75 replies to this topic

[CheefCoach]

Players who plays more often, tend to have better skills; also all that playing is turned into specialization of the planes. Or more simple, it is my hypothesis that better players have greater chance to have specialized planes. So if specialization haven't existed, outcome would be stile the same, you just won't be able to observe number of specialized airplanes. 

[InVictuS_ShaDoW]

GonerNL, on 01 December 2020 - 01:05 PM, said:

Because I almost always lose those battles (or win when I'm on the specced side) and the specialists are all in the top scores, so they're not just specced, they're good. That's just my experience ... 

 

You answered yourself. This was mentioned by colleagues above.

You win when you fly with them because they probably pull the battle. You lose against them because they are better, not with a specialized machine ...

They implement goals, tactics and have spatial imagination in combat, look at maps, etc.

Edited by InVictuS_ShaDoW, 01 December 2020 - 02:24 PM.

[Ziptop]

apartclassic, on 01 December 2020 - 12:44 PM, said:

Specialization plays a significant part only in 1v1 engagements between two the same type planes. 

 

A battle is a series of 1v1 engagements between aircraft.

 

If one team has 3 or 6 specialized aircraft and the other team has none then each 1v1 fight that those specialized aircraft engage in is with an advantage to them. 

 

A battle with this sort of imbalance might also see Bombers and GAA which are up-armoured, faster with faster reloads being able to arrive at and flip sectors faster.

 

That specialization provides an advantage is without dispute. 

Putting all that advantage on the same team is really just obscene.

 

[Ziptop]

InVictuS_ShaDoW, on 01 December 2020 - 03:21 PM, said:

 

You answered yourself. This was mentioned by colleagues above.

You win when you fly with them because they probably pull the battle. You lose against them because they are better, not with a specialized machine ...

They implement goals, tactics and have spatial imagination in combat, look at maps, etc.

 

So we can also largely equate specialized aircraft with more experienced players also....

 

Which is also a good argument for not putting all the specialized aircraft on the same team...

[CheefCoach]

Ziptop, on 01 December 2020 - 03:36 PM, said:

 

So we can also largely equate specialized aircraft with more experienced players also....

 

Which is also a good argument for not putting all the specialized aircraft on the same team...

 

Sounds good except-> population is so low-> that adding new rules to MM would increase queue times-> that would make more battles default to play against the bots-> that would burden servers even more-> that require more servers that are to expensive for current paying population (as game don't earn enough money)-> and we are back to the page one with the arguments. 

[InVictuS_ShaDoW]

So it is about the experience of the players and their skills, not the specialized planes. I have a lot of screenshots where there are specials that cannot exceed 3k points.

[apartclassic]

Ziptop, on 01 December 2020 - 02:34 PM, said:

 

A battle is a series of 1v1 engagements between aircraft.

 

If one team has 3 or 6 specialized aircraft and the other team has none then each 1v1 fight that those specialized aircraft engage in is with an advantage to them. 

 

A battle with this sort of imbalance might also see Bombers and GAA which are up-armoured, faster with faster reloads being able to arrive at and flip sectors faster.

 

That specialization provides an advantage is without dispute. 

Putting all that advantage on the same team is really just obscene.

 

 

Yes and no. A 1v1 between a HF and a GAA is rather one-sided; a 1v1 between a Fw190 and a Spitfire is usually one-sided; you are overgeneralizing. It comes into play only in meetings between players, and as I explained above, this still is not a decided thing. It still comes down to particular choices made by players - not by their equipment. Going along with the level of generalization you are proposing, we should propose that bottom tier players are always doomed in battle - and we all know that is not the case. Your statement is a very nice quote (though I can't remember who said that), but is not true when it comes to WoWP, at least not always. Human factor will be the deciding thing, and instances of non-specced bottom tier roflstomping the other team are undoubtedly known to you as well. Following the logic of 'specialization = always an advantage' leads nowhere, because - as logical as it sounds, and as plausible as it may be as an excuse for some players - it simply can't hold true universally. Aside from particular 1v1 duels between planes, there's also the thing about specced Spitfires strafing mining plants till they crash into smokestacks, or specialized GAA trying to dogfight fighters, or specialized HF thinking they are bombers, and again it's the human factor.

