Jump to content


Vote: A unique approach to the "MM Crisis" for new players


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
177 replies to this topic

Poll: Matchmaking System (136 members have cast votes)

Do you think the current matchmaker is fine/fair?

  1. Yes. (34 votes [25.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 25.00%

  2. No. (53 votes [38.97%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 38.97%

  3. Yes, with exception of Tier 2's shouldn't see Tier 4's (unless flighted with 3+) (49 votes [36.03%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 36.03%

Vote Hide poll

SkywhaleExpress #1 Posted 16 July 2013 - 03:26 AM

    noob leader

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 4 battles
  • 10,731
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    09-09-2012
Okay guys,

Here is my take on the Matchmaking system for World of Warplanes, as it stands in the current update.. careful, it's a TL:DR thread, and will have a short explanation of the ideas at the end :





"New Player Frustrations"

To start off, let me give you a brief history on my beginnings in the game, back in September 2012... I came onto the forums, so frustrated about the BnZ capabilities of Tier 3 aircraft, while trying to fly my Tier 1's until I had enough experience with the game's flight mechanics....

1. I came over with a few refugees from Star Wars Galaxies.. having been closed down since Dec. 15, 2011.. We hadn't found a decent flight simulation game that was multiplayer, online already, and fun to play. Then we found WoWP Closed Beta. We all got invited roughly within 2 days of our applications.. I guess we were lucky.

2. I was experienced in aviation games of all sorts, starting way back with Star Wars X-Wing.. some of the Jane's/MS sims, and F-15 Strike Eagle [hought it was a Jane's game.. but not on their list, and it's actually Mircroprose] , F-16 Fighting Falcon, and Falcon 3.0 for the ole Leading Edge ™ 486dx33 system we had.....  they were not as well adaptable to new and different flight models as I was...

3. My guys were constantly getting BnZ'd and not understanding how it was happening. Trying to be understanding, I tried to explain it.. but it kept happening. So, I figured it must be the fact that tier 3's are getting in with 1's and 2's..  while 2's could handle it decently, 1's couldn't always evade the BnZ.

4.. I was quickly negged and chastised for making such a ridiculous claim that tier 3's shouldn't be I with 1's... I licked my wounds and kept teaching my guys how to respond to BnZ tactics... something they hadn't had to deal with in the 7~ years of Star Wars flight...


Anyhow.. off of the history lesson.. showing how I am very sympathetic to your guys' cause.. especially to the new players.




What happened to tier 3's?

So, we come to the question of what happened to the tier 3's in tier 1 battles... where did they go? Well, apparently (though many believe it doesn't happen), the developers here at WG'ing did/do listen to us... especially to those new to flight games and/or this game's mechanics...

Tier 1's now only face Tier 2's. Problem and 90% of the threads/posts on unfairness to new players had ceased... until recently..





Problems with Tier 2's and the new player?

Ah.. the fun and exciting entrance of new players up to and after E3 Week... so awesome to see more than 500+/- players online at one time... so many fresh noobs to stomp  er- pilots to train... well, those that stuck around. Many came over from WoT, just to get all the E3 event gold in WoT accounts. I see no real harm in this, except all the back and forth WoT vs. WoWP players bashing each other.. it ended quickly... anyways... we saw one thing come of this.. then again when OBT came on July 2nd... not so fun!!!!  ????

err.. but the forums were once again lit up with matchmaking horror stories and gripe-fests. It wasn't so fun for the new player.. everyone who is frustrated with team lawn darts,, air darts.. matchmakers.. etc.. the biggest issue of all being the last one.. matchmaker!!!

What? But.. but.. but, we CBT playtests had already submitted enough data for the developers to end the horrors of 19vs 15 matches where the extra 4 would load in on top of another plane.. or inside them.. ooh the inside part was bad for both people!!! And, we'd also gotten rid of the high tiers showing up in low tier matches, even unflighted. We're talking a random tier 10 popping into a 2/3/4 match... Let alone, tier 3's being able to flight the 10's up and send them into a low tier match..  the reverse of which is "okay" but "do at your own risk"...

Yes... there was/is a major issue being reported almost daily by the WoT/E3 and OBT newcomers... and that's the matchmaking system quote unquote "unfairly" places low tiered (2) players up against tier 3's and 4's... and even all the way up to "6's vs. 8's????" topics..








