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

Another post about Divisions

44 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[XTREM]
Players
122 posts
7,580 battles

Anyone doubting what's been said in recent threads about how divisions change matches just need to look at this:

 

image.thumb.png.a80d5b53568582f78771facfb95c2b6f.png

 

CIA and HAMI - 5 players working together and the predicted outcome.  A total waste of time being on the other side.   Balancing the matchmaking to take account of divisions and the quality of players must be looked at.  Boring.

 

Feel free to dislike the post or re-hash the usual flame-grilled responses - I don't give a rat's chuff.  

 

UpTheDonald 

  • Cool 7
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
122 posts
7,580 battles
1 minute ago, ColonelPete said:

If you do not care, why make a post?

The "rat's chuff" refers to the expected responses not the issue raised in the post. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
16,855 posts
11,567 battles

Posting for the purpose of posting?

The issue is not new, not unknown to WG. There are threads for that.

 

Your post only shows what is wrong in this game: 7 ships throwing the match instead of attacking the enemy. The enemy had a 2 ship advantage. That is far from hopeless.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
7,991 posts
10,374 battles
30 minutes ago, Up_The_Donald said:

5 players working together

The only relevant part of your post.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
122 posts
7,580 battles
19 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Posting for the purpose of posting?

The issue is not new, not unknown to WG. There are threads for that.

 

Your post only shows what is wrong in this game: 7 ships throwing the match instead of attacking the enemy. The enemy had a 2 ship advantage. That is far from hopeless.

Interesting conclusions to draw from a screenshot which says nothing about how the match unfolded - only about how it ended.  Your conclusions are incorrect.  


The match was lost from the start by virtue of the 5 strong players working together in two divisions.  That is imbalance right there and an opposition without similar divisions is highly unlikely to ever organise itself sufficiently to counter it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
7,991 posts
10,374 battles
4 minutes ago, Up_The_Donald said:

The match was lost from the start by virtue of the 5 strong players working together in two divisions.  That is imbalance right there and an opposition without similar divisions is highly unlikely to ever organise itself sufficiently to counter it.

 

News of the century: teamwork OP.

 

Please nerf!

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
122 posts
7,580 battles
2 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

 

News of the century: teamwork OP.

 

Please nerf!

Missing the point buddy.  A team with two strong divisions against a team with none is more likely to work together and show team work - that is the cause of the imbalance.  Why such resistance to acknowledging such a simple truth?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
16,855 posts
11,567 battles
7 minutes ago, Up_The_Donald said:

Interesting conclusions to draw from a screenshot which says nothing about how the match unfolded - only about how it ended.  Your conclusions are incorrect.  


The match was lost from the start by virtue of the 5 strong players working together in two divisions.  That is imbalance right there and an opposition without similar divisions is highly unlikely to ever organise itself sufficiently to counter it. 

No, they managed to to sink 2 more ships than your team. That is no sign of dominance. Compare the XP. Only their CV was clearly stronger.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AMOK]
Players
1,117 posts
6,573 battles

What about the thousands of games were even a "OP" Division can't do a sh*t to save the potato team from losing?

 

Btw what excactly is your point op?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
122 posts
7,580 battles
1 minute ago, ColonelPete said:

No, they managed to to sink 2 more ships than your team. That is no sign of dominance. Compare the XP. Only their CV was clearly stronger.

I know that I was only in the match and saw it happen so I realise my input is less valuable than yours but......they heavily damaged a lot of the surviving ships early in the match meaning they weren't in a position to take the fight to them.  The reason for that is their teamwork occasioned by having two strong divisions against a team with none.  Hence the reason for the post. 

 

The resistance to any acknowledgement of any lack of perfection in the MM engine is informative.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
16,855 posts
11,567 battles

Nobody claims the MM is perfect. 

You see what you want to see. Your interpretation of the match result makes this clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
122 posts
7,580 battles
3 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Nobody claims the MM is perfect. 

You see what you want to see. Your interpretation of the match result makes this clear.

Whereas your interpretation is the objective truth.  Very zen.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
16,855 posts
11,567 battles

As I said, compare the XP. The players from Minotaur upward performed similar to the enemy without TS.

The problem are the players below. There is a significant break in performance.

And running without fighting does not help either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
122 posts
7,580 battles
3 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

As I said, compare the XP. The players from Minotaur upward performed similar to the enemy without TS.

The problem are the players below. There is a significant break in performance.

And running without fighting does not help either.

