Jump to content


Official 8.0 Matchmaker Discussion

match maker

  • Please log in to reply
1018 replies to this topic

Cobra54 #1001 Posted Feb 04 2014 - 05:51

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 17760 battles
  • 14
  • Member since:
    05-14-2011

~~
View PostCobra54, on Jul 17 2013 - 10:33, said:


I am not the best player, EZZ, explain to me how you can get on 20-30 teams in a row and get slaughtered?   If you can explain that then I will listen, but it is unrealistic that you can end up with that many losses.  I have a better chance at gaming in Vegas and winning than here.  Why?  How can that EVEN be balanced.....  Look at the post here, how many say the same thing just written a different way.   Guess we all suck and don't deserve to enjoy a good game, right?

It's generally accepted that in the mid tiers as a solo player there is about a 20% range of influence for battles. In other words, about 40% will be won regardless, and 40% will be lost regardless Hence range of 'normal win rates' is about 40 - 60%. Note that this is for the middle tiers where a tanker can expect to be sometimes top tier, sometimes top -1, sometimes top -2. Tiers 9 and 10 shift this range of influence as do premies with special MM. My guess to closer to around 35% or more - hence some of the really good players can solo these up to around 65 - 70% win rates.

 Given this we have to look at sample size. In a sample of 20 (was it seriously 20 in a row?!?) (Guess I am a liar...  Seriously?)  we'd expect somewhere in the region of 8 wins for a bad player in the middle tiers. A bad player in the upper tiers may only see 4 or 5 wins. As you can see, even despite the random nature of the MM, losses are going to happen. As to streaks - they happen in small samples too. I'm sure a bad players has one 10 out of 20 a few times and not even stopped to think how lucky there were.


View PostIosis, on Jul 17 2013 - 16:51, said:


Than how it is possible that MM form teams like:
 One side get most players below 800 eff, 4-5 with 900-1000, 2-3 with 800-900, no players above 1000 eff. Other side get 4-5 players with high eff with 1200-1600, and others get 900-1000, and just a 3-4 players are lower than 900 eff.

I already answered that.

View PostEzz, on Jul 14 2013 - 15:20, said:


Remember, the mm doesn't balance for ability, so those lop sided matches aren't it's fault.

The key is that in a random assortment of players, sometimes one team will get more reds, sometimes more greens. The MM isn't trying to balance them. That's just good or bad luck in a small sample. Over a large sample that will even out.

 

Well, it is official....   this game has become a waste of time.   25 games - 23 losses      25 games - 24 losses     25 games - 22 losses.   My son and my win / lost record for 3 days in a row.   Yep, got my vote for the best matchup system in any game.   NOT!!!!

 

 



phantmjokr #1002 Posted Feb 04 2014 - 09:36

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 4088 battles
  • 56
  • Member since:
    12-29-2013

I should have never looked at this thread, lol. At least not while Ancient Aliens was on TV...

 

I generally have, or perhaps had, fun with the game until I got a lot of bottoms with slow and undergunned TDs and Heavies. Playing bottom with something like the Churchill I is just awful as the big pig has no flexibility of purpose. Bottomed in a T49? I think I'll just scout. That all being said matchmaking a game like this is a very difficult problem and IMHO shortening the tier sep would do a lot towards shifting/relieving the burden.

 

Ain't gonna hold my breath though...



yereverluvinunclebert #1003 Posted Feb 04 2014 - 11:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 16641 battles
  • 3,198
  • Member since:
    12-19-2012

@ phantmjokr - My worst run of losses was in excess of 22 games in a row. I have experienced losing runs of several hundred games where the average win rate is 40-45%. Then of course I have several hundred winning games at 65%. Does not seem to make much sense until you understand the way that WoT operates. I now expect it and work to beat the MM as well as the other players.

 

@Cobra54 - you will get a lot of 'bottoms' and it is a pain with the slowies like the Churchill MkI. Personally I find the Churchill MkIII is less of a grind and seems to get preferential MM. My WR on the MkIII is far better than the MkI.

