Jump to content


Opposing teams should have the same WG-rating in totalty


  • Please log in to reply
130 replies to this topic

PayMore #1 Posted 12 August 2019 - 08:42 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 26611 battles
  • 650
  • Member since:
    05-24-2013

Opposing teams should have the same WG-rating in totalty +/- 300 rating. Im been looking at the compesision of some teams i've been in, and i seen that some teams have alot more 10 000-20 000 wg-rating points in differance for the teams. WG should try to balance this abit more, to make the teams abit more fairer. 

 

About 5k wg rating in diffence is one more player in team id say!


Edited by PayMore, 13 August 2019 - 08:03 PM.


Balc0ra #2 Posted 12 August 2019 - 08:44 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 71585 battles
  • 20,063
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
But then people that pay more would get better games. Can't have that.

psychobear #3 Posted 12 August 2019 - 08:48 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 19564 battles
  • 2,056
  • [OMNIS] OMNIS
  • Member since:
    06-21-2012

View PostBalc0ra, on 12 August 2019 - 09:44 PM, said:

But then people that pay more would get better games. Can't have that.

 

What the hell does balancing teams by rating have to do with paying? :amazed:


Edited by psychobear, 12 August 2019 - 08:49 PM.


BlackBloodBandit #4 Posted 12 August 2019 - 08:49 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 5930 battles
  • 731
  • Member since:
    12-23-2018
WG-rating is useless anyway, so it makes no sense.

Pansenmann #5 Posted 12 August 2019 - 08:52 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 35983 battles
  • 13,620
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    08-17-2012

View Postpsychobear, on 12 August 2019 - 08:48 PM, said:

 

What the hell does balancing teams by rating have to do with paying? :amazed:

 

because when you have premium account, you dont get matched against superior teams. :hiding:



Balc0ra #6 Posted 12 August 2019 - 08:58 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 71585 battles
  • 20,063
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View Postpsychobear, on 12 August 2019 - 08:48 PM, said:

 

What the hell does balancing teams by rating have to do with paying? :amazed:

 

That was a joke... based on his past topics.

 

Joking aside, I can't think of anything worse to base teams on then WGR. And WG had said time and time again they won't do it for several reasons. Randoms are just randoms, they don't want to alienate anyone. And... they did notice how that "other" game and it's MM based on ratings worked out. 



Bigtime_Alarm #7 Posted 12 August 2019 - 09:00 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 21041 battles
  • 503
  • Member since:
    05-14-2013
I have demonstrated today that having bought a years premium account you can still lose 12 out of 13 matches, mostly to hopeless massacres. i don't know how much you have to spend to get an even break but a premium account isnt enough.

7thSyndicate #8 Posted 12 August 2019 - 09:01 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 46886 battles
  • 686
  • Member since:
    10-09-2012
Posted Image

Edited by 7thSyndicate, 12 August 2019 - 09:04 PM.


Pansenmann #9 Posted 12 August 2019 - 09:03 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 35983 battles
  • 13,620
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    08-17-2012

View PostBigtime_Alarm, on 12 August 2019 - 09:00 PM, said:

I have demonstrated today that having bought a years premium account you can still lose 12 out of 13 matches, mostly to hopeless massacres. i don't know how much you have to spend to get an even break but a premium account isnt enough.

 

well, at least

Spoiler

 

** image may not be accurate



Folau #10 Posted 12 August 2019 - 09:20 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 15491 battles
  • 2,587
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    05-19-2013
WG Rating is utter trash.

Dorander #11 Posted 12 August 2019 - 11:17 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 21025 battles
  • 5,473
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostBigtime_Alarm, on 12 August 2019 - 08:00 PM, said:

I have demonstrated today that having bought a years premium account you can still lose 12 out of 13 matches, mostly to hopeless massacres. i don't know how much you have to spend to get an even break but a premium account isnt enough.

