Jump to content


How unfair can you be?


  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

Steeljaw_MajT #41 Posted Jan 12 2018 - 20:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 18215 battles
  • 2,358
  • [-NHL-] -NHL-
  • Member since:
    02-02-2013
OP get rid of XVM and every team is even.  

Steeljaw_MajT #42 Posted Jan 12 2018 - 20:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 18215 battles
  • 2,358
  • [-NHL-] -NHL-
  • Member since:
    02-02-2013

View PostHITMAN19832006, on Jan 12 2018 - 10:48, said:

I have to agree with the OP. Skill or even experienced based would be better than just tank. We know the MM tracks your Win Rate and if you're above 52% then welcome to hell. You get the pleasure of ending up for as many suicide/goon squad teams until it drops below.

Not that WG remotely care a what we think btw

 

​If that is the case why are players that were above 52% win rate when I started still playing to that level?  Just because they don't listen to your tinfoil hat opinions doesn't mean anything.

Husarski #43 Posted Jan 12 2018 - 20:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 31504 battles
  • 3,961
  • Member since:
    05-13-2011
I've been in the 50+% win rate for several YEARS now. Why haven't I dropped? Is MM making exceptions for me alone?

closer733 #44 Posted Jan 12 2018 - 20:59

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 12240 battles
  • 81
  • Member since:
    11-02-2011

View Postscharnhorst310, on Jan 12 2018 - 17:15, said:

 

Except that you picked a personal, SINGLE, game as some sort of evidence of the game itself treating YOU unfairly. So you did make it about yourself, you, the awful tier 8 player with awful platoon mates. For 10k battles, unbelievable amount of hours playing... this game was trying to tell you "hey if you actually learn to play well we give you these extra rewards so you can get that new shiny tank you always wanted" but you said "nah f that, i keep pressing this battle button enough times you'll let me fail up to it" 

 

What i personally find hilarious is, bad players like you already get blessed by the current MM system. This game ensures that you will be randomly selected to be on teams capable of carrying you to wins you had no business getting. Roughly 40% of your games this mm just gives you wins, and yet you want it to be even easier... yeah totally makes sense. If there wasn't a random MM and you won and loss purely based on performance, i don't know if you'd win 10% of your games. Bad players should be on their knees thanking wg. 

 

Wow this actually makes a lot of sense. +1

Chalybos #45 Posted Jan 12 2018 - 21:37

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22499 battles
  • 904
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

Life's not fair.  Parenting 101.

 

 

 



Markd73 #46 Posted Jan 12 2018 - 22:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 29361 battles
  • 4,219
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostHITMAN19832006, on Jan 12 2018 - 16:48, said:

I have to agree with the OP. Skill or even experienced based would be better than just tank. We know the MM tracks your Win Rate and if you're above 52% then welcome to hell. You get the pleasure of ending up for as many suicide/goon squad teams until it drops below.

Not that WG remotely care a what we think btw

It does and then at 52% (not 51% nor 53% it seems) it punishes you?

 

Sounds unlikely without actual non-anecdotal evidence.



Husarski #47 Posted Jan 12 2018 - 23:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 31504 battles
  • 3,961
  • Member since:
    05-13-2011
I hit the 52% mark in 2013. How is it 5 years later, the MM secret "above 52%" hasn't taken me down yet. Went up to 58% and have held still there since 2015.

Chalybos #48 Posted Jan 13 2018 - 02:11

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22499 battles
  • 904
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

View PostHusarski, on Jan 12 2018 - 17:15, said:

I hit the 52% mark in 2013. How is it 5 years later, the MM secret "above 52%" hasn't taken me down yet. Went up to 58% and have held still there since 2015.

 

You clearly paid extra for a haxpack from WG, and got your account flagged as "Do Not Nerf W/R".  Duh ... everybody knows that ...



Mfezi #49 Posted Jan 13 2018 - 02:16

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 13441 battles
  • 221
  • Member since:
    04-05-2016

View PostChalybos, on Jan 13 2018 - 02:11, said:

 

You clearly paid extra for a haxpack from WG, and got your account flagged as "Do Not Nerf W/R".  Duh ... everybody knows that ...

