Jump to content


Matchmaking...

Matchmaking wtf

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
27 replies to this topic

Owen_Tech_Vint #1 Posted 01 August 2013 - 01:31 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 3741 battles
  • 13
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013
Hello,
I just want to discuss my feeling on the matchmaking in World of Tanks and how bad it can be.
Recently I have been put into higher tier games about 80% of the time and it is really annoying; how can I kill a t29 with my kv1, its just stupid.
I was in a pz38nA and it put me into a tier 8 game, in game like that I'm no longer a scout, I'm just bait and it is stupid and I constantly see platoons of tier 4 and 5 together being put into tier 8 games because there's a light tank in the platoon, its just stupid.
Tier 3's into tier 5 games is just awful and it's hard to play.
I'm not saying it's impossible to do well in these games all I'm saying is that it's just stupid.
I'd prefer to wait 2 minutes for a decent game then instantly get into a shitty game.
Please tell me your opinion on the matchmaking and if there's a system on how it works can someone explain to me how it works!
Thanks,
        
This is good matchmaking, hard to see but it is a ALL tier 7 game

Attached Files

  • Attached File   shot_016.jpg   139.59K

Edited by Owen_Tech_Vint, 01 August 2013 - 01:32 PM.


Katzura #2 Posted 01 August 2013 - 01:34 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 7351 battles
  • 51
  • [HOWIT] HOWIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2012
If you are bottom tier you have to adjust your playstyle to adapt just as you adapt when you are top tier.
I for one see no problems with how often Im bottom/mid/top tier tank in the match making.
The one thing that will never come that people tend to suggest is skill based MM, but it will never come so we can just get over that Idea.

Boykes #3 Posted 01 August 2013 - 01:38 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12875 battles
  • 413
  • [DBAT] DBAT
  • Member since:
    06-13-2012
The problem with being on the bottom is because players see you as easy bait. Also, if you lost some health, you are probably the first to die, because it takes too long to kill a full health player.

Terrordrone #4 Posted 01 August 2013 - 01:38 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 9644 battles
  • 139
  • Member since:
    11-19-2010
1. Learn which tanks is scout.
2. KV-1 in a tier 7 game not so weak, like the other tier 5.
3. You rigth, some tanks have to be smaller tier spread, but not all.
4. If it would be only 1 tier spread it would be awesome matches, like tier 5 only pz4 and m4 with 105mm gun, and tier 6 with 10-20 KV-1s. The one tier spread would be good if there arent be more preferred tank by the players, by us.
5. And yeah, i could live with  30-60 second waiting time too, if i know it would be better.

Edited by Terrordrone, 01 August 2013 - 01:39 PM.


Victor_RO #5 Posted 01 August 2013 - 01:43 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5569 battles
  • 186
  • Member since:
    08-03-2012
In my opinion after 8,6 MM is bad......8/10 battles in my T29 are in tier 9 battle  same with is and kv 1s

Owen_Tech_Vint #6 Posted 01 August 2013 - 01:46 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 3741 battles
  • 13
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013

View PostVictor_RO, on 01 August 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

In my opinion after 8,6 MM is bad......8/10 battles in my T29 are in tier 9 battle  same with is and kv 1s
IS in tier 9 is horrible, I agree

Edited by Owen_Tech_Vint, 01 August 2013 - 01:59 PM.


NilsRosen #7 Posted 01 August 2013 - 01:47 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 39304 battles
  • 693
  • [A-P] A-P
  • Member since:
    02-06-2011
there are some good scoutingguides out there look them up! dont engage the heavy boys just spot them for your heavys/tds
adapt to the mm instead of just whine about it, i did and have no problem with it now, you are on the right track it seems!

Katzura #8 Posted 01 August 2013 - 01:47 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 7351 battles
  • 51
  • [HOWIT] HOWIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2012
Bigger oponents means more exp and silver from the damage you cause them :) I have no problem with that

zakktell #9 Posted 01 August 2013 - 01:52 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14452 battles
  • 202
  • [HPRD] HPRD
  • Member since:
    07-24-2011

View PostKatzura, on 01 August 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

If you are bottom tier you have to adjust your playstyle to adapt just as you adapt when you are top tier.
I for one see no problems with how often Im bottom/mid/top tier tank in the match making.
The one thing that will never come that people tend to suggest is skill based MM, but it will never come so we can just get over that Idea.

This.But i admit first i had a hard time in my KT when in a tier 10 game but after a few matches i adapted to this and done much more better.

