<50% Win Rate Randoms?

[FearsomeFlotsam]

It's late so here's another barmy idea: once you become a half decent player, playing with potatoes even in randoms becomes an increasingly frustrating experience. If I see another Tirpitz captain in a T10 game with <200 games played and <40% win rate, I think I might scream. So how about an optional toggle, if you have a win rate over 50%, to enter lobbies only with other players with >50% win rate? It will be up to the player to decide, so if you're not feeling competitive, or if you're waiting too long in a queue, you can disable the toggle and go into the general pool (but of course you will have to put up with potato team mates). However, players with <50% win rate will not have the option to enter the 50%+ games.

[Shaka_D]

I think from the low 40s to anything below is a problem for me personally, particularly higher tier games and high games counts. There are a lot of these I think. They drag people down when they're your top tier and try talking sense into them, most of them won't have it, they're stuck that way and the fault lies with everyone else. So yes, it would be interesting to see how a split mm would work in this regard, probably not so well. Probably be better to sentence prolonged poor performers to coop mode. That way the bots can play the bots. I'd give a dime to watch a live stream of that.

[Muppeteer]

The only reason average players are average is because of people with less skill/experience. For many of us the people who are easy prey are the same people you were some time ago in terms of skill.

 

Be nice.

[Bortasqu]

It will not work. Since if all of the good players stops queuing with all of the players below 50%, they will start to complain that they actually have to play seriously to win.

 

But less potatos in my team? Count me in that idea.

[little_rowboat]

That idea is short minded, because winrate is (given all the other factors still longterm) a measure for skill and this will result in:

 

(1) average players with slightly over 50% in the beginning will drop below 50% because they longterm are the factor for losses in that player pool where they are the bad players now.

Due to that they will fall into the <50% pool sooner or later.

 

(2) the slightly below 50% will get over 50% soon because they are the factor for wins over the worse ones in the <50% pool.

 

The only thing that happens in that scenario is, that you exclude the best from playing against the worst longterm which results in slightly alignment for both extremes to the average. The majority of players will meet each other again shifting between those two player pools over time being more frustrated than now and matchmaker will have less players to match against.

 

Players tend to forget they are over 50% winrate and over 2k wows rating because there is somebody on the other hand that is below.

The own results are always relative to the wide mass of sailors.

 

It‘s fine as it is and it‘s not as bad as it seems sometimes when you keep in mind that (1) it is only a game and (2) there is always somebody that is better than oneself and that might think about oneself the same as you think about worse players.

 

I don’t want to play a game where constantly the below 1k ratings are bashed by the 2k ratings that are bashed by the 3k ratings which are laughed at by the 4K ratings (same with winrate 80>70>60>50>40).

 

Being better or worse is always relative and the tendency to find a lower (social) class to bash on exists already in RL, so why bring that habit to a game that is supposed to be fun.. no sense in that from my view.

[Shaka_D]

2 hours ago, Muppeteer said:

The only reason average players are average is because of people with less skill/experience. For many of us the people who are easy prey are the same people you were some time ago in terms of skill.

 

Be nice.

Yes and no, most are bad in the beginning but many tend to develop their skills as they grow in the game, but some don’t, they remain far far far below average even as they progress in game count and tier. You know who these people are, you’ve seen them, AND no one is being nasty, we are speaking about it rather respectfully. No need to act like dad here thanks 

[Yosha_AtaIante]

Vor 3 Stunden, DangerousDave2k sagte:

It's late so here's another barmy idea: once you become a half decent player, playing with potatoes even in randoms becomes an increasingly frustrating experience. If I see another Tirpitz captain in a T10 game with <200 games played and <40% win rate, I think I might scream. So how about an optional toggle, if you have a win rate over 50%, to enter lobbies only with other players with >50% win rate? It will be up to the player to decide, so if you're not feeling competitive, or if you're waiting too long in a queue, you can disable the toggle and go into the general pool (but of course you will have to put up with potato team mates). However, players with <50% win rate will not have the option to enter the 50%+ games.

