Jump to content


* * * - - 2 votes

[9.20.1] Matchmaker Changes


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

CabbageMechanic #1 Posted Oct 18 2017 - 20:01

    Community Coordinator

  • Administrator
  • 7307 battles
  • 204
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-19-2010
Hey Tankers, let us know what you think of the new Matchmaker.  Notes here:
 

9.20.1 Notes

 

Improvements to the Matchmaker
 
Now, the matchmaker attempts to assemble the teams considering the roles within the vehicle types: e.g., the Maus is matched against another Maus, Type 5 Heavy, or E 100, while the T57 Heavy is matched against the AMX 50B, etc. However, in some situations, the matchmaking by roles will not be mirrored, e.g. in case of Platoons that comprise vehicles of different roles.
Increased the chance of getting ranked at the top of the list for Platoon players.
Equal chances of getting ranked in the top/middle/bottom of the list for different vehicle classes (previously, heavy and medium tanks would end up in single-level battles way too often, while SPGs and TDs tended to get ±2 and ±1 setups).
Increased the chance of getting matched in a Grand Battle.

 


Edited by CabbageMechanic, Oct 18 2017 - 20:02.


Demonic_Angel_of_Death #2 Posted Oct 18 2017 - 20:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 2142 battles
  • 3,952
  • [DEMON] DEMON
  • Member since:
    09-29-2012

I have read the patchnotes, and watched the video review, so please don't bother copy/pasting them like support did 4 times in a row when I asked this:

 

I know the "MM balance by Roles" thing is tier 8-10 only... (Which should be tier 1-10 but whatever, live testing before all tiers is fine)

My question is:

 

Is the Platoon and/or LT/TD/SPG MM rebalance to where they are not bottom tier as much also a tier 8-10 thing? Or is it all tiers?



ShutUp_Karl #3 Posted Nov 08 2017 - 05:16

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 24425 battles
  • 461
  • [-1NA-] -1NA-
  • Member since:
    09-13-2015
Improved?!


Mikosah #4 Posted Nov 08 2017 - 19:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 17520 battles
  • 3,165
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

The idea of trying to arrange particular sub-classes (autoloaders, super-heavies, etc) to have equal numbers on both teams is all well and good in theory, however I see it as a circuitous way of avoiding the elephant in the room, and that is tier spreads and team-dependency otherwise. Besides, its only as good in practice as the arbitrary decisions of which tank fits into which category and how well balanced they are against one-another. Circonflexes had a stream shortly after 9.20.1 went live and his reaction to sub-class balancing should more than suffice. 

 

Tier spreads are a much more crucial issue because the balance between armor and penetration gets totally thrown out the window in many +/-2 tier scenarios. Until premium ammo is given a proper re-work, I can't stress enough how important it is to run the 5/10 MM template as standard and to use the 3/5/7 only as a backup plan. Compared to the ramifications of those issues, sub-class balancing is completely trivial. 

 

As of the attempt to make grand battles more frequent, this was also a step in the right direction, but yet again a very small step. The issue remains that grand battles are still infrequent at best, rely on dumb luck to enter, and occur at tier 10 exclusively. Possible solutions would be to assign a given window of time (maybe a few hours each night or maybe a whole day in every week) in which any tier 10 that enters the random queue gets diverted to grand battles exclusively. This solves two problems- it gives tier 10s a reliable way to enjoy grand battles, and in that same window of time, tier 8s get a reprieve. An alternative would be to let the tier 8s have their own grand battles. Tier 8 actually has the population to run the mode reliably and it would serve the purpose of keeping the number of tier 8s in the queue under control. In fact, the grand battles could be used to manage any tier whose population is significantly greater than adjacent tiers. 

 

And the other major issue to consider is team-dependency. Unfortunately its a core aspect of the game that'll be difficult to affect. Still, it should be noted that a major source of frustration with the MM dynamic is having to rely so heavily on teammates with whom communication and coordination has been made so difficult. Typed messages can't be easily done in the middle of combat or maneuvers, and voice communication can only be arranged with two other players at a time. This is a major concern that has been woefully ignored. WG does realize that a 'mute all' function could exist, don't they? But a simple and practical way to relieve this frustration would be to set up random battles with smaller team counts. Smaller teams would mean the snowball effect couldn't build up as much and any individual wouldn't rely so desperately on the team to avoid such an outcome. It would also mean each individual would have more unoccupied space in the map to work with, and would also have more carry potential. In light of that, I urge WG to consider 12v12, 10v10, and 8v8 random battle formats. 