Is there a solution to this dilemma?

Well, guys.. I'm here to tell (remind) those of you who believe that us "veterans" and "elitists" want to continue the status quo.. you're wrong. There are several of us in LIGS alone (just one clan, folks) who support the new players' cause. Yep, that's right.. we care about the new players. We've been offering to teach new players the ropes since CBT was still in the first half... and we also care how you guys feel about the tier matchups.


So, I believe, whatever we end up having done to the matchmaker, that we must all come to a "compromise" of sorts.. and then all of us can essentially "sign" a quote unquote "petition," or in this case, a vote.. on what to do with the matchmaker.. and send it along to the developers. We even have such a great middleman group, so to say.. and that's the fellas that watch and read or posts and submit our concerns upward: Mugsy_, hathore, and whomever else might be behind getting us heard....

They DO send our concerns upward.. so let's all agree to disagree on a few things.. come up with a compromise, and then submit a plan that can be voted on, and submitted to the developers, shall we?







Alex's Initial Plan

So, since I'm the OP of the thread.. allow me to submit my initial proposal on the MM issue:

1. Similar to how we have tiers 1 and 2 facing off, with no 3's involved.. I believe that Tier 2 vs. 3. should also become an equal matchup. Why? Well, because it takes 1-5 battles to get into tier 2, per tech tree.. depending on XP earned.

2. By default, tier 3's (which takes roughly 3-7 battles for average/above avg. players to get to) will end up facing against Tier 2's in a 2 vs. 3 scenario.

3. Many of the people I've seen, new players including... have actually stated they like the challenge, just not at tier 2.. of the 2 tier spread: For the sake of argument.. let's just consider a spread to be the difference between the lowest and highest number, and then move on.....

And so, many of us feel that, at tier 3, a player ought to have a decent understanding of the concept and flight mechanics of the game... and therefore should be the starting point of matching up at the current tier spreading.

Basically, 3's vs. 2's, but also can have 3-5 battles as is currently.

4. Beyond tier 3, the normal matchups are allotted to the players as they currently are.


So, in short:  1 vs. 2, 2vs. 3, 3 vs. 2, 3 vs. 4 and 5, 4 vs. 3/5 or 5/6, 5's vs. 3/4 or 4/6 or 6/7, 6 vs. 4/5 or 5/7 or 7/8, 7 vs. 5/6 or 6/8 or 8/9, 8 vs. 6/7 or 7/9 or 9/10. 9 vs. 7/8 or 8/10, and 10 always vs. 8/9.








Other peoples' suggestions

We know we have some other suggestions, like the following I've seen (and please correct/go into further detail, those who authored them) not authored by myself:

1. I saw someone (WulfNose?) mention introducing a Flex Tier system, where players can select any of the following:

Never face two tiers higher, never face 1 tier higher, never face jets.. etc..

However feasible this is, we cannot know, unless a WG'ing personnel officially inform us it isn't. I'm assuming that's a major coding overhaul, and therefor likely infeasible for the financial/timetables they have to work with...


2. I've seen someone (Caemon/Draconis?) suggest just a simple reduction in spread to either: 1 tier spread (4's with 5s, 5's with 6's. etc.) or just keep the fights all the same tier vs. the same tier...

3. I've seen many suggest that the current system is just fine.


So, let's first vote whether we should even look into changing the MM at all... and also use this thread to have a (civil please? I will try and ask some red names to watch this closely for insults/personal attacks/flame baiting.. and if it needs closing, then someone else can write up a thread as in depth, or less.. than this one..) constructive discussion/argumentation on how to handle the Matchmaking system...


Vote questions are:

Do you feel the current matchmaking system, in its' entirety is fair?

Yes/No/Yes, in exception of tier 2's shouldn't face 4's  will all be the possible choices for the first vote.

Edited by AlexVandross, 16 July 2013 - 10:55 AM.


