Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
MEANN

Steamroll Hypothesis

46 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,896
[HATE]
Members
1,056 posts
15,839 battles

So i see and hear most of the forums and players talk about mm being messed up. teams are way out of balance. blow outs every match. half the team yolo 7 boats to one cap 3 to the middle 2 to a and they of course die to th 7 at a while the 7 at c are stuck not able to kill the 3 at c. the middle is lost and 6 minutes in one team is down 5 players and 3 caps. no idea how it happened. 

Sound about like most games today. 

My thoughts about this. Every update of line release WG makes a gimmick or special attribute that makes the line or t10 amazing. There is almost monthly op gold ships. and then there is the super special steel ships. cough stali 

It seems to me that WG is raising  the amount of damage a boat can do every patch every update. We are at a point where the tech tree boats cant stand up to any of the pay wall boats. You are a dd and a smole pops out of nowhere. you know your dead. the blow out is a product of one upmanship, every new boat is better then the last. So now we have a game filled with super powerful boats. now this is not to say that the people can use them. BUT the ones that can mop the floor. So enter mm and a few unicum players. MM sees ca ca ca ca dd dd dd dd bb bb bb bb. what we see. ohio, thunderer, kremlin, stali, smole, smole, benham, asashio, gumo, vs monty, gk, repub, yammy, zao, des moines, shimma, gearing, z52. now add skill to 3 or 4 of the first group and the second is toast. that is the issue.  

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,422
[MERCB]
[MERCB]
Members
4,335 posts
20,013 battles

The issue is how do you balance 500 and below PR players if your the MM?

  The game is now full of them

 Over 80% of all teams are now full of bad players

 One might go run off to the corner and play with it self

 One might turn around and TK someone

 One of them might blob up and hide behind everybody and not do anything

One of them might rush to the cap and die instantly 

 One of them might get a cap and actually live more than 5 minutes but not much more

 You see where this is going how do you fill each side with an unknown quantity of bad players that MM cant figure out what the bad players will bring to the game?

 And alot of veteran players have quit or just don't play randoms anymore, so fill the que with unknown quality of bad players and here we are.

 Good luck

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,354 posts
1,286 battles

I don't think the unicums are even the the deciding factor anymore. What it comes down to now is which team has the fewest absolutely braindead players. I'll join a match and see a purple clan div on the red team while my team has none, but we still win because the rest of the red team was bad enough that they couldn't even be carried by a strong div. That's the state of the game and it's not going to get better. That's why this game went from being the game I've put by far more hours into than any other, to one I can barely stomach playing for more than a match or two.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts

This topic might become somewhat censored soon, as quite few before have been locked (on the issue of SkillBasedMatchMaker). 

Lol Teams

To Devs about MM and tiers

Any kind of skill-based solution won't be good enough as the problem presented not by balance of skills but the lack of ones. In other words it's not quick killing but quick dying/losing. Why not just dying is because for example on the epicenter map potato team can lose fast by camping outside and giving up map control (less frequent this happens in domination and standard battles as well). 

I'm playing T5-T10 regularly for last 4+ years and in my observation quality of games (apart from CV disaster) dropped especially in hi-tiers. Other tiers are less noticeable. I directly link this to the high-tiers ships available for purchase without any kind of required playtime/training/achievements. One required achievement is open gap in your wallet. Which is understandable. Servers need money to keep working as a marketing team, support and developers. But shifting from premium time/flags/mid-tier premium ships sales to hi-tier ships/resources bundles sales invited big amount of untrained players into hi-tiers (of course having big gun is more enticing than winning with chopsticks and pure skill) and now we have what we have. Steamrolls every other game. Which might be ok for those who don't care (i'm here to have fun, it's just a game, kind of kids) and for those who don't know better. But this also drives away veterans (the feeling that you cannot influence battle result since your team dies too fast, which honestly doesn't feel right even in victory). So this is real problem in a sense, that selling hi-end content for quick money will shorten game life cycle. As far as I understand WG answer to this is constant addition of cool  features (new arcade game modes, frequent events) and making big announcements (submarines). Personally I'm sceptical about this, since after CV rework nobody in their sober mind would believe in the submarine success...

