Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

[GarrusBrutus]

2 hours ago, Floofz said:

agree, but if those players were evenly distributed in both teams the teams skilllevel would still be equal. But they arent, because most good players ends up in one team and vice versa, which is what causes the stomp. An MM monitor will show you this but you refuse to respond to that.

Are you sure that is what causes the stomp? Or is that just a general theory you've crafted during the few games you've played the past months? 

Because you feel that this is what causes stomps doesnt mean it is. Stomps happen even in king of the seas if one player screws up or is unlucky. And that is 24 unicums battling it out. 

 

Dividing players evenly based on skill (sbmm) level will effectively kill the game. You know it. Why are you so adament about this. 

 

And that is exactly why I will not use MMM any more after I used it for quite a while, because not knowing makes the game a hell of a lot more fun. It's both a self fulfilling prophecy as it is a tool to empower your confirmation bias. You'll look for numbers to stengthen your own beliefs, ignoring the numbers that don't suit your narrative. Try to play without it for a while and see how much it killed the fun of the game. 

2 hours ago, Floofz said:

Yes completely disregard everything I say and reply with the same parrot style argument again. I explained to you why it isnt, I told you about WoT that has the exact same issue without the issue of the horrific playerbase, yet roflstomps are just as common. Ive explained to you that you used to be able to pull a win even after you lost 4-5 ships early. This simply isnt possible anymore. One team simply is too superior in terms of skilllevel, its as easy as that.

*sigh* I do not disregard everything you say, but I just highlight some key phrases you make. I read every lenghty essay you wrote here so do not worry.

 

WoT playerbase is just as bad, if not worse, at their respective game compared to wows. 

And "used to be able to pull a win after you lost 4-5"!?..... 

 

It's simply not true. 

 

Take off your rose tinted glasses for a moment please. The "it used to be way better" argument has some value, but you're making it sound like it was so much better back in the day which is as far from the truth as can be. The difference in player skill might have been less back then but the game at the time had its fair share of other problems that, in the mean time, have luckily been resolved, such as asymmetric lineups. 

 

How objective are you able to look at this "increasing rofl stomp" problem? Your beliefs seem set in stone and nothing can change your mind. 

 

Once you accept that this is as good as its gonna get you can either move on to another game, or start enjoying the game again despite its flaws. I sadly do not enjoy playing as much as I used to for possibly the same reason you do, but I just can't wrap my head around both your rose tinted view of the past and your suggestions to fix the roflstomp-issue (that essentially boil down to sbmm), since they will simply kill the game. 

 

59 minutes ago, Floofz said:

I said I want to stop the absolute onesided roflstomps so that ALL players on the team can have atleast some impact on the outcome, like it USED TO BE. If the teams were closer matched skillwise then one players contribution will have a bigger impact on the outcome.

Like it used to be... In regards to match impact nothing has changed, except that there are more players with an extremely negative impact on their team nowadays. Funny enough even in today's meta my solo winrate is higher than it has ever been despite all the stomps. 

 

1 hour ago, Floofz said:

As it is now you can be the best player in the world but you are ENTIRELY a slave to the MM in most of the battles you play, and it wasnt like this 2 years ago.

Again, how do you come up with this? It's simply not true. Go over the stat pages from 10 too players and you'll see that their solo winrates are still the same if not better than 2 years ago. 

 

In the end this all comes down to you having to adjust your expectations. You expect a close game each time you press battle and each time you're disappointed. A close game is not going to happen as much anymore as you thought you had back in the day. 

[Floofz]

13 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Are you sure that is what causes the stomp? Or is that just a general theory you've crafted during the few games you've played the past months? 

Because you feel that this is what causes stomps doesnt mean it is. Stomps happen even in king of the seas if one player screws up or is unlucky. And that is 24 unicums battling it out. 

 

Dividing players evenly based on skill (sbmm) level will effectively kill the game. You know it. Why are you so adament about this. 

 

And that is exactly why I will not use MMM any more after I used it for quite a while, because not knowing makes the game a hell of a lot more fun. It's both a self fulfilling prophecy as it is a tool to empower your confirmation bias. You'll look for numbers to stengthen your own beliefs, ignoring the numbers that don't suit your narrative. Try to play without it for a while and see how much it killed the fun of the game. 

 

Sure? Its impossible to be sure obviously. It would require a LOT of testing and data that we simply dont have.

I do not agree that stomps in this manner happen in KoTs, nor does it happen in CB actualy. Infact Ive played every single CB season this game has had, Ive had ONE actual total stomp, ONE, in thousands upon thousands of CB games. Yes Ive won and lost 0-7 because of strategical errors etc but it has not been what I call a stomp. A stomp is where one team completely obliterates the other team very quickly with the other team having absolutely no chance at all. 

