Jump to content


How to fix Match Maker!


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

EmperorJuliusCaesar #41 Posted Apr 14 2018 - 16:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 30897 battles
  • 5,003
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 13:00, said:

View Posthikerjon1, on Apr 06 2018 - 12:47, said:

The issue is not with player performance overall, but with performance of the top three players in the current template. The matchmaker, in it's current form, can assign three top-tier tanks to each team--which obviously will have the most potential to impact the game. If the three players are very strong--or better yet, are in a platoon--they can absolutely dominate the game. Likewise, three top-tier tanks that are weaker players leave the rest of their team to take up the slack--in low tier tanks that are meant to support and not carry games.

 

They should open up the matchmaker and let go of the current template system. Sure, there will be the occasional blowout, but the variety will produce more dynamic play and keep teams from relying so much on who's driving the top three tanks on a team.

 

Tsavo is right about this being a one-death game. The randomness, including player skill, is actually the game's strength. Every game is new, different, and challenging in its own way. Skill-based matchmaking would make games far more predictable and boring.

 

Not all games are 3,5,7 some are 15/15,  5/10 etc etc.

And if 3 top players are strong on one side and weak on the other its an automatic blow out unless the mids and low tiers are balanced.

No one ever complains that the game was balanced and it was a bad game..

If anything it just the opposite!

I also believe you are dead wrong that the randomness is any sort of game strength because the only players that like this are the ones with high skill and it allows them to stay on the top of the garbage heap.

Otherwise there wouldn't be such opposition as we have now to this MM and the high amount of bad games that are not exciting even for the winning team

No challenge in a blow out against a team of less than mediocre newbies.. its just a feeding some stats not the games over quality for everyone.

 

Well said and SPOT ON.



Quicksilver__ #42 Posted Apr 15 2018 - 04:38

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 19073 battles
  • 87
  • Member since:
    06-16-2017

I am ok with rollovers as I know that they are a fundamental part of the game.  Once a team starts losing tanks the "Snowball Effect" kicks in and it is hard to turn the game around.

 

I think the biggest flaw in the game is 3:5:7 MM.  In my limited experience, facing +2 opponents ruins the game for Heavies and Mediums in particular because they have a harder time running away from +2 opponents or striking them from a distance.  Poor Heavies are already picked on enough by arty, another flaw in the game.  I have limited experience playing Heavies, but I didn't find them very fun at all and I don't plan on returning to them any time soon. 

 

At this point in my WOT discovery, Lights and TDs are my favorite parts of the game.  If WG does away with 3:5:7 MM I will dust off my Heavies and dedicate more time to learning how to play them well.  For now, I am not going to waste my time.  It is a shame because I was looking forward to exploring that side of the game.



hikerjon1 #43 Posted Apr 16 2018 - 18:59

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 35066 battles
  • 350
  • Member since:
    04-28-2013

View PostQuicksilver__, on Apr 15 2018 - 03:38, said:

I am ok with rollovers as I know that they are a fundamental part of the game.  Once a team starts losing tanks the "Snowball Effect" kicks in and it is hard to turn the game around.

 

I think the biggest flaw in the game is 3:5:7 MM.  In my limited experience, facing +2 opponents ruins the game for Heavies and Mediums in particular because they have a harder time running away from +2 opponents or striking them from a distance.  Poor Heavies are already picked on enough by arty, another flaw in the game.  I have limited experience playing Heavies, but I didn't find them very fun at all and I don't plan on returning to them any time soon. 

 

At this point in my WOT discovery, Lights and TDs are my favorite parts of the game.  If WG does away with 3:5:7 MM I will dust off my Heavies and dedicate more time to learning how to play them well.  For now, I am not going to waste my time.  It is a shame because I was looking forward to exploring that side of the game.

 

​^ this.

 

The matchmaker assigning 3:5:7 has far more impact than whatever player metric you want to focus on. 



Machisman #44 Posted Apr 16 2018 - 20:12

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 33015 battles
  • 19
  • [TUF] TUF
  • Member since:
    10-27-2011

1. There is no magic wand to fix the MM issue.

2. There is no credible proof that, skill based MM will get you better winrate, WN8 or damage. (Good luck with high caliber award) The more the good players with you, less damage you deal and you hardly learn anything.

3. I have been lucky with MM on some tanks where i maintain more than 60% winrate and there are some where i struggle to get past 44% winrate. My average winrate is 53.5%. I cant jump to conclusion that MM is bad based on my cursed tanks.

 

 

Possible Options to make MM better.

1. If an elite clan is tooning, better not put them on random queue. Those folks are elite and let there be some elite club MM. Let the 95% of normal players enjoy the game.

2. Reduce arty to max 2 per battle.

3. Reduce scouts to max 3 per battle. (Have seen more than 5 in a team)

4. Have seen plenty of occasions where one team get an arty and the other team does not.

 

Things to do to enjoy the game

1. Watch some youtube videos on how to play this game. (Lot of good players post videos)

2. Dont camp unless required. Contribute to the team. Sometimes sacrificing yourself can win the game. (Have seen so many Type 5's and Maus camp and not using their armor or hitpoints, leaving their team to die and only to be *** kicked at the last)

3. Last but not the least. If you have more than 10k battles and you do not have atleast 800 wn8, then this game is not for you. Better quit than complain.

