"Buffing," "Nerfing", and a new take on "Fairness"

[mmike87]

We've all seen hundreds of posts over the years in both WOT and WOW with complaints that a ship or a tank needed to be "buffed" or "nerfed" and how something is "not fair."

 

Typically, someone immediately feels short-changed and demands "justice" ... it's a pretty common topic over the years in various forms. That "darn matchmaker", "the RNG hates me", "time to nerf the Bismarck" - I could go on.

 

Thus, I found this article interesting, and thought I would share it.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/gaming/2016/10/really_bad_chess_proves_that_games_don_t_need_to_be_fair.html

 

It's an interesting piece ... and I agree more than I don't. Perfectly "balanced" teams of 1:1 ships get boring. I LIKE the idea of a team with two CV's but the other has one CV and twice as many DD's. It forces you to change your formula. Form a plan on the fly. Every time I see someone in chat state "Go to A, we always go A, never B" - how is that formula exciting? 

 

Is that what we really want - a game of repetition - where the "correct" strategy for each map is very much the same as the previous match? Maybe some do. But I like a little variety ... granted we get some with players of different skills sets ... but statistically adjusting everything in the game for "fairness" may make some matches "more fair" ... but it also removes some of the excitement. Games are supposed to be fun, and sometimes getting your butt whipped but putting up a great fight against an enemy force that is different than yours is a LOT of fun when we're not obsessed with our win rate. I used to enjoy the "one CV vs two cv" games.

 

And, I'll save you the trouble - my last 7 day win rate is apparently 58% and 90 days is 50% according to the site I used. 

[Canadatron]

Chess is a game of repetition, memorized strats and moves. It's still pretty popular from my understanding, and both sides are 100% equal and "balanced". Right now player skill is the random factor in game more or less. When I had the WTR/XP mod running once upon a time most players were mid 40% WR on your team, with perhaps 2-3 that were above that mark. It's all about which side plays worst and loses, rather than who plays best to win most games in WoWs.

[Taichunger]

We've all seen hundreds of posts over the years in both WOT and WOW with complaints that a ship or a tank needed to be "buffed" or "nerfed" and how something is "not fair."

 

Typically, someone immediately feels short-changed and demands "justice" ... it's a pretty common topic over the years in various forms. That "darn matchmaker", "the RNG hates me", "time to nerf the Bismarck" - I could go on.

 

Thus, I found this article interesting, and thought I would share it.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/gaming/2016/10/really_bad_chess_proves_that_games_don_t_need_to_be_fair.html

 

It's an interesting piece ... and I agree more than I don't. Perfectly "balanced" teams of 1:1 ships get boring. I LIKE the idea of a team with two CV's but the other has one CV and twice as many DD's. It forces you to change your formula. Form a plan on the fly. Every time I see someone in chat state "Go to A, we always go A, never B" - how is that formula exciting? 

 

Is that what we really want - a game of repetition - where the "correct" strategy for each map is very much the same as the previous match? Maybe some do. But I like a little variety ... granted we get some with players of different skills sets ... but statistically adjusting everything in the game for "fairness" may make some matches "more fair" ... but it also removes some of the excitement. Games are supposed to be fun, and sometimes getting your butt whipped but putting up a great fight against an enemy force that is different than yours is a LOT of fun when we're not obsessed with our win rate. I used to enjoy the "one CV vs two cv" games.

 

Most of us hated 1v2 CV games, they offered the very predictability you say you deplore: the 2 CVs kill the 1 CV and then harvest the remaining ships. The "game" consisted largely of waiting to get killed, with occasional surprises when the 1 CV outplayed the 2. No fun for anyone, which is why WG put a stop to that. Objecting to 1v2 CVs is not "being obsessed with win rate". 

 

The MM used to deliver unbalanced games with largely predictable outcomes. I was in games with the highest BBs being three North Carolinas against 3 Yamatos, or when the opponent had 4 T9 DDs and we had 3 T7 DDs. Such games have outcomes that are predictable and not very much fun for the losing side, or for many of the winning ships who get sub-par damage and reduced participation because the vastly inferior opponent collapses so fast, and a few ships grab all the kills.

 

Hence, the reason you implement play balance is, paradoxically, to ensure that outcomes are not predictable from the mere presence of certain ships, but instead flow unpredictably from disparities in player ability and understanding, as well as limited amounts of luck. More balanced MMs yield better and more unpredictable games, simply put. 

 

Your problem is that you've located the variety in the wrong place. The variety should not come from unbalanced situations, but rather, from the diversity of ships and maps. You play one way against three DDs if they are Kiev, Blys, and Tashkent, and another if they are Hatsuharu, Mahan, and Fubuki. A Tirpitz is one kind of problem, a tanked North Carolina, another. 

 

WG is going in the right direction by constantly introducing new ships, ship lines, and maps. Kudos to them.