I think maybe this is infact why we disagree now that I think of it, we do not see stomps the same way?

 

I do not see why distributing the same playerpool evenly would kill the game, I honestly dont. I would MUCH rather have a close defeat than a roflstomp win, any day of the week.

 

23 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

WoT playerbase is just as bad, if not worse, at their respective game compared to wows. 

And "used to be able to pull a win after you lost 4-5"!?..... 

 

It's simply not true. 

 

Im not so sure thats true. Atleast WoT is not even remotely as easy to get to higher tiers as WoWs is. The economy in that game is also far more unforgiving making progress even harder.

 

26 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Once you accept that this is as good as its gonna get you can either move on to another game, or start enjoying the game again despite its flaws. I sadly do not enjoy playing as much as I used to for possibly the same reason you do, but I just can't wrap my head around both your rose tinted view of the past and your suggestions to fix the roflstomp-issue (that essentially boil down to sbmm), since they will simply kill the game. 

 

Well I can only talk for myself in this case. I do not get frustrated by CVs or the CV rework. I do not really get frustrated by radar. I dont think there is an HE spam meta, I dont think there is russian bias. The one and only thing in this game that makes me not play is the matchmaker, the horrificly frustrating matchmaker of gambling like a casino every time you click battle to see if you end up losing 5 ships the first 2 minutes or if youre gonna end up chasing the enemy team around the map just to get a bit of damage in.

 

30 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Again, how do you come up with this? It's simply not true. Go over the stat pages from 10 too players and you'll see that their solo winrates are still the same if not better than 2 years ago. 

 

In the end this all comes down to you having to adjust your expectations. You expect a close game each time you press battle and each time you're disappointed. A close game is not going to happen as much anymore as you thought you had back in the day. 

 

Dude I have a higher WR now than before....its not the WR that is the core issue its the quality of battles. It doesnt necessarly need to be a close game just not a roflstomp. As I first wrote there is a difference between a 9-3 and a 9-3. Sort of depends on how it happens and how quickly it happens.

 

36 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

And "used to be able to pull a win after you lost 4-5"!?..... 

 

It's simply not true. 

 

It is true, you could even go back to some old flambass or flamu videos and see for yourself that it happend regularly, hell I learnt from them to never give up and many times we managed to claw the game back and win. It wasnt over just because you lost a few ships first. But nowadays it is, nowadays it is almost guaranteed a game over if you lose 2-3 ships first.

 

Ive actualy been tempted now that were discussing this to do a test over a series of days. Just to see if its confirmation bias or not.

Play 10 games a day in one certain ship, solo. Write down if the games are roflstomp wins, close wins, roflstomp defeats or close defeats. And then run statistics on a day to day basis and see what it will look like.

[DFens_666]

8 hours ago, Floofz said:

I think maybe this is infact why we disagree now that I think of it, we do not see stomps the same way? 

 

If id clasify stomps the way you do (as in, losing within 5-8 mins), then i dont think we have that many stomps really. However, i would consider a stomp aswell, only because my division manages to prolong the game even tho itll still end in a loss at some point.

 

8 hours ago, Floofz said:

distributing the same playerpool

 

And i still disagree that you will get the result you hope for. A 45% is not the same as another 45%. Be it because they play different tiers, different ships or because they play differently by nature.

I think we can agree, that roflstomps get enabled when too many ships die too early. So who dies early? The Yamato sitting in the back? ofc not. Its the guy, going full ahead towards the center of the map and get focused by half the enemy team. Does the Yamato sitting in the back have more WR than the guy suiciding in the center? Most likely not, both have <50%.

Yet, it makes a huge difference if i have 3 guys dying in the first 4 mins, or 3 guys not suiciding. A 3x division can often enough kill many ships, but they need time. Time you dont have when your teammates suicide too fast. A Yamato sitting in the back doesnt die and lose points for my team. I have more time, killing enemies or getting caps.

 

And as i said before, thats not the only thing that matters. Some people deliberatly suicide for certain reasons. A guy playing T8 might suicide when he is in a TX game, but he wont do it when he is toptier. Or a DD suiciding because there are too many radars... or a CV. CVs is another whole issue, those SuperUnicum CVs are literally unbalanceable by the MM, unless you throw the lowest from all in their team.

 

Ive had a guy in 2 back-to-back games, once on my team, once on the enemy. He was on my team? He didnt even play. But when he was on the enemy team, he participated in the fight, how you distribute like that?

