Jump to content


Yay, another MM thread

MM

  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

Lesser_Spotted_Panzer #1 Posted Feb 21 2018 - 19:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 75012 battles
  • 2,969
  • Member since:
    02-11-2012

Since nobody has created a new MM thread for the last 2 minutes, I figured I would start my own....


 

Yes, being bottom tier 90% of the time really really sucks, and I have often logged off because it can be demoralizing at times. Personally, I'm fine with a 3 tier system as it adds variety, however, the current MM fails to deliver this variety because you are almost always bottom. I want to see an even mix of higher and lower tiers over time.


 

However, that is not the point of this post, so no need to flog this particular horse further.


 

So on those very rare occasions that I am top tier, I often find that the lower tier guys have at least as much influence over the outcome of the game as the top tier guys do. I say this because that I have often seen half the bottom tier guys die even before I am in a position to engage the enemy. They yolo in to the enemy, drown themselves, refuse to play due to unfair MM, etc. When you are 5 tanks down before you can start having an impact on the game, it is very hard to come back from that.


 

The bottom tier players have to appreciate that they are in a supporting role. They should not be leading attacks, let the mid and upper tiers do that. Most importantly, keep your gun in the game, assist in spotting, prevent flanking attacks on your higher tier team mates, watch an unprotected flank, make your presence felt to the enemy (to discourage a push), etc.


 

A good example from yesterday was that I was playing my Skorpion on Mountain Pass and was (OMG) top tier. Not one tank went to the ice road, and we had three arty to protect. Being a team player, I felt like I had to go and protect this flank. I sat there for most of the game doing nothing, and everyone else rushed out and died. As they were dying, and I was seeing no action on the ice road, I had no choice but to go and help everyone else. Inevitably it was a loss, but I ended up doing 3x the amount of damage as the next guy on the team, and getting top gun. This inspite of being useless for most of the game. If only 1 lower tier tank had covered that road, I would have been more influential from the beginning. OK, so you can argue that I made the wrong call at the beginning, but it does illustrate my main point.


 

Another example, also on the same map, I was in my IS-3A top tier. In that game I was active from the start, and actually aced it even though it was a loss. I don't remember that actual result, but I did something like 12K combined actual and blocked damage. I went to the side of the map opposite the ice road, and everyone else went middle or ice road. I ended up brawling with 5-6 of their team single-handedly, and everyone else just went and died somehow. I was only taken down because as I was brawling the last player, they had three on cap and I had no choice but to go and defend. This meant I had to give my opponent my azz, and he really enjoyed it. If there had been only 1 lower tier guy supporting me, I could have finished brawling much sooner and prevented the cap.

 

 



holdmecloserTonyDanza #2 Posted Feb 21 2018 - 19:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 62521 battles
  • 6,765
  • [HSOLO] HSOLO
  • Member since:
    08-21-2011
well considering that only two tanks you mentioned were premiums you can understand exactly why warfailing doesn't give a flying [edited]...as long as this player base spends money you will continue to get the giant middle finger...monetization is ALL THEY CARE ABOUT and as long as players are spending money then game content will be second

Jas0n74 #3 Posted Feb 21 2018 - 19:22

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 4158 battles
  • 20
  • [GNZX3] GNZX3
  • Member since:
    07-14-2013

View PostholdmecloserTonyDanza, on Feb 21 2018 - 12:09, said:

well considering that only two tanks you mentioned were premiums you can understand exactly why warfailing doesn't give a flying [edited]...as long as this player base spends money you will continue to get the giant middle finger...monetization is ALL THEY CARE ABOUT and as long as players are spending money then game content will be second

 

​I totally see your side of it, but if players didn't spend money, there would no longer be a Wargaming, so yes there will cater to the things that do make them money. :angry:

HiBan #4 Posted Feb 21 2018 - 19:23

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 19489 battles
  • 486
  • Member since:
    01-08-2015

The issue here is that the tier distribution of the player population on this game (which goes up in population up to tier 8, then goes down on tiers 9-10) is completely incompatible with a 3-5-7 model. For that reason, most tiers are getting a LOT more lowest-tier games than they should.

 

The idea behind 3-5-7 model is good, but the power gap between some tiers is too big for a 3-tier spread, making lowest-tier games not very enjoyable for lowest-tier tanks. Add to this that the 3-5-7 combined with the player population makes most games to be lowest-tier, and you get this mess.

