Jump to content


Over 1 Year Later, 3-5-7 MM Is A Failure

match maker mm

  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

Liberty75 #41 Posted Jun 14 2018 - 21:04

    Captain

  • Players
  • 45992 battles
  • 1,469
  • [ORDER] ORDER
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostLpBronco, on Jun 14 2018 - 05:43, said:

Implying that the changes were intended to "eke out a few rubles" fails miserably to include a brave attempt from WG to mollify the players and try to address their concerns.  The new matchmaking doesn't help because we're playing less under the new system which would have an affect on the bottom line. I know I'm playing less, especially randoms, and as a consequence spending less as a result.

 

But are the hopelessly addicted players paying less? :)

 

I'm not saying it is working as intended, but I believe from the evidence that was their purpose. Otherwise, it was just a really stupid idea that they are pushing because they are unwilling to admit they screwed up. Hmmm. After writing it, that sounds like an equally likely scenario.



facilegoose #42 Posted Jun 15 2018 - 00:38

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 14283 battles
  • 23
  • Member since:
    03-31-2015

View PostLiberty75, on May 27 2018 - 02:22, said:

Here is some feedback for you WG.

 

About 13 months have gone by since the 3/5/7 Match Maker was introduced with great fanfare and looking back now, it hasn't made matches better and it has actually made them worse. It has made the game overly repetitive with the same three templates, over and over. It decimated tier 8 tanks (and the other middle tiers as well). And now you are claiming preferential tanks are broken, which is a lie (like the 3/5/7 MM being good), OR they are broken and it shows your incompetence in making this MM change in the first place without thinking it through.

 

Just admit you screwed up with the MM change Wargaming and revert back to the previous system and tweak that one to make more balanced teams (its only flaw).

 

  • Vehicle/Map mismatches in top 3 extremely prone to structurally throwing matches ahead of time. STRV /=/ Assault Gun. Map 'variety' does not vindicate this, on the contrary, it exaggerates its absence.
  • As 7s, there are not enough +2s for the added XP bonus of engaging them. You exist to be farmed, even by 40% Bobjects.
  • As 5s, not enough +1s, or other 5s to shoot at. XP from engaging mostly 7s significantly less.
  • Incentivizes thirsty, stupid kamikaze trades. 7 for a 5. 5 for a 3. Or even more passive, campy mentality from 7s or 3s with the knowledge that they're yolked with 30% of the carrying capacity for the team (esp. in a bad/inappropriate vehicle/map matchup.)
  • As applied to low tier New Play Experience? The perfect system for maximizing its painful defects, ultimately turning potential return business away.
  • As applied to game economy? The perfect system for the slowest possible grinds and maximally impaired agency of players capable of carrying (and therefore shortening their grinds.) Whales buying tier VIII premiums must love being punished for platooning and attempting to farm credits with permanent downtiering. Amazing foresight

 

357 is an abomination, underscored by the irony of 'Perfecting Premiums' at the moment of introducing the game mode that justifies the existence of the Tier VIII whale premium tanks for credit and crew grinding which was - for once - wildly popular and well received. Rubicon Update, Chrysler/GrafZeppelin Gates were tame in hindsight.

 

People will wait for quality, tailored team composition and matchups with matchmaking.

 

Only the following bears the possibility of deflecting from this, should this horror show charade be maintained:

