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

Server Statistics and Skill Floors/Ceilings

Do you think different ships should have different skill floors and ceilings?  

128 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think different ships should have different skill floors and ceilings?

    • No. (Graph A)
      14
    • Yes. (Graph B)
      97
    • Idk/idc
      17

139 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,367
Members
5,201 posts
9,061 battles

Disclaimer: I posted this in another topic a couple weeks ago, but, since I'm a sucker for polls and numbers, I figured I'd post it here to see what my peers think.

 

---

My opinion.

Many people think all classes/types should be equally playable. I fundamentally disagree with that. I think some classes/types should be easier and others should be harder. This keeps the game engaging for players of all skill levels. 

Here's a visual example. 

In the first image, all ships are equally playable for all skill ranges. Server averages in terms of win rate, damage, etcetera will be similar. 

    JziEsV5.png

In the next example, each class/type has a different skill floor and ceiling. This means that Average Joe will perform well in classes A and B, but he will perform poorly in classes C and D. It also means that a high skilled player will perform better in classes C and D than he will in A and B because he is able to maximize their potential. Buffing class C or D such that the skill floor is lower means that the skill ceiling will also increase, making the game "too easy" for higher skilled individuals. Making changes such that the floor is lower while the ceiling remains static is extremely difficult, and it usually involves tampering with the core mechanics of the game.

6zNXrfU.png

People often cite the server averages for different classes/types as evidence for buffs or nerfs. Unfortunately, this is extremely shortsighted. It's important to keep in mind what the ships can do in the hands of an average player and what they can do in the hands of a good player. Game balance is a complicated and unenviable job. 

 

Here's an example of server statistics often cited for DD survivability buffs. 

mma1LBK.png

Ships which utilize concealment as their primary means of survival will ALWAYS have a lower average survival rate because utilizing concealment takes a deeper understanding of the game. Armor and HP are generally more forgiving to newcomers, inexperienced players, or average players.

Destroyers are the most reliant on concealment, followed by cruisers, and then battleships. The survival % follows this trend. When I look at graphs like this, I see that the game is working exactly as designed.

Cheers,

KW

EDIT: There's absolutely nothing to be ashamed of if you're "average". If you're enjoying the game, you're playing it exactly as it's meant to be played, for fun. The game needs ALL the players in this game... the good, the bad, and the average. This game wouldn't exist if only the top 1% played it.

Edited by Kombat_W0MBAT
spelling
  • Cool 26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23
[5D]
Members
36 posts
7,338 battles

This is a well written post and something I wish more people understood fundamentally.

Thank you for the post and curious to see poll results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
625
[-BRS-]
[-BRS-]
Members
2,045 posts
14,749 battles

I agree I think they should have a difference skill floors otherwise if they all play like the same I would get bored

 I know  Some think there needs to be a balance but I like the differences

But with game changes every update I think some get Left Behind with no plans to re just them

I don't think WG really cares except for their cash cows   And that's where a lot of pressure issue comes from players

 And I think a lotta people find where they enjoyed one class WG changes the game and that class isnt as fun as it used to be so alot of issues come from that also

 And I don't know any class of player that WG change things on that didn't come to the forum and cry It just seems that the destroyer drivers are always getting kicked in the.... and the game changes for them ALL the time and the game dosen't change much for the others

 Just when I think I got it figured out they change the game on me again:Smile_amazed:

Edited by silverdahc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[ADOPT]
Members
161 posts
3,102 battles

I think yes, there should be different ships with different floor / ceiling.

What I think people are complaining is that ships have disproportionate "ability" to consistently carry.

Edited by mixmkz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,311
Members
4,117 posts
8,680 battles
23 minutes ago, Kombat_W0MBAT said:

EDIT: There's absolutely nothing to be ashamed of if you're "average". If you're enjoying the game, you're playing it exactly as it's meant to be played, for fun. The game needs ALL the players in this game... the good, the bad, and the average. This game wouldn't exist if only the top 1% played it.

Happy that you added this, part since I am one of the Joe Average.

Edited by Chaos_EN2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[WOLF5]
Members
1,330 posts
7,444 battles

Here are the underlying issues.

 

Quote

Having ALL ships have the same skill floor and ceiling:

Pro: Game is easiest to balance, can be more competitive.
Pro: ALL ships are equally viable at all ends of skill spectrum.
Pro: Less likely to alienate players

Con: Easier to make game stale.



 

Quote

Having different sets of skill floor and ceiling.

Pro: It is less likely the game will become stale.
Pro: ALL skill levels of players will have a ship they can perform in.

