Wargaming's Design
A Closer Look at How World of Tanks Was Intentionally Created
To those who haven't been with the game for too long, this piece is here to enlighten you about how Wargaming operates as a company. Generally when people suggest the game being rigged, or that the matchmaker is out to get them, or anything like that, they quickly get shot down by the giant army of Wargaming fanboys. This isn't to say that those claims are true per se, but there's a significant lack of reason amongst many of the diehard World of Tanks players. There are certain topics that, when brought up on the forums or elsewhere, they bring in all the trolls and the original poster is basically laughed away from the game. It's these topics which I will now discuss in detail.
The Early Days
Back in closed beta and the days of the game's release (2010-2011), it was particularly obvious that World of Tanks was a very fun, creative, and new take on a player versus player game. There simply wasn't anything like it, and this drew many big-time gamers in. It was also very obvious that, if you were to get drawn into the game and start spending money, you could spend a great deal indeed. The very clever thing that Wargaming did in beta was giving everyone free gold, every single day. This allowed everyone a chance to see how gold works, how it helps you by speeding up the process of 'grinding' your tanks. That is, working your way through to get the next tier tank, you grind both credits and experience. So, having been used to using gold all the time, many players, myself included, spent quite a bit of money when the game was finally released. Gold definitely makes the grind a lot easier, without it, and without premium, you're looking at a ton of time invested to get anything top tier.
There's also the implementation of the matchmaker, which was decidedly different back then. Instead of the 'easy' two-tier spread that currently exists in the game, you had a 4-6+ tier spread. This means that sometimes a tier 5 KV would come into contact with tier 10 IS-7s, Mause, and other tanks that the tier 5 simply can't do anything to. This made for quite the frustrating experience, and then people want to get to the top that much faster. But, as anyone who's played this game long enough knows, Wargaming needs players to be frustrated. This means they will spend money to avoid future frustration, and this occurs in the game on a grand scale.
Frustration Mechanics
At first, when you're new to the game, the various mechanics of the game that cause frustration are not evident. This is because you're not familiar with the game, you have no expectations of it or yourself, and you're just playing for fun. It's during this stage that you usually make a lot of mistakes, even if you're not aware of them, and better players punish you for that (sadly, some people never make it out of this stage, after thousands of battles). Once you have a few hundred or thousand games under your belt, certain aspects of the game mechanics become quite frustrating. It's these aspects of the game that Wargaming has intentionally put into the game to drive people to spend money to either avoid them, or give themselves an advantage against others. The better you get at the game, the more you notice that certain things simply don't feel right. Some examples of this would be a high penetration gun bouncing repeatedly on the weak spots of a much less powerful tank, or the matchmaker stacking one team with all the tank destroyers or artillery.
If you play the game long enough, you'll understand that these mechanics significantly worsen the gameplay experience. There are, of course, things you can do to lessen the impact they have on you, such as running 100% crews, or using gold to simply free experience past certain tanks that are known to be troublesome. Honestly though, the gameplay model of making your customers more frustrated so they want to pay you more money is pretty backwards. Aren't you supposed to reward your customers for spending money on your game? The rewards (tier 10s) in most cases simply aren't worth the time you would need to invest, unless you spend money to get there faster.
So if you will, let me describe a few of these game mechanics:
The Matchmaker
As I mentioned earlier, the matchmaker in the old days was far worse than it is today. So much so that, I believe it was one of the primary reasons people stopped playing in beta or when the game first released. It's simply not fun to fight tanks that you will never pen, from any angle, and you're basically just experience pinatas for the higher tier vehicles. Essentially if you're looking at tier 4-7 tanks facing tier 9-10, most of them don't have much of a chance there. If you're a faster tank or a scout, you at least had a few things you could do to help, mainly, scouting of course, or taking out artillery. The matchmaker never did (and still doesn't) balance each team with correct number of tank types, or take into account player skill. Both of those are things people have asked Wargaming for repeatedly, and it's quite obvious they will never come through. Not having balanced tank types or tiers on each team can greatly contribute to lopsided matches that many find aggravating in today's game. If one team gets more tier 10 tank destroyers, or more tier 10 tanks period, unless the other team has the skill to make up for this, they will likely lose. The matchmaker is, and has historically been, pretty much the number one complaint of the playerbase. This is evidenced by the 5-10+ threads on the forums complaining about it, every day. Also if you look at General Chat when in-game, and the chat before and during battles, you will notice it there as well. Many threads about the matchmaker are locked or deleted on the forums, of course this is not the only type of thread which is treated as such.