I've already voiced my proposition for this problem. Make hi-tiers more credit demanding to quality of play. So the top players on losing team will get more credits and players on the bottom of winning team get less. (and bottom of losing team will lose even more). Credit reward should be in sync with your quality as a player. This way good players will naturally be motivated to stay at hi-tiers and bad player will need to learn (gitgud mantra) to play at less-demanding low tiers or end up paying cash to stay afloat credit-wise. Maybe we can get this as some kind of official community request/proposition.... I don't know

 

 

Edited by SlartiBartFastE2
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,586
[WOLF3]
Members
26,992 posts
23,790 battles
10 minutes ago, SlartiBartFastE2 said:

This topic might become somewhat censored soon, as quite few before have been locked (on the issue of SkillBasedMatchMaker). 

Lol Teams

To Devs about MM and tiers

Any kind of skill-based solution won't be good enough as the problem presented not by balance of skills but the lack of ones. In other words it's not quick killing but quick dying/losing. Why not just dying is because for example on the epicenter map potato team can lose fast by camping outside and giving up map control (less frequent this happens in domination and standard battles as well). 

I'm playing T5-T10 regularly for last 4+ years and in my observation quality of games (apart from CV disaster) dropped especially in hi-tiers. Other tiers are less noticeable. I directly link this to the high-tiers ships available for purchase without any kind of required playtime/training/achievements. One required achievement is open gap in your wallet. Which is understandable. Servers need money to keep working as a marketing team, support and developers. But shifting from premium time/flags/mid-tier premium ships sales to hi-tier ships/resources bundles sales invited big amount of untrained players into hi-tiers (of course having big gun is more enticing than winning with chopsticks and pure skill) and now we have what we have. Steamrolls every other game. Which might be ok for those who don't care (i'm here to have fun, it's just a game, kind of kids) and for those who don't know better. But this also drives away veterans (the feeling that you cannot influence battle result since your team dies too fast, which honestly doesn't feel right even in victory). So this is real problem in a sense, that selling hi-end content for quick money will shorten game life cycle. As far as I understand WG answer to this is constant addition of cool  features (new arcade game modes, frequent events) and making big announcements (submarines). Personally I'm sceptical about this, since after CV rework nobody in their sober mind would believe in the submarine success...

I've already voice my proposition for this problem. Make hi-tiers more credit demanding to quality of play. So the top players on losing team will get more credits and players on the bottom of winning team get less. (and bottom of losing team will lose even more). Credit reward should be in sync with your quality as a player. This way good players will naturally be motivated to stay at hi-tiers and bad player will need to learn (gitgud mantra) to play at less-demanding low tiers or end up paying cash to stay afloat credit-wise. Maybe we can get this as some kind of official community request/proposition.... I don't know

 

 

Being able to purchase a high tier premium as a new player doesn't mean anything overall.  People grind and fail their way to Tier X all the time.

 

When I was new, I grinded the IJN BB Line, failed quite a bit a long the way.  I was working on Amagi, got impatient, then FreeXP'd and got to Yamato without having any real clue on how to play High Tier Battleships.

 

It took ages for me to get any decent.  But the level of competency of a new, bad player like me grinding to Tier X isn't any different than some dude buying Alaska, Jean Bart, Prinz Eugen, Atago right out of the store.  There are people with thousands upon thousands upon thousands of battles recorded and are absolutely terrible, and will always be that way.

 

We had a lot of terrible players in 2015 when the game was new.

We still had a lot of terrible players in 2016.

We definitely still had a lot of terrible players in 2018.

We for sure still got a lot of terrible players in 2020.

