Jump to content


Official 8.0 Matchmaker Discussion

match maker

  • Please log in to reply
1018 replies to this topic

Steeltrap #21 Posted Oct 16 2012 - 09:53

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 5548 battles
  • 3,646
  • Member since:
    08-23-2010
Well here's my summary of remaining MM issues that could do with attention:

- saturation of arty, particularly for tier 10 battles. My own data gathering suggests arty isn't "out of control" at lower tiers in the vast majority of matches. It does, however, seem to be pretty bad at tier 10, and tier 9 has its moments (note that amusing pic someone posted).

Proposal: a cap on number of arty allowed in a match. That might be a straight number, or a total tier cap, or both. I posted EXACTLY that proposal in something like Sept 2010, mind you.

- distribution of matches. While it is, IMO, a great improvement not to fight things 3 (or even 4, in some cases) tiers above your own, there is still the question of some vehicles potentially getting skewed distributions. So, while you might have 3 battles you can get into (for tier 6, that's 4-5-6, 5-6-7 and 6-7-8), there's no "rule" that says you get each of them equally. You could get a 20-40-40 split. Or even 20-25-55. Mind you, you could also get 55-25-20.
IMO, the tier position in the roster is arguably of less significance if YOUR tier makes up a significant proportion OF the roster. Suppose it's a tier 8 battle as a tier 6 vehicle. If there are 5 tier 8s and 6 tier 7s, 2 arty and you're one of 2 tier 6s, that's a bit lame if you get it 40-50% of your matches. If, however, there were 2 tier 8s, 2 tier 7s, 2 arty and 9 tier 6? Whole different story.

Proposal: a forced distribution. That could take the form of "no more than X% of matches will have you at lowest tier in the roster", or it could even go as far as forcing a 25-50-25, for example.

- "anomalous MM". By this I mean some vehicles retaining their "scout" MM even though all the evidence says the game has moved on to the point such a designation makes little sense (assuming you agree it ever made sense for vehicles NOT on a designated scout line, which I do not). I'm thinking of the 38nA and A-20 in particular.

Proposal: remove 'scout' MM for any vehicle NOT on a designated "scout branch" of the tech tree.

So, have I covered everything? Please give feedback.

Cheers

Endlesspath #22 Posted Oct 16 2012 - 13:13

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 2612 battles
  • 268
  • Member since:
    08-10-2012
The premium tank s35-739 should be limited to Tier 3 and Tier 4 fights only.  It is significant outclassed in Tier 5 cap fights.   Check this thread for additional specifics: http://forum.worldof...ng-the-s35-739/

Unker #23 Posted Oct 16 2012 - 14:05

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 4987 battles
  • 344
  • Member since:
    07-02-2011

View PostSteeltrap, on Oct 16 2012 - 09:53, said:

Well here's my summary of remaining MM issues that could do with attention:

- saturation of arty, particularly for tier 10 battles. My own data gathering suggests arty isn't "out of control" at lower tiers in the vast majority of matches. It does, however, seem to be pretty bad at tier 10, and tier 9 has its moments (note that amusing pic someone posted).

Proposal: a cap on number of arty allowed in a match. That might be a straight number, or a total tier cap, or both. I posted EXACTLY that proposal in something like Sept 2010, mind you.

- distribution of matches. While it is, IMO, a great improvement not to fight things 3 (or even 4, in some cases) tiers above your own, there is still the question of some vehicles potentially getting skewed distributions. So, while you might have 3 battles you can get into (for tier 6, that's 4-5-6, 5-6-7 and 6-7-8), there's no "rule" that says you get each of them equally. You could get a 20-40-40 split. Or even 20-25-55. Mind you, you could also get 55-25-20.
IMO, the tier position in the roster is arguably of less significance if YOUR tier makes up a significant proportion OF the roster. Suppose it's a tier 8 battle as a tier 6 vehicle. If there are 5 tier 8s and 6 tier 7s, 2 arty and you're one of 2 tier 6s, that's a bit lame if you get it 40-50% of your matches. If, however, there were 2 tier 8s, 2 tier 7s, 2 arty and 9 tier 6? Whole different story.

Proposal: a forced distribution. That could take the form of "no more than X% of matches will have you at lowest tier in the roster", or it could even go as far as forcing a 25-50-25, for example.

