Player Niveau dropping to ZERO!

[Tubit101]

 

I am sure OP knows that very well.

And I am sure he knows WG will never implement his "suggestions".

 

Hence it all boils down to elitist rant: "Look how good I am..."

At least we have much less of those compared to WoT forums.

 

Maybe tug the reins a bit on the assumptions, Sherlock. Obviously you don't know everything. Has it ever occurred to you that a lot of people who have played this game for a while actually enjoy well coordinated teamplay? A close game where both teams are focused and well coordinated is incredibly enjoyable as well as incredibly rare. Believe it or not, but some of us value good gameplay more than purple stats or steamrolling the opposition.

[daki]

 

Maybe tug the reins a bit on the assumptions, Sherlock. Obviously you don't know everything. Has it ever occurred to you that a lot of people who have played this game for a while actually enjoy well coordinated teamplay? A close game where both teams are focused and well coordinated is incredibly enjoyable as well as incredibly rare. Believe it or not, but some of us value good gameplay more than purple stats or steamrolling the opposition.

 

Heh, I did not expect my post would rile you so much .

Of course, you are free to jump to the defense of any post here on forums if you think it has been unjustly treated, so I applaud you on that.

 

That being said, I would suggest that you thoroughly re-read the opening post.

After years spent lurking on WoT and WoWs forums, I am rather confident in being able to accurately spot posts reeking of elitism. And this is one of the textbook examples.

 

Speaking of "assumptions", you should also re-read what I have written because you imply without any substance that somehow by disliking elitist rants, I do not enjoy a well coordinated teamplay?

[edited]

[PonyOnSteroids]

quoted post removed

 

How would this ever change, if a majority of streamers are exactly promoting this kind of behavior.

[Tubit101]

 

Heh, I did not expect my post would rile you so much .

Of course, you are free to jump to the defense of any post here on forums if you think it has been unjustly treated, so I applaud you on that.

 

That being said, I would suggest that you thoroughly re-read the opening post.

After years spent lurking on WoT and WoWs forums, I am rather confident in being able to accurately spot posts reeking of elitism. And this is one of the textbook examples.

 

Speaking of "assumptions", you should also re-read what I have written because you imply without any substance that somehow by disliking elitist rants, I do not enjoy a well coordinated teamplay?

[edited]

 

Again you demonstrate that you're not able to discern the motivations behind posts correctly. I suggest that you discuss the topic at hand instead of acting like some sort of forum morality-police.

[daki]

 

Again you demonstrate that you're not able to discern the motivations behind posts correctly. I suggest that you discuss the topic at hand instead of acting like some sort of forum morality-police.

 

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this subject

I could also say the same thing to you, i.e. to better discern the motivations behind posts instead of trying to play a "white knight" for "unicums in distress"

[Zerstoeroer]

This.

Some advice when the noobing is happening is more useful than complaints afterwards.

 

I believe people tried but failed to do so. However, when I see complaints in chat it's usually someone who's already dead and complains about not getting support (never requested), or it's a complaint when the battle is already lost (never said a word in chat before).

 

 

I just had a game where I was bottom tier with my Bismarck. 1/3 of us pushed for caps, the rest stayed at the bottom and during a sniping shootout moved into the bottom right corner. All of those players had t8+ ships and you are telling me that I should point out to them that we need to cap stuff? That reversing at J8 is not going to win a game?

Those people tried? Yeah, maybe if their IQ was 70, then one could argue that they tried.

 

And yes, I did complain after getting killed by focus fire. How can you not complain to all those idiots who are ruining a game?

[PonyOnSteroids]

 

And yes, I did complain after getting killed by focus fire. How can you not complain to all those idiots who are ruining a game?

 

Because "most" of these same people who complain about those idiots aren't any better than the same idiots they are complaining about. It's like a guy shouting in chat that the team are cowards because they ain't going forward, and he is a bb sitting back at the edge of the map.

