Player Niveau dropping to ZERO!

[Deckeru_Maiku]

 

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.

 

Don't use damage numbers then, but damage % - that way a DD sunk solo would give the same rating as a BB sunk solo.

[tenacious_torps]

 

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

 

And that problem sticks, irregardless of what stat you base MM on. Win rate is just the one most susceptible to it. Again: average position on scoreboard in the ship in question would probably work better when it comes to balancing teams, since it won't deteriorate as easily from ending up on the more moronic team. To the contrary, makes it even more likely, that you'll rank high on your team.

Ranked has a remotely similar mechanic in the keeping your star if you're nr1 on the loosing team. Which leads to other problems, when players prioritize that over objectives, but in random I'd wager the recent changes to economy and XP would actually ensure the right synergies here, especially the XP for potential damage thing. 

[robihr]

i find smarter players on 5-8 tiers than on tiers 9-10. i think that most people that play t9 and t10 have brain damage, me included (for forcing myself to play with such players).

 

problem is that people get xp too easily when they underperform terribly. xp should be 0 if you cant get at least 1/3rd of the avg damage done in that ship. if you have multiple 0 xp in a row and have terrible avg damage across the board than wg should trigger tutorial mission with basics explained.

[Admiral_noodle]

i find smarter players on 5-8 tiers than on tiers 9-10. i think that most people that play t9 and t10 have brain damage, me included (for forcing myself to play with such players).

 

problem is that people get xp too easily when they underperform terribly. xp should be 0 if you cant get at least 1/3rd of the avg damage done in that ship. if you have multiple 0 xp in a row and have terrible avg damage across the board than wg should trigger tutorial mission with basics explained.

 

No because damage isn't everything. I've had low damage games where I've contributed to a win by simply stopping a dd from capping our base. Playing cat and mouse but it was my job to ensure he didn't cap. I did ensure that. But I didn't kill him and in that game scored very low damage. We won though. 

 

I don't want the game to end up as damage whoring. I've also had a game wher my tier 8 hipper shot down 20 planes in a win. While I did 0 damage. But I was escorting the bbs who were doing damage. We had all the caps and the enemy wouldn't get close enough for me to shoot them. Why would I risk the obvious win by dying pointlessly. 

 

Also the tutorial? Seriously if that came up as mandatory after three bad games I'd rage quit. 

[The_Great_SCH]

i find smarter players on 5-8 tiers than on tiers 9-10. i think that most people that play t9 and t10 have brain damage, me included (for forcing myself to play with such players).

 

problem is that people get xp too easily when they underperform terribly. xp should be 0 if you cant get at least 1/3rd of the avg damage done in that ship. if you have multiple 0 xp in a row and have terrible avg damage across the board than wg should trigger tutorial mission with basics explained.

 

I am a DD player, you can imagine that some games i get 100k dmg and some games 15k, but most xp in my team, should i focus on dmg and not points then? 

[xxNihilanxx]

 

 

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.

 

 

Every single time I get the Shards map I begin the battle by saying the same thing*:

 

*Obviously depending which side we start but for this example we are starting in the south (it's reversed for a northern start) -

 

"B&C"

"Don't go for A"

"The choke points make it so you can't go anywhere once you get into the cap without turning broadside and getting instantly deleted or, at best, having to flee the cap"

"The key to this map is to take and hold B"

"Then we can pick them off as they try to come out of A"

 

As you can see, no raging, decent advice complete with reasoning and a sound plan.

 

Every single game between 1 and 3 ships that spawned close to A sail straight through the choke point and get vapourised in seconds.

Every. Single. Game. With one exception.

On that game we took C while the bulk of our fleet moved to B. Between me in my Fujin and two Belfasts there was a permanent smoke screen on B and we won very quickly without our team losing a single ship.

 

Communication is fantastic when it works but those are very rare occasions, at least on the EU server. Mostly I just get the "FU Admiral" style of comments. Or, as happened on one occasion, told I "sucked 60 [edited]to get my Fujin".

 

[walter3kurtz]

 

Every single time I get the Shards map I begin the battle by saying the same thing*:

 

*Obviously depending which side we start but for this example we are starting in the south (it's reversed for a northern start) -

 

"B&C"

"Don't go for A"

"The choke points make it so you can't go anywhere once you get into the cap without turning broadside and getting instantly deleted or, at best, having to flee the cap"

"The key to this map is to take and hold B"

"Then we can pick them off as they try to come out of A"

 

As you can see, no raging, decent advice complete with reasoning and a sound plan.

 

Every single game between 1 and 3 ships that spawned close to A sail straight through the choke point and get vapourised in seconds.

Every. Single. Game. With one exception.

On that game we took C while the bulk of our fleet moved to B. Between me in my Fujin and two Belfasts there was a permanent smoke screen on B and we won very quickly without our team losing a single ship.

 

Communication is fantastic when it works but those are very rare occasions, at least on the EU server. Mostly I just get the "FU Admiral" style of comments. Or, as happened on one occasion, told I "sucked 60 [edited]to get my Fujin".

