Sealord, it was awesome seeing the same game from a different angle. I don’t think anyone thought you were copying anyone else. I love jingles rehearsed story telling and your impromptu as well!
I was hoping i was in this game when i saw the title. Winning hard, only for team to throw, to be last alive and run away in a Groningen. What surprised me was a tier 7 nagato going into enemy spawn holding that flank. I honored him.
Sitting behind an island isn't my idea of tactics in a naval battle. Any Captain would lose his command for such an action. I now stick to Operations and even Co-op for a naval battle closer to how it should be.
Just think, if the game had a skills based matchmaker, EVERY game your teammates would know what to do. (at least to the same level as you, which is all you can ask for). The game would be 1000 times better with a skills based matchmaker. Every game would be an appropriate skill level for every player, and all the potatoes would be floating in the same tub by themselves.
Ehh, that entire depends on how you rank skill, do you go by win rate? Well in an idea skill based MM everyone's win rate would be 50%. Do you go on average damage? Now suddenly newer players with fewer battles are getting thrown into higher skill games because they got a lucky torpedo spread off, and no DD would be in a high skill bracket because DD main don't tend to average much damage. You could use PR, but as PR is calculated it doesn't really take into account skill as much as your ability to farm PR. It also doesn't take into account people who might have been terrible at the game, but improved, because the more battles you play the less and less each battle matters overall. You could then try to just focus on just the most recent patch, but then what happens if someone just gets lucky? Or a good player ends up playing bad ships for a while? Like my win rate and PR would both be a lot higher, if I played actually good ships instead of my favourites, and my stats aren't bad. 55% win rate and 1423 PR with recent 58 battles being 62% winrate and 1942 PR. (NA Server, same name as my youtube but without a space if you think I might be bullshitting) Skill based MM just doesn't work in Warships. Honestly it doesn't work in many games because it's far to easy to abuse. If you want something more skill based, go play ranked and clan battles. Very few potatoes can get to Gold rank, and you aren't going to find potatoes in clan battles period. Now I'd be open to being corrected on some way that isn't able to be abused, that would actually work for a skill based MM system in a game like Warships. Where you know, sometimes winning the game means not gaining any more score. Our hero in the Napoli in this video could have gotten more PR by dealing more damage to the remaining ships, and if he had dealt more damage and sunk another ship even if he lost he'd likely have gained PR, because PR only cares about 3 things, damage, wins and frags. Thus by doing what needed to be done to win the battle, he technically cost himself some PR, and thus made himself slightly less skilled.
@@Stephen__White You are wrong. You don't want it to work so you are making it way more complicated. It is very simple if the solution doesn't have to solve 100% of the issues, only much more than the current system creates. Well, the current system you get 1 quality game every 20 games. We can easily get that to 8/10 quality games. The rule is, keep it simple. Just lifetime winrate, nothing else. Anyone who tries to hedge/cheat that system will find it is more work than the gain. And you are right, eventually if matchmaker is fair, people will have to improve in order to keep the winrate going up, or they'll just end up at 50% but that'll be about 7 years from now when the MM normalizes like that. And no matter if that happens or not, everyone involved still gets 8/10 quality games. This solution solves almost every problem in the game. It solves 9/10 games being a blow out, it solves good players having to put up with potatoes on their team, it solves solid players who are not good enough to carry 11 potatoes, It solves the problems with subs and CVs because poor players will be facing poor CV/sub players and thats fine, and good players that know how to counter those, will play the better CV/subs. 90% of people left because of the problems caused by the current system, we can attract many of those back. The high percentage of the playerbase right now that will not play randoms, they'll start. You may be suprised how many will only play coops/ops/CBs or special modes but will NEVER again go into randoms. Alot.
