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

NeatoMan #121 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 19:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 27742 battles
  • 19,679
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostGrimdancer, on Aug 07 2017 - 00:49, 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.

Was one of your tier 10s on that flank?  If he wasn't there, and yet you held up that E100 and his tier 8 friends in your tier 8, then you did good.  The fact that you had a horrible team that couldn't win the other flank despite having an advantage is not a fault of the 3-5-7 template.  It's the fault of a crappy players.  No amount of MM, old or new, would solve that problem for you.  That's a problem of poor map design and terrible players.   The MM can't, and shouldn't be expected to fix those things.



Liberty75 #122 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 19:53

    Captain

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

View PostLiberty75, on Aug 06 2017 - 12:21, 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'd like to add to this list, unless there are objections that we can discuss, the following in italics.

 

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 with more variation 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.

3. The old MM created teams quickly.

4. The old MM worked well with special tiering premium tanks.

 

Is there anything else we should add to this list?



VooDooKobra #123 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 19:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 9431 battles
  • 5,298
  • [MOVE] MOVE
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011

View PostDiablobo, on Aug 07 2017 - 04:06, said:

 

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.

 

if you wish to add some facts to the discussion on the pros and cons of each mm then do so and please leave the insults at the door.  just because it is you opinion that you are being gaslighted does not make it relevant to this discussion.  just because you say it is a scam does not make it true.  please present your facts in a adult manner since i do not recall anyone in this topic being disrespectful to you.  if it was from another topic please take it there.  you made some good points early on but switched to insult mode before anyone actually commented on what you said

 

thank you


Edited by VooDooKobra, Aug 07 2017 - 20:06.


VooDooKobra #124 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 20:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 9431 battles
  • 5,298
  • [MOVE] MOVE
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011

View PostLiberty75, on Aug 07 2017 - 11:53, said:

 

I'd like to add to this list, unless there are objections that we can discuss, the following in italics.

 

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 with more variation 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.

3. The old MM created teams quickly.

4. The old MM worked well with special tiering premium tanks.

 

Is there anything else we should add to this list?

 

now back to the actual topic

 

with 3 has there been any noticable difference in time to play?

 

i agree with 4 as it applies to pref MM tanks that are higher tier but was it better for lower tiers?



Liberty75 #125 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 21:18

    Captain

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

View PostVooDooKobra, on Aug 07 2017 - 14:10, said:

 

now back to the actual topic

 

with 3 has there been any noticable difference in time to play?

 

i agree with 4 as it applies to pref MM tanks that are higher tier but was it better for lower tiers?

 

The list isn't a comparison to the new MM, but more of a list of what the old MM did well. The purpose of this is to see what was good and bad about the old MM, then we will look at the good and bad of the new MM to see if the trade offs were worth it, and/or to see if there is a better solution for fixing the MM in general.

 

Edit: The new MM seems to have longer wait times than in the past. They are usually not horrible and I cannot verify this since I don't have wait time info for the old MM. The only time I recall having longer than usual wait times in the old MM was when playing a low tier tank (tiers 1 and 2). Now I have seen noticeably longer wait times intermittently over the past few months.


Edited by Liberty75, Aug 07 2017 - 21:24.


VooDooKobra #126 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 21:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 9431 battles
  • 5,298
  • [MOVE] MOVE
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011

View PostLiberty75, on Aug 07 2017 - 13:18, said:

 

The list isn't a comparison to the new MM, but more of a list of what the old MM did well. The purpose of this is to see what was good and bad about the old MM, then we will look at the good and bad of the new MM to see if the trade offs were worth it, and/or to see if there is a better solution for fixing the MM in general.

 

Edit: The new MM seems to have longer wait times than in the past. They are usually not horrible and I cannot verify this since I don't have wait time info for the old MM. The only time I recall having longer than usual wait times in the old MM was when playing a low tier tank (tiers 1 and 2). Now I have seen noticeably longer wait times intermittently over the past few months.

 

yes you are right, my mistake.  sorry man

Grimdancer #127 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 21:36

    Sergeant

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

View PostNeatoMan, on Aug 07 2017 - 18:20, said:

Was one of your tier 10s on that flank?  If he wasn't there, and yet you held up that E100 and his tier 8 friends in your tier 8, then you did good.  The fact that you had a horrible team that couldn't win the other flank despite having an advantage is not a fault of the 3-5-7 template.  It's the fault of a crappy players.  No amount of MM, old or new, would solve that problem for you.  That's a problem of poor map design and terrible players.   The MM can't, and shouldn't be expected to fix those things.

