Purpose of this blog

Dmitry Yudo aka Overlord, jack of all trades
David Lister aka Listy, Freelancer and Volunteer

Friday, November 8, 2013

[ALL] Matchmaking

What do you think of the current matchmaking in both World of Tanks and World of Warplanes?
Is there anything about it that you don't really like?

How do you like the idea of economic incentives for "underdogs"?

  • individual underdogs (eg tier 8 in tier 10 battle) getting bigger exp bonus for fighting higher tiers, the bigger the tier gap, the bigger the reward. The system is currently in place, however rewards can be bigger. 
  • team underdogs (based on comparison of overall balance weights of all tanks in the two teams) getting some exp bonus for being slightly disadvantaged, eg team that has 1% lower overall weight gets 5% bonus exp regardless of the battle outcome

207 comments:

  1. Controversially I think the MM is okay. Sometimes you get good teams, sometimes bad. Sometimes you're top, sometimes not. Sometimes you dominate, sometimes you don't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah.. Just like you would play roulette and bet only black or red

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. I'm agree with that. I prefer playing a game with a fair MM rather than a roulette one.

      Delete
  2. I still do not like the tierspread. It's okay for a tds,arties and lights to play against higher tiers since their taktiks still work, even though they might be less effective. But for heavies it's absolutely horrible to end up as low- or midtier. Of course they still can do some damage but it's impossible to play them like a heavy and actually lead an attack, break through enemy lines or just soak up some shells.
    In wowp it's even worse. There's just no way how you could win against a similar skilled player in a higher tier plane. I know that you need easy kills for the noobs so they don't give up but it's just no fun to play for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think we really should tighten the spreads to 2 tiers in WoT, this is a huge progression incentive.

      Delete
    2. Maybe for new players, but after some time playing, it should become obvious to all that getting higher tier tanks does not give you a better chance of having a good game. Only tier 10 gives any guarantee of being top tier and even then so many games are hopelessly unbalance that that does't help much.

      Delete
    3. being a stock tank in a battle with full tier spread (ex a tier 8 in tier 10 battles) is dreadfull

      a wile back, WG came with the idea that for the 1st 10 battles a tank doesn't have it's full battle tier spread - why not fully implement it?!

      Delete
    4. Heavy tank MM is *definitely* more problematic than for mediums or TDs. You can "support", which is a nice way of saying you can "not at all do what you're designed to do or want to do".

      I don't know that the answer to the problem is a more limited tier spread, but I do know that the problem exists.

      Delete
    5. Anyone whining about tier spread havent played wot long enough to have enjoyed trying to defeat a Maus in a tier 3!

      Delete
    6. Unknown,

      yup, things used to be worse.

      zMe_ul,

      this can be useful, tho doesn't solve all the problems.

      Delete
    7. > a wile back, WG came with the idea that for the 1st 10 battles a tank doesn't have it's full battle tier spread - why not fully implement it?!

      Because it sucked. You'd be top tier in a stock tank and almost invariably fight fully upgraded counterparts on the other team. It made being un-upgraded an even bigger liability than it usually is, since you were guaranteed to be top of the match.

      Delete
    8. that gives you a hell better chance to fight your own tier than fighting tanks 2 tier higher

      it doesn't solve the issue, but it hell does alleviate it

      Delete
  3. Currently the only gripe I'm having with the matchmaker is playing AMX 13 90. Getting put in with matches with 13-14 T10s and me isn't that fun in the long run... not in the short urn either. Sure some times you can scout, often that results in a JPZE100 shot later back to hangar...
    I sometimes can get better matchmaking when not playing late evenings, but overall, this grind to lorr sucks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clearly, light tank MM should go by the tier of the light tank. They fixed the tiering of SPGs; they should fix it for lights.

      Not a week goes by without being in a game with an utterly confused tier 4 light in a tier 9 game. That is clearly broken.

      Delete
  4. It depends. The matchmaker is mostly fine in tier spread at the moment. Some tanks however stand no chance if they're bottom of the tier spread. Black Prince or Comet are two good examples.
    Conversly a KV-2 or a KV-1S at the bottom of the tier spread are not going to suffer.

    Here's an idea, that jsut came to mind, so its not thought out properly. How about tier spread based upon what gun you have? That way it helps with the stock grind, and if you're in your T18 or KV-1S then get ready for some tough matchmaking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We already tried to account for modules in the early days - it didn't work out.

      Delete
    2. Too bad it didn't work out. Especially for tanks with light guns as their best gun.

      Delete
  5. Overall, I believe the matchmaker in World of Tanks is okay. I have no huge issues with it. Or rather, it is good as it gets. But as for the two "buff" proposals:

    First one is okay I guess, but kinda superfluous: I think current rewards are fine. It could potentially bring more "heat" on hightier targets, which is not something that should be encouraged: in an average mind, "if I shoot the bigger enemy I will get more reward" could statistically cause them to target specific players (or, in worse case, to target hightier players even without having any chance of damaging them, like a T-44 shooting Maus in the front, because a bad player thinks he'll get more rewards that way). As I wrote, I find the whole concept of shifting target priorities problematic.

    The second is a terrible idea in my opinion, because it is not comprehensible. Apart from semi-legal sources like gamemodels3d, players do not officially have access to MM weights. That means that since there is a 10 percent difference between team MM weights allowed by the matchmaker, in your proposition, one team (the alleged "underdog") could get ridiculous undeserved bonuses (1 percent difference = 5 percent income bonus, so 10 percent difference means 50 percent income bonus?).

    Even toned down, this will produce uncomprehensible results and questions such as: "I did 1000 damage, got 10 thousand credits, that guy in the other team did 1000 damage too, why did he get 12 thousand?!" - I don't believe we need any more strange formulas with secret elements (official MM weight is secret) to make the earning estimates even more unpredictable. Plus, the whole idea of MM weights is not ideal either: some players might view MM differences between vehicles of the same tier as arbitrary, because they don't comprehend (noone does apart the guy who do it I guess) the entire balancing process that led to its MM weight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I 100% agree on the second point. Basing hidden numbers off of other hidden numbers communicates the wrong message. So much of the game is hidden that it reinforces random player behavior. If players know *exactly* why they are being rewarded for things, they will shape their behavior accordingly. Hiding information and hiding formulas just tells people that 20% of XP and credits are BS randomness, which I hope is the opposite of what WG wants players to think.

      Delete
    2. Frank Davis,

      I was thinking only of exp bonuses, and figures where taken out of the blue - definitely this would have to be properly balanced and communicated to players in post-battle stats.

      Delete
    3. Overlord, I don't think you actually CAN properly communicate it and communication will become your major issue. Since the MM weights are a) arbitrary and b) kept officially secret, you will only shift the question focus from "why the hell did he get more XP than me" to "why the hell is his team considered weaker".

      To give you an example: according to the semi-official MM weight table released for patch 8.6, tier 7 medium tanks have 27 MM weight, yet Comet and VK3002D have 32,5 MM weight. This decision has probably some sense when you consider the entire balancing mechanism, but for a person that has no MM weight considerations knowledge, a team consisting of only tier 7's such as T-43 (or even Panther) has 20 percent (!) less MM weight than a team consisting of Comets - yet both are tier 7 mediums. I have no idea, how you would explain to players that just because you had a few Comets on your team while the other team had Panthers, you are getting less XP, because the other team was "weaker" based on a number most will percieve as arbitrary.

      That's a recipe for confusion and for another wave of "why is this MM such and such" whining. There is no way to explain it without disclosing WHY the MM weights are the way they are.

      Delete
    4. Yeah, you can't reward the underdogs without eventually having to justify why the MM creates underdogs at all.

      Not to mention that calculating underdog-ness solely by team MM weight is laughably worthless. It would be so inaccurate that it'd just be more randomness in the already overly random rewards system.

      Delete
    5. I honestly don't believe the MM is unbalanced because of the weight difference, but rather player skill. If I would change anything about the MM formula, it would be to include individual player skill, because in way too many high tier battles, all the "noobs" appear to be on one team. Ofcourse that works both ways, you might get lucky when they are on the enemy team, but either way a 15-0 game isn't very much fun even if you are on the winning side...

      Delete
    6. Are you sure the "MM" really has anything to do with unfair games? I think it's actually manipulated by WG and players who in one way or another connected to WG, like players intetionaly losing for their "friends" or trolling specific players, usually using alt accounts. There is no honor and fairness in this game despite the way you are led to believe. Working as intended.

      Overlord please tell your "professionals" not to troll ordinary players who want to play this game to supposedly relax.

      Delete
  6. While most of the time random battles are ok, the weight spread might need to be tightened up. How does the matchmaker build the teams? does it build one team then try to match its weight or does it take 30 players and try to even them out? I've seen a few battles, where just swaping one or 2 tanks between teams would have made a better match.

    Also, the new team battle mode might need some love: http://i.imgur.com/SZZXA1Z.jpg
    I guess we got stuck in the que so long it just kicked out the next team. At least it was over quick.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MMker tries to find first 30 tanks that can participate in the same battle and then form teams out of them ensuring particular balance weight difference.

      In team battles, teams are balanced only using efficiency rating, vehicles don't count.

      Delete
  7. I think mm is ok overall, except that It creates strange loss and winstreaks all the time. I have mamy days with wr 80% and 30%. It makes around 50% overall, but why it is not 50-55% everyday? I think players and maps are not properly mixed in queue. It is common we get only good/bad teams, we are top/bottom tier whole day, or fight only 5 maps whole day. F.x. I played only once on new map from 8.9 update! / 200+ battles/ bad maps rotation is extremely annoying for me. I think tier 6 scouts should get a buff or max 9 tier battles, maybe all lower tier scouts should get +3 MM as well.(or a little buff)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @why it is not 50-55% everyday@

      Random battles!

      Delete
    2. Nonetheless, WoT does precious little to eliminate streaks. If one session of play is so statistically insignificant that almost anything can happen, that's a game fault. It's not a player fault nor is it a design decision. The game's just broken.

