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

Team Balance and Fair play...

32 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
5 posts

The image below refelcts the last two battles I played this evening before I got bored and logged off.

I then contemplated for a while if it was even worth posting my reaction on the forum cuz I dont suppose anyone who could affect it will even read this post but or give a crap, yet one lives in hope!

 

I'm sure we've all at one point or another, been at the short end of this kind of thing...

My question is, is it entirely necessary?

 

You can clearly see that the matchmaker didn't make any effort to split the elite players amongst the average players and so offer a fair fight to all involved, which while doing so simply created another demoralising unsatisfying wasted 15 mins per game.

 

OR DID IT? Like I say you can clearly see an oppertunity in the dispersion of the properly good players to spread them around yet they all (im-)balanced to one side.

Look, we all enjoy a challange but when yer chances of a fair fight are denied by forces out of your control out right off the bat -what its the point of participating?

 

Sports/games in whatever form tend to break participants in to leagues for the very reason of fairness and balance -and I accept theres Ranked and Clan battles in WoWs.

But my response to that is that those are limited in scope and limited in availability - Random Battle is the default choice to the community at large and permenantly available.

It cannot be impossible for the development team that wrote the current matchmaker algorithm to produce teams like this therefore also actually balance teams more fairly and give all involved a balanced fight and chance at success.

 

So again I ask what is the logic and intent to overwhelmingly im-balance teams in this manner against fairer alternatives?

I think its only fair and the community at large deserve a catagorical and public answer to this.

 

Thanks

5b1c59fe6e4ee_NicelyBalanced.thumb.png.729a135d67956fd911d76b07eb1692d1.png

  • Funny 1
  • Boring 5
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
14,675 posts
10,879 battles
  • 344th time this topic comes up
  • what about the unicum player with no rank?
  • what about the bad Rank 1 players with below than 50% Winrating?
  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[1DSF]
Beta Tester
1,366 posts
4,163 battles

The shown ranks for "ranked" gameplay says nothing, many players didn't play ranked or stopped early.

So don't judge players because of this!

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
3,770 posts
10,668 battles
23 minutes ago, Veilingmeat said:

344th time and the community continues to be ignored...

No. Because the community doesn't actually want the thing you're asking for - especially people who actually think things through.

 

Let me help you with that. Imagine that we really do get MM that tries to split good (and bad) players between the teams. Now imagine a really, really good player. R1, solo winrate 70%, a virtual god of World of Warships. What would his reward be? He would get the worst possible teammates and the strongest possible enemies to balance off his ability.

 

Now imagine a bot. A scripted "player" that just logs into battle, hits W twice (to not be the first to meet the enemy) and perhaps uses some simple aimbot to try and shoot at enemies that get close. What would the MM of your design do? Why, of course put this bot in the team of the player from previous example, to ensure that it wins, on average, around 50% matches!

 

You see, the problem with skill-based MM of this kind is (on the conceptual level, before you even delve into problems of actually making it work and asessing expected ability) that it punishes you for playing well and rewards you for playing badly. And that actually doesn't sit well with community at all. In fact, just as we get, from time to time, threads like yours, so do we get threads of people whining how WG has some hidden algorithms that prevent them from getting good winrate and try to keep them at 50%. We literally get people complaining about your idea of balanced teams WITHOUT IT EVEN BEING IMPLEMENTED. Try to imagine the backlash if WG actually did go insane and introduced something like this. Oh, and it isn't even all that abstract either - I've heard that Armored Warfare (WoT's competition) tried something like this. It was a disaster. People hated it with passion.

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
7,413 posts
13,825 battles
1 hour ago, Veilingmeat said:

344th time and the community continues to be ignored...

 

No, you're the only one being ignored. And for quite good reasons, really. This has been discussed to death.

 

In practical terms skill based MM for randoms is a horrible idea in WoWs due to the extremely small playerbase, made even worse by its uneven distribution among classes. If you implement a dynamic system on the other hand you'll basically get the same result that we have now so that's wasted effort.

