Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
thunder3oo

Clan Battles Matchmaking and Balance

80 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[SICA]
Players
219 posts
27,968 battles

All right.  We're all here because we like to fight with these digital ships. More that this, players enjoy Clan Battles,  a way to prove their worthiness in team battles, which could be a nice experience. Some players choose big ships, big guns and accept the idea of being spotted (almost) all the time,  while some players choose different tactics/ships, strategies. That's ok, as long things are balanced.
Personally, I enjoy fighting a skilled and honorable enemy. What I do NOT enjoy - are battles where players make abuse of game's bugs or lack of balance (or both in the same time). 

I can understand the appearance of a problem in WoW's  behavior because it's about programming.  What I do NOT understand is this: how you get payed and still do a poor job, when your job is to test ships and think the principles of the game? How hard can it be? Why we, the players, can see it, and you, Wargaming developers and testers... don't?
I assume the persons responsible for all the problems we had to face as players/customers, are payed, Right? Let's start with the oldest problem caused by the lack of balance in Random mode, one that everybody knows - one team had 2 or even 3 CV's, while the other team had only  2 CV's, 1, or even  NONE.  It took many months, if not a year and some, for this to be fixed. Let's continue by touching the destroyers subject. One team had 6 or 5 destroyers, while the other had 4, or 3. Or 3/2 destroyers in one team, NONE in the other. Again, it took a very long time to fix this. All right. Not only we had to play in these conditions for a long time, we also had a horrible lack of balance between the planes attacks (manual drops) and the defense provided by the automatic anti-aircraft guns. For a time there was some balance. Of course, it didn't last. Then there was the Flint, which had a very, extreme short smoke consumable cool down. Basically, Flint was able to pop up smoke after smoke. Then it was the Belfast, capable of HE, smoke and radar, so efficient that it had to be removed from the premium shop (you can read "efficient" as "poorly tested").  And so on, and so on...


Coming back to Clan Battles, it seems that someone hasn't done his job (again). Yesterday, our clan had a battle with a clan from NA. Now... our guys play pretty well, generally speaking. We won some battles and we also lost a few. Everything was ok until we met these NA guys. They came in this battle with 6 (SIX) destroyers (4 Harugumo, 2 Shimakaze) and a battleship. Even we had radars and hydroacustics,  and we took cover behind islands, all our ships were destroyed in a matter of minutes. Torps were everywhere, Harugumo's were shooting continuously from smoke while Shimakaze's spotted us, not to count the battleship who  had no problem picking targets.

Why all these happened? We played badly? No, I don't think so. It happened because you simply cannot beat this lack of balance. 
Because some people in Wargaming are not doing their jobs properly. Let's make something clear. Most problems in this game don't come from the visual designers. The problems are caused by the people who make inefficient tests and which have a vary vague idea about what "balance" is.

So, Wargaming, what is to be done? Call it "World of Destroyers" instead of "World of Warships"? For all of us to play with destroyers, or for you to do your job the way you should? 

 

Really now, how hard can it be?

 

 

 


 

Untitled2.jpg

  • Funny 9
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NMA]
Players
1,257 posts
18,892 battles
23 minutes ago, thunder3oo said:

Why all these happened? We played badly? No, I don't think so.

 Proceed to lose 0:7 :fish_glass:

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
282 posts
12,520 battles

If you have a good enough team you can make any composition of ships work, even 7 dds which is quite difficult to do. Also, you had 5 cruisers with 3 of them being Russian Radar cruisers which counter them easily. So, stop blaming WeeGee for this, its all on you.

 

I am sorry to say but you misplayed, you can easily play against 6 dds and a BB comps it just requires patience. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICA]
Players
219 posts
27,968 battles

Yeah, 3 radars of 20 some seconds and one longer, compared to a wall of torps+ 4 Harugumo multiple guns and long time combined smokes. Put in balance the time to aim+the time others see the target (+6seconds thanks to one of  the lastest updates)+target moving through smoke and now sum. They found the perfect lack of balance and they exploited to the fullest, in my opinion. Mmm... that's still a "no" from me.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
282 posts
12,520 battles

You know you can also win by capping, not only killing all ships?