- "anomalous MM". By this I mean some vehicles retaining their "scout" MM even though all the evidence says the game has moved on to the point such a designation makes little sense (assuming you agree it ever made sense for vehicles NOT on a designated scout line, which I do not). I'm thinking of the 38nA and A-20 in particular.

Proposal: remove 'scout' MM for any vehicle NOT on a designated "scout branch" of the tech tree.

So, have I covered everything? Please give feedback.

Cheers

Good post even if I disagree.   :Smile-hiding:

While I agree that the amount of arty is high in top tier games, I really disagree with putting a hard cap on arty.  There needs to be a way to either get less people playing arty at those levels or getting more of other tanks playing.  The two best features of the random battles are the speed in which you get into a game and the variety of scenarios you encounter in a day.  You can get the same map twice in a row and have to play it differently based on the makeup of your team and the opposing team.  A hard cap will take both of these away.  Games rarely go the full length of time - Mine probably average about 5 mins (full game time, not just my survival).  For everyone claiming that a 2 minute wait time is acceptable for a random battle, that means spending 1/3 of your game time staring a the screen waiting for the game to start.  Add the 30 second timer and you are at almost 40% of your play time doing nothing.  If I want that, I would play in tank companies where I could choose my teammates.

A hard cap would also mean that those slots would be fixed for every battle.  Based on the number of battles played in tanks elegible for battle tier 12, an average of 6.2 per 30 are arty.   A cap of 3 would mean that not only would you ALWAYS have 3 arty per team, but there would not be enough arty slots to meet the demand.  Think of when the Playstation 2 came out and there was a shortage (The store by me got 5 on release day and there was a line of over 100 camping for them) - or if you are older, remember when the government put a price cap on gas prices and lines for gas were going around the block?  I agree with WG that if people want to play arty, they should be allowed to.  There are other ways to change the player mix.  The trick is to do it without screwing up the mid tier mix which is working so well.

As far as distribution, it would be nice to have a more even distribution, the only way it can happen is the make sure the distribution of players at each tier is the same at all times.  How would you like it if you go to battle in your favorite tank and you get a message - "Sorry, that tier is full.  Please choose a different tank"

Something that checks how many battles you have been in at each position - a completely new table with more than a million records that would need to be referenced at least 30 times for each battle created.  That would result in extremely long wait times for everyone.  Right now, even being the low tier is a good fight and if you have been looking at the new after battle details, the xp potential for the lower tiers is incredible.  2-3 good shots with my T1HT against a tier 7 enemy will get me more xp than 3-4 kills against tier 3.  I like being the big gun, but right now being the little guy is more profitable.

KilljoyCutter #24 Posted Oct 17 2012 - 17:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 26,582
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostLazar_Lyusternik, on Oct 15 2012 - 23:36, said:

Can you please modify the S-35 captured's matchmaking so it will no longer see tier 5 matches, like the 'preferred' matchmaking of the other premiums of its tier?

Actually, WarGaming, can you please strip all premium tanks of their hand-holdy, warm-milk-and-cookies matchmaking.  If it's a tier 8 tank, it gets the same matchmaking as all other tier 8 tanks.  If it can't handle that matchmaking, maybe it shouldn't be a tier 8 tank.

KilljoyCutter #25 Posted Oct 17 2012 - 17:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 26,582
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011
Agreed on the SPG cap others have mentioned.  One of the major reasons I avoid playing anything above tier 7 is the massive increase in both the number of SPGs per side in the typical battle, and the poorly-conceived way in which high-tier arty scale up (never mind the question of whether strategic artillery assets such as the tier 7 and 8 SPGs even belong in a small-scale tactical game).

SHISHKABOB #26 Posted Oct 17 2012 - 17:33

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 8799 battles
  • 13,143
  • Member since:
    12-06-2010

View PostKilljoyCutter, on Oct 17 2012 - 17:07, said:

Actually, WarGaming, can you please strip all premium tanks of their hand-holdy, warm-milk-and-cookies matchmaking.  If it's a tier 8 tank, it gets the same matchmaking as all other tier 8 tanks.  If it can't handle that matchmaking, maybe it shouldn't be a tier 8 tank.

it might be that a tank is not really tier 8 but definitely not really tier 7

there's no tier "7.5" or "7.75" in the game, so the easiest way to make sure the tank is placed fairly is to limit its MM differently. It's a lot simpler than rebalancing the whole tank.

premium tanks are meant to be in between a stock of the same tier and an elite of the same tier. It wouldn't be fair to non-paying players if they were equivalent to their peers, because then that would be pay2win.

