SuperComm4

Thank you for taking the time to respond, and your mathematical point is accurate, appreciated, and was also considered when making the post. I simply felt adding the average of averages was a simpler way to high level view the differences. The question is more one of logic & fun than of math... If, regardless of games played (counts below), one has a Sub 48% win rate, is it logical to think there is a reason for that to be the case? We can’t tell for sure, but we can at least see if there is any other correlation...maybe they are not shooting as accurate? Possible, with again a plethora of variables...but that also is the case in this sample. Low accuracy goes with the low win rates here. Then there is the way they actually play - proof is in the pudding: Winning teams always seem to have a +5% wr and rarely is the actual gameplay experience anywhere near the same as that of the lopsided losses. Here’s the thing: To have a win rate below 48%, it is likely the player is doing things in a manner so that they actually lower the winning chances for their team. In many cases this includes trolling their teammates, or looking to chat and blame etc. And when you see a 5:2 or worse ratio fairly consistently, lopsided teams is more the rule than the exception. We can get lost in the statistics, but we also know a problem when we see one. What you describe is exactly the experience now; with the difference being the good player loses attempting to carry a team stacked with below average players or win being carried 2 or more unicum players...And your sentiment is why, as others have pointed out, the game already is dying. So if that is the case anyways, Why Not look at alternatives? This is on point. No one had less than 600 battles, 2 were over 4k. And the data simply tracks actions, so regardless of many of the variables, win rate, accuracy etc all are indicative at some level of overall performance. Minimum threshold of games played of any account in this sample of account win rate was over 600 Games played, everyone else 1k-4k, 2 people were over 4k.

It really is. I guess in my perhaps limited thinking, I cannot understand what the obsession with forced random multiplayer battles is. They claim this is a “fps” genre game, but FPS games have more than just “random” matches or rinse and repeat co-op.

This actually makes a lot of sense. So are the unicum players the ones who sit back and let the “potatoes” sort out their madness, then come in and clean up?

I’ve been of two schools of thought on this, to be honest. I definitely experienced exactly what you described. Sometimes I think the guys that use some kind of a Bot program to repeatedly launch into games and steer their ship around aimlessly actually seem to have decent win rates. So I came to the conclusion that you could literally start 100 games and not press a single button after and you will still be around a 50% win rate. But the other angle is that of the people who have a win rate below 47%. These people are doing things consistently that cost their team in significant ways. By playing, they are actually hurting their teams chances to win vs if they got kicked off the server and went AFK. I’ve been on winning teams that had 3 AFKs. One would think you can counter this by playing better, and I have gotten much better, Unicum in a few ships, but even in those ships I cannot compensate for the 43% guys. Whichever team got more 43% dudes drawn in their lot is going to lose regardless. I really have not found an exception to this. Once, after sinking 7 ships I thought I bucked the trend...nope, the reds simply had more skill deficient players.

Yes, I really do enjoy Co-op and Scenarios more these days. I have so many ships That are really fun, and would like to use them in more scenario type game play, or alternate game modes. Someone posted a “battle of the Atlantic” topic, and stuff like that I feel would be great for WG to explore since Randoms seem to always have the above issue.

Yes, and resoundingly so! This game is in dire need of alternatives to random and scenario of the month for players. Sailing a convoy ship could be bots, but also people, maybe a free XP type bonus. You could “grind” convoys and maybe get coal or steel if the convoy makes it. Maybe divisions can “own” the convoy, and sail against random “commerce raiders” or subs, that spawn along the route. If the convoy makes it, they get the resources.

I fully agree that it is working exactly the way it’s supposed to. I just wish there were more engaging alternatives to enjoy these fine ships than the “random” experience described.

I often wonder if the frustration exhibited towards potato players (they are a fact of life, and a necessity for the game to grow) would be less if there were a better formula for matching them in games, or alternatives for people to “sink ships” and play ships of any tier without “winning” depending on whether you lucked out in the MM lotto.

