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

What would it take to get you playing again?

55 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
3,714 posts

My answer is quality games. If most games were like that ultra rare game where teams and ships are balanced and the winner is decided in the last couple minutes. I’d much rather teams were balanced by skill instead of ship type.

 

if we can get a separate game mode for subs I don’t see why there can’t be a separate mode for balanced teams.

 

 

  • Funny 1
  • Boring 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
136
[-RNG-]
Members
225 posts
6,606 battles

I'm still enjoying myself. Sure, I hate potato teams but when you land that perfect solvo or perfect torp spread it makes it worthwhile. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,958
[TMS]
Beta Testers
3,500 posts
13,421 battles
2 minutes ago, CaptainTeddybear said:

I’d much rather teams were balanced by skill instead of ship type.

So you would rather be on a team with the same sub 50% wr as yourself, I can see how that would work, keep all the sub 50% people away from those who are trying to win/learn/improve so we can have better games, without relying on the sub 50%'ers yoloing and dying in 2 seconds

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,615
[RKLES]
Members
11,015 posts
12,551 battles

Wargaming just needs to make the game functional again for MAC users and many of us will return and play WOWs.

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
710
[KAPPA]
Members
2,366 posts
7,194 battles

Well... I'm playing plenty, but if CVs were better balanced I feel I'd be happier. Currently they are too ineffective against most ships and too effective against DDs. This combines to CVs often focusing DDs hard. To buff AA in such a major way without buffing survivability to compensate is a bandaid fix at best, and loses them quite a lot of data, as now they don't have many CVs to give them the data they need.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,197 posts
6,374 battles

My idea of a Perfect WOW game formulation would be to able to choose the Tier levels you would like to play.  You want only your own tier or one tier above yours or one below, two levels up from yours...etc. A selection for not playing with CV and/or Subs.  Namely choose your enemy configuration.  It could take longer for MM to sort the player roster but as long as its within 5 minutes...why not even if its less than the maximum possible of player numbers.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,633
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
12,504 posts
18,037 battles
1 hour ago, CriMiNaL__ said:

So you would rather be on a team with the same sub 50% wr as yourself, I can see how that would work, keep all the sub 50% people away from those who are trying to win/learn/improve so we can have better games, without relying on the sub 50%'ers yoloing and dying in 2 seconds

I love this argument; what do you think will happen when all you "serious" players play each other? Half of you will lose and be thrown back into the potato league. Kind of self defeating isn't it? So unless you're absolutely sure you will be the one player to come out on top of EVERY match maybe you should re-think this idea through to it's inevitable conclusion.

  • Cool 9
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
767
[VETSN]
Members
1,045 posts

How about some sort of connection verification before the game starts? Making sure everyone is actually ready to play, because for some reason there is always an AFK player on my team... or two.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,815
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
3,543 posts
12,236 battles

Honestly, I play too much already and an impossible grind for a stupid broken French captain is the perfect antidote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,161
[WOLF3]
Members
22,879 posts
20,803 battles
40 minutes ago, BarneyStyle said:

How about some sort of connection verification before the game starts? Making sure everyone is actually ready to play, because for some reason there is always an AFK player on my team... or two.

You'll be waiting a while then.  I'm sure there are AFKers but there are also guys that have some wonky connections.  One of my old Division buddies loads late.

Every.

Single.

Game.

It's not surprising if he had to restart his sh*t.

That "fantastic" Kentucky, Freedom Capitalist USA internet while our buddy from Communist Vietnam playing on NA server has a super fast, rock solid connection.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,359
[INTEL]
Members
11,493 posts
32,126 battles
3 hours ago, CaptainTeddybear said:

My answer is quality games.

 

You added an extra "L" to the thread title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
903
[PVE]
Members
3,969 posts
22,295 battles
3 hours ago, CriMiNaL__ said:

So you would rather be on a team with the same sub 50% wr as yourself, I can see how that would work, keep all the sub 50% people away from those who are trying to win/learn/improve so we can have better games, without relying on the sub 50%'ers yoloing and dying in 2 seconds

Balanced means an even # of good & bad WR players on each team...not just all of 1 or the other.

It's never gonna happen that MM will be "balanced" in that way anyway but do you have the ability to actually follow the subject of a thread w/out resorting to stat shaming as if it is somehow related to the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,041 posts
8,775 battles

And AGAIN - see all of the other previous posts and zillion of threads on the issues with determining "skill" and then realize it will not automatically make "quality" games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,958
[TMS]
Beta Testers
3,500 posts
13,421 battles
2 hours ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

but do you have the ability to actually follow the subject of a thread w/out resorting to stat shaming as if it is somehow related to the subject.