It wouldn't be fair to their team mates if they were placed in matches in the same way that a regular tier 8 is, either.

That seems to me to be the real purpose of the better MM for these premium tanks.

KilljoyCutter #27 Posted Oct 17 2012 - 17:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 26,582
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostSHISHKABOB, on Oct 17 2012 - 17:33, said:

it might be that a tank is not really tier 8 but definitely not really tier 7

there's no tier "7.5" or "7.75" in the game, so the easiest way to make sure the tank is placed fairly is to limit its MM differently. It's a lot simpler than rebalancing the whole tank.

premium tanks are meant to be in between a stock of the same tier and an elite of the same tier. It wouldn't be fair to non-paying players if they were equivalent to their peers, because then that would be pay2win.

It wouldn't be fair to their team mates if they were placed in matches in the same way that a regular tier 8 is, either.

That seems to me to be the real purpose of the better MM for these premium tanks.

The trade-off to that is that tier 6 and 7 tanks see A LOT of tier 8 premium tanks, over and over.  I routinely have nights with matches in those tier tanks that have 9+ tier 8 premiums total, over and over and over.  On one hand, they're often easier pickings than "real" tier 8 tanks, on the other hand, those easy pickings are often the guys on MY side, resulting in "heroic" last stands against multiple higher-tier enemy tanks.

Edited by KilljoyCutter, Oct 17 2012 - 18:05.


SHISHKABOB #28 Posted Oct 17 2012 - 18:00

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 8799 battles
  • 13,143
  • Member since:
    12-06-2010

View PostKilljoyCutter, on Oct 17 2012 - 17:47, said:

The trade-off to that is that tier 6 and 7 tanks see A LOT of tier 8 premium tanks, over and over.  I have routinely nights with matches in those tier tanks that have 9+ tier 8 premiums total, over and over and over.  On one hand, they're often easier pickings than "real" tier 8 tanks, on the other hand, those easy pickings are often the guys on MY side, resulting in "heroic" last stands against multiple higher-tier enemy tanks.

whether it's true or not that you get bad players in tier 8 premiums than you get good ones is something that you're going to have to offer evidence for

it is also something that is not necessarily true for all players, so it's kind of irrelevant

but I think that it is a problem that tier 6/7 see tier 8 premiums probably too often. Though ofc I have no evidence to show that they do in fact see tier 8 premiums a bit too often.

KilljoyCutter #29 Posted Oct 17 2012 - 18:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 26,582
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostSHISHKABOB, on Oct 17 2012 - 18:00, said:

whether it's true or not that you get bad players in tier 8 premiums than you get good ones is something that you're going to have to offer evidence for

it is also something that is not necessarily true for all players, so it's kind of irrelevant

but I think that it is a problem that tier 6/7 see tier 8 premiums probably too often. Though ofc I have no evidence to show that they do in fact see tier 8 premiums a bit too often.

Even without the player factor, the "halfway up the tier" quality of most tier 8 premiums makes them relatively easy pickings compared to their standard counterparts.

SHISHKABOB #30 Posted Oct 17 2012 - 18:12

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 8799 battles
  • 13,143
  • Member since:
    12-06-2010

View PostKilljoyCutter, on Oct 17 2012 - 18:08, said:

Even without the player factor, the "halfway up the tier" quality of most tier 8 premiums makes them relatively easy pickings compared to their standard counterparts.

yeah and that's why I think they are given that preferred MM because it wouldn't really be fair to a team if they were in a tier 10 match and they got a bunch of KV-5s and the other team got a bunch of IS-3s

or something like that

and I mean don't Lowes and T34s have regular tier 8 MM? Only the KV-5 and IS-6 with their respective pens of 167mm and 175mm have the restricted MM. It would be kind of cruel to make them fight tier 10s.


But so then at the same time I don't think it would be a good idea to make them equivalent to tier 8s or to tier 7s because in either case you'd have a premium tank being equal to a regular tank, and that'd be pay2win.

