Jump to content


Too many unbalanced games are killing interest in WOT


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

XturbohawkX #41 Posted Mar 10 2019 - 19:45

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 24328 battles
  • 235
  • [WARHK] WARHK
  • Member since:
    02-14-2017
MM should only be 1 tier difference...MAX....there are enough players to make the que time not an issue...and frankly, I'd rather wait 90 seconds for a more balance mm than a wipe-out.
 


VooDooKobra #42 Posted Mar 10 2019 - 19:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 9052 battles
  • 4,820
  • [MOVE] MOVE
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011

View PostXturbohawkX, on Mar 10 2019 - 11:45, said:

MM should only be 1 tier difference...MAX....there are enough players to make the que time not an issue...and frankly, I'd rather wait 90 seconds for a more balance mm than a wipe-out.
 

 

then do you make pref MM tanks even tier?  how do you keep them from losing an attribute that was paid for and thus a violation of consumer laws?   and on what are you basing the idea that tighter MM would produce fewer wipeouts?  if that were the case people wouldn't be saying there are more wipeouts now than there were when the MM was +/-4.  i am not really convinced the amount has really changed over the years 

XturbohawkX #43 Posted Mar 10 2019 - 21:21

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 24328 battles
  • 235
  • [WARHK] WARHK
  • Member since:
    02-14-2017

What's wrong with same tier, even??  That "attribute" wouldn't be hurt in this case then.

 

Next issue?

 

There is only ONE reason they love MM the way it is...it frustrates and they think this means higher likelihood of spending money to upgrade.

 

Bad business move in the long run. And it's showing.

 


Goat_Rodeo #44 Posted Mar 10 2019 - 21:40

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 14681 battles
  • 1,423
  • [DHO4] DHO4
  • Member since:
    06-26-2014

Its like playing the tables in Vegas. Have rules in place where you never go more than 3 losses in a row, and if you do get a hot run of wins, never let the follow on losses bring you down below that days 50% win level. Walk away with what you walked in with at worst case. 

Today had a nice streak of 6 wins in a row followed by ridiculous losses. Serial AFKers, trolls, griefers, and old fashioned high tier weekend window lickers made sure I walked away after 3 complete steam rolls in a row. 


Edited by Goat_Rodeo, Mar 10 2019 - 21:41.


AZandEL #45 Posted Mar 10 2019 - 23:35

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 28962 battles
  • 632
  • Member since:
    09-06-2012

View PostVooDooKobra, on Mar 10 2019 - 18:59, said:

 

then do you make pref MM tanks even tier?  how do you keep them from losing an attribute that was paid for and thus a violation of consumer laws?   and on what are you basing the idea that tighter MM would produce fewer wipeouts?  if that were the case people wouldn't be saying there are more wipeouts now than there were when the MM was +/-4.  i am not really convinced the amount has really changed over the years 

 

"consumer laws" wth are you even talking about. People keep spouting that and its a myth. This is a game and when you paid your money you dont get any guarantees that the game wont change. WG is located in Cyprus not the US, Europe, or Russia.

McWiggly #46 Posted Mar 11 2019 - 04:00

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 10731 battles
  • 3
  • [EOR2] EOR2
  • Member since:
    10-05-2013

Ok so consensus in this thread is that MM needs some work. It seems that MM only takes into consideration Tank type, Tier and HP and completely ignores skill level which I think creates a pretty unbalanced situation. Skill levels can be evaluated in game most easily by Crew XP, research on the tank currently played and number of battles the player has under his or her belt so I think matching variables like Crew XP , research level on the tanks in queue and the number of battles a player has fought might help balance it somewhat. For example, entering a battle as a relative noob to the game say 5k battles or less in a stock tank because you just researched it while being matched against a team with a disproportionate number of players who have 15k battles and fully researched tanks in the same tier is a recipe for a wipe any way you look at even if there is no spread in the tiers. If the teams are selected using crew skill you automatically start to balance the disparity of actual fighting capability add in the research level and you then begin to address the differences in armament on the tanks themselves. Matching by a players individual battle records so that the number of battles played overall or perhaps just for the tank in queue would go a long way to balancing the Individual player skill level and make the game much more balanced enjoyable for all concerned. Wouldn't be perfect I understand and would take some work to implement properly but might go a long way to improving the situation as it stands.

 

Again my 2 cents...


Edited by McWiggly, Mar 11 2019 - 04:32.