I believe it would be very easy for them to implement a 1-tier spread, meaning the highest tanks a tier 3 would see is tier 4, and so on. This would make the game a lot better in many ways. The excuse for having such a high matchmaking spread in the past was that the player population was not high enough. Well, they really don't have that excuse anymore.
RNG
If you read my previous article on the random number generator, you would have a much better understanding of it, and how it can greatly affect the outcome of battles. Having +/- 25% RNG in a game that should reward skill more than it does, and is trying to be a competitive e-sports platform, is counterintuitive in my opinion. However, it fits perfectly with Wargaming's plan. As I explained in my past article, it essentially makes it so bad players can have artificially good games, and good players can have artificially bad games. It governs penetration, accuracy, and damage, three very important aspects of this game. While I don't think they should completely eliminate RNG from the game, I'd bet it would be a lot less frustrating if you had +/-10-15% or so.
Stock Tanks, Painful Grinds, and Expensive Modules
Anyone who's played a stock Panther 2 or M3 Lee will most likely tell you that it wasn't tremendously fun, and indeed many can attest to this. While I will say that almost every tank in this game is bad when in stock configuration (that is, no upgrades or modules unlocked), some seem like they're designed to be skipped or fully upgraded right away using gold. You could easily make a case for the lower tier 2-5 French tanks, as they are almost universally considered terrible tanks. You can also look at tanks like the T25/2, T28, Leopard Prototype, and Churchill Gun Carrier as more possible examples. The fact is, there are a good number of tanks that are not tier 10 which are simply not fun to play, or downright frustrating. There's also the extreme cost of modules for each tank, the various guns, radios, turrets, tracks, and engines. By the standards of many other games where there is a money, or experience grind, World of Tanks truly has a brutal grind. The average player, not using gold and converting free experience and skipping tanks, would have to play for thousands of matches just to unlock a tier 10, and then there's the problem of buying it. Many of the modules for the higher tiers cost a great deal of experience as well, and some of them you need to go through to unlock the next tank, or to simply make the current tank playable.
Tank Tiers and Balance
I believe that Wargaming has designed certain tiers to be better and more balanced than others, and certain types of tanks for each country. For example, tiers 1-3 are fairly balanced, and tier 4 is mostly pretty weak. Tier 5 is good for making credits, and has a lot of solid tanks, while tier 6 is very similar, and I believe somewhat designed around tier 6 company battles. Tier 7 is again good for making money, but not nearly as powerful as their tier 8 counterparts. It's when you get to tier 8 that you understand that they definitely have an agenda to get this game going in e-sports. Tier 8 is one of the best tiers by far, as balance goes, and there are many very solid tanks at this level. To me, this is no accident, as the 7/42 e-sport format specifically uses all tier 8 tanks, with two additional tier 1 tanks. It's also no accident that tier 9 is one of the worst tiers to play in the game. This is because you almost universally see tier 10s, and many of the tanks themselves at this tier are very difficult to play. There's a big gap between most tier 9s and 10s. If you look at tanks like the VK 4502 auf B, Leopard Prototype, Lorraine 40t, T95, Tortoise, or M103 you will find that while they can perform well in some hands, in most they will not. This is in contrast to tier 10s, which in some cases are almost idiot-proof (i.e., tier 10 TDs).
The Patent
Beyond these elements of the game that are intentionally designed to create frustration and make people pay up, there is hard evidence of Wargaming's design for their matchmaker. In one of their recent patents they used in court in a lawsuit involving a Chinese company who tried to create a World of Tanks clone.
http://www.google.com/patents/US8425330?dq=8,425,330&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OIaMUeWBAuLIigK32ICYDw&sqi=2&pjf=1&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA
An excerpt from the patent:
As the player's win/loss ratio decreases, the player becomes more likely to be placed in battles having battle levels at the lower end of the allowable range, whereas as the player's win/loss ration increases, the player becomes more likely to be placed in battles having battle levels at the upper end of the allowable range. Thus, when a player has been repeatedly put into too many difficult battles, the balancing is done in favor of easier battle sessions, thereby encouraging the player by providing an easier game environment. Similarly, when the player has been repeatedly put into too many easy battles, the balancing is done in favor of harder battle sessions, thereby keeping the player challenged instead of letting the player become bored with easy games.
As you can clearly see, the more good games you have, the better your chances of having a bad game in the next match will be, and vice versa. This explains why bad players will often be on the top of the matchmaking list, which as everyone knows, means you will have a much easier time affecting the given battle. This also means that players who have one or a few good games, are likely to be put closer to the bottom of the team list. This is yet another mechanic in the game other than RNG that punishes initiative, and rewards bad play. Some may say that WG may or may not actually have this system implemented in their game, but if you've played this game long enough, you'll know they have.
