Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
IronWolfV

SBMM or MM changes doesn't fix the root problem

43 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

6,799
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,420 battles

You've all seen the threads.  "Too many potatoes!" "MM sucks fix MM!" "+1/-1 will fix everything!"

 

Too bad this is all just window dressing. It's a facade. A LIE. Because what's the root cause underneath all of this. How bad the general player population is. Until you fix that, anything you try to do, change or fix with MM will run smack back into this root problem.

 

And furthermore most "bad" players on my hunch are ignorant. They simply don't know any better. They don't do research(yes which is quite lazy, but what do I expect here?) and just really don't know.

 

WG HAS to do a better job explaining the mechanics. And the sad part is they have all the tools and incentives to actually do so. But laziness once again takes the crown.

 

WG could do a new player campaign that you have to do the bare basic modules before you can even start playing PvP. These would include:

-Maneuvering

-Basic gunnery

-AA vs Planes

-Basic Spotting

-Penetration vs Armor and how angling works

-Torpedos

 

Must complete basic training. And WG could reward with credits or modules for the first run through. Then leave them there if a player wants to practice again.

 

Then therr could be intermediate level then advanced which once again maybe some small amounts of doubloons for first time completion. 

 

Now will this help everyone? No. Will a bunch of people rush through without learning a thing? Sure.  But IMHO it would help a lot more than doing nothing. And goes under the header of "give a man a fish feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, feed him for a lifetime."

 

Let's start teaching players how to really play and understand the mechanics of the game WG.

 

Long past time. You have ALL the tools to make it interactive and really make it a learning experience.

  • Cool 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
127 posts
1,190 battles
2 minutes ago, IronWolfV said:

WG could do a new player campaign that you have to do the bare basic modules before you can even start playing PvP. These would include:

-Maneuvering

-Basic gunnery

-AA vs Planes

-Basic Spotting

-Penetration vs Armor and how angling works

-Torpedos

 

Must complete basic training. And WG could reward with credits or modules for the first run through. Then leave them there if a player wants to practice again..

I posted about this a couple weeks ago and really wish it would have been a thing when I started playing a few months ago.  

 

I only got decent playing this game because of threads on this forum YouTube videos, and sheer determination to like the game (I'm a naval history buff.)

 

i can't really get any of my friends to play though because the skill floor is too high.  People will say it isn't, but unless you know what you're doing you just get deleted in this game.  Moreover, in game there is no advice for teaching the knowledge of the mechanics necessary to succeed.  

 

Long story short, I absolutely agree with your post 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
148
[PLPTE]
Members
493 posts
6,886 battles

I installed and started using Match Making Monitor about a week ago.  I am about 80-90% accurate in predicting win/loss based on the team aggregate win rate.  It's not complicated.

 

A skill based MM could be one simple step, of looking at player win rates after the teams are made, and swapping ships from one side to the other, so the balance of red/yellow and blue/purple players are more evenly matched between the teams.

 

The randomness of MM, where it can create these stacked teams, is just one more layer of RNG that isn't necessary and IS fixable.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
598
[RKLES]
[RKLES]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,317 posts
11,420 battles

A majority of the player base only has limited time to play.

If I want to spend an hour having fun in a game, why should I learn.

I shoot big guns and occasionally hit ships.

I launch torpedoes and they mostly hit ships....some friendlies, oh well.

Tier 3 is fun and I enjoy bashing ships, until I die, in my schornhurst...

 

All comments from friends I have played with.

 

Remember, for some this is a game, and not a job.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,823
[ARRGG]
[ARRGG]
Members
5,770 posts

Those who play for Numbers it is fun, those who play for relaxation it is fun, those who play for the sake of playing it is fun. The reason for MM vs SBMM is fun. With all this "FUN" happening why are the players unhappy?............. Because they are mad nobody does it their way.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
660
[UDEAD]
[UDEAD]
Beta Testers
1,023 posts
10,174 battles

Same problem with new players for World of Tanks, no comprehensive tutorial to show basic gameplay techniques ( side scraping, vision mechanics ).  You can't assume that your late adopters will be as passionate about Naval History as the early adopters were.  New players NOW will have less of a pre determined interest in the subject, and will need a lot more hand-holding than new players in Alpha/Beta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,563
Members
17,750 posts
5,084 battles
3 minutes ago, dEsTurbed1 said:

A majority of the player base only has limited time to play.

If I want to spend an hour having fun in a game, why should I learn.

I shoot big guns and occasionally hit ships.

I launch torpedoes and they mostly hit ships....some friendlies, oh well.

Tier 3 is fun and I enjoy bashing ships, until I die, in my schornhurst...

