Long Time Player, Very Frustrated

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

5 minutes ago, Type_93 said:

Holycrap! We actually almost agree on something!

Contrary to WG staff and the WG discord culture...folks don't have to agree to be friends.

[HogHammer]

I don't really want to get into the pros or cons of KOTS allowing subs/carriers, but from my memory, KOTS did have the RTS CVs at one time, at least in the first 8 or 9 seasons.  KOTS, I think, at season nine, was then handed over to players to run, and the decision to axe CVs was after the rework.  They found out that more teams entered and had more viewers without the CVs, hence one of the reasons for excluding CVs.

Do remember that KOTS is more about strategy and teamwork, and yes, the play, from a viewer's perspective, can get boring at times.

The restrictions on ships, currently, are more about an attempt to balance as closely as possible.  The goal of KOTS today is to bring in the best of the best and have good participation and viewership.

Also held are several other tournaments, such as Masters, Clash of the Classes, and Warship Classics.  These usually have even more restrictions in place than KOTS.

Again, this is just from memory.  Perhaps with the changes in the game taking place this year, the inclusion of CVs may be discussed in the future.  I just don't know...

 

[clammboy]

10 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I do.  🙂 

That doesn't count your a CV main and a good one Lol.

[Wolfswetpaws]

4 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

CVs don't get spotting damage for ships they damage themselves.

Fine.  But I wasn't limiting my curiosity to just CV's.

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 hour ago, clammboy said:

12 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I do.  🙂 

That doesn't count your a CV main and a good one Lol.

I play all ship types.
Thanks for saying I am a "good one" as far as playing CV's goes, though.  I appreciate it.  🙂 

[SgtSpud1]

On 2/1/2024 at 6:06 PM, Guest said:

No matter how well you play, you end up losing more often than winning. It seems like the matchmaker has far more say in the outcome of the game than you do as a player. Finishing #1 on your team, getting Krakens, Confederates, High Calibers...none of it matters in the end, it's still a loss. I'm having a hard time not uninstalling a game that I generally like, but that's become far to frustrating to continue. It seems like each night after I play I'm in a worse mood than when I started, I keep thinking "tonight will be different" and it's always the same. All your efforts amount to nothing.

Been here since closed Beta and I have recently been lacking motivation to play as well, though it may be for slightly different reasons. When I do play it is with Clan mates for fun and with the knowledge that Randoms are going to be blowouts for one team or the other. So the fun that I glean from the game is derived from the interaction with my mates and the odd evenly matched nail biter. I used to be hung up on WR like most competitive folks.....no longer am I burdened with that. It should be noted that I am also the original "WHALE" and needed to have all the new shiny things.......done with that as well. Wee Gee has left me behind with the rapidity of changing content and ever more gimmicky crap.  I just can't keep up anymore.

The only advice I can give is for you to div up with friends which will give you a higher chance of making a difference ...use Discord and know that next week the game will change in your favor and you will go 10 wins and 2 losses on the night...savor those moments. (though your wins mean someone else suffering the blowouts) I find blowouts just as boring from either side.

Even the streamers seem to be getting bored as we are seeing more and more divs going middle on 2 bros for giggles or 3 man divs of OP boats for giggles......I guess what I am saying is ....find your own way to have fun.  Do you play with a clan?

Anyway, I hope you find YOUR fun. This is a great game, I've been at it a very long time I was a champion of new content in the early years but it is now coming too fast for me and each new patch lessens the viability of older tech tree ships.

Harder and harder for a guy like me to stay motivated,  good luck sir.

 

[ArIskandir]

2 hours ago, Gillhunter said:

Does that mean that KOTS is the non-thinking man's game?

Has WOWs been able to balance matches with Sub/CVs? Me thinks not.

No, that just mean KoTS and most of the participants don't find enjoyable the resulting meta and/or prefer the traditional surface only meta. It isn't a matter of balance or viability of the game mode but a matter of what they want/enjoy to play. 

A CV/Sub meta changes deeply the way to approach the game. It changes from a "Capture the Flag" objective to what's more or less an "Escort the VIP" dynamic. I would find very enjoyable to roleplay a CV Task Force (surface units being primarily support and escorts for the team CV) but most players want to play Batman, not Robin. Games are most often than not fantasies of power, playing a sidekick role doesn't fit with the expectations of many, so.... surface only is what most folks want to play and that's what they play. 

 

[Gillhunter]

3 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

No, that just mean KoTS and most of the participants don't find enjoyable the resulting meta and/or prefer the traditional surface only meta. It isn't a matter of balance or viability of the game mode but a matter of what they want/enjoy to play. 