Conclusion
As a decent player who tries to win every game no matter what, I definitely have a problem with the way this game is set up. The game mechanics once suited playing artillery, and now it's tank destroyers. The way spotting and camouflage works, both of these are much easier to play and require generally less skill than the other tank types. Both of these classes require virtually no initiative or skilled aggression on the player's part. There's also the fact that bad play is often rewarded, and bots/afkers are hardly ever punished or banned (despite loads of evidence to support their banning). It's no secret Wargaming wants to keep the 30-49% win rate players playing and paying as long as possible, because this is the majority of their playerbase. I suppose it's very smart of them to have designed this game the way they did, since it makes a ridiculous amount of money. That being said, I think they will be surprised what happens when War Thunder ground forces goes into open beta.
 |
| pop |
Frustration Mechanics
At first, when you're new to the game, the various mechanics of the game that cause frustration are not evident. This is because you're not familiar with the game, you have no expectations of it or yourself, and you're just playing for fun. It's during this stage that you usually make a lot of mistakes, even if you're not aware of them, and better players punish you for that (sadly, some people never make it out of this stage, after thousands of battles). Once you have a few hundred or thousand games under your belt, certain aspects of the game mechanics become quite frustrating. It's these aspects of the game that Wargaming has intentionally put into the game to drive people to spend money to either avoid them, or give themselves an advantage against others. The better you get at the game, the more you notice that certain things simply don't feel right. Some examples of this would be a high penetration gun bouncing repeatedly on the weak spots of a much less powerful tank, or the matchmaker stacking one team with all the tank destroyers or artillery.
If you play the game long enough, you'll understand that these mechanics significantly worsen the gameplay experience. There are, of course, things you can do to lessen the impact they have on you, such as running 100% crews, or using gold to simply free experience past certain tanks that are known to be troublesome. Honestly though, the gameplay model of making your customers more frustrated so they want to pay you more money is pretty backwards. Aren't you supposed to reward your customers for spending money on your game? The rewards (tier 10s) in most cases simply aren't worth the time you would need to invest, unless you spend money to get there faster.
So if you will, let me describe a few of these game mechanics:
 |
| GG |
The Matchmaker
As I mentioned earlier, the matchmaker in the old days was far worse than it is today. So much so that, I believe it was one of the primary reasons people stopped playing in beta or when the game first released. It's simply not fun to fight tanks that you will never pen, from any angle, and you're basically just experience pinatas for the higher tier vehicles. Essentially if you're looking at tier 4-7 tanks facing tier 9-10, most of them don't have much of a chance there. If you're a faster tank or a scout, you at least had a few things you could do to help, mainly, scouting of course, or taking out artillery. The matchmaker never did (and still doesn't) balance each team with correct number of tank types, or take into account player skill. Both of those are things people have asked Wargaming for repeatedly, and it's quite obvious they will never come through. Not having balanced tank types or tiers on each team can greatly contribute to lopsided matches that many find aggravating in today's game. If one team gets more tier 10 tank destroyers, or more tier 10 tanks period, unless the other team has the skill to make up for this, they will likely lose. The matchmaker is, and has historically been, pretty much the number one complaint of the playerbase. This is evidenced by the 5-10+ threads on the forums complaining about it, every day. Also if you look at General Chat when in-game, and the chat before and during battles, you will notice it there as well. Many threads about the matchmaker are locked or deleted on the forums, of course this is not the only type of thread which is treated as such.
I believe it would be very easy for them to implement a 1-tier spread, meaning the highest tanks a tier 3 would see is tier 4, and so on. This would make the game a lot better in many ways. The excuse for having such a high matchmaking spread in the past was that the player population was not high enough. Well, they really don't have that excuse anymore.
RNG
If you read my previous article on the random number generator, you would have a much better understanding of it, and how it can greatly affect the outcome of battles. Having +/- 25% RNG in a game that should reward skill more than it does, and is trying to be a competitive e-sports platform, is counterintuitive in my opinion. However, it fits perfectly with Wargaming's plan. As I explained in my past article, it essentially makes it so bad players can have artificially good games, and good players can have artificially bad games. It governs penetration, accuracy, and damage, three very important aspects of this game. While I don't think they should completely eliminate RNG from the game, I'd bet it would be a lot less frustrating if you had +/-10-15% or so.
