Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

13 Neutral

About Garrcia

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

302 profile views
  1. So....... Does anyone have any tangible proof that the majority (even if it is 50%+1) of T10 ships in various accounts, as in one account may have four T10 ships, are below 50% WR?
  2. Garrcia

    Playing for "Fun"

    That advice is of little value to someone who has not been around long enough/hangs out on the forums to know that there is an account with the ID of VGLance. Though it is fair to say that the apparently misspelled vigilance should be apparent.
  3. Garrcia

    This Game Very Badly Needs an Actual MM system

    I think if a simple model (and I consider WR, dmg, WTR, or some combination of those as simple*) is applied to the MM for some kind of "skill based" there will still be plenty of lopsided matches as aspects that are not covered in the model (such as potential synergies between specific ships, or when a trait has less utility than anticipated). A more complex model that could maybe mitigate lopsided matches more would require extensive testing and tweaking to ensure it is working as intended, and that is where I think most of the time would be involved in rolling out such a model. And for the sake of argument lets say this model gives each 12 person team some overall score, what is balanced a 2% difference, 5%, 10%? Clearly the higher the allowed variance the easier it would be to run with the trade off being it is less effective. Does the system just launch the first set of teams that are in the balanced range, which if say WTR is used could still lead to an imbalance in say radar. If a pod of 24 cannot work (i.e. achieve the defined balance state) does it replace one player in the pod until a balance state can be achieved? What if there are 2 CVs in the pod with a sufficient imbalance in rating that a balanced match cannot be achieved? Should a radar ship have its rating penalized if there are no DDs in the match? Or for that matter how does it account for differences in load outs (e.g. radar on a RN CL, secondary vs tanky captain on a KM BB)? * - for the record simple in this context does not mean that it is somehow bad, rather that there are options that systems could be devised with more factors and multiple weighting systems (which in turn would be more of a challenge to implement).
  4. Garrcia

    This Game Very Badly Needs an Actual MM system

    I imagine many people could design a system in short order. However, writing the code, which could include complexities such as the game engine may not be designed to look up player stats in a way that can be used, will take time. Then it has to be tested not just for bugs but to see if it produces results that make sense or does not get caught in some kind of loop. Even if a system just tries to balance 24 players into two teams of 12 how close does that balance have to be before it is a problem that cannot be solved. Then it has to be balanced. Even with sorting 24 players what is balanced on paper may have deficiencies that are not in the metric (e.g. all the radar ships are on one team as an extreme example), and the more you build into the equation the harder it is to get the teams closely balanced (at least in a timely fashion). Then it has to take into account the processing power the engine should devote. How many iterations should be run to optimize teams, should it be 10, 100, 1000 passes of iterations in whatever formula. What should be done with prior calculations; should some kind of simple learning be built into the iteration process. Then it has to take into account how long should a person wait in queue for a match. I could see such a project easily taking months, and at the end of the day would the projected ROI be worth it. I would guess not. Whilst I am on a soap box I will also think the "MM is keeping the player base of this game stunted" is an argument that does not hold water. While I am sure it may well be a common complaint, WoWs is a very niche game both in terms of theme and game play and that is, IMO, the primary limiter on the likely player base.
  5. Garrcia

    This Game Very Badly Needs an Actual MM system

    Arguably the Elo (and similar systems) have more utility in assessing the outcome of a given match. Also, such systems strike me as being more accurate for 1v1 style competitions, such as chess. To the mater at hand, even if you worked out some system that is perceived as fair for elo rating changes in a 12 v 12 game and then segregated players into pools by elo rating in MM most players should gravitate to the nominal rating. You would then wind up with cyclical waves of skill imbalance in matches as everyone bunches to the middle and then gets resorted over time. This ultimately would not end lopsided games, and effectively could concentrate them into more pronounced clusters.
  6. Garrcia

    This Game Very Badly Needs an Actual MM system

    Some maths. I cannot recall the point loss for a team on a ship loss, but I think -60pts for a BB, -45pts for a CR, and -30pts for a DD is about in line. To loose in 4 mins a team has to go down 300pts of losses (all unanswered, i.e. no losses on the reds, to keep it simple; also presumes no detonations). This equates to having say 6 CR and 1 DD going to zero health in something like 2 minutes (figure it takes ~2 minutes to get into engagement range); I chose this example as the most plausible* in that dev strike citidels are more likely. Other versions are 5 BB going to zero health (so at T10 something like 400k -500k pts of damage in 2 minutes of active engagement discounting heals), or say 4 DD, 2 CR, and 1 BB. Now, in all fairness you could argue the game is effectively a loss at 4-5 minutes, presumably due to imbalanced losses (which is as I understand it is the argument being made with Lanchester's Square Law), while the game may not end until the 15-16 minute mark. * - plausible as in the most like of a series of events that seem like 1 in 1000001.
  7. Why was this thread necroed - isn't there a new thread on this general topic (omg loosing streaks) every day?
  8. Garrcia

    OK Wargaming. I can take a hint.