Air Raid 8 Champions - BrushFyre

MIA - pappabear


slipweasel #2 Posted 16 July 2013 - 03:41 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 37 battles
  • 175
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
I have to believe that when the game opens full, the amount of live players should increase to a point where MM has access to # of player per tier to do more close tier battles like this. Honestly I kinda like the tier spread right now. You get a chance to see how higher tier planes perform. Challenging matches increase the learning curve,(for me anyway). With no real penalty at the moment because they will wipe the data on full release. I will take this time and soak up all the free practice I can get. I say please Challenge me now, so when full game release comes I will feel ready.

G2Wolf #3 Posted 16 July 2013 - 03:45 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 179
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostG2Wolf, on 10 July 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

11 pages of posts... ain't nobody got time for that.
As someone fairly new (only started a week before open beta and have maybe 300 battles total?),at first I thought I was fine with it because I didn't seem to have a problem with it, but the more I've played the more I think the spread is a bit out of wack, especially with tier2-4. People in tier2 planes usually still are just trying to get a hang of the game, and are just happy to not be in a tier1, but then they get slapped against much more experienced players in planes that are much superior to theirs. I only have a few hundred games and any time I end up in a tier2-4 games as a tier4, it's just embarrassing. It's not even fun to pretty much be shooting fish in a barrel with the difference in planes and the difference in skill. As someone said on the previous page, biplane vs cannons is just.

The tier spreads definitely need to be reworked to something more reasonable, maybe something like:
Tier I: 1-2
Tier II: 1-2, 2-3
Tier III:  2-3, 3-4
Tier IV: 3-4, 4-5 (two tier spread might be able to just start here though instead of tierV, so it'd be 4-6)
Tier V: 4-5, 5-7
Tier VI: 5-7, 6-8
beyond that it can probably stay a tier2 spread but since I've never gone beyond flying a tier6 plane for more than a few battles, I can't say for sure.

New players really need much more of a safety net than just tier1 vs tier2. It only takes what, 5 games, to blitz your way into a tier2 plane (which a lot of people will want to do because being in a slow bi-plane with peashooters sucks)? They're still learning the ropes and being forced against planes that melt them just by looking at them will not help them learn the game nor want to stick with the game.
And to add on to what I said in this post in another thread ^, Tier2s really don't seem to stand a chance against most Tier4 planes. There's what, one t2 plane that has any kind of reasonable chance of shooting down a t4 from full health? It requires sitting on their tail putting bullets in them for something like 30 seconds straight to get a kill, if someone else doesn't come along to take you out first or the t4 starts to get away.
Tier3 vs Tier5 is a bit better than T2vT4, but Tier3 is so easily reached by new players that it might be better to just limit them to going against Tier4 at most.

View PostAlexVandross, on 16 July 2013 - 03:26 AM, said:

And so, many of us feel that, at tier 3, a player ought to have a decent understanding of the concept and flight mechanics of the game... and therefore should be the starting point of matching up at the current tier spreading.
Basically, 3's vs. 2's, but also can have 3-5 battles as is currently.
Yea there's a lot of people that feel that, but the reality is that most players getting into tier3 still aren't close to having a decent understanding on flying and basic tactics. By Tier3, they probably have finally got the controls down and are able to shoot down a plane, but for any kind of remotely advanced tactics, they're still not going to know. Tier3 is also where you really start seeing differences in the four types of planes too, which is more information that new players need to learn.

Also, most players do not come to the forums to learn tactics. Most players do not come to the forums at all. Don't have the matchmaker set a certain way just because you guys think every single new player will listen to how they should stay in tier1 for 40 or so battles before moving up, or read about how to fly a GA the proper way. There is not a single game in the world that has more than 10% of it's playerbase visiting their forums. I'd even bet on it being less than 1% in almost any game. If the information is not in a tutorial or video ingame, the way most new players are going to learn it is by repeatedly going through battles until they happen to discover something and it works. Don't assume that every new player to come to this game has read your guides on the forums on how to play.

bearrick #4 Posted 16 July 2013 - 04:04 AM

    Community Helper

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 2,100
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    08-12-2012

View PostAlexVandross, on 16 July 2013 - 03:38 AM, said:

Another quick thought that just popped out in my head...

What if.. now, don't be angry, just read and then say yay or nay, and why yay or nay...