 

 

People tend to not talk a lot, or never respond at all. Perhaps they don't speak English or they are just very young or blind. Or old. Probably.

 

Not that I'm complaining, like said before, it's a pub game with randoms. Stop having expectations and accept you will have to be smarter than the opponent AND your own team.

[robihr]

 

No because damage isn't everything. I've had low damage games where I've contributed to a win by simply stopping a dd from capping our base. Playing cat and mouse but it was my job to ensure he didn't cap. I did ensure that. But I didn't kill him and in that game scored very low damage. We won though. 

 

I don't want the game to end up as damage whoring. I've also had a game wher my tier 8 hipper shot down 20 planes in a win. While I did 0 damage. But I was escorting the bbs who were doing damage. We had all the caps and the enemy wouldn't get close enough for me to shoot them. Why would I risk the obvious win by dying pointlessly. 

 

Also the tutorial? Seriously if that came up as mandatory after three bad games I'd rage quit. 

 

 

I am a DD player, you can imagine that some games i get 100k dmg and some games 15k, but most xp in my team, should i focus on dmg and not points then? 

 

damage whoring when you need to score 1/3rd of average ship damage? do you know values of that? yamato has 88k average damage in last 2 weeks, so you would need to score ~30k in yamato. shimakaze has 46k average damage, so you would need to score ~15k damage. does that sound like damage whoring? f.d.grosse has 65k average damage, so around ~22k for him, kagero 34k so ~11k for him. 

and if you go down the tiers average damage number is getting lower and lower.

 

if you repeatedly score numbers lower than that either you are bot, or you seriously need to l2p.

 

xp is now earned just for moving away from spawn and getting shot at, making moving up tiers easy for bots and people with no brain easy as just spamming number of battles.

 

also yes to tutorial. ffs i have seen people with 4k-5k battles that are playing like they just got into the game. 3 bad games might not be enough to trigger the tutorial, but what if it is 5? or 10? if you have 10 games in a row with less then 1/3rd of average server damage for that ship?

 

[Akula971]

You can discuss as many different mechanisms you like to improve game play. It is a business primarily.

 

I sent an email to the lead developer, Boris Alotovkrap and this was his reply:-

We make game that everyone can play, and enjoy. More peoples playing, more peoples paying, more monies for me and Svetlana, she is not ship, but still hits pretty hard, has rusty bottom too.

Why peoples complain about terrible players with potato for brain? They easy kill, make you look good, vodka makes Svetlana look good too.  Silly Urop peoples think talk on here change game? It iz masturbation, for your pleasure only. Remember is free game!  (Old Russian proverb:Only free cheese is in mousetrap!) 

[Tubit101]

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.

 

Divisions somewhat distort the MM, as they always do. Perhaps the most sensible way to deal with it is to treat the division according to the player with the highest skill rank.

 

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.

 

To prevent a smaller player pool, the ranked MM system would need to work only on a priority basis. If there are not enough players with the same rank around, the MM would look in the closest rank and so on. So in theory it would be absolutely possible for players from the highest rank to end up in the same games of people of lowest rank when there's not many playing.

 

Like you say, I think that looking at more than just damage would be important. Being supportive of your team can be incredibly important, but hard to quantify. For example DDs who spot, use smoke tactically and so on.

 

 

Don't use damage numbers then, but damage % - that way a DD sunk solo would give the same rating as a BB sunk solo.

 

Yep, I agree. I mention it in post #96.

[tajj7]

Well now icey your not exactly the team player yourself. Every match I have seen you in you run off into a secluded area waiting for other people to kill the majority of the enemy team and then at about 12 minutes you pop out and finish people off. You don't actually contribute anything to the initial fight because you are too scared to hurt you little stats. How about before moaning at players that play a game casually like they are perfectly in their right to you look at how you can improve first, and stop being so arrogant and blind.

 

This doesn't sound like a very reliable way of winning games to me and his 'little stats' would suggest he wins quite a lot games.

[walter3kurtz]

A bracket system based on individuals is not needed and will increase difficulty in matchmaking exponentially the higher you get. A global rating system that matches teams is better. It would match teams with uneven players but overall similar strength. This type of automatic matchmaking is vastly superior to the roll of the dice we have now, where you can end up with all Flamu's on one side and only walter3kurtz's on the other.

 

The good part is that it is available for free, and can be implemented into the game tomorrow, if WG so desires. See http://trueskill.org/  It was used by Microsoft in Halo 3 and other types of (team) games. I've personally seen it in action in 6v6 team games in FAF. http://wiki.faforeve...Trueskill_works Problem solved and the solution is right there for the taking.

 

 

[RogDodgeUK]

Thread closed due to breaches of the forum rules:

 

2.1 Forum etiquette

Users are not allowed to abuse others, make personal attacks or behave disrespectfully. This prohibition applies to both public threads and private messages (PMs). Disrespect can include:

2. Making non-constructive posts, or creating threads on non-constructive topics
4. Cursing and profanities, Inappropriate language

8. Naming and Shaming