 

The solution has already been proposed plenty of times: Remove 3-tier games (3-5-7) and make all games 2-tier (5-10) with same-tier games to take the excess of players from each tier.

That way you will have more enjoyable games and tank balance issues will get a little bit more bearable.



moon111 #5 Posted Feb 21 2018 - 19:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 30471 battles
  • 2,280
  • Member since:
    06-29-2013

Just keep in mind, you really have <10% of battles to influence any further increases.  Don't expect big changes.  From you or your teams.  You're shoved into battle with random who-knows-what's on your team.   One has to consider getting lots of damage from late game collapse as pretty much useless.  It's going to happen sometimes.  I've sat waiting to ambush anyone coming down the mid road or from the city, while my entire team lemming trained the valley on Lakeville.  End result?  The other team sent everyone in valley.  I sat there guarding two corridors and nothing.  Sure I did my damage, but by that time, team had collapsed and we lost.  As you stated, trying to do anything solo isn't working.  It can often be advantageous just give up map awareness, power on hard with the crowd.

 



n00bfarmer #6 Posted Feb 21 2018 - 20:59

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 21 battles
  • 838
  • Member since:
    12-14-2017

Remove 3/5/7 and use 5/10 and all same tier as the two mm templates. The problem with using a mm system where the 3/5/7 as the most used template is that it limits the number of top tier slots and increases the number of bottom slots in tier 4-8 battles. This means tanks from tiers 4-8 will be bottom tier much more often than top tier. Some people have been saying that this is ok because there are only three top tier tanks compared to the old mm system where there could be half the team as top tier and you might be bottom tier fighting in that. But, since there were more top tier slots to fill up in the old mm system, it meant you would get top tier battles much more often. Now you won't get that. A 5/5/5 system might work slightly better than 3/5/7 because that opens up a lot more top tier slots to fill and reduces the number of bottom tier slots to fill from tiers 4-8. It would greatly increase the amount of top tier battles you get in tiers 4-8 and decrease the number of bottom tier battles you get in those tiers. Better yet, just use 5/10 and all same tier templates. If they used that, we would all be getting a lot more top tier battles in tiers 4-8. Another problem 3/5/7 has created is an increase in blowouts because the team is much more affected by the skill level of the three top tier tanks. It seems to amplify the blowout problem. In the old mm system, you might have 5 or 6 top tier tanks and that spread out the responsibility of carrying to more top tier players so it seemed to make the battles a bit more consistent, or at least not as chaotic as they are now.

 

For those who are shills for the 3/5/7 system, you must love being bottom tier 75-90% of the time. I know the old system was worse for being bottom tier but I would gladly take a huge reduction in the number of bottom tier battles at the expense of having a lot more top tier tanks in the matches. I know that if I played tanks for an evening, I would get more top tier battles in the old system. Now, I know if I played for an hour, I can expect to get 8 bottom tier battles out of 10 or something like that in my tier 4-8 tanks. Sucks...


Edited by n00bfarmer, Feb 21 2018 - 21:02.


Lonewolfpj #7 Posted Feb 21 2018 - 21:37

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 3980 battles
  • 793
  • [D-DAY] D-DAY
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011
:bajan: 

Lesser_Spotted_Panzer #8 Posted Feb 21 2018 - 21:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 75012 battles
  • 2,969
  • Member since:
    02-11-2012

View Postn00bfarmer, on Feb 21 2018 - 14:59, said:

Remove 3/5/7 and use 5/10 and all same tier as the two mm templates. The problem with using a mm system where the 3/5/7 as the most used template is that it limits the number of top tier slots and increases the number of bottom slots in tier 4-8 battles. This means tanks from tiers 4-8 will be bottom tier much more often than top tier. Some people have been saying that this is ok because there are only three top tier tanks compared to the old mm system where there could be half the team as top tier and you might be bottom tier fighting in that. But, since there were more top tier slots to fill up in the old mm system, it meant you would get top tier battles much more often. Now you won't get that. A 5/5/5 system might work slightly better than 3/5/7 because that opens up a lot more top tier slots to fill and reduces the number of bottom tier slots to fill from tiers 4-8. It would greatly increase the amount of top tier battles you get in tiers 4-8 and decrease the number of bottom tier battles you get in those tiers. Better yet, just use 5/10 and all same tier templates. If they used that, we would all be getting a lot more top tier battles in tiers 4-8. Another problem 3/5/7 has created is an increase in blowouts because the team is much more affected by the skill level of the three top tier tanks. It seems to amplify the blowout problem. In the old mm system, you might have 5 or 6 top tier tanks and that spread out the responsibility of carrying to more top tier players so it seemed to make the battles a bit more consistent, or at least not as chaotic as they are now.

