Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
anonym_Hf93Jbjm9WjT

WinRate and Matchmaking = a fresh approach

85 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
4,302 posts

Please, hear me out, read my post, and keep replies on topic, constructive and above all, civil.

 

We need a new approach to matchmaking, and skill. Oftentimes we here complaints from successful players who demand that they have "their" own random battle matchmaker club accessible exclusively by those with 60% Win Rates. But this is not only selfish, it is also self defeating, because of course, the WR of members of this club would quickly fall if their only opponents were equally skilled. 

But at the same time, skilled players would obviously appreciate an objective, public sign of recognition and respect, that influences MM.

My solution : Captains are given a special rank on attaining unicum status (60%+WR), "Admiral", at this point a player is capable of carrying an entire team to victory, having too many highly skilled "Admirals" on one team and too few on the other makes for lowfun gameplay with little challenge for the winning team, few opportunities to learn and improve for the losing side. So lets require Matchmaker to ensure equal numbers of admirals per team (just as MM ensures equal numbers of BBs, cruisers and destroyers).

Admirals are given special hotkey "purple" commands to offer advice and tutoring to other members of their team (the scrubs). Admirals in turn are ranked, with the best admirals earning unique rewards (such as camo) from WG. The worst Admirals will see their WR fall, to a level that is a fair reflection of their true (non boosted) ability, and lose their Admiral status, becoming aspiring scrubs once more.

Players (scrubs) who fail to acknowledge (not the same as disobey) advice and tutoring recieve an automatic demerit and a -5% credit/xp penalty for the battle. Multiple failures can lead to banishment to the sin bin (coop battles only for 24hrs)

Admirals who misbehave or fail to fulfill their duty are court martialed, stripped of rank, and exiled to coop battles for one day as scrubs 2nd class.

What do you think?

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
483 posts
4,132 battles

Havin' an equal amount of admirals per team still equalizes out the winrates of the admirals, in addition punishing those who don't wanna learn the game is quite mean.  Some people just wanna screw around and have fun.  

 

I'll come up with a better argument tomorrow, I'm tired.

Edited by Slntreaper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,752
[SYN]
Members
15,688 posts
12,778 battles

mmmmm.... no thanks

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,302 posts
11 minutes ago, Slntreaper said:

Havin' an equal amount of admirals per team still equalizes out the winrates of the admirals, in addition punishing those who don't wanna learn the game is quite mean.  Some people just wanna screw around and have fun.  

 

I'll come up with a better argument tomorrow, I'm tired.

Only if those admirals are not as good as they appear, genuinely high skilled players would maintain their WR. On the other hand, scrubs like myself, would carry on polishing brass and mopping the decks, stat padding (by seal clubbing for example) would lose interest or become obselete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44
[AOD_D]
Supertester
219 posts
6,644 battles

Ehh... Limiting matchmaker based on individuals stats and abilities shouldn't be a thing in my opinion. 

 

Everyone plays their own game and those only here to win don't seem to understand that. Some people play to win, others to have fun. People just need to respect that and it would be a whole lot nicer a place.

 

That being said, I believe this particular case of limiting matchmaking would be making the best better and the worst worse. Take this example: there are 4 "admirals" per team. This means that those 8 will have a higher chance of doing well since they know they are better than 2/3 of the people in the match allowing them to progress a whole lot easier and take away from the lower skilled player.

 

As for the purple text, I wouldnt be opposed to it if there was actual information beneficial to the new player. However, the way you make it sound to me is that it would be used as a microing tool to direct people how to play the game. Which goes back to the point I made earlier that everyone plays the game in their own way.

 

For the last note, punishing people for not doing a strategy/being inept at the game without improvement is just an incredibly toxic thing to do. It would make you lose player base and ultimately kill the game. 

 

But hey, that's just my take on it :)

Edited by EpicLeveler
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,417
[KYARU]
Members
3,879 posts
22,018 battles

 Seems like a reasonable idea to me. It will truly show who is unicum worthy and who just stat pads in 3 man div, it will also make the matches more balanced and interesting.

 It will prevent seal clubbing if only 3 admirals are in a 3-man div because all other players in the queue will be low skilled [low tier players are not very good ;/ ] so the 3-man unicorn div will be stuck in queue forever or until they give up and choose a more skilled tier bracket.

