Jump to content


Fixes to Preferential Matchmaking + Future Matchmaking Changes


  • Please log in to reply
232 replies to this topic

MagillaGuerilla #21 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 16:20

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 25314 battles
  • 4,003
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013
As time goes on and they add more and more modern tanks to the tech tree, they should really consider splitting the game into wartime and post war tanks. It's ludicrous to try to balance WW 2 tanks with tanks designed twenty years later. It's like pitting biplanes against jet fighters. If they don't split the tech trees the game will NEVER be balanced.

Blastyourasst #22 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 16:26

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 20727 battles
  • 13
  • [FART-] FART-
  • Member since:
    06-12-2016

In today's article and previous ones, the developers keep referring to single tier battles as being a problem.  WHY??? if you polled everyone in the game (not just on forums as they are populated by only a tiny portion of players) I am willing to bet my account that 60-70+% of actual players would prefer more single tier battles.   This also fixes the issue with PMM. Make MM try for single tier and then settle for +1/-1 tier if needed.  Eliminate 3 tier battles all together.

 


 

Please put an in-game poll for everyone and see what the results are!  People will wait 1-3 mins for a match if they know they will not be cannon fodder.


 

Also, can the Super Pershing please hit its speed limit of 40 km/hr on anything other than a cliff dive?????



Mikosah #23 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 16:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 17582 battles
  • 4,126
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

Progress. 

 

The one point I'll tack on is that the simplest and most effective way to make any given vehicle more comfortable in poor MM is simply to give it better penetration and gun performance otherwise. Armor is the problem, not the solution. When push comes to shove, the typical player just wants to put his reticle on a red silhouette, click, and actually do some damage.



mlinke #24 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 16:28

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 50337 battles
  • 903
  • [DD-S] DD-S
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011
wz 111 needs aiming time buff too, few mm of pen will not improve it at all.

ISNomads #25 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 16:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 36532 battles
  • 2,352
  • [WHAMO] WHAMO
  • Member since:
    11-30-2013

View PostBlastyourasst, on Jul 26 2018 - 07:26, said:

In today's article and previous ones, the developers keep referring to single tier battles as being a problem.  WHY??? if you polled everyone in the game (not just on forums as they are populated by only a tiny portion of players) I am willing to bet my account that 60-70+% of actual players would prefer more single tier battles.   This also fixes the issue with PMM. Make MM try for single tier and then settle for +1/-1 tier if needed.  Eliminate 3 tier battles all together.

 

Please put an in-game poll for everyone and see what the results are!  People will wait 1-3 mins for a match if they know they will not be cannon fodder.

 

Also, can the Super Pershing please hit its speed limit of 40 km/hr on anything other than a cliff dive?????

 

Yes, opinions over data. We can use our random thoughts to make this game great again!

Veracks #26 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 16:38

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 19582 battles
  • 397
  • [SU] SU
  • Member since:
    04-07-2011
The "buffs" are far too weak. If anything, you should have given every tank listed the KV-5 treatment (buffed armor, 212 pen, etc) without removing the limited MM. The suggested changes do diddly squat in the grand scheme of things, especially for the heavies. Going from 175 to 182 penetration does absolutely nothing. Buff them all to ~200 penetration like the Super Pershing got. Likewise, the armor buffs to the KV-5 need to actually matter (AKA allow it to brush off lower tier enemies from the front). A simple change I've said for years is to simply make the R2D2 tumors be space armor, thus forcing people to learn to flank or aim for the cupola on the turret. The JT88 "buff" is downright pathetic too. Just delete the poor thing already and give everyone a JT(H) or something.

CHR157IAN_ALPHA #27 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 16:38

    Captain

  • Players
  • 50781 battles
  • 1,037
  • [L-O-M] L-O-M
  • Member since:
    10-24-2011

@ Cabbage & WG

 

Preface:

I have a suggestion that is as radical as the changes to Arty that came from the sandbox server, (although i wish arty damage was buffed back +10%), it did improve overall game play.  So what im about to suggest could be tested there, on the sandbox.

 

Reference:

I have been playing this game se7en years now, since arty maxed @ tier 8 & There were only tier 10 heavys & we had a much broader tier spread.  

 

Suggestion:

Consider stretching the tech tree to tier 11 or 12, rearrange the tree, and broaden the top tier spread.  Test this in the sandbox.  There would be nothing wrong with say stopping arty at 10, or meds & lights at 11.

