Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
capjohnny

MatchMaking

17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
1,339 posts
5,187 battles

Don't really see the issue? It is not like it was a complete steamroll and if you look at the XP your team did not really have a bad win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WGP2W]
Players
1,419 posts
9,943 battles

Snowflake....

 

Dude, MM is far better than before and arguably only radars and CV skill disparity can mess it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,203 posts
6,775 battles
1 hour ago, capjohnny said:

What is worng with MM.. ? 

 

I konw that we won, but it is not a even match.. 

shot-18.06.04_14.11.35-0233.jpg

6x 10s per side

2x 9s per side

4x 8s per side

 

5x BBs per side

3x DDs per side

4x CA/Ls per side

 

2...4 radars on your side vs 4...5 radars on enemy side

 

What exactly is your problem there? That looks like pretty decent MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2 posts
3,289 battles

Can you not see that my team has a way better win ratio players.. Thats is whats  worng..

The distributions off good and not so good players is not even..  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BFS]
Beta Tester
853 posts
5,114 battles
4 minutes ago, capjohnny said:

Can you not see that my team has a way better win ratio players.. Thats is whats  worng..

The distributions off good and not so good players is not even..  :) 

Except that there is no "skill based" match making in the game......

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Quality Poster
4,343 posts
14,943 battles
1 hour ago, capjohnny said:

Can you not see that my team has a way better win ratio players.. Thats is whats  worng..

The distributions off good and not so good players is not even..  :) 

MMMM how can you discern that from the picture? there is nothing about there winrate on you picture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AAO]
Alpha Tester
714 posts
3,249 battles
1 hour ago, capjohnny said:

Can you not see that my team has a way better win ratio players.. Thats is whats  worng..

The distributions off good and not so good players is not even..  :) 

 

Tbh winratio doesn´t have to be the factor that a team wins. I had one time a team with overall 45% winrate against 65% overall winrate of the enemy. To my surprise and maybe to yours now if i tell you this... My team won.

 

Wows is a game where many factors come into play and decide who the winner of the match will be. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,203 posts
6,775 battles
4 hours ago, capjohnny said:

Can you not see that my team has a way better win ratio players.. Thats is whats  worng..

The distributions off good and not so good players is not even..  :) 

No, no I can't see it. That pic doesn't show everyone WR.

 

Also there is no skill based MM so why would they be distributed equally?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
3,762 posts
10,656 battles
4 hours ago, capjohnny said:

Can you not see that my team has a way better win ratio players.. Thats is whats  worng..

The distributions off good and not so good players is not even..  :) 

Ok. Imagine that MM actually tried to put evenly skilled players in each team (instead it completely ignores them). Now imagine a great player (currently stable 60+% solo winrate). Imagine he queues for a game. What happens? Well, the MM finds out that he's good. So it gives him strong opponents and abysmally bad teammates to compensate.

Tell me, do you REALLY want a MM that would punish people for playing well?

 

And that's before we even get to technical problems of keeping up with players' quality once everyone's WR is brought down or up to more or less 50% (after all, the better the system works, the less telling winrate becomes, since battles are won by people who perform better than usual and thrown by those performing below their normal level - whether their normal level is high or low is irrelevant for victory since they are balanced against equally good or bad opponents).

 

Let me tell you - from time to time there are people who bring up the idea of skill-based matchmaking. There are many ways to approach this idea, too. The idea that you suggest (distributing skilled players equally between teams) is, generally speaking, considered abhorrently bad by most. And, from what I heard, was promptly dropped by a tank game called Armored Warfare. They checked it out. It was really bad (and some consider it one of the important reasons why the game never made it very big despite many advantages over WoT, especially at the time of its launch).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[1DSF]
Beta Tester
1,362 posts
4,141 battles

Maybe he think the ranked symbols at the name shows winrate? :Smile-_tongue:

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RN-GF]
Beta Tester
82 posts
5,082 battles

Purple clan != Purple player, it's rough indicator, but i've seen far too may purple clans players play atrociously to use it as a yard stick.

 

Ranked star == level of patience the play has for grinding. ;-)

 

Also looking like the Yamato and Shima did the majority of carrying, not the clan :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[W-C]
Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
2,299 posts
6,175 battles

Basically, you want to lose more often....alright then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SNUBS]
Players
1,274 posts
6,683 battles
11 hours ago, capjohnny said:

The distributions off good and not so good players is not even..  :) 

even good players cant fully carry total dogshit teams.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×