 

It's not changing.  As I said, you can fail your way to Tier X.  I did when I was new.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,378 posts
6,787 battles

To me the solution is to eliminate the DEV strike  and the Detonation strike so players stay alive longer. Also eliminate citadels on all ships.  Those changes will help make players survive longer so that they stay engaged to play.  Reductions in torpedo damage on ALL torps could be done also to up the survivabilty of players.   BUT this ain't gonna happen as WOWs mission is to churn the game to conclusion as fast as it can so that a new battle will be populated for the next go around. Speedy churns make money for WOWs.  A compromise could be made where the modifications above are used but the time length of the game would be shorted..to lets say 16 minutes or even less - 15 minutes.   With a shortend game times players will have to be more engaged to battle else they will have very low scores and are just sight seeing!   

Edited by dionkraft
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
808
[BONKS]
Members
693 posts
3,376 battles
Just now, dionkraft said:

To me the solution is to eliminate the DEV strike

No. If you're stupid enough to show my BB/Cruiser broadside you deserve to be smacked out the water. That goes for just sailing obliviously in a in straight line and eating my torps, you deserve to be struck out the game.

 

1 minute ago, dionkraft said:

Detonation strike

That one I agree can go. Pure RNG Bull:etc_swear: the negates any and all skill.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,896
[HATE]
Members
1,056 posts
15,839 battles
5 minutes ago, dionkraft said:

o me the solution is to eliminate the DEV strike  and the Detonation strike so players stay alive longer. Also eliminate citadels on all ships.  Those changes will help make players survive longer so that they stay engaged to play. 

Lowering the standard because the player's skill is not there is not the solution. 

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
1 hour ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

 

It's not changing.  As I said, you can fail your way to Tier X.  I did when I was new.

I wonder if you at least think you have a point...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,586
[WOLF3]
Members
26,992 posts
23,790 battles
15 minutes ago, SlartiBartFastE2 said:

I wonder if you at least think you have a point...

 

1 hour ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Being able to purchase a high tier premium as a new player doesn't mean anything overall.  People grind and fail their way to Tier X all the time.

 

When I was new, I grinded the IJN BB Line, failed quite a bit a long the way.  I was working on Amagi, got impatient, then FreeXP'd and got to Yamato without having any real clue on how to play High Tier Battleships.

 

It took ages for me to get any decent.  But the level of competency of a new, bad player like me grinding to Tier X isn't any different than some dude buying Alaska, Jean Bart, Prinz Eugen, Atago right out of the store.  There are people with thousands upon thousands upon thousands of battles recorded and are absolutely terrible, and will always be that way.

 

We had a lot of terrible players in 2015 when the game was new.

We still had a lot of terrible players in 2016.

We definitely still had a lot of terrible players in 2018.

We for sure still got a lot of terrible players in 2020.

 

It's not changing.  As I said, you can fail your way to Tier X.  I did when I was new.

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,823
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
12,604 posts
2 hours ago, MEANN said:

blow outs

The mechanics of a rout, or more generally, a system collapse, have been studies for hundreds of years by military tacticians, engineers, and scientists. Today, supercomputers are helping to model natural systems in an attempt to explain why come systems suffer catastrophic collapses while others are more robust and resistant to change.

There are several reasons for "blow outs" in WOWS and only some of them are due to an imbalance in matchmaking.

  • A well-known player or event ship (ex, a Corgi) on one team that is targeted by opponents who should be doing other things to help the team.
  • The presence of a unicum division with voice communication on one team and not the other. 
  • Events that require certain goals to be met and players who are only playing to achieve them rather than playing for the team.
  • Trepidation by players who either don't know how to advance or are fearful of being the first ship targeted.
  • Those you just like to yolo in and blaze away until they are sunk.
  • Lack of communication or ignoring communication. This is oftentimes exacerbated by players who spam unnecessary communications, like a DD who sends ten "requesting AA support" taunts every minute, causing the CV to just shut off the chat.
  • Tunnel vision. Concentrating only on the ship you are shooting at or your individual goals while ignoring the bigger picture.
  • Arguments and petulance. It's amazing how many games I see lost when one team gets in a fight among themselves.
  • Loss of a key ship, like the only DD on the team, early on.
  • Failure to cap and defend the caps.
  • Failure to spot the enemy.
  • Failure to support teammates.
  • Failure to concentrate fire.
  • Rapid attrition due to a high-health ship entering an area and fighting several low-health ones who then die to only a few salvoes.
  • Lack of familiarity with new ships.
  • Too many players on one team with a better knowledge of the game in general. For instance, what ships have radar, the radar's range, what ships have smoke, hydro, etc. The torpedo ranges and speeds, and so on? If you watch good CC videos you will notice that the best of them have studied such things.

