Should DD players at least get spread evenly between teams according to their DD stats?

[HMS_Kilinowski]

1 hour ago, Sir_Sinksalot said:

So just because DD players might be better or worse and balanced between teams accordingly, this is only a small peace of a very large puzzle. But by balancing DD players I would hope this translates into less complete shhht-shows we often encounter purely because one team has better, and perhaps only slightly better DD players on one team and I think most players are experienced enough to tell the difference between bad DD plays and bad teammate support... like when we see weakish high camo torpedo boat pick a gunfight at the very start with a low camo brawler DD with way better guns and hp he can never hope to outgun. Or the DD player that choses to spend the entire battle shooting from behind his teams cruisers instead of spotting since his team is getting farmed to death by the enemy team who's DD player IS spotting. A DD player that spots a radar cruiser but doesn't know its a radar cruiser and sits in the cap, soon dead unsurprisingly... and so on.

 

All the possible variation doesn't apply over time. The empirical law of large numbers applies. Winrates in skill-based converge towards 50%. A DD has no incentive to improve, since his performance would be contiuously matched against an equally skilled opponent.

I'm not against it for myself. All I'm saying is if I meet a harder challenge than other classes or than before, every bit of damage and capping and spotting must be rewarded way higher than with totally randomized MM. Also, as I said, that would work for me, not for the yeoman DD who just wants to see action and explosion. Winrate is the key measure of success in the game. Anylimitation of that would need to come up with another stat, some sort of handicap or something indicating quality of play.

[SolanumTuberosumRex]

8 hours ago, Captn_Crap said:

You don't seem to understand that my response showed what "equal" matchmaking would result in: good players will be punished with bad players in their team and bad players rewarded with good players regardless of class.

 

Example: You're are a 60% player in a 5vs5 game. The other players in the player pool have all 50% WR except one player with 40%. In the current random matchmaking the 40% could be either on your team or on the enemy team. If the MM would force "equal" teams the 40% player would always be on your team to compensate for your strength. Skill wouldn't matter anymore as the matchmaker would make sure that you would always win around 50% of the games.

That is a statistically nonsensical example. Random matches should be like the teamgames from high school, where Teamleader A gets to pick a player, and then B gets to pick one, until the sad two losers at the end remain. That way, the teams will be roughly equal, and your opposite number will be roughly of your skill level. Of course there are a lot of other variables, but there are thousands of players to choose from. I used to code algorithms almost exclusively, and I'm pretty sure I could do a better job than what we're seeing here.

[SolanumTuberosumRex]

1 hour ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

 

All the possible variation doesn't apply over time. The empirical law of large numbers applies. Winrates in skill-based converge towards 50%. A DD has no incentive to improve, since his performance would be contiuously matched against an equally skilled opponent.

No incentive to improve? Anyone playing this game wants to improve, the obvious [edited] excepted. Any action you take in game which you realize could have been better will serve as a lesson. That's just how it works. And being pitted against someone roughly of your own level is in fact the best way to learn, and the most fun. Because a total potate you can just step on, and a super you have no chance against.

[That_Other_Nid]

DD players have a more critical role and a higher skill from than BBs. As such they are rarer. Their effectiveness is also based on criteria people who play other classes exclusively don't understand. 

 

If you want your DDs to be more effective, kill the opposing radar ships and shoot into fights between your DDs and enemy DDs with everything you have. 

 

DDs have a limited health pool and really need to prioritise survival over your ability to shoot at that BB 24 km away. 

[COPlUM]

19 hours ago, Panocek said:

You can have quality "DD main" but the moment he brings out Tashkent, odds aren't going to be stacked in your favor 

DD main is hard work, sometimes we need a break and we play like US server DD mains :

- Cruisers risk their lives capping, get in that cap, hindenburg.
- Battleships spot by tanking a million damage with their face, go spot, slava.
- We speedboost around in the back farming.

[The_Chiv]

On 5/11/2022 at 11:00 AM, Sir_Sinksalot said:

Hi guys.

