Jump to content


Why can't we have +/- 1 matchmaking?

match making

  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

iAmEbola #41 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 00:06

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 11754 battles
  • 6,724
  • Member since:
    02-06-2015

View Postdiego999, on Nov 08 2018 - 15:18, said:

Let's go to the extreme and say we get a +0MM.

 

Now imagine T67 padders. Or E-25s. Or Defenders.

 

+2 is fine. Just fix that stupid 3-5-7 crap.

 

Exactly.

 

I may be an odd duck, but I honestly don't have an issue with the 3/5/7 template.  So what if I'm bottom tier 60% of the time?  I really don't care.  More opportunities for me to acquire more XP by taking out higher tiered tanks.  More XP allows me to grind further, faster.  

 

I love underdog matches.  Always have, always will. 



NeatoMan #42 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 03:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 26202 battles
  • 17,985
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011
I really don't think it would make a difference, because there are many tanks that are so unbalanced for their tier that they will essentially still be plenty of +2 tier, and -2 tier tanks in every battle.  It will be +/-1 tier in name only

Pipinghot #43 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 03:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,845
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View Postpafman, on Nov 08 2018 - 12:36, said:

View PostPipinghot, on Nov 08 2018 - 16:33, said:

There are lots of answers floating around the forums, but the real reason is money.

 

Wargaming has stated (many times) over the years that the +/-2MM encourages people to spend money because it makes them want to progress up the tech tree faster. They've been saying this since the game first went live in 2011, but that hasn't stopped players from making up answers having to do with server population, time to make battles, and other stuff. This is a popular myth, but there is absolutely no relationship between the server population and the choice of +/-1 or +/-2 MM, it's entirely based on Wargaming's belief that the game makes more money with a +/-2 MM than it would with a +/-1 MM.

 

There are plenty of people on the NA server who argue that this isn't true, they're certain that +/-1 MM would make players happier and they'd spend more money, but of course they have no way of providing evidence of that point of view. The bottom line is that WG believes that +/-2 makes more money, so that's the system they use.

all the while server population keeps dropping. just a statement, i see no correlation......

NA has never been the most important server, WG makes a lot more money from RU, EU & China. If WG believed that they could increase profitability on those servers they would change to +/-1, but they are never going to make decisions based on the NA server. So even if there is a correlation, as you sarcastically hint, that doesn't meant it's a correlation that actually matters to WG. That's what happens when you play a game where your server is just barely moderately important.



VooDooKobra #44 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 04:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 8373 battles
  • 4,048
  • [MOVE] MOVE
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011

View Post_Resolute14_, on Nov 08 2018 - 09:35, said:

 

Exactly how long have you worked for Wargaming?

 

exactly how long have you been asuming anyone who disagrees with you is a WG employee? 

 

View PostiAmEbola, on Nov 08 2018 - 12:49, said:

 

And nobody but me sees this as a bad thing?  

 

i do see some potential issues with tightening up the MM

 

1.  Pref MM tanks, going to +/-1 would be like a backhanded removal of pref MM, WG would either have to go even tiers or come up with another way to compensate players for that nerf

2.  Premium tanks like the defender, the tighter you make the MM the more you would see these tanks.  there were people unhappy that the type64 turned into a beast when light MM went from 3 to 2. imagine it going to +/-1, imaging the leafblower at +/-1.  see a trend?  you have just made premium tanks more valuable and the game is now really pay2win



SpectreHD #45 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 05:20

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16592 battles
  • 16,800
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostCrypticshock, on Nov 09 2018 - 01:34, said:

In order to get the games to go +/-1 MM all regions would have to be in agreement. SEA/EU/NA/RU. Every tank would have to be rebalanced for it. It's a lot of work for something that may or may not work. You'd be better off creating WoT:2.

 

Considering tanks are balanced within their own tier already, I do not see a problem.

 

View Postdiego999, on Nov 09 2018 - 05:18, said:

Let's go to the extreme and say we get a +0MM.

 

Now imagine T67 padders. Or E-25s. Or Defenders.

 

+2 is fine. Just fix that stupid 3-5-7 crap.

 

So just 3 vehicles? Probably a handful others more.

 

For the T67, if it really is overperforming, just nerf it some more. Its DPM can go down some more. Rebalancing premium rounds would help. Same for the E-25s. It will be much harder to do well in it when it cannot spam premium ammo.

 

For the Defender, WG needs to reverse their decision to not nerf premium vehicles and just nerf it.

