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

Verblonde #61 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 20:41

    Major

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

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

 

Have you had a rummage in wotlabs or similar?

For myself, I'm not sure if I have been doing better (in terms of win rate) or not; the problem for me is that I was still improving (albeit very slowly), so spotting something related to MM changes is different. Having said that, I have a mysterious jump in WN8 over a couple of hundred battles, about a thousand battles ago, and no very clear idea where that came from. I also see a drop in WR about four hundred battles ago (possibly starting to improve again now), but that coincides with my getting my hands on my first T9 mediums, which I was dreadful in to start with...

 

My suspicion is that the new MM has, medium-term, had no significant impact on my stats, but it has had an impact on how I play the game (more T9, and with more lower tiers - T6 +/- - when I'm tired, where before I would have stayed at T8).

It's this latter aspect (if repeated elsewhere) that might result in future change: if lots of people reduce their T8 playing (and, by extension, T8 premium spending - if nothing else takes up the slack e.g. T6 premiums etc), then WG *will* change something. Thinking about it sensibly, would it be wise to increase the number of T6s that T8s get to slaughter again? Someone has to drive those T6s, and it'll be no more fun for those drivers than it is for the T8s fighting T10s (perhaps even worse - the odd idiot who bought T8 premiums when they shouldn't have apart, T8 drivers tend to be better equipped to fight higher tiers than T6 drivers)...

 

 



Verblonde #62 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 20:44

    Major

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

View PostLiberty75, on Aug 04 2017 - 14:31, said:

Pretty scary! I wonder what else we are misinformed about in our real lives!  :)

 

This is an example of what I was talking about for Britain: http://www.independe...ws-8697821.html

 

I would imagine the state of affairs over here is similar...



Liberty75 #63 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 20:47

    Captain

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

View PostVerblonde, on Aug 04 2017 - 14:27, said:

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...

 

The new MM still has unbalanced teams regarding HP, but the old MM was notorious for that (unless my perception is off on this!). I think this is already accounted for in my list, but I will double check.

 

View PostVerblonde, on Aug 04 2017 - 14:22, 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 only have a 400 game sample from 2 players (tiers 5-8), but the frequency of #1 (5+ top tiers and 3 or less bottom tiers) was 1.5%, less than 2%. It even surprised me.

I could figure out #2, but I don't have the time right now. Just glancing over the data, it would probably be similar to the 1.5% above.

 

The perception for us being in the extremes is more prominent because we remember the extremes more. Heck, I still remember a match where I was in the Churchill I about 3 years ago against a bunch of tier 3s on Ensk! It was a slaughter (as you described in your earlier posts). It was a great time though since it rarely ever happened to me.

 

Do you still want to push for the old MM creating extreme circumstances as a negative?



Liberty75 #64 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 20:50

    Captain

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

View PostVerblonde, on Aug 04 2017 - 14:44, said:

 

This is an example of what I was talking about for Britain: http://www.independe...ws-8697821.html

 

I would imagine the state of affairs over here is similar...

 

I'm very much into politics and that article looks, how do you say it, spot on? :)

lionheart1118 #65 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 20:50

    Staff sergeant

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

View PostLiberty75, on Aug 04 2017 - 19:47, said:

 

The new MM still has unbalanced teams regarding HP, but the old MM was notorious for that (unless my perception is off on this!). I think this is already accounted for in my list, but I will double check.

 

 

I only have a 400 game sample from 2 players (tiers 5-8), but the frequency of #1 (5+ top tiers and 3 or less bottom tiers) was 1.5%, less than 2%. It even surprised me.

I could figure out #2, but I don't have the time right now. Just glancing over the data, it would probably be similar to the 1.5% above.

 

The perception for us being in the extremes is more prominent because we remember the extremes more. Heck, I still remember a match where I was in the Churchill I about 3 years ago against a bunch of tier 3s on Ensk! It was a slaughter (as you described in your earlier posts). It was a great time though since it rarely ever happened to me.

 

Do you still want to push for the old MM creating extreme circumstances as a negative?

 

i do as i value consistency. i want to be able to count on the mm being consistent and not random. again i would prefer the mm just be a flat out +1/-1

Verblonde #66 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 21:00

    Major

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

View PostLiberty75, on Aug 04 2017 - 14:47, said:

 

The new MM still has unbalanced teams regarding HP, but the old MM was notorious for that (unless my perception is off on this!). I think this is already accounted for in my list, but I will double check.

 

 

I only have a 400 game sample from 2 players (tiers 5-8), but the frequency of #1 (5+ top tiers and 3 or less bottom tiers) was 1.5%, less than 2%. It even surprised me.

I could figure out #2, but I don't have the time right now. Just glancing over the data, it would probably be similar to the 1.5% above.

 

The perception for us being in the extremes is more prominent because we remember the extremes more. Heck, I still remember a match where I was in the Churchill I about 3 years ago against a bunch of tier 3s on Ensk! It was a slaughter (as you described in your earlier posts). It was a great time though since it rarely ever happened to me.

