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

Liberty75 #181 Posted Aug 09 2017 - 18:02

    Captain

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

On to negative aspects of the new MM.

 

I will start it off with two points that have been observed over the past few months by most. Then we will add to it.

 

1. Too many bottom tier matches.

2. Lack of variety in the MM.

 

Edit: and we can flesh these points out with specifics as we did with the negatives of the old MM.


Edited by Liberty75, Aug 09 2017 - 18:05.


misterwit #182 Posted Aug 09 2017 - 19:00

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 14955 battles
  • 706
  • [XXII] XXII
  • Member since:
    06-15-2011

View PostHotMachete, on Aug 09 2017 - 03:53, said:

 

Both of those are incorrect, when 3/5/7 is working as advertised.  Over a run of battles under 3/5/7, the total number of tanks you'll encounter that are +1 and +2 tiers above you is exactly the same as the number of tanks you'll encounter that are -1 and -2 tiers below you, respectively.  All 3/5/7 does it change up how they're clustered and how they're distributed.  In fact, the odds of having an abnormally large total HP pool for a team under 3/5/7 is lower than under the hypothetical 5/5/5 system that the old MM tried to approximate.  Under 3/5/7, 9.3% of the tanks you face over a run of battles will be two tiers higher than you.  (9.3% of tanks will also be two tiers lower than you.)  Under a 5/5/5 MM, those numbers are both 11.1%, respectively.  That means a 5/5/5 MM has more outlier battles when it comes to total HP pool.  The only reason 3/5/7 appears to be giving you more battles like that right now is because of two reasons...  One, WOT has essentially put Battle Tier 12 back in the game, which allows for all Tier 10 battles, and two, players who don't like the new 3/5/7 MM have gravitated to tiers 9 and 10, which has broken the 3/5/7 MM's ability to work as advertised at lower tiers.

 

I also seem to remember that a week or two ago one of the devs said that they're analytics are actually showing that credit and XP earning is down under the new MM compared to before the change.

 

Interesting, is this still true under the assumption that you are bottom tier, as I used when replying to the comment?

Nunya_000 #183 Posted Aug 09 2017 - 19:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 21129 battles
  • 13,768
  • [PACNW] PACNW
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

View PostLiberty75, on Aug 09 2017 - 08:59, said:

 

To quote WG: "The priority pattern for three-tier battles is 3-5-7; the pattern for two-tier battles is 5-10. One-tier battles are allowed under conditions when other patterns are not possible."

 

It can be argued that the "One tier battles are allowed....." means they are intended as a possible MM format.  There has to be 30 tanks of that tier in queue for them to be created.  It is not necessarily a case of MM saying "I give up".

 

Even so, 1 tier battles happen frequently enough that they are a fairly common aspect of the new MM.  There is nothing "suspect" about them.  While the argument could be made that they are not really intended, they are now an integral part of the new MM.  Whether it is a positive or a negative is subjective.  People that like 1 tier battles would say it is a positive.  Those that believe it reduces credit earnings probably feel it is a negative.



Nunya_000 #184 Posted Aug 09 2017 - 19:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 21129 battles
  • 13,768
  • [PACNW] PACNW
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

View PostLiberty75, on Aug 09 2017 - 09:02, said:

On to negative aspects of the new MM.

 

I will start it off with two points that have been observed over the past few months by most. Then we will add to it.

 

1. Too many bottom tier matches.

2. Lack of variety in the MM.

 

Edit: and we can flesh these points out with specifics as we did with the negatives of the old MM.

 

3. The limit to the number of +2 and +1 tanks COULD cause a reduction of credits earned in a battle (unconfirmed).

Nunya_000 #185 Posted Aug 09 2017 - 19:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 21129 battles
  • 13,768
  • [PACNW] PACNW
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

View PostLiberty75, on Aug 09 2017 - 06:25, said:

I am guessing we are done writing down things that are positive about the new MM. If someone introduces a generally accepted positive aspect of the new MM, we can always add it in later.

 

As it stands now, this is the list I will include on the first post of the thread:

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.

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.

 

I have to admit, I thought there would be more, but I can't think of any and no one else has supplied them. The next phase is coming up shortly.

 

Also, in line with my negative aspect posted above:

 

A another potential positive aspect:

 

The increase occurrence as low tier and facing +2 and +1 tanks more often COULD increase credit earning in battles. (unconfirmed).



shaggy996 #186 Posted Aug 09 2017 - 19:39

    Captain

  • Players
  • 45945 battles
  • 1,406
  • [THUGZ] THUGZ
  • Member since:
    11-17-2012

View PostNunya_000, on Aug 09 2017 - 10:16, said:

 

Also, in line with my negative aspect posted above:

 

A another potential positive aspect:

 

The increase occurrence as low tier and facing +2 and +1 tanks more often COULD increase credit earning in battles. (unconfirmed).

