Jump to content

Steeltrap

Alpha Tester
  • Content Сount

    2,150
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    486

7 Followers

About Steeltrap

  • Rank
    Voice of Reason
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

421 profile views
  1. Steeltrap

    Is there something wrong with MM?

    Just the inevitable consequence of not addressing the proportionality aspect of MM. Wrote about it in Alpha and beta, and god knows how often in WoT. WG largely doesn't care how often you're bottom tier; for all we know, they think it 'inspires' people to spend money to get to tier 9 where worst case is being middle tier. Don't expect them to change it; they've shown no history of doing so, other than changing the queue display in WoT years back to stop people getting top tier 'too often'. Funny, isn't it? You can get bottom tier 60+% of your battles and that's fine, but they have a view on what constitutes top tier 'too often'. Nice to know one can pop back to the forum just for lols ever 6 months and know MM will remain a topic.
  2. Steeltrap

    Everyone on this goddamn server is such a coward

    WoT was supposed to introduce a system for rewarding 'damage sponge' behaviour. They dumped it presumably because it would have some effect on their economy or (possibly) game play, and when I say economy I include the amount of exp earned. Of course one also has to factor in the capacity to exploit, given their are groups of people known to cheat blatantly. As far back as Alpha I know we kicked around ideas like CONTRACTING circles where, were you outside of them, you'd start to LOSE health or exp/cr; i.e. eventually everyone gets squeezed into a fight. Doesn't mean you couldn't 'camp/snipe' at the statm, but sooner or later you won't be able to. Other ideas revolve around the economy. If you wanted to increase the intensity of combat and people's willingness to engage, the obvious thing to do would be make the repair costs scale with the time at which you suffered the damage but allow it to be mitigated to a degree by damage done. In some sense that's what happens now (you do damage you earn cr, you take damage you get a repair bill) but what ISN'T done is any kind of 'encouragement' to do/take damage within the context of a 20 minute game. At its extreme, double the repair costs for every point of damage taken within a 5 minute period; 5,000 damage taken in the period 16-20 minutes will cost you 4 times what that damage would cost taken in 0-5 minutes. Can pretty much promise THAT would get people pushing. But then you have to ask if all ships are equally capable of pushing (I'd imagine German BBs would suddenly be very popular) AND if turning the game into a YOLO slugfest would necessarily make for a better game playing experience. Regardless, hardly a surprise to find this thread here after months away (and one on CV balance, lol). Cheers
  3. Steeltrap

    Why is War Gaming so bad at balancing aircraft carriers

    Struggling to balance CVs in the game? Wish we'd seen that coming.
  4. Steeltrap

    MatchMaker - A Novel Idea

    Entirely agree about wishing stats were better and available, but they'll never make that sort of stuff public for a host of understandable reasons (even if I don't agree with some of them, lol).
  5. Steeltrap

    MatchMaker - A Novel Idea

    Indulge me for a moment. Where did I say "everyone was bottom tiered most of the time"? I didn't. Secondly, it's NOT a binary system. Take this scenario: Team A has: 5 x tier 8 5 x tier 7 2 x tier 6. Team B has: 4 x tier 8 7 x tier 7 1 x tier 6. So, how many are playing as top tier? 9 How many are playing as bottom tier? 3 How binary does that look to you? Have you ever seen such a roster? I have. My point is, and always has been, that people ought not to be bottom tier more than they are top tier in the playing life of a vessel over a reasonable period of games. That is entirely possible at the moment, and I contend it would make for a 'fairer' and 'better' system were it not. Is that a terrible thing? Apparently. Secondly, don't call me a liar. It's entirely unnecessary, and if you stoop to personal abuse of that kind it does nothing to further your argument, and is against the forum rules (not that I'm about to report it). I'm delighted to hear you're a student. I work as a business consultant on process/control design and improvement, and have done so for 15+ years in many of the largest financial institutions in this country. I'm delighted to hear you're studying, but if you think that means you're inherently correct or I'll defer to you on those grounds you're mistaken. Besides which, where did I "bash" WG? All I said was that their MM system could be better. You claimed you didn't care, but your further behaviour opens that to question. Is this forum so lame people can't have a discussion over MM and how it might be improved without others getting upset and bringing out personal abuse? Sad. Cheers
  6. Steeltrap

    MatchMaker - A Novel Idea

    Hence my comments on the misapplication of 'anecdotal'. My premise is the best solution IMO is that it DOES manage distribution, and accepting anything less is poor. Cheers, g'night.
  7. Steeltrap

    MatchMaker - A Novel Idea

    If you're saying my assertion that MM doesn't handle the distribution aspects as I claimed is false despite evidence to the contrary (I said I could only find the last WoT ones, but I had WoWS in the past), by definition you're saying your default position is it does. Reading without comprehension is rather pointless. Anyway, 2320 here and I'm going to bed. Cheers
  8. Steeltrap

