Please get rid of horribly one-sided games

[Peregrinas]

Why are there so many more one-sided games now? It's not fun being on either team. It's not fun getting your face burned off as you watch your entire team die one by one while barely managing a kill. Nor is it fun barely contributing anything before the game is over and losing credits at tier 10 only because the game was too short to make your credit's worth (i.e. nobody on your team could even manage 1.2k base xp on a win because it was such a blowout).

 

Or at least give us some economic  compensation that scales up as the battle duration decreases.

[Madwolf05]

Idk, I have 75% win rate in 16 battles the last 3 days. I think we only had 1 blow out loss. The best you can do is self reflect on the all the mistakes you made and see how you can improve.

[RivertheRoyal]

I did a thread about this not even a month ago. 

 

Here, this is what I said there:

 

Hi everyone. I'm long had a thought about World of Warships. Heck, it can also apply to World of Tanks, and any other games set up similarly. 

This thought is about lop-sided matches.

You know, when a game ends with one team losing miserably, and the other having ships barely scratched by the battle.

 

Now, some have claimed that this is due to the enemy team having a greater amount of skilled players, or some sort of distinct advantage over the other.  

 

I do not think this to be true. Instead, I think this phenomena occurs are a result of a snowball effect.

What do I mean?  

 

Well, let's say both teams start out with 12 ships. A ship on your team is lost. Now it's 11—12, and the enemy team has more guns firing back at fewer ships. Therefore, it becomes slightly more likely that the next ship lost will also be one from your side. You lose another ship. Now it's 10—12, and the enemy teams gains a greater advantage, and it becomes more likely that the next ship sunk will also be your own. 

 

Now, if both teams are about equal in skill, this sort of downward spiral is only more likely to continue, as the advantage lies ever more firmly in the other team's favor. This is what causes those games where one team stomps the other. One team gains the momentum early on, and they just keep moving. 

 

I know what you might be thinking—"but it wasn't like this when the game first started! Or when I started playing! Or etc, etc."  

There's a theory that I have about this sort of thing. Let's call it the "indifference effect", okay? 

 

Basically, for a steam-roll to happen, two things need to occur. The first has already been outlined—where a team gains an early advantage, and keeps the momentum rolling.

The second thing is that the other team—the one without the advantage—has to give up, whether consciously, or unconsciously. They have to throw in the towel, and lose their motivation. 

Because, it is totally possible to interrupt the enemy team and halt their momentum. You can swing the game back to your own favor after the enemy team's gained the initial advantage. But your team has to be motivated enough to do this. 

If most the people on a team have already decided that they're going to lose, then the outcome is all but decided. And oftentimes, players will see that initial advantage by the enemy team, and classify the game as a loss. At that point, it would take a better than average player to swing the pendulum back into their own favor. They would have to pick up the slack, and prove to the rest of the team that it's not un-winnable.  

 

Now, I'm calling this the "indifference effect" because such behaviour is completely decided by the experience, resignation, and...well, indifference of a player.

 

It's the result of players seeing that initial advantage the enemy team has, and resigning the game as a loss because their experience dictates that most games in that situation are lost. They then become indifferent as to the outcome of the match, and stop playing to win. Then their team is crushed, because almost everyone is doing the exact same thing.  

 

This is in contrast to the player's past, where they might have tried to win regardless—leading to much closer games overall, as both sides strived their best instead of one simply rolling over at the first sign of disadvantage.

 

---

 

So, in conclusion, lop-sided rofl-stomp matches happen as a result of one side gaining an advantage over the other early on, and continuing in their momentum as the other side simply stops playing to win.

 

Now, how do you stop this, you ask?

I don't know. Figure that out yourself. 

 

 

From that thread, I learned that the snowball effect I described has an actual name: Lanchester's Law.

 

Anyway, that's what I thought, and still think about this subject.  

[PicknChew]

I think the frequency of one-sided games increased with 6.3.0. And the main change was that conceal = Gun range nonsense.

 

I believe, that DDs being more cautious and saving their smoke for themselves has incited players to just play their own game. In other word less team. If one team is slightly more organized, a div, a selfless DD, then the game can turn very quickly.

