Jump to content


The Great MM Debate: 3/5/7 Trash or Triumph?

MM 3/5/7 match maker matchmaker

  • Please log in to reply
1017 replies to this topic

Fulcrous_really_heckin #101 Posted Aug 06 2017 - 23:26

    Major

  • WGLNA Gold League Player
  • 32241 battles
  • 4,348
  • [SUX] SUX
  • Member since:
    07-27-2012

View PostxxBigbacon, on Aug 06 2017 - 13:32, said:

3/5/7 sucks...period...its fun being low tier 20+ times in a row. 

 

I still wish they'd try other templates. I really do think a 3/9/3 would be the most ideal set up. Mid tier most games and there isn't half a team of fodder. you face things you can fight.

 

So bottom tier is always screwed even harder right.

Fight 12 tanks of higher tier rather than fighting 8 tanks of higher tier.

Alternatively if you think of it this way... you fight 3 tanks of equal tier in your proposed system versus 7 tanks of equal tier.

 

If you feel you are getting screwed over by 3/5/7 it's because you continue to fail fighting tanks of equivalent tier.

It's rather amusing that people complain about 3/5/7 but fail to recognize that by fighting more tanks of equal tier, your ability to influence a match is significantly greater than before as bottom tier.



VooDooKobra #102 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 00:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 9657 battles
  • 5,512
  • [MOVE] MOVE
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011

View PostLiberty75, on Aug 06 2017 - 10:21, said:

In the next phase of the discussion we will look at the positive aspects or benefits of the old pre-9.18 MM system. Put forth, in clear terms, the good qualities in the old system. If someone puts forward a positive attribute that you disagree with, please speak up so we can discuss it. Remember, the focus is mainly on tiers 5-8, but the other tiers can be brought in as well if you feel strongly about them.

 

To start with, I will put forward what I think are generally accepted good attributes of the old MM.

1. The old MM gave a good spread of top, middle, and bottom tier games.

2. The old MM was random so team make-ups would be more dynamic (for example, 4/6/5, 2/7/6, etc...) and that added a rich variety to the game.

 

Are there any other positive attributes that we can list or are the items above wrong?

 

i can work with those, no objections here

 

View PostLiberty75, on Aug 06 2017 - 13:27, said:

 

How about this for B?

In the old MM, bottom tier players would have difficulty adjusting their gameplay to being a bottom tier and their guns had difficulty penetrating top tier vehicles.

 

As for the other comment, in bottom tier matches players were generally in a group of 2 or 3 bottom tier tanks per side. The only data I have is the 400 games I analyzed between me and my friend Macduff48 (tiers 5-8). It is the only information we have as far as I know and it did show a general trend between the two players before I combined our numbers. The number of games that we had as a group of 3 or less tanks at bottom tier, regardless of the numbers at the top or middle, was 10 (2.5%). If I increase the number to 4 tanks at the bottom, it is 24 total matches for 6%. When compared to only bottom tier matches (114 games out of that 400) it is about 21% of those matches.

 

How about this:

About 1/10 of a player's bottom tier matches (about 2.5% of all their matches) saw them in a group of 3 or less bottom tier tanks.

 

Many of us think it must be higher (even I thought this before I investigated) because those memories stand out more. The normal stuff (regular matches that we had) isn't retained. So the figures in our head are distorted. This is normal, by the way, and one of the reasons I dug into the data to find out.

 

I wanted to ask another friend for his replays to triple check, but he uninstalled the other day and they are now lost.

 

i wonder how far back my replays go, but again i can work with that i aslo cant remember how often i was bottom tier because it feels like a long time ago.  those number  might be low but for the sake of argument and discussion i can accept them

 

View PostxxBigbacon, on Aug 06 2017 - 14:32, said:

3/5/7 sucks...period...its fun being low tier 20+ times in a row. 

 

I still wish they'd try other templates. I really do think a 3/9/3 would be the most ideal set up. Mid tier most games and there isn't half a team of fodder. you face things you can fight.