But punishing players to 24 hour co-op only?? This is too harsh, even the elite co-op players can't handle it for this long as it is a horrific place of questionable decisions and kill stealing.

 The purple commands idea is fantastic, this way players will know who to listen to and who to ignore and will help them pick up better advice much faster without getting lost in the sea of misinformation and bad ideas.

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,324
[WOLFB]
Members
3,377 posts
14,130 battles

Basically you want to allow some "elitist" player to temporary kick people from random battle. 

 

Yeah sure let grab some OP premium+ seaclubbing to boost my WR and have the power to kick potatoes. I've proposed something like a Commander system like BF2 but after some thoughts I gave up this idea because it would be really a pain in the neck. 

 

Your idea of Admiral as a support for new player is good and I have no complain. However giving to these "Admiral" the power to kick player from random AND being able to become one just by having a good WR is bad. I could take a Belfast and start boosting my WR or I could just take a Clemson and seaclub. WR as a unique stat is irrelevant. I could have a 80% winrate and an average of 350xp per battle and 20k average damage per battle.  Average XP and Average damage are what really matter. While the average damage really depend on the ship, the average XP depends on what you are doing in your ship and it's what really matter. A IJN DD player with low damage average doesn't necessarily mean he's bad, if he's average XP is something like 1500, it would mean he's probably capping and spotting, which is what IJN DD are good at.

 

If your idea of Admiral is implemented, then you should have 4 type of admiral : 1 admiral for CA/CL, 1 For DD, 1 for BB and 1 for CV. One can be admiral with several tag, like CA/CL and DD admiral. The title will depend on both knowledge and mastery of the class. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,302 posts
1 hour ago, AlcatrazNC said:

However giving to these "Admiral" the power to kick player from random AND being able to become one just by having a good WR is bad.

woah, hang on there, slow down, hold your horses, put the safety back on... Who suggested this? I didn't.

Scrubs (ordinary players, the majority of us with less than a 60% WR, new and old players) would be required to acknowledge (we can still refuse to follow the advice, without penalty), those who fail to acknowledge advice (click a hotkey button = "have read and understood") would recieve an end of battle penalty to xp and credits. This would be entirely automated, it could even replace the report function that already exists. Rather than a ban, players  who repeatedly fail to acknowledge over many battles would be automatically sent for reeducation and reconditioning in the Coop sinbin for 24 hrs. the Admiral would have no personal control over the matter.

In short, the server would automatically remove toxic player behaviour (serial afkers for example, deliberate bad play), detoxifying random battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,944
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,847 posts
11,282 battles
20 minutes ago, nuttybiscuit said:

woah, hang on there, slow down, hold your horses, put the safety back on... Who suggested this? I didn't.

Scrubs (ordinary players, the majority of us with less than a 60% WR, new and old players) would be required to acknowledge (we can still refuse to follow the advice, without penalty), those who fail to acknowledge advice (click a hotkey button = "have read and understood") would recieve an end of battle penalty to xp and credits. This would be entirely automated, it could even replace the report function that already exists. Rather than a ban, players  who repeatedly fail to acknowledge over many battles would be automatically sent for reeducation and reconditioning in the Coop gulags for 24 hrs. the Admiral would have no personal control over the matter.

In short, the server would automatically remove toxic player behaviour (serial afkers for example, deliberate bad play), detoxifying random battles.

 