But what people don't realise is that -+1 MM is already in the game and those who argue against -+1 are disagreeing for no reason. But -+2 MM 3/5/7 happens far too often that people can't enjoy -+1. -+2 is fine. But it needs to be the spread that occurs the same amount as same tier and -+1 5/10 MM.



VooDooKobra #46 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 06:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 8373 battles
  • 4,048
  • [MOVE] MOVE
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011

View PostSpectreHD, on Nov 08 2018 - 21:20, said:

 

Considering tanks are balanced within their own tier already, I do not see a problem.

 

 

So just 3 vehicles? Probably a handful others more.

 

For the T67, if it really is overperforming, just nerf it some more. Its DPM can go down some more. Rebalancing premium rounds would help. Same for the E-25s. It will be much harder to do well in it when it cannot spam premium ammo.

 

For the Defender, WG needs to reverse their decision to not nerf premium vehicles and just nerf it.

But what people don't realise is that -+1 MM is already in the game and those who argue against -+1 are disagreeing for no reason. But -+2 MM 3/5/7 happens far too often that people can't enjoy -+1. -+2 is fine. But it needs to be the spread that occurs the same amount as same tier and -+1 5/10 MM.

 

if the reaction to removing pref MM as well as when they nerfed the superpershing i do not believe its at easy as reversing their decision.  you need to look at the legal aspects as well, ie consumer laws

SpectreHD #47 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 08:04

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16592 battles
  • 16,800
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostVooDooKobra, on Nov 09 2018 - 13:16, said:

 

if the reaction to removing pref MM as well as when they nerfed the superpershing i do not believe its at easy as reversing their decision.  you need to look at the legal aspects as well, ie consumer laws

 

Yeah, the community is one inhibiting factor towards balancing this game. I guess with the Super Pershing, there wasn't really anything wrong with it but they still proceeded to a change that resulted in it being nerfed even if it wasn't their intention as far as I am aware. But the community is also blind that buffing premium vehicles is also changing it. It is now no longer the same vehicle from when they purchase it but are still fine with the change. They cannot have it one way.

 

But in the case of the Defender, it is clearly overtuned and many do think it is overpowered. I personally feel the community would be more on board for nerfing it. The community must change its mentality that ultimately, balance should always take priority. What about the other customers that pay for premium accounts, boosters, and what not and have their gameplay ruined because of a overpowered vehicle. Shouldn't they also be protected with the same consumer laws? The game they play and even pay for is now no longer the same game.

 

This does bring into view how WG handles the selling of premium vehicles. They charge too much for them and don't put a disclaimer that they have the right to tuned such vehicles should they be too powerful.


Edited by SpectreHD, Nov 09 2018 - 08:07.


awildseaking #48 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 13:28

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 10913 battles
  • 760
  • [NEET] NEET
  • Member since:
    08-05-2015

View PostSwollenOstrich, on Nov 08 2018 - 09:57, said:

This topic has been covered over and over and over.

 

There are a number of reasons involving existing balance and server population and variety.

 

It isn't going to happen any time soon, but remember there is +-1 mm up to Tier 3.

 

Yeah because forced bottom tier +2 with templates sure does produce a lot of variety! Oh wait...

DEADTIME #49 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 13:43

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 10179 battles
  • 311
  • [CS7AO] CS7AO
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011
Because we can't have nice things, that's why. It upsets the purple whales who might not get to farm lower tiers for their blood. 

NeatoMan #50 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 16:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 26202 battles
  • 17,985
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostDEADTIME, on Nov 09 2018 - 07:43, said:

Because we can't have nice things, that's why. It upsets the purple whales who might not get to farm lower tiers for their blood. 

Purple players will still be purple regardless of the tier setup.



conan_the_tank #51 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 16:42

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 29336 battles
  • 260
  • Member since:
    11-21-2014

View PostTrauglodyte, on Nov 08 2018 - 21:13, said:

The problem isn't the template.  The problem has always been and will always be the powercreep of stats combined with the difference in the damage to health ratio.  If I'm in a tier 10 tank and I deal 500 damage per shot while I have 3000 health and I shoot a tier 8 tank that deals 350 damage per shot but only has 1600 health, even a DPM disparity in favor the of the -2 tank isn't going to stem the tide of death.  The -2 tier tank has to worry about lower pen against heavier armor while the +2 tank doesn't have to worry about anything because the +2 tier stats just overpower the -2 tier tank.