 

Map control is your friend :fish_happy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
26,732 posts
14,356 battles
7 minutes ago, thunder3oo said:

Yeah, 3 radars of 20 some seconds and one longer, compared to a wall of torps+ 4 Harugumo multiple guns and long time combined smokes. Put in balance the time to aim+the time others see the target (+6seconds thanks to one of  the lastest updates)+target moving through smoke and now sum. They found the perfect lack of balance and they exploited to the fullest, in my opinion. Mmm... that's still a "no" from me.

Your DM did not have radar?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WGP2W]
Beta Tester
1,269 posts
6,548 battles

You are running a static team though, where the enemy is running the complete opposit of it. 

Have you thought about that?

Be a bit more creative... When I look at your team setup I see a lot of HP and low RoF. You pretty much go for the objectives you decide for at the start and repositioning isn't going to be likely. I doubt you guys win any game where you have lost a flank. 

What is your reason for bringing 2 Stalingrads and one Moskva? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLAST]
[BLAST]
Players
763 posts
12,484 battles

I think that team could have been easily countered by a team of 7 radar mino's. :Smile_playing:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTTX]
[TTTX]
Players
4,608 posts
8,081 battles

awwww.... seems your Stalingrad wasn't an autowin button when the enemy knew how to counter it, eh? such a shame, that...

Losing to a gimmick meme comp like that means at least one of two things, usually both:

  • you forked up, badly, on planning and execution
  • the opponent played their plan well
  • Cool 6
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NIKE]
Beta Tester
3,398 posts
7,277 battles

The nice thing with clan battles is you can take anything you like within the limits. This allows for different strategies, and for shake ups in the meta.

 

With a min-max line up it can catch people flat footed, but will also fail against a line up that counters it. Similarly a balanced line up can frequently counter skewed lists.

 

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T-N-T]
Weekend Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
5,628 posts
12,684 battles

Your team with 4 radars and 3 time more HP lose to team of DD . . . and you want to tell us that it wasn't your fault? :Smile_amazed::fish_palm:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
8,460 posts
13,036 battles

You got wrecked by a lulz composition and now you complain about balance? Really?

 

Christ man, I dread to think what the RU clan we faced yesterday must've felt like when they saw our team not fielding a BB.* Those europeans are crazy, tovarish!

 

 

Spoiler

Which may or may not have been caused by myself not having properly doublechecked which ship I was looking at in port and starting the game in the HIV instead of the Montana, only to get asked by my confused clanmates why we're not fielding a BB, followed by a brief moment of what totally wasn't a minor panic attack.

 

I'm gud FC, da!

 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JUNK]
Players
35 posts
6,750 battles
5 hours ago, thunder3oo said:

...We played badly? ...

All of this Wall of text can be summarized to YES you played badly.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICA]
Players
219 posts
27,968 battles

It's funny how a post is dedicated to WG staff , and all of you people reply instead, one more "wise" than the other... 
Wait, now you'll accuse me that I've made an open to reply post. Right? 
But you know what? You go meet a team like that in CB,  show me that you won, how you did it, THEN talk. Ok? Every smartarse can give "advices" in this forum. How many of you can show us "how to do it"? Show me. Come on, don't be shy...

Did the NA team win? They did. Am I satisfied with the battle (and by that I mean battle, a word meaning "a fight between armed forces")? Wait, that wasn't  a battle. The problem here is not loosing to a better team. I've lost battles before, acknowledging the enemy fought better. Just because someone makes use of the game's lack of balance doesn't mean s/he's "better". Clear enough for you? 

 

Come on, wiseas*es, show us your mighty strategies, your brilliant minds!

  • Funny 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,900 posts
5 hours ago, thunder3oo said:

All right.  We're all here because we like to fight with these digital ships. More that this, players enjoy Clan Battles,  a way to prove their worthiness in team battles, which could be a nice experience. Some players choose big ships, big guns and accept the idea of being spotted (almost) all the time,  while some players choose different tactics/ships, strategies. That's ok, as long things are balanced.
Personally, I enjoy fighting a skilled and honorable enemy. What I do NOT enjoy - are battles where players make abuse of game's bugs or lack of balance (or both in the same time). 