 

 



phantmjokr #1004 Posted Feb 04 2014 - 17:00

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 4088 battles
  • 56
  • Member since:
    12-29-2013

View Postyereverluvinunclebert, on Feb 04 2014 - 11:12, said:

@ phantmjokr - My worst run of losses was in excess of 22 games in a row. I have experienced losing runs of several hundred games where the average win rate is 40-45%. Then of course I have several hundred winning games at 65%. Does not seem to make much sense until you understand the way that WoT operates. I now expect it and work to beat the MM as well as the other players.

 

Since I have air access only to the internet and its capped I wound up waiting a long time to play WoT. Initially I was giddy and hooked in deep to drive around in tanks and shoot at people. I'm not sure what I expected after that. A thread like this one? Not really....

 

Knowing a bit about math, stats, and so forth, if what is here is true, well, it seems a bit of an odd way to go about things and not good business. The sense of frustration by far too many players is almost palpable here AND in almost every match.  At the end, after MM and the tough high tier separation, the problem is that a lot of players are left feeling marginalized if not useless in many matches. That's just very weird and very bad for a game to do. I mean in several decades of gaming in many forms I've never felt or seen that at least not nearly in the way it appears in this game. And long ago I used to play MW2 with a ping that was routinely around 600ms! where I got rubber bullets all the time.

 

WoT is in a pinch. With competition on the horizon and a lot of frustrated and unhappy players they probably need a major overhaul, and yet that in itself might alienate a lot of players. Wow.



yereverluvinunclebert #1005 Posted Feb 04 2014 - 20:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 16641 battles
  • 3,198
  • Member since:
    12-19-2012
Agreed.

SMBakerESQ #1006 Posted Feb 05 2014 - 16:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 21218 battles
  • 2,017
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

The biggest problems with the MM is that all vehicles of a certain class carry the same weight, with a few exceptions, and they do not take platoons into account, which rig the MM.  Things like 3 KV's with the top guns together while your side gets a mix of lesser heavies or just a few more mediums, things like that, like say 2 T1's and a Churchill.  The MM sees them as equal, when really the KV's should dominate. 

 

Or Hellcats, which over-perform their tiers, things like that.

 

I know the MM only works on vehicles, but they could do a much better job of separating vehicles fairly.  I understand their concern is to get people into matches fast, but on the NA server on East Coast at night I don't think I have waited more than a minute at any time. It has to be much faster on the EU and RU servers with their greater population.  I don't think waiting a few more seconds is a problem.



yereverluvinunclebert #1007 Posted Feb 08 2014 - 01:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 16641 battles
  • 3,198
  • Member since:
    12-19-2012

Just as a reminder to all who see this thread, here's Wargaming's patent onthe MatchMaker and how it operates, supporting observed behaviour:

http://www.google.co...ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA

 

"According to another aspect, the matchmaking server may store a win/loss percentage for each user (or vehicle) at a given battle level. As the player's win/loss ratio decreases, the player becomes more likely to be placed in battles having battle levels at the lower end of the allowable range, whereas as the player's win/loss ration increases, the player becomes more likely to be placed in battles having battle levels at the upper end of the allowable range. Thus, when a player has been repeatedly put into too many difficult battles, the balancing is done in favor of easier battle sessions, thereby encouraging the player by providing an easier game environment. Similarly, when the player has been repeatedly put into too many easy battles, the balancing is done in favor of harder battle sessions, thereby keeping the player challenged instead of letting the player become bored with easy games.


Edited by yereverluvinunclebert, Feb 08 2014 - 01:22.


Lapdog1 #1008 Posted Feb 08 2014 - 01:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 7509 battles
  • 2,121
  • Member since:
    11-24-2013
The biggest thing the patent proves is that WG is actively looking to manipulate matches. Who knows what mechanics are being used that are not patent worthy.

