Jump to content


FIX MATCHMAKER

Matchmaker

  • Please log in to reply
79 replies to this topic

Pipinghot #61 Posted Apr 09 2018 - 04:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,069
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostGunadie, on Apr 08 2018 - 20:04, said:

Its one thing to stick ones fingers in ones ears but it a whole different thing to fail to see and read what's plainly in front of you!

You are still harping about SBMM and cant see anything else because you don't want to!

 

Maybe you cant read it unless its a different color from all the rest!

Maybe you just have an extremely low comprehension level

Now you're just being dishonest and hoping that no one notices. You've been talking all along about SBMM, "balancing" the teams and how the changes you propose would reduce blowout.

 

You can scream all you want that I'm not 'comprehending' you, but you posting history is visible here for everyone to see. You've made it 100% clear that you think some form of balancing the skills of the teams (which is SBMM, no matter what you call it) would significantly reduce blowouts.

 

And yet...

View PostGunadie said:

Please show us this evidence where SBMM doesn't have any effect in WOT!

View PostGunadie said:

You cannot because there never has need any form of SBMM in Wot.

View PostGunadie said:

The biggest single issue with this game is bad Match Making because it doesn't account for any sort of experience difference between the teams.

View PostGunadie said:

I challenge you to prove that some sort of match making system that is balanced in some form would not significantly improve this game and reduce blowouts.

View PostGunadie said:

I'm not talking about having 30 players with similar stats, I'm taking about 2 teams of 15 players, good, bad and or middle of the road, that all their combined averages in PR and experience balance from one team to the other...

View PostGunadie said:

This approach has never been applied or tried in Public MM and so therefore neither proved or disproved!

View PostGunadie said:

If this was done right now as it sits with just a players games and PR I believe there would be an immediate benefit to this games match balance

For someone who accuses me of "harping" on SBMM you sure do talk about SBMM a lot.

 

You also make it completely clear that you think some form of SBMM (whether it's particular description of your particular form of SBMM or some other form of SBMM) would "significantly improve this game and reduce blowouts". Those are your own purple words, that's not anyone misinterpreting your or misunderstanding you, you have explicitly said that you think balancing the teams would reduce blowouts.

 

Then... you have amply demonstrated that you don't understand how data analysis works.

View PostGunadie, on Apr 08 2018 - 16:49, said:

No data for SBMM, exists as it hasn't and cant been tracked.

View PostGunadie, on Apr 08 2018 - 16:49, said:

Using XVM with 40/60, 50/50 and 60/40 is not using SBMM factual data, its using projected data from a players stats and is subject to so many variables

View PostGunadie, on Apr 08 2018 - 16:49, said:

that its accuracy is invalid attempting to apply it to SBMM.

You believe that the existing data cannot be used to understand how SBMM would affect this game, you've made that very clear. And you're wrong, which demonstrates that you don't understand how the data can be used. Again, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's impossible, it just means that you can't do it, plenty of other people can.
 

The fundamental problem in these discussions is that there are things you don't understand, and rather than admit your own limitations and learn from others you keep screaming that it can't be done simply because you don't understand it. You have had ample opportunity to learn from these forum discussions but instead you continue a pattern of willful ignorance.



Gunadie #62 Posted Apr 09 2018 - 06:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 39353 battles
  • 4,318
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 08 2018 - 19:23, said:

Now you're just being dishonest and hoping that no one notices. You've been talking all along about SBMM, "balancing" the teams and how the changes you propose would reduce blowout.

 

You can scream all you want that I'm not 'comprehending' you, but you posting history is visible here for everyone to see. You've made it 100% clear that you think some form of balancing the skills of the teams (which is SBMM, no matter what you call it) would significantly reduce blowouts.

 

And yet...

For someone who accuses me of "harping" on SBMM you sure do talk about SBMM a lot.

 

You also make it completely clear that you think some form of SBMM (whether it's particular description of your particular form of SBMM or some other form of SBMM) would "significantly improve this game and reduce blowouts". Those are your own purple words, that's not anyone misinterpreting your or misunderstanding you, you have explicitly said that you think balancing the teams would reduce blowouts.

 

Then... you have amply demonstrated that you don't understand how data analysis works.

You believe that the existing data cannot be used to understand how SBMM would affect this game, you've made that very clear. And you're wrong, which demonstrates that you don't understand how the data can be used. Again, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's impossible, it just means that you can't do it, plenty of other people can.
 