Dead_Zombie #5 Posted Nov 13 2017 - 00:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 32146 battles
  • 2,617
  • [11A-D] 11A-D
  • Member since:
    10-09-2011

if WG really wanted to make the game enjoyable, they would use their PR system to balance teams before a match starts. its pretty freaking simple if they would just select the 30 tanks for the battle, then adjust players (back and forth between the teams) based on "WG Personal Rating System" and make teams balanced to within 2k total.. so if one teams total PR is 28k, the other teams should  be anywhere from 26 to 30K total (not hey, you get a total of 15k and the other team gets a total of 50K)... PR isn't perfect, but its a lot better then giving one team nothing but pure trash / bots over and over and over again.. its no wonder people are walking away. game has turn into a game of trash.. next they will tell u how their MM and RNG is correct, but then turn around and have bug after bug in this game after this many years?. .I guess they want us to believe their RNG or MM isn't bugged? give it a rest. now, back to  WWII, no RNG (Ruins Numerous Games) over here



Insurrectional_Leftist #6 Posted Nov 13 2017 - 18:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 45063 battles
  • 6,053
  • Member since:
    05-23-2013

View PostDead_Zombie, on Nov 12 2017 - 23:31, said:

if WG really wanted to make the game enjoyable, they would use their PR system to balance teams before a match starts. its pretty freaking simple if they would just select the 30 tanks for the battle, then adjust players (back and forth between the teams) based on "WG Personal Rating System" and make teams balanced to within 2k total.. so if one teams total PR is 28k, the other teams should  be anywhere from 26 to 30K total (not hey, you get a total of 15k and the other team gets a total of 50K)... PR isn't perfect, but its a lot better then giving one team nothing but pure trash / bots over and over and over again.. its no wonder people are walking away. game has turn into a game of trash.. next they will tell u how their MM and RNG is correct, but then turn around and have bug after bug in this game after this many years?. .I guess they want us to believe their RNG or MM isn't bugged? give it a rest. now, back to  WWII, no RNG (Ruins Numerous Games) over here

 

lmbo...  Yep.  :trollface:

stalkervision #7 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 12:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 51084 battles
  • 8,081
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
This game can NEVER be balanced because it basic core is completely flawed. Tanks of earlier eras almost never met more advanced tanks of a later era and if they did because countries were forced to use them it was a complete and utter slaughter. That is what the gold ammo is for try to balance this idiotic notion out. It doesn't work as you see and never will.

Insurrectional_Leftist #8 Posted Nov 14 2017 - 21:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 45063 battles
  • 6,053
  • Member since:
    05-23-2013

View Poststalkervision, on Nov 14 2017 - 11:27, said:

This game can NEVER be balanced because it basic core is completely flawed. Tanks of earlier eras almost never met more advanced tanks of a later era and if they did because countries were forced to use them it was a complete and utter slaughter. That is what the gold ammo is for try to balance this idiotic notion out. It doesn't work as you see and never will.

 

So true.  You would have to hold so many variables constant, controlled, and static (and the ammo you point out) for the earlier era tanks to even manage a hit, a pen, or to do some damage on a newer era vehicle, that it would be such a tactical defeat and utter destruction of armor on the older era tanks that it would be carnage!  The older vehicles would have to camp at a safe distance, to be able to run away fast enough not be destroyed, after their 1st 2-3 shots, and then probably be taken out with longer range guns and weapons while trying to form an organized retreat to the next position etc.

 

Those vehicles would be better off placing themselves in high up fortified defensive positions, with hard structure cover (ex: rocks, mountains, structures, camo positions, etc. and shooting down at range etc.  Or else saving the armor all together, for situations they could be used in more adequate situations later.

 

Of course we are talking real world applications here.


Edited by Insurrectional_Leftist, Nov 14 2017 - 21:59.


Mikosah #9 Posted Nov 15 2017 - 00:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 17520 battles
  • 3,165
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

View Poststalkervision, on Nov 14 2017 - 05:27, said:

This game can NEVER be balanced because it basic core is completely flawed. Tanks of earlier eras almost never met more advanced tanks of a later era and if they did because countries were forced to use them it was a complete and utter slaughter. That is what the gold ammo is for try to balance this idiotic notion out. It doesn't work as you see and never will.