A CV/Sub meta changes deeply the way to approach the game. It changes from a "Capture the Flag" objective to what's more or less an "Escort the VIP" dynamic. I would find very enjoyable to roleplay a CV Task Force (surface units being primarily support and escorts for the team CV) but most players want to play Batman, not Robin. Games are most often than not fantasies of power, playing a sidekick role doesn't fit with the expectations of many, so.... surface only is what most folks want to play and that's what they play. 

 

That must be the reason that CVs and Subs get so much love.

[ArIskandir]

5 minutes ago, Gillhunter said:

That must be the reason that CVs and Subs get so much love.

Well, it is understandable many players don't enjoy being a supporting character and not the protagonist. I enjoy RPing different roles so I'm OK with sometimes being the sidekick or the cannon fodder for a greater good. 

[clammboy]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I play all ship types.
Thanks for saying I am a "good one" as far as playing CV's goes, though.  I appreciate it.  🙂 

Just playing with you Mr. Wolf I know you play all ships but you play CVs and Subs very well. 

[Unlooky]

4 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

While there's no denying the game is centered on T10 for monetary purposes, I strongly disagree on T10 having the best balance and diversity. Imo that would be T8. 

In terms of balance, T10 as a whole is ridiculously overweighted on offensive power, there's no proper balance between offensive and defensive values... Meaning a T10 ship is less survivable than a T8 ship within its own environment. There's an underlaying design flaw making most ships bloated, clumsy pools of HP... Where most T8 ships are nimble enough to actually dodge and avoid damage, T10 ships are doomed to "tank" damage, this becomes a huge problem for example when trying to balance and counter CVs and Subs, "just dodge" is a thing at T8, but almost an impossibility for most ships at T10. And don't get me started on CVs and Subs... At T8 they are for the most part balanced, at T10 is where they become really ludicrous. But not just them, most T10 ships are ludicrous in some way... To call the tier "balanced" is disingenous, and if you ask me, just falling face first on the underlaying behaviorist design of the game. 

I think there's no need for addressing the Diversity claim between a tier that mostly engages against itself and a tier with a 5 tier spread of potential pairings.

TIer 8 is mediocre at best for everyone involved for a number of reasons. First, the ships are objectively less balanced than their Tier 10 counterparts. Find me a ship at tier 10 as bad tier for tier as Kansas, Hipper, or Cherbourg. With the exception of Yodo, there quite literally is none, and this isn't including other lines that I haven't bothered to grind out yet. At tier 10 everyone is at least semi viable. You can't say that about tier 8 where there are objectively god awful ships. 

Secondly, half of tier 8 is paywalled. It's hilarious to me that Tier 10 is somehow the money farm despite only selling ships for doubloons on occasion for early releases when there are more premiums than tech tree ships at Tier 8, most of which are available directly for real money purchase. I don't know about you, but as a mostly F2P player, there is nothing more frustrating than seeing a ship with an interesting playstyle and knowing you will probably never get it outside of extreme RNG or years worth of saving doubloons. Again, Tier 10 does not have this issue aside for a few exceptions, which still does not come close to the 60% of Tier 8. 

Battleships are 50/50 on whether they actually get an armored deck or 32mm that is pennable by heavy cruisers. It makes for a ridiculous gap in survivability, where you have some ships like NC and Amagi getting HE penned by everyone, and random ships 

Cruisers suffer the most at this tier since they face overmatch from accurate BBs but without any possibility of recovery outside of a select few cruisers and premiums. As someone who mostly plays cruisers, this is the main turnoff for me at this tier, every point of health lost is irrecoverable for most ships. With frequent uptiers against tier 9 and 10 cruisers, this also puts you at a roughly 20k potential HP disadvantage on top of whatever direct HP difference compared to them. On the other hand, this is the tier where you start seeing radars, and they are generally too powerful, with almost all of them being on quasi or actual stealth radars. I think a concealment nerf to bring them in line with tier 10 values would be justified, while also giving a heal (perhaps one with a lower amount of charges.) 

Destroyers are mostly relegated to hybrids or torpedo boats instead of their most consistent and impactful form, gunboats. Compare tier 8 destroyer playstyles to the pool of tier 10 destroyers, and there is no real contest. From my friends who play destroyers, apparently many Tier 8 destroyers from certain nations are also on the weaker side, but I haven't played the lines they are speaking of yet, so I will withhold judgement there. 

As a whole, I find Tier 8 to be much more frustrating since, as you mentioned, Tier 8 ships are worse at punishing mistakes than their Tier 10 counterparts, and being unable to play over half of the ships doesn't make for the most fun experience. 

 

[Unlooky]

6 hours ago, Asym said:

I'm pretty sure I did and have been discussing since Update 8.0.

The thread title is "Long Time Player, Very Frustrated".....  It is a "gotcha" and, a contradiction of intent....  KOTS is streamed for weeks and weeks as the quintessential version of this game.  Entire sales promotions center around KOTS: 'the best of the best" ad nauseam...   

