Jump to content


The Pole Position: It is coveted, so make it earned


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

ey0r3 #1 Posted 02 November 2017 - 07:31 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 5092 battles
  • 7
  • Member since:
    06-08-2017

No matter the MM format, the top spots on the tank listing (position 1 2 and 3) are the positions players want to be in (except, probably, when they just unlocked a new tank and have not trained the crew...). In single tier match ups, the pole positions are typically populated with HTs, sorted by some CaseSensitiveAlphanumeric tank-name/player-name fashion. So in a battle with >3 HTs, the placement of the top 3 is not even really super random, but in any case this is the least significant MM configuration anyway, so lets move on. When at +/- 1 tier MM the top 3 spots can be populated by various tank types but still, being positioned in the top is an advantage, you are up a tier on many of the enemy. And finally, where the negative effects of playing on a team where the pole position was given to a bot, the +/-2 tier MM gives the biggest advantage to the top positions. Not only are you 1 or 2 tier above most, but you do the most damage and have the most hit points on your team.

 

To summarize, the top 1-3 positions in the tank listing are both coveted by the player and have a very significant impact on the outcome of the battle. So I suggest that War Gaming makes it such that you have to earn your way into those positions.

 

For example: (Q: Qualified for PP: PolePosition, NQ: Not-Qualified)

 

All players start in NQ pools. They will not be in the 1, 2 or 3 spot of their first battle.

Once you finish a battle in the top 5 for XP, you get into the Q pool.

While in the Q pool, you have a chance for a top 3 spot.

Once you get a PP, you go back to the NQ pool.

 

repeat...

 

I really think it will solve a lot of problems of one-sided matches and toxicity.



Enforcer1975 #2 Posted 02 November 2017 - 10:05 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 20515 battles
  • 10,537
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014
I would love to see good players in the top tier tanks but then again if you have good players in top tiers and bad players in mid and low tiers who do you think will whine? I mean a good player is already better now give them the top tier position because they "earned it" and it will be a big mess. I think it would be enough for WG to take f.e. WR of a player and balance it out with a similar player on the other side with maybe a similar tank or make the average WR very close on both teams. This can mean a few very good players and a lot of bots on one side and many average players on the other side.

Edited by Enforcer1975, 02 November 2017 - 10:06 AM.


ey0r3 #3 Posted 02 November 2017 - 10:19 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 5092 battles
  • 7
  • Member since:
    06-08-2017

View PostEnforcer1975, on 02 November 2017 - 10:05 AM, said:

I would love to see good players in the top tier tanks but then again if you have good players in top tiers and bad players in mid and low tiers who do you think will whine? 

 

Then sell reserves that get you in the Q pool say 10-25% of the time without merit. :)

 

I guess you could just not implement it on same tier battles, then they could still be top if they play HT or get there by random magic on that MM configuration. But they cannot want to be top tier when their whole team bemoans them from the start in chat and then they go and prove it in battle by doing zero damage while the enemy top tier is not a baboon. A filter like "be in the top 5 by XP" for a battle is not insurmountable by a human with a favorite tank. Most people will be able to do this. The people that cannot, will no longer be my only tier 8 HT when I am in my tier 5.



Jigabachi #4 Posted 02 November 2017 - 10:24 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17858 battles
  • 18,493
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011
I'd rather have a certain kind d of skillbased MM...

NUKLEAR_SLUG #5 Posted 02 November 2017 - 10:24 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27512 battles
  • 1,962
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

View Postey0r3, on 02 November 2017 - 07:31 AM, said:.

For example: (Q: Qualified for PP: PolePosition, NQ: Not-Qualified)

 

All players start in NQ pools. They will not be in the 1, 2 or 3 spot of their first battle.

Once you finish a battle in the top 5 for XP, you get into the Q pool.

While in the Q pool, you have a chance for a top 3 spot.

Once you get a PP, you go back to the NQ pool.

 

repeat...

 

I really think it will solve a lot of problems of one-sided matches and toxicity.

 

 Your maths fails. 

