Jump to content


Armored Warfare Matchmaking


  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

Shaka_D #1 Posted 05 March 2015 - 12:25 PM

    Colonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 37657 battles
  • 3,761
  • Member since:
    10-18-2010

Found it quite interesting reading the news release giving a run down on the matchmaking setup for Armored Warfare. I won't post the entire article here, you can read it yourself at the link below. Very interesting that they've considered much of what's been complained about with WOT and seem to be considering what it is many players actually want, whereas the ones complaining about the MM in WOT have often been made to feel like the minority, for armored warefare they seem to be listening? Anyhow, here is the just of it:

  • +/-2 matchmaker spread
  • MM accounts for whether a vehicle is stock or fully upgraded
  • Both teams having roughly the same vehicle setup
  • Artillery hardcap
  • Skill-based MM – both teams have players of equal skill
  • Protection of new players against being preyed on by veterans

Article can be found HERE


Edited by jinx_uk, 05 March 2015 - 12:29 PM.


John_Preston #2 Posted 05 March 2015 - 01:35 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 17436 battles
  • 6,373
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012

View Postjinx_uk, on 05 March 2015 - 12:25 PM, said:

 
  • Skill-based MM – both teams have players of equal skill
  • Protection of new players against being preyed on by veterans

That only works if you have a huge playerbase like WoT does imo.



Obsessive_Compulsive #3 Posted 05 March 2015 - 01:47 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 23989 battles
  • 8,048
  • Member since:
    09-09-2014
guess whos going to be playing less WOT

Asghaad #4 Posted 05 March 2015 - 01:50 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 13273 battles
  • 3,099
  • [PPDCZ] PPDCZ
  • Member since:
    01-23-2013

View PostJohn_Preston, on 05 March 2015 - 01:35 PM, said:

That only works if you have a huge playerbase like WoT does imo.

 

define huge ... AW had more than 500k subs for cloed beta ... in 2014 ...



sword_of_Damocles #5 Posted 05 March 2015 - 02:05 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 59482 battles
  • 5,297
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    03-26-2011

Well if it proves successful,i see no reason why WG won't implement the same to WOT

 

Let's see what future awaits



John_Preston #6 Posted 05 March 2015 - 02:07 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 17436 battles
  • 6,373
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012

View PostAsghaad, on 05 March 2015 - 01:50 PM, said:

 

define huge ... AW had more than 500k subs for cloed beta ... in 2014 ...

Yeah and WoT has over 100 million registered users...so what?



N00BT00B #7 Posted 05 March 2015 - 02:27 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 44233 battles
  • 626
  • Member since:
    12-19-2012

Block Quote

 Well if it proves successful,i see no reason why WG won't implement the same to WOT

 

It will be too late. players will already have gone to AW.

 

..and it's not as though WG have not had 4 years to get this right but their continued arrogance and disregard to producing a good gaming experience for players of ALL abilities has alienated a vast number of paying customers.

 

The end of WOT.



Zylkins #8 Posted 05 March 2015 - 02:33 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 23423 battles
  • 275
  • [GRNDS] GRNDS
  • Member since:
    01-31-2012

View PostJohn_Preston, on 05 March 2015 - 01:07 PM, said:

Yeah and WoT has over 100 million registered users...so what?

 

and how much actyve players?:D

John_Preston #9 Posted 05 March 2015 - 02:33 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 17436 battles
  • 6,373
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012

View PostStr0nkTenk, on 05 March 2015 - 02:27 PM, said:

 

It will be too late. players will already have gone to AW.

Like when they all went to play WT and WoT lost all of it's playerbase, right? Ohh wait...

View PostStr0nkTenk, on 05 March 2015 - 02:27 PM, said:

..and it's not as though WG have not had 4 years to get this right but their continued arrogance and disregard to producing a good gaming experience for players of ALL abilities has alienated a vast number of paying customers.

You have almost 24k battles. Don't tell me that you spent so much time doing something you don't like.

