飞机世界吧 关注:101,527贴子:3,591,545

reddit上又有人吐槽盖紧偏心毛系 安东亲自回复

只看楼主收藏回复

回复
1楼2016-01-24 21:31
    看不懂


    回复
    2楼2016-01-24 21:40
      求翻译啊!!!!


      回复
      3楼2016-01-24 21:43
        前排顶帖求翻译


        回复
        来自Android客户端4楼2016-01-24 21:48
          Gentlemen, first of all, we try to make vehicles as realistic (historically wise) as possible. Of course, there are some limitations (like reliability or individual vehicle quality, which is not replicated in game in any way, and both early Russian tanks, some of US tanks, and most of late German tanks have suffered from it; or actual cost of production, or actual fuel limitations, or actual resource (how long vehicle can be operated before repair, or how easy/comfortable it is to be there, etc, etc), but those limitations are uniform, it has no country/nation alignment.
          But even if we would have some bias (which we don't) in that area, the real performance will depend on relative specs, according to BR (i.e. competitors).
          As for relative specs (performance) in combat, it depends on assigned Battle Rating more, than on specific performance, i.e. with whom each vehicle is fighting.
          Of course, we have statistics about all vehicles, and we adjust Battle Ratings according to statistics. Except for new, recently introduced vehicles (where is no stats available), or short periods after significant mechanics change, there are no clear imbalanced vehicles. Some of vehicles can be very good on certain BR (amongst their classmates), but clearly underpowered on previous BR, or visa verse - but other than that, all of them perform about the same.
          Clearly, there is no any reason for us to have any bias (Russian bias well known in English speaking community, and US/Germany bias are well known in Russian community). We can't win anything (money, popularity, whatever) by having any bias.
          安东CEO:行行行你对,你咋不上天呢?我们用数据说话,偏心毛系又不能换伏特加喝


          收起回复
          5楼2016-01-24 21:55
            6666666


            回复
            来自Android客户端6楼2016-01-24 21:59
              With that said, how can you allow there to be such things, for :months: on end, like the stomping ground of early T-34s? In 51 games in the T-34 '41 I lost a single one, and I have many friends who have similar stats. Obviously, with the advent of the British tree things have changed, but it's these glaring inconsistencies that allow people to assume other things such as temporary imbalance, or even people just having a bad experience with a type of vehicle, are bias when in reality they aren't.
              问:我的T-34吊炸天了,不是偏心毛系么?
              Surviving and winrate is one of the stat, Kill/Death ratio, amount of Hits/critical hits are example of different stats.
              Also, it requires to understand what exactly the match/kills/deaths were in particular case - it may happen, that some of rivals were from prior BRs.
              It is really not possible to answer such question - as I haven't personally seen even one of those said 41 battles. It can be matchmaking, luck, cautious play, skill, and even that this is exaggeration. From my experience I am usually better than other players in both my and enemy team, very rarely not in top3 in match, but that is happening on both US and USSR tanks (I don't play German tanks). But any single user is not statistics, and even statistics differs between average player (that is averaging best and worst players) and best players (say, top 100k players overall).
              It is very important to rely on statistics and it is very important to "reality check" statistics with your own experience.
              The last thing provide great difference in both attitude towards certain vehicle and ways to balancing vehicles. Naturally, most of the games (and game developers) are trying to make game mpre friendly (i.e. balance the game in case of multiplayer) to average player, not to most hardcore players. The reason is that hardcore players will exploit all weaknesses/strengths anyway, that is what make them hardcore.
              Unfortunately, people will assume bias, it is unavoidable. In any competitive game hardcore gamers assume developers to be kinda evil (and/or stupid), partially because any game is usually not 100% focused on most hardcore players, and partially because it is easier to blame developers, than mistake and better competitors skills.
              But in reality there is completely NO point in having ANY bias, it can't be positive for anything. Each developer can have ego issues or some bias, it's human nature, but rarely they share one same bias and developers as a whole, as a company, can not benefit anyhow from such bias, especially it is hard to benefit from contradicting biases (i.e. both Russian for English community and US/British/German for Russian community), even if it would be possible to have both (it is actually somehow possible, if we consider pure evil developers. We could, for example, nerf/up vehicles based on a language selected in game).
              Even if someone is "creating" vehicle to be more overpowered, than it should be, than there will be BR adjustment, which is done by other people. Imagine, you are responsible for adjusting BRs - how could you persistent justify incorrect value, not based on actual statistics? Well it could be done for some initial period of time, when statistics is not definitive, but afterwards it would require conspiracy with almost all management, and conspiracy require evil will, not only evil, but also stupid - i.e. all management should think that it makes more sense to have such bias than to have more benefits, such as earn more money or popularity or both, which is clearly even stranger than to think that the whole world is secretly controlled by some masons for their benefit.
              (Of course, there is also no point in being stupid, but usually we, humans, believe we are smarter than all other people, while most often that belied is due to lack of knowledge. So I would rather not discuss it.).
              答:你行你厉害,老玩家会玩所以厉害,我也很厉害,我玩美帝和苏联时基本不会从前三掉出来。(我不玩德系)