 

If health and DPM were equalized and the only difference was the inherent soft stats, pen, alpha, etc., you'd have a healthier game.  Putting in an 8 year old as an Offensive Lineman in an NFL game isn't balance.  Yet, that's what we have now.

 

+1

 

I've wondered about this, too.  Having different amounts of health for tanks (and tank classes) seems fundamentally unfair.  Why should a heavy tank have more health than a light tank?  It already has more armor and a bigger gun.  And why should a tier 9 tank have more health than a tier 8?  Again, the tier 9 is already better because it has better, well, everything.  Why does it need more health, too?

 

So, I've wondered if the game might not be better if health was somehow re-thought.

 



DrWho_ #52 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 16:49

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 14854 battles
  • 1,096
  • Member since:
    07-29-2017

View PostDEADTIME, on Nov 09 2018 - 13:43, said:

Because we can't have nice things, that's why. It upsets the purple whales who might not get to farm lower tiers for their blood. 

 

Statements like this makes no sense whatsoever. Long time purple players have probably unlocked every tank in the game they care to unlock ad if they haven't they have the skills to do so quickly without the need to spend gold or a premium account to help them along

 

They also most likely own all the premium tanks they want

 

This means that those players aren't a big source of income for WG so it makes very little financial sense to cater to them over other players who are more willing to open their wallets

 

Other than some PR value they probably bring I fail to see why WG would listen to them more than people like me from a financial pov, they do however know more about this game than I ever will so from that perspective they are far more valuable than me.



Zwinmar #53 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 17:18

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 16124 battles
  • 38
  • [80PRF] 80PRF
  • Member since:
    07-29-2011

Personally I think every premium should be researchable in the tech tree. Have them be a side grade: such as the IS6 off of the IS3. There is a big caveat however, that premium xp and credits, so, my proposal would be something like,

 

Historical Loadout: While using the historical loadout of  a tank you gain that premium bonus. For ex-premiums this would be that premium set up they have now, though they would have other modules available. If you used said additional modules then they would become a normal tank with normal tier spread and actually be balanced. For current tech tree tanks, designate a historical loadout for them if wished. 

 

The only question would be for the ability to take any crew of the same class, this I haven't thought on...maybe have it be the same with the historical loadout but with a different loadout have them untrained.



Mikosah #54 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 20:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 17582 battles
  • 4,026
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

Its really just a matter of how the meta works. In the current meta there's a lot of direct frontal engagements in corridors, lots of armor was buffed, and many weakspots reduced or outright removed. That being the case, a typical match in a typical tank is very dependent on exactly which tiers are in play to make the decision of whether or not gold rounds need to be spammed. Were the meta taken in a different direction, we wouldn't worry nearly as much about MM.

 

As of whether or not the current meta and MM in combination effectively solve the problem of making armor matter, the result is inconsistent. If bottom tier, then you're just as much up a creek as before, and you're going to be bottom tier more often. But if top tier, perhaps you will be presented the much coveted prize of being able to roll forward and do whatever you want, no matter how stupid it may be, with complete impunity.



AdmrHackett #55 Posted Nov 10 2018 - 06:37

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 1677 battles
  • 98
  • [B_T_T] B_T_T
  • Member since:
    10-21-2013

View PostSpruk, on Nov 08 2018 - 16:37, said:

I personally thought Frontline would return due to negative impact on premium tank sales.  With most tier 8's getting stuck as bottom tier one of the motivations to buy premiums was negatively impacted.  Frontline mode was born to sell premium tanks.

 

 

And sell them they did. I know I bought a couple and grinded a metric *** ton of credits. Loads of fun too.



_Steel_Casket_ #56 Posted Nov 10 2018 - 18:55

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 81327 battles
  • 677
  • [T_U_C] T_U_C
  • Member since:
    07-09-2012

That makes way to much sense. Or how about even MM. You pick a tier 6 to play you see nothing but 6's in that game and like wise with the other tiers.

 



Captain_Rownd #57 Posted Nov 10 2018 - 21:32

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 2557 battles
  • 1,033
  • Member since:
    09-28-2015

View PostYves9, on Nov 08 2018 - 05:07, said:

 

Thx, the need to sell premium ammo definitely makes sense

 

Huh?  They don't "sell" premium ammo.  It loads automagically in the garage. 