View PostStr0nkTenk, on 05 March 2015 - 02:27 PM, said:

The end of WOT.

WT anyone?

 

 

View PostZylkins, on 05 March 2015 - 02:33 PM, said:

 

and how much actyve players?:D

Ummm...actually that was my point. These numbers doesn't mean anything.


Edited by John_Preston, 05 March 2015 - 02:34 PM.


N00BT00B #10 Posted 05 March 2015 - 02:58 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 44233 battles
  • 626
  • Member since:
    12-19-2012

Block Quote

 You have almost 24k battles. Don't tell me that you spent so much time doing something you don't like

 

You make the mistake of thinking that WOT is the best gaming experience ever.

 

i have played nearly 24k battles, thats true, just over half have been wins, i guess 10% have been truly great games 30% ok and the rest has been woeful, win or lose.

 

i really want WOT to be great, to have an enjoyable gaming experience every time 'battle' is pressed. I do not want WG to rig me into teams where i have no chance to win at the start of the battle. That is plainly wrong.

Who dares to tell me that my precious gaming time is not worth the same as someone elses? Why should i accept rigged loss after loss? rigged yolo win after yolo win? where is the great gameplay? where is the feeling that my time is well spent?

 

Sadly, WG does not seem to share my view that EVERYONE REGARDLESS OF SKILL LEVEL OR EXPERIENCE should be able to enjoy this game. Good players matched with Good players, poor players matched with poor players. Experienced vs experienced, noobs vs noobs. how bloody difficult can it be?

 

All the apologists like yourself love looking up everyone's stats then saying 'you need to play better'.

 

POOR PLAYERS DO NOT IMPROVE BY BEING GIVEN A HIDING IN EVERY GAME THEY PLAY. THEY ONLY LEARN HOW TO LOSE.

 

'good players deserve to beat poor players'. That is why they are truly great? no.

 

Compare to football, top players like Messi and Ronaldo are not great because they beat sunday league park players 100% of the time. They are great because they beat OTHER GREAT PLAYERS.

When will the apologists learn this?

 

Looking forward to trying out AW. i have no problem paying out money on games i enjoy. If AW delivers, i wont have any issue in supporting it financially. WOT will get no more of my cash.


Edited by Str0nkTenk, 05 March 2015 - 02:58 PM.


Shaka_D #11 Posted 05 March 2015 - 03:04 PM

    Colonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 37657 battles
  • 3,761
  • Member since:
    10-18-2010

View PostJohn_Preston, on 05 March 2015 - 02:33 PM, said:

Like when they all went to play WT and WoT lost all of it's playerbase, right? Ohh wait...

You have almost 24k battles. Don't tell me that you spent so much time doing something you don't like.

WT anyone?

 

 

Ummm...actually that was my point. These numbers doesn't mean anything.

I love playing WoT but there are many things I hate about it. Does this mean I shouldn't play it because of a couple of things I don't like? This is an argument you can apply to many things in life too so your statement is irrelevant?

 

Fact is that many of the issues AW say they are addressing have been hot topics in WoT for years, and never implemented (largely). They're simply not going to do this because they feel it's as irrelevant as WG have made it out to be. There is obviously a good reason why they aim to do what they state to be planning to do.

 

500k (apparently) in closed beta is a lot and while not everyone will play for sure it's still a lot. Secondly, the genre is already well loved and AW offers more than WoT with extremely similar gameplay mechanics, different to WT, so only time will tell. Maybe a lot of the 'I'll play AW' posts will be nothing more than hot air and the game may certainly not appeal to many, it's still going to be a lot more similar to WoT than WT is, except with more enhanced features. I think AW will be a hotter contender to WoT than WT is but it's still good to see more competition. WG got too arrogant while king of the castle and the player-base suffered, now there'll be more choice yet again. Win win for us.