              收起回复
              8楼2016-01-24 22:02
                ot too long ago didn't you say that the game is not historically focused though, when being asked about the IS-2 mod. 44 having postwar ammo it never carried?
                问:-2 1944为啥带战后弹呐?
                Sorry, I can't recall answering anything about IS-2 at all.
                The whole game is focused on a very realistic historical vehicles, in a very unrealistic (historical wise) battle case scenario.
                In fact, it was (and still is) almost impossible to see 16 tanks + planes fighting with 16 tanks + planes, matched in one battle based on their individual performance. In real battle, there would be infantry, there would be unfair amount of vehicles from each side, with unfair individual specs. Noone would care if it is "fair" to fight with KV-1 vs Pz.Kpfw.35 (like in real wise), even if it is 40 of them against one - but in any game players won't like to be in those Pzs (of course, it is ok to be one in KV-1, superhero-like, as it is happening in single-player games. Our game is PvP though).
                So the game is, if you will forgive metaphor, all about "who will win - whale or elephant" - unrealistic historical-wise, but realistic vehicle-wise (due to certain extent).
                In this paradigm, it doesn't really matter what historical period is ammoload in certain vehicle IS-2 - what really matters, is it's relative performance and it's specs (specs of specific vehicle and specific ammo), and that is what we want to keep as realistic as possible (again, within limitations we have initially, such as reliability, individual quality, etc, etc).
                No way in real war there would be exactly 16 IS-2 tanks fighting with 16 Tiger-2 (Pz.Kpfw. VI Ausf. B (H)) fighting anyway (btw, there were twice less of tigers produced than IS-2 totally). It is completely not historical, regardless of the ammoload. In real war, each side, especially attacking one want to have MUCH MORE firepower, than it's competitior, and if they have not enough good enough tanks, it doesn't matter until forces are powerful enough (aviation, artillery, infantry).
                答:这锅我不背。我们没法完全还原历史,PVP又不是真打仗。


                收起回复
                9楼2016-01-24 22:07
                  Here you go. You talk about game balance and all that, but why not do what we've been asking you to do for at least a year now and expand the Br range. Rather than make it so that tanks fight tanks they couldn't realistically kill, why not seperate the tanks that have no business fighting as opposed to giving tanks unrealistic ammo to counter a flawed matchmaker?
                  Your idea for a matchmaker that placed vehicles into categories based on performance that could fight vehicles in the neighboring categories was great and could have been a big step towards balance, but it went dark over a year ago and hasn't come back.
                  It makes no sense. My Jagdpanther fights T-54s and M60s. My Pershing fights T-10Ms and Leopards. Those are not remotely fair fights, and until the 7.7 clubbing of 6.7 tanks is gone and other blatantly undertiered vehicles like the early T-34s and Panzer 4s is dealt with, and when the American 76 stops getting nerfed in every patch when it is already underperforming and basically worthless compared to Russian, German, and British guns at the same BR, you really have no grounds to speak on making a balanced game.
                  问:6.7打7.7玩个蛋?
                  I am clearly not Kirill. But actual answer is exactly the same (no surprise).
                  Quote: "The game is about vehicles, not exact historical events."
                  答:我们只管坦克本身不管他们是不是历史上会遇到


