Jump to content

Birkebein

Players
  • Content Сount

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5440
  • Clan

    [PGT2P]

About Birkebein

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Birkebein

    Some STs Ruining the Games for Others

    This game ended in below 7 minutes. Three minutes after he suicided i wrote him from in game chat and he was already in a battle. But, funnily, 2 minutes later he wrote me back, so he suicided in another game and ruin other people's games, too. Dies quickly in two games in a row... A super potato or someone out to get the right "balans"? Easy for WG to check stats and see if they're very different from other STers... it'd be great to get an official well informed response to this specific incident. OP's post was clear.
  2. Birkebein

    Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

    Well, if I had it my way I'd start by giving a weight to signals and camo. Let's start with 1 point for each economic flag and 2 points for each combat flag and 4 points for any camo. and continue with 10 points for each upgrade, and 15 points for each non-standard upgrade. But to worry about which upgrades actually are worthwhile seems a bit subjective, the sort of thing we can't objectively decide on and which would be beyond a purely quantitative MM. So that leaves assigning a weighting for captains, how about 2 points for each skill point plus 10 points if the captain has any special abilities. Finally, load up each team with the same number of clan and non-clan players and silver and non-silver ships. The math might seem tedious, it does to me, but since the MM is an algorithm, the math isn't anyone's worry. Once a total points tally is within 2%, it's "game on". The above "weightings" could be a start, and they could be tweaked to optimise the game experience - longer and less one sided battles. When it comes to just looking at the WR and using that to achieve balance... I don't think that's a good idea so let's ignore it and balance the assets. It might be that WRs stay constant but I'm sure we wouldn't have so many one sided battles and that's a worthwhile goal, and should be the function of the MM.
  3. Birkebein

    Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

    GarrusBrutus, I don't want to exhibit any more of my passive aggressiveness (you picked it up, pointed it out, and, I admit, it's a fair charge), but I feel compelled to restate that an objective non-qualitative MM (one that doesn't look at your WR nor try to determine if you're prone to lemming like behaviour or have an unnatural attraction to root vegetables) is left looking at the quantities of assets each side has and now matches ship types and tiers but could also match other assets. Seems to me that the MM effort could be extended and that it would be an easier task than insisting that all players learn to play, and more palatable to WG than precluding some players from playing. Trying to give some input that's more objective/quantifiable and less subjective/qualitative.
  4. Birkebein

    Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

    If by, "a bit of knowledge in this game" you mean "resources" (premium captains and ships, access to camo and flags) then yes, if the MM balanced team assets you would probably face tougher opponents in more exciting battles. Can't see though that competing on a more level "playing field" would be detrimental to your enjoyment of the game, rather the opposite. Well, if you're right about this then this sure is one dead topic and if no improvement is possible then the steamrolling continues, so I suppose we shouldn't complain about that either. I'm hoping you're wrong and that there is hope for improvement, but maybe there isn't. I enjoy the game and think WG does a good job, but that doesn't mean there is no room for improvement. I recognise that committed long term players have invested both time and money and worry that any change to the MM will negatively impact their enjoyment of the game, but I honestly feel that "tougher opposition" brought about by teams having balanced assets would lead to more excitement... I could be wrong, maybe it's all about preserving a WR and racking up the pixel goodies...🥴 never mind concepts like a level playing field and a fair fight.
  5. Birkebein

    Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

    These "core issues" are part of a player's skill set, or not... anyhow not objective and not something the MM can balance (frankly, who knows what any given player will end up doing in any given game... even unicums have terrible games) - I'd like to think there could be agreement on this view so we can move on to the topic, "MM balance". If the MM takes quantifiable factors into consideration and tries to balance these then we might have more equally matched teams, in terms of capacity, which might result in more even hard fought battles. What would be terrible about seeing the teams have equal numbers of premium ships, mounted camos, flags, captain points and other quantifiable "assets"? I suppose the MM matches ship tiers (for the most part) so there already is a sense that random isn't a good idea... why not take it further? I think it would make for a more engaging game for all.
  6. Birkebein

    Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

    I've had games where we steamrolled the enemy, it was victory but felt "meh"... I've had games where both teams fought hard and one team won, it was exciting and fun - win or lose. If there are people out there who can only feel good if they win, at any cost and against any competition, then I suppose the current MM is good, but judging by forum posts, I have come to the conclusion that most find a good fight a reward in itself. So, to be constructive, player "deatsadow" posted that he believes it's the meta that creates the unbalanced games. Once a team loses a ship with a key role then it's effectively "game over" - if he's correct and if such an early loss decides the game then it seems to me that anyone, unicums and tubers alike would be victims/beneficiaries of chance and WRs would converge to 50%, but that's not happening so... It's likely the "power" of the players that decide the battle. Player "ColonelPete" might disagree and put everything down to individual player skill, but I suspect there is a correlation between player performance and ship power (upgrades, flags, camo, premium vs silver) and WR. Anecdotally, when I see a ship with no camo and no flags at the bottom of the team score board my "confirmation bias" is triggered. I also suspect there is a correlation between WR and clan membership, if for no other reason than the fact that new players take some time to find a clan. Anyhow, I contend that skill plus the benefits of clan membership combined with an arsenal of flags and camo makes for "power" - if matching skill (reflected by WR) is unacceptable then lets have the MM match the rest of the components of the "power" equation. These are easily identifiable factors which could be taken into consideration and "matched", on the working assumption that battles would be more balanced. I think it would be nice to see WG give it a try. It ought to be possible to end up with more good battles, a reward in itself, win or lose.
  7. Birkebein

    Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

    Would there be a benefit to the MM balancing based on a team's total number of flags, battle flags and/or economic/xp flags, and camos? How about balancing based on clan membership (equal number of clanned players on each team)? If the idea is to avoid balancing based on WRs, as good players/whales have promised that they will end up sobbing into their pillows if they had to face equally powerful players while carrying me and the other tubers and see their WR start to approach 50%, then maybe there are other fair ways of achieving balance... just a thought.
  8. Great work on the statistics. Your statistical analysis toolkit is more than up to analysing the data. I'm wondering though, does anyone know how the MM works in ranks? Anecdotally, I seemed to charge ahead and got to rank 7 or 8, then my luck changed, or my sub-par skill level caught up with me, and winning became the exception, is the MM dynamic, does it recognise individual player performance and try to balance performance by creating balanced teams? My experience was that my win rate and progress tumbled after my team became the team with more no-clan players. After a little over 60 games my WR was 60% plus, then the MM gave me the teams with team members who didn't belong to clans - I kept grinding for a while but my teams were always "worse". The basic assumption I'm making is that players who don't belong to clans are worse than players who do. If the MM is dynamic, then being able to save a star becomes the ultimate goal of playing ranks.
  9. Birkebein

    SUBMARINES - discussion, feedback, opinions

    I don't like playing subs. I find the lack of game input and involvement boring. I think being targeted and killed by depth charges boring... diving to max depth and sitting there, cruising at 1/4 speed... yep, boring! But, I feel the subs are well done by WG and just because I find the game play terminally dull doesn't mean it's not a good addition to the game, but I won't play them. Used to have a friend who was a senior ranking officer in the Marines, he introduced me to a friend of his, an ex submarine commander, and from what I understand, if anything relating to a sub becomes exciting then it's all gone badly wrong, so... WG has got it right, if you play your sub right it'll be as much fun as watching paint dry.
  10. Birkebein

    Server problems this morning?