[m373x]

Mainly because MM is ship based and not skill based. And because if you start checking every "bad player" profile you will be surprised how many of them never touched a german BB but are driving a tirpitz, or atlanta or atago and so on. Because sometimes one team plays vastly better than the other. Quite often the potatoes on 1 team outnumber the enemy potatoes 2:1.I had 2 games today where 1 team didn't lose any ships and countless games where 2-3 ships were lost. I had one close game though and it was a nailbiter. I am sure this will get fixed soon kappa

[Wulfgarn]

Yup, it's been really bad lately.

 

I've seen at least six posts on this very subject over the past month.

 

[paradat]

The simple answer is they can not get rid of them. One sided battle results is the norm in most real life scenarios the really close one is the oddity. The battle is always close until one or two of the "close" fights end then the team that won that single engagement has the advantage and more often then not you get a cascade effect. This is normal.

[MidnightShamalan]

while i agree that good performances should be rewarded better, even on a loss, there's really no way to fairly get rid of the snowball effect.

 

in fact, the more "even" they make the matches, the more "one sided" results there will be. a fair fight ceases to be as soon as one side loses a ship.

[Peregrinas]

The simple answer is they can not get rid of them. One sided battle results is the norm in most real life scenarios the really close one is the oddity. The battle is always close until one or two of the "close" fights end then the team that one that singe engagement has the advantage and more often then not you get a cascade effect. This is normal.

 

Except there are so many teams that completely throw away a perfectly winnable game. Such as this one GK (and his division buddy) I just played with that went chasing a Tirpitz halfway around the map while the rest of us slowly got killed off, even though I told them early on not to chase the Tirpitz.

[yashma]

I think the frequency of one-sided games increased with 6.3.0. And the main change was that conceal = Gun range nonsense.

 

I believe, that DDs being more cautious and saving their smoke for themselves has incited players to just play their own game. In other word less team. If one team is slightly more organized, a div, a selfless DD, then the game can turn very quickly.

 

Yah, I've noticed this too.   With DDs playing passive, if one team gets their act together and pushes aggressively together they can just steamroll the opposition.  Although, there is the potential for the team that pushes to get steamrolled instead......

[RipNuN2]

Yup, it's been really bad lately.

 

I've seen at least six posts on this very subject over the past month.

 

 

Not that it means much when 5 of the 6 posts are made by the same 2 players.

[Peregrinas]

 

Not that it means much when 5 of the 6 posts are made by the same 2 players.

 

I have not posted on this at all, thank you very much.

[VTAdmiral]

 

Yah, I've noticed this too.   With DDs playing passive, if one team gets their act together and pushes aggressively together they can just steamroll the opposition.  Although, there is the potential for the team that pushes to get steamrolled instead......

 

What do you expect us to do? Every time we find a play style that lets us play aggressively, we get nerfed.

[Volga1987]

How cany anyone know the Outcome, before the battle even starts? I didnt knwo that MM or WG can look into the future.

[MajorRenegade]

it because you win to much and wg is making you pay?

[VTAdmiral]

How cany anyone know the Outcome, before the battle even starts? I didnt knwo that MM or WG can look into the future.

 

When I'm in Shimakaze and the teams are displayed with the only DD on my side being Shimakaze, while the enemy team has Gearing and Fletcher

 

I know I'm going to have a tough game.

 

When the enemy team has Moskva, Des Moines, Donskoi, Baltimore, Minotaur, Neptune, and Missouri while my team has Zao, Zao, Hindenburg, Ibuki, Roon, and Izumo

 

I know I'm going to have a tough game.

 

See if you can find the reasons why.

[RipNuN2]

 

I have not posted on this at all, thank you very much.

 

You arent part of the 2 I'm referring to.

[RivertheRoyal]

 

You arent part of the 2 I'm referring to.

 

 

I fully admit responsibility for two of those threads. 

[RipNuN2]

 

 

I fully admit responsibility for two of those threads. 

 

Well I wasnt going to name names but now that you mention it . . . 

[Peregrinas]

 

You arent part of the 2 I'm referring to.

 

Sorry but I've been trolled to hell and back today so I am a bit aggressively cautious. 