But, what if we asked them to give a more in depth (teaching basic maneuvers and avoidance.. anti-lawn darting classes, etc..) within the game's initial training.. And they make you do the training missions (maybe 3-5 or more missions, which increase in bot difficulty).. and then what if they restrict ALL players upon release.. to fly a minimum of 5, or 10, or xx number of battles in each tier, before moving up to the next tier.. This would ensure people don't rush up the ladder before they're ready to move on.

This is likely a not the best solution, but it helps people to learn, thus lowering the learning curve a bit... meh.. /discuss.. and  :popcorn:  :hiding:

I would say yay to the tutorials and nay to the tier battle count restriction.

The tutorials are definitely necessary to demonstrate key maneuvers that can be used offensively and defensively that some players may simply not be aware of.

Even with the proposed tier changes you have, very many battles are different because of modules, player familiarity, team makeup, and even the selected map.  There are so many incalculable variables that I wouldn't support restricting someone from tiering up just because they don't have enough "experience" in their current tier as the next tier could be very different for them.

401shield.png 401st Bomb Group STICKER US ARMY AIR CORPS 615th Bomb Squadron.jpg 615th Bombardment Squadron


"What kind of a war is this?" - 2nd Lt. Ken Powell



Ground Assault Specialist and TSh-3 master


Heibges #5 Posted 16 July 2013 - 04:16 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Alpha tester
  • 65 battles
  • 1,738
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
I definitely think they need to do something to make the game more accessible to new players, as in players who have not played flight sims/shooters before.  Everyone playing in the Alpha/Betas is most likely a fan of flight games to some degree, so the average player at Launch will be much more unpolished than those playing so far.

Right now there are 1300 logged on, whereas in WoT there would be 16,000 to 19,000 every night during the North American Open Beta.

I honestly think the Tier 1 should only be with Tier 1.  The learning curve is that steep in regards to tactics for new players.

The 2's with 3's only is a good idea because after they feel comfortable with Tier 1, they can ease into the competition a little bit at a time.

If they leave it like it is there will be the same number of folks playing at launch as there has been for 2  years.   If someone who has never played a flying game loads it up and has a bad couple of games due to getting totally owned they will quit and never play again.  If it is like WoT at launch, there will be a time soon after where there are way more Tier 2's than Tier 1's so you rarely get into a pure Tier 1 game.  Vets will ditch their Tier 1's and use they Tier's 2's to school lowbies in these games.

Let people see the fun in Tier 1, then they will be more motivated for the long grind.

WG has to have more confidence in themselves that their games are really fun, and that each Tier offers a fun and unique gameplay experience.  I don't "level up" because I want to somehow beat the matchmaker and always be the top tier plane, but because I like having and flying all the planes.
"If the Healer gets killed it's the Tank's fault.  If the Tank gets killed it's the Healer's fault.  If the DPS get killed it's their own fault." - various
 

G2Wolf #6 Posted 16 July 2013 - 04:29 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 179
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostAlexVandross, on 16 July 2013 - 03:38 AM, said:

Another quick thought that just popped out in my head...

What if.. now, don't be angry, just read and then say yay or nay, and why yay or nay...

But, what if we asked them to give a more in depth (teaching basic maneuvers and avoidance.. anti-lawn darting classes, etc..) within the game's initial training.. And they make you do the training missions (maybe 3-5 or more missions, which increase in bot difficulty).. and then what if they restrict ALL players upon release.. to fly a minimum of 5, or 10, or xx number of battles in each tier, before moving up to the next tier.. This would ensure people don't rush up the ladder before they're ready to move on.

This is likely a not the best solution, but it helps people to learn, thus lowering the learning curve a bit... meh.. /discuss.. and  :popcorn:  :hiding:
The better way to do this would be to adjust the XP values for moving up in each tier, so that you have to take more than 2 battles to get to tier2, and so on. It'd be terrible for them to just implement "you must play 50 games in tier3 to get into tier4" mechanic or something silly like that.

