for a T3 tank, and a T10 tank. Just the dreamt up pricetag changes

    Welcome to economy 101 :) And then people wonder where all the marxists who claim that prices should defined by labor used in the creation of the product come from.

  3. Posted

    49 minutes ago, TeyKey1 said:

    A great compensation for the 0.33 fuckup :trollseal:

     

    I didn't want to push the drive to remove items from players but I think I will after this comment :)

    2 minutes ago, Hellcat said:

    30 prem days and 1k gold is not that much, plus the tanks... I didnt have the WZ and probably everyone will say its a bad tank. I only use low tiers when I play with friends wich are low players.

    I think that opinions such as this are a part of the problem actually. In reality this is some pretty expensive stuff.

    Either way, codes are now disabled.

    • Downvote 1

  6. Posted

    6 hours ago, Haswell said:

    Interesting, is this a developer or operator/publisher decision? I know you've been screaming at them that it's a retarded idea, this makes me think the rifts between devs/publisher/operator/community are growing bigger and bigger.

    In case people missed it the last time, the BH changes were already discussed to death and people generally agreed that it's bad.

    Not really. It's always been like this, sort of. It's a complicated topic that I can't really discuss.

  7. Posted

    4 hours ago, Haswell said:

    That actually looks pretty good, better than the new textures I think.

    IIRC when My.com took over development they wanted to remove everything OE did, and implement their own versions instead. There might be licensing or copyright matters involved as well, but my suspicion is that the old textures didn't get used simply because OE made them.

    Not really. Everything belongs to Mail.ru, always have. The fact some OE assets ended messed up was not... hmm. Planned. But we are completely fine with using old Obsidian assets. The problem is few of them are in any state to be used.

    6 hours ago, tahax said:

    Hi everyone) I here decided to slightly improve that barracuda camonet for the Leo 2a5, using old textures from OE. How do you like this idea? Why mail.ru dont use all of those old textures?

    Hi Tahax. Sorry to bother you but I showed your post to our designers and we'd like to know what exactly you did that we didn't? Only added a camo pattern?

     

  9. Posted · Edited by Silentstalker (see edit history)

    1 hour ago, Tired_needs_Nrg_Drinks said:

    Is it possible for us to get the global player numbers/ pvp battles for us to do stats on them?

    I have some old ones. New ones... not easily, for some internal reasons. I'll try but the chances are low.

    Either way, I think you guys are approaching the topic wrong. Ask yourselves - what is the GOAL of any proposed changes? Why change things in the first place?

  11. Posted

    Well, fair enough, can't argue with your personal experience :) Whether you want to continue or not is ultimately up to you. You know, I could sugarcoat it for you. Tell you how valued your feedback is and that we will definitely take it into account. Like a professional CM would. But, I reckon you'd prefer the truth. That's MY way of respecting you as a customer. And the truth is, GLOPS is a problematic mode that we don't plan on overhauling anytime soon. Maybe in 2021, I don't know what the feature plans are for the entire year. But I think it's unlikely.

  12. Posted

    19 minutes ago, Lenticulas said:

    Take it as what you like, I like hyperbole, however I am stone-cold serious about this:

    please enlighten me..

    Which part of my mathematics do you wish to argue with?

    Mathematics? You are making assumptions about the entire game based on 300 battles, at one point you argue with 42 lost battles. That is a statistically unremarkable number. To draw any conclusions, you'd have to have a sample two orders of magnitude larger. And even that's not great. Make it three.

    You'd be surprised how many battles are played each week. I am looking at a weekly sample from back in 0.28 and it's around half a million battles per 2 weeks and that's PVP (Random Battles) only. AW has much higher player count than players realize.

    • Upvote 1

  13. Posted

    31 minutes ago, Lenticulas said:

    Thought so. And by the way you ARE running SKILL MM, I just mathematically proved it.

    That* makes my decision so very much easier.

    When demonstrated exactly what the problems are that ruin glops, in terms of solidly researched stats, AW explicitly refuses doing anything about any of them, because reasons.

    And since AW also refuses to do anything about developing Glops, so the "continuing to fuck me up th arse" situation will remain eternally in play, basically permanently... enjoy your increasingly empty server, as the seals avoid the clubbing you are apparently entirely unwillig to do anything about.

    Bye.

    Okay, I am going to take that as a hyperbole...