 

I'll still play WoT since I've invested a lot into it, and personally look forward to trying AW out. If it appeals to me then guess what, I'll play it too. It will indeed please me though if AW manage to succeed in terms of their stated intentions for the MM, since I've wanted this for ages in W0T to make it the perfect game for me to spend time playing. Now it's a really great game, but it could be closer to perfect (just an opinion of course).



Shaka_D #12 Posted 05 March 2015 - 03:12 PM

    Colonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 37657 battles
  • 3,761
  • Member since:
    10-18-2010

View PostStr0nkTenk, on 05 March 2015 - 02:58 PM, said:

 

'good players deserve to beat poor players'. That is why they are truly great? no.

 

Compare to football, top players like Messi and Ronaldo are not great because they beat sunday league park players 100% of the time. They are great because they beat OTHER GREAT PLAYERS.

When will the apologists learn this?

 

 

Very very true. Being better than the best is what makes someone great, not being better than the worst. Just having players on both teams more or less evenly distributed in terms of ability is what I would like to see happen; if I get a unicum on my team then it would be more fair to see a player on the enemy team too similarly skilled, to make it more of a fair match from the start for both sides, and if I have to suffer 5 tomatoes as top tiers on my team then don't have the mm put 5 unicums as top tiers on the enemy team. At least the devs are taking it seriously, whereas with WG all we've got from them is...well nothing really.



John_Preston #13 Posted 05 March 2015 - 03:42 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 17436 battles
  • 6,373
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012
Guys keep it simple please. These comments are too long for my attention span.

Asghaad #14 Posted 05 March 2015 - 03:47 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 13273 battles
  • 3,099
  • [PPDCZ] PPDCZ
  • Member since:
    01-23-2013

View PostJohn_Preston, on 05 March 2015 - 02:33 PM, said:

Like when they all went to play WT and WoT lost all of it's playerbase, right? Ohh wait...

You have almost 24k battles. Don't tell me that you spent so much time doing something you don't like.

WT anyone?

 

 

Ummm...actually that was my point. These numbers doesn't mean anything.

 

 WT was the first time WG felt pressure and suffered (albeit temporary) loss in playerbase to another game. Thing is Gaijin made every effort imaginable to f**k things up while pushing out product not ready for public release.

 

Problem for WG is that AW is not different kind of game than WoT is - the problem of WTGF is that its not only buggy as hell, but also has clearly different game mechanics (and absolutely abhorrent ballance issues and economy that borders on extortion). AW has the same base gameplay as WoT with better graphics topped with inovative progression system, new mechanics, real crew development, proper physics... it has everything WoT does and then some and there is big difference with convincing players to switch to another game that plays completely different compared to "introducing WoT 2".

 

funny thing is that WoT had this potential all along in the pocket and squandered it pointlessly - there was NO reason WG couldnt switch to any of the modern licensed engines, they have the money, but obviously they are not willing to invest into their main product to be "up to date" with main excuse of "a lot of player PCs couldnt handle it". Which in its base is ridiculous, if a person has no money to buy a PC hardware that is 5+ years old news, how the hell do they expect the sayd person to be able to buy anything ... simple answer is that they dont, vast majority of the paying players will run on hardware that can support Cryengine or UT4 engine or any other game engine capable of running more than one core and not tax the system so much it can run 2008 graphics game at FPS of 2014 AAA title ...

 

there was also very little in area of gameplay improvements and number of "far future" projects like HAVOC (lobotimized to the point of only affecting junk on the tanks ...) doesnt really assure me that WG is capable of fast enough evolution to keep up with its coming competition.

 

note that those rusehd and then cancelled improvements were direct reaction on WTGF "panic" and as soon as competition proved to be not fatal they returned to "no improvements necessary" attitude ...

 

well i dont think they will have as much luck with AW when known western company backs the project, WG has ONE succesfull project under their belt, accompanied by utter failure of WoWp - Obsidian has "slightly" more experience in publishing a large AAA titles (and considering some of those were among the best of the games of their respective year...)