The fundamental problem in these discussions is that there are things you don't understand, and rather than admit your own limitations and learn from others you keep screaming that it can't be done simply because you don't understand it. You have had ample opportunity to learn from these forum discussions but instead you continue a pattern of willful ignorance.

 

Thanks for making my point blatantly clear and identifying how I've stated all along about the need for a balanced Match maker.

Thank you for also showing how I am only responding to your insistence to discuss a SBMM when what I've proposed only incorporates the player P/R as one part of several to derive a formula useful in the establishing of a balanced Match Maker.

I even pointed this out that all you are doing is insisting what I am discussing is SBMM which it is not, but because a small portion of it is, you are unrelenting with your insistence that it is nothing but.

Unfortunately you are so narrow minded that you insist that any resolution that incorporated any part of a players stats constitutes it as a SBMM and therefore wont work.

When the majority of what I propose is a system that doesn't push the curve toward the middle, it dismisses your (the) argument that a MM system based on skill (alone)

would push the BC toward neutral and therefore wouldn't work.

P/R is not solely based on a players skill but incorporates several factors that have nothing to do with the players skill, this alone also dilutes the inherent fact of it pushing the W/R to neutral.

And once again I have only suggested a "balancing" of the MM would reduce, not eliminate blowouts, which it would!

I have also stated that MM is stacking high end players against newbs to the point that it alone is creating these conditions

This is something you have completely ignored other than to say it would rob better players of wins (rubbish)

Nice to see that you can pick parts of a conversation to fit your arrogant narrative but in the end all you are doing is just that,

.....being narrow, short sighted and not able seeing the big picture because of it!


 


 



Pipinghot #63 Posted Apr 09 2018 - 18:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,069
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostGunadie, on Apr 09 2018 - 00:32, said:

Thank you for also showing how I am only responding to your insistence to discuss a SBMM when what I've proposed only incorporates the player P/R as one part of several to derive a formula useful in the establishing of a balanced Match Maker.

SBMM and "incorporates the player P/R" are the same thing. No matter how many ways you try to manipulate words to make them seem different it's still one form of SBMM. Every possible method that factors in WN8, or PR, or any other tool that measured player skill is still SBMM even if that factor is only part of the equation.

 

You keep trying to pretend that you're "responding to my insistence", but that's a fabrication. Your own proposed formula "incorporates the player P/R" and that is still a form of SBMM. No matter what form of SBMM you propose they're all still SBMM and they will all still have the same results - pushing all players towards having an average WR, that is the inevitable outcome of any forumula that factors in player skill. I'm not 'insisting' that you talk about anything, you keep on trying to use skill as part of your MM formula, which means that you're still talking about SBMM even if you don't want to admit it.

 

Yes, of course we all see that you're attempting to address other factors as well. No one has overlooked that, including me. But as long as you include any factors that are based on player skill that is still a form of SBMM and it will still have the same affect as pure SBMM, just not as quickly or as forcefully.

View PostGunadie, on Apr 09 2018 - 00:32, said:

When the majority of what I propose is a system that doesn't push the curve toward the middle, it dismisses your (the) argument that a MM system based on skill (alone)

would push the BC toward neutral and therefore wouldn't work.

You're trying to argue that a formula that only includes skill as one factor is not SBMM because other factors are included in the formula, and that's false. As long skill is included in the formula then it is just another form of SBMM. Diluting the skill factor doesn't remove the skill factor, it just makes it act more slowly or more weakly, but that force still exists even in your proposal.

View PostGunadie, on Apr 09 2018 - 00:32, said:

And once again I have only suggested a "balancing" of the MM would reduce, not eliminate blowouts, which it would!

No you haven't.

 

Let's pretend, just for a moment, that we 100% completely agree that your proposal is not actually a form of SBMM and that I love everything about your idea. Even in if we accept that hypothetical agreement your proposed system will have no affect on blowouts, because the fundamental cause of blowouts is that this is a single-death-per-game battle. The only way to noticeably reduce blowouts is to make this a respawn game.

 

So even if we completely ignore skill, even if we pretend to agree that your proposal is not a form of SBMM, your proposal would not affect blowouts because you cannot fix blowouts in a single-death game by changing the MM. You are refusing to accept that single-death is the fundamental cause of blowouts.