Sure I do but the OP opened the door about teams balanced by skill, and according to their skill level they would be in the sub 50% half.

4 hours ago, Umikami said:

I love this argument; what do you think will happen when all you "serious" players play each other? Half of you will lose and be thrown back into the potato league. Kind of self defeating isn't it? So unless you're absolutely sure you will be the one player to come out on top of EVERY match maybe you should re-think this idea through to it's inevitable conclusion.

The thing is, I am all for mixed skill levels in a game, I rely on bad players driving in straight lines, I rely on bad players not watching what is going on with points and throw away a win because they need to get one more kill.

Maybe both of you who I quoted would benefit from the OP's suggestion, then you can only ruin games with with others of the same calibre, so it would feel like nothing has changed.

No learning required.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,222
[O_O]
[O_O]
Members
4,071 posts
18,341 battles
5 hours ago, Umikami said:

I love this argument; what do you think will happen when all you "serious" players play each other? Half of you will lose and be thrown back into the potato league. Kind of self defeating isn't it? So unless you're absolutely sure you will be the one player to come out on top of EVERY match maybe you should re-think this idea through to it's inevitable conclusion.

I was wondering that myself. If all of the unicums only played themselves wouldn't half of them ultimately fall out of that rarefied air and land closer to ground with the rest of us taters? What beef would they have then??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
903
[PVE]
Members
3,969 posts
22,295 battles
7 hours ago, CriMiNaL__ said:

Sure I do but the OP opened the door about teams balanced by skill, and according to their skill level they would be in the sub 50% half.

1st of all the OP is not a "they" (grammar much?). &...

2nd of all OP opened the door to the common sense interpretation of that statement that I stated above:

10 hours ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

Balanced means an even # of good & bad WR players on each team...not just all of 1 or the other.

Misinterpretation of common sense as an excuse to stat shame is basic trolling 101.

I did notice you haven't played any ranked battles this season..could it be your high stats rely on divving w/others to carry you & that you actually would fall into the losing 1/2 in this example playing solo?:

12 hours ago, Umikami said:

I love this argument; what do you think will happen when all you "serious" players play each other? Half of you will lose and be thrown back into the potato league. Kind of self defeating isn't it? So unless you're absolutely sure you will be the one player to come out on top of EVERY match maybe you should re-think this idea through to it's inevitable conclusion.

Another contradiction:

13 hours ago, CriMiNaL__ said:

I can see how that would work, keep all the sub 50% people away from those who are trying to win/learn/improve so we can have better games, without relying on the sub 50%'ers yoloing and dying in 2 seconds

 

7 hours ago, CriMiNaL__ said:

The thing is, I am all for mixed skill levels in a game, I rely on bad players driving in straight lines, I rely on bad players not watching what is going on with points and throw away a win because they need to get one more kill.

So which is it? Will you have better games if they "keep all the sub 50% people away" or do you " rely on bad players..."?

I'm guessing the latter.

Edited by IfYouSeeKhaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
778
[INTEL]
Members
2,571 posts
13,417 battles
6 hours ago, Khafni said:

I was wondering that myself. If all of the unicums only played themselves wouldn't half of them ultimately fall out of that rarefied air and land closer to ground with the rest of us taters? What beef would they have then??

In the larger player population, taters will still be taters.  When playing only among themselves, some taters will be better than others.  But they will all remain taters.  The better taters will likely become worse or at best plateau, since they will not be challenged by unicums.

Same for Unicums.  When playing only among themselves, some unicums will be better than others.  But they will still be unicums in the larger player population.

Each population will have upper and lower halves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,072 posts
11 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

You'll be waiting a while then.  I'm sure there are AFKers but there are also guys that have some wonky connections.  One of my old Division buddies loads late.

Every.

Single.

Game.

It's not surprising if he had to restart his sh*t.

That "fantastic" Kentucky, Freedom Capitalist USA internet while our buddy from Communist Vietnam playing on NA server has a super fast, rock solid connection.

Kinda like the suburb down the road from me has a 'sweet deal' with 'exclusive service'.  Yeah, good prices, but they're getting what they (don't) pay for.  Ping is 300+ most of the time, and the '100MBit' bandwidth they sell is rarely more than actually 20 Mbit.  The cable company up here isn't a whole lot better.  Thankfully, *in this city*, at least, ATT is solid and reliable.  Almost never down, and average 60 ping.  I''m getting the bandwidth that I'm paying for.  Not as cheap as Mediacom or Centurylink, but it works reliably, and that's important.

Most countries that have so much better Internet in general are quite a bit smaller in size.  Vietnam has about 4x the people of Texas, but is about half the size.  I would be one of the first to say that there's some things that could be done better, but, otoh, a lot of it is simply sheer size, and proximity to the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×