Now, you evade the reality of the paradox....  What is good for the goose is good for the gander ! 

The reality is: Carriers and Subs simply would "eliminate KOTS" completely.  

The first year if and I say IF implemented, would completely destroy the Meta that resembles World of Tanks gameplay: which, is nothing more than a Bounding Overwatch; where, the overwatch ships use terrain/cover to provide fire support to the Bounding ships....(sniping). 

A very good Carrier driver in KOTS would unravel the entire meta.....  One player in One ship, at game start, would determine the gameplay.  And, if you doubt that, you simply don't understand just how important Spotting is.   Ask yourself, why we never see the "Open Ocean" map in KOTS........the answer is obvious and the conclusion Inevitable....

So we are in agreement then?

Just as CVs and Subs make regular world of warships neigh unplayable, the same applies to how they would affect KoTS?

 

I do not think anyone has ever argued otherwise. 

[Unlooky]

7 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

I enjoyed playing against Subs and CVs a lot. They offer a different experience where countering them is more "cerebral" than "mechanical", in a way they are a call back to the "thinking man's" game... Some problems can't be solved by just pushing for contact and applying "superior firepower", I find it refreshing to have situations forcing a roundabout way to its solution. 

They also produce a radical change in the meta of battles, which imo is a big positive as it introduces further variation to the game. The trick is to keep balance having both regular surface only matches and matches with Sub/CVs, which is probably the hardest part to achieve. 

Truly the cerberal counterplay, where you press the O key and hope the ship you selected in port has strong enough AA to make the CV not come back. Is this not the very definition of applying superior firepower?

Subs do have a few more mind games involved, but many ships have such a comically unfair matchup that it's just stupid. Ships like Nevsky have 0 counterplay because it doesn't get an ASW strike. Minotaur and Jinan can get hydrophoned in their smoke screens and also have 0 counterplay to pings due to a lack of ASW strike. Both have abysmal ship depth charges as well. ASW on ships does not work in World of Warships at all, and yet half the ships in the game carry shipboard ASW. In a game where differences in 1km of positioning can mean life or death, its absolutely insane to expect ships to make depth charge runs on submarines. Although, I think with some range increases and giving at minimum all cruisers an airstrike, it would be much more bearable. 

[OT2_2]

Three losses in a row this late morning and against teams which had 2 times two Unicum divisions and several hundred % more WR in general ... Those poor b#st#rds haven't got enough victories as it appears. This is getting so crazy and is happening so often now that I have a very hard time to believe in coincidence / randomness anymore. Must be randomness of the week! I almost don't dare to hit the battle button anymore, because defeat seems to be pre - programmed. "Statistically speaking, it will even out" doesn't calm me down. Haven't got the time (or patience) to wait another 5 to 20 years. Joy of game ... only for a certain group.

 

Edited February 14 by OT2_2

[Navalpride33]

13 minutes ago, OT2_2 said:

Three losses in a row this late morning and against teams which had 2 times two Unicum divisions and several hundred % more WR in general ... Those poor b#st#rds haven't got enough victories as it appears. This is getting so crazy and is happening so often now that I have a very hard time to believe in coincidence / randomness anymore. Must be randomness of the week! I almost don't dare to hit the battle button anymore, because defeat seems to be pre - programmed. "Statistically speaking, it will even out" doesn't calm me down. Haven't got the time (or patience) to wait another 5 to 20 years. Joy of game ... 

Odd... The common denominator is well you.. Usually *Statistically speaking* those who blame their team and/or take their mind out of the match from the start.. End up losing... At the same time, I've seen people give up because they're using MMM to deflate their will artificially. Their prediction was wrong.

There's no guaranteed win or loses when a "Unicum"(A completely arbitrary 3rd party term) is on your side.

Those players' you're glorifying also lose on purpose and you haven't paid attention to it (as pointed out by Jingles in his "Biggest Lost" youtube video).

Might I suggest. Instead of analyzing MMM.  Diversify and analyze your approach to the match in question. 

Random is random. That means, the overall will to win of each fleet differs every time you press the battle button. This goes on for both fleets, not just yours.

[Admiral_Karasu]

I blame the rocks, they are literally everywhere. Well, everywhere where I'm going, at least.

[OT2_2]

17 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Random is random. That means, the overall will to win of each fleet differs every time you press the battle button. This goes on for both fleets, not just yours.

Sorry, but I don't believe this anymore. When the red team combines 2 unicum divisions plus better ships, T 10 hybrid (Louisiana) additionally to a T 11 CV. Those people, unicums or whatever, are the ones, who are often coming to other people with "good" advice, because feeling superior, elite I don't know. But me and other ordinary players have the same right to experience the so called "joy of game". Being demoted to point provider isn't it! BTW, I was 3 x low tier. Another thing which isn't completely right to put it mildly. And , I don't use a MM - monitor or give up before starting. In contrary!

