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

Bad players, bots, AFKs plague this game. Give us good players our own random games.

62 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
30 posts
6,926 battles

I remember starting of a topic like this maybe a year back and things really have been going down ever since. 

I like the fact that WG is improving the and putting out content but the biggest flaw and plague in this game is forcing good players to suffer with the horrible players.

I like the videos showing game mechanics. Good stuff. I sadly doubt many even watch them or let alone understand.

 

The overall quality of the playerbase is really bad. 70-80% of the players rate from average to bad. Every game is plagued by a mix of BOTS, AFK or people who just yolo in to die without even shooting. Every game!! 

WG won't waste time clearing the bots which is sad. After checking  accounts time to time I lost all hope. So many bots its unbelievable. And we have to play with these. Why? 

I hurt my ears when I listen to clan mates raging about bots and noobs. I agree with them but it infuriates me like it does to them. This really takes the heart out of the game for good players.

Ranked won't do it. Its plagued the same way. A lot of players have 1000 to get to ranked 1 while others save star because their team is plagued with bots and bad players. Clan battles are a different story but I have to wait months for it and its only 7v7.

 

All I'm asking is that I can play the same game but just with people whose personal records value "good" or above like in wows-numbers. Separate waiting lines for people who rate good and want to play with good players. Bots, AFK, below average can play like they play now in their own group. They wont know the difference.  

26-30k players play this game daily so I'd imagine there are 1-3k players that would fit this and want to play with their level of players.

Own choice of course. Pick a random game with good players if you rate high enough or pick a random game with the below average players. Just like you pick game modes.

Waiting time is no issue. I bet a lot of players won't mind waiting for 2-4 minutes for a good game. They would do it rather wait than suffer with the bad players.

I don't see any logical, financial or coding reason not to allow players to choose to play with the players of their own level.

It would be a really huge improvement for the better player base. Far better than any free content you could ever give us.

 

I really don't want to have my team plagued with bots, runaway battleships with 10-20k average damage and players that die within 2 minutes.

Recently I've been faced with immature T8 players who quit because they are in T10 game. One such player caused the flank to fall and made the game horrible for the rest of the team. Enemy rolled over us. Game was quickly over. No fun for winners or losers.

 

WG please separate the good from the bad. It would be the best thing this game ever saw in its history.

 

 

Random game Random game
For players with PR from "bad" to "average" For players with PR "good" to "super unicum"
Suits for: Suits for:
- Bots, AKFers - Players who have at least heard the term teamwork
- Horrible damage and aim (like 10-20k) - Can aim and perform many ships
- Run away from battle - Understands armor, gun calibers and basic mechanics
- Camp 20km away from battle - Map awareness
- Sail broadside eating citadels - Understand how and when players are actually losing the game
- No map awareness - Adapts and learns
- No situational awareness - Improve their own game
- People who die within 2 minutes in a 5 minute game. - Players who are actually valuable to the team
- Lemmings - This list is also endless
- No understanding of any basic game mechanics  
- Unable to learn even after 10k games  
- List is endless   

 

Simple?

 

As I said before winrate cannot be used as measurement of being good. Not even damage alone. 

Even with damage is pretty easy to separate good from bad.

Bad and average players mostly do 5-65k of damage in any T10 ship. Good players rate 45-140k in different ships.

  • Cool 7
  • Funny 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,691 posts
13,130 battles
2 minutes ago, Rautainen_Biisoni said:

70-80% of the players rate from average to bad.

 

Only 70-80%? That'd actually be an improvement, no?

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AS13]
Players
1,136 posts
1,552 battles
6 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Only 70-80%? That'd actually be an improvement, no?

based on that number, I sometimes have to wait ~2-3 minutes for a random game.

Well that means 4-5x that, so good luck to them waiting 15 minutes LMAO. 

 

Hey, and then there's 'ranked'. I suppose that "RANK ONE" is where all the super-ueber-players gather.

From what I have heard they are even more numbskulls than the rest. I say, good luck to them LOL!!!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AAO]
Players
395 posts
6,939 battles

WG needs to step up with Bot / AFK violation, 2 warnings then perma bann for botting and quicker send off to co-op after sevral afk violations. 

 

Bots will think twice before doing it again after a warning is issued, losing potentially hundreds of euros worh of ships / progress in terms of premium. 

 

AFKing theres no excuse in the world to do it again and again, if you have no time to play dont hit battle, if you load in 10mins each battle upgrade your hamster wheel. 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,691 posts
13,130 battles
3 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Well that means 4-5x that, so good luck to them waiting 15 minutes LMAO. 

 

Pretty much.

The playerbase simply isn't big enough to sustain any kind of skill-based MM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HUN]
Players
69 posts
1,663 battles
12 minutes ago, Rautainen_Biisoni said:

Separate waiting lines for people who rate good and want to play with good players.

This will get unsustainable very quickly. How will you track ability afterwards? For example, take the best 24 players regarding winrate. The best of the best of the best. They all have a global winrate over 75%. Let them play against each other. On average, half of them will have a winrate under 50%. Will you then push them into the noob's arena?