      Just saying "random" does not justify it. You can have the same amount of random ranges in the game but converge on averages faster. You just don't. Each random event is unrelated to all other random events. The game makes little to no effort to craft a compelling experience for you in this regard. It simply throws everything together hundreds of thousands of times. While this averages out to decent numbers, it takes too long.

      Delete
    3. This is how the system works - good & bad at the same time.

      Delete
    4. Inane_Dork: It's called statistics and the good players show after certain number of plays. You need a certain (not small, btw) number of plays to show a level of player in pretty much ANY game / game ranking. Even for Chess you need quite a lot of matches to get your ELO up, even if you are a good player. AND that's a simple 1vs1 game with no side influences.

      Eliminating streaks is a bad thing, really. Draws everyone towards the middle too much in the first place.

      I have a tip for you: If you have a bad streak, change vehicle. Or stop playing and play later. Helps most of the time.

      Delete
    5. This is the usual reply of bullshit WoT mafia. I know some players who don't even know the basics yet they have better win rate. I have observed these so called unicoms just camp all the time and rely on their teammates to spot and, even more, rely on their "friends" in the enemy team to lose for them! Why don't you just admit this game is about popularity and not about luck.

      Delete
  8. The only way this could happen is if you banned troll platoons. Honestly, it's bad enough they're used to rig contests - imagine if there was an incentive to bring them into random battles! I don't understand why they're not blocked in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That MM should also try to separate players from the same IP address as much as possible. Have you observed many times when there is a "popular" clan in one team and your team has several afk's, team killers/damagers, a fail platoon or platoona mates killing each other? These low life greedy assholes even manipulate random games.

      Delete
  9. I think a more reasonable change in rewards is to compensate bad luck. That is, the game picks your team, your enemies, your map, your pen, your damage and your accuracy. There's a tremendous capability to get screwed over by randomness in those things because the game barely tries to converge on average behavior.

    Getting a dumb team or always rolling low on pen are their own punishments as those battles are not fun. Why should I *further* be punished with low XP and credits? That's double punishment for things completely beyond my control. All that tells players is that rewards are only loosely associated with their actions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Carry harder. It's equaled by as many games where you are placed as a top against those sad underdogs in the long run. Why should you always get the better team? Would everyone get a better team? What would the bad players do? How do you even recognize a bad team? Etc.

      More drawbacks than pluses, really.

      Delete
    2. Another BS response by a pedo fan club member. I wonder how many times have you targeted innocent players with your alt accounts you sick piece of shit! Carry harder? I'd like to see a really good player like you carry 1 vs 29, and no don't even say it goes 50/50 both ways, those odds are dictated by assholes like you who gets to win or lose.

      Delete
    3. Interesting approach, to start throwing insults at someone you don't know.

      1) You sure do know how I play, dear sir. I have only one game account and I am actually quite aggressive player (sometimes meaning I die way too early, though), even when playing mostly TDs and lights.

      2) Carrying 1 vs 29 is a piece of crap. Do you need to kill your 14 teammates? I didn't think so. Being alone against 5+ enemies? No problem, still managed to win 4 times (and two of those were actually killing those guys). Mostly because I didn't waste my time by spewing insults at my incompetent team and continued to play.

      3) It goes 50/50 both ways. I suppose my 53,5% WR (without platoons and such - I am mostly solo player) can't be that much random after 8+k games.

      But keep telling the world that your 49% WR is because of MM bias. It will make you feel better ;3

      Delete
  10. One thing I would really like to see in the random battle MM is Monotier. In it, the MM randomly picks a tier and makes a 7 on 7 battle with only tanks in that tier. Monotier should show up as often as Encounter or Assault. Fewer tanks mean different tactics, and everyone being the same tier levels the playing field quite a bit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except for making it 7 vs 7, I would make it 10 vs 10, but the idea is not bad.

      Delete
  11. I think matchmaking is all in all okay when we look back from where it came, but in the end (and i advocate this since years) the fairest and best thing would be only 1 tier difference.
    Then you dont need any incentives.

    Same for WoWp.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe, it's more likely that we try it in WoWP first.

      Delete
    2. I hope it will be tried then, since i will test that too.
      And maybe if WG likes it, because people like it (and thats for sure), it may come some day.

      Sincerely i have to say that one big reason i think this isnt implemented now, is for economic reasons. Much less gold ammo would be bought, and if you dont need much credits for ammo in the game, maybe less premium will be bought too.

      If this is the case, i think with coming titles (dont know if this will change with WoWp), but atleast when we have WoWs and maybe even Generals, unified accounts can negate the effect to some extend.

      Delete
    3. No, definitely no to only tier I spread.

      It brings some extra spice to sometimes be screwed and sometimes screw others with 2 tiers better tank.
      However, it would be fine if matchmaking would try to pick sometimes 1 tier difference battle and sometimes normal 2 tier difference. Extra spice is good but you don't have to get only the spice :D

      What I would love to see would be:

      1 eliminating streaks of playing on the same map. If i will die in a battle in tank A on map B, i will go pay another with diffeerent tank, then I will see I lost the battle with tank A and play another, then most likely it will be played on map B again. Why?

      2. removing rules about artillery in matchmaking. Since after artillery rebalance arty is supposed to be worth similar like other tanks of the same tier then let's drop "same amount of arties per side" rule. Let's have battles with 3 arties on one side and let's see what happens. There will be much less monotony in the battles.
      True there will be a lot of quick wipes (3 vs 0 arties on himmelsdorf or ensk) - but finally the win ratio of arty as a class will not be fixed and everlasting debate about arty will finally have some decent answer :D

      Delete
    4. 1. That relates to the way maps/arenas are implemented on the server. It can be changed, though quite difficult.

      2. What artillery rules do you mean? There is no cap

      Delete
  12. Light tank matchmaking no longer makes sense. T4 scouts don't need to exist now that there are T8 light tanks.

    Frank is right about the underwieghted team xp bonus. WG won't tell us what the weights are anyway so it'd just be a random multiplier from the player's perspective.


    WoWP matchmaking really needs to be tightened. Air combat is much rougher on new players than tanks. The other issue is that there is nowhere to hide, that higher tier plane that is faster and more manuverable just beats you. This is especially apparant when you are playing a heavy fighter at the bottom tier. You rely on a speed advantage but higher tier light fighters are faster so you're pretty much left hoping to be ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Lowering the tier spread for all tanks/tiers isnt a good idea - it would get boring in the long run. The +/-2 is ok overall, as long as the matchmaker is working right.

    The only problematic thing atm from my point of view are t8 heavies, meds and lights when the end up in games where ~50+% of the other tanks are t10. They are totally useless there beside the role as free xp for the enemy. T10 meds eat t8 lights/meds for breakfast, and t8 heavies are just everyones nigger.

    Keep the +/-2 thing - but ensure that the team list is build like a pyramid that is standing on a broad base and not on its peak --- the later sadly happens to often.

    There is no sense in a XP bonus for t8s when the rest of the team is full of t10 - getting 350 instead of 300 base XP doesnt make it more enjoyable. Still wasted time - suicide rushing and making some spots (spotting damage) brings u the same now with less effort.


    Imo the whole XP/Credit system needs a complete overhall, where income in both cases is directly proportional to performance +a small base income far active participation. That will be a huge incentive and will solve the problem of idle/afk and leechers, and most bots will also suffer.
    Why should I put any effort into a game when I see someone with 1500 dmg in t10 hvy getting 75% of the XP of the 4000 t10 hvy player?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I feel he has a point - even if there are XP incentives for damaging higher tier enemies, if the vast majority of both teams are both Tier 9 and 10, it still simply won't be fun for the Tier 8 player. That's what it really boils down to I believe. Fun. The matchmaker needs more work in this regard to build more balanced teams. In this example, the few bottom of the pile Tier 8's should just have been tossed out into another match, with Tier 9's and 10's put in to fill in the new gaps. Naturally, this can also go for any other spread of Tiers as well - being one of two or four Tier 6 tanks in a match consisting of mostly 7's and 8's is typically just as bad in terms of enjoyability.

      So what if there's two Tier 8's per team when the bulk is made up of 9's and 10's? So what if there's even more XP for hurting highr tiered opponents? It's not fun in cases like this at all, when fun is the whole point of the game. Though there are very rare exceptions, these are generally just a waste of time.

      Right now, according to a previous post from Overlord, the MM takes 30 and tries to balance them into two teams - why not give it a few extra seconds where it attempts to see if there's players in the que better suited for the match to build an improved set of teams?

      Delete
    2. T4 5 and 6 get hammered as well. But its not a matchmaking thing. The problem is that hp and damage have weird jumps. T5 to T7 is a much bigger jump than T8 to T10 for example. If they fixed that and damage scaling for the same reason it'd be fine.


      Unrelated, damage scaling totally needs to be redone. WG says the Sturmtiger is next year, that can't go live with a 380mm if they use the current scaling, it'd one shot T10 heavies with a non-penning HE shell.

      Delete
    3. Oh man.

      To say +/- 1 shouldnt be made because the matches would get boring is such a stale and flawed argument. As example, if you take a tier 9 tank, you would have 99 different tanks in a +/- 1 tierspread. So what the heck!? Surely 1 tier difference is enough to be diverse gameplay wise.

      Delete
    4. @Folterknecth - Do you like +/-2 tier spread?. Then I offer you a 1vs1 battle (10 actully) streamed live. You can chose from the following:
      - You in Tiger I, I am in E75
      - You in Black Prince, I am in IS8
      - You in Tiger II, I am in IS7
      - You in T29, I am in ..whatever tier9 ... let's say Tortoise

      You need lower tier example? Sure not an issue:
      - You in M4 Shemran, I am in a Tiger I
      - You in Pz.II, I am in Pz. III.

      Which one will you chose and which 1vs1 will you win?! (You will lose all the time!)
      I just listed "only" 6 reasons why we need +/-1 tier MM rather than +/-2.

      I hope everyone can see my and Silberfalke's point of view and why we are right about this.