 

Do you still want to push for the old MM creating extreme circumstances as a negative?

 

I think so: the new system *never* throws up ridiculous extremes, whereas the old one did, and enough that we remember them.

Something that does bother me very slightly though: even those of us that like the new system - it has certainly reduced variety; is there a danger that it will increase the risk of boredom, if we *always* get more or less the same team make-ups? With the lack of variety in maps, that might end up being a more serious down-side to the new MM...?



lionheart1118 #67 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 21:04

    Staff sergeant

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

View PostVerblonde, on Aug 04 2017 - 20:00, said:

 

I think so: the new system *never* throws up ridiculous extremes, whereas the old one did, and enough that we remember them.

Something that does bother me very slightly though: even those of us that like the new system - it has certainly reduced variety; is there a danger that it will increase the risk of boredom, if we *always* get more or less the same team make-ups? With the lack of variety in maps, that might end up being a more serious down-side to the new MM...?

 

then that is more of an issue of not being enough maps not the mm, besides there are a large variety of tanks with more always coming. a fight between tanks is rarely ever the same every time.

lionheart1118 #68 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 21:06

    Staff sergeant

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

View PostVerblonde, on Aug 04 2017 - 20:00, said:

 

I think so: the new system *never* throws up ridiculous extremes, whereas the old one did, and enough that we remember them.

Something that does bother me very slightly though: even those of us that like the new system - it has certainly reduced variety; is there a danger that it will increase the risk of boredom, if we *always* get more or less the same team make-ups? With the lack of variety in maps, that might end up being a more serious down-side to the new MM...?

 

also something to keep in mind is that counter strike is still being played with the favorite maps being age old classics and nothing really new being added outside of skins. and it STILL has a strong player base. so i dont really think the games mm making matches "boring" is really a factor personally.

Liberty75 #69 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 21:09

    Captain

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

View Postlionheart1118, on Aug 04 2017 - 14:50, said:

 

i do as i value consistency. i want to be able to count on the mm being consistent and not random. again i would prefer the mm just be a flat out +1/-1

View PostVerblonde, on Aug 04 2017 - 15:00, said:

 

I think so: the new system *never* throws up ridiculous extremes, whereas the old one did, and enough that we remember them.

Something that does bother me very slightly though: even those of us that like the new system - it has certainly reduced variety; is there a danger that it will increase the risk of boredom, if we *always* get more or less the same team make-ups? With the lack of variety in maps, that might end up being a more serious down-side to the new MM...?

 

I'll put it into the list.

 

View Postlionheart1118, on Aug 04 2017 - 15:06, said:

 

also something to keep in mind is that counter strike is still being played with the favorite maps being age old classics and nothing really new being added outside of skins. and it STILL has a strong player base. so i dont really think the games mm making matches "boring" is really a factor personally.

 

This has been a concern of mine, the strict template making the game boring. The repetitive nature of the MM gets tedious after a while, in my opinion of course. It will come up when we move on.



Verblonde #70 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 21:24

    Major

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

View Postlionheart1118, on Aug 04 2017 - 15:04, said:

 

then that is more of an issue of not being enough maps not the mm, besides there are a large variety of tanks with more always coming. a fight between tanks is rarely ever the same every time.

 

My point was more the hypothetical possibility of boring maps *in conjunction* with predictable MM resulting in a combined effect of boredom overall. Sorry, I should have been clearer.

fsjd #71 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 21:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 10353 battles
  • 5,248
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011

see here for my suggestions on the issues. 

 

in a nutshell:

first: revert the preference for the +/-2 bracket, and either allow equal probability for all match types, OR preference singe tier matches over two or three tier matches. 

this immediately takes the pressure off of tier 8s +2 bracket, and lets them see other matches more frequently. 

 

second: loosen the 3/5/7 structure, and implement one rule- the number of lower tier tanks must be equal to or greater than that of higher tier tanks. for a bottom tier tank in the +2 bracket, this would make the worst possible match become 3/4/8, and allow for almost* anything between that and 1/1/13.  *the mid tier tanks are held to the same rule, so there cannot be a 4/2/9 game for example*

for a two tier game, any combination between 7/8 and 1/14 is possible. 

this would allow for tier 3 to see a +2 bracket, with probable limits on the number of tier 4/5 tanks- for example, a restriction to no worse than 2/3/10 or similar.  

this elimates the possibilty of those nightmare 10/3/2 games where the bottom tier tanks are basically worthless, but allows for greater variety in the MM structure than current.



Liberty75 #72 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 21:39

    Captain

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

View Postfsjd, on Aug 04 2017 - 15:35, said:

see here for my suggestions on the issues. 

 

in a nutshell:

first: revert the preference for the +/-2 bracket, and either allow equal probability for all match types, OR preference singe tier matches over two or three tier matches. 

this immediately takes the pressure off of tier 8s +2 bracket, and lets them see other matches more frequently. 