John_Preston #15 Posted 05 March 2015 - 04:22 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 17436 battles
  • 6,373
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012

View PostStr0nkTenk, on 05 March 2015 - 02:58 PM, said:

 

You make the mistake of thinking that WOT is the best gaming experience ever.

I never said that.

View PostStr0nkTenk, on 05 March 2015 - 02:58 PM, said:

i have played nearly 24k battles, thats true, just over half have been wins, i guess 10% have been truly great games 30% ok and the rest has been woeful, win or lose.

So you think in AW 90% of your games are going to be wins?

Guess what, skill based MM means that everyone will be closer to 50% winrate.

View PostStr0nkTenk, on 05 March 2015 - 02:58 PM, said:

i really want WOT to be great, to have an enjoyable gaming experience every time 'battle' is pressed. I do not want WG to rig me into teams where i have no chance to win at the start of the battle. That is plainly wrong.

How exactly random is rigged?

View PostStr0nkTenk, on 05 March 2015 - 02:58 PM, said:

Who dares to tell me that my precious gaming time is not worth the same as someone elses? Why should i accept rigged loss after loss? rigged yolo win after yolo win? where is the great gameplay?

Random means exactly that you have the same chance to get good or bad teams. WoT MM treats everyone equally...you are actually asking for a MM that discriminates players.

View PostStr0nkTenk, on 05 March 2015 - 02:58 PM, said:

where is the feeling that my time is well spent?

Ummm....24k battles?

View PostStr0nkTenk, on 05 March 2015 - 02:58 PM, said:

All the apologists like yourself love looking up everyone's stats then saying 'you need to play better'.

Making it personal doesn't really help you win an argument. Neither does prejudice. I never said anything about your or my stats

View PostStr0nkTenk, on 05 March 2015 - 02:58 PM, said:

POOR PLAYERS DO NOT IMPROVE BY BEING GIVEN A HIDING IN EVERY GAME THEY PLAY. THEY ONLY LEARN HOW TO LOSE.

 

'good players deserve to beat poor players'. That is why they are truly great? no.

Everyone starts the same: T1 tanks + zero knowledge aboug game mechanics. It's completely up to you if you are willing to learn how to became better or just "play for fun".

 

View Postjinx_uk, on 05 March 2015 - 03:04 PM, said:

I love playing WoT but there are many things I hate about it. Does this mean I shouldn't play it because of a couple of things I don't like? This is an argument you can apply to many things in life too so your statement is irrelevant?

Well, since you are still playing my guess is that the things you like in WoT outweigh the ones that you don't like.

In life there are things that you have to do even if you don't like them. No one forces you to play though.

View Postjinx_uk, on 05 March 2015 - 03:04 PM, said:

Fact is that many of the issues AW say they are addressing have been hot topics in WoT for years, and never implemented (largely). They're simply not going to do this because they feel it's as irrelevant as WG have made it out to be. There is obviously a good reason why they aim to do what they state to be planning to do.

Yes, it's called marketing strategy. It would be pretty stupid to advertise your game with unpopular features.

View Postjinx_uk, on 05 March 2015 - 03:04 PM, said:

Win win for us.

Now that i can agree with.

View Postjinx_uk, on 05 March 2015 - 03:04 PM, said:

I'll still play WoT since I've invested a lot into it, and personally look forward to trying AW out. If it appeals to me then guess what, I'll play it too.

Yes, you can play both. And that's why the "ermahgerd new tank game will kill wot" kind of threads are stupid.

View Postjinx_uk, on 05 March 2015 - 03:04 PM, said:

Now it's a really great game, but it could be closer to perfect (just an opinion of course).

Nothing is perfect. AW will have it's own flaws that people will constantly complain about.

View Postjinx_uk, on 05 March 2015 - 03:12 PM, said:

Very very true. Being better than the best is what makes someone great, not being better than the worst. Just having players on both teams more or less evenly distributed in terms of ability is what I would like to see happen; if I get a unicum on my team then it would be more fair to see a player on the enemy team too similarly skilled, to make it more of a fair match from the start for both sides, and if I have to suffer 5 tomatoes as top tiers on my team then don't have the mm put 5 unicums as top tiers on the enemy team. At least the devs are taking it seriously, whereas with WG all we've got from them is...well nothing really.

