Jump to content


MM, working as intended.

matchmaker

  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

The_Toaster #1 Posted Apr 19 2016 - 05:37

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 24964 battles
  • 560
  • [-ROC-] -ROC-
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011

we had 3 tier 10's, they had 8. what the hell, WG. what the hell.

 

oh, wait. "working as intended, matchmaker is perfect."

 


Edited by The_Toaster, Apr 19 2016 - 05:38.


The_Toaster #2 Posted Apr 19 2016 - 05:38

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 24964 battles
  • 560
  • [-ROC-] -ROC-
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011
if you cant read it, right click the pic and open image in new tab. i forgot that it doesnt show up well on single monitor setups.

Kamahl1234 #3 Posted Apr 19 2016 - 05:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 18393 battles
  • 10,078
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012
Eh, for the time being, just view it as a challenge, and try to pony up and show them 10s who's boss. 

MeKanism #4 Posted Apr 19 2016 - 05:46

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 2288 battles
  • 610
  • Member since:
    09-25-2015
But did you win?

Hiroe #5 Posted Apr 19 2016 - 05:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 13615 battles
  • 4,113
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

View PostMeKanism, on Apr 19 2016 - 00:46, said:

But did you win?

 

The real question.

CelticArchangel #6 Posted Apr 19 2016 - 06:01

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14178 battles
  • 1,468
  • Member since:
    07-14-2011

So... did this happen ten times in a row.. or JUST this one time? Would you still be coming in here pleading your case if you were on the other team???

 

Please point out where WG stated MM was perfect and worked without any flaws at all, ever. Please honour us with those times where MM stacked the odds in YOUR favour and come to the defense of the players who you mopped the floor with.

 

Don't worry, we'll wait... :popcorn:



Fahlorn #7 Posted Apr 19 2016 - 06:09

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 38660 battles
  • 92
  • Member since:
    11-13-2011

Yeah, was in this match.  We were the ones that actually pointed out how lopsided it was and apologized in advance for the beat down about to ensue.  Didn't help most of your team yolo'ed anyway.  o7 to that dastardly t49 driver btw, left him alive out of respect....not b/c we couldn't catch him  ;P 

 



Andrew9998 #8 Posted Apr 19 2016 - 06:23

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 14846 battles
  • 1,119
  • [AG3NT] AG3NT
  • Member since:
    02-08-2014

View PostCelticArchangel, on Apr 18 2016 - 21:01, said:

So... did this happen ten times in a row.. or JUST this one time? Would you still be coming in here pleading your case if you were on the other team???

 

 

I did that once...was told to go get balanced.

Kiwi_Dynamite #9 Posted Apr 19 2016 - 06:24

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 25732 battles
  • 92
  • [NZ] NZ
  • Member since:
    10-31-2011

Switch that Winrate off pregame... :P

 

Nothing better than coming out with a Win and seeing you had a low winrate chance post battle ;)



heavymetal1967 #10 Posted Apr 19 2016 - 06:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 67680 battles
  • 18,672
  • Member since:
    05-30-2012

Gonna guess platoons which, from my understanding, gives a normally already befuddled MM an aneurysm.

 

They had 2 platoons of 2 each all tier 10s.

 

Your team had 3 three man platoons.  One was three tier 8s and one was a tier 8 with two nines.

 

I'm not a guru on this and to add to it I suck at math lol.  But this (afaik) likely caused MM to have a migraine and go cross-eyed.

 

Not excusing it as that should be fixed.  And again IF that's the case (platoons creating other issues within MM than disregarding fail toon mixes).

 

 



SoTrue #11 Posted Apr 19 2016 - 06:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 30875 battles
  • 3,302
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011

View PostCelticArchangel, on Apr 18 2016 - 21:01, said:

So... did this happen ten times in a row.. or JUST this one time? Would you still be coming in here pleading your case if you were on the other team???

 

Please point out where WG stated MM was perfect and worked without any flaws at all, ever. Please honour us with those times where MM stacked the odds in YOUR favour and come to the defense of the players who you mopped the floor with.

 

Don't worry, we'll wait... :popcorn:

 

Here you go.  Odd were greatly in my favor.  Know what?  Boring as hell.  Unchallenging as hell.  If you add up the time where you can't win, and the times like above where you can't lose.  It comes out to around 30% of all your battles.  If your average battle is 4 minutes, that means for every 1000 battles you spend 66 hours in 'junk' battles like this.  This is a real waste of all of our time.  This is a massive time dump.  This is a real issue.  I'd rather every battle be winnable/losable, and have a win rate of 50% - than to have to suffer through this crap.



