Jump to content


The quality of WOT gameplay is deteriorating without balance by skill


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
102 replies to this topic

qpranger #1 Posted 25 August 2017 - 09:07 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 30735 battles
  • 5,061
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013
I am becoming more and more bored with either my own or the enemy team just imploding almost every battle. Learning to play better yields no reward as it is all down to whether the MM chose your team or the enemy one to lose.

Tidal_Force #2 Posted 25 August 2017 - 09:15 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 16000 battles
  • 6,774
  • Member since:
    08-29-2012

View Postqpranger, on 25 August 2017 - 08:07 PM, said:

Learning to play better yields no reward as it is all down to whether the MM chose your team or the enemy one to lose.

 



brumbarr #3 Posted 25 August 2017 - 09:19 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,290
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012
So you say learning to play better is now useless and your solution is a skill based MM that gives everyone 50% wr?

250swb #4 Posted 25 August 2017 - 09:21 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 20795 battles
  • 4,592
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-23-2015

View Postqpranger, on 25 August 2017 - 09:07 PM, said:

I am becoming more and more bored with either my own or the enemy team just imploding almost every battle. Learning to play better yields no reward as it is all down to whether the MM chose your team or the enemy one to lose.

 

 

So how would you balance by 'skill'? What are your thoughts? Have you an amazing algorithm you've been working on? Or would you be happy only playing with players with a 50% WR for ever and a day? Skill based means you'd be equalised far more often with less likelihood of any one player carrying the game and being able to move up to another level by breaking out of the 'skill zone'.



Mimos_A #5 Posted 25 August 2017 - 09:25 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 21365 battles
  • 1,766
  • [QSF-L] QSF-L
  • Member since:
    05-30-2015
This is HUGE.

Noo_Noo #6 Posted 25 August 2017 - 09:26 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 21559 battles
  • 2,029
  • Member since:
    05-05-2013
I bet if skill based MM were introduced most people's WR would drop. 

qpranger #7 Posted 25 August 2017 - 09:36 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 30735 battles
  • 5,061
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013

View PostNoo_Noo, on 25 August 2017 - 10:26 PM, said:

I bet if skill based MM were introduced most people's WR would drop. 

 

Of course it will, and deservedly so.

Playing against equally skilled opponents is never easy. 

So many people have artificially inflated win rates and egos right now. 



Nishi_Kinuyo #8 Posted 25 August 2017 - 09:38 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 6977 battles
  • 3,474
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

View Postqpranger, on 25 August 2017 - 08:36 PM, said:

So many people have artificially inflated win rates and egos right now. 

Primarily due to XVM, I'd wager.



qpranger #9 Posted 25 August 2017 - 09:44 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 30735 battles
  • 5,061
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013

I don't use XVM, and yet I go into each battle with one and the same question to myself:

which team will just throw it all away and gift the win to the other team - mine or theirs?

And it is usually clear within the first minute and the rest of the battle is a short formality. 

So stupendously boring, no matter if we win or lose.



brumbarr #10 Posted 25 August 2017 - 09:57 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,290
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View Postqpranger, on 25 August 2017 - 09:36 PM, said:

 

Of course it will, and deservedly so.

Playing against equally skilled opponents is never easy. 

So many people have artificially inflated win rates and egos right now. 

How is it artificialy inflated? 

I play against the same opponents as you do, we have the same teams. 

 

No, what YOU want is your WR artificially inflated. You damm hypocryte.

 

View Postqpranger, on 25 August 2017 - 09:44 PM, said:

I don't use XVM, and yet I go into each battle with one and the same question to myself:

which team will just throw it all away and gift the win to the other team - mine or theirs?

And it is usually clear within the first minute and the rest of the battle is a short formality. 

So stupendously boring, no matter if we win or lose.

Maybe try to contribute to the battle? I know its a foreign concept to you.


 

HeidenSieker #11 Posted 25 August 2017 - 10:24 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 10046 battles
  • 4,408
  • Member since:
    03-26-2016

View Postbrumbarr, on 25 August 2017 - 09:19 PM, said:

So you say learning to play better is now useless and your solution is a skill based MM that gives everyone 50% wr?

 

It would not do that, would it.
 

View Post250swb, on 25 August 2017 - 09:21 PM, said:

would you be happy only playing with players with a 50% WR for ever and a day

 

That would not need to happen, would it.
 

View PostNoo_Noo, on 25 August 2017 - 09:26 PM, said:

I bet if skill based MM were introduced most people's WR would drop. 

 

Why? What sort of skill-based MM would do that?
 

View Postqpranger, on 25 August 2017 - 09:36 PM, said:

Playing against equally skilled opponents is never easy.

 

A skill-based MM would not have to mean that, though, would it.
 

Noo_Noo #12 Posted 25 August 2017 - 10:27 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 21559 battles
  • 2,029
  • Member since:
    05-05-2013

View Postqpranger, on 25 August 2017 - 09:36 PM, said:

 

Of course it will, and deservedly so.

Playing against equally skilled opponents is never easy. 

So many people have artificially inflated win rates and egos right now. 

 

Problem is that most people would moan about it, unfair MM all over again. 

 

While not 100% agreeing with your complaint I can see where you're coming from. The issue arises from the way the game is set up. 