                  收起回复
                  10楼2016-01-24 22:09
                    Hello Anton . I've been playing war thunder for a bit now. Tried it on release with planes , left for a bit and came back once Tanks were introduced. While I have enjoyed your game and have so far, I've chosen to grind as I'm not in a position to invest in my game play at the moment . The grind is fun but long and hard and rewarding in the end I've so far put in about 300+ hours on the russian tier and don't believe in a russian bias at all, I'm nothing but cannon fodder so often being Up tiered in match making most of the time . Which brings me to my question. Is it possible to tighten the match making parameters a bit more . For example I currently play in a T44 most often usually with the IS2 mod 44 in reserve usually in realistic battle mode . But while doing so I've noticed that for the most part I'm matching with tier V tanks and things like the T44 and IS2 mod 44 just can't statistically compete with these tier V tanks and causes more losses then wins. I'm not asking to remove the matching of the upper tier VI tanks with tier V tanks ... But if it could a bit more balanced allowing for a higher number of matches with tanks of the same tier. Please and thank you . P.S Can't wait for Ships!!
                    问:分房区间能小点么?
                    Tighten up BRs can (and most likely, will) make much more harm than good.
                    Although for any specific match it seems to be a welcome change, but the queue waiting time will definitely increase, which will result in players churn, which will result in even longer waiting time, and then there will be noone to fight with.
                    In the same time, tightening up requires plenty of players on vehicles on each specific BR, and some nations even do not have enough of them for even Arcade mode (i.e. you don;t have three of vehicles on each BR in each vehicle). Right now it is mitigated statistically (one battle you are a bit higher than average, the other - a bit lower, but generally you are there).
                    答:很好但是我们分房等不起,有些国家特定BR都没人没车的。


                    收起回复
                    11楼2016-01-24 22:11
                      Gentlemen, first of all, we try to make vehicles as realistic (historically wise) as possible. Of course, there are some limitations (like reliability or individual vehicle quality, which is not replicated in game in any way, and both early Russian tanks, some of US tanks, and most of late German tanks have suffered from it; or actual cost of production, or actual fuel limitations, or actual resource (how long vehicle can be operated before repair, or how easy/comfortable it is to be there, etc, etc), but those limitations are uniform, it has no country/nation alignment.
                      WT专注还原历史100年不动摇,但是有些还原不了的我们没办法(比如虎王经常趴窝,262发动机经常坏)但是这些都是普遍存在的,我们不会给德国飞机加这个设定就不给苏联加(废话,我们又不是问这个)
                      But even if we would have some bias (which we don't) in that area, the real performance will depend on relative specs, according to BR (i.e. competitors).
                      退一万步讲,假设我们真的很偏心,最终结果还是由BR决定(要动手脚也是在BR上动,效果更好,嗯,你们做到了)
                      As for relative specs (performance) in combat, it depends on assigned Battle Rating more, than on specificperformance, i.e. with whom each vehicle is fighting.
                      载具表现如何,分房比载具本身op程度影响更大(比如把潘兴巴顿虎P拉到顶级房玩,嗯)
                      Of course, we have statistics about all vehicles, and we adjust Battle Ratings according to statistics. Except for new, recently introduced vehicles (where is no stats available), or short periods after significant mechanics change, there are no clear imbalanced vehicles. Some of vehicles can be very good on certain BR (amongst their classmates), but clearly underpowered on previous BR, or visa verse - but other than that, all of them perform about the same.
                      我们划定分房都是经过科学(Vodka)验证的,可能有些刚出来的车比较op,但是我们很快就会把它挫了(所以新金币车出了你们赶紧买啊)没有什么车是永远op的。我们也知道正常分房一些车会很好打,但是见到爸爸就很头疼了(但是这是游戏的一环,awwbwg)
                      Clearly, there is no any reason for us to have any bias (Russian bias well known in English speaking community, and US/Germany bias are well known in Russian community). We can't win anything (money, popularity, whatever) by having any bias.
                      偏心毛系你滋磁么?你充钱么?(当然啦)你们美德英日玩家总觉得我们偏心苏系,但是我们毛子玩家反而天天吐槽美德英日的载具更厉ruo害ji


