33 replies to this topic

[Gandalf_the_Grey]

So recently, there are some things I have noticed with matches, the players that constitute the teams, and the outcome. Now, please note that I am playing in Tier 5-7 matches. You would expect the players who have grinded to that tier to have some degree of competency, but I have learned to expect little, and instead do what I can to make up for dumb suiciders and Tigers who take 500+ damage to kill a PzIV or T-28. But that is a story for another day.

As you all know, pubs are generally no place for extreme team work or any measure of cooperation (yes comrades, I am referring to those little squeakers). But what happens is that you have a team with a Tiger and TIger P on one side, and probably the same on the other. Most of the times, these players are the top tier of the game and generally very ineffective (47% win rate). However, among the randoms that make up both teams, you have a single platoon of extremely efficient players, something like Guerillas or NUKE, or something like that. (Nothing against you guys, you guys are awesome!!)

Lets take a hypothetical with me in my Tier 5 Pz III/IV. The enemy team has a platoon with a T20 and ARL V39 or something. The most I will be able to do is to cause 700 damage if I play well, and kill a couple of useless scrubs. Guess what? There goes another defeat for me. Not to sound like a whiner, but I do hope to keep at least a 58% win ratio.

In conclusion, we see that one good platoon can screw over a whole team of selfish scrubs and squeaking platoons. Of course, the chance of ending up in consecutive battles with such experienced players is slim, and I should just get better at tanks. However, it would be nice if matchmaker took into account not only tank stats, but also player global rating, efficiency, win rate, SURVIVAL RATE DAMNIT, etc. I think that would make things much better. If you guys have any opinions, please tell me below. Thanks!

[whariwharangi]

In my experience, the only good platoon is a dead platoon.

Your scenario has low probability.

[Cybergod]

Technically it's true.


But there is only so much tard a person can counteract. It's sucks get 12 kills for the platoon and still lose.

[JamesDean]

Look up any of these good super-platoon players.  One statistic stands out.  None of them have 100% win rate.

[hahahagreatname]

if you see a platoon that you think will dominate your team TELL you teammates about it. even something as simple as a warning that they are "probably" going to be the biggest threat GET them extra attention that can potentially shutdown their efforts.   in other words. if you see a threat tell your teamates about it.

[Sgt_Kachalin]

 hahahagreatname, on Jul 03 2012 - 02:27, said:

if you see a platoon that you think will dominate your team TELL you teammates about it. even something as simple as a warning that they are "probably" going to be the biggest threat GET them extra attention that can potentially shutdown their efforts.   in other words. if you see a threat tell your teamates about it.

This.

Works surprisingly well sometime.

[Cannonitus]

If you get a platoon with people communicating and focusing fire... it can only be helpful. I typically platoon with my brother; we try to be aware of the map, aware of our enemies and focus our fire.

That being said... a good platoon can still be countered by a good/better opposing platoon.

[Grumpy_Turtle]

I once got 6 kills, my platoon-mate got 4, and my other platoon-mate got 2. We lost 15-12. This was in a tier 9 battle, we were in 8s. A good platoon does not always mean a win, just usually.

[Hirumaru]

A platoon of decent players will usually lead to higher than statistical average success. Especially when that platoon is regularly achieving at least 10 kills distributed through communication, coordination, and cooperation.

There is nothing aberrant in an assertion that a decent platoon can rig the game in their favor. A coordinated military squad is more likely to be successful than a company of uncoordinated militia.

[CarbonWard]

Think of it this way, there is an equal chance they they will also end up on your team, so it pretty much evens out in the long run.

[ElfenLied343]

It won't work that well for doing matches on global rating. Because there will be people like me who havn't played in 2 months and get back in just as good as i was 2 months ago. And a good platoon can turn a match but i have found with this game it is about 40% luck. You can have a great battle plan but if over 50% of your shots do no damage and the tank your fighting gets 90% shots to do damage your battle plan goes out the window.

[rinying]

a good platoon can take out the entire enemy team. had me and another kv WAY WAY back in like 6.8 go on a 2 man platoon in ensk. i was equipped with the 107 him the 152. we went one way, had our entire side fail except for us, and then he got tracked out in the open. i drove out, covered him, and let him fall back with me into the cover of a corner. we took out a combined 12 enemies that game. GG.

[UncleDolfie]

 Gandalf_the_Grey, on Jul 03 2012 - 02:08, said:

In conclusion, we see that one good platoon can screw over a whole team of selfish scrubs and squeaking platoons. Of course, the chance of ending up in consecutive battles with such experienced players is slim, and I should just get better at tanks. However, it would be nice if matchmaker took into account not only tank stats, but also player global rating, efficiency, win rate, SURVIVAL RATE DAMNIT, etc. I think that would make things much better. If you guys have any opinions, please tell me below. Thanks!

I know the feeling dude, hehe. I've had a night two nights ago where I know MM really hated me. Successive T9 and T10 fights but with enemy teams full of platoons from the good clans and my team with like 39-40% win E100 and IS7 (!!!). The XVM winrate at the beginning of each map showed stuff like "23%, 34%, 43%" chance of winning for most of the night.

So I thought, "Time to go back to lower tiers". Bad move. Switching back to play my M18 is not that much better either, because according to XVM mod, here's my typical team:

Uncledolfie 61% (in my M18) 1670 eff rating
another player with about 51% win and 1300 eff rating.
Rest of my team noobs (and played like noobs too)

Typical enemy team:
11 noobs
4 players with 52% and 1300 eff ratings. Some even platooned.

Guess what, I and another good player cannot carry an entire team. Lots of losses that night.

[Denman]

Get yo ass in a platoon

[SkunkButt]

Some platoons are only good because their clan holds like half the territory and get gold showered upon them, so they by nothing but gold ammo and spam it even in pubs.
Such are twinksters concerned only with winning at any and all costs... and you'll see them in their little clusters, or entire company battles stocked with them... but they deserve about as much respect as that Maus moron who trundles across the open in the first 30 seconds on campanovka.

Overall, many platoons are just a shave better than an average trio who are simply working together... because the platoon (one would hope) has comms and the others don't.

[Valkner]

A good platoon can carry the team and win.  In fact, that is what we do 90% of the time.  Here is an example of just the other day us getting all 15 of the kills.  Our team and their team was so bad that it was hilarious and sad at the same time.

Edited by Valkner, Jul 04 2012 - 00:12.

[JohnGaltCobraCommander]

Please, on a good night I can run 75-80% win rate on tier 9 mediums with a couple good players? Why? We can position our guns on any point of the map in a minute. This is without gold rounds.

[Korlee]

I lurbs my platoon of killin peeps.

[JohnGaltCobraCommander]

In reality, Korlee should be getting 90% win rates in those platoons if she was running solo. She is just generous enough to lower her winning streaks in order to help us dumb pubs along.

[Korlee]

You charmer... good luck in England.