Jump to content


Changes to Vehicles With Preferential Matchmaking + Notes on Trade-in


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1086 replies to this topic

Avalon304 #1061 Posted Jul 16 2018 - 13:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 21940 battles
  • 9,316
  • [BRVE] BRVE
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View PostMetia, on Jul 16 2018 - 05:02, said:

 

I encouraged friends to play the game as they were able to get a t-127 to learn in without having to deal with lots of higher level tanks, as it has PMM, I am now actively discouraging people from playing the game, starting the game, or spending any money on the game.

 

 

Im just addressing this statement because theres so much other nonsense in your post.

 

ALL tier 3 tanks have "pref" MM. Every single one, even those on the tech tree, will only see tier 4 max. So... the T-127 doesnt actually have pref MM... it just has normal tier 3 MM.

 

Also:

 

Block Quote

 None of the listed tanks mention anything about potentially being changed as of (insert link to this post), which sees utterly disingenuous of WG.

 

The EULA does... as did the ToS before June 18th.

 

Also also:

 

Block Quote

 This also does not delve in to the blatant lie about the matchmaking issue PMM tanks cause. 

 

 

Do you have proof that this is a lie? And I mean proof that doesnt come from an incomplete data source that requires players to opt in to be represented. WG knows how their MM system works, they know what messes it up. Their word, in this case, is more reliable than a random Youtube commenters dodgy stats.

 



SgtFtKnox #1062 Posted Jul 16 2018 - 14:44

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 49700 battles
  • 314
  • [FATED] FATED
  • Member since:
    04-30-2011

View PostTitaniumXL, on May 21 2018 - 19:00, said:

Looking forward to playing a competitive KV-5 again, was getting dusty in the garage

 

If it will be truly competitive. I want the chance to see how it stands up to tier X tanks before I decide.

Metia #1063 Posted Jul 16 2018 - 17:00

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 13090 battles
  • 202
  • Member since:
    03-14-2017

View PostAvalon304, on Jul 16 2018 - 13:17, said:

 

Im just addressing this statement because theres so much other nonsense in your post.

 

ALL tier 3 tanks have "pref" MM. Every single one, even those on the tech tree, will only see tier 4 max. So... the T-127 doesnt actually have pref MM... it just has normal tier 3 MM.

 

Also:

 

 

The EULA does... as did the ToS before June 18th.

 

Also also:

 

 

 

Do you have proof that this is a lie? And I mean proof that doesnt come from an incomplete data source that requires players to opt in to be represented. WG knows how their MM system works, they know what messes it up. Their word, in this case, is more reliable than a random Youtube commenters dodgy stats

 

As of July 16th 2018 the "unique matchmaking chart" is posted on the wargaming wiki, here is a helpful link: http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/File:Unique_Matchmaking_Chart.png, it states that the T-127 has Unique matchmaking.

 

Yes, it is listed in the EULA, buried fairly deep, and in legalese, which for most people is not the easiest to fully understand, transparency by simply saying "we may make this a SPG" has no downsides.  Taking snips of a post out of context //e.g. context is the tanks are still on sale, but do not reference anything involving planned changes is a disingenuous business practice at worst, or not caring about the end user experience at best.  Using whataboutisms only furthers to muddy your point, not help to prove your point, as you are doing exactly what you complain I am doing in the following portion of your response.

 

The statistics provided by VBAddict are indeed based on an opt-in system, the potential that the users tend to be more experienced players, who may in fact be playing in tiers where PMM matters/own PMM tanks is valid, you can, in theory look at it as a crowd sourced census that is managed by those most eager to participate in furthering the communities knowledge about data that the company will not provide.  Would I prefer full stats provided by Wargaming?  Yes, I would prefer said stats, it would allow the community to point to problem vehicles in an effort to provide real world data to the devs who work on WoT.   In fairness calling a 300,000+ sample size not representative of the whole can be seen as not fully accurate, in reality however WG does not disclose actual games played on specific servers, current active accounts, ect.  Even assuming 3,000,000 games were played during the sample period, having a sample size of 10% goes far and above the realm of the sample size *actually* being too small.