 

WG you are doing a good job and this game has gotten better in so many years. Expecting more from you guys, i mean super OP tanks ;-) just kiddin.



ephBomb #45 Posted Apr 16 2018 - 23:38

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 31192 battles
  • 160
  • [ZOMB] ZOMB
  • Member since:
    07-11-2013

Create a mode with skill based MM, give us all a choice! Then see which one gets played the most. The worst that could happen is the other mode would lose targets, US!

You could also come up with another mode like PVE, for those that are tired of being targets for Higher skilled players!



hikerjon1 #46 Posted Apr 18 2018 - 19:27

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 35066 battles
  • 350
  • Member since:
    04-28-2013

View PostD_capit_8, on Apr 16 2018 - 22:38, said:

Create a mode with skill based MM, give us all a choice! Then see which one gets played the most. The worst that could happen is the other mode would lose targets, US!

You could also come up with another mode like PVE, for those that are tired of being targets for Higher skilled players!

 

​True. WoWs has a strictly PVE mode, doesn't it? That would at least give folks a chance to tune up before full pub games. Interesting.

I still think that WG will never implement a skill-based MM, tho.



BoogerSnots #47 Posted Apr 19 2018 - 00:03

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 45451 battles
  • 175
  • [BBICT] BBICT
  • Member since:
    05-22-2011

There is no upside for Wargaming to balance the MM. Right now top players will get better RNG and MM than average and lower players. This gives people the sense they actually are good at something and they will stick to it and spend tons of money maintaining that delusion. If MM was balanced then everyone would slowly level out at and there would be few unicorns. Very few. Because they would be fighting in battles against each other more and losing more.

 

As far as Wargaming is concerned, the MM is fine. Keep the playing field unbalanced.

 

Oh and the game results? Have you ever wondered why so many are of the 15-5 variant? A little rigging maybe?



P0NYTANK #48 Posted Apr 19 2018 - 00:33

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 38156 battles
  • 253
  • [GOONZ] GOONZ
  • Member since:
    07-31-2013
Captain's Starlog 2018: We continue to hope that the MM is better and more balanced...

hikerjon1 #49 Posted Apr 19 2018 - 18:59

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 35066 battles
  • 350
  • Member since:
    04-28-2013

View PostBoogerSnots, on Apr 18 2018 - 23:03, said:

There is no upside for Wargaming to balance the MM. Right now top players will get better RNG and MM than average and lower players. This gives people the sense they actually are good at something and they will stick to it and spend tons of money maintaining that delusion. If MM was balanced then everyone would slowly level out at and there would be few unicorns. Very few. Because they would be fighting in battles against each other more and losing more.

 

As far as Wargaming is concerned, the MM is fine. Keep the playing field unbalanced.

 

Oh and the game results? Have you ever wondered why so many are of the 15-5 variant? A little rigging maybe?

 

Tinfoil hat working as intended.



XMuerteXkazeX #50 Posted Apr 20 2018 - 20:41

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 15948 battles
  • 1
  • [F-LAT] F-LAT
  • Member since:
    01-23-2016

y algo de esto lo lee algún administrador de WoT?, no veo que les importe en lo absoluto y menos aún el servidor latino, la verdad que se tiene un muy mal estigma de los latinos en general, pero no todos son así, si al menos diesen la oportunidad mejorando un poco el balance de las partidas, quizá gran parte son malísimos jugando e incluso descerebrados, al igual que los hay americanos, los que por lo que he conocido, son mucho mas frustrados y agresivos a la hora de tener malas partidas o MM, pero para ellos hay respuesta claro, pero acá solo hay presencia de la publicidad, algunas actualizaciones, y sobre todo en que se puede gastar el dinero dentro del juego, no se ven soluciones al MM o apoyo alguno a jugadores que intentan pasar del promedio, e incluso con estos eventos "regalando" tanques de nivel alto, solo atraen mas niños y subnormales por decirlo de alguna forma, aparte hace un rato por ejemplo empecé una partida llegue a la zona esquinada en el mapa de París donde usualmente van tanques pesados, iba a disparar y un Lowe se me cruza le disparo y me empieza a empujar y disparar devuelta, lo termino matando y el baneado soy yo; nada que hacer, vez que he pedido ayuda por casos así solo debo esperar que termine el ban y no hay respuesta alguna mas que de un bot de WG, es frustrante, ya llevo poco mas de 2 años jugando WoT pero lo dejare hasta aquí, así empiezan a caer los buenos juegos, y la verdad que es una pena todo el tiempo invertido, pero ya es imposible, o se es parte de la subnormalidad yendo de cabeza a matar y ser matado o te mantienes vivo para que te lleguen 15 tanques encima o ya este todo el team enemigo muerto, ya rara vez se cumplen si quiera 10 minutos de partida. simplemente eso.



