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

27 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2
[TPM]
Members
14 posts
3,757 battles

so this will be a bit of a rant, I know that. At the same time, I have some serious questions.

 

why is WG bases their MM off of the Hinduism "Well of Life" its the idea that pertaining to warships... that you do good, if not best of your team and win. and then suddenly you start doing good if not best of your team but losing. everyone says "well thats just the game, its MM" is it? I earnestly believe that this is done on purpose by WG.. its not fair MM.

 

why is it WG says MM is "fair and balanced" when they allow a single team to have FIVE radar ships but give the other team ONE radar ship? that is ridiculous. it instantly give whatever team that has that much radar a clear and distinct advantage in winning, so how can you say it's "fair and balanced" I only say this because everyone that I play with, is sick and tired of this concept, sick and tired of WG saying things are balanced and fair. its not. WG decides who wins, and who loses. how is it certain people loses 6-8 games in a row, but take minimally top 3 on the team? play high tiers and 6 games you get the team that sits in spawn within 10km of eachother and wonder just why.. why you get such bad teams. especially high tier.. where you SHOULD know better.  

 

frankly on a separate note, WG why is it you making a mission, such as the Pan Asian DD hype, why do you making 50k flooding a mission? it has nothing to do with skill, nothing to do with how well, or how bad you play. it depends entirely on luck, but at the same time you make the campaigns and every other mission skilled based in some way. even the ARP ships were skill based. you needed XP, if you suck at the game it would take you FOREVER and thats if you complete it within the time.. but if you was good and new how to play you could get those ships within a few hours of playing. now however, you make a mission needing 50,000 flood damage, that is entirely up to RNG to get the flood in the first, place, luck you dont just out right kill your target, luck in hope that your target does not have their damage control ready to use.  43 games is what it took to get that 50,000 flood damage.. 38 games if you take the games out that I didn't land a torpedo. the entire mission was based on luck and random chance, not skill, not even RNG.

 

so why is it Wargaming do you decide who wins and loses based on who you feel should win or lose? to say you don't do this, is a lie straight through your teeth. 

 

why is it you want people interested in the Pan Asian DDs by doing these really cool mission rewards to help people when they finally release the ships but you make it based upon random LUCK to do some of the missions?

 

 

...and you wonder why people become toxic and quit your games when you rig the system against them..

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
381
[SALTY]
[SALTY]
Members
258 posts
4,619 battles

On a serious note, I get ya, MM is weird sometimes

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
448 posts
7,474 battles
1 hour ago, FrozenPyjak said:

...and you wonder why people become toxic and quit your games when you rig the system against them..

 

 

 

Nothing is rigged against you.

Matchmaker simply does not take radar(or any other consumables, or skill for that matter) into account when formulating matches. Sometimes the other team has more radar ships, sometimes your team does. FWIW radar ships aren't an "I win" button either, their winrates are similar to other ships and teams with a radar advantage lose all the time. How could this be?

Also you complain about high-tier players sitting at spawn - how is this WGs fault?

WG certainly makes mistakes(the Pan-Asian mission for flooding dmg. might be one), but your overall rant seems ill-considered.

...

 

Edited by Dr_Powderfinger
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
96
[HDR]
[HDR]
Members
1,174 posts
2,197 battles
2 hours ago, FrozenPyjak said:

play high tiers and 6 games you get the team that sits in spawn within 10km of eachother and wonder just why.. why you get such bad teams. especially high tier.. where you SHOULD know better.  

Now , you Can't blame WG completely for this ,partly maybe(Opinion)but not completely, this is player mentality, you aren't getting all the teams that sit 10km within eachother, everyone has these battles in high tier.

That is the meta.

People don't push because others aren't willing to push.

It is as simple as that.

 

 

Edited by Silver_kun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
117
[LEGIT]
Beta Testers
297 posts
15,735 battles

I think just had a bad day.

 

your win rates:

0.00%(today- 6 battles)    81.25% (yesterday-16 battles)  61.54%(past 30 days-195 battles)    58.68% (past 366 days-1803 battles)  55.09% (overall-1167 battles)

 

tbh you are doing better than a lot of people in the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[TPM]
Members
14 posts
3,757 battles
1 hour ago, Dr_Powderfinger said:

 

Nothing is rigged against you.

