skill based matches, but w/ a caveat incentive...

[UnOrthoDocks]

i'll admit that i skimmed the now locked thread on this topic, and hopefully this one doesn't go off the rails too.

The game is free to play, but there are some of us who will spend anywhere from a few bucks to thousands? which is quite the gap. my suggestion is to introduce a game mode that is for premium time members only, and have at least 45-50% win rate, and a minimum amount of games played (1k?) based on the tier.

the question is those of you who don't pay for premium, but have 45-50% win rates, would you consider getting premium time to be able to play in battles where you know people on both sides (at least on paper) are "good players"?

 

thoughts?

[SilverPhatShips]

Well besides there's probably not players to fill it

No I'm not spending another dime on this game 

 They've milked me for everything I'm willing to give it

[Skpstr]

11 minutes ago, teamjusta said:

i'll admit that i skimmed the now locked thread on this topic, and hopefully this one doesn't go off the rails too.

The game is free to play, but there are some of us who will spend anywhere from a few bucks to thousands? which is quite the gap. my suggestion is to introduce a game mode that is for premium time members only, and have at least 45-50% win rate, and a minimum amount of games played (1k?) based on the tier.

the question is those of you who don't pay for premium, but have 45-50% win rates, would you consider getting premium time to be able to play in battles where you know people on both sides (at least on paper) are "good players"?

 

thoughts?

How does that work? If I have a 45-50% WR, the only way a battle would have "good players" on both sides, is if I wasn't in it.

[UnOrthoDocks]

1 minute ago, Skpstr said:

How does that work? If I have a 45-50% WR, the only way a battle would have "good players" on both sides, is if I wasn't in it.

the numbers are subjective (and up for debate). I'm just wondering if the player base would be willing to have a monthly subscription or something to be able to be put into a special queue where players generally speaking aren't "really bad". where you're at least having teammates/adversaries of a minimum win %/games played or something. I think monetizing something is the key to getting wg a lil more apt to considering it.

[Wolfswetpaws]

The skilled players should be "setting the example" and people playing with them can learn how to improve their own game.
No "skill based match making" is needed.
In my opinion, it would be detrimental to the game.

[UnOrthoDocks]

Just now, Wolfswetpaws said:

The skilled players should be "setting the example" and people playing with them can learn how to improve their own game.
No "skill based match making" is needed.
In my opinion, it would be detrimental to the game.

while I don't disagree, the constant frustration coming from "good players" about the state of the game, is what prompted this suggestion.

players learning to get better can only go so far w/ constant influx of new players/skill sets. if there was a pool of a min requirement the "playing field" would be (at least in theory) more level, and less random.

[Skpstr]

2 minutes ago, teamjusta said:

the numbers are subjective (and up for debate). I'm just wondering if the player base would be willing to have a monthly subscription or something to be able to be put into a special queue where players generally speaking aren't "really bad". where you're at least having teammates/adversaries of a minimum win %/games played or something. I think monetizing something is the key to getting wg a lil more apt to considering it.

Problem with it is, regardless of the reality, it would be seen as massively P2W.

WG's current monetisation schemes, although predatory, have minimal P2W perception to all but the most casual observers.

[UnOrthoDocks]

1 minute ago, Skpstr said:

Problem with it is, regardless of the reality, it would be seen as massively P2W.

WG's current monetisation schemes, although predatory, have minimal P2W perception to all but the most casual observers.

this is absolutely true, but seems like the only possible compromise. i don't think wg would implement this concept w/o some type of incentive for them. this whole issue isnt a new one.

[Brhinosaurus]

Some of the biggest spenders are also some of the worst players in this game.  Not always of course... but you see these guys that buy a premium, play it poorly for a few battles, buy another one, repeat over and over.  It makes sense since they're never giving themselves a chance to really get good at a line of ships or master a game mechanic.  But sorting people by whether they pay is definitely not going to get you a higher class of players.

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 minutes ago, teamjusta said:

while I don't disagree, the constant frustration coming from "good players" about the state of the game, is what prompted this suggestion.

players learning to get better can only go so far w/ constant influx of new players/skill sets. if there was a pool of a min requirement the "playing field" would be (at least in theory) more level, and less random.

At some point, the "good players" should also be developing their own skills for dealing with the inexperienced players, too.  ;-)

Nothing is foolproof, because fools are so ingenious.  ;-)

[SilverPhatShips]

2 minutes ago, teamjusta said:

this is absolutely true, but seems like the only possible compromise. i don't think wg would implement this concept w/o some type of incentive for them. this whole issue isnt a new one.

 Problem is there wouldn't be enough players to populate it and if it did then there won't be enough players to populate the other side of the game that didn't have it so it's a non starter

[_Caliph_]

11 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

The skilled players should be "setting the example" and people playing with them can learn how to improve their own game.
No "skill based match making" is needed.
In my opinion, it would be detrimental to the game.

2

2

2

I'm not sure calling them skilled is a fair assessment when they don't face their equals 90% of the time. What they are is better than casual and by being so they appear as skilled when they face game after game of said casuals. 

 

7 minutes ago, teamjusta said:

while I don't disagree, the constant frustration coming from "good players" about the state of the game, is what prompted this suggestion.

players learning to get better can only go so far w/ constant influx of new players/skill sets. if there was a pool of a min requirement the "playing field" would be (at least in theory) more level, and less random.

 

Isn't that the irony in it all? The ones complaining about the state of the player base in terms of skill refuse to be placed on teams of their talent peers.

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 minutes ago, _Caliph_ said:

I'm not sure calling them skilled is a fair assessment when they don't face their equals 90% of the time. What they are is better than casual and by being so they appear as skilled when they face game after game of said casuals. 