View PostVictor_RO, on 01 August 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

In my opinion after 8,6 MM is bad......8/10 battles in my T29 are in tier 9 battle  same with is and kv 1s

It was the same tier spread before the 8.6 also so you could get into tier 9 matches with your tier 7 tank.Nothing changed except there are less arties now so i think this is why you see more high tier tanks in your tier 7 cos before afty nerf a lot less people dared to play their tier 9-10 tanks cos arties but now they can roll out again.So i think there are much more big tier tanks out there then before 8.6

Maxmk6 #10 Posted 01 August 2013 - 01:59 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 33359 battles
  • 2,184
  • [BRIT6] BRIT6
  • Member since:
    05-02-2013
I'm sorry but mm is screwed in 8.7. Well over 80%, possibly even over 90% of my games are now against higher tiers - and that is a big problem. As a lower or lowest tier tank, u r much less able to influence the outcome of the game, and so the result is much more at the mercy of how well ur team, rather than u do. If everyone got the same MM then maybe fair enough, but they don't, some players seem to only get 60% higher tier battles, other's much higher %. So the people with easier going MM are playing an easier game and their stats will be better, purely for that reason, not because they are better players.

It's a different story with scout tanks, they can cope with much higher tier battles because their speed keeps them safe and they can earn lots of XP & credits for spotting tanks their team, rather than them, damages. But it's a nonsense to claim a massive amount of higher tiers battles is ok for fighting tanks coz u get more XP & credits for damaging them - because u only get 50% more, and your chances of doing that damage or much less than 50% - it doesn't equate.

At the end of the day, I don't play WOT's to be other peoples cannon fodder in the VAST majority of games - if WOT's wants players to be that, they should employ them.

Terrordrone #11 Posted 01 August 2013 - 02:03 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 9644 battles
  • 139
  • Member since:
    11-19-2010
Stop to blam the patch, in the patch they didnt do anything about MM, its only luck as always.

Maxmk6 #12 Posted 01 August 2013 - 03:08 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 33359 battles
  • 2,184
  • [BRIT6] BRIT6
  • Member since:
    05-02-2013
It can't be just luck, it's too consistent on too many games. I've played tons since 8.7. Look at my win rate graph on noobmeter.com - since 8.7 it has crashed. That's the MM I'm getting, coz with the VAST majority of my games I'm now lower tier and so my win rate is now much more dependent on how my team, rather than me, performs. And it's not the time of day or anything, coz that hasn't changed.

Maybe it wasn't an intentional change with MM but something has changed and there is now definitely a problem with some, not all, peoples MM recently. A lot of people have stated so - both in game and on the forums. It is beyond me why some people try and deny other peoples experience. And this isn't whining - some, even a lot of higher tier battles can be a good thing, it can force you to develop a greater depth and patience to your play which is invaluable as you progress into the really high tiers. It's the ratio of those games, and at the moment, certainly on my account, the amount of higher tier battles is extreme.

Maxmk6 #13 Posted 01 August 2013 - 03:21 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 33359 battles
  • 2,184
  • [BRIT6] BRIT6
  • Member since:
    05-02-2013
AND - just point out. In the release notes for 8.7, WOT's stated they were going to fix imbalances that had appeared in MM in 8.6. So clearly, they have been tinkering with MM recently, and in my experience that's had a bad effect.

Siveran #14 Posted 04 August 2013 - 10:38 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 6816 battles
  • 9
  • [S_INC] S_INC
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013
In my mind, there ought to be a maximum span of tiers of 2 or 3, across both teams. Meaning if one of the teams have a tier 4, then the possible tiers allowed will either be 2-4, 3-5 or 4-6, if the span is 2. Or if the span is 3, then it will be 1-4, 2-5, 3-6, 4-7.

This rule will not only prevent tier 4 ending up against tier 8, but also preventing situations where two tier 1 platooning with a tier 4 ending up in a battle against tier 8s, and thus causing great imbalance between the teams.

Further, does anyone know what the matchmaking system calculates matches from? Tiers? Upgrades? Platoons? Player success or fail rates? Trying to get my daily double on a KV-1, I had to play 8 matches before I had a victory. Even if I'm a noob (not saying that I am not), I should still have a statistically better chance of more victories than in 1 of 8 battles. If the matchmaker is only depending on tiers, upgrades and platoons, then it should be randomizing between the player success and fails. This doesn't seem to be the case, though.

sei2ur3 #15 Posted 04 August 2013 - 11:47 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 18810 battles
  • 846
  • Member since:
    10-31-2012

View PostVictor_RO, on 01 August 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

In my opinion after 8,6 MM is bad......8/10 battles in my T29 are in tier 9 battle  same with is and kv 1s

its the tier spread, the tank potency, and the fact that everyone is on vacation, so there aren't enough players at lower Ts to fill in the gap for u being top tank. besides, IS and T29 can play T8/T9 easy. Your guns are the same in T32 and IS3 (IS3 also has BL, but before u get to BL, u have to BL your self a lot to earn XP for it.)