    Same... wonder if this affects everyone on the EU server, or just the select few? The announcement isn't clear.
  11. I just opened 10 containers in a row, one 15, one ten, and the rest 5. I've unlocked/finished the second directive and have a total of 175 Soviet Tokens. I'm reminded of a certain CIA propaganda piece, where everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others... watched Twitch yesterday, Notser (CC) collected two containers with 300 tokens each, back-to-back... I guess we just got to keep grinding away until it's time for a final trip to the glue factory.
  12. Birkebein

    Radar poll

    I don't know who "you" is, is it someone specific? I do feel that, you, Cmdr, raise the right concerns. I'm of the opinion that the game wouldn't suffer, rather the opposite, if it became more realistic (limited ammo and torps, weather/time of day/sea state affecting accuracy and ship speed, a general spotting nerf etc). Anyhow, I'm not the "you", but I'm sure there are many who feel more comfortable with the status quo than a host of changes with, to them, unknown consequences, and I'm sure WG prefer to limit challenges for their programmers, though I would like to think, in terms of job satisfaction, it'd be worth conquering a few challenges now and then.
  13. Birkebein

    Radar poll

    There is a chance of damaging ship modules, so why not turn radar into a module? Right now it's a consumable, "which isn't realistic either", just as it isn't realistic for radar and fire directors to be intact when ship "health" has been damaged. Radar, fire directors/control, electrical and hydraulic systems all took a beating in battle (sometimes just in practice as well), so a damaged ship should have damaged modules - seems as if WG is doing a very good job recognising this fact and all that needs to happen is for radar to become a module capable of being damaged (rather easily damaged due to its fundamentally non-resilient nature). As tier levels increase, technology increases (until it, sadly, becomes pure fantasy) - with respect to radar, it would be possible to have it available as modules that could be damaged (and upgraded by module selection and captain skills). And, of course, radar should work more realistically (not go straight through islands, not provide detailed ship information before visual range has been established, and not positively spot smaller objects at the same range as larger ones). Early radar wasn't very informative and didn't assist fire directors and would probably fit in to tiers 3 through 5. Radar became increasingly useful (and used) during WW2 so all tier 8-10 ships ought to either have a standard radar module or the option to install one. Of course, the range of radar depends on its position, size/capacity - the higher it's mounted the further it can "see". A rework of radar to make it more realistic and fun is a challenge for WG's programmers which they might not be able to meet - but, if they had the capacity and combined it with weather/sea state/map changes and improvements then I'm sure the game would be more engaging and fun for all (yep, I'm sure 😁)
  14. Birkebein

    Radar poll

    I'd like less fantasy and more realism - don't worry though, I'd still recognise that it's only a game. Radar that works through solids is sort of stupid... as a concept, I mean, that sort of radar wouldn't detect ships either, right? Ok, tell me where to go...
  15. Birkebein

    Suggestions thread

    Feels like mission creep... design a game to give people the chance to reenact WW2 battles, then gradually lose sight of your mission as you see more and more "opportunities" until the core objective is long forgotten and even denied as ever having existed... by both players and programmers. Yep, we've got to have torp boats with unlimited torps and rapid firing guns whose barrels never need to be changed or go on a cool down cycle during an engagement. Radar needs to work intermittently, but straight through mountains... Sea state (what land crabs generalise and refer to as weather) isn't an issue on fire control or speed even in northern climes - even small boats can always proceed at full speed. If I spot a moving target, then you, hiding behind an island can fire at it with the same accuracy as I can (see recent posts above). Friendly collisions don't matter, you just might turn pink with embarrassment but if you drift into an enemy vessel someone explodes (at least beyond tier three this absurd mechanic is unnecessary). And, what are we fighting for... circles in the sea, they just don't seem to have any strategic importance, naval battles were never similar to darts or a game of horseshoes. The scenario operations reflect real objectives; random or coop battles should also have more realistic strategic objectives - there are, unfortunately, lots of naval battles to model a map on. There are lots of ways to make the game more realistic and it's hard to see how it would make it less popular. There are limits if working within the 20 min max game time, but just making it more and more a fantasy offering, because it seems as if there's a niche of people with lose change in their pockets willing to pay up isn't a good plan. One day people will look at the game and ask, what is it? If the answer has to be something other than it was... then mission creep has arrived and the plot is lost. This is the internet so everything gets trolled and everyone has opinions (mine are above and I likely won't defend them unless there's a focus by WG on improvement/implementation and a return from the fantasy wilderness).
×