WulfNose #7 Posted 16 July 2013 - 12:18 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Community Ace
  • 570 battles
  • 2,315
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Alex, you have stated my suggestion as to a Flex MM well, and so no need to repeat that in my post. As a software engineer, I favor more generalized designs over special cases. It seems to me that to allow a player to select their challenge level (as to how many tiers they face), is not only great player relations, but is a generalized solution. While our discourse on what I term the WTFMM has focused primarily on p v p, there are other problems. If you are low tier in a 3 tier game, you face stronger TG's, stronger AA, tougher targets, your bombs / rockets become ineffective, and faster planes above you eat up all the gt's. Much of the opposition to a Flex MM from experienced players (which opposition I have termed the Seal Club), is based on how well THEY have done in-game. Yes, I get that there are outstanding players. I saved my screen shot of a 2 gt 8 a to a kill in my F2F, too, but know there are players with complete wipes. IRRELEVANT! I am advocating for the new or casual player, typically non-forum, who want to play, as you did, a fun aerial combat game. My decades of experience in software design suggest to me that the Flex MM is not difficult. If WG will spring for flight and expenses, I will donate a full day of consulting to explain the menus, mechanism, and philosophy of a Flex MM, all under non-disclosure. One way or the other, I can see no rational basis for opposing a Flex MM. Because flying is harder than driving a bulldozer (Here I compare my time in a Cessna 150 to a childhood on the farm), and aerial combat is even more so, I think the large spread model is even less viable in WoWP than it is in WoT. I fear that drop-outs will so deplete the ranks that the game will not have the economic base to prosper, or even continue. My goal, like yours and the players who spend their time on the Forum, is to save the game. Thank you for initiating the thread. Wulf

Edited by WulfNose, 16 July 2013 - 12:19 PM.


Bogie_with_Stu #8 Posted 16 July 2013 - 12:25 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 1,870
  • [K_O_S] K_O_S
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013
I'm glad to see that you have become a bit more open minded about the subject Alex :teethhappy:

I like the idea of cutting the spread down in the early tiers, and training in some sort of recognizable form, would be awesome. If I may though, I'd like to propose something that you may not take into consideration.

You all (the brainiacs and tech wizards and elite pilots) seem to think that everyone SHOULD learn to play the game like you play it. You seem to think that everyone who comes here should be willing to put hours and hours and hours in...just to learn how to get the BASICS of the game. And then, they should spend MORE hours perfecting their skills and learning new tactics, etc. From your posts, it seems you believe that anyone who isnt willing to go through all this trouble for an ARCADE GAME isnt worth talking to. Well, I got a news flash for ya. 90% of the people who come here want no part of that much work just to have a bit of fun in a flight game.

I hear stuff like "if you cant fly with the big dogs, dont leave the hanger" and other such inane and childish junk. Why is it unreasonable to think that most pilots will never get above a tier 6 or 7 and then gear the training and MM to that fact?

As I said, I like your original idea in your first post. I just think we need to change our mindset on who it is that REALLY plays this game....and it is NOT the typical forum dweller.

Draconis76 #9 Posted 16 July 2013 - 12:33 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 995
  • Member since:
    09-20-2012
I think the MM biasing towards 1 tier would be enough. It could still allow for wider spreads when demographics require or even randomly.

That means the so called 'bottom tier challenge' does not completely go away, but the issue of tier imbalance is mitigated.

I still believe that matches are most 'honest', and are the greatest challenge when they are between pilots in equal tiered planes. Being down two tiers might be more challenging technically, but it means someone else is up two tiers and has an artificially easier match.

caeman #10 Posted 16 July 2013 - 01:28 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 10 battles
  • 1,683
  • Member since:
    12-07-2012
A well-written OP.

I continue to believe that tier 2 should never face tier 4.  The differences in plane technology (speed, firepower, hit points) gives an over-whelming advantage to the tier 4.

There are certain tier 3 that should never face tier 5.  My Hawk 75M has shown me that a tier 3 can compete with tier 5 when you have 6 guns blazing AP-Incend rounds at high rate.  The plane is still tissue paper to the tier 5 firing back, but being down 2 tiers will do that.  The MM for tier 3 GA should be special-limited to tier 4.  The sloth-like speed of the GA means that there are times when you are surrounded 20 seconds after the battle has begun and haven't even reached the first gt.  It is very disheartening to be shot down by TWO planes that traveled across 4 map squares...and you have yet to traverse one whole square.  The AGO should be limited to tier 4 opponents max due to its slow speed and poor turning.