Muggix #16 Posted 04 August 2013 - 12:05 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 864 battles
  • 38
  • Member since:
    06-07-2013
Just to clear things up:

How often do u see the French B1 (tier 4 HT) in a tier 6 match?
How often do u see the AMX 40 (tier 4 LT) in a tier 8 match?
How often do u see a Type 59 in a tier 10 match?

Long story made short, beside the +/- 2 tiers MM on (most of) all tanks, they get "higher or lower" chance to get on the top of the list in match or not.

BIG PLUS!: Even as t4 tank in a t6 match or t7 in a t9 match if u prefer, u still can carry the game and win it. i.e. i got a game on the m8a1 (75 dmg per shot) and had almost 1800 dmg done, there are even player who never done this in a tier 8 tank... think about.

Siveran #17 Posted 06 August 2013 - 01:30 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 6816 battles
  • 9
  • [S_INC] S_INC
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013
I don't think people complain about not getting on top of the list. I believe it is more about being put into a match where they can't really make a difference, and they might as well give up before countdown is finished.

And you ask for examples? Well, lemme check through some of the matches I've been through today, I might be able to find some peculiar stuff...
  • M5A1 Stuart [IV] / T29 [VII]          (D=3)
  • T-50 [IV]        / Type 59 [VIII]     (D=4)
  • Pz. 38 nA [IV]   / KV5 [VIII]         (D=4)
  • SU-18 [II]       / IS-2 [VII]         (D=5)
    (SU-18 [II] was in platoon with a Churchil I [V]. Delta within platoon is 3, which is a high difference but perhaps still accepted - but MM doesn't take the platoon difference into account, it just drags everybody along once one of the players can be used)

  • M5A1 Stuart [IV] / IS-2 [VII]         (D=3)
    (this was same match and team as above, but the Stuart was not in platoon. Lowest on other team was tier V)

  • Pz. 38 nA [IV]   / IS [VII]           (D=3)
  • M37 [IV]         / IS [VII]           (D=3)
    (M37 was in platoon with M5 [VI], but delta on 2 within the platoon should be ok)

  • T-50 [IV]        / T32 (VIII]         (D=4)
  • Pz. 38 nA [IV]   / T34 [VIII]         (D=4)
  • M5 Stuart [IV]   / IS-6 [VIII]        (D=4)
  • ELC AMX [V]      / KV-5 [VIII]        (D=3)
  • A-20 [IV]        / AMX M4 45 [VII]    (D=3)
  • Grille [V]       / 110 [VIII]         (D=3)
  • AMX 13 105 [V]   / KV-4 [VIII]        (D=3)
  • KV-1S [VI]       / Conqueror [IX]     (D=3)
    (KV-1S was in platoon with a Tiger and M12 (both tier VII), but delta within platoon is only 1)

  • M44 [VI]         / 212A [IX]          (D=3)
    (M44 was in platoon with another M44 and a Tiger [VII], and delta within platoon is only 1)

  • Luchs [IV]       / Black Prince [VII] (D=3)
  • M37 [IV]         / Lorr. 155 50 [VII] (D=3)
    (M37 was in platoon with a IeFH18B2[V] and Type T-34[V], and delta within platoon is only 1)

  • Luchs [IV]       / Black Prince [VII] (D=3)
  • Pz. I C [III]    / AMX M4 45 [VII]    (D=4)
  • T-50 [IV]        / IS [VII]           (D=3)
  • M5 Stuart [IV]   / IS [VII]           (D=3)
  • Luchs [IV]       / Tiger [VII]        (D=3)
  • M5A1 Stuart [IV] in platoon with Oz. 28 nA [IV] / Caernarvon [VIII] and IS-3 [VIII] (D=4)

Now who can say that they would enjoy playing on the left side of the above, without being just a little bit suicidal about it?
With a D (Delta, as in difference) of 2 is fine, and you can perhaps stretch 3 to be acceptable too, though many will probably find it a bit too tough to try and make a real effort, but there are still some with 4. Point is still: there ought to be a limit to the max tier span across all players on both teams, and I think the limit ought to be at 2, since 3 can often be very discouraging to bother playing, and 4 should be impossible.

Earl_Grey #18 Posted 06 August 2013 - 01:36 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 9974 battles
  • 870
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostKatzura, on 01 August 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

Bigger oponents means more exp and silver from the damage you cause them :) I have no problem with that
While this is true, it's gonna be a lot harder to earn that xp and silver in certain tanks (mainly slow tanks), if you are fast and agile and can avoid those higher tier shots then it's not so much a problem. You also have to rely more on your team if you are bottom tier as you have a much smaller influence on the game.