Lazar_Lyusternik #31 Posted Oct 17 2012 - 18:24

    Captain

  • Players
  • 8127 battles
  • 1,199
  • Member since:
    07-15-2012

View PostKilljoyCutter, on Oct 17 2012 - 17:07, said:

Actually, WarGaming, can you please strip all premium tanks of their hand-holdy, warm-milk-and-cookies matchmaking.  If it's a tier 8 tank, it gets the same matchmaking as all other tier 8 tanks.  If it can't handle that matchmaking, maybe it shouldn't be a tier 8 tank.
Ok, YOU try playing in a tier 5 game with 55 penetration.

KilljoyCutter #32 Posted Oct 17 2012 - 22:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 26,582
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostLazar_Lyusternik, on Oct 17 2012 - 18:24, said:

Ok, YOU try playing in a tier 5 game with 55 penetration.

I wouldn't waste my money on it.

GodEmperorMillard #33 Posted Oct 18 2012 - 00:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 25804 battles
  • 5,734
  • [GGM] GGM
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011

View PostKilljoyCutter, on Oct 17 2012 - 22:18, said:

I wouldn't waste my money on it.

Premium tanks get preferred MM. You know this and hate it, why?

KilljoyCutter #34 Posted Oct 18 2012 - 01:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 26,582
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostMillardthemk, on Oct 18 2012 - 00:43, said:

Premium tanks get preferred MM. You know this and hate it, why?

Because they skew matchmaking, for starters.

Refuge #35 Posted Oct 18 2012 - 04:17

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5271 battles
  • 174
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

View PostUnker, on Oct 16 2012 - 14:05, said:


As far as distribution, it would be nice to have a more even distribution, the only way it can happen is the make sure the distribution of players at each tier is the same at all times.  How would you like it if you go to battle in your favorite tank and you get a message - "Sorry, that tier is full.  Please choose a different tank"

Actually, that wouldn't bother me a bit. Considering at least 80% of my tier 6 medium tank matches consist of something like; five tier 8 heavies, four tier 8 mediums, about four tier 7 tanks , a couple of arties, and the remaining tier 6 tanks. This is a typical lineup for my tier 6 matches.

So, if I knew via a message that the tier is full due to a better distribution I wouldn't have to waste my time in that match where I'm all but useless. I would gladly play a different tank where I can contribute and (heaven forbid) actually have some fun. Tier 6 may not see tier 9 tanks any more but those matches were few anyway. I used to get better distribution before the tier spread lowering. It's so bad I've given up on playing anything past tier 7 and just about to give up playing anything past tier 5.

As far as I'm concerned tier 6 is the new tier 5. It just plain sucks. I just spent a few bucks to get some more tank slots when they went half price and will be the last money I spend on this game.

Steeltrap #36 Posted Oct 18 2012 - 07:20

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 5548 battles
  • 3,646
  • Member since:
    08-23-2010

View PostUnker, on Oct 16 2012 - 14:05, said:

Good post even if I disagree.   :Smile-hiding:

While I agree that the amount of arty is high in top tier games, I really disagree with putting a hard cap on arty.  There needs to be a way to either get less people playing arty at those levels or getting more of other tanks playing.  The two best features of the random battles are the speed in which you get into a game and the variety of scenarios you encounter in a day.  You can get the same map twice in a row and have to play it differently based on the makeup of your team and the opposing team.  A hard cap will take both of these away.  Games rarely go the full length of time - Mine probably average about 5 mins (full game time, not just my survival).  For everyone claiming that a 2 minute wait time is acceptable for a random battle, that means spending 1/3 of your game time staring a the screen waiting for the game to start.  Add the 30 second timer and you are at almost 40% of your play time doing nothing.  If I want that, I would play in tank companies where I could choose my teammates.

A hard cap would also mean that those slots would be fixed for every battle.  Based on the number of battles played in tanks elegible for battle tier 12, an average of 6.2 per 30 are arty.   A cap of 3 would mean that not only would you ALWAYS have 3 arty per team, but there would not be enough arty slots to meet the demand.  Think of when the Playstation 2 came out and there was a shortage (The store by me got 5 on release day and there was a line of over 100 camping for them) - or if you are older, remember when the government put a price cap on gas prices and lines for gas were going around the block?  I agree with WG that if people want to play arty, they should be allowed to.  There are other ways to change the player mix.  The trick is to do it without screwing up the mid tier mix which is working so well.