[Admiral_noodle]

 

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this subject

I could also say the same thing to you, i.e. to better discern the motivations behind posts instead of trying to play a "white knight" for "unicums in distress"

 

I think you're missing his point. I don't like the idea of skill based MM because I don't think it will work. As in I don't think it will achieve better game play. Mostly because at the moment I don't think there is a way of accurately determining skill. 

 

However there are two kinds of complaints. The people who rage about potatoes and the people who - like me - would like more coordinated gameplay more reliably. 

 

When it happens in games it's amazing. I really enjoy it and find the games where it doesn't happen disappointing. Sometimes if I've died and the enemy team are coordinated and acting together I'll simply go into free camera and watch. Sometimes (just yesterday in fact) both teams come together in a coordinated way and you find yourself immersed in a fleet action suddenly. THAT is what he is asking for. 

 

If there was a reliable way to split the wows population based on coordinated team play ability I'd be all for it. 

[WingedHussar_Adler]

[edited]

my team right now..we lost 15-3---NC me....i am nothing special...but amount of total noobs with t9+ ships is overvelming last couple of days....like somebody was giving free exp to peoples. for instance guy in Yamato has 88 games in Amagai and than 0 games in t9....(free exp whole t9 ship)

 

i do not get how you grind BS line, get to t 10 and have 29 k average dmg

[beercrazy]

[edited]

 

my team right now..we lost 15-3---NC me....i am nothing special...but amount of total noobs with t9+ ships is overvelming last couple of days....like somebody was giving free exp to peoples. for instance guy in Yamato has 88 games in Amagai and than 0 games in t9....(free exp whole t9 ship)

 

i do not get how you grind BS line, get to t 10 and have 29 k average dmg

 

don't name and shame as its not allowed on the forum pal

best remove those player names and just leave it as the ships

[WingedHussar_Adler]

 

don't name and shame as its not allowed on the forum pal

best remove those player names and just leave it as the ships

 

it is not name or shame....it is just stats from stats page.....same as posting pics from ingame results.

 

nest game

 

agermanstripper - Montana - 24.5 k average dmg - 46% (430 games in Gearing - 38% winrate).....430 t 10 games.....it is not small amount + 200 in other t 10 ships.....so over 600!! games in t 10 and 24.5 average dmg?.....i really did ot have so much horrbile teams in month or so....

 

did they change Mm or what?

 

 

 

[Tubit101]

at the moment I don't think there is a way of accurately determining skill.

 

Perhaps not accurately, but using solo win rate on a per ship type basis is a pretty good indication.

[Robber_Baron]

Those people tried? Yeah, maybe if their IQ was 70, then one could argue that they tried.

I think you misunderstood me about that. That "tried" was about people who tried to give others advice (which is often ignored it seems), not about people who tried to battle but miserably failed.

[Tubit101]

More often than not, advice and other communication is ignored in random battles. There's no guarantee that someone will give you good advice. In the end it's often not worth the effort do divert your attention to typing or reading in chat.

 

If people could feel more confident that they were playing with others reasonably paired with their own skill level, I think chat could be used to a much bigger advantage.

[Admiral_noodle]

 

Perhaps not accurately, but using solo win rate on a per ship type basis is a pretty good indication.

 

...until you base MM off it. Which would reduce WR... which would invalidate your MM. See my problem?

[EsaTuunanen]

Perhaps not accurately, but using solo win rate on a per ship type basis is a pretty good indication.

I don't think winrate alone would work at all in any way.

Unless having really lots of battles it's very dependent on luck with MM.

 

And even worst fail boaters with thousands of fails tend to be overall at least at 40% level because of getting carried.

So margins aren't exactly big to separate performances accurately.

But combining for example average damage in ship to that starts to show something.

Because those total fail boaters tend to have average damage which would make co-op bots blush from shame.

 

 

I could also say the same thing to you, i.e. to better discern the motivations behind posts instead of trying to play a "white knight" for "unicums in distress"

Well, you sir certainly aren't even gray knight by instantly going to "players failing even basics must not be limited" rant mode.