@@stevepeterson6070 Gonna be real, out of the games I play, I've had maybe 3 in the last ~60 battles I'd consider bad that wasn't due to something outside of my control, but lets go into this for a moment. In a skill based MM system, the only way your win rate would go up, is if you were not at your skill level yet. Once you reach your skill level, you would on average win 50% and lose 50%, though given Warships has a draw mechanic and it CAN happen it's closer to you would win 49.999% and lose 49.999% while drawing 0.001%, because the moment YOU are at your skill limit, it's now a coin flip on winning or losing. It would solve basically nothing, as it would not take very long for everyone to stabilize at 50% win rate, because if you are above it, you'll be facing only other people above it, and one team always has to lose. gradually losing the win rate of everyone above 50% until they drop to ~50 because they would be losing more games than they would before. Everyone below it will only be facing others below 50, and some team always has to win, thus gradually raising the win rate of everyone under 50% as suddenly they are winning more games than they were before. Once everyone is at ~50% you have the same problem all over again. If you did count life time win rate, well I'm 55% after ~4400 battles, someone who is 55% after 44,000 battles is going to be a much more skilled player than myself to have maintained that win rate after so many battles. Or how about some players I know who have 45% win rates, with 30-40k battles who are actually rather good players, one just recently created a new account, and is on an average of 67% win rate. Would that really be fair to the potato players with natural 45% win rates to have to face this person? I invited a friend to play Warships with me and his account has a 74% win rate, with less than 150 battles. Should he really be forced to face the absolute best players in the game? Also on the player count bit, I'd say that's dubious at best, because of the data we do have, Steam users are up ~20% compared to this time last year, and outside of anecdotes of "well my server had X many players last year!" there really isn't any hard data other than the Steam charts to use to see if player count is going up or down. Finally, yes there are a lot of people who enjoy co-op and don't enjoy randoms, those people would never enjoy randoms, they barely enjoy Asymmetric when it's around, because what they are after is their easy win nearly impossible to lose game mode where they can mash W a few times and click on ships. By far though randoms does still have the highest population of players. You would also be shocked by how many "good players" just hate CVs because they can, and would still not be happy, in fact they would likely be less happy only facing good CV players. Also one thing you aren't considering in this as a whole if this did work the way you think it would(witch it wouldn't), how do you account for less popular classes? Should an amazing Submarine player have to sit in the MM queue for 20+ minutes waiting for another sub of equal win rate to enter the queue? That's a quick way to lose that player, because simply no one wants to wait that long in queue.
Would you take into account the players that only have good win rates because they div or would it be based off of single play. Also I run into many players in high tier matches with 55+ win rates only because they play t5 and below, but have no clue about high tier play. I think a simpler fix would be just going only one up and one down for mm. See how that implements, then try and transition to a 50% and up and 49.9% and down mm.
@@stevepeterson6070 Gonna be real, out of the games I play, I've had maybe 3 in the last ~60 battles I'd consider bad that wasn't due to something outside of my control, but lets go into this for a moment. In a skill based MM system, the only way your win rate would go up, is if you were not at your skill level yet. Once you reach your skill level, you would on average win 50% and lose 50%, though given Warships has a draw mechanic and it CAN happen it's closer to you would win 49.999% and lose 49.999% while drawing 0.001%, because the moment YOU are at your skill limit, it's now a coin flip on winning or losing. It would solve basically nothing, as it would not take very long for everyone to stabilize at 50% win rate, because if you are above it, you'll be facing only other people above it, and one team always has to lose. gradually losing the win rate of everyone above 50% until they drop to ~50 because they would be losing more games than they would before. Everyone below it will only be facing others below 50, and some team always has to win, thus gradually raising the win rate of everyone under 50% as suddenly they are winning more games than they were before. Once everyone is at ~50% you have the same problem all over again. If you did count life time win rate, well I'm 55% after ~4400 battles, someone who is 55% after ~44,000 battles is going to be a much more skilled player than myself to have maintained that win rate after so many battles. Or how about some players I know who have 45% win rates, with 30-40k battles who are actually rather good players, one just recently created a new account, and is on an average of 67% win rate. Would that really be fair to the potato players with natural 45% win rates to have to face this person? I invited a friend to play Warships with me and his account has a 74% win rate, with less than 150 battles. Should he really be forced to face the absolute best players in the game? Also on the player count bit, I'd say that's dubious at best, because of the data we do have, Steam users are up ~20% compared to this time last year, and outside of anecdotes of "well my server had X many players last year!" there really isn't any hard data other than the Steam charts to use to see if player count is going up or down. Finally one thing you aren't considering in this as a whole if this did work the way you think it would(witch it wouldn't), how do you account for less popular classes? Should an amazing Submarine player have to sit in the MM queue for 20+ minutes waiting for another sub of equal win rate to enter the queue? That's a quick way to lose that player, because simply no one wants to wait that long in queue.
Sealord, it was awesome seeing the same game from a different angle. I don’t think anyone thought you were copying anyone else. I love jingles rehearsed story telling and your impromptu as well!
Managed to get my win rate close to 51%. Now all of my teams are just melting in 2 minutes.
Feels strange to see a match without any Ipiranga.
No kidding. I saw battles with 4-5 of them all night.
I have not even bothered to get a commander for mine.
@@AlanRoehrich9651 Its a fun shipline, I would suggest you getting one.
I remember my first 200k game in my Ibuki, we had points and I was the only survivor of my team. I just fled to the edge of the map.
I was hoping i was in this game when i saw the title. Winning hard, only for team to throw, to be last alive and run away in a Groningen. What surprised me was a tier 7 nagato going into enemy spawn holding that flank. I honored him.
Good job. Play smarter, not harder.