You can maybe start thinking about it when this game reaches 100-150k players (aka probably never). Right now with peaks of less than 30k it's more likely to drive away players with massive queue times rather than solving anything.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
Players
2,949 posts
14,953 battles
2 hours ago, Veilingmeat said:
2 hours ago, Veilingmeat said:

 

5b1c59fe6e4ee_NicelyBalanced.thumb.png.729a135d67956fd911d76b07eb1692d1.png

 

rank doesnt show skill of a player.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TIPC]
Players
237 posts
10,132 battles

I dont play in Divisions,Ranked,CV etc still have a decent WR and stuff...

 

Yesterday met this guy in its Black(red team),so it has to be DAT good?

Well we won...he just torp traded whit a Fletcher and died off early on,thats it.

After game check...wow so scaaaaarrryyy(rankd dosent mather,period):

 

shot-18.06.09_17.42.53-0860.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
961 posts
4,865 battles

There are two kinds of people: 

 

Guys like me who see a great player on the enemy team and appreciate the challenge and those guys who see a top clan division and immediately write "loss" in chat. Now maybe I'm an old fart already, but back in my day games didn't have self heal, auto save, aim assist and all that nonsense. So being able to complete certain challenges was actually rewarding. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NL-UK]
[NL-UK]
Players
3 posts
7,915 battles
8 hours ago, Veilingmeat said:

The image below refelcts the last two battles I played this evening before I got bored and logged off.

I then contemplated for a while if it was even worth posting my reaction on the forum cuz I dont suppose anyone who could affect it will even read this post but or give a crap, yet one lives in hope!

 

I'm sure we've all at one point or another, been at the short end of this kind of thing...

My question is, is it entirely necessary?

 

You can clearly see that the matchmaker didn't make any effort to split the elite players amongst the average players and so offer a fair fight to all involved, which while doing so simply created another demoralising unsatisfying wasted 15 mins per game.

 

OR DID IT? Like I say you can clearly see an oppertunity in the dispersion of the properly good players to spread them around yet they all (im-)balanced to one side.

Look, we all enjoy a challange but when yer chances of a fair fight are denied by forces out of your control out right off the bat -what its the point of participating?

 

Sports/games in whatever form tend to break participants in to leagues for the very reason of fairness and balance -and I accept theres Ranked and Clan battles in WoWs.

But my response to that is that those are limited in scope and limited in availability - Random Battle is the default choice to the community at large and permenantly available.

It cannot be impossible for the development team that wrote the current matchmaker algorithm to produce teams like this therefore also actually balance teams more fairly and give all involved a balanced fight and chance at success.

 

So again I ask what is the logic and intent to overwhelmingly im-balance teams in this manner against fairer alternatives?

I think its only fair and the community at large deserve a catagorical and public answer to this.

 

Thanks

5b1c59fe6e4ee_NicelyBalanced.thumb.png.729a135d67956fd911d76b07eb1692d1.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
14,675 posts
10,879 battles
6 hours ago, Veilingmeat said:

344th time and the community continues to be ignored...

I told you why. But if you ignore arguments and just want it your way, no matter what, we can stop the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-T-O-]
Alpha Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
2,138 posts
5,909 battles

Ranks most of the time means nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PMI]
Players
2,360 posts
5,547 battles
7 hours ago, Veilingmeat said:

344th time and the community continues to be ignored...

 

No, you are ignored.

But its funny you complain.

 

Too bad your stats are private, we may be able to assess your reliability.

 

And, if you thing playing the game is a waste of your time, you know what to do right? Or you need someone to explain that for you too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Beta Tester
1,230 posts
7,319 battles

Guess I'm a crap player since I am only rank 15 :Smile_hiding::Smile_trollface: Please treat me as a shitter in skill-MM based on rank, that would be hilarious!

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[EST]
[EST]
Players
745 posts
18,313 battles
4 minutes ago, Loran_Battle said:

Guess I'm a crap player since I am only rank 15 :Smile_hiding::Smile_trollface: Please treat me as a shitter in skill-MM based on rank, that would be hilarious!

15? You shouldn't be allowed to write in forum then not to mention playing the game! :Smile-_tongue:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOME]
Players
749 posts
7,564 battles
11 minutes ago, Loran_Battle said:

Guess I'm a crap player since I am only rank 15 :Smile_hiding::Smile_trollface: Please treat me as a shitter in skill-MM based on rank, that would be hilarious!

Hah, you are not bad enough to be a scrub! True SCRUBS have no ranks like me. :Smile_trollface: You should demote yourself so 5CRUB or maybe even SNUB!