Edited February 14 by OT2_2

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

32 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Odd... The common denominator is well you.. Usually *Statistically speaking* those who blame their team and/or take their mind out of the match from the start.. End up losing... At the same time, I've seen people give up because they're using MMM to deflate their will artificially. Their prediction was wrong.

There's no guaranteed win or loses when a "Unicum"(A completely arbitrary 3rd party term) is on your side.

Those players' you're glorifying also lose on purpose and you haven't paid attention to it (as pointed out by Jingles in his "Biggest Lost" youtube video).

Might I suggest. Instead of analyzing MMM.  Diversify and analyze your approach to the match in question. 

Random is random. That means, the overall will to win of each fleet differs every time you press the battle button. This goes on for both fleets, not just yours.

This is true...but also assumes the MM is not being manipulated by WG...which we don't actually know for sure is equitable...

[Navalpride33]

1 minute ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

This is true...but also assumes the MM is not being manipulated by WG...which we don't actually know for sure is equitable...

I can assure you there's no manipulation of MM (other then what's public information).. WG can't there's literally hundreds of matches going on at the same time as your match.

No, WG is not manipulating MM only on your matches to only pick on you...  If there was manipulation, the numbers would reflect that, fast! So far, seeing all the data from 2017 to present... There's no documentation of any MM wrong doing.

Tier 8 and above matches are only for those who love to suffer.
I recommend go mid tiers.. Its not worth playing high tiers anymore..

 

PS

Apologies for the MMM assumption but if its not you then its the others' around you that I see daily.  That was the overall context of that txt.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

6 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

I can assure you there's no manipulation of MM (other then what's public information).. WG can't there's literally hundreds of matches going on at the same time as your match.

Show your data, please.

Otherwise, don't get annoyed about assumptions being clarified as to what we know and don't know.

[Navalpride33]

5 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Show your data, please.

Otherwise, don't get annoyed about assumptions being clarified as to what we know and don't know.

The data is in Maplesyrup. The one with all the region server population represented.

The bell curve done by many (in the previous WOWS forums) haven't deviated at all since 2017.

IF any manipulation was present, its would reflect in the numbers. No even with the inclusion of subs have WR% changed much or if at all.

So im left battling with how people "feel" instead of any concrete documentation.

[OT2_2]

11 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

I can assure you there's no manipulation of MM (other then what's public information).. WG can't there's literally hundreds of matches going on at the same time as your match.

No, WG is not manipulating MM only on your matches to only pick on you...  If there was manipulation, the numbers would reflect that, fast! So far, seeing all the data from 2017 to present... There's no documentation of any MM wrong doing.

Perhaps it's hopeless, most likely so. Then "Unicums and other profs" can soon play against each other. No more unworthy potatoes, noobs and other  "incompetents", who make the excessive dmg numbers possible. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

5 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

The data is in Maplesyrup. The one with all the region server population represented.

The bell curve done by many (in the previous WOWS forums) haven't deviated at all since 2017.

IF any manipulation was present, its would reflect in the numbers. No even with the inclusion of subs have WR% changed much or if at all.

So im left battling with how people "feel" instead of any concrete documentation.

The data on Maplesyrup is insufficient to demonstrate that WG doesn't manipulate the matchmaker.

We assume that they don't...but it's an assumption.

There are compelling reasons why WG would mess around with matchmaking and RNG, particularly when discussing player retention and triggers for purchases.

The data on Maplesyrup is primarily geared towards showing things like win-rate and average damage... parameters that don't matter to WG at all. Instead, WG is interested in how many matches a player plays...and how much money they spend.

So...all this to say, I'm done just accepting assumptions as truth without some compelling data showing that assumption is true.

We ASSUME WG is too lazy to be playing with the matchmaker. That does not mean that WG is not playing with the matchmaker, nor does it mean we can make comprehensive claims about how the matchmaker works.

[Navalpride33]

1 minute ago, OT2_2 said:

Perhaps it's hopeless, most likely so. Then "Unicums and other profs" can soon play against each other. No more unworthy potatoes, noobs and other  "incompetents", who make the excessive dmg numbers possible. 

I would like to point out... "unicum" represent only %2 of the WOWS population across all server region. That means, when you queue up and see a "unicum," MM cant find another one. We dont know when the %2 plays if they play at all.

So MM, have to do with what's available in queue. Now, %45-%55 represent the 90th percentile if the server population.

You'll have more of %55 and below matches then you would %56 and about.. Again because of the proven documentation of the server make up across all regions.

[Navalpride33]

4 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

nor does it mean we can make comprehensive claims about how the matchmaker works.

Other then whats publicly known about MM. There's no verified documentation of a MM failure.

YEs the only data available to the public is maplesyrup using the bell curve data tool.

Not even Austin have access to MM program data.