Jump to content


I am done with World of Tanks until Skill Based MM


  • Please log in to reply
139 replies to this topic

BR33K1_PAWAH #41 Posted 31 January 2019 - 09:27 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 6455 battles
  • 1,398
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    04-11-2018

View Postoo0oo0oooo0oo0o, on 31 January 2019 - 12:49 AM, said:

 

I am just criticising the game on a point which is the most important issue in this game.

 

No, you're not. You're just venting and talking nonsense, and forum gets topics just like yours on a daily basis. That's why.



Jauhesammutin #42 Posted 31 January 2019 - 10:01 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 23271 battles
  • 541
  • [KANKI] KANKI
  • Member since:
    11-05-2013

View PostN00BT00B, on 31 January 2019 - 08:23 AM, said:

 

'Most likely' based on what? Gut feeling?

'Good players' will still be good players.

The stat padders and fakers will be the ones to suffer, when their padded win rate/ wn8/ personal rating etc will be compared to those who can play as a team and have proper talent.

The low skilled would benefit too.

Less abuse, more opportunities to thrive against same-skilled opponents.

More opportunities to learn how to play with getting slaughtered time after time by better players.

 

Just because the other tank game didnt implement it properly it doesnt mean it cant or shouldnt be attempted. Lets face it, the other tank game has managed to self destruct on many fronts, not just the poor attempt at skill matching.

Im not saying sbmm will fix all the issues but it cannot be as bad as the rigged rng bs we all have to experience right now.

 

Good players will still be good players but they wont have good games. Their stats will drop and it will take much longer to find games. Most of the enemies are going to be the same.

 

Bad players will still be bad players. Their stats will increase, but once they win "enough" they will face more skilled opponents and start to lose. 

 

Wot already has 1v1 and 3v3 tournamets, strongholds and CW for "skill based mm". You can go and play those if you want to take it more seriously. Random battles is what the name tells. Random. It isn't supposed to be balanced, random isn't balanced.



Noo_Noo #43 Posted 31 January 2019 - 10:12 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 22545 battles
  • 2,966
  • Member since:
    05-05-2013

So is this a decent player that's either had a bad run or didn't quite carry enough and is looking for an excuse?



gpalsson #44 Posted 31 January 2019 - 10:19 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 24483 battles
  • 8,935
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013

View PostN00BT00B, on 31 January 2019 - 08:23 AM, said:

 

'Most likely' based on what? Gut feeling?

'Good players' will still be good players.

The stat padders and fakers will be the ones to suffer, when their padded win rate/ wn8/ personal rating etc will be compared to those who can play as a team and have proper talent.

The low skilled would benefit too.

Less abuse, more opportunities to thrive against same-skilled opponents.

More opportunities to learn how to play with getting slaughtered time after time by better players.

 

Just because the other tank game didnt implement it properly it doesnt mean it cant or shouldnt be attempted. Lets face it, the other tank game has managed to self destruct on many fronts, not just the poor attempt at skill matching.

Im not saying sbmm will fix all the issues but it cannot be as bad as the rigged rng bs we all have to experience right now.

 

Less damage / fewer wins = fewer rewards. Fewer credits and fewer wins = less fun for good players. Rewarding bad play with more wins because you just place them with other bad players is not good IMO.

You can just play SH or something like that if you want SBMM. I hear everyone loves it.

Ranked battles will also most likely return and you can play that. I bet you love it.

I don't know what your problem with "stet pedderer & fakers" is. Get a hold on your inferiority complex. OP specifically complained about his stats, that's why I mentioned WN8.

 

I simply don't think SBMM will fix any of the problems listed in the original post, that's all. It will not make everything wonderful.

 

If you have specific ideas on how to implement a wonderful version of SBMM I'm sure there are many here who will be happy to explain to you why I won't work.



tajj7 #45 Posted 31 January 2019 - 10:22 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27258 battles
  • 14,870
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostN00BT00B, on 31 January 2019 - 08:23 AM, said:

 

'Most likely' based on what? Gut feeling?