Con: Harder to balance
Con: Higher skill floor+cap ships will be next to unusable by the lower portions of the skill pool.
Con: Lower skill floor+cap ships will be have noticeably lower performance (see: potential) when used by the higher portions of the skill pool compared to their performance in higher skill floor+cap ships. Can alienate fans of specific ships.



What the issue is that is seemingly ignored by most people  is HOW skill floor+ceiling work in regards to logical balance, and then there is HOW Wargaming engineers it. Two are quite opposite.

In logical balance, or rather IF the game was balanced even in the slightest in regards to skill input vs output (floor and ceiling) the Leaderboards are a good indication. In a game with any sensible balance, but has archetypes with different floors+ceilings, the LOWER skill floor+ceiling archetypes (ships) will have BETTER performance in the bottom half of the skill pool compared to the HIGHER skill floor +ceiling archetypes. Where as on the other hand, the HIGHER skill floor+ceiling archetypes will have BETTER performance in the top half of the skill pool compared to the LOWER skill floor+ceiling archetypes.

To simplify. If the game were balanced in any way, the top say...1/3rd of the DDs players on the leaderboards would have MUCH BETTER performance averages then the top 1/3rd of the BB players on the leaderboards. WoWs performance stats do not show this, and are indicative of a complete broken balance system.

That is because the ship that requires more skilled input must also have more maximum potential output.. Otherwise there would be ZERO reason to play the ship that is inherently harder but unable to reliably produce higher output once the required skill is available in the user. This is further observed as evidentiary in population metrics and how it correlates to the leaderboards as well.
The lower skill floor ship should net a little higher in popularity because of it's ease-of-use. Sure. However, the ONLY way to make the game balanced and make the lower skill floor ship also viable in a serious competitive environment is to make their role very specific, very focused. Again, not something Wargaming employs because they are NOT sensible, they are illogical.

How about we go to the generic attributes for the archetypes? If DDs have the quickest receiving TTK... as in they are designed in a controlled environment as to be the quickest to kill reliably, their output TTK must also be the highest and most reliably. This means highest and most reliable burst damage. Where as BBs, given they have the slowest receiving TTK, their output TTK must also be the lowest or least reliable.
Notice how every other successful game combines the squishy, stealth archetype with the ability to do a lot of damage in a short period of time? Every notice how the TANK archetype, with the most armor and EHP, is also very limited or niche in their ability to effectively kill opponents?

This is because WG is bias, has favoritism, and is anti-truth in their balancing.

Edited by zarth12
  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
370
[O7]
Members
590 posts
13,449 battles
1 hour ago, Kombat_W0MBAT said:

Disclaimer: I posted this in another topic a couple weeks ago, but, since I'm a sucker for polls and numbers, I figured I'd post it here to see what my peers think.

 

---

My opinion.

Many people think all classes/types should be equally playable. I fundamentally disagree with that. I think some classes/types should be easier and others should be harder. This keeps the game engaging for players of all skill levels. 

Here's a visual example. 

In the first image, all ships are equally playable for all skill ranges. Server averages in terms of win rate, damage, etcetera will be similar. 

    JziEsV5.png

In the next example, each class/type has a different skill floor and ceiling. This means that Average Joe will perform well in classes A and B, but he will perform poorly in classes C and D. It also means that a high skilled player will perform better in classes C and D than he will in A and B because he is able to maximize their potential. Buffing class C or D such that the skill floor is lower means that the skill ceiling will also increase, making the game "too easy" for higher skilled individuals. Making changes such that the floor is lower while the ceiling remains static is extremely difficult, and it usually involves tampering with the core mechanics of the game.

6zNXrfU.png

People often cite the server averages for different classes/types as evidence for buffs or nerfs. Unfortunately, this is extremely shortsighted. It's important to keep in mind what the ships can do in the hands of an average player and what they can do in the hands of a good player. Game balance is a complicated and unenviable job. 

 

Here's an example of server statistics often cited for DD survivability buffs. 

mma1LBK.png

Ships which utilize concealment as their primary means of survival will ALWAYS have a lower average survival rate because utilizing concealment takes a deeper understanding of the game. Armor and HP are generally more forgiving to newcomers, inexperienced players, or average players.

Destroyers are the most reliant on concealment, following by cruisers, and then battleships. The survival % follows this trend. When I look at graphs like this, I see that the game is working exactly as designed.

