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

If we cant prevent Roflstomps how about at least Rewarding them properly ?

20 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[THESO]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,514 posts
8,714 battles

A  Clanmate actually mentioned this Idea to me. So I would be Interested what People think about this.

Lately we got more and more Roflstomps. And lets Face it. Roflstomps are Horrible. No matter if your Winning or Losing side. Because if your on the Losing Side you wont get much done and also lose. And even on the Winning Side you will go out with Pitiful Rewards and Results cause half the Enemy Team Survived thus there being very littel Base Exp Earned through the Board...

 

And the Truth also is. I dont see the Roflstomps going away anytime soon. I am not going into Detail on what I consider Responsible for this etc. But I just dont see it going away right now or anytime in the near Future.

 

 

Hence. How about at least Properly Rewarding the Winners in the Rolfstomps to at least make it a little bit less Frustrating.

 

For example. The Game could Check how much Reward it would have Generated if all Remaining Enemy Ships had been Killed. And then Distribute that Reward among the Winner Team.

Maybe with a Certain Bias to give more of the Share to the Players which actually did something in the Battle to avoid Rewarding AFK and Yolo Players with this.

This way at least Winning a Roflstomp would not be such a Frustrating Waste of Time where your basicly sitting there and go out with very small Reward because the Enemy Team just let you take all Caps and then went Hiding behind an island thus you Winning with Half the Enemy Team still Alive and thus getting maybe 20-30% of your usual Damage.

 

Another Option would be Give a Point Victory Reward Based on the Points Difference between the Teams. Effectively adding a Certain Victory Bonus if you Won with a Points Difference above a Certain Threshold.

Or a Time Bonus if you Won a Game very Fast there could be an Extra Victory Reward for that etc.

 

There is alot of Options to effectively at least not have the Winner Team Frustrated in Roflstomps.

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
350 posts
5,465 battles

Imo mm should distribute players a bit evenly as sometimes enemy team gets half dozen 58 - 60 % wr players and your team ends up with all 13 yrs old children . These underage are too fragile to last for even 7 min .

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MUMMY]
Players
570 posts
10,106 battles

ROFLstomps......  No fun for anyone.
Miserable regardless of whether you are giving or receiving.  No comedy for anyone.

On the receiving end its "usually" because you have a flank filled with crayon munching imbeciles; you can rarely recover, if you do it is an uphill struggle.

On the giving end its because you are playing against a flank filled with crayon munching imbeciles which you ROFLstomp and then fold onto whatever is left of the enemy team as they try to reorganise.  More often than not, they fail to recover from.

Both feel like a total waste of flags and camo, but more importantly time.

Whilst I agree with your points; you are pointing this out to the developer that brings Balans and "spreadsheet says its fine".

I wish you well attempting to talk sense to WG.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
943 posts
3,431 battles
3 hours ago, Sunleader said:

A  Clanmate actually mentioned this Idea to me. So I would be Interested what People think about this.

Lately we got more and more Roflstomps. And lets Face it. Roflstomps are Horrible. No matter if your Winning or Losing side. Because if your on the Losing Side you wont get much done and also lose. And even on the Winning Side you will go out with Pitiful Rewards and Results cause half the Enemy Team Survived thus there being very littel Base Exp Earned through the Board...

 

And the Truth also is. I dont see the Roflstomps going away anytime soon. I am not going into Detail on what I consider Responsible for this etc. But I just dont see it going away right now or anytime in the near Future.

 

 

Hence. How about at least Properly Rewarding the Winners in the Rolfstomps to at least make it a little bit less Frustrating.

 

For example. The Game could Check how much Reward it would have Generated if all Remaining Enemy Ships had been Killed. And then Distribute that Reward among the Winner Team.

Maybe with a Certain Bias to give more of the Share to the Players which actually did something in the Battle to avoid Rewarding AFK and Yolo Players with this.

This way at least Winning a Roflstomp would not be such a Frustrating Waste of Time where your basicly sitting there and go out with very small Reward because the Enemy Team just let you take all Caps and then went Hiding behind an island thus you Winning with Half the Enemy Team still Alive and thus getting maybe 20-30% of your usual Damage.