    But yes, we will dedicate our resources to more promising things that will affect all players rather than trying to endlessly fix something that's practically impossible to fix.

     

  14. Posted · Edited by Silentstalker (see edit history)

    Allow me to save you some headaches.

    • You can't run a skill MM because REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
    • You can't impose absolute platoon rules because platoons would never get in a match (and non-absolute rules, those we have already)
    • You can't ban platoons because social gameplay is a strong retention driver and way, WAY above in priority above balance, removing it is a huge no-no
    • You can't ban premiums or screw around with their matchmaking because they are paid content and their owners would not take kindly to their toys being limited (also, all your vehicle observations are based on pre 0.33 and thus potentially invalid)
    • You can't limit or ban any vehicles in fact, we can't punish players for owning certain class (and don't bring up SPGs, that's a very unique case)
    • You can't introduce absolute MM rules because the mode is already unpopular and it would just become deserted

    Like I said elsewhere, there are no easy solutions to this, certainly nothing that can be randomly brainstormed by players on a forum. But... well, you can surprise me, miracles do happen sometimes after all.

    • Upvote 1

  15. Posted

    Well, why do you think we don't have any more GLOPS maps for ages?

    The problem with this mode is that it's inherently flawed. Always has been, since Obsidian times. Even back then, it was a problem and it's been literally years. We've been trying to figure out a solution (including total overhauls of the mode - one idea, for example, was to turn it into a MOBA of sorts where players would capture bases along several routes, which would trigger steady stream of AI reinforcements) but the truth is, there is no good or simple solution to this issue (and believe me, we thought about a LOT of them).

    If this was 2015-2016, the mode would have been removed just like Lords of War were but some players obviously still enjoy it, so there's nothing to gain in doing that. At this point, the mode will likely stay as it is.

  19. Posted

    Some of these seem weird. I never said

    Abrams and Challenger series having their armor characteristics swapped (Abrams having much better armor now) is intended.

    I said the Challenger armor configuration is intended. Also, I never said that Bradley launchr doesn't elevate or depress IRL, I said that it never did in the game.

     

     

    49 minutes ago, Haswell said:

    Skill-based gameplay "got us nowhere". (note: not sure if this is SS's opinion or fact. Either way it matches the trend of gameplay being dumbed down.)

    Both TBH. This ties to the state of the game from alpha to Balance 2.0. Early AW was all about skill because this tied to the vision where AW would become the next hot competitive game because WoT was too casual. I think I mentioned this in another post on this forum. The biggest problem was:

    • For casual players, some of the early elements that were intended to promote skill-based gameplay (less forgiving than WoT, low TTK, pixel hunting) were a serious hurdle to overcome and one of the biggest obstacles to true success
    • For skilled players, who truly desired competitive gameplay, it wasn't skill-based enough, it was still too casual

    As soon as the skilled players started feeling the devs were stopping listening to them (which was of course true because their demands were directly opposed to the needs of casual playerbase), they left. I warned about this in 2015, that's one of the reasons I truly hated catering to "top clans", "unicums" or whatever you want to call them. Not because I "hate unicums" (that was a Wotlabs myth about me), but because this always happens. It has always been so. In WoT too.

  22. Posted · Edited by Silentstalker (see edit history)

    1 hour ago, Lenticulas said:

    "Fuckers"

    ... Seriously? Are you 100% sure about this, because.... That would be a *really* stupid thing to do....

    Well, it's internally treated as a new contract so I am pretty sure the reset will happen. But I'll verify.

    Edit: Yep, it resets

    42 minutes ago, dfnce said:

    It is not the first time when next stage of PTS is simply pushed to live server. PvE should be fine. PvP is where some radioactive shit is gonna fall.

    Meh, between PTS2 and Live, they fixed a LOT of stuff. I think it might actually be fine.

  23. Posted

    Well, TLDR, you're right. The "RU is bad" is mostly a myth. Some time ago (this data isn't very fresh, but it is post-merge and I doubt it changed too much) we checked the winrates for each region and the Russians are, on average, slightly better. They do have somewhat higher number of objectively bad players (more per capita than EU, but not by much), but considerably more truly good PvP players per capita (the higher you go, the higher the disproportion). This was most likely caused by the exodus of good western PvP players before the server merge.

×
×
  • Create New...