      Delete
    5. This game is NOT one on one, but 15 vs. 15. Someone has to be weaker. And if you are weaker and you hold a higher tier enemy off for some time, you make your team win.

      Delete
    6. No, this is not true. If you are lower tier and hold a higher tier enemy means you just delay the happenings. You do nothing else -you migth do some damage. This random battles are about 15vs15 random players. But you cannot tell me, that when you are exchaning fire with another 1 or 2tank(s) then it is 15v15. 15 is just the limit of the players participating in the actual battle. What you should / have to understand that the outcome of the battles are made from the outcome of several 1v1 or 1v2 "little-encounters" during a specific battle. Enemy-enemy pair will live longer in these encounters if they have less tier diference than 2 and that is what matters.

      We would like to get the game skill-based not tier-diference-based. Closer your tier is to the enemy, the more interesting and challanging the encounter will be for everyone.
      - If you are sitting in the +1 tier then you have the chance to get killed more easily
      - If you are sitting in the -1 tier you have more chance to score a kill
      Based on this, the game would become less pup-stomping on Tier 6+ and would become more skill based.

      Delete
    7. "Someone has to be weaker." - True.
      "And if you are weaker and you hold a higher tier enemy off for some time" - True.

      "you make your team win." - Not true! Just by holding off the attack of higher tier players, you can only delay the outcome of the battle. That is not a guarantee either for win or loss.

      Delete
    8. @Sandor:

      How about using that thing between your ears - if you have one? I never wrote that starting a 1vs1 with a tank 2 higher is what I m after. My job as a t8 hvy in t10 match isnt to start a frontal shotout with t10 heavies, but to be a pain the ass of the enemy team. That ofc requires some brain and skill, something increasingly rare among the WoT playerbase.

      But morons and little whine boys like u is what ruins this game to a large extend: "Arti OP - WG nerf it" and you donkeys cry, moan and bitch until Serb and Storm have enough of it and you get your wish. The argument that TD will be totally overpowered was ignored and laughed at ... now you got your wish and the predicted consequences came true. The whining, moaning and bitching has already started again " TD OP - NERF!!!"

      Just piss off you brain fart. Go back to the WoT forums and join your peers.

      Mines played from H1/2 with a t7 hvy in t9 match

      http://wotreplays.com/site/264657#team

      Delete
    9. Abbey - t8 french hvy in t10 match

      http://youtu.be/szNpxNpbNOI

      Delete
    10. I just feel sorry for you. An intelligent person could defend his point of view without getting all-personal and saying sutch things to another person:

      "But morons and little whine boys like u";
      "and you donkeys cry, moan and bitch" and
      "Just piss off you brain fart."

      The style and tone of the lines above only describes your intellectual level, your anger management issues and that you cannot tolerate on any level if anyone makes some sense in their argument and/or their opinion is different than yours.

      I feel sorry when I see, that people with the intellectual level of yours are allowed to play this enjoyable game. Based on your behaviour above, you definiately belong to the group who gets killed then cries and spams the ingame chat for "justice".

      Have a nice day!

      Delete
    11. You can do linguistic acrobatics all day long, the point still stands that +/-2 is perfectly fine as long as the team resembles a pyramid standig on a broad base. All you dimwitted little brain fart come up with is a retarded argument about 1vs1 between tanks with a 2 tier difference nobody was talking about in the first place.

      And if you lower it to +/-1 1vs1 doesnt change a thing compared to +/-2 --- lower tier tank will still lose. Only result will be that braindead donkeys like you will start bitching and whining within ~2 months that +/-1 is unfair and only tanks of the same tier should fight each other.

      That excactly shows that you belong to all the other potatos crawling in the mud called "general-discussion" in the official forums.

      Delete
    12. @ Folterknecht - Just as I said. Kid, you have anger management issues:
      "All you dimwitted little brain fart"
      "braindead donkeys like you"

      "And if you lower it to +/-1 1vs1 doesnt change a thing compared to +/-2 --- lower tier tank will still lose."
      A lower tier never win against +1 tier enemy?? LOL! Sorry, if you believe this, then YOU suck at this game not me. Example: Ferdinand/ISU-152 will never kill Conqueror/M103?? You just proved my point. You dont know what your are talking about.

      Delete
    13. I see you are retarded as I assumed. You cant even decide what your argument is based up on.

      First you come up with 1vs1 while I was talking about 15vs15 random battles. Now you suddenly switch sides and claim lower tier tanks can suddenly kill higher tier tanks.

      Maybe you should first get to a final conclusion what your argument/opinion is or is it the special time of the month again, when it is a little harder to decide what you want.

      Gameplay tip: track turretless TDs - usually game over for TD.

      Now take a few minutes and decide what u want to argue about: 15vs15 or 1vs1 which no one really cares about outside of ESL.

      And yes 1vs1 lower tier tank will lose usually with equally skilled players playing tanks of the same class ... what a suprise.

      Delete
    14. You were the one, who brought up the topic about lower vs hight tier:
      ///////////
      FolterknechtNovember 11, 2013 at 5:05 PM
      ...And if you lower it to +/-1 1vs1 doesnt change a thing compared to +/-2 --- lower tier tank will still lose...
      ///////////
      I just reacted to your "reasoning". I did not changed any topic and my Aim is still to get the game more skill based with +/-1 tier games.

      If you say I am reatarded in every reply of yours, then i have to ask: Has anyone washed your mouth with soap because you saying things like this?
      - "you dimwitted little brain fart" and
      - "and you donkeys cry, moan and bitch"

      @Overlord - Please do something against commeters like this. All he does is just bringing this quality of this site down with his brainless and disgusting comments.

      Delete
    15. "What do you think of the current matchmaking in both World of Tanks and World of Warplanes?
      Is there anything about it that you don't really like?

      How do you like the idea of economic incentives for "underdogs"?

      individual underdogs (eg tier 8 in tier 10 battle) getting bigger exp bonus for fighting higher tiers, the bigger the tier gap, the bigger the reward. The system is currently in place, however rewards can be bigger.
      team underdogs (based on comparison of overall balance weights of all tanks in the two teams) getting some exp bonus for being slightly disadvantaged, eg team that has 1% lower overall weight gets 5% bonus exp regardless of the battle outcome"


      @Sandor - Alzheimer?

      And btw skill based MM by +/-1 - what BS comes next? Aside from the fact that skill based MM in the current environment is nothing more than a punishement for good players and the biggest possible crutch for noobs.

      Delete
    16. Lets stop calling the other by names, and continue this on a normal manner please!

      Do you know that the current MM is not a "skill based" MM? It is tier based !!
      That is the cause of the "punishment" that your are talking about...

      It does not care whether you are "red" or "green" it only counts your in-game tier.
      You should know this.

      Silberfalke/My idea would eliminate some of this punishment by narrowing down the range (tier) - from 2 to1 - from which you can get "red" (noob) teammates.

      Less weaker (lower tier) 'red' players = more good battles.
      Low tier and 'red' player is the worst combination.
      If a bad player is not -2tier, but -1tier than the average in that battle, then he has more chance to penetrate and damage - as I see.

      Delete
  14. I do like your idea, altough I would do a twist in it. This bonus should be dinamic, like wot registers that there are 2 AFK in your team you got the bonus like you had a team member with (AFK)/2 tier level(since an AFK tank can spot).
    So in an only tier 8 match(15 * T8 VS 15 * T8) your team has an afk from the beginning to the end, then your team would look like this([14 * T8 + 1 * T4] VS 15 * T8) and you get a bonus after the AFK.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WoT game will never register that there are afkers in your game. You expect this in a game where you "report" bot players and they are still able play with the same account a week after the report?

      Delete
    2. I believe that WOT is capable of progression. So I give them ideas. They might help WG to evolve the game. Nagging about the MM or your bad team is not really useful. Just makes you look like a grumpy old lady.

      Delete
    3. @Blicc Sorry my friend, you are wrong again. This is a topic "how to improve MM? - we need your ideas!" . An I just gave an idea with the +/-1 tier - and if you check, then you see that it was supported by many bloggers here.

      Delete
  15. I would have several questions here Overlord, I try to ask them the least offensive way - I promise:

    1st - If im in a tier6 - lets say Hellcat, KV-1S - and there are 1000+ players waiting in line for a battle from tier6, then why is the system makes me wait 1-1.5 battle just to get in to a tier8 battle, while I could be in the same tier as my tank (tier6)?

    2nd - Let us use XVM just for reference here (commonly used) - If the efficiency rating involved in 7v7, why can't it be involved in the matchamking of 15v15? - "Random" should mean random maps, random battle modes, and random players to a degree where either of the teams are udnerdogs, right?

    3rd - If you are lucky (and you might preforming good as well) in a row then you get to the bottom of the 15, while in the same battle you have highter tiers on the top of the 15 as they had battles ended badly for them. This system does not counts played battles on a specific tank at all.
    For example: I win a battle with E75 then with Centurion 7/1, then immediately I count as better player and when I would like to use my Conqueror as 3rd tank for the day, then I end up in a tier10 battle, where 80% of the tanks are tier 10. - Why there is no seperate win/loss counters for each and every tank? Why is my Sherman matchmaking affected by my battles with my ... for example, E75?

    4th - I migh have missed the point when Löwe and T34 was demoted from preferable matchmaking. - Why should anyone buy T34 and Löwe, if the have to go against tier9 and 10 and making less profit than with (almost) any other tier 6-7 tanks?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. correction - "then why is the system makes me wait 1-1.5 MINUTE just to get in to a tier8 battle"

      Delete
    2. Overlord - 5th and last question - ist there a chance that MM would go with +1/-1 tiers instead of +2/-2?- or in case the MM would not find team for 1 min then it would jump from +/-1 to +/-2 tier?

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. 1. It picks opponents randomly at the same time for multiple battles. Both tier 6 and tier 8 battles can happen in the given example.

