Team MM is completely ridiculous and approach from WG to this

[amoncz]

just shows me they are not interested about game as much. So many times i have team full of superunicum player against team with average. Even in ranks it's messed up. It is so obvious even blind would see it. No wonder they will keep status when they can hardly ever fight each other. This is simply [edited]. 

[BrushWolf]

With that many battles you should know by now that skill is not factored into the match making in any fashion. If a skill factor is included to use skill balancing which is the best option what skill factor or factors should we use? That seal clubber that rarely goes above tier 4 has amazing stats on paper but in reality any average player can beat them with ease so how to weed out false stats?

[Burnsy]

27 minutes ago, amoncz said:

just shows me they are not interested about game as much. So many times i have team full of superunicum player against team with average. Even in ranks it's messed up. It is so obvious even blind would see it. No wonder they will keep status when they can hardly ever fight each other. This is simply [edited]. 

Maybe WG will change it after this thread.

[FrozenAngel]

Yeah Wargaming is not interested in teams player selection for equal play. I have noticed for the last year that when you first start playing usually the first three games of the day are all losses. Lately however, Yesterday ten straight losses before I quit and today five so why play the stupid game when all you do is loose.

Support could care less as long as they get the $$$$

[Crucis]

40 minutes ago, amoncz said:

just shows me they are not interested about game as much. So many times i have team full of superunicum player against team with average. Even in ranks it's messed up. It is so obvious even blind would see it. No wonder they will keep status when they can hardly ever fight each other. This is simply [edited]. 

World of Tanks has never added SBMM.   What makes you think that WG would add it for WoWS?

[BrushWolf]

A good argument for skill balancing can be made but as i said what factors do they use?

[iDuckman]

[Lady_Athena]

3 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

With that many battles you should know by now that skill is not factored into the match making in any fashion. If a skill factor is included to use skill balancing which is the best option what skill factor or factors should we use? That seal clubber that rarely goes above tier 4 has amazing stats on paper but in reality any average player can beat them with ease so how to weed out false stats?

How is that a false stat? He's a unicum at tier 4. Or he wouldn't have those stats...

 

People don't just get handed magical stats cuz they are in certain tiers... and to be quite honest all tier levels are satured with all skill levels of players.. I see many players in tiers 4-5 with 4 tier X ships, because they're grinding a new line, etc... If said player wants to sit in tier 4-5 let them.. that doesn't mean their stats are "falsified"...

 

I myself hate anything above tiers 7-8. Because high tier battles are just a bunch of completely overloaded ships, dealing with way too much broken [edited]mechanics like radar spams, 90 billion torp spam walls, and fire spitting ships that can delete you in .2 seconds cuz they farted in the wrong direction.... I find tiers 4-5-6 to be the most well balanced, where ships can do what they're supposed to do, and while they have counters to them, its not completely over saturated with those counters like higher tiers.

 

Does that mean my crap is "falsified" as well? No..

As for your question "What stats do we use" You don't use any specific stats.. You use the Battle rating which every player already has on their profile page, which is a summation of every stat together, compared to other players, and averages... That's it.. That's all you need to make a better MM.. Is it perfect? No, you won't ever get a perfectly jesus level of perfection, but it would be FAAAAAR closer and better than what we currently have..

[BrushWolf]

1 minute ago, Lady_Athena said:

How is that a false stat? He's a unicum at tier 4. Or he wouldn't have those stats...

 

People don't just get handed magical stats cuz they are in certain tiers... and to be quite honest all tier levels are satured with all skill levels of players.. I see many players in tiers 4-5 with 4 tier X ships, because they're grinding a new line, etc... If said player wants to sit in tier 4-5 let them.. that doesn't mean their stats are "falsified"...

 

I myself hate anything above tiers 7-8. Because high tier battles are just a bunch of completely overloaded ships, dealing with way too much broken [edited]mechanics like radar spams, 90 billion torp spam walls, and fire spitting ships that can delete you in .2 seconds cuz they farted in the wrong direction.... I find tiers 4-5-6 to be the most well balanced, where ships can do what they're supposed to do, and while they have counters to them, its not completely over saturated with those counters like higher tiers.

 

Does that mean my crap is "falsified" as well? No..

Because at even tier 6 they are mostly out skilled.

[Lady_Athena]

10 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

Because at even tier 6 they are mostly out skilled.

Not with a proper MM we are discussing....

 

[Ensign_Cthulhu]

7 hours ago, amoncz said:

So many times i have team full of superunicum player against team with average.

Back in the day, chess used to have a thing called exhibition simuls, where a Grandmaster would play against some stupid number of complete amateurs and usually beat the lot of them with ease. The rubes would play knowing that they were most likely going to get whacked, but it was worth it for a shot at one of the best players in the game. 

Compare also the Duke of Wellington, who considered that much of Napoleon's success was due to his reputation, and that most of his opponents had felt beaten before they started. 

So... what attitude are you going to take into your next battle against a superunicum?

[SuperComm4]

2 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Back in the day, chess used to have a thing called exhibition simuls, where a Grandmaster would play against some stupid number of complete amateurs and usually beat the lot of them with ease. The rubes would play knowing that they were most likely going to get whacked, but it was worth it for a shot at one of the best players in the game. 