In professional sports there is a saying, "any given team on any given day can beat the other team".

Of course, the gamblers in Las Vegas may be giving odds on who is favored to win.  But those are merely the odds.  The outcome is not guaranteed.

[SilverPhatShips]

1 minute ago, _Caliph_ said:

 

Is that the irony of it all? The ones complaining about the state of the player base in terms of skill refuse to be placed on teams of their talent peers?

 Problem is I would be waiting a long long time just to get matched up with one player of my skill level

 And then I get a queue drop for a 1v1 lol no

 And I'm not even that good of a player

Imagine the really good players wait times

 

[_Caliph_]

1 minute ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

In professional sports there is a saying, "any given team on any given day can beat the other team".

Of course, the gamblers in Las Vegas may be giving odds on who is favored to win.  But those are merely the odds.  The outcome is not guaranteed.

1

There are reasons professional sports have leagues.

[_Caliph_]

2 minutes ago, NoLoveForPhatShips said:

 Problem is I would be waiting a long long time just to get matched up with one player of my skill level

 And then I get a queue drop for a 1v1 lol no

 And I'm not even that good of a player

Imagine the really good players wait times

 

 

I don't think we need to find you teams of opponents with 56.66% w/r to make things more competitive all around. There is plenty of wiggle room. 

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 minute ago, _Caliph_ said:

There are reasons professional sports have leagues.

 

2 minutes ago, NoLoveForPhatShips said:

 Problem is I would be waiting a long long time just to get matched up with one player of my skill level

 And then I get a queue drop for a 1v1 lol no

 And I'm not even that good of a player

Imagine the really good players wait times

 

Even if we don't set up "leagues", @NoLoveForPhatShips makes a valid point.  The logistics would become a nightmare.  :-)

[_Caliph_]

2 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

 

Even if we don't set up "leagues", @NoLoveForPhatShips makes a valid point.  The logistics would become a nightmare.  :-)

There is a huge area to maneuver between a 45% w/r player and a 75% w/r player where even shaving 10% would make the system far better than what we have now. You can still include sanity checks that prevent queues from going on too long.

[Kuckoo]

Some people don't think things through and truly appreciate what they're really asking for when talking about "skill-based" matchmakers in this game.

People are only thinking about a perceived lack of ability of their teammates when talking about "skill-based MM", and that falls in line with a mindset that when things go wrong in a match it's someone else's fault.  "If my teammates were better then matches would be better and I would be better!"  It's not that simple.

Think how your matches will go when you're conceivably matched up against opposing players who are all at least as good as (you think!) you are.  How do you suppose your individual result will be when literally every opposing player you face is competent and skilled?  Your matches will be tougher, and you - as an individual player - will likely not do as well as you think you will.  What are you going to blame when that happens?

As for the thought that paying players make better matches, well, that's just naive.

The root issues with this game run deeper than the lack of a "skill-based matchmaker".

 

[_Caliph_]

Some people don't think things through and truly appreciate what they're really asking for when talking about "skill-based" matchmakers in this game.

People are only thinking about a perceived lack of ability of their teammates when talking about "skill-based MM", and that falls in line with a mindset that when things go wrong in a match it's someone else's fault.  "If my teammates were better then matches would be better and I would be better!"  It's not that simple.

Think how your matches will go when you're conceivably matched up against opposing players who are all at least as good as (you think!) you are.  How do you suppose your individual result will be when literally every opposing player you face is competent and skilled?  Your matches will be tougher, and you - as an individual player - will likely not do as well as you think you will.  What are you going to blame when that happens?

As for the thought that paying players make better matches, well, that's just naive.

The root issues with this game run deeper than the lack of a "skill-based matchmaker".

 

By people do you mean every MOBA and team-based shooter flagged as Esports in existence? I suppose it's possible WG knows something the rest of the world doesn't. Much more likely though is there is a more vocal contingent in the small community that knows what skill-based MM will bring to them and they simply like beating up on casuals.

[UnOrthoDocks]

18 minutes ago, Brhinosaurus said:

Some of the biggest spenders are also some of the worst players in this game.  Not always of course... but you see these guys that buy a premium, play it poorly for a few battles, buy another one, repeat over and over.  It makes sense since they're never giving themselves a chance to really get good at a line of ships or master a game mechanic.  But sorting people by whether they pay is definitely not going to get you a higher class of players.

read my original post fully.

[Kuckoo]

2 minutes ago, _Caliph_ said:

By people do you mean every MOBA and team-based shooter flagged as Esports in existence? 

Skill based matchmakers or not, good players play e-sports.  Skill based matchmakers doesn't make or enable good players.

And WoWS is too badly unbalanced to qualify as a viable esports platform anyway to even make such comparisons, so I fail to see how any of that is relevant.

[UnOrthoDocks]

19 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

At some point, the "good players" should also be developing their own skills for dealing with the inexperienced players, too.  ;-)

Nothing is foolproof, because fools are so ingenious.  ;-)

also true, cant fix every issue. this just seems like a good broad stroke to at least simmer it down.

[_Caliph_]

Just now, Kuckoo said:

Skill based matchmakers or not, good players play e-sports.  Skill based matchmakers doesn't make or enable good players.

And WoWS is too badly unbalanced to qualify as a viable esports platform anyway to even make such comparisons, so I fail to see how any of that is relevant.

[UnOrthoDocks]

20 minutes ago, NoLoveForPhatShips said:

 Problem is there wouldn't be enough players to populate it and if it did then there won't be enough players to populate the other side of the game that didn't have it so it's a non starter

not all of the "good players" would want to pay be in it, so would still be some balance i think?