.

 

Based on the fact that my win rate is based on my good play where I carry teams to wins, despite the poor players on that team.

 

Thus a SBMM system would, in most suggested variants I have seen, bring my win rate down to around 50% either putting more bad players on my team every game or matching me against equally good players, as well probably increasing my queue times.

 

All that negative impact, just for being good. 

 

Which then means there is little incentive to be good, I could basically play crap and each the same results because the MM system would just account for me being crap, thus making the game easier for bad players. 

 

 

Block Quote

 'Good players' will still be good players.

 

But they won't be rewarded for being good players, making the whole process pointless for them. 

 

Block Quote

 

The stat padders and fakers will be the ones to suffer, when their padded win rate/ wn8/ personal rating etc will be compared to those who can play as a team and have proper talent.

 

Whatever your bitterness or jealousy about these players, they are still good players relative to their environment. 

 

Just because someone stats pads in a T67, doesn't mean they still aren't a good player in a T67 against other tier 5 players/ 

 

Block Quote

 The low skilled would benefit too.

Less abuse, more opportunities to thrive against same-skilled opponents.

More opportunities to learn how to play with getting slaughtered time after time by better players.

 

So people would get rewarded for being crap? Seems a good system, play badly, not learn anything, fail time after time, but don't worry, the game will just be made easier for them.

 

Less abuse? How about getting better? That is a way of getting less abuse for being rubbish.

 

They are not going to learn how to play because they are in a noob environment, they are not playing with or facing anyone to learn from, and they will all just keep making the same mistakes, so if they every progressed to a higher level or say higher league if there was a league system they would just get smashed again by competent players. 

 

Block Quote

 Just because the other tank game didnt implement it properly it doesnt mean it cant or shouldnt be attempted.

 

SBMM failing in AW is just one example of why it is a bad idea.

 

Others reasons are -

 

  • It punishes good play.
  • It rewards bad play.
  • It makes learning and improving a pointless exercise.
  • It will increase queue times.
  • It's very difficult to find a metric that would be used to make it work (considering all metrics we have are based on random MM)
  • It won't solve one sided or fast games.

 

Block Quote

 Im not saying sbmm will fix all the issues but it cannot be as bad as the rigged rng bs we all have to experience right now

 

 

What is it rigged or random, you seem to be confused. 

 

 



oo0oo0oooo0oo0o #46 Posted 31 January 2019 - 10:25 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 23528 battles
  • 84
  • Member since:
    03-28-2016

View PostJauhesammutin, on 31 January 2019 - 10:01 AM, said:

 

Good players will still be good players but they wont have good games. Their stats will drop and it will take much longer to find games. Most of the enemies are going to be the same.

 

Bad players will still be bad players. Their stats will increase, but once they win "enough" they will face more skilled opponents and start to lose. 

 

Wot already has 1v1 and 3v3 tournamets, strongholds and CW for "skill based mm". You can go and play those if you want to take it more seriously. Random battles is what the name tells. Random. It isn't supposed to be balanced, random isn't balanced.

 

So you think bad players can be better as long as they play against bad players? I never re-rolled my account. Once upon a time I was a player with 300ish WN8. And which makes my WN8 over 1800+ right now is not bad players. I just watched videos, tutorials and sometimes watched good players in matches after I died. Trust me, playing against bad players will get you no where. 

 

Even PUBG Mobile has a rank based MM system which brings 100 people according to their ranks. So as long as your rank raises, you face with better players. It is good. Because you will try to think much more while making your decision. Because it is not pure FPS game. Strategy is more important. Like in WoT. No one can make me believe that this rigged RNG is much better. I am pretty sure that if I join the game nowadays, I will have a win streak regardless of my gameplay. Game will try to compensate my utterly trash week winrate. Just as it tried to down my winrate last week. You are just a monkey of the system. Your skill has nothing to do with that. If you think that this Rigged RNG is much better, there is nothing to say about it.

