Jump to content


Match making


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

straquadiner #1 Posted 03 March 2017 - 07:45 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 19418 battles
  • 6
  • Member since:
    02-25-2015

 I'm not one to complain, but I noticed a bad trend.  I consider myself a top notch player, however no matter how good I do my team loses it for me, so I did a little homework and noticed the type of team I'm getting is a below level team consistantly.  So I'm stuck at 48% and no matter how well I perform I still lose, this is definitely a program issue.  I feel that the program is set up to hurt players in my situation.  I had 3800 in damage, destroyed 4 enemies and still lost.  My team was an average of 38%, the enemies was at 58% simply put I see the trend the the programmers have developed and that's not a fair scenario. So when you go to battle at around 40%, know that you will have a low level team and will lose most of the time.  This issue needs to be fixed!!!

 



BorisBaddenov #2 Posted 03 March 2017 - 07:59 PM

    World's Greatest No-Goodnik

  • Players
  • 16611 battles
  • 3,362
  • [ST2RM]
  • Member since:
    12-11-2015

View Poststraquadiner, on 03 March 2017 - 11:45 AM, said:

 I'm not one to complain, but I noticed a bad trend.  I consider myself a top notch player, however no matter how good I do my team loses it for me, so I did a little homework and noticed the type of team I'm getting is a below level team consistantly.  So I'm stuck at 48% and no matter how well I perform I still lose, this is definitely a program issue.  I feel that the program is set up to hurt players in my situation.  I had 3800 in damage, destroyed 4 enemies and still lost.  My team was an average of 38%, the enemies was at 58% simply put I see the trend the the programmers have developed and that's not a fair scenario. So when you go to battle at around 40%, know that you will have a low level team and will lose most of the time.  This issue needs to be fixed!!!

 

 

If you were a top notch player - your win rate would be well beyond 48%, which is pretty much the average win rate for all players... 48%

 

Now that we've successfully established that you are an average player, not top-notch, I suggest you rethink the complaints you have about your teams.  You get the same teams that I do, and the same teams that Top-Notch players get.

 

What is the difference between you at 48%, me at 53% and someone over 60%  -- I can tell you for sure it is NOT the teams, as the teams we all get come from the same pool of players.

 

There is only one constant in the games you play - that is you.  YOU can improve (I did).  But you must first start with the realization that you are no where near "top-notch", and it is time to focus on the fundamentals; hull-down, side-scrape, angle-armor, focus-fire, swap ammo, abuse camo etc..

 

Peace-

Boris


 

 


_UrgleMcPurfle_ #3 Posted 03 March 2017 - 08:02 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 3915 battles
  • 421
  • [COD-R]
  • Member since:
    07-19-2016
Boris is right. Definitely, uhh, not "top-notch". Your damage ratio is 0.96, which means that in a battle you aren't pulling your weight.

                                              

Google "succulent chins" and click on the first result past the pictures. I'm legit on Google. This is insane.


RoadKutter #4 Posted 03 March 2017 - 08:11 PM

    Polish Demolish

  • Players
  • 18115 battles
  • 2,021
  • [III-H]
  • Member since:
    07-08-2014

View Post_UrgleMcPurfle_, on 03 March 2017 - 12:02 PM, said:

Boris is right. Definitely, uhh, not "top-notch". Your damage ratio is 0.96, which means that in a battle you aren't pulling your weight.

Shots fired, time to make some popcorn :popcorn:


                         

If you give a man fire, he will be warm for a day. If you light a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life.

 

                

                                                                  


reluctanttheist #5 Posted 03 March 2017 - 08:29 PM

    Canuck Didactics

  • Players
  • 16716 battles
  • 3,529
  • [III-H]
  • Member since:
    01-12-2015

View Poststraquadiner, on 03 March 2017 - 11:45 AM, said:

 I'm not one to complain, but I noticed a bad trend.  I consider myself a top notch player, however no matter how good I do my team loses it for me, so I did a little homework and noticed the type of team I'm getting is a below level team consistantly.  So I'm stuck at 48% and no matter how well I perform I still lose, this is definitely a program issue.  I feel that the program is set up to hurt players in my situation.  I had 3800 in damage, destroyed 4 enemies and still lost.  My team was an average of 38%, the enemies was at 58% simply put I see the trend the the programmers have developed and that's not a fair scenario. So when you go to battle at around 40%, know that you will have a low level team and will lose most of the time.  This issue needs to be fixed!!!