View PostGunadie, on Apr 09 2018 - 00:32, said:

I have also stated that MM is stacking high end players against newbs to the point that it alone is creating these conditions
Which is false. Yet again I refer you to the long and established history of Clan Wars, in which practically every player who plays CW has lots of experience and most of them are "high end" players - and blowouts are just as common in CW as they are in Random battles. Stacking "high end players against newbs" is not "creating these conditions" for blowouts because random battles don't have significantly more blowouts than Clan Wars.

View PostGunadie, on Apr 09 2018 - 00:32, said:

Nice to see that you can pick parts of a conversation to fit your arrogant narrative but in the end all you are doing is just that,

.....being narrow, short sighted and not able seeing the big picture because of it!

Ahhh yes, your lack of understanding and refusal to learn are my fault, glad to see you cleared that up.

Edited by Pipinghot, Apr 09 2018 - 22:06.


cruiserSS #64 Posted Apr 09 2018 - 22:19

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 17172 battles
  • 4
  • [ROTM] ROTM
  • Member since:
    03-18-2014

It does seem to take number of battles into account. 95% of the time I get top tier in my first battle in a new tank.

 



Gunadie #65 Posted Apr 10 2018 - 03:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 39353 battles
  • 4,318
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 09 2018 - 09:52, said:

SBMM and "incorporates the player P/R" are the same thing. No matter how many ways you try to manipulate words to make them seem different it's still one form of SBMM. Every possible method that factors in WN8, or PR, or any other tool that measured player skill is still SBMM even if that factor is only part of the equation.

 

You keep trying to pretend that you're "responding to my insistence", but that's a fabrication. Your own proposed formula "incorporates the player P/R" and that is still a form of SBMM. No matter what form of SBMM you propose they're all still SBMM and they will all still have the same results - pushing all players towards having an average WR, that is the inevitable outcome of any forumula that factors in player skill. I'm not 'insisting' that you talk about anything, you keep on trying to use skill as part of your MM formula, which means that you're still talking about SBMM even if you don't want to admit it.

 

Yes, of course we all see that you're attempting to address other factors as well. No one has overlooked that, including me. But as long as you include any factors that are based on player skill that is still a form of SBMM and it will still have the same affect as pure SBMM, just not as quickly or as forcefully.

You're trying to argue that a formula that only includes skill as one factor is not SBMM because other factors are included in the formula, and that's false. As long skill is included in the formula then it is just another form of SBMM. Diluting the skill factor doesn't remove the skill factor, it just makes it act more slowly or more weakly, but that force still exists even in your proposal.

No you haven't.

 

Let's pretend, just for a moment, that we 100% completely agree that your proposal is not actually a form of SBMM and that I love everything about your idea. Even in if we accept that hypothetical agreement your proposed system will have no affect on blowouts, because the fundamental cause of blowouts is that this is a single-death-per-game battle. The only way to noticeably reduce blowouts is to make this a respawn game.

 

So even if we completely ignore skill, even if we pretend to agree that your proposal is not a form of SBMM, your proposal would not affect blowouts because you cannot fix blowouts in a single-death game by changing the MM. You are refusing to accept that single-death is the fundamental cause of blowouts.

Which is false. Yet again I refer you to the long and established history of Clan Wars, in which practically every player who plays CW has lots of experience and most of them are "high end" players - and blowouts are just as common in CW as they are in Random battles. Stacking "high end players against newbs" is not "creating these conditions" for blowouts because random battles don't have significantly more blowouts than Clan Wars. Ahhh yes, your lack of understanding and refusal to learn are my fault, glad to see you cleared that up.

 

Your face must be very blue by now!

I wont even respond to you as you're obviously very thick.

I would like to provide you with some concrete proof, but just like you, all this is hot air.

The only difference is that I know it and you are running on full blown conjecture backed by an unsubstantiated belief that your correct

And by the time the BC was pushed to center, under my proposal, you would be old and gray and new players joining and players moving on would see to this.

But what ever, you obviously have more time to waste on this than I do!


 



Pipinghot #66 Posted Apr 10 2018 - 05:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,069
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostGunadie, on Apr 09 2018 - 21:09, said:

I wont even respond to you

I accept your surrender.

_Gungrave_ #67 Posted Apr 10 2018 - 10:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 39488 battles
  • 13,191
  • [JGRN] JGRN
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostcruiserSS, on Apr 09 2018 - 22:19, said:

It does seem to take number of battles into account. 95% of the time I get top tier in my first battle in a new tank.