PossumHopper #1009 Posted Feb 08 2014 - 01:47

    Private

  • Players
  • 14088 battles
  • 3
  • [HORDE] HORDE
  • Member since:
    08-31-2013

I just thought I'd chime in with three very obvious points.

 

1) There are enough players on at all hours where matches could be ONLY single-tier matches. I know if there was a "single tier" option I would check it every time. For example If I'm in a tier 5 tank, I don't need to be fighting tier 3-4 or tier 6-7. Make it all 5.

 

2) The single most important change, obviously, is getting rid of the "scout" handicap that makes a handful of tier 4-5 tanks virtually unplayable. What is fun about "scouting" in a tank that isn't very fast, has worse view range than everyone else on the map, and can be 1 shot by anyone? The last place that tank belongs is in front scouting, its only useful role is as a hidden crit/track-er. But if they insist on making you play 4 tiers higher than your tank, make ALL tanks do it, don't just ruin a few of them.

 

3) Lots of talk about trying to make all the good players only play other good players, and bad players only play other bad players, by using EFF and WN8 and stuff. I just want to point out the obvious (as I'm sure many have). If you did this, pretty soon all players would be 50% and 1:1 kill/death and 1:1 damage ratio because they were only playing other players exactly as skilled as they are. Then they would have the same EFF/WN8 as the bad players who only play other bad players (also with 50% WR, etc, now) and there would be no way to tell them apart. I understand the good players have playing noobs, but I would not change this, because any system you put in place will be abusable here or else lose meaning if it worked as everyone reverted to the mean.

 

 



yereverluvinunclebert #1010 Posted Feb 08 2014 - 12:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 16641 battles
  • 3,198
  • Member since:
    12-19-2012

I have altered my style in the tier VI/VII matches the MM dumps me into when using the Crusader, I simply don't scout from the outset but hide and snipe for the first half of the game, trying to stay alive. Then when the big boys are all hurt and most destroyed, I come out and start hunting - whilst spotting for the arty. No amount of "Crusader go ****** scout!" will entice me to venture out in the first half of the game. This is the gameplay that I suppose most experienced players use and it is the only one that seems to work. It is the only way I survive to the end of the game.



x45 #1011 Posted Feb 08 2014 - 13:03

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 12556 battles
  • 27
  • Member since:
    09-27-2012
Nice work thanks!

yereverluvinunclebert #1012 Posted Feb 11 2014 - 13:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 16641 battles
  • 3,198
  • Member since:
    12-19-2012

I have to say that periodically it is time to re-evaluate my reason for playing WoT.

 

When you are playing consistently well, experience, average damage climbing &c and you find yourself on that disheartening slide downhill where your win rate drops like a stone regardless of what ever you do then it is time to reconsider.

 

Having your win rate being kept artificially down is depressing and will inevitably make you reconsider whether your time is being well spent. The way the MM puts you down by such devious means as placing your tier IV tank in tier VI matches continuously - where you can do little to alter the fate of losing teams, where regardless of tier, the MM places you on losing teams solely so that your win rate drops from 67% to 44% for hundreds of games in a row...

 

All this supported by the statistics freely available from noobmeter.

 

This is manipulation of the game community on a grand scale and it mars what would otherwise be a very enjoyable game. 

 

OK, so it is time to give WoT a break for a while and head over to War Thunder - if only it were available now. I will simply have to wait and do something else instead. No more money for Wargaming, at least not from my pocket.

 

 



yereverluvinunclebert #1013 Posted Feb 13 2014 - 10:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 16641 battles
  • 3,198
  • Member since:
    12-19-2012
Just deleted the game as I have done previously. Taking a holiday from it as there is no point in fighting the MM.

Iosis #1014 Posted Feb 19 2014 - 23:26

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 21060 battles
  • 532
  • [SRB] SRB
  • Member since:
    03-25-2012

They must [edited]up something... 
 

5 vs 7 T10s... 