 

http://www.wotbstars...&geo=NA&lng=eng

 

Right.  So you need to be fixed first.  Get damage ratio to 1.4, and your stats into the "great" range (blue, instead of red orange or green), and then you'll be able to function properly.  How?  The standard stuff...

 

  • Do damage without taking damage - limit your exposure.  Use cover to prevent taking enemy fire
  • Know where your tanks are tough and weak - the Armor Inspector app will help you with that
  • Watch the Bushka on Blitz and Anon_____wotb Youtube channels to further your knowledge

Tanks:  _X: T110E5, T110E3, FV215b(183), IS-7, Obj.140  _IX: M103, T-54  _VIII: IS-6, T34, Lowe, T-44, IS-6, IS-3D  _VII: T-43, Comet, E25, AT-15A, SU-122-44
Usually on in the evenings Pacific time.  Intake Contact for Triarii Clan (PM for details)
Watch the WoTB Users Manual Series  | Click here if you have lag  |  The best settings for your iOS device |  Check your ping with Pingplotter  | Get good: watch Bushka! | Check out tanks on Tank Compare


tankcrunch #6 Posted 03 March 2017 - 09:08 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 195 battles
  • 3,153
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011

View Poststraquadiner, on 03 March 2017 - 07:45 PM, said:

 I'm not one to complain, but I noticed a bad trend.  I consider myself a top notch player, however no matter how good I do my team loses it for me, so I did a little homework and noticed the type of team I'm getting is a below level team consistantly.  So I'm stuck at 48% and no matter how well I perform I still lose, this is definitely a program issue.  I feel that the program is set up to hurt players in my situation.  I had 3800 in damage, destroyed 4 enemies and still lost.  My team was an average of 38%, the enemies was at 58% simply put I see the trend the the programmers have developed and that's not a fair scenario. So when you go to battle at around 40%, know that you will have a low level team and will lose most of the time.  This issue needs to be fixed!!!

 

 

delicious tears.......:popcorn:

tankcrunch #7 Posted 03 March 2017 - 09:09 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 195 battles
  • 3,153
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011

MM is working as intended,comrade.



straquadiner #8 Posted 04 March 2017 - 12:20 AM

    Private

  • Players
  • 19418 battles
  • 6
  • Member since:
    02-25-2015
And before we put our 2 cents in do the math

straquadiner #9 Posted 04 March 2017 - 12:23 AM

    Private

  • Players
  • 19418 battles
  • 6
  • Member since:
    02-25-2015

Just love some of ur answers to this problem try 

Looking at ur teams percentage and ur enemies and do the math, for those who can, if you can't have mom or dad help



SpartacusDiablo #10 Posted 04 March 2017 - 12:25 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 4780 battles
  • 1,001
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-17-2014

View Poststraquadiner, on 04 March 2017 - 12:23 AM, said:

Just love some of ur answers to this problem try 

Looking at ur teams percentage and ur enemies and do the math, for those who can, if you can't have mom or dad help

This is the wrong answer.

 

You aren't carrying your weight in a match. Why would you expect your team to do something that you yourself aren't doing?


If you want to talk tanks then head on over to the Bunker.

http://thebunker.freeforums.net

​If you are always on the losing team it may be time to admit that "the team" isn't the problem...


SpartacusDiablo #11 Posted 04 March 2017 - 12:29 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 4780 battles
  • 1,001
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-17-2014
I play over 90% solo and yet have a career winrate of 55% and a 30 day winrate of 60%. If there is programming in effect to hold you back why isn't it applied to me? What am I doing that you are not? Why would WG single you out to lose more than you win but allow me to win more than I lose?

If you want to talk tanks then head on over to the Bunker.

http://thebunker.freeforums.net

​If you are always on the losing team it may be time to admit that "the team" isn't the problem...