 

Another Option would be Give a Point Victory Reward Based on the Points Difference between the Teams. Effectively adding a Certain Victory Bonus if you Won with a Points Difference above a Certain Threshold.

Or a Time Bonus if you Won a Game very Fast there could be an Extra Victory Reward for that etc.

 

There is alot of Options to effectively at least not have the Winner Team Frustrated in Roflstomps.

"roflstomps" where one team just hides leaving the caps open and defenseless are quite rare from my experience, and don't really qualify as a roflstomp if you ask me.

 

a roflstomp from my point of view occurs when one team just melts away while the other loses none or just a few ships in the process. usually this happens when one team gets most good players and the other the... *ahem* less good players.

strong imbalances within classes also easily cause roflstomps, for example 3 unicum DDs vs. 3 noob DDs.

another one is unicum CV vs. noob CV.

 

when teams are grossly unbalanced, you can observe that the better players just hide and try to not get hit while waiting for mistakes of the weaker team. they are just farming, and there is nothing that 2-3 normal players in your team could do about it, we are completely at the mercy of MM.

 

when the enemy team is playing like that, it is very difficult to do anything. and when your own team got all the unicums, it's about the same, just the opposite problem: you don't get any damage done unless you yolo in. in both cases, the battle is a complete waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
494 posts
6,346 battles

So, one team gets preferential matchmaking AND better rewards? No. How about the losing team get compensation for WGs inability (i.e. unwillingness) to balance matchmaking.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[F_M_B]
Beta Tester
1,044 posts
6,249 battles

So, bad vs. good players is the reason for roflstomps?

 

How about reducing the rewards for the losing team to motivated the players to learn the game mechanics, get better and/or fight harder?

 

But a serious thought: the really generous rewards or broken economy (credits and xp) allows even bad players to make profits without the need to learn something.

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,514 posts
8,714 battles
9 hours ago, Admiral_Oily_Discharge said:

Imo mm should distribute players a bit evenly as sometimes enemy team gets half dozen 58 - 60 % wr players and your team ends up with all 13 yrs old children . These underage are too fragile to last for even 7 min .

 

Wont work.

Many Players Ask for this Kind of System. But while this kind of System can work halfwat Fine when you got Games that are 1 vs 1 or which are FPS Games where 1 Good Player can Literally Kill the Entire Team alone without being Hit once.

Such Systems have never even once Worked for Games where Teams are Bigger and where the Players are Driving Ships which usually need at least 1-2 minutes of Firing at each other before one Player is Down.

What happens when such Games try to Implement such Systems is Generally that after a Short Time you end up Pushing all Players towards 50% where effectively the only ones Capable of Breaking away from 50% being the ones Currently being Unicums.

Thus you end up with Bad and Good Players Camouflaged as Average Players because they constantly get Matched against Equals by the System and Ultimately end up Looping around between Average and their Inclined Direction.

 

 

9 hours ago, rage1750 said:

ROFLstomps......  No fun for anyone.
Miserable regardless of whether you are giving or receiving.  No comedy for anyone.

On the receiving end its "usually" because you have a flank filled with crayon munching imbeciles; you can rarely recover, if you do it is an uphill struggle.

On the giving end its because you are playing against a flank filled with crayon munching imbeciles which you ROFLstomp and then fold onto whatever is left of the enemy team as they try to reorganise.  More often than not, they fail to recover from.

Both feel like a total waste of flags and camo, but more importantly time.

Whilst I agree with your points; you are pointing this out to the developer that brings Balans and "spreadsheet says its fine".

I wish you well attempting to talk sense to WG.

 

Complaining about Problems is the Primary Way you can tell WG that there is Something that needs Changing.

WG is a Company and wants to make Money. So while you may often not get exactly what you want. You can often at least make them Pay Attention and thus try to Fix whatever caused People to Complain.

Even if very often their own Ideas dont exactly translate well into this.