 

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AS13]
Players
1,136 posts
1,552 battles
3 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Pretty much.

The playerbase simply isn't big enough to sustain any kind of skill-based MM.

 

3 minutes ago, Praevasc said:

This will get unsustainable very quickly. How will you track ability afterwards? For example, take the best 24 players regarding winrate. The best of the best of the best. They all have a global winrate over 75%. Let them play against each other. On average, half of them will have a winrate under 50%. Will you then push them into the noob's arena?

 

 

Here's an idea, let them open up a 'Unicorn Server' that WG charges a nominal fee for. 

They can apply for admittance at the door and members can vote them in or out. 

They can pay their way in. And WG can make some money.

 

.....aaaaand we'll be rid of their whining (no guess that last part won't happen).

  • Funny 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[_MIA_]
Players
2,886 posts
5,347 battles

Would be great if we could make private servers so we can play with ppl we want to play with :cap_old:

And no, training room doesnt do it, since noone wants to play that on a regular base because you dont achieve anything by that (no rewards / no progress in the techtree).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[W-C]
Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
2,223 posts
5,868 battles
15 minutes ago, Praevasc said:

This will get unsustainable very quickly. How will you track ability afterwards? For example, take the best 24 players regarding winrate. The best of the best of the best. They all have a global winrate over 75%. Let them play against each other. On average, half of them will have a winrate under 50%. Will you then push them into the noob's arena?

 

Exactly this....people who want a skill based matchmaking never think it through enough

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
58 posts
2,261 battles
8 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

 

 

Here's an idea, let them open up a 'Unicorn Server' that WG charges a nominal fee for. 

They can apply for admittance at the door and members can vote them in or out. 

They can pay their way in. And WG can make some money.

 

.....aaaaand we'll be rid of their whining (no guess that last part won't happen).

I whole hearty agree. :Smile_medal:

Especially the last part... then at least we wouldn't have anymore threads about having to play with the deplorables (ie the "casual" player). Oh who am I kidding? :Smile_teethhappy:

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HUN]
Players
69 posts
1,663 battles
2 minutes ago, domen3 said:

Exactly this....people who want a skill based matchmaking never think it through enough

In chess there is a thing called the Elo rating, to solve this exact kind of problem. But to implement it, people would need to get used to having near 50% winrate all the time, regardless of skill level.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLAST]
[BLAST]
Players
479 posts
8,541 battles
2 minutes ago, Praevasc said:

In chess there is a thing called the Elo rating, to solve this exact kind of problem. But to implement it, people would need to get used to having near 50% winrate all the time, regardless of skill level.

 

A skill based MM means everybody trends to 50% win rate.

A league based MM means no easy kills and the damage has to be shared between other skilled players, in addition to the above.

And then it comes down to, uh, meh stats.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,691 posts
13,130 battles
21 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

.....aaaaand we'll be rid of their whining (no guess that last part won't happen).

 

Honestly it isn't the utter lack of skill of the average player that's frustrating. It's that WG straight up refuses to do anything to teach new players about mechanics that are crucial for both individual and team success. E.g. when I see a Bismarck constantly broadsiding and spam HE I'm going to rage about him ofc, but I also know that the player most likely doesn't know any better.

 

Educating the playerbase about the fundamental mechanics of their game is the job of the developer. And to say that WG failed hard at it would be an understatement.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
30 posts
6,926 battles
17 minutes ago, Praevasc said:

This will get unsustainable very quickly. How will you track ability afterwards? For example, take the best 24 players regarding winrate. The best of the best of the best. They all have a global winrate over 75%. Let them play against each other. On average, half of them will have a winrate under 50%. Will you then push them into the noob's arena?

 

Overall performance. Winrate is not a factor but how well you perform with the ships overall damage/potential damage/spotting/capping.

Good players don't really have problems in these areas compared to bots and bad players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TIPC]
Players
331 posts
15,321 battles
1 hour ago, domen3 said:

Exactly this....people who want a skill based matchmaking never think it through enough

 i think OP is not asking for a strictly skill based matchmaking.he is talking about 2 diferent random MM..for example one MM for players with lower than 50% wr and the other higher than 50%..or something like that the % are random in my example..i think it could make sense and the games in randoms could be more enjoyable with 2 deferend logic WR   MM fields in randoms...and the queu would not take so long..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HUN]
Players
69 posts
1,663 battles
1 minute ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

 i think OP is not asking for a strict skill based matchmaking.he is talking about 2 diferent random modes..for example one mode for player with lower than 50% wr and the other higher than 50%..or something like that the % are random in my example..i think it could make sense and the games in randoms could be more enjoyable with 2 deferend logic WR  fields in randoms...and the queu would not take so long..

It seems you misunderstood the point. With your suggestion, take player A who has around 45% winrate, and player B who has around 55%.

Player A will play in the noob club, and will achieve above 60% winrate, because most players will be much worse.

Player B will play in the elite club, and will get a winrate below 40% because most players are much better.

 

Then you will put the better of them into the noob club, and the worst of them into the elite club.

