Jump to content


New 3-5-7 MatchMaker set to make matters worse!


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

Phloyd113 #1 Posted Jun 03 2016 - 21:22

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 14967 battles
  • 957
  • Member since:
    07-22-2013

As only WoT can do it by not listening to its customers, the new changes to the failing MatchMaker will not solve any problems, but instead merely increase the queue wait times.

 

Their proposal is to ensure that each team has 3 of the top tier tanks, 5 of the middle tier, and 7 of the bottom tier. In order to fill these slots, the MatchMaker will require more time and more tanks in the pool. With this restrictions, it will take more time to create a battle to fill these meaningless needs.

 

World of Tanks has ignored their own Forum input from their Customers with this myopic change. we will STILL see battles with a mismatch in the quantity of heavy tanks as their idea will not prohibit a class balance without even more time setting it up.

 

We will STILL see one-sided battles where one team WILL crush the other team REGARDLESS of efforts made because skill sets are still not to be taken into account.

 

There will OBVIOUSLY still be a +\-2 tier difference as their very parameters quote the 3-5-7 assignments. From this, the 2 tier down tanks will STILL be frustrated in not being able to penetrate and do damage to the opponents.

 

By missing our suggestions which have been BLOCKED by the very few Kings here is the downfall of your new MatchMaker. It fails even before you implement it, as I have already observed in this post.

 

So, this Forum shall continue to receive complaints about the MatchMaker as the problems are not being addressed.

 

Enjoy your ongoing loss of players, WoT because you do not open your ears.

 

There's me feedback on your 'new' MatchMaker. It will be in immediate need of fixing even as you roll it out.

 

Take a simple math approach to skill balancing, since you already do in order to fulfill your rigging to attempt to create a 50% win rate *yes, we know that is part of your MM, but you are doing it wrong!). What you actually need to do is total the Performance Ratings (PR) and move 1 or 2 tanks from one side to the other to close that gap. Yes, that means SKILL BALANCING, which is the ONLY way you are going to get rid of these complaints!

 

The 2 tier differential may yet still need to be addressed as that results in being unable to do damage. So a +\- 1 tier has to be part of your equation.

 

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THOSE WHO SAY OTHERWISE AS THEY ARE TRYING TO KEEP THEIR ADVANTAGE!

 

Else, there will be no new player growth ion the US market. We insist on a fair fight (at least those of us who have any Honor).

 

To close, as I have stated, this new MatchMaker will not fix anything, just create more problems while keeping all the old problems as well.



Mudman24 #2 Posted Jun 03 2016 - 21:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 36582 battles
  • 12,162
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012
I usually never agree with you (which by your definition means I am a troll) but I agree this will be a really bad change.  Any above average player will be able to benifit from platooning as Tier 10s or 4 premium seal clubbers and influence the match much more than they can now. Look for seal clubbers to reach recents of 90%.  It will make low tiers unpleasant at least.

ratpak #3 Posted Jun 03 2016 - 21:36

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 26617 battles
  • 2,370
  • [DHO-X] DHO-X
  • Member since:
    11-24-2010
3-5-7 is a horrible idea for NA server... end of story

TheGhostCat #4 Posted Jun 03 2016 - 21:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 20380 battles
  • 6,678
  • [LAMDA] LAMDA
  • Member since:
    05-13-2011

View PostMudman24, on Jun 03 2016 - 21:27, said:

I usually never agree with you (which by your definition means I am a troll) but I agree this will be a really bad change. Any above average player will be able to benifit from platooning as Tier 10s or 4 premium seal clubbers and influence the match much more than they can now. Look for seal clubbers to reach recents of 90%. It will make low tiers unpleasant at least.

 

It's gonna make tier 8/9/10 a mess. Those 44% top tier platoons are now game breaking.

 

Because you KNOW you absolutely KNOW that the game is lost when you're got the top tier baddies.



Mudman24 #5 Posted Jun 03 2016 - 21:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 36582 battles
  • 12,162
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012

View PostTheGhostCat, on Jun 03 2016 - 14:37, said:

 

It's gonna make tier 8/9/10 a mess. Those 44% top tier platoons are now game breaking.

 

Because you KNOW you absolutely KNOW that the game is lost when you're got the top tier baddies.

Exactly.  Although it's never a sure thing, the top tier platoon will play a much bigger part on the outcome of the game when there are no other 10s for them to deal with. 