Unicorn in a Hellcat is not equal to a unicorn in a Churchill Gun carrier, even though they are both t6 tank destroyers.

So for perfect MM you should have players with same skill level in tanks with similar capabilities. Also mirror maps.

And that's how you totally cripple MM. You would have to wait minutes for a perfectly balanced battle and it still wouldn't be perfect, becuse people can have bad days, rng can screw you over, etc.

Perfection sux in multiple levels and it's also boring...

 

 

I feel like a hero now for reading all of those comments and replying to them...it took me a loooooooooooong time.



Mr_Deo #16 Posted 05 March 2015 - 04:55 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 39998 battles
  • 1,586
  • [ESAF] ESAF
  • Member since:
    01-30-2012

Most players will hate skill based MM...

Most people like to "Win".. That's why PVE generally draws in more players, because people can "Win" more..  For a game company PvE is expensive..

So lets see, your in the top 10% of players, you'll only go up against the top 10% of players, so that means your likely to win only 50% of the time, OOPS, your no longer in the top 10% of players...


 

Skill based MM might see "Wn8" type scores level out for EVERYONE, and trust me, if your purple or blue, your not going to like that.



John_Preston #17 Posted 05 March 2015 - 05:07 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 17436 battles
  • 6,373
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012

View PostMr_Deo, on 05 March 2015 - 04:55 PM, said:

Most players will hate skill based MM...

Most people like to "Win".. That's why PVE generally draws in more players, because people can "Win" more..  For a game company PvE is expensive..

So lets see, your in the top 10% of players, you'll only go up against the top 10% of players, so that means your likely to win only 50% of the time, OOPS, your no longer in the top 10% of players...

Yep. And how do you rate people anyways? winrate? average damage? If you put them against players with the same skill level, both of those stats are going to fall.

The problem is with that kind of skill-based MM is that if you put players of the same skill level against each other then everyone will have similar stats. How do you tell then who is the good player and who is the bad one?

 

Or you can make something like teams total WN8(or whatever youw ant to use) must be equal(+/- whatever%), but then you still have - let's say - 2 unicorns/team who can just rape most of the enemy team. While you can balance their winrates like this, they will stil do more dmg/kills/assist than the players who are not as good. "tomatoes" would still die after 30s, but they would have 50% chance that their team wins the battle for them.



N00BT00B #18 Posted 05 March 2015 - 05:07 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 44233 battles
  • 626
  • Member since:
    12-19-2012

Block Quote

 How exactly random is rigged?

 

You make a mistake. WG matchmaking is NOT random. ever. The game contrives to put really bad players into situations where they win, even when they do not contribute to that win. The opposite is true for good players. Skill, ability etc can offset this to a degree but as sure as eggs are eggs, WOT matchmaking contrives to get people to 50% win rate.

 

 

Block Quote

 Ummm....24k battles?

 

Ummm, you think that's a big number? You think that i'm playing flat out there? Why could i not have played 40k? Why not £1000 spent?

 

Block Quote

 Making it personal doesn't really help you win an argument. Neither does prejudice. I never said anything about your or my stats

 You didn't mention my 24k games, not once or even twice?

 

Block Quote

 Everyone starts the same: T1 tanks + zero knowledge aboug game mechanics. It's completely up to you if you are willing to learn how to became better or just "play for fun".

 

You don't appear to be very knowledgeable, You think that everyone can be a Ronaldo? Everyone born with the same awesome set of reaction times, decision making, strategic awareness? no, of course not. However, you and all the other apologists would have us believe that only the top 1% of players deserve to have fun with this game.

 

Do all World of tanks players have to be masters of gaming?