  1. Reversion of Accuracy Nerf. These are functionally ballistic point blank ranges for WWII vehicles, and ~600m for mutually assured penetration. Aiming should matter.
  2. Downtuning Artillery Stun. Not more than BIA/5% on close splash damage. Not more than 10% on direct hit, 15% on penetration. No stacking stun percentage debuff upon chained stunning. No internal module damage (i.e. Crew) apart from Engine Compartment on non-hits/splash, ever on non-opentop vehicles. We're sick of 'open hatch' deaths of crewmen on missed arty shots. Stop rewarding this in this way.
  3. Premium Time Price Modifier for Premium Vehicles Owned. Unguilt sunk cost fallacy apostates, bring them back, and get them dropping in more often with competitive Premium Time discounts pegged to account age/prem. tanks purchased. The idea that the legacy population base is disposable/'oversaturated' in prem vehicles ect. is exceedingly dubious. Your price points are bad, and only the inherent interest of historical tanks + positional tactical team shooter get people hooked. Sweeten the deal, and see your population/return business blossom once more, sustainably. These whales' revenue is from tank sales, not premium time anyway.
  4. Open Coupons To All Items In Store, or... -- Passed up on two -30% and have one -20% on its 5th day idle, where I might otherwise have picked up the KV2 R, or BDR style. The irony of there being more potential content out of the shop to spend it on than in it cannot be lost on you. Barring that, at least make it applicable to in-tech tree, standard researchable vehicles ffs
  5. Announce Frontline's Permanent Inclusion to Tier VIII -- Either all the time, or - at minimum - weekends. The 'Perfecting Premiums' corporatese on matchmaking is garbage, you have a game economy problem: painful grinds, silver poorness. Need more Xs? Then people need the silver to purchase them, and 357 has obsoleted the Tier VIII Premium Vehicle model. Frontline is the simple solution. Do not get cute or fancy. Put it right back in, optimized, as fast as possible (and look to replace Grand Battles - which no one sane enables - with a tier X version.)
  6. Announce Full Bonds For Past Battle Awards -- (Pre-bonds Battle Awards minus first partial compensation) remaining balance added to subsequent Battle Award Bonds. Distribution remains staggered, but rewards long time players for the full value of their in game achievements at a slightly increased rate, until that balance is fully paid out. Players will get what they earned in the past without breaking the Bond economy/game balance with the number of Improved Equipment in circulation.
  7. Disavow EULA Dominion Over Game Review/Youtube et.al. Content Creators -- Enough is enough. You're reaching Nintendo levels. It's the worst PR there is. "B-but the fine print ackshually says..." This is word-thinking, and you have a long standing optics problem. Persuasiveness is required, and what your actions have consistently inculcated in this userbase is incredulity. 'Fine print' semantics doesn't build trust or goodwill. This is a credibility issue, and you have none.

 

 


Edited by facilegoose, Jun 15 2018 - 00:45.


Isola_di_Fano #43 Posted Jun 15 2018 - 05:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 20967 battles
  • 3,265
  • Member since:
    11-05-2012

View PostLiberty75, on Jun 14 2018 - 15:04, said:

 

But are the hopelessly addicted players paying less? :)

 

 

 

I know I am.

Until something is done or EU transfers allowed: $0  from me ... and I am/was a whale !



LpBronco #44 Posted Jun 15 2018 - 10:58

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 38254 battles
  • 2,290
  • [TG] TG
  • Member since:
    11-19-2010
Dude, check my stables. Guaranteed there are few people who have spent the type of coin I have. 

Liberty75 #45 Posted Jun 15 2018 - 11:32

    Captain

  • Players
  • 45992 battles
  • 1,469
  • [ORDER] ORDER
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostIsola_di_Fano, on Jun 14 2018 - 23:00, said:

I know I am.

Until something is done or EU transfers allowed: $0  from me ... and I am/was a whale !

View PostLpBronco, on Jun 15 2018 - 04:58, said:

Dude, check my stables. Guaranteed there are few people who have spent the type of coin I have. 

 

Yup. The most money I ever spent on a game, was a free-to-play game. This game. :sceptic:

 



Springfield_Fats #46 Posted Jun 15 2018 - 13:02

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 10156 battles
  • 136
  • Member since:
    11-04-2014

Some people here are stupid enough to defend a blatantly broken game mechanic.