 



awildseaking #58 Posted Nov 11 2018 - 15:30

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 10913 battles
  • 760
  • [NEET] NEET
  • Member since:
    08-05-2015

View PostTrauglodyte, on Nov 08 2018 - 15:13, said:

The problem isn't the template.  The problem has always been and will always be the powercreep of stats combined with the difference in the damage to health ratio.  If I'm in a tier 10 tank and I deal 500 damage per shot while I have 3000 health and I shoot a tier 8 tank that deals 350 damage per shot but only has 1600 health, even a DPM disparity in favor the of the -2 tank isn't going to stem the tide of death.  The -2 tier tank has to worry about lower pen against heavier armor while the +2 tank doesn't have to worry about anything because the +2 tier stats just overpower the -2 tier tank.

 

If health and DPM were equalized and the only difference was the inherent soft stats, pen, alpha, etc., you'd have a healthier game.  Putting in an 8 year old as an Offensive Lineman in an NFL game isn't balance.  Yet, that's what we have now.

 

This is an extremely underrated and important point about tier disparities. Tiers really are just an arbitrary number. T8 could see T10 100% of the time and it wouldn't matter if T8 wasn't so weak against it.

 

Because penetration is all or nothing (there's no such thing as a half pen or an overpen), higher tier tanks are objectively superior almost all the time. They have the armor necessary to take forward positions and you don't. Or maybe you do have the armor, but you don't have the pen to deal with them. Or maybe you can do both, but they can press 2 and invalidate that. Then it comes down to HP, which you will always have less of. With the exception of high alpha shot traders being out of position and getting DPMed by something like a T-34-85, there's really no situation where you would want to be bottom tier.

 

Contrast this with WoWS, where bottom tier ships don't play any differently in most situations. With a few exceptions due to overmatch, damage and armor are consistent regardless of tier. Everyone can contribute, bottom tiers can carry, and in many situations, you may even be objectively superior to your top tier counterparts due to concealment, DPM, consumables, armor profile, etc. There are so many aspects that make up national flavor and balance that tier almost never factors into the equation.

 

I support universal buffs to all T1-8 tanks. T9-10 should remain the same or be nerfed slightly to reduce the power gap.



NeatoMan #59 Posted Nov 11 2018 - 17:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 26202 battles
  • 17,985
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View Postawildseaking, on Nov 11 2018 - 09:30, said:

This is an extremely underrated and important point about tier disparities. Tiers really are just an arbitrary number. T8 could see T10 100% of the time and it wouldn't matter if T8 wasn't so weak against it.

~~~~snip~~~

I support universal buffs to all T1-8 tanks. T9-10 should remain the same or be nerfed slightly to reduce the power gap.

Since WG seems loathe to nerf premium tanks, then you are right, they need to buff all standard tanks.  However, I'm doubtful they'd ever get it right. 

 

The problem lies squarely on the release of OP premium tanks that had to compete against newer, power creeped tier 9s and tier 10s.   They released a slew of really crappy premium tanks that nobody bought and then went overboard in the other direction; mainly because of the newer tier 9s and 10s from the expanded tech trees.(remember when we had 3 heavy tanks as the only tier 10s in game?).

 

We have a set of tanks designed to compete at tiers 1-8, and a different set of tanks designed to compete at tiers 8-10.   Where they overlap causes the most trouble. 



VooDooKobra #60 Posted Nov 11 2018 - 20:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 8373 battles
  • 4,048
  • [MOVE] MOVE
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011

View PostNeatoMan, on Nov 11 2018 - 09:26, said:

Since WG seems loathe to nerf premium tanks, then you are right, they need to buff all standard tanks.  However, I'm doubtful they'd ever get it right. 

 

The problem lies squarely on the release of OP premium tanks that had to compete against newer, power creeped tier 9s and tier 10s.   They released a slew of really crappy premium tanks that nobody bought and then went overboard in the other direction; mainly because of the newer tier 9s and 10s from the expanded tech trees.(remember when we had 3 heavy tanks as the only tier 10s in game?).

 

We have a set of tanks designed to compete at tiers 1-8, and a different set of tanks designed to compete at tiers 8-10.   Where they overlap causes the most trouble. 

 

i do not believe it is as much loathe as much ad the player base would throw a hissy fit and cite consumer laws if they tried to change premium tanks in any way but buff.    the SP fasco showed at one time they were willing to nerf premium tanks but the backlash ended that, then add to it the uproar about removing prem MM.   





Also tagged with match making

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users