Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

[DFens_666]

16 minutes ago, Grandma said:

I do have some ships with over 50% win achievement. I have noticed, that I definately win more games in ships with over 50% win rates, than with ships under 50%! I didn't understand why that happened.

 

Why should you perform equaly in every ship you play? Ontop of that, tiers matter aswell. The higher you go, the lower your WR will be if you are a below average player. You cant compare T7 WR to T10 WR, and somehow conduct, that your teammates are better/worse regardless of how you play yourself.

Your contribution might be good enough with certain ships on certain tiers, to get 50% WR or above, while its not on other tiers/ships.

 

22 minutes ago, Grandma said:

Playing with ships over 50% win rate, I was more often on the winning team!

 

Then why dont put that to the test? Take a >50% WR ship and just do nothing. Or do something that you wont get flagged for being AFK, but dont participate in the battle. See if you keep that 50%.

[ForlornSailor]

22 minutes ago, Grandma said:

best regards

Grandma

 

tl;dr: there is absolutly NO skill in this game. Nobody is better then anyone. For some reason, WG decides (on creation of account or when exactly? enlighten us), who will be a unicum, average and a naab. Nothing we do in game, matters. Everything is pre-determined.

 

 

[Grandma]

Good idea DFens_666. I will try that out.

 

[Grandma]

8 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

tl;dr: there is absolutly NO skill in this game. Nobody is better then anyone. For some reason, WG decides (on creation of account or when exactly? enlighten us), who will be a unicum, average and a naab. Nothing we do in game, matters. Everything is pre-determined.

 

 

At a unified Level of Consciousness that is true indeed. WG also has no influence. Everything is operated by net interactions and chance. Even for you playing this game with that insight is sort of ironic and silly!

[MadBadDave]

For those of us that have played other online games like Fortnite etc the contrast is stark, whilst it is true with both games that people naturally improve, have days where they achieve Kraken, confed and high Cal and another where they couldn’t keep an ice berg afloat WOWs is a game totally dominant on the MM and RNG, as a regular in the top tens (on a particular server) in solo and teams of 4,when playing fortnite, pre-wows and yes a winner, once having only fired one shot in a particular game (headshot from a legendary sniper rifle), the other guy was building for Britain and popping shots and rockets off like firework night,  my point; no matter how long you play wows and no matter how much you improve, you generally rely on 11 others, your skill counts for nothing when 11 spuds camp behind an island while reds take all 4 caps,  how many times you lined up the perfect shot on a broadside sitting duck only to get a bounce, over pen or 1140 damage ?, now ask the same of a fortniter, a head shot at distance of fast moving target is far harder if it strikes it doesn’t bounce, it kills outright; difference; WGs RNG.

 

A higher WR status only implies YOUR team has seen a lot of wins, it doesn’t guarantee that MM and RNG won’t go against you.

 

Wows is all about what WG wants to give us.  Who ever reads this I bet you’ll have a period of good and bad games in the next few games, regardless of how well you play !.

 

A noob can hide in Wows to the detriment of the rest of the team,  (like the Skane hiding behind a cv yesterday), and yet win, in fortnite you either learn (which wows does not correctly implement), or you die VERY quickly, which in all honesty affects no one else. 
 

MM and RNG are solely of WG’s making !.

[ForlornSailor]

35 minutes ago, MadBadDave said:

A higher WR status only implies YOUR team has seen a lot of wins, it doesn’t guarantee that MM and RNG won’t go against you. 

 

Yea sure keep telling that to yourself if it makes you feel better and if its the only thing you can come up with as an excuse because you are not happy with your WR. Obviously you have a hard time swalling it, that there are quite some better players then you around.

[DFens_666]

30 minutes ago, MadBadDave said:

A noob can hide in Wows to the detriment of the rest of the team,  (like the Skane hiding behind a cv yesterday), and yet win,

 

If you would lower the number of players, the chance for that guy losing would increase. If he would play like that in a 1v1 he would lose 100%. But as its a 12v12 in wows, he still gets atleast 30%+ WR. Imagine there would be 11v12 games in wows, you think the 12 players would always win? No, so thats why even AFK players would still not lose all games.

