Ranked matchmaking is awful

[Kiagy]

Never seen MM so bad at T10 ranked

 

2 radar v 0

2 smolensk v none

Ragnar and smaland v 2 Shima's

 

its just totally unbalanced so often

[ColonelPete]

The ships are not the problem, it is the players.

[SodaBubbles]

at minimum, radar should be balanced. I put together over 1000 games of stats and tracked radar ships per team a couple of years ago. Stats showed that when the number of radars is low, the team with at least a +1 advantage in radar has a 60% chance of winning.

 

WG knows this of course, so this is just another one of their lazy middle fingers to the player base. 

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

8 minutes ago, SodaBubbles said:

I put together over 1000 games of stats and tracked radar ships per team

ColonelPeteetePlenoloC

[SodaBubbles]

6 minutes ago, Europizza said:

ColonelPeteetePlenoloC

I tracked all sorts of stuff, including number of radar, ranked level (under the old system) and number of divisions, etc. among many other things. 

[Bainsmit_steel]

Although Ranked do have one advantage over random there are no unicum divisions in game...in random when one team has them and one do not 70% team withouth unicum division loose...in ranked at least you are on your own most of the time...unless there are clan sniping but that is much harder to pull...

[Kiagy]

4 minutes ago, SodaBubbles said:

I tracked all sorts of stuff, including number of radar, ranked level (under the old system) and number of divisions, etc. among many other things. 

and "Colonel (weegee) Pete" reckons it all down to the players, its definitely not just down to the players

[anonym_cwVecOS6ecVy]

28 minutes ago, SodaBubbles said:

WG knows this of course, so this is just another one of their lazy middle fingers to the player base.

They profit from one-sided steamroll games. Faster games, faster ingame resources spent. More battles played. The game is qctively developed into this direction. Same with WoT. WG does not want tactical full-length games. Those are stressful and too unappealing for the casual click and boom audience WG caters to.

[ColonelPete]

3 minutes ago, Kiagy said:

and "Colonel (weegee) Pete" reckons it all down to the players, its definitely not just down to the players

Then I wonder how my team and I managed to win a battle with 0 vs 3 radars a couple of days ago...

[Kiagy]

4 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Then I wonder how my team and I managed to win a battle with 0 vs 3 radars a couple of days ago...

Then you woke up

[ColonelPete]

3 minutes ago, Kiagy said:

Then you woke up

Not everyone has your problems with ship setups.

 

I even had a similar guy like you on my team, who started to whine about radar at the start of the match, which made me fear the worst, as this defeatist attitude is worse than any ship setup.

Luckily our enemies were more incompetent than that and gave us a rather easy win.

[webaake]

16 minutes ago, Von_Pruss said:

They profit from one-sided steamroll games. Faster games, faster ingame resources spent. More battles played. The game is qctively developed into this direction. Same with WoT. WG does not want tactical full-length games. Those are stressful and too unappealing for the casual click and boom audience WG caters to.

Same in co-op - faster games, not even  time to cap! I believe that a high turnover on the servers somehow gives more profit for WG - sort of "less server time use per player/gameplay". And more resources spent over a given time period. WG's real reasoning for this would be very interesting to know. Are they going full out for arcade type game? 

[ColonelPete]

2 minutes ago, webaake said:

Same in co-op - faster games, not even  time to cap! I believe that a high turnover on the servers somehow gives more profit for WG - sort of "less server time use per player/gameplay". And more resources spent over a given time period. WG's real reasoning for this would be very interesting to know. Are they going full out for arcade type game? 

That is not it, otherwise WG would not have shortened the time needed to get to Tier X so dramaticly by reducing upkeep and XP costs and flooding us with camos and signals.

 

[webaake]

Quote

reducing upkeep

That's not true. If it was true players should never go minus on the credits, which you do. More so on T9-10.

 

So what is WG's reasoning then?

[ColonelPete]

16 hours ago, webaake said:

That's not true. If it was true players should never go minus on the credits, which you do. More so on T9-10.

 

So what is WG's reasoning then?

But the upkeep was reduced. Additionally everyone gets premium consumables for free now. That is 50k+ credits less to spend each battle.

Spoiler

https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/general-news/update-notes-0512/

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/97516-0512-downtime-and-notes/?tab=comments#comment-2396292

 

[Shaka_D]

1 hour ago, ColonelPete said:

Then I wonder how my team and I managed to win a battle with 0 vs 3 radars a couple of days ago...

Because you had the 3 radars on your team? You didn't elaborate , and purely subjective. Got the replay?

[arttuperkunas]

4 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

Then I wonder how my team and I managed to win a battle with 0 vs 3 radars a couple of days ago...

Because that’s an anecdote and not data?

 

I notice you pivot between spreadsheet stats and personal anecdotes entirely depending on what helps you “win”. One of the reasons why debating with you can be frustrating.

[ColonelPete]

2 minutes ago, arttuperkunas said:

Because that’s an anecdote and not data?

 

I notice you pivot between spreadsheet stats and personal anecdotes entirely depending on what helps you “win”. One of the reasons why debating with you can be frustrating.

Nobody has data about that, except WG....

[arttuperkunas]

4 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Nobody has data about that, except WG....

The guy above just told you he collected that data. 

[ColonelPete]

9 minutes ago, arttuperkunas said:

The guy above just told you he collected that data. 

And we still cannot see the data or know how he collected it...

[gabberworld]

5 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

The ships are not the problem, it is the players.

yes its the players fault that they not have smolensk or ragnar

[ColonelPete]

2 minutes ago, gabberworld said:

yes its the players fault that they not have smolensk or ragnar

I do not have a Smolensk and have no problem with her.

