Jump to content


How does the matchmaking work?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
41 replies to this topic

Grothas #1 Posted 25 July 2014 - 12:11 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 2573 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    08-08-2011

Greetings more experienced players, as a new player, I'm confused by how the matchmaking system seems to work. While World of Tanks provides rather short queue times, I find it strange that at low tiers, I have to play approximately half of my games vs tanks 2 tiers above me, starting at tier 3. I know this isn't a proper statistical sample, but out of my last 45 games with different tier 3 tanks, 24 of them have involved tier 5 tanks, where I as a new player feel like I'm left with little or no impact, as I can hardly scratch the opposing tanks. Is this a normal distribution? And if so, does the ratio ever change?

 

A secondary question is, does this game have a hidden MMR system of some kind, or is matchmaking solely done by matching the same 'type' of tanks on each side? As in, would a 'bad' player end up being matched with mostly 'bad' players, or does the system completely disregard win rates and the like?

 

A couple of my friends I started playing this game with have already quit, so was wondering if this ever got better, or if this simply continues.



ollonborre #2 Posted 25 July 2014 - 12:16 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 17077 battles
  • 2,264
  • Member since:
    04-02-2011

The MM on tier 3 is -1+2, so you can face tier 2 as lowest and tier 5 as max. Then on tier 4 and up you will get the standard +-2. However light tanks can have different MM, the wiki clearly states wich these are.

 

And yes the system disregard stats completely. All it tries is to get tanks to shot eachother.

 

Welcome to the forums btw, and good that you got here early. Stick around, this game is fun when you get into it.

 



Grothas #3 Posted 25 July 2014 - 12:26 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 2573 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    08-08-2011
Thank you for the welcome, the system seems kind of harsh to a new player, I'd gladly take a few minutes of queue time to avoid those, to me, huge differences at lower tiers, it does not exactly seem friendly to new people. I do intend to stay for a while, hoping it gets better.

ollonborre #4 Posted 25 July 2014 - 12:31 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 17077 battles
  • 2,264
  • Member since:
    04-02-2011

Better and better, well this game gets "better" by definition the more you understand about game mechanics, weakspots and strenghts and weaknesses about the tanks you are driving and facing.

 

So a tip, open up the wiki and read up a bit on certain mechanics like the camo system for example. Watch videos, observe others, hell even go for trial and error if you have to.

 

Point being that the game is good as long as you understand it and/or can live with it.



DotoxXx #5 Posted 25 July 2014 - 01:16 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 7013 battles
  • 16
  • Member since:
    04-06-2013

Awesome. 5th thread about this in one day!

 



mariner1 #6 Posted 25 July 2014 - 06:08 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 842 battles
  • 94
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

You have to wonder though that maybe a better system might be matchmaking plus a 'league' system (like british football) so that as an example when you start you only play relatively similar level players and the higher tier 'seal clubbers' get filtered out.

 

Just a thought.



LUNSSI #7 Posted 25 July 2014 - 06:19 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 15944 battles
  • 2,370
  • Member since:
    06-13-2013

View Postmariner1, on 25 July 2014 - 06:08 PM, said:

You have to wonder though that maybe a better system might be matchmaking plus a 'league' system (like british football) so that as an example when you start you only play relatively similar level players and the higher tier 'seal clubbers' get filtered out.

 

Just a thought.

 

It is a thought shared by many. However its not enough weight to make it so. Most new players dont know this place exists.



RichardNixon #8 Posted 26 July 2014 - 06:16 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 4395 battles
  • 2,351
  • Member since:
    06-26-2013

View PostGrothas, on 25 July 2014 - 01:11 PM, said:

Is this a normal distribution? And if so, does the ratio ever change?

 

Tier 5 is the first tier that gets fair matchmaking. Tiers 3-4 get bad matchmaking because they're unpopular, and they're unpopular because they get bad matchmaking. Plus a lot of the tanks are totally outmatched by tier 5s unless you spam gold.

 

For some reason, WG don't consider this to be a problem.