 

While I appreciate your feedback, I would appreciate you do research before stating that my statements are "nonsense", also, for future reference, could you please point out the "nonsense" that you chose to not mention?  I would like to review it for my own benefit, it is not often I can have an expert in a field provide constructive feedback.

 

Thanks!

 

*edit, forgot to finish some sentences, all nighters are bad for ones brain*


Edited by Metia, Jul 16 2018 - 17:05.


shinglefoot #1064 Posted Jul 17 2018 - 10:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 24914 battles
  • 3,475
  • Member since:
    02-07-2013

     Still nothing?

 

Lol



Cognitive_Dissonance #1065 Posted Jul 18 2018 - 18:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 40641 battles
  • 6,402
  • [ANASS] ANASS
  • Member since:
    01-31-2013
Crickets

SpectreHD #1066 Posted Jul 19 2018 - 15:04

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16763 battles
  • 17,083
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

I feel they did not anticipate the massive backlash and negative feedback from all this. So they are probably sifting through all the responses and perhaps think of a better proposal.

 

Like finally address the actual problem, the MM, and not place the blame on PMM vehicles that have little affect on the MM.



latvius #1067 Posted Jul 19 2018 - 17:34

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 31710 battles
  • 475
  • [-DIG-] -DIG-
  • Member since:
    11-26-2013

Yeah I'm not convinced MM is broken because of PrefMM but I am convinced I don't like the KV-5 proposal.  It takes all of it's personality and makes it just another slow heavy you keep pointed to the front.

I do wish they would (at least in the short term) reverse MM order of pref to same tier, 5/10, then 3/5/7 like others have suggested.  I am staying away from tier 8 until something gives, it's just not fun.

 

While I am complaining can WG go back to balancing tanks more often?  It used to be tanks would get tweaked fairly often, if my memory is correct.  It sure would be nice for older premium tanks to get a little love, just enough to make them playable - ahem CDC



Hartmen #1068 Posted Jul 19 2018 - 19:51

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 27764 battles
  • 112
  • [UNA] UNA
  • Member since:
    04-18-2014

View PostMetia, on Jul 16 2018 - 17:00, said:

 

As of July 16th 2018 the "unique matchmaking chart" is posted on the wargaming wiki, here is a helpful link: http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/File:Unique_Matchmaking_Chart.png, it states that the T-127 has Unique matchmaking.

 

Yes, it is listed in the EULA, buried fairly deep, and in legalese, which for most people is not the easiest to fully understand, transparency by simply saying "we may make this a SPG" has no downsides.  Taking snips of a post out of context //e.g. context is the tanks are still on sale, but do not reference anything involving planned changes is a disingenuous business practice at worst, or not caring about the end user experience at best.  Using whataboutisms only furthers to muddy your point, not help to prove your point, as you are doing exactly what you complain I am doing in the following portion of your response.

 

The statistics provided by VBAddict are indeed based on an opt-in system, the potential that the users tend to be more experienced players, who may in fact be playing in tiers where PMM matters/own PMM tanks is valid, you can, in theory look at it as a crowd sourced census that is managed by those most eager to participate in furthering the communities knowledge about data that the company will not provide.  Would I prefer full stats provided by Wargaming?  Yes, I would prefer said stats, it would allow the community to point to problem vehicles in an effort to provide real world data to the devs who work on WoT.   In fairness calling a 300,000+ sample size not representative of the whole can be seen as not fully accurate, in reality however WG does not disclose actual games played on specific servers, current active accounts, ect.  Even assuming 3,000,000 games were played during the sample period, having a sample size of 10% goes far and above the realm of the sample size *actually* being too small.

 

While I appreciate your feedback, I would appreciate you do research before stating that my statements are "nonsense", also, for future reference, could you please point out the "nonsense" that you chose to not mention?  I would like to review it for my own benefit, it is not often I can have an expert in a field provide constructive feedback.

 

Thanks!