 

On a whole a big complaint is that credit earning is way down. Since tier 8 is almost always fighting higher tier now, the ability to get damage out is down, causing less coin to be made. 

Most tier 8 prems are heavies and heavy tanks are the worst hit by this new MM since your options on most maps of where to go on a heavy are so limited. You end up having to go head to head with the other teams higher tier heavies or run 2nd or 3rd string hoping to be able to get a shot in some times. 



shaggy996 #187 Posted Aug 09 2017 - 19:41

    Captain

  • Players
  • 45945 battles
  • 1,406
  • [THUGZ] THUGZ
  • Member since:
    11-17-2012

View PostLiberty75, on Aug 08 2017 - 06:01, said:

 

 

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

 

 

I still have a big issue with this one because about 20% of my games this does not happen. 



shaggy996 #188 Posted Aug 09 2017 - 19:54

    Captain

  • Players
  • 45945 battles
  • 1,406
  • [THUGZ] THUGZ
  • Member since:
    11-17-2012
Also the new system makes the few top tiers far too powerful. In the games where I am top tier and Im on a decent tank.... its a kid in a candy store. Those 7 bottom tier tanks are free kills. The few games on the O-Ho Ive had top tier, nothing can stop me. I can ignore the bottom tiers and kill the higher tiers then just roll over the rest. If im on a light tank they never even see me. It is just stupid how powerful the top 3 are if a half way decent player.

Liberty75 #189 Posted Aug 09 2017 - 20:02

    Captain

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

View PostNunya_000, on Aug 09 2017 - 13:09, said:

 

It can be argued that the "One tier battles are allowed....." means they are intended as a possible MM format.  There has to be 30 tanks of that tier in queue for them to be created.  It is not necessarily a case of MM saying "I give up".

 

Even so, 1 tier battles happen frequently enough that they are a fairly common aspect of the new MM.  There is nothing "suspect" about them.  While the argument could be made that they are not really intended, they are now an integral part of the new MM.  Whether it is a positive or a negative is subjective.  People that like 1 tier battles would say it is a positive.  Those that believe it reduces credit earnings probably feel it is a negative.

 

One-tier battles are allowed under conditions when other patterns are not possible.

The MM is essentially giving up and dumping players, but as you said, by design. We are splitting hairs over this anyway.

 

Your follow up comment is correct. It is a new part of the gaming experience for some players under the new MM. Although, for people that wanted this experience in the past, different versions of one tier battles have been available for a long time in the forms of Clan Wars, Company Battles, and Strongholds.

 

View Postshaggy996, on Aug 09 2017 - 13:41, said:

I still have a big issue with this one because about 20% of my games this does not happen. 

 

I agree. I had earlier added in the phrase "when possible" to the top post because of your comments. I don't think I mentioned it in the thread. That was my mistake for bad communication.

 


Edited by Liberty75, Aug 09 2017 - 20:03.


Nunya_000 #190 Posted Aug 09 2017 - 20:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 21129 battles
  • 13,768
  • [PACNW] PACNW
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

View PostLiberty75, on Aug 09 2017 - 11:02, said:

 

Although, for people that wanted this experience in the past, different versions of one tier battles have been available for a long time in the forms of Clan Wars, Company Battles, and Strongholds.

 

 

True....but those formats are exclusive for clan members (and some legionaries), availability, participation, and tier.  If you want to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the old vs new MM in pub battles, those other battle modes have no relevance.



Liberty75 #191 Posted Aug 09 2017 - 20:40

    Captain

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

View PostNunya_000, on Aug 09 2017 - 14:12, said:

 

True....but those formats are exclusive for clan members (and some legionaries), availability, participation, and tier.  If you want to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the old vs new MM in pub battles, those other battle modes have no relevance.

 

Correct. I was just pointing out that they aren't new. One point of contention is that they weren't very exclusive. It was (and still is) easy to join a clan if you were interested in those things.

 

In any case, is the following wording of this general statement good enough for everyone?

The new MM has a same-tier format that has added a new enjoyable dimension to the MM system.

 

If there are no solid objections, I will add this to the list of positive aspects of the new MM.



Nunya_000 #192 Posted Aug 09 2017 - 20:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 21129 battles
  • 13,768
  • [PACNW] PACNW
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

View PostLiberty75, on Aug 09 2017 - 11:40, said:

 

Correct. I was just pointing out that they aren't new. One point of contention is that they weren't very exclusive. It was (and still is) easy to join a clan if you were interested in those things.