 

Sure game is at the moment (/still) quite total lackluster in offering players advice about game basics and how to play in different ships.

But when there are players with thousands of matches averaging damage which would make co-op bots look bad failing their way up everything isn't right.

[Admiral_noodle]

Except everyone deserves to get to tier ten no matter how good they are. Some people are fails and will never get any good. But we shouldn't say "you never get to play X ship" because of it. That's wrong. It's a game. A game people pay money for if they buy premium. Denying them content based on ability is wrong.

 

In random battles I'm fine with accepting the randomness. Everything evens out in the end and over time I'll get the averages I deserve.

 

Randoms should be seen as apt active for

- ranked

- teams

- clans

 

Or as a bit of fun to be had divisioninf with friends, or simply the joy of shooting your guns and torpedoes in your pixel version of a real warship. Or as a credit making mission completing task.

 

You don't "win" anything in randoms so the squealing by some is rather over the top.

 

That said it would be nice if teams were running still, clans are coming. But it would also be nice if there was as an option to play "team oriented" random battles with like minded people without being limited to 3 in a division. Maybe some kind of queue system where bigger divisions can communicate to arrange a game ad hoc, like a list of 5 man divisions and the tiers they are playing in queue so you can "accept" an invite. Then you go into random queue and it puts the divisions on opposing sides.

[EsaTuunanen]

However there are two kinds of complaints. The people who rage about potatoes and the people who - like me - would like more coordinated gameplay more reliably. 

When it happens in games it's amazing.

 

If there was a reliable way to split the wows population based on coordinated team play ability I'd be all for it. 

Yeah, its so nice when occasionally you get that team which actually tries to play together and to get that victory as used to be norm in closed beta...

Destroyers taking the front positions capping, screening and scouting.

With cruisers supporting closely when possible.

And all battleships and rest of the team heading toward enemy and map controlling areas.

 

Usually that just leads to curb stomping because MM dredged too much of bottom precipitate of player pool into other team.

 

 

Except everyone deserves to get to tier ten no matter how good they are.

Isn't there already Co-op where people can just shoot something without need to think anything?

[Admiral_noodle]

Yes there is coop. But that's a lot slower to advance. And it's dull. Plus some people like shooting other people. We all do

 

For randoms it's probably just best left alone. But I'd like something other than ranked to get my team based fix.

 

Roll on clans I suppose.

[Deckeru_Maiku]

I think having the MM set up teams by choosing from players with similiar average damage/battle (on the ship actually chosen) / winrate (dito) should at least be tried. With the added data from tanking damage, caps taken, spotting damage etc. included for the different classes, this might (!) lead to having players of comparable abilities on the teams.

[Tubit101]

...until you base MM off it. Which would reduce WR... which would invalidate your MM. See my problem?

 

No, not really. For MM you keep a separate WR for each skill bracket. If you rise or fall below a certain WR value, you're moved to a higher or lower bracket. I don't see a problem with that.

 

I don't think winrate alone would work at all in any way.

 

Unless having really lots of battles it's very dependent on luck with MM.

 

 

 

The way I picture it, is like this:

 

A new player starts at the lowest rank, then he is considered for a rise in rank after for example 50 matches. If his WR is above for example 53% he is moved to a higher rank. Now the WR for this rank is reset to 50%. If he dips below 50% after the next 50 matches, he goes one rank down. If WR is higher than 53%, he is moved up. And so on...

 

Of course the numbers used here are purely hypothetical. IRL they would need to be adjusted for functionality.

 

I'm not certain than measuring skill from damage done would work because someone who focuses on sinking DDs will do a lot less damage than someone who sinks BBs. A player can do relatively little damage and still be a bigger help to the team than someone with more damage done. However, there can perhaps be worked out more complex algorithms that are better at measuring a player's skill than just going by WR or damage done. For example damage done to individual ships on a percentage base could be a factor.

[The_Great_SCH]

This.

Some advice when the noobing is happening is more useful than complaints afterwards.

