Anyone else think this is getting alittle boring?

[DBoZ_Skyline]

Nice ships and all that. But...

I find it pretty boring to either totally overrun the enemy team and win big, or the other thing happens, you get totally overrunned and loose big.

Either the whole team get sunk, while the enemy maybe looses 1 - 3 ships, or the other way around.

 

Is it just me or has this gotten worse as times goes by. Cant remember it was this bad 2 years ago??

 

Sure I can see that sometimes you get to be in the better team, and sometimes you get to be in the bad team... But overall for me, win or loose. This happens I would say a good 90 - 95% of the matches.

And there really is no fun in that.

 

So dev. team... Maybe it finally is time to get off your lazy [edited]and atleast try and eaven out the MM and how it picks players. I dont mind waiting an extra 3-5 min to be honest. Atleast I dont have to play 10-15 min matches that is totally boring over and over and over.

 

Enough with the eyecandy and new ship for now. Fix the gameplay.

No need for new pretty ships if the matches is boring. I dont wanna sit in port and go " ooooooh look at the new shiney ship " only to take it out to a match that makes me wanna puke.

 

 

just my 2 cents

[Hedgehog1963]

How do you want the game to set MM?

[Nechrom]

I honestly don't know their reason for not implementing at least some rudimentary team balancing.

I totally get why they won't do a matchmaking system where everyone in the battle is at roughly the same level, but balancing the two teams seems like a given to me.

 

It doesn't have to be perfect, before anyone starts pointing out how difficult it is to determine a player's precise skill level using statistics.

Just use some variation of ratings used by the various stat websites and you have a decent starting point.

[Aragathor]

2 hours ago, Nechrom said:

I honestly don't know their reason for not implementing at least some rudimentary team balancing.

I totally get why they won't do a matchmaking system where everyone in the battle is at roughly the same level, but balancing the two teams seems like a given to me.

 

It doesn't have to be perfect, before anyone starts pointing out how difficult it is to determine a player's precise skill level using statistics.

Just use some variation of ratings used by the various stat websites and you have a decent starting point.

 

Laziness, an improved MM means a lot of work that can be spent on producing useless cashgrab premiums.

 

Also a balanced MM means potatoes in premiums wouldn't be able to play games in which unicums in silver ships carry their asses to an epic victory.

[Babykim]

3 hours ago, DBoZ_Skyline said:

 

I find it pretty boring

 

Same here. I find this game a little frustrating (like all PvP games) but extremely boring. That is why I practically stopped playing this game two months ago. I just cannot see how any amount of new content, hell even clan content, would make me change my mind. I miss the buddies though...

[159Hunter]

3 hours ago, Nechrom said:

I honestly don't know their reason for not implementing at least some rudimentary team balancing.

I totally get why they won't do a matchmaking system where everyone in the battle is at roughly the same level, but balancing the two teams seems like a given to me.

 

It doesn't have to be perfect, before anyone starts pointing out how difficult it is to determine a player's precise skill level using statistics.

Just use some variation of ratings used by the various stat websites and you have a decent starting point.

And what will happen next? You'll have a league of unicums ( prolly filled with divisions, smoke meta etc etc ).

You'll have a league with potatoes where sniping BBs, second line torping DDs and HE spamming cruisers is meta

....
Honestly, I don't see how this will improve gameplay. What I do recommend is to make a PROPER and BALANCED set of tutorials. Is to give people classes in reading teamchat ( if team agrees A+B that means you don't solo C ). Or just outright link good YouTube videos in game ( Farah's CV guides, Notser aiming guide, Flamu gameplay vids .... please don't link Jingles tho, love that guy and his vids but way too much errors in his narrative :) )

[bushwacker001]

7 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

And what will happen next? You'll have a league of unicums ( prolly filled with divisions, smoke meta etc etc ).

You'll have a league with potatoes where sniping BBs, second line torping DDs and HE spamming cruisers is meta

 

a league of unicums who's stats will gradually go down just playing each other.....a league of potatoes who's stats will gradually go up just playing each other.  Yep that will work...not.