Issue really only exists with tier 7-8 SPGs, 8 in particular. The best solution in the minds of a large number of players would be to remove tier 7-8 SPGs entirely. Anyone seriously want to tell me a tier 6 SPG doesn't have sufficient power to screw upo most people's vehicles? WG decided to make more reasons to grind, introduced tier 8 SPGs, then restricts their MM as a tacit acknowledgement of their excessive firepower. Why else restrict it that way?

They won't delete them of course. So they need to do something else. Either that or accept that the majority of people playing vehicles eligible for tier 8 SPG battles will be other tier 8 SPGs, because OTHER vehicles are tired of ending up in battles with 5+ of them. How this makes the high end game fun for anyone escapes me, so maybe someone from WG can resolve that particular question in the context of game design theory? I'm assuming they consider fun part of design, of course.

Quote

As far as distribution, it would be nice to have a more even distribution, the only way it can happen is the make sure the distribution of players at each tier is the same at all times.  How would you like it if you go to battle in your favorite tank and you get a message - "Sorry, that tier is full.  Please choose a different tank"

Something that checks how many battles you have been in at each position - a completely new table with more than a million records that would need to be referenced at least 30 times for each battle created.  That would result in extremely long wait times for everyone.  Right now, even being the low tier is a good fight and if you have been looking at the new after battle details, the xp potential for the lower tiers is incredible.  2-3 good shots with my T1HT against a tier 7 enemy will get me more xp than 3-4 kills against tier 3.  I like being the big gun, but right now being the little guy is more profitable.

The only position it needs reference is your relative tiering. Are you top, middle or bottom (remember most are +/-2 tiers now). So that's 3 positions. While I could work out the maths on it, I'm being lazy. But there's no way it would be as onerous as you're suggesting. Remember, it's not your position from 1-15 that's at question here, it's your position as top-middle-bottom of the tier spread.

Suppose I play tier 6. So I can get a match with the top tier being 6, 7 or 8. I get 7. Next battle? Well, instead of allowing me to be placed in all those battles, it need only remove me from eligibility for tier 7, leaving 6 and 8. I do not for one minute accept that should kill MM if they approached it with a view that DISTRIBUTION of battles is an essential part of MM. As to that, tell me this: suppose EVERY tier 6 you played was a tier 8 battle, and every one I played was tier 6. Do you think our playing experiences of tier 6 would be the same? Do you think we'd have similar performance numbers given equal skill (and I'm just making an assumption; no idea how our stats compare, nor is that relevant)? I did a LOT of number crunching that showed how exp/dam/cr per battle was affected by relative tiering, so I already know the answer to some degree.

We're suggesting what might be an issue, and the principles behind why we see it as such and hence why we'd like it addressed. It's up to WG to determine the final version of "how".

Cheers

Qoth #37 Posted Oct 18 2012 - 09:28

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 11187 battles
  • 76
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011
I agree, the S35 needs an mm adjustment.

zazel #38 Posted Oct 18 2012 - 13:05

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 63637 battles
  • 157
  • [4HIM3] 4HIM3
  • Member since:
    10-14-2012
Well my t-50 has spent most of its battles in with t7 and t9 tanks, I can count on one hand the times it has been t6 and below.  My t3 M3 stuart is constanly seeing t6 and t7.  My m37 is same.  New revamp restricting to 2 lvls above not working.  Was in battle last night my t4 t-50, one t5, 2 t6, rest t7-t9, 3 t9 per team.  Please comment.

edit*  opened the chart and it looks as if thats what you intend for my tanks.  Seems a little excessive to me as I can barely move in most games without getting one shot sniped.  I vary rarely get in a battle with the t50 that has less than t7, maybe a stronger chance of lower lvl battles, as what I see if fewer tanks at t7-9 and I always get dragged in to fill out match numbers. Thats my opinion.

Edited by zazel, Oct 18 2012 - 13:12.


