Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
MissMeMiss

The next time you want retired/hiatus players return to your game, pay us with real money.

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

138
[HKACC]
Member
392 posts
4,597 battles

20.thumb.jpg.013ad33e8364b2692b6f08ed5a39719b.jpg

If I know this what will I'm facing when returning to this game, I won't do it, unless you pay me with real money. Where the fun in this match making ?
Ask 1.000.000 players if they became the only T6 in T8 battle. Ask if it fun. Let see if it can reach 5% respondent agree it's a fun match making.
But if majority of people hate it, then why this still exist ?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
84
Beta Tester
859 posts
892 battles

Because if you got your "precious" +1-1MM queues would be longer. They'd have to make the cut off 10min instead of 5.

No matter what someone has to be on the bottom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,541
[CLAY]
[CLAY]
Beta Tester
5,158 posts
23,929 battles
28 minutes ago, Lupis said:

Because if you got your "precious" +1-1MM queues would be longer. They'd have to make the cut off 10min instead of 5.

No matter what someone has to be on the bottom.

I'm not sure they would be longer.

I think Wargaming would have to have more servers running which would cost them.

See if this reasoning is right:

Say you are T7 - the pool you can play with is anyone queued up from T5 to T9 right?

But anyone who is T5 might be dragged down into a T4 game and T6 can be dragged into T8 and T9 dragged into T10.

If it was +/- 1 T5s would not be an option for you and neither would T9.

People queuing at your tier and +/-1 would have a smaller pool of  games they are eligible for and so more would be available to join in a +/-1 tier game with you.

But Wargaming would need to have more servers running as there would be more games running, but the people in the games would have a better experience, IMO.

I feel like I need some ven diagrams to confirm this theory.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,627
[CLAY]
Member
3,230 posts
14,185 battles
1 hour ago, MissMeMiss said:

20.thumb.jpg.013ad33e8364b2692b6f08ed5a39719b.jpg

If I know this what will I'm facing when returning to this game, I won't do it, unless you pay me with real money. Where the fun in this match making ?
Ask 1.000.000 players if they became the only T6 in T8 battle. Ask if it fun. Let see if it can reach 5% respondent agree it's a fun match making.
But if majority of people hate it, then why this still exist ?

I'm confused. At its core, WG is a company out to make money. By paying people to play their game, would that not defeat the purpose of having the game in the first place?

I would settle for bottom tier players, in cases like this where 10 enemy ships are 2 tiers higher, to be buffed.

Maybe that could be a new feature. If you are a bottom tier ship in a match with 8 or more enemy ships which are 2 tiers higher, you could be buffed with faster reload, HP regen, concealment etc... Arms Race style.

It might make it less painful.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
20 posts
8,594 battles
3 hours ago, MissMeMiss said:

20.thumb.jpg.013ad33e8364b2692b6f08ed5a39719b.jpg

If I know this what will I'm facing when returning to this game, I won't do it, unless you pay me with real money. Where the fun in this match making ?
Ask 1.000.000 players if they became the only T6 in T8 battle. Ask if it fun. Let see if it can reach 5% respondent agree it's a fun match making.
But if majority of people hate it, then why this still exist ?

Had one of these today where I was the only tier 6 in the team (in my Bayern), and it was mostly tier 8 including two tier 8 CVs as I nearly always face in a tier 6.  I swore about the MM in chat at the beginning of the game and some of my team mates actually replied "He is a pro", "it means u r pro".

WT actual F?  Oh my lordy. no, I am not pro.  But I couldn't let SuuDarr_p00p and the lads down!  I potatoed like no potato has ever potatoed before.

 

pro.jpg

no.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
138
[HKACC]
Member
392 posts
4,597 battles
1 hour ago, Grygus_Triss said:

Maybe that could be a new feature. If you are a bottom tier ship in a match with 8 or more enemy ships which are 2 tiers higher, you could be buffed with faster reload, HP regen, concealment etc... Arms Race style.

It might make it less painful.

In the past, I also address this matter. I would welcome the challenge if bottom tier get like extra +20% XP gain or something like that.

I'm getting this similar matchmaking in the last 2 weeks. I've done my best, really super try my best. It's just impossible... my mental just drained.
- My CA's HE damage are small, AP shell hardly ever penetrate.
- With CA, I get like 100 hits with only 20k damage. Or my best was like 250 hits with only around 50k.
- DD Torpedoes does low damage unless using Pan Asia deep water torpedoes and hope for sinking state.
- If CV spotted me, whether I'm using BB, CA or DD ... their damage are terrifying, I'm a fried meat already.
- My T6 BB also hardly damaging T8 BB.

Jeez this type match making really breaking my sanity. Something must be change.:Smile_ohmy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
559
[LNA]
Member
2,093 posts
15,377 battles
Just now, MissMeMiss said:

In the past, I also address this matter. I would welcome the challenge if bottom tier get like extra +20% XP gain or something like that.

I'm getting this similar matchmaking in the last 2 weeks. I've done my best, really super try my best. It's just impossible... my mental just drained.
- My CA's HE damage are small, AP shell hardly ever penetrate.
- With CA, I get like 100 hits with only 20k damage. Or my best was like 250 hits with only around 50k.
- DD Torpedoes does low damage unless using Pan Asia deep water torpedoes and hope for sinking state.
- If CV spotted me, whether I'm using BB, CA or DD ... their damage are terrifying, I'm a fried meat already.
- My T6 BB also hardly damaging T8 BB.

Jeez this type match making really breaking my sanity. Something must be change.:Smile_ohmy:

DD torps hit twice - thrice - fourth times as hard as air launched ones though. Usually you land fewer of them , but each hit really really hurt.