You will still rage at the 50% players there between the 60%like you do with the 40% players if you lose! ☆

 

And you will lose! ♡

[DaMaGGo]

So potatoes like me are playing against other potatoes. In those games there need to be a winning Team...which will raise the WR of some of those players that you don't want to be teamed up with.

At some point they'll reach that magical 50% but only for the reason that they are slightly less worse. you'll get teamed with them again, so i guess we'll get the same post in about 6 months with the only difference beeing asking for a 60% toggle. 

 

Hope you get my point since english is not my native language.

[ZWC]

So sad to see some players are still under the impression that Win-Rate will loose them the game.
Going for stats.... (e-peen contest in you're own mirror)
In both teams there will be players.... good/bad, skilled/less-skilled...... but also players with poor PC and High-end PC's... 
Win-Rate says hardly anything.
in randoms where pure solo players are counted the same as pure divisions of 2 or 3 players.

Matter of fact.... stats are just stats, only good if you are average yourself.
Funny thing about this is ,.... people going for stats don't want to be average!
Hahahaha! take your time and re-read if you can't get the irony.

First of all, having fun is the most important skill to obtain. (for all players and for the health of the game itself)
This "being able to have fun " SKILL is a very hard thing to achieve if you still think the world is only about winning.
In time all people will open their eyes for this fact of life.

Using a mod to show who the potatoes are,... is only giving yourself a bad start... (if you get the bigger picture here)

Sometimes the potatoes does way better and will surprise you. (in many games they probably will have more fun in playing)
And you do need cannon-fodder to stay that über-good!

If you like to be special.... stay away from the stats. Just win those games where your team-mates are potatoes ... 
And consider them as part of your team , instead of seeing them as dead-weight .

ZWC

[kingzy2013]

another game mode other than random which requires a certain win rate or games played to take part in, a more competitive mode with more experienced players would be welcome. it would remove the one-sided teams and reduce the toxic behavior from try-hards. win-win

[Yosha_AtaIante]

Vor 1 Minute, kingzy2013 sagte:

another game mode other than random which requires a certain win rate or games played to take part in, a more competitive mode with more experienced players would be welcome. it would remove the one-sided teams and reduce the toxic behavior from try-hards. win-win

Toxic behavior would increase because expectations are higher! ♡☆♡

[DaMaGGo]

Vor 3 Minuten, kingzy2013 sagte:

another game mode other than random which requires a certain win rate or games played to take part in, a more competitive mode with more experienced players would be welcome. it would remove the one-sided teams and reduce the toxic behavior from try-hards. win-win

I get your point. But let me ask one question: how do you think you're winrate is affected if you're constantly matched up against 50+% WR in competitive? 

At some point your WR will drop which denies you further participation in those modes. 

 

Seriously asking: am i thinking wrong here? 

[kingzy2013]

8 minutes ago, DaMaGGo said:

I get your point. But let me ask one question: how do you think you're winrate is affected if you're constantly matched up against 50+% WR in competitive? 

At some point your WR will drop which denies you further participation in those modes. 

 

Seriously asking: am i thinking wrong here? 

i get your point, so maybe win-rate is the wrong thing to use. games played would work better. 

[250swb]

Skill based MM is a subject that keeps cropping up in WoT. And the answer is always the same, the player who suggests it as a means of supposedly protecting their stats forgets they will now be playing better players so their stats will come down in the long term to hover around 50%.

 

But skill based MM also means those players in the sub-50% tomato category will now also be playing against each other and their stats will level upwards towards 50%. So after a period of time skill based MM would become ever more irrelevant and the only people not hovering around 50% would be the ultimate unicums or newbies.

[250swb]

2 minutes ago, kingzy2013 said:

i get your point, so maybe win-rate is the wrong thing to use. games played would work better. 