Phloyd113 #6 Posted Jun 03 2016 - 21:41

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 14967 battles
  • 957
  • Member since:
    07-22-2013

View PostMudman24, on Jun 03 2016 - 13:27, said:

I usually never agree with you (which by your definition means I am a troll) but I agree this will be a really bad change. Any above average player will be able to benifit from platooning as Tier 10s or 4 premium seal clubbers and influence the match much more than they can now. Look for seal clubbers to reach recents of 90%. It will make low tiers unpleasant at least.

 

To be correct, by disagreeing with me does NOT make you a troll. If you were to point out where that may have taken place, I could show you precisely WHY I might call a post troll-like. I remain certain that any and ALL of my troll reports are truly within the definition of trolls. When a suggestion is met with a mere 'no way', that is a troll post as it gives no reason for the disagreement, just filling space. Perhaps that might have been what you read months ago (and it HAS been months since I posted anything here).

 

Still, I appreciate you setting the gloves aside and acknowledging that this change will not do much good, if any.



Absolute_Territory #7 Posted Jun 03 2016 - 21:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 21741 battles
  • 7,962
  • [SNPAI] SNPAI
  • Member since:
    10-29-2013
This will make top tier (insert OP tank here) platoons near unstopable.

TLWiz #8 Posted Jun 03 2016 - 21:51

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 22325 battles
  • 9,770
  • [DSSRT] DSSRT
  • Member since:
    12-26-2014
If you are unable to have any impact in battle as a lower tier, that is on you.  Good luck.  I wish for the game to remain challenging.  The +/- 2 tier spread is fine.  The 3-5-7 balance seems like more of an answer than MM tank imbalances really needed and I do worry about the impact of that.  My take is that WG is throwing it out there and we'll see how it goes in test. 3-5-7 just seems like a formula to ensure that you see a lot of bottom tier games.

Edited by TLWiz, Jun 03 2016 - 21:55.


xrays_ #9 Posted Jun 03 2016 - 21:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 52607 battles
  • 4,266
  • Member since:
    08-02-2013

I still find it incomprehensible that people take an idea and instantly bash it because of what they believe will happen... The concept was discussed, yet hasn't been implemented, but for some reason, people already believe it will fail. Basically, you have no clue how it will be implemented, how tightly the rules will be adhered, how it will affect actual gameplay, or any other parameter that hasn't been released yet because, well, IT HASN'T BEEN RELEASED YET.

 

FFS, why not wait for more information before making a fool of yourselves. Everyone's taking the 3/5/7 as a hard and fast rule, and making their own conclusions as to how that will affect game play at all levels, on all servers, with all population spreads. Have you not stopped to think that maybe there will be more than just those three numbers governing how it will work?

 

x.



FunPolice_ #10 Posted Jun 03 2016 - 21:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 30662 battles
  • 2,445
  • [RDDT] RDDT
  • Member since:
    03-08-2013
These changes seem strange... platooning at tier 10 seems like it would just be kind of win unless the other side happened to get a similar quality platoon...  And those super high quality e-hundo platoons...

killswitch95 #11 Posted Jun 03 2016 - 21:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 38949 battles
  • 8,804
  • [K0HAI] K0HAI
  • Member since:
    04-12-2012
still no hard cap on TDs per team... 

Mudman24 #12 Posted Jun 03 2016 - 22:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 36582 battles
  • 12,162
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012

View Postkillswitch95, on Jun 03 2016 - 14:58, said:

still no hard cap on TDs per team... 

Who the hell has ever asked for that?  In all the years I have been here this is the first time I have ever heard anyone even suggest it.  Am I missing something? 



__WARDADDY_ #13 Posted Jun 03 2016 - 22:06

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 32816 battles
  • 2,994
  • Member since:
    07-02-2014

The MM has never worked right since 9.13 because one team gets 7 to 8 heavy tanks with an approx. HP advantage of 1600 to 2000 HP.

The opposite team gets 2 or 3 heavy tanks...I call the MATCH GUESSING!!! Smile_sceptic.gif


Edited by __WARDADDY_, Jun 03 2016 - 22:07.


riff_ #14 Posted Jun 03 2016 - 22:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 28835 battles
  • 10,120
  • Member since:
    08-02-2013

Content Removed

 

Non-constructive, off-topic posting

 

~Lt_Hunter



Tolos #15 Posted Jun 03 2016 - 22:09

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25997 battles
  • 18,677
  • [GDF] GDF
  • Member since:
    09-22-2010
People whine the mm is broken so wg try to fix it. Same people then whine that the fix wont work before its even finish....god bless this forum..