 

5 hours ago, HassenderZerhacker said:

"roflstomps" where one team just hides leaving the caps open and defenseless are quite rare from my experience, and don't really qualify as a roflstomp if you ask me.

 

a roflstomp from my point of view occurs when one team just melts away while the other loses none or just a few ships in the process. usually this happens when one team gets most good players and the other the... *ahem* less good players.

strong imbalances within classes also easily cause roflstomps, for example 3 unicum DDs vs. 3 noob DDs.

another one is unicum CV vs. noob CV.

 

when teams are grossly unbalanced, you can observe that the better players just hide and try to not get hit while waiting for mistakes of the weaker team. they are just farming, and there is nothing that 2-3 normal players in your team could do about it, we are completely at the mercy of MM.

 

when the enemy team is playing like that, it is very difficult to do anything. and when your own team got all the unicums, it's about the same, just the opposite problem: you don't get any damage done unless you yolo in. in both cases, the battle is a complete waste of time.

 

There is a bunch of Potential Roflstomps.

The Common Point I consider Roflstomp is that the Enemy loses so fast that alot of the Enemy Team Survives.

 

The Idea addresses that Effect by at least giving the Reward as if you had have the Time to Kill the Remaining Enemies.

It cant fix everything wrong here. And best would be if Roflstomps were not happening as much in the First Place. But as I said. I dont see that happening anytime soon.

 

4 hours ago, Bindolaf_Werebane said:

So, one team gets preferential matchmaking AND better rewards? No. How about the losing team get compensation for WGs inability (i.e. unwillingness) to balance matchmaking.

 

Wont happen. Because it would Encourage Players to just Yolo and Die. After all why would you try to Win a Game or make it a Hard Fight if you are on the losing Side and know you will get a Reward for it anyways.

Roflstomps result from Bad Players. And Sorry but I see no reason to give extra Rewards to Bad Players.

 

3 hours ago, Spartan_93 said:

So, bad vs. good players is the reason for roflstomps?

 

How about reducing the rewards for the losing team to motivated the players to learn the game mechanics, get better and/or fight harder?

 

But a serious thought: the really generous rewards or broken economy (credits and xp) allows even bad players to make profits without the need to learn something.

 

Wont help. The only ones on the Losing Team that get even a halfwat Decent Reward are the Players already Trying Hard and thus often end up with a Carry Harder Game for which they already get a Pitiful Reward considering their Effort.

The ones Playing Badly already dont get any remotely Decent Reward. Cutting it any more would mean these Players would get Negative Rewards and the Good Players would Suffer even more.

 

But Negative Rewards are Proven by Games like WarThunder and World of Tanks to not Help at all with making Players Play better. The only thing they do is cause Players to Complain more and become Toxic because they need to Grind lower Tier Ships to keep Dying in higher Tier Ships.

I know this Notion that Bad Players would be Leaving often gets the Response that why not. Then the Game would be a Better Place.

But if all the Bad Players leave the Game because they constantly end up Bankrupt and thus (because yes they are mostly too Incompetent to Realize why they go Bankrupt) will claim the Game is Pay to Play and Economy is only like this to make them Buy Credits and Premium Ships. Then you dont end up with a Better Game. You end up with a Game that has less than half the Playerbase and thus WG massively reducing Development and Jacking up Prices etc.

 

Needless to say you will never get WG to Sign up to this. Because why would they Shut down that much of their Income ?

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Beta Tester
1,838 posts
17,744 battles

In order to determine if Roflstomps need fixing (respecitively the amount of fixing) you would first need to establish a general consensus about player priorities, and this is what I find highly improbable.

 

So do you...

 

1) ...play for fun and exitement?

2) ...play for maximum ingame ressource effectiveness (camo / flags)?

3) ...play for maximum outgame ressource effectiveness (credits and xp per time)?

4) ...???

