Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Lockhead_108

Tier X battles problem

17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
24 posts
8,600 battles

Hello everyone,

I would like to know if this happening to others as well so offten and if it does I think it is something to start think and worry about.

First I want to say that I play only tier X battles and I don't bother much with wins nor losses as long the fight is fun, but lately, out of every 10 battles I play, minimum 5-6 have to end with one side being hammered so hard without killing even any of opponent ships, or in better case killing 2-4 of them. Out of those every 10 battles, in 4-5 fights I can actually have fun without searching survived ships for 5-10 min or facing against 5-12 ships which searching me. :)

 

I dont know if this happening to others but but in my oppinion it is something to think about because it really started to be annyoing. In almost every single tier X fight, there is a lot of ships with base experience much less then 500 which for tier X should be unacceptable and for such players wargaming should give automatically warning and red name. For other tiers I dont care, I can understand that many players are in process of learning different ships, but for tier X it should be really unacceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
215 posts
5,371 battles

i dont approve upon bad gameplay in general

but limiting the players battles per day is sth that wg would never do and that sounds like a rlly bad idea to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,279 posts
11,862 battles

You can’t just limit players on a F2P game coz you’re unhappy.

 

Thats not how these games work. And as frustrating as it can get. That suggestion awfully selfish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
4,790 posts
8,985 battles

The only thing WG could do is make an effort to ensure that there are equal numbers of good and bad players on both teams, because they will never limit how much and where bad players can play.

WGs entire business model revolves around the fact that as long as they can provide a few "exciting battles" to bad players, that is going to be their priority. Since bad players by nature tend to remember positive experiences and forget bad ones, they just need to be thrown a bone every now and then. The current matchmaker does this without any special algorithm, just the absence of any basic skill balancing makes it so that you'll get a certain number of battles which are completely unwinnable/unloseable due to how the players are stacked on both teams. That's very much intentional.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
24 posts
8,600 battles
Just now, Nechrom said:

The only thing WG could do is make an effort to ensure that there are equal numbers of good and bad players on both teams, because they will never limit how much and where bad players can play.

WGs entire business model revolves around the fact that as long as they can provide a few "exciting battles" to bad players, that is going to be their priority. Since bad players by nature tend to remember positive experiences and forget bad ones, they just need to be thrown a bone every now and then. The current matchmaker does this without any special algorithm, just the absence of any basic skill balancing makes it so that you'll get a certain number of battles which are completely unwinnable/unloseable due to how the players are stacked on both teams. That's very much intentional.

There is 9 more tiers on which everyone can do what they want and players can suicide themselves how much times they like... But tier X really should be much better polished with those who actually trying to play.

If you look, wargaming business model is not mainly focused on tier X battles, but on those lower tiers. You can see the most of premium ships in lower tiers. How much premium ships are at tier X ?

Why tier 8 is offten matched with tier 10 even now after fixing? Because all wants to keep suicide themselves at tier X.

 

Yesterday, for example my friend got reported for using cheat as he killed a destroyer in smoke by radaring him with cruiser in start of match. He fcked his team, we hammered whole that side, then a whole their team. And such player can cantinue to play all day on that same ship just because he likes him and fck every second team he enter. As I say, there is 9 other tiers on which everyone can do what ever they want and apply any kind of business model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
4,790 posts
8,985 battles
1 hour ago, Lockhead_108 said:

Because all wants to keep suicide themselves at tier X.

Exactly. And if WG wants to keep these players, and they do, they have to let them play how and where they want. The game is set-up so that your "efforts" culminate in a tier 10 ship, and no matter how little I want to play with and against potatoes at tier 10, I don't think we should prohibit them from sailing those ships in random battles.

Personally, like I said before, I'd like WG to focus on keeping the teams balanced against each other. Then if there are equal numbers of bad players on both teams you shouldn't get as many of those land slide wins/losses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
640 posts

Lockhead_108, I finally bought the Zao and the Des Moines a month ago. I will freely admit that in plenty of the early battles I failed hard. That was because I was trying different things to see what works and what doesn't. I'm still very much learning, but am slowly getting better at these ships. Both of these ships are somewhat different to what comes before them in the tech tree. So it's not like I could play them like a Mogami, Ibuki, Buffalo, Baltimore for best results. I was also trying a few different builds and for the first 3 battles in each, retraining the captain for each ship (which really sucks for us free to play players).