VooDooKobra #47 Posted Mar 11 2019 - 04:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 9052 battles
  • 4,820
  • [MOVE] MOVE
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011

View PostAZandEL, on Mar 10 2019 - 15:35, said:

 

"consumer laws" wth are you even talking about. People keep spouting that and its a myth. This is a game and when you paid your money you dont get any guarantees that the game wont change. WG is located in Cyprus not the US, Europe, or Russia.

 

when WG nerfed the SP players in the EU used their strict consumer laws in a bid to get refunds for that tank.   that aside tightening up the MM in a way that takes away the pref MM of something that was paid for with money is bad for business and would probably see more than a share of these vehicle users leave the game.  they would have to throw these tank players something.  WG has not nerfed a tank in this game after that super pershing fiasco 

AZandEL #48 Posted Mar 11 2019 - 06:10

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 28962 battles
  • 632
  • Member since:
    09-06-2012

View PostVooDooKobra, on Mar 11 2019 - 03:59, said:

 

when WG nerfed the SP players in the EU used their strict consumer laws in a bid to get refunds for that tank.   that aside tightening up the MM in a way that takes away the pref MM of something that was paid for with money is bad for business and would probably see more than a share of these vehicle users leave the game.  they would have to throw these tank players something.  WG has not nerfed a tank in this game after that super pershing fiasco 

 

That was before WG moved itself to Cyprus. Plus we have all heard that story and I have yet to see a legit story in any news showing that they got any money back. Many of us have had tanks we put real money into simply yanked from the game entirely and replaced with some in-game rubbish. Original T-50, Aufk, Deathstar, etc on and on. WG can do whatever it wants and does so - you pay real money like you would to go watch a movie - there is no guarantee you will like it.

ixovera #49 Posted Mar 11 2019 - 12:40

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 41421 battles
  • 130
  • Member since:
    11-05-2011
My play time usually goes: 4-5 losses, 6-7 wins, 2-3 losses, 4-5 wins. They don't go win-loss-win-loss-win-loss.

I do think player skill (WG Service Record stat) is taken into account during MM--even though they don't say it is. And, I do think that the MM doesn't attempt to generate a 50/50 odds match, but rather something like 55/45 or 60/40. Most of the time, my "wins" require a lot of work (see some of my recently posted replays on WOTReplays). It's fun, sure, but rarely do I feel there is good teamwork in pub games. I agree that it shouldn't necessarily be expected since 1) it's difficult to discuss tactics through chat while being attacked, and 2) most people think their ideas are the best ideas, which makes consensus difficult.

My proposal to make this game better is: the top 3 WG Service Record players have the ability to draw on the minimap, even after they die. That way, experienced players can help others get wins in difficult situations. Limiting it to the top 3 WGSR players will also imply to the other player's they those drawing know what they are talking about--and, thus, (perhaps) take their advice.

But, then again, I've even seen decent players team damage and tk out of "frustration" rather than just playing the map with what you're given. I wouldn't want a tk'r commanding anyone. So, perhaps there should be a stipulation that the commanding player has to have not team damaged an ally in the last, say, 100 battles.

the_Deadly_Bulb #50 Posted Mar 11 2019 - 21:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 25455 battles
  • 6,054
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    03-11-2014

View PostGarandster, on Feb 20 2019 - 21:09, said:

Why does no one ever complain when they have a win streak, or that their win rate is too high, or that they are rolling the enemy team?

 

Well probably because there's more self preservation efficacy in tilting at your failures and finding someone or something besides yourself to blame.

It is funny, and predictable.



leeuniverse #51 Posted Mar 12 2019 - 00:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 36801 battles
  • 7,588
  • [LAMP] LAMP
  • Member since:
    01-30-2013

View PostXturbohawkX, on Mar 10 2019 - 11:45, said:

MM should only be 1 tier difference...MAX....there are enough players to make the que time not an issue...and frankly, I'd rather wait 90 seconds for a more balance mm than a wipe-out.

 

You can't do that to the MM...

 

A better solution is to:

- Reduce the Power Spread between Tiers in HP, Pen, Damage, Armor, have it Max 7%.

So, in other words, a 2 Tier higher tank will be max 14% more powerful than a two tier below tank of the same class.



MUMBLESRUMBLES #52 Posted Mar 20 2019 - 19:26

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 48647 battles
  • 857
  • [TAC-E] TAC-E
  • Member since:
    11-18-2013
small maps don't help a s well. I noticed on the larger maps the games tend to be more balanced, not always, yet usually. certain maps should not be seen above teir 6.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users