 

Not sure what you guys think about this and I'm certainly not the most experienced and certainly not the best player in this game BUT, what seems to be very obvious in random battles and in fact just about any PvP mode is that whatever team loses their DD's first or alternatively have DD's that do f all for the entire battle ends up being the losing team.

 

Edit- TLDR - balance DD players evenly between both teams based on their ability with DD's. This is not a request for all players in a battle to be balance like this or any other class, but at least a highly important role such as DD's. 

 

So basically a battle can visually be seen to be decided very early on as one team has 3 DD's healthy and alive while the other team has zero, died almost as soon as they were spotted after hard charging into a cap or idiotically started a gun fight close to several enemy cruisers. This is one of those situations where having CV's in the battle is actually beneficial since they can fill the spotting role albeit in a more periodically limited offering before their aircraft eventually get shot down by drifting too close to high camo ships they otherwise wouldn't be able to spot OR the enemy CV deploys some fighters to chop them down.

 

Anyway, while there's a great argument to be made for teams to have ALL players balanced somewhat evenly between them based on their stats with the particular class of ship they are currently playing in that battle, I feel the consequences of having very imbalanced player skills with DD's between teams is just detrimental. By contrast, sure, a good and bad cruiser or BB player will start translating into a telling difference across the course of a long battle but not almost immediately as is the case when a team losing all their DD players almost instantly.

DD's are probably the most diverse class in this game. The only real way you could implement something like that is based on the PR rating a person has in a ship, problem with this is it creates huge problems in terms of matchmaking. In short a system like you are proposing would lead to 10 minute plus que times for all players.

 

You are correct however that the team who loses their dd's early on tends to lose. They enemy can not shoot what they can not see. 

 

People tend to blame dd's for most issues, lord knows I do . The problem however is people tend to have these stupid generalizations of how some one else should play their ship. Today I had a match while I was in the F. Sherman. A Des Moines on my team was trying to max range HE spam at targets and was generally not in a good position to support me or anyone else who tried to push the cap. He was far enough away that his radar would have been useless. So rather then suiciding and trying to fight for the cap I used terrain and the high arc of travel of USN dd guns to shoot over terrain and help my team obliterate 2 cruisers and a bb that had great angles on the cap. I later took the cap  and another while killing a bb and a Shimakaze and taking 50% off a Tashkent. After the match the Des Moines player messaged me and unloaded like a 6 year old throwing a tantrum. Didn't matter that we won, or the fact that I had a 2k bxp game with 2 kills and 2 caps, including a dd kill. Didn't matter I provide a nice smoke bank for our German BBs who actually did push up to support my grabbing of the cap, no what mattered was I was not spotting enough for him and he was entitled to sit behind BB's not supporting the front dds. I debated editing his name and profanity out of his message, but shame posting is not allowed so...

 

At the end of the day MR tantrum was unhappy because he expected me to play how he wanted. Even though we won, and I had the highest score, it didn't matter.  That attitude right there is the same one you are putting forth with this suggestion.  

 

TLDR; people will play their ships the way they want to. Trying to enforce some framework limitations would cause more headaches rather then providing anything positive. 

[That_Other_Nid]

1 hour ago, The_Chiv said:

DD's are probably the most diverse class in this game. The only real way you could implement something like that is based on the PR rating a person has in a ship, problem with this is it creates huge problems in terms of matchmaking. In short a system like you are proposing would lead to 10 minute plus que times for all players.

 

You are correct however that the team who loses their dd's early on tends to lose. They enemy can not shoot what they can not see. 

 

People tend to blame dd's for most issues, lord knows I do . The problem however is people tend to have these stupid generalizations of how some one else should play their ship.

 

Yeah, it is the way with DDs, Sure I have bad days but they mostly involve trying to cap too early. Playing a drawn out game where I can spot and avoid radar cruisers till the other side is thinned out, and I know where all their DDs are, takes a while. 

[The_Chiv]

1 hour ago, That_Other_Nid said:

 

Yeah, it is the way with DDs, Sure I have bad days but they mostly involve trying to cap too early. Playing a drawn out game where I can spot and avoid radar cruisers till the other side is thinned out, and I know where all their DDs are, takes a while. 