 

I believe people tried but failed to do so. However, when I see complaints in chat it's usually someone who's already dead and complains about not getting support (never requested), or it's a complaint when the battle is already lost (never said a word in chat before).

 

 

Problem with the "give advice" is that frequently I'm kinda busy. At the start of the match that's fine while the clocks ticking, or in the opening moments when there's no enemy.

 

In the middle of a firefight when I'm dodging left and right I don't really have time to explain the sailing towards the 1 line isn't very helpful when the enemy are all coming up the middle, mostly because I'm desperately trying to stop the enemy coming up the middle.

 

It's also my (slightly jaded) experience that most advice is met with either stoney silence, "stfu noob" or "who made you admiral?" which means that mostly I let people get on with whatever it is they're doing.

 

I do ping the map occasionally, so people switched on can see my intention, but not so much that it annoys everyone.

 

I also tend to phrase most advice as a question, like "I'm going to support B, are there any DD try can help.me capture it?" as this seems to get less abuse than "go cap B"

 

I wasn't actually saying that we (you) should be telling each player where to go. But things like cap AB or BC or AC or whatever, or avoid a parcticular side of the map because they get out of action, or things like this, and AVERAGE player, who has a general idea of how the game works (considering at high tiers people have 1k+ games, right?) will possibly (not every time) consider.

 

Even if you lose a game where you gave your 2 cents at the beginning, you can quit without rage, because you have done your part of that TEAM, you gave advice (!= order) and done as much as you can. Some teams are better than others, and usually the teams that do not communicate lose more. Not every game you get a guy who carries the team with 6+ kills. Also, i really think i am right, because otherwise Divisions wouldn't have so much better WR than solo games.   

[Admiral_noodle]

Tubit - ok that makes sense. You could have 3 tiers of MM roughly equally sized. Like leagues with background promotion and relegation.

 

Of course divisions completely screw that.

 

This is sounding like a new version of ranked.

[EsaTuunanen]

The way I picture it, is like this:

 

A new player starts at the lowest rank, then he is considered for a rise in rank after for example 50 matches. If his WR is above for example 53% he is moved to a higher rank. Now the WR for this rank is reset to 50%. If he dips below 50% after the next 50 matches, he goes one rank down. If WR is higher than 53%, he is moved up. And so on...

 

Of course the numbers used here are purely hypothetical. IRL they would need to be adjusted for functionality.

 

I'm not certain than measuring skill from damage done would work because someone who focuses on sinking DDs will do a lot less damage than someone who sinks BBs. A player can do relatively little damage and still be a bigger help to the team than someone with more damage done. However, there can perhaps be worked out more complex algorithms that are better at measuring a player's skill than just going by WR or damage done. For example damage done to individual ships on a percentage base could be a factor.

The problem in dividing players to ranks would be needing big enough player pool.

And that would be a really really big problem to overcome.

So best would be to minimize number of total fail boats in PvP.

Like I've said many times I don't have problem with below average players who at least try to play game and do their part in team.

 

 

That's why I said looking both damage and WR.

Low damage but above average WR over bigger number of matches strongly hints to that sinking of DDs and supporting others/doing strategic jobs.

 

Again if also WR is bad then that's going to hint toward that fail boat category:

If survival rate is bad then it's that suicide player who rushes half the enemy team alone. (though in small number of matches these can get carried to decent WR)

If survival rate is average/higher then it's that coward running to hide in rear of the map (often complaining not hitting enemy) and not always caught by winning enemy.

Average/OK damage and survival, but low WR would hint to knowing how to aim but running away from enemy at long range basically shooting only BBs.

 

Different ship classes again would have some possible variations.

BB player could have combination of average damage/low survival, but good WR by pushing agressively allowing destroyers and cruisers to hit enemy team.

[viceadmiral123]

In Random game I don't expect to see good players, but I expect them to somewhat follow basic game objectives. I am known for ramming ally camping DDs out of their smoke so they can scout (disclaimer - any torpedoes they shield me from are completely incidental).