Clan JTF-L is recruiting! We welcome veterans and new players alike that are committed to developing and executing good game-play skills, team work, and a competitive spirit.  The ability to use TeamSpeak is a must, as we value real-time voice for coordination and general chat during downtime.  We are also developing a junior division to allow the children of Clan members to join in the fun and competition.  A family that shoots tanks together, stays together.  If this is something you have been looking for, check us out.


Jinxed_Katajainen #11 Posted 16 July 2013 - 02:37 PM

    Feedback Airedale

  • Alpha tester
  • 47 battles
  • 2,444
  • Member since:
    01-28-2012
The ideas given sound like what is in WoT.
Tier 1 and 2 are in a 'sandbox' of sorts along with some tanks that are preferred matchmaking to 2-3 only like the PzI. There's also chances for a Tier 3 to see 2-3 matches or 2-4 and 3-5 matches.  I see all of these combinations in my Tier 3 PzI ausf C so at least in WoT they have something along the lines of what we're mentioning.

Rather than fixing the tier issue by limiting planes in the MM by tier alone, some planes could use preferential treatment in MM that constantly underperform among their peers.

caeman #12 Posted 16 July 2013 - 02:41 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 10 battles
  • 1,683
  • Member since:
    12-07-2012

View PostAlexVandross, on 16 July 2013 - 02:37 PM, said:

Eh.. first of all.. GA shouldn't run straight for base.. stay away from fur ball if you don't dogfight them. But then..  AGO is a 2.. AGO is the #1 reason why tier 2's should NOT get in with 4's. They should be limited to 1's or 3's.. never 4's..

Other than that, pretty much spot on.. Tier 2's are just too weak for being face with 4's..

I never said anything about 'straight for base'.  :)  I was referring to the start of the match.  30 seconds later, less than 1 square from one's starting spot, trying to get down to the dirt to hide amongst the terrain, along comes two zippy tier 4's.  There was no 'straight for base'.  I would have been content with 'more than 1 square from my starting spot'.

Clan JTF-L is recruiting! We welcome veterans and new players alike that are committed to developing and executing good game-play skills, team work, and a competitive spirit.  The ability to use TeamSpeak is a must, as we value real-time voice for coordination and general chat during downtime.  We are also developing a junior division to allow the children of Clan members to join in the fun and competition.  A family that shoots tanks together, stays together.  If this is something you have been looking for, check us out.


Jinxed_Katajainen #13 Posted 16 July 2013 - 02:48 PM

    Feedback Airedale

  • Alpha tester
  • 47 battles
  • 2,444
  • Member since:
    01-28-2012

View PostAlexVandross, on 16 July 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

Eh.. tier 3's see 6's in tanks..  Tanks is by far more skewered than Planes

Scout matchmaking can do this, also if there's not enough people in queue.
In a normal match a Tier 3 Medium would not see Tier 6 tanks and I have never seen this recently myself.

We have Tier 2 planes that can equip 4 machine guns compared to some that still have 2 at Tier 3.  Think they wouldn't get powerful if they were limited to just 1-2 and 2-3?  Thus my reason for giving preferred MM to some planes.
Seeing seal clubbing territory there

WulfNose #14 Posted 16 July 2013 - 03:36 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Community Ace
  • 570 battles
  • 2,315
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostAlexVandross, on 16 July 2013 - 02:21 PM, said:

FIXED in bolded text.
So what proposal did you actually have, besides insulting us (snipped) about something we have been supportive towards this whole time?

No sir! People like me and pappabear have been campaigning for positive changes for the new players, for a long while. If you don't like the ideas we come up with, that's one thing. But for you to insult us because we don't agree every single thing.. or that we don't praise your ideas as the best... that's not gonna buy our votes.



You keep saying you have these decades in software engineering.. have you worked on successful video game titles? Why not apply to work for them, even as a consultant, if you're that much better than them?

I've done programming for AS400 systems.. doesn't mean I know the code/language that the game is using.

Also.. this flex MM will likely keep queue times higher, but might give people an idea of "fairness.."  but what happens when they still lawn dart, air dart, and just PUB out? What then? People will just go on and on to the next gripe about how they're losing.... I know this, because I even get pretty ticked when 3 teammates ram each other.