 



Claudius_Caesar #9 Posted 26 July 2014 - 06:55 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 19775 battles
  • 698
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

That video is complete [edited]. WG lies about their mm system - you must be very stupid to believe what they tell you.

 

"On one hand , team should be equally in class and tier of vehice" Riiiight. I lost track of games where one team had 2 tier 10 artys and the other 2 tier 9 and one tier 8.

 

"On the other hand teams should differ so outcome of the battle is unpredictable" HAHAHAH. That is the biggest crap i have ever heard in this game.  With proper mods you can demolish that "unpredictable" and even demonstrate it in front of WG's liers. If it's not why is that after a good winning streak ... the mm "ballances you" into absolut idiotic teams and RNG absolute destroys you just so you can loose and keep - even the best of the players - to ~ 60-70% WR. Unpredictable? Gett the f out of here. This game is rigged to the bone. 99% of the time anyone can predict  the outcome of the battle, based on the tanks and skill of players.And WG knows that too but it cannot show the true mm system as nobody will play it anymore and then discover that the "RNG" is not so RNG after all.

 

This is a rigged game. PERIOD. There is nothing "random" about it. Even the so called "rng affected shots" are based on , i guess , your previous performances (if you did well or not) or other variables WG is hiding.. If you know a little of programming you would know it is just impossible to trully produce RANDOM values especially in a game like this.

 

You should not buy what WG is saying. They have a business to run. Customers don't need to know everything.


Edited by clocky, 26 July 2014 - 08:55 AM.


Marlekin #10 Posted 26 July 2014 - 07:31 AM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 34653 battles
  • 4,369
  • [BEUKR] BEUKR
  • Member since:
    11-10-2010

View Postclocky, on 26 July 2014 - 07:55 AM, said:

mm system

rigged to the bone

rigged game

RIGGD

 



Arxiereas_ #11 Posted 26 July 2014 - 07:59 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 63079 battles
  • 308
  • Member since:
    11-06-2012

MM is totally broken / or MM is totally rigged. My last played tier 8 meds:

 

 

 

 

and last of all played STA-1

 

similar battle efficiency in all, tragic winrate difference. Not in 10-20 games but in a total of >100. Is it the player or the game? 

Notice the not so huge difference in XP/battle. This indicates job is done, team fails. Scores table also show the same



Claudius_Caesar #12 Posted 26 July 2014 - 08:43 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 19775 battles
  • 698
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011
You know there are 2 kinds of people in this world. Those that after pointing at the moon look at the moon and the others who look at the finger. You my friend...i guess you know what category you are in. Just read my post again carefully this time and probably next time you will think of something smart to say ... even thou'  i have my doubts. It's really hard to get something smart from people that wasted 22k battles in this game. Read a book dude. You'll have more words to express youself.

View PostMarlekin, on 26 July 2014 - 08:31 AM, said:

 

 

View PostArxiereas_, on 26 July 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

MM is totally broken / or MM is totally rigged. My last played tier 8 meds:

 

 

 

 

and last of all played STA-1

 

similar battle efficiency in all, tragic winrate difference. Not in 10-20 games but in a total of >100. Is it the player or the game? 

Notice the not so huge difference in XP/battle. This indicates job is done, team fails. Scores table also show the same

 

It is the game and to a smaller percent ... the player.


Edited by clocky, 26 July 2014 - 08:52 AM.


Marlekin #13 Posted 26 July 2014 - 11:07 AM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 34653 battles
  • 4,369
  • [BEUKR] BEUKR
  • Member since:
    11-10-2010
Oh such snide comments! Did i hurt your feels bro? 

Orkbert #14 Posted 26 July 2014 - 11:55 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 33058 battles
  • 3,183
  • [ASSO] ASSO
  • Member since:
    08-29-2013

Also in some other thread I read about the mechanic that you won't be low tier three times in a row. And from my observations this seems to be true. Of course you have to drive tanks that can be 'true' low tier; i.e. tier 3 and up since tier1 and 2 tanks have only +-1MM and can't be low tier in the sense of that MM mechanic (and as such excessive use of tier1 and 2 tanks can seriously shift the MM of higher tiered tanks to your displeasure).