SpartacusDiablo #12 Posted 04 March 2017 - 12:32 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 4780 battles
  • 1,001
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-17-2014
Yet another thread where my sig line is fitting...

If you want to talk tanks then head on over to the Bunker.

http://thebunker.freeforums.net

​If you are always on the losing team it may be time to admit that "the team" isn't the problem...


erovi #13 Posted 06 March 2017 - 01:57 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 19440 battles
  • 19
  • [R3ICH]
  • Member since:
    02-18-2016

Match making (MM) stinks. Those who say its ok is because they have found a way to benefit from the system. Don't get me wrong there are excellent players out there who can change the course of one battle all by themselves. But this is the exception not the rule. I've seen high winrate players who are playing at low tiers to pump up their scores, specially when they know teams are made up mostly of noobies. With high crew skills they can easily kill 4-5 tanks per game. This is how many achieve and keep high 50's and 60's% victory ratios. Check tanks stats and you can confirm this. There is also the premium tanks factor. Those who have won or bought these type of tanks have a clear advantage over the rest of us. Reluctanttheist (no harm intended just using as example) who seems to be OK with MM and who suggests you need to fix your game, has played in a T-34-85 Victory premium tank more than any other (almost 10% of his battles), having a 64% victory ratio. Two of five of his most used tanks are premiums. 

 

You can improve your victory ratio significantly if u choose to play at certain times and days of the week. For instance, I've noticed that after 10PM mon-fri,  somehow I have more wins  where as during mornings 7-10 AM I tend to lose more. Weekends are more difficult to predict but even then I have better results if I choose correctly tier and times to play. All this is posible because MM is not neutral as many suggest. If it was, your victory ratio would be a factor determined only by your level of skill and not any other factor as my experience suggests.

 

MM will be fair when WOT developers change its working to include overall victory ratio, personal rating, type of tank, crew experience, average damage per battle and number of battles. Only then we will know for certain who are the best players.



tankcrunch #14 Posted 06 March 2017 - 03:36 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 195 battles
  • 3,153
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011
ITS YOU NOT MM, therefore /thread.

erovi #15 Posted 06 March 2017 - 03:34 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 19440 battles
  • 19
  • [R3ICH]
  • Member since:
    02-18-2016

View Posttankcrunch, on 06 March 2017 - 03:36 AM, said:

ITS YOU NOT MM, therefore /thread.

 

​You don't contribute any reasonable arguments to the discussion. You have no respect for others and therefore your participation is worthless.

 

Just for the record, I´ve played over 17,000 battles. My personal record is over 3,500 which is much higher than many of those who argue that it has to do with how good a player you are and whose number or battles is below 3,000. You guys need to play more to consider yourselves "experts" on MM. 


Edited by erovi, 06 March 2017 - 03:51 PM.


SpartacusDiablo #16 Posted 06 March 2017 - 03:40 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 4780 battles
  • 1,001
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-17-2014

View Posterovi, on 06 March 2017 - 03:34 PM, said:

 

​You don't contribute any reasonable arguments to the discussion. You have no respect for others and therefore your participation is worthless. You are probably 8 years old. Grow up.

It's perfectly relevant. A good to exceptional player will overcome their obstacles more often while a mediocre to bad player will not.

 

The personal record rating is a joke. #of games played means little when compared to winrate DC/R, and WN8.


Edited by SpartacusDiablo, 06 March 2017 - 07:07 PM.

If you want to talk tanks then head on over to the Bunker.

http://thebunker.freeforums.net

​If you are always on the losing team it may be time to admit that "the team" isn't the problem...


tankcrunch #17 Posted 08 March 2017 - 02:14 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 195 battles
  • 3,153
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011

View PostRoadKutter, on 03 March 2017 - 08:11 PM, said:

Shots fired, time to make some popcorn :popcorn:

 

yup :popcorn:

View Posterovi, on 06 March 2017 - 03:34 PM, said:

 

​You don't contribute any reasonable arguments to the discussion. You have no respect for others and therefore your participation is worthless.

 

Just for the record, I´ve played over 17,000 battles. My personal record is over 3,500 which is much higher than many of those who argue that it has to do with how good a player you are and whose number or battles is below 3,000. You guys need to play more to consider yourselves "experts" on MM.