 

Because this cannot be a one-time event. How will players be moved between the clubs?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TIPC]
Players
331 posts
15,321 battles
1 hour ago, Praevasc said:

It seems you misunderstood the point. With your suggestion, take player A who has around 45% winrate, and player B who has around 55%.

Player A will play in the noob club, and will achieve above 60% winrate, because most players will be much worse.

Player B will play in the elite club, and will get a winrate below 40% because most players are much better.

 

Then you will put the better of them into the noob club, and the worst of them into the elite club.

 

Because this cannot be a one-time event. How will players be moved between the clubs?

nope !if we supposed we have 2 diferent MM fields 50%+ and 50-..the player that has 45% he wiil play in 50- MM field if he reaches the 50% win rate he will just play in 50%+ MM field ,if he go again 49.9% he will go back to 50%-..

i dont say to have to deferend WR  numbers..it doesnt afect anything only the MM

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HUN]
Players
69 posts
1,663 battles
1 minute ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

nope !if we supposed we have 2 diferent fields 50%+ and 50-..the player that has 45% he wiil play in 50- field if he reaches the 50% win rate he will just play in 50%+ field ,if he go again 49.9% he will go back to 50%-..

i dont say to have to deferend wr numbers..it doesnt afect anything only the MM

But the 45% player will easily reach 50% winrate in the 50- field without improving at all, because most his opponents are now much worse.

 

Similarly, the 55% player will get below 50% very soon because of the much stronger competition, without playing any worse than before.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TIPC]
Players
331 posts
15,321 battles
8 minutes ago, Praevasc said:

But the 45% player will easily reach 50% winrate in the 50- field without improving at all, because most his opponents are now much worse.

 

Similarly, the 55% player will get below 50% very soon because of the much stronger competition, without playing any worse than before.

sorry but i dont think so..50%+wr and 50%- fields have big spectrumes of players wr %..so in 50%+wr field good player they would not facing bots in their team..and in 50%- the average players would not face seal clubers..is a win win situation..and doesnt even need 2 diferent modes is just a simple MM improvement

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DUXTR]
Alpha Tester
453 posts
5,670 battles

So, u want a skillbased MM in a game that doesn't advocate any skillrequirements to go through the tiers?

U want a skilledbased MM in a game were every stat is paddable if u choose to do so?

But u can have your "good" server. I will stay here were I can get a match in under 30 sec.

And btw, I tried skilledbased MM in AW. Players left in hordes. It was utter crap.

And the few of u elitists aren't the ones WG caters. They cater the players who spend lots of money....and the largest masses are the below your "good" levels.

 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HUN]
Players
69 posts
1,663 battles
2 minutes ago, cpt_sparrow_jack said:

sorry but i dont think so..50%+wr and 50%- fields have big spectrumes of player wr %..so in 50%+wr field good player they would not facing bots in their team..and in 50%- the average players would not face seal clubers..is a win win situation..and doesnt even need 2 diferent modes is just a simple MM improvement

Nope.

Let's look at the math. It's an oversimplification, but that is how averages work: with a large enough number of battles, it will work out.

 

Let's take a player with 45% winrate. This means he will beat 45% of the players and will be beaten by 55% of the players. (I know it's an oversimplification, but given enough battles, the numbers will work out)

Now we put him into a group where every player has between 35% and 50% winrate. With the same play-style and skills, he will beat 2/3 of the players ((45-35)/(50-35)), and will have a winrate around 66%

 

Let's then take a player with 55% winrate, and put him into a group with winrates between 50% and 90% With the same play-style and skills, he will only reliably beat 10% of the players (55-50 versus 90-55) and will have around 35% winrate (because that's about the lowest you can achieve even when not doing anything).

 

I know that the distribution of players across the winrate spectrum is not uniform, so the numbers are only for illustration, but I hope it will be enough to demonstrate the problem.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BFS]
Beta Tester
753 posts
4,577 battles
55 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

Would be great if we could make private servers so we can play with ppl we want to play with :cap_old:

And no, training room doesnt do it, since noone wants to play that on a regular base because you dont achieve anything by that (no rewards / no progress in the techtree).

The problem with private servers is that I'm sure some groups of players will exploit that to gain achievements that they would, probably, not be able to get in a public game.

 

I know this has happened in some WoT games where a couple of players from a clan are on opposite teams and set up a situation where one player just sits there and bounces shots off the other player's angled armour.

 

People have asked for skill based match making for a long time but as others have stated

 

1) playing against similarly skilled players will result in your WR being closer to 50%

2) wait times will be longer

 

Edited by BrusilovX
wait times longer not lower.....
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TENGO]
Players
1,457 posts
8,205 battles
3 minutes ago, siramra said:

And the few of u elitists aren't the ones WG caters.

It would be elitist to get angry if some BB shot and got "only" 1 cit instead of getting a devstrike or so. Calling the general playerbase idiots who ruin this game (with suiciding, borderhumping, reversing from 1st minute etc) isn't.

 

5 minutes ago, siramra said:

and the largest masses are the below your "good" levels

For me doesn't have to be "good" (according to whatever algorithm), I'll settle for average even.

 

The ones below that should get their own little playground, and as the OP mentioned, they wouldn't even notice.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×