 



Liberty75 #47 Posted Jun 15 2018 - 20:40

    Captain

  • Players
  • 45992 battles
  • 1,469
  • [ORDER] ORDER
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostSpringfield_Fats, on Jun 15 2018 - 07:02, said:

Some people here are stupid enough to defend a blatantly broken game mechanic.

 

It is the eternal folly of the mob. The German dictator was correct. You can show people the logic, reasoning, and data to enlighten them with the truth, and they will still follow the simple irrational slogans because they WANT to believe that those falsehoods are true.

 


 

Statements from Wargaming on the 3/5/7 MM...

 

the MM "...balances the 'ideal' setup against the speed of matching." This is ideal? And the speed of match creation takes longer due to strict templates.

 

"...there are enough players in the same position to turn the tide of battle."  What does this even mean? The low tiers, on average, can handle the top tiers? Ha ha!

 

"...new and more sophisticated match maker" Yeah right!

 

"Opposing teams get well balanced vehicles" True, but matches are still unbalanced. It is the players more than the tanks AND this system encourages more unbalanced matches because of the small amount of players at the top.

 

"this will guarantee that you find your target." Again, what does this even mean in reality? I was able to find my targets before this MM, as did everyone else.

 

"Every 3/5/7 battle at the top of the list makes you a key player on the team, giving you a real opportunity to lead the team to victory, which is equal parts difficult and rewarding." Which happens once in every 20 games. Fun!

 

"The 3/5/7 template serves its purpose of allowing every tanker to contribute in battle." What the..? I contributed in every battle before this MM. So did everyone else that wanted to learn the basic mechanics in the game.

 

"You always get comparable opposition, regardless of whether you’re placed at the top, middle, or bottom of the list." We got "comparable opposition" before this MM too. How is this radically different now?

 

"Remember the less-than-desirable scenario of playing Tier VIII and getting matched against Tier X? " Shoot. This happens MORE now than it ever did before!!?! Again, WG failed.

Continued from last statement... "Now think how it feels in the game as it stands today." Like crap, thank you very much.

 

"Having a few top-tiers on the other camp no longer makes you question the point of battling." Having 35% top, 35% middle, and 30% bottom tier battles in the previous version of the MM never made me question the point of battling. It actually seemed fair that I would split my time about equally in each position. Now I question the current format all the time.

 

"Stronger opposition is fewer in number than vehicles in the middle, there’s a similar number of top-tiers on your side, and there’s no need for you to go up against them." Do they even play their own corridor-style maps??? Do they even play their own game? You really have to wonder when they make statements like this.

 

WG and the people that believe them... :facepalm:

 


Sources:

https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/general-news/update-918/

https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/general-news/matchmaking-in-9191-and-the-road-ahead/


Edited by Liberty75, Jun 15 2018 - 20:43.


Isola_di_Fano #48 Posted Jun 16 2018 - 02:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 20967 battles
  • 3,265
  • Member since:
    11-05-2012

View PostLpBronco, on Jun 15 2018 - 04:58, said:

Dude, check my stables. Guaranteed there are few people who have spent the type of coin I have. 

 

Dang ! I bow to you. You determination to keep this game is afloat may indeed be unrivaled !!!!   :great:

scHnuuudle_bop #49 Posted Yesterday, 07:37 AM

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 16241 battles
  • 2,208
  • [MUG-T] MUG-T
  • Member since:
    05-03-2016

there is nothing wrong with the match maker.

 it provides a "random" match with roughly equivalent team power. For every low tier on a team, there are corresponding tanks on the other side.

it allows players exposure to higher tiers to learn how to play against them.

it has been shown many times that you are not "always" the bottom tier, it is as random statistics dictate, about 33%.



Springfield_Fats #50 Posted Yesterday, 08:07 AM

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 10156 battles
  • 136
  • Member since:
    11-04-2014

View PostscHnuuudle_bop, on Jun 17 2018 - 07:37, said:

there is nothing wrong with the match maker.