 

For example I usually play for fun, it's a game after all. However and especially when grinding lines I will take a quick and dirty win over a series of closer games at almost any time. A win is a win and as such if I can claim my "win of the day" within 10 minutes that is often way better than having to play 3 close but full 20min games and take an hour or more just for this one ship. Sometimes I even embrace a quick defeat. What is the point of fighting if you are already down by a large margin after only a couple of minutes while your side has not made at least some progress of its own (e.g. you are down 3 DDs and caps in a game that has 3 DD per side). So better lose quick because new game, new luck, no?

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TACHA]
Players
273 posts
4,741 battles

A chess ranking algorithm might help. I just played a T6 Molotov and the red team had a rank 1 player in an Enterprise, it went exactly how you would have expected and I ended up 3rd from top.

Not sure how penalties would make me learn from this really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
350 posts
5,465 battles
17 hours ago, Sunleader said:

Wont work.

Many Players Ask for this Kind of System. But while this kind of System can work halfwat Fine when you got Games that are 1 vs 1 or which are FPS Games where 1 Good Player can Literally Kill the Entire Team alone without being Hit once.

Such Systems have never even once Worked for Games where Teams are Bigger and where the Players are Driving Ships which usually need at least 1-2 minutes of Firing at each other before one Player is Down.

What happens when such Games try to Implement such Systems is Generally that after a Short Time you end up Pushing all Players towards 50% where effectively the only ones Capable of Breaking away from 50% being the ones Currently being Unicums. 

Thus you end up with Bad and Good Players Camouflaged as Average Players because they constantly get Matched against Equals by the System and Ultimately end up Looping around between Average and their Inclined Direction.

Very interesting hypothesis but no matter how good you are at gameplay it still requires atleast 2-3 above avg or decent players to help  reach that alpha and eventually turn the worst of tide in your teams favor .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,514 posts
8,714 battles
Just now, Admiral_Oily_Discharge said:

Very interesting hypothesis but no matter how good you are at gameplay it still requires atleast 2-3 above avg or decent players to help  reach that alpha and eventually turn the worst of tide in your teams favor .

 

Which is exactly why such a System wont work.

Even right now. There is a Huge Random Factor in Winrate when Playing Solo. Because you need quite some Skill to Carry Games alone.

But if your good enough it can work. Because you can Overpower several Players that are worse than you if you are Skilled enough.

 

But if the MM was to constantly Match Players with Equal Winrates.

Then these Players cannot possibly hold these Winrates. One has to drop.

But that Player is worse than the other. Not worse in General. So you now got 2 Equal Players one of which will be rated lower.

 

If you constantly let 80% Winrate Players Play against 80% Winrate Players. Then its Mathematically Impossible for both to Maintain 80%

Because for one to Maintain 80% he would need to Force the other 80% Winrate Players into 20% Winrate.

Needless to say this wont happen. Instead both will Drop to 50%

 

And this works both ways.

Bad Players usually losing 70% of their Games and thus having 30% winrate. Will now be matched against other Players with 30% Winrate.

Needless to say they cant possibly both keep 30% winrate because 1 Side has to Win. So either One or Both will Dramatically Increase their Winrate even tough neither of them has become any more Skilled at the Game.

 

 

Since all Players are Mirrored like that this Situation Persists.

So you end up with Players Skill simply getting Camouflaged. Because Bad Players get Pushed Upwards and Good Players get Pushed Downwards by the Fact that they will constantly get Matched against Players of their Skill level.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
218 posts
13,263 battles
On 8/24/2020 at 4:18 AM, Admiral_Oily_Discharge said:

Imo mm should distribute players a bit evenly as sometimes enemy team gets half dozen 58 - 60 % wr players and your team ends up with all 13 yrs old children . These underage are too fragile to last for even 7 min .

Whenever I read WGs facebook comment section there is only middle aged people showing their low level IQ and total lack of understanding of the game. I don't see kids commenting at all. You can take the old people. I'll take the kids in my team any day over these middle aged dudes:Smile_child:

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CMP]
Weekend Tester
605 posts
5,064 battles

If you win the game in 5 mins instead of 20. And you get half of the expi of a normal win ..... You are still getting more expi per minute than during a normal fight.

