Jump to content


Suggestion: Fix Match Maker?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
36 replies to this topic

Danksy #1 Posted Feb 13 2013 - 10:24

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 266
  • Member since:
    05-22-2011
Seriously WG? two games in a row with low tiers 3/4/5 other team gets +1 tier 5... ok I get it, maybe its better to just start a match instead of finding that 1 other t5 to even the teams, next match I get same tank same map, the other team gets +2 t5s (8v6) and we have one more t3 then they have... (instead of a t4) this would have been a fair match if match maker could do simple addition and give them a t3 and us a t5...

Please explain to me why Match Maker fails so hard, and with all the fixes and patches, why you wouldn't try to fix this so players could have at least semi fair matches... with only 15 players on a team tho, and a low tier battle, two extra t5s (when they are top tier) makes a big diff.  I have seen this in my higher tier tanks as well, with other team having 9 t10s while we had 4... more then double, that was a lil different because it had platoons kinda messing it up...

BUT REALLY WG?? maybe make a challenge to your community because I guarantee they could come up with a match making system that can count...  would make the game MUCH MORE FUN then going in to a match and almost knowing you certainly will lose, and I don't use mods I didn't need XVM to tell me we were gonna fail...  anyways made me rage quit game and now rage post, so yeah ANY DAY NOW... end wall of text.

c2012lau #2 Posted Feb 13 2013 - 10:47

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 240
  • Member since:
    03-06-2012

View PostDanksy, on Feb 13 2013 - 10:24, said:

Seriously WG? two games in a row with low tiers 3/4/5 other team gets +1 tier 5... ok I get it, maybe its better to just start a match instead of finding that 1 other t5 to even the teams, next match I get same tank same map, the other team gets +2 t5s (8v6) and we have one more t3 then they have... (instead of a t4) this would have been a fair match if match maker could do simple addition and give them a t3 and us a t5...

Please explain to me why Match Maker fails so hard, and with all the fixes and patches, why you wouldn't try to fix this so players could have at least semi fair matches... with only 15 players on a team tho, and a low tier battle, two extra t5s (when they are top tier) makes a big diff.  I have seen this in my higher tier tanks as well, with other team having 9 t10s while we had 4... more then double, that was a lil different because it had platoons kinda messing it up...

BUT REALLY WG?? maybe make a challenge to your community because I guarantee they could come up with a match making system that can count...  would make the game MUCH MORE FUN then going in to a match and almost knowing you certainly will lose, and I don't use mods I didn't need XVM to tell me we were gonna fail...  anyways made me rage quit game and now rage post, so yeah ANY DAY NOW... end wall of text.
I feel your pain, don't get your rage post, totally agree with this statement ''...why Match Maker fails so hard, and with all the fixes and patches, why you wouldn't try to fix this so players could have at least semi fair matches...''. WG could really invest on horizontal for the moment. Fixing what we have would make us more happy than giving us new tanks to play with on a broken game.

kebab6597 #3 Posted Feb 13 2013 - 10:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 4,335
  • Member since:
    04-16-2011
You didnt say if these where platooned or not i know last night i had a game where a KV-3 brought a T2 medium for his platoon and a tier 5 scout brought 2 x tier 2s in with him this was a tier 9 battle the lowest tiered vehicle the enemy had was a T50-2 even there arty where tier 7s so before the game even started we where severely underpowered thanks to the 2 idiots bringing in low tiered platoon mates  

Now while MM hated my team for that game by dumping both failed platoons onto the same team the true blame for the mismatch was actually 100% down to the 5 idiots in the 2 platoons that decided it was a good idea to play totally mismatched vehicles and tiers

shadowhazcookie #4 Posted Feb 13 2013 - 11:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 4,560
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012

View PostDanksy, on Feb 13 2013 - 10:24, said:

Seriously WG? two games in a row with low tiers 3/4/5 other team gets +1 tier 5... ok I get it, maybe its better to just start a match instead of finding that 1 other t5 to even the teams, next match I get same tank same map, the other team gets +2 t5s (8v6) and we have one more t3 then they have... (instead of a t4) this would have been a fair match if match maker could do simple addition and give them a t3 and us a t5...