 

  

Edited by Snargfargle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,707
[WDS]
[WDS]
Members
3,565 posts
11,145 battles
2 hours ago, NoLoveForPhatShips said:

The issue is how do you balance 500 and below PR players if your the MM?

  The game is now full of them

 Over 80% of all teams are now full of bad players

 One might go run off to the corner and play with it self

 One might turn around and TK someone

 One of them might blob up and hide behind everybody and not do anything

One of them might rush to the cap and die instantly 

 One of them might get a cap and actually live more than 5 minutes but not much more

 You see where this is going how do you fill each side with an unknown quantity of bad players that MM cant figure out what the bad players will bring to the game?

 And alot of veteran players have quit or just don't play randoms anymore, so fill the que with unknown quality of bad players and here we are.

 Good luck

This is probable true that the game has a lot of bad players but if they keep playing maybe they will get better . There is turnover in every walk of life sports , work , and gaming . Good players leave new players take there place there not up to snuff it takes a while Wows is not an easy game to play . This is both good and bad there's a high learning curve good players that have been here for 5 years there not all leaving because it's so bad even though some are  . There leaving because they have 20,000 games played there bored time to move on . They just cant be replaced so easily so the game suffers hopefully as new players get better the game will rebound . Every thing is cyclical it's hard to replace great players with new players hopefully if people stick around and figure things out than things will get better but it might take a while . In the mean time we got to suck it up . 

Edited by clammboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,373 posts

The more likely theory is that the DEVS have become fairly smart over the last 4 + years. 

MM is set up such that a game is over quick and the players move on to another game.   This uses up flags, camo, credits and a whole lot more.   Follow the money.  Is it to WG's benefit to have games long or short? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
1 hour ago, Toxic_Potato said:

The more likely theory is that the DEVS have become fairly smart over the last 4 + years. 

MM is set up such that a game is over quick and the players move on to another game.   This uses up flags, camo, credits and a whole lot more.   Follow the money.  Is it to WG's benefit to have games long or short? 

 

That might be true, though this stinks of tin foil. The downside of player frustration might also be a way too much of negative factor - if battles are frustrating this will cause quit lots of people... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
723
[WOOKY]
Beta Testers
1,570 posts
14 hours ago, MEANN said:

It seems to me that WG is raising  the amount of damage a boat can do every patch every update. We are at a point where the tech tree boats cant stand up to any of the pay wall boats.

after a cursory glance through the last 4 months or so of the NA server stats, I cant argue with your claim that Stalin is doing well. But there are several ships doing even better at dealing average damages, and its not everybodys hate child the Smolensk.

Technically it would ne the Bougoune, which would fit your theory, but the number of games played are real low in comparison, so is this a statistical outlier due to low data count.

The poster child and only slightly less as top dog for damage is currently the Thunderer. I would claim that being a coal boat and earnt for free in game during normal play it does not count as being locked behind a paywall.

But, you know who comes in third, of all the boats, in dealing damage over the last few patches? The Conqueror. Yeah, the tech tree ship thats been here for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
914
[FORM]
Members
1,624 posts
11,280 battles
14 hours ago, NoLoveForPhatShips said:

The issue is how do you balance 500 and below PR players if your the MM? The game is now full of them... Over 80% of all teams are now full of bad players... And alot of veteran players have quit or just don't play randoms anymore, so fill the que with unknown quality of bad players and here we are.