 

If you loose the game in 5 mins; git gut :Smile_trollface:  (I know, sometimes you just get the short end and can't do much about it ... just suck those up. At least it is over fast ...) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-LA-]
Players
691 posts
5,185 battles

well i get the idea, but i would worry that taking dev time to implement this fix would mean time taken away from fixing the cause so the symptom goes away (however unliely that is) and if those rewards went in it would enshrine roflstomps as giving good rewards its going to generate resistence to removing them

 

a survivor penalty to people on the loosing team could be funny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
350 posts
5,465 battles
9 hours ago, Sunleader said:

But if the MM was to constantly Match Players with Equal Winrates.

Its often better to lose a hopeless game or play silly cat and mouse games .

 

9 hours ago, Sunleader said:

If you constantly let 80% Winrate Players Play against 80% Winrate Players. Then its Mathematically Impossible for both to Maintain 80%

Because for one to Maintain 80% he would need to Force the other 80% Winrate Players into 20% Winrate.

Needless to say this wont happen. Instead both will Drop to 50%

 

And this works both ways.

 Meh potatoes is  mainly a bad player due to his atrocious situation awareness. Perhaps by instinct, he realizes that forming a line of battle is the best way to maximize firepower while minimizing the chances of their mistakes being exploited. When the line is shattered, they often dies quickly as she/he cannot respond to dynamic circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
11,119 posts
9,500 battles
On 8/24/2020 at 3:18 PM, Ubertron_X said:

In order to determine if Roflstomps need fixing (respecitively the amount of fixing) you would first need to establish a general consensus about player priorities, and this is what I find highly improbable. 

 

Thats imo the best answer, and thats how i see it myself.

I think, too many players are being stuck in a loop, where they mostly play for missions/rewards/grinding ships. And some are just doing their own thing because they think thats how the game should be played. Aaaand then you have the group of players, who thinks it doesnt matter anyway what you do, since they are only 1/12.

 

While you might get the last group to play for the win (x for doubt, but atleast in theory), the others are just way off. If they need 4 torp hits in their DD to finish the mission guess what theyll do: Rush in, throw torps and die. Next game. The amount of people trying to grab kills during kill-ribbon missions is quite high, as probably most of us know. So you know what those guys do when they dont need kills: other missions, which also influences how they play.

Those people are riding on other peoples back, and get rewarded if someone carries them after a hardfought 20 minute game. If they lose and still get 300 XP - doesnt matter, they only played for 3 minutes. While others of us played for 17 or so to work against the inevitable, and go home with 1500 XP. But they have played 4 more games in that span, giving them MORE xp than they would have gotten if they would have played for the win.

 

So to summarize

- They dont care (enough) to play for the win

- Because they dont have the skill, they are worse off by trying to play for the win, than just speed grind by yoloing

 

2 major issues imo. How to fix those? Thats the hard question...

- Teach them how to play properly. I think that wont fix enough

- Make missions only for wins - that might make it a bit better, and the requirements need to be lowered ofc.

- Punish them harder for not playing properly. While thats my favourite, i know many people disagree with this. But that would have the highest impact imo. Either play properly, or gtfo.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
3,392 posts
15,635 battles
On 8/24/2020 at 3:20 AM, rage1750 said:

ROFLstomps......  No fun for anyone.
Miserable regardless of whether you are giving or receiving.  No comedy for anyone.

On the receiving end its "usually" because you have a flank filled with crayon munching imbeciles; you can rarely recover, if you do it is an uphill struggle.

On the giving end its because you are playing against a flank filled with crayon munching imbeciles which you ROFLstomp and then fold onto whatever is left of the enemy team as they try to reorganise.  More often than not, they fail to recover from.

Both feel like a total waste of flags and camo, but more importantly time.

Whilst I agree with your points; you are pointing this out to the developer that brings Balans and "spreadsheet says its fine".

I wish you well attempting to talk sense to WG.

 

That is certainly true.

We have always had a lot of "imbeciles" though, so what could be the reason for increased stomps?

