Jump to content


15-0 matches

mm common

  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

omgdontkillme #1 Posted 03 December 2017 - 06:47 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 35014 battles
  • 375
  • [R41N] R41N
  • Member since:
    03-20-2015

Why are 15 - 0 matches so common now days? Just today i had 3 of those and i played 16 matches.

Arent all those mm updates supposed to make it better?



Balc0ra #2 Posted 03 December 2017 - 06:49 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 62857 battles
  • 14,459
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
3 out 16 is actually good. So why complain? Steam rolls have always been a thing on EU for years, not like it's a resent phenomenon. Most wish they had as low as 3 out of 16 some days.

Jigabachi #3 Posted 03 December 2017 - 06:49 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17753 battles
  • 17,671
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View Postomgdontkillme, on 03 December 2017 - 06:47 PM, said:

Why are 15 - 0 matches so common now days?

They already were common in the past.

 

Block Quote

Arent all those mm updates supposed to make it better?

What does "it" mean? The MM updates were meant to make the matchups more fair, but changes to the MM won't fix all the various and massive problems that have build up over the years.


Edited by Jigabachi, 03 December 2017 - 06:50 PM.


sir_wizington #4 Posted 03 December 2017 - 07:00 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 26758 battles
  • 144
  • [11RHS] 11RHS
  • Member since:
    07-14-2013

Its because the matchmaker only considers tier when making teams.

 

IMO it needs to equally balance (1) different levels of skill and (2) types of tanks.

 

1. just by random chance the matchmaker often puts more 'good' players on one side than the other this obviously alters the outcome and means that there are likely to be more games that are 0-4 to 15

 

2. also by random chance one team may have tanks that are suited to the map they are playing on, for example, last game i was on Stalingrad, we had a Defender and IS3 where are the enemies had a Caeareavnaneone, and a Tiger, who do you think had a massive advantage in the city fight? On mines the team who has the most fast tanks usually has the advantage.

 

WG needs to make the MM so it provides us with relatively equal and fair games. it would be pretty simple. Get 30 players, add up the WG rank for each of the tiers, divide by two and try to make each team have and equal total WG rank -+ 15% or something. and something similar with vehicles types.

 

WG has already stated that they will never put a skill based MM in game because of mystery reasons. I'd love to know weather the development team actually play this game.



Sirebellus #5 Posted 03 December 2017 - 07:55 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 17486 battles
  • 391
  • Member since:
    02-04-2016
They aren't common... it's 348 games since I last was in one (and yes I keep a record...)

commer #6 Posted 03 December 2017 - 07:58 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 38080 battles
  • 1,995
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011
Steamrolls should happen acording to battle tactics and theory. Once you gain advantage in crucial areas your team will fall quickly unless the atacking force is disorganized. Yes 15:0 is an unlucky case since in other cases it will be 15:2 or 3 but a steamroll is a steamroll.

TheComfyChair #7 Posted 03 December 2017 - 08:21 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 6106 battles
  • 517
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    03-20-2017
If its 12-0 down just make sure to YOLO and kill one enemy tank :izmena:

Enforcer1975 #8 Posted 03 December 2017 - 08:22 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 18481 battles
  • 9,856
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014
They can tweak MM all they want there are way too many variables in every match. Even if you had 100 games with the same players in the same tanks you would always have a different outcome because of RNG. Some end up in one team roflstomping one team or vice versa, some can end in a draw and some can end very close....too many possible outcomes to count.

Bala79 #9 Posted 04 December 2017 - 05:29 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 28818 battles
  • 507
  • Member since:
    11-22-2011
The weekend teams just go all YOLO. They either die and fail or win and sucess. Once an entire flank fails other flanks that try to play the game normally, have to addapt and relocate, sometimes there is no time for that, and half of the team don't know how to use the minimap anyway, so they only understand that one of the flanks failed when their tank got behind abused already. The last 2-3 tanks are usually the guys who read the map and try to compensate. They usually end up in some corner, completely surrounded, and a natural scisor tactic "happens" so they have no chance. Ez.

ogremage #10 Posted 04 December 2017 - 05:33 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 31667 battles
  • 1,348
  • [KAZNA] KAZNA
  • Member since:
    06-26-2011

I have a suggestion for those who are concerned about steam-rolls. 