      2. Because in random battles vehicles are balanced, not skill or efficiency.

      3. Totally random and bad luck. No conspiracy. Sometimes I get 10+ winning streaks, sometimes lose 5+ battles in a row.

      4. Stats doesn't register any significant credit income disparity in such cases, while exp earnings are even higher.

      Delete
    5. 5. I'd say that there is a higher chance that this can be tried in WoWP.

      Delete
    6. I find the 5th point of Sandor to be very valid. It happens quite often, that MM somehow makes people wait in line to get in insanely imbalanced games whereas there is a multitude of same tier players waiting for a game. For mo it feels like, that a +2/-2 MM is preferred by WG compared to the reality of given player numbers in the respective tiers.
      Is it a bad thing to not effectively force people into OP or GTFO roles?
      The suggestion of Sandor sounds valid, it would put a balancing factor into MM, it would help experienced Players to balance out Noobs, or AFK-s. And since AFK/Bot players are not actively penalized by the game, it would help a lot. Example: +2/-2 game: if a top tier is AFK, the game is horribly lopsided. +1/-1 game: 1 top tier does not make that much of a difference.

      The safety to switch to +2/-2 after a period of time has passed would still represent variety in tanks, and work as a solution to limit waiting time.

      Question: Why try it first in WoWP? Wouldn't it be possible to put a test server live with this, to check the viability? I understand that an open beta game' community is more understanding regarding MM changes, but a test server could help you check the concept for this game, for which Sandor has actually suggested this solution.

      Delete
    7. @Sandor Nagy: 5. I like +-2 tier spread. It's not that hard to do something useful with a T6 med in a T8 battle, yet it's very pleasing to kill a T4 by ramming in it. I don't want the spread to be +-1, it's not really challanging.

      Delete
    8. Its not really challenging?
      Well shouldnt the player skill be the challenge, and not the underpowerdness of the tank? I think many people dont want to be imposed by these big differences between tanks.

      If you play hightier games, i think there are enough good players, you can match yourself with. Hard to believe you dont find a challenge in tier 8+ games.

      Delete
    9. @Blicc or anyone else - you like +/-2 tier spread?. Then I offer you a 1vs1 battle which happen every day in random battles? You can chose from the following:
      - You in Tiger I, I am in E75
      - You in Black Prince, I am in IS8
      - You in Tiger II, I am in IS7
      - You in T29, I am in ..whatever tier9 ... let's say Tortoise

      Which one will you chose and which 1vs1 will you win?!
      I just listed "only" 4 reason why we need +/-1 tier MM rather than +/-2.

      Delete
    10. @Sandor Nagy

      Depends on the terrain, the map, my gun, your gun, ammunation. And here comes the players skill, experience. For example a Black prince can hold up 3-4 enemy t9 heavies in Ensk is if its well positioned, and the opposing team is bad enough. (happened before). Of course you won't win a head on situation, but hey you may track the enemy for the arty. In the old days me and my brother kept a Maus tracked for 10 mins with Tigers.

      Delete
    11. @Blicc
      I hope you are not serious... Black Prince against even a single tier9 is useless. No point making up stories. Literally no tier9 user is so dumb to not to rush on BP, not to talk about when they have backup. ... and ofc. 10 mins. I can make up stories as well but I will not.

      You cannot always count on your team mates. Only in case you only play this game when you platooned up - said truth is everyone is saving their on rear when a 2 tier higher tank/td attacks. IS7//IS4//T110E3/4 turning on you and your teammate from a corner, he/she will kill you 1by1 and will not give a crap about the other tier8 next to you, even if he/she tracked or not.

      *********
      My point is that you rarely meet enemy from the same level in a random battle in front of you. Still my point stays that any tier8 (Tiger II, Caern, IS3,..ect.) has chance neither against T110E3/4 nor agains any other tier 10. The issue is not killing the 2 tier lower tanks but higher ones - not engough pen / hp to survive an engagement / longer fire-exchange. That is why limiting tier diference to +/-1 is the best idea ever. (Credit to Silberfalke)
      *********

      Delete
    12. Ensk: F3 in the corner of the building try it! And it was in the first british patch.

      Delete
    13. @ Overlord - Can i ask for an explanation regarding your statement "5. I'd say that there is a higher chance that this can be tried in WoWP. " As Péter Bartyik mentioned Test server is for .. well .. testing ideas like this.
      - Might I know what is the reason it higher chance to be implemented in WoP rather than Wot test servers (for starters) ?

      Many thanks in advance for your detailed response!

      Delete
    14. Based on the current situation in WoT, we don't think that narrowing tier spreads in MMing would be beneficial for the game in the long run - which ofc doesn't mean that we consider the existing MMing perfect.

      Delete
  16. For me MM is ok, since it is not -3/+3, But some bonus for being underdog would be nice, but under the condition that troll platoons would be limited/banned, cause alredy people make them intentionally to win contests so they would do the same to powerlevel. In some games underdog who is much too low level for his enemies (so his mates fight for him) gets no XP to make powerleveling harder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would much more appreciate XP and creds rewards for 3 best players in losing team (not medal winners like atm).

      Delete
    2. - I agree with the ones saying that underdog - not noobs/idiots and especially not afkers - should be rewarded. For example top 5 players from the losing team if they are in lower tier than the max tier of the battle AND anyone who is not top tier in a battle should get definiately more XP and credit than they get now for damaging any higher tier players.

      - Confederate - is just a lemon prize token - saying how uinlucky you are not to have the killing blow. Killing blow from small HP (e.g.: 100hp) should worth much less XP and credit than a higher damage roll (e.g.: 300).

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. @Dead_Skin_Mask - I offer you the same that I offered to Blicc. After that 1vs1, would you be still "ok" with +/-2 tier differences? (I think not.)

      Delete
    5. This game is in general 15 vs 15 so there is no point to talk about any 1 vs 1. This is team game, if you do not understand it, you play it wrong.

      Most battles I played in that game in times when MM was +3/-3. That was pain. Now it is much easier.

      Delete
    6. I'm with Dead_Skin_Mask in this.

      Delete
    7. @Blicc , DSM - I have to copy here what I wrote above. Same applies to you guys as it apllied to "Syfer Polski":

      You said: "This is team game, if you do not understand it, you play it wrong." - No, this is not entirely true.
      **********
      When you are exchaning fire with another 1 or 2tank(s) at a corner of a building/rock/debris then it is not 15v15. 15 is just the limit of the players participating in the actual battle but they are not on the same location in the same time.

      What both of you should /have to understand that the outcome of any battle is made from the outcome of several 1v1 or 1v2 "little-encounters" during a specific 15/15 battle.
      **********
      An encounter between 2-4-6.. tanks will be more skill based, than tier based if they have 1 tier as difference - you cannot deny this. This is a fact. Simple.

      We (Silberfalke, Péter Bartyik and I) only would like to get the game more skill-based that is our only goal.

      You said: "Most battles I played in that game in times when MM was +3/-3."
      - We are talking about how is the MM now or how the MM should be later on. Not about how it was X years ago.. just a side note.

      Delete
    8. Yeah, you clearly have no idea what it means team game... It seems also that you have no idea about tactics or strategy, cause if you are fighting alone against higher tier (or more enemies), when your teammates are somewhere else, you are in most cases doing something wrong. But this is your problem. For me +2/-2 is totally fine and it gives more diversed battles from pwnage to challenge. If you don't like it or find it too difficult, then don't play WoT randoms. Simple.

      Delete
    9. I did not go personal on this, because for some reason I thought that you can do this as well. But let e put this down to a level where you can understand this.

      So you never fought an enemy alone?? Then you either afraid to face anyone one-on-one or you just hiding behind your team mates... just to go personal(as you did)

      Or if you ever fought an enemy alone (know you did because sometimes 1v1 is inevitable), then you made your point invalid and you then have no idea either about this game or tactics what so ever (only used your lines against you)

      Delete
    10. "So you never fought an enemy alone??"

      Well, if you found such info in my post, I can't help you. Can't help people, who see things that do not exist. And whole your further reasoning is made around that false sentence. Oh, you are a funny guy. Such beautiful fail.

      Btw, it must be some serious problem for you that someone has different opinion then you... You are trying so hard to convince me... But the more you try, the more you show that WoT is not the game for you.

      For me +2/-2 is totally fine because WoT is not 1 vs 1 game. If you are weaker, be smart. If you can't, find easier game.

      Bye, bye

      Delete
    11. Oh and that crying about going personal. Sorry, but it is really problem of your personal way of playing and understanding that game so going personal can't be avoided. You just want different game then WoT random is. Once again, loudly: THIS IS TEAM GAME - 15 vs 15! Even the weakest has his role and can change a lot on the battlefield.

      Delete
    12. Now, I just feel sorry for you. I have not cried about everythign. An intelligent person could defend his point of view without getting personal - all I'm saying. Have a nice day!

      Delete
    13. Everyone has his role - you are right. They are not shooting all at once to everyone in the other team in the same time!! So yes, there are 15 pleayers agains 15 playersI BUT If you meet an enemy face to face and you firing on him and he is firing on you - that is 15v15 or 1v1??
      I will not explain this any further... you are not even willing to / want to understand what
      I'm saying, then there is no point explainign it any further.

      Delete
    14. You all the time do not understand that this is team game. You want to play solo, going alone, thats your problem, not WG or mine.

      First of all, intelligent person in lowest tier tank do not allow to be caught alone and easily killed. Heh, one of the most important rules in the game is DO NOT GO ALONE! It is one of the first things that decent player should learn. You have 14 teamamtes, cooperate with them... Instead going alone and after that whining on forums and blogs that enemies are too strong and MM sucks.

      Also intelligent person do not fight 1 vs 1, when do not have advantage over enemy or it is not profitable for team in other way (for example slowing enemy down, decaping and so on).

      Intelligent person is also satisfied, when can use intelligence to change outcome of battle when plays in inferior tank. And there are many ways to do it. And hell, this is fun!

      But you just want an easy solo game without any challenges, tactics, strategy... WoT is clearly not for you.

      Delete
    15. So you NEVER fought an enemy X tier hiher alone? Never during the X battles you played in WoT?