[CLUCH_CARGO]

One sided games? if you lose in them next time get on the other team. If you win why the complaining?

                                                              

[Wombatmetal]

I did a thread about this not even a month ago. 

 

Here, this is what I said there:

 

Hi everyone. I'm long had a thought about World of Warships. Heck, it can also apply to World of Tanks, and any other games set up similarly. 

This thought is about lop-sided matches.

You know, when a game ends with one team losing miserably, and the other having ships barely scratched by the battle.

 

Now, some have claimed that this is due to the enemy team having a greater amount of skilled players, or some sort of distinct advantage over the other.  

 

I do not think this to be true. Instead, I think this phenomena occurs are a result of a snowball effect.

What do I mean?  

 

Well, let's say both teams start out with 12 ships. A ship on your team is lost. Now it's 11—12, and the enemy team has more guns firing back at fewer ships. Therefore, it becomes slightly more likely that the next ship lost will also be one from your side. You lose another ship. Now it's 10—12, and the enemy teams gains a greater advantage, and it becomes more likely that the next ship sunk will also be your own. 

 

Now, if both teams are about equal in skill, this sort of downward spiral is only more likely to continue, as the advantage lies ever more firmly in the other team's favor. This is what causes those games where one team stomps the other. One team gains the momentum early on, and they just keep moving. 

 

I know what you might be thinking—"but it wasn't like this when the game first started! Or when I started playing! Or etc, etc."  

There's a theory that I have about this sort of thing. Let's call it the "indifference effect", okay? 

 

Basically, for a steam-roll to happen, two things need to occur. The first has already been outlined—where a team gains an early advantage, and keeps the momentum rolling.

The second thing is that the other team—the one without the advantage—has to give up, whether consciously, or unconsciously. They have to throw in the towel, and lose their motivation. 

Because, it is totally possible to interrupt the enemy team and halt their momentum. You can swing the game back to your own favor after the enemy team's gained the initial advantage. But your team has to be motivated enough to do this. 

If most the people on a team have already decided that they're going to lose, then the outcome is all but decided. And oftentimes, players will see that initial advantage by the enemy team, and classify the game as a loss. At that point, it would take a better than average player to swing the pendulum back into their own favor. They would have to pick up the slack, and prove to the rest of the team that it's not un-winnable.  

 

Now, I'm calling this the "indifference effect" because such behaviour is completely decided by the experience, resignation, and...well, indifference of a player.

 

It's the result of players seeing that initial advantage the enemy team has, and resigning the game as a loss because their experience dictates that most games in that situation are lost. They then become indifferent as to the outcome of the match, and stop playing to win. Then their team is crushed, because almost everyone is doing the exact same thing.  

 

This is in contrast to the player's past, where they might have tried to win regardless—leading to much closer games overall, as both sides strived their best instead of one simply rolling over at the first sign of disadvantage.

 

---

 

So, in conclusion, lop-sided rofl-stomp matches happen as a result of one side gaining an advantage over the other early on, and continuing in their momentum as the other side simply stops playing to win.

 

Now, how do you stop this, you ask?

I don't know. Figure that out yourself. 

 

 

From that thread, I learned that the snowball effect I described has an actual name: Lanchester's Law.

 

Anyway, that's what I thought, and still think about this subject.  

 

All that's true but good games design around it. There are multiple ways to handle it. WG does not handle it well, probably because it's new

[Peregrinas]

One sided games? if you lose in them next time get on the other team. If you win why the complaining?

 

Because hardly contributing is not fun? Often times I go with the flanking force (since I prefer and excel in smaller engagements) only to find zero opposition on the enemy team, and the entire enemy team gets melted by the rest of my team as I slowly make my way over.

[TheKrimzonDemon]

I've already stated the reason for steamrolls: The MM gives one team the better players in the queue, the other team gets the worse players. Period.

[Nergy]

It doesn't take a lot to get a blowout.

 

A few lucky hits on one side and a few unlucky ones on the other and a 5 on 6 match turns into a 3 on 6. This most likely will lead to an 4 or 5 ship advantage for one side.

 

It doesn't take a lot of imagination what the result of the match will be..