[GarrusBrutus]

8 hours ago, Floofz said:

I think maybe this is infact why we disagree now that I think of it, we do not see stomps the same way?

Than define stomps. Because in my book a game that is close up until the ten minute mark and then one team collapsed isnt a stomp, despite it theoratically possibly being 12-0.

8 hours ago, Floofz said:

I do not see why distributing the same playerpool evenly would kill the game, I honestly dont. I would MUCH rather have a close defeat than a roflstomp win, any day of the week.

Because no matter how you twist and turn it, it is SBMM. And SBMM killes the game as it is because it incentivices bad play. I know that I would "rig" the game to have better teammates.

 

8 hours ago, Floofz said:

Im not so sure thats true. Atleast WoT is not even remotely as easy to get to higher tiers as WoWs is. The economy in that game is also far more unforgiving making progress even harder.

WoT sees more and more 4 minute games lately. Have you played it recently?

8 hours ago, Floofz said:

It is true, you could even go back to some old flambass or flamu videos and see for yourself that it happend regularly

Regularly you say? If by regularly you mean one in twenty games, then yes.

I played in triple unicum divisions for years and even then we wouldnt be able to claw back but a few times, so stop fooling yourself Floofz.

[Camperdown]

40 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Than define stomps. Because in my book a game that is close up until the ten minute mark and then one team collapsed isnt a stomp, despite it theoratically possibly being 12-0.

Because no matter how you twist and turn it, it is SBMM. And SBMM killes the game as it is because it incentivices bad play. I know that I would "rig" the game to have better teammates.

 

WoT sees more and more 4 minute games lately. Have you played it recently?

Regularly you say? If by regularly you mean one in twenty games, then yes.

I played in triple unicum divisions for years and even then we wouldnt be able to claw back but a few times, so stop fooling yourself Floofz.

SBMM incentivices bad play? How say?

On the contrary I would think.

 

[ColonelPete]

13 minutes ago, Camperdown said:

SBMM incentivices bad play? How say?

Good play gets rewarded with bad teammates.

Bad play gets rewarded with good teammates.

This was explained often enough.

[Camperdown]

3 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Good play gets rewarded with bad teammates.

Bad play gets rewarded with good teammates.

This was explained often enough.

Sorry, I disagree. Depends on how you implement it. If you combine it with a league system, you don't have that problem, see my discussion in this thread a few pages back.

[lossi_2018]

10 hours ago, Floofz said:

Well I can only talk for myself in this case. I do not get frustrated by CVs or the CV rework. I do not really get frustrated by radar. I dont think there is an HE spam meta, I dont think there is russian bias.

I agree wit everything holy sh*t :O

[lossi_2018]

8 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Good play gets rewarded with bad teammates.

Bad play gets rewarded with good teammates.

I dont want to flame but my brain hasn't started working dis weekend, what does this mean? :)

[GarrusBrutus]

9 minutes ago, Camperdown said:

Sorry, I disagree. Depends on how you implement it. If you combine it with a league system, you don't have that problem, see my discussion in this thread a few pages back.

Doesnt matter, the playerbase is too small to implement leagues. Or do you wish for queue times of 60+ minutes?

5 minutes ago, lossi_2018 said:

I dont want to flame but my brain hasn't started working dis weekend, what does this mean? :)

With SBMM, if you get better the system will make sure you get worse teammates to get you back to 50% wr and vice versa.

Therefore it doesnt pay to play better than the average joe because the system will "reward" you with worse teammates.

Players in this thread have suggested multiple versions of this system: A league system, a points system, a system that accounts for WR, etc. etc. etc. etc.

But in the end it comes down to this: If you play better than average your team will be below average. If you play below average your team will be above average.

Sounds like fun doesnt it? Every game will be evenly matched.

Except players get frustrated as soon as it is implemented and they will leave the game en masse.

This is not an opinion, its a given. That is why its a really bad idea no matter how you tweak it and that is why randoms are the next best thing.

[ForlornSailor]

2 minutes ago, lossi_2018 said:

I dont want to flame but my brain hasn't started working dis weekend, what does this mean? :) 

 

If you have skill based matchmaking and you balance the team by overall Winrate, that means, players with low winrates get better teammates, so that the team is equal with the other team right? And so you would get punished with bad teammates if you win a few games, because your winrate goes up. Its like you are running uphill and the steeper it goes - the more stones someone puts in your backpack untill you eventually fall over. And you could easily rig such an environment: Lets say I wanna play in the evening. Cool Ill just start the game in the morning and be afk almost afk for 2 dozens games (I can f.e. remote connect from work to my gaming PC and klick in a game every 15 min). Then im gonna go down with a shitty winrate (remember: we have skill based mm, teams are even, so 1 guy doing nothing will screw your winrate) like 25% and then enjoy super matchmaking in the evening when I actually play myself. Game will favour me with better teammates, because im brining 25 % WR to the table - somehow the overall winrate of both teams need to be even, right?