    How can u enjoy this cowardice meta

    No excuse for not giving someone who does your job for you (i.e. identifying cheats/griefers) the courtesy of a meaningful reply. By all means put limits all over it ("if you go brag about this on the forum you'll be banned for a month") but not telling what was done is poor from a whole load of customer interaction perspectives. It certainly might be expected to discourage repeat efforts, doubly so when the replay system still isn't standard (did they fix that, or do you have to stuff around as you did in the past?),
  9. Steeltrap

    MatchMaker - A Novel Idea

    I ignored B simply because all experience points to the fact WG will never do it. Given it does generate some hostility for some players, if they won't do it then the least they CAN do is make sure you don't get hosed in a particular ship or tier absolutely any more than the basic eligibility of battles suggests you ought to. Hence proposing A as a partial limitation of the aggravation caused to those who don't like that they don't have (and probably never will have) a way of avoiding B (other than co-op which gives pants returns). Incidentally, isn't saying "everyone ought to view B as a challenge" limiting? ;-p
  10. Steeltrap

    MatchMaker - A Novel Idea

    So you believe MM provides balanced distribution of battles from the available ones both at a 'total tier' AND 'ship within tier' level? Pity you didn't say simply that. Not sure why you think it does, especially when you've got no data to support it (and WG has never says it does, which I'd certainly do if I were they), but whatever.
  11. Steeltrap

    MatchMaker - A Novel Idea

    See? I pop in for a few minutes and it's immediately more entertaining and interesting. Such ingrates.
  12. Steeltrap

    MatchMaker - A Novel Idea

    Predominantly A. Having said that, one might suggest if it doesn't matter what position you occupy in a roster then the distribution of said positions isn't going to bother anyone. I've not read the experience/cr calculation method, and that has a big impact on potential for benefit/detriment of being higher/lower tier. That is further weighted by how accessible it is; if bottom tier earns more experience for damaging higher tier, as it does in WoT for example, that's largely irrelevant if the bottom tier rarely does so. It is true that, to some extent, being bottom tier isn't quite as punishing as WoT, but there's always 'stock ship' syndrome and some particular individual stinkers with respect to competing v higher tiers. There's also the psychological noise in that some will get annoyed seeing themselves at the bottom "all the time" (funnily enough, that was particularly true of low tiers v CVs back in the day; I got a lot of ugly language thrown my way for discussing that, which makes me kind of amused to learn CVs are near extinct as that's kind of what I warned the CV fans would happen when WG finally nailed them). To do it justice you kind of need to track data. I won't mention any more WoT, but we know that being middle tier gave generally the potential best exp while being top gave the most reliable, and bottom generally the worst of both. Hence my less than sterling view of WG taking steps to stop being top "too often" but doing nothing about being bottom a whole heap. I suspect most people don't really care either way. And if they're particularly enthusiastic about the game, they'll produce some fairly hysterical replies to perfectly reasonable commentary. By all means look into it if it interests you. Don't expect WG ever to care/listen, however. Cheers
  13. Steeltrap

    MatchMaker - A Novel Idea

    Sorry, it wasn't clear to me you had a point other than obsessing about (and misusing) the term 'anecdotal'. So if I play the game more, how is it you think that will help me to form a better opinion about the two aspects of MM I was questioning? Were I to gather more data, presumably you'd label it as 'anecdotal'. Also, am waiting to see what evidence you're gathering to suggest MM does operate well both at a tier AND for individual vessels within that tier. I suspect I'll be waiting a while. In fact, given you've no evidence at all, past or current, for ANY of WG's MM systems, on what are you basing your opinions of this MM? The vibe of the thing?
  14. Steeltrap

    I'm back! What has changed?

    If I was playing a CA, I simply used to announce I wasn't going to make myself a target instead of the BBs. So I hung around with/behind them. Sure you lost when your BBs couldn't hit jack and your DDs failed, but that more or less made it a case of which side was luckier to have the more skilled team generally. One of the reasons I left. I like a competitive game to be played competitively and well (hardly a surprise I'd have thought, yet apparently it is to some), not to be forced to play at a poor level because one required piece of the puzzle chose to make itself useless.
  15. Steeltrap

    How can u enjoy this cowardice meta

    Funny thing is WoT (and probably WoWS) in Russia has a forum thread devoted solely to what constitutes "naming and shaming" here. They list AND NAME bans/sanctions. Report someone here, even with video evidence, and you never know if anything was done with it. One of many reasons I stopped bothering with that. And, yes, I quit because I simply got sick of the playing environment as much as anything and recognised IT would never change.
×