 

While having more Smolensk on your team than the enemy is less of an indicator now,  that your team will lose, than in the past, she is in the minority of battles advantagous to your team.

[SodaBubbles]

2 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

And we still cannot see the data or know how he collected it...

Hang on. Here is the data for the first 20 games of a 336 game set, so you can see it. I didn't start collecting radar until game 14. Radar GvR - radar green vs red. I stopped this dataset after 336 games since there was a major patch.
I hand collected it at the beginning and end of matches.

 

	Ship	OwnTier	Highest Tier Present	Tier diff	tier spread	Duration	Duration (s)	w/l	CV status	DDs GvR	total	Divved?	radar gvr	Divs GvR	1-5 Ranks GvR
1	Fletcher	9	10	-1	na	19:56	1194	L	0	2v2	4	N	na	na	na
2	Mizzou	9	10	-1	na	18:18	1098	W	0	2v2	4	N	na	na	na
3	Akatsuki	7	9	-2	na	19:33	1167	L	0	3v4	7	Y	na	na	na
4	Atlanta	7	9	-2	na	13:45	825	W	0	4v4	8	Y	na	na	na
5	Montana	10	10	0	na	17:03	1023	W	0	3v2	5	Y	na	na	na
6	Udaloi	9	10	-1	na	15:07	907	W	0	4v4	8	Y	na	na	na
7	Atlanta	7	7	0	na	20:00	1200	W	0	5v4	9	Y	na	na	na
8	Fuso	6	6	0	na	7:56	476	W	0	4v4	8	Y	na	na	na
9	Atlanta	7	7	0	na	16:12	972	W	0	5v5	10	Y	na	na	na
10	Fuso	6	6	-1	na	20:00	1200	W	0	5v5	10	Y	na	na	na
1	Montana	10	10	0	na	15:49	949	W	0	5v5	10	Y	na	na	na
2	Konig	5	7	-2	na	10:07	607	W	0	3v4	7	N	na	na	na
3	Fletcher	9	9	0	na	12:18	738	W	0	4v5	9	N	na	na	na
4	Fletcher	9	10	-1	na	13:28	808	L	0	3v2	5	Y	3v3	na	na
5	Fletcher	9	10	-1	na	15:00	900	L	0	4v5	9	N	3v1	na	na
6	Kutuzov	8	9	-1	na	18:18	1098	W	3	2v2	4	N	2v1	na	na
7	DoY	7	8	-1	na	10:13	613	W	0	5v5	10	Y	0v0	1v0	1v0
8	Yugumo	9	9	0	na	18:14	1094	L	0	3v3	6	Y	1v2	1v2	1v0
9	Yugumo	9	10	-1	na	20:00	1200	L	0	3v2	5	Y	1v2	1v2	1v1
20	Fletcher	9	10	-1	na	20:00	1200	W	1	4v3	7	Y	1v2	1v0	0v3

[anonym_cwVecOS6ecVy]

9 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

That is not it, otherwise WG would not have shortened the time needed to get to Tier X so dramaticly by reducing upkeep and XP costs and flooding us with camos and signals.

This is a reasonable argument, but then again when reaching tier X there are many other must have ships and lines, premiums and resource ships to obtain. The greed or hook of addiction does not stop when having one tier X ship that was easy to obtain. This is why we are getting flooded with several events at once etc. It is not only about resources, that is true, but I bet the newer, more casual traffic cohorts also from tier 2 and 3 countries show better conversion and retention rates with more dynamic battle durations. If the grind would be too long for the casual audience, players dropped out much sooner. The task of finding the sweetspot of ingame economy is basically the holy grail of game development and might take several years of adjusting (e.g. Commander Rework) to meet the set KPI goals and to prepare the ground for different further monetization approaches. The grind to tier X might be shorter, but there are many other long term goals (Coal commanders, RB, coal and steel ships). WoT was being developed into a similar direction with the addition of wheeled tanks, which in almost every game spot the entire enemy team in the first ~5 seconds and then often simply suicide. Similar to suicide DDs, glass cannons and light HE spammers in WoWs and CVs on top of that. So apart from the development part of the game, the bad player quality additionally pushes shortness of battle durations. And by saying that I do not mean there are no lomg games anymore, but more shorter and early-on decided battles than probably ever before.

[lup3s]

12 hours ago, Von_Pruss said:

They profit from one-sided steamroll games. Faster games, faster ingame resources spent. More battles played. The game is qctively developed into this direction. Same with WoT. WG does not want tactical full-length games. Those are stressful and too unappealing for the casual click and boom audience WG caters to.

 

11 hours ago, webaake said:

Same in co-op - faster games, not even  time to cap! I believe that a high turnover on the servers somehow gives more profit for WG - sort of "less server time use per player/gameplay". And more resources spent over a given time period. WG's real reasoning for this would be very interesting to know. Are they going full out for arcade type game? 

 

(advocate of the devil here and slightly off-topic)

 

If shorter games are more profitable for WG, then why are they adding a class (Submarines) that excels at prolonging the battle duration ?

 

It's not that other classes cannot prolong battle duration, CVs do so often too, but at least those can be spotted and shot at.

 

One of the major complaints about Submarines I hear and read, especially in Coop, is the wasted (and boring) time at the end of the battle; either having to wait for the Submarine to surface, or the points counter to hit 1000. Without an allied Submarine it's nigh impossible to locate an enemy one at maximum depth.

 

--

I can believe that shorter games are more profitable, I just don't understand (yet) how Subs fit into this.