Do all players of WOT have to be perfect physical and mental specimens? How about disabled players, who perhaps struggle to play, why can they not be matched with people with similar gaming performance and have some fun?

 

 

Block Quote

 

Unicorn in a Hellcat is not equal to a unicorn in a Churchill Gun carrier, even though they are both t6 tank destroyers.

So for perfect MM you should have players with same skill level in tanks with similar capabilities. Also mirror maps.

And that's how you totally cripple MM. You would have to wait minutes for a perfectly balanced battle and it still wouldn't be perfect, becuse people can have bad days, rng can screw you over, etc.

Perfection sux in multiple levels and it's also boring..

 

You are mistaken. lets look at two examples.

Example1: Poor players vs poor players, evenly matched tanks. In the beginning, they all do the same thing they always did. Camp, yolo, whatever, However, soon they will learn that they will not be all dead in 3mins, Some will do more damage than they ever managed before, Some will come out of their 'avoid damage' shells and go and start to play towards a win. 

This is the point where players start to develop.

Then some of those 'really bad' players will not be so bad. Then they start to move up the matchmaker to a 'second level' (so to speak) this goes on and on, up through the skill levels of players, the 48%WR will get to 49%.. then they meet other 49% WR players etc.. 

And here's where it gets difficult for the apologists. SOME of these 'poor' players will end up LEARNING to play better and HAVE FUN and not be poor any longer.

 

Example2:

This is for the 'really great' players. They will get matched into teams with other really great players. guess what. one team will win, the other team will lose. The wheat will start to emerge from the chaff. The padders and fakers, the luckers and platoon riggers will suddenly not have it all their own way. Some of these people may learn about 'team play' in order to win again.

The real ACES of this game will come to the top. These are the Ronaldos and Messis. They will be the targets for the next best guys, they will enjoy MORE the opportunity to compete against other great players.

 

Sadly, so many 'you need to play better' apologists just dont get what 'ranked' 'skill-based' 'ability-based' or even-handed matchmaking means. You only see stalemate with your narrow-minded view. That will not happen because people will have to adapt in order to win.

 

I just don't understand people who accept that the really poor gameplay that this game offers 60-80% of the time is acceptable?

Why is it beyond reach for people to have a great game experience each time they press 'battle' win or lose but a great intense game?

 

 

Edit: just spotted this gem..

Block Quote

 Skill based MM might see "Wn8" type scores level out for EVERYONE, and trust me, if your purple or blue, your not going to like that.

 

They may not like it, but the blue or purple players maybe didn't deserve to be blue or purple in the first place.

 

To answer another point. Truly great players will not be at 50% WR.

 


Edited by Str0nkTenk, 05 March 2015 - 05:14 PM.


Slyspy #19 Posted 05 March 2015 - 05:27 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 14186 battles
  • 16,483
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011
AW looks to be an increasingly cynical project to me.

John_Preston #20 Posted 05 March 2015 - 05:38 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 17436 battles
  • 6,373
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012

View PostStr0nkTenk, on 05 March 2015 - 05:07 PM, said:

 

You make a mistake. WG matchmaking is NOT random. ever. The game contrives to put really bad players into situations where they win, even when they do not contribute to that win. The opposite is true for good players. Skill, ability etc can offset this to a degree but as sure as eggs are eggs, WOT matchmaking contrives to get people to 50% win rate.

Umm...if that would be the case, you should be happy. that's exactly what you are asking for.

I like conspiracy theories though, they are funny.

View PostStr0nkTenk, on 05 March 2015 - 05:07 PM, said:

Ummm, you think that's a big number? You think that i'm playing flat out there? Why could i not have played 40k? Why not £1000 spent?

I fail to see how is this even an argument.

View PostStr0nkTenk, on 05 March 2015 - 05:07 PM, said:

You didn't mention my 24k games, not once or even twice?

That has nothing to do with how good or bad you are. I was simply referring to the time you have invested in this game, despite the fact that you said this game doesn't worth your time.

