Jump to content


Fixes to Preferential Matchmaking + Future Matchmaking Changes


  • Please log in to reply
232 replies to this topic

billyzbear #61 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 17:58

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 47889 battles
  • 145
  • [TL-DR] TL-DR
  • Member since:
    12-24-2016

Can someone explain to me, why we have 3/5/7? Shorter que times? Really...

I have only been playing this game a year and a half or so. I don't understand why we can't have same tier matches. Specially since there is only one server now. Or even + or - one tier. 

At tier 8, players have to deal with tanks like the defender that is way over powered in armour. How is any tier 6 tank going to pen it? 

We also have to deal with RNG. I have bounced apcr rounds from a VK 100 P off the back of defenders. An ap round, 268 pen off the front sideish of a Grille 15 just for some examples. Fully aimed shots, no one is moving, go no where near where I aimed at 50 meters. Then the next round maybe close, maybe not...It's very frustrating. Makes it seem rigged. I forget what patch it was but bounces have been getting out of control now. 

 



ISNomads #62 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 17:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 39611 battles
  • 2,493
  • [WHAMO] WHAMO
  • Member since:
    11-30-2013

View PostNudnick, on Jul 26 2018 - 08:32, said:

 

I think the game is already in decline. The more they 'fix" things, the worse it gets.

 

Absolutely agree. They took a great idea and have been whittling away at it for years.

 

WG "This is a tank game, we need to make armor count."

Player "This is a game, I just want to have a chance to damage other tanks."

 

WG "Let's improve the graphics so we look more modern and gain new players."

New player "Playing this game at low tiers is frustrating so why bother."

 

WG "Lets use the new bonds metric to make the game more dynamic and increase the longevity of the game by increasing content."

Player "Grinding is already harsh and now I need to grind something new. The good players who quickly acquired bonds are now farming me and making it more difficult to progress in the game and have fun."



_Bagheera_ #63 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 18:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 36887 battles
  • 5,744
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    12-23-2011

View PostSpliterFoxHound, on Jul 26 2018 - 10:52, said:

Ok here are my honest few thoughts I have on the pref MM buffs also tanks for lessening and keeping pref mm in the game WG.

 

#1 IS6 and kv5

 The Kv-5 penetration buff compared to the Is6 penetration buff, In its current state the Kv5 has 8mm less than the Is6 from  167 to 175 so 8mm, why should the Kv5 get the same penetration buff as the Is6 when the IS6 has a bigger gun what I feel should be done is allow the Kv5 to keep the 182mm of armor and give the Is6 additional buff of 8mm so from 182mm to 190mm base pen, The 225mm of APCR pen is ok (could be more but then it ill be out of balance but I would go for 230mm so that the Type 4 view port on the left is more pen-able it still is with 217mm but you tend to bounce if not being face to face and or get a high pen roll 225mm should allow for just as much as the 230mm), Reducing the Kv5s pen by 8 after the 182mm would just defeat the purpose of the rebalance/buff so the only logical thing to do here is to buff the Is6 to 190 base pen with 225mm of APCR pen.

 

Additional suggestion for the IS6 and Kv5: For the IS6 you could add additional shells +5 to the total count from 30 shells to 35 shells,For the Kv5 I have no additional suggestions for it.

 

#2 FCM 50t and 112

I think that the FCM 50t mobility buff is good it does not need extra buffs since the gun does not struggle penning players, and the 112 maybe increase the base pen of that tank to 190 just like the IS6 and do not increase the HEAT shell velocity Heavy tanks should be in the front line do not encourage players to stay back and snipe with 250 HEAT pen and 720 shell velocity

 

Additional suggestion for the FCM 50t and 112: For the FCM could see a improved aiming time from 2.21 to 2.11, For the 112 Improve aiming time from 3.4 to 2.8 s just like with the IS6.

