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

A plea to WG

49 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[S-O-M]
Players
657 posts

I know it's a complete waste of time but I gotta try;

 

WG PLEASE do something about the skill level within the game, I know it doesn't make money but the noobs, those with an IQ equivalent of pond life and those that just don't care, and yet play :cap_viking:, are killing the game.

 

I'm loving my new BB; the North Carolina but team mates are literally sapping the will out of playing, I normally aim for the top daily xp container, but now just go to the 2nd one.

 

I just played 4 games, all loses

 

1st Game  T10  I finished top with the only red kill in the team.

2nd Game T8 I sank a Green DD:Smile_teethhappy:.    Nuff said :Smile-_tongue:.

3rd Game T8 finished top and only 1 of 3 to get a kill

4th Game T10 finished 4th with 2 kills.

 

I was sunk once while trying to defend a cap whilst rest of team ran/dissolved. 

 

The 4th Game sums up what prompted this; on Ocean we're doing well, however on my flank a troublesome and very well played somers was causing havoc sinking 3 BB's swinging the game, mean while GZ  is off attacking a Bourgy at the furthest cap (we held A & B) , which we weren't anywhere near.     Had CV boy done his job and at least spotted the DD it would have been a victory, and yet he was RANKED, what's that say about the skill level of Ranked players ?.

 

So Schools maybe back, but the potatoes still play :Smile_sad:

  • Cool 6
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 3
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DAVY]
Players
2,805 posts
13,896 battles

says the guy with hidden stats...

  • Cool 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MUMMY]
Players
452 posts
9,653 battles
12 minutes ago, Salentine said:

says the guy with hidden stats...

I just found that out too. 

Probably another member of the "its everyone else but ME" crew.

  • Cool 4
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
5,632 posts
13,918 battles
1 hour ago, MadBadDave said:

I just played 4 games, all losses

Unhide your stats and people will know how much weight to give your view and/or offer advice...

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BHSFL]
Players
3,690 posts
13,593 battles

Why do so many players assume when enemies get more skilled, it is good for their own WR ??? :Smile_facepalm:

 

As ofcourse not only teammates would be more intelligently playing, but the enemy ones would also.......resulting in 0 difference in WR. :Smile_facepalm:

 

Or even more likely : if the enemy actually gets relatively more skilled compared to the complainers unchanged skill, ofcourse a MINUS in the players WR development. :Smile_facepalm:

 

 

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,003 posts
15,910 battles
3 hours ago, MadBadDave said:

WG PLEASE do something about the skill level within the game

They did, they lowered the plank so much that even an ameba with half a braincell can play hightier and make credits/xp not falling short for repair costs. Back in the day that area was 'cleaner' due to the fact they couldnt make enough to aford it.

In addition, these newbies want all and everithing on a silver plate handed to them without lifting a finger and expect others to do everything.

3 hours ago, MadBadDave said:

I'm loving my new BB; the North Carolina but team mates are literally sapping the will out of playing

Do the same, forget you have a team at all, play for yourself and care for noone just like them, stats dont matter in this game they afect nothing, if you play for stats you will be dissapointed just like now.

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LEEUW]
Players
2,356 posts
10,110 battles
3 hours ago, Beastofwar said:

Why do so many players assume when enemies get more skilled, it is good for their own WR ???

Enemies and teammates alike. 

 

Because for a player to have influence on the battle outcome, he needs time. For a battle to be long, the teams have to die at almost the same rate. Quick battles are almost always caused by really bad players dying in the opening stages of the game, setting off a chain reaction. If you remove these players from randoms, the games will last longer on average, giving more time for good players to have an impact. 

Otherwise it's just a luck of the draw who's potatoes die the quickest. 

  • Cool 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BBMM]
Players
6,025 posts
7,734 battles
23 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Enemies and teammates alike. 

 

Because for a player to have influence on the battle outcome, he needs time. For a battle to be long, the teams have to die at almost the same rate. Quick battles are almost always caused by really bad players dying in the opening stages of the game, setting off a chain reaction. If you remove these players from randoms, the games will last longer on average, giving more time for good players to have an impact. 

Otherwise it's just a luck of the draw who's potatoes die the quickest. 

Yes. That is the correct explanation of what is happening. 

It is also why I tend to take out CVs and Smolensk and other sneaky stuff. 

At least you can farm some damage/XP, WR is completely useless. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Quality Poster
4,456 posts
15,759 battles

Hi all,

 

29 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Because for a player to have influence on the battle outcome, he needs time. For a battle to be long, the teams have to die at almost the same rate. Quick battles are almost always caused by really bad players dying in the opening stages of the game, setting off a chain reaction. If you remove these players from randoms, the games will last longer on average, giving more time for good players to have an impact. 

 

Otherwise it's just a luck of the draw who's potatoes die the quickest. 