 

but you are only swapping one complaint for another.  you would still have people complaining about not being top tier enough, the template doesn't matter unless how often you get those tiers is fixed.  also how well would that work in lower tiers?



shaggy996 #103 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 01:31

    Captain

  • Players
  • 46385 battles
  • 1,414
  • [THUGZ] THUGZ
  • Member since:
    11-17-2012

View PostVooDooKobra, on Aug 06 2017 - 10:11, said:

 

Doesn't the same thing happen though whenever there is a tank change or a up the line event?  you get the MM flooded with those vehicles.  the french top TD is getting changed so people want to get up there quickly so you get more TD in games

 

 

 

Its not just TDs Its just most noticeable on TDs. Also if you look there is only 1 french TD in each of those games, me. So this is not an effect of that. 

The MM seems to try and stack tank types of the top 3 tanks.

 



shaggy996 #104 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 01:41

    Captain

  • Players
  • 46385 battles
  • 1,414
  • [THUGZ] THUGZ
  • Member since:
    11-17-2012

View PostLiberty75, on Aug 06 2017 - 06:20, said:

2. The old MM would not balance tank types very well between teams. Example: it would give one team many TDs against the other team with many mediums.

 

3. The old MM would create teams with great disparities in HP (ex. 10% difference).

 

 

This still happens. Later at night when the pop is lower it happens quite a bit.

I had a game last night with a IS-4 a Maus and a Type 5 vs 3 mediums on a city map. It was a very quick game. Because of the MM tendency to stack tank type on the top 3 tanks, when it does screw this up it can be really bad. 

 

 



Liberty75 #105 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 01:45

    Captain

  • Players
  • 46678 battles
  • 1,588
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostVooDooKobra, on Aug 06 2017 - 18:11, said:

 

i can work with those, no objections here

 

 

i wonder how far back my replays go, but again i can work with that i aslo cant remember how often i was bottom tier because it feels like a long time ago.  those number  might be low but for the sake of argument and discussion i can accept them

 

 

but you are only swapping one complaint for another.  you would still have people complaining about not being top tier enough, the template doesn't matter unless how often you get those tiers is fixed.  also how well would that work in lower tiers?

 

Well, while we have this discussion, I can go further back in MacDuff48's replays. I only used replays from 2017 and he has them going back to August of 2016. I'll look at another 200. Using the WoT Replay Analyzer it should only take a few hours. Maybe the numbers will change drastically? I'll post it either way.

 

Edit: and I'll add that statement to the negatives of the old MM.


Edited by Liberty75, Aug 07 2017 - 01:46.


badmonkey59 #106 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 02:01

    Captain

  • Players
  • 43362 battles
  • 1,407
  • [-_W_-] -_W_-
  • Member since:
    05-15-2011

IMO, pre-9.18 would throw you into some crazy matches. 8 heavies vs 1, one team would be loaded with TDs and the other with mediums. The make-up was crazy sometimes. My problem is I love tier 6 and tier 8, that's were my money making tanks are (were). Being bottom tier 17 out of 20 games just isn't fun. The problem could also be that most of the maps are funnel maps so flanking in your -2 tank isn't always easy.

 

I always thought the light tank +1 match making was silly. I'm an 8, but I'm really a 9...... then you are a nine. Maybe that needed change didn't need to come with the MM change.

 

A few other things have been happening that all seem to have come together in 9.18:

  • Faster tanks, more modern tanks.
  • Aim time reductions in newer tanks.
  • Ridiculous new Premium tanks.
  • Way too many auto loaders.
  • Players are forced to shoot tons of premium rounds now.
  • World of Snap Shots. Some tanks don't even need to aim anymore.
  • Economic reduction in the game.
  • Wargaming has become deaf to the players in NA and rarely reply to comment about problems.
  • Wargaming is getting a reputation as a company of deceit and out right lies. 

 

People may not agree with any of my thoughts, they are just that.... my thoughts on the game

 

 


Edited by badmonkey59, Aug 07 2017 - 02:05.