 

In any case, is the following wording of this general statement good enough for everyone?

The new MM has a same-tier format that has added a new enjoyable dimension to the MM system.

 

If there are no solid objections, I will add this to the list of positive aspects of the new MM.

 

For the sake of being unbiased, I would remove the word "enjoyable".  While I would suspect that most players do find them enjoyable, there might be a few that do not for various reasons.  It is just an aspect that we now have in pub battles.

_Spader_ #193 Posted Aug 09 2017 - 21:01

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 2526 battles
  • 36
  • Member since:
    06-22-2012

I think i had not played in a year or more and i see absolutely no change in the MM whatsoever so i will re-uninstall the game 1 more time.

 



Liberty75 #194 Posted Aug 09 2017 - 22:01

    Captain

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

View PostNunya_000, on Aug 09 2017 - 14:57, said:

 

For the sake of being unbiased, I would remove the word "enjoyable".  While I would suspect that most players do find them enjoyable, there might be a few that do not for various reasons.  It is just an aspect that we now have in pub battles.

 

Done.

 

I was trying to overcompensate for my own biases. :)



HotMachete #195 Posted Aug 09 2017 - 22:05

    First lieutenant

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

View Postmisterwit, on Aug 09 2017 - 12:00, said:

 

Interesting, is this still true under the assumption that you are bottom tier, as I used when replying to the comment?

 

Well, when talking about average credit and XP earnings, it only makes sense to talk about the tanks you'll face over an average run of battles.

misterwit #196 Posted Aug 10 2017 - 00:49

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 14955 battles
  • 706
  • [XXII] XXII
  • Member since:
    06-15-2011

View PostHotMachete, on Aug 09 2017 - 21:05, said:

 

Well, when talking about average credit and XP earnings, it only makes sense to talk about the tanks you'll face over an average run of battles.

 

Yes but I was responding to a player who has a history of complaining about being bottom tier "too much".

Diablobo #197 Posted Aug 10 2017 - 02:46

    Sergeant

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

Don't forget that the new MM makes the tier X tanks even more important than ever, and if any of them mess up or get a bad type pairing with the other side, it makes the game even less fun. Having only three tier X tanks makes their mistakes or problems even more amplified.

 



Diablobo #198 Posted Aug 10 2017 - 02:50

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 2305 battles
  • 214
  • Member since:
    12-23-2014
Whether or not some enjoy the new MM is irrelevant. What matters is that tier VIII premiums that were sold as +2/-2 tanks no longer have that spread. Yes, the MM is a selling point because the pref MM tanks specifically advertise their +1/-2 MM. That means that regular premiums are supposed to have +2/-2. They are now even worse than +2/-1. If we bought those tanks expecting to see a fair amount of tier VI tanks, then the warranty is broken when that no longer happens. 

misterwit #199 Posted Aug 10 2017 - 03:03

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 14955 battles
  • 706
  • [XXII] XXII
  • Member since:
    06-15-2011

View PostDiablobo, on Aug 10 2017 - 01:50, said:

Whether or not some enjoy the new MM is irrelevant. What matters is that tier VIII premiums that were sold as +2/-2 tanks no longer have that spread. Yes, the MM is a selling point because the pref MM tanks specifically advertise their +1/-2 MM. That means that regular premiums are supposed to have +2/-2. They are now even worse than +2/-1. If we bought those tanks expecting to see a fair amount of tier VI tanks, then the warranty is broken when that no longer happens. 

 

Your expectations are meaningless because they told you what you would get: The tank's matchmaking is set to +2/-2 for normal tanks and +1/-2 for pref matchmaking tanks.

 

*-*They made 0 promises of frequency*-*

 

Wargaming is NOT responsible for what it's customers imagine they will be able to do with their purchase, and neither is any other company for that matter.



shaggy996 #200 Posted Aug 10 2017 - 03:20

    Captain

  • Players
  • 45945 battles
  • 1,406
  • [THUGZ] THUGZ
  • Member since:
    11-17-2012

View Postmisterwit, on Aug 09 2017 - 18:03, said:

 

Your expectations are meaningless because they told you what you would get: The tank's matchmaking is set to +2/-2 for normal tanks and +1/-2 for pref matchmaking tanks.

 

*-*They made 0 promises of frequency*-*

 

Wargaming is NOT responsible for what it's customers imagine they will be able to do with their purchase, and neither is any other company for that matter.

 

While legally that is true, people do have the right to be very unhappy about a major change to how the MM works after they purchased those tanks making them be bottom tier far far more often than before. It is a major playablity change to the tanks. it effects how much coin the average player can make in them and how much XP they can earn. 





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

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users