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

What's with this MM? What's that? Why you ignoring player base?

58 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

482
[SOTHS]
Members
92 posts
9,067 battles

That's just terrible. Why i have to be in team with half of the players with 43% skill against teams with lower half above 53%? Why is that? Why u can't fix that? This is going on forever. What is so har about it? I'm getting sooo freaking upset. It's so simple to fix it still you can't. WTH? I wrote about it like 6 times. Nothing. Who likes this games where you lose with "enemy" still have 11 ships??? I will be gone if this issue is ignore by you guys in comings. What message this is? Like you are so amateurish you can 't fix something so basic as this? 

  • Cool 6
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
  • Boring 13
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
495
[BB35]
[BB35]
Members
599 posts
16,648 battles

I believe they can keep match making selection how it is now (For the players in that match), but after the players are selected, even out the W/L ratios between the two teams. That shouldn't take time. (This way queue wont' be any longer as it is now, and the teams are somewhat even at that point).

I don't think they'll do anything, but hey, gotta try.

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,684
[SALVO]
Members
26,320 posts
30,329 battles
12 minutes ago, amoncz said:

That's just terrible. Why i have to be in team with half of the players with 43% skill against teams with lower half above 53%? Why is that? Why u can't fix that? This is going on forever. What is so hard about it? I'm getting sooo freaking upset. It's so simple to fix it still you can't. WTH? I wrote about it like 6 times. Nothing. Who likes this games where you lose with "enemy" still have 11 ships??? I will be gone if this issue is ignore by you guys in comings. What message this is? Like you are so amateurish you can 't fix something so basic as this? 

The question isn't "why CAN'T they fix that?".  The real question is "why WON'T they fix that?".

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,074
Members
5,725 posts
11,160 battles

And it very likely won't matter as any one of those can have a great WR in a ship not reflected in the overall WR among about a zillion other points that could be made and have been made multiple times int he last 4-5 years I have been playing.

There is no magic fix for what you perceive as an issue that is much less of an issue than you want to believe.

Edited by CylonRed
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,684
[SALVO]
Members
26,320 posts
30,329 battles
5 minutes ago, Gemlin said:

I believe they can keep match making selection how it is now (For the players in that match), but after the players are selected, even out the W/L ratios between the two teams. That shouldn't take time. (This way queue wont' be any longer as it is now, and the teams are somewhat even at that point).

I don't think they'll do anything, but hey, gotta try.

 

Agreed Gemlin, though many have suggested this, though I don't agree that it wouldn't take more time.  It shouldn't take appreciably more time, but it will take some to examine the two teams of 12 players and rebalance them to attempt to get the average talent level more fairly balanced.  One problem they'd have though is that divisions would make rebalancing difficult.  Not outright impossible, but difficult, as long as divisions exist and they don't get broken up to share the talent between the two teams.

Another problem is that even in this model, using WR to balance would be problematical in the long term, since WR's would slowly move towards 50%.  They'd need to use a different stat for talent balancing.  As I've said repeatedly, I think that the best stat would be Average Base XP, since base XP covers every measurable stat.  And the best players should have the highest average base XP stats.

Another problem I foresee is the relative value of talent vs tiers.  It seems to me that if one team has its best players in the top tier ships while the other team has its best players in the bottom tier ships (where there a 3 tier spread such as tiers 8-10), this creates another imbalance, particularly if the best players in question are equally good.  Clearly, the team with its best players in top tier ships will have an advantage over the team with its best players in bottom tier ships.  One solution I can see is some form of weighting system.

The issue I see here is that when you start looking at all of this, it gets increasingly complex, even in this relatively simple model.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,074
Members
5,725 posts
11,160 battles
2 minutes ago, Crucis said:

The issue I see here is that when you start looking at all of this, it gets increasingly complex, even in this relatively simple model.