 

Exactly... and you are simply at the mercy of RNGesus and pray/hope that your potatoes are at least a tiny bit better than the enemy potatoes... :Smile_izmena:

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,878 posts
19,266 battles

I give up. I asked for help from a BB and tier X radar cruiser that were at 5 km from me while I was fighting a french cruiser at 9 km that was chasing me for 3 minutes, and NO ONE  SHOT AT IT. This game and it's playersbase is beyond repair.

 

shot-20_09.02_00_23.50-0008.thumb.jpg.6acdd33625964be29b4056e6574c2b36.jpg

Inkedshot-20_09.02_00_23.57-0907_LI.thumb.jpg.3c8ba9b827465e051ec0c566ff59ffdf.jpg

 

Inkedshot-20_09.02_00_24.04-0370_LI.thumb.jpg.4f3f95e1fd535fa276b0bdb0c0ec1b01.jpg

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[I-J-N]
Players
4,783 posts
38 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Enemies and teammates alike. 

 

Because for a player to have influence on the battle outcome, he needs time. For a battle to be long, the teams have to die at almost the same rate. Quick battles are almost always caused by really bad players dying in the opening stages of the game, setting off a chain reaction. If you remove these players from randoms, the games will last longer on average, giving more time for good players to have an impact. 

Otherwise it's just a luck of the draw who's potatoes die the quickest. 

 

Yes, also a good team will keep a cool head. I was actually surprised by this on mid tiers today, fully expecting our team to lose when we suddenly still fairly early in the battle lost all our three DD's almost simultaneously. The enemy had full team with a full three DD advantage over us... normally meaning Game Over. Only this time it didn't. Our team prevailed.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,723 posts
12,001 battles
1 hour ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Enemies and teammates alike. 

 

Because for a player to have influence on the battle outcome, he needs time. For a battle to be long, the teams have to die at almost the same rate. Quick battles are almost always caused by really bad players dying in the opening stages of the game, setting off a chain reaction. If you remove these players from randoms, the games will last longer on average, giving more time for good players to have an impact. 

Otherwise it's just a luck of the draw who's potatoes die the quickest. 

And yet almost everyone finds themselves with lower winrate the closer they get to ranking out in a Ranked season. An absolute mystery. Perhaps the closer you are to Rank 1 the worse the players there? That's the only explanation!

 

More seriously though. Your claim that quick battles require people to start dying early is, obviously true. It is, however, not relevant to the issue. Because, you see, while you're not wrong that a good player needs time to influence the battle, he needs less of it if the enemy is bad (or at least bad in the aggressive way, not in the "camp in spawn until timer runs out" way). In environment full of potatoes the good player can use bad allies as meatshields and punish bad enemies for mistakes that wouldn't be made by better payers, nor properly punished by the aforementioned potato allies. What's more, it's up to the good players to keep a momentum of the "chain reaction" and capitalize on the newfound advantage. With better players on both sides the good player usually needs much more time to have an impact - and that's assuming that he's still a "good player" rather than "average player" (since the overall level is now increased).

 

It's possible that there are legit good players that don't perform all that well in potato-rich environments, but that's not the issue of the environment making it hard to do so and more a combination of two factors:

a) the player has a significant weakness in his skillset when it comes to using bad allies and punishing bad opponents - basically, he assumes that he will be properly supported and can't deal with it when it doesn't happen and/or isn't very capable at dealing with enemy potatoes, so his contribution against them isn't any better than against much better opponents

b) he picks ships that aren't very good for the job - some ships lack versatility and if the match starts unfolding in a way that doesn't give them much place to shine, they may struggle with actually contributing - they may be relatively skilled and have the situational awareness to help, but they lack the tools to do so

 

Overall, however, the more potatoes around, the easier it is to play, and to win (unless the potatoes are mostly in your team, of course). The matches may sometimes be faster (not always, it's also the bad payers that can lead to the worst campfests) and the defeats can be more frustrating (because the worse the average player, the higher the chances that the deciding moments of the game will be shows of immense stupidity). Let me make it clear: I'm not necessarily a fan of potato-rich games. They can be really, really frustrating. But they are still easier to carry, not harder - as long as you can keep your focus and adjust to the situation properly.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CAIN]
Players
4,497 posts
18,963 battles

Asking WG to fix things that need fixing badly, i.e. CVs, balance in general,  events, OPs, has yielded nothing but poor exuses and questionable replies. 

 

I understand the frustration of having people on your team that have the attention span of a gold fish.

 

But asking them to fix their cashcows...i mean players...hm...and somewhere in WGs headquarters, somebody is laughing his *** off.

 

Or would laugh his *** off, if someone over there would actually bother to visit these forums once or twice a year.

 

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,095 posts
13,473 battles

I have only one rhetorical question: If players were smarter who would have bought all those lootboxes? 

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LUZ1]
Players
680 posts
11,640 battles
7 hours ago, Europizza said:

I give up. I asked for help from a BB and tier X radar cruiser that were at 5 km from me while I was fighting a french cruiser at 9 km that was chasing me for 3 minutes, and NO ONE  SHOT AT IT. This game and it's playersbase is beyond repair.