 

*edit, forgot to finish some sentences, all nighters are bad for ones brain*

 

As it turns out, drug trials that affect millions are usually determined by sample sizes of thousands, a very large percentage of which are self selected in one way or another, and guess what we can be very comfortable with that (now there will always be a few that fall out of the general parameters and have adverse affects that weren't predicted or caught during trials).  What in the world would make anyone think that a huge sample size of tankers will be less accurate?



Holyspot #1069 Posted Jul 19 2018 - 20:13

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 12816 battles
  • 9
  • [S_D_C] S_D_C
  • Member since:
    02-17-2016
I just feel that, Premium tier 8 tanks should NOT be teamed up with or against tier 9 or 10 tanks. There is way too much against them. If someone who has never played WOT bought a premium tank and didn't know what they was doing, that will ruin win rates of others. I understand of what Wargaming is trying to do. But, every tank of every country needs to be unique. I really don't want to play my many premium tanks in fear of dying too fast because of tier 9 and 10s being over powered against the premium. I love this game and have spent tons of money on it in every way. I just wish for the game to be made a lot fairer than what it is.

Cognitive_Dissonance #1070 Posted Jul 20 2018 - 14:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 40641 battles
  • 6,402
  • [ANASS] ANASS
  • Member since:
    01-31-2013

MOAR Crickets.

 



CptSkyhawk #1071 Posted Jul 20 2018 - 16:16

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14502 battles
  • 3,056
  • [T_K_O] T_K_O
  • Member since:
    01-06-2011
This would all be resolved if tanks would only see their tier, or even plus/minus one tier.  It would actually be easier to balance tanks anyway.  Personally, I don't play a lot of preferential MM tanks, but the fact that I've spent thousands of dollars on your [edited]game and you want to ruin ANY of my tanks pisses me off and makes it a guarantee that I won't spend any more on this game.

Kehox #1072 Posted Jul 20 2018 - 22:06

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 18456 battles
  • 411
  • Member since:
    01-23-2015
im sure that we will not heard anything about this for atleast 2 more week... 

Avalon304 #1073 Posted Jul 20 2018 - 23:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 21940 battles
  • 9,316
  • [BRVE] BRVE
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View PostMetia, on Jul 16 2018 - 09:00, said:

 

As of July 16th 2018 the "unique matchmaking chart" is posted on the wargaming wiki, here is a helpful link: http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/File:Unique_Matchmaking_Chart.png, it states that the T-127 has Unique matchmaking.

 

Yes, it is listed in the EULA, buried fairly deep, and in legalese, which for most people is not the easiest to fully understand, transparency by simply saying "we may make this a SPG" has no downsides.  Taking snips of a post out of context //e.g. context is the tanks are still on sale, but do not reference anything involving planned changes is a disingenuous business practice at worst, or not caring about the end user experience at best.  Using whataboutisms only furthers to muddy your point, not help to prove your point, as you are doing exactly what you complain I am doing in the following portion of your response.

 

The statistics provided by VBAddict are indeed based on an opt-in system, the potential that the users tend to be more experienced players, who may in fact be playing in tiers where PMM matters/own PMM tanks is valid, you can, in theory look at it as a crowd sourced census that is managed by those most eager to participate in furthering the communities knowledge about data that the company will not provide.  Would I prefer full stats provided by Wargaming?  Yes, I would prefer said stats, it would allow the community to point to problem vehicles in an effort to provide real world data to the devs who work on WoT.   In fairness calling a 300,000+ sample size not representative of the whole can be seen as not fully accurate, in reality however WG does not disclose actual games played on specific servers, current active accounts, ect.  Even assuming 3,000,000 games were played during the sample period, having a sample size of 10% goes far and above the realm of the sample size *actually* being too small.

 

While I appreciate your feedback, I would appreciate you do research before stating that my statements are "nonsense", also, for future reference, could you please point out the "nonsense" that you chose to not mention?  I would like to review it for my own benefit, it is not often I can have an expert in a field provide constructive feedback.

 

Thanks!