Except half the time I don't bother with hot keys, now I have to every time someone opens their mouth cause oh look, they maybe div more, play 1 ship they are good at, etc to help them achieve a better winrate, hell, maybe they are just plain luckier than me. Like the scumbag I had a few months ago in a scharn who stayed completely out of battle barking orders that badly damaged cruisers take on BB's to secure the cap we needed and that he was winning us the match, blah, blah, blah and finally came in when all the ships were damaged off our hard work, and got the cap, not because he said too but because we needed it, to get some cheap easy kills going "look, see were winning" to my, and a couple of others, reply of "CAUSE WE DID ALL THE WORK". Now you want to punish me if I outright ignore him, maybe don't press a button cause I'm too busy getting shot at? Wanna know how much I ignore various people mouthing off at me regardless of their stats or mine when they think they know better and don't because they are on the other side of the map or not seeing something I see and don't know what's going through my brain. Plenty of time "pro's" tell me to fall back and by ignoring them I take the damn cap myself that helps them win. And how many times I've seen them run and hide from fewer ships, had to lead the charge in as the lowest tier ship or just say :etc_swear: it and charge just to try and make something happen and maybe win, and you'd give these people, especially some who are flat out elitist I'll go with jerks cause that word shouldn't get me in trouble, power to ban me or any other player? Half the time especially with the attitude they take, which really doesn't help with someone like me who already doesn't like authority, there isn't a hotkey for my response to them. Not to mention where is this advice, the chat, news flash some of us can't physically see the text on the backgrounds or are too busy actually playing to see it, if you have enough time to type and not playing a CV I think your doing something wrong.

 

At that point screw it, just shut the damn game down. or at the very least I'm leaving and anyone that asks about it I'm saying "stay the hell away from the game, not worth it". I'll not kneel to other players and be punished simply because la de :etc_swear:ing da they have better stats than me and I generally don't give a damn what they say. New standard for worst idea I have ever heard.

 

I'm not sure if this was a joke post or a troll one but if it was congrats, you actually got me.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
328
[PSV]
Privateers, Supertester
746 posts
6,028 battles

I think you are giving a certain group of players way too much player power here. 

 

All I want in a team are players that help contribute to the team.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
85 posts
15,769 battles

@nuttybiscuit  

this is not a balance, but some kind of "hat" .... ((which is a day in a row - a lot of defeats, try \ do not try to fight - it does not help ... I can say that I play badly, but nevertheless the rest of the team is the same - the battle does not "pull" to win .......

P.S.  You owe me something! )) next time when you're in a fight at Kaga - hold on! get to you! ))

Edited by Blagoveshchensk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,651
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
12,453 posts
1 hour ago, AlcatrazNC said:

Basically you want to allow some "elitist" player to temporary kick people from random battle. 

Age of Empires III has a random matchmaker but almost nobody uses it, Most go to the section where you can host a game. The game host sets up the parameters of the game. Some of these can be selected via the game options but mainly hosts just specify what levels of players they desire to join and the specified game parameters and then post it in the game's title.

 

For instance "NR55 NWS HM LT plus," is a game mode I used to play. This means a civilization and fortress building treaty period of 55 minutes (these are epic games), no warships (which avoids teams sneaking troops behind the other's fort to "cheat" and also lessens lag in this older, poorly-optimized game) HM (which means no base building or military units on the enemy side of the map during the treaty period) and Lt plus (which means the rank of 1st lieutenant or higher).

 

Note how many game rules can be placed in a very short title. Of course, nothing is preventing the teams from "cheating" the rules, just as nothing prevents a chess player from declaring all their pawns to be queens and thus running rampant over the board; that is, other than the fact that the opposing team will just quit the game and then blacklist the cheaters from any future games. 

 

Some abuse can occur in this type of system, with hosts "stacking the deck" so that they are assured a win. However those who do this soon find that they become as great of pariahs as cheaters with nobody joining their games. For the most part this system results in fair games, because the players themselves design the teams. The downside to this is team-making sometimes takes a long time, it can even stretch to hours at the very highest levels of play, where "experts" veto civilizations and teams for the most minute possible reasons.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,302 posts
15 minutes ago, Blagoveshchensk said:

P.S.  You owe me something! )) next time when you're in a fight at Kaga - hold on! get to you! ))

I am happy to be chased and hunted in any cv, sniped because of my own fails, or hunted down by a clever dd. A medal to those who succeed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
205
[WOLF1]
Members
623 posts
13,226 battles
1 hour ago, nuttybiscuit said:

Scrubs (ordinary players, the majority of us with less than a 60% WR, new and old players) would be required to acknowledge (we can still refuse to follow the advice, without penalty), those who fail to acknowledge advice (click a hotkey button = "have read and understood") would recieve an end of battle penalty to xp and credits. This would be entirely automated, it could even replace the report function that already exists. Rather than a ban, players  who repeatedly fail to acknowledge over many battles would be automatically sent for reeducation and reconditioning in the Coop sinbin for 24 hrs. the Admiral would have no personal control over the matter.