 

shot-20_09.02_00_23.50-0008.thumb.jpg.6acdd33625964be29b4056e6574c2b36.jpg

Inkedshot-20_09.02_00_23.57-0907_LI.thumb.jpg.3c8ba9b827465e051ec0c566ff59ffdf.jpg

 

Inkedshot-20_09.02_00_24.04-0370_LI.thumb.jpg.4f3f95e1fd535fa276b0bdb0c0ec1b01.jpg

Git gud :cap_haloween:

Seriously, it just happens sometimes. Have a beer, curse the patatoes and get on with it. :Smile_playing:

  • Funny 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,878 posts
19,266 battles
32 minutes ago, Camperdown said:

Git gud :cap_haloween:

Seriously, it just happens sometimes. Have a beer, curse the patatoes and get on with it. :Smile_playing:

I went to bed instead, sleeping it off :cap_like:

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[I-J-N]
Players
4,783 posts
10 hours ago, eliastion said:

And yet almost everyone finds themselves with lower winrate the closer they get to ranking out in a Ranked season. An absolute mystery. Perhaps the closer you are to Rank 1 the worse the players there? That's the only explanation!

 

 

 

I'd rather tend to think it's more the case of the margin of error becoming extremely narrow.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SWAMP]
Players
364 posts
2,684 battles
12 hours ago, eliastion said:

The matches may sometimes be faster (not always, it's also the bad payers that can lead to the worst campfests) and the defeats can be more frustrating (because the worse the average player, the higher the chances that the deciding moments of the game will be shows of immense stupidity).

Those are in my experience often different things.
The worst potatoes (sub 45%) usually get themselves killed very early by rushing head in towards a bad situation, guns blazing while they act out their Rambo-fetish.
The campers however are usually much less bad to have (but still bad, of course), as they have at least picked up on the fact that doing so gets you killed, and therefore camp like mad at extreme ranges.

(I'm of course not saying that the border-humping GK firing at other BBs 19 kms away is good by any means, but at least he has some minor influence on the battle, if nothing else but to somewhat discourage a push)
I'd argue the first is a lot more detrimental to a team on average (unless the unicums in the team capitalize on a potato player-push and uses him like a damage sponge to either push or disengage at a critical moment, but those moments are as rare) compared to the backline camper.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,385 posts
15,552 battles
18 hours ago, Verblonde said:

Unhide your stats and people will know how much weight to give your view and/or offer advice...

Please... Hardly anyone gives sinking donger one way or the other... :Smile_trollface:

  • Funny 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
5,632 posts
13,918 battles
24 minutes ago, Skyllon said:

Please... Hardly anyone gives sinking donger one way or the other... :Smile_trollface:

 

Probably, but it would be vaguely useful to know whether to take the OP even remotely seriously or not.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[I-J-N]
Players
4,783 posts
13 minutes ago, PeteEarthling said:

If we only had this feature in this game... :Smile_trollface:

Untitled.png

 

Sooo... what happens if I were to shoot at any of the red barrels? I'm curious. :Smile_Default:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RODS]
Players
1,295 posts
7,270 battles
19 hours ago, Beastofwar said:

Why do so many players assume when enemies get more skilled, it is good for their own WR ??? :Smile_facepalm:

 

As ofcourse not only teammates would be more intelligently playing, but the enemy ones would also.......resulting in 0 difference in WR. :Smile_facepalm:

 

Or even more likely : if the enemy actually gets relatively more skilled compared to the complainers unchanged skill, ofcourse a MINUS in the players WR development. :Smile_facepalm:

 

 

 

21 hours ago, MadBadDave said:

I know it's a complete waste of time but I gotta try;

 

WG PLEASE do something about the skill level within the game, I know it doesn't make money but the noobs, those with an IQ equivalent of pond life and those that just don't care, and yet play :cap_viking:, are killing the game.

 

I'm loving my new BB; the North Carolina but team mates are literally sapping the will out of playing, I normally aim for the top daily xp container, but now just go to the 2nd one.

 

I just played 4 games, all loses

 

1st Game  T10  I finished top with the only red kill in the team.

2nd Game T8 I sank a Green DD:Smile_teethhappy:.    Nuff said :Smile-_tongue:.

3rd Game T8 finished top and only 1 of 3 to get a kill

4th Game T10 finished 4th with 2 kills.

 

I was sunk once while trying to defend a cap whilst rest of team ran/dissolved. 

 

The 4th Game sums up what prompted this; on Ocean we're doing well, however on my flank a troublesome and very well played somers was causing havoc sinking 3 BB's swinging the game, mean while GZ  is off attacking a Bourgy at the furthest cap (we held A & B) , which we weren't anywhere near.     Had CV boy done his job and at least spotted the DD it would have been a victory, and yet he was RANKED, what's that say about the skill level of Ranked players ?.

 

So Schools maybe back, but the potatoes still play :Smile_sad:

 

Would be good if MM took into account the "skill" of players in red/green team this would result in better games,  

No matter what team you are in roflstomps  aint much fun

I care more about having good battles than I care about winrate

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


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

×