Jump to content


This could improve gameplay experience

mm matchmaking skill

  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

Poll: This could improve gameplay experience (52 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battles in order to participate this poll.

Do you like this idea?

  1. Yes (4 votes [7.69%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.69%

  2. Yes, even more stricter (1 vote [1.92%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.92%

  3. Yes, but bit less punishing (1 vote [1.92%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.92%

  4. No (23 votes [44.23%])

    Percentage of vote: 44.23%

  5. No, add random insult (23 votes [44.23%])

    Percentage of vote: 44.23%

Vote Hide poll

PowJay #21 Posted 28 January 2019 - 04:18 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 38065 battles
  • 4,742
  • Member since:
    09-07-2012

View PostRati_Festa, on 28 January 2019 - 03:08 PM, said:

 

I don't see a rant, he states a scenario we all see too often. Then suggests the game could guide players out of their depth in the right direction.

 

If a high skill forum regular posted something similar they wouldn't have received some of the responses. Jigabachi responded well and he actually joined the conversation. As the poster would fall into this group of players perhaps, It makes him a more relevant poster on this subject does it not? He is actually posting something that would help him, perhaps he has just reflected on his last session of games, realised his and others constant mistake ( playing high tier games like bots ) and thought of a solution.

 

Again, you make an entirely reasoned argument that I don't entirely agree with. I will tell you what, however: I promise you 300 gold if he comes back to the thread AND doesn't start defending his stats with the same old excuses. :teethhappy:

baribal_80 #22 Posted 28 January 2019 - 04:22 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 24237 battles
  • 820
  • Member since:
    02-27-2012

View Postunhappy_bunny, on 26 January 2019 - 01:38 PM, said:

Question for you OP, Would you be happy to be forced down the tiers?

 

What does 2 in a row 0 dmg really show? Do you take into consideration a stock tank for instance? Just bad luck? Suddened lag?

Arty focus? or 101 other things that could cause a couple of bad games?

 

2 games is too little I agree but 5? 5 games is not RNG. just limit it to being bottom 3 5 games in a row and I have no issues with it. If I'm playing like that I need a playstyle change anyway. 

Orkbert #23 Posted 28 January 2019 - 04:41 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27138 battles
  • 1,957
  • Member since:
    08-29-2013

View Postunhappy_bunny, on 26 January 2019 - 02:38 PM, said:

Question for you OP, Would you be happy to be forced down the tiers?

 

What does 2 in a row 0 dmg really show? Do you take into consideration a stock tank for instance? Just bad luck? Suddened lag?

Arty focus? or 101 other things that could cause a couple of bad games?

 

Not to mention teamkills (unless they are among those 101 other things), you might get forced to play a lower tier because some troll decided to take you out of the game right at the start?

If such a forced tier lowering mechanic would be implemented I can easily see how trolls would exploit it. So instead of improving gameplay it would make getting trolled even worse.

 

 


Edited by Orkbert, 28 January 2019 - 04:41 PM.


Anthony_1972 #24 Posted 28 January 2019 - 04:45 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 9629 battles
  • 166
  • Member since:
    03-29-2016

With 2 games, there's too much RNG.  With more games, it probably doesn't do much anymore. 

 

There are other ways to make sure such people don't play high tiers:

For example:

  • Make the XP reward far less dependent on winning

 

Currently, a 0 dmg player on a winning team tends to get more XP, than half the players on the loosing team.   Considering that even far below average players get 45% win rate, that means that they will go up in XP quite steadily.     If being carried by the team would give very little XP, also when the team wins, then these players would advance very slowly in the tiers.

 

  • Make the credit reward dependent on winning

Obviously, you have to make it worth winning the game.   When XP is not the reward, handle it over the credits.   Have the winner get 3 times the credits, instead of 3 times the XP like it now is.    

 

This change would reduce the amount of XP for bad players, reducing their advancement in the tiers.   For regular players, not much would change.  



unhappy_bunny #25 Posted 28 January 2019 - 07:46 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 19371 battles
  • 3,278
  • [-OC-] -OC-
  • Member since:
    08-01-2012

Whilst the OP can be applauded for trying to find a way to improve the game, assuming that its not prompted by a sense of it being rigged against him, then taking a close look at his idea brings to mind a couple of issues.

 

1. What happens to a player with 0 dmg but who gets spotting/assist dmg? 

2. How can you amend the game to force players into lower tiers? Would pressing "battle" cause the game to check a database with the players last 2 or 3 results, and maybe check a 2nd field to see if there was spotting/assist dmg? Then a message is sent saying "Sorry, you have been downgraded to Tier 7 for your next battle"? If that happens for every player what is it going to do to wait time to get into battles?

3 Will we get a pinned thread for complaints about this being unfair? Because as sure as eggs are eggs there will be a lot of complaining going on.

4. Will there be enough players left in the queue for fulfill the needs of higher tier battles? 

 

I agree that it appears to require some action. I dont play higher tiers because I know I suck, even in so-called OP Premiums, but not every player sees it the way I do. I have a lot of fun in lower tiers, I dont have the driven need to get to TX (yes, I have the IS-7 but I dont play it because "sucking" at that level is not fun for me).  What the answer is I am not sure. It needed something to evealuate a players ability, but it needed that from the start. 8 years into the game is a bit late to introduce something that drastic. 