Matchmaker simply does not take radar(or any other consumables, or skill for that matter) into account when formulating matches. Sometimes the other team has more radar ships, sometimes your team does. FWIW radar ships aren't an "I win" button either, their winrates are similar to other ships and teams with a radar advantage lose all the time. How could this be?

Also you complain about high-tier players sitting at spawn - how is this WGs fault?

WG certainly makes mistakes(the Pan-Asian mission for flooding dmg. might be one), but your overall rant seems ill-considered.

...

 

no you are right to a point, but compared to warplanes and tanks, the tutorial for warships is well very lacking. I know this game and any of war gaming products takes a LOT to learn, I get that. but they should be.. so much better. maybe all of this is ill-gotten but the fact you are having tier 9 and tier 10 making the mistakes that of tier 4s.. to me shows how much the tutorials lack for the fact that on average I would say, if a new player has premium account and flags and camo if you buy them.. could reach a tier 10 ship within 150 battles.. so really in theory that should be more skilled than what you see if taught correctly

as for the radar you are right it is not a "press this button for insta-win" I get that, but you also dont have to be skilled with it, just push in even if you cannot shoot , just press the button and watch the enemy DDs, smoke faring cruisers run. its also the could say intimidation act of having 5 radar to your 1.. who as a DD and smoke cruisers want to push close?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
448 posts
7,474 battles
7 minutes ago, FrozenPyjak said:

no you are right to a point, but compared to warplanes and tanks, the tutorial for warships is well very lacking. I know this game and any of war gaming products takes a LOT to learn, I get that. but they should be.. so much better. maybe all of this is ill-gotten but the fact you are having tier 9 and tier 10 making the mistakes that of tier 4s.. to me shows how much the tutorials lack for the fact that on average I would say, if a new player has premium account and flags and camo if you buy them.. could reach a tier 10 ship within 150 battles.. so really in theory that should be more skilled than what you see if taught correctly

as for the radar you are right it is not a "press this button for insta-win" I get that, but you also dont have to be skilled with it, just push in even if you cannot shoot , just press the button and watch the enemy DDs, smoke faring cruisers run. its also the could say intimidation act of having 5 radar to your 1.. who as a DD and smoke cruisers want to push close?

I will agree that WoWs could do a better job with tutorials and educating new players. Along those lines nobody should be able to buy a high tier premium if they have not reached that tier in a regular tech tree - that is asking for players who have no idea what they are doing.

Kudos btw to OP for reconsidering his position and being more reasonable, that is rare in these forums.

 

..

Edited by Dr_Powderfinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
412 posts
1,294 battles

for me i try to find out which days i play and which days i don't play

it's kinda consistent for me as the days mostly stay the same involving matchmaking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,249 battles
1 hour ago, Dr_Powderfinger said:

 

Nothing is rigged against you.

Matchmaker simply does not take radar(or any other consumables, or skill for that matter) into account when formulating matches. Sometimes the other team has more radar ships, sometimes your team does.

Also you complain about high-tier players sitting at spawn - how is this WGs fault?

WG certainly makes mistakes(the Pan-Asian mission for flooding dmg. might be one), but your overall rant seems ill-considered.

...

 

Actually, I think that while it's true that MM isn't strictly rigged against a specific person, say relative to radar, I think that one could make the case that by not balancing out radar for both teams, you end up with the rigging equivalent of a lie of omission.  Rigging by omission?  Allowing a serious game affecting imbalance to occur without making any attempt to prevent it.

It's not unlike having MM give one team 4 USN DD's and the other team 3 IJN DD's ... and then decide that it'll be for a Domination or Epicenter mode battle.  Fair?  After all it's all just random?  But at some point, these sorts of MM omissions start to build up as frustrations in players, and eventually they'll throw up their hands and say "enough!" and leave the  game.  Is it too much to ask that the MM devs should make a better attempt to balance things out?

