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

Diablobo #21 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 07:08

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 2305 battles
  • 214
  • Member since:
    12-23-2014
As Liberty75 correctly pointed out before, 3/5/7 and 5/10 or 15 games all the time is boring. It was much more exciting in the old MM to have varying degrees of top and bottom tiers. It was more exciting to get lucky and be top tier in a game even though it also meant sometimes you got bottom tier with tons of higher tanks against you. The greater number of possibilities made things more random and appealed to the gambling instinct we have. Sometimes you got lucky, and sometimes you shot craps.

Then there's the fact that having only three tier X tanks in most games makes their performance or tank type so much more critical than ever. If one or a couple of them screws up or has three meds vs three heavies, their fewer numbers just amplifies the mistakes or type differences too much. If your team's top tier tanks screw up or even one of them does, then their loss makes the snowball effect so much more worse. If you lose your tier X guys, you can pretty much kiss the game goodbye. Having more tier X tanks, or even just one more would mitigate the damage their loss or bad performance would have. Until the MM takes player stats into account, there need to be more of each type to dilute the damage a bad player or performance can do. There also should be a more balanced tier/type matching being done. Giving one team 2 SPGs and a LT as the top tier X tanks while the other team gets 3 HTs screws things up too much. If one team gets 3 LTs as top tier, the other team should have the same. Otherwise the bottom tier guys on the poorly matched team get screwed even more by being bottom tier.

VooDooKobra #22 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 07:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 9430 battles
  • 5,296
  • [MOVE] MOVE
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011

View PostLiberty75, on Aug 03 2017 - 20:30, said:

 

1. Great comment to start us off and I will add it to the list if it can be supported. Let's break it down.

 

    You are basically saying that options for bottom tier tanks were very limited in the pre-9.18 MM. Please answer the following questions so we can better understand your point.

    Q. Under what circumstances were a players options limited? Was it for all bottom tier battles or only some bottom tier battles? If it is only some of the battles, can you please give us the criteria for these battles.

 

 

2. People have emotional responses to short term streaks that are difficult for them and will complain at the drop of a hat. It is highly improbably that they were in reality bottom tier more than about 50% of the time for an extended period of matches. So while these complaints most certainly did occur, they will not help us to understand the reasoning behind the change or the benefits/detriments the new system brings with it. While noted, this will be disregarded for our discussion.

 

1.  generally when lower tier there was 2 or 3 tanks per side.  first of all you had heavies unsure what to do when bottom so they got frustrated easily, then the medium tanks who wanting to be more than glorified scouts and actually get some kills in the game.  each game i was in you has someone complaining about mm and getting stuck as useless bottom tier.  of course those who posted about hoe little fun bottom tier was had the usual comments of git gud and just aim for the tracks 

 

2.  i would have to find the post i read recently but i remember it being common seeing as people started tracking how many times they were bottom tier and some were getting as high as 50% bottom tier.  the reasoning in mentioning this is the comment that the old MM was better when it was broken with no evening of top middle or bottom tiers so even with it being top heavy.



awildseaking #23 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 07:29

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 12664 battles
  • 828
  • [NEET] NEET
  • Member since:
    08-05-2015

If there's one fundamental problem I wish everyone would understand, it's that certain tiers of tanks never had a problem to begin with before 9.18 and many tiers now face new problems after 9.18 that, even if you consider templates a success, cannot be ignored and must be corrected.

 

Nobody will care because it's T1, but play it for a few games and you'll see that there's a problem now. Before 9.18, you would usually wait 2-4 minutes to find a game. The games were T1 only and usually were not 15v15. After 9.18, you still have to wait 2-4 minutes for the same type of games, but now each game has 5 T2 tanks. The same problem occurs at T2, except you see T3 tanks instead. T3 at least has +/-1 now, but the problem resumes at T4 and continues to T8 except with +2 instead of +1. I started playing two years ago, so I never experienced what it was like to play T3 at a time where there were so many low tier players that you could actually be top tier or even just the same tier. I have been bottom tier in the majority of my games ever since I started. Believe me, I of all people know how unfun MM was before 9.18. When I got those bottom tier games where I was the lone T6 in a mostly T8 game, I felt useless. I feel a lot less useless now, but that doesn't mean there aren't new problems.