 

*edit, forgot to finish some sentences, all nighters are bad for ones brain*

 

Look at when that char was uploaded. It was uploaded in May of 2015... over 3 years ago. Things have changed. No tier 3 tanks sees above tier 4 now. None of them. Not a single tier 3 tank will see above tier 4. Im not even sure is possible to force a tier 3 to see tier 5s at this point.

 

Heres the matchmaking chart from version 9.19.1: http://wiki.wargamin...hart_v09191.png

 

Heres the unique matchmaking chart from the same version: http://wiki.wargamin...rt_28082017.png

 

Notice how all the tier 3 tanks only see up to tier 4 on the normal MM chart and notice how the unique chart doesnt contain ANY tier 3 tanks? Its almost as if the chart you post has been out of date for years. Infact the chart you posted isnt even LINKED on any pages on the wiki, meanwhile the two that Ive posted are used on this page: http://wiki.wargamin...Matchmaker_(WoT)

 

And this actually happened in Version 9.18: https://thedailyboun...on-update-9-18/

 

No tier 3 tank has Pref MM anymore... not even the ones you bought for money. But no one seems to care about that.

 

So, when you tell me to do my research... how about, instead, you do YOUR research. Instead of just posting nonsense in an attempt to be right. (Though it was funny watching you try).

 

Yes it was listed in the EULA. And its always been there, or in the ToS. I can copy the relevant portions from the previous ToS and the current EULA if you wish... it was pretty easy to understand. It gave WG the right to change things bought with money (known as Virtual Goods in the previous ToS and Additional Features in the current EULA) when and if they wanted. If you didnt read it... thats your problem.

 

Block Quote ToS Prior to Jun 2018, Section 8,  Paragraph 3:

  •  we do not make any promises about how or when Virtual Goods may be available and can update or change Virtual Goods at any time;

 

Block Quote The Current EULA:

 8.3.7 We do not make any promises about how or when Additional Features may be available and can update or change Additional Features at any time;

 

Not hard to understand at all. Not even in legalese... in plain engilsh. "We can change anything we want when we want."

 

A 10% sample size would still be too small to provide accuracy for a group of 3 million. It would be far far to prone to errors. Until we get hard data from WG anything calling that statement a lie is full of it... if you dont have the data, you cant make a statement about how anything works...



_tube_ #1074 Posted Jul 20 2018 - 23:38

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 12301 battles
  • 58
  • [AR-15] AR-15
  • Member since:
    03-10-2011
The only party that can ultimately put this speculation to rest has remained silent. I would hope that they would make some sort of statement one way or another.

shinglefoot #1075 Posted Jul 21 2018 - 06:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 24914 battles
  • 3,475
  • Member since:
    02-07-2013

     I want to thank them for their silence, haven't played since before the patch. They're making it easy to stay away. Congratulations for the disillusionment, my little break may well be permanent...

 

GG

Well played!

 

[edited]you warfailing



OlTanker #1076 Posted Jul 21 2018 - 15:08

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 20264 battles
  • 418
  • Member since:
    01-17-2016
You will notice that they have been having sales at a rather "healthy" rate. As long as people are willing to spend real money for fake tanks they are free to do what ever they want because they know the sheeple spending the money are dumb.

Cognitive_Dissonance #1077 Posted Jul 23 2018 - 14:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 40641 battles
  • 6,402
  • [ANASS] ANASS
  • Member since:
    01-31-2013

View PostOlTanker, on Jul 21 2018 - 08:08, said:

You will notice that they have been having sales at a rather "healthy" rate. As long as people are willing to spend real money for fake tanks they are free to do what ever they want because they know the sheeple spending the money are dumb.

 

I think they are milking everyone for everything they can, I don't remember a sales volume of this pace since I started playing. My "black helicopter" theory is that they are going to go ahead with the changes, which will wreck even more havoc, especially with prems, and they are fattening their wallet before they kill off more players.

 

2 years ago, I would have paid for these specials, now I just save my money and time for something else. I used to think "they will get it right, they will fix this", no more.