HotMachete #107 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 03:31

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 32871 battles
  • 641
  • Member since:
    08-18-2013

View PostFulcrous, on Aug 06 2017 - 16:26, said:

 

So bottom tier is always screwed even harder right.

Fight 12 tanks of higher tier rather than fighting 8 tanks of higher tier.

Alternatively if you think of it this way... you fight 3 tanks of equal tier in your proposed system versus 7 tanks of equal tier.

 

If you feel you are getting screwed over by 3/5/7 it's because you continue to fail fighting tanks of equivalent tier.

It's rather amusing that people complain about 3/5/7 but fail to recognize that by fighting more tanks of equal tier, your ability to influence a match is significantly greater than before as bottom tier.

 

No it's not.  For the best of the best, like yourself, who can punch well above your weight in a bottom tier tank, then yeah, 3/5/7 isn't terrible, but for everyone else, it's garbage.  As lots of players have pointed out over and over when discussing 3/5/7, you're not actually fighting "more tanks of equal tier," as you say.  All those equal tier tanks on the opposing side are hiding behind their side's higher tier tanks, and the only way to regularly engage them is to either be able to consistently beat the higher tier front line tanks first, or to get lucky and have the higher tier tanks on your team push a corridor for you.  It's plain stupid.  It's the dumbest change that WG has made to World of Tanks in years.  Heck, I'll go so far as to say that even arty, before the switch to the stun mechanic, was less detrimental to the game than 3/5/7 is.  I can say with ease that the quality of game play at tier 8 right now is the worst game play experience that the game has had in the last 4 years.  And it's getting worse every week, as more and more players give up on tier 8 and decide to play tier 10 instead, which only compounds the failings of the new MM even farther.

Mezurashi #108 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 04:29

    Moderator

  • Moderator
  • 3625 battles
  • 228
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    03-31-2016

View PostDiablobo, on Aug 04 2017 - 14:02, said:

 

Anyone that would give up being top tier to have bottom tier most of the time is a complete moron and no further discussion should be necessary. They are idiots, and all we can do is back away slowly and steer clear.

 

 

​Is this kind of talk really necessary?

 

Just a reminder to be respectful.



Hurk #109 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 04:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 55601 battles
  • 17,376
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012
a sanity pass. thats all i ask. look at the teams AFTER they are made then swap a couple tanks around so its not 5 heavies vs 5 mediums. etc.  drop that down to 3/2  2/3 

Grimdancer #110 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 05:35

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 18692 battles
  • 202
  • Member since:
    09-07-2011

Here are the only numbers that matter to me.

 

I recently decided to grind the T32 & I've been keeping track of the MM

 

Tier 8 matches- 5

Tier 9 matches- 6

Tier 10 matches-15

 

I don't care how you spin it, I do not enjoy being bottom tier 15/26 matches and top tier 5/26 matches.

 

This isn't "perception bias", these are cold, hard numbers.

 

Tier 6 is just as bad. Tier 6 & 8 are getting the shaft. Period.

 

 

 

 


Edited by Grimdancer, Aug 07 2017 - 05:39.


Mudman24 #111 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 05:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 36574 battles
  • 12,162
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012
I think the new MM is fine. The old one was fine too.