[GarrusBrutus]

34 minutes ago, MadBadDave said:

For those of us that have played other online games like Fortnite etc the contrast is stark, whilst it is true with both games that people naturally improve, have days where they achieve Kraken, confed and high Cal and another where they couldn’t keep an ice berg afloat WOWs is a game totally dominant on the MM and RNG, as a regular in the top tens (on a particular server) in solo and teams of 4,when playing fortnite, pre-wows and yes a winner, once having only fired one shot in a particular game (headshot from a legendary sniper rifle), the other guy was building for Britain and popping shots and rockets off like firework night,  my point; no matter how long you play wows and no matter how much you improve, you generally rely on 11 others, your skill counts for nothing when 11 spuds camp behind an island while reds take all 4 caps,  how many times you lined up the perfect shot on a broadside sitting duck only to get a bounce, over pen or 1140 damage ?, now ask the same of a fortniter, a head shot at distance of fast moving target is far harder if it strikes it doesn’t bounce, it kills outright; difference; WGs RNG.

 

A higher WR status only implies YOUR team has seen a lot of wins, it doesn’t guarantee that MM and RNG won’t go against you.

 

Wows is all about what WG wants to give us.  Who ever reads this I bet you’ll have a period of good and bad games in the next few games, regardless of how well you play !.

 

A noob can hide in Wows to the detriment of the rest of the team,  (like the Skane hiding behind a cv yesterday), and yet win, in fortnite you either learn (which wows does not correctly implement), or you die VERY quickly, which in all honesty affects no one else. 
 

MM and RNG are solely of WG’s making !.

Hello,

 

you might be new but let me explain a thing about RNG to you. Without RNG every shot would hit exactly where you aim with the consequence that everybody would be dead after the first shots of the game. Now that isnt fun.

Funny that you brag about winning a Fortnite game where you fired only one shot.... talking about campers.

Have fun with fortnite with all the other fourteen year olds.

[Floofz]

16 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Hello,

 

you might be new but let me explain a thing about RNG to you. Without RNG every shot would hit exactly where you aim with the consequence that everybody would be dead after the first shots of the game. Now that isnt fun.

Funny that you brag about winning a Fortnite game where you fired only one shot.... talking about campers.

Have fun with fortnite with all the other fourteen year olds.

 

RNG is one thing, but RNG works better in tanks than it does in warships. A slight variation in damage if you shoot at an armor plate that has correct angle to pen. In this game you can have a perfect broadside at close range and its perfectly possible to miss every single shell, while its also entirely possible to citadel with every single shell and oneshot the target. AND everything inbetween.

[BLUB__BLUB]

21 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

Ranks are not a reliable information about player skill.

Well maybe they say something about mindset then... 

[Parxifal]

A more efficient model for Match Making would be to divide the players by bands of average XP and / or average XP on the specific ship (I do not speak of PR because it involves a percentage of WR that must be neglected in this reasoning).

By creating these "bands of relevance" (from a minimum of 3 to an ideal of at least 5) you can distribute the players according to their abilities, in practice I am doing nothing but what was done once in a football field, that is, you choose of the same range, the pro player does not come to play football with the afterworkers, this I think is quite automatic, because precisely when there's too much difference, you DO NOT HAVE FUN because you are not even doing the same sport anymore .
It 's like going to play football with children, you can do it as a joke but you can not think of "competitive" really.
Then the teams balance by equalizing the roles of the ships (but this the MM already does).

