Jump to content


I Like Matchmaker


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

xBuckleyx #1 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 14:47

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 8979 battles
  • 31
  • [-AK-] -AK-
  • Member since:
    07-12-2015

That's right.  I said it. :playing:

 

Just came back from a several month break - left before the new MM was implemented.  Been playing all weekend and I gotta say.... I like it much more than the old.   Facing only 3 top tiers as bottom tiers is a good thing - keeps a challenge but makes it not so impossible.  In fact, I hardly care or pay attention are anymore about the tier of the match.  It's kinda nice just to suit up and concentrate on the map and what I'm doing without going full tilt after running 4 in a row and not penning a thing.  Don't get me wrong, RNG still frustrates me at times, and it's certainly not perfect, but it's much improved IMHO.  

 

Also, I've noticed that most matches - at least, based on my XVM mods - are fairly even (at the start at least.)  I'd say only about 1 in 10 games I get those 39% or worse chances to win (based on XVM ratings.)  So yeah... nice job Wargaming.

 

Also like some of the other changes, but I'll stop now and just let some positive feedback sink in a bit around here.  God knows we could use some more of it....

 

 


Edited by xBuckleyx, Aug 13 2017 - 14:50.


Panzerkind #2 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 15:04

    Captain

  • Players
  • 30254 battles
  • 1,824
  • Member since:
    01-16-2012
The downside is apparent when you get to tier 10.

Too many people play tier 10 for the MM to really work as intended so you get 15 v 15  tier 10 games about half (probably more) the time.

These maps (especially smaller ones like Ensk, Mines, Ruinberg etc.) certainly were not designed to accommodate 30 tier 10s.

Also, tier 10 is a very diverse tier with vastly different vehicles that are not always very balanced to each other, so when you have 30 tier 10s, there's a huge chance for lopsides matches. You can easily see HP differences of several thousand and other stuff like one team having like 10 autoloaders and the other having none etc. 

I agree MM is better now for lower tiers, but WG needs to do something to cut back on the 15 v 15 tier 10 games, or at least limit the maps where this can happen. 

15 v 15 tier 10s on Ensk is just cancer. 

 

xBuckleyx #3 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 15:07

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 8979 battles
  • 31
  • [-AK-] -AK-
  • Member since:
    07-12-2015

View PostPanzerkind, on Aug 13 2017 - 15:04, said:

The downside is apparent when you get to tier 10.

Too many people play tier 10 for the MM to really work as intended so you get 15 v 15  tier 10 games about half (probably more) the time.

These maps (especially smaller ones like Ensk, Mines, Ruinberg etc.) certainly were not designed to accommodate 30 tier 10s.

Also, tier 10 is a very diverse tier with vastly different vehicles that are not always very balanced to each other, so when you have 30 tier 10s, there's a huge chance for lopsides matches. You can easily see HP differences of several thousand and other stuff like one team having like 10 autoloaders and the other having none etc. 

I agree MM is better now for lower tiers, but WG needs to do something to cut back on the 15 v 15 tier 10 games, or at least limit the maps where this can happen. 

15 v 15 tier 10s on Ensk is just cancer. 

 

 

Haven't played any Tier 10s yet.  Your point seems valid though.  I hope they find a way to tweak.

 

That said, in many cases I notice that the tank compositions in the game are much much more aligned than they used to be.  Given the huge variety of tanks available in the game I suppose it's inevitable that lopsided comps can arise.  I gotta believe there would be a way to insert slight tags or variables in the code that could influence/ weigh certain types of tanks?  Very much sounds like a tweak/ refininement issue than a complete re-write.  


Edited by xBuckleyx, Aug 13 2017 - 15:08.


Nonamanadus #4 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 15:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 24563 battles
  • 3,432
  • [HBG] HBG
  • Member since:
    02-02-2013
Being top tier does not mean you are entitled to a unlimited supply of IXs and VIIIs, you have to expect tens only from time to time. The very worst you can expect with tens is to play on a level playing field, it's not like facing X's in a FCM 50 on Paris. 

KingsGambit #5 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 16:02

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 8638 battles
  • 41
  • [NOKAP] NOKAP
  • Member since:
    12-02-2015

View PostPanzerkind, on Aug 13 2017 - 09:04, said:

The downside is apparent when you get to tier 10.

Too many people play tier 10 for the MM to really work as intended so you get 15 v 15  tier 10 games about half (probably more) the time.

These maps (especially smaller ones like Ensk, Mines, Ruinberg etc.) certainly were not designed to accommodate 30 tier 10s.