 

Na, I had a bunch of TDs in the woods behind me. That is why the E100 didn't advance. He didn't give two shts about a T32, nor should he. That's why I stayed there so long because I knew I was the only one spotting the E100 for the TDs.

 

So sure, I was useful in a supporting role, but I can't for the life of me understand how people think being useful as a spotter is acceptable in 80% of the matches where you are bottom tier.

 

All of that is just fine even if it were 33/33/33

 

But it's not

 

It's 10/10/80 and it sucks trying to find "ways to be useful" in almost every match instead of actually being able to access tanks you can compete with w/o trying to get around a Super Heavy or a TD that will kill you in two shots if you dare try and fire back at it because you can't pen that T11 TD either. When I play my T28 HTC in tier 7 matches and absolutely steamroll every tier 5 or 6 I come across that doesn't know about my weakspots, I think "hey this must be what it feels like to play a T11 or E100 vs tier 8 tanks".

 

Except those tanks don't have weak spots nearly as easy to hit as the T28 HTC and they are much more mobile.

 

But again, my gripe isn't about how tier 8 has to deal with tier 10s. I really don't mind and even enjoy the challenge in moderation. The problem is that it's not moderation. It's the overwhelming majority of battles.


Edited by Grimdancer, Aug 07 2017 - 21:47.


Liberty75 #128 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 21:49

    Captain

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

View PostVooDooKobra, on Aug 07 2017 - 15:28, said:

 

yes you are right, my mistake.  sorry man

 

We all make errors, just ask my wife. ;)

And the point of this isn't to shame anyone. It is to have a fruitful discussion.


Edited by Liberty75, Aug 08 2017 - 14:20.


badmonkey59 #129 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 22:07

    Captain

  • Players
  • 43157 battles
  • 1,405
  • [-_W_-] -_W_-
  • Member since:
    05-15-2011
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think one of the big problems with the OLD MM was it weighed Heavies and TDs the same. That led to some of the lopsided battles with 8 heavies on one team and 2 on the other, the difference was made up in theroy by TDs. Also, the +1 MM for lights could put a tier 8 light tank as top tier in a real tier 9 match. I remember that happening several times in my ELC, I would be the top tier on my team in a tier 6 battle.

Hurk #130 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 22:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 55234 battles
  • 17,374
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

View Postbadmonkey59, on Aug 07 2017 - 14:07, said:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think one of the big problems with the OLD MM was it weighed Heavies and TDs the same. That led to some of the lopsided battles with 8 heavies on one team and 2 on the other, the difference was made up in theroy by TDs. Also, the +1 MM for lights could put a tier 8 light tank as top tier in a real tier 9 match. I remember that happening several times in my ELC, I would be the top tier on my team in a tier 6 battle.

http://wiki.wargamin...Matchmaker_(WoT)

the data is still for the old MM.

Weight by Vehicle Tier is applied as follows:

  • Tier 10: 100
  • Tier 9: 60
  • Tier 8: 40
  • Tier 7: 27
  • Tier 6: 18
  • Tier 5: 12
  • Tier 4: 8
  • Tier 3: 5
  • Tier 2: 3
  • Tier 1: 2

Weight by Vehicle Type is generally applied as follows:

  • All Heavy Tanks above tier 4 receive 20% extra weight.
  • All SPGs receive 8% extra weight.
  • Tier 8, 9 and 10 Medium Tanks receive 20% extra weight.
  • Tier 8, 9 and 10 Tank Destroyers receive 20% extra weight.
  • Tier 5, 6, 7 and 8 Light Tanks receive 20% extra weight.


Liberty75 #131 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 23:54

    Captain

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

View Postbadmonkey59, on Aug 07 2017 - 16:07, said:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think one of the big problems with the OLD MM was it weighed Heavies and TDs the same. That led to some of the lopsided battles with 8 heavies on one team and 2 on the other, the difference was made up in theroy by TDs. Also, the +1 MM for lights could put a tier 8 light tank as top tier in a real tier 9 match. I remember that happening several times in my ELC, I would be the top tier on my team in a tier 6 battle.

 

Yeah, we have this covered already on the first post:

Block Quote

 2. The old MM would not balance tank types very well between teams. For example, the old MM would give one team many TDs against the other team with many mediums. (Balance Issue)

 

 



Liberty75 #132 Posted Aug 08 2017 - 00:00

    Captain

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

View PostVooDooKobra, on Aug 07 2017 - 14:10, said:

 

View PostLiberty75, on Aug 07 2017 - 13:53, said:

 

I'd like to add to this list, unless there are objections that we can discuss, the following in italics.

 

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 with more variation 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.