      Delete
    16. Sorry Sandor Nagy, but this is getting a bit stale. Your reasoning makes little sense.

      Delete
    17. @Sandor Nagy: Your words: [...]I can make up stories as well but I will not.[...]

      So much about not going personal.

      Delete
    18. @ Overlord - Limiting that no one should face a +2 tier enemy in a battle makes no sense?
      All I am saying (without calling anyone retarded, bitch or any other names) - for the 100th time - all we ((many of us)) would like to see that:

      - Tier 4 shoudl not face tier6
      - Tier 5 shoudl not face tier7

      ... only 1 tier difference to up and down. I could go on but I think you get my point, right ??

      Delete
    19. @Sandor Nagy: I can imagine SerB's reaction on the tier spread issue: "How terrible..." :)

      You wrote your opinion, others wrote their opinion, I wrote my opinion, we argued. We are not idiots, I believe you are not an idiot.
      Let us agree on a tie.
      It's a matter of taste, I guess. I like the way tier spread is, you don't. I accept your opinion, although I do not agree with you.

      Delete
    20. @Blicc - I asked anyone to agree with my suggestion. That is why it is called "debate" or "argument".

      I did not say with a word that anyone of you (You or DMS) are idiots. Same as You/DMS, I just tried to defend my (and 2 other bloggers) opinion, who had the same idea as me, to ask the devs. to implement or try the +/-1 tier deifference in random battles (if possible then on test servers first).

      I saw and understand you points as well, that is a part of the debate.

      About SerB's reaction - lets just leave that to him without any further guessing. As you stated your opinion, I personally think he would see as well, that the game would be more exciting and battles would have the chance to have more tight and interesting outcome with implementing Silberflake/My idea.

      My question would still stand to Overlord - will not repeat it here, since I do not intend to spam all-around

      Delete
    21. @ Sandor Nagy
      "So you NEVER fought an enemy X tier hiher alone? Never during the X battles you played in WoT?"

      Hmmm, I have no idea how you get to such conclusions. I can answer that way: there are different advantages, not only tier.

      Delete
    22. This is/ was not a conclusion just a question. But then, I ask this:

      - You on any map, you are in any tier4-8 (with / without backup) heading towards the enemy lines. There is an enemy player waiting in complete cover and with active camo. When you realize that there is an enemy, what would you prefer to see in front of you, fully amied at you a +1 or +2 tier player?

      You have basically 3 choise here:
      - Dodge my question and/or ignore it. (You are not this person, I believe)
      - Admit that you would see +1 tier enemy more gladly because it means less chance to be damaged / less damage received conclusively more chance for your team to win. - there could be more +1tier players of course agains you

      - or 3rd you would gladly see a +2 tier player, ... only if he is alone and you and your cover outnumber him seriulsy. - there could be more +2tier enemies there as well

      Delete
    23. You are really boring with your stuborness. Once again, I have nothing against -2/+2. How many times I have to repeat it? It is so hard for you to understand that I do not care if I meet from time to time someone who is in 2 tiers higher tank? That I do not have to survive every battle.

      When I meet hidden 2 tiers higher enemy and survive long enough to find safe place, then I try to spot, flank, call for help or tease him to move to less safe place, warn team and stay there watching him. No problem at all. It is team game, teams victory is crucial, not my frag count, survival ratio and other such things. I can even suicide to make him concentrate fire on me and turn a turret while stronger teammates safely come closer to him and kill, while he is busy killing my small tank. So many choices...

      Delete
    24. "OK", you you are absolutely "right". I jsut had enough...

      Delete
    25. @Sandor Nagy

      I in an Su-122-44, You in a t54e1
      Hell, SU-152 vs pretty much every t9 med is a reasonable.

      I'm not saying that certain tanks are much more aggrieved by the +2, especially in stock, but in the 7v9 there isn't much that is undoable. In 8v10 there's a more apparent case for this (power creep of the 155, followed by the 183, and the WTE100 TDs, along with overall TD prevalence due to camo changes + arty nerf mean that there is a different playstyle needed, but not something that requires +1 -1 MM.

      Delete
  17. Things i don't like:

    1) I had 8 rounds with a friend platooning with tier 8 TDs and Heavies, we have been top tier a single time.

    2) Map Rotation! This really sucks instead, most of the time you keep playing the same map over and over again. WoT have a lot of maps, but users barely have the chance to play them more or less equally in a single game session.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2. Relates to the way server manages arenas. Can't be changed easily due to performance issues.

      Delete
  18. A slight XP increase doesn't make up for a lousy system.
    1 - What you need to do is discourage people from playing top tiers all the time and decrease the gap between tier X and the other tiers.
    Across all tiers, any tank can still deal with tanks a tier higher. An IS-3 doesn't have that much trouble against an E-75, but an IS-8 and even the E-75 has a lot more trouble dealing with the IS-7, Maus or E-100. Tier X tanks are simply much more powerful than their predecessors. This alone discourages people from playing anything other than tier X, and +5% XP won't make up for that.
    2 - Skill MM. One team can't have all the good players while the other gets all the bots. It is simply retarded to continue to allow this. If the MM has two platoons to deal with, let's say -G- and OTTER, it will place these two platoon in one team and the other gets sub 45% players. Again, +5% XP won't fix this. You already have skill MM for team battles, just adapt it.

    3- Increase repair costs for all high tier tanks, from VIII to X. At the same time increase credit reward for actually playing the game and doing things that leads to victory, such as potential damage received, spotting damage and damage dealt. This will bankrupt bots, discourage bad players from playing tier IX and X only, forcing them to learn how to play, instead of suiciding in 1 minute and say he is playing for fun, ruining everyone else's fun.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I don't like individual underdog reward because it can cause more trouble than solve the problem. It could encourage people to play troll platoon and "cheat" some xp competition (a tier 2 in a tier 10 batlle can make a lot of xp with only few damages done).

    Personnaly, I don't understand why - when it's possible (a lot of people connected) - MM don't try to fill both team with the same tier vehicule (eg 15 tier 5 vhicules in both teams) and looking for tier +/-1 only if there is not enough vehicule of the same tier, and then +/-2 when ther is not enough vehicule or the tier +/-1 etc. Battle would be more close and MM would be more fair imho.

    Then, I think the major issue with MM is only with scout vehicules that there isn't enough strong to compete tier +4 vehicules, I would prefer the vehicule be one or two tier higher and have a normal MM.

    ReplyDelete
  20. No idea about WoWp but current World of tanks match maker is either made by idiots or actually fixed. There is always a team with upper hand, one team with more highier tiers (not one or two, it goes up to 6 top tier more than enemy team in times where theres >500 tanks of that tier waiting in queue), with uneven vehicles per team (especialy since arty equals regular tank for match maker, for example one team gets 3 X tier HTs and other gets 3 X tier artys... guess what wins), not to mention the "random" situations where we get team of green/blue players vs red, 15:0, 0:15 games which should be basicly impossible but somehow that's how most battles look like. And "paying" for that you can't make proper match making sytem... just pathentic and encourages troll platoons which are already big ignored by wargaming problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice rant, doesn't help much though.

      Delete
  21. So far, the MM has gone in the right direction, a real improvement over the time. What bugs me :

    The T4 light tanks battle tiers, it's ridiculous to play against t8 tanks with those tanks. It makes me sad cause I find them great at t4-5. I don't like the chaffee MM either. T3 tanks in T5 battles is not great too.

    The platoons. Yesterday, in a tier 9 battle, there was a platoon with a T34, Pz I and BT-7, they ruined the battle for the team and died in 45 seconds. This shouldn't be allowed. You could block the "Battle" button when the max battle tier is too different to prevent that.

    Having 10 TDs in one team and 2 in the other one. It would be cool to have tank types balanced to limit this kind of thing

    Being at the bottom on closed maps is different from being bottom on open maps. You can spot, snipe, hide, flank on open maps. It's way harder on closed maps. Might be nice to lower the tier spread on some maps like Himmelsdorf or Ensk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chaffe awaits rebalance(it will be tier ~6 in new Walker Buldog Light line) And as it is for now it could be swapped with T 21 easily...

      Delete
  22. You sure opened a can of worms on this one...

    So... I think the one and only problem with the MM is when the teams aren't even. And I mean multiple tier imbalances. I know there are weights and a +/- 10% allowance but sometimes the games are VERY predictable.

    ReplyDelete
  23. What we (i.e. I) don't like, or at least find it problematic in future is skilled MM for 7/42 team battles. It is ok by itself, but eventually it levels your WR around 50% even more that randoms and the team MM "rating" is to be kept top secret by you WG guys so there is even less incentive to get better and better. Winning is nice all by itself, but it's not about winning only, at least not for everyone.
    What i mean is that you need to give some carrot to 7/42 players. Another visible rating, so they can rank themselves against each other in that mode. Or give them some visible ranks/medals/badges/other rewards - anything you will find suitable to resolve this issue. It is meant as a kindergarden to esports, isn't it ;) ? So, let them know how good they are.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I just met a platoon of two new players in an M3 lee and a pz38Na in a tier 8 battle, when I oneshotted the m3, he said in chat: "I dont get the pairings generator" Which kinda made me feel sad, as he has no way to know that the pz38na is a scout and his platoon just gets thrown in such a game for, in his eyes, no reason. I think this causes a lot of new players to quit the game or at least frustrates them a lot.

    At the very least there should be an indactor to show what MM a tank has, especially in a platoon but also in the tech tree. However IMO, i dont see the need to have scouts in non-scout trees anymore, there are now designated scout trees anyway for players who want to scout, and the players playing those forced T4 scouts dont want to nor know how to scout anyway.


    Oh and I want the rating for 7/41 to be visible, now i cant generate e-peen in that gamemode :P
    but seriously, its nice to have something to try and improve.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I tried to suggest numkerous times that WG would mark scout vehicles as *SCOUT* in the garage, so new people kind of at least had a chance to find out... Though honestly most of the tier 4 scouts can barely handle themself on a regular +/-2 tier matchmaking...