Southern_Comfort #12 Posted Apr 19 2016 - 13:26

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 36033 battles
  • 760
  • Member since:
    07-14-2013
I heard they are reworking MM.
 


NeatoMan #13 Posted Apr 19 2016 - 14:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 27282 battles
  • 18,741
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View Postbikebudha1, on Apr 19 2016 - 00:44, said:

Here you go.  Odd were greatly in my favor.  Know what?  Boring as hell.  Unchallenging as hell.  If you add up the time where you can't win, and the times like above where you can't lose.  It comes out to around 30% of all your battles.  If your average battle is 4 minutes, that means for every 1000 battles you spend 66 hours in 'junk' battles like this.  This is a real waste of all of our time.  This is a massive time dump.  This is a real issue.  I'd rather every battle be winnable/losable, and have a win rate of 50% - than to have to suffer through this crap.

Not boring for the players on your team that actually did something to help your team win.   While you were duking it out pathetically with that OI, they were winning the game for you.  You would have sat there for the whole match doing nothing to that OI if they didn't come to your aid.  Is that what you call fun?

 

Go AFK for 100% of your battles and you'll still win ~50% of the time.  How does that make skill matter more?

 

btw, the chance to win for the OP was 48%.



Digital_Malamute #14 Posted Apr 19 2016 - 15:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 46759 battles
  • 10,179
  • [SHIMP] SHIMP
  • Member since:
    09-02-2011

WG MM

Step #1: Pick Team that should win.

Step #2: Fill in Team #2 for Team #1 to roll 15 - 1/2/3/4/etc



jwolf1971 #15 Posted Apr 19 2016 - 15:57

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 16080 battles
  • 392
  • Member since:
    11-07-2013

View Postbikebudha1, on Apr 19 2016 - 05:44, said:

 

Here you go.  Odd were greatly in my favor.  Know what?  Boring as hell.  Unchallenging as hell.  If you add up the time where you can't win, and the times like above where you can't lose.  It comes out to around 30% of all your battles.  If your average battle is 4 minutes, that means for every 1000 battles you spend 66 hours in 'junk' battles like this.  This is a real waste of all of our time.  This is a massive time dump.  This is a real issue.  I'd rather every battle be winnable/losable, and have a win rate of 50% - than to have to suffer through this crap.

 

30% of 1000 battles (300 battles) at 4 mins per battle (1200 mins) divided by 60 mins/hour = 20 hours. 66.67 hours is the total time to play 1000 battles at 4 mins per battle.

 

Maths aside, I hear stories about "that other game" with a "skill-aware" matchmaker serving up queue times of several minutes for PvP (I've only dabbled in PvE over there - my toaster won't run that game well enough to play seriously), so it seems like the longer queue times for such a process could mean your wait time to get into 1000 battles (exclusive of the actual playing time) could be longer than the wait time plus the playing time for 1000 WoT battles. Waiting in a queue is a REAL waste of my limited gaming time. 



NeatoMan #16 Posted Apr 20 2016 - 00:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 27282 battles
  • 18,741
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View Postjwolf1971, on Apr 19 2016 - 09:57, said:

 

30% of 1000 battles (300 battles) at 4 mins per battle (1200 mins) divided by 60 mins/hour = 20 hours. 66.67 hours is the total time to play 1000 battles at 4 mins per battle.

 

Maths aside, I hear stories about "that other game" with a "skill-aware" matchmaker serving up queue times of several minutes for PvP (I've only dabbled in PvE over there - my toaster won't run that game well enough to play seriously), so it seems like the longer queue times for such a process could mean your wait time to get into 1000 battles (exclusive of the actual playing time) could be longer than the wait time plus the playing time for 1000 WoT battles. Waiting in a queue is a REAL waste of my limited gaming time. 

 

and according to the thread by a dev over there it didn't really improve anything over the non-skill influenced MM.

The_Toaster #17 Posted Apr 20 2016 - 06:23

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 24964 battles
  • 560
  • [-ROC-] -ROC-
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011

sorry for the delayed response, my cable took a crap on me last night and dumped me off tanks...and the internet. this isn't the only time ive had this (the battle, i mean) happen, just the most recent...and as for the chance to win, i left that on because i dont care enough to turn it off...i don't bother looking at it. i've had so many wins in battles with 9% chance according to xvm, and so many losses in 90% ones. xvm's chance to win doesn't account for human stupidity, which we all know there is an abundance of in this game.

 

im just tired of seeing crap like this...so one sided.







Also tagged with matchmaker

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users