HotMachete #112 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 06:07

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 32871 battles
  • 641
  • Member since:
    08-18-2013
I had a battle earlier today that was a perfect example of how terrible 3/5/7 is.  It was a tier 10 battle on Tundra, so three tier 10s, five tier 9s, and seven tier 8s on each side.  Six of my team's tier 8s and one of our tier 9s went to go take the hill.  The enemy only sent one tank to the hill, but it was a tier 10, a T110E5 and he had one tier 8 TD supporting him from behind.  The T110E5 player had decent stats, but not amazing, and out group of tier 8s on the hill didn't have any total scrubs, just a bunch of average players.  That one T110E5 was able to hold the entire flank, however.  Sure, if all of our group had pushed together, we could have zerg rushed him, but no one wanted to lead that push because everyone sitting there in a tier 8 tank knew that whoever led that push was going to trade a huge chunk, if not all of their hit points to score maybe one or two shots into the T110E5.  There's no fun in that.  Player's want to be able to contribute to their team's win, but they want that contribution to be in the form of damage dealt and kills scored.  No one wants to feel like their primary contribution in battle after battle is to be nothing more than a sacrificial distraction.  Ultimately our team won that battle, but not because of anything us tier 8s did.  We got lucky in that the tier 10s on our team, who went to the other flank, managed to carry us.  In the end, all of the tier 8s on our team dealt less than 2000 damage combined.  It was a completely boring, and pointless game play experience.  The win was meaningless for us tier 8s, because we didn't do anything to contribute to it, and the tiny bit of XP and credits we got wasn't at all worth the time we spent twiddling our thumbs, waiting for the higher tier tanks to determine the outcome of the battle for us.   Sure, battles like this sometimes happened under the old MM, too, but they were a lot easier to bear, becauseyou knew that for every bottom tier battle you struggled through, you'd get to play another battle as top tier.  Plus such battles were rarer, because under the old MM, there was usually enough high tier tanks on each team to make sure that every corridor had tanks that could competitively push into each other, which in turn gave the bottom tier tanks true support opportunities.

Fulcrous_really_heckin #113 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 06:46

    Major

  • WGLNA Gold League Player
  • 32241 battles
  • 4,348
  • [SUX] SUX
  • Member since:
    07-27-2012

View PostHotMachete, on Aug 06 2017 - 18:31, said:

 

No it's not.  For the best of the best, like yourself, who can punch well above your weight in a bottom tier tank, then yeah, 3/5/7 isn't terrible, but for everyone else, it's garbage.  As lots of players have pointed out over and over when discussing 3/5/7, you're not actually fighting "more tanks of equal tier," as you say.  All those equal tier tanks on the opposing side are hiding behind their side's higher tier tanks, and the only way to regularly engage them is to either be able to consistently beat the higher tier front line tanks first, or to get lucky and have the higher tier tanks on your team push a corridor for you.  It's plain stupid.  It's the dumbest change that WG has made to World of Tanks in years.  Heck, I'll go so far as to say that even arty, before the switch to the stun mechanic, was less detrimental to the game than 3/5/7 is.  I can say with ease that the quality of game play at tier 8 right now is the worst game play experience that the game has had in the last 4 years.  And it's getting worse every week, as more and more players give up on tier 8 and decide to play tier 10 instead, which only compounds the failings of the new MM even farther.

 

If you can't find opportunities to fight other tier 8s then that's your fault. Not matchmaking.

If you'd rather fight more higher tier tanks as lower tier, be my guest.



Grimdancer #114 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 06:49

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 18692 battles
  • 202
  • Member since:
    09-07-2011

View PostHotMachete, on Aug 07 2017 - 05:07, said:

I had a battle earlier today that was a perfect example of how terrible 3/5/7 is.  It was a tier 10 battle on Tundra, so three tier 10s, five tier 9s, and seven tier 8s on each side.  Six of my team's tier 8s and one of our tier 9s went to go take the hill.  The enemy only sent one tank to the hill, but it was a tier 10, a T110E5 and he had one tier 8 TD supporting him from behind.  The T110E5 player had decent stats, but not amazing, and out group of tier 8s on the hill didn't have any total scrubs, just a bunch of average players.  That one T110E5 was able to hold the entire flank, however.  Sure, if all of our group had pushed together, we could have zerg rushed him, but no one wanted to lead that push because everyone sitting there in a tier 8 tank knew that whoever led that push was going to trade a huge chunk, if not all of their hit points to score maybe one or two shots into the T110E5.  There's no fun in that.  Player's want to be able to contribute to their team's win, but they want that contribution to be in the form of damage dealt and kills scored.  No one wants to feel like their primary contribution in battle after battle is to be nothing more than a sacrificial distraction.  Ultimately our team won that battle, but not because of anything us tier 8s did.  We got lucky in that the tier 10s on our team, who went to the other flank, managed to carry us.  In the end, all of the tier 8s on our team dealt less than 2000 damage combined.  It was a completely boring, and pointless game play experience.  The win was meaningless for us tier 8s, because we didn't do anything to contribute to it, and the tiny bit of XP and credits we got wasn't at all worth the time we spent twiddling our thumbs, waiting for the higher tier tanks to determine the outcome of the battle for us.   Sure, battles like this sometimes happened under the old MM, too, but they were a lot easier to bear, becauseyou knew that for every bottom tier battle you struggled through, you'd get to play another battle as top tier.  Plus such battles were rarer, because under the old MM, there was usually enough high tier tanks on each team to make sure that every corridor had tanks that could competitively push into each other, which in turn gave the bottom tier tanks true support opportunities.