 

Oh, and another tidbit of MM: If you get a new tank in the very first match you will be matched as hightier. Of course this is often offset by that new shiny tank still being in stock configuration (and often lesser skilled crews) but it's nice to know (and a reason why you unlock modules with free XP and not the tanks themselves)



RichardNixon #15 Posted 26 July 2014 - 04:54 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 4395 battles
  • 2,351
  • Member since:
    06-26-2013

View PostArxiereas_, on 26 July 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

similar battle efficiency in all, tragic winrate difference. Not in 10-20 games but in a total of >100. Is it the player or the game? 

 

You're underestimating winrate variance. Even over 200 games, there's still a 3% chance each way that your winrate is off by 7% or more, which covers your probable underlying winrates with the Centurion and the STA-1.

 

Everyone will have a handful of tanks that are this far off. You noticed it because they're both tier 8 mediums.

 

Note that this calculation is still valid even if every game was perfectly balanced by the matchmaker. Balancing reduces win margins but not winrate variance.

 

 



sharky313 #16 Posted 26 July 2014 - 08:45 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 1080 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    11-30-2013
"How does the matchmaking work?" It doesn't 

Claudius_Caesar #17 Posted 27 July 2014 - 06:12 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 19775 battles
  • 698
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostMarlekin, on 26 July 2014 - 12:07 PM, said:

Oh such snide comments! Did i hurt your feels bro? 


i voted your comment +1 because you just demonstrated my doubt.lol. carry on.


Edited by clocky, 27 July 2014 - 06:13 AM.


Interfix #18 Posted 27 July 2014 - 07:40 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 26615 battles
  • 164
  • [AWSM] AWSM
  • Member since:
    07-19-2012

In the long run the only thing that matters in regard of your winrate is your personal performance. You can test this for yourselves: D/L the Wot Replay Analyzer

( http://forum.worldof...r-wip-3-080714/ ) and sort your replay files by WN8 or WN7. Next you select the

top 5% of your games and check your winrate for them. Then you compare this value to your bottom 5%. If you have more than about 10000 games it will be a

pretty obvious indicator how much your personal performance influences the outcome of your matches. For me, in my top 2000 games, I have a winrate of 73%

and for my bottom 2000 games a W/R of 40%.

 

It works best if you have all of your replay files still available and complete (did not leave the battle early).

 

You are the only constant factor over long series of matches, while your RNG and balance of teams (player and tank wise) evens out.



Arxiereas_ #19 Posted 27 July 2014 - 09:22 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 63079 battles
  • 308
  • Member since:
    11-06-2012

View PostRichardNixon, on 26 July 2014 - 06:54 PM, said:

 

You're underestimating winrate variance. Even over 200 games, there's still a 3% chance each way that your winrate is off by 7% or more, which covers your probable underlying winrates with the Centurion and the STA-1.

 

Everyone will have a handful of tanks that are this far off. You noticed it because they're both tier 8 mediums.

 

Note that this calculation is still valid even if every game was perfectly balanced by the matchmaker. Balancing reduces win margins but not winrate variance.

 

 

 

I'm introducing an aspect of similar tanks (regarding tier, class and battle efficiency) played by the same player in 3-month time period with up to 17%(!) inclination in WR.

This is my only means to prove that game (MM-your team) affect the battle results no matter what you do. 


Edited by Arxiereas_, 27 July 2014 - 09:26 AM.


RichardNixon #20 Posted 27 July 2014 - 04:53 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 4395 battles
  • 2,351
  • Member since:
    06-26-2013

View PostArxiereas_, on 27 July 2014 - 10:22 AM, said:

 

I'm introducing an aspect of similar tanks (regarding tier, class and battle efficiency) played by the same player in 3-month time period with up to 17%(!) inclination in WR.

This is my only means to prove that game (MM-your team) affect the battle results no matter what you do. 

 

It's not a 17% difference. One's 7% up and one's 7% down. The remaining 3% is due to the Centurion having lower expected damage but also lower MM weight than the STA-1.

 

General proof that your own performance is dominant in the long run:

 

 

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users