Aethervox Posted October 7 Author Posted October 7 19 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said: but if it's really down to the better of the two teams winning Yes, when both sides played well or had a chance to win. Sadly, these closer battles are less frequent (these days) which is the fault, entirely, of WG intentionally forcing faster & faster battles to happen (shorter battle times/more potential battles played & even more power-creeped/gimmick ships). Hmm, do we see 'dark shades of WoT' (over time) here? 🤨 1
YouSatInGum Posted October 7 Posted October 7 On 10/6/2024 at 5:38 PM, Wolfswetpaws said: Seems like a worthwhile idea, at least interesting enough to test. 🤔 A semi-reasonable person might think so... Ssoooooo.... that's lead to the 2 most likely explanations (or some combination).... WG is unreasonable and/or WG is not interested in improving the matchmaker. I guess they think that if 1 in 4 games can be mostly predicted then maybe that works fine for some perverse psychological mind screw for whales or something... I dunno, hard to guess what those folks are thinking anymore... 3
Mono_De_Mantequilla Posted October 8 Posted October 8 You know the matchmaker has it out for you when you take your Tier III cruiser into a Tier IV battle with just four humans per side, and all four reds are in premium ships (including a div of Arkansas-Betas!) while all four of your own are running tech tree ships. Oh yeah, one of your humans is AFK too... My first battle in HNLMS Java, with 6-pointer Karl Doorman at the helm. I now know just what he was feeling at the Battle of the Java Sea in 1942...
Boomer625 Posted October 8 Posted October 8 Similarly, I'm surprised I managed to surrive this match (although heavily damaged) - spent most of the time hiding behind a rock smoking for a DM and adding to the AA cover. One of the hildebrands was actually rping as a CV sailing next to the actual CV. 1
Aethervox Posted October 8 Author Posted October 8 1 hour ago, Mono_De_Mantequilla said: (including a div of Arkansas-Betas!) How nasty of those two old time players to stat pad. 1 hour ago, Mono_De_Mantequilla said: Oh yeah, one of your humans is AFK too... Two reasons: either the guy was genuinely AFK (somehow) or, more likely, this player just auto-surrendered (quit). 1 hour ago, Mono_De_Mantequilla said: all four reds are in premium ships As if this was random (NOT) 1 hour ago, Mono_De_Mantequilla said: You know the matchmaker has it out for you when you take your Tier III cruiser into a Tier IV battle with just four humans per side, T3s can see T3/T4 battles as (usually) not enough players play anymore at low tiers. The MM wasn't out for you (per se) for these reasons (in this part of your quote) but you admit the reasons why the MM was flawed.
Mono_De_Mantequilla Posted October 8 Posted October 8 I am on a bad streak this past month. I have had such a bad go of it, even in my favorite ships, with loss piling upon loss, that I am figuring on giving up Randoms for a while. So even in a “let’s just try out some new low tier ship” battle, to have run into such an obvious “you are not gonna win this” situation makes me ready to jump on your conspiracy bandwagon. 1
Frostbow Posted October 8 Posted October 8 21 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said: Because the game is programming. No, Wolf. World of Warships is first and foremost, a business. A profitable one, no doubt about it. At this stage of the product, programming is not even the half of the labors of it. You have Sales and Marketing that increasingly permeate each and every aspect and decision of the business, right down to the 'flavor' of the premium ships they release. That is why the sheer hesitation of WG to introduce a quality of life tweak on the long-standing issue of match making conveniently aligns well with their business practice of dangling new premium ships. These ships come with the attraction and advertised fun and potential for more victories, leading unsuspecting players to forget the fact that sooner or later the reality of a defective match making algorithm will come back to rear its ugly head again. By that time, WG will have released another shiny new pixel product for players to purchase. And the cycle repeats itself once more. So why go through all the hassle of fixing a crucial part of the game when WG can just blind players with new ships on a regular basis, ships that bring in the cash flow?