    I like a clear benefit of fighting higher tiers. More credits will be super cool especially for newer players, but giving more exp unless given as a bonus will screw up ACE medals and might even encourage people to sign up in weird platoons...

    And on the european server something needs to be done with the companies. Not enough population to run companies on both EU 1 and 2, so why not block the feature on one of the servers to gather all the interested on just 1 server?

    ReplyDelete
  26. the worst thing about the MM are games where the top tier vehicles take up 90% of each team and the remaining 10% are bottom tier with no/not many mid tiers in the middle.

    not too common, but happens often enough. especially if MM platoon rule fails and there is no other platoon in the queue it can put in the other team. had a few of these some days ago: an all tier VI game and we were the very only two tier IV vehicles - the enemy team did not even had any. imagine how much fun that was to play with a matilda against mostly kv-1s.

    so how about: at least 8 of each team must be bottom tier vehicles. if there are too few on the bottom MM could simply scratch that lowest tier and make a match composed of only the two top tiers or even just one to satisfy the rule.

    other then that... MM rules for platoons need a rework as they make no sense at all. trying to have about equal number of platoons on each side makes absolutely no sense at all. especially outcomes like matching 3 unicum players in a platoon in top tier tanks against 2 tomatoes (really bad players) in bottom tier vehicles (had observed such matches a couple of times). scratch that rule and instead make MM balance platoons by some player skill rating similar to how works in team battles (distribute the platoons as if it was for a team battle of those players only and then fill the remaining slots with random people not in platoons).

    other then that i can live with the MM as it is. some bonus rewards for bottom tiers would be nice though to allow for some cost effective gold ammo usage.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dear Overlord!

    Premium tanks by 50% would be more experience? Maybe he could play for free tier 10. No repairs and basic ammunition would be free.

    Seriously ask these two things. It would be good for the players!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Free would be the motivation for a large number of tier 10 tier areas. The players are striving to get to tier 10, why do they need a few extra credits, except if you play a tank produces no experience? Base ammo and no improvement may 0 experience / battle. Premium tanks can develop crew. Enjoyable game.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Premium tanks by 50% would be more free experience? Maybe he could play for free tier 10. No repairs and basic ammunition would be free.
    These tanks have a two exceptions produce no benefit, there is no tier 11 tier 12.

    Seriously ask these two things. It would be good for the players!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Only tier 10 elite tanks, accelerated training = no credit repair and free basic ammo. 0 experience and credit / battle.

    ReplyDelete
  31. My problem wit MM isn't overmatching. It's pre-determined battles. After looking at player experience it quickly becomes clear where the victory will go. It's especially frustrating when you play a weak tank because there's such a small chance of influencing game outcome. All games should be within 60-40 and 40-60 win% to make them fair. Would be so simple for the MM to divide half the yellow-green-blue-pink players on each team. When you end up with 8 dark red and 6 light red players with yourself as the only bright spot in a tier 4 light tank you feel sooo screwed when the other side as 4 green, 2 blue and one pink player. Annoyance related to this imbalance is the reason nr 1 for me for turning off this game.

    For me this is elementary balancing, not skill based. Skill based would mean putting only your equals on the team. How fun is it in a strategy game to have to be matched as Poland against Germany and the USSR in 1939? Not fair or fun at all....

    The result is frustration and a lot of heat towards the inexperienced players; I usually try to say "Thank you a lot WG for your great MM" *click - lights out and goodnight*

    ReplyDelete
  32. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The worst sytuation are when you lone underdog. Lone tier 8 in tier 10 battle. Or tier 4 in tier 6 battle. You feel like free xp piniata. Maybe try such solution. When MM is composing 2 tiers spread battle, underdogs can be no less than 1/3 and top tiers no more than 1/3. It will be fun for top players (low tier bashing ;) and for chance for a low players to do something on battlefield. With 3-4 tier 8 you can easly kill any tier 10

    ReplyDelete
  34. MM is mostly good and in general, I'm satisfied with it. However I believe a few improvements can be made.

    1. Clearly mark tanks with scout MM as such. While a more experienced player can just look up all this info, I imagine it must be the most frustrating thing in the world for a new player to land himself in a in tier 8 game in his Luchs.

    2. Have the MM put in each team roughly the same amount of tanks per tier (e.g. 5 tier 7s, 5 tier 8s, 5 tier 9s). One of the current problem is that many tanks suffer from low penetration and in higher tier games where they lack low tier targets to shoot, they quickly expend their usefulness. Black Prince for example pops in mind, which albeit a beast in tier 7, in any tier above it lacks both the speed and/or the penetration necessary to not be a liability for its team.

    3. Tank types should be roughly the same between two teams as well. Particularly in tier 10 games it's very frustrating to see the enemy team have 6 tier 10 TDs while yours has 2.

    4. Implement limited MM for all stock or near stock tanks. What's currently known as "stock MM" works for just a limited number of games and is irrelevant of your modules. It stops working once a certain amount of games have been played as opposed to when the stock modules are upgraded.

    As a closing statement, I'd like to say that I realize points 2, 3 and 4 can be alleviated by playing a statistically significant number of games. However in the space of a single day many of us lack the opportunity to play so many games.

    Thus if such problems do arise within the span of a single session, usually they result in major frustration for the player who now feels that this whole game session has been a waste.

    Either way, I'd like to thank you Overlord for asking our opinions on a most heated issue like MM, even if our opinions are collectively ignored in the end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree on the last sentence. Overlord, you are the only WG guy that replies to some suggestions, anywhere. I'd like to see your insight on more of them.
      That's the main problem, there's no dev feedback on suggestion forums - even "we are planning opposite, gtfo" would do, if you think that idea has potential and is worth further brainstorming, you should encourage it - because these really intelligent people stop posting quickly when they see no reaction (trolls and schoolkids, on the other hand, don't even need feeding).

      Delete
    2. Regarding the suggestions above,

      1. I think it's a good idea (and it was suggested long time ago) - have no clue why exactly it hasn't been done.

      4. The system that accounted for installed modules didn't work out when we tested it being too complex. As for preferential match-making for stock vehicles, I think, it was Serb who blocked it.

      Delete
  35. Thanks to WOT from now i dont call terrost anymore, you can call terorist attack for killing dumb EU animals.

    ReplyDelete
  36. 1. "Team underdog" is not the one who has worse vehicles, but the one who has worse players - determining this only by MM-weight would essentially make it a random bonus; bad idea. I've made a quite similar (but more viable, IMO) suggestion in the past, where (with potential bonus in mind) you decide yourself how much of a team underdog you would like to be:
    http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/193039-

    2. As for "individual underdogs", WG almost 2 years ago stated the intention of mostly getting rid of situations where you have 1-2 bottom tiers per side. At least that's how I understand below passage:
    "If the population is so low, or badly distributed that it can’t find a “perfect” match it will also have the ability to launch with less than 15 players on a side, if it feels it offers a fair match[...]"
    Source:
    http://worldoftanks.com/news/1038-you-ask-we-reply-11/

    3. Same goes for same-tier battles:
    "[...]you may also see more matches with lower tier spreads, including some that may only contain one tier. Much of this will depend on server population and the population distribution at the time you enter the queue." (Same source.)
    Using full tier spread is perfectly understandable with low server population, but we still have situations like these: you select tier VI tank, you see there are 700 tier VI vehicles in the queue, yet you end up in tier VIII battle.

    4. Your "I don't think we really should tighten the spreads to 2 tiers in WoT, this is a huge progression incentive" conficts somewhat with SerB's recent "We get money from more options, not from long grinds”, doesn't it? :)
    ftr.wot-news.com/2013/11/09/9-11-2013/
    I don't think you should worry much about progression incentives - men as a whole will always want a bigger gun, even if they don't know how to use it... ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Trent - pont 3 totally valid. Agree! happened same with me but when there were 1600 tier6 queued up and I ended up in the smallest in a tier8 battle.

      Delete
    2. You remember what slots was for the bottom in the team? Yes it was taked by arts+scouts. After arty nerf and some scouts, there is no arty and ussles scouts in the bottom of these battle tiers games, so MM fill empty gaps with what? Yes Low tiers so you will see half team tiers 8 + tiers 10 tanks, rest filled with tier 9.

      Delete
  37. Overlord, please explain the devs' position on adding a skill component to the 15v15 matchmaker. All I hear is that it wont be implemented but no explanation of Why Not. Are they opposed to just skill matching (green vs green teams), or matching AND balancing (even distribution of skill across both teams)? I would love to see balanced teams and don't know why adding a single skill factor to the MM algorithm would be so difficult to implement. Yeah, everyone will bitch about which skill factor to use (win rate, WIN7, PR) but just try it and see what happens and if people like it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it is down to the fact that it would hard to implement a system which would measure everyone's performance on every tank of the given player and it might would cause longer queue times.

      Delete
    2. It's not because of the development complexity. Such a system (in random battles) would contradict the basic principles WoT is built upon. One of them being, players are not punished for their skill. Each battle is supposed (in ideal world) give 50% winning chance for each of teams. Skilled players have higher chance to win, while unskilled players have lower chance.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the replies. As for the "basic principles" I would counter that being put on a team full of red window lickers is punishing me when the other team is clearly more skilled top to bottom.

      Delete
    4. Right. The difference though is that it can go either way.

      Delete
  38. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Map picking is really bad only after 130 battles I've got to play the new map. So random map draw is not really random as proven many times before.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems lilke not random but based on mathematics, if you pick randomly from 4 different possibilities (maps in this case), then you have to take infinite number of pulls to have all the 4 completely equally/played.
      Based only on mathematics again, you can pull 1st and 2nd a thousand times before you even pull one from 3rd or 4th.. same with maps.

      It might seem not really random, but it is I think.