View PostStr0nkTenk, on 05 March 2015 - 05:07 PM, said:

You don't appear to be very knowledgeable, You think that everyone can be a Ronaldo? Everyone born with the same awesome set of reaction times, decision making, strategic awareness? no, of course not. However, you and all the other apologists would have us believe that only the top 1% of players deserve to have fun with this game.

 

Do all World of tanks players have to be masters of gaming?

Do all players of WOT have to be perfect physical and mental specimens? How about disabled players, who perhaps struggle to play, why can they not be matched with people with similar gaming performance and have some fun?

You don't appear to be very knowledgeable, you think everyone was born as a wealthy white christian male?

Some people are black, some people female, some have mental/physical disabilities, some believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

That's what all those civil rights movements were about in the last century. People want to be and should be treated equally.

Do you think that putting someone in the "tomato leauge" would make them happy? Do you think that reminding people every day that they are amongst the worst players would make them happy?

View PostStr0nkTenk, on 05 March 2015 - 05:07 PM, said:

However, soon they will learn that they will not be all dead in 3mins, Some will do more damage than they ever managed before, Some will come out of their 'avoid damage' shells and go and start to play towards a win. 

This is the point where players start to develop.

Then some of those 'really bad' players will not be so bad.

That's actually how WoT palyers get better. But in order to do so, you need some source to learn from.

View PostStr0nkTenk, on 05 March 2015 - 05:07 PM, said:

Then they start to move up the matchmaker to a 'second level' (so to speak) this goes on and on, up through the skill levels of players, the 48%WR will get to 49%.. then they meet other 49% WR players etc..

That's not how math works.

View PostStr0nkTenk, on 05 March 2015 - 05:07 PM, said:

And here's where it gets difficult for the apologists. SOME of these 'poor' players will end up LEARNING to play better and HAVE FUN and not be poor any longer.

How the hell would they learn if all they see is other people doing the same dumb mistakes?

Who do they learn from if they only meet equally bad players?

Also from now on i'll call you Shirley.

View PostStr0nkTenk, on 05 March 2015 - 05:07 PM, said:

This is for the 'really great' players. They will get matched into teams with other really great players. guess what. one team will win, the other team will lose. The wheat will start to emerge from the chaff. The padders and fakers, the luckers and platoon riggers will suddenly not have it all their own way. Some of these people may learn about 'team play' in order to win again.

The real ACES of this game will come to the top. These are the Ronaldos and Messis. They will be the targets for the next best guys, they will enjoy MORE the opportunity to compete against other great players.

So eventually 15 Ronaldo vs. 15 Ronaldo. What do you think who would win more?

View PostStr0nkTenk, on 05 March 2015 - 05:07 PM, said:

To answer another point. Truly great players will not be at 50% WR.

Yes, they will. See above.

View PostStr0nkTenk, on 05 March 2015 - 05:07 PM, said:

Sadly, so many 'you need to play better' apologists just dont get what 'ranked' 'skill-based' 'ability-based' or even-handed matchmaking means. You only see stalemate with your narrow-minded view. That will not happen because people will have to adapt in order to win.

Sadly so many of you Shirleys don't get that these things don't make any sense.

View PostStr0nkTenk, on 05 March 2015 - 05:07 PM, said:

I just don't understand people who accept that the really poor gameplay that this game offers 60-80% of the time is acceptable?

Why is it beyond reach for people to have a great game experience each time they press 'battle' win or lose but a great intense game?

Dunno...i'm having fun with this game. That's why i'm still here. What i don't understand is the people who are constantly complaining and  yet still palying the game.

 

 

The only problem with your argument is that the system you are talking about can not be implemented simply because it's a paradox.

 

 

View PostSlyspy, on 05 March 2015 - 05:27 PM, said:

AW looks to be an increasingly cynical project to me.

Just because they hired SS to kick WoT cummunity in the nuts? :D


Edited by John_Preston, 05 March 2015 - 05:46 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users