Everyone has bad days, everyone makes a mistake. What is rather annoying however is when people try to apply a out dated generalize overview of a class on to a specialize ship that does none of things outlined in said generalization very well. I use to get really mad when playing BB's and CA's wondering why our DDs were failing to do things we needed to win, then I started playing those dd's. The phrase "Oh, that's why" was a pretty common statement. Another statement that also got stuck in my head "There are many bold DD's and many good DD's but there are very few bold good DD's. In the end I realize that each DD line is its own unique creature. While some are similar in concept, the devil is in the details in terms of using them effectively. What works for someone like FLAMU will not work for everyone. I think the biggest issue is that this game is so damn Damage centric in terms of performance metrics. That may work well for BB's and CA's but DD's have to do so much more to ensure victory and those things while massively important are hardly recognized in the after action screen.

[GarrusBrutus]

9 hours ago, PsychoClownfish said:

Anyone playing this game wants to improve, the obvious [edited] excepted.

only a very small % wants to improve. An even smaller % can actually improve. The rest just.... Doesn't care. 

 

9 hours ago, PsychoClownfish said:

That is a statistically nonsensical example. 

It isn't. It's a simplified example. But one that highlights the core issue of SBMM: it punishes good players with worse teammates and/or better opponents. Which doesn't sound bad in terms of game balance, but it is bad in terms of motivation. See it as "the better you are at your job, the less work your coworkers will do because apparently you can do it all on your own." Does that motivate any sane person to try and improve? No. 

[Johnny_Moneto]

Am 12.5.2022 um 14:53, Panocek sagte:

Again, WG will NOT introduce any form of "skill based" into main game mode being all about being RANDOM

How do you know? Because WG said so? Like with the subs, max caliber size, not selling T9 or T10 premiums?

They will change it when they think that the results will outweigh the effort (in terms of money).

[SolanumTuberosumRex]

7 hours ago, GarrusBrutus said:

only a very small % wants to improve. An even smaller % can actually improve. The rest just.... Doesn't care. 

You say that. It's a bald assertion AFAIC. I can't even conceive of a player who has zero interest in getting better at something he enjoys doing and even pays money for. It makes no sense. It's a self-defeating argument.

7 hours ago, GarrusBrutus said:

It isn't. It's a simplified example. But one that highlights the core issue of SBMM: it punishes good players with worse teammates and/or better opponents. Which doesn't sound bad in terms of game balance, but it is bad in terms of motivation. See it as "the better you are at your job, the less work your coworkers will do because apparently you can do it all on your own." Does that motivate any sane person to try and improve? No. 

The punishment argument doesn't work because you're in a team with 11 others, and the object of the game is to defeat the opposing team. You want to win, which first of all makes you want to improve - see above - and second makes it irrelevant what potatoes are on your team because it's just the hand you got dealt. Your argument is like saying "There's no point lifting weights because the stronger I get, the more I have to lift." Yes, that IS the point, YOU ARE NOW ABLE TO LIFT MORE. Or in WoWs terms, CARRY more. If anything, having weaker members on your team is an incentive to be better, not worse.

[GarrusBrutus]

33 minutes ago, PsychoClownfish said:

You say that. It's a bald assertion AFAIC. I can't even conceive of a player who has zero interest in getting better at something he enjoys doing and even pays money for. It makes no sense. It's a self-defeating argument.

Are you new to this game then? Haven't you met hundreds if not thousands of players who are still as bad after thousands and thousands of games than they were when they just started? Still making the same stupid mistakes like smoking up when radared, sitting broadside inside their smokescreen, etc. Etc. I wouldn't call it a bald assumption. Besides, you assume players play this game to win and to get better. Are you sure that that is every players goal? A lot of them.... And I mean A  L O T of them just play this game to chill and see pixel boats do boom boom. They don't give a **** about performance, balance, or winrate. Does it make sense? To us no, but who are we to judge them? 

 

37 minutes ago, PsychoClownfish said:

The punishment argument doesn't work because you're in a team with 11 others, and the object of the game is to defeat the opposing team.

So when I get better it becomes harder to win and when I get worse it becomes easier to win. If that isn't punishing than I don't know what else there is to discuss with you. 