                      收起回复
                      12楼2016-01-24 22:12
                        滋磁蜗牛


                        回复
                        来自Android客户端13楼2016-01-24 22:14
                          以上貌似就是安东在周末有空的时候和reddit众的问答,超简化意译了下,虽然基本是吐槽。
                          不过安东的基本意思是:
                          1、蜗牛没必要偏心某些系;
                          2、会玩的玩家玩哪个系都能玩好,苏系载具可能对于平均水平的玩家更容易上手和玩好;
                          3、分房这个暂时没办法,跨时空分房先忍忍吧;
                          4、1.0分房区间也是没办法变的,也还是能玩的。


                          我的看法是,从陆战角度,是苏系炮塔形状更突出,不像其他系那么平整,以及倾斜装甲,这些在目前的炮弹击穿机制下很容易出魔法,而且T34之类的在那个历史阶段也的确是有倾斜装甲的优势的;同样的游戏没法再现历史,真实战场对战不像游戏这么简单,游戏简化了之后呈现出来也容易出现某些坦克不适合游戏的情况。


                          收起回复
                          14楼2016-01-24 22:20
                            就是说毛子玩家太多太傻拉低毛系战绩导致蜗牛不认为毛系op


                            收起回复
                            来自Android客户端15楼2016-01-24 22:37
                              我想说毛子做的op明显的就是分房,然而毛子无耻的认了


                              收起回复
                              来自Android客户端16楼2016-01-25 02:23
                                不就是改分房嘛


                                回复
                                来自iPhone客户端17楼2016-01-25 06:38
                                  不服你也练一个
                                  awwbwg


                                  收起回复
                                  来自Android客户端19楼2016-01-25 08:28
                                    新出的载具都是要op一段时间的,过不了多久就砍…感情op和砍都是预定好的


                                    收起回复
                                    来自Android客户端22楼2016-01-25 12:07
                                      总之就是毛子不要脸,爱玩玩不玩滚


                                      回复
                                      24楼2016-01-25 12:50
                                        原先is1跟虎豹打打不过,现在分房给俩个虎e,对面一群is2还有t34100,虽说也能打但是分房肯定是偏心了


                                        收起回复
                                        来自Android客户端25楼2016-01-25 16:00
                                          说到底一切都是分房,但是几十年前t34海撵着3号4号打到柏林不也是历史吗


                                          回复
                                          26楼2016-01-25 16:30
                                            陆战刚出那会儿 被虎式 豹式 虎王 豹2吊着打 后来有了美系 贴吧各种有人发M103单挑多少多少IS T-54 M41华克疯狗 各种跳122 88 APDS毁天灭地 再后来 出了英系 卡那封什么的


                                            收起回复
                                            27楼2016-01-25 16:46
                                              自从有了陆战就开始撕逼不断了 其实只不过是类似坦克世界玩家又一次的高潮罢了 反正最后还是落得跟坦克世界一个下场 爱玩玩不玩滚蛋 游戏虽不同 玩家却还是那些东西 没什么长进
                                              所以我们的理想是星辰大海 远离你们这些爬虫


                                              收起回复
                                              来自Android客户端28楼2016-01-25 16:53
                                                应垂斯挺╭(°A°`)╮


                                                回复
                                                来自Android客户端31楼2016-01-26 00:41


                                                  收起回复
                                                  32楼2016-01-26 01:21
                                                    安东这舌战群儒 想起去年姚撞骗在贴吧迎众孙


                                                    收起回复
                                                    33楼2016-01-26 09:51
                                                      我猜m60的双层炮盾被锉成单层,会不会是因为m60是少数从现有倾斜装甲跳弹机制获益的美系车。


                                                      本来m60首上93厚度,65度垂直倾角,实际防护和t54的100厚度60度差不多。但是因为gaijin把大倾角的跳弹优势做的过大,结果m60首上比t54强了不少。


                                                      于是...gaijin机智(无耻)地把m60炮盾砍成了单层


                                                      一个猜测


                                                      收起回复
                                                      34楼2016-01-26 16:12
                                                        32楼真相


                                                        回复
                                                        35楼2016-01-26 18:49