It becomes a very deep rabbit hole with lots of Ys in the system to cover people jumping between ships, being in a clan/div, what signals are included, captain skills/points, and that is just a 2-3 second start om the thoughts that would need to be covered.

There is no "real" way to determine "skill" for this game and even a difinition of skill to code around is a mess with different sites doing their own Personal Rating based on what THEY think is more important.  Huge fights when I first started to play on what the "right" PTR was....

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
990 posts
4,091 battles

They need to fix the mm for the asymmetric battles in regards to bots. One team with and one without is not good. Comes to be 2 humans vs 10, like I had in my very first asymmetric match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,942
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
28,330 posts
14,924 battles
49 minutes ago, Gemlin said:

I believe they can keep match making selection how it is now (For the players in that match), but after the players are selected, even out the W/L ratios between the two teams. That shouldn't take time. (This way queue wont' be any longer as it is now, and the teams are somewhat even at that point).

I don't think they'll do anything, but hey, gotta try.

 

Skill balancing like you suggest is really the only way that skill can be factored without tanking the queue. For the longest time WoWP's had a skill factor and it make it nearly impossible for the top players to get matches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,684
[SALVO]
Members
26,320 posts
30,329 battles
27 minutes ago, CylonRed said:

It becomes a very deep rabbit hole with lots of Ys in the system to cover people jumping between ships, being in a clan/div, what signals are included, captain skills/points, and that is just a 2-3 second start om the thoughts that would need to be covered.

There is no "real" way to determine "skill" for this game and even a difinition of skill to code around is a mess with different sites doing their own Personal Rating based on what THEY think is more important.  Huge fights when I first started to play on what the "right" PTR was....

I think that Average Base XP is the best possible measure of talent.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,771
[KWF]
Members
6,395 posts
7,152 battles

The real question should be, do you also post 6 times when you get the team with the minimum 53% WR players and the reds the one with 43%?

Not denying there's an issue with blowouts, but alot of people simply only notice when they are having a bad time.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SuperTest Coordinator, Beta Testers
7,030 posts
13,140 battles

Then we start getting into problems with superunicum divs. If 3 super unicums div together, then the balancing has to basically be done around them since you can't break up the div. A well-built super unicum div has more than enough clout to crush most teams of average players even with 9 counterweights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
332
[SNGNS]
Members
611 posts
7,045 battles
30 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I think that Average Base XP is the best possible measure of talent.

then the question comes, your average? your average in this ship? as top or bottom tier?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,055
[12TF]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
9,241 posts
184
[KRAK]
Members
1,624 posts
16,696 battles

All I know, after 15000 battles (3300 or so hours), the only ones I can recall even a few days after those battles, are the close ones. The great majority of the rest were kind of a waste of time, in terms of general excitement.

 

 

Edited by Hull Speed
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,246
[TMS]
Members
3,872 posts
38,109 battles
1 hour ago, Compassghost said:

Then we start getting into problems with superunicum divs. If 3 super unicums div together, then the balancing has to basically be done around them since you can't break up the div. A well-built super unicum div has more than enough clout to crush most teams of average players even with 9 counterweights.

So that would make them a problem as if they are not already.

The side with the super div would get more bad players.

Edited by Final8ty
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,797
[WOLFG]
Members
33,651 posts
10,445 battles
12 minutes ago, Final8ty said:

So that would make them a problem as if they are not already.

The side with the super div would get more bad players.

Unless all the other players are bad lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SuperTest Coordinator, Beta Testers
7,030 posts
13,140 battles
10 minutes ago, Final8ty said:

So that would make them a problem as if they are not already.

The side with the super div would get more bad players.

Actually, low win rate players are typically either much less aggressive buffers or much more aggressive push buffers for a control point. This improves the ability of a super Unicum team to fold and flank in. So giving a Unicum team a few more weaker players actually can benefit them. Average players in a group are still significantly weaker than a super Unicum group and the rampant playstyles or weaker players encourages more steam rolling once the Unicum flank is defeated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,249
[BONKS]
Members
2,858 posts
52 battles

For every default loss due to terrible teammates you suffer you'll also eventually get a default win via superb teammates due to MM being completely random. Left over are matches which you could have influenced in a positive or negative direction.