      Delete
  40. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  41. In WoT even a tier 4 scout can contribute to a tier 10 battle by hiding and lighting up an area, hiding in the back and making a suicide run on enemy arty or even just acting like a road block somewhere, In WoWP none of those options work. There's no place to hide, if you are two levels below someone they will be faster, hit harder and climb faster than you can. You might be able to out turn them but you won't be able to deliver enough damage to kill them before they can climb or run out of range. WG made some changes to tier spread and it helped the lower tier planes but leveling a tier 6 or 7 becomes an exercise in frustration that made playing a tier 4 scout under the old MM in WoT seem like a walk in the park. Adding a 5% bonus won't help much when your P-51a gets smoked by an ME262 that it couldn't out run, out climb or hide from. Getting 95 XP vs 100 isn't really the problem in that scenario.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I think a +-1 tier spread is necessary. As much fun as I might have killing any tier 4 with one shot using my kv-1s it takes something away from the game. When you go into a battle you want the sense that you can take on any tank. Even with a one tier spread you might face a tiger II in your tiger I tank but it is not the same disaster as it is now.

    I remember playing back in beta when it was a +-5 mm system thinking why not simply go to a +-1 system. Sure there would still be a few players complaining about unfair mm but it would be reduced close to zero.

    What exactly is the advantage of a two tier spread ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most of the -2 tiers tanks have top gun of next tier tank. NAd if you have brains, you can deal vs +2 tier tank. Problem is that player like you, dont have brains, lets why you want to be top tier. If I can be one of top dmg dealer with my KV5 in tier 10 with my 167 pen gun, you can do the same, i have no problem at all, bigest now problem is TIER 10 TDS ONLY.

      Delete
    2. @ Audris - "Problem is that player like you, dont have brains," ... I feel sorry for you. You cant discuss a topic without saying anything like to to another player? Describes your debate and intellectual skills as well.

      Delete
    3. Certainly one can perform well even being -2 in a match and I have done so many times but on average you are going to struggle. My win ratio is 54%+ and effiency is not bad either.

      The issue has nothing to do with skills. Why for instance would the +2 tanks, SPG not be good players also like the other players ? It is a matter of knowing when you play that you have a chance and will see interesting fights all along the way. There is far too many +2 tanks that can simply kill the -2 tanks with one shot.

      The issue as frustrating as it is for veteran players is even worse for new players who does not have the skill in a -2 mm to do anything.

      When it comes to the mm for new players (and even some more experianced) I would advice Wargaming to make it PERFECTLY clear what tanks are designated as scouts in the game. Visually perhaps on the tech trees for instance. I see far too many players and platoons confused and angry about ending up in -4 -5 battles using a scout that they do NOT know is a scout.

      Delete
  43. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  44. What annoys me the most is once after the battle has finished if you win or lose , is that you get on your team players with a 40-45% win rate and on the opposite team there are like players with stat's of 50-60% win rate, don't get me wrong not all have high win rates but if 3-5ppl have high win rates compared to other on opposite team with 45% win rate , you know who will win that game , So a win rate MM would be best :) . Hope that makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Overlord is it really "MM" or "RNG"? I don't think it is because MM and RNG applies to everybody and theres no reason to complain if its built into the game for balance. Could you just admit that the game is manipulated by your "paid professionals" deciding which side wins or loses? even ganging up on specific players and provoking them in game, losing on purpose, etc...?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's your definition of MM and RNG?

      @Could you just admit that the game is manipulated by your "paid professionals" deciding which side wins or loses?@

      Kidding, right?

      Delete
  46. Ask this question to 40-47% 100-700 WN7 ratings Eu idiots. ITs playrbase problem not MM or "riged MM". Try to play on sundy, its unplayable, even AI can play smarter then these so called "humans". Problem in WoT is compared to other MMO, that everyone can have tier 10 tanks very easy. Take L2 as for example, if you are bot idiot, good clans dont want you, so you will have no chacne to have end game content or stuff, becouse only strong clans, can have casttles and control epic raids, dungeons, and important resouserse with some unique staff. In WoT every idiot drives tier 10-9 tanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Idiots you say? They are fooling innocent players who are supposed to be customers. Do you really trust that number on the upper left of your screen showing the "number of players online"? How much of that number is for real? How many of those are actual "innocent" legit players? How many of those are multiple accounts controlled by "professionals" from some 3rd world internet cafe? Have you ever wondered why too many afk's, team killers, 0 damage dealers, etc... it's because of muti-tasking "professionals" playing several accounts at a time.
      And now these powertripping assholes are favoring certain players while harassing others in game. Fair game indeed! The owners of WG seem to be good people, maybe its just some underlings or "community leaders" who powertrip, you should fire them.

      Delete
    2. @H1984G

      Hahahahahahaha, Lol of the week...

      Delete
    3. I smell huuuge conspiracy here!

      Delete
    4. Sarcasm or not, Audrius has a point. the Game is not playable in peak hours 7pm-ish every day and Sunday from 10-11am thanks to the immerse noob-tsunamy which reached even tier 8-10.

      Somehow players would need to forced to learn to play on a certain tank before they are allowed to research / buy the next. Winrate+minimum played battle limit perhaps? But this will get dismissed since this really would worth for WG - financially ofc.

      Overlord - Might I ask. Is WG planning to do anything for making/encourage low efficiency players play better / eliminate bots / punsih afkers (increased repair cost?)
      or it will be completely OK to farm a higher tier tanks with 300 xp/battle and palying the next tier with the same garbage efficincy?

      Delete
    5. I don't understand this. What has the amount of bad players to do with the playability? I would say it makes the game so much more easy for me on general, when most players are much worse in it than I am.

      Also tomatoes are very rare at tier X so your post is at least partially pure hyperbole.

      If you want somewhat balanced teams, play 7/42, it's that simple.

      Delete
    6. Very rare LOL. Yesterday i was with Leo PTA El Haluf in 2:30 min we losing 1:7. Now half team is filed with idiots, every game you see 43-46% EVERY SINGLE DAY, im just boring to pulling win all days. This is the problem - playrbase. it doesn metter if you play good or bad you still can have tier X sooner or later. Half team are idiots nowdays.

      Delete
  47. Dear overlord!

    I think about it! Look at my team at the enemy. 70% of those in the game during peak hours.

    Link: http://kepfeltoltes.hu/131113/shot_000_www.kepfeltoltes.hu_.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  48. Overlord - Any chance that the T34 and Löwe will get back the preferred matchmaking? I am asking this since I have payed real money for a premium tank which has even less income from time to time than my tier6-7 vehicles (thanks to the often so terrible MM). Might I ask for an explanation please?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will get back?

      I do not remember Lowe or T34 having preferential MM.

      Delete
    2. To the best of my knowledge they did.

      Delete
    3. Could you support that knowledge with some proofs? Cause I have never seen MM tables with T34 and Lowe having special MM. As far as I know only premium tanks with low penetration guns had (and have) such MM. T34 was introduced as premium with normal MM, so I doubt that after that WG added and then again removed such special MM for that tank.

      Delete
    4. What I had is ~100k credit income usually in 80% of the battles and now I have like ~30 is so either the MM was fucked up or the credit modifier. My effy is climbin 1600-1800 (fact suppoerted by noombeter) so I could not get any worse - playstyle or anything else - I know this would have been you next point against me.

      Back to T34/Löwe - if it was was the credit modifier which was messed with, not the MM, then my apologies!

      Delete
    5. It has been shown that the credit modifier of prem tanks have been adjusted to account for the general changes to income coupled with the possibility to earn extra silvers by completing "quests".

      In other words, prem tanks earn less because you need less. And, yes, that makes prem tanks less needed which is in line with WGs policy of "play to win" as opposed to "pay to win".

      Delete
    6. " I know this would have been you next point against me."

      Oh lol, that is so pathetic... Don't try to work as a fortuneteller, cause you fail totally, when you try to read in peoples minds.

      Delete
    7. Good to see Michael that you see as well that premium tanks have less and less point and meaning in this game - strictly from credit income poit of view which was 1 of the 2 reasons why they were created. The extra xp income is negligible as well. Really considering selling the T34... worth nothing nowadays... especially with this MM.

      Delete
  49. I am happy with the MM spread as it is. With a reduced teir spread they would be no opportuntity for those great games where you play above your battle rank.

    However I do think the the rewards for lower tier tanks should be made more obvious and proably increased. I make a suggestion post on the EU Forums some time ago and the essence was that when you're place in battle you see a "Rewards Multiplier" which would reflect where you stood in the battle order. If you are the lone M3 Lee facing a largely Tier 6 battle, that might be quite high (say 200%) conversely if you are the lone T29 in a largely T5 battle it could be below 100% You would need special arrangements for scouts, of course and for low tier platooned tanks they can be given a nominal tier of the lowest expected in the battle. Similarly a tweak might be needed for Tier X where they are always top tiers. I'm sure WG could work the formula to ensure the overall rewards are balanced.

    I think this would make people feel a lot more motivated when entering a battle as low tier. Ideally it should be that you would not expect the biggest scores when top tier, but only when out performing other tiers.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Really helpfull would be some kind of postprocessor for the mm.
    Like if a team is assembled, a routine should try to swap players against each other to reduce the rating difference (if possible, e.g. same weight, class etc.).
    Otherwise the mm is ok, just the fact that at some times during the day teams are so unbalanced that skill doesn't count much.
    kingbright (US-server)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, this is a nice idea, but it wouldn't work with the current rating!

      What people must understand is, that all the current ratings are absolute ratings. They measure absolute things like "damage done". However we can all agree upon that it is much easier to deal a large amount of damage to afk/bots/tomatos than to good players.

      So, logically, if we use the absolute rating to make teams "fairer", we also reduce this very rating for good players (that now face harder teams because they are better and thus deal less damage) and increase the rating for bad players. This would result in a rating deflation and make it much harder to differenciate the players and thus the system is doomed to fail over time.

      This is also the reason why WG uses a separate (relative) rating for 7/42 and why every other game (like Starcraft) also always use relative ratings.

      Delete
  51. Mm must have been developed by the same group that developed Obama care. Just can't be fixed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well done Sir! You made me laugh!

      Delete
    2. "Obamacare" is in effect in many many countries all over the world and works well. The fact that the americans can't seem to fix it is not because it can't be fixed but because too many people don't understand what the real problem is.