 

P.S.

Thanks you for the buffs, I have never had much of a problem with premiums being inherently weaker, they do offer the benefit of increased credits, and typically the fact that we play our premium tanks more means we have more experience dealing with their short comings. 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by CHR157IAN_ALPHA, Jul 26 2018 - 16:47.


ISNomads #28 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 16:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 36532 battles
  • 2,352
  • [WHAMO] WHAMO
  • Member since:
    11-30-2013

View Postmlinke, on Jul 26 2018 - 07:28, said:

wz 111 needs aiming time buff too, few mm of pen will not improve it at all.

 

Yes, the few millimeters of increased pen don't appear to be significant, but they need to start somewhere. It is easier to make a small change, test, then increase the degree of change until you find a balance point rather than going too far and then trying to reign-in.

Blastyourasst #29 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 16:52

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 20727 battles
  • 13
  • [FART-] FART-
  • Member since:
    06-12-2016

View PostISNomads, on Jul 26 2018 - 10:35, said:

 

Yes, opinions over data. We can use our random thoughts to make this game great again!

 

Customer satisfaction and player engagement are the most important factors to get right.  There is a reason Fortnite has 2.5 million players on at any time and WoTs USA peaks at ~17K.   That IS data bud.

Sig121 #30 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 16:54

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 27699 battles
  • 19
  • Member since:
    08-07-2013

View PostBlastyourasst, on Jul 26 2018 - 15:26, said:

In today's article and previous ones, the developers keep referring to single tier battles as being a problem.  WHY??? if you polled everyone in the game (not just on forums as they are populated by only a tiny portion of players) I am willing to bet my account that 60-70+% of actual players would prefer more single tier battles.   This also fixes the issue with PMM. Make MM try for single tier and then settle for +1/-1 tier if needed.  Eliminate 3 tier battles all together.

 


 

Please put an in-game poll for everyone and see what the results are!  People will wait 1-3 mins for a match if they know they will not be cannon fodder.


 

Also, can the Super Pershing please hit its speed limit of 40 km/hr on anything other than a cliff dive?????

 

The single tier MM is a problem for preferential MM vehicles.  They are inferior to others of the same tier; IS-6 vs IS-3 for example.  That appears to be what they are referring to, not the overall problem of same tier matches.  The slight KV-5 buffs would be designed to make it more competitive when it sees same tier or +1 MM, while not making it into a regular tier 8 that simply doesn't see 10s.  

 

WG trying to rebalance the pref MM vehicles so they can compete a little better with same tier and +1, while not removing pref MM is fantastic.  Hope you guys figure it out!



ol_Cajun #31 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 17:01

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 28663 battles
  • 395
  • [-J-] -J-
  • Member since:
    06-04-2011

View PostNudnick, on Jul 26 2018 - 09:20, said:

As time goes on and they add more and more modern tanks to the tech tree, they should really consider splitting the game into wartime and post war tanks. It's ludicrous to try to balance WW 2 tanks with tanks designed twenty years later. It's like pitting biplanes against jet fighters. If they don't split the tech trees the game will NEVER be balanced.

 

I was hoping a couple of years ago they would just advance the tiers, maybe go to 15 (playable tiers) or more. Then we could also have more modern tanks.

YANKEE137 #32 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 17:01

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 11705 battles
  • 4,388
  • [6-ACR] 6-ACR
  • Member since:
    08-17-2015

Will be nice if Super P is no longer left behind on the battlefield by a wining team.


Edited by YANKEE137, Jul 26 2018 - 17:02.


Skol_Litrao #33 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 17:03

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 10097 battles
  • 29
  • [KVER4] KVER4
  • Member since:
    09-19-2015

IS6    112   Super Pershing 111   In tier 10 battle???!!!     HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA                                                 WG Logic:  OK  Ok Guys  i buff Pen " Trash 175"  for  Trash 182 ....           80% this game you botton tier,  tier 8 and  tier 6 are cancer this game.

 

lack of respect on the part of wargaming with players who bought their tanks to never see tier 10.
     I am sorry to be the one to expose the truth here but the WG wants to be $$$ with this, MM tier 8 is already broken, changing the preferred tanks will not solve the problem


    WELCOME IN THE HELL "PREFERENTIAL TANKS WITH BUFF...