 

In order to be successful, MM has to match the player population. To illustrate a point, just look at T1 and T2. In order to make a 15v15 match relatively quickly that fits the template, T1 sees T2 100% of the time now. You'll be hard pressed to find someone who thinks this is fair at any tier. So long as MM tries to force template matches and larger games, T1 matches will continue to turn out like this. You can easily solve this problem in several ways. First, you could make smaller matches. If there are enough T1 tanks to make a 5/10 T2/T1 match, why not make a 10v10 T1 game instead? If there are enough players to make a 3/5/7 T8/T7/T6 match, why not make a 7v7 T6 game instead? Maybe you could throw in a few T5s to add a few more players and make it a 5/10 match. Whatever formula WG uses, it must revolve around the constraints of the population. Giving the template priority was a mistake and there is too much emphasis placed on 15v15 matches. There simply are not enough players at any tier to avoid this problem. That's why the T1s are fodder for the T2s, T2s for the T3s, T4s for the T6s, etc.

 

tl;dr WG is applying a one size fits all solution to dramatically different tiers that wildly vary in population


Edited by awildseaking, Aug 04 2017 - 07:31.


Liberty75 #24 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 15:05

    Captain

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

View PostVooDooKobra, on Aug 04 2017 - 01:18, said:

 

1.  generally when lower tier there was 2 or 3 tanks per side.  first of all you had heavies unsure what to do when bottom so they got frustrated easily, then the medium tanks who wanting to be more than glorified scouts and actually get some kills in the game.  each game i was in you has someone complaining about mm and getting stuck as useless bottom tier.  of course those who posted about hoe little fun bottom tier was had the usual comments of git gud and just aim for the tracks 

 

2.  i would have to find the post i read recently but i remember it being common seeing as people started tracking how many times they were bottom tier and some were getting as high as 50% bottom tier.  the reasoning in mentioning this is the comment that the old MM was better when it was broken with no evening of top middle or bottom tiers so even with it being top heavy.

 

A quick comment on your #2 point. Mathematically that frequency of bottom tier matches occurring was most likely a really bad streak of games and over time would have corrected itself or somehow that person is very unlucky (or WG flipped the switch on their account :teethhappy: ). In all of these instances, these few players would be a statistical outlier for this discussion and would not further our debate focusing on it.

 

Your #1 comment on the other hand is a valid concern with many players and we will work with it.

When you say, "generally when lower tier there was 2 or 3 tanks per side." To verify, I'm assuming that these 2 or 3 tanks are bottom tier tanks. Correct me if I am wrong.

Also, "you had heavies unsure what to do when bottom so they got frustrated easily, then the medium tanks who wanting to be more than glorified scouts and actually get some kills in the game." I am taking this statement to mean that bottom tier players had a hard time adjusting to their role in a bottom tier situation.

 

Please let me know whether or not these sentences represent the two main points you are making:

a. In bottom tier matches players were generally in a group of 2 or 3 bottom tier tanks per side.

b. Regardless of the number of bottom tier tanks, bottom tier players were unsure how to adjust their role in the match to being a bottom tier tank.


Edited by Liberty75, Aug 04 2017 - 15:10.


Liberty75 #25 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 15:38

    Captain

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

View Postawildseaking, on Aug 04 2017 - 01:29, said:

If there's one fundamental problem I wish everyone would understand, it's that certain tiers of tanks never had a problem to begin with before 9.18 and many tiers now face new problems after 9.18 that, even if you consider templates a success, cannot be ignored and must be corrected.

