Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
robotdaddy

Is the Daring being punished?

10 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
106 posts
12,043 battles

I had been having a blast in the Jutland and Daring.  I'd go around doing my usual DD thing, capping, spotting, killing.  I did well in both - WR over 60% in both - and slightly better in Jutland because its greater concealment better suited my playstyle.  I had both ships configured similarly: PM, LS, SE, SI, IFHE, CE, AR.  On both I had been running AA builds.  All was great with my high-tier RN DD play until about 2 weeks ago and I hit a wall.  My Daring WR went from 60% to 35%, almost literally overnight.  Absolutely atrocious.  I blamed myself - I had been making my share of mistakes and had a few days where I was a true potato.  But other ships I seemed to be doing well in, including the Jutland...  I reconfigured the Daring to double-down on its strengths - dropped the AA build, went for a full gunboat build.  I went into the training room for practice.  The WR improved, but not to the level I was at a few weeks before.  

I started keeping track via MM monitor.  I focused on the metric of relative WR for reds and greens.  MM Monitor isn't perfect, especially with how it handles players with hidden stats and such, but those factors should be balanced out over enough games.   I recorded 114 games overall, including 48 games on the Daring. More than I anticipated, but I started sensing a trend and wanted to see if it was real or not.  

The results?  Over 114 games, the median ratio of win rates for greens/reds was 0.98 and pretty much what you'd hope for.  But for the Daring, the ratio was 0.94.  In 65% of my Daring matches, I was on the lesser team  (31 vs 17 out of 48).  The difference in the team's win rate explains much of my losing streak.   I still had/have my share of potato moments and my level of play still wasn't/isn't where it should be, but there were too many matches where the team collapsed around me while every win felt like a struggle.  It really feels like the Daring is being punished through tougher matchmaking.  

Has anyone else noticed a shift in MM for the Daring?   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,498
[-K-]
Members
8,361 posts
14,164 battles

If Daring is being punished, the penalty must be no legendary module for her.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
322 posts
19,242 battles

It's not your fault. WG has a secret matchmaking system that discriminates against players who have a very high win rate. This happens to me now on a regular basis because I reached 59% win rate. Yesterday and the day before, I was first place in almost all my games with super carries and around 120k-200k average damage in my battleship with around 1.5million - 2.4million tanked and yet I was struggling to maintain a 40% win rate. My PR ranges in the unicum range but my win rate is straight up the worst at "bad." This isn't a one time thing, I can pull multiple examples in my Chapayev and many other ships. Here is an example of my recent stats.

 

Capture.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
233
[-K-]
WoWS Community Contributors, Supertester
946 posts
13,377 battles

I don't have the number of games that you have in the Daring, though I do play a lot of DDs and at the higher end of the spectrum.

First off good move to remove the AA, the continuous damage is low on the Daring, whilst the clouds are high, but good players avoid those. Survivability and damage mitigation will help you most.

I find the MM is fine even with red players, as long as we don't lose key and numerous boats in under 5 minutes of the game start.

Without looking at stats or games, id advise stay alive longer, as you do more damage that way and can influence a game more. You may get good damage currently but if you die early to mid game you have no influence on the game, and id rather have a winning chance in my hands, rather then somebody else's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,123
[CVA16]
Members
5,392 posts
16,221 battles
10 hours ago, Ace_04 said:

If Daring is being punished, the penalty must be no legendary module for her.

A lot of the Legendary Mods end up being unusable so it would be a crap-shoot as to whether one for the Daring would be worth the grind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
106 posts
12,043 battles

Sigh. 6 games tonight.  5/6 on lesser teams. Really??  What’s with MM?  I didn’t play poorly, but still only won 1/6, and that was on a ‘lesser’ team. Should’ve been 2/6 wins but somehow a Salem killed a full health Yammy in a 1:1 duel for the win...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
105
[NG-NL]
Members
265 posts
9,196 battles
23 hours ago, robotdaddy said:

I started keeping track via MM monitor.  I focused on the metric of relative WR for reds and greens.  MM Monitor isn't perfect, especially with how it handles players with hidden stats and such, but those factors should be balanced out over enough games.   I recorded 114 games overall, including 48 games on the Daring. More than I anticipated, but I started sensing a trend and wanted to see if it was real or not.  

The results?  Over 114 games, the median ratio of win rates for greens/reds was 0.98 and pretty much what you'd hope for.  But for the Daring, the ratio was 0.94.  In 65% of my Daring matches, I was on the lesser team  (31 vs 17 out of 48).  The difference in the team's win rate explains much of my losing streak.   I still had/have my share of potato moments and my level of play still wasn't/isn't where it should be, but there were too many matches where the team collapsed around me while every win felt like a struggle.  It really feels like the Daring is being punished through tougher matchmaking.  

Has anyone else noticed a shift in MM for the Daring?   

 

You've gathered a lot of data, found a pattern,  and pose an interesting question whether WG secretly changed matchmaking for the Daring.

Unfortunately, the forum is full of ideas that WarGaming has rigged matchmaking against (the poster). Before we put too much more work into this, I'm curious if the pattern is statistically significant. Random matches would have plenty of variation, and most of that will be normal.

How many samples do you have? Can we fit this to a distribution curve and find a standard deviation? If this all fits within 1 standard deviation, then it looks like normal variation.

Even if your experience is normal game play, I can relate to your frustration. I've had winning streaks and losing streaks, and it always hurts more after a few wins. My latest challenge is using the legendary module in Khabarovsk. It's as fast as always, and the guns are amazing, but it turns like a football stadium. Keep at it, and I think you'll get back to your winning ways in Daring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
554
[BS]
Members
1,979 posts
10,813 battles
22 hours ago, Kanak_Unconquerable_hero said:

It's not your fault. WG has a secret matchmaking system that discriminates against players who have a very high win rate. This happens to me now on a regular basis because I reached 59% win rate. Yesterday and the day before, I was first place in almost all my games with super carries and around 120k-200k average damage in my battleship with around 1.5million - 2.4million tanked and yet I was struggling to maintain a 40% win rate. My PR ranges in the unicum range but my win rate is straight up the worst at "bad." This isn't a one time thing, I can pull multiple examples in my Chapayev and many other ships. Here is an example of my recent stats.

 

Capture.PNG

That sounds exactly like the patent for their matchmaker i read about a while ago. It puts you on crappy teams so you don't get bored from winning, that's the rationale, LOL....

 

I swear they mess with your odds of winning if you're running max special signals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
106 posts
12,043 battles
3 hours ago, imaginary_b said:

You've gathered a lot of data, found a pattern,  and pose an interesting question whether WG secretly changed matchmaking for the Daring.

Unfortunately, the forum is full of ideas that WarGaming has rigged matchmaking against (the poster). Before we put too much more work into this, I'm curious if the pattern is statistically significant. Random matches would have plenty of variation, and most of that will be normal.

How many samples do you have? Can we fit this to a distribution curve and find a standard deviation? If this all fits within 1 standard deviation, then it looks like normal variation.

With 56 matches, the asymptotic confidence interval would be 52% to 76%...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
322 posts
19,242 battles
7 hours ago, HorrorRoach said:

That sounds exactly like the patent for their matchmaker i read about a while ago. It puts you on crappy teams so you don't get bored from winning, that's the rationale, LOL....

 

I swear they mess with your odds of winning if you're running max special signals.

They really don't care about what you wear. It's that if you reach a certain win rate threshold, WG's MM system is designed to discriminate against you and the higher you are the more unfair it is to the point the only way of winning is to have a full division of 60% win rate players and higher. It's absolute cancer. I don't always have someone to division with and even then, I need alone time sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×