 

Game#1 top 5 get into the Q pool. Game#2 three slots available for Q pool players and Q pool has five in it. It only gets worse as the day progresses and the Q pool gets saturated to the point it's impossible to MM games.



ey0r3 #6 Posted 02 November 2017 - 10:33 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 5092 battles
  • 7
  • Member since:
    06-08-2017

Q pool does not guarantee anything. NQ pool just does not populate top spots.

 

Anyway, example is meant to be too simple.



Aikl #7 Posted 02 November 2017 - 10:36 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25167 battles
  • 4,253
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

OP's motivation is actually kind of fair. However: As you state yourself, everyone and their mother wants the top spot*, but denying that to players that can't perform all that well isn't exactly brilliant for profits.

 

It's pretty evident that 3-5-7 is the preferred pattern for a reason. It enforces 'stompability' for players on top, enforces increased premium ammo use and makes matches "easier" (which again is debatable; I'd say that you have to play like a coward as a bottom-tier regardless). The "easier" part seems to be a shared feeling, but arguably most important for certain skill brackets.

It also creates the problem of increasing variability, as there's less chance of getting players of 'mixed skill' in a smaller pool. That does indeed increase the chances of a 'roflstomp' result - which is what WG is trying to counter with class-balanced matchmaking and whatnot.

In the end, 3-5-7 is creating problems with the game that it, and WG, seeks to solve. Extremely backwards if you ask me. It's not like being on top in a 3-5-7 is that fun anyway - I much prefer the 5-10 matches in that case. It's not that exciting to slaughter T8s in a T10 tank that they can't really touch unless they cooperate really well.

 

OP's solution seems at a glance better than sheer skill-based MM, which is flawed from the get-go. Stats as a number alone are not a good way of measuring skill. I might be an ace in lights or mediums, but I might suck in heavies. Only the top 1-3% are consistent enough for skill-based MM to really work if you ask me.

Also, nothing stopping me from getting another account with crapstats to play on if I want to.


Edited by Aikl, 02 November 2017 - 10:39 AM.


250swb #8 Posted 02 November 2017 - 10:47 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 21699 battles
  • 4,859
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-23-2015
It's great idea, an alternative way to XVM focus on the best players without ever needing to load a mod! What genius, thought through from beginning to end, it can't fail, arty will love it!

_underscored_ #9 Posted 02 November 2017 - 12:32 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 56576 battles
  • 382
  • [_EON_] _EON_
  • Member since:
    04-19-2014
Disappointed this wasn’t a thread about spawn positions.

OreH75 #10 Posted 02 November 2017 - 12:56 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 46894 battles
  • 1,965
  • [RANGR] RANGR
  • Member since:
    05-29-2013

View Postey0r3, on 02 November 2017 - 07:31 AM, said:

No matter the MM format, the top spots on the tank listing (position 1 2 and 3) are the positions players want to be in (except, probably, when they just unlocked a new tank and have not trained the crew...). In single tier match ups, the pole positions are typically populated with HTs, sorted by some CaseSensitiveAlphanumeric tank-name/player-name fashion. So in a battle with >3 HTs, the placement of the top 3 is not even really super random, but in any case this is the least significant MM configuration anyway, so lets move on. When at +/- 1 tier MM the top 3 spots can be populated by various tank types but still, being positioned in the top is an advantage, you are up a tier on many of the enemy. And finally, where the negative effects of playing on a team where the pole position was given to a bot, the +/-2 tier MM gives the biggest advantage to the top positions. Not only are you 1 or 2 tier above most, but you do the most damage and have the most hit points on your team.

OMG Why bother about a list that is based on Tier - Class - Playername... Being in the top positions only means you drive the highest tier vehicle, probably a Heavy, and your playername comes before anyone else...

 

 

View Postey0r3, on 02 November 2017 - 07:31 AM, said:

All players start in NQ pools. They will not be in the 1, 2 or 3 spot of their first battle.

So if this would actually be implemented the first battles would be 12 vs 12 with 3 empty spots at the top?


Edited by OreH75, 02 November 2017 - 12:56 PM.