 

Nobody will care because it's T1, but play it for a few games and you'll see that there's a problem now. Before 9.18, you would usually wait 2-4 minutes to find a game. The games were T1 only and usually were not 15v15. After 9.18, you still have to wait 2-4 minutes for the same type of games, but now each game has 5 T2 tanks. The same problem occurs at T2, except you see T3 tanks instead. T3 at least has +/-1 now, but the problem resumes at T4 and continues to T8 except with +2 instead of +1. I started playing two years ago, so I never experienced what it was like to play T3 at a time where there were so many low tier players that you could actually be top tier or even just the same tier. I have been bottom tier in the majority of my games ever since I started. Believe me, I of all people know how unfun MM was before 9.18. When I got those bottom tier games where I was the lone T6 in a mostly T8 game, I felt useless. I feel a lot less useless now, but that doesn't mean there aren't new problems.

 

In order to be successful, MM has to match the player population. To illustrate a point, just look at T1 and T2. In order to make a 15v15 match relatively quickly that fits the template, T1 sees T2 100% of the time now. You'll be hard pressed to find someone who thinks this is fair at any tier. So long as MM tries to force template matches and larger games, T1 matches will continue to turn out like this. You can easily solve this problem in several ways. First, you could make smaller matches. If there are enough T1 tanks to make a 5/10 T2/T1 match, why not make a 10v10 T1 game instead? If there are enough players to make a 3/5/7 T8/T7/T6 match, why not make a 7v7 T6 game instead? Maybe you could throw in a few T5s to add a few more players and make it a 5/10 match. Whatever formula WG uses, it must revolve around the constraints of the population. Giving the template priority was a mistake and there is too much emphasis placed on 15v15 matches. There simply are not enough players at any tier to avoid this problem. That's why the T1s are fodder for the T2s, T2s for the T3s, T4s for the T6s, etc.

 

tl;dr WG is applying a one size fits all solution to dramatically different tiers that wildly vary in population

 

awildseaking, I want to gather your main points because I think at least one of them is good for the pre-9.18 problems discussion.

1. Lower tiers (1-3 especially) saw mostly bottom tier battles in the old MM. And I would like to add that as bottom tier they were very often a minority (1-7) of the tanks represented in the battle.

2. "When I got those bottom tier games where I was the lone T6 in a mostly T8 game, I felt useless." This comment goes along with what VoodooKobra has presented and is already represented in the discussion.

 

Would you say that the number 1 comment above correctly represents your thoughts on that particular issue?

 

Note: Your comment about the current MM also giving lower tier tanks an excessive amount of bottom tier battles will be used when the discussion reaches that point. We are focusing on reasons for the change/problems with the pre-9.18 MM.



Liberty75 #26 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 15:42

    Captain

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

View PostDiablobo, on Aug 04 2017 - 01:08, said:

As Liberty75 correctly pointed out before, 3/5/7 and 5/10 or 15 games all the time is boring. It was much more exciting in the old MM to have varying degrees of top and bottom tiers. It was more exciting to get lucky and be top tier in a game even though it also meant sometimes you got bottom tier with tons of higher tanks against you. The greater number of possibilities made things more random and appealed to the gambling instinct we have. Sometimes you got lucky, and sometimes you shot craps.

Then there's the fact that having only three tier X tanks in most games makes their performance or tank type so much more critical than ever. If one or a couple of them screws up or has three meds vs three heavies, their fewer numbers just amplifies the mistakes or type differences too much. If your team's top tier tanks screw up or even one of them does, then their loss makes the snowball effect so much more worse. If you lose your tier X guys, you can pretty much kiss the game goodbye. Having more tier X tanks, or even just one more would mitigate the damage their loss or bad performance would have. Until the MM takes player stats into account, there need to be more of each type to dilute the damage a bad player or performance can do. There also should be a more balanced tier/type matching being done. Giving one team 2 SPGs and a LT as the top tier X tanks while the other team gets 3 HTs screws things up too much. If one team gets 3 LTs as top tier, the other team should have the same. Otherwise the bottom tier guys on the poorly matched team get screwed even more by being bottom tier.