Matchmaking is just fine. Stop all these whining threads saying otherwise! Here is an example of the fair, and balanced, matchmaking that I have seen all morning. Since people clamor for data, why not use some actual numbers rather than “I feel...”: Team 1 win rates: 44.60 / 43.58 / 50.49 / 49.90 / 47.82 / 46.58 / 46.21 - AVG = 47.02% Team 2 win rates: 46.38 / 47.60 / 52.29 / 50.36 / 52.45 / 63.19 / 56.55 - AVG = 52.69% But Super - win rate is such a poor way to prove a point about matchmaking! Why of course, young wave-runner, we all know this to be true! It is not possible for their to be a difference in tactics and cohesion that are displayed on a team 5% lower in win rates. Nor is it possible for Team 1’s shooting accuracy to be any less, and even if it was it would not affect anything...Because we all know the ability to put shells on a target is highly overrated! Team 1 accuracy: 28.95 / 19.37 / 33.00 / 33.72 / 34.83 / 27.12 / 25.41 - AVG = 28.91% Team 2 accuracy: 27.04 / 30.32 / 29.02 / 35.57 / 32.77 / 33.84 / 33.14 - AVG = 31.67% Humbug! 2% difference! So what are you suggesting Super? Skill-based matchmaking, so you can “feel” like you can win more? Carry harder and “git GuD”! It’s RANDOM! Nah, we don’t need to do anything different. When putting numbers on a web forum is more fun & engaging than randomly winning and losing in streaks with surprisingly similar team stacks as the figures above, we have hit the “sweet spot”! Why would we want to ruin a perfectly good random-fest by exploring additional game modes, or some silly matchmaking nonsense that would make wait times 2 to 4 days?

I don’t know, Soviet armor works amazingly well considering their actual metallurgical tech at the time was a big reason many of the ships didn’t get built. And my Soviet BBs have devastating accuracy for paper ships when compared with other nations BBs that had historically proven accuracy, yet in game they can’t hit anything. I’m hard pressed to find a better T7 than Sinop. I loved Gneisenau and Nagato, but no comparison can be made. I get that it’s a game, and that “each nation’s ships are of a certain character”; but in many cases that “character” has its roots in historical ships. I love sailing my Soviet ships, and seem to work awful well in each category. That said, Smolensk is a tin can. To your point, perhaps it’s a matter of finding the line(s) that match one’s playstyle.

I’ve noticed since the update lag is an issue when ships get really close, so shots may have missed entirely due to what you thought reticle was on may have been different than the server. Otherwise Amagi must have been at the right angle for AP to bounce. there are a lot of annoying things people do, from sync-drop spies to trolls...but hacking has simply not been something I’ve seen.

DDs are still a lot of fun to play. The main reason so many people hate is that their idea of DD play is to charge into a cap full speed, leaving all covering ships behind, and even putting islands between them and friendly ships. This was my go to playstyle for DDs for almost 2 years. Stunning how dense we can sometimes be. Add a little patience and a lot of learning the ship’s strengths and weaknesses and they become really fun, all obstacles aside. Kiev is my recent example. I found it an absolutely miserable ship (pr was like 400s), then it clicked and I’ve been having a blast playing it, and radar or CV has yet to be an issue. Now if I can just stop trying to play other DDs with the Kiev playstyle...

Definitely do not like any buffs or consolation prizes. I think the answer is more game modes, more choices for Scenarios, and more PVE options. If it’s not your day, or you are still learning a ship, more than Co-op as an alternative would reduce frustration for not just the struggling player, but it would also take some of the frustration out of randoms.

I really like the way the Dockyard was implemented this time around. I didn’t kill myself grinding, and with reasonable play & $9.90 out of pocket I was able to get Odin. Twice a year is about all that we should see Dockyard events, however. It is special because it is that “rare chance to get a special ship”. More than twice a year, and it will no longer be special nor will it be “rare”.

This full broadside at sub 6km all misses thing is ridiculous, and seems to be more of a problem recently. Curiously, I’ve also notices 100% hits at medium and longer ranges with poor accuracy ships. I’m wondering if a recent update opened up the RNG parameters to a bigger range? I’ve even seen some really odd torpedo spreads!