[xXx_Blogis_xXx]

game is fine , only boring stuff  is , bad , bot players ,,,

[invicta2012]

The problem with current matchmaking is that ship design, consumables and captain skills have made Tiers a very poor way of equalising sides. Too many premium ships (and quite a few regular ones) have been given mechanics intended to allow them to compete above their Tiers (Belfast, Saipan); so why should they be allowed to play ships beneath them in Tier which have no way of coping with their arsenal other than just hiding and sniping? Tiers VII and upwards should really only be playing Tiers VII and upwards, not making mincemeat out of Tier VI ships which are not up to the job of being competitive.

[Tubit101]

2 hours ago, bushwacker001 said:

 

a league of unicums who's stats will gradually go down just playing each other.....a league of potatoes who's stats will gradually go up just playing each other.  Yep that will work...not.

 

Just because you can't imagine a working system doesn't mean it can't exist.

[bushwacker001]

12 minutes ago, Tubit101 said:

 

Just because you can't imagine a working system doesn't mean it can't exist.

 

I am not saying a working system can't exist, just that splitting it into games of, say, over 60% wr players play each other, 52% to 59% wr play each other and under 52% etc. (just examples) would not work. The only way to possibly do it would be to balance each team with a mirrored mix of each level of player. Even then the tears and whining would not stop. 

It probably impossible to truly balance the teams whichever stat is used.

[beercrazy]

6 hours ago, Nechrom said:

I honestly don't know their reason for not implementing at least some rudimentary team balancing.

I totally get why they won't do a matchmaking system where everyone in the battle is at roughly the same level, but balancing the two teams seems like a given to me.

 

It doesn't have to be perfect, before anyone starts pointing out how difficult it is to determine a player's precise skill level using statistics.

Just use some variation of ratings used by the various stat websites and you have a decent starting point.

wg probably looked at what happened to armoured warfare when the mm was brought in that gave a more even game

the system was well thought out and implemented but it killed the game in about a month and the same will happen when you introduce any kind of match making which is player based

this leaves mm with the ships and I personally cannot think how they can make the mm better other than to tweak the one they have and maybe limit bbs and cv and make it more even with ship for ship ie one side gets a montana then the otherside do but it could lead to a damn long wait for a game to start

 

nobody likes the epic fail teams even when you win because its always crap xp and credit gain but I personally think we are stuck with it till someone comes up with a system that works and wont kill the game

 

[Tubit101]

4 minutes ago, bushwacker001 said:

 

I am not saying a working system can't exist, just that splitting it into games of, say, over 60% wr players play each other, 52% to 59% wr play each other and under 52% etc. (just examples) would not work. The only way to possibly do it would be to balance each team with a mirrored mix of each level of player. Even then the tears and whining would not stop. 

It possibly impossible to truly balance the teams whichever stat is used.

 

The main concern is whether a new MM would work better than the current MM. Bearing in mind that serious players are currently missing the opportunity to experience real team play and balanced opposition on a regular basis, it is likely that a skill based MM would improve quality. You're not giving any real reasons for your speculations. You're just saying "would not work".

[morgoroth]

2 hours ago, xXx_Blogis_xXx said:

game is fine , only boring stuff  is , bad , bot players ,,,

 

bad is not that a big deal...bot, balless, scared and blind players  that's the true problem.

[chazwozza]

Was looking forward to the RN so much but I to stopped playing about 2 months ago not even tried the RN BBs 

[cracktrackflak]

Last night I played about ten games, nine of which were massacres of one team by the other, and with the winning team only losing one or two ships.

 

One of the curious things about WG products is that excessively one-sided games often seem to occur in noticeable periods - e.g. over a weekend event - or that you get a whole run of the this type of game and then, for no discernable reason, game outcomes become "normal" again. Look how many regular players avoid weekend events for this reason.

 

Exactly the same phenomena occurs in WoT.

 

Its possible that WG uses a game management system to influence outcomes for some economic reason, e.g. perhaps faster "churn" during busy periods causes players to spend more XP or gold.