I can understand the appearance of a problem in WoW's  behavior because it's about programming.  What I do NOT understand is this: how you get payed and still do a poor job, when your job is to test ships and think the principles of the game? How hard can it be? Why we, the players, can see it, and you, Wargaming developers and testers... don't?
I assume the persons responsible for all the problems we had to face as players/customers, are payed, Right? Let's start with the oldest problem caused by the lack of balance in Random mode, one that everybody knows - one team had 2 or even 3 CV's, while the other team had only  2 CV's, 1, or even  NONE.  It took many months, if not a year and some, for this to be fixed. Let's continue by touching the destroyers subject. One team had 6 or 5 destroyers, while the other had 4, or 3. Or 3/2 destroyers in one team, NONE in the other. Again, it took a very long time to fix this. All right. Not only we had to play in these conditions for a long time, we also had a horrible lack of balance between the planes attacks (manual drops) and the defense provided by the automatic anti-aircraft guns. For a time there was some balance. Of course, it didn't last. Then there was the Flint, which had a very, extreme short smoke consumable cool down. Basically, Flint was able to pop up smoke after smoke. Then it was the Belfast, capable of HE, smoke and radar, so efficient that it had to be removed from the premium shop (you can read "efficient" as "poorly tested").  And so on, and so on...


Coming back to Clan Battles, it seems that someone hasn't done his job (again). Yesterday, our clan had a battle with a clan from NA. Now... our guys play pretty well, generally speaking. We won some battles and we also lost a few. Everything was ok until we met these NA guys. They came in this battle with 6 (SIX) destroyers (4 Harugumo, 2 Shimakaze) and a battleship. Even we had radars and hydroacustics,  and we took cover behind islands, all our ships were destroyed in a matter of minutes. Torps were everywhere, Harugumo's were shooting continuously from smoke while Shimakaze's spotted us, not to count the battleship who  had no problem picking targets.

Why all these happened? We played badly? No, I don't think so. It happened because you simply cannot beat this lack of balance. 
Because some people in Wargaming are not doing their jobs properly. Let's make something clear. Most problems in this game don't come from the visual designers. The problems are caused by the people who make inefficient tests and which have a vary vague idea about what "balance" is.

So, Wargaming, what is to be done? Call it "World of Destroyers" instead of "World of Warships"? For all of us to play with destroyers, or for you to do your job the way you should? 

 

Really now, how hard can it be?

 

 

 


 

Untitled2.jpg

I've played against this line up and is difficult to counter since you dont expect it. In a clan I was before this one, we lost both times, one was a slaughter the other just a matter of consumables running out before the bad guys were ded since their stealth is forever. If they don't make mistake they will win and these guys are good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
8,460 posts
13,036 battles
23 minutes ago, thunder3oo said:

It's funny how a post is dedicated to WG staff , and all of you people reply instead, one more "wise" than the other...

You complained on a public forum. If you had wanted only WG staff to see this, you could've PMed them instead.

 

23 minutes ago, thunder3oo said:

Wait, now you'll accuse me that I've made an open to reply post. Right?

Did you save up all your monthly alloted smart points just for this instance or do you regularily create self-fulfilling prophecies to lament what was always going to happen?

 

23 minutes ago, thunder3oo said:

But you know what? You go meet a team like that in CB,  show me that you won, how you did it, THEN talk. Ok? Every smartarse can give "advices" in this forum. How many of you can show us "how to do it"? Show me. Come on, don't be shy...

Why is it our responsibility to prove your deficiencies? You lost, not us. You're complaining about imbalance, not us.

 

23 minutes ago, thunder3oo said:

Did the NA team win? They did. Am I satisfied with the battle (and by that I mean battle, a word meaning "a fight between armed forces")? Wait, that wasn't  a battle. The problem here is not loosing to a better team. I've lost battles before, acknowledging the enemy fought better. Just because someone makes use of the game's lack of balance doesn't mean s/he's "better". Clear enough for you?