 

#3 WZ-111 and M6A2E1

The Wz-111 penetration buff could be increased from 182mm to 190mm just like the IS6 and 112 and the HEAT shell velocity should not be increased again to discourage HEAT sniping in Heavy tanks, TheM6A2E1 its penetration of 198 is already really good the extra 6mm of penetration would not trow it off the balance charts but it still will make other american 105s that use the same gun as it seem worse still 204mm is fine I would just not touch it, also for the M6A2E1 the traverse being buffed from 24 to 28 is called for and a good change, The M6A2E1 dispersion on the turret reduced from .18 to 16 is also a good change the tank was quite bad with its bloom

 

Additional suggestions for the Wz-111 and M6A2E1: For the Wz-111 I agree with its penetration changes but the HEAT ammunition should not have increased velocity the aiming time is fine as it is, For the M6A2E1 most of its changes are called for but there is one that I think should have extra tough put into it its armor right now as it stands the armor is pretty good but it just getseasily penetrated by high tier 330 HEAT shells, there is also a weak spot under the gun were the turret ring is I do not think you should remove said weak spot it is necessary for low tier players and even current tier 8s to be able to penetrate it its hard to hit but its a know weak spot, what does need to be improved regarding the M6A2E1's armor is the cheek armor on the tank that is what gets penetrated with 330 premium ammo when it really should not if the tanker hull downs its tank.

 

 

#4 T-34-3 and Type 59

The T-34-3 in its current status is a very competitive and good tank it should not see additional buffs said tank can get by with its 175mm of pen its mobility allows for more flanking than lets say a Is6 that happen to have a very similar 122mm except for its 250 HEAT penetration, giving a medium tank with that big of a caliber -6.5 gun depression from -5 would trow said tank out of balance and adding the additional base AP pen of 182mm will hurt the balance of a tank that received buffs when it was removed from the store in 9.22 before 1.0 Also the positive changes of the HEAT ammunition "Increase velocity of the HEAT (Premium) shell from 640 to 720 m/s" will make players snipe from far away more than they should

 

Additional suggestion for the T-34-3 and type 59: For the T-34-3 Don't buff anything on the tank it does not need a buff and said tank can get by with 175mm pf penetration and -5 gun depression put both the T-34-3 in comparison to the IS6 with their current and after buff stats and you will see that the T-34-3 out performs in most cases by quite the big margin, and for the Type 59 I agree with the current buffs no additional changes should be made.

 

#5 The T26E4 "Super Pershing" and the Jagdtiger pak 43 8,8 cm

The T26E4 is a pretty hated tank on the community but I do not feel like it should NOT be getting a buff for its 192mm of pen the tank will have more penetration than its other Pershing variants counter parts the pilot 25 M46 patton KR T95E2 and M26 Pershing all of the tanks mentioned have 192 base pen (Pershing gets 190), As for the mobility buff power to weight ratio from 9.9 to 12 h.p./t is a good change the DPM buff is also called for, Jagdtiger 8,8 cm oh what to even think of this one the tank in its current state is really bad I have to just agree with all the buffs you plan to implement

 

Additional suggestions for the T26E4 and Jagdtiger 8,8: For the T26E4 I still will insist not to increase its penetration it is good enough as it is but it could see additional power to weight 12hp/t is better but I am pretty sure than it could be increased to 12.5hp/t or even 13 hp/t, For the Jagdtiger  maybe the reverse speed can be increased to 15kmph from 14kmph and +2 additional traverse speed all the other buffs are called for after all remember that the Jagdtiger 8,8 is the worst of all the pref MM tanks.

 

 

Note: I have played with all of these tanks I am aware of their current issues I know both how to drive them and how to take them out and I am a experienced player not the best but 56% win rate (I don't care about stats tbh but the better I perform the more xp and credits I get ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) is better than most take my input as suggestions what I say is just feedback for the developers to make positive changes on the game, if you have some constructive opinions on what I have wrote go ahead and leave your 2 cents agree or disagree.

 

I'm really not sure you've truly played those tanks.

 

I can nearly COMPLETLY IGNORE the Jt88 in most situations because of its poor pen.  Nothing but a downteir to tier 7 would save that tank currently, or adding the stock 128mm to it and removing its pref mm. 

 

The Super Pershing simply has functionally NO armor. That's why its hated. It still has its old weakpoints and now has spaced armor that doesn't stop even 175 pen guns. (there are spots on the lower plate 175 pen guns can pen you ANGLED. 