CaptainThunderWalker #11 Posted 02 November 2017 - 03:29 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 18937 battles
  • 1,297
  • Member since:
    09-25-2015

View Post250swb, on 02 November 2017 - 10:47 AM, said:

It's great idea, an alternative way to XVM focus on the best players without ever needing to load a mod! What genius, thought through from beginning to end, it can't fail, arty will love it!

 

Good arty players focus top tiers anyway even with the current system, because even a 44% bob in a top tier Defender is way too dangerous.

vasilinhorulezz #12 Posted 02 November 2017 - 03:46 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22780 battles
  • 1,094
  • Member since:
    09-26-2014

What you suggest is a big BS,

why?

Because, it will only make good players' life easier and mediocre and bad players' life way harder.

 

How can a mediocre player consistently be in a good spot if he's being bottom tier constantly, and a good player will never be bottom tier? Really? That's a good system will equal chances for everyone?

 

Yeeeey, make the game an elitist's paradise and see player base drop down to half.:great::great::great:


Edited by vasilinhorulezz, 02 November 2017 - 03:46 PM.


vasilinhorulezz #13 Posted 02 November 2017 - 03:55 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22780 battles
  • 1,094
  • Member since:
    09-26-2014

View Postey0r3, on 02 November 2017 - 07:31 AM, said:

I really think it will solve a lot of problems of one-sided matches and toxicity.

What people fail to understand is: 

 

One sided matches will always happen even in equally skilled teams, it's called the snowball effect, when one team loses one or two tanks it gets weaker and the other gets stronger, and every loss after that can turn to an one-sided battle, with little to no chance of recovering at all. Equally skilled MM will not fix the 15-0 or 15-5 battles, they will still occur, maybe less often but still they will happen. Even in E-sports games you see ROLF stomps here and there, and those guys are all pros, not average bobs, like the majority of a game's player base.


Edited by vasilinhorulezz, 02 November 2017 - 03:55 PM.


250swb #14 Posted 02 November 2017 - 04:26 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 21699 battles
  • 4,859
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-23-2015

View PostCaptainThunderWalker, on 02 November 2017 - 02:29 PM, said:

 

Good arty players focus top tiers anyway even with the current system, because even a 44% bob in a top tier Defender is way too dangerous.

 

 

'Good' arty players? I thought they were all evil? :trollface: Seriously though, it was just an example, having pole positions based on ability would allow the whole of the enemy team to focus on who to kill first. There are a lot of players who think allowing XVM to broadcast win percentages is bad for the game and this proposal just wants to make it worse.


Edited by 250swb, 02 November 2017 - 04:30 PM.


pecopad #15 Posted 02 November 2017 - 05:17 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 22392 battles
  • 868
  • [UGN] UGN
  • Member since:
    09-04-2015

The OP logic is that good players enjoy stomping on noobs...

 

I think that good players should enjoy a challenge, so they are the ones who shouldn't mind playing lower spots.

 

If you keep on rewarding good players with more skills and better equipment, you keep on promoting the noob stomping HP pinata mentality, that leads to 1/10 good game mentality, which is not that good,and will kill the game.


You stop attracting new players and the games gets less enjoyable for the farming noobs/stomping heroes, so the games dies....

 

Higher level tanks should require Higher skill levels to be effective, which is the opposite of the WOT design,except for a few tanks.

 

Player skill levels should be granted on a ladder system, and with a higher level it should be tied to an handicap when playing with lower level skill players.


Edited by pecopad, 02 November 2017 - 05:19 PM.


pecopad #16 Posted 02 November 2017 - 05:26 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 22392 battles
  • 868
  • [UGN] UGN
  • Member since:
    09-04-2015

View Postvasilinhorulezz, on 02 November 2017 - 03:55 PM, said:

What people fail to understand is: 

 

One sided matches will always happen even in equally skilled teams, it's called the snowball effect, when one team loses one or two tanks it gets weaker and the other gets stronger, and every loss after that can turn to an one-sided battle, with little to no chance of recovering at all. Equally skilled MM will not fix the 15-0 or 15-5 battles, they will still occur, maybe less often but still they will happen. Even in E-sports games you see ROLF stomps here and there, and those guys are all pros, not average bobs, like the majority of a game's player base.