 

All comments from friends I have played with.

 

Remember, for some this is a game, and not a job.

 

Fair enough.

 

Although it doesn't have to be a job. I'm not horrible at the game, and the only thing I do to improve is assimilate knowledge from here, because I'm basically lazy lol.

 

I think that many people may be playing a game that's a bit out of their league. Like playing Diablo 2, and not using any skills that require pressing a hotbar button, because they only want to play the game with one hand. The game is going to be harder if you don't use the potential of the tools provided.

 

 I did do just that in D2, created a Barbarian, put no points in Mana, and no active skills. Just LMB mashing. Tore through the initial difficulty level like a boss, then basically hit a brick wall going up to the next difficulty. I didn't have the DPS or protective skills to succeed, because all the character was able to do was whack away at one enemy at a time.

 

Same situation in WoWS. Assuming you can shoot and hit red ships, you can make out ok and enjoy the game. But if that's all you learn, you'll hit a wall at Tier 5, where you need to do more than just shoot one ship at a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,367
[HINON]
[HINON]
Beta Testers
5,913 posts
5,204 battles

Even broaching this topic is as pointless as trying to tell an Alex Jones listener that Barack Obama never once tried to take away their guns. A more productive use of your time would be to try and spontaneously developed Harry Potter style magical abilities. You're more likely to succeed at becoming a wizard than you are in trying to influence people about MM issues or player knowledge issues. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49
[GWG]
Members
163 posts
3,483 battles

I like the idea, but you can't force people to care. What I mean is that the information is out there right now between ship reviews, youtube tutorials, clan instructions and other information right here on the forums. IF a player takes his time and learns all they can by viewing/reading/listening to the advise that is out there, they can become a better player.

Practice... use co-op to test the theories that you've (hopefully) learned, see how they work for you in your ship of choice. The best advise I've seen so far is to find a ship that you feel comfortable in and play it as much as you can. You will learn what it can (and cannot) do... and gunnery practice even against bots is still a good skill to hone.

Have patience, don't rush up the tiers. I made that mistake, rushed up too far in my first three months playing before I was even close to being ready for higher level game play. And while I've gotten alot better myself, I still (at times... ok, maybe a bit more often than I care to admit) make some bad tactical decisions, but I am getting better with each match I play.

Last, if you buy a premium ship, don't expect it to solve all your game play issues. Just like any other new ship that you research in the tech-tree, you still have to learn it, and will take time.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,666 posts
7,161 battles

Well @IronWolfV I personally think totorials if they are made should be class-based as each class plays very differently from each other. As for totorial rewards...

Cruiser: USS Olympia Tier II (I agree with @Kitsunelegend she would be a great tier 2). Missions unlocked at first cruiser purchase.

Destroyer: IJN Sakara Tier II (Tachibana's sister ship). Missions unlocked at first destroyer purchase.

Battleship: SMS Seydiltz Tier III (WW I-era battlecruiser that served with distinction at Jutland, survived to armistice). Missions unlocked at first battleship purchase.

Aircraft Carrier: HMS Hermes or MN Commandant Teste Tier IV (HMS Hermes was the first ship designed to be an Aircraft carrier but Hosho was launched and commissioned first) (Commandant Teste was technically a seaplane tender but the other option Bearn wouldn't fit a tier IV with a 40 aircraft plane capacity). Missions unlocked at first aircraft carrier purchase. 

These missions would be available to new and veteran players to play at any time (rewards only give once).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,463 posts
8,728 battles

I am not opposed to a tutorial process by any means, but I have to respectfully disagree about laziness being the issue with the fact that there is no tutorial or even the fact that a lot of players don't do much research, at least not as a blanket statement.  With the onset of online gaming as the dominant game type and the fact that games now constantly undergo changes and rebalancing, it is a cost issue that keeps gaming companies from creating extensive documentation that they know will constantly be changing, meaning they would have to constantly update it.  This is especially true with regard to in-game tutorials where you not only have to update documentation to make it accurate, but you also have to actually recode the tutorial to reflect the changes which could prove to be as expensive as making the change itself.  Even if they did create documentation, users would create far more volume than they could, and if users are going to do it, why waste the money doing it, especially since it would have to be translated to multiple languages in a game like this?

That industry's dependence on user based documentation and tutorials creates its own problems.  Those same issues turn user documentation and tutorials obsolete just as quickly, and they are often not updated or even taken down.  Even if a new player tries to research a game, it is discouraging to go out to find information about a game only to keep running into obviously obsolete information even without taking into account stuff that is largely opinion based.