 

For those who are shills for the 3/5/7 system, you must love being bottom tier 75-90% of the time. I know the old system was worse for being bottom tier but I would gladly take a huge reduction in the number of bottom tier battles at the expense of having a lot more top tier tanks in the matches. I know that if I played tanks for an evening, I would get more top tier battles in the old system. Now, I know if I played for an hour, I can expect to get 8 bottom tier battles out of 10 or something like that in my tier 4-8 tanks. Sucks...

 

One of the good improvements with the current MM is placing equal number of tanks on each team of the same type/class. The old MM did not attempt to do that, and that led to much of the complaints with the old system.

I think going back to the old MM, but balancing the tank classes would be much nicer than the current system.



HiBan #9 Posted Feb 21 2018 - 22:24

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 19489 battles
  • 486
  • Member since:
    01-08-2015

And we are not accounting the problem of SuperHeavies. WG has balanced tank classes, but they still haven't acknowledged that a SuperHeavy is in fact a different tank class on its own right.



n00bfarmer #10 Posted Feb 22 2018 - 04:32

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 21 battles
  • 838
  • Member since:
    12-14-2017

View PostLesser_Spotted_Panzer, on Feb 21 2018 - 16:53, said:

 

One of the good improvements with the current MM is placing equal number of tanks on each team of the same type/class. The old MM did not attempt to do that, and that led to much of the complaints with the old system.

I think going back to the old MM, but balancing the tank classes would be much nicer than the current system.

 

So a Cromwell is matched with a T-150 on a city map in a battle I just played. Looks like the system has failed in one of it's primary jobs. i have seen a lot of mis-matches since the new mm went into effect. Amx 50-100 matched against defender etc. 

awildseaking #11 Posted Feb 22 2018 - 09:19

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 10686 battles
  • 728
  • [NEET] NEET
  • Member since:
    08-05-2015

The tiering system is one aspect of WoT that I have always hated. Higher tier tanks are essentially superior in every way. Being relegated to support is bad for balance because you're going to have matches where your top tiers suck. Whether there's 3 or 14, not being able to impact the game as the match necessitates is annoying.

 

One of the best parts about WoWS is that tiering is not linear. Higher tier ships are generally more capable, but lower tiers have certain advantages that allow you to impact the game. I hate the WoT approach where the top tier is the same as you but objectively superior in every way to the point that you can't even play your role. There's too much armor and pen creep. I don't like the templates either, but none of this would be a problem if tanks were simply better balanced so that being bottom tier didn't matter as much as it does.


Edited by awildseaking, Feb 22 2018 - 09:21.


_Bagheera_ #12 Posted Feb 22 2018 - 09:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 34120 battles
  • 5,484
  • [ICON-] ICON-
  • Member since:
    12-23-2011
Ive seen ONE tier IV match since MM changes in a tier 6 tank that I can remember....ONE....

CapPhrases #13 Posted Feb 22 2018 - 12:06

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 7273 battles
  • 3,453
  • [TXV] TXV
  • Member since:
    03-28-2015

View Post_Bagheera_, on Feb 22 2018 - 03:23, said:

Ive seen ONE tier IV match since MM changes in a tier 6 tank that I can remember....ONE....

 

seen a couple but yeah they're not that common anymore

EmperorJuliusCaesar #14 Posted Feb 22 2018 - 13:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 29375 battles
  • 4,271
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View Postn00bfarmer, on Feb 21 2018 - 19:32, said:

View PostLesser_Spotted_Panzer, on Feb 21 2018 - 16:53, said:

 

One of the good improvements with the current MM is placing equal number of tanks on each team of the same type/class. The old MM did not attempt to do that, and that led to much of the complaints with the old system.

I think going back to the old MM, but balancing the tank classes would be much nicer than the current system.

 

So a Cromwell is matched with a T-150 on a city map in a battle I just played. Looks like the system has failed in one of it's primary jobs. i have seen a lot of mis-matches since the new mm went into effect. Amx 50-100 matched against defender etc. 

 

That happens because after a certain amount of time, MM lessens the rules to get a match started quickly, they stated this in the patch notes.  It shouldn't do this because all it did was hurry up and make a crap matchup.







Also tagged with MM

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users