Cheers,

KW

EDIT: There's absolutely nothing to be ashamed of if you're "average". If you're enjoying the game, you're playing it exactly as it's meant to be played, for fun. The game needs ALL the players in this game... the good, the bad, and the average. This game wouldn't exist if only the top 1% played it.

No, all ships and players should be the same, stats are for nerds, NERD.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,576
[PSP]
Members
7,923 posts
10,494 battles

The only way that you will get even skill matches in teams is to let the players themselves determine the teams. Good luck with this. I played a RTS for several years that had this method. Most games took a half-hour to organize and those with the self-proclaimed or actual "elite" players oftentimes took hours to organize. Soon, the self-proclaimed "elite" players got so snooty that they would only play among themselves, using patches of their own creation on maps of their own creation. New players were immediately harangued in the forums for even asking questions and nobody would let them on their teams. The game now has maybe 50 online at any given time. 

Edited by Snargfargle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
720
[TF57]
Members
1,380 posts
4,063 battles

I know what you are saying and I agree with your OP.

However, I'm not sure WoWs exactly works that way.


It's generally said BB have the lowest "skill floor" and are "forgiving" - but they also can most easily do the most damage in the hands of the top end.

A top-of-leaderboard BB player can get 50% better damage and more XP than a top DD player.

If, say DD (or cruisers) have a higher skill ceiling shouldn't they have have far more XP, win rate, kills and damage etc when you look at the top end of the leaderboard?

(even if the "average" is better, shouldn't BB be noticeably worse at the top end, if low skill ceiling works the way you describe?)

Edited by evilleMonkeigh
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,254
[WOLF7]
Members
10,746 posts

Your entire argument is fairly reasonable. But you aren't factoring in the fact that the player base in what was meant to be a competitive game, aren't really competitive.

The vast majority of players approach this like a phone game, sail ships, shoot stuff, watch the pretty explosions, rinse and repeat.

Current ship balance is good for players that are actually engaged in the game....but when the vast majority aren't engaged...does it even matter?

Edited by awiggin
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[-BRS-]
Beta Testers
144 posts
7,594 battles

I agree with your premise.  My only caveat is the high skill floor ships should not have an overwhelming impact on the outcome of the game when skill mismatches occur.  That drives the hate currently being seen with carriers.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[WOLF5]
Members
1,330 posts
7,444 battles
14 minutes ago, Tibson said:

I agree with your premise.  My only caveat is the high skill floor ships should not have an overwhelming impact on the outcome of the game when skill mismatches occur.  That drives the hate currently being seen with carriers.

Define: Overwhelming. I say this because your line of thought *seems* to be the same illogical one shared by WG.

If the High skill floor ships do not also have much higher reliable output potential compared to the lower skill floor ships, then there is ZERO reason, ZERO justification for having skill floor+ceiling differences in the first place. There would be ZERO reason to use the higher skill floor ship if the increased effort did not equate to noticeably more impact.

The only way to have a balanced game where lower skill floor ships are ALSO just as competitive is to have the lower skill floor ships have very linear and focused roles and what makes them linear are the glaring limitation.. Other games do this. Notice how the TANK/Warrior.... you know highest armor.. highest HP.... is also balanced by having their damage be very choreographed and range limited. Notice how WoWs has the archetype with those same positive attributes NOT share those limitations at all. Because the balance in this game is broken completely.

To make the connection the WoWs environment. DDs would be akin to the assassin/rogue.  Assassins/Rogues have the lowest HP, and armor because it is the drawback for also having the highest and most reliable damage combo in the shortest period of time (see burst damage). Assassins/Rogues are range limited because they have access to stealth.  Notice where the DDs differ? They are lacking the very important attribute that makes the entire archetype as viable as the others. *see bolded*.  Reliable is a key here as well.   Torpedoes are not the highest potential damage (even less so thanks to TDS values). They are also the LEAST reliable offensive tool in the game and not by a small margin.

Edited by zarth12
  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
349
[TMS]
Members
2,126 posts
23,814 battles
49 minutes ago, zarth12 said:

Here is the underlying issues.

 



 



What the issue is that is seemingly ignored here is there is HOW skill floor+ceiling work in regards to logical balance, and then there is HOW Wargaming engineers it. Two are quite opposite.

In logical balance, or rather IF the game was balanced even in the slightest in regards to skill input vs output (floor and ceiling) the Leaderboards are a good indication. In a game with any sensible balance, but has archetypes with different floors+ceilings, the LOWER skill floor+ceiling archetypes (ships) will have BETTER performance in the bottom half of the skill pool compared to the HIGHER skill floor +ceiling archetypes. Where as on the other hand, the HIGHER skill floor+ceiling archetypes will have BETTER performance in the top half of the skill pool compared to the LOWER skill floor+ceiling archetypes.