 

Lots of people have tried this in the past and the conclusion is always the same, there's no value you can reach that makes a difference, which as patterns go is strong evidence for the fact that it doesn't exist, falsified only by the possible conceivable notion that there's a theoretical astronomical value that nobody's reached where this happens. Belief in the existence of such a value requires investment in sufficient aluminum.



fwhaatpiraat #12 Posted 12 August 2019 - 11:21 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 56687 battles
  • 1,438
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013
Great idea OP, I will buy some bot account for sure.

kubawt112 #13 Posted 12 August 2019 - 11:28 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 3378 battles
  • 588
  • [-UM] -UM
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View PostPayMore, on 12 August 2019 - 08:42 PM, said:

Opposing teams should have the same WG-rating in totalty +/- 300 rating. Im been looking at the compesision of some teams i've been in, and i seen that some teams have alot more 10 000-20 000 wg-rating points in differance for the teams. WG should try to balance this abit more, to make the teams abit more fairer. 

 

About 5k wg in diffencve is one more player in team id say!

 

Feel free to suggest why skill-based matchmaking would actually solve anything, and how on earth it would even be practical.

 

I'm open for a solid explanation, but have yet to see one. It has debatable effect, since WoT isn't a pure dueling game. It'll make matchmaking problematic, in that you'd have yet another element to consider when creating teams. What happens if there aren't enough players in a particular bracket, e.g. a really good player at T6? Does WGR, or any rating, make any sort of sense at all?

 

Even if this worked as intendedTM, you'd end up with a game where the team with the better tanks (or crew, equipment, consumables) won - or the one "getting" better RNG.

 

PS: Don't expect any sort of decent discussion to occur unless you make a slight effort. This is the forum equivalent to cud.


Edited by kubawt112, 12 August 2019 - 11:30 PM.


NekoPuffer_PPP #14 Posted 13 August 2019 - 12:01 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 33711 battles
  • 3,836
  • [VRTC] VRTC
  • Member since:
    09-13-2013

View PostBalc0ra, on 12 August 2019 - 09:58 PM, said:

Randoms are just randoms, they don't want to alienate anyone. And... they did notice how that "other" game and it's MM based on ratings worked out. 

 

Look back at what exactly OP suggested.

 

Not matching high-rated players with high-rated players or low-rated players with low-rated players.

 

He suggests matching them all together, but equally against eachother, i.e. high-rated and low-rated players vs other high-rated and low-rated players.

 

That could actually work, just balance out the teams by skill, without creating any sort of ranked system. It's ingenious.



Alukat123 #15 Posted 13 August 2019 - 12:42 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 14824 battles
  • 686
  • Member since:
    03-21-2016

View PostFolau, on 12 August 2019 - 09:20 PM, said:

WG Rating is utter trash.

 

Imo, it's better than WN8, simply because it also factors in blocked & assistance damage



Robbie_T #16 Posted 13 August 2019 - 02:08 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 19890 battles
  • 867
  • [BBMM] BBMM
  • Member since:
    07-08-2016

Just dump the 25k 43% players on a special server problem solved.

Especially during the weekends

 



Gruff_ #17 Posted 13 August 2019 - 03:45 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20154 battles
  • 831
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    09-22-2011

Weekends and past a certain time late at night random battles are pretty much unplayable there eems a huge number of 45% wr's and players that pretty much stuff the match in the first 20 seconds with their crappy deployment.  It's getting harder and harder to do anything with what you are left with and the fun factor is long gone.

 

At this stage I would welcome some pve bots to prop up my own mediocraty.

 

your sincerly mr tilted



vasilinhorulezz #18 Posted 13 August 2019 - 05:27 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 26534 battles
  • 1,847
  • Member since:
    09-26-2014
Why a good player should hindered by constant bad teams, and get punished just because he's good at the game?

Bordhaw #19 Posted 13 August 2019 - 06:21 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 14539 battles
  • 4,535
  • Member since:
    01-29-2017

View PostPayMore, on 12 August 2019 - 07:42 PM, said:

 WG should try to balance this abit more, to make the teams abit more fairer. 

 

 



25gorowins25 #20 Posted 13 August 2019 - 06:21 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 1460 battles
  • 42
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

View Postvasilinhorulezz, on 13 August 2019 - 05:27 PM, said:

Why a good player should hindered by constant bad teams, and get punished just because he's good at the game?

 

Maybe the so called good players should take their heads out of their behinds and remember not everyone plays this game for their precious stats. An easy solution to all of this would be for purple level players to give higher rewards when you damage them. Obviously there will be wails of tears from those players looking down on the rest of us mere mortals...but they say it already happens so what will change.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users