In short, the server would automatically remove toxic player behaviour (serial afkers for example, deliberate bad play), detoxifying random battles.

First off really bad idea here.  Beyond that I do not want to be required to do anything more than try to help my team to win or have to listen to some guy in a random battle spout off nonsense that suits him or her the best at whatever given time.  You don't want to deal with your so called 'scrubs with under 60 percent winrates" then join or start a clan of players with those stats and run clan battles and you can put your Admiral hat on and be the division commander and what you say goes.  Randoms are a place for EVERYONE to learn, that's life at this point in wows and no one should be penalized for playing the way they want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,319
[PVE]
Members
5,009 posts
22,432 battles
2 hours ago, EpicLeveler said:

This means that those 8 will have a higher chance of doing well since they know they are better than 2/3 of the people in the match allowing them to progress a whole lot easier and take away from the lower skilled player

(Sorry...the 1st paragraph is a cognition I had after the rest was typed out & fit context better added in at top so as not to break the flow of original thoughts...unfortunately it kinda contradicts the rest of text somewhat so sorry for inconsistency)***

Where this will be an issue is when Clan (or Ranked in the beginning) Battles are active because then the unicums will not be doing Random Battles & MM will be picking "the most unicumish" players from what is available...@ that point these players that aren't so good (but the best MM has to choose from) will know that they are up against a bunch of lower skilled players.

***(original text starts now)

I do believe that "most" all the real unicum players already know each other through playing together for years & I believe this is a good thing to have them balanced in a match & the purple text to let the newer players know who the unicums are(for purposes of either learning from their suggestions(if you have the ability to do so)or knowing at least not to try to take these people on by yourself if you know you aren't that good)...I kinda agree w/it in that sort of context...details will of course need to be hashed out.

2 hours ago, AlcatrazNC said:

Average XP and Average damage are what really matter

 

I also do not believe that just win rate should determine how MM chooses but an average of win rate/damage & XP or some such(maybe even average in # of honorable achievements).

 

2 hours ago, nuttybiscuit said:

would be required to acknowledge

But as for mandatory acknowledging them...playing is about all some have the ability to do...some can't even follow chat let alone typing while playing(some can't even type...& some are too fat fingered to even be able to do more than just WASD...hell with consumable use...they don't have the finger dexterity for it).

The main idea behind any game is for people to be able to have fun & WG doesn't mind if these people play because they are paying customers & have the right to play Randoms all they want w/out any concern of what anybody else is doing. Restricting paying customers from random play for any reason(but especially because they didn't acknowledge another player)will pretty much tank not only the player base but the game overall.

Sorry but potatoes have the right to be potatoes in a game where you can outright buy a T8 BB & start running it instantly (I don't remember exactly but there may be a restriction of player level but it really doesn't take that long to get to the level 15 player level let alone any of the others).

& demeritting them & taking away XP from those that are already struggling to "git gud" is just wrong.

And it shouldn't be mandatory for a player that has high stats to "lead" the team either...as there is no guarantee that a unicum player is going to be playing at any given time MM will be choosing the "most skilled" @ that time player & they may not be good enough to play while typing at the same time let alone have the situational awareness to be able to lead a team.

Not to mention the fear they will have that the enemy team is gonna be focused on them because MM has declared them to be the best...@ the moment.

Edited by IfYouSeeKhaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,829
[GWG]
Members
6,720 posts
12,788 battles

When population is high, matchmaker WANTS the battles to be one sided wipe-outs so they end quickly.

This uses up more camo and flags === more money !!!

On the other hand, I just killed a Vampire this morning.  I thought they were already dead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36,473
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
11,841 posts
9,700 battles
5 hours ago, nuttybiscuit said:

We need a new approach to matchmaking, and skill. Oftentimes we here complaints from successful players who demand that they have "their" own random battle matchmaker club accessible exclusively by those with 60% Win Rates. But this is not only selfish, it is also self defeating, because of course, the WR of members of this club would quickly fall if their only opponents were equally skilled.

I don't think I've ever heard a unicum demand their own PUBie queue.