 

I personally believe that the game simply got more complex and has a faster overall pace with the CV spotting, meaning that said "imbeciles" will suicide even quicker.

 

Maybe it's just my subjective feeling, but I think the old stealth-meta was a bit more calm.

 

WG has said a lot about average battle duration, but in a stomp the game is usually decided much sooner.

What I am wondering instead is if there is a statistic showing if more ships have been dying within the first 5 or 10 minutes of the battle since the CV-rework. @MrConway maybe?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MUMMY]
Players
570 posts
10,106 battles
3 hours ago, __Helmut_Kohl__ said:

 

That is certainly true.

We have always had a lot of "imbeciles" though, so what could be the reason for increased stomps?

I personally believe that the game simply got more complex and has a faster overall pace with the CV spotting, meaning that said "imbeciles" will suicide even quicker.

 

I very rarely play lower than tier 8 since the "Great Rework" so my observations are largely limited to tier 8+. 

Then of course you get the games with 2 enemy CV's.

 

WG's response to CV concerns has been.......  ...... .......

Please dont litter the forum with your [likely valid] hate for CV's, use the Official "I hate CV's, Hall of Tears" thread to voice your concerns which are very important to us.

 

My feeling is that I am witnessing more ROFLstomps as people are coming to the higher tiers with low skills because they have spent their whole gaming experience under constant CV spam and detection.  These people dont know any different.

How to do basic DD/CA roles such as spotting or using concealment are not developed in an enviroment where you are constantly spotted by 1-2 CV's to which you have no counter play. 
Then stick these people into higher tier ships against more experienced players that are in ships like Thunderer, Montanna, Stalingrad, Petro, Yamato, Des Moines where they can get blapped instantly and you have a begining of a ROFLstomp.  

 

It is easy to forget that every village has its special individual(s), so you will always get these players but they do seem to have grown in number of late.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NCDF]
Players
184 posts
5,849 battles
Am 25.8.2020 um 07:15, Sunleader sagte:

Which is exactly why such a System wont work.

Even right now. There is a Huge Random Factor in Winrate when Playing Solo. Because you need quite some Skill to Carry Games alone.

But if your good enough it can work. Because you can Overpower several Players that are worse than you if you are Skilled enough.

 

But if the MM was to constantly Match Players with Equal Winrates.

Then these Players cannot possibly hold these Winrates. One has to drop.

But that Player is worse than the other. Not worse in General. So you now got 2 Equal Players one of which will be rated lower.

Which is why using winrate for a skillbased matchmaking would be complete BS. If you would want to make skillbased matchmaking, you would need to introduce a points-system. It would not matter everyone having 50%ish winrate because if you perform good in your team you gain points, if you do bad you lose points. Nomatter your winrate, you would be matchmaked based on performance compared to others. 

 

To OP. The problem is that you can not reward a team for winning a roflstomp because you don't deserve a special reward. Roflstomps are not won by good players, roflstomps are lost by bad players. 

Getting a special reward for being lucky not having those 5 very bad players in your team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ASEET]
[ASEET]
Alpha Tester
289 posts
18,460 battles
On 8/25/2020 at 6:38 PM, DFens_666 said:

- Make missions only for wins - that might make it a bit better, and the requirements need to be lowered ofc.

Please no. This is recipe for frustration.

 

If missions are only for wins it will not make bad players "play for the win" because they don't have enough skill to know what they should do for a win. They will still make wrong calls and end up losing. Same time good players will just get more annoyed on losing because of bad team, while their missions won't progress no matter how well they play if they don't win.

 

 

When few years back I got my Tirpitz late at night I decided to play a battle or two, just to get daily double to progress captain training . I got that.... ...13 battles later. There were two draws (you know how "easy" those are to get), few battles that were already won and it would have been enough not to do anything for 20 seconds, but team actively failed them etc. It was just impossible to win. Then I compared my damage and kills per battle to my Amagi and North Cal stats, and I had done around 40-50% more with Tirpitz. Still no wins.

 

 

When winning or losing depends so much on random team it is horrible idea to restrict missions on winning.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×