 

Great arguments. We will include them when we further the discussion on the new MM. Right now we are gathering information on the problems of the pre-9.18 MM. The reasons for the change.

Markd73 #27 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 15:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 32508 battles
  • 4,533
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostDiablobo, on Aug 04 2017 - 05:42, said:

Complaining about the vast number of higher tier tanks in battles pre 9.18 does not mean the new MM is better. The overwhelming low tier games were rare, and the regular bottom tier games were way more than balanced by plenty of top tier games. Better bottom tier games in no way justifies the complete disappearance of tiers VI and VII. 

 

Yet you are missing the essential point. What is the value (relative to each other) for:

 

1. Being a tier 8 with a majority of tier 9 or 10 vehicles in a smaller % of battles vs

2. Being a tier 8 with a majority of tanks being the same tier as you in a larger % of battles.

 

I know that I would go with option 2 every time. I will take being bottom tier 80-90% of the time with a chance to influence the battle against a majority of same tier tanks than be frustrated in the scenario of option 1. This means that I have the chance to influence the battle in my tier 8 in every match, regardless of being top or bottom.

 

The issue that I see from a lot of people is that they are not adapting to the meta. If you are bottom tier in your 8 then you can influence the battle by fighting the majority of tier 8s on the enemy team and running from the top tiers. Sure you will get a variety of good/bad players on your team in the top tiers, but over a long enough sample size this will even out.

 

I think the more salient issue is the balancing of HP on each team. If the other team gets a 3 man Maus platoon vs your team gets meds then there is a significant HP imbalance. Supposedly in 9.20 they are looking at making a change to the MM, but it may only be for ranked battles.

 

"The matchmaker became smarter and will now try to gather an equal number of medium and heavy tanks for each team"

Source

https://ritastatusre...est/#more-44350

 

 


Edited by Markd73, Aug 04 2017 - 15:53.


Verblonde #28 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 16:16

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17996 battles
  • 2,978
  • [FUNTB] FUNTB
  • Member since:
    02-08-2015

For me, the key problem with the old MM was that you regularly (no hard numbers though) got matches where you were going to be zero influence, and you knew it before the timer even finished e.g. lone T8 against a swarm of T9-10. You might knock a few hp off an enemy or two before dying horribly, but that was generally it. These games tended to be very brief though.

 

You basically never get this situation now ('worst case' is 3 x T10).

I would also suggest that the other extreme with the old MM, where you periodically got to trample all over a bunch of T6s, was equally bad, as it taught you very little (other than that you could beat up on T6s in a T8 - great, that's really useful). People are objecting to the loss of this element, because it provided them with an 'easy mode' that didn't require you to play particularly well.

There are a couple of other aspects of the old MM that haven't been mentioned as much (because the debate has mostly revolved around 'waaah - I am no longer able to club T6s in my T8 premiums' ): T7 used to be the ginger step-child tier, because it used to spend much of its time being food for T8-9; also T3 used to have a torrid time, because of the gulf between it and the T5s it saw regularly. The new MM has largely fixed both of those issues, which is a massive improvement, especially in terms of encouraging (sensible) new players to stick around - getting your T3s crucified as a complete newbie, and the T7 issue later, can't have helped new player retention (no hard data) - we need continuous new player addition to the game, to replace those who get bored and move on; I believe the new MM helps with that (idiots who jump straight into T8 premiums from T3-5 deserve everything they get; this is about encouraging sensible play and the development of skill essential to success in the higher tiers).

 



TRK213_Turkey #29 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 16:51

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 6344 battles
  • 684
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    01-02-2017

View PostVooDooKobra, on Aug 04 2017 - 03:36, said:

 

but how balanced does the game need to be before it gets silly?  balance equipment on tanks ?  crew skills?  i dont mind a little chaos in the MM if you balance the game too much it just becomes going through the motions. 