Also, tier 10 is a very diverse tier with vastly different vehicles that are not always very balanced to each other, so when you have 30 tier 10s, there's a huge chance for lopsides matches. You can easily see HP differences of several thousand and other stuff like one team having like 10 autoloaders and the other having none etc. 

I agree MM is better now for lower tiers, but WG needs to do something to cut back on the 15 v 15 tier 10 games, or at least limit the maps where this can happen. 

15 v 15 tier 10s on Ensk is just cancer. 

 

 

​How is that a downside? More tier X's mean more hp on the field to farm. That is a plus. Forces even newbies in 10's to learn or they die FAST. Less seal clubbing at the highest tier by those hoping to have 8's to mop up on....Love all tier X matches.

Jolly33 #6 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 17:17

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 37628 battles
  • 223
  • [REL2] REL2
  • Member since:
    11-14-2012

Come back after you've played 50 tier 8 battles and were bottom tier in almost every bloody one.  Then see how you feel about the "improved" MM.  Also, try platooning with a friend only to find you never get top tier ever.  Yep the MM is truly "improved." 

 

TL-DR:  Hate new MM.  Bottom tier every bloody game is not fun.



Panzerkind #7 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 18:27

    Captain

  • Players
  • 30254 battles
  • 1,824
  • Member since:
    01-16-2012

View PostKingsGambit, on Aug 13 2017 - 10:02, said:

 

​How is that a downside? More tier X's mean more hp on the field to farm. That is a plus. Forces even newbies in 10's to learn or they die FAST. Less seal clubbing at the highest tier by those hoping to have 8's to mop up on....Love all tier X matches.

 

If you actually read my comment (which it doesn't seem like you did) my grievances lie in the lack of balancing in the tier 10 games and that some maps are too small for it. 

derpdederp #8 Posted Aug 15 2017 - 08:07

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 11178 battles
  • 34
  • [PCAKE] PCAKE
  • Member since:
    03-20-2011

View PostJolly33, on Aug 13 2017 - 16:17, said:

Come back after you've played 50 tier 8 battles and were bottom tier in almost every bloody one.  Then see how you feel about the "improved" MM.  Also, try platooning with a friend only to find you never get top tier ever.  Yep the MM is truly "improved." 

 

TL-DR:  Hate new MM.  Bottom tier every bloody game is not fun.

 

Honestly this. Tier 8 is just so bad, I actually bought back some of my Tier 7s and Tier 9s just so I wouldn't have to deal with the constant bottom tier matchmaking. I played I think something like 50 or 60 games over the weekend. I don't think I ever saw a single top tier game in any of my tier 8s. Especially when you're platooned, I never saw anything besides bottom tier. Also, I love how the matchmaker is apparently supposed to make it so you don't see the same maps every time, but the last three games I played tonight were all on karelia. Back to back to back... Wargaming pls.

DarpaHunter #9 Posted Aug 15 2017 - 10:00

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 882 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    06-28-2014

Matchmaking sucks!!!

It might be better than before, but still sucks.  There's a threshold WG needs to cross to make it bearable.  Otherwise, it just sucks!

I'm starting to grind kv1.  The stock gun can't pen any tanks in all my matches.  And I'm slow as a turtle, which makes me a sitting duck.  It's rare where I can be 2 animals at once in a game.  Kudos to WG.

They should've match based on the tank's ability (counting the active equipment).  Then balanced the win rate of the players.  That would be perfect.

I don't mind being out turned by faster medium tanks. But what's the point of putting me in a match where I can only shoot paint balls.  Match me to tier 3 or 4 fully researched, then it's a fare fight.

I've played like 20 matches with my new kv1 and never be the top tier.  I can't even pen tier 4s when I encounter them. 

 

If the goal is to penalize new tanks, then just drop my win rate from the get go whenever I get a new tank and give me a chance to do something.  Making matches frustrating is only going to turn away new players.

It's one thing that I suck with the new tank.  It's another when MM constantly put me on the losing team.  

 

I got a feeling that MM puts all new players (stock tanks) on one team, and experienced players/tanks on the other.

I've been on the low end of total team win8 side like 7:3 over 100 matches.

 

I come from playing wot blitz, and the MM was similarly frustrating, but have gotten much better for me because I've been playing old tanks.  The MM algorithm is biased!

 

Another gripe for me is the tedious crew management.  It's a noob trap.  WOT blitz's simpler "tank experience" is much better and easier to understand.  The more you play a tank, the more efficient the tank gets, that's it.

The whole thing about when to get new crews, training crews to new tank, returning crew back to old tank, etc.  Just stupid.  I don't believe a real tank simulator is as complicated and confusing.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users