WG don't you have statistic of the result of games on high tier ??

[Fizzy_Odin]

9 of 10 games finish with this 2 result:

 

1.  enemy team have 7-9-10 ships and you are last ship or there is 1-2 your team ship left with 10% of HP

2.  game ends in 8th min bcs enemy team cap all caps and your team DDs died in first 2-3 min or they won't cap because chasing enemy BB or CV for 7 min

 

There is a big difference in skill on high tier games and there is a lot of time 9/10 that MM will be 3-5 unicum 5-7 normal and 2 potato vs 7-9 potato 2-3 normal and 1 unicum, and if you have on of those days ( and there is like a lot of "those days" 4-5 of 7 ) than you will be in that team with 7 potato who will die ( all 7 of them ) in first 3-5 min or won't cap any cap even if they are 7 vs 2 ships ..

 

WG you need to change battle format from 12 vs 12 to 7 vs 7 like on ranked or clan wars now - you need to get competitiveness to this game because game atm is just over-retarded, for sure I won't buy premium next month = I don't have for what,  this game like this atm is not fun or joy is agonising  !!

[HMS_Britannia]

I agree that the 7v7 format is much better, some of the best games i have had have been early hours of the morning when MM struggles to get full games

[Tungstonid]

How exactely does a smaller number of team members solve the problem of bad players? Do they suddenly get better and don't rush into the enemy fleet or snipe at max range?

Last time I checked, the smaller the team the more influence does every individual player has on the outcome. So while a good player might have more influence on the outcome, the early loss of a ship (be it by a mindless rush or because the map border feels more comfortable) hurts even more.

Not to mention that WG will then also have to reduce the number of players per division, else one full division will make up approximately half of the team which will be a problem for many players. And guess what will happen if three unicums or even good players form a division in one team and the MM throws all the other bad players into the other. The same situation as you described will happen. One team (or at least an considerable amount) gets stomped within the first minutes.

[ColonelPete]

1 hour ago, VooDooZG said:

9 of 10 games finish with this 2 result:

 

1.  enemy team have 7-9-10 ships and you are last ship or there is 1-2 your team ship left with 10% of HP

2.  game ends in 8th min bcs enemy team cap all caps and your team DDs died in first 2-3 min or they won't cap because chasing enemy BB or CV for 7 min

 

You have a WR of over 50% in high tier. You are telling fairy tales.

[Fizzy_Odin]

1 hour ago, ColonelPete said:

You have a WR of over 50% in high tier. You are telling fairy tales.

 

And where did I say that I was in losing team all the time ?? I don't know about you but I like good competitive battle where all will be finished on last 2 vs 2 or so, wining a game in 8 min after my team have 10 or even 12 ships and enemy have 4 ships and we win on points is super stupid and not giving any joy of game - it is just retarded ...

 

2 Tungstonid :   7 vs 7 is far better because you can have influence and it is not the same when enemy team have 3 ships shooting on you instead of 7 - far far different, games will be more with victory on the edge, it will be more trill with more match with good battles because you will have at least 2-3 at least normal 50% players in every team and players that are bad will learn more with less player to get under it to drag them to T10 ;)  

ofc there should also be also change in reward system top player should get same xp as winning team ( no 50% less ) 2nd and 3th should get -25% 4th  and 5th should get -50%, 6th and 7th should get -75% 

 

And just to get - this is not my rant, i don't care - i will go   BUT I know one game that was on the same crossroad with players skill and MM ect.. It was also from Wargaming and it was with planes ;)   

I don't get why not try ?? why not put 7vs7 and 12vs12 and you chose what you want ??  where is problem in that - they could even put 1+/- tier because  7vs7 need less players !!?!??!

[Shirakami_Kon]

Meh, for me a 7v7 match would mean less BBs to worry about  since cruisers would have to enter the battle with that limited places so not much BBs unless no cruisers at all, which would make cruisers a lot easier to play and would encourage that a lot, which for me is one of the most needed things of this game.

[Tungstonid]

I don't think your calculation of "We will have at least 2-3 normal players per team" stands up.

The team composition should be the same stats-wise as with the current system. Therefore you get from (I'll only take the mean values of one of your teams) 1 unicum, 3 normal and 8 potatoes (I guess those are <50% WR? and not outright "I play pfor phun") to 0-1 unicums, 1-2 normals and 4-5 potatoes per team. But you will still get everything from a team full of potatoes up to a team full of above average players. Now it is just easier for the MM to form full potatoe teams because it requires less players.

The only difference is that divisions will have a stronger influence if you keep them as they are. Meaning: under the current system you can make a division of three unicum players which will then make up 25% of the entire team. With your proposed 7vs7 format the unicum division will make up almost 50% and will therefore have about double the influence. And honestly, for me decreasing the number of players in a division is not an option.

But this is not where it stops. Now (good) solo players will complain how their matches depends too much on the division(s) they have (remember, it is not just unicums forming divisions) and vice versa. This opens the door to skill-based MM for randoms which I, personally, am not a big fan of and neither is WG I'd say.