It needs to balance the material available to each side. Similar average HP and DPM pools at the very least. Currently, MM doesn't seem to do that.



Liberty75 #30 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 17:04

    Captain

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

View PostVerblonde, on Aug 04 2017 - 10:16, said:

For me, the key problem with the old MM was that you regularly (no hard numbers though) got matches where you were going to be zero influence, and you knew it before the timer even finished e.g. lone T8 against a swarm of T9-10. You might knock a few hp off an enemy or two before dying horribly, but that was generally it. These games tended to be very brief though.

 

You basically never get this situation now ('worst case' is 3 x T10).

I would also suggest that the other extreme with the old MM, where you periodically got to trample all over a bunch of T6s, was equally bad, as it taught you very little (other than that you could beat up on T6s in a T8 - great, that's really useful). People are objecting to the loss of this element, because it provided them with an 'easy mode' that didn't require you to play particularly well.

There are a couple of other aspects of the old MM that haven't been mentioned as much (because the debate has mostly revolved around 'waaah - I am no longer able to club T6s in my T8 premiums' ): T7 used to be the ginger step-child tier, because it used to spend much of its time being food for T8-9; also T3 used to have a torrid time, because of the gulf between it and the T5s it saw regularly. The new MM has largely fixed both of those issues, which is a massive improvement, especially in terms of encouraging (sensible) new players to stick around - getting your T3s crucified as a complete newbie, and the T7 issue later, can't have helped new player retention (no hard data) - we need continuous new player addition to the game, to replace those who get bored and move on; I believe the new MM helps with that (idiots who jump straight into T8 premiums from T3-5 deserve everything they get; this is about encouraging sensible play and the development of skill essential to success in the higher tiers).

 

 

Just to be sure, your points are:

1. Players were "regularly" in bottom tier matches where you could not exert and influence because there were only one or a slight few bottom tier tanks.

2. Players would "periodically" get top tier matches against 10(?) or more bottom tier tanks and would easily dominate them.

3. Certain tiers, especially 7 and 3, used to suffer more by being bottom tier more often than the normal frequency for other tiers.

 

Is this correct?



shaggy996 #31 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 17:16

    Captain

  • Players
  • 45896 battles
  • 1,403
  • [THUGZ] THUGZ
  • Member since:
    11-17-2012

View PostMarkd73, on Aug 04 2017 - 06:46, said:

 

 

2. Being a tier 8 with a majority of tanks being the same tier as you in a larger % of battles.

 

 

7 out of 15 is not a majority....



Verblonde #32 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 17:20

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17996 battles
  • 2,978
  • [FUNTB] FUNTB
  • Member since:
    02-08-2015

View PostLiberty75, on Aug 04 2017 - 11:04, said:

 

Just to be sure, your points are:

1. Players were "regularly" in bottom tier matches where you could not exert and influence because there were only one or a slight few bottom tier tanks.

2. Players would "periodically" get top tier matches against 10(?) or more bottom tier tanks and would easily dominate them.

3. Certain tiers, especially 7 and 3, used to suffer more by being bottom tier more often than the normal frequency for other tiers.

 

Is this correct?

 

More or less:

 

1) Yes, exactly. We must all be conscious of the human tendency to remember things in different ways though, depending on what sort of experience they were - I suspect I may be remembering relatively fewer bottom tier stomped-by-T10 battles because they were often over so quickly. To be objective, we should be referring to hard data (not sure from where though), where possible. This caveat applies to the point about bottom tier too - I could easily be 'over remembering' such battles because they took longer.

2) Yes. The relative frequencies of the first two elements are probably similar, although I could easily be wrong.