 

As I said before, I don't have any problems about losing. But this game has 2 big problems:

 

First: Loss rewards are utterly trash compared to win rewards. You get more exps while winning with doing only 100dmg than a loss match with doing 2k dmg. It is .tupid, sorry. It makes people to care about win not stats.

 

Second: When teams are doing their at least averages loss is not a matter. Because everyone tried at least something. Just yesterday I was trying to hold a line with my tier 8 heavy tank. At that time our tier X polish heavy player was camping at the edge of the map and hiding behind a bush. This is just .tupid.


Edited by oo0oo0oooo0oo0o, 31 January 2019 - 10:34 AM.


The_Salty_Kipper #47 Posted 31 January 2019 - 10:40 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 2402 battles
  • 143
  • Member since:
    01-16-2018

As far as I can recall, 

 

The SBMM in AW wasn't the only factor, it was the longer queue times and repetition that was a contributing factor because they didn't have a large enough player base to cover it. There was also a problem with some very OP tanks and you ended up with very similar team make-ups. 

 

I disagree with the overall conscientious that SBMM would be that bad for the game. You have it during Ranked Battles, and players generally complain more about the impact that SPGs have than the MM, and I once ran a table to see which tanks were played the most and manged the highest amount of wins:  https://docs.google....3wIo/edit#gid=0

 

If you look at the top 3 per tank type (and the battles played) you can get a feel for what AW went through. 

 

Personally, I find battles with equal teams a lot more interesting and challenging than 3-15 roll-overs, and a good map without any SPGs really highlights player abilities, because then it is all about how much you know about the game and its mechanics etc, and how to use the tank you are in to its best ability. 

 

The best suggestion would be to take a break and return once you feel up to it, or stop playing after a maximum of 12-15 battles if you aren't having fun.. 



Noo_Noo #48 Posted 31 January 2019 - 10:43 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 22545 battles
  • 2,966
  • Member since:
    05-05-2013

View Postoo0oo0oooo0oo0o, on 31 January 2019 - 10:25 AM, said:

 

So you think bad players can be better as long as they play against bad players? I never re-rolled my account. Once upon a time I was a player with 300ish WN8. And which makes my WN8 over 1800+ right now is not bad players. I just watched videos, tutorials and sometimes watched good players in matches after I died. Trust me, playing against bad players will get you no where. 

 

Even PUBG Mobile has a rank based MM system which brings 100 people according to their ranks. So as long as your rank raises, you face with better players. It is good. Because you will try to think much more while making your decision. Because it is not pure FPS game. Strategy is more important. Like in WoT. No one can make me believe that this rigged RNG is much better. I am pretty sure that if I join the game nowadays, I will have a win streak regardless of my gameplay. Game will try to compensate my utterly trash week winrate. Just as it tried to down my winrate last week. You are just a monkey of the system. Your skill has nothing to do with that. If you think that this Rigged RNG is much better, there is nothing to say about it.

 

As I said before, I don't have any problems about losing. But this game has 2 big problems:

 

First: Loss rewards are utterly trash compared to win rewards. You get more exps while winning with doing only 100dmg than a loss match with doing 2k dmg. It is .tupid, sorry. It makes people to care about win not stats.

 

Second: When teams are doing their at least averages loss is not a matter. Because everyone tried at least something. Just yesterday I was trying to hold a line with my tier 8 heavy tank. At that time our tier X polish heavy player was camping at the edge of the map and hiding behind a bush. This is just .tupid.

 

The issue with skill based MM is that when you implement it everyone in the battle has the same stats as you. As you play more an more of this your stats will change to meet the game average i.e 48-50% or whatever it is. For example a player with a 65% WR will not win 65% of their games against other teams with 15 players of the same WR. 

Similarly, those players with poorer stats also end up at the mean WR. 
 

If there was a different way to sort out different players ability then maybe that could work but the game simply isn't set up to do that. And I certainly cant think of any way of doing it either short of creating some kind of league system. But how that works for new players, tiers and the issues surrounding tank balance make that extremely difficult. 