 

11 minutes ago, Camperdown said:

If you combine it with a league system, you don't have that problem, see my discussion in this thread a few pages back.

 

And how shall this work out? Even right now, there are not enough players up to T5. They are introducsing bots in random games. And you want to split the playerbase even more by seperating them in leagues? You need to find a solution for that - before that, there is no sense in even discussing pro and contras about your idea. Nothing personal, just saying, the game cant sustain such a system.

[Floofz]

1 hour ago, DFens_666 said:

If id clasify stomps the way you do (as in, losing within 5-8 mins), then i dont think we have that many stomps really. However, i would consider a stomp aswell, only because my division manages to prolong the game even tho itll still end in a loss at some point.

 

Well I guess well see. Instead of sitting here arguing back and forth and never getting anywher, and some people being rude and unpleasent. I will make an experiment.

Im gonna start playing solo again and then put every game into a category of 6.

Roflstomp wins- Losing max 2 ships on the winning side

Onesided wins - Not losing more than 50% compared to the losing side, games that are basically decided from the start

Close wins - everything else that doesnt fall into those categories.

And then the same for defeats. Then we will see how common the onesided games are.

 

1 hour ago, DFens_666 said:

And i still disagree that you will get the result you hope for. A 45% is not the same as another 45%. Be it because they play different tiers, different ships or because they play differently by nature.

I think we can agree, that roflstomps get enabled when too many ships die too early. So who dies early? The Yamato sitting in the back? ofc not. Its the guy, going full ahead towards the center of the map and get focused by half the enemy team. Does the Yamato sitting in the back have more WR than the guy suiciding in the center? Most likely not, both have <50%.

Yet, it makes a huge difference if i have 3 guys dying in the first 4 mins, or 3 guys not suiciding. A 3x division can often enough kill many ships, but they need time. Time you dont have when your teammates suicide too fast. A Yamato sitting in the back doesnt die and lose points for my team. I have more time, killing enemies or getting caps.

 

And as i said before, thats not the only thing that matters. Some people deliberatly suicide for certain reasons. A guy playing T8 might suicide when he is in a TX game, but he wont do it when he is toptier. Or a DD suiciding because there are too many radars... or a CV. CVs is another whole issue, those SuperUnicum CVs are literally unbalanceable by the MM, unless you throw the lowest from all in their team.

 

Ive had a guy in 2 back-to-back games, once on my team, once on the enemy. He was on my team? He didnt even play. But when he was on the enemy team, he participated in the fight, how you distribute like that?

 

We cant know, we can only believe and think and argue for our theories since it hasnt been tested. You think one thing I think another. We will simply not get further with this discussion.

 

1 hour ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Because no matter how you twist and turn it, it is SBMM. And SBMM killes the game as it is because it incentivices bad play. I know that I would "rig" the game to have better teammates.

 

How would you rig the game to have better teammates? The only way to rig it is to purposefully lose games to get a worse WR, in which case then winning a few would be meaningless.

The only reason why SBMM would kill the game would be because of crybabies who wants to win 60-70% of their games. 

 

Honestly, give a solution instead of just saying what doesnt work. You asked me why Im in this thread, so Ill ask you why you are.

 

1 hour ago, GarrusBrutus said:

WoT sees more and more 4 minute games lately. Have you played it recently?

 

Yes that was exactly my point. WoT games are just as onesided if not even more. Yet that game doesnt have the issues you claim are causing the steamrolls in WoWs. That was my argument.

 

1 hour ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Regularly you say? If by regularly you mean one in twenty games, then yes.

I played in triple unicum divisions for years and even then we wouldnt be able to claw back but a few times, so stop fooling yourself Floofz.

 

More like 1 in 10. Which is much better odds than today, now its 0. When people were more evenly matched skillwise you could lose 2-3 of the bad players on one flank and the good players could still hold off, flank around and win even if they lost 1-2 players on their side too. How do you do that when the rest of your 6-7 teammates are just as bad?

One good unicum player can easely solo 2-3 plebs who shows full broadside and cant aim. One player is not worth the same as another player, it just doesnt work like that.