I give up.  The conclusions and observations diagnose the outcome without considering the root cause.  It was nothing to do with running without fighting.  It was everything to do with a well organised and skilled group of players dealing early damage and gaining the upper hand which then allowed the bases to be capped and players picked off for an easy win.  That was possible because of the team imbalance.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Players
1,489 posts
19,264 battles

blabla  f*ck*ng sch**sse...... *sigh*.....

 

the days been solo on a random team, other side sported a div from a hurricane clan (my team none), me came out like in top 3, other side lost..... the days before one time been on full scrubs divi, all 3 last survivors on our team with whatnot xp.... no way to carry (as to xpect from windowlickers :Smile_trollface::Smile_hiding::Smile_sceptic:)....

so, in best tradition of all these "i'm-dead-sure-by-cherry-picked-personal-xample/"statistics"...." i can tell for myself: from my personal experience, which is mostly based on the "fact" that it is ALWAYS in randoms about what side got the greater noobs, not the better team, that the claim given is bollocks (as herefore proven lol).

 

so plz, to all the mm-, divi, clan, whatnot haters (take a single 1 or feel free to combine), get on something new...

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQkeyVVy92DrasT-7ftP3r

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
122 posts
7,580 battles
1 minute ago, MrWastee said:

blabla  f*ck*ng sch**sse...... *sigh*.....

 

the days been solo on a random team, other side sported a div from a hurricane clan (my team none), me came out like in top 3, other side lost..... the days before one time been on full scrubs divi, all 3 last survivors on our team with whatnot xp.... no way to carry (as to xpect from windowlickers :Smile_trollface::Smile_hiding::Smile_sceptic:)....

so, in best tradition of all these "i'm-dead-sure-by-cherry-picked-personal-xample/"statistics"...." i can tell for myself: from my personal experience, which is mostly based on the "fact" that it is ALWAYS in randoms about what side got the greater noobs, not the better team, that the claim given is bollocks (as herefore proven lol).

 

so plz, to all the mm-, divi, clan, whatnot haters (take a single 1 or feel free to combine), get on something new...

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQkeyVVy92DrasT-7ftP3r

 

 

I put that through google translate but still failed to understand it.  I'm guessing the post is not supportive of my point however. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
16,855 posts
11,567 battles
5 minutes ago, Up_The_Donald said:

I give up.  The conclusions and observations diagnose the outcome without considering the root cause.  It was nothing to do with running without fighting.  It was everything to do with a well organised and skilled group of players dealing early damage and gaining the upper hand which then allowed the bases to be capped and players picked off for an easy win.  That was possible because of the team imbalance.  

You were not picked off. Enemy sunk 5, your team team sunk 3.

Four of your players performed equally or better than four of the five enemy division players.

The problem was not the divisions of the enemy team. Your team was too passive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
889 posts
8,363 battles
1 hour ago, Up_The_Donald said:

CIA  5 players working together and the predicted outcome.  A total waste of time being on the other side.  

 

Mr President, we are aware of your CIA over the FBI bias

 

:Smile_hiding:

 

 

trump FBI.jpg

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
122 posts
7,580 battles
2 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

You were not picked off. Enemy sunk 5, your team team sunk 3.

Four of your players performed equally or better than four of the five enemy division players.

The problem was not the divisions of the enemy team. Your team was too passive.

You're right.  The scales have fallen from my eyes and I repent my erroneous ways.  Of course this was a self-inflicted loss caused by passive play.  I can't believe I didn't realise this sooner.  Thanks for the insight.  

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
7,991 posts
10,374 battles
29 minutes ago, Up_The_Donald said:

Missing the point buddy.  A team with two strong divisions against a team with none is more likely to work together and show team work - that is the cause of the imbalance.  Why such resistance to acknowledging such a simple truth?

It's not me that's missing the point here.

 

Just because the average random bob in this playerbase thinks you spell team with "I" doesn't mean that divisions are unbalanced. It's the embarassing lack of teamwork among randoms that's the problem, not the other way round. That's as simple as it gets.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,455 posts
1 hour ago, Up_The_Donald said:

 

Whine

Go find a game in your replays where the other team had 2 divisions of tomatoes working together to give your team a win......should be easy as there are far more of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
122 posts
7,580 battles
2 minutes ago, bushwacker001 said:

Go find a game in your replays where the other team had 2 divisions of tomatoes working together to give your team a win......should be easy as there are far more of them. 

Oh dear - this has nothing to do with losing or winning.  It's about how the MM imbalance leads to more walkovers and a less interesting match.  

 

So much anger.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,455 posts
Just now, Up_The_Donald said:

Oh dear - this has nothing to do with losing or winning.  It's about how the MM imbalance leads to more walkovers and a less interesting match.  

 

So much anger.  

I see no walkover in your example

 

so much whine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×