 

Nice cat!.... :)

Edited by Mfezi, Jan 13 2018 - 02:17.


closer733 #50 Posted Jan 13 2018 - 03:56

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 12240 battles
  • 81
  • Member since:
    11-02-2011
 

View Postscharnhorst310, on Jan 12 2018 - 17:15, said:

Except that you picked a personal, SINGLE, game as some sort of evidence of the game itself treating YOU unfairly. So you did make it about yourself, you, the awful tier 8 player with awful platoon mates. For 10k battles, unbelievable amount of hours playing... this game was trying to tell you "hey if you actually learn to play well we give you these extra rewards so you can get that new shiny tank you always wanted" but you said "nah f that, i keep pressing this battle button enough times you'll let me fail up to it" 

 

What i personally find hilarious is, bad players like you already get blessed by the current MM system. This game ensures that you will be randomly selected to be on teams capable of carrying you to wins you had no business getting. Roughly 40% of your games this mm just gives you wins, and yet you want it to be even easier... yeah totally makes sense. If there wasn't a random MM and you won and loss purely based on performance, i don't know if you'd win 10% of your games. Bad players should be on their knees thanking wg. 

 

View PostMfezi, on Jan 12 2018 - 16:41, said:

The attached graphic illustrates just how wrong MM can get it when player skill is NOT taken into account. Not only are the sides somewhat unbalanced skill-wise, but most of the good players are in top tier tanks!.... :)

 

That post actually got me thinking about this. Since I haven't seen you suggest a fix or really anything to contradict a point, i'd figure i'd come up with a scenario.

 

So lets say that they put players into 3 pools of "skill". You got 1 where they are the below average players, their rewards for winning are cut in half for what you currently get for winning; tier level 2 are average to somewhat above get the same as now reward; and 3rd tier would get 1.5x to maybe double for rewards for winning. Now I think it would start getting tricky on determining what stats would be used to determine a players skill, but for just this simple proposal we can forget about that. Would you be in favor of something like this?


Edited by closer733, Jan 13 2018 - 03:57.


123e #51 Posted Jan 13 2018 - 04:08

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 9893 battles
  • 43
  • Member since:
    04-14-2012
Honestly just uninstall xvm, my stats were similar to yours before I uninstalled xvm. After that all my stats rose

Mfezi #52 Posted Jan 13 2018 - 14:53

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 13441 battles
  • 221
  • Member since:
    04-05-2016

View Postcloser733, on Jan 13 2018 - 03:56, said:

 

 

 

That post actually got me thinking about this. Since I haven't seen you suggest a fix or really anything to contradict a point, i'd figure i'd come up with a scenario.

 

So lets say that they put players into 3 pools of "skill". You got 1 where they are the below average players, their rewards for winning are cut in half for what you currently get for winning; tier level 2 are average to somewhat above get the same as now reward; and 3rd tier would get 1.5x to maybe double for rewards for winning. Now I think it would start getting tricky on determining what stats would be used to determine a players skill, but for just this simple proposal we can forget about that. Would you be in favor of something like this?

 

A ranking system as you describe may be an option, but it seems that two thirds of players fall into the 'potato' category which doesn't leave that many average and above average to form a viable population.

More beneficial for all concerned would be the current player mix with a MM that ensures a balanced skill level on each side.This should ensure that we have a lot more closely contested games.



LpBronco #53 Posted Jan 13 2018 - 16:11

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 38074 battles
  • 2,197
  • [TG] TG
  • Member since:
    11-19-2010

View Postscharnhorst310, on Jan 12 2018 - 12:15, said:

 

Except that you picked a personal, SINGLE, game as some sort of evidence of the game itself treating YOU unfairly. So you did make it about yourself, you, the awful tier 8 player with awful platoon mates. For 10k battles, unbelievable amount of hours playing... this game was trying to tell you "hey if you actually learn to play well we give you these extra rewards so you can get that new shiny tank you always wanted" but you said "nah f that, i keep pressing this battle button enough times you'll let me fail up to it" 

 

What i personally find hilarious is, bad players like you already get blessed by the current MM system. This game ensures that you will be randomly selected to be on teams capable of carrying you to wins you had no business getting. Roughly 40% of your games this mm just gives you wins, and yet you want it to be even easier... yeah totally makes sense. If there wasn't a random MM and you won and loss purely based on performance, i don't know if you'd win 10% of your games. Bad players should be on their knees thanking wg. 