Cobra6 #49 Posted 31 January 2019 - 10:46 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16474 battles
  • 16,857
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

Since Skill-Based MM is an utter disaster in Skirmishes and completely sapped the fun out of that mode for good players I think that implementing it in randoms would be an equally big mistake.

 

Cobra 6



tajj7 #50 Posted 31 January 2019 - 10:57 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27258 battles
  • 14,870
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostThe_Salty_Kipper, on 31 January 2019 - 09:40 AM, said:

Personally, I find battles with equal teams a lot more interesting and challenging than 3-15 roll-overs,ng fun.. 

 

SBMM won't solve one sided rollovers and fast games, they happen for a multitude of reasons and a skill difference between the teams is just one amongst many.

 

The fundamental reason why one sided roll over games happen is the core game itself, it's 15 v 15 with no re-spawns so the team that can get an early numbers advantage can snowball that advantage very quickly.

 

AW's SBMM was not that games downfall, people reference it because they introduced a form of SBMM and the number of one sided and fast loss games increased so they had to revert the changes back. 

 

Fast one sided games happen in CW games between two evenly matched teams. It's simple numbers advantage. 

 

If for example we looked at a 'skill balancing' approach to a SBMM system where players were evened out across each team, you can see why it wouldn't solve the one sided games problem.

 

This is because most players are bad, which means on your two 'skill balanced' teams, most of BOTH teams would be made up of bad and very bad players, there would be a handful of competent players on each team and even less good players (we can see this in the results of most WOT matches where often the bulk of the work is done by 3-5 players on a team).

 

So each team's 'strength' is basically residing it about 1-4 players, and its the 'all your eggs on one basket' idea, if 1-2 of those players make bad errors or get bad rng or just have the wrong tanks or bad tanks, then they could quickly go from the game leaving that team with just a load of bad players, who do not have the skills to turn the game around, so a steamroll happens.

 

IMO you will never remove one sided games, what needs to be done is stuff like -

 

  • Bigger and better maps, so that half or more of one team is not clustered in one spot, and then smaller battles break out all over the map and losing one flank becomes less disastrous because the team that is losing has more room to fall back and regroup, and also hasn't lost 5-6 tanks. In the current meta most maps are 1-2 viable flanks and you have situations where one team can heavily stack one flank and they steam roll the 3-5 tanks on that side and then the losing team is not able to recover and doesn't have the room the recover either.

 

  • Better tank balance and tank matching in the MM, so you don't have OP tanks deciding a game like a Bobject in a 3-5-7 just steamrolling a flank against a load of tier 8s. Or things like having a Type 5 facing a 50b, where the 50b can;t lead the line and let it's other tanks support it because its a support tank itself. 

 

  • Get rid of 3-5-7, it increases the problems highlighted above because your team gets like a 50b, arty and Strv 103b as it's tier 10s and then the enemy team gets an E100, Bobject and arty as it's tier 10s, so the two armoured tanks just push against lower tiers and dominate the game. It also means that having bad or good players in your top tiers sways the game even more. So having 5 or 7 top tier tanks spreads the team's strength out more and means the team is less reliant on one tank or one player being good enough or suited to the map.

 

  • Improve the ability of the playerbase, more tutorials in game, more tools in game, more guides in game, more incentives to improve and stop babying players with idiot proof tanks like Defenders and Type 5s, or bad map design like corridors that mean players don't ever think about getting flanked or base camping positions that are so OP players are encouraged to camp and never learn to play a proper support role, so when these players play in non OP/idiot proof tanks or go on more open maps or can't camp base they are clueless because the game has never forced them to learn these things. 


The_Salty_Kipper #51 Posted 31 January 2019 - 11:18 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 2402 battles
  • 143
  • Member since:
    01-16-2018

@Tajj7

 

my feeling is that the battles would still be more challenging and last slightly longer with fairly equal teams, of course once one team finds a way to push through the 'snowball' effect would take over, but mostly the enemy could still put up a decent defence, most games are roll overs due to poor map design, tank types and player ability. 