 

Precisely why I advocated for tighter MM spreads. Quitting +/-2 tier MM cold turkey may be difficult to do, but it would solve so many problems and would be so easy to just make the 5/10 template more frequently used than 3/5/7. The whole armor versus penetration dynamic becomes completely dysfunctional when tier spreads allow situations where armor-reliant tanks are invalidated by high-pen guns, and vice versa. And the current code 22 mechanics do help in certain circumstances (low tiers needing extra pen to stand a chance), but otherwise cause problems. Should just abandon the concept of 'premium ammo' altogether, sell slot 2 shells with high pen for similar prices as standard shells, but give them a new drawback of lower damage.

LpBronco #10 Posted Nov 15 2017 - 13:16

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 36794 battles
  • 2,040
  • [_F_] _F_
  • Member since:
    11-19-2010

The templated system is the biggest single issue not forgetting the asinine stun mechanic. Advocating for an even more restrictive system isn't the answer. The previous MM with some of the recent tweaks to the new system would have sufficed and anyone who argues for only same tier or one tier spreads just doesn't understand the game.



Colddawg #11 Posted Nov 16 2017 - 06:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 43722 battles
  • 3,790
  • [OTTER] OTTER
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

15-5 is still not fixed (must mean it's not related to MM).  If there's ANYTHING in WoT that makes me want to stop playing it's 15-5 result matches.

 

seriously, fix it, we all HATE these matches that are "balanced" for us by WG.

 

CM, for the love of god, tell home office that it's VERY obvious when teams are getting "balanced" forcefully.  From a WG FAQ and Dev answer "15-5 doesn't happen too much."  (It happens just as much as it's programmed to happen.)



Insurrectional_Leftist #12 Posted Nov 16 2017 - 06:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 45063 battles
  • 6,053
  • Member since:
    05-23-2013

Are you serious? You need to see the games from me end where I'm sitting.  You want believe it.  Their even far worse than that.  3-15 are becoming a greater norm.  1-15 is becoming a new often occurrence!'

 

A Garage Win Rate I had of 48.77% at the start of the 9.20 patch drop, has fallen now all the way down to 48.60%.  (17%)  That's a lot of battles actually.  I have never fallen below 48.70% in ever  (garage stat) ever since I attained it...!  It has been as high as 48.85%.  But, I'm not even counting that.  I'm only consider the fact that I have never fallen below 48.70% threshold for me ever like this.

 

I can tell you that, "Something is really wildly out of control here!"  And it's not just myself "crying" about my win rate.  Something is not right here.



Hellsfog #13 Posted Nov 16 2017 - 21:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 31184 battles
  • 3,926
  • [RIP-U] RIP-U
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011

View PostInsurrectional_Leftist, on Nov 16 2017 - 00:35, said:

Are you serious? You need to see the games from me end where I'm sitting.  You want believe it.  Their even far worse than that.  3-15 are becoming a greater norm.  1-15 is becoming a new often occurrence!'

 

A Garage Win Rate I had of 48.77% at the start of the 9.20 patch drop, has fallen now all the way down to 48.60%.  (17%)  That's a lot of battles actually.  I have never fallen below 48.70% in ever  (garage stat) ever since I attained it...!  It has been as high as 48.85%.  But, I'm not even counting that.  I'm only consider the fact that I have never fallen below 48.70% threshold for me ever like this.

 

I can tell you that, "Something is really wildly out of control here!"  And it's not just myself "crying" about my win rate.  Something is not right here.

 

A .17% change in win rate (not 17% but .17%) is not "wildly out of control" and is more related to how you play than to something sinister. 

Insurrectional_Leftist #14 Posted Nov 16 2017 - 21:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 45063 battles
  • 6,053
  • Member since:
    05-23-2013

View PostHellsfog, on Nov 16 2017 - 20:15, said:

 

A .17% change in win rate (not 17% but .17%) is not "wildly out of control" and is more related to how you play than to something sinister. 

 

It is for me.  And does not justify the rest of the player base complaining of the same issue, problem and phenomenon.

Hellsfog #15 Posted Nov 16 2017 - 23:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 31184 battles
  • 3,926
  • [RIP-U] RIP-U
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011

View PostInsurrectional_Leftist, on Nov 16 2017 - 15:42, said:

 

It is for me.  And does not justify the rest of the player base complaining of the same issue, problem and phenomenon.

 

You've always been a reckless exaggerator so nothing new there. The player base, although I don't think you and the half dozen others who constantly complain are the player base, has been complaining about MM since I first installed the game so nothing new there. 




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users