You can go and buy a tier 8 premium on day 1. This and similar issues basically means you have a game population where most of the games are now at high tiers. These should be the pinnacle of the game but aren't. Deep enough pockets and Bob's your Uncle. 

 

I think maps are a big part of the problem. Not enough of them, often too small (except for the really slow tanks) and just sadly lacking in anything that encourages dynamic play. I mean Paris is just awful. It's a whole load of nothing with one corner of brawling. The 30vs30 games on the test server really brought this home to me however I would fully understand how slow tanks would struggle on it by simply not being able to get into position. 
 



HeidenSieker #13 Posted 25 August 2017 - 10:29 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 10046 battles
  • 4,408
  • Member since:
    03-26-2016

"The quality of WOT gameplay is deteriorating without balance by skill"

 

So is the quality of the threads, and people's ability to use "forum search".



Junglist_ #14 Posted 25 August 2017 - 10:35 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35132 battles
  • 1,299
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013

Or how about you get better so you actually affect the outcome of the battle?

But I guess that would be just too difficult and coming up with poor excuses why it's not your fault is much easier.



Dillstrom #15 Posted 25 August 2017 - 10:35 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 1100 battles
  • 86
  • Member since:
    10-16-2013
WG needs to remove bad players from the game or at least limit them to low tiers. I'm talking about players who click "battle", then go AFK in some corner sucking a lollipop or picking their nose. Those players who "play only for fun" and don't actually do anything in the battle. If WoT was a football game and some players would just sit behind the goal, they'd be kicked out of the team but here they can buy a premiun tank and go fail at higher level. And I wouldn't mind this behaviour if WG wouldn't underline that they are trying to keep the game competetive and fun for all. It's not fun when 7 tanks in your team does 0 damage because they all camp in some corner waiting for your team to die and the rest rush because they are vegetables. Or fill the battles with bots, at least they do something unlike these 45% WR mental patients.

qpranger #16 Posted 25 August 2017 - 10:36 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 30735 battles
  • 5,061
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013

Right on cue, a shining example of how "balanced" WOT gameplay is today: 

 


Edited by qpranger, 25 August 2017 - 10:36 PM.


japtank #17 Posted 25 August 2017 - 11:10 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27611 battles
  • 1,046
  • Member since:
    04-20-2012

View PostJunglist_, on 25 August 2017 - 10:35 PM, said:

Or how about you get better so you actually affect the outcome of the battle?

But I guess that would be just too difficult and coming up with poor excuses why it's not your fault is much easier.

 

Quite interesting opinion there.

This 'git gut' attitude often comes from younger folks (dunno whether this applies to you or not) who don't have the experience yet to understand that you can only improve to some extent.

Even when trying your best, you meet your limits pretty fast in a video game.

This is not rocket science, it's only a coordination exercice with some spacial awereness.

Complex enough to keep us interested, but not complex enough to allow for much progression.

It took me years to become a decent musician, it takes weeks to become a decent video game player.

 

You have to accept that the vast majority of players will never achieve 55%+ winrate to a point unicums are a meaningless segment of the players population.

It would be interesting to see a gaussian curve of winrate, i'd appreciate someone posting it if it exists.

 

So, after the matchmaker has created the teams, would it be so detrimental to anyone if it switched some players from one team to the other to even the odds a bit?

I have no clue TBH.

Of course, winrates would equalize, but personal scores would still be higher for the better players, so there would still be something left for braggarts to brag about.

Food for thought probably.



brumbarr #18 Posted 25 August 2017 - 11:25 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,290
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View Postjaptank, on 25 August 2017 - 11:10 PM, said:

 

Quite interesting opinion there.

This 'git gut' attitude often comes from younger folks (dunno whether this applies to you or not) who don't have the experience yet to understand that you can only improve to some extent.

Even when trying your best, you meet your limits pretty fast in a video game.

This is not rocket science, it's only a coordination exercice with some spacial awereness.

Complex enough to keep us interested, but not complex enough to allow for much progression.

It took me years to become a decent musician, it takes weeks to become a decent video game player.

 

You have to accept that the vast majority of players will never achieve 55%+ winrate to a point unicums are a meaningless segment of the players population.

It would be interesting to see a gaussian curve of winrate, i'd appreciate someone posting it if it exists.

 

So, after the matchmaker has created the teams, would it be so detrimental to anyone if it switched some players from one team to the other to even the odds a bit?

I have no clue TBH.

Of course, winrates would equalize, but personal scores would still be higher for the better players, so there would still be something left for braggarts to brag about.

Food for thought probably.

Long range sniper has the curve, he also had a video explaining why skill based MM is horrible and was removed from AW.



qpranger #19 Posted 25 August 2017 - 11:25 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 30735 battles
  • 5,061
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013
I cannot get so good as to prevent my team mates from dying stupidly and rapidly in all corners of the map. I want to be in - and also face - TEAMS, not suicide squads.

brumbarr #20 Posted 25 August 2017 - 11:26 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,290
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View Postqpranger, on 25 August 2017 - 11:25 PM, said:

I cannot get so good as to prevent my team mates from dying stupidly and rapidly in all corners of the map. I want to be in - and also face - TEAMS, not suicide squads.

So how come other people are? 

If you want to be in teams , go play a teambased mode, CW, SH, tournaments etc






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users