Wolfswetpaws Posted October 8 Posted October 8 9 minutes ago, Frostbow said: No, Wolf. World of Warships is first and foremost, a business. A profitable one, no doubt about it. At this stage of the product, programming is not even the half of the labors of it. You have Sales and Marketing that increasingly permeate each and every aspect and decision of the business, right down to the 'flavor' of the premium ships they release. That is why the sheer hesitation of WG to introduce a quality of life tweak on the long-standing issue of match making conveniently aligns well with their business practice of dangling new premium ships. These ships come with the attraction and advertised fun and potential for more victories, leading unsuspecting players to forget the fact that sooner or later the reality of a defective match making algorithm will come back to rear its ugly head again. By that time, WG will have released another shiny new pixel product for players to purchase. And the cycle repeats itself once more. So why go through all the hassle of fixing a crucial part of the game when WG can just blind players with new ships on a regular basis, ships that bring in the cash flow? Look @Frostbow you seem like a nice, and well-informed, guy. I feel that you and I can agree to disagree. There have been several explanations (by various forum members) for WG/WOWs' actions (or lack of action) on this matchmaking. WOWs published a "How it Works" video on matchmaking, years ago. It's still viewable on youtube. The quality of life changes that you and some others want, aren't a big deal for me. Seriously. And I think you know that. And I have the impression that you're passionate about this subject. Which is fine, in and of itself. As for the "unsuspecting players"? Well, your efforts, and the efforts of others, and those player's own experiences, are helping to educate the "unsuspecting" and change them into savvy and seasoned players. You're right about WG/WOWs being a business. So, I've a question for you. Are you, personally, going to pay WG/WOWs to make the changes that you want?
Frostbow Posted October 9 Posted October 9 17 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said: Are you, personally, going to pay WG/WOWs to make the changes that you want? Wolf, what are you trying to ask me? Please enlighten me as I have yet to see how your question relates to that well-meaning suggestion of a CC about a last-minute tweak to the matchmaking before the matchmaker sends both teams to battle.
Wolfswetpaws Posted October 9 Posted October 9 2 hours ago, Frostbow said: Wolf, what are you trying to ask me? Please enlighten me as I have yet to see how your question relates to that well-meaning suggestion of a CC about a last-minute tweak to the matchmaking before the matchmaker sends both teams to battle. The concept is simple, but rarely given any thought by most people. 1. Someone has "an idea" they'd like to see implemented by a business or a government. 2. Said "someone" voices or writes about their idea to others, possibly even the people in the business or the government of the jurisdiction. 3. The "someone" has the expecation that their idea will be so well received that others will act on it immediately at no cost to the "someone". 4. The "someone" is less-than-happy when that doesn't happen. And voices or writes about their less-than-happy feelings. 5. And etc. & etc. I had a favorite Chinese-food restaurant and got to know the owners reasonably well (as a customer, at least). Had a conversation with them, wherein they mentioned that lots of other people were more than willing to give their ideas for how the business should be run and what the owners of the business should do. But never did any of them give any money or labor to implement the ideas. They never took-on the cost or risk to pay for the idea's implementation and possible failure (and the waste of the money & labor involved). When I had an idea, that they could use adhesive magnets to turn the business cards (they were attaching to pick-up orders) into magnets, my "sales pitch" included gifting them a supply of those adhesive magnets which could be paired with the business cards they already had. Too long, didn't read? Put your money where your mouth is. 🙂 1 1
Frostbow Posted October 9 Posted October 9 24 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said: The concept is simple, but rarely given any thought by most people. You claim the concept is simple, yet why haven't you made the slightest effort to at least make it relevant to the discussion and to the topic we are discussing in this thread? And how does your claim 'rarely given any thought by most people' be of value to the discussion thread when you have not even laid the foundation of your 'concept'? 24 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said: But never did any of them give any money or labor to implement the ideas. Wait, what? Are you telling me now that I should give Wargaming my money so that they will implement the well-meaning suggestions I am merely echoing in this thread? Hahahaha! Unbelievable! 🤣 24 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said: Too long, didn't read? Put your money where your mouth is. Wolf, you have been talking about 'nobility', 'self-worth', 'peasants', all of which are totally irrelevant to the discussion about the finer aspects of matchmaking. And now you are talking about a Chinese-food restaurant, adhesive magnets, and your 'sales pitch'. Pray tell, how does that answer the long-standing issue of imbalanced teams in World of Warships? If you think your 'sales pitch' to that Chinese-food restaurant will work with Wargaming, why don't you do it yourself? You know, start by giving Wargaming your money, as a shining example to all of us who are sincerely giving them honest feedback.