Please explain to me why Match Maker fails so hard, and with all the fixes and patches, why you wouldn't try to fix this so players could have at least semi fair matches... with only 15 players on a team tho, and a low tier battle, two extra t5s (when they are top tier) makes a big diff.  I have seen this in my higher tier tanks as well, with other team having 9 t10s while we had 4... more then double, that was a lil different because it had platoons kinda messing it up...

BUT REALLY WG?? maybe make a challenge to your community because I guarantee they could come up with a match making system that can count...  would make the game MUCH MORE FUN then going in to a match and almost knowing you certainly will lose, and I don't use mods I didn't need XVM to tell me we were gonna fail...  anyways made me rage quit game and now rage post, so yeah ANY DAY NOW... end wall of text.

Most of the time it's not mm's fault. It's new players platooning w/o knowing a tanks mm spread (or experienced players being douches)

ArmorStorm #5 Posted Feb 13 2013 - 12:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 2,925
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011
Fail is on your part. MM uses WEIGHT not tier to balance to within 20%.  Every match IS NOT supposed to be EQUAL.  Read the wiki, it explains most of this stuff. Your team either had  few tanks of higher WEIGHT, or you just came out on the low end of the 20% "close enough" factor.

kajfasz9 #6 Posted Feb 13 2013 - 12:34

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 890
  • Member since:
    05-04-2011
How about we go back to pre 7.5 MMer if you hate this one so much?

HaikuFoxy #7 Posted Feb 13 2013 - 14:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 12,298
  • Member since:
    01-30-2012
Have you seen the crazy sh*t that happens when MM is on arty cap?

caeman #8 Posted Feb 13 2013 - 14:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 2,696
  • Member since:
    12-07-2012
Matchmaker should be changed to prevent a platooned Tier 1 or 2 tank from entering a battle with Tier 5 and up.

MikeBF #9 Posted Feb 13 2013 - 15:33

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 71
  • Member since:
    03-05-2011
I understand this 100%

I just had another TD heavy game on erlenberg, my team was wiped out within 2 minutes from a TD rush down the 8, 6 tier 10s on each side and 4/6 on the enemy team were tier 10 tds + 3 tier 9 tds while my team had a total of 2 TDs, both tier 9, how the hell do you win a match like that?

and last week i had Serene coast 2 games in a row, both games the enemy team was TD heavy, and 2 arty both games, theres no amount of spotting that i can do on a camp map in my m48 patton to win a match like that, it is impossible unless the enemy team has no idea how to shoot a tank.

MM is in desperate need of a fix, set caps on everything per match you know? I dont know how the weighted system is supposed to work, but to make a team TD heavy and expect the opposing side to win against them without some sort of luck, or out capping them, or something is beyond me since that is impossible in a pub match with the morons that you find in them.

Ebonsilk #10 Posted Feb 13 2013 - 16:43

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 47
  • Member since:
    12-28-2012
Forget it, they're not going to fix matchmaker.  They reward those that reach T10 by feeding T8's to them like gummie bears.  Don't you love your gunner reporting, "That once bounced!"  "It just dinged them"  "That one didn't go through!"  over and over and over and then low and behold, you get one-shotted by the turd you poured three rounds into to no effect.  If you expect fairness in this game, that requires you to get to T10 and stay there.

1SLUGGO1 #11 Posted Feb 13 2013 - 16:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 7,221
  • Member since:
    02-23-2012

View PostArmorStorm, on Feb 13 2013 - 12:08, said:

Fail is on your part. MM uses WEIGHT not tier to balance to within 20%.  Every match IS NOT supposed to be EQUAL.  Read the wiki, it explains most of this stuff. Your team either had  few tanks of higher WEIGHT, or you just came out on the low end of the 20% "close enough" factor.