Spaceopera171 #51 Posted Apr 20 2018 - 21:28

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 16696 battles
  • 16
  • [TUF] TUF
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

balancing skill between the teams would be simple.  no idea why WG is so dead set against it.  poor matchmaking is the worst thing about this game and it has nothing to do with tiers or the types of tanks.

 



Bone_Yard #52 Posted Apr 21 2018 - 05:07

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 18251 battles
  • 73
  • [_NA_] _NA_
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013
I would think, that if it were possible, it would be a good idea to put the constand wallet warriors up against other wallet warriors so those of us who can't afford to burn all that gold would have a little bit of a chance.   Not everyone has a fat bank account.

Son_of_the_South #53 Posted Apr 21 2018 - 11:58

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 14657 battles
  • 621
  • [PJ] PJ
  • Member since:
    12-11-2014

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Apr 14 2018 - 10:43, said:

 

MORE predictable?  40% are decided before they even start.  Anyone with half a brain can tell which team is going to win at the very start 40% of the time.  THAT'S predictable and boring.

 

​Your prediction % is low. I would say 60% of the matches are easy to prognosticate with a high level of accuracy. There is still the 1 out of 20 match that surprises me and it is a win the opposite way when it shouldn't have been.

Son_of_the_South #54 Posted Apr 21 2018 - 12:03

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 14657 battles
  • 621
  • [PJ] PJ
  • Member since:
    12-11-2014

View PostQuicksilver__, on Apr 14 2018 - 22:38, said:

I am ok with rollovers as I know that they are a fundamental part of the game.  Once a team starts losing tanks the "Snowball Effect" kicks in and it is hard to turn the game around.

 

I think the biggest flaw in the game is 3:5:7 MM.  In my limited experience, facing +2 opponents ruins the game for Heavies and Mediums in particular because they have a harder time running away from +2 opponents or striking them from a distance.  Poor Heavies are already picked on enough by arty, another flaw in the game.  I have limited experience playing Heavies, but I didn't find them very fun at all and I don't plan on returning to them any time soon. 

 

At this point in my WOT discovery, Lights and TDs are my favorite parts of the game.  If WG does away with 3:5:7 MM I will dust off my Heavies and dedicate more time to learning how to play them well.  For now, I am not going to waste my time.  It is a shame because I was looking forward to exploring that side of the game.

 

​I don't think rollovers are fundamental. They are cause and effect. There is some merit to snowball effect, but the aggregate that MM puts together is equally as powerful. Even the best players are best because of MM. In another MM, they may not be best. Put a good player against a better player, the good player is not so good are they. Put them against a tomato, easy outcome prediction.

EmperorJuliusCaesar #55 Posted Apr 22 2018 - 08:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 30897 battles
  • 5,003
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostD_capit_8, on Apr 16 2018 - 14:38, said:

Create a mode with skill based MM, give us all a choice! Then see which one gets played the most. The worst that could happen is the other mode would lose targets, US!

You could also come up with another mode like PVE, for those that are tired of being targets for Higher skilled players!

 

PVE mode is coming late this year. :-)



M0nkE #56 Posted Apr 22 2018 - 22:49

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 22213 battles
  • 198
  • [SEIKO] SEIKO
  • Member since:
    03-12-2011

View PostBoogerSnots, on Apr 18 2018 - 23:03, said:

There is no upside for Wargaming to balance the MM. Right now top players will get better RNG and MM than average and lower players. This gives people the sense they actually are good at something and they will stick to it and spend tons of money maintaining that delusion. If MM was balanced then everyone would slowly level out at and there would be few unicorns. Very few. Because they would be fighting in battles against each other more and losing more.

 

As far as Wargaming is concerned, the MM is fine. Keep the playing field unbalanced.

 

Oh and the game results? Have you ever wondered why so many are of the 15-5 variant? A little rigging maybe?

 



Pipinghot #57 Posted Apr 23 2018 - 19:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,925
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostSon_of_the_South, on Apr 21 2018 - 06:03, said:

​I don't think rollovers are fundamental. They are cause and effect. There is some merit to snowball effect, but the aggregate that MM puts together is equally as powerful. Even the best players are best because of MM. In another MM, they may not be best. Put a good player against a better player, the good player is not so good are they. Put them against a tomato, easy outcome prediction.

In that case, please explain why you think team battles like Skirmishes and Clan Wars have just as many rollovers are Random battles. Skirmishes and CW have more evenly matched teams than Random games, so why do they have the same rollover results?

View PostSon_of_the_South, on Apr 21 2018 - 06:03, said:

Even the best players are best because of MM. In another MM, they may not be best. Put a good player against a better player, the good player is not so good are they. Put them against a tomato, easy outcome prediction.

So let's say that WoT used SBMM. The results would be that bad players would only have to play bad players, and good players would only have to play good players --- so how would you change the rewards system so that people still get rewarded proportionally to their contribution? Since you would be giving free extra wins to bad players, and robbing good players of some of their wins because they always play people of their own skill level, what would you do to balance/compensate those two groups?


Edited by Pipinghot, Apr 24 2018 - 04:33.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users