As others have mentioned and requested (and WG has always resisted,) some form of skill measuring in the MM is the only reasonable way to balance teams out. The impact might be minimal, but if don't smartly (after the teams are already picked, so that it doens't slow the teams getting set up,) then it would at least be SOMETHING to try and fix the issue.

13 hours ago, USS_Taylor_Swift said:

I don't think the unicums are even the the deciding factor anymore. What it comes down to now is which team has the fewest absolutely braindead players.

Agreed. The value of good players, especially a division of 3 very good ones is significant in any match, but most matches it seems to be the team with the most people licking their monitors clean that decides the battle. Can't blame it all on new folks too, there are plenty of people with thousands and thousands of battles who seem intent on dying as fast as they can and/or contributing as little as possible to their team.

13 hours ago, SlartiBartFastE2 said:

This topic might become somewhat censored soon, as quite few before have been locked (on the issue of SkillBasedMatchMaker).

WG sure does seem to lock any discussions about it, don't they? :-/

11 hours ago, Toxic_Potato said:

The more likely theory is that the DEVS have become fairly smart over the last 4 + years.  Is it to WG's benefit to have games long or short? 

I think that would be an incredibly stupid way of demonstrating how "smart" they think they are. They're losing a lot of experienced and money spending players because of the poor state of the game, so yah speeding up battles burns flags and camo, but if you think flags & camo sales are what drive the game I have to disagree with ya on that.

Of course, WG does some unfathomably lame brained things - the way that they responded to the outcry regarding the Puerto Rico was a perfect example of just being stupid, lazy and short-sighted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,354 posts
1,286 battles
7 hours ago, TheArc said:

Agreed. The value of good players, especially a division of 3 very good ones is significant in any match, but most matches it seems to be the team with the most people licking their monitors clean that decides the battle. Can't blame it all on new folks too, there are plenty of people with thousands and thousands of battles who seem intent on dying as fast as they can and/or contributing as little as possible to their team.

Yup, you see it right here:

20 hours ago, dionkraft said:

To me the solution is to eliminate the DEV strike  and the Detonation strike so players stay alive longer. Also eliminate citadels on all ships.  Those changes will help make players survive longer so that they stay engaged to play.  Reductions in torpedo damage on ALL torps could be done also to up the survivabilty of players.   BUT this ain't gonna happen as WOWs mission is to churn the game to conclusion as fast as it can so that a new battle will be populated for the next go around. Speedy churns make money for WOWs.  A compromise could be made where the modifications above are used but the time length of the game would be shorted..to lets say 16 minutes or even less - 15 minutes.   With a shortend game times players will have to be more engaged to battle else they will have very low scores and are just sight seeing!   

"Dumb the game down even further to protect me from myself"

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
663 posts
5,969 battles

Ships are more deadly than they used to be, which is the issue.

Back when I got my first tier 10 for instance the Gearing was considered top dog in a DD gunfight, the Hindenburg was considered the DMP monster, and people were championing both Yamato and Montana for king of the BB pile. For radar you had Minotaur, which almost never took it, Des Moines, and Moskva. 

When you put that into context you start to understand how games were different. They were slower. Radar threats existed, but were manageable. Ships like the Z-52 for gods sakes were meta. Zao was considered the burninator-in-Chief after Conq. Think about that. Zao. Zao was considered a fire monster.

Then Worcester came out, Daring pushed the DD DPM out of bounds along with a short spat of Harugumo, and then the one we all love to complain about, Smolensk. We have ships like Thunderer and Kremlin and Stalingrad who can reliably dev strike ships angling or not. We have/had stuff like Henri before nerf with its reload booster, Bourgogne, all sorts of crud that makes small mistakes game ending. Then we wonder why games are a steamroll. Back when I was learning I had no clue how to properly manage radar, but I didn’t get insta melted by a Smolensk, Venezia, Kleber, or Daring when I did eat it.

Nowadays the threats are much more potent, and the mistakes not as easy to see. You could get away with more stuff.