So if you constantly lose "because of bad teammates", perhaps it is time to take a look at yourself rather than others.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
316
[REKTD]
Members
638 posts
11,269 battles

They should rename this game “Lions & Lambs”. That is what 98% of the matches in Random and Ranked feel like. What OP posts is accurate in most matches I experience. Whether it’s WR, shooting accuracy, or PR: one team nearly always has a massively lopsided advantage, and the so called “battle” results in a predictable massacre.
 

This ignores the concept of “3 unicum divs” because I hardly ever see that. To be honest, I see junk divs who shoot their own div mate at the start of the match far more often. 
WG should continue dropping alternative game modes. The Asymmetric Battles is a nice start as it is different, but basically an exaggeration on the lop-sided match theory. Perhaps give CVs their own mode, with massive points for the lambs that go there. And in that mode, bring back odd numbered CVs, like Taiho and Essex. Maybe a WWI mode for dreadnaught junkies. This way we can have lopsided slaughter-fests in various modes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
316
[REKTD]
Members
638 posts
11,269 battles
13 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

For every default loss due to terrible teammates you suffer you'll also eventually get a default win via superb teammates due to MM being completely random. Left over are matches which you could have influenced in a positive or negative direction.

So if you constantly lose "because of bad teammates", perhaps it is time to take a look at yourself rather than others.

This is true...except the “left over” matches you speak of are quite rare. I go on many 10+ straight win streaks indeed, and being honest: I could be AFK and we would still have won the vast majority of those. Just like losing 5 straight after not hiding, supporting teammates, finishing at the top with Unicum PR and 80% survival. There are a lot of “bad” players, which is not the problem. But these “bad” players being grouped together in a disproportionate number determines the loser of the match before it even starts.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,197
[WOLFC]
Members
2,514 posts
25 minutes ago, JCC45 said:

4e28op.jpg

Such a non-deciduous post, you could boil its parts down to cure scurvy.

Edited by Anonymous50

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,246
[TMS]
Members
3,872 posts
38,109 battles
1 hour ago, Compassghost said:

Actually, low win rate players are typically either much less aggressive buffers or much more aggressive push buffers for a control point. This improves the ability of a super Unicum team to fold and flank in. So giving a Unicum team a few more weaker players actually can benefit them. Average players in a group are still significantly weaker than a super Unicum group and the rampant playstyles or weaker players encourages more steam rolling once the Unicum flank is defeated.

ill disagree from my own experience with super unicum divs.

I'm sure these 2 70% + who were in the battle just now wished that were true.

sjutnow.thumb.png.486e0c37681a1a135a930cecdeaaca45.png

 

Edited by Final8ty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4
[D4DDY]
Members
10 posts
10,158 battles

I am currently on my grind the the Helena for the second time for Research Bureau.

Since beginning on her several days ago, weekend/weekdays, day/night, morning/afternoon/evening/middle of the night, I have not been top tier a single time, and I've SPARINGLY been mid tier.

AND over the last 3 days or so, anytime I am straight up bottom tier, there are a max of two other tier 7 ships on my team (usually DDs) and my tier 9's have the combined PR of a potato in a bonfire, with no apparent sense of how to play the game in sight, regardless of their number of battles, WR, or supposed knowledge of how to play the ship they are in.

 

Did Wargaming not specifically say that you are guaranteed at least 1 of 5 battles to not be bottom tier, or something to that tune? Because being BOTTOM TIER 8 battles in a row in the same ship, I would like a word with them about it. AND not only that, but never being top tier even once since buying the ship back AFTER they broke sub-tier-8 152mm penetration values? Like come on Wargaming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×