Or looked at another way, this is what you get when you create these national flavors that create considerable imbalances in certain game situations.  And worse, in certain game modes, like domination and epicenter, which require base capping, but you have one nation's navy (IJN) whose DD's are supremely bad at contending for bases while there's another nation's navy who is exceptional at it.  Heck, IMO, Russian DD's aren't particularly good at taking caps because they give up way too much in concealment.  They're ok for supporting the cappers, but not so good at BEING the cappers, at least against USN DD's.

Or sometimes having a difference in the numbers of DD's.  Or sometimes an imbalance in both the number and tier points of each teams' DDs.  I've seen battles where one team has a tier 10 and 8, and the other has a tier 10 and two 9's.  Of course, the difference is "balanced" elsewhere.  But when you're fighting over caps, those extra tier points in the cruisers often don't mean squat because they're not there to help.

 

Anyways, WG could do a lot better job of balancing teams through MM, but doesn't.  Sounds like rigging or, at least, imbalance by omission to me.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[TPM]
Members
14 posts
3,757 battles
24 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Actually, I think that while it's true that MM isn't strictly rigged against a specific person, say relative to radar, I think that one could make the case that by not balancing out radar for both teams, you end up with the rigging equivalent of a lie of omission.  Rigging by omission?  Allowing a serious game affecting imbalance to occur without making any attempt to prevent it.

It's not unlike having MM give one team 4 USN DD's and the other team 3 IJN DD's ... and then decide that it'll be for a Domination or Epicenter mode battle.  Fair?  After all it's all just random?  But at some point, these sorts of MM omissions start to build up as frustrations in players, and eventually they'll throw up their hands and say "enough!" and leave the  game.  Is it too much to ask that the MM devs should make a better attempt to balance things out?

Or looked at another way, this is what you get when you create these national flavors that create considerable imbalances in certain game situations.  And worse, in certain game modes, like domination and epicenter, which require base capping, but you have one nation's navy (IJN) whose DD's are supremely bad at contending for bases while there's another nation's navy who is exceptional at it.  Heck, IMO, Russian DD's aren't particularly good at taking caps because they give up way too much in concealment.  They're ok for supporting the cappers, but not so good at BEING the cappers, at least against USN DD's.

Or sometimes having a difference in the numbers of DD's.  Or sometimes an imbalance in both the number and tier points of each teams' DDs.  I've seen battles where one team has a tier 10 and 8, and the other has a tier 10 and two 9's.  Of course, the difference is "balanced" elsewhere.  But when you're fighting over caps, those extra tier points in the cruisers often don't mean squat because they're not there to help.

 

Anyways, WG could do a lot better job of balancing teams through MM, but doesn't.  Sounds like rigging or, at least, imbalance by omission to me.

I like how you put that. you put in words that I was struggling to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26
[TXP]
Members
649 posts
10,206 battles

MM spreads 3 tiers so that there is winning for the upper tiers. It should spread max of two for competitive contest. Lucky for us they don't do 4 tier games. High tier takes out weaker lower tier first, easier kills. This makes low tier players want to move up. When I play my base Kirov in T7 match, I get focus fired. The best matches are the rare two tier ones. T5 ARP Kongo, wish you didn't play it when a Shiny Horse and HGV are opposing you. Yes, stupid to the point of funny.

Edited by Ericson38

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
426 posts
6,213 battles

Quite simply none of the WG devs seem to have any clue whatsoever about how to effectively play any of the titles the company is producing/running, so of course they don't feel anything at all is working poorly.

 

This is very apparent in warplanes, where the AI bot fill-ins just cannot play to the style required for the 2.0 (conquest mode only) revamp; to the point of actively hindering both teams every match.

Whichever team is less hindered by their AI pilots wins that match, regardless of how well the actual human players perform or do not perform in the conquest style.

 

I could also mention some of the, questionable, ''daily'' mission requirements in Warplanes that are essentially impossible or so limited (specific) as to be just be instant swap-fodder every time they appear.

 

 

Ask yourselves this; do any of you think any of the devs for any WG title spend any significant time, if at all in the first place, browsing guides or uploaded tutorial vids created by folks that know how best to play?

