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

dhb457 #41 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 19:34

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 28405 battles
  • 563
  • [-_W_-] -_W_-
  • Member since:
    03-13-2011

View PostKerosedge, on Aug 04 2017 - 02:54, said:

Needs to be way reworked for perf premiums. Don't care running around in a STA-2 shooting at T54s and leopards.
Have serious issues rinning around in KV5/IS6/SP trying to handle STI/E75s with the jacked MM making most battles mid/bottom tier.
Not fast enough to handle T8/9 meds. Guns/armor are less than a joke against T9 heavys.

 

I can agree with this. Pref mm tanks have been screwed over by the change. Most have, really, whether they see it or not. Take the KV5 mentioned. It used to have three options in mm. A tier 9 match, a tier 8 match, or a only tier 8 match. Now it can see two versions of tier9, three versions of tier 8 where no tier 6s are present, and only one version out of six  where it is one of three top tiers. A standard tier 8 has similar issues, but add the 5/10 version of tier 9, and the 3/5/7 tier ten match. The odds of them seeing top tier are slimmer by far, since since so many possibilities are there for mm to throw them in. My tier 8 tanks have gone from one in three or four matches as top tier to maybe one in six, since so many tier tens are there, and they need to be fed, and it only takes six tier tens to throw 14 tier 8s in.

lionheart1118 #42 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 19:35

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13522 battles
  • 328
  • Member since:
    03-10-2011
Me being say a t6 tank with 2 friendly t7 tanks the rest all t8. Was especially frustrating as a heavy because of being a larger target and slow I had very limited options of supporting my higher tier friendlies. Best bet was to track and hide behind hard cover an hope allies shot them or be lucky enough for an enemy to show me their side.

Mikosah #43 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 19:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 17582 battles
  • 4,386
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

Depends on which tier we're talking about. For tiers 9 and 10, this is a convenience. They get more lower tiers to smack around. For tier 8, its a burden. The tiers above it are popular, and each time they play a disproportionate number of tier 8s get dragged in with them. And specifically because tier 8 is siphoned off to feed them, suddenly tiers 6 and 7 are more viable, at least in the times when the corridor meta doesn't funnel them into the fronts of Patriots, Libertes, Defenders, and Chryslers. Meanwhile tier 5 should be reaping the rewards, but because tier 3 is now essentially given limited MM, the 5s can no longer bully it. 

 

But truthfully, things really aren't that different. Tiers 9 and 10 had sheltered MM in any case, tier 8 always had its own problems, et cetera. Still, the question should be continually raised- why isn't +/-1 MM the norm? Population perhaps? If MM wasn't so ridiculous we might have had a bigger population.



Yankee #44 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 19:49

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 38710 battles
  • 9,948
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    08-02-2010
Trash on top of trash

Liberty75 #45 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 19:49

    Captain

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

View PostVerblonde, on Aug 04 2017 - 13:10, said:

 

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.

 

I have some hard numbers on the old MM, but I would like to get another set of 200 matches to be triple sure the trends are accurate or in the least to expand my sample so it is overall more accurate. If I told you the numbers you would be a little shocked. I am trying to get the perceptions in the open so we can see which perceptions are closer to reality and which are incorrect. This isn't to point fingers and tell people they are wrong, although some of us will be wrong. It is to find the truth as much as possible so we can come to a more informed opinion on the issue.

 

For now, let's use your lowest percent number.

1. Players were about 15% of the time in bottom tier matches where they could not exert an effective influence on the match because there were 3 or less bottom tier tanks and 5 or more top tier tanks.

2. Players were about 15% of the time in top tier matches with a group of 5 or less top tier tanks and a group of 9 or more 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.

 

It will never be perfect as there will always be weird exceptions, but are those general statements close to how you remember the old MM?