 

get lost.

Centrill #18 Posted 08 March 2017 - 05:55 AM

    Private

  • Players
  • 7767 battles
  • 3
  • [RAFE]
  • Member since:
    08-16-2016

Why doesn't Wot Blitz  require a minimum number of battles to be completed before allowing a player to move to the next Tier? In the real world we don't allow a pilot to fly a commercial 757 jetliner without first having finished training in a Cessna and spending years of experience in smaller commercial aircraft. 

 

I have 7,000 battles and often find myself lashed to the mast in Tier 5, 6, & 7 battles with players who have less than 200 battle experience. This afternoon I battled in a Tier 6 tank alongside a player in a Tier 5 heavy who had only 76 battles experience.

 

Why not require 1,000 battles of experience before allowing a player to move up to the next Tier?

 

0 to 1,000 = Tier 1

1,001 to 2,000 = Tier 2

2,001 to 3,000 = Tier 3

And so on.

 

I'm just asking why this would or would not be a good modification to the game.

 

Thanks



HyP3rN0va #19 Posted 08 March 2017 - 10:23 AM

    Private

  • Players
  • 1274 battles
  • 1
  • [REVNG]
  • Member since:
    03-25-2016

View PostCentrill, on 08 March 2017 - 12:55 AM, said:

Why doesn't Wot Blitz  require a minimum number of battles to be completed before allowing a player to move to the next Tier? In the real world we don't allow a pilot to fly a commercial 757 jetliner without first having finished training in a Cessna and spending years of experience in smaller commercial aircraft. 

 

I have 7,000 battles and often find myself lashed to the mast in Tier 5, 6, & 7 battles with players who have less than 200 battle experience. This afternoon I battled in a Tier 6 tank alongside a player in a Tier 5 heavy who had only 76 battles experience.

 

Why not require 1,000 battles of experience before allowing a player to move up to the next Tier?

 

0 to 1,000 = Tier 1

1,001 to 2,000 = Tier 2

2,001 to 3,000 = Tier 3

And so on.

 

I'm just asking why this would or would not be a good modification to the game.

 

Thanks

 

This is an incredibly dumb suggestion; why would anyone be interested in having to play 1000 battles in every tier before moving to the next one? It's a game, and people should be allowed to advance in the tech trees with their own pace, it's not a job where training is necessary. Also, if new players were forced to play the starting tiers for 3000 battles, expect a decrease in the game's population; I have 527 battles in Blitz so far, and the highest tiered tank that I have is a Tier 6; My personal opinion is that if I had to do twice as many battles in a Tier 1, I'd probably never play this game again, knowing that I wouldn't be allowed to get the tanks I wanted because someone was upset that people with 200 battles are climbing the tech tree faster than he wants them to...

Edited by HyP3rN0va, 08 March 2017 - 10:25 AM.


SpartacusDiablo #20 Posted 08 March 2017 - 10:36 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 4780 battles
  • 1,001
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-17-2014

View PostCentrill, on 08 March 2017 - 05:55 AM, said:

Why doesn't Wot Blitz  require a minimum number of battles to be completed before allowing a player to move to the next Tier? In the real world we don't allow a pilot to fly a commercial 757 jetliner without first having finished training in a Cessna and spending years of experience in smaller commercial aircraft. 

 

I have 7,000 battles and often find myself lashed to the mast in Tier 5, 6, & 7 battles with players who have less than 200 battle experience. This afternoon I battled in a Tier 6 tank alongside a player in a Tier 5 heavy who had only 76 battles experience.

 

Why not require 1,000 battles of experience before allowing a player to move up to the next Tier?

 

0 to 1,000 = Tier 1

1,001 to 2,000 = Tier 2

2,001 to 3,000 = Tier 3

And so on.

 

I'm just asking why this would or would not be a good modification to the game.

 

Thanks

This is a horrible idea. Games played is not an indicator of in game skill level. 


If you want to talk tanks then head on over to the Bunker.

http://thebunker.freeforums.net

​If you are always on the losing team it may be time to admit that "the team" isn't the problem...





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users