 

Sure, I still play, this weekend, a grand total of about 10 battles I think . . . two years ago it would have been about 30 to 70, and money spent on gold or premium time. I am just one, but I have a feeling there are many more like me.


Edited by Cognitive_Dissonance, Jul 23 2018 - 14:02.


pcgamer001 #1078 Posted Jul 23 2018 - 15:47

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 9541 battles
  • 234
  • Member since:
    10-08-2011

View PostKRZYBooP, on May 22 2018 - 01:58, said:

As Cabbage said.

 

We are looking into this still as this announcement brings up more questions than answers.

 

Changes to Tanks are always a possibility due to nature of the game. This is a living, breathing, evolving game, just like when your favorite football team trades away a random player. ( I don't sports very well.) The changes are meant to improve the MM and as the article states, " These changes are going to be heavily monitored." In my short time here I noted that Tier 8 is a very sensitive topic, both in MM and any changes. With the challenge of making as many players happy as possible, leaving it alone is not an option in my honest opinion. 

 

With so little information please remain a little hopeful and like 2% optimistic.

 

 

 

 

 

saying things like its a evolving living game doesnt mean anything. People paid real money for a product that was advertised as PREF MM even saying "get them while you can". Changing them later after after this advertising constitutes fraud.

SpectreHD #1079 Posted Jul 23 2018 - 15:49

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16763 battles
  • 17,083
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostCognitive_Dissonance, on Jul 23 2018 - 21:02, said:

 

I think they are milking everyone for everything they can, I don't remember a sales volume of this pace since I started playing. My "black helicopter" theory is that they are going to go ahead with the changes, which will wreck even more havoc, especially with prems, and they are fattening their wallet before they kill off more players.

 

2 years ago, I would have paid for these specials, now I just save my money and time for something else. I used to think "they will get it right, they will fix this", no more.

 

Sure, I still play, this weekend, a grand total of about 10 battles I think . . . two years ago it would have been about 30 to 70, and money spent on gold or premium time. I am just one, but I have a feeling there are many more like me.

 

It is quite telling, and troubling how much out of sync the marketing team is from the dev team. Just take the EU server, they sold the M6A2E1 just days or even the day itself after their announcement of the "havoc" PMM vehicles supposedly wreaked on the match maker. Furthermore, there are still PMM vehicles being sold in the premium shop and in game.

 

I guess the devs thought that we will gladly except their proposals. The marketing team do not have anyone at the head of the development and community management advising them. So they can continue to do what they want. "$100 Pz IIJ bundle, everybody!" So WG continually sells PMM vehicles. An action that undermines their positions and a source of ire for the community in this instance.

 

When we had a muppet in charge of balancing (supposedly Murazor is no longer head of balancing) that proudly proclaimed to all the CCs at Minsk that he knows best, is it any surprise the devs responsible for this proposal are just as out of touch with the community?

 

I also like to say their article about "fixing" PMM is equally stupid. Were they trying to be funny especially when their explanation clearly states that their MM was the cause of the constant bottom tier positions of Tier 8s? "Hurr durr come here wittle tier 8s durr hurr".



webco_2_75 #1080 Posted Jul 23 2018 - 18:46

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 23059 battles
  • 686
  • Member since:
    03-14-2014
If WG had a brain they would be able to gradually phase out pref mm tanks without alienating too many of their players..  Step 1 quit selling them.  Step 2 Make a no pref MM version of each tank for example the KV-5b version and sell that.  The new tank is buffed to be competitive with other tier 8 premium heavies that see tier 10 and don't suck(it will be much better at tier 8 and 9 than the current KV5 and not suck at tier 10).  Step 3 each player gets a choice:  Keep the old tank with pref MM(if pref MM means that much to you it is going to suck compared to the other version), swap it for the new improved tank, swap it for any other same tier premium, or get a gold refund.  WG is not going to give cash refunds.  Anybody who keeps the old pref MM tank won't want to play it much.  Repeat as needed for the rest of the pref MM tanks.  




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users