Edited by Soylent_Red_Isnt_People

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,460 posts
8,711 battles

 

21 hours ago, Ericson38 said:

MM spreads 3 tiers so that there is winning for the upper tiers. It should spread max of two for competitive contest. Lucky for us they don't do 4 tier games. High tier takes out weaker lower tier first, easier kills. This makes low tier players want to move up. When I play my base Kirov in T7 match, I get focus fired. The best matches are the rare two tier ones. T5 ARP Kongo, wish you didn't play it when a Shiny Horse and HGV are opposing you. Yes, stupid to the point of funny.

 

First, unless you fail division, you will never see a 3 tier spread game.  Tier spread in the game is limited to 2.  That is, a Tier 5 can see, at most, Tier 7s.  That is not a three tier spread, as in "5" + "6" + "7" is three tiers.  It is only a two tier spread because, if there were only tier 5s in the match, all the ships in the match would be the same tier and, thus, no "spread."  It would be a zero tier spread.  A such, a Tier 5 and 6 match would be a one tier spread and a Tier 5, 6, and 7 match (0 down and 2 up) or a Tier 4, 5, and 6 match would be a two tier spread (1 down and one up).

The only way you will see a 3 tier spread is if one of the ships is "fail divisioned" (i.e., a division formed with ships of different tiers).  For example, if a Tier 4 divisions with a Tier 5, the Tier 5 Match Making would be in effect, meaning that division could face Tier 7s resulting in a 3 tier spread.

Second, ships are perfectly capable of facing ships two tiers above them.  It is not to give the top tier easy wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26
[TXP]
Members
649 posts
10,206 battles

This is semantics. To me, a three tier (spread) game is made up of players over three tiers. Try taking on a Zao with an Edinburg in open ocean. Perfectly capable. Hmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
16 posts
8,243 battles

Frozenpyjak, i see the same. I had upto 55% winrate at 6000+ games but more and more see continuous loss streaks of high number of games (6 to 10 losses in a row) and with me ending high in the loosing team. Imagine taking a coin with head and tails and manage to throw a series of 6  heads or more. The odds are extremely low right. In fact 0.5^6 = 0.015625 or 1,5625% probability this can happen. 10 heads or 10 tails in a row even less likely at 0.5^10 = 0.0009765 or 0.01%, nearly impossible. And i have had on one or tow occasions worse than 10 losses in a row together with 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 losses in row. Just extremely unlikely or unlucky. So my explanation is that WOWS is trying to keep everybody average and therefore everybody entertained to continue paying and spending hopefully money. Except those significant better at well above 50% who get screwed, The way they do the match making is therefore in my observation and opinion:

1. On tiers with the max 3 levels difference etc

2. Balance winrate (so if you are good part of your team is an equal amount below the average % skill of the other team)

3. Balance captain skills (So if you have played a lot and gathered a lot of captain skills you get matched with lower captains)

Skewing these aspects would notionally balance the outcome, however my opinion is that skewed teams will loose more than balanced teams. Its like in teams doing work together.

 

So the trick is not to get frustrated despite this, however i have not been able to get my mind there not caring about it. Maybe the reason i am good and competitive in the first place...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
16 posts
5,849 battles

I am glad a lot of other players are noticing how MM is very ineffective. I have way to many losing streaks, as many as 8-10 without any wins. Players would say "get better"... how would I get better when I usually place top 3 in majority of these losing games?

I do well in my Phoenix.. had a near 66% win streak at close to 100 games.. then all of sudden 14 straight losses (although not played all at once). dropped it down to 60%.

When I first got my Minotaur, seven games straight were won. Then, loss after loss. I got better in the ship over time, but the losses is horrible. Even with all these losses, I finally broke 200k damage at 230k :) Although got 4 negative karma while at it lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,004
[PVE]
Members
5,300 posts
17,720 battles

The Matchmaking mechanic is one of the most posted about issue on the forums. I think submarines and HE fires are pretty close but from the time I have been on the forums, MM easily is the number one complaint. IMHO the player base represented here in the forums is about split 50/50 so it gets quite a bit of attention. Forgot to mention that it is also cited in almost every "Screw This Game, I Quit" forum post.