Too many 15-0 wins => play worse.

Too many 0-15 losses => play better.

 

Follow these two rules and it will really help things, I promise.

 

Otherwise, just try to understand early damage decides a lot, a few early kills and there are less guns on one side and steam rolls are to be expected.

 

If you were good at understanding the game you would understand it's normal to have more steam rolls not less.


Edited by ogremage, 04 December 2017 - 05:40 PM.


Schmeksiman #11 Posted 04 December 2017 - 05:34 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 16275 battles
  • 6,601
  • [INC] INC
  • Member since:
    03-10-2012

View Postsir_wizington, on 03 December 2017 - 07:00 PM, said:

WG needs to make the MM so it provides us with relatively equal and fair games. it would be pretty simple. Get 30 players, add up the WG rank for each of the tiers, divide by two and try to make each team have and equal total WG rank -+ 15% or something. and something similar with vehicles types.

 

WG has already stated that they will never put a skill based MM in game because of mystery reasons. I'd love to know weather the development team actually play this game.

 

Thank god you're not a developer, if you remember a game called armoured warfare tried something like that and you could count their current playerbase on the fingers of your hand.

Also ranked games did that and it was horrible.

 

Would you enjoy losing more games because you're a better player?



ogremage #12 Posted 04 December 2017 - 05:35 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 31667 battles
  • 1,348
  • [KAZNA] KAZNA
  • Member since:
    06-26-2011

View Postsir_wizington, on 03 December 2017 - 06:00 PM, said:

Its because the matchmaker only considers tier when making teams.

 

IMO it needs to equally balance (1) different levels of skill and (2) types of tanks.

 

1. just by random chance the matchmaker often puts more 'good' players on one side than the other this obviously alters the outcome and means that there are likely to be more games that are 0-4 to 15

 

2. also by random chance one team may have tanks that are suited to the map they are playing on, for example, last game i was on Stalingrad, we had a Defender and IS3 where are the enemies had a Caeareavnaneone, and a Tiger, who do you think had a massive advantage in the city fight? On mines the team who has the most fast tanks usually has the advantage.

 

WG needs to make the MM so it provides us with relatively equal and fair games. it would be pretty simple. Get 30 players, add up the WG rank for each of the tiers, divide by two and try to make each team have and equal total WG rank -+ 15% or something. and something similar with vehicles types.

 

WG has already stated that they will never put a skill based MM in game because of mystery reasons. I'd love to know weather the development team actually play this game.

 

Skill based MM is in this game, it is called ranked battles.

 

They are quite a boring and frustrating affair for most players, being called "cancer".

 

I personally found them an interesting challenge, but I really wouldn't want to just play "ranked", fighting blue-s and purples who play roughly as good or better than I do and just spam premium ammo all the time while running food is somewhat mentally exhausting and really tough on credit budget.


So basically, WG is not putting skill based MM in the game because THAT WOULD NOT BE FUN FOR MOST PLAYERS. And if it won't be fun, then it would kill the game. They don't want to kill the game. That kills their Moon base plans.


Edited by ogremage, 04 December 2017 - 05:38 PM.


Aikl #13 Posted 04 December 2017 - 05:55 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25141 battles
  • 4,048
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

As mentioned, 'superdefeats' have always been a thing. You'd think the stuff WG does would improve it - but 3-5-7 tends to absorb all the other changes (like matching teams more evenly in terms of class and whatnot).

 

 

View Postsir_wizington, on 03 December 2017 - 06:00 PM, said:

(...)

WG has already stated that they will never put a skill based MM in game because of mystery reasons. I'd love to know weather the development team actually play this game.

 

Spoiler

 

Yet again, the idea of skill-based MM needs a good ol' nip in the bud:

Ultimately, skill-based MM might seem like the final solution to make games more even. In theory, it kind of is.

In practice ...no way.