      In such it is indeed a fitting analogy to WoT.

      Delete
    3. It does not work in other parts of the world either. Otherwise people would not be boarding planes to come to America to get operations they can't get in their countries without waiting months and years. The mess only looks good on paper until you apply it to real people with real health problems that can't wait becuase smart people are not becoming doctors anymore when they can make more money in another field.

      Delete
    4. Your logic is faulty. I didn't say all other countries have a similar system and it works, I said many have, just as there are many that have an even worse system.

      Delete
  52. The ones advocating a +/-1 tierspread usually hope that the game would be "fairer" and their potential contribution in each battle would be larger - and this is totally wrong if you look at the big picture.

    Because for every game where you are -2 you will (in the long run) have a game where you are +2. I still remember the one game where there was the only one Tier IX (me in M103, opponent in 45.02b on Ensk) per side. It rocked for me, it was memorable, I did over 6k damage, I carried hard.

    If you take this away the game won't be any "fairer", it will just have far less memorable moments!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. So it will be less fair because it will get less memorable? :D .... Makes no sense for me what so ever.... Your reasoning like: If you ride bicycle more, then you will read better ?!... no relation in you reasoning what so ever.

      Delete
    3. Your answers show that you have a hard time understanding people here, so, for you, in easy words:

      If you are +2 you can have an awesome game (at least more easily/decisisive as with +1). if the price is to be -2 for an equal amount of games, then I gladly pay this price.

      Delete
  53. I'm personally ok with the current, or maybe a little more tweaked reward system on an individual basis, and against the second scenario for many of the reasons outlined above.

    a third scenario, or some variation of the first I suppose, would be along the lines of this: (SPGs and TDs excluded) For X games with a new tank (where X = tier x 10 / 2) and MM spread is + 2, a 10% additional multiplier for xp is added. So at the upper end of this a tier 8 tank would for the first 40 matches played, in any of those where they are bottom tier they have a cushion to help to deal with the mismatch, but only for those +2 situations . A tier 7 would have 35, a Tier 6 30, and so forth.

    The obvious gaming o the system here is of course that people in tier 8 can platoon with 10s for these games to make the grind go a bit quicker, but overall the limited duration (and limited server load addition) would be a way to help people who have difficulty in modifying the line's play style for new opponents to be creative. If they happen to not come across that situation through tank companies or team battles, so be it; the adjustment cushion wasn't needed.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Tired of all the failed relationships? One should never lose hope because when one door closes another one definitely gets open. You can explore the matchmaking agency in Dublin by registering your name in it. Although the idea may not please you initially, you would be surprised with the results it offers you at free of cost. You get to so many fresh people with similar interests and likes due to which the idea of being along will never cross your mind. If you want you can meet your preferred profiles face to face one by one and find out the person with whom you share the best chemistry.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I'd say the MM is pretty much garbage. Why?

    1. I have a (maybe) 20-30% win rate at tier 5+ in the last month. A bot run by most players could get a higher win rate than me. With a tier 1. Every game pretty much gives me a 53% or lower w/r according to XVM. The wins are generally the "your team stomps the opposition, you get 1 kill and little XP" type. [my w/r btw overall is about 57.5%, I was running 60+ for a while ... not any more ...]

    2. I have seen way too many games decided by MM tank configurations in battles. Lakeville - your team gets 2 heavies, 4-5 meds, and then TDs and lights. Opposing team: 4 heavies 8 mediums, 1 td, light, arty. Yeah ...

    3. Way too many games (platooned) at bottom tier. One night was low/bottom tier in 19 of 21 games. Top tier twice (a tier 1 game and tier 2 game).

    4. Way too many "shove all the bad players on one team and the good players on another".

    5. Too many unbalanced games, tier-wise. Had one game on Lakeville where the other tier got 2 extra tier 6 heavies (KV-1S and ? something?). We got two extra .... tier 4s. It was over fast.

    6. Too much poor platoon matching. I can't take a tier 4 out in a platoon with other tier 4's w/o getting tier 6s. Which sucks. But to then see the matching platoon be tier 6's. Or to see two platoons on the other side, or larger platoons (2 vs 3). Or all of the above.I'd say the MM is pretty much garbage. Why?

    1. I have a (maybe) 20-30% win rate at tier 5+ in the last month. A bot run by most players could get a higher win rate than me. With a tier 1. Every game pretty much gives me a 53% or lower w/r according to XVM. The wins are generally the "your team stomps the opposition, you get 1 kill and little XP" type. [my w/r btw overall is about 57.5%, I was running 60+ for a while ... not any more ...]

    2. I have seen way too many games decided by MM tank configurations in battles. Lakeville - your team gets 2 heavies, 4-5 meds, and then TDs and lights. Opposing team: 4 heavies 8 mediums, 1 td, light, arty. Yeah ...

    3. Way too many games (platooned) at bottom tier. One night was low/bottom tier in 19 of 21 games. Top tier twice (a tier 1 game and tier 2 game).

    4. Way too many "shove all the bad players on one team and the good players on another".

    5. Too many unbalanced games, tier-wise. Had one game on Lakeville where the other tier got 2 extra tier 6 heavies (KV-1S and ? something?). We got two extra .... tier 4s. It was over fast.

    6. Too much poor platoon matching. I can't take a tier 4 out in a platoon with other tier 4's w/o getting tier 6s. Which sucks. But to then see the matching platoon be tier 6's. Or to see two platoons on the other side, or larger platoons (2 vs 3). Or all of the above.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not wanting to sound antagonistic, but you seem to operate on flawed assumptions.

      The same randomness in the MM that gives you 60% winrate sometimes, now gives you like 40%. And while you loved the 60% you now hate the other side of the coin...

      But your "real" winrate is the average of good streaks and bad streaks and no MM "fixes" would change that.

      Thats not to say that the MM could not sometimes be a bit better and that there are cases as you described, but these cases do not cause a winrate variation of 20% over, say, a hundred games.

      Delete
    2. No offense taken, and you'd be right if the 60% w/r was over a 100 games or so. Randomness does give and it does take away. Problem is, my win rate was 60% over ~1500 games. (maybe a bit more). Suddenly it was "you can't win, sorry" for a month. Sub-bot level win rate, at pretty much any tier above two. I don't really call that random.

      Delete
    3. So, you've been at 60% winrate with a healthy tank mix for over 1000 games and now you are under 40% with about the same tank mix for over 1000 games...

      Honestly, I've never saw such a thing.

      Bad luck sometimes leads to aggravation borne bad play and if the palyer doesn't manage to pull himself out, it can wreck some stats. This is usually the case when a player doesn't like the game any more but can't stop playing. So he races to his doom in most of the games to "punish" the game for letting him down...

      Delete
  56. Mm is broken.

    The economy is broken.

    If world of tanks did not release another tank everybody would be driving , t62 a's , object 140's, Foch 155, and fv183b's .
    The economy of the game needs to be addressed . I can take my t57 out and do 3500 damage , we loose the game and I will loose 20 to 30 thousand silver. The economy should be based on damage done win or loose. The tier spread of 2+ to 2- is too much . A one tier spread would be better for all. The current spread is so people who play bad almost always have a weaker opponent they can go after. The new team play has worked great to offset this but somehow wg thought it would be a good idea to limit this to tier 8. Maybe you should have a team play for 9 and ten then people could transcend into clan wars after mastering the team play.
    A better economy that is based on personal performance is what is needed to sustain your player base . This would push some of the poor performing players to better them selves instead of counting on the team as a whole to carry them.
    Ammunition costs are very unfair and need to be evened out. The three types of ammo should be like this

    Ap should have mid pennatration and mid damage.

    He should have low penn and high damage.

    Apcr , heat , hesh should have high penn but lower damage than ap

    ReplyDelete
  57. You should look more to MM exceptions: for example M3 Lee fighting tier 6 HT - KW-1S is bad joke.

    I understand that it needs to be in tier 4, but it should not fight against many Tier 6 tanks since it doesn't have anything to do there.

    I was in fight, where there were like 10-11 T6 tanks, 2 T5, and only 1 T4 ... MR. Lee. This is bad MM. And imagine the frustration, when you actually win this game doing shit and then it is your 1st victory that day... for 400 exp.

    You should put more tanks in the exceptions list.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Wrobel ...or just revise and change the +/-2 tier range to +/-1 as suggested by many above.

      Though I have to admit, meeting an M3 Lee with my KV-1S is funny, but it is sad as well.
      Any tank can rape 2 tier lower enemy. This game permits legal raping the smaller ones.

      Promo line should be: "Prison rules - Rape the a smaller tank!" instead of "Roll out!"

      Delete
    2. Again pure hyperbole.

      A player on the german board had a 60% winrate in M3 Lee in over 3000 played battles solo...

      Again, part of what makes WoT random so fresh and interesting is that sometimes you rule as a toptier and sometimes you need to be very careful as a bottom tier. +1/-1 would diminish this experience considerably.

      That the KV-1S (among others) needs a nerf and some low/mid tier heavy (Durchbruchswagen 2...) tanks need a buff is not a proof that +/-2 sucks.

      Delete
  58. I think MM should match a little more fair an max 1 tier difference because the difference between the tiers ist much to hight with armor penetration and life also very often the one side only has slow tanks and the other fast or no heavy is giht tier on one side and many on the other , a good example are scouts t21 in tier 10 match is useless because all have more spotting range then him and the t10 medium are mostly more mobile and faster then him why ist not B-C 25t tier 10 scout? please excuse my bad English im German and even my German ist not too good :-P

    ReplyDelete
  59. Back when WoWP was balanced, tiers didn't matter anything and +/- 2 tier difference MM was absolutely no problem. These days thats a different problem
    Either way as soon as the Playerbase allows it, WoWP as a skill-based game will need a skill-based MM. Until such a time, WoWP will need a MM that balances both teams' flights. It's ridiculous that if 2 flights of 80% winrate queue at the same time in same tier, they can end up in same side of the team.

    ReplyDelete