To simplify. If the game were balanced in any way, the top say...1/3rd of the DDs players on the leaderboards would have MUCH BETTER performance averages then the top 1/3rd of the BB players on the leaderboards.

That is because the ship that requires more skilled input must also have more maximum potential output.. Otherwise there would be ZERO reason to play the ship that is inherently harder but unable to reliably produce higher output
once the required skill is available in the user. This is further observed as evidentiary in population metrics and how it correlates to the leaderboards as well.
The lower skill floor ship should net a little higher in popularity because of it's ease-of-use. Sure. However, the ONLY way to make the game balanced and make the lower skill floor ship also viable in a serious competitive environment is to make their role very specific, very focused. Again, not something Wargaming employs because they are NOT sensible, they are illogical.

How about we go to the generic attributes for the archetypes? If DDs have the quickest receiving TTK... as in they are designed in a controlled environment as to be the quickest to kill reliably, their output TTK must also be the highest and most reliably. This means highest and most reliable burst damage. Where as BBs, given they have the slowest receiving TTK, their output TTK must also be the lowest or least reliable.
Notice how every other successful game combines the squishy, stealth archetype with the ability to do a lot of damage in a short period of time? Every notice how the TANK archetype, with the most armor and EHP, is also very limited or niche in their ability to effectively kill opponents?

This is because WG is bias, has favoritism, and is anti-truth in their balancing.

:Smile_great:

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,352
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
7,265 posts
10,432 battles

Hmm I would say Classes - No, Ships - Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[-BRS-]
Beta Testers
144 posts
7,594 battles
15 minutes ago, zarth12 said:

Define: Overwhelming. I say this because your line of thought *seems* to be the same illogical one shared by WG.

If one player crashing on game start leads to <40% average win rate for that team, the impact of that ship class is too high.  A single ship type should never dominate the outcome of a battle, no matter how drastic the difference in skill levels for two players on opposite sides playing the same ship.

When that happens, it means the contributions of the remaining 22 players has been marginalized.  We know this to be true in wows today because that is the current state of carriers.  

Different floors and caps are good, but not at the expense of 22 players realizing that the skill gap between two other players is the main reason they are about to win or lose their game. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,367
Members
5,201 posts
9,061 battles
1 hour ago, evilleMonkeigh said:

I know what you are saying and I agree with your OP.

However, I'm not sure WoWs exactly works that way.


It's generally said BB have the lowest "skill floor" and are "forgiving" - but they also can most easily do the most damage in the hands of the top end.

A top-of-leaderboard BB player can get 50% better damage and more XP than a top DD player.

If, say DD (or cruisers) have a higher skill ceiling shouldn't they have have far more XP, win rate, kills and damage etc when you look at the top end of the leaderboard?

(even if the "average" is better, shouldn't BB be noticeably worse at the top end, if low skill ceiling works the way you describe?)

 

I don't believe raw damage is an accurate measure between two different classes/types when assessing their ability to affect the win/loss rate. 

If you look at the solo performance of the best BB players versus the best DD players, the BBs will of course have higher damage but the DDs will have higher WR. 

Unfortunately, Wows-numbers doesn't let you filter ship stats by solo performance, but it does let you filter by the top 5%. 

TJJ5YIR.png

v38OQj9.png

Even the Republique, with the highest WR among T10 BBs, takes 5th place behind the Yueyang, Grozovoi, Z-52, and Khabarovsk. 

For solo, you'll have to look at players on an individual basis. If you do, you'll notice that the best DD players are able to attain a 65-70% solo WR at T10 while the best BB players are able to attain a 60-65% solo WR at T10.

 

Edited by Kombat_W0MBAT
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
180
[DIEBL]
Members
519 posts
5,949 battles

Skill/floor difference between classes? No.

Skill/floor difference between ships within same class? Yes.

Also, RNG being a factor leads to it needing to skew towards less differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
349
[TMS]
Members
2,126 posts
23,814 battles
19 minutes ago, Kombat_W0MBAT said:

 

I don't believe raw damage is an accurate measure between two different classes/types when assessing their ability to affect the win/loss rate. 

If you look at the solo performance of the best BB players versus the best DD players, the BBs will of course have higher damage but the DDs will have higher WR. 

Unfortunately, Wows-numbers doesn't let you filter ship stats by solo performance, but it does let you filter by the top 5%. 