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted October 9 Posted October 9 40 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said: 3. The "someone" has the expecation that their idea will be so well received that others will act on it immediately at no cost to the "someone". This is a common delusion sold by WG staff when constructive criticism is being made...WG assumes that folks believe they want their idea acted on immediately. It just isn't true, and the rest of your follow on statements are based on a flawed strawman. Folks really need to stop listening to WG Discord, as the way WG staff manipulate us really toxic to community togetherness. To make Frostbows point... I don't like watching Flamu videos...he is too over the top for me. However, his videos do do a good job of illustrating certain game issues. I am perfectly capable of tuning out the histrionics and looking at what is happening and form my own opinion. Anyone who just ignores someone because of that someone's name alone is the victim of a trolling technique known as 'poisoning the well'. 2
Wolfswetpaws Posted October 9 Posted October 9 13 minutes ago, Frostbow said: You claim the concept is simple, yet why haven't you made the slightest effort to at least make it relevant to the discussion and to the topic we are discussing in this thread? And how does your claim 'rarely given any thought by most people' be of value to the discussion thread when you have not even laid the foundation of your 'concept'? Wait, what? Are you telling me now that I should give Wargaming my money so that they will implement the well-meaning suggestions I am merely echoing in this thread? Hahahaha! Unbelievable! 🤣 Wolf, you have been talking about 'nobility', 'self-worth', 'peasants', all of which are totally irrelevant to the discussion about the finer aspects of matchmaking. And now you are talking about a Chinese-food restaurant, adhesive magnets, and your 'sales pitch'. Pray tell, how does that answer the long-standing issue of imbalanced teams in World of Warships? If you think your 'sales pitch' to that Chinese-food restaurant will work with Wargaming, why don't you do it yourself? You know, start by giving Wargaming your money, as a shining example to all of us who are sincerely giving them honest feedback. 3 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: This is a common delusion sold by WG staff when constructive criticism is being made...WG assumes that folks believe they want their idea acted on immediately. It just isn't true, and the rest of your follow on statements are based on a flawed strawman. Folks really need to stop listening to WG Discord, as the way WG staff manipulate us really toxic to community togetherness. To make Frostbows point... I don't like watching Flamu videos...he is too over the top for me. However, his videos do do a good job of illustrating certain game issues. I am perfectly capable of tuning out the histrionics and looking at what is happening and form my own opinion. Anyone who just ignores someone because of that someone's name alone is the victim of a trolling technique known as 'poisoning the well'. I remember when this add aired. I liked the shaver so much I bought the company - Remington Ad 1979 Apparently neither of you are willing or able to "buy the company". Which is a choice or a financial situation (or both) For me it is a financial situation (I don't have enough spare cash to purchase WOWs.) 🙂
Admiral_Karasu Posted October 9 Posted October 9 2 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said: I remember when this add aired. I liked the shaver so much I bought the company - Remington Ad 1979 Apparently neither of you are willing or able to "buy the company". Which is a choice or a financial situation (or both) For me it is a financial situation (I don't have enough spare cash to purchase WOWs.) 🙂 I liked that tie so much I bought one just like it. 1
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted October 9 Posted October 9 1 minute ago, Wolfswetpaws said: I remember when this add aired. I liked the shaver so much I bought the company - Remington Ad 1979 Apparently neither of you are willing or able to "buy the company". Which is a choice or a financial situation (or both) For me it is a financial situation (I don't have enough spare cash to purchase WOWs.) 🙂 Why would I want to buy WoWs? Do you actually believe I am demanding changes to the game? It sounds like you are just debating with a self-delusion and attributing those delusions as positions and feelings others are having. 1
Wolfswetpaws Posted October 9 Posted October 9 Just now, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: Do you actually believe I am demanding changes to the game? Yeah. I do. You complain enough that you are demanding by implication, at the very least. That's my take on the situation. 🙂 1
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted October 9 Posted October 9 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said: Yeah. I do. You complain enough that you are demanding by implication, at the very least. That's my take on the situation. 🙂 LOL Then you are wrong. If you persist in that delusion, you will only look more and more absurd. I've given up trying to change the game...and, if you were actually paying attention, you would notice I'm actually defending WG on this Hildebrandt issue. It's implementation is entirely in keeping with the game business model and the problem is player expectation, not WG staff messing up. You are currently a victim of poisoning the well. Better start asking serious questions to the folks who are telling you what I think and not to actually listen to what I think. Edited October 9 by Daniel_Allan_Clark 1