*cough* if all tanks are weighed properly, wouldn't that trend to having more or less equal matches?  The problems arise when (just using tier 5 as an example) you get 2 T14's and 2 stock M4's manned by players with under 2k battles vs 4 elite KV-1 with 100% crews and 2 skills by players with 60%+ win rates and 10k+ battles.  But don't worry, you got an extra tier 4 light and one more tier 2 arty to balance out the MM weight. :Smile_smile:  

View PostEbonsilk, on Feb 13 2013 - 16:43, said:

Forget it, they're not going to fix matchmaker.  They reward those that reach T10 by feeding T8's to them like gummie bears.  Don't you love your gunner reporting, "That once bounced!"  "It just dinged them"  "That one didn't go through!"  over and over and over and then low and behold, you get one-shotted by the turd you poured three rounds into to no effect.  If you expect fairness in this game, that requires you to get to T10 and stay there.

Tier 8's get into 8/9 matches more than 10 due to the massive prevailance of premiums with preferred MM, and the fact that more games are played 6-8 than any other spread by the playerbase in general.  So just by the numbers, you are more likely to get a tier 8 match than a tier 10 match on a tier 8.  Meanwhile, those Tier 10's don't get to farm the tier 8 meds and heavies, because they get to face 5 tier 8 artillery that can 1-2 shot them and other tier 10 heavies.

And stop aiming at the upper glacias plate of tanks, and you'll hear a lot less "that one bounced" reports.  The lower front plate of the E5, for example, can be penned by almost any regular tier 8 tank, and all tier 8's when you slap in a gold round.

Edited by 1SLUGGO1, Feb 13 2013 - 17:00.


Galjin #12 Posted Feb 13 2013 - 17:38

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 335
  • Member since:
    03-10-2012

View Postkajfasz9, on Feb 13 2013 - 12:34, said:

How about we go back to pre 7.5 MMer if you hate this one so much?

NO!!! Just hell NO!!  But that would justify a fix the match maker thread.

Danksy #13 Posted Feb 13 2013 - 21:47

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 266
  • Member since:
    05-22-2011
I didn't say if we were platooned or not because we were NOT platooned, I play 98%+ solo, anyways I get the weight thing too, I have seen and understand when some team gets some higher tier heavies and one team gets meds, so they give the next tier down heavies to the team that got meds or give a few more higher tiers etc. again this was not the case in this game.

DecptiveCobra #14 Posted Feb 14 2013 - 02:43

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 75
  • Member since:
    12-16-2011
well my Idea for MM is a simple one instead of it being up to +2 = to your level why not make it -1 and +1 to your level IE if you are Level 5 then you get Level 4 and 6 in your match just as a Idea here is how it would brake down

Level 1 would fight level 1 and level 2

Level 2 would fight level 1 and level 3

Level 3 would fight level 2 and level 4

Level 4 would fight level 3 and  level 5

Level 5 would fight  level 4 and level 6

Level 6 would fight level 5 and level 7

Level 7 would fight level 6 and level 8

Level 8 would fight level 7 and level 9

Level 9 would fight level 8 and level 10

Level 10 would fight level 9 and level 10


Arty and Platoons Same base IE it go's on Level Not size so a level 2 Arty would meet a level max of 4 So

2/3 = 4
4/5 = 6
6/7 = 8
8/9 = 10

as team work would help in most case its No perfect however it does seem more balanced that what the Current MM is also Phase out the bloody MM pref for the Gold tanks if there to fight the same level as they are then let them im sick of a level 5 gold Churchill getting MM pref and owning poor level 3,4,5 tanks like there butter..I do own a Churchill so its not a hate thing also the Brit TD does NOT get MM pref that is a Myth I know I own one..and I am fighting Level 8,9 hell even level 10 Tanks..

the MM will always be a problem its never going to be perfect 100% you will always find people who love/hate it..but my Idea is more of a balance than anything..I know some low level Arty will hate it but it will make med Tank Games more fun again with out the room owner Screaming Grile,KV1S and T-50 ONLY  noobs..who needs a E8 or a VK360...there Dumb and lame..blah blah blah...when the Grile wont be the King arty nor will the 1S be the King  the ARL 44 and the M6 would stand a chance again...and make the Game fun again..