Liberty75 #46 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 20:07

    Captain

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

View PostMikosah, on Aug 04 2017 - 13:40, said:

Depends on which tier we're talking about. For tiers 9 and 10, this is a convenience. They get more lower tiers to smack around. For tier 8, its a burden. The tiers above it are popular, and each time they play a disproportionate number of tier 8s get dragged in with them. And specifically because tier 8 is siphoned off to feed them, suddenly tiers 6 and 7 are more viable, at least in the times when the corridor meta doesn't funnel them into the fronts of Patriots, Libertes, Defenders, and Chryslers. Meanwhile tier 5 should be reaping the rewards, but because tier 3 is now essentially given limited MM, the 5s can no longer bully it. 

 

But truthfully, things really aren't that different. Tiers 9 and 10 had sheltered MM in any case, tier 8 always had its own problems, et cetera. Still, the question should be continually raised- why isn't +/-1 MM the norm? Population perhaps? If MM wasn't so ridiculous we might have had a bigger population.

 

I'm glad you brought this up. It is a critical point and I will add it to the beginning.

 

This debate should focus more on the tiers that players end up grinding their tanks most and also the tiers where WG sells the most premium tanks. I would say those tiers are 5 to 8. While tier 9 is a huge grinding tier, it is less affected by the change because it is sheltered. 10 has been affected differently because they could reliable expect to be fighting tiers 8 and 9 every battle. Now they have a number of same tier matches to deal with. I would say that discussing the merits of tier 10 under the old and new system should be shelved until the end of the debate.

 

Tiers 1, 2, 3 and partially 4 have been affected differently because they are sheltered in a ±1 system and/or are easily ground (grinded?). Tier 5 can no longer be a true top tier (+2), but a transition from +1 to +2 has to start somewhere so we will keep them in the focus unless there is a solid argument to keep them out. The other low tiers are still relevant though and we can address them towards the end of the debate.

 

So, the focus of this discussion will be centered around playing tanks from tiers 5-8 with the other tiers brought in at the end of the discussion.



HotMachete #47 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 20:12

    First lieutenant

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

My opinion is that the 3/5/7 MM is pure trash.  Here's my reasons...

 

1. Personal skill, or the lack there of, now has less impact on whether you win or lose.  All other things being equal, a player is going to have a greater level of control over a battle's outcome when he's in a top tier tank as opposed to being in a bottom tier tank.  Under the old MM you were in a top tier position roughly 33% of the time.  Under the new MM that number has been reduced to 20% (or lower).  The game play in WOT is already RNG-heavy enough.  We don't need another feature that limits the impact of skill even farther.

 

2. It creates repetitive game play.  Lots of tanks have different play style depending on if you're top tier, middle tier, or bottom tier.  With the new MM, you now experience one of those play styles at a much greater frequency than the other two.

 

3. The second line positions get too overcrowded while the front line often collapses too fast.  The most efficient way to play when you're bottom tier is from a support position.  This works the best, though, when the front-line fights both last long enough and are busy enough for you to inflict an effective amount of support damage before the front line collapses.  With the smaller number of top tier tanks on each team, the front-line fights don't last as long, plus the front-line tanks, with less opposing front-line tanks to be distracted by, are able to give more attention to the opposing second line.  This makes playing from a support position under the new MM harder than it was under the old MM.  In fact, I would argue that being bottom tier in a battle where 14 tanks are higher tier than you was a better game play experience than being bottom tier in 3/5/7.

 

4. It's a bad game aesthetic.  WOT is marketed as a team based game, but at it's core, it's ultimately a solo PvP game.  Sure, you can platoon, and sometimes teamwork spontaneously develops in a battle, but for the most part, any coordination in Random Battles is organic.  The only reason a group of players go to the same locations on a map is because the map is designed to funnel them there.  For most players, each battle is just a string of solo fights.  Players rarely make moves that depend on assistance from another friendly player, and about the only thing we expect from our "teammates" is that they won't actively hinder our efforts.  In any solo PvP game, it's frustrating to find yourself in an underdog position more often then you find yourself in the superior position.  It doesn't matter that a top tier opponent is some guy who had to slog through his share of bottom tier battles before he got a rare chance at being top tier.  To a bottom tier player, he's just another faceless enemy.  The WOT MM should make sure that every player gets an equal number of battles as top tier, middle tier, and bottom tier.  3/5/7 makes that impossible, however.