3) Yes and no. T3 used to suffer not so much because it was bottom tier all the time, but rather because, when it was, the gulf between most T3s and T5s was disproportionately huge (imagine trying to take on a KV1 in the vast majority of T3s; I mention KV1 as it's one of the more popular T5s, but the same applies to things like Shermans with derp, Pz IVH etc); with the new MM, you just don't see T5 in any T3, which removes the problem. I don't believe T7 was bottom tier any more often than anything else either, but the T7-T9 jump is quite nasty in many cases (especially when you consider that any T9 tank probably has a good driver, whilst many T7s are relative newbies), plus you rarely had same-tier opponents to chase in significant numbers, which the new MM fixes.

Short version: T3 and T7 used to be notorious for being not much fun to play due to the nature of the tanks at that tier and/or the opposition faced; both aspects being exacerbated at the very least by the old MM.



Liberty75 #33 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 18:14

    Captain

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

View PostVerblonde, on Aug 04 2017 - 11:20, said:

 

More or less:

 

1) Yes, exactly. We must all be conscious of the human tendency to remember things in different ways though, depending on what sort of experience they were - I suspect I may be remembering relatively fewer bottom tier stomped-by-T10 battles because they were often over so quickly. To be objective, we should be referring to hard data (not sure from where though), where possible. This caveat applies to the point about bottom tier too - I could easily be 'over remembering' such battles because they took longer.

2) Yes. The relative frequencies of the first two elements are probably similar, although I could easily be wrong.

3) Yes and no. T3 used to suffer not so much because it was bottom tier all the time, but rather because, when it was, the gulf between most T3s and T5s was disproportionately huge (imagine trying to take on a KV1 in the vast majority of T3s; I mention KV1 as it's one of the more popular T5s, but the same applies to things like Shermans with derp, Pz IVH etc); with the new MM, you just don't see T5 in any T3, which removes the problem. I don't believe T7 was bottom tier any more often than anything else either, but the T7-T9 jump is quite nasty in many cases (especially when you consider that any T9 tank probably has a good driver, whilst many T7s are relative newbies), plus you rarely had same-tier opponents to chase in significant numbers, which the new MM fixes.

Short version: T3 and T7 used to be notorious for being not much fun to play due to the nature of the tanks at that tier and/or the opposition faced; both aspects being exacerbated at the very least by the old MM.

 

For number 2, you wrote: "Yes. The relative frequencies of the first two elements are probably similar, although I could easily be wrong." Do you mean the frequencies of #1 (Players were "regularly" in bottom tier matches...) and #2 or when you say "the first two elements" in #2, do you mean something else?

 

How about this revised statement for number 3?

3. Certain tiers, especially 7 and 3, were unfairly under-powered when placed in bottom tier battles.

Verblonde #34 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 18:17

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17996 battles
  • 2,978
  • [FUNTB] FUNTB
  • Member since:
    02-08-2015

View PostLiberty75, on Aug 04 2017 - 12:14, said:

 

For number 2, you wrote: "Yes. The relative frequencies of the first two elements are probably similar, although I could easily be wrong." Do you mean the frequencies of #1 (Players were "regularly" in bottom tier matches...) and #2 or when you say "the first two elements" in #2, do you mean something else?

 

How about this revised statement for number 3?

3. Certain tiers, especially 7 and 3, were unfairly under-powered when placed in bottom tier battles.

 

I mean that my subjective impression is that you would get bottom tier with no chance to be effective, and top tier where you trampled T6s, with similar frequency.

'Unfairly' is a loaded word, but that's close enough.

Dark_Death #35 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 18:20

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 34084 battles
  • 52
  • Member since:
    05-15-2011

Good Question....

 

Can you figure it out what could it be if you get both at the same time?

 

 

 



Liberty75 #36 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 18:46

    Captain

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

View PostVerblonde, on Aug 04 2017 - 12:17, said:

 

I mean that my subjective impression is that you would get bottom tier with no chance to be effective, and top tier where you trampled T6s, with similar frequency.

'Unfairly' is a loaded word, but that's close enough.