 

 

Since last night I can't get a decent team, only fuckin fail teams... 



Iosis #1015 Posted Feb 20 2014 - 20:51

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 21060 battles
  • 532
  • [SRB] SRB
  • Member since:
    03-25-2012

BRAVO! Just BRAVO WG!!!
U did it again, you make MM just worst! 

Removing a T12, now all tiers are messed up. Wit t7 more t9 battles, with t8 more t10 battles. 
Last night playing SU-122-44 to get money. And you know what, beside I get hard fail teams, win chances were from 20-40%, just a few of them were above 50% and even that were fail! I really can't do much in t9 with a TD 175 mm pen. I can play only as a support, but I don't have no body to support when my team is dead under 5 minutes! 

 

Let's see, what is next, maybe you should make 5 tiers spread, so KV-1 fight again IS-7 and Foch 155...



yereverluvinunclebert #1016 Posted Feb 25 2014 - 02:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 16641 battles
  • 3,198
  • Member since:
    12-19-2012

I've just signed up another account so that I can play the game as a complete NOOB and strangely I find it is much more fun than using my old 8,000 game account. I am building a steady reputation, slow but sure, winning more than losing and training my new crews. In general my WR is as you'd expect it to be - on the up! No longer am I hitting the 55% glass ceiling and bouncing back down for hundreds of games. The account started at a low 43% ( tier 1-3 tanks, untrained crews ) but is now climbing through 45% at a good rate in only 55 games. Current win rate is 57% and I am hoping it will be at an overall WR of 50% within 250 games, then 55% within another 400 after that. If all goes well I will hit the glass 55% ceiling and then I can open yet another new account and have fun once more... doh!

 

top tip?: If you want to have fun winning in WoT rather than having long pointless losing streaks then dump your old account and start a new one from scratch.

 

Does it not seem mad that you can win more games with a noob crew in a brand new account than you do in a 8,000 game 55% WR account with a fully trained crew with three perks - in the same tank?



yereverluvinunclebert #1017 Posted Feb 28 2014 - 03:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 16641 battles
  • 3,198
  • Member since:
    12-19-2012

Since I switched accounts I am getting 61-65% win rates for the last 50 games, and 58% for the last 110 games.

This is with noob crews trained less than 82%, binos and camo. The MatchMaker does not recognise this account as being one worth penalising so I am playing low tier matches at the win rate you would expect, good rates.

 

When I go back to my other account I am playing the same tanks with much, much better crews and more modules but the WR with the same tank is much, much lower, struggling to get 52%. We all know that the MM is utterly fixed but don't Wargaming appreciate that if the MM gives you losing games for streaks of 100s of games it can be very disheartening to play?

 

Once again, top tip: if you want good win rates and fun games to play, then regularly change accounts. Don't bother investing all that time in getting better crews and add-ons - just start from scratch - seems mad doesn't it... Have now played 900 games on the new account and it is MUCH MORE FUN.



Pringworm #1018 Posted Feb 28 2014 - 05:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 26712 battles
  • 2,382
  • [SIG] SIG
  • Member since:
    07-31-2011

God if we beat this horse any more we are going to get to the dirt at some point with bloody meat hands. 

 

MM sucks, WG sucks, because they don't care. Nothing we can do about it, except not give them money. 

/thread

 

 



yereverluvinunclebert #1019 Posted Feb 28 2014 - 10:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 16641 battles
  • 3,198
  • Member since:
    12-19-2012

Incorrect on one point - others need to know so that they don't waste good time and money on WoT, only a regular update here will cause that to happen.

 

Also, Wargaming need to have this complaint continuously stuffed down their throat or they will never ever 'get' it, or if we stop they can say we haven't been complaining so why should they fix it?

 

Finally, there are ways round the MM and this thread has become a good place to provide those answers.

 

So, with those thoughts in mind stop dropping in your one-liners and contribute something useful... thread open again.







Also tagged with match maker

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users