Muggix #19 Posted 06 August 2013 - 02:35 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 864 battles
  • 38
  • Member since:
    06-07-2013

View PostSiveran, on 06 August 2013 - 01:30 AM, said:

I don't think people complain about not getting on top of the list. I believe it is more about being put into a match where they can't really make a difference, and they might as well give up before countdown is finished.

And you ask for examples? Well, lemme check through some of the matches I've been through today, I might be able to find some peculiar stuff...
  • M5A1 Stuart [IV] / T29 [VII]   (D=3)
  • T-50 [IV] / Type 59 [VIII] (D=4)
  • Pz. 38 nA [IV]   / KV5 [VIII] (D=4)
  • SU-18 [II]    / IS-2 [VII] (D=5)
    (SU-18 [II] was in platoon with a Churchil I [V]. Delta within platoon is 3, which is a high difference but perhaps still accepted - but MM doesn't take the platoon difference into account, it just drags everybody along once one of the players can be used)

  • M5A1 Stuart [IV] / IS-2 [VII] (D=3)
    (this was same match and team as above, but the Stuart was not in platoon. Lowest on other team was tier V)

  • Pz. 38 nA [IV]   / IS [VII]    (D=3)
  • M37 [IV] / IS [VII]    (D=3)
    (M37 was in platoon with M5 [VI], but delta on 2 within the platoon should be ok)

  • T-50 [IV] / T32 (VIII] (D=4)
  • Pz. 38 nA [IV]   / T34 [VIII] (D=4)
  • M5 Stuart [IV]   / IS-6 [VIII] (D=4)
  • ELC AMX [V]   / KV-5 [VIII] (D=3)
  • A-20 [IV] / AMX M4 45 [VII] (D=3)
  • Grille [V]    / 110 [VIII] (D=3)
  • AMX 13 105 [V]   / KV-4 [VIII] (D=3)
  • KV-1S [VI]    / Conqueror [IX] (D=3)
    (KV-1S was in platoon with a Tiger and M12 (both tier VII), but delta within platoon is only 1)

  • M44 [VI] / 212A [IX]   (D=3)
    (M44 was in platoon with another M44 and a Tiger [VII], and delta within platoon is only 1)

  • Luchs [IV]    / Black Prince [VII] (D=3)
  • M37 [IV] / Lorr. 155 50 [VII] (D=3)
    (M37 was in platoon with a IeFH18B2[V] and Type T-34[V], and delta within platoon is only 1)

  • Luchs [IV]    / Black Prince [VII] (D=3)
  • Pz. I C [III] / AMX M4 45 [VII] (D=4)
  • T-50 [IV] / IS [VII]    (D=3)
  • M5 Stuart [IV]   / IS [VII]    (D=3)
  • Luchs [IV]    / Tiger [VII] (D=3)
  • M5A1 Stuart [IV] in platoon with Oz. 28 nA [IV] / Caernarvon [VIII] and IS-3 [VIII] (D=4)

Now who can say that they would enjoy playing on the left side of the above, without being just a little bit suicidal about it?
With a D (Delta, as in difference) of 2 is fine, and you can perhaps stretch 3 to be acceptable too, though many will probably find it a bit too tough to try and make a real effort, but there are still some with 4. Point is still: there ought to be a limit to the max tier span across all players on both teams, and I think the limit ought to be at 2, since 3 can often be very discouraging to bother playing, and 4 should be impossible.

lets see how long it takes till you realize that the left side is full of scouts..... and remember: its your list!

ZeusBTY #20 Posted 06 August 2013 - 07:28 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 4376 battles
  • 29
  • Member since:
    05-30-2013
I got frustrated with the MM too, and kept track from the moment 8.7 was out because they supposedly fixed/tweaked it. Turns out I have been high tier in less than 15% of those matches (some 175 of them)! Talking about medium and heavy tanks here, and some TD (I already dropped light tanks completely because of the ridiculous MM imbalance). I don't care if I get 300% XP/silver for just damaging one enemy in those matches - they're simply no fun!

And it's not like usually you're one of many low tiers with only a few higher tiers... no, most of the time you're one of only 2 or 3 tier N tanks with 5 N+1 tanks and the rest N+2. No game is fun when 75% of the enemies can destroy you in 1 or 2 shots, while you need 8 shots to destroy them and they're faster too.

Wouldn't battles be more fun if they were either single tier only, or something like mostly tier N, 2-3 N+1 and max 1 N+2?

And yeah, veteran players, I know that the tier spread used to be even worse in previous versions. The fact that it was worse before doesn't mean it's fine now. The number of topics on this as well as in-game comments clearly show many people are not yet happy with it.