Doomslinger #16 Posted Jun 03 2016 - 22:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 72781 battles
  • 5,767
  • Member since:
    07-29-2012
Yep.  It seems like when they mess around with the maps, tanks or this mm, they will mess it up and make it worse.  Over the years the graphics and sounds have improved but every time they mess with maps or the tanks, the game gets a little worse.

RamaLamaDingDong2 #17 Posted Jun 03 2016 - 22:19

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 28923 battles
  • 4,182
  • [USAA] USAA
  • Member since:
    03-02-2015

View PostTolos, on Jun 03 2016 - 15:09, said:

People whine the mm is broken so wg try to fix it. Same people then whine that the fix wont work before its even finish....god bless this forum..

 

Thanks Intelligence officer....got to Google oxymoron feel the urge everytime I read this huh odd???

RamaLamaDingDong2 #18 Posted Jun 03 2016 - 22:20

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 28923 battles
  • 4,182
  • [USAA] USAA
  • Member since:
    03-02-2015

View Postkillswitch95, on Jun 03 2016 - 14:58, said:

still no hard cap on TDs per team... 

? that's a new one



GaiusMaximus505 #19 Posted Jun 03 2016 - 22:32

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 3901 battles
  • 102
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

3/5/7 equals awful idea for the above reasons. 

 

 



ArmorStorm #20 Posted Jun 03 2016 - 22:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 37707 battles
  • 8,636
  • [F__R] F__R
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostPhloyd113, on Jun 03 2016 - 14:22, said:

As only WoT can do it by not listening to its customers, the new changes to the failing MatchMaker will not solve any problems, but instead merely increase the queue wait times.

 

Their proposal is to ensure that each team has 3 of the top tier tanks, 5 of the middle tier, and 7 of the bottom tier. In order to fill these slots, the MatchMaker will require more time and more tanks in the pool. With this restrictions, it will take more time to create a battle to fill these meaningless needs.

 

World of Tanks has ignored their own Forum input from their Customers with this myopic change. we will STILL see battles with a mismatch in the quantity of heavy tanks as their idea will not prohibit a class balance without even more time setting it up.

 

We will STILL see one-sided battles where one team WILL crush the other team REGARDLESS of efforts made because skill sets are still not to be taken into account.

 

There will OBVIOUSLY still be a +\-2 tier difference as their very parameters quote the 3-5-7 assignments. From this, the 2 tier down tanks will STILL be frustrated in not being able to penetrate and do damage to the opponents.

 

By missing our suggestions which have been BLOCKED by the very few Kings here is the downfall of your new MatchMaker. It fails even before you implement it, as I have already observed in this post.

 

So, this Forum shall continue to receive complaints about the MatchMaker as the problems are not being addressed.

 

Enjoy your ongoing loss of players, WoT because you do not open your ears.

 

There's me feedback on your 'new' MatchMaker. It will be in immediate need of fixing even as you roll it out.

 

Take a simple math approach to skill balancing, since you already do in order to fulfill your rigging to attempt to create a 50% win rate *yes, we know that is part of your MM, but you are doing it wrong!). What you actually need to do is total the Performance Ratings (PR) and move 1 or 2 tanks from one side to the other to close that gap. Yes, that means SKILL BALANCING, which is the ONLY way you are going to get rid of these complaints!

 

The 2 tier differential may yet still need to be addressed as that results in being unable to do damage. So a +\- 1 tier has to be part of your equation.

 

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THOSE WHO SAY OTHERWISE AS THEY ARE TRYING TO KEEP THEIR ADVANTAGE!

 

Else, there will be no new player growth ion the US market. We insist on a fair fight (at least those of us who have any Honor).

 

To close, as I have stated, this new MatchMaker will not fix anything, just create more problems while keeping all the old problems as well.

 

I don't care for the new MM adjustment either, but most of those other "issues" you cite are intentional design considerations by professionals.  Tier gap?  We need it for variety of challenges.  No set number of heavies or mediums?  Same thing.  Battles play out differently if your team has to work against a team of heavies or a team of mediums.  No skill matching?  Same thing really, you have to figure out how to fit in with either an advantage or shortfall in skill.  Now, you can certainly disagree with these decisions but you should know WHY they are being made.  

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users