 

This should do it:

1. Players were "regularly" in bottom tier matches where they could not exert an effective influence on the match because there were too few bottom tier tanks.

2. Players were "regularly" top tier in matches with a small group of top tier tanks and a large group of bottom tier tanks resulting in unchallenging and unrewarding gameplay.

3. Certain tiers, especially 7 and 3, struggled as bottom tier tanks due to the extreme disparity between them and the top tier tanks.

 

We just need to define a few terms:

a. what does "regularly" mean as a percent? It can be broad if you are not sure.

b. How many tanks is "too few" from #1? Ex. 1? 1-3?

c. How many is a "small group" and a "large group" in #2? Again, it can be a range or a specific number.

 

And thank you for your time and patience in this.



Liberty75 #37 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 19:02

    Captain

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

View PostDark_Death, on Aug 04 2017 - 12:20, said:

Good Question....

 

Can you figure it out what could it be if you get both at the same time?

 

 

 

 

Hey Dark_Death, can you explain your question a little more. Figure what out and get both of what at the same time, the new and old MMs?

Verblonde #38 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 19:10

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17996 battles
  • 2,978
  • [FUNTB] FUNTB
  • Member since:
    02-08-2015

View PostLiberty75, on Aug 04 2017 - 12:46, said:

We just need to define a few terms:

a. what does "regularly" mean as a percent? It can be broad if you are not sure.

b. How many tanks is "too few" from #1? Ex. 1? 1-3?

c. How many is a "small group" and a "large group" in #2? Again, it can be a range or a specific number.

 

And thank you for your time and patience in this.

 

a) I really don't have a firm idea (this is where we *really* need hard WG stats), my guess would be somewhere between 15 and 25 percent. It wasn't so many though that MM was an either/or situation.

 

It's difficult to be accurate when comparing old with new though because whilst we've lost most of the stomp-on-T6 games, we've got more games that involve *any* T10s, but got infinitely fewer that involve a *surfeit* of T10s.

 

b) Opinion will be very divided on this, plus it'll depend a bit on what the higher tier AFVs are e.g. 3 T8, 1 T9, and the rest T10 is clearly too few T8s, whilst I would fancy my chances of at least having an effect in a lone T8 versus mostly T9 and a couple of T10. I really do think the current MM is very good for games where you have a T8-T10 spread. I think I would go with 3 T8s is too few against more than a couple of T10s (for average players).

 

c) It'll vary wildly with tier makeup, and vehicles within that e.g. a fast-firing T10 can despatch rather more T8s than a slow-firing one (assuming that most T8s are mostly penned by a typical T10; there are obvious exceptions). Again, the new MM is pretty good in this respect - 3 T10s are not too overwhelming for the T8-9 below them. The issue with the old MM arose when the top and bottom groups got bigger, mainly at the expense of the middle - something like 5 T10, 3 T9 and the rest T8 has the potential to be too easy. You only then need the start of a 'snowball' on one side's T10s, and the game becomes a massacre.

No hard answers, I'm afraid, but maybe that'll help a bit.



lionheart1118 #39 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 19:24

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13522 battles
  • 328
  • Member since:
    03-10-2011
It's simple really, to anyone new it's trash. How we don't have a +1/-1 mm (aka pref mm) as a standard is mind boggling, it makes balancing tanks that much easier when you are reducing the amount of different tanks you play against. As an old player it's triumph because 3/5/7 is league's better than the numerous nightmare match I would get before.

Liberty75 #40 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 19:27

    Captain

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

View Postlionheart1118, on Aug 04 2017 - 13:24, said:

It's simple really, to anyone new it's trash. How we don't have a +1/-1 mm (aka pref mm) as a standard is mind boggling, it makes balancing tanks that much easier when you are reducing the amount of different tanks you play against. As an old player it's triumph because 3/5/7 is league's better than the numerous nightmare match I would get before.

 

Please define as specifically as possible what a typical "nightmare match" was under the old MM. Maybe we can use this.







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

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users