Unker #39 Posted Oct 18 2012 - 13:51

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 4987 battles
  • 344
  • Member since:
    07-02-2011

View PostSteeltrap, on Oct 18 2012 - 07:20, said:

The only position it needs reference is your relative tiering. Are you top, middle or bottom (remember most are +/-2 tiers now). So that's 3 positions. While I could work out the maths on it, I'm being lazy. But there's no way it would be as onerous as you're suggesting. Remember, it's not your position from 1-15 that's at question here, it's your position as top-middle-bottom of the tier spread.

While its only 3 positions, each player has that for each tank they own (I have 27 with another 21 slots available), so it has to have an eligible flag for every possible tier for every tank for every player.  Its not a complicated table at all, but it is an added search (not a modification of an existing search) on a new table that has to be done.  Last December, for a short while, they had added a check that would give better matchmaking on a player for the first 20 battles (I think that was the amount) and wait times for me at that time tripled.  Was 30-45 seconds which is reasonable, but we are talking about a more complex model here.  :Smile_Default:

Quote

Suppose I play tier 6. So I can get a match with the top tier being 6, 7 or 8. I get 7. Next battle? Well, instead of allowing me to be placed in all those battles, it need only remove me from eligibility for tier 7, leaving 6 and 8. I do not for one minute accept that should kill MM if they approached it with a view that DISTRIBUTION of battles is an essential part of MM. As to that, tell me this: suppose EVERY tier 6 you played was a tier 8 battle, and every one I played was tier 6. Do you think our playing experiences of tier 6 would be the same? Do you think we'd have similar performance numbers given equal skill (and I'm just making an assumption; no idea how our stats compare, nor is that relevant)? I did a LOT of number crunching that showed how exp/dam/cr per battle was affected by relative tiering, so I already know the answer to some degree.

We're suggesting what might be an issue, and the principles behind why we see it as such and hence why we'd like it addressed. It's up to WG to determine the final version of "how".

Cheers

If I had all tier 8 battles and you had all tier 6 battles, we would have different playing experiences.... However what is happening is that we are both seeing tier 8 battles the same amount - we are just seeing more tier 8 battles than tier 6 or 7 - not a different proportion of them.

Unker #40 Posted Oct 18 2012 - 14:15

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 4987 battles
  • 344
  • Member since:
    07-02-2011

View PostRefuge, on Oct 18 2012 - 04:17, said:

Actually, that wouldn't bother me a bit. Considering at least 80% of my tier 6 medium tank matches consist of something like; five tier 8 heavies, four tier 8 mediums, about four tier 7 tanks , a couple of arties, and the remaining tier 6 tanks. This is a typical lineup for my tier 6 matches.

So, if I knew via a message that the tier is full due to a better distribution I wouldn't have to waste my time in that match where I'm all but useless. I would gladly play a different tank where I can contribute and (heaven forbid) actually have some fun. Tier 6 may not see tier 9 tanks any more but those matches were few anyway. I used to get better distribution before the tier spread lowering. It's so bad I've given up on playing anything past tier 7 and just about to give up playing anything past tier 5.

As far as I'm concerned tier 6 is the new tier 5. It just plain sucks. I just spent a few bucks to get some more tank slots when they went half price and will be the last money I spend on this game.

It would be great for tier 6 as far as balancing, but here would be the issue.  What happens when you want to play tier 8?  14% of the server is playing tier 8 and only 8% are playing higher.  Tier 8's would get a "full" message before tier 6, but here's the catch.  If you are going to make sure tier 6 gets an even distribution of top/middle/low tier, you have to do the same for tier 8 and tier 9.  So to keep perfect balance on the tiers, all tiers would have to be capped at the same levels as whatever tier is at the lowest - Tier 10 as less than 2%.  If you don't cap everyone at that, tier 8's would be top tier way more often than not.  As a result, a lot of people would not be able to join battle (unless you have a tier 10 tanks - no wait then)

Even distribution would be nice, but I don't think its realistic to expect it.  I've personally had no problems with tier 6.  My M6 is averaging more experience per battle than any of my others and my 55% win rate over the first 58 battles is 7% above the server average - and it is not yet elite!  Tier 8 enemies are MUCH more beatable than tier 9 and when they are on the enemies team, they are also on yours.  A tier 8 with a tier 6 to support it will almost always win against a tier 8 by itself and you will gain more xp for each point of damage than your teammate.  If you try to be the hero in those types of battles you will do poorly and be frustrated.





Also tagged with match maker

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users