It's the internet, with the day of Instant Gratification players. People will whine until they get what they want. If they don't, they'll leave.

Funniest thing about that, is there is literally an virtually endless supply of this type of people. Our generation (20's to late 30's/early 40's) are simply giving their kids what they want.. giving them the belief they will always get what they want. People grown up this way. It started with our parents, really.. Nintendos and Ataris and iphones and such just given without a earned reward system, has left many people in our generation to go around thinking we can put anything on credit, instead of saving for it.. expecting to get things now..

Meh, enough about the rant paragraph.,,,



Same tiered means there's no true difficulty in the gameplay. You're essentially asking for cookie cutter airplanes that all are the same, with very few differences. All similar speed, turning, firepower, durability. That makes the matches too easy. Especially if your "seal clubbers" choose to abuse said system.

So now we are back to insults, Alex? "You keep saying you have these decades in software engineering.. have you worked on successful video game titles? Why not apply to work for them, even as a consultant, if you're that much better than them?" You (suddenly a software expert) say that the Flex MM is to difficult, too expensive, to program, and I offer to help for free, and this is what I get? I am managing partner of my firm, Alex, and my billing rate is $180.00 per hour. I do not need an hourly software job, when I have my firm to run, and when I can teach math at night at the local college. I wrote my first online game in 1968, by the way. You can argue for the Seal Club by any insulting means that you wish, Alex, but do not pretend that you have explored all the options. I hope the game survives and prospers, despite the intransigence of the front line liaison. I will even buy the package, and enjoy the open. But when your request for ideas is revealed as just a "troll" do not expect people to credit you with open-mindedness. Wulf

LyssaG #15 Posted 16 July 2013 - 04:04 PM

    Eclectic Dragon

  • Community Ace
  • 0 battles
  • 3,155
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostAlexVandross, on 16 July 2013 - 03:38 AM, said:

Another quick thought that just popped out in my head...

What if.. now, don't be angry, just read and then say yay or nay, and why yay or nay...

But, what if we asked them to give a more in depth (teaching basic maneuvers and avoidance.. anti-lawn darting classes, etc..) within the game's initial training.. And they make you do the training missions (maybe 3-5 or more missions, which increase in bot difficulty).. and then what if they restrict ALL players upon release.. to fly a minimum of 5, or 10, or xx number of battles in each tier, before moving up to the next tier.. This would ensure people don't rush up the ladder before they're ready to move on.

This is likely a not the best solution, but it helps people to learn, thus lowering the learning curve a bit... meh.. /discuss.. and  :popcorn:  :hiding:
I would say instead of saying they have to do a certain number of battles before they can tier up, how about preferential MM placement for the firs X number of games.  Gives them time to upgrade, and thereby be a little more competitive once they are tossed up against the Fly Swatters?

Member of DirtyDozen! www.dirtydozengaming.com/
Director of WoWp FRAG! ACE: F4U, Bf 110B, Bf 110E

caeman #16 Posted 16 July 2013 - 04:17 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 10 battles
  • 1,683
  • Member since:
    12-07-2012
The Civility Rating in this thread is beginning to reach 0.  Please, keep this hot-bed topic civil.

Clan JTF-L is recruiting! We welcome veterans and new players alike that are committed to developing and executing good game-play skills, team work, and a competitive spirit.  The ability to use TeamSpeak is a must, as we value real-time voice for coordination and general chat during downtime.  We are also developing a junior division to allow the children of Clan members to join in the fun and competition.  A family that shoots tanks together, stays together.  If this is something you have been looking for, check us out.


pappabear #17 Posted 16 July 2013 - 08:58 PM

    Community Noob

  • Community Ace
  • 0 battles
  • 2,193
  • [LIGS] LIGS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostAlexVandross, on 16 July 2013 - 03:38 AM, said:

Another quick thought that just popped out in my head...

What if.. now, don't be angry, just read and then say yay or nay, and why yay or nay...

But, what if we asked them to give a more in depth (teaching basic maneuvers and avoidance.. anti-lawn darting classes, etc..) within the game's initial training.. And they make you do the training missions (maybe 3-5 or more missions, which increase in bot difficulty).. and then what if they restrict ALL players upon release.. to fly a minimum of 5, or 10, or xx number of battles in each tier, before moving up to the next tier.. This would ensure people don't rush up the ladder before they're ready to move on.