I should add that a minimum level of XP should also be included to allow you to level up. The rise of tier in my opinion should not be dictated by the only "grinding", that is playing repetition only to accumulate EXP type miner to forced labor. The system should be revised by emulating what happens in driving simulators for example (like iRacing), where to advance to the next driver's license one must reach and guarantee a certain type of performance level.
In Wows, translating, it would be enough to put a minimum treshold under which the next tier ship cannot be taken if the required minimum XP is not reached.
Ditto in reverse, if you go down with the average XP under the treshold, the ship is inhibited from the game and you go back to the previous tier.

I give a practical example:

- lower minimum treshold: 500 of PR
- number of games: 20
- medium treshold to go up a tier: 1000 PR
- number of minimum games required to go up a tier: 50

You play Fletcher, you manage to stay stably for 50 games over 1000 PR, then Gearing is unlocked. Playing Gearing, however, it feels slighlty different, you are not comfortable with the ship and the PR drops below 500 medium.
after 20 games the game inhibits the Gearing and no longer allows it to be played by returning to the previous tier, that is Fletcher, until 50 games over 1000 of PR are re-made.

The values are obviously by way of example but decidedly plausible. A 500 of PR is a low value, VERY low, so here you are not asking to be all "pro", but simply that below a certain level it means that you are unable to control that ship or that you are trolling or even that it is a bot.
I mean if you always go to play football and your goalkeeper starts to go around the crazy field or to make your own goal what would you do? you keep playing calmly and with a smile or you kick him in the [edited]from the game and you don't call him anymore?

 

The average treshold to go up instead is like a warning that says: "ok this ship you don't know how to play / you haven't understood it, start again from the previous tier and practice more with this line".
This system would guarantee greater quality to the games but ESPECIALLY it would guarantee an important factor, that is, THAT THE MAJOR TIER CORRESPONDS HIGHER LEVEL OF THE PLAYERS.
In doing so, tier 10 would really be the TOP tier of the series, where only the "best" (or in any case NOT BELOW A CERTAIN LEVEL) can play.
Note that I am not touching or talking about WR beacuase it's ofc irrilevante in this process.

The boiled potatoes that are interested in shooting 4 cannonballs in joy would remain in the lower tiers (so what difference does it make them not having competitive ambitions?) Plus the coops in which to vent their frustration against the bots.
 

It doesn't take anything to apply what I wrote above, it's not about twisting the game code, the problem is that with the current "free to play" (LMAO) model the WG will NEVER do it. Because this is a "skill based" model, with driving license points, which the WG does not care in the least since the quality of the matches is absolutely not their priority.
The priority is to sell ships and just monetize the piece, like PuertoRico (that means Rich Port btw and never name was more appropriate), and therefore, for example, this model would be inapplicable with the paid tier 9, another crazy rubbish that allows people who do not even know that there is the regular tech tree of buy a ship and play at the highest tier of the game (9 and 10 play together) with people who maybe have 1000 games on a damn DesMoines.

As long as the WG model is to monetize indiscriminately, there will be no way to have a more balanced game, since a balanced game does not monetize.

[Excavatus]

Just wanted to share this here again. 

It is from the latest Q&A session

 

[gabberworld]

1 hour ago, Excavatus said:

Just wanted to share this here again. 

It is from the latest Q&A session

 

 

hmm, "We don't want you all to have 50% win rate, forever", what that relay means then? you can't go 100% win rate either

 

clan battle, how that makes it better?, one team have tier 19 captains other team maybe 10, also very unbalance

--

imagine now this, new players comes to play, he meet tier 19 captains at low tier who have huge experience ( yes its possible because there no balance ), that new player will rage quit game because he was smashed so hard by other team.

[Parxifal]

37 minuti fa, Excavatus ha scritto:

Just wanted to share this here again. 

It is from the latest Q&A session

 

"STOMPS THAT INCREASE OVERALL MODE VARIANCE"
This is definitely the most retarded sentence i ever read.
Comparing 2 different games with different skill required and different style and etc?? Is this could be considered seriuos?