Seina_Yamada #15 Posted Feb 14 2013 - 12:09

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 21
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013
Think you got it bad? I have a hummel tier V i routinely fight tier 9's and mostly 8's i hear alot of Tink "Bounced Off" "Didnt penatrate" i counted this morning 18 rounds fired 13 hits 2 direct kills 3 damages of over 100
the Rest No damage.

PanamaRedd #16 Posted Feb 14 2013 - 12:48

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 14
  • Member since:
    03-10-2012
Malvictus, the problem I see with your idea is not who you get matched up with, but who they get matched up with as well.  Say you are a tier 5, and according to yout theory people only end up in battle with those one tier above and one below... well you get matched with some tier 4's and some tier 6's... so they are fighting two tier levels apart from each other, which is not allowed by the rule.....  Then that 6.. well he fights 5 and 7.. so ya have a 7 in there, and a 4 in there.. and they are way apart, and the 7 is two tiers above you so that is already breaking the basic mathematical rule.....  It is more complicated than saying a tank only fights one tier above and below.

PanamaRedd #17 Posted Feb 14 2013 - 12:57

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 14
  • Member since:
    03-10-2012
Actually... my main issue with matchmaker is that it takes 4 companies in a level for it to even engage.  When you look at the roster, see no companies at all in any particular level.. say, champion... it is kinda hard to get motivated to begin a company when you know 1) it is gonna be a considerable wait for 3 more companies to come into existence, and 2) it is gonna take a long time for YOUR company to even grow to any size because everyone knows about the number 1 issue I already mentioned.  Lots of times i would like to play TC, and think of starting a champ company or such.. look at the roster, and say to heck with that.  I dunn wanna spend 3 hours staring at a half filled company.

PuddleSplasher #18 Posted Feb 14 2013 - 13:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 2,340
  • Member since:
    07-11-2011

View PostDanksy, on Feb 13 2013 - 10:24, said:

Seriously WG?

Get some more battles under your belt in a tank that you like then complain but IMHO 100 or so battles in any tiered tank that you own hardly constitutes MM being broken.

MM is working and its fine.

Celebrim #19 Posted Feb 14 2013 - 16:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 2,426
  • Member since:
    10-04-2012
The two tier spread is fine.   There are still problems with the MM algorithm, but the two tier spread is IMO good design.

The remaining problems with the match making are:

1) Even by WGing's own admitted standards, the match maker doesn't always produce matches of even weight between the two teams.  At the very least, for any selected 30 players, the match up ought to have the minimum difference in match making weight that can be produced from those two teams.  A 20% difference is just not acceptable as a margin of error.
2) Platoons currently mess up the team creation algorithm even more.  An exact algorithm exists to prevent this, so there really isn't any excuse.
3) WGing wrongly removed the additional weight given to heavies in tiers 4 through 7, resulting in situations where all the heavies regularly end up on one team in the mid-tiers.  WGing should restore the extra weight given to mid-tier heavies.
4) Currently, players are allowed to platoon with other tanks which have a different matchmaker than their own and WG tries to resolve this by giving the entire platoon the match making of the most powerful tank in the platoon.  But this results in situations where tank can be dragged into a match where it provides no utility to the team.   Of this happens because both members of the platoon are new and don't realize the consequences - which is the fault of WG's persistant opaqueness in its game.  This practice should be stopped and you should not be allowed to form a platoon with a tank which sees a different matchmaker than your own.  Or at worst, if this is deemed too restrictive the MM should be within one battle tier of your own.
5) Currently, the tiering of SPG's is different than all other tanks, resulting in SPG's weight in the match maker being undervalued.   This can be seen when for example, in a mid tier match, the game tries to balance a two tier 5 SPG's on one team, with 1 tier 5 SPG and 2 tier 3 SPG's on the other.   This is equivalent to trading a tier 7 tank for two tier 5 tanks, a trade that the matchmaker would normally avoid except that it doesn't recognize the full difference in value between a tier 5 SPG and a tier 3 SPG and thinks it ammounts to - relative the total points in the match - only a small number.   Either SPG's should be given their correct tier, or else they should be given match maker weights appropriate to their effective tier.
6) Currently, all tanks of a given tier and type have the same matchmaker weight.  But it is well known that not all tanks of a given tier are exactly equal.  Some tanks in a given tier are, while effective, not quite as effective as other tanks in the same tier.  Fortunately, since the game has been ongoing for a long time, we now have pretty exacting data on how much better a particular tank is than another one - server wide win rates.   For example, we know that for a tank in a given tier, one might have a 51% global win rate while another has a 45% global win rate.  This lets us dynamicly derive a difference in value between the two tanks.   For example, if an 'average' tank of that tier and type is with 50 points, we can take the difference in win rate between an average tank (49.18%) and are two tanks of interest and calculate a matchmaking weight of 45.82 for the 45% win rate tank and a matchmaker weight of 52.82 for the 51% win rate tank.  What this lets us do is balance tanks without tweaking their stats (letting them retain historical quirks) and it will, in conjuction with improved sorting algorithms, result in a situation where one side never has all the 'bad' tanks.   Likewise, it would be even better for WG to cache the win rates of tanks in different configurations so as to calculate absolutely the difference in match making weight of a stock tank and a tank in its elite configuration.  This would prevent situations where one team's top tier tanks were all 'stock' and so highly disadvantaged.   Over time, matchmaking of this sort would cause the win rates of all tanks to shift slightly toward the middle, but only slowly and the point gap would never completely diminish but would settle in some dynamic equilibrium.  There is little risk of a feedback loop provided the number data points is large, but to avoid the risk of a feedback loop the tank would be assumed to be normal unless the number of datapoints exceeded a reasonable risk threshhold (say 20000).  A common example of how this is an existing problem is low tier matches where one side ends up with all the low tier premium tanks, where it is known that low tier premiums are generally superior to other tanks of the same tier.  The described algorithm will tend to prevent that.
7) There is circumstantial evidence that WGing has been experimenting with match making on the basis of players and not on tank quality, either looking at outcomes, games played, measurements of player skill, or producing patterns or schedules to try to ensure win rates cluster around 50%.  Because the number of datapoints on a given player are small and a players experience so varied over the short term, these methods will always lead to feedback loops with the results of streakiness, teams more imbalanced than would be expected by random chance, etc.  For this reason as well as reasons of fairness, anything that might directly or indirectly handicap a player in a particular match must be avoided.
8) There is currently a failsafe in the match making where any match which the match maker has begun to fill but which has been waiting an extended length of time is either immediately created, or else created with loosened rules on match maker creation.  This is most often seen at high tiers where there are many tier 8 artillery waiting for a match relative to the number of tier 10 tanks.  This is a reasonable fail safe, but improvements need to be made to the flushing process perhaps by extending the wait time based on an ability to predict when new players will become available in the queue or by splitting the waiting match into two 'odd' matches with slightly higher tier range but with the minimal numbers of the top tier tanks equally split across the teams in each of the new matches.  I also note as an aside that the best long term fix of this is to simply balance correctly the high tier SPGs, as SPGs are increasingly unbalanced beginning at tier 5.  For example, by my calculations tier 8 SPG's have an alpha that is between 30 and 50% too high.   A indirect fire area of effect weapon should play a support role in the game.  It should not be able to flatten peer tanks with single hits.  Simply reducing alpha elimenates the need to add tedium to the SPG experience, which seems to be the current preferred attempt at 'balance'.   My other suggestions for balancing SPG's are noted elsewhere.

TalonV #20 Posted Feb 14 2013 - 19:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 21,341
  • Member since:
    10-21-2011
well like somebody else said, if this MM is so bad, WG can always roll back to pre 7.5 MM.

So your tier 3 tank will face off with tier 6s and tier 6 kv-1s which is SO OP it can face of against E-75s and even some Maus tanks.

Find out how quick that Kv-1s is NOT op.

Really OP, you probably got screwed over by a platoon of guys who have no clue how MM works or a troll platoon.

It happens, and there is really not a whole hell of a lot MM can do.

I mean seriously nothing worse than breaking out my T110E4 tier 10 TD for a match and a Maus is platooned with a loltraktor and the two of them are LAUGHING at us all.

When you see that kind of horseshit, then you can rant and rave.