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

Matchmaker. Seriously.

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,031
[XBRTC]
Members
2,645 posts
8,665 battles

Now, I freely admit that I'm an average player on a good day, but seriously: in what universe does this seem fun and engaging?

 

Untitled-1.thumb.jpg.0366df74af5e8577e801bb548cde9792.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,195
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
2,733 posts
9,982 battles

Well, this battle in and of itself certainly isn't fair, but at least over the long run you should theoretically be getting on both sides of that the same amount and that should be fair.

 

 

But ya, this is why steamrolls happen so much :Smile_sceptic:

 

 

EDIT: Now, I don't think they should be matchmaking on skill of course, but they should at least be trying to lessen the worst-case scenarios (ie where the unicums are also the T8s in your T6 fight... *cough* +/-1 MM *cough*)

Edited by pikohan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
417
[ZR]
Members
980 posts
12,074 battles

Everyone gets those games.

You really shouldn't pay attention to what MM monitor tells you, its really not accurate especially with so many ships under 100 battles.  Takes a little longer to build a profile.  I could load up in a ship I got unlucky in first few games and it would look like I was a sub 40% red player in the monitor when that really isn't indicative of how my performance that game will be.
 

So many times its said my team w/r is 40% vs a 60% team and we just wiped them.

Edited by MountainManxDan
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,944 posts
7,322 battles
54 minutes ago, MountainManxDan said:

Everyone gets those games.

the problem isn't that everyone gets these games... its that you can go days in a row getting nothing but those games.  sure, a half dozen matches in a row like that?  bad luck.  a week's worth of matches in a row like that?  that malicious intent.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
417
[ZR]
Members
980 posts
12,074 battles
22 minutes ago, Shadeylark said:

the problem isn't that everyone gets these games... its that you can go days in a row getting nothing but those games.  sure, a half dozen matches in a row like that?  bad luck.  a week's worth of matches in a row like that?  that malicious intent.

Maybe if you play like 8 matches in a week.. but no one gets a week worth of only bad teams.

I have over 8k battles and I have never had anything like that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,882
[RLGN]
Members
9,800 posts
19,308 battles
55 minutes ago, MountainManxDan said:

Maybe if you play like 8 matches in a week.. but no one gets a week worth of only bad teams.

How about a day’s worth? Ten games in Langley Thursday; consistently scoring in the top 3-5; nine of the teams couldn’t have faught their way out of a wet paper sack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
881
[5D5]
Members
2,621 posts
15,946 battles

Seems like OP already lost the game by looking at stats and pre-determining the outcome. Plus we don't know from that screen what role divisions played in the distribution of players.

I'm not familiar with MM Monitor but the screen shot looks like it only takes into account the player's rating in that particular ship. Meanwhile the player could be very good overall.  I would love to see the final battle report to match those ships performance against what OP provided to see how it really played out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
250
[-TXT-]
Beta Testers
1,552 posts
17,202 battles
1 hour ago, Kapitan_Wuff said:

Don't use MM monitor. 

This.....you'll enjoy the game much more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,661 posts
5,696 battles

You should give it your all. Regardless of the outcome. You will get much farther that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,031
[XBRTC]
Members
2,645 posts
8,665 battles
8 hours ago, MountainManxDan said:

Everyone gets those games.

You really shouldn't pay attention to what MM monitor tells you, its really not accurate especially with so many ships under 100 battles.  Takes a little longer to build a profile.  I could load up in a ship I got unlucky in first few games and it would look like I was a sub 40% red player in the monitor when that really isn't indicative of how my performance that game will be.
 

So many times its said my team w/r is 40% vs a 60% team and we just wiped them.

I've had that happen too, but I do find that there is a useful correlation sometimes. Low win rate / high damage isn't necessarily a bad team. Average damage but very high win rate indicates that someone is a solid team player. Then there's also the people who have 3000+ games in a T10 battleship, yet their average damage is in the 40k range, and that makes a nice suggestion of who you probably don't need to worry about right immediately in terms of prioritizing your targets. It can be VERY helpful in clan battles, particularly.

And, yeah, number of games definitely makes a difference in how accurate the stat is. I put a lot more stock in the accuracy of the data when the number is of battles is up over 300 than I do when it's only 20-30. But, at the same time, low battle numbers may indicate that someone has a stock ship, too, without all the modules researched. It's just more data, really, which may or may not be accurate. 

8 hours ago, Pigpen_721 said:

Did your team win Rusty?

 

Nope. Ended on points, 1000-381.

 

5 hours ago, 1SneakyDevil said:

Seems like OP already lost the game by looking at stats and pre-determining the outcome. Plus we don't know from that screen what role divisions played in the distribution of players.

I'm not familiar with MM Monitor but the screen shot looks like it only takes into account the player's rating in that particular ship. Meanwhile the player could be very good overall.  I would love to see the final battle report to match those ships performance against what OP provided to see how it really played out.