TJJ5YIR.png

v38OQj9.png

Even the Republique, with the highest WR among T10 BBs, takes 5th place behind the Yueyang, Grozovoi, Z-52, and Khabarovsk. 

For solo, you'll have to look at players on an individual basis. If you do, you'll notice that the best DD players are able to attain a 65-70% solo WR at T10 while the best BB players are able to attain a 60-65% solo WR at T10.

 

Yes it can.

Solo

TmRq3W.png

Div

eg9z6d.png

Edited by Final8ty
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,367
Members
5,201 posts
9,061 battles
8 minutes ago, Final8ty said:

Yes it can.

Solo

TmRq3W.png

Div

eg9z6d.png

 

Obviously. Did you miss this part?

Quote

For solo, you'll have to look at players on an individual basis. If you do, you'll notice that the best DD players are able to attain a 65-70% solo WR at T10 while the best BB players are able to attain a 60-65% solo WR at T10.

The bolded section which you highlighted was referring to the screenshots of server averages, not individual performance.

Edited by Kombat_W0MBAT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
109 posts
2,426 battles

The only thing really missing from either chart is CV - where the floor has actually fallen out of the bottom of the graphed area, and the ceiling extends right to the top.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
349
[TMS]
Members
2,126 posts
23,814 battles
7 minutes ago, Kombat_W0MBAT said:

 

Did you miss this part?

The bolded section which you highlighted was referring to the screenshots of server averages, not individual performance.

Right so the DD is only better for getting wins in skilled hands compared to the other classes.

So why are the other classes so worried when most of the damage done to them on average is done by the other classes.

Edited by Final8ty
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[WOLF5]
Members
1,330 posts
7,444 battles
1 hour ago, Tibson said:

If one player crashing on game start leads to <40% average win rate for that team, the impact of that ship class is too high.  A single ship type should never dominate the outcome of a battle, no matter how drastic the difference in skill levels for two players on opposite sides playing the same ship.

When that happens, it means the contributions of the remaining 22 players has been marginalized.  We know this to be true in wows today because that is the current state of carriers.  

Different floors and caps are good, but not at the expense of 22 players realizing that the skill gap between two other players is the main reason they are about to win or lose their game. 

High skill ceiling means high output potential. Potential is not guaranteed.

If the MM was actually SBMM, and a highly skilled player in a high skill floor ship crashed on loading, it would definitely lower your chances of winning by a nice chunk. That is how it is supposed to work. However the game doesn't even use SBMM. It is not like because it is a high skill floor+ceiling ship that suddenly the user that so happened to get plucked by MM for your team is also going to be a user that can fully utilize that ceiling.

The rest of your post is how it works, and a necessary draw back that is REQUIRED when you have archetypes with different skill floors and caps. Does that means because CVs are high skill ceiling that they are not also overpowered? No. They could very well be overpowered. Their Output vs their input could be off. However, being high skill ceiling, their maximum output better be higher than the lower skill ceiling ships otherwise the balance is completely broken overall. We see this with Battleships. Low skill floor and ceiling, but high output. Output that exceeds higher skill floor ships, even when the skill of the individuals in the higher skill floor ship surpasses that of the skill of the lower skill floor ship user.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,554 posts
4,231 battles
2 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

The only way that you will get even skill matches in teams is to let the players themselves determine the teams. Good luck with this. I played a RTS for several years that had this method. Most games took a half-hour to organize and those with the self-proclaimed or actual "elite" players oftentimes took hours to organize. Soon, the self-proclaimed "elite" players got so snooty that they would only play among themselves, using patches of their own creation on maps of their own creation. New players were immediately harangued in the forums for even asking questions and nobody would let them on their teams. The game now has maybe 50 online at any given time. 

It's easier to get games like this is to randomize it and make it all inclusive.

Oddly enough just like how WoWs does it.

In DoW a RL friend and I first dropped our win rate. Which speed things up but you would still get players that would leave if you had even slightly above 50%. Then we randomized the teams and would just have a generic name "Grove Street".

This gave us the most games per time played and some of the most fun times playing.

  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[-BRS-]
Beta Testers
144 posts
7,594 battles
2 minutes ago, zarth12 said:

High skill ceiling means high output potential. Potential is not guaranteed.

@zarth12. I don't know what you are arguing about.  You accused me of being illogical and asked me to define overwhelming.  I provided a definition based on our current game play, which is all we have to go on.  

I agree not every ship must have the exact same impact on the game,  just that there must be guide posts to keep any individual ship from becoming too impactful on the game.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×