Wolfswetpaws Posted October 9 Posted October 9 7 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: LOL Then you are wrong. If you persist in that delusion, you will only look more and more absurd. I've given up trying to change the game...and, if you were actually paying attention, you would notice I'm actually defending WG on this Hildebrandt issue. It's implementation is entirely in keeping with the game business model and the problem is player expectation, not WG staff messing up. You are currently a victim of poisoning the well. Better start asking serious questions to the folks who are telling you what I think and not to actually listen to what I think. Your "poisoning the well" assertion apparently assumes that others cannot think for themselves well enough to decide which youtube content creators are worth or not worth giving a view? Flambass, Flamu and a few others have poisoned their own wells, as far as I am concerned. Therefore I see zero need to view their youtube channels or content. If their arguments and observations are so cogent and enlightening, then copy/pasting the relevant portions of the transcripts of their relevant video would be enough to provide the content that is worth discussing. Yes/no? 🙂
Admiral_Karasu Posted October 9 Posted October 9 7 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said: Your "poisoning the well" assertion apparently assumes that others cannot think for themselves well enough to decide which youtube content creators are worth or not worth giving a view? Flambass, Flamu and a few others have poisoned their own wells, as far as I am concerned. Therefore I see zero need to view their youtube channels or content. If their arguments and observations are so cogent and enlightening, then copy/pasting the relevant portions of the transcripts of their relevant video would be enough to provide the content that is worth discussing. Yes/no? 🙂 Actually, the way we like to see this done is that you would provide the necessary context, either the gist of what the point is, or maybe even a short transcript while also linking to your source that people can access and see it for themselves. 1 1
Wolfswetpaws Posted October 9 Posted October 9 3 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said: Actually, the way we like to see this done is that you would provide the necessary context, either the gist of what the point is, or maybe even a short transcript while also linking to your source that people can access and see it for themselves. So...? Cite source. Quote relevant words. Explain purpose of topic/discussion. And go from there? 1 1
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted October 9 Posted October 9 21 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said: Your "poisoning the well" assertion apparently assumes that others cannot think for themselves well enough to decide which youtube content creators are worth or not worth giving a view? Flambass, Flamu and a few others have poisoned their own wells, as far as I am concerned. Therefore I see zero need to view their youtube channels or content. If their arguments and observations are so cogent and enlightening, then copy/pasting the relevant portions of the transcripts of their relevant video would be enough to provide the content that is worth discussing. Yes/no? 🙂 Poisoning the well is telling people what to think about OTHER people's stuff. Flambass and Flamu video styles just aren't entertaining to me. They haven't made content I think very entertaining. That's me reviewing their offerings and deciding for myself. Poisoning the well is telling you that my view of Flamu or Flambass is the only correct one and ridiculing you and them for it. Now, if someone wants to use their content to try to illustrate a point...I might or might not decide to view it, depending on whether it's interesting to me. (Personally, I'll watch Flamu to see a specific point; but not Flambass...as there are specific things Flambass does that really tick me off) So, if you don't want to watch Flamu, that's fine. Understandable, even. Just ask if there is another illustration of the point that is in another format. 2
ArIskandir Posted October 9 Posted October 9 26 minutes ago, ency said: . In my personal web forum Can You share a link? 1
Helstrem Posted October 9 Posted October 9 (edited) On 9/2/2024 at 9:51 AM, Aethervox said: It is a CHEAT when the single Division is consistently on the other team. When you queue up solo it is automatically statistically more likely that the opposing team will have a division, or more divisions, than your team. Why? Because that team has 12 spots available and yours only has 11. Or the opposite way to look at it, using the OP's match as an example, there were 12 solo slots on his team and 9 solo slots on the opposing team for 21 total. Picking at random you'd be more likely to pick the team without a division. Works the same for team skill. If you're bad, you're more likely to be on a bad team because one slot is already taken by a bad player. It is the inverse if you are good. I say this as a player who's 10,000ish matches are 100% solo and who is only above average, 75th percentile skillwise. Edited October 9 by Helstrem 1
Wolfswetpaws Posted October 9 Posted October 9 5 hours ago, ency said: https://wows.createaforum.com/general/a-chatroom-for-isolated-members/msg1729/#msg1729 Under the link i wrote about the Canerbury Tales idea. I hope it is fine for the current forum owners here if i share a link to anoher forum, that forum there has no competition goals to this forum here. About watching Youtubers, you can obviously see something new or little bit helpful in there, like how they aim guns etc, but generally no and for me nothing nothing new. Educational would be a 2 minutes long video with title Bait smoke", or "Kamkaze method", or "Forced smoke tactics", etc. I bookmarked the site for a future visit. Thanks.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now