 

One division per side. On my team the two hindis. Other team it was the two Missouris. I don't have screenshots of the scoreboard, but the survivors at the end were--on my team--the Shimakaze (<50% health), the two Hindis (one at 50%, one at about 5%), and the CV (75% health). Other team had full health CV, full health Shim, Baltimore at 50%, Hindenburg at 30%, and the two Missouris at about 60%.

 

5 hours ago, Anumati said:

You should give it your all. Regardless of the outcome. You will get much farther that way.

Just because I go into it with low optimism doesn't mean that I'm not going to try and do as much damage as I can. I'm gonna lose money if I just sit in the back and hide without doing anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,827
[ARRGG]
[ARRGG]
Members
5,770 posts
7 hours ago, Kapitan_Wuff said:

Don't use MM monitor. 

The aggravation Factor is high when using the excuse maker. Play the game without knowing will make you a better player. Yes Stats Shame and Judge.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,522
[SYN]
Members
4,921 posts
11,844 battles

Interesting to seeing a pair of oft-used Missouris driven by veteran super-unicum players on one team, and two more on the other team whose players only just got theirs and are "meh" with them.

Gee, I wonder how that went down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
319 posts
4,388 battles

The reason it sucks is that we now have to waste our time and sustain a loss for reasons beyond our control.  Furthermore...what may even our for one person in 10 games may take 100 for someone else.  It's all random.  Do you think the guy who takes 100 games to level out is going to have a sunny disposition about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
656 posts
7,932 battles

well tbf we all have those games, just means we have to either be the deciding factor, and carry or you just cant and lose, btw the numbers dont always mean anything, even good players can make mistakes, hence why you should play hard still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
824
[STAR]
Members
3,303 posts
8,120 battles

Thats why we need some kind of skill based MM, to balance good and bad players between the teams, so you dont have a team with too many good players and the other with too many bad players. 

 

There are games that are impossible to win because the enemy team is straight better...

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
417
[ZR]
Members
980 posts
12,074 battles
9 hours ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

How about a day’s worth? Ten games in Langley Thursday; consistently scoring in the top 3-5; nine of the teams couldn’t have faught their way out of a wet paper sack.

No that is something that does happen.  As soon as I start to lose a few like that I switch to another tier spread and ship type.

That or sometimes I like to randomly pick up new people looking for divs just to lighten the game up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
384
[WOLF2]
Members
1,235 posts
8,474 battles
15 hours ago, LT_Rusty_SWO said:

Now, I freely admit that I'm an average player on a good day, but seriously: in what universe does this seem fun and engaging?

 

Untitled-1.thumb.jpg.0366df74af5e8577e801bb548cde9792.jpg

Without MM Monitor to tell you to quit before the match starts, it would be fun and engaging.    I know it'll be a tough match if I see unicum players or worse, unicum divisions.   But I'll still try to sink 'em.

They're not unstoppable.  Can't tell you how many times those unicums are on my team.  We win some, but we've also been steamrolled.   To a point where unicum on my team doesn't mean I can take it easy.    

And, when will you come on the forums to complain of your winning streak? (as those will come, as will the steamrolls in your favor)

It works both ways.

Turn off the monitor, play the game, and shoot botes.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,820
Members
5,575 posts
7,121 battles

Those that use MM Monitor, don't quit the battle if it's lopsided.

Keep on pushing through because each battle is a learning experience.

Run the monitor for collecting data, to give you an idea what you are up against, and to know specifically the Captains you should look out for.

Edited by Wulfgarn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,944 posts
7,322 battles
12 hours ago, MountainManxDan said:

Maybe if you play like 8 matches in a week.. but no one gets a week worth of only bad teams.

I have over 8k battles and I have never had anything like that.

 

im gonna hafta call you on that one.  the past two weeks, averaging 6 matches per day, have been nothing but these kinds of matchups.

 

im keeping a spreadsheet; originally intended to prove that there's a correlation between teams that maintain a destroyer advantage and win chances (in order to prove that dd's, rather than bb's, are the king-maker class... which ive pretty much confirmed over the course of collecting data from 78 battles so far)... but as a side effect ive noted a strong correlation to lopsided teams occurring when you maintain a positive winrate.  at this point, i don't have quite enough data to confirm, but there's every indication that these sort of lopsided matchups are not a result of random chance.

Edited by Shadeylark
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
559 posts
2,453 battles

Twice has the questionnaire popped up after a battle, and both times I reported I was "extremely dissatisfied" with the match. The first time I think I was uptiered in the Colorado. If you are uptiered in the Colorado, you are a WWI ship in a WWII game. The second time was last night. I was in the North Carolina, (which I don't quite have half upgraded, although the MM doesn't consider that) and my division pal was in the Colorado, which was his choice so that's fine. We got put in a tier 10 game. We had approximately 0 affect on the outcome, which happened to be a smashing loss, not unexpectedly. Yeah, I was extremely dissatisfied. And it's not even how often I get uptiered vs. downtiered. Seems to be about a 5 to 1 ratio. IMHO this horrible matchmaking has got to be changed before more people quit and the game goes into a downward spiral. I'd like to have the Missiouri but I can't see giving WG a $.01 while mechanics like this are around. My winrate in my best battleship is falling like an anvil, and I can't even do anything about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×