Is laziness a part of it?  Sure.  However, costs are a bigger factor for companies and having to sift through inaccurate or obsolete information are bigger factors preventing users from doing a lot of initial research, resulting in a cache-22.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,965
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,724 posts
7,354 battles

I agree with your concept for helping the base, however, I disagree with your thoughts on why the base is so bad.

 

They are not, in a word, lazy. Most poor players play the evenings and weekends, because they're either in school or at work, or both. I know for a fact that when I was still working, I was a much, much worse player in the games I played then than I became after having the one thing I didn't have: Time. When one doesn't have time, the level of care is drastically lower than it is for those who do have it. They aren't invested, and it's wrong to transpose our own caring onto them, and then take them to task for not sharing it.

 

It takes practice to implement what one learns, which takes time. It takes time to learn it, period. No matter how not lazy you are, or how badly you want to be good, if you don't have time, it isn't going to happen, unless you're a prodigy.

 

If we're going to insult the base, let's at least be accurate with the insults.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
225
[WOLF2]
Members
860 posts
6,984 battles

I definitely like the idea of "boot camp" missions for new players, as they could certainly help in improving different criteria of game play.

 

Even so, I would not want restrictions on the game, where you can only play if you meet certain WTRs, etc.    There are potatoes, and there are people who eat the potatoes.  

 

That said, the real "problem" is the format itself - Random.   Taking 12 unique individuals, with individual play styles and skill levels.   Sovereigndawg keyed in on a potentially good tutorial - team play and strategy.    I'd love to see this.   Even looking through the various streams and youtube videos, it's tough to interpret a "correct" strategy.    Lord_Zath is starting to do play-by-play analysis of different players' replays (thanks Zath!), which I find is helpful to my own self-analysis.

 

Overall, I'll go into a match assuming that my team will have potatoes, that I need to try hard not to be one of those said potatoes, that the other team will likely have potatoes, and to sink the red potatoes before the green ones sink.   Sometimes it works, sometimes it melts down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
213
[PS1HQ]
Members
621 posts

you should have to unlock a tier 10 of another class to be able to play destroyers.  too many idiots that die in the first 30 seconds of the match which leads to blowouts and ruins the game for everyone on their team.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,463 posts
8,728 battles

I would also point out that, while a tutorial would certainly be a good idea to educate people in the mechanics, I think it would have little effect on the overall outcome of games.

For instance, some people like to brawl.  This is their mindset, and when they play any game, this is what constitutes "good" gameplay to them.  As such, they are going to seek every opportunity that they can to put themselves into a brawling situation.  Even if they go down, that was a fun encounter to them.  This leads to a lot of yoloing.  Knowing how to angle their armor better may make them survive longer when they do yolo, but it is not going to stop them from unnecessarily sacrificing their ship for the sake of a good brawl.  Likewise, it is not going to stop them from blaming their team for "not supporting them" when they do, and, in some ways, them surviving longer may only encourage them to keep doing it.

Don't get me wrong.  That is not, by any means, to suggest that everyone who enjoys brawling is going to yolo, that brawling equates to yoloing, or that brawling is not a legitimate tactic. Sitting back and sniping at the wrong times and refusing to commit when commitment is needed are just as harmful as yoloing.  Likewise, knowing not to sail sideways at a distance and learning how to dodge shots may just make someone survive longer employing these tactics at the wrong time.  Like everything else, there is a time and a place, and failing to brawl when brawling is necessary is just as harmful as yoloing to brawl as if that is the only way to play the game.

The point is that it is human nature to want the game to conform to our playstyle rather than the other way around.  Unfortunately, that is often not what it takes to win.  Win rates only start to go up when players start to recognize when to engage with their preferred playstyle and when to adopt other tactics.  Unfortunately, experience is the only thing that teaches that, and I don't see how a tutorial is going to be able to change that.

Again, that is not to suggest a tutorial would not be helpful, only that it probably will not change the nature of teams that significantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
225
[WOLF2]
Members
860 posts
6,984 battles
4 minutes ago, OstwindFlakpanzer said:

you should have to unlock a tier 10 of another class to be able to play destroyers.  too many idiots that die in the first 30 seconds of the match which leads to blowouts and ruins the game for everyone on their team.  

 

Not keen on strict conditions being met just to play a game.  There can be conditions for certain events - such as T10s for clan battles, certain tiers for Ranked, but for general game play?

 

In these cases with the crazy DDs, a little communication also helps.   If I'm spawned way out from the main fleet, with a single DD in front of me, I'll open up in chat that we're a bit light on firepower - check out the cap (which I'll provide cover for), but to bug out if it gets hot.    I usually get a "roger", and that DD is a bit more cautious.  