 

The suggested 225mm of penetration is also not enough, I can comfortably say you will never pen a type 4 unless you get the MOTHER of all high pen rolls with 225. It needs to be 190-240 for the kv and the IS-6. 

 

and about 190 to 260 for the chinese 122mm..

 

the M6 I hope is not getting any ridiculous armor buffs, Its already fairly hard to pen now without premium if the driver doesnt angle the tank. 



ISNomads #64 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 18:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 39611 battles
  • 2,493
  • [WHAMO] WHAMO
  • Member since:
    11-30-2013

View Post_Bagheera_, on Jul 26 2018 - 08:51, said:

 

That just makes no sense from a business standpoint.

 

Wargaming are NOT stupid. They are fully aware of how we feel, why and what's broken in the game. The issue with massive EA like corporations like this is that there are suits up top that pretty much tell them to SELL SELL SELL, come hell or high water. The high water is coming. 

 

The point was driven home when i was tooling about in my garage after a match. I had a VERY VERY good match in my Somua. did around 5k damage, almost 6 kills and hardly had a repair bill. Didn't touch a single round of premium ammo. Have a premium account cause im finishing up a lot of tier 10 grinds. SHould have made a fat profit right? Yeah no...barely cleared 90k after nearly 5k+ basiclaly Flawless damage. Most of it went up in ammo costs.

 

Why do my 100mm rounds cost as much as higher damage 122mm shells?

 

Why do 175 pen 122mm shels cost MORE than the 212-232mm penetrations 122mm shells fired out the STG and the OBJ 430? (seriously go look up the ammo on those)

 

Everything about this game right down to the pants on head ammo prices that make no sense anymore was designed to make you want to spend money. If the low pen 122mm shells cost something resonable tanks like the WZ111 would be incredibly proftiable, and if they didnt need to fire so much Gold...well...Cant have us pulling down over 100k profit in pub matches can we?

 

and look at how poorly they are buffing the standard pen. They wont allow these tanks to be TOO profitable, God forbid you can easily sustain the game without a premium account...

 

Yeah, I am agreeing with you. They are tone deaf.

goldfinger_555 #65 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 18:12

    Captain

  • Players
  • 27699 battles
  • 1,190
  • [FFWC] FFWC
  • Member since:
    10-17-2013
So we are keeping pref MM and the world didn't end after all.

pcgamer001 #66 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 18:16

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 9686 battles
  • 234
  • Member since:
    10-08-2011
Good news glad they realized players got these tanks for the pref MM.

the_Deadly_Bulb #67 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 18:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 28074 battles
  • 6,832
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    03-11-2014

View PostCabbageMechanic, on Jul 26 2018 - 05:52, said:

Hey Folks,

The long-awaited update on what is going with Preferential Matchmaking is here.

In short, we underestimated the value that players placed on the preferential aspect of vehicle matchmaking and after your immediate feedback have scrapped that plan and are working on the problem from another angle.  Preferential Matchmaking will not be removed from vehicles.

The new plan is to still buff underperforming vehicles with Pref. MM, but not to the extent that they would have been with its removal (see the article for details).  These are draft changes, and will potentially change pending testing and feedback.

The other part of the approach is our overall effort to improve the Matchmaker.  From the article:
 

 

Early testing on our initial plans to improve the new system did not work out, and will require a more dramatic restructuring of the matchmaking.  We are currently working on that project but it is going to take some time.  The updates to matchmaker will focus on improving tier rotation and template distribution used by the Matchmaking system, with special consideration paid to improving the Tier VIII experience.

In addition, I have some immediate Q&A Answers on this topic from the Development Team.

Q: What about lower tier vehicles with Preferential Matchmaking?
A: 
First of all we must resolve high tiers issues. And MM is not the only issue for low tiers. There will also need to be changes in characteristics for these vehicles. 

Q: Why did it take so long to respond to the issue of Tier 8 Matchmaking?
A: 
After the release of 9.18, it took us several months to collect the correct statistics on the formation of battles. Almost every version we released made changes to MM. Also, we released events such as Ranked Battles, which very strongly influenced the Queue and the formation of the correct statistics on the distribution inside the templates. Further, as we already wrote in the article, we tested the solution for MM, which would give us the opportunity to influence the distribution inside the templates. But the tests were unsuccessful and did not give the desired result. That's why the whole process took so much time.