 

I'm sorry if I played in a battle with you and didn't meet up to your minimum playing standards. I was trying my best. It just wasn't good enough.

However, you are being unrealistic if you expect me to play tier 10's well from the first battle. We've all got to learn some time.

 

 

It's also worth noting that your 50% to 53% win rate in your Moskva, Khaba and Salem are nothing to write home about Lockhead_108. And it therefore seems ironic for you to complain about player skill at tier X when your skill level is rather mediocre.

 

 

The landslide nature of many battles is down to the nature of the game, especially at tier X. If one side gets stripped of 3 DD's / radar cruisers early on, it gives the other side a huge advantage in the spotting and localised DPM game.

At mid tiers I find this is less of an issue because of the more chaotic nature of the battles at that tier, plus my ability to help turn around losing positions in ships like the Omaha.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
24 posts
8,600 battles
Just now, Nechrom said:

Exactly. And if WG wants to keep these players, and they do, they have to let them play how and where they want. The game is set-up so that your "efforts" culminate in a tier 10 ship, and no matter how little I want to play with and against potatoes at tier 10, I don't think we should prohibit them from sailing those ships in random battles.

Personally, like I said before, I'd like WG to focus on keeping the teams balanced against each other. Then if there are equal numbers of bad players on both teams you shouldn't get as many of those land slide wins/losses.

It's not like players would stop play game just because they can't play all day one same ship at which they are the worst lol they can just change to tier X ship on which they won't constantly suicide themselves.

 

1 minute ago, Lin3 said:

Lockhead_108, I finally bought the Zao and the Des Moines a month ago. I will freely admit that in plenty of the early battles I failed hard. That was because I was trying different things to see what works and what doesn't. I'm still very much learning, but am slowly getting better at these ships. Both of these ships are somewhat different to what comes before them in the tech tree. So it's not like I could play them like a Mogami, Ibuki, Buffalo, Baltimore for best results. I was also trying a few different builds and for the first 3 battles in each, retraining the captain for each ship (which really sucks for us free to play players).

 

I'm sorry if I played in a battle with you and didn't meet up to your minimum playing standards. I was trying my best. It just wasn't good enough.

However, you are being unrealistic if you expect me to play tier 10's well from the first battle. We've all got to learn some time.

 

 

It's also worth noting that your 50% to 53% win rate in your Moskva, Khaba and Salem are nothing to write home about Lockhead_108. And it therefore seems ironic for you to complain about player skill at tier X when your skill level is rather mediocre.

 

 

The landslide nature of many battles is down to the nature of the game, especially at tier X. If one side gets stripped of 3 DD's / radar cruisers early on, it gives the other side a huge advantage in the spotting and localised DPM game.

At mid tiers I find this is less of an issue because of the more chaotic nature of the battles at that tier, plus my ability to help turn around losing positions in ships like the Omaha.

 

LOL I don't care if players just play bad, you understood something wrong. My post is about those who constantly enter in fight to suicide themselves without even 1 single bullet fired from ship and that is a big difference.

I complained about teams being offten matched wrong with one side totally hammering other within 5-10 minutes of play. Do you understand now? It is not fun when every second or third fight 7-12 ships hunting me or you or anyone. I play for fun and I don't have to be a great player to point out that this problem destroying all fun about tier X battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,529 posts
11,480 battles
2 hours ago, Lockhead_108 said:

Hello everyone,

I would like to know if this happening to others as well so offten and if it does I think it is something to start think and worry about.

First I want to say that I play only tier X battles and I don't bother much with wins nor losses as long the fight is fun, but lately, out of every 10 battles I play, minimum 5-6 have to end with one side being hammered so hard without killing even any of opponent ships, or in better case killing 2-4 of them. Out of those every 10 battles, in 4-5 fights I can actually have fun without searching survived ships for 5-10 min or facing against 5-12 ships which searching me. :)

 

I dont know if this happening to others but but in my oppinion it is something to think about because it really started to be annyoing. In almost every single tier X fight, there is a lot of ships with base experience much less then 500 which for tier X should be unacceptable and for such players wargaming should give automatically warning and red name or add a limit to number of battles per day for such tier X ships based on their base exp to provide fun for the rest of community. For other tiers I dont care, I can understand that many players are in process of learning different ships, but for tier X it should be really unacceptable.