 

 

[G01ngToxicCommand0]

7 hours ago, DBoZ_Skyline said:

Nice ships and all that. But...

I find it pretty boring to either totally overrun the enemy team and win big, or the other thing happens, you get totally overrunned and loose big.

Either the whole team get sunk, while the enemy maybe looses 1 - 3 ships, or the other way around.

 

Is it just me or has this gotten worse as times goes by. Cant remember it was this bad 2 years ago??

 

Sure I can see that sometimes you get to be in the better team, and sometimes you get to be in the bad team... But overall for me, win or loose. This happens I would say a good 90 - 95% of the matches.

And there really is no fun in that.

 

So dev. team... Maybe it finally is time to get off your lazy [edited]and atleast try and eaven out the MM and how it picks players. I dont mind waiting an extra 3-5 min to be honest. Atleast I dont have to play 10-15 min matches that is totally boring over and over and over.

 

Enough with the eyecandy and new ship for now. Fix the gameplay.

No need for new pretty ships if the matches is boring. I dont wanna sit in port and go " ooooooh look at the new shiney ship " only to take it out to a match that makes me wanna puke.

 

 

just my 2 cents

 

6 hours ago, Hedgehog1963 said:

How do you want the game to set MM?

Divide the playerbase after winrate:

1) Place the 50% and above winrate players on teams consisting only of players from that group.

2) Place the below 50% winrate player on teams consisting only of players from that group.

3) Let it be random which kind of team the player's team battles against.

4) At the start of each month the 10% worst performing of the first group changes places with an equal number of the best performing from the last group.

5) Profit.

 

This will reward the better players by not putting them on teams with mongs that loses battle after battle after battle out of sheer stupidity, ignorance and indifference and will provide an incitement for the bad players to perform better.

Skill needs to be rewarded and bad players, who obviously don't care about winning, should not be allowed to ruin the game experience for the good ones just because they 'me play for fuuuunn!'

 

 

[bushwacker001]

5 minutes ago, Tubit101 said:

 

The main concern is whether a new MM would work better than the current MM. Bearing in mind that serious players are currently missing the opportunity to experience real team play and balanced opposition on a regular basis, it is likely that a skill based MM would improve quality. You're not giving any real reasons for your speculations. You're just saying "would not work".

OK, let's say 60% wr and over players just play each other from now on....granted, the team work would probably be awesome but because the average win rate in these games will be only 50% then their personal win rates would drop, their average damage would drop (because of no bad player easy kills), also WTR and every other stat. Do you suppose the top players in the game would be happy with their stats dropping for no other reason than their playing good players all the time? 

Lets say under 48% players only play each other.....their stats would obviously rise. Soon most players would end up in the middle area, all playing each other again and so back to how it is now but with more compacted WR's.

 

[Tubit101]

3 minutes ago, cracktrackflak said:

Last night I played about ten games, nine of which were massacres of one team by the other, and with the winning team only losing one or two ships.

 

One of the curious things about WG products is that excessively one-sided games often seem to occur in noticeable periods - e.g. over a weekend event - or that you get a whole run of the this type of game and then, for no discernable reason, game outcomes become "normal" again. Look how many regular players avoid weekend events for this reason.

 

Exactly the same phenomena occurs in WoT.

 

Its possible that WG uses a game management system to influence outcomes for some economic reason, e.g. perhaps faster "churn" during busy periods causes players to spend more XP or gold.

 

 

 

I won't speculate on the reasons behind it, but I think it's very likely that WG is already running some sort of "matchmaking" algorithms. Going from winning most of the time for days to suddenly losing everything is not normal.

[G01ngToxicCommand0]

8 minutes ago, cracktrackflak said:

Last night I played about ten games, nine of which were massacres of one team by the other, and with the winning team only losing one or two ships.

 

One of the curious things about WG products is that excessively one-sided games often seem to occur in noticeable periods - e.g. over a weekend event - or that you get a whole run of the this type of game and then, for no discernable reason, game outcomes become "normal" again. Look how many regular players avoid weekend events for this reason.