 

39 minutes ago, PsychoClownfish said:

Your argument is like saying "There's no point lifting weights because the stronger I get, the more I have to lift."

That is a wrong anology. In wows you play in a team and you get rewarded as a team. Punishing good players with overall worse teammates makes them earn less xp than they do now. Which incentives players to not improve. 

 

41 minutes ago, PsychoClownfish said:

If anything, having weaker members on your team is an incentive to be better, not worse.

If only that would be the case. I suggest you take a look in the 1000 pages long mm complain thread and youll see it is filled with players complaining that their team is 1% worse and they're not winning because of that blablabla. Then tell me how it motivates them to "try harder". Spoiler: it does not. 

[SolanumTuberosumRex]

1 minute ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Are you new to this game then? Haven't you met hundreds if not thousands of players who are still as bad after thousands and thousands of games than they were when they just started? Still making the same stupid mistakes like smoking up when radared, sitting broadside inside their smokescreen, etc. Etc. I wouldn't call it a bald assumption. Besides, you assume players play this game to win and to get better. Are you sure that that is every players goal? A lot of them.... And I mean A  L O T of them just play this game to chill and see pixel boats do boom boom. They don't give a **** about performance, balance, or winrate. Does it make sense? To us no, but who are we to judge them?

No. I don't know any players who are as 'bad' now as when they began, or who aren't always improving, no matter how slowly. It goes against human nature. I literally don't think it's even possible to do something regularly WITHOUT improving on it.

NO ONE plays a video game and enjoys losing. Or even playing to a draw. People want to compete and win. Your assertion that there are players who just press "Battle" and give ZERO f*cks about the outcome is baseless, illogical and goes against human nature.

1 minute ago, GarrusBrutus said:

So when I get better it becomes harder to win and when I get worse it becomes easier to win. If that isn't punishing than I don't know what else there is to discuss with you. 

How can things get harder when you're getting better at the game? By your metric, if you're 50%, you get a 50% teammeate. So how do things get worse for you if you get a 40% teammate once you are 60%? At worst things stay the same (and I don't stipulate that things work like that at all). The stronger the player the better he is able to carry - and you don't have to take my word for that, Youtube is full of video's of proof of that.

 

1 minute ago, GarrusBrutus said:

That is a wrong anology. In wows you play in a team and you get rewarded as a team. Punishing good players with overall worse teammates makes them earn less xp than they do now. Which incentives players to not improve. 

Bullsh1t. I have no idea what kind of mentality you've got, to me and I'm willing to bet to most players it doesn't matter who's on the team, I'm gonna do the best I can. Even if there is a sub player on, whom I WILL report afterwards.

1 minute ago, GarrusBrutus said:

If only that would be the case. I suggest you take a look in the 1000 pages long mm complain thread and youll see it is filled with players complaining that their team is 1% worse and they're not winning because of that blablabla. Then tell me how it motivates them to "try harder". Spoiler: it does not. 

I complain too, often, sometimes even about potatoes. Never ever stops me from doing the best I can next time around. And I'm sure the same thing goes for you. You CANNOT press the battle button without wanting to win. It's not how humans work.

(Yeah there are exceptions when you're on missions and such, but we're not talking about that now)

[GarrusBrutus]

10 minutes ago, PsychoClownfish said:

I literally don't think it's even possible to do something regularly WITHOUT improving on it.

Okay then. How many more battles before these fine gentlemen start improving? Ten thousand? Hundred thousand? 

https://wows-numbers.com/ranking/?order=battles__desc

11 minutes ago, PsychoClownfish said:

NO ONE plays a video game and enjoys losing.

Have you asked all of them? I find it quite amusing that you think everyone plays this game to win. Just go through some of the recruitment threads if you don't believe me. Lots of people out there who just want to play a few games to chill after work without caring about winning. 

 

13 minutes ago, PsychoClownfish said:

give ZERO f*cks about the outcome is baseless, illogical and goes against human nature.

Maybe open your mind to other possibilities and you'll be amazed. Maybe this comes as a surprise to you but wows is a very casual game mainly played by 40+ year old men. 