 

I never said that we (or WG) shouldn't try it. We can just to see what really happens but IMO either nothing significant will change or it will get worse.

Does the normal WoWP MM for random games really take player skill into account? This is news to me...

[OttoZander]

How is the 7 v 7 format going to help? It only worsens the problem by allowing better players to have much greater influence over the match. I have lost count of late night/early morning battles of such type where I ended up with 5-7 kills, especially if I am playing a Hakuryu....

Worst idea ever. 

[Tungstonid]

Just to clarify: I agree to a certain extend that it can make battles more interesting and certain situations more forgiving. But to properly implement this you will have to add a MM similar to ranked battles. Skill- (or league-) based, no divisions allowed, etc. This makes it unattractive for everyone who wants to play with friends. If you then add more things like a special reward system this format will be unattractive for bad players (i.e. everyone who doesn't win or doesn't constantly score 1st place when losing) who will leave, hence less and less players will play it and make it worthwhile. Game modes with little to no gain compared to others but much to lose are a bad idea in general.

[DFens_666]

1 hour ago, VooDooZG said:

 

And where did I say that I was in losing team all the time ??

 

Dont u know? U are only allowed to whine when u have the potatoes on your team. So others can tell u to git gud or tell u that u wouldnt whine when those potatoes are on the enemy team.

Because they cant seem to understand that having those games are stupid either way. a) your team gets roflstomped and no matter what u do its lost or b) the enemy team gets roflstomped so that the match is over after 7 mins.

 

The best option would be to have private servers where some ppl could play with each other without those morons and could choose maps/gamemode etc.

[AgarwaenME]

4 hours ago, VooDooZG said:

 

And where did I say that I was in losing team all the time

 

"1.  enemy team have 7-9-10 ships and you are last ship or there is 1-2 your team ship left with 10% of HP"

 

Were you suggesting that in 4-5 out of 10 battles you turn a 8 to 1 underdog situation into a win? Since that's what your words here would mean.

[ColonelPete]

9 hours ago, VooDooZG said:

 

And where did I say that I was in losing team all the time ?? I don't know about you but I like good competitive battle where all will be finished on last 2 vs 2 or so, wining a game in 8 min after my team have 10 or even 12 ships and enemy have 4 ships and we win on points is super stupid and not giving any joy of game - it is just retarded ...

 

Since when are you on the enemy team? Be more careful what you write!

[eliastion]

7 hours ago, VooDooZG said:

And where did I say that I was in losing team all the time ??

 

Here:

10 hours ago, VooDooZG said:

9 of 10 games finish with this 2 result:

 

1.  enemy team have 7-9-10 ships and you are last ship or there is 1-2 your team ship left with 10% of HP

2.  game ends in 8th min bcs enemy team cap all caps and your team DDs died in first 2-3 min or they won't cap because chasing enemy BB or CV for 7 min

 

You explicitly said that 9 out of 10 games end in your crushing defeat through annihilation (you're left with 1-2 ships, the enemy with 7-10) or points (enemy capping all caps and winning by points in 8 minutes).

[Lin3]

7 v 7?

 

One side gets the 3 man top clan division. The other gets the 3 man potato division. The rest of the players are a random assortment.

 

Is VooDooZG also proposing that the ability to play with 2 of your mates is removed from the game?

[Gnirf]

I do not have time know to look for the stats threads but even in a system with 7v s 7 instead of 12 vs 12 the snowball effect will happen. As soon as the first and even more the second boat is sunk for either side even if the teams are evenly matched skillwise from the start this will happen, this is proven since long. The normal win in WoWS is probably with a 4-5 ship advantage, and as the numbers of games in WOS can be said to be statistically many enough this proves the theory. In naval battles this is called the N-square rule. 

[Leo_Apollo11]

Hi all,

 

1 hour ago, Lin3 said:

One side gets the 3 man top clan division. The other gets the 3 man potato division. The rest of the players are a random assortment.

 

With latest Aslain's MOD Pack one can install "Player Panel" which indicates the color ("Bronze", "Silver", "Gold", "Platinum") of the clan... it is quite indicative...

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

[Fizzy_Odin]

5 hours ago, AgarwaenME said:

 

"1.  enemy team have 7-9-10 ships and you are last ship or there is 1-2 your team ship left with 10% of HP"

 

Were you suggesting that in 4-5 out of 10 battles you turn a 8 to 1 underdog situation into a win? Since that's what your words here would mean.

 

Yup, I did wrote this wrong - I thought same for both situation = one where you are alone vs 7 and one where you are one of the 7 chasing one poor guy in enemy team who didn't have luck with team and because of that he get gangbanged,,,  it is not  fun in whatever team you are in that moment especially if you are solo vs 7 that shoot on you..

[AgarwaenME]

30 minutes ago, VooDooZG said:

 

Yup, I did wrote this wrong - I thought same for both situation = one where you are alone vs 7 and one where you are one of the 7 chasing one poor guy in enemy team who didn't have luck with team and because of that he get gangbanged,,,  it is not  fun in whatever team you are in that moment especially if you are solo vs 7 that shoot on you..