 

So a 43% player with 10,000 battles now fits your metric? Or what if they had mostly been playing a class that didn't suit them but for the last 2,000 battles they had a 57% WR playing another class of ship? If you try too hard to segregate players based on any sort of stat it won't be long before you get caught in your own trap.

[quickr]

I would like to see a skill based MM, but not as simple as you suggested.

Some elo rating that takes into account played games, WR, avg dmg and experiance. After that a match maker that tries to match up players with similar elo value. As the queue time prolongs, the elo range is widened. So you don't sit in queue forever.

[Saltface]

Dear All,

 

I have proposed in another thread:

 

"As having a skill based MM is out of the question (this is the general consensus) the only solution I could propose (and to be honest it is not well thought out - so please consider it thinking out loud) is the creation of an Elite Random game mode. This mode would be for T7 and above. Rules are the same. Mechanics the same. Everything is the same. Except that there is a threshold of number of battles required to have been played before you play the Elite Random and a minimum WR % that you must have in order to play this mode.

 

Should this game mode exist, the players that fulfill the threshold requirements would opt to play this mode. It might have a longer waiting time (I doubt it but it could) but this is the price one has to pay for being in an Elite game mode. And complaints would be unwarranted. One more added benefit (in my humble opinion) would be the added incentive for someone to play more and "git gud". And it is easy to implement."

 

and I justified the idea as follows:

 

"Most players complain that the player base is getting dumber and dumber. This is not true. I would rather say that player base has access to higher tier ships while still not experienced enough and without having developed the necessary skills to play such a demanding high tier ship. This makes them look dumber in the high tiers. This is a major complain.  When inexperienced players have access to high tier ships and end up in high tier games (prematurely) they do not enjoy the game and they don't help their team or the game-play. Not to mention that they do not learn how to play the game being in those high tier games. You don't learn when you get blapped in the first three minutes or when you receive rather salty and caustic chat. Unfortunately this is true. Also true is that the more experienced players have their game experience rather diminished by the presence of the novice players."

 

You see, dear Friends, it is not the potato or noob as you say (I find them a bit derisive as terms but its ok). I find the following statement absolutely correct.

2 hours ago, Shaka_D said:

most are bad in the beginning but many tend to develop their skills as they grow in the game

Now segregating players is not nice. But, some level of "League" should be considered. The reasons are obvious. This is why we say that playing low tiers is easier compared to high tear games. Thats why we have the term "sealclubing" A novice (or unskiled) player in high tier suffers because of the skill gap. Having 3 or 5 minute games and then spectator because of a misplay, that is not forgiven in high tiers, isn't exactly a way to make the skill gap smaller. Also, a game is enjoyed if it is played nicely.

 

With the current meta it is very easy to reach high tiers and have high tier ships. Free XP, XP and Credits abound. The progression curve however isn't so well related to the learning curve. Players progress faster than they develop their skills. 

 

And this is correct:

47 minutes ago, DaMaGGo said:

I get your point. But let me ask one question: how do you think you're winrate is affected if you're constantly matched up against 50+% WR in competitive? 

At some point your WR will drop which denies you further participation in those modes.

We need to accept the mobility between Leagues as part of the progression. A further incentive to push the Player to play even better. We could also accept  that: once you get in this "League" you don't get out.

 

The concept of tier and league is correct in my humble opinion.

The thresholds have to be fine tuned so to allow and reinforce parallel skill development and progress through the game levels.

 

And I could also suggest that this is what "Ranked" and "Clan Battles" are for. I told you, I m thinking out loud?

 

Food for thought for all of us

 

Regards

Saltface

 

[ZWC]

You learn from differences.
As every child learns from adults but adults learn from children even as much.
As a newbie learns from a veteran but the veteran re-find his lost newbie thoughts. and simple logic. 
We hardly level-up if everyone is the same.... something else is happening if all are like.

Skill based MM will downgrade the game.
Strange that only players that think they are somewhat skilled, want skilled based games.....