 

Hahahahahaha



Liberty75 #51 Posted Yesterday, 01:50 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 45992 battles
  • 1,469
  • [ORDER] ORDER
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostscHnuuudle_bop, on Jun 17 2018 - 01:37, said:

there is nothing wrong with the match maker.

 it provides a "random" match with roughly equivalent team power. For every low tier on a team, there are corresponding tanks on the other side.

it allows players exposure to higher tiers to learn how to play against them.

it has been shown many times that you are not "always" the bottom tier, it is as random statistics dictate, about 33%.

 

Sarcasm is difficult to do on the forums. This MM is so blatantly second rate that it makes sarcasm easy. I love it. :great:

 

Bring back the previous version of the MM, and include the current team balancing mechanics in it. Even teams and even top, middle, and bottom tier matches. Even teams and even tiers!



Fractured_Raptor #52 Posted Yesterday, 02:12 PM

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 19107 battles
  • 893
  • [-RISK] -RISK
  • Member since:
    05-28-2016

View Post_Gungrave_, on May 26 2018 - 20:32, said:

 

As much as I prefer the old MM I'd rather not be able to see the chance of 5 mouth breather arty players while increasing the chances of seeing 3 a match. Remember with the arty buffs seeing 3 to 5 in most games now that would basically kill any enjoyment to be had with this game.

 

Agreed. When there's three I camp, pure and simple. Let the other people get lit and trashed by a broken mechanic. Matches are way more enjoyable when there's none. You can be aggressive, slide around gaps to flank, and not get [edited] up/tracked/modules destroyed/crew killed by something you can't shoot back at. 

Liberty75 #53 Posted Yesterday, 02:21 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 45992 battles
  • 1,469
  • [ORDER] ORDER
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

No one is talking about Arty changes or even advocating for the return of the old arty mechanics. We are talking about basic match creation and distribution of tanks. :facepalm:

 

 

We want the process of team creation from the previous version of the MM combined with the current MM's team balancing mechanics. We want balanced teams and a balanced experience with top, middle, and bottom tier matches.

 

The old MM also enjoyed a much, MUCH wider variety in team setups and hence much more variety in the matches that we encountered.



scHnuuudle_bop #54 Posted Yesterday, 09:40 PM

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 16241 battles
  • 2,208
  • [MUG-T] MUG-T
  • Member since:
    05-03-2016

I liked it before, I believe a lot of the reason it was changed because (wait for it) it gave too many unbalanced games.

 

those fun games with 1 team getting way more of one class than the other team. Where your team of lights and mediums being steamrolled by a team of heavies and TD's.

 

so it was a major source of complaints. this is the result, based on the complaints. 

 

the tiers are balanced as are the classes.



Liberty75 #55 Posted Today, 01:50 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 45992 battles
  • 1,469
  • [ORDER] ORDER
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostscHnuuudle_bop, on Jun 17 2018 - 15:40, said:

I liked it before, I believe a lot of the reason it was changed because (wait for it) it gave too many unbalanced games.

 

those fun games with 1 team getting way more of one class than the other team. Where your team of lights and mediums being steamrolled by a team of heavies and TD's.

 

so it was a major source of complaints. this is the result, based on the complaints. 

 

the tiers are balanced as are the classes.

 

And that is why we advocate for the old MM with the current team balancing mechanics.

LpBronco #56 Posted Today, 02:45 AM

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 38254 battles
  • 2,290
  • [TG] TG
  • Member since:
    11-19-2010

...just watch out that it doesn't become overly scripted by having to balance too many different criteria. I'll take some of the outlier games as well for the challenge and novelty.

 

 

 

p.s. ...who doesn't remember fondly that one game you were part of that was 9 on 10 spg's, LOL.


Edited by LpBronco, Today, 02:46 AM.


Liberty75 #57 Posted Today, 11:17 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 45992 battles
  • 1,469
  • [ORDER] ORDER
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostLpBronco, on Jun 17 2018 - 20:45, said:

...just watch out that it doesn't become overly scripted by having to balance too many different criteria. I'll take some of the outlier games as well for the challenge and novelty.