SpectreHD #34 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 17:04

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16754 battles
  • 16,979
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

Block Quote

 As you can understand, to find the optimal solution will take some time (about half a year)

 

Gee whiz. Had you guys actually listened to us from the beginning, we'd be closer to those changes. Now we have to wait even longer as your out of touch marketing team continues to sell preferential Tier 8 premiums.

 

But I guess better late than never. Even if the late has already done its damage.



rich73 #35 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 17:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 54164 battles
  • 6,488
  • Member since:
    10-17-2011
Placebo post on mm fixes again.....lol..I can believe changes, but fixes???Have to wait and see.

_Bagheera_ #36 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 17:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 35337 battles
  • 5,560
  • [ICON-] ICON-
  • Member since:
    12-23-2011

I like the listed changes i saw only problem I DID see?

 

The penetration values. They are not enough. 

 

KV-5 - IS6, wz111, 112, T34-3 are both gonna need significantly more ap and premium penetration, those values are still not competitive. I would actually suggest about 190 standard and about 240mm prem pen for the Russian tanks

 

and 190 standard with 260 heat for the chinese tanks. the lack of normalization for the chinese heat rounds makes them allmost usless against their intended targets weakpoints. That amount of heat pen should allow them to pen weak points without making them overpowering. 

 

I would also suggest finally adding a blanket penetration buff to the American 105mm tier 8 tanks Like the T32, Chrystler K etc.

 

Buffing that guns all round penetration (I'd recommend 212-225 standard with 263 premium pen) Would bring back a lot of good will from people who have seen their favorite T32 basically be relegated to uselessness. The T32 will finally be directly competitive with the T26e5, and pretty much (finally) completely superior to the T-34 and a lot of the pay to win bad blood would go out the window with that buff. 

 

Balancing tanks around a "poor penetration" metric is no longer viable. You have introduced too many tanks with too few, if any actual weakpoints for this to work anymore. So the only solution is to nerf the problem tanks frontal weak points or buff penetration slightly on problem tanks such as the ones listed to compensate. Irontically i noticed you buffed the Super pershings standard pen when that was not one of its issues anymore. THe issue with that tank is the lack of working spaced armor anymore with the massive holes in the hull armoring. there are certain spots where 175 pen guns can penetrate its spaced armor easily without any thought or aim, which was not always the case. 


Edited by _Bagheera_, Jul 26 2018 - 17:11.


guywmustang #37 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 17:08

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 33739 battles
  • 10
  • [GOONZ] GOONZ
  • Member since:
    05-08-2013
Can you think about prioritizing 5/10 matchmaking?  Whoever thought the 3/5/7 template was the best, and still continues to think that, doesn't play this game enough.

ISNomads #38 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 17:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 36532 battles
  • 2,352
  • [WHAMO] WHAMO
  • Member since:
    11-30-2013

View PostBlastyourasst, on Jul 26 2018 - 07:52, said:

 

Customer satisfaction and player engagement are the most important factors to get right.  There is a reason Fortnite has 2.5 million players on at any time and WoTs USA peaks at ~17K.   That IS data bud.

 

Well that was incoherent.

 

For the first sentence. Yes, I agree, but that has nothing to do with player polls. Maybe do some research into self-report study or self-report bias. Data lets you know what works and what doesn't.

 

Comparing a new first-person shooter with a more niche oriented game shows that you are either not trying to be logical or you are being oblivious. One has nothing to do with the other in terms of audience, gameplay, game progression, monetization, etc.



ISNomads #39 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 17:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 36532 battles
  • 2,352
  • [WHAMO] WHAMO
  • Member since:
    11-30-2013

View PostNudnick, on Jul 26 2018 - 07:20, said:

As time goes on and they add more and more modern tanks to the tech tree, they should really consider splitting the game into wartime and post war tanks. It's ludicrous to try to balance WW 2 tanks with tanks designed twenty years later. It's like pitting biplanes against jet fighters. If they don't split the tech trees the game will NEVER be balanced.

 

That would introduce a lot of problems. This is a niche game with a limited player base. If you split the game you split the player base and speed the decline of the game.

_tube_ #40 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 17:15

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 11988 battles
  • 57
  • [AR-15] AR-15
  • Member since:
    03-10-2011
Thank you for finally addressing everyone's concerns. I knew WG would step up to the challenge of fixing this debacle.




7 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users