[ColonelPete]

10 minutes ago, lossi_2018 said:

I dont want to flame but my brain hasn't started working dis weekend, what does this mean? :)

 

14 minutes ago, Camperdown said:

Sorry, I disagree. Depends on how you implement it. If you combine it with a league system, you don't have that problem, see my discussion in this thread a few pages back.

A league system would be the best way to implement that, but the problem still applies, just on another scale.

 

Imagine being in the top league and the MM found enough players for a match with two teams around 58% solo WR.

 

Imagine you being a player with 60% solo WR. Would you get more players on your team with below or above 58 solo WR?

Imagine you being a player with 56% solo WR. Would you get more players on your team with below or above 58 solo WR?

See the difference?

[Camperdown]

4 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

If you have skill based matchmaking and you balance the team by overall Winrate, that means, players with low winrates get better teammates, so that the team is equal with the other team right? And so you would get punished with bad teammates if you win a few games, because your winrate goes up. Its like you are running uphill and the steeper it goes - the more stones someone puts in your backpack untill you eventually fall over. And you could easily rig such an environment: Lets say I wanna play in the evening. Cool Ill just start the game in the morning and be afk almost afk for 2 dozens games (I can f.e. remote connect from work to my gaming PC and klick in a game every 15 min). Then im gonna go down with a shitty winrate (remember: we have skill based mm, teams are even, so 1 guy doing nothing will screw your winrate) like 25% and then enjoy super matchmaking in the evening when I actually play myself. Game will favour me with better teammates, because im brining 25 % WR to the table - somehow the overall winrate of both teams need to be even, right?

 

 

And how shall this work out? Even right now, there are not enough players up to T5. They are introducsing bots in random games. And you want to split the playerbase even more by seperating them in leagues? You need to find a solution for that - before that, there is no sense in even discussing pro and contras about your idea. Nothing personal, just saying, the game cant sustain such a system.

It can by making it flexible. In peak hours there are enough players, so you play against your own league or the adjoining. In low hours you play against all leagues and you have the same mess as now. 

Presto, in peak hours tools aren't playing unicums any more and you have much more interesting matches.

[Floofz]

7 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

If you have skill based matchmaking and you balance the team by overall Winrate, that means, players with low winrates get better teammates, so that the team is equal with the other team right? And so you would get punished with bad teammates if you win a few games, because your winrate goes up. Its like you are running uphill and the steeper it goes - the more stones someone puts in your backpack untill you eventually fall over. And you could easily rig such an environment: Lets say I wanna play in the evening. Cool Ill just start the game in the morning and be afk almost afk for 2 dozens games (I can f.e. remote connect from work to my gaming PC and klick in a game every 15 min). Then im gonna go down with a shitty winrate (remember: we have skill based mm, teams are even, so 1 guy doing nothing will screw your winrate) like 25% and then enjoy super matchmaking in the evening when I actually play myself. Game will favour me with better teammates, because im brining 25 % WR to the table - somehow the overall winrate of both teams need to be even, right?

 

You know youll get reported and suspended/banned for being afk right? That isnt even an argument, you cant trick the system without getting banned. If you purposefully play badly for a number of games to then play well when your WR has dropped then you have gained nothing. I just dont see your point.

The biggest issue with a skillbased matchmaking that uses WR as a stat is that everyone will eventually be 50% and it will then just be random again. I would rather it was based on a sort of PR system that judges your skillevel by a number of factors.

Where as I dont disagree that this might make people leave the game, which it probably will because people dont want an even match, they just want to win, I do think it would improve the quality of matches dramaticly. If I am a good player I know that in the enemy team is an equaly good player in the same tier/ship class, he is my opponent. So I know that I have to play well in over to overcome him. It is exactly the same as in a 1vs1 style tournament like Starcraft 2.

And if you want to stop bad players from entering higher tiers you could make it a requirement to reach a certain amount of PR in order to be able to unlock the next tier of that line, same with premiums. It would either rejuvanate lower tiers or make people want to get better to reach higher tiers. Possibly both.

[ForlornSailor]

7 minutes ago, Floofz said:

You know youll get reported and suspended/banned for being afk right? That isnt even an argument, you cant trick the system without getting banned.

 

Autopilot your way across the map. works. I know people that do it to grind the directives in coop. They are doing it for years.

 

8 minutes ago, Floofz said:

If you purposefully play badly for a number of games to then play well when your WR has dropped then you have gained nothing. I just dont see your point.

 

Now I have two very hard points against you:

- Implying, that everyone cares about winrate in the first place.