 

I hear you. In the end, it is WG's system to create.

 

An ideal system would be similar to the old MM in match creation, but instead of a weighted system, each vehicle has an identifier attached to it in the database. This identity code would include the tier, class, play style of the vehicle, and then the actual vehicle (in an alpha-numeric code). Perhaps one or more criteria that I am not thinking of right now at 6AM.

 

For example, the MM would pick out a T57 Heavy from the queue and try to put another T57 on the opposite team, if there are none available, it would then look for a tank with a similar play style, another auto-loading heavy for instance. If none of those are available, then it would look for a heavy.

 

As it matches up the 15 vehicles on each team, the MM would also have the leeway of being off by one class type per tier (or whatever WG does). From the example above, if the MM cannot find another heavy tank, it can substitute another vehicle class for that slot (preferably another tank with a similar play style, which would be something else in the vehicle identifying code needed).

 

This is actually very similar to what the MM does now to keep the teams balanced. The current MM allows for one vehicle class to be different per team. The difference is that teams won't be structured on a strict template and will be free ranging in their make-up.



LpBronco #58 Posted Today, 11:39 AM

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 38254 battles
  • 2,290
  • [TG] TG
  • Member since:
    11-19-2010
I'm not looking for vehicle by vehicle parity and if anything this would once again be a stifling way to create matches. Weighted matchmaking itself should achieve relative equality as similarly weighted vehicles should also fill similar roles but we all know that different vehicles can fill several roles. Some of the vehicle class modifiers with the previous matchmaking would be sufficient to provide randomness while still achieving relative team parity.

WIZD #59 Posted Today, 12:17 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 7716 battles
  • 424
  • [ASP] ASP
  • Member since:
    08-16-2015

View PostLiberty75, on Jun 04 2018 - 00:00, said:

 

I understand your frustration. I have a friend (new player too) that quit last summer because it was a frustrating experience grinding through the middle tiers. The solution isn't same tier matches though. That would make for a boring system in the long run. Even +1/-1 would not be as good as +2/-2 for the experience players would get out of the game.

 

I think players today are shell-shocked from being on the bottom of the 3/5/7 system for so long now and desperately they think same tier or +1/-1 is the answer. We need to remember life before the 9.18 Update (April 2017). It wasn't perfect, but it was better than this current mess. Getting moved around from top, to middle, to bottom tier rather evenly in the previous MM was a fun experience. All three of those situations challenged players in different ways. It helped keep the game fresh and exciting as your role was constantly being altered match to match. Mastering all three roles was a real achievement and greatly enhanced the game experience. Currently we hit with the bottom role over and over and even when we are not, the team makeup is so predictable that all excitement in the process is gone.

 

We need to advocate for the previous version of the match maker, with the current team balancing mechanisms included in it.

 

Whenever I get a same tier battle I always have a blast. It would make grinding better as stock tanks wouldn't be as disadvantaged as when they are bottom tier. Players can always contribute to battles. If you happen to meet the three top tier tanks in the current format (as they always stick together) and your bottom tier it's gg for you. You run you die you stay and fight to try to slow them down hoping for reinforcements you die. They should at least try +-1 to see how it works. As for xp per battle if you can do more dmg you get more xp if you die in the first 2 mins of the battle your not getting xp anyway. Remember most players aren't as skilled as you if they quit out of frustration you can enjoy long queue times. I can agree with your comment but I think +-1 should at least be tried to see how things go.

LpBronco #60 Posted Today, 12:24 PM

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 38254 battles
  • 2,290
  • [TG] TG
  • Member since:
    11-19-2010
I have no desire to see a +/-1 system as the principal system. Again, limiting the matchmaking doesn't keep the game vibrant and challenging. 





Also tagged with match maker, mm

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users