Edited by Sou1forge
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,378 posts
6,787 battles
47 minutes ago, USS_Taylor_Swift said:

Yup, you see it right here:

"Dumb the game down even further to protect me from myself"

Its better to dumb the game down and retain players to keep the WOW bank roll continuing. By the way HOW much money did you spend last year?  Or played for free ?  I checked mine and its about $136 per month.  Did you add yours? 

Edited by dionkraft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,378 posts
6,787 battles
21 hours ago, Toss_a_plus_1_to_your_CV said:

No. If you're stupid enough to show my BB/Cruiser broadside you deserve to be smacked out the water. That goes for just sailing obliviously in a in straight line and eating my torps, you deserve to be struck out the game.

 

That one I agree can go. Pure RNG Bull:etc_swear: the negates any and all skill.

Your thinking of yourself.. and theres not enough of you to support the game financially. How much did you spend last year ?   The issue is to accomodate the most players which support the game dumb or not. The more they are and retained..the MORE Wow can develop and maintain its financial level.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,378 posts
6,787 battles
18 hours ago, SlartiBartFastE2 said:

That might be true, though this stinks of tin foil. The downside of player frustration might also be a way too much of negative factor - if battles are frustrating this will cause quit lots of people... 

WOWs advantage is to make the game as short as possible for 'Churn' to sell and replace cost laden items on your ships.   Can't be too short but WOW can also program it so that if there is too much of a landslide of victors on one side they can stop the game as its a waste of time...as far as WOWs is concerned. Thats how you make money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,896
[HATE]
Members
1,056 posts
15,839 battles
23 minutes ago, Sou1forge said:

Ships are more deadly than they used to be, which is the issue.

Back when I got my first tier 10 for instance the Gearing was considered top dog in a DD gunfight, the Hindenburg was considered the DMP monster, and people were championing both Yamato and Montana for king of the BB pile. For radar you had Minotaur, which almost never took it, Des Moines, and Moskva. 

When you put that into context you start to understand how games were different. They were slower. Radar threats existed, but were manageable. Ships like the Z-52 for gods sakes were meta. Zao was considered the burninator-in-Chief after Conq. Think about that. Zao. Zao was considered a fire monster.

Then Worcester came out, Daring pushed the DD DPM out of bounds along with a short spat of Harugumo, and then the one we all love to complain about, Smolensk. We have ships like Thunderer and Kremlin and Stalingrad who can reliably dev strike ships angling or not. We have/had stuff like Henri before nerf with its reload booster, Bourgogne, all sorts of crud that makes small mistakes game ending. Then we wonder why games are a steamroll. Back when I was learning I had no clue how to properly manage radar, but I didn’t get insta melted by a Smolensk, Venezia, Kleber, or Daring when I did eat it.

Nowadays the threats are much more potent, and the mistakes not as easy to see. You could get away with more stuff.

i agree 100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,378 posts
6,787 battles
21 hours ago, MEANN said:

Lowering the standard because the player's skill is not there is not the solution. 

HAH - It is the solution as it retains revenue for the company.   Revenue is the ONLY thing that WOWs cares about as any business does...  Players skill may be on the decline but WOW does not want them to leave...so make it more FUN for them no matter what it takes as they are spending money...Are you?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,896
[HATE]
Members
1,056 posts
15,839 battles
2 minutes ago, dionkraft said:

HAH - It is the solution as it retains revenue for the company.   Revenue is the ONLY thing that WOWs cares about as any business does...  Players skill may be on the decline but WOW does not want them to leave...so make it more FUN for them no matter what it takes as they are spending money...Are you?  

I am waiting to see that data. i requested the history. I can guess 3k. or more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,378 posts
6,787 battles

The reality of this game is it needs revenue for it to survive because like any other business...there is no forever. Never was and never will be. So in the meanwhile WOWs is going to do what takes in the most revenue to grease its wheels and if dumb players (your idea) are playing...they are more than welcome as they are better than skilled players who pay for free as opposed to dumb players who are paying to play.  Got that?   Not hard to understand.  Thats the reality of all this.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×