- Explain, how in your suggested envioronment, where everyone will end up between 50,1 and 49,9% WR, Winrate matters?

 

Your line of thought does not make sense at this point anymore.

[tsounts]

I'd rather have players be educated rather than reaching tier 4 and then buying premium ships of tier 7 and above.  Problem is that the majority of players fail to realize simple game's mechanics but the game itself is not complicated.

[GarrusBrutus]

9 minutes ago, Floofz said:

How would you rig the game to have better teammates? The only way to rig it is to purposefully lose games to get a worse WR, in which case then winning a few would be meaningless.

-->

12 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

Lets say I wanna play in the evening. Cool Ill just start the game in the morning and be afk almost afk for 2 dozens games (I can f.e. remote connect from work to my gaming PC and klick in a game every 15 min). Then im gonna go down with a shitty winrate (remember: we have skill based mm, teams are even, so 1 guy doing nothing will screw your winrate) like 25% and then enjoy super matchmaking in the evening when I actually play myself.

 

9 minutes ago, Floofz said:

The only reason why SBMM would kill the game would be because of crybabies who wants to win 60-70% of their games. 

Again wrong. SBMM wouldnt work because people dont like to get punished for playing well so they'd leave the game.

Imagine playing a racegame where every time you finish first, the next race you get a slower car than everybody else.

Imagine playing a shooter where every time you finish first you get worse weapons.

Much fun indeed!

11 minutes ago, Floofz said:

Honestly, give a solution instead of just saying what doesnt work. You asked me why Im in this thread, so Ill ask you why you are.

Ive given you solutions: stop using MMM and the game becomes much more fun again. Adjust your expectations and the game becomes much more fun again. Play in divisions and the game becomes much more fun again.

I am also realistic about what options we have. They are severely limited, for multiple reasons (business pov, player pov, etc.).

And besides that its amusing to read all the nonsense that is written in this thread.

14 minutes ago, Floofz said:

Yes that was exactly my point. WoT games are just as onesided if not even more. Yet that game doesnt have the issues you claim are causing the steamrolls in WoWs. That was my argument.

"Yet that game doesnt have the issues you claim are causing the steamrolls in WoWs." -->????

- huge skill disparity between players

- no respawn mechanic

- fast ttk

WoT has exactly the same issues that cause steamrolls, hence the game is plagued by steamrolls just like wows.

16 minutes ago, Floofz said:

More like 1 in 10. Which is much better odds than today, now its 0. When people were more evenly matched skillwise you could lose 2-3 of the bad players on one flank and the good players could still hold off, flank around and win even if they lost 1-2 players on their side too. How do you do that when the rest of your 6-7 teammates are just as bad?

It doesnt really matter how your think it was. Because all that matters is how it is now. We will never agree on how it was because clearly our memories of the past differ a lot. You seem to base your opinion on the past on some ultra good games you or Flamu or whoever had. Look at your own stats. See how you performed back then compared to now.

18 minutes ago, Floofz said:

One good unicum player can easely solo 2-3 plebs who shows full broadside and cant aim. One player is not worth the same as another player, it just doesnt work like that. 

This isnt even an argument. One really bad player can easily solo 12 players if they show broadside.

 

18 minutes ago, Camperdown said:

It can by making it flexible. In peak hours there are enough players, so you play against your own league or the adjoining. In low hours you play against all leagues and you have the same mess as now. 

Presto, in peak hours tools aren't playing unicums any more and you have much more interesting matches.

So unicums get f****d during peak hours and start playing second acounts during peak hours and presto, nothing changed.

 

10 minutes ago, Floofz said:

Where as I dont disagree that this might make people leave the game, which it probably will because people dont want an even match, they just want to win, I do think it would improve the quality of matches dramaticly.

No its not about winning or losing. Its about feeling your performance matters. If i know up front it doenst matter if i play good or not because mm will make sure i win 50% nonetheless, i dont feel like its worth playing. And so does everyone else, be it positive or negative.

[DFens_666]

1 minute ago, Floofz said:

The biggest issue with a skillbased matchmaking that uses WR as a stat is that everyone will eventually be 50% and it will then just be random again. I would rather it was based on a sort of PR system that judges your skillevel by a number of factors. 

 

I dont think there is any stat or combination of stats, which wouldnt drop if Unicums only face each other (vice versa for bad players).

Damage? cant maintain above average damage for everyone, since there is a maximum amount of it in each game

Kills? same

WR? we covered that already

 

You would need to have a league system, which doesnt change your rank while playing it. So the skill needs to be determined in some other gamemode, outside of that league. Doesnt sound viable in my book.