 

Or, maybe it needs to be more drastic. Say, starting on 30 April, all accounts are reset, everyone starts on T1 or maybe T4 would be a bit more realistic. All researched tanks and crews are kept, but a player cannot advance to the next tier until some specific criteria is met. The better players should be able to whizz through that criteria and the lesser players will take longer. Some of us may never reach the dizzing heights for a long time, but at least the better players should have better balanced teams. 



HunAnon #26 Posted 28 January 2019 - 08:37 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 14428 battles
  • 30
  • Member since:
    06-26-2018

View PostPowJay, on 28 January 2019 - 04:18 PM, said:

 

Again, you make an entirely reasoned argument that I don't entirely agree with. I will tell you what, however: I promise you 300 gold if he comes back to the thread AND doesn't start defending his stats with the same old excuses. :teethhappy:

 

Give him 300 gold than: I do fail (too) many times, my post is about the dissapointment when I play well/ok, and it is not (nearly) enough because of teammates, the times when my team get wiped 15-1 (or few). My idea might reduce the wipeouts, even if I get put down a tier or two sometimes, and I left the question open, if it is too strict, can be 3 strikes with the same tank, but more than that would be ineffective (in my opinion).

PowJay #27 Posted 28 January 2019 - 08:44 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 38065 battles
  • 4,742
  • Member since:
    09-07-2012

View PostHunAnon, on 28 January 2019 - 07:37 PM, said:

 

Give him 300 gold than: I do fail (too) many times, my post is about the dissapointment when I play well/ok, and it is not (nearly) enough because of teammates, the times when my team get wiped 15-1 (or few). My idea might reduce the wipeouts, even if I get put down a tier or two sometimes, and I left the question open, if it is too strict, can be 3 strikes with the same tank, but more than that would be ineffective (in my opinion).

 

Respect for your honesty, but you do realise that you appear to play badly more often than you play well? You are one of the players who is part of the (perceived) problem. You do poor damage levels and yes, you may do "well" from time to time, but not enough to get respectable average damage in many of your vehicles, and not enough to try and carry a poorer team. You are not a terrible player, I think, but there is plenty of room for improvement.

 

I can only imagine that you would be a victim of this system, and- to be fair- so would I now and again, only not as often as you would.

 

Edit- and yes, I notice that your recent stats are improving. Keep it up. :great:


Edited by PowJay, 28 January 2019 - 08:46 PM.


HunAnon #28 Posted 28 January 2019 - 09:02 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 14428 battles
  • 30
  • Member since:
    06-26-2018

View PostPowJay, on 28 January 2019 - 08:44 PM, said:

 

Respect for your honesty, but you do realise that you appear to play badly more often than you play well? You are one of the players who is part of the (perceived) problem. You do poor damage levels and yes, you may do "well" from time to time, but not enough to get respectable average damage in many of your vehicles, and not enough to try and carry a poorer team. You are not a terrible player, I think, but there is plenty of room for improvement.

 

I can only imagine that you would be a victim of this system, and- to be fair- so would I now and again, only not as often as you would.

 

Edit- and yes, I notice that your recent stats are improving. Keep it up. :great:

 

I'm aware I'm not great (especially at damage/aim), and I do try to improve. I prefer to play tanks until at least I get an "Ace Tanker" award, and my winrate go over 50,01%, even if I don't like to play with those tanks (I have a few low tier tanks that I sold before I had this rule, but currently lack the garage place to rebuy and work on them), if I stick to this rule, I should improve with all my tanks to at least average level eventually.

Thank you for the encouragement. :)



Discontinued #29 Posted 28 January 2019 - 10:30 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 3644 battles
  • 799
  • Member since:
    11-02-2015

No

 

and my random insult is.............

 

just fired up the random insult generator,

 

I set it  to Victorian mode and it says your a, 

 

"Foozler"

 

:P



Rati_Festa #30 Posted 29 January 2019 - 12:22 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 47441 battles
  • 2,140
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    02-10-2012

View PostHunAnon, on 28 January 2019 - 09:02 PM, said:

 

I'm aware I'm not great (especially at damage/aim), and I do try to improve. I prefer to play tanks until at least I get an "Ace Tanker" award, and my winrate go over 50,01%, even if I don't like to play with those tanks (I have a few low tier tanks that I sold before I had this rule, but currently lack the garage place to rebuy and work on them), if I stick to this rule, I should improve with all my tanks to at least average level eventually.

Thank you for the encouragement. :)

 

I've just looked at your stats and you aren't that bad a player really, I've seen a lot worse ruining t10 play. Even in your Lowe which is your highest tier you are contributing, you just need to get your dmg/game up and you will start to lift your WR. You appear to be better in TDS, you should try slowly moving up the SU line, that leads to 268 v4 for me that is the best TD line and the mid tier tanks are competitive and the T7 is Op.





Also tagged with mm, matchmaking, skill

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users