[1nc0mp3t3nt_1]

Chess is a game of repetition, memorized strats and moves. It's still pretty popular from my understanding, and both sides are 100% equal and "balanced". Right now player skill is the random factor in game more or less. When I had the WTR/XP mod running once upon a time most players were mid 40% WR on your team, with perhaps 2-3 that were above that mark. It's all about which side plays worst and loses, rather than who plays best to win most games in WoWs.

I once had this argument back in the days when World Cyber Games had esports  before it was a thing. It was about the rock paper scissors of infantry versus rocket launchers versus all vehicles(yes, Command &  Conquer tiberium wars) and their counter was "white is OP in chess because they always go first".

 

There will always be people who cry out at asymmetrical attempts at balance, no matter what

[mmike87]

I once had this argument back in the days when World Cyber Games had esports  before it was a thing. It was about the rock paper scissors of infantry versus rocket launchers versus all vehicles(yes, Command &  Conquer tiberium wars) and their counter was "white is OP in chess because they always go first".

 

There will always be people who cry out at asymmetrical attempts at balance, no matter what

 

I wonder if that is even true among chess experts ... does going first really make that much of a difference? 

[1nc0mp3t3nt_1]

 

I wonder if that is even true among chess experts ... does going first really make that much of a difference? 

It totally changes how you play... For the first 10 moves, maybe

[mmike87]

It totally changes how you play... For the first 10 moves, maybe

 

I get that ... but does it, among players of similar skill, change the outcomes? Adapting to variables is OK ... curious if good chess players see it as a real advantage in practice. Obviously, going first - on the surface - seems important. 

[1nc0mp3t3nt_1]

 

I get that ... but does it, among players of similar skill, change the outcomes? Adapting to variables is OK ... curious if good chess players see it as a real advantage in practice. Obviously, going first - on the surface - seems important. 

While I was never "pro", i used to play against other schools(until we put Unreal Tournament onto the school's LAN), and my opinion: it did not make a difference. If white makes an error in judgment on how Black is going to play, then Black will have an opportunity to destroy white. The same goes for Black: if they leave a piece open early, that is a big hit to their chances of making a win happen unless white came in and screwed up, which was rarely. 

[Special_Kay]

I wonder if that is even true among chess experts ... does going first really make that much of a difference? 

 

Some chess events have two players play several games in a row against each other, scoring a win as black higher than a win as white, and likewise penalizing white for a draw moreso than black. Meanwhile, the Swiss-system sometimes uses wins as black for a tiebreaker. Many endeavour to have even number of games played as white and black so any advantage is mitigated.

[mmike87]

Interesting points and observations from all. I found the article's viewpoint at least thought-provoking. It sort of reminds me of the years when I really tried to like NASCAR. So many rules and regulations in the name of "fair" that ultimately it was just flat-out boring as heck to watch. Perhaps it was "fair" ... but it was boring. I once watched a local race about 10 years ago ... it was something like the "grocery getter" class ... and they added weight to one guys car because he was so good it wasn't "fair" to the other drivers. I got up and left when I heard that. The guy was driving a stock Ford Escort ... and they added weight to his car to be "fair" ... not because his car was an advantage, but HE was. 

[Killjoy1941]

Interesting piece, but WoWs is exceptionally asymmetric when compared to most competitive games. You get cross-class and cross-tier engagements nearly every battle, especially with the changes made to MM earlier this year.

 

MM is in a happy place right now.

[Komrade_Rylo]

When one team had more cvs than the other, it's was an almost guarenteed loss. If you are bored with the gameplay and the current meta, then fight against it and try new tactics. 

[Raven114]

Just built the ships to blueprint specification and capabilities and let the Capt's learn to get good with there ships. Balance will kill the game. Example a new game called Fractured Space the game states all ships are equal and balanced. I played a few games and realized quickly all it was a mindless shooter. It did not matter if you had a Big ship or a Little ship. They all caused the same damage to each other, It came down to who can hit the button faster.

 

[Killjoy1941]

Just built the ships to blueprint specification and capabilities and let the Capt's learn to get good with there ships. Balance will kill the game. Example a new game called Fractured Space the game states all ships are equal and balanced. I played a few games and realized quickly all it was a mindless shooter. It did not matter if you had a Big ship or a Little ship. They all caused the same damage to each other, It came down to who can hit the button faster.

 

You do actually want a relative balance of power: in-class and at-tier. Anything else will just result in an eventual shift toward the stronger ships, something that was already a thing at tier 10 for BBs until ze Germans showed up and Monty got buffed. What you don't want is for every ship to play the same. WoWs is pretty good about it even if there are still some ships/lines which could use a bit of help. Line and tier balance is about variety, not equality.

[Komrade_Rylo]

Remember folks, all ships are created balanced, some are just more balanced than other.