 

First off, you have to assume that everyone performs consistently at their 'skill level'. That's a load of bullcrap - even purple players can have bad games. You also have to assume that the way to measure said skill would be accurate. Now it becomes almost comical in nature. There's no real way of measuring skill, though certain parameters can give an impression of it. Winrate...maybe, but platooning tends to mess with that as well, and it'll become basically useless as a parameter once skill-based MM were introduced.

There is also the not-so-small matter of what people play. Should there be a separate skill rating depending on which class someone plays? What should it be based on? The matchmaker already struggles with puzzling together teams as-is, and balancing each class... there's no fudgin' way that'll work.

 

Oh, and last, but not least, don't underestimate players. I'd switch accounts with a below-average player for the heck of it. I'd play purposefully bad to mess with the ratings. Yes, I'm that childish and stubborn.



wiggles #14 Posted 04 December 2017 - 06:13 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 33569 battles
  • 269
  • Member since:
    09-12-2010
Steamrolls are certainly far more common than yesteryear. It's amazing people are denying this. What the reason is or what to do (if anything) about it, F knows.

ogremage #15 Posted 04 December 2017 - 06:15 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 31667 battles
  • 1,348
  • [KAZNA] KAZNA
  • Member since:
    06-26-2011
We always had steamrolls. Always. As many as now.

Mimos_A #16 Posted 04 December 2017 - 06:32 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 21406 battles
  • 1,766
  • [QSF-L] QSF-L
  • Member since:
    05-30-2015

View PostSchmeksiman, on 04 December 2017 - 05:34 PM, said:

 

Thank god you're not a developer, if you remember a game called armoured warfare tried something like that and you could count their current playerbase on the fingers of your hand.

Also ranked games did that and it was horrible.

 

Would you enjoy losing more games because you're a better player?

While I'm absolutely not for skill based matchmaking, constantly using AW as the argument is silly as well. That game had a dwindling playerbase already when they introduced it and was suffering from a lot more flaws.



juonimies #17 Posted 04 December 2017 - 08:10 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 43387 battles
  • 323
  • [KARJU] KARJU
  • Member since:
    07-04-2011

View Postogremage, on 04 December 2017 - 04:33 PM, said:

I have a suggestion for those who are concerned about steam-rolls. 

Too many 15-0 wins => play worse.

Too many 0-15 losses => play better.

 

Follow these two rules and it will really help things, I promise.

 

Otherwise, just try to understand early damage decides a lot, a few early kills and there are less guns on one side and steam rolls are to be expected.

 

If you were good at understanding the game you would understand it's normal to have more steam rolls not less.

 

There are 14 other tankers in one's team, you know? 

juonimies #18 Posted 04 December 2017 - 08:12 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 43387 battles
  • 323
  • [KARJU] KARJU
  • Member since:
    07-04-2011

View Postwiggles, on 04 December 2017 - 05:13 PM, said:

Steamrolls are certainly far more common than yesteryear. It's amazing people are denying this. What the reason is or what to do (if anything) about it, F knows.

 

Faster games mean more income for WG. 

Mimos_A #19 Posted 04 December 2017 - 08:19 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 21406 battles
  • 1,766
  • [QSF-L] QSF-L
  • Member since:
    05-30-2015

View Postwiggles, on 04 December 2017 - 06:13 PM, said:

Steamrolls are certainly far more common than yesteryear. It's amazing people are denying this. What the reason is or what to do (if anything) about it, F knows.

 

For me they don't appear to be more or less common. If anything I'm experiencing a lot more long and drawn out games.

omgdontkillme #20 Posted 04 December 2017 - 08:56 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 35014 battles
  • 375
  • [R41N] R41N
  • Member since:
    03-20-2015

View Postogremage, on 04 December 2017 - 05:33 PM, said:

I have a suggestion for those who are concerned about steam-rolls. 

Too many 15-0 wins => play worse.

Too many 0-15 losses => play better.

 

Follow these two rules and it will really help things, I promise.

 

Otherwise, just try to understand early damage decides a lot, a few early kills and there are less guns on one side and steam rolls are to be expected.

 

If you were good at understanding the game you would understand it's normal to have more steam rolls not less.

 

I assume you are a troll.





Also tagged with mm, common

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users