 

It will be interesting to see how 'Frontline' fairs with its proposed league table, playing Ranked was the same, battles lasted longer the higher up the league you manged to climb, as teams knew that the first team with an advantage would snowball. 

 

With regards to AW, having the bot battles was probably the major contributor to PvPs downfall. 



Noo_Noo #52 Posted 31 January 2019 - 11:20 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 22545 battles
  • 2,966
  • Member since:
    05-05-2013

View PostThe_Salty_Kipper, on 31 January 2019 - 11:18 AM, said:

@Tajj7

 

my feeling is that the battles would still be more challenging and last slightly longer with fairly equal teams, of course once one team finds a way to push through the 'snowball' effect would take over, but mostly the enemy could still put up a decent defence, most games are roll overs due to poor map design, tank types and player ability. 

 

It will be interesting to see how 'Frontline' fairs with its proposed league table, playing Ranked was the same, battles lasted longer the higher up the league you manged to climb, as teams knew that the first team with an advantage would snowball. 

 

With regards to AW, having the bot battles was probably the major contributor to PvPs downfall. 

 

How would you create fairly equal teams. What metric will players be measured / assessed on?

Jauhesammutin #53 Posted 31 January 2019 - 11:25 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 23271 battles
  • 541
  • [KANKI] KANKI
  • Member since:
    11-05-2013

View Postoo0oo0oooo0oo0o, on 31 January 2019 - 09:25 AM, said:

 

So you think bad players can be better as long as they play against bad players? I never re-rolled my account. Once upon a time I was a player with 300ish WN8. And which makes my WN8 over 1800+ right now is not bad players. I just watched videos, tutorials and sometimes watched good players in matches after I died. Trust me, playing against bad players will get you no where. 

 

Even PUBG Mobile has a rank based MM system which brings 100 people according to their ranks. So as long as your rank raises, you face with better players. It is good. Because you will try to think much more while making your decision. Because it is not pure FPS game. Strategy is more important. Like in WoT. No one can make me believe that this rigged RNG is much better. I am pretty sure that if I join the game nowadays, I will have a win streak regardless of my gameplay. Game will try to compensate my utterly trash week winrate. Just as it tried to down my winrate last week. You are just a monkey of the system. Your skill has nothing to do with that. If you think that this Rigged RNG is much better, there is nothing to say about it.

 

As I said before, I don't have any problems about losing. But this game has 2 big problems:

 

First: Loss rewards are utterly trash compared to win rewards. You get more exps while winning with doing only 100dmg than a loss match with doing 2k dmg. It is .tupid, sorry. It makes people to care about win not stats.

 

Second: When teams are doing their at least averages loss is not a matter. Because everyone tried at least something. Just yesterday I was trying to hold a line with my tier 8 heavy tank. At that time our tier X polish heavy player was camping at the edge of the map and hiding behind a bush. This is just .tupid.

 

That's exactly what I said.. "Bad players will still be bad players. Their stats will increase, but once they win "enough" they will face more skilled opponents and start to lose.

 

PUBG is a whole different game. IT's 1v1v1.. not 15v15. Even in PUBG you can win with only 1 kill. I've even seen 0 kills wins. Also in WoT 50% of the players will win while it's only 1% in PUBG so obviously you can have a win streak in WoT without too much effort.

 

Like I said, WoT has tournaments and CW. Go play those without any thinking and you are going to lose. The game won't compensate for that.

 

The main goal is to win so isn't it quite natural that you get better rewards from winning? We already have hero medals so if you do good in a losing battle you get rewards as if you won the game.

 

Again. You were playing RANDOM battles. Go play CW, next time you won't pick a redline camping heavy in to your lineup.



N00BT00B #54 Posted 31 January 2019 - 11:28 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 49789 battles
  • 740
  • [UT00B] UT00B
  • Member since:
    12-19-2012
Thanks for the replies to my post.

A couple of other points.