 

Exactly the same phenomena occurs in WoT.

 

Its possible that WG uses a game management system to influence outcomes for some economic reason, e.g. perhaps faster "churn" during busy periods causes players to spend more XP or gold.

 

 

What you experience is the result of a very lowskill playerbase that have no knowledge on how to survive and stay alive for the longest possible time and who keeps throwing ship after ship away for no gain whatsoever. 

[rvfharrier]

3 minutes ago, bushwacker001 said:

OK, let's say 60% wr and over players just play each other from now on....granted, the team work would probably be awesome but because the average win rate in these games will be only 50% then their personal win rates would drop, their average damage would drop (because of no bad player easy kills), also WTR and every other stat. Do you suppose the top players in the game would be happy with their stats dropping for no other reason than their playing good players all the time? 

Lets say under 48% players only play each other.....their stats would obviously rise. Soon most players would end up in the middle area, all playing each other again and so back to how it is now but with more compacted WR's.

 

 

Fun gameplay comes before pretty coloured numbers on a website.

 

Organizing it by absolute win rate would obviously be a terrible idea for the reasons you gave. However, the game could very easily place players into leagues and consider their performance and win rate within those leagues rather than overall.

[DFens_666]

3 minutes ago, atomskytten said:

1) Place the 50% and above winrate players on teams consisting only of players from that group.

2) Place the below 50% winrate player on teams consisting only of players from that group.

 

U do know that 50% of the players of one match always lose, while 50% win. (technically even more lose because in the very rare occasion of a draw, everyone loses).

If u put all the players together, which have a winrate above 50%, soon they wont have that anymore. Vice versa for the players with a below 50% winrate. They will get closer to 50% and then what to do?

 

[p3rh4n4]

1 minute ago, Tubit101 said:

 

I won't speculate on the reasons behind it, but I think it's very likely that WG is already running some sort of "matchmaking" algorithms. Going from winning most of the time for days to suddenly losing everything is not normal.

 

It's normal, if you have about 50% winrate you should experience equal amounts of bad and good days.

 

It's not just about MM, it's about force concentration. If both sides are equally balanced on skill and ships, the team getting an early advantage should often faceroll the other team.

Nailbiter fights that last to the end shouldn't happen often with a balanced MM.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester's_laws

 

 

[Tubit101]

3 minutes ago, bushwacker001 said:

OK, let's say 60% wr and over players just play each other from now on....granted, the team work would probably be awesome but because the average win rate in these games will be only 50% then their personal win rates would drop, their average damage would drop (because of no bad player easy kills), also WTR and every other stat. Do you suppose the top players in the game would be happy with their stats dropping for no other reason than their playing good players all the time? 

Lets say under 48% players only play each other.....their stats would obviously rise. Soon most players would end up in the middle area, all playing each other again and so back to how it is now but with more compacted WR's.

 

 

Their stats would be measured relative to their skill bracket. This means that the top 5% are in the "alpha" or "diamond" bracket, or similar. The 10% below are in the "beta" or "gold", and so on. Stats will not be measured with the entire player mass, but to the closest segment instead. If a player has stats that exceeds the norm for their bracket, he is moved to the next bracket.

[ForlornSailor]

7 hours ago, DBoZ_Skyline said:

Is it just me or has this gotten worse as times goes by. Cant remember it was this bad 2 years ago??

 

I also have the feeling its getting worse. I blame the introduction of new line of ships with all kind of advantages + the "balancing" aka BB-buffing, that changed the game more and more.
 

10 minutes ago, atomskytten said:

will provide an incitement for the bad players to perform better.

 

First: @bushwacker001 gave an awesome answer, why this skill-based-mm is nonsense. Also, I want to add: if you let bad players face bad players always - how does that make them better players? They will a) get away with their potato-style, performing better whilst playing the same. Thus thinking, they are already decent, while missing out how better players set the standards of gameplay. Result: they will become even worse. Its always the best players, that set the standards. People will copy the players, that always win, perform good and get high damage. This has always been like this in multiplayergames online, no matter what kind of game.