T10 is more punishing than most tiers AND contrary to what some say: the average experience and ability of players at t10 is above that of most tiers. There are still terribad players there, of course, but the overall level is a bit higher and even the bad players have lots of experience in being bad, so while their situational awareness usually sucks, they usually have some "mechanical" skills at least (they are more adept at hitting things they aim at when compared to bad players of lower tiers). This further increases lethality of being caught in bad situation.

These things taken together mean that

1. People learn to be more careful (this, unfortunately, leads to stale meta or even outright cowardly behavior of many players too scared to push in uncertain situation even if the overal situation means that not pushing ensures defeat)

2. Local advantage (one flank crumbling) translates to global advantage faster (enemies far away can flank you, aim reasonably accurately and deal big damage to you when you're caught with your pants down)

 

The #1 is less relevant here but #2 makes it so that steamrolls happen regularly. You see, WoWs is an inherently snowballing game. When a ship goes down, it doesn't just mean "a point scored by the enemy" - it also removes a bunch of friendly guns from the game. Globally it's not THAT much (1/12) but when the battle is separated into 2-3 engagements (two flanks or two flanks+center)m things get difficult. This is even worse when you consider specific classes - especially DDs - that can change balance on a flank through their presence or absence alone. Imagine a balanced flank: teams A and B have 2 BBs, 2 cruisers and 1 DD each (almost half of the team is on the flank). Suddenly a disaster strikes - team A's most aggressively playing cruiser makes a mistake, gets citadelled to death and that sudden death leaves team A's DD vulnerable - team B manages to seize the opportunity and (at the cost of most of team B's DD health) team A's DD goes down.

It's just 2 ships (out of 12) down, but on this flank it's not so. The current situation is:

team A: 2 BBs, 1 CA

team B: 2BBs, 2 CAs, 1 DD

Team A's ships probably have more hp but they are overwhelmed. Perhaps the cruiser has Radar but can't afford to try and corner the DD anymore - enemy support is too heavy for that. Team A needs to retreat and it's quite likely to expose them to shells from another part of the map or otherwise push them out of position. Team B, on the other hand, can push in, get the cap and position themselves in a way that allows the BBs to flank the team A's bow-tanking BBs on the other flank... Basically, losing just 2 ships leads team A to be in a globally unfavorable situation, making it more likely to lose even more ships (not to mention control of points). After the match you would look at the results and notice that team B lost 4 ships and team A got almost wiped out - but what you wouldn't see is that the turning point of the battle was an early loss of mere two ships that gave the enemy the advantage that sent the whole team A into a downward spiral and ended up with ignominious defeat for them. Obviously, it isn't usually THAT clear-cut (but it happens) - the point is that seemingly small advantage can help secure even heavier advantage both material (ships) and situational (position), making it harder and harder to make a comeback unless the enemy messes up (there's a lot of messing up even on t10 so it's not like there are no "hopeless" matches turned around, but they are a rare exception).

 

TL/DR: The very nature of WoWs is that VERY decisive victories are going to happen. Even if you took exactly equally skilled players, put them in 100% mirrored MM (obviously neither of the two is true for most matches), you're going to see some completely "unbalanced" battles because a local advantage has a tendency to escalate, potentially leading to crushing defeats. And this gets more prominent as the weapons get more reliable (esp. at range) and players more experienced - and t10 (when compared to lower tiers) has both.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
640 posts
4 minutes ago, Lockhead_108 said:

It's not like players would stop play game just because they can't play all day one same ship at which they are the worst lol they can just change to tier X ship on which they won't constantly suicide themselves.

 

 

LOL I don't care if players just play bad, you understood something wrong. My post is about those who constantly enter in fight to suicide themselves without even 1 single bullet fired from ship and that is a big difference.

I complained about teams being offten matched wrong with one side totally hammering other within 5-10 minutes of play. Do you understand now? It is not fun when every second or third fight 7-12 ships hunting me or you or anyone. I play for fun and I don't have to be a great player to point out that this problem destroying all fun about tier X battles.

Yeah, but that's just it, in a few of my tier X battles I've been deleted very early on after getting too enthusiastic in supporting my DD's in my cruiser. Combined with a lack of map and meta knowledge. I didn't intend suiciding, but that's exactly what happened: killed without firing a shot, or without firing a meaningful shot.