There are many team games and sports where people can have fun and gain satisfaction no matter their skill levels or abilities.
This because teams are matched more or less evenly.
Leagues
Para sports
All are segregated in some form so that it is fun, engaging and challenging at all levels.

WOT has none of this in its core product.. random battles.

As for ranked and organised tournaments etc, the way WG implements it is poor.
There are the handful of elite teams where the competition between them is great.
For all other clans, who end up facing these top players, its just a hammering.
Watch shishx latest youtube vids on demonstrating how much fun it can be to hammer a team in 4mins
So balanced. So fun. The rollover wins even appear to be boring to them.
This game should not be for the elite few.


tajj7 #55 Posted 31 January 2019 - 11:35 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27258 battles
  • 14,870
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostThe_Salty_Kipper, on 31 January 2019 - 10:18 AM, said:

@Tajj7

 

my feeling is that the battles would still be more challenging and last slightly longer with fairly equal teams, of course once one team finds a way to push through the 'snowball' effect would take over, but mostly the enemy could still put up a decent defence, most games are roll overs due to poor map design, tank types and player ability. 

 

It will be interesting to see how 'Frontline' fairs with its proposed league table, playing Ranked was the same, battles lasted longer the higher up the league you manged to climb, as teams knew that the first team with an advantage would snowball. 

 

With regards to AW, having the bot battles was probably the major contributor to PvPs downfall. 

 

Games were and will be less one sided in Frontline because there are re-spawns, so mistakes/bad luck do not end your game. 


I don't think there is any SBMM in frontline or planned to be and ranked still had one sided games to my collection, games lasted longer probably because everyone played not to lose, rather than to win, because they were protecting their rank and wanted to be the 'best' loser, so any sign of the team not winning most players on that team went instantly defensive and camped, so the games dragged out a bit.

 

If ranked rewarded playing for the win more, games would be shorter IMO. 



The_Salty_Kipper #56 Posted 31 January 2019 - 11:37 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 2402 battles
  • 143
  • Member since:
    01-16-2018

View PostNoo_Noo, on 31 January 2019 - 11:20 AM, said:

 

How would you create fairly equal teams. What metric will players be measured / assessed on?

 

Oh I am not a game developer, and I definitely don't have access to all the data needed.. 

 

but, as a thought, I would guess WN8 would be a good start, balancing teams around that would be ok, instead of having one team with 5+ 2K WN8 players and the other team with 1.. 

 

it is just personal experience, if the teams look fairly evenly matched, and have a decent spread amongst the variables, it should be a good battle. 

 

I mean, come on, how many times have you played a battle, held one side or pushed one side only to have the other side lose 0-8 and you can't compensate for it, or you are still fighting for superiority and the other flank drops 0-5.. Every tanker has their day, I had one battle where a WN8 368 (yes 368 red) player in a S.Conq won the battle with 6 kills over all and around 2k damage, their OBj. 277 with 5 kills and 5k damage was a one-shot when they met and the Conq managed to hit that 1 shot.. lol.. (we won by capping in the end).  

 

My gripe is about overall enjoyment, and facing totally unbalanced teams 5x in a row and losing just aint no fun!



OMG_Abaddon #57 Posted 31 January 2019 - 11:39 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 11789 battles
  • 744
  • [BDCP] BDCP
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

I don't think this game would benefit from a special low level competitive mode. It's true SBMM would help partially with the problem of having bots and unicums in the same game, but it won't help on most cases because... really nobody cares about stats in a casual game mode.

 

What I propose is a mode where T4-5-6 tanks can play a competitive mode where no XP or credit progress is made. Every player can choose their preferred tank, they all get temporary crews 100% and sixth sense on the commander, their equipments are all replaced with a preset for each tank type (for example light tanks could get camo net, binocs and vents) and their consumables are all set to small repair/small heal/manual extinguisers. Everyone gets 80% main ammo, 10% gold and 10% secondary ammo, if either of the last 2 don't exist they are added as main ammo.