I have had games where a sushi eat 30 torps + from my Enterprise and still afloat...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,391
[MRI]
Member
3,792 posts
16,857 battles
2 hours ago, legionary2099 said:

I have had games where a sushi eat 30 torps + from my Enterprise and still afloat...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
834
[SMOKE]
Member
2,508 posts
18,035 battles
11 hours ago, Max_Battle said:

I'm not sure they would be longer.

I think Wargaming would have to have more servers running which would cost them.

See if this reasoning is right:

Say you are T7 - the pool you can play with is anyone queued up from T5 to T9 right?

But anyone who is T5 might be dragged down into a T4 game and T6 can be dragged into T8 and T9 dragged into T10.

If it was +/- 1 T5s would not be an option for you and neither would T9.

People queuing at your tier and +/-1 would have a smaller pool of  games they are eligible for and so more would be available to join in a +/-1 tier game with you.

But Wargaming would need to have more servers running as there would be more games running, but the people in the games would have a better experience, IMO.

I feel like I need some ven diagrams to confirm this theory.

you do not need a diagram , point taken, but I guess it does nothing to explain to whoever who need to play under-tier, especially if you are the one only on the team and especially when you are not a big gun ... so in the end ... math, stats, and numbers can only do so much .. fairness in  a game is important and placing a single ship under-tier in a game when all others bar that unfortunate single person same as you on the enemy team ; are up tier then its unduly placing unfair disadvantage to the said player ; its just a fact and when that happen ; WG had no excuse or reason to state anything ... they had programmed the MM to made a game that simply unfairly place that single ( 2 in fact ) players ..

we all know +/-1 can somewhat alleviate the situation, but another approach is that MM can made a limitation on how many up-tier / unde-tier ships on each team by placing proper min/max quantity of ships here and WG is not doing that and clearly this is easily doable

again numbers do not tell all

Edited by Mechfori

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
192
[ANZAC]
Member
522 posts
19,767 battles

WG are firmly entrenched in +/- 2 MM. World of Tanks  could use +/-1 even more than World of Warships for instance. It ain't gonna happen. Its a free to play game, and spanking players with crap MM forcing them to progress is just part of the business model.

They 'could' tweak MM to guarantee certain ratios of ship tiers in every game, but the server population is a big issue. They have messed around with this for years in WOT , usually making things a lot worse before they got slightly better. And WOT has far higher server pops than WOWS giving WG more headroom to mess things up. I mean improve things. Often the ASIA server pop is well below 2k. When you break that up into Random battles, co-op and scenario players across all the tiers, they don't have a lot of room to fiddle with the blunt instrument of the current MM setup without blowing out the game queue times.

 

Edited by j0e90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
834
[SMOKE]
Member
2,508 posts
18,035 battles
3 hours ago, j0e90 said:

WG are firmly entrenched in +/- 2 MM. World of Tanks  could use +/-2 even more than World of Warshipss for instance. It ain't gonna happen. Its a free to play game, and spanking players with crap MM forcing them to progress is just part of the business model.

They 'could' tweak MM to guarantee certain ratios of ship tiers in every game, but the server population is a big issue. They have messed around with this for years in WOT , usually making things a lot worse before they got slightly better. And WOT has far higher server pops than WOWS giving WG more headroom to mess things up. I mean improve things. Often the ASIA server pop is well below 2k. When you break that up into Random battles, co-op and scenario players across all the tiers, they don't have a lot of room to fiddle with the blunt instrument of the current MM setup without blowing out the game queue times.

 

Its like the old gaming dilemma .. you got to had a good game before people start flocking to it and made the game population grows, but you would not made a good game out of the one becuse there are not enough player population YET  ... Hmmm .... seen that too many times ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
192 posts
6,185 battles

you can grow the player pool by encouraging players who have left (perhaps uninstalled) or gone to other modes (like me) back to random

you do that by fixing MM and the other problems with the game "cough CVs" / potatoes rushing up tiers

more population = no change to que times

as long as Wargamming have the (get new player / sell them something premium / have them get all pst off and leave / rinse and repeat) mindset

nothing will improve

Edited by chicony56
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
84
Beta Tester
859 posts
892 battles
16 hours ago, Max_Battle said:

I'm not sure they would be longer.

I think Wargaming would have to have more servers running which would cost them.

See if this reasoning is right:

Say you are T7 - the pool you can play with is anyone queued up from T5 to T9 right?

But anyone who is T5 might be dragged down into a T4 game and T6 can be dragged into T8 and T9 dragged into T10.

If it was +/- 1 T5s would not be an option for you and neither would T9.

People queuing at your tier and +/-1 would have a smaller pool of  games they are eligible for and so more would be available to join in a +/-1 tier game with you.

But Wargaming would need to have more servers running as there would be more games running, but the people in the games would have a better experience, IMO.

I feel like I need some ven diagrams to confirm this theory.

So then the cost would go up. Hmm either way it's in WG court and us not knowing how much moolah they make we can't say if it'd be too expensive or not. I for one wouldn't mind a trial of your idea.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,350
[TLS]
Member
4,858 posts
21,287 battles
17 hours ago, Max_Battle said:

But Wargaming would need to have more servers running as there would be more games running, but the people in the games would have a better experience, IMO.

No. The number of servers running should be based on peak load. Server capacity should be sufficient to cater for peak hours. And there lies the fallacy of the "waiting time" argument: At peak hours, you should be able to easily find a match within your two tiers. Where waiting times really will be longer are off peak where there are not enough players. As I have said before, they have implemented so many "soft caps" that implementing one for waiting time > 2minutes to play +/- 2 MM is a non-issue.

I still call the lack of implementation: "Lazy to program" until proven otherwise.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×