Jump to content

Silisquish

Members
  • Content Сount

    665
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    6159
  • Clan

    [WOLFC]

Community Reputation

203 Valued poster

About Silisquish

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Location
    Canada
  • Interests
    Freezing. Maple syrup.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,195 profile views
  1. Contact him via his youtube channel if you know how to fix this problem. At least now he can play, so that's good.
  2. Silisquish

    Is anyone else happy?

    ohhhh..... pics or it didn't happen
  3. The really important question is (because of the rumours that keep popping up), did WG setup the MM to sometimes intentionally put low win rate players together in one team, and high win rate players in another to create a blowout as an intentional gameplay feature? Or, when this happens is it just purely by random chance?
  4. So, you previously stated a position and now you are opposing your own position? Okay....
  5. If that is true, why even have a matchmaker? Why not, if you press the battle button, have your ship enter a battle with 23 other people that pressed "battle" at the same time as you, regardless of ship type and tier? The matchmaker's job is to influence the outcome of the game. It is already influencing the outcome of games by matching ships with the same ship types and same tiers. WG has literally said in that Tanks support ticket reply that they want the MM to setup the game in a certain way so that players will have some battles where their team has the clear advantage, and that because of this, they are not interested in skill-based MM (which would make this impossible). From that statement it is easy to conclude that they also setup the MM to occasionally intervene to make this happen. But you're right about one thing: the MM can't "rig" matches - because that implies it was compromised somehow, when it's working as intended.
  6. If they really wanted to, they could make the MM roughly balance out the teams by skill with no real impact on waiting times. They'd just need to move people around from one team to the opposite team. It might take slightly longer if the MM is also trying to pair up, say, one gunboat DD with another, but otherwise this is not a gameplay flaw that they are trying to cover up - this is a gameplay feature they've invented because they think the playerbase will enjoy it more like this EDIT: when I say "roughly balance out the teams by skill", that's exactly what I mean - super precise skill-based MM would mean more waiting times, which means they might only want to do that for Ranked, if they ever decide to implement SBMM at all (note: SBMM would effectively eliminate purple unicum players and red / potato winrate players over time, as its function is to make games have a roughly 50% chance of win or loss. Unicums would still be unicums; potatoes would still potatoe but a unicum on one team would always have to fight a unicum from the other team, cancelling each other out)
  7. Because of this: Everyone gets a chance to become a hero, to prove their worth playing against people with different battle histories. It wouldn’t be possible with skill-based matchmaking. Their stated philosophy / policy means they not only have no reason to balance teams by winrates/skill, but, they actively want players to sometimes be put in teams where they roflstomp the enemy team - this means forcing the matchmaker to make it happen (because if you leave it to pure chance it'll almost never happen). In other words games will sometimes be intentionally skill-unbalanced/lopsided, so that players get "a chance to become a hero" , which "wouldn’t be possible with skill-based matchmaking." Because you are just as likely to put placed in the losing team in that scenario, a side effect of this is that players will experience longer winning and losing streaks than pure random chance or skill-balanced MM would allow
  8. isn't the military format like, 2020-01-15? Not 15-01-2020?
  9. Someone in WoT sent a support ticket to WG asking about having skill-based / balanced MM. This is the reply: http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/618254-random-mm-is-broken/page__pid__12369051#entry12369051 You can easily infer from this that, at least for Tanks (and maybe Ships), WG is doing a kind of reverse skill-based MM as well; in other words they are occasionally rigging games to be blowouts (instead of letting it happen only by chance), because they consider this to be more fun. Long streaks of losses or victories can happen because of this. The same system is probably also in this game... I am not 100% sure as I don't use mods that track people's winrates so I could be wrong, but this is a complaint that pops up from time to time on the forums - about the MM being "rigged" or malfunctioning somehow. Well, looks like it's not "rigged" or a bug, it's a gameplay feature.
  10. Silisquish

    Lert & Mouse's Most Memorable Premiums of 2019

    You guys are supposed to review ships, not marry them off.
  11. Silisquish

    ST, test ships changes

    Honestly, I think they should have kept the tubes the way they were. It would have made things more interesting with two tubes that fire different amounts of torps
  12. You just went off on a tangent about proper gameplay balance mechanics, and your definition of a rock-paper-scissors style is a good one, but because I used that term incorrectly that's not what I meant. "Well WG releasing DDs that are super strong against other DDs and weak against Non-DDs is not an element of Rock-Paper-Scissors." That is actually the kind of thing I meant; they're creating more ships that are naturally strong against certain ship line(s) or ships with a common characteristic or even against one particular ship in a way that can't be countered at all or can only be partially countered Another example is an Italian cruiser fighting a Khaba: the Khaba's 50mm troll plating is instantly countered by SAP - no skill required. Or, a French DD going against a smokeless radar DD: without smoke a well positioned French DD can get the most out of reload booster, and the radar DD's radar is useless. Or a ship that can be AP bomb citadeled vs AP bombers. Or a USN DD with good but limited charge smoke (or an IJN torpedo DD) vs a radar DD: once the radar DD gets spotted just press the "I win" button. (but in those cases at least here are some soft counters) Just like a small caliber gunboat DD with guns that sacrifice HE pen for rate of fire has a natural advantage against DDs that no other type of DD can match (and to a lesser degree, vs BBs by using fires) so now regular 5" gunboat DDs are at an automatic disadvantage and need good allies when contesting caps with these other DDs. But that's ok because if those small caliber DDs find themselves in Standard Battle games with not many DDs they will suck so it's much balans The problem with these kinds of mechanics is if you don't meet a lot of ships that you have a natural advantage against you can feel underpowered (as in the case of AP bombers and anti-DD DDs), and if you fight someone where you have a natural disadvantage against it feels really lame and unfair. Also, normal 5" gunboat DDs used to be the anti-DDs; now they're becoming the boring middle ground and WG is trying to get gunboat DD players to grind these new British and Pan-European uber-DD-killers. That is probably the only reason small caliber gunboat DDs exist: to get gunboat DD players to feel like their five inch+ guns don't cut it anymore and to grind these new lines. This is also why Pan-E is getting a dedicated 7.5km radar slot. Meanwhile, the 6km hydro German DD line is considered both the weakest DD line, and, along with the French DD & Grozovoi lines, one of the strongest cap-contesting lines. Talk about over-specialization... but maybe the solution is even more specialization: maybe WG will fix this by building a second high tier branch of German DDs with small caliber high DPM anti-DD guns. 10/10 logic clearly WG did not go derpy enough when they designed German DDs so Pan-European DDs are like German & high tier Pan-Asian DDs version 2.0: even more anti-DD derp and even less utility against other ships (except CVs; they will at least have good AA)
  13. Silisquish

    Results of Hayate resource voting

    omg I totally forgot about that one. Yes that's right; probably one coal and one Research Bureau
  14. Silisquish

    Results of Hayate resource voting

    Yes but were they very honurubru torpedoes? Did they have fine Nippon steel? Didn't think so :p They might make the T10 Pan-Euro DD a coal DD............. unless they make her a Research Bureau DD instead. Either way, I think they're done making Steel DDs
×