 

second: loosen the 3/5/7 structure, and implement one rule- the number of lower tier tanks must be equal to or greater than that of higher tier tanks. for a bottom tier tank in the +2 bracket, this would make the worst possible match become 3/4/8, and allow for almost* anything between that and 1/1/13.  *the mid tier tanks are held to the same rule, so there cannot be a 4/2/9 game for example*

for a two tier game, any combination between 7/8 and 1/14 is possible. 

this would allow for tier 3 to see a +2 bracket, with probable limits on the number of tier 4/5 tanks- for example, a restriction to no worse than 2/3/10 or similar.  

this elimates the possibilty of those nightmare 10/3/2 games where the bottom tier tanks are basically worthless, but allows for greater variety in the MM structure than current.

 

We must be on the same wavelength. I was literally just thinking of a similar system.

Liberty75 #73 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 21:41

    Captain

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

Okay, here is what I have so far as to the issues before 9.18. Is it complete?


The old MM was generally accepted to be broken in a few main areas that essentially centered around team balance mostly, but other issues as well:

I. Team Balance Issues

A. The old MM would create teams that were not even in top or middle tier tanks. In other words, one team would have 4 top tier tanks and the other team would have 5.

B. The old MM would not balance tank types very well between teams, leaving one team with many TDs against the other team with many mediums, as an example.

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

II. Other Issues

A. The old MM would create extreme matches such as 9/5/1 or 10/3/2. Although rare, they still occurred.



Verblonde #74 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 21:42

    Major

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

View Postfsjd, on Aug 04 2017 - 15:35, said:

see here for my suggestions on the issues. 

 

in a nutshell:

first: revert the preference for the +/-2 bracket, and either allow equal probability for all match types, OR preference singe tier matches over two or three tier matches. 

this immediately takes the pressure off of tier 8s +2 bracket, and lets them see other matches more frequently. 

 

second: loosen the 3/5/7 structure, and implement one rule- the number of lower tier tanks must be equal to or greater than that of higher tier tanks. for a bottom tier tank in the +2 bracket, this would make the worst possible match become 3/4/8, and allow for almost* anything between that and 1/1/13.  *the mid tier tanks are held to the same rule, so there cannot be a 4/2/9 game for example*

for a two tier game, any combination between 7/8 and 1/14 is possible. 

this would allow for tier 3 to see a +2 bracket, with probable limits on the number of tier 4/5 tanks- for example, a restriction to no worse than 2/3/10 or similar.  

this elimates the possibilty of those nightmare 10/3/2 games where the bottom tier tanks are basically worthless, but allows for greater variety in the MM structure than current.

 

At a cursory glance, this sounds pretty good, assuming the population can support it. It keeps the best bits of the new system, without a return to irrelevant bottom tiers.

The only trouble I can see is that when lots of people want to play T10, there'd be a risk of lots of pure T10 battles, but would that be a problem? I don't have any T10s (yet - a couple of weeks away from the first), so don't have any experience at that level...

shaggy996 #75 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 21:48

    Captain

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

One thing I am not seeing talked about really is the new MM seems to like to stack the top tier with all the same tank type. It is also not great about matching these tank types up.

The  problems Im seeing are 3 top tier tds on both sides. this really causes strange game play. A lot of the time its a couple of heavily armored TDs on one side and paper TDs on the other.

This comes to a real problem where is all heavies with a few super heavies on one team and the other team is all Meds, compounded worse on city maps.  At least in the old MM there were enough of a mix of top tiers to try and deal with this better. 

 

The one thing I can say for the new MM is you dont see 3 tier 10s on one team and 7 on the other. That is about the only benefit I have seen so far. 



Markd73 #76 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 22:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 32508 battles
  • 4,537
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View Postshaggy996, on Aug 04 2017 - 16:16, said:

 

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

 

It still doesn't change the fact that you get to fight more tier 8s than either tier 9s or 10s.

 

I will take that over being 1 or 2 tier 8s versus a ton of higher tiers.



shaggy996 #77 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 22:48

    Captain

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

View PostMarkd73, on Aug 04 2017 - 13:38, said:

 

It still doesn't change the fact that you get to fight more tier 8s than either tier 9s or 10s.

 

I will take that over being 1 or 2 tier 8s versus a ton of higher tiers.

 

thats a matter of personal choice. I would rather see that once in a while than be bottom in the current setup almost every game.

Diablobo #78 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 23:01

    Sergeant

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

View PostLiberty75, on Aug 04 2017 - 20:50, said:

 

I'm very much into politics and that article looks, how do you say it, spot on? :)

 

Public opinion greatly differs when it comes to income or wealth inequality. Most think it is not nearly as bad as it is. It is vastly and exponentially worse than people think it is.

 



Diablobo #79 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 23:02

    Sergeant

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

View Postshaggy996, on Aug 04 2017 - 22:48, said:

 

thats a matter of personal choice. I would rather see that once in a while than be bottom in the current setup almost every game.

 

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

 



Liberty75 #80 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 23:06

    Captain

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

View PostDiablobo, on Aug 04 2017 - 17:02, said:

 

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

 

 

Let's try to keep it civil. I am hoping by the end of this thread that we can all be enlightened no matter what our current opinions may be.





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

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users