15 minutes ago, PsychoClownfish said:

How can things get harder when you're getting better at the game?

That is LITTERALY what skill based matchmaking does. You don't have to tell me how to carry mate. I know. Check my winrate. But if SBMM would be implemented I would get gluesniffers as teammates each and every game to "balance things out". No thank you. 

17 minutes ago, PsychoClownfish said:

Bullsh1t

???????? 

Don't you get +50% bonus when you win? So in 68% of my matches I got a 50% xp bonus. Now, with skill based matchmaking I won't be able to win 68% of my matches anymore, hence I'll earn the +50% less than 68% of the time. Which decreases my xp income, no matter how good I play. I don't know what is so hard to grasp about that given fact. 

20 minutes ago, PsychoClownfish said:

You CANNOT press the battle button without wanting to win. It's not how humans work.

You're wrong. It's not how YOU and I work. Doesn't necessarily mean everyone. Think these guys care about winrate? 

[Mungo1968]

this should apply to equalising radar ships as well, a number of games playing in a DD no radar on one side the other side had 2 at least. 

 

 

[Mungo1968]

58 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Okay then. How many more battles before these fine gentlemen start improving? Ten thousand? Hundred thousand? 

https://wows-numbers.com/ranking/?order=battles__desc

Have you asked all of them? I find it quite amusing that you think everyone plays this game to win. Just go through some of the recruitment threads if you don't believe me. Lots of people out there who just want to play a few games to chill after work without caring about winning. 

 

Maybe open your mind to other possibilities and you'll be amazed. Maybe this comes as a surprise to you but wows is a very casual game mainly played by 40+ year old men. 

That is LITTERALY what skill based matchmaking does. You don't have to tell me how to carry mate. I know. Check my winrate. But if SBMM would be implemented I would get gluesniffers as teammates each and every game to "balance things out". No thank you. 

???????? 

Don't you get +50% bonus when you win? So in 68% of my matches I got a 50% xp bonus. Now, with skill based matchmaking I won't be able to win 68% of my matches anymore, hence I'll earn the +50% less than 68% of the time. Which decreases my xp income, no matter how good I play. I don't know what is so hard to grasp about that given fact. 

You're wrong. It's not how YOU and I work. Doesn't necessarily mean everyone. Think these guys care about winrate? 

No player stats should be available ever to any players not in the same clan -- WOT had to much stat shaming and it carries on in this.. the above proves my point 

[GarrusBrutus]

53 minutes ago, Mungo1968 said:

No player stats should be available ever to any players not in the same clan -- WOT had to much stat shaming and it carries on in this.. the above proves my point 

Did i shame them? I simply used their accounts to proof to another player that not everyone in this game plays solely to improve and/or win. How is that shaming? 

[SV_Kompresor]

57 minutes ago, Mungo1968 said:

No player stats should be available ever to any players not in the same clan -- WOT had to much stat shaming and it carries on in this.. the above proves my point 

Not sure if I'd classify the above post as stat shaming. Not more than I would looking at a server wr distribution graph anyway.

[SolanumTuberosumRex]

2 hours ago, Mungo1968 said:

No player stats should be available ever to any players not in the same clan -- WOT had to much stat shaming and it carries on in this.. the above proves my point 

I don't think he's stat-shaming. If players don't want their stats public they can hide them, like I do. 

[SolanumTuberosumRex]

3 hours ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Okay then. How many more battles before these fine gentlemen start improving? Ten thousand? Hundred thousand? 

https://wows-numbers.com/ranking/?order=battles__desc

Have you asked all of them? I find it quite amusing that you think everyone plays this game to win. Just go through some of the recruitment threads if you don't believe me. Lots of people out there who just want to play a few games to chill after work without caring about winning. 

 

Maybe open your mind to other possibilities and you'll be amazed. Maybe this comes as a surprise to you but wows is a very casual game mainly played by 40+ year old men. 

That is LITTERALY what skill based matchmaking does. You don't have to tell me how to carry mate. I know. Check my winrate. But if SBMM would be implemented I would get gluesniffers as teammates each and every game to "balance things out". No thank you. 

???????? 