3. The old MM created teams quickly.

4. The old MM worked well with special tiering premium tanks.

 

Is there anything else we should add to this list?

 

i agree with 4 as it applies to pref MM tanks that are higher tier but was it better for lower tiers?

 

I'm guessing it breaks even for the B2 German heavy tank and the Valentine II Russian light at tier 4. Tier 5 and up preferential MM tanks still have more bottom tier and same tier than they did in the past. I don't know of any other preferential tanks at lower tier. I know from experience that the TOG has it bad now. I took that thing from 50% to 44% in a few battles. Poor thing!  :)

 

I may have misunderstood the question. The old MM was good for the lower tiers as well. The special tier 4s, as I said break even as they would have battles against mostly 3s or 4s in a mix, where now it is all 4s or five 4s. The tier 5s and above would have similar battles as compared with the 7s and 8s.


Edited by Liberty75, Aug 08 2017 - 00:06.


Liberty75 #133 Posted Aug 08 2017 - 00:31

    Captain

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

NEXT PHASE!

 

What are the BENEFITS to the NEW Match Maker? After this we will discuss the negatives and then take a look at what we have on the table.

 

To start this phase off, I will put forward what I think are the universally held benefits to the new MM.

 

1. The new MM balances tank classes on each team within a +1/-1 framework.*

2. The new MM puts an equal amount of tanks per tier on both teams.

 

It is at this point that I fear my bias is getting the better of me. I was thinking of putting down:

3. The new MM attempts to give bottom tier tanks an opportunity to contribute to the battle by including a template system that forces a minimum of 7 bottom tier tanks.

 

This is obviously perceived as a true benefit to some and others perceive that it really doesn't make a difference due to current game and map mechanics. No matter what, the template system will be a negative, but can it be both a positive and a negative? I wonder if someone had submitted that the old MM's tendency to create the odd uneven team (more top tiers on one team than the other, for instance) was actually a positive to them since it added extra variety and it was a good challenge to them, would I accept it?** Then again, there is certainly a decent amount of people that accept the new system as benefiting them as a bottom tier.

 

What do you guys think? And are there any other benefits to the new MM that I am leaving out?

 

* I am under the impression that they are going to balance heavies and mediums separately in the 9.20 update. If I am wrong about this, please let know and I will include that exception to #1.

** As soon as I edited something, I then read this! :facepalm:

 

EDIT: If there are things that you think should be added to an earlier list, please post them. We can always go back and review things.


Edited by Liberty75, Aug 08 2017 - 14:47.


xtc4 #134 Posted Aug 08 2017 - 00:35

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 26731 battles
  • 746
  • [DHO-X] DHO-X
  • Member since:
    01-31-2013

View Postbadmonkey59, on Aug 07 2017 - 16:07, said:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think one of the big problems with the OLD MM was it weighed Heavies and TDs the same. That led to some of the lopsided battles with 8 heavies on one team and 2 on the other, the difference was made up in theroy by TDs. Also, the +1 MM for lights could put a tier 8 light tank as top tier in a real tier 9 match. I remember that happening several times in my ELC, I would be the top tier on my team in a tier 6 battle.

And this is something I liked about the old mm. Weird games make for more strategic creativity. I don't necessarily want "balance" and "consistency" in each match.



charley2222 #135 Posted Aug 08 2017 - 00:36

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29184 battles
  • 1,125
  • Member since:
    09-27-2013

Trash , game need to add skill base mm but maybe lacking of player


Edited by charley2222, Aug 08 2017 - 00:37.


badmonkey59 #136 Posted Aug 08 2017 - 00:49

    Captain

  • Players
  • 43157 battles
  • 1,405
  • [-_W_-] -_W_-
  • Member since:
    05-15-2011

View Postxtc4, on Aug 07 2017 - 17:35, said:

And this is something I liked about the old mm. Weird games make for more strategic creativity. I don't necessarily want "balance" and "consistency" in each match.

 

I liked it much more than these cookie cutter games.

Buttknuckle #137 Posted Aug 08 2017 - 03:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 49983 battles
  • 2,896
  • [GOONZ] GOONZ
  • Member since:
    03-19-2013

I think you need to include "3. The new MM attempts to give bottom tier tanks an opportunity to contribute to the battle by including a template system that forces a minimum of 7 bottom tier tanks" in your list of benefits of the 3/5/7 MM. This, in my opinion, is the single factor that makes the 3/5/7 MM an improvement over the old MM. Knowing you wont get thrown into a game like the one shown in the screenshot below is comforting.