 

Which is the default answer people who start out with claims like you just did always gives. At the end of the day you're looking for battles that fits this description, call them the norm and ignore the far larger amounts that does not.

[Fizzy_Odin]

10 minutes ago, AgarwaenME said:

 

Which is the default answer people who start out with claims like you just did always gives. At the end of the day you're looking for battles that fits this description, call them the norm and ignore the far larger amounts that does not.

 

Yup you are just correct - I am that guy, I'am sick of people that knows me better than me and that will always have something to say just to be said - now go play and enjoy games that you will have advantage i which you will feel strong and good in 7 vs 1 ..

 

I did wrote which battles I found competitive and good - who want to see will see, who don't  will just wrote some stupid things like you just did....... 

[DFens_666]

4 hours ago, Lin3 said:

One side gets the 3 man top clan division. The other gets the 3 man potato division. The rest of the players are a random assortment.

 

Where is the difference to now? After seeing certain 3man divisions and MM balancing teams around Divisions, i came to the conclusion that its pretty wrong. The reason u said yourself. If 2 3-man Divisions are in queue, both teams gets one of em. While the Super Unicum division has no doubt a tremendous impact on the game, the Potato division has the same effect, just in the opposite direction.

In the end i would think the match would be more balanced if they put both division in the same team. But that would ofc require the MM to consider something, WR/Skill (lol) or whatever, and i dont see that happening.

[Butterdoll]

15 hours ago, VooDooZG said:

WG you need to change battle format from 12 vs 12 to 7 vs 7 like on ranked or clan wars now - you need to get competitiveness to this game because game atm is just over-retarded

 

 

pls, no.  7vs7 games, especially competitive one's are super boring, super stale.

[AgarwaenME]

3 hours ago, VooDooZG said:

 

Yup you are just correct - I am that guy, I'am sick of people that knows me better than me and that will always have something to say just to be said - now go play and enjoy games that you will have advantage i which you will feel strong and good in 7 vs 1 ..

 

I did wrote which battles I found competitive and good - who want to see will see, who don't  will just wrote some stupid things like you just did....... 

 

Your problem is that you think that what you're write is new and unheard off before.

 

It's just not.

 

Also you think you can just throw out "observations" and believe people will just take you on your word.

 

We won't.

Also.. no game starts out at 7 to 1 odds, so that's just a silly thing to even mention.

[Fizzy_Odin]

29 minutes ago, AgarwaenME said:

 

Your problem is that you think that what you're write is new and unheard off before.

 

It's just not.

 

Also you think you can just throw out "observations" and believe people will just take you on your word.

 

We won't.

Also.. no game starts out at 7 to 1 odds, so that's just a silly thing to even mention.

 

 

Did you even read what I wrote ??

 

"Also.. no game starts out at 7 to 1 odds, so that's just a silly thing to even mention." - did I wrote that game start 7 vs 1 or it is that it ends with 7 vs 1 ???

 

I will send you pictures of my last month of some games after I did start to take screen shoots because it start to be a lot more common thing than uncommon .., just to get from work to home ..

 

and btw yes it is starts with 7 to 1 odds in team skills and that is the problem I am talking about,,, if you want I will start to take screen shoot of players stats per team at the start of the game and than at the end you will see what team will win in 9/10 games and what will be the skill/stats of players  in 1 team and what in other and how will it end...

[AgarwaenME]

1 minute ago, VooDooZG said:

 

 

Did you even read what I wrote ??

 

"Also.. no game starts out at 7 to 1 odds, so that's just a silly thing to even mention." - did I wrote that game start 7 vs 1 or it is that it ends with 7 vs 1 ???

 

I will send you pictures of my last month of some games after I did start to take screen shoots because it start to be a lot more common thing than uncommon .., just to get from work to home 

 

Except I didn't reply to that post. I replied to the post where you suggested I enjoyed playing with a 7 to 1 advantage, as if I want the game to be like this for my convenience. However I merely enjoy MAKING 7 to 1 advantages (and in some cases, winning in such circumstances).

 

And you sending pictures of some of your battles is meaningless unless you send them of ALL your games.

 

Besides that, again, if everyone who said that XYZ was becoming "more common" were right, we would by now have games with 20 DDs on each side, 15 BBs on each side, all ending with 90% of ships sunk within 2 minutes, but also with 50% of battles ending due to cap points before any ships are sunk and another 50% ending with nearly no ships sunk due to cyclones.

 

Hyperbole just gets you nowhere.

 

As a final note, getting games where at the end of the battle there's a substantial advantage to one side, is EXPECTED given the design of any game where any advantage snowballs into a larger advantage. It's nothing "new and more common" it's how the game has always been.

[Lord_WC]

My games end up usually:

1) we stomp the enemy

2) enemy stomps us but we can turn it around

3) enemy stomps us we take toll on them but it's not enough.

 

My losses are usually pretty damn close, so I think it's okay. You should always keep in mind what kind of people you play with, and the sooner you quit expecting they can hold a flank 5v2 (your potatoes being 5), the sooner you will start winning again.