 

And the landslides would happen between 2 very evenly matched teams. All it takes is a bit of good or bad luck early on, or a simple mistake or two and your team is down 3 ships in 3 minutes. It's the nature of the game at tier X. You could have the same evenly matched teams meet 10 times; 4 times team A would win with a landslide, 4 times team B would win with a landslide and 2 times would be close.

 

I find this game more fun at the mid tiers where the battles are more chaotic and more of the nature of switch your brain off and just sail around pew pewing whilst staying hidden or dodging incoming fire. Maybe you should try mid tiers more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ANV]
Players
376 posts
7,287 battles
1 hour ago, Lin3 said:

It's also worth noting that your 50% to 53% win rate in your Moskva, Khaba and Salem are nothing to write home about Lockhead_108. And it therefore seems ironic for you to complain about player skill at tier X when your skill level is rather mediocre.

It's much, much, much, more ironic that you hide your stats whilst stat-shaming others.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
24 posts
8,600 battles
52 minutes ago, Lin3 said:

Yeah, but that's just it, in a few of my tier X battles I've been deleted very early on after getting too enthusiastic in supporting my DD's in my cruiser. Combined with a lack of map and meta knowledge. I didn't intend suiciding, but that's exactly what happened: killed without firing a shot, or without firing a meaningful shot.

 

And the landslides would happen between 2 very evenly matched teams. All it takes is a bit of good or bad luck early on, or a simple mistake or two and your team is down 3 ships in 3 minutes. It's the nature of the game at tier X. You could have the same evenly matched teams meet 10 times; 4 times team A would win with a landslide, 4 times team B would win with a landslide and 2 times would be close.

 

I find this game more fun at the mid tiers where the battles are more chaotic and more of the nature of switch your brain off and just sail around pew pewing whilst staying hidden or dodging incoming fire. Maybe you should try mid tiers more?

Well while you writing, it keeps going for me... xD

aaa.jpg

 

You was calling my winrate but do you really think anyone can influence on this? And half of my played battles were very similar to this one. In most of cases It's just luck which side you get. If I ever start care about my winrate I would go play lower tiers just like the most of other players.

 

Idk, maybe suiciding players are not guilty, I just pointig at problem, it is on wargaming and community to find the reason for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BOA2Y]
Beta Tester
4,705 posts
20,637 battles
4 hours ago, Nechrom said:

The only thing WG could do is make an effort to ensure that there are equal numbers of good and bad players on both teams, because they will never limit how much and where bad players can play.

WGs entire business model revolves around the fact that as long as they can provide a few "exciting battles" to bad players, that is going to be their priority. Since bad players by nature tend to remember positive experiences and forget bad ones, they just need to be thrown a bone every now and then. The current matchmaker does this without any special algorithm, just the absence of any basic skill balancing makes it so that you'll get a certain number of battles which are completely unwinnable/unloseable due to how the players are stacked on both teams. That's very much intentional.

Actually, is the opposite.

WG "team reward" system is based on the fact that even the bad players will be carried by their team. So they will be able advance in the game and reach higher tiers, where they will be forced to buy premium time or premium ships because of the harsh high tier economy.

This is how you get high tier bad players.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
4,790 posts
8,985 battles
59 minutes ago, 22cm said:

Actually, is the opposite.

WG "team reward" system is based on the fact that even the bad players will be carried by their team. So they will be able advance in the game and reach higher tiers, where they will be forced to buy premium time or premium ships because of the harsh high tier economy.

This is how you get high tier bad players.

How is that the opposite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BFS]
Beta Tester
564 posts
1 hour ago, Lockhead_108 said:

Well while you writing, it keeps going for me... xD

aaa.jpg

 

You was calling my winrate but do you really think anyone can influence on this? And half of my played battles were very similar to this one. In most of cases It's just luck which side you get. If I ever start care about my winrate I would go play lower tiers just like the most of other players.

 

Idk, maybe suiciding players are not guilty, I just pointig at problem, it is on wargaming and community to find the reason for it.

 

I think you’re doing well.

 

50 percent WR as a solo-player is pretty okay :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,161 posts
16,980 battles
1 hour ago, Skurfa said:

 

I think you’re doing well.

 

50 percent WR as a solo-player is pretty okay :)

 

Yepp, that's at least 5% better than the average WoWs player

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×