5 hours ago, nuttybiscuit said:

My solution : Captains are given a special rank on attaining unicum status (60%+WR), "Admiral", at this point a player is capable of carrying an entire team to victory, having too many highly skilled "Admirals" on one team and too few on the other makes for lowfun gameplay with little challenge for the winning team, few opportunities to learn and improve for the losing side. So lets require Matchmaker to ensure equal numbers of admirals per team (just as MM ensures equal numbers of BBs, cruisers and destroyers).

Oh goodie.  Achieve 60% win rate, get punished by increased queue times.
 

5 hours ago, nuttybiscuit said:

Admirals are given special hotkey "purple" commands to offer advice and tutoring to other members of their team (the scrubs). Admirals in turn are ranked, with the best admirals earning unique rewards (such as camo) from WG. The worst Admirals will see their WR fall, to a level that is a fair reflection of their true (non boosted) ability, and lose their Admiral status, becoming aspiring scrubs once more.

Players (scrubs) who fail to acknowledge (not the same as disobey) advice and tutoring recieve an automatic demerit and a -5% credit/xp penalty for the battle. Multiple failures can lead to banishment to the sin bin (coop battles only for 24hrs)

Admirals who misbehave or fail to fulfill their duty are court martialed, stripped of rank, and exiled to coop battles for one day as scrubs 2nd class.

Very no on toast.

  1. It's open to abuse.
  2. It's open to abuse.
  3. Oh my god, will it ever be abused.
  4. That one time it works will be amazing, don't get me wrong, but...
  5. ... people will hella abuse it.
  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,091 posts
4,681 battles

The proposed change is:

 

1. Too complicated

2. Puts too much on the shoulders of the better players, some of who also just want to shoot floaty boats

3. I don't even let my boss tell me what to do. Definitely not going to allow someone in a game to do it.

4. Too complicated

5. Too easy to attain "Admiral" status through stat padding

6. The server population just can't support any proposal that involves segregating said population

7. Too complicated

 

There's a much easier solution: If losing bothers you, then invest the time and effort to become a better player so you can carry teams to victory

Edited by DingBat
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,302 posts
6 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Oh goodie.  Achieve 60% win rate, get punished by increased queue times.

Progressive approach to gameplay that ensures a constant cycle at the top, prevents stagnation at the top, encourages successful players to teach others, ensures WR redistribution, ensures only the truly very good stay at the top and that only the genuinely good earn rewards for their skills (eliminates stat padders)/

What could possibly be wrong with that?

edit: and there are many successful WOWS players who sincerely want opportunities to help others progress, sadly these opportunities are restricted, few and far between.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,091 posts
4,681 battles
1 minute ago, nuttybiscuit said:

Progressive approach to gameplay that ensures a constant cycle at the top, prevents stagnation at the top, encourages successful players to teach others, ensures WR redistribution, ensures only the truly very good stay at the top and that only the genuinely good earn rewards for their skills (eliminates stat padders)/

What could possibly be wrong with that?

 

Any time someone uses the word "progressive" I grab my wallet to make sure it's still there. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36,473
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
11,841 posts
9,700 battles
Just now, nuttybiscuit said:

Progressive apprtoach to gameplay that ensures a constant cycle at the top, prevents stagnation at the top, encourages successful players to teach others, ensures WR redistribution, ensures only the truly very good stay at the top and that only the genuinely good earn rewards for their skills (eliminates stat padders)/

What could possibly be wrong with that?

What's wrong with stat padders?  Seriously, what's wrong with stat padders?  I mean, let's stop and think about this for a moment.  You want to stop people from enjoying their own little meta game (improving their statistics) because.... why?  You feel threatened by the perceived social currency purple-colour-coded stats provide? I don't much care for stat padders but I don't begrudge them their enjoyment. They play well, win games and you want to see them taken down a notch because you don't feel they've earned their achievement and you want to add special qualifiers so they measure up (specifically) to your standards of greatness?  :cap_old:

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,302 posts
Just now, hofmannsc said:

All I hear is "I'm good and want special status and priveleges."

incorrect, sounds as though you have not read carefully, I am a potatoe and want to be advised and helped in game,

Spoiler

carried where possible.:Smile_hiding:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×