Don't you get +50% bonus when you win? So in 68% of my matches I got a 50% xp bonus. Now, with skill based matchmaking I won't be able to win 68% of my matches anymore, hence I'll earn the +50% less than 68% of the time. Which decreases my xp income, no matter how good I play. I don't know what is so hard to grasp about that given fact. 

You're wrong. It's not how YOU and I work. Doesn't necessarily mean everyone. Think these guys care about winrate? 

I am well aware of the statistics. And yeah, there doesn't seem to be much hope for people who've played 60k+ battles and who are still below a 50% wr. Maybe I'm too competitive (althought I don't regard myself that way, but I DO want to get better all the time). 

Maybe you're right. I just can't imagine it: playing a sea battle against an opposing team and not caring if you win or lose.

[RuruushuVuiBuritania]

1 hour ago, PsychoClownfish said:

I am well aware of the statistics. And yeah, there doesn't seem to be much hope for people who've played 60k+ battles and who are still below a 50% wr. Maybe I'm too competitive (althought I don't regard myself that way, but I DO want to get better all the time). 

Maybe you're right. I just can't imagine it: playing a sea battle against an opposing team and not caring if you win or lose.

Imagine the average person. The average person is not a pro at video games. Half of all people are worse than them... It is not hard to imagine.

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

I propose we get away from that "same amount of type" kind of balans but rather use their role to go from. The game already knows the ships stats, so if you have a torp kleber, you count as "spotter", slava would be "long range damage dealer" and anything in between gets percentages for their specific role attached and the game tries to balance that, with the caveat that it tries to create viable teams or maybe even viable 'groups', how often have I wished not to spawn in the mid with Incomparable

Also note that maybe one group is strong on brawlers while the enemy group is strong on snipers, there is basically nothing wrong about that (apart from the fact that too many GKs will fall face first on the W key and slowly lumber to their doom the first few minutes of the game.) That you can learn to cope with, Sherman and Smolensk on the other hand is also manageable when you're capable of dodging - but on average both will sit in smoke and cry for magic "intelligence data".

 

Also modify experience gain by the intended behavior, say, in a shima you get bonus exp for torp hits and spotting, for GK for secondary hits and so on - and tell this to the inexperienced players by the way of splash screen before the battle. That wouldn't prevent a GK from suiciding early or a shima from smoke camp gunnery in the back row, but that's player skill.

 

Yeah, complicated and probably too hard on the matchmaker

[SolanumTuberosumRex]

15 hours ago, RuruushuVuiBuritania said:

Imagine the average person. The average person is not a pro at video games. Half of all people are worse than them... It is not hard to imagine.

Well I look at video gamers the same as I view amateur football players. They may 45, fat and hungover, but on Sunday's game they still wanna win and they will still beat up the ref if he f*cks up.

But I guess WoWsers are not like that.

[CapnGebs]

On 5/11/2022 at 4:00 PM, Sir_Sinksalot said:

whatever team loses their DD's first or alternatively have DD's that do f all for the entire battle ends up being the losing team

You would think then that the top priority of every other class would be to kill the enemy DDs as fast as possible. But this is not the case. A lot of players prefer to ignore the spotted enemy DD and keep plugging away at the enemy BB at the other end of the map.

 

All too often I spot the enemy DD, ping it and ask for people to target it and get ignored or the "Negative" response. I've even had the response "why?!"

 

Support your friendly DD by targetting enemy DDs and radar ships and they in turn can provide that juicy free spotting that is craved :)

[BrusilovX]

On 5/13/2022 at 2:43 AM, That_Other_Nid said:

If you want your DDs to be more effective, kill the opposing radar ships and shoot into fights between your DDs and enemy DDs with everything you have. 

I agree with this - I even shoot DDs with my BBs including Yamato.

 

I think part of the problem is that players are focused on the big damage numbers without realizing taking less damage on a DD with worth more XP/credits than more damage to a BB.  Also, if you've ever been in a battle with one side having several DDs left and you're either alone in a BB or have one or two other BBs left then you should start to reconsider your targeting choices (unless the enemy DDs have been exceptionally sneaky and never been spotted in the battle).