 

 

WG has stated they designed it that way and I beleive them because I've played around 330+ tanks and there was only one time where it made me bottom tier with a new tank...the TVP VTU lol.

Gunadie #68 Posted Apr 10 2018 - 16:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 39353 battles
  • 4,318
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 09 2018 - 20:42, said:

I accept your surrender.

 

Its pointless to lower myself and continue to argue with your distorted assertion of the facts

I cant compete with your level of stupid as you have far more experience

Once again, all you have done is prove your disingenuous interest is biased with only a conceited concern for yourself and not the overall game.



olemetalripper #69 Posted Apr 10 2018 - 17:02

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 67042 battles
  • 14
  • Member since:
    11-03-2011

Maybe matches should be based on skill....i'm not saying i am a great player 65,000 plus games [senior] but i notice almost immediately when something just isn't right.In the last few weeks with the teams i have been on accounted for 70 to 80% losses[not very good] I have also noticed a huge increase in invisible tanks, which always gets under my skin. I have complained a lot over the years; but nothing seems to change much....so i guess i'm just venting...i do agree with some that my interest in the game falling off. Lets see if something positive can come out of this.



Pipinghot #70 Posted Apr 10 2018 - 18:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,069
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostGunadie, on Apr 09 2018 - 21:09, said:

I wont even respond to you

View PostGunadie, on Apr 10 2018 - 10:38, said:

Its pointless to lower myself and continue to argue with your distorted assertion of the facts

So... you were lying. Good to know.

Son_of_the_South #71 Posted Apr 13 2018 - 23:09

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 14531 battles
  • 606
  • [PJ] PJ
  • Member since:
    12-11-2014

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 10 2018 - 12:40, said:

So... you were lying. Good to know.

 

​No, he just has a different opinion you. If that constitutes a lie in your book then oh well. If it makes no difference and there will be just as many landslides, then why does it matter to you or anyone else if the MM were skill based or not? If it stays the same and nothing changes then there is no reason not to test it.

Son_of_the_South #72 Posted Apr 13 2018 - 23:12

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 14531 battles
  • 606
  • [PJ] PJ
  • Member since:
    12-11-2014

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 07 2018 - 21:53, said:

I didn't say that at all, so don't try to twist my words into something I didn't mean. Your transparent attempt to frame the discussion so that only "full on testing" can provide the answers we need is a failed argument, anyone who knows anything about data analysis knows that there are other ways to arrive at a valid answer.

 

1) We have an existing body of data collected from WoT using proper methods of data gathering (from and by Neatoman).

2) That data provides a sufficient sample size, and the methods of data collection were good, which means data analysis is possible and can give the answers needed.

3) Analysis of his data shows that SBMM would not provide the results that advocates of SBMM claim it would.

* In addition to this internal evidence, probability theory and statistics are both things that exist even though you apparently don't understand them, and they have been used repeatedly to show how SBMM would affect the game and just as importantly they show how SBMM would not affect the game, despite what SBMM advocates hope for. This simple truth is that we never needed Neatoman's data, anyone who understands the mathematical concepts could tell you how SBMM would (and would not) affect the game, analysis of his data merely served to validate the mathematical evidence that already existed.

 

Just because you wish things were different doesn't make it so. We all know that in your heart of hearts you wish that SBMM would "fix" the things that you dislike about WoT, but wishful thinking doesn't change reality. The truth does not agree with what you wish would happen.

 

​Would a drug company use data gleaned from research on patients taking cancer drugs to then treat congestive heart failure? They are both drugs right? They are both made from the same company right? According to your model, you can do this. Just because there are similarities to a process does not mean you can use data from that process to determine the absolute value of another.



Pipinghot #73 Posted Apr 14 2018 - 01:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,069
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostSon_of_the_South, on Apr 13 2018 - 17:09, said:

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 10 2018 - 12:40, said:

So... you were lying. Good to know.

​No, he just has a different opinion you. If that constitutes a lie in your book then oh well. If it makes no difference and there will be just as many landslides, then why does it matter to you or anyone else if the MM were skill based or not? If it stays the same and nothing changes then there is no reason not to test it.

You misunderstood the post.

 

I didn't say he was lying because we disagree, I said he was lying specifically when he said, "I wont even respond to you". Because, as you can plainly see, he did respond to me after that declaration. It's a typical cheap trick people use on forums when they're losing an argument, "I'm not going to talk to you"... then keeps on replying.

 

To be fair to him, he did stop responding after I called him on it.