 

Exactly. I was just in a battle with the T32 where I was facing an E100. All of the tier 8's and 9's were sitting behind him around the corner. There was no way to get a shot at any of those other tanks w/o taking a massive hit from the E100. I cannot put a dent in that E100 even with APCR rounds. So what do I do?

 

I sat there and did nothing. All the while trying to figure out a good course of action. Meanwhile we lost the other flank anyways so when I turned to face the brigade coming at me from the other side, the E100 shot a round right up my [edited].

 

This fantasy-land notion that I keep hearing on this forum about "well there are 7 other tier 8 tanks, so go shoot them" is a bunch of horse sht. They are all hiding behind the tier 10 Super Heavy in a narrow firing lane. So now I take my slow [edited]T32 and go around the entire map looking for a Tier 8 to shoot and hope/prey I don't get spotted enroute to a position in the other narrow firing lane.

 

Most of these maps have two firing lanes with a death zone in the middle, so this rubbish that it's "OK" to be bottom tier 85% of the time because you can always find an equal opponent "somewhere else" is ridiculous.

 

The only enjoyment I am getting out of the T32 is finding good hull-down locations and trolling tier 10s with the turret armor.


Edited by Grimdancer, Aug 07 2017 - 06:52.


shaggy996 #115 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 09:45

    Captain

  • Players
  • 46385 battles
  • 1,414
  • [THUGZ] THUGZ
  • Member since:
    11-17-2012

View PostGrimdancer, on Aug 06 2017 - 21:49, said:

 

Exactly. I was just in a battle with the T32 where I was facing an E100. All of the tier 8's and 9's were sitting behind him around the corner. There was no way to get a shot at any of those other tanks w/o taking a massive hit from the E100. I cannot put a dent in that E100 even with APCR rounds. So what do I do?

 

I sat there and did nothing. All the while trying to figure out a good course of action. Meanwhile we lost the other flank anyways so when I turned to face the brigade coming at me from the other side, the E100 shot a round right up my [edited].

 

This fantasy-land notion that I keep hearing on this forum about "well there are 7 other tier 8 tanks, so go shoot them" is a bunch of horse sht. They are all hiding behind the tier 10 Super Heavy in a narrow firing lane. So now I take my slow [edited]T32 and go around the entire map looking for a Tier 8 to shoot and hope/prey I don't get spotted enroute to a position in the other narrow firing lane.

 

Most of these maps have two firing lanes with a death zone in the middle, so this rubbish that it's "OK" to be bottom tier 85% of the time because you can always find an equal opponent "somewhere else" is ridiculous.

 

The only enjoyment I am getting out of the T32 is finding good hull-down locations and trolling tier 10s with the turret armor.

 

and that is also a large part of the issue for 3/5/7. There are normally only 2 or 3 lanes on a map to take. There is not real flanking on most maps unless you can win one of the lanes quickly. So the tier 8s really dont have much to do most games. 



Diablobo #116 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 12:06

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 2305 battles
  • 214
  • Member since:
    12-23-2014

View PostMezurashi, on Aug 07 2017 - 04:29, said:

 

​Is this kind of talk really necessary?

 

Just a reminder to be respectful.