Liberty75 #48 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 20:12

    Captain

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

View Postlionheart1118, on Aug 04 2017 - 13:35, said:

Me being say a t6 tank with 2 friendly t7 tanks the rest all t8. Was especially frustrating as a heavy because of being a larger target and slow I had very limited options of supporting my higher tier friendlies. Best bet was to track and hide behind hard cover an hope allies shot them or be lucky enough for an enemy to show me their side.

 

You are saying that being in a game as the only tier 6, with two tier 7s, and twelve tier 10s was frustrating under the old system. So the match would have looked like this: 12/2/1, with you being the 1 bottom tier tank. How often do you think you were in this position as the only bottom tier tank against many top tier tanks (as a percent or how many times out of 100 battles)?

Liberty75 #49 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 20:14

    Captain

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

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

My opinion is that the 3/5/7 MM is pure trash.  Here's my reasons...

 

1. Personal skill, or the lack there of, now has less impact on whether you win or lose.  All other things being equal, a player is going to have a greater level of control over a battle's outcome when he's in a top tier tank as opposed to being in a bottom tier tank.  Under the old MM you were in a top tier position roughly 33% of the time.  Under the new MM that number has been reduced to 20% (or lower).  The game play in WOT is already RNG-heavy enough.  We don't need another feature that limits the impact of skill even farther.

 

2. It creates repetitive game play.  Lots of tanks have different play style depending on if you're top tier, middle tier, or bottom tier.  With the new MM, you now experience one of those play styles at a much greater frequency than the other two.

 

3. The second line positions get too overcrowded while the front line often collapses too fast.  The most efficient way to play when you're bottom tier is from a support position.  This works the best, though, when the front-line fights both last long enough and are busy enough for you to inflict an effective amount of support damage before the front line collapses.  With the smaller number of top tier tanks on each team, the front-line fights don't last as long, plus the front-line tanks, with less opposing front-line tanks to be distracted by, are able to give more attention to the opposing second line.  This makes playing from a support position under the new MM harder than it was under the old MM.  In fact, I would argue that being bottom tier in a battle where 14 tanks are higher tier than you was a better game play experience than being bottom tier in 3/5/7.

 

4. It's a bad game aesthetic.  WOT is marketed as a team based game, but at it's core, it's ultimately a solo PvP game.  Sure, you can platoon, and sometimes teamwork spontaneously develops in a battle, but for the most part, any coordination in Random Battles is organic.  The only reason a group of players go to the same locations on a map is because the map is designed to funnel them there.  For most players, each battle is just a string of solo fights.  Players rarely make moves that depend on assistance from another friendly player, and about the only thing we expect from our "teammates" is that they won't actively hinder our efforts.  In any solo PvP game, it's frustrating to find yourself in an underdog position more often then you find yourself in the superior position.  It doesn't matter that a top tier opponent is some guy who had to slog through his share of bottom tier battles before he got a rare chance at being top tier.  To a bottom tier player, he's just another faceless enemy.  The WOT MM should make sure that every player gets an equal number of battles as top tier, middle tier, and bottom tier.  3/5/7 makes that impossible, however.

 

These are excellent points and well stated. We will include them when we finish discussing the problems in the old MM (the reasons why they changed it in the first place).

Dark_Death #50 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 20:18

    Corporal

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

View PostLiberty75, on Aug 04 2017 - 02:10, said:

The new Match Maker (MM) instituted in Update 9.18 has satisfied some players and frustrated others. There are many independent debates going on in the forums currently about this change and many spectators are only getting snippets here and there. It would be best to centralize the main points of the debate in one location. Below I will faithfully attempt to list the arguments presented of both sides if they can be clearly debated with reason, logic, and/or the limited information that we have available. "Expert sources," may be introduced for their opinions on topics to show a general support for or against the new MM. In full disclosure, I am biased against the new system, but I will endeavor to keep this first post position neutral.

 

Everyone is obviously welcome to contribute to the thread, I just ask that contributors remain focused on the current segment of the discussion and to be civil to each other. I also ask that contributors keep a thick skin and do their best to check their egos as we investigate this issue.