 

But really ranks dont mean much, ive seen a 45% guy with rank 1. He must have died his way to rank 1 in 500 battles or so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertester
2,835 posts
4,190 battles
1 minute ago, DJ_Die said:

But really ranks dont mean much, ive seen a 45% guy with rank 1. He must have died his way to rank 1 in 500 battles or so. 

 

Then the real problem is, if this is actually possible, that the ranked system is really badly designed if it allows this.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Beta Tester
1,230 posts
7,319 battles
1 minute ago, VC381 said:

 

Then the real problem is, if this is actually possible, that the ranked system is really badly designed if it allows this.

Errr, didn't you know this? Ever since the first ranked season this was the case. The cutoff is even lower than 45% IIRC. Someone did the math on reddit once, its something like 43% with 1500 battles as the lower limit to get rank 1.

 

Every rank season there are numerous sub 50% players that achieve rank 1. Just a matter of playing enough games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DSW]
Players
3,790 posts
7,737 battles
6 minutes ago, VC381 said:

 

Then the real problem is, if this is actually possible, that the ranked system is really badly designed if it allows this.

ranked is badly designed? :cap_hmm: in other news, water is usually wet...

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertester
2,835 posts
4,190 battles
1 minute ago, Loran_Battle said:

Errr, didn't you know this? Ever since the first ranked season this was the case. The cutoff is even lower than 45% IIRC. Someone did the math on reddit once, its something like 43% with 1500 battles as the lower limit to get rank 1.

 

Every rank season there are numerous sub 50% players that achieve rank 1. Just a matter of playing enough games.

 

I know it's possible but it still baffles me. I haven't seen that reddit maths, link? To me it doesn't make sense. If your WR is <50%, you lose more games than you win, so you lose more stars than you earn (and you're almost never top of team to preserve a star). So... it should be impossible to have net more stars earned than lost i.e. to progress at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,222 posts
6,782 battles
8 minutes ago, Tyrendian89 said:

in other news, water is usually wet...

But water's not wet

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Beta Tester
1,230 posts
7,319 battles
8 minutes ago, VC381 said:

 

I know it's possible but it still baffles me. I haven't seen that reddit maths, link? To me it doesn't make sense. If your WR is <50%, you lose more games than you win, so you lose more stars than you earn (and you're almost never top of team to preserve a star). So... it should be impossible to have net more stars earned than lost i.e. to progress at all.

 

Hmm, I never read this one, but it does show that even with 45% winrate its possible because of the keep star on loss based on luck.

Spoiler

 

 

This one is I think the one I'm remembering (incorrectly btw). It puts a hard limit at 44,5% (playing 24/7).

Spoiler

 

 

Too bad I couldn't find a post with statistics of actual player winrate vs games played to rank 1. I know I've seen it, but I cannot find it :Smile_amazed:.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Beta Tester
1,230 posts
7,319 battles
19 minutes ago, VC381 said:

 

I know it's possible but it still baffles me. I haven't seen that reddit maths, link? To me it doesn't make sense. If your WR is <50%, you lose more games than you win, so you lose more stars than you earn (and you're almost never top of team to preserve a star). So... it should be impossible to have net more stars earned than lost i.e. to progress at all.

This is interesting to look through as well.

 

The lowest winrate this season on EU was 44,74%. And seeing the last sheet it looks like he needed <400 games to do it as well! Lucky man.

 

https://imgur.com/a/K8CYwpy#nv0WIhz

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
14,675 posts
10,879 battles
1 hour ago, VC381 said:

 

I know it's possible but it still baffles me. I haven't seen that reddit maths, link? To me it doesn't make sense. If your WR is <50%, you lose more games than you win, so you lose more stars than you earn (and you're almost never top of team to preserve a star). So... it should be impossible to have net more stars earned than lost i.e. to progress at all.

You have the keeping your star rule on a loss.

When gaining a new rank, you get a star for free.

Certain ranks are irrevocable.

 

Imagine needing 50 wins from getting from rank 10 to 1.

Now you lose 100 games in a row and are stuck at rank 10. Then you win 50 games in a row and get to rank 1.

--> rank 1 with 33% WR.

  • Cool 1

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.

×