Compare also the Duke of Wellington, who considered that much of Napoleon's success was due to his reputation, and that most of his opponents had felt beaten before they started. 

So... what attitude are you going to take into your next battle against a superunicum?

I love this story, and it relates to WoWS in his way: you have to “play smart”. When I see a guy has two kills already and is in a group where the other two are single-firing snipers...I’m going to target the skilled player first. Often it is the DD that makes the difference. Take out the skilled DD, and spot well as a DD and even low skilled players will eventually hit their targets.

[Spirit_of_76]

MM RNG is a player retention tool. Even actively bad players still get some wins so they keep playing or maybe buy a ship thinking that, since they’re not so bad after all, maybe a Massachusetts is what they need.

It also provides variety and challenge. Everyone gets the roflstomp as well as the lolwin and sometimes a hard win or loss.

Factor in players’ frequent desire to play with friends and skill balancing becomes really difficult to even try to do.

Best thing to do is to just hit the exit button and go to a new match or ship or just take a break.

To be frank I don’t even really even want some kind of nail biting experience every single match and a lot of the people who presently think they do would be pretty upset at the result as they end up never having a differentiated experience.The same set of players would just decide the win or loss each time while the rest just remained frequent cannon fodder.

[Taco_De_Moist]

10 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

With that many battles you should know by now that skill is not factored into the match making in any fashion. If a skill factor is included to use skill balancing which is the best option what skill factor or factors should we use? That seal clubber that rarely goes above tier 4 has amazing stats on paper but in reality any average player can beat them with ease so how to weed out false stats?

This.  Or even a player that is really good in a handful of ships and garbage at the rest.  There are so many factors to consider if they try to MM by "skill".  Even win rate.  My 3 div win rate is very different from my solo win rate.  So If I am playing on my own, my "overall" win rate is slightly deceptive.

[DrHolmes52]

10 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

 

Perhaps in regard to the OP:

 

[Navalpride33]

11 hours ago, amoncz said:

just shows me they are not interested about game as much. So many times i have team full of superunicum player against team with average. Even in ranks it's messed up. It is so obvious even blind would see it. No wonder they will keep status when they can hardly ever fight each other. This is simply [edited]. 

Why complain ??? SBMM is coming in the next patch... Here's the kicker...

It has come to my attention, as I announce in every other match of the the next patch having SBMM... No one cares or no one knows...

So.. I am baffled as to why in the forums, the request for SBMM is more potent and concentrated... Where as in the game... Its a none issue..

[Ensign_Cthulhu]

24 minutes ago, Spirit_of_76 said:

a lot of the people who presently think they do would be pretty upset at the result as they end up never having a differentiated experience

This is what an undifferentiated experience looks like. 

 

 

 

[Vasili_One_Bonk_only]

Sounds like a case of get good. Now, if you want help with the game and to get better which will negate nearly all the issues you currently have with MM. Just ask. Players will give you advice, div with you and analyse your replays or show you theirs to help. Making an MM whine thread is not the way to go and changes nothing for you. 

[CylonRed]

2 hours ago, Navalpride33 said:

So.. I am baffled as to why in the forums, the request for SBMM is more potent and concentrated... Where as in the game... Its a none issue..

The vast majority of the player base doe snot know how teams are put together to begin with - they play with what they get.

[Navalpride33]

Just now, CylonRed said:

The vast majority of the player base doe snot know how teams are put together to begin with - they play with what they get.

Actually they do know... The question in their minds is "how are teams going to be made with SBMM"

The answer to that inquiry is "dont know"

[Parliament_Funkadelic]

14 hours ago, amoncz said:

just shows me they are not interested about game as much. So many times i have team full of superunicum player against team with average. Even in ranks it's messed up. It is so obvious even blind would see it. No wonder they will keep status when they can hardly ever fight each other. This is simply [edited]. 

Ignore the people that post more than they play or hide their stats. Some work for WG and post all day to keep moral high.

It is very frustrating. While their are schools of thought in play... complain all day and nothing changes or say nothing and for sure nothing will change. MM has been the greatest hurdle this game has yet to address. The entire CV rework was because of MM....... chat bans, rage quitting all due to MM. Watch any streamer and they are complaining about bad teammates or making fun of bad players.

The issue is, how much frustration can you stand? There is liking this game, and wanting to like this game. I would wager most fall into the wanting category....

[tcbaker777]

Skill Based MM, the Communist version of Winrate, because, eventually, everybody has the same WR within 50%

so all can be average EVERYONE can be average, and when everyone's average, no one will be

 

[Parliament_Funkadelic]

16 minutes ago, tcbaker777 said:

Skill Based MM, the Communist version of Winrate, because, eventually, everybody has the same WR within 50%

so all can be average EVERYONE can be average, and when everyone's average, no one will be

The are multiple currencies in everything, even if we had a 50%wr we would move our standards to Player Rating. In Warcraft, in the ranked or rated environment many players have close to 50% wr but their rating depends on who they play. I don't think we have the numbers for that type of fine tuning...

However, I have no problem with player who refuses to get better after 8000 games playing at a Sub 600PR. They are a scourge smattered throughout this game. Just throw them in co-op and take the brackets off the names, the human players won't know the difference.

[ArIskandir]

The answer as always is... Improve your game play

 

[Glamorboy]

6 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

The answer as always is... Improve your game play

Loved it!