    Its all true - I once said something mean about a cat that looked kinda similar to a cat that Dasha* owned as a child and then proceeded to loose 27 games in a row. * - Dasha being the only WG employee name I know. Hidden content removed by mods to perpetuate the cover up.
  9. To the specific case of demanding a DD scout/yolo the times I have encountered it (as the DD driver) it certainly has not made sense to me either. To circle it back to the OP look it as the binary choice is: 1) Optimize my game to help the team (basically my interpretation of what you are arguing @VGLance) 2) The team is here to optimize my game (basically the defector choice/the negative save a star sterotype) I do not believe the prisoner's dilemma is the best model since that is based on each participant having no knowledge of what choice their partner(s) is making. In the case of ranked I can see what choices are being made by my partners; so if I see that three people on my team are choice(1), one is choice(2), and two are either choice but have turned the potato to 11* for this match, then I may decide with that additional information that my optimal strategy is to play a more selfish game, i.e. go with choice (2). * - which, in all fairness, is a category I can fall in more often than I would like to admit.
  10. I think where this breaks down is the case of someone who plays to save a star in a fashion that is not optimal to overall team performance. While the examples of long range sniping BBs (when the player presumably is not all that good of a shot) or ships more oriented to starting fires (e.g. Khaba) have been used those are not the most worrisome to me. The cases (at least in my limited experience) that a more worrying are when someone expects a person to essentially sacrifice their performance to enhance the hypothetical star saver. Again from my limited experience this something like harassing a DD to "scout" by effectively yoloing into a cap (particularly when you have no idea where the DM, Z52, and Moskva on the red team are) and then refusing to move into an appropriate position to support said DD when that player chooses a more cautious approach. Arguably this case comes back to the question of skill, in this case the broad concept of situational awareness. More generally put another way, a player can approach this as rather than a performing well that they only have to be (to borrow from the running from a bear concept) faster than all the other players on their team.
  11. Yeah, after I wrote and read that post I realized it has ~80-90% overlap with current systems, essentially a limited time campaign with a ladder of some-sort (hooray for sunk costs). Aside from more or less esoteric end of match voting/MVP system then what you are left with (presuming you want the current system for progression through ranked to be changed) is some kind of MMR adjacent system, which if implemented will lead to a new ~3*10^31 new threads on skill based match maker.
  12. It seems to me that the core problem is that, as I see it, that ranked is seen as a game mode that is intended to reward individual skill while the metric for advancing is based on match performance; be it keeping a star on a loss, getting carried with stars on a win (when you did not do much that match), etc. I think the solution is to make the advancement metric for ranked more or less uncoupled to individual match performance. Rather if a system was used where stars were awarded for progressive achievement in a number of performance categories (e.g. wins, damage, kills, cap points, etc) would be more in line with the notion of measuring individual rank. I would further make progress in any given category non linear, i.e. it takes proportionally more progress to gain a second, third, etc start for a specific category. It would also have your performance in ranked matches be additive, e.g. 30k damage in match one and 70k damage in match two gets you at 100k damage for that ranked season. A quick (limited example): Say there are 20 ranks to gain with 5 stars needed per rank (so 100 to "rank out") Lets say damage awards one star at 50k, and then the damage requirement doubles for each star after that. So to rank out on damage (i.e. the stereotype* of a damage farmer not winning, capping, scoring kills) alone would take about 3*10^31 cumulative damage. While that is a ridiculous number, I presume you get my point. A substantially more thought out system it seems to me would provide a few advantages: 1) you do not get penalized for a loss per se (other than being on the losing team will likely limit what you can achieve) 2) it would be much harder to potate to the top (less capacity to be carried) 3) it would encourage people to play a mix of classes to advance through many metrics rather than relying on a few; after all if the system is to rank players then should not a player who excels at all classes rank higher/rank out faster than someone who does well at only one or two; incidentally this goes to some length to solve the issue of DD/CV play when it is more focused on vision and map control rather than outright pew-pew factor. * - I am not arguing that all high damage performances are in this stereotype, rather that if you are doing effective damage then you should be achieving all the other things as has been argued.
  13. Garrcia

    Ranked and why it isn't

    I think it is safe to say that just about every season of ranked has sparked its share of negative commentary.
  14. Garrcia

    Ranked is dead

    So you're upset that you cannot play ranked fast enough to get to the point where there is no point (other than bragging rights I guess) to play ranked.
  15. Garrcia

    Destroyer XP in T10 ranked

    So is the trade off that effective (however you want to define that) DD play can influence WR with the trade off that controlling the tempo vs farming damage?