 

We, ourselves, have set the conditions for running into that cap.  Doesn't take a T10-level player to mandate that use of the DD.   Just a quick heads-up and plan B if the action gets hot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,276 battles
2 hours ago, OstwindFlakpanzer said:

you should have to unlock a tier 10 of another class to be able to play destroyers.  too many idiots that die in the first 30 seconds of the match which leads to blowouts and ruins the game for everyone on their team.  

You should have to learn the proper use of the terms ship class and ship type before you're allowed to post in the forums.  :Smile-_tongue:

 

Regardless, I do agree that too many idiots die too quickly in DD's, leading to blowouts, etc., though I think that claiming that it happens in the first 30 seconds is just hyperbole.  The game doesn't progress quite that fast.  

 

Also, I think that a tier 10 limit is far too restrictive.  Something around tier 5-6 would be more appropriate, I'd think, if any limit was going to be created.

 

Edited by Crucis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,276 battles
3 hours ago, Sotaudi said:

in I am not opposed to a tutorial process by any means, but I have to respectfully disagree about laziness being the issue with the fact that there is no tutorial or even the fact that a lot of players don't do much research, at least not as a blanket statement.  With the onset of online gaming as the dominant game type and the fact that games now constantly undergo changes and rebalancing, it is a cost issue that keeps gaming companies from creating extensive documentation that they know will constantly be changing, meaning they would have to constantly update it.  This is especially true with regard to in-game tutorials where you not only have to update documentation to make it accurate, but you also have to actually recode the tutorial to reflect the changes which could prove to be as expensive as making the change itself.  Even if they did create documentation, users would create far more volume than they could, and if users are going to do it, why waste the money doing it, especially since it would have to be translated to multiple languages in a game like this?

That industry's dependence on user based documentation and tutorials creates its own problems.  Those same issues turn user documentation and tutorials obsolete just as quickly, and they are often not updated or even taken down.  Even if a new player tries to research a game, it is discouraging to go out to find information about a game only to keep running into obviously obsolete information even without taking into account stuff that is largely opinion based.

Is laziness a part of it?  Sure.  However, costs are a bigger factor for companies and having to sift through inaccurate or obsolete information are bigger factors preventing users from doing a lot of initial research, resulting in a cache-22.

I get what you're saying.  And yet, I'm hard pressed to see how some of the really basic basics would change much if at all over time.  Things like teaching how to move and maneuver a ship.  or how to properly aim guns using a reticle and how to use torpedoes.   Maybe how to angle armor, particularly when in battleships.  And perhaps how to aim when using a spotter plane.  It seems like things would have to change A LOT for these kinds of basics to require changes to an in-game tutorial.

You're probably correct when it comes to more advanced topics like the use of smoke, particularly offensive smoke.  Or tactical positioning.  Or using radar or hydro effectively.  When to use DC parties and heals.  And so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
444
[BOTES]
Members
1,895 posts
6,607 battles
5 hours ago, Kerrec said:

I installed and started using Match Making Monitor about a week ago.  I am about 80-90% accurate in predicting win/loss based on the team aggregate win rate.  It's not complicated.

 

A skill based MM could be one simple step, of looking at player win rates after the teams are made, and swapping ships from one side to the other, so the balance of red/yellow and blue/purple players are more evenly matched between the teams.

 

The randomness of MM, where it can create these stacked teams, is just one more layer of RNG that isn't necessary and IS fixable.

 

More important than looking at WR is where the disparity comes from. Midway has a lower WR than Hak? One team has 3 DD and the other has 2? No AA? Cap contesters? AFK? Detonation? Shitter DDs?

 

There are lots of reasons games become lopsided. Some people do have worse luck than others. Not because God hates them, but because they literally do not improve their RNG as much as others by eliminating dets, reducing dispersion, increasing fire chance, and most importantly, playing in divs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,463 posts
8,728 battles
13 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I get what you're saying.  And yet, I'm hard pressed to see how some of the really basic basics would change much if at all over time.  Things like teaching how to move and maneuver a ship.  or how to properly aim guns using a reticle and how to use torpedoes.   Maybe how to angle armor, particularly when in battleships.  And perhaps how to aim when using a spotter plane.  It seems like things would have to change A LOT for these kinds of basics to require changes to an in-game tutorial.

You're probably correct when it comes to more advanced topics like the use of smoke, particularly offensive smoke.  Or tactical positioning.  Or using radar or hydro effectively.  When to use DC parties and heals.  And so on.

Those are fair observations, and they illustrate why my first sentence was that I was not against a tutorial process by any means.  In that post, I was simply addressing the notion that the lack of a tutorial (or adequate, up to date documentation) was a product of laziness on the part of WG or that players don't take advantage of what was there due to laziness.