This whole game describes the games play. Every game is a train wreck. Teams throwing away easy wins.... or blowouts. 😂
New SeaLord vocabulary word - swipped!
That was definitely a good game!
those poor t-9s.
Sitting behind an island isn't my idea of tactics in a naval battle. Any Captain would lose his command for such an action. I now stick to Operations and even Co-op for a naval battle closer to how it should be.
10:50 another big brain move would have been torps right about now.
Should i spend 4000db on dockyard? Or not?
this matchmaking reminds of a game i queued into with 5 yamagiri's and a kungming... it truly can be AWFUL
GG BACKDOOR! have a great Sunday and Take care @sealordmountbatten.
I'm still upset about this game. I was the Zorkiy, and just wanted some dmg so I went after the cv. I didn't even pay attention to the score :( ugh
3 supers isnt that bad , had a couple of hours aga a match with 5 on each side as a t9 , that wasnt funny at all
Why is the player so stingy on the fighter planes?
Just think, if the game had a skills based matchmaker, EVERY game your teammates would know what to do. (at least to the same level as you, which is all you can ask for). The game would be 1000 times better with a skills based matchmaker. Every game would be an appropriate skill level for every player, and all the potatoes would be floating in the same tub by themselves.
Ehh, that entire depends on how you rank skill, do you go by win rate? Well in an idea skill based MM everyone's win rate would be 50%. Do you go on average damage? Now suddenly newer players with fewer battles are getting thrown into higher skill games because they got a lucky torpedo spread off, and no DD would be in a high skill bracket because DD main don't tend to average much damage.
You could use PR, but as PR is calculated it doesn't really take into account skill as much as your ability to farm PR. It also doesn't take into account people who might have been terrible at the game, but improved, because the more battles you play the less and less each battle matters overall.
You could then try to just focus on just the most recent patch, but then what happens if someone just gets lucky? Or a good player ends up playing bad ships for a while? Like my win rate and PR would both be a lot higher, if I played actually good ships instead of my favourites, and my stats aren't bad. 55% win rate and 1423 PR with recent 58 battles being 62% winrate and 1942 PR. (NA Server, same name as my youtube but without a space if you think I might be bullshitting)
Skill based MM just doesn't work in Warships. Honestly it doesn't work in many games because it's far to easy to abuse. If you want something more skill based, go play ranked and clan battles. Very few potatoes can get to Gold rank, and you aren't going to find potatoes in clan battles period.
Now I'd be open to being corrected on some way that isn't able to be abused, that would actually work for a skill based MM system in a game like Warships. Where you know, sometimes winning the game means not gaining any more score. Our hero in the Napoli in this video could have gotten more PR by dealing more damage to the remaining ships, and if he had dealt more damage and sunk another ship even if he lost he'd likely have gained PR, because PR only cares about 3 things, damage, wins and frags. Thus by doing what needed to be done to win the battle, he technically cost himself some PR, and thus made himself slightly less skilled.
@@Stephen__White You are wrong. You don't want it to work so you are making it way more complicated. It is very simple if the solution doesn't have to solve 100% of the issues, only much more than the current system creates. Well, the current system you get 1 quality game every 20 games. We can easily get that to 8/10 quality games. The rule is, keep it simple. Just lifetime winrate, nothing else. Anyone who tries to hedge/cheat that system will find it is more work than the gain. And you are right, eventually if matchmaker is fair, people will have to improve in order to keep the winrate going up, or they'll just end up at 50% but that'll be about 7 years from now when the MM normalizes like that. And no matter if that happens or not, everyone involved still gets 8/10 quality games.
This solution solves almost every problem in the game. It solves 9/10 games being a blow out, it solves good players having to put up with potatoes on their team, it solves solid players who are not good enough to carry 11 potatoes, It solves the problems with subs and CVs because poor players will be facing poor CV/sub players and thats fine, and good players that know how to counter those, will play the better CV/subs. 90% of people left because of the problems caused by the current system, we can attract many of those back. The high percentage of the playerbase right now that will not play randoms, they'll start. You may be suprised how many will only play coops/ops/CBs or special modes but will NEVER again go into randoms. Alot.
@@stevepeterson6070 Gonna be real, out of the games I play, I've had maybe 3 in the last ~60 battles I'd consider bad that wasn't due to something outside of my control, but lets go into this for a moment. In a skill based MM system, the only way your win rate would go up, is if you were not at your skill level yet. Once you reach your skill level, you would on average win 50% and lose 50%, though given Warships has a draw mechanic and it CAN happen it's closer to you would win 49.999% and lose 49.999% while drawing 0.001%, because the moment YOU are at your skill limit, it's now a coin flip on winning or losing.