Pipinghot #74 Posted Apr 14 2018 - 02:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,069
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostSon_of_the_South, on Apr 13 2018 - 17:09, said:

If it makes no difference and there will be just as many landslides, then why does it matter to you or anyone else if the MM were skill based or not? If it stays the same and nothing changes then there is no reason not to test it.

Because other things would change, and I think those other things are bad for the game.

 

Here are the things that would and would not change.

 

1) Would not change - landslides.

 

If you want to be suuuper technical the number of landslides would change by a tiny amount, but it would be so little that you couldn't tell the difference just by playing the game. The game would feel just as landslide'ish with SBMM as it does now. So for all the people who think that SBMM would improve landslides, none of them would ever feel the difference and so the game would not feel any better with SBMM than it does now. And I think we all agree that the single greatest reason that people talk about SBMM is because they think it would make the game feel different. So, since changing to SBMM would not do the one thing that so very many people are hoping for, it would be a complete waste of time and money for WG to make that change, because it would not reduce the amount of complaining about landslides even a little bit.

 

2) Would change - win rates and the rewards that players get (and these are both very important changes)

 

If SBMM were implemented every player would be even more strongly pushed towards an average Win Rate than they are now. Nearly every player in the game, no matter how good or bad they are, would suddenly have very close to an average win rate, with just a few people on the top and bottom end spread out from that pack. This means that WG would have to design a different system for rewarding players because bad players would only ever have to play against bad players and good players would only ever have to play against good players, which in turn means that WG would have to design and implement a different rewards system because it's still only fair to give better rewards to better players (and fairness is one of the things we have to keep in mind when we talk about SBMM). In case it's not obvious that would require time (and money) for WG to redesign the rewards system and then make sure it's rewarding people fairly based on their contribution to their teams.

 

Under the current system better players are subsidizing worse players. People are not rewarded directly to their individual contributions, part of the reward for each battle is a "team reward", which means that if one person carries the team and does 7,000 damage while another person dies in the first minute and has 0 damage, some of the XP and credits that were earned by the 7,000 damage player are being given away to the 0 damage player simply because he was lucky enough to be teamed up with someone who did 7.000 damage. Now that's ok in a game that features a random MM and which allows better players to win more often and therefore earn more XP and credits, but if you change to SBMM and everyone has the same win rate, you have to change the way you reward players so that better players still earn more XP and credits, that's only fair.

 

This is why changing to SBMM would be a bigger change than people think - lots of people who have low win rates do not understand that they are being subsidized by the better players on their teams, but with SBMM those same lesser players would only get the XP and credits that they actually earn by their contribution to their teams, adjusted for the fact that they only have to play against other bad players. If you separate the player base into "leagues" based on their skill and win rate, and people can move up or down to different leagues depending on how well they play, then each league has to have different rewards to account for how well or poorly the player plays.

 

Going back to your original question, when you say "If it stays the same and nothing changes.." that's extremely far from the truth, the reality is that there would be tremendously significant changes, and that means that there has to be a really good reasons for implementing SBMM. But the main reason that people want SBMM (reducing landslides) would not actually happen, and that means there's not actually a good reason for implementing SBMM.

 

The thing is, Wargaming knows all this even though many players don't. WG knows everything I've just said, WG also has the data from all battles and they know exactly how often landslides occur, and they know exactly how tiny the difference in landslides would be with SBMM and they know the amount of work and testing they would have to do if they implemented SBMM, and leagues, and the changes to rewards that would be needed with SBMM. There is no reason to "test" SBMM because the data already exists, and WG has all of it, and they know exactly what that data tells them. When we talk about changing to SBMM this is not an argument between players, clearly WG can change the game they want any time they want regardless of what you or I believe or feel. So if you think you've been trying to convince me of something that's merely a difference of opinion, it's not. Even if you think I'm 100% wrong, the fact is that I'm only explaining what WG knows based on the data that they already have. I'm not trying to convince you, I'm trying to inform you of the reality that already exists, and that reality is that WG has used all of the data and they already know that they're not going to use SBMM in the MM for the reasons I've described. You can like me or hate me, but that won't change what WG decides or why they decide it. There is nothing for them to test, they already have all the data.



Pipinghot #75 Posted Apr 14 2018 - 02:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,069
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostSon_of_the_South, on Apr 13 2018 - 17:12, said:

Would a drug company use data gleaned from research on patients taking cancer drugs to then treat congestive heart failure?