Even my second post was not intended to suggest a tutorial would be useless.  A greater understanding of mechanics would certainly help people, but I just felt that the idea that this would have a big impact on team quality was a bit optimistic.  The bigger issue, in my opinion, is in relation to people trying to make the game adapt to them rather than the other way around, and I just wanted to point that a tutorial would not change that all that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,629 posts
13,443 battles

While I believe that Wolf's idea has merit, I think that a required "Boot Camp" before playing PvP would be more harmful than helpful in that it would likely drive new players away. Keep in mind, that in any game people want to get into the fray immediately, if not sooner.

In any online game, there have always been poor players and there always will be poor players. And nothing's going to change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
9,434 posts
11,601 battles
2 hours ago, awildseaking said:

 

More important than looking at WR is where the disparity comes from. Midway has a lower WR than Hak? One team has 3 DD and the other has 2? No AA? Cap contesters? AFK? Detonation? Shitter DDs?

 

There are lots of reasons games become lopsided. Some people do have worse luck than others. Not because God hates them, but because they literally do not improve their RNG as much as others by eliminating dets, reducing dispersion, increasing fire chance, and most importantly, playing in divs.

 

Bad players  divisioning will not help their WR any.     it actually my worsen their WR.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,417
[5BS]
Members
4,475 posts
8 hours ago, IronWolfV said:

You've all seen the threads.  "Too many potatoes!" "MM sucks fix MM!" "+1/-1 will fix everything!"

 

Too bad this is all just window dressing. It's a facade. A LIE. Because what's the root cause underneath all of this. How bad the general player population is. Until you fix that, anything you try to do, change or fix with MM will run smack back into this root problem.

 

And furthermore most "bad" players on my hunch are ignorant. They simply don't know any better. They don't do research(yes which is quite lazy, but what do I expect here?) and just really don't know.

 

WG HAS to do a better job explaining the mechanics. And the sad part is they have all the tools and incentives to actually do so. But laziness once again takes the crown.

 

WG could do a new player campaign that you have to do the bare basic modules before you can even start playing PvP. These would include:

-Maneuvering

-Basic gunnery

-AA vs Planes

-Basic Spotting

-Penetration vs Armor and how angling works

-Torpedos

 

Must complete basic training. And WG could reward with credits or modules for the first run through. Then leave them there if a player wants to practice again.

 

Then therr could be intermediate level then advanced which once again maybe some small amounts of doubloons for first time completion. 

 

Now will this help everyone? No. Will a bunch of people rush through without learning a thing? Sure.  But IMHO it would help a lot more than doing nothing. And goes under the header of "give a man a fish feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, feed him for a lifetime."

 

Let's start teaching players how to really play and understand the mechanics of the game WG.

 

Long past time. You have ALL the tools to make it interactive and really make it a learning experience.

Here's a basic engineering concept many people *refuse* to understand: You *CANNOT* make as system idiot proof, nor can you *ever* trust the end user.

You are arguing to try to improve the masses to elevate the game. That is a fools errant if there ever has one and everything from war, politics, to games, to love and invention will prove that idea wrong. You *CAN NOT* ever try to improve the end user. No amount of education or implementation will ever fix the end user. So, as testaments of engineering tells us, you build *around* the end user. You can never build out his stupidity, but you can build around it best you can to mitigate the damage he can do. As such, things like a +-1 MM, limits on ship numbers per match (BB and/or DD cap), and other features *mitigate* the stupidity of players. Hell, my suggested rework of linearizing range to XP/Credit payout would do more to mitigate player stupidity than any other thing I've seen suggested and works whether or not the end user is smart enough to realize what's going on.

Remember, literacy tests *failed* to elevate politics, because dumb people will always out.

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,420 battles
2 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Here's a basic engineering concept many people *refuse* to understand: You *CANNOT* make as system idiot proof, nor can you *ever* trust the end user.

You are arguing to try to improve the masses to elevate the game. That is a fools errant if there ever has one and everything from war, politics, to games, to love and invention will prove that idea wrong. You *CAN NOT* ever try to improve the end user. No amount of education or implementation will ever fix the end user. So, as testaments of engineering tells us, you build *around* the end user. You can never build out his stupidity, but you can build around it best you can to mitigate the damage he can do. As such, things like a +-1 MM, limits on ship numbers per match (BB and/or DD cap), and other features *mitigate* the stupidity of players.

Remember, literacy tests *failed* to elevate politics, because dumb people will always out.

Trying to idiot proof around the end user never EVER works. I worked for an IT division too for a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×