It would solve basically nothing, as it would not take very long for everyone to stabilize at 50% win rate, because if you are above it, you'll be facing only other people above it, and one team always has to lose. gradually losing the win rate of everyone above 50% until they drop to ~50 because they would be losing more games than they would before. Everyone below it will only be facing others below 50, and some team always has to win, thus gradually raising the win rate of everyone under 50% as suddenly they are winning more games than they were before. Once everyone is at ~50% you have the same problem all over again.
If you did count life time win rate, well I'm 55% after ~4400 battles, someone who is 55% after 44,000 battles is going to be a much more skilled player than myself to have maintained that win rate after so many battles. Or how about some players I know who have 45% win rates, with 30-40k battles who are actually rather good players, one just recently created a new account, and is on an average of 67% win rate. Would that really be fair to the potato players with natural 45% win rates to have to face this person? I invited a friend to play Warships with me and his account has a 74% win rate, with less than 150 battles. Should he really be forced to face the absolute best players in the game?
Also on the player count bit, I'd say that's dubious at best, because of the data we do have, Steam users are up ~20% compared to this time last year, and outside of anecdotes of "well my server had X many players last year!" there really isn't any hard data other than the Steam charts to use to see if player count is going up or down.
Finally, yes there are a lot of people who enjoy co-op and don't enjoy randoms, those people would never enjoy randoms, they barely enjoy Asymmetric when it's around, because what they are after is their easy win nearly impossible to lose game mode where they can mash W a few times and click on ships. By far though randoms does still have the highest population of players. You would also be shocked by how many "good players" just hate CVs because they can, and would still not be happy, in fact they would likely be less happy only facing good CV players.
Also one thing you aren't considering in this as a whole if this did work the way you think it would(witch it wouldn't), how do you account for less popular classes? Should an amazing Submarine player have to sit in the MM queue for 20+ minutes waiting for another sub of equal win rate to enter the queue? That's a quick way to lose that player, because simply no one wants to wait that long in queue.
Would you take into account the players that only have good win rates because they div or would it be based off of single play. Also I run into many players in high tier matches with 55+ win rates only because they play t5 and below, but have no clue about high tier play. I think a simpler fix would be just going only one up and one down for mm. See how that implements, then try and transition to a 50% and up and 49.9% and down mm.
@@stevepeterson6070 Gonna be real, out of the games I play, I've had maybe 3 in the last ~60 battles I'd consider bad that wasn't due to something outside of my control, but lets go into this for a moment. In a skill based MM system, the only way your win rate would go up, is if you were not at your skill level yet. Once you reach your skill level, you would on average win 50% and lose 50%, though given Warships has a draw mechanic and it CAN happen it's closer to you would win 49.999% and lose 49.999% while drawing 0.001%, because the moment YOU are at your skill limit, it's now a coin flip on winning or losing.
It would solve basically nothing, as it would not take very long for everyone to stabilize at 50% win rate, because if you are above it, you'll be facing only other people above it, and one team always has to lose. gradually losing the win rate of everyone above 50% until they drop to ~50 because they would be losing more games than they would before. Everyone below it will only be facing others below 50, and some team always has to win, thus gradually raising the win rate of everyone under 50% as suddenly they are winning more games than they were before. Once everyone is at ~50% you have the same problem all over again.
If you did count life time win rate, well I'm 55% after ~4400 battles, someone who is 55% after ~44,000 battles is going to be a much more skilled player than myself to have maintained that win rate after so many battles. Or how about some players I know who have 45% win rates, with 30-40k battles who are actually rather good players, one just recently created a new account, and is on an average of 67% win rate. Would that really be fair to the potato players with natural 45% win rates to have to face this person? I invited a friend to play Warships with me and his account has a 74% win rate, with less than 150 battles. Should he really be forced to face the absolute best players in the game?
Also on the player count bit, I'd say that's dubious at best, because of the data we do have, Steam users are up ~20% compared to this time last year, and outside of anecdotes of "well my server had X many players last year!" there really isn't any hard data other than the Steam charts to use to see if player count is going up or down.
Finally one thing you aren't considering in this as a whole if this did work the way you think it would(witch it wouldn't), how do you account for less popular classes? Should an amazing Submarine player have to sit in the MM queue for 20+ minutes waiting for another sub of equal win rate to enter the queue? That's a quick way to lose that player, because simply no one wants to wait that long in queue.
10:28 spooked me lol
3 super ships in a random, have been in it in St Vincent earlier today. Sucks.
3 superships is nothing, I started getting with Riga 6 superships at each side, totally unplayable.
Torps for decoration??
1/4 of the vid and Napoli is sitting ugh BORING!!!
Better than dying.
Thoughts? "Smokes Are Broken - You Can See Straight Through!" ruclips.net/video/fePV88xzyJc/видео.html