 

This way:

1. Everyone can play a low level competitive mode.

2. Everyone can try SBMM without harming other players.

3. There's a balanced competitive mode where people can reliably win with skills and no pay2win items are present.

4. No progress is made either in XP or credits, which doesn't leverage the need to climb up the tree with all the credit sinks and pay2win stuff.

 

Whether rewards are handed or credit fees are charged, that's up to WG,, but I believe a low level competitive mode should not make already poor players leak more coins.


Edited by OMG_Abaddon, 31 January 2019 - 11:41 AM.


The_Salty_Kipper #58 Posted 31 January 2019 - 11:43 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 2402 battles
  • 143
  • Member since:
    01-16-2018

View Posttajj7, on 31 January 2019 - 11:35 AM, said:

 

Games were and will be less one sided in Frontline because there are re-spawns, so mistakes/bad luck do not end your game. 


I don't think there is any SBMM in frontline or planned to be and ranked still had one sided games to my collection, games lasted longer probably because everyone played not to lose, rather than to win, because they were protecting their rank and wanted to be the 'best' loser, so any sign of the team not winning most players on that team went instantly defensive and camped, so the games dragged out a bit.

 

If ranked rewarded playing for the win more, games would be shorter IMO. 

 

I'll tell you something, one thing I found really interesting about Ranked Battles was watching how supposedly good players (blues and above) actually faired against players of their own ability, instead of some red/yellow potatoes and when they are facing tanks of comparable Armor and damage stats, it's almost to easy to run amok in a 430U against tier 8s but fellow tier 10s.. now that is a different game. 

Noo_Noo #59 Posted 31 January 2019 - 11:58 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 22545 battles
  • 2,966
  • Member since:
    05-05-2013

View PostThe_Salty_Kipper, on 31 January 2019 - 11:37 AM, said:

 

Oh I am not a game developer, and I definitely don't have access to all the data needed.. 

 

but, as a thought, I would guess WN8 would be a good start, balancing teams around that would be ok, instead of having one team with 5+ 2K WN8 players and the other team with 1.. 

 

it is just personal experience, if the teams look fairly evenly matched, and have a decent spread amongst the variables, it should be a good battle. 

 

I mean, come on, how many times have you played a battle, held one side or pushed one side only to have the other side lose 0-8 and you can't compensate for it, or you are still fighting for superiority and the other flank drops 0-5.. Every tanker has their day, I had one battle where a WN8 368 (yes 368 red) player in a S.Conq won the battle with 6 kills over all and around 2k damage, their OBj. 277 with 5 kills and 5k damage was a one-shot when they met and the Conq managed to hit that 1 shot.. lol.. (we won by capping in the end).  

 

My gripe is about overall enjoyment, and facing totally unbalanced teams 5x in a row and losing just aint no fun!

 

WN8 might be feasibly provided the issues around tank balance, grinding etc. are all addressed. 

A player that physically has to grind every module in every tank could well have a far lower WN8 than one who unlocks everything before they play a game in it. Then there's how it would all fit with the tier structure of the game. 

 

Is it feasible to have an elite level tier 2 status? Maybe, as that will have all the seal clubbers in there but can you also image a unicum player wanting to start a new line. They sign in and end up waiting a long time for a battle because there's very few players at unicum level playing tier 2-3 at that time. 

 

I'm in no way against anything that makes the game better / more fun but changes suggested on here are often a lot more complex to implement than people actually realise. The issue around premium ammo is a prime example of this. 



lesliescottw #60 Posted 31 January 2019 - 12:31 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 6608 battles
  • 20
  • [TNTS] TNTS
  • Member since:
    08-06-2015

View PostBravelyRanAway, on 30 January 2019 - 08:44 PM, said:

It will never happen.....so farewell forever!

 

Oh yeah, traditional.....21626

19:45 Added after 1 minute

Perhaps he doesn't think it's fair to fight rerolls.:trollface:

 

And ?
11:33 Added after 2 minutes

View PostCeeb, on 30 January 2019 - 09:50 PM, said:

 

 

Who are you BTW ?

 

 

and who are you  yeah nobody bye now




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users