 

There is a problem which is also derived from the fact that top tier tanks have an incentive to avoid each other, so you constantly see Heavies going to the Medium corridors, and TD's farming for damage on the end game and not supporting other tanks.

 

Its very clear this effect on some maps where there is a side with good D positions and what usually happens is that side ends up losing most of the games because one team has all the weapons in game, while the other has a severe gun inferiority.

 

You can always argue that the best strategy is for the team do defend and use those positions, but them the game would not progress and games would be boring.

 

Farming damage and farming incentives have to be reduced.

 

I would like to see Map design and game modes incorporate some objectives. Defending choke points, pushing, etc with that designers could force team-play and strategy- like in many other games.

 

Most of the battles are won achieving map dominance, you would only have to plant a flag on those spots rewarding teams for conquering holding those areas, then teams would have an incentive to follow the map meta,and end the farming damage mentality.


Edited by pecopad, 02 November 2017 - 05:35 PM.


Pvt_Duffer #17 Posted 02 November 2017 - 06:38 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 16653 battles
  • 3,144
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View PostAikl, on 02 November 2017 - 09:36 AM, said:

OP's motivation is actually kind of fair. However: As you state yourself, everyone and their mother wants the top spot*, but denying that to players that can't perform all that well isn't exactly brilliant for profits.

 

 

That's not actually true. The very reason why I played so much in light tanks was the +3 MM where you were almost certain to be the bottom tank.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Aikl #18 Posted 02 November 2017 - 07:06 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25167 battles
  • 4,253
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostPvt_Duffer, on 02 November 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

That's not actually true. The very reason why I played so much in light tanks was the +3 MM where you were almost certain to be the bottom tank.

 

 

LTs are of coruse a somewhat different matter, that I can agree with somewhat - even if you have more or less free reign still, because most LT drivers either snipe or die within two minutes.

 

If there's one thing that annoys me, it's being a bottom-tier LT vs. top-tier LTs. Can't outrun, can't outgun. Fun-fun-fun! At least a T8 medium gives even T9/10 lights something to think about.



Spurtung #19 Posted 02 November 2017 - 07:59 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 61582 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View Postey0r3, on 02 November 2017 - 11:33 AM, said:

Anyway, example is meant to be too simple.

It should also work, and yet...



ey0r3 #20 Posted 03 November 2017 - 07:43 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 5092 battles
  • 7
  • Member since:
    06-08-2017

Jeez, I tried to read all the replies but a lot of it seems intended to be gibberish.

 

In any case, yes currently the tank listing is an arbitrary list, yet the influence on the battle by the top positions, even if determined in tank/playername fashion has a lot of significance in +/- 1 and 2 MM configurations where the top 3 positions in the tank listing are the higher tier tanks as well as, oftentimes, the HTs with biggest HP/guns. 

 

If you want to design matches such that there are mainly tier N tanks but also a moderate size pool of tier N+1 tanks or even with the added presence of a smaller pool of N+2 tanks, you are creating a within team dynamic where there are some slots (currently visible in the arbitrary tank listing) that are preferred by players because you can dominate and have a great game. Due to that increased ability for excellence when top tier, you also become a critical component of the team's ability to perform well and win. If you have 3 afk bots in the top slots, your team is more crippled than when you have a team that is all TDs and SPGs, because at least in those campfests, both teams have the same basic composition. While I understand and accept that random is random and I don't give a poop about arty or p2w, I just do not want to be in a match where I should not be the top tier tank NOR in a match where there is some bot top tier for my team. When you just unlock your KV2 and have the first modules and only 6th sense on cmdr, you pray for same tier MM and if you get +/- 1,2 you want to be in the low spots. The last thing you want is to be THE ONLY BIG GUN when you do not even have the BIG GUN. 

 

And I am not so sure that all bad players really want to be top tier in a lot of the battles I have been a "part" of. The ones that are not bots seem to hide in corners and even take up positions behind the skypigs. I mean come on, you have seen these things in your games too, these top tier tanks that are just utterly worthless. At least make being top tier an option somewhere with default OFF and require the player to find and activate the option.


Edited by ey0r3, 03 November 2017 - 07:44 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users