[Floofz]

1 minute ago, ForlornSailor said:

Autopilot your way across the map. works. I know people that do it to grind the directives in coop. They are doing it for years.

 

I really dont see why a system is bad simply because people can cheat. They can bot and cheat now aswell?

 

1 minute ago, ForlornSailor said:

Now I have two very hard points against you:

- Implying, that everyone cares about winrate in the first place.

- Explain, how in your suggested envioronment, where everyone will end up between 50,1 and 49,9% WR, Winrate matters?

 

Your line of thought does not make sense at this point anymore.

 

- I have not implied that people care about WR, infact the only reason why I mentioned WR is because in this example it was the balancing factor. What I ment you havent gained is more xp or credits.

 

- I answered that in the same post?

 

My line of thought makes perfect says, what you credit me for meaning or saying doesnt, because that isnt what I say or mean. This thread has a LOT of this. You have a presumptious view on what I think and you answer what you think I think instead of what Im actualy writing.

 

Once again, this forum is for discussing. We try to fix an issue we see as a game breaking issue. If you want to help then feel free to give us your views and ideas on how to fix it. But by simply telling us "this wont work, this wont work, this cant work" for whatever reason time and time again is very counterproductive.

[Floofz]

9 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Again wrong. SBMM wouldnt work because people dont like to get punished for playing well so they'd leave the game.

Imagine playing a racegame where every time you finish first, the next race you get a slower car than everybody else.

Imagine playing a shooter where every time you finish first you get worse weapons.

Much fun indeed!

 

You are aware I actualy agreed with this? That SBMM would kill the game for that exact reason? You did read that right? I did also go on to say THAT ME PERSONALLY would prefer such a system because I dont GIVE A SH*T about winning or losing, I want an actual BATTLE, where stuff happens and tactical play matters.

I DO NOT want the battle to be over in 5 minutes with one side losing all their ships, or noone takes caps because they dont even understand what caps do.

And THAT IS what happens now, so CLEARLY this system doesnt work EITHER.

 

11 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Ive given you solutions: stop using MMM and the game becomes much more fun again. Adjust your expectations and the game becomes much more fun again. Play in divisions and the game becomes much more fun again.

I am also realistic about what options we have. They are severely limited, for multiple reasons (business pov, player pov, etc.).

And besides that its amusing to read all the nonsense that is written in this thread.

 

Fun fact, I have NEVER used an MM monitor before or during the game. I only see it after the game. And if you actualy look at my profile youll see that I ONLY play in divisions. Youll also see that I have a 63.6% WR in 3 man divisions and since I joined this clan its continuing to skyrocket. Im still not having fun thou, almost less so. Because instead of getting steamrolled 50% of my games and steamroll 50% of my games we now steamroll the enemy team 85% of the games because we almost always get all the good players in our team, as displayed by the MM monitor. If we had worse players in our team (and I dont mean all the bad players, evenly distributed), we would have a good battle.

 

15 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

"Yet that game doesnt have the issues you claim are causing the steamrolls in WoWs." -->????

- huge skill disparity between players

- no respawn mechanic

- fast ttk

WoT has exactly the same issues that cause steamrolls, hence the game is plagued by steamrolls just like wows.

 

Tanks does not have fast techtree and research dude, it takes FOREVER to get to tier 10. Ive played over 2k battles in tanks and my highest tank is tier 8. It takes under 30 games to get to tier 10 in warships. Yet the quality of games regardless of tier is exactly the same.

WoT has exactly the same amount of steamrolls as WoWs. I know that, and its had it for longer, which is exactly why I brought it up as an example. Because it doesnt have the same issues you claim cause bad players, it simply doesnt.

 

18 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

It doesnt really matter how your think it was. Because all that matters is how it is now. We will never agree on how it was because clearly our memories of the past differ a lot. You seem to base your opinion on the past on some ultra good games you or Flamu or whoever had. Look at your own stats. See how you performed back then compared to now.

 

No I base it on one simple thing. That I used to love this game, that I used to come home every day to play it and enjoy it. I could play 20 battles in an evening and not get angry.

As I said previously, the only thing that boils my blood in this game now, the ONE AND ONLY thing, is the matchmaker. The idioticly onesided games, the absolutely braindead teammates. It WASNT LIKE THIS before, because if it had I wouldve left a LONG time ago. Something quiet clearly changed. And the fact that CCs are also talking about the huge number of steamrolls lately I think there is an issue.

 

20 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

This isnt even an argument. One really bad player can easily solo 12 players if they show broadside.