 


 

Note: Random opinions are not helpful. Please focus on the main points of the current discussion. All other comments will be ignored unless they become relevant later in the debate.

 

Its simple. 3/5/7: enjoy 3 matches, pay attention to 5 matches, and get f.k.d 7 matches.

Add to this when you are in one of those special teams that "help each other a lot to win the game". you see the irony, dont you?

Add to this when you are in one of those teams made by special people, whose go straight forward until they lose their heads", Im sure you know what i mean

Add to this that lovely 25% rng that decide if you see, pen, hide, and everything to the enemy.

 

and Why is this???.

Because Wargaming is a company, and companies are created to get money. So, the game has been created in this way to get money. Its good, Its bad. get your own opinion.

 

could it be a system where every match has all the tanks with same tier?. Yeah sure, but it isnt so moneymaker.

 

Ask to one of those Clans of Unicoms what they think..... and you will find something clear.

 

Why complicate a real simple question?.

 



Verblonde #51 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 20:22

    Major

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

View PostLiberty75, on Aug 04 2017 - 13:49, said:

 

I have some hard numbers on the old MM, but I would like to get another set of 200 matches to be triple sure the trends are accurate or in the least to expand my sample so it is overall more accurate. If I told you the numbers you would be a little shocked. I am trying to get the perceptions in the open so we can see which perceptions are closer to reality and which are incorrect. This isn't to point fingers and tell people they are wrong, although some of us will be wrong. It is to find the truth as much as possible so we can come to a more informed opinion on the issue.

 

For now, let's use your lowest percent number.

1. Players were about 15% of the time in bottom tier matches where they could not exert an effective influence on the match because there were 3 or less bottom tier tanks and 5 or more top tier tanks.

2. Players were about 15% of the time in top tier matches with a group of 5 or less top tier tanks and a group of 9 or more 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.

 

It will never be perfect as there will always be weird exceptions, but are those general statements close to how you remember the old MM?

 

I wouldn't be comfortable using my recollections as anything resembling gospel: I'm a Brit (if the spelling doesn't give me away) and I always recall the surveys they do comparing what people think numbers are, versus what they actually are - the two figures are usually wildly different (the recent Brexit nonsense has provided extensive examples of this). Short version: I'd be impressed if the real answer was within 10 percentage points of my guess...!

My recollection is that most of the time, the results that MM chucked out were reasonable for a computer game (I was never a major MM whiner - sure, I really hated the extremes, but there weren't enough of them to cause me to throw a wobbly). The new MM is different and, after careful thought, I do think it's better. However, neither is/was perfect...

lionheart1118 #52 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 20:23

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13522 battles
  • 328
  • Member since:
    03-10-2011

View PostLiberty75, on Aug 04 2017 - 19:12, said:

 

You are saying that being in a game as the only tier 6, with two tier 7s, and twelve tier 10s was frustrating under the old system. So the match would have looked like this: 12/2/1, with you being the 1 bottom tier tank. How often do you think you were in this position as the only bottom tier tank against many top tier tanks (as a percent or how many times out of 100 battles)?

 

i cant honestly give you an accurate number as its been awhile since the mm changes and memory can be hazey and could easily be incorrect. but if i were to try an give it a rough % 13-15%? while that is low those were the matches i could see driving people away from the game.

lionheart1118 #53 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 20:25

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13522 battles
  • 328
  • Member since:
    03-10-2011

View PostVerblonde, on Aug 04 2017 - 19:22, said:

 

I wouldn't be comfortable using my recollections as anything resembling gospel: I'm a Brit (if the spelling doesn't give me away) and I always recall the surveys they do comparing what people think numbers are, versus what they actually are - the two figures are usually wildly different (the recent Brexit nonsense has provided extensive examples of this). Short version: I'd be impressed if the real answer was within 10 percentage points of my guess...!