( Especially if it's russian)

-WG

 

 

 

[Granitebeard]

I agree that going to the "every one is equal just is in a different shell" mind set is getting old. When 2 CV vs 1 CV was a thing AA was also much stronger. A Cleveland on higher USN ship (hell even most any cruiser tier 6+) was enough to waste flights of planes. AA was even reduced due to the fact that people on other servers (Russian mostly) were so grouped up that CVs were next to useless. But potatoes rule the waves, so they reduced the unbalance. I remember when Rock/Paper?Scissors existed to an extent in the game, you can still see faint echoes of it every now and then. But again potatoes crying for nerfs changed it quick as can be.

 

I will admit that cruisers are still in an iffy space. And CVs are still mostly screwed for the average player. But DDs, and BBs feel like they are in the right spot. DD got a huge boost with the economy changes IMHO and BBs are are what all new players aspire to, so those have been given a lower skill floor. In the end, each class should be able to do well given half a brain, but that is where RNG/ whether or no the other player has half a brain comes in to even the tide.

[AVR_Project]

Hmmm...   How about 4 CVs against 4 AA setup Atlantas or Clevelands...

As the CV players cry NERF THEM.

[MidnightShamalan]

MM is in a happy place right now.

 

don't tell that to the T5 crowd. they might have a few things to say.

 

but as far as team balance is concerned, yeah. MM is much better about that now than it used to be.

[VTAdmiral]

MM is in a happy place right now.

 

So long as you're not tier 5 or tier 6, I guess.

[VGLance]

The problem with adding in a wider variety of MM is that majority of the player base lacks the motivation and/or intellectual capacity to adapt and overcome. 

[MarshalSqueez]

 

I wonder if that is even true among chess experts ... does going first really make that much of a difference? 

 

Yes, White has a winning percentage advantage of 52-56% depending on the stats you look at and whether you're looking at human or AI players.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess

 

 

[BrushWolf]

We've all seen hundreds of posts over the years in both WOT and WOW with complaints that a ship or a tank needed to be "buffed" or "nerfed" and how something is "not fair."

 

Typically, someone immediately feels short-changed and demands "justice" ... it's a pretty common topic over the years in various forms. That "darn matchmaker", "the RNG hates me", "time to nerf the Bismarck" - I could go on.

 

Thus, I found this article interesting, and thought I would share it.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/gaming/2016/10/really_bad_chess_proves_that_games_don_t_need_to_be_fair.html

 

It's an interesting piece ... and I agree more than I don't. Perfectly "balanced" teams of 1:1 ships get boring. I LIKE the idea of a team with two CV's but the other has one CV and twice as many DD's. It forces you to change your formula. Form a plan on the fly. Every time I see someone in chat state "Go to A, we always go A, never B" - how is that formula exciting? 

 

Is that what we really want - a game of repetition - where the "correct" strategy for each map is very much the same as the previous match? Maybe some do. But I like a little variety ... granted we get some with players of different skills sets ... but statistically adjusting everything in the game for "fairness" may make some matches "more fair" ... but it also removes some of the excitement. Games are supposed to be fun, and sometimes getting your butt whipped but putting up a great fight against an enemy force that is different than yours is a LOT of fun when we're not obsessed with our win rate. I used to enjoy the "one CV vs two cv" games.

 

And, I'll save you the trouble - my last 7 day win rate is apparently 58% and 90 days is 50% according to the site I used. 

 

We used to get matches that were not perfectly balanced in numbers, one team would have more top tier ships while the other team would be balanced by giving them more ships. It actually worked well but too many people only saw the numbers imbalance and didn't look at the power balance. There was some issues with one team having more DD's in domination matches but that could have been addressed.

[mmike87]

 

Yes, White has a winning percentage advantage of 52-56% depending on the stats you look at and whether you're looking at human or AI players.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess

 

 

 

Interesting ... doesn't surprise me ... but I really didn't have any practical, informed opinion.

[Canadatron]

White in chess isn't OP. White just gets to hatch the plan and Black plays White at that point (more like attacker vs. defender). I was rather nerdy at one point and played a lot of chess, and naturally wanted to be better. There is quite a bit of strategy based theory to go along with the game. You memorize moves, plans of attack, and the defenses to go against them. You KNOW white goes first, it's a rule of the game. You have your reaction strategy to the first play and are doing the "if they move piece x, I do y in return" because we KNOW how the (ex.)Bishop needs to move, so we can strategize based around the play.

 

The way to do well (in any game) is to fully understand the mechanics of WoWs, just like it's important to understand the mechanics of a game like chess in order to excel. Being good in any game just says the person is investing more time into performing well. No different than anything else in life really.

[BlazerSparta]

 

Thing is though, even if you don't have you game completely balanced, and still leave some imbalance in to make the game interesting, the game still needs to roughly be n a balanced state. And there are just some ships that are way beyond the power curve.