A team filled with skilled players , will include "high-skill"-skilled players and "lesser-skill"-skilled players.
And there we go again.

But I would like to have a game-mode.... that will exclude the so called "eager for stats" players.
The group that always downgrade the fun in game.... and think they are entitled to pick on tomato/potato players.

How nice it would be to have a "all-rounders" mode. So not the "5000+ battles in just one vessel" players.... strange how they are skilled in that one vessel, but unknown in others.
Asking for a skill based MM implies that you count yourself in, in  that "better"group.
One of the basic mistakes of so-called "elite".... 

[Tyrendian89]

look at your Clantag.

That's your answer.

For reasons stated about five million times in the past.

[thiextar]

Would be awesome if it would work, but for mathematical reasons, it wont.

[Beastofwar]

6 hours ago, DangerousDave2k said:

It's late so here's another barmy idea: once you become a half decent player, playing with potatoes even in randoms becomes an increasingly frustrating experience. If I see another Tirpitz captain in a T10 game with <200 games played and <40% win rate, I think I might scream. So how about an optional toggle, if you have a win rate over 50%, to enter lobbies only with other players with >50% win rate? It will be up to the player to decide, so if you're not feeling competitive, or if you're waiting too long in a queue, you can disable the toggle and go into the general pool (but of course you will have to put up with potato team mates). However, players with <50% win rate will not have the option to enter the 50%+ games.

 

This brilliant plan will cause the enemies to be all very skilled players as well......that means you will lose more often, probably bringing you to above or below 50 % too.  Is that what you had in mind ?

 

Being skilled only has effect if you deal with less skilled......if you go up equal skilled players, the result of your skills wil be 0.

 

Don't worry...that is the thing many stats elitsts forget. They have only such stats because they fight unfair odds in their favor and don't seem to recognise that. Change that, and have stats that are above or below 50 % as other skilled players will even you out at that balance point.

 

You need less skilled players to have good stats.....

[DDMafiaAssociateMember]

12 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

 

This brilliant plan will cause the enemies to be all very skilled players as well......that means you will lose more often, probably bringing you to above or below 50 % too.  Is that what you had in mind ?

 

Being skilled only has effect if you deal with less skilled......if you go up equal skilled players, the result of your skills wil be 0.

 

Don't worry...that is the thing many stats elitsts forget. They have only such stats because they fight unfair odds in their favor and don't seem to recognise that. Change that, and have stats that are above or below 50 % as other skilled players will even you out at that balance point.

 

You need less skilled players to have good stats.....

Hold on here. Did you just admit that the "stat elitists" are actually skilled? I thought that they were just as good as you and padded their stats with Tier X three man comms linked divisions?

[Profilus]

34 minutes ago, thiextar said:

Would be awesome if it would work, but for mathematical reasons, it wont.

I dont see why it wouldnt. He proposed it as optional, not all will choose it and not all will keep it toggled on forever. Yes, mathematically it would even all(most) out, but that would take A FKN long time.

[FearsomeFlotsam]

6 hours ago, Muppeteer said:

The only reason average players are average is because of people with less skill/experience. For many of us the people who are easy prey are the same people you were some time ago in terms of skill.

 

Be nice.

There's nothing 'not nice' about it. If anything, it would save the poorer players from being victimised by the better ones.

[Hopeless_Guppy]

4 hours ago, Shaka_D said:

Yes and no, most are bad in the beginning but many tend to develop their skills as they grow in the game, but some don’t, they remain far far far below average even as they progress in game count and tier. You know who these people are, you’ve seen them, AND no one is being nasty, we are speaking about it rather respectfully. No need to act like dad here thanks 

Just out of interest then, unicom level players like yourself, never make a wrong move, never d something they should not have, in other words total perfection?

 

I think you forget that some of these low winrate player are actually in the process of learning, just as if you are a skilled driver, you once had L plates onyour car, like everyone else.