My recollection is that most of the time, the results that MM chucked out were reasonable for a computer game (I was never a major MM whiner - sure, I really hated the extremes, but there weren't enough of them to cause me to throw a wobbly). The new MM is different and, after careful thought, I do think it's better. However, neither is/was perfect...

i agree with your conclusion, i dont think the new mm is perfect but i do think it is far more consistent than the old one. personally i think it should just be a simple +1/-1 mm like pref tanks. makes the game easier to balance and you never feel like you cant contribute.



xxBigbacon #54 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 20:26

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 9226 battles
  • 2,509
  • [GNZX1] GNZX1
  • Member since:
    02-03-2015

View PostFulcrous, on Aug 04 2017 - 03:14, said:

3/5/7 is fine. It is significantly easier to carry now.

T8 may be questionable to some, but I honestly find it no worse to carry in bottom tier at t8 compared to before. In fact, I would consider it easier barring super heavy lottery comps.

 

lol says a gold league player.....

 

think like the majority.



lionheart1118 #55 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 20:26

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13522 battles
  • 328
  • Member since:
    03-10-2011
but i will say i feel like i have been winning a greater % of my games since the mm changes. would be curious if someone wanted to look into that

xxBigbacon #56 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 20:27

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 9226 battles
  • 2,509
  • [GNZX1] GNZX1
  • Member since:
    02-03-2015

View PostDark_Death, on Aug 04 2017 - 20:18, said:

 

Its simple. 3/5/7: enjoy 3 matches, pay attention to 5 matches, and get f.k.d 7 matches.

 

 

 

if this were only true...its more like get F'd for 20 matches, pay attention for 1, get F'd for 10 matches, enjoy 1, get F'd some more.



Verblonde #57 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 20:27

    Major

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

BTW I should mention: being handed top (or bottom) tier in a balanced team selection under the old MM was a very different proposition to being handed it in an unbalanced selection.

The new MM gives you predictable teams which are always balanced, in terms of tier composition (if not in terms of types, or players experience); the only down-side to this, from my perspective, is that it reduces variety a bit...

 

If you're going to scientifically compare the old and new MM, in terms of team composition, you'll have to account for 3/5/7 being very different from 5/3/7, or 5/8/2, and so on...



Liberty75 #58 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 20:31

    Captain

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

View Postlionheart1118, on Aug 04 2017 - 14:26, said:

but i will say i feel like i have been winning a greater % of my games since the mm changes. would be curious if someone wanted to look into that

 

Here was your win rate before the change:

http://www.noobmeter...20170429_181038

 

Here was your win rate just after the change:

http://www.noobmeter...20170509_201016

 

And here is your win rate since the change:

http://www.noobmeter...20170804_192815

 

One thing I have found since investigating this is that our perceptions are usually incorrect from reality. Pretty scary! I wonder what else we are misinformed about in our real lives!  :)


Edited by Liberty75, Aug 04 2017 - 20:32.


lionheart1118 #59 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 20:36

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13522 battles
  • 328
  • Member since:
    03-10-2011

View PostLiberty75, on Aug 04 2017 - 19:31, said:

 

Here was your win rate before the change:

http://www.noobmeter...20170429_181038

 

Here was your win rate just after the change:

http://www.noobmeter...20170509_201016

 

And here is your win rate since the change:

http://www.noobmeter...20170804_192815

 

One thing I have found since investigating this is that our perceptions are usually incorrect from reality. Pretty scary! I wonder what else we are misinformed about in our real lives!  :)

eh while i cant really dispute this i would like to also point out that during this past month i have been playing with new players trying to get them in the game and had terrible loss streaks, im not going to blame them per se but boy do i hate low tier lol.



lionheart1118 #60 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 20:37

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13522 battles
  • 328
  • Member since:
    03-10-2011

View PostLiberty75, on Aug 04 2017 - 19:31, said:

 

Here was your win rate before the change:

http://www.noobmeter...20170429_181038

 

Here was your win rate just after the change:

http://www.noobmeter...20170509_201016

 

And here is your win rate since the change:

http://www.noobmeter...20170804_192815

 

One thing I have found since investigating this is that our perceptions are usually incorrect from reality. Pretty scary! I wonder what else we are misinformed about in our real lives!  :)

 

for example all my games with the t-28 premium was with them.





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

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users