How was the opposing composition unbalanced? You haven't yet actually clarified your position on that front. The only thing to even remotely touch upon the subject was imbalanced DD numbers per team, but that's in the context of Randoms. CBs are an entirely different beast, first and foremostly because can dictate what your team composition looks like. Plus you're supposed to work in a coordinated and communicated fashion, not like the typical riff-raff in Randoms where one player might not even speak the same language you do.

 

You had the same option to field that many DDs but you made the deliberate decision not to. Why if you feel like having that many DDs is an advantage? Wouldn't you be trying to take advantage of it?

You fielded 4 radar ships. That's as close to a perfect counter to a DD centric line-up as you could get short of playing a radar meme composition yourselves. If you can't utilize that many radar ships in such a match, I'd have to wonder why you'd bother bringing that many radar ships along in the first place. Maybe if you feel like DDs are so imbalanced you ought to exchange all those radar cruisers for DDs and then see how that goes for you. You'll find out how to counter such a line-up when you start losing with it.

 

23 minutes ago, thunder3oo said:

Come on, wiseas*es, show us your mighty strategies, your brilliant minds!

The lack of self-reflection you're exhibiting is astounding and I feel confident enough to assume that attitude is one of the major reasons why you lost in the first place.

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AAO]
Tournament Organizer
451 posts
15,434 battles
6 hours ago, thunder3oo said:

Yeah, 3 radars of 20 some seconds and one longer, compared to a wall of torps+ 4 Harugumo multiple guns and long time combined smokes. Put in balance the time to aim+the time others see the target (+6seconds thanks to one of  the lastest updates)+target moving through smoke and now sum. They found the perfect lack of balance and they exploited to the fullest, in my opinion. Mmm... that's still a "no" from me.

 

You got trolled by them, nobody play this lineup because its bad. Any decent team will beat this.

If you think otherwise, prove it. I would be glad to admit that I am wrong if I will see you at the top of the ladder abusing this "perfect lack of balance". Its sad that you think this is strong.

Please post the replay and amuse us!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
26,732 posts
14,356 battles
2 hours ago, thunder3oo said:

It's funny how a post is dedicated to WG staff , and all of you people reply instead, one more "wise" than the other... 
Wait, now you'll accuse me that I've made an open to reply post. Right? 
But you know what? You go meet a team like that in CB,  show me that you won, how you did it, THEN talk. Ok? Every smartarse can give "advices" in this forum. How many of you can show us "how to do it"? Show me. Come on, don't be shy...

Did the NA team win? They did. Am I satisfied with the battle (and by that I mean battle, a word meaning "a fight between armed forces")? Wait, that wasn't  a battle. The problem here is not loosing to a better team. I've lost battles before, acknowledging the enemy fought better. Just because someone makes use of the game's lack of balance doesn't mean s/he's "better". Clear enough for you? 

 

Come on, wiseas*es, show us your mighty strategies, your brilliant minds!

  • Radar
  • Focus fire
  • Knowing how to hit a sluggish DD sub 12km
  • Win
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
[THESO]
Moderator
3,901 posts
10,540 battles

This is an extremely trollish setup, but it is extremely easy to win against :)

I am sorry OP, but yes you played badly... 4 radars.. you should have won easily on this map...

perma radar, kill the DDs one by one..

 

I know, because we sometimes use 6 or 7 DD setups like this for fun.

But only for fun, because any decent team will hand our backs into our laps.

And lets think about it yourself,

If this setup is THAT strong, SO unbeatable,

why don't we see it in hurricane leauge videos?

There usually be 1 DD mostly, not even 2.. and sometimes even no DD setups.

 

I suggest before going salty on everyone, lets start with accepting, you were surprised and you played badly..

 

That team composition is not an exploit, not an imbalance.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,374 posts
14,100 battles

So you’re angry a clan beat you in a battle and your team couldn’t adapt.

 

Right...

 

Didn’t realise we had to abide by a team ship set list, sounds awful dictatorial to me...

 

 

 

35D099EB-598C-4770-BC14-E315CC7D026C.gif

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×