In my view putting all the blame - in fact, any blame at all - on specialization is just completely missing the picture. It's simply unjustified.

[Ziptop]

CheefCoach, on 01 December 2020 - 04:27 PM, said:

 

Sounds good except-> population is so low-> that adding new rules to MM would increase queue times-> that would make more battles default to play against the bots-> that would burden servers even more-> that require more servers that are to expensive for current paying population (as game don't earn enough money)-> and we are back to the page one with the arguments. 

 

Sadly this is in fact the truth of it. 

 

The regular player base provides revenue enough only for bargain basement infrastructure (which frequently gas apart when the player base temporarily increases during popular events) 

 

It seems likely that a permanent increase in player base that would require an investment in improved infrastructure and code might be viewed as a "worst case scenario" at the executive level where they may just be waiting for this to die a natural death in order to justify pulling the plug.

[hardy9z9]

CheefCoach, on 01 December 2020 - 05:27 PM, said:

 

Sounds good except-> population is so low-> that adding new rules to MM would increase queue times-> that would make more battles default to play against the bots-> that would burden servers even more-> that require more servers that are to expensive for current paying population (as game don't earn enough money)-> and we are back to the page one with the arguments. 

 

Ziptop, on 01 December 2020 - 07:30 PM, said:

 

Sadly this is in fact the truth of it. 

 

The regular player base provides revenue enough only for bargain basement infrastructure (which frequently gas apart when the player base temporarily increases during popular events) 

 

It seems likely that a permanent increase in player base that would require an investment in improved infrastructure and code might be viewed as a "worst case scenario" at the executive level where they may just be waiting for this to die a natural death in order to justify pulling the plug.

Nevertheless, it won't take long until another angry player will write here in the forum about what exactly and very urgently and immediately needs to be changed in the MM.
I am curious to see how long it will take this time.

[RoyalFlyingCorps]

apartclassic, on 01 December 2020 - 12:19 AM, said:

Specialization is not an issue. MM disregarding specialization is not an issue.

 

As a splendid and insightful, nay, almost philosophical, player of the game your opinion is to be respected, but I think you're just flat wrong here.  Technically, you might argue specialisation is not the issue because the performance depends on the player, not the enhanced pixels and the latter can be controlled by somebody with little idea of what they're doing.  However, when people complain about specialisation it's shorthand for "all the experienced players being on one team" and that correlates highly with a team that will do well against non-specialised, probably less experienced, players.  I agree that a true skill-based MM would be difficult to implement and probably not that satisfactory, but I'm willing to bet that dividing specialised planes equally between teams would be much easier to implement and generally provide battles that were more balanced on the whole.

 

Whatever, though I don't expect ever to see such a development, I would argue for and welcome that implementation in MM.

[CheefCoach]

By searching something else, I found this article: 

 

https://worldofwarpl...atchmaker_209/#

 

 

[GonerNL]

Yeah, it's been around for some time. 

I's also on the Useful Information page : https://worldofwarpl...ng-information/ (not that's it's very useful ...)

 

[0berhessen]

The only unbalanced factor in the game is human stupidity, this fact is stated by levlos, who i met in a battle the other day.

He was in a flight Bomber/Groundattacker in the enemy team with another really good Pilot, i was in a flight with a team mate i guess it was Heavy/Fighter.

Other humans were involved in both teams, most of them fun players, attracted to the airfield, like flies to rotten dirt...

 

Seeing him on the Team list during countdown made me think: Ok another defeat.

But thanks to the completely unbalanced distribution of stupidity our team won.

 

This is completely unfair and the matchmaker should be changed.

I (and i guess levlos agrees) would like to include stupidity in the matchmaker, because only the equal distribution of stupidity on both sides ensures a fair game.

Edited by 0berhessen, Today, 06:54 AM.

[RoyalFlyingCorps]

Of course!  How could I not have seen that before?  It's not a skills-based match maker we need, it's a stupidity-based one!

[GonerNL]

0berhessen, on 08 December 2020 - 07:48 AM, said:

The only unbalanced factor in the game is human stupidity, 

 

I would like to include bot stupidity as well ...

[zen_monk_]

GonerNL, on 08 December 2020 - 09:44 AM, said:

 

I would like to include bot stupidity as well ...

No no, the human one is the king. Besides, bots don't demonstrate it on the forum too.