This is likely a not the best solution, but it helps people to learn, thus lowering the learning curve a bit... meh.. /discuss.. and  :popcorn:  :hiding:


The training missions i could agree with. As for restricting someone from going up the tiers I would say no to.

Here's my reasoning on not restricting advancement through the tiers. If a player fly's enough games to advance to the next tier they should be able to. If they keep getting slaughtered in the higher tier they always have the option to drop a tier and practice.

If anyone want's to say I have a seal clubbing mentality for the above statement they need to check there selves into a mental hospital for help. The only seal I can club is myself when I drop a bomb and I'm to low. LOL




Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

Draconis76 #18 Posted 16 July 2013 - 10:15 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 995
  • Member since:
    09-20-2012

View PostAlexVandross, on 16 July 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

Eh.. go back and read what Zen said, and you'd know why I told him he was insulting us. . YOU GUYS came in here, telling us [supposed seal clubbers] just how bad we are treating people.. and how badly we want to see newer players beat down like seals..

You are generalizing as bad as some of us can.

For my part, I don't think that there is any deliberate seal clubbing mentality on the your part or on the part of most if not all those defending the current wider spread. I do think you are not fully thinking through the mechanics, but I think you mean well and legitimately care about this game.

I think the seal clubbing accusations are resulting from that fundamental difference in ideology, from some of us lobbying on behalf of change getting frustrated and reaching for reasons for the differences in views.

In other words, to the extent there may be seal clubbing, I don't think most of you realize it is happening. I think it is so systematic that it is hard to see, just like an object hidden in plain sight. You get so used to it being there that you don't even see it there when you are looking straight at it.

And it is possible that the situation isn't as bad as those of us wanting change think, however recent changes to the WoT MM strongly suggest that WG thought there was an issue in that game.

(And yes, I fully acknowledge your solution. It does show you accept that there is an issue. I just think it is further reaching than you think it is)

Edited by Draconis76, 16 July 2013 - 10:17 PM.


Heibges #19 Posted 16 July 2013 - 10:57 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Alpha tester
  • 65 battles
  • 1,738
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostAlexVandross, on 16 July 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

Or even.. they can have a "New Players Only" queue you can pop into, where people who weren't in Alpha/Closed Beta can't get into,... for so many battles.. maybe their first 100 battles in a 'safe from veterans" area?  I dunno how that would work out.. but it's a thought.

That is a really good idea.

If WoT is any indication, the hardcore players that have a ton of vehicles and "run their doubles" every day to generate Free XP will have a lot of Tiers 1, and 2.  This would protect lowbies from them.
"If the Healer gets killed it's the Tank's fault.  If the Tank gets killed it's the Healer's fault.  If the DPS get killed it's their own fault." - various
 

WulfNose #20 Posted 16 July 2013 - 11:09 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Community Ace
  • 570 battles
  • 2,315
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostAlexVandross, on 16 July 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

Trying to.. PM'd WulfNose"   He has/had no idea just how much I like where his 'flex tier' idea is going.. Doesn't mean that I can't vote at the current time for the Yes but fix tier 2/3.

I recognize that I overstepped, and apologize for reducing the level of civility. In no way does laying out an idea and a design on the whiteboard imply that I am telling someone how to do their job. What I could do is describe the need, concept, "menus,"  db implications, and some pitfalls I foresee. None of that requires me to know the package or language - nor does it necessitate seeing any proprietary design material or code. As well, I can execute a NonD. What I am suggesting I view as an improvement, an extension, and so not a critique of the design team's work, and I hope they would not see it that way. I still maintain that the "full spectrum" Flex MM is a better idea, and simpler because of generality than spot fixes. If it only saves 1,000 players, and if only 10% of those buy premium, then the $10,000 pays for a fair amount of coding. It could even be considered for WoT, if successful here in WoWP. Sometimes, the different between a product languishing and becoming wildly successful are just little things. A "tipping point." Such things are inherently impossible to predict with precision, but when you win, you win big. I'll track down the PM you reference, but would like to take a public step here towards greater civility on my part. Wulf




4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users