Q: Why did it take so long to respond to the feedback about the removal of Preferential Matchmaking?
A:  
From the very first hours of publication, we received quite negative feedback about the removal of the preferential factor. We assembled the team and began to discuss an alternative solution. It was impossible to think of a simple way out in this situation. We began to calculate the options for returning to matchmaker's solution and the team took some time to initially understand what to do, and then to estimate the possible terms. As a result, we realized that in the next couple of months we will not be able to correct this with the help of MM and decided to add a correction for the characteristics for these vehicles. Naturally, we did not want to come to the players with a hasty decision, as it was before. That's why it took so long.

Keep an eye out for more Q&A answers from WGNA and the Dev team in the upcoming Reddit Q&As (we'll post links here).

As always we appreciate your feedback and look forward to seeing you on the battlefield,

CM
 




 

 

Glad WG came to their senses.

 

Next time anyone on any of your teams has a similar brainstorm give them a blanket party.


 

In short, try to remember who actually employs you, hint: it ain't WGing.


 

Thanks for the great news Cabbage. Too bad this failed idea created so much ill will.

No telling how many it drove away.


 

If I were you guys I'd send an email to everyone notifying them that this terrible idea has been scrapped.

Not everyone reads or even knows about the forums, and players that have left due to this may be coaxed back if they were notified.

Its in your best interest I believe. :honoring:



Katyusha_454 #68 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 18:25

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8368 battles
  • 186
  • Member since:
    03-05-2013
FFS just go back to the old matchmaking system.  It had its issues but overall it was way less annoying to deal with than the current disaster of a matchmaker.

bluedude2011 #69 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 18:26

    Private

  • Players
  • 14875 battles
  • 1
  • [-STN-] -STN-
  • Member since:
    10-05-2012

Wholy crap! Their actually listening to the community!! You go Glen coco!!

 



the_Deadly_Bulb #70 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 18:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 28074 battles
  • 6,832
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    03-11-2014

View Postbluedude2011, on Jul 26 2018 - 09:26, said:

Wholy crap! Their actually listening to the community!! You go Glen coco!!

 

 

I'm betting this stupid proposal caused them to get kicked real hard right in the nuts earnings.

 

The long silence was a result of exactly what I posted in the other long thread (now locked), they went into full on damage control.

 

 

I don't think MM will be fixed any time soon either.

IMO they've got a lot of work ahead of them. There have been a number of very good posts and suggestions for MM from the community, but you know how much time WG spends reading those. :sceptic:



anonym_aTuD26O7NRnh #71 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 18:39

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 0 battles
  • 100
  • Member since:
    10-06-2018
Thanks for listening. Disaster averted.

Gothraul #72 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 18:47

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 2426 battles
  • 5,767
  • Member since:
    11-17-2014
I am looking forwards to trying these improvements out should there be a common test though I will say that the standard pen with the 175pen guns to 182mm is still going to be difficult for players to work with due to rng. I am looking forwards to future improvements to lower tier limited MM premiums.

Eduardo_1114_PC #73 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 18:55

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 4717 battles
  • 86
  • Member since:
    10-25-2014
Thank you Wargaming for listening to our hate. I will now consider buying some pref matchmaking tanks soon. 

SpliterFoxHound #74 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 19:04

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 35640 battles
  • 4
  • [FURST] FURST
  • Member since:
    04-09-2015

View Post_Bagheera_, on Jul 26 2018 - 18:01, said:

 

I'm really not sure you've truly played those tanks.

 

I can nearly COMPLETLY IGNORE the Jt88 in most situations because of its poor pen.  Nothing but a downteir to tier 7 would save that tank currently, or adding the stock 128mm to it and removing its pref mm. 

 

The Super Pershing simply has functionally NO armor. That's why its hated. It still has its old weakpoints and now has spaced armor that doesn't stop even 175 pen guns. (there are spots on the lower plate 175 pen guns can pen you ANGLED. 