 |
| Using a 75mm at tier 9 is fun, yes? |
Stock Tanks, Painful Grinds, and Expensive Modules
Anyone who's played a stock Panther 2 or M3 Lee will most likely tell you that it wasn't tremendously fun, and indeed many can attest to this. While I will say that almost every tank in this game is bad when in stock configuration (that is, no upgrades or modules unlocked), some seem like they're designed to be skipped or fully upgraded right away using gold. You could easily make a case for the lower tier 2-5 French tanks, as they are almost universally considered terrible tanks. You can also look at tanks like the T25/2, T28, Leopard Prototype, and Churchill Gun Carrier as more possible examples. The fact is, there are a good number of tanks that are not tier 10 which are simply not fun to play, or downright frustrating. There's also the extreme cost of modules for each tank, the various guns, radios, turrets, tracks, and engines. By the standards of many other games where there is a money, or experience grind, World of Tanks truly has a brutal grind. The average player, not using gold and converting free experience and skipping tanks, would have to play for thousands of matches just to unlock a tier 10, and then there's the problem of buying it. Many of the modules for the higher tiers cost a great deal of experience as well, and some of them you need to go through to unlock the next tank, or to simply make the current tank playable.
Tank Tiers and Balance
I believe that Wargaming has designed certain tiers to be better and more balanced than others, and certain types of tanks for each country. For example, tiers 1-3 are fairly balanced, and tier 4 is mostly pretty weak. Tier 5 is good for making credits, and has a lot of solid tanks, while tier 6 is very similar, and I believe somewhat designed around tier 6 company battles. Tier 7 is again good for making money, but not nearly as powerful as their tier 8 counterparts. It's when you get to tier 8 that you understand that they definitely have an agenda to get this game going in e-sports. Tier 8 is one of the best tiers by far, as balance goes, and there are many very solid tanks at this level. To me, this is no accident, as the 7/42 e-sport format specifically uses all tier 8 tanks, with two additional tier 1 tanks. It's also no accident that tier 9 is one of the worst tiers to play in the game. This is because you almost universally see tier 10s, and many of the tanks themselves at this tier are very difficult to play. There's a big gap between most tier 9s and 10s. If you look at tanks like the VK 4502 auf B, Leopard Prototype, Lorraine 40t, T95, Tortoise, or M103 you will find that while they can perform well in some hands, in most they will not. This is in contrast to tier 10s, which in some cases are almost idiot-proof (i.e., tier 10 TDs).
The Patent
Beyond these elements of the game that are intentionally designed to create frustration and make people pay up, there is hard evidence of Wargaming's design for their matchmaker. In one of their recent patents they used in court in a lawsuit involving a Chinese company who tried to create a World of Tanks clone.
http://www.google.com/patents/US8425330?dq=8,425,330&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OIaMUeWBAuLIigK32ICYDw&sqi=2&pjf=1&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA
An excerpt from the patent:
As the player's win/loss ratio decreases, the player becomes more likely to be placed in battles having battle levels at the lower end of the allowable range, whereas as the player's win/loss ration increases, the player becomes more likely to be placed in battles having battle levels at the upper end of the allowable range. Thus, when a player has been repeatedly put into too many difficult battles, the balancing is done in favor of easier battle sessions, thereby encouraging the player by providing an easier game environment. Similarly, when the player has been repeatedly put into too many easy battles, the balancing is done in favor of harder battle sessions, thereby keeping the player challenged instead of letting the player become bored with easy games.
As you can clearly see, the more good games you have, the better your chances of having a bad game in the next match will be, and vice versa. This explains why bad players will often be on the top of the matchmaking list, which as everyone knows, means you will have a much easier time affecting the given battle. This also means that players who have one or a few good games, are likely to be put closer to the bottom of the team list. This is yet another mechanic in the game other than RNG that punishes initiative, and rewards bad play. Some may say that WG may or may not actually have this system implemented in their game, but if you've played this game long enough, you'll know they have.
Conclusion
As a decent player who tries to win every game no matter what, I definitely have a problem with the way this game is set up. The game mechanics once suited playing artillery, and now it's tank destroyers. The way spotting and camouflage works, both of these are much easier to play and require generally less skill than the other tank types. Both of these classes require virtually no initiative or skilled aggression on the player's part. There's also the fact that bad play is often rewarded, and bots/afkers are hardly ever punished or banned (despite loads of evidence to support their banning). It's no secret Wargaming wants to keep the 30-49% win rate players playing and paying as long as possible, because this is the majority of their playerbase. I suppose it's very smart of them to have designed this game the way they did, since it makes a ridiculous amount of money. That being said, I think they will be surprised what happens when War Thunder ground forces goes into open beta.
No comments:
Post a Comment