"WE DON'T WANT YOU ALL HAVE 50% WR"
Why???? Let US PLAYERS choose FFS, what are you worried about, seriously? what's the problem in giving what the player likes more??
It's almost mesmering how much incompetence there is in only few lines

Life is pain
without a brain.
yes agreed.
 

[Merlin851526]

2 hours ago, Excavatus said:

Just wanted to share this here again. 

It is from the latest Q&A session

 

Exhibit A for the current state this game is in. "We don't want you all to have 50% WR, forever"........says it all really

[ColonelPete]

37 minutes ago, Merlin851526 said:

Exhibit A for the current state this game is in. "We don't want you all to have 50% WR, forever"........says it all really

For some people it would be an upgrade...

[ForlornSailor]

3 hours ago, Parxifal said:

"WE DON'T WANT YOU ALL HAVE 50% WR"
Why???? Let US PLAYERS choose FFS, what are you worried about, seriously? what's the problem in giving what the player likes more??

 

And I dont want to have 50 % WR. now what?

[Merlin851526]

54 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

For some people it would be an upgrade...

Do you mean Pete the people below 50%? and if those people let's say got up to 50% it would actually be an upgrade? Wow! such insight. Such wisdom. I've said it before Pete, this community would be adrift without your insightful pearls of wisdom.

[anonym_mXiNEw7FBfIL]

I dont understand how you can say that everything is fine and MM is good. Good for wargaming maybe but not for us players.

I have watched twitch streams with very good players and even after they got like 150 k damage they still lose.

One i watched lost six in a row or something (and he is very good player).

 

It sucks, it really does, you dont respawn like many other games so i still think that WR must do something about it, but they wont.

Like it or stop playing is the only choise really.

[ForlornSailor]

37 minutes ago, Rater91 said:

I dont understand how you can say that everything is fine and MM is good. Good for wargaming maybe but not for us players.

I have watched twitch streams with very good players and even after they got like 150 k damage they still lose.

One i watched lost six in a row or something (and he is very good player).

 

And there can be no good - or even better player(s) in the enemy team? How do you think it should be possible for one good SOLO player to never lose?

[gabberworld]

that 50% winrate is not logical, because end result is still same for everyone, one team wins and another lose,

but because currently teams are so unbalanced you may lose more than actually win

[DFens_666]

1 hour ago, gabberworld said:

that 50% winrate is not logical, because end result is still same for everyone, one team wins and another lose,

 

Its actualy perfectly logical:

If MM takes skill into account, the better you become, the worse teammates you will get, thus you will lose more often. Vice versa for bad players, as they get good players to carry them, so they will win more often.

[gabberworld]

27 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Its actualy perfectly logical:

If MM takes skill into account, the better you become, the worse teammates you will get, thus you will lose more often. Vice versa for bad players, as they get good players to carry them, so they will win more often.

so what you want say atm is that new players deserve the lose battles for skilled players till they buy op ships what may newer happen because they quit game before they even start enjoy this game

[DFens_666]

5 minutes ago, gabberworld said:

so what you want say atm is that new players deserve the lose battles for skilled players till they buy op ships what may newer happen because they quit game before they even start enjoy this game

 

What does that have to do with MM? Every player deserves to lose as many battles depending on his skill level. So if you do nothing, you have 40% WR, sounds fair to me. Ontop of that, you dont have unicums running wild in every game, because there arent that many around in the first place. Most matches consist of like 80% average players or below.

Also, there are no OP ships which lets you magically win games.

[ForlornSailor]

7 minutes ago, gabberworld said:

so what you want say atm is that new players deserve the lose battles for skilled players till they buy op ships what may newer happen because they quit game before they even start enjoy this game

 

Oh yea because the ship makes the player and not vice versa. thats some great logic.

 

2 hours ago, gabberworld said:

that 50% winrate is not logical, because end result is still same for everyone, one team wins and another lose,

but because currently teams are so unbalanced you may lose more than actually win 

 

complete contradiction within 2 short sentences. and btw: how come I win way more then I lose?