 

The suggested 225mm of penetration is also not enough, I can comfortably say you will never pen a type 4 unless you get the MOTHER of all high pen rolls with 225. It needs to be 190-240 for the kv and the IS-6. 

 

and about 190 to 260 for the chinese 122mm..

 

the M6 I hope is not getting any ridiculous armor buffs, Its already fairly hard to pen now without premium if the driver doesnt angle the tank. 

 

If you ad a 128mm gun to the Jagdtiger 8,8 can you really call it a 8,8 anymore they are buffing the penetration slightly, the suggested penetration of 225 for 122mm on the IS6 is enough We dont want these tanks to just lol pen a type 4 get real also 225mm is enough to pen the left port if you roll 5mm extra and with the -+25 RNG you probably will 50% 50% of the time, "The Super Pershing simply has functionally NO armor" you must be the one who has never played these tanks if you cant correctly use the T26E4 armor yes it had weak spots but the spaced armor is usually a auto bounce for most tanks and no 175 gun is gonna go thru that you more than likely were shot on the side of the road wheel because you try to "angle" a tank with no side armor point the riot shields towards the enemy and just because it has "armor" it still isn't supposed to brawl like heavy's can its a support medium.

 

The jagd 8,8 that tank fires really quick for the 8,8 that is its strength and the penetration buff its getting will be sufficient,or you mentioned things that I mentioned both the russian and chinese 122mm getting 190 pen and their HEAT does not need to be increased on the chinese one 250 is enough and 225 is barely just enough but could go for 230 on the APCR, as for the M6A2E1 I do agree with you it does not need to be buffed but the cheek armor should not be lol penned when someone is trying to be hull down on it so easily, make people fire at the turret ring under the gun that has 190+ armor and do not that small spot the cheeks do need a slight buff



Hartmen #75 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 19:06

    Sergeant

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

View PostBlastyourasst, on Jul 26 2018 - 16:26, 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?????

 

Single tier battles are good.  When they replace (represent) a top tier battle for you it's not so fun.

 



spud_tuber #76 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 19:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 59274 battles
  • 8,817
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013
Different suggestion for the super Pershing based on my greatest frustration with it.

Gun handling buff instead of pen, or maybe instead of mobility.

Its gun handling is as bad as the T69, which itself desperately needs a gun handling buff to remain relevant in today's game.

IceOtter #77 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 19:20

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 60639 battles
  • 417
  • [BE] BE
  • Member since:
    06-24-2012

I have been one of the toughest critics of Wargaming but the fact is that they are communicating better than they ever have before.  That is a MAJOR change in their culture and they achieved it.  In addition they FOLLOW UP.  Just look at their work on rules violations and the associated bans.  They KEEP ON updating this - they FOLLOW THROUGH.  When a company commits to this culture they will eventually find working solutions to their problems.  I am giving Wargaming my open mind and I think they will continue trying to improve.  That's just good business.

 

Now...

 

FIX THE ACE TANKER SYSTEM!!!!!!!!

 

There is no transparency there.  There should be lists of scores that players have to beat to get the Ace.  Getting Aces in some tier 1's is almost impossible and they should be EASY!  I don't want to seal club trying to get my Ace and the new training system means I'm competing against players killing BOTS.  FIX THE ACE SYSTEM - after all, you think its motivating enough to have created an EVENT around it.


Edited by IceOtter, Jul 26 2018 - 19:21.


martingalindo #78 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 19:22

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 30976 battles
  • 553
  • Member since:
    03-24-2011
jagd apcr from 237 to 245

Harmless55 #79 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 19:31

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 16864 battles
  • 1,068
  • [L0ST] L0ST
  • Member since:
    07-18-2015

View PostMephistopheles14, on Jul 26 2018 - 09:51, said:

La mejora del IS 6 será también para la version black

 

Personalmente, prefiero tener la opportunitad de usar varios camos.

shinglefoot #80 Posted Jul 26 2018 - 19:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 25063 battles
  • 3,484
  • Member since:
    02-07-2013

     Thanks Cabbage, that's great news.

Might have to shake the dust off a couple tanks tonite.:izmena:






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users