 

Yes it is an argument to go against your "lose one ship and its a slippery slope" argument. One terrible player wont make a difference if the rest of your team are solid.

 

22 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

No its not about winning or losing. Its about feeling your performance matters. If i know up front it doenst matter if i play good or not because mm will make sure i win 50% nonetheless, i dont feel like its worth playing. And so does everyone else, be it positive or negative.

 

You contradicted yourself in the same sentence, congrats. If its not about winning or losing then why would you feel worthless? You would gain xp and credits, PR and not to mention FUN for doing well. Or maybe were forgetting that the game is supposed to be fun. Or do you play this game for the sole purpose of winning? In that case well never agree on anything cause we have vastly different reasons for why we play.

[DFens_666]

4 minutes ago, Floofz said:

No I base it on one simple thing. That I used to love this game, that I used to come home every day to play it and enjoy it. I could play 20 battles in an evening and not get angry.

 

Thats not meant offensive (as i see myself the same way in the past):

Most likely this is because you/we werent aware what happened around us. We focused mostly on ourselves, not caring what the guy next to us did (or didnt do for that matter). Ofc its more fun. But once you reach a point, where you are so aware what happens on the map, you become angry. You dont feel an accomplishment, holding back a superior force on your flank, while on the other flank most of your team DIED against a couple of ships, literally not harming the enemies. That happens all the time ofc. Ive seen 3-4 ships kill 7 or so, and they all have full health. You realize that, the fun you have drops by a million.

 

If you want more fun, dont care what the others do... which is pretty much impossible i think. Lets be honest, most of the time we get triggered because the people around us play like absolute horseshit. Meanwhile, feeling that you arent allowed to punish bad players, because they sail perfect broadside for several salvos and never get citadelled, doesnt really help that matter.

[159Hunter]

I am a bit lost here, @Floofz what is your solution?

[_HomTanks_]

Steamrolls or landslide wins/losses or whatever the proper name is, it always existed in WoWs. It existed when it came out in '15. later in '16', 17 and still exists. The difference according to my memory is, it used to be less. Now, I can't present you a number or percentage about how much less, but it was less to the degree one can notice. Then, assuming my own observation is true, what would cause the increase of steamrolls over the years? There are several reasons; one of them is the increase in average and peak player size. On contrary to this increase, many top/great/good players quit. Many new ship lines were introduced over the years and casual players who do not regularly play and grind these lines usually have no idea how to play them which causes more incompetency in overall game player base. While there are new players, there are also old players who joined the game years ago but have only a couple of K battles in total and share the same incompetency with new players. Also, as noted it became much easier/quicker to grind to T10 ships than years ago. When we combine all these factors, it sort of explains the current steamroll games, their frequent occurrences and the MM indirectly.  

[Floofz]

16 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Thats not meant offensive (as i see myself the same way in the past):

Most likely this is because you/we werent aware what happened around us. We focused mostly on ourselves, not caring what the guy next to us did (or didnt do for that matter). Ofc its more fun. But once you reach a point, where you are so aware what happens on the map, you become angry. You dont feel an accomplishment, holding back a superior force on your flank, while on the other flank most of your team DIED against a couple of ships, literally not harming the enemies. That happens all the time ofc. Ive seen 3-4 ships kill 7 or so, and they all have full health. You realize that, the fun you have drops by a million.

 

If you want more fun, dont care what the others do... which is pretty much impossible i think. Lets be honest, most of the time we get triggered because the people around us play like absolute horseshit. Meanwhile, feeling that you arent allowed to punish bad players, because they sail perfect broadside for several salvos and never get citadelled, doesnt really help that matter.

 

I know, I have thought about that myself. But it started somewhere didnt it.

I dont know to be honest, I wish the game was less frustrating is all Im saying really. I used to love this game so much but I think its impossible to get back to that mode for the reason you said. Its programmed in your head now to just look at the teamlist and the minimap and see the windowlickers reuinion at play.

It makes me more angry in this game thou, since I care about my stats in a way I dont in tanks or in Warthunder (even thou I shouldnt, there is a bit of pressure from my clan aswell).

 

I think we all can agree that this game needs to vastly improve the skillevel of its playerbase, atleast in higher tiers. Unfortunately I dont think thats going to happen, the only way to make it happen is to prevent bad players from reaching higher tiers until they have learned the basics and gotten atleast somewhat good. But that is a massive loss in revenew for WG. 

 

@ForlornSailor @GarrusBrutus Im not going to argue with you anymore (I know I said that yesterday). Its not leading anywhere and its only making me more angry. You can "win" the argument if you want to.