Edited by Taylor3006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,920
[PVE]
Members
8,767 posts
7,225 battles
22 hours ago, Duke_of_York_ said:

Frozenpyjak, i see the same. I had upto 55% winrate at 6000+ games but more and more see continuous loss streaks of high number of games (6 to 10 losses in a row) and with me ending high in the loosing team. Imagine taking a coin with head and tails and manage to throw a series of 6  heads or more. The odds are extremely low right. In fact 0.5^6 = 0.015625 or 1,5625% probability this can happen. 10 heads or 10 tails in a row even less likely at 0.5^10 = 0.0009765 or 0.01%, nearly impossible. And i have had on one or tow occasions worse than 10 losses in a row together with 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 losses in row. Just extremely unlikely or unlucky. So my explanation is that WOWS is trying to keep everybody average and therefore everybody entertained to continue paying and spending hopefully money. Except those significant better at well above 50% who get screwed, The way they do the match making is therefore in my observation and opinion:

1. On tiers with the max 3 levels difference etc

2. Balance winrate (so if you are good part of your team is an equal amount below the average % skill of the other team)

3. Balance captain skills (So if you have played a lot and gathered a lot of captain skills you get matched with lower captains)

Skewing these aspects would notionally balance the outcome, however my opinion is that skewed teams will loose more than balanced teams. Its like in teams doing work together.

 

So the trick is not to get frustrated despite this, however i have not been able to get my mind there not caring about it. Maybe the reason i am good and competitive in the first place...

 

 

 

Getting 10 out of 10 as heads is a low percentage. Getting 10 heads in a row out of 6,000 flips isn't as rare. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
120
[DAKI]
Members
621 posts
6,087 battles

Usually ill be with the crowd that says you can control your wr, but today it got old being top of the team all the time, and our team loses because the top bbs wanna play go play in the spawn, people yolo rush into caps when a superior force is there, or everyone leaving the base alone. Small stuff like that gets me more than the losing streak im having. Its all correctable stuff. The weird part is about MM is it seems to have a pattern where certain days you'll blow people out.

Edited by awildpervert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
16 posts
8,243 battles
On 11/30/2017 at 11:16 PM, Kizarvexis said:

 

Getting 10 out of 10 as heads is a low percentage. Getting 10 heads in a row out of 6,000 flips isn't as rare. 

I agree, however getting recently (last couple of months) several 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 losing streaks is very unlikely and this is what is happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,309
[-TAB-]
Members
1,597 posts
5,126 battles
On ‎11‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 1:56 PM, FrozenPyjak said:

This will be a bit of a rant. At the same time, I have some serious problems. I earnestly believe that this is not fair.

MMMM, MMMMMMM, MMM, it's yummie and that is ridiculous. I only say this because everyone is sick and tired, sick and tired, its not WG who loses.

frankly on a separate note, if you suck at the game it would take you FOREVER and thats if you complete it within the time.....

43 games is what it took to get that 50,000 flood damage, using a BB... 38 games if you take the games out that I didn't land a torpedo straight through your teeth. 

why is it you want these really cool mission rewards?

...and you wonder...

actually no, i'm not wondering at all! why would I be? it's all crystal clear. something is bothering you. I would like to help, but i'm really busy right now.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
16 posts
8,243 battles
On 12/1/2017 at 2:32 AM, awildpervert said:

Usually ill be with the crowd that says you can control your wr, but today it got old being top of the team all the time, and our team loses because the top bbs wanna play go play in the spawn, people yolo rush into caps when a superior force is there, or everyone leaving the base alone. Small stuff like that gets me more than the losing streak im having. Its all correctable stuff. The weird part is about MM is it seems to have a pattern where certain days you'll blow people out.

I see kind of the same wildpervert. Some days it seems pretty random back and forth. Win and loose, sometime a overall a few more wins which keeps me for now above 50%. And then there are days of pretty much continuous losses. The likelihood of it being really random is just so extremely small that i believe WOWS is manipulating to keep players around 50%. It is in their interest to keep as much people happy to participate and this way there will be more happy players, except for those like me who like the game (awesome graphics and cocept) but not the manipulative match making and  possible in game manipulation (like muzzle dispersion, muzzle cit rate, flood caused or received, fire etc etc). Do not need to be a rocket scientist to program that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×