 

How respectful is it to noob scold and say that my opinion or facts don't matter because I have not played enough games to know what I am talking about? How respectful is it to scam and gaslight people by telling them having most games be bottom tier is better than an even mix of top, middle, and bottom tier ones? How respectful is it to deny reality and claim most people like being bottom tier all the time?

 

They only get as much respect as they deserve and accord me. Since I have been given none, they get none in return.


Edited by Diablobo, Aug 07 2017 - 12:09.


Shrike58 #117 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 12:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 69298 battles
  • 8,696
  • Member since:
    02-23-2013

The problem is that this game is old and it's top-heavy with Tier-X machines...I'm not sure there's much that can be done about that.

 

I suppose the hope would be that the new grand-battle mode sponges up some of those Tier-X vehicles.



Hurk #118 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 16:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 55601 battles
  • 17,376
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

View PostShrike58, on Aug 07 2017 - 04:18, said:

The problem is that this game is old and it's top-heavy with Tier-X machines...I'm not sure there's much that can be done about that.

I suppose the hope would be that the new grand-battle mode sponges up some of those Tier-X vehicles.

not really. most matches are still in the tier 3-5 range. 

the issue isnt being tier 10 top heavy. its that you only need 3/15 to fill a match. 

 

What i propose is that for battle tiers 11 and 10, the order of match making preference be changed.  instead of 3/5/7, then 5/10, then 15/all. change it:

battle tier 10/11: 15/all, then 5/10, then 3/5/7

battle tier 8: 5/10, 15/all, 3/5/7

 



xtc4 #119 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 17:10

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 26949 battles
  • 748
  • [DHO-X] DHO-X
  • Member since:
    01-31-2013

I don't have a great problem with the new mm. However, I think that I have a slight preference for the old one, and I am worried about further changes to the mm to make each match "balanced" and "consistent."

 

The thing is, I like strategic thinking. I like looking at weird comps and match-ups and deciding how my tank can be most valuable. A weird game allows me to out-think a person who will always take his tank to the "usual" spot for that map and class of tanks. In a weird game, I can put my tank in the most advantageous position based on the comp and deployment and cover up my weaknesses in the micro-tactical stuff.  (E.g., I don't aim well, I drive into buildings, I don't know weak spots as well as I should, etc.)

 

Don't get me wrong: there's still weirdness in the current mm, so I don't have a huge problem with it. I am worried about where we are going, though.



Liberty75 #120 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 18:04

    Captain

  • Players
  • 46678 battles
  • 1,588
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostLiberty75, on Aug 06 2017 - 19:45, said:

View PostVooDooKobra, on Aug 06 2017 - 18:11, said:

i wonder how far back my replays go, but again i can work with that i aslo cant remember how often i was bottom tier because it feels like a long time ago.  those number  might be low but for the sake of argument and discussion i can accept them

 

Well, while we have this discussion, I can go further back in MacDuff48's replays. I only used replays from 2017 and he has them going back to August of 2016. I'll look at another 200. Using the WoT Replay Analyzer it should only take a few hours. Maybe the numbers will change drastically? I'll post it either way.

 

I analyzed another 50 battles from my friend Macduff from September 2016 and the same pattern is emerging as the other 400 games I analyzed. Here is a picture of the Excel file I was creating. I only recorded matches in tier 5 to 8 tanks without special tiering (I put those in a separate spot as you can see below, but they are not included in the percent). The bulk of his battles were in tier 6, with tiers 5, 7, and 8 present as well. I'd do the other 150, but this is starting to take up too much of my time to keep finding a similar result.

 

The original 400 matches were TOP: 36%; MIDDLE: 35.5%; and BOTTOM: 28.5%.

 

EDIT: The number in parenthesis is the top tier tank level and the red number is the position of Macduff in the match.

 

 

Here is a copy of the original 400. I copied it over to google docs manually from Excel, so there might be a missing color or parenthesis somewhere.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l2F_VrSG2tptwDJxNCH9lrJbPAaQi92dyP39q09QAIg/edit#gid=0


Edited by Liberty75, Aug 07 2017 - 18:42.






Also tagged with MM, 3/5/7, match maker, matchmaker

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users