 

It's just like with the current matchmaker. Enough cried that Wargaming took a successful system that needed minor tweaks and threw it away. Now some want to change it to CoD or Battlefield with the idea that it doesn't matter what tank you're driving that some skill ladder will make for a more interesting or compelling game, horse pucky. I will agree that a top rated player in a bottom tier tank isn't as challenged as some but the logistics of balancing tanks has almost gotten away from the devs, how would increasing the mm variables do more than fragment the player base and diminish the return from playing?

o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7 #54 Posted Jan 13 2018 - 16:37

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 423 battles
  • 417
  • [ITDED] ITDED
  • Member since:
    01-23-2015

View PostMfezi, on Jan 12 2018 - 17:41, said:

The attached graphic illustrates just how wrong MM can get it when player skill is NOT taken into account. Not only are the sides somewhat unbalanced skill-wise, but most of the good players are in top tier tanks!.... :)

 

 

i find it very unfair to any team you are on... my condolences to your teammates. if they only had a choice..

Nunya_000 #55 Posted Jan 13 2018 - 16:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 20915 battles
  • 11,233
  • [PACNW] PACNW
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

View Postcloser733, on Jan 12 2018 - 18:56, said:

 

So lets say that they put players into 3 pools of "skill". You got 1 where they are the below average players, their rewards for winning are cut in half for what you currently get for winning; tier level 2 are average to somewhat above get the same as now reward; and 3rd tier would get 1.5x to maybe double for rewards for winning. Now I think it would start getting tricky on determining what stats would be used to determine a players skill, but for just this simple proposal we can forget about that. Would you be in favor of something like this?

 

Great idea....if your plan is to kill off the player base.

 

Making the grind harder on poor players by giving them less rewards than other players will drive them off.  Then, many players from the "middle class" will replace the "lower class" players over time and will then receive less rewards themselves...frustrating them and chasing many of them off.  This is why a Caste System seldom works.



o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7 #56 Posted Jan 13 2018 - 16:43

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 423 battles
  • 417
  • [ITDED] ITDED
  • Member since:
    01-23-2015

View PostNunya_000, on Jan 13 2018 - 16:38, said:

 

Great idea....if your plan is to kill off the player base.

 

Making the grind harder on poor players by giving them less rewards than other players will drive them off.  Then, many players from the "middle class" will replace the "lower class" players over time and will then receive less rewards themselves...frustrating them and chasing many of them off.  This is why a Caste System seldom works.

 

why are you pubbies obsessed with grinding? why do you literally waste thousands of hours "grinding" just to get through hundreds of tanks you dont know how to play only to finally get another tank you will never learn how to play?

 

whats wrong with just playing tanks? where is it written one must "grind"? 



Nunya_000 #57 Posted Jan 13 2018 - 16:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 20915 battles
  • 11,233
  • [PACNW] PACNW
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

View Posto7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7, on Jan 13 2018 - 07:43, said:

 

why are you pubbies obsessed with grinding? why do you literally waste thousands of hours "grinding" just to get through hundreds of tanks you dont know how to play only to finally get another tank you will never learn how to play?

 

whats wrong with just playing tanks? where is it written one must "grind"? 

 

Some players do not like living in lower tiers.

Mfezi #58 Posted Jan 13 2018 - 17:17

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 13441 battles
  • 221
  • Member since:
    04-05-2016

View Posto7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7, on Jan 13 2018 - 16:37, said:

 

i find it very unfair to any team you are on... my condolences to your teammates. if they only had a choice..

 

I agree, unless they find another one of me for the other team to make things fair. That's what this post is all about!!!....

o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7 #59 Posted Jan 13 2018 - 19:57

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 423 battles
  • 417
  • [ITDED] ITDED
  • Member since:
    01-23-2015

View PostNunya_000, on Jan 13 2018 - 16:49, said:

 

Some players do not like living in lower tiers.

 

Avg. Tier

6.12

 



Nunya_000 #60 Posted Jan 13 2018 - 20:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 20915 battles
  • 11,233
  • [PACNW] PACNW
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

View Posto7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7, on Jan 13 2018 - 10:57, said:

 

Avg. Tier

6.12

 

 

Ain't that cute....a reroll that doesn't understand what 'average' means.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users