Spoiler

 

Your point about this being a negative or a positive depending on who you ask is valid - as you cant please all the people all the time. But this also holds true for you listed benefit #1 - "The new MM balances tank classes on each team within a +1/-1 framework." Personally I didn't mind differing team comps and several others have respond the same within this thread.


Another benefit of the new MM is that it supposedly preferentially places players who have been bottom tier a lot into games where they are not bottom tier. This doesn't mean place them into top tier - games that are all single tier and mid tier placement meet that description as well. As far as I can tell from the people who have tracked their tier placement and reported it on the forums the new MM is doing this reasonably well.


Sorry for jumping ahead of schedule but I think I need to jot down some thoughts on "negatives" while I'm thinking about them.


The new MM preferentially wants to fill games to fit the 3/5/7 model at all tiers, which results in any tier other than 9 and 10 as being “bottom” tier more often than not.

I think this is the issue that most people are complaining about. WG spent the last 6 years training the player base to believe that being bottom tier sucks. People learned to accept being bottom tier because they new in the long run they would get to be top tier just about as often. People want to be top tier as frequently as they are bottom tier. It is what they have learned to perceive as “fair.”

 

It doesn't matter that every match in the new MM has a number of opponents that should be manageable, because after a while all you can focus on is the fact that there are always a few people in the game that have a decided advantage over you. It is psychologically draining to repeatedly be placed into games where there are always someone who can kick you around, and at some point you long to be the guy that does the kicking. It doesn't matter that you can contribute in every game, or that everyone is in the same boat – people perceive “fair” as being given an advantage as equally as you are not. And that simply isn't mathematically possible in a system quickly trying to preferentially fill a 3/5/7 format from a pool that has a top battle tier equivalent to the top tank tier - this is why people are feeling that tier 8s are getting screwed. It also becomes difficult to do if one tier is heavily populated (see tier 8 and all the complaints that tier 6 is getting screwed).

 

I'm not really sure of the way to fix this. Reinstating battle tiers 11 and 12 would probably relieve some of the pressure on tier 8, but would also likely exacerbate the burden on tier 6. Removing the preferential 3/5/7 game from all tiers, and placing preference on different models at tier 8 though 10 seems like it would be more successful. Maybe change the preference to fill tier 10 games as same tier, then 5/10, then 3/5/7; and preferences for tiers 8 and 9 to 5/10, than 3/5/7, than same tier.


Edited by Buttknuckle, Aug 08 2017 - 17:26.


NeatoMan #138 Posted Aug 08 2017 - 04:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 27742 battles
  • 19,679
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostButtknuckle, on Aug 07 2017 - 21:35, said:

I'm not really sure of the way to fix this. Reinstating battle tiers 11 and 12 would probably relieve some of the pressure on tier 8, but would also likely exacerbate the burden on tier 6. Removing the preferential 3/5/7 game from all tiers, and placing preference on different models at tier 8 though 10 seems like it would be more successful. Maybe change the preference to fill tier 10 games as same tier, then 5/10, then 3/5/7; and preferences for tiers 8 and 9 to 5/10, than 3/5/7, than same tier.

They already reinstated battle tier 12.  An all tier 10 battle is the same as the old battle tier 12.  Recently I got quite a few of them when running my tier X.  They might be in the process of tweaking the MM in the manner you described.



Chester380 #139 Posted Aug 08 2017 - 04:30

    Captain

  • Players
  • 33606 battles
  • 1,175
  • Member since:
    03-09-2012

View PostCutthroatlemur, on Aug 03 2017 - 21:18, said:

The new MM may not be perfect, but it's better than it has ever been previously.  It is much more consistent.  Anyone complaining was not playing back when a 4 tier spread was common.

 

It will be nice when all of you people that still go on about the 4 tier spread eventually die off.

 

3,5,7 is dumb.  It benefits platoons excessively and ensures that tier 6s (for example) will much more frequently encounter tier 8s that they can do nothing to.  Add that on top of the accuracy nerfs, the armor buffs (pen nerfs - stealth or otherwise), the increased balancing around premium ammo as opposed to standard ammo, and the fact that the maps are still too small and too corridorish for the view ranges and you get one big steaming pile of garbage.

 

 



shaggy996 #140 Posted Aug 08 2017 - 05:05

    Captain

  • Players
  • 45902 battles
  • 1,403
  • [THUGZ] THUGZ
  • Member since:
    11-17-2012

View PostLiberty75, on Aug 07 2017 - 15:31, said:

1. The new MM balances tank classes on each team within a +1/-1 framework.*

 

 

 

Yeah not so much. Lots of games with the top 3 classes not even close to each other. 







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

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users