Your example has some logical weaknesses, but still I'll address it. The answer is "Yes", if they have enough data, yes they would, and have done so many times.

 

There are many drugs on the market that were originally intended to treat something else, but once they received enough data from their trials (and sometimes real world data after the drugs were released to the public) they realized that the drugs could be used to treat other diseases or symptoms.

* Rogaine (Minoxidil) - originally tested and released to treat high blood pressure, then later also used as a topical treatment for baldness.

* Pink bismuth - originally just used as a component in treatments like Pepto-bismal and Keopectate, then later also used in the internal deodorant Devrom.

* Propecia (finasteride) - originally used for treatment of enlarged prostate, then later also used for treatment of male pattern baldness

* Coal tar - originally used to prevent lice and dandruff in shampoos, then later also used to treat psoriasis

* Warfarin - originally used only in rat poison, now also used as a blood thinner for humans (although obviously in different doses)

 

The list goes on and on... you can google to find tons of examples of drugs that were used for one purpose, but then after more data was acquired it was discovered that they could be used for other purposes as well.

 

tl;dr

If you have enough data that data can often be used analyze and answer other questions. Even though that question is not what the data was gathered for, you can still very often use that data to answer other questions.

 

That is what we have with SBMM. It is completely unnecessary to "test SBMM" because we already have more than enough data to analyzed exactly how SBMM would affect the game. All you have to do is look at the battles that already meet your requirements (battles that have something close to 50/50 odds of victory) and that specific set of battles will tell you exactly what would happen with SBMM. It's actually very easy to do, the hardest part of the whole thing is the work to gather the data, and that's already been done. You don't have to like me, you don't have to believe me, you just have to look at the data gathered by Neatoman and you will see the same things that WG already knows about.


Edited by Pipinghot, Apr 17 2018 - 00:17.


Striker_Six #76 Posted Apr 15 2018 - 01:03

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 14455 battles
  • 21
  • [-P-] -P-
  • Member since:
    08-28-2014
when you can lose 8, 9, 10 games in a row, that is not 'how the game unfolds' or my play sucks. that is [edited]-pitiful MM.  Don't base it on tank types, base it on skill sets like Wn8 or something to balance the matches based on skill.  yes those 50/50 matches and yes those may result in a lot of draws, but damn that would be better than a string of losses and getting your [edited]kicked 15-3.

JdgDReDD #77 Posted Apr 15 2018 - 01:56

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 46801 battles
  • 785
  • [MARS-] MARS-
  • Member since:
    03-09-2011

View Postslnt_svc, on Apr 02 2018 - 15:07, said:

That's it, fix the damn matchmaker. This game no longer has the appeal it once did. Just stop with the gimmicks and put your effort into making a matchmaker that actually works. Constant games of steamrolling is just no fun and makes the game unappealing. Fix it or lose yet another long time player, this game is no longer fun to play. Or, maybe you have a special membership where one pays to get on the decent teams?

 

ya, im about to snap on the same issue

M0nkE #78 Posted Apr 15 2018 - 04:43

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 20602 battles
  • 148
  • [NICO] NICO
  • Member since:
    03-12-2011

View PostPM_xD, on Apr 02 2018 - 22:32, said:

They should limit TDs to like 3 per team and Arty to 1 per team.

 

Also, lights to two or three per team. (Arty excepted) I don't think they're bad classes, but I do think that they negatively impact gameplay if there's too many of them. Light tanks especially are unfun to play if I finally get a map like prok where I can spot, but need to compete with 4 other light tanks for it.

Rolling_Pig #79 Posted Apr 15 2018 - 19:47

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 14767 battles
  • 64
  • [XTR] XTR
  • Member since:
    12-04-2015
WOT has no intention of fixing the MM.. They have not done it in 7 years so they wont do it now.... they dont care about 15-0 battles... it happens all the time... They do not care about the fan base... I have sent about 100 replays into customer service and I get the same canned response..."its working as intended"... the game and the developers are a joke...

PanzerReg852 #80 Posted Apr 15 2018 - 19:55

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 31894 battles
  • 132
  • [AC-DC] AC-DC
  • Member since:
    09-13-2011
With the Dumbazz At WOT & WG...they are nothing more then  Piece of Crap Game Maker!!!They Won't Fix the 3 things that the players have complained about....Got their Heads Up Azz Holes..  Heads are Stuck up there!!!





Also tagged with Matchmaker

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users