Jump to content


Armored Warfare Matchmaking


  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

John_Preston #21 Posted 05 March 2015 - 05:59 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 17436 battles
  • 6,373
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012

Now this is from AW site:

Skill Matchmaker

 We do realize that this is a very hot and important topic for many people interested in our game. Therefore, we are pleased to confirm that yes, the teams will not be matched only by their vehicles, but also by player skill. Please note that this does not mean that good players will be segregated from the average ones. That would mean punishing the good players for being good by giving them tougher opponents and we don’t want that. On the other hand, we do understand that when one team consists of top players and the other of new ones, it’s not fun for either side and therefore, both sides will be balanced to have players of roughly equal skill present in each team. If one team has three extremely good players, the other will have the same (within certain margin of course).

 Just as i thought...having - let's say - 1 unicum/side with 14 baddies doesn't really prevent unicums from clubbing them seals...so that much for skill based MM. Good players will still beat bad ones. The difference in winrates might going to be smaller than in WoT, but everything else will be the same.

 



Shaka_D #22 Posted 05 March 2015 - 06:46 PM

    Colonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 37657 battles
  • 3,761
  • Member since:
    10-18-2010

View PostJohn_Preston, on 05 March 2015 - 04:22 PM, said:

I feel like a hero now for reading all of those comments and replying to them...it took me a loooooooooooong time.

Lol, well done.



Asghaad #23 Posted 05 March 2015 - 07:40 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 14092 battles
  • 3,103
  • [PPDCZ] PPDCZ
  • Member since:
    01-23-2013

View PostJohn_Preston, on 05 March 2015 - 05:59 PM, said:

Now this is from AW site:

 Just as i thought...having - let's say - 1 unicum/side with 14 baddies doesn't really prevent unicums from clubbing them seals...so that much for skill based MM. Good players will still beat bad ones. The difference in winrates might going to be smaller than in WoT, but everything else will be the same.

 

 

it doesnt,

 

which is the WHOLE point - do not punish individuals for playing good, but instead ballance TEAMS so the battle is in hands of the players, not matchmaker

 

simple system to prevent one team to roflstomp other not because they made mistakes but by simply having worse team by default ...

 



Homer_J #24 Posted 05 March 2015 - 07:47 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 31481 battles
  • 34,486
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postjinx_uk, on 05 March 2015 - 11:25 AM, said:

Found it quite interesting reading the news release giving a run down on the matchmaking setup for Armored Warfare. I won't post the entire article here, you can read it yourself at the link below. Very interesting that they've considered much of what's been complained about with WOT and seem to be considering what it is many players actually want, whereas the ones complaining about the MM in WOT have often been made to feel like the minority, for armored warefare they seem to be listening? Anyhow, here is the just of it:

  • +/-2 matchmaker spread
  • MM accounts for whether a vehicle is stock or fully upgraded
  • Both teams having roughly the same vehicle setup
  • Artillery hardcap
  • Skill-based MM – both teams have players of equal skill
  • Protection of new players against being preyed on by veterans

Article can be found HERE

 

Noobie protection - this means noobies will be faced with almost empty battles, they learn nothing, and then when they hit whatever level it is decided they are no longer to be protected at they suddenly start getting their backsides handed to them and leave.  Long term it's a bad idea.

 

Matchmaker taking into account upgrades - this was tried and dropped in WoT, it's a bad idea because it punishes you for upgrading your tank.

 

Both teams having same vehicle setup, great way to make sure no vehicle has an unusually high win rate.  And boring.

 

Arty hardcap - ohh that's a revolutionary idea, and a bad one because if you have lots of arty it ensures all battles have lots of arty.

 

As fr skill based matchmaking, can you imagine the response if Wargaming posted the following.

 

Quote

In case you are wondering how skill is measured in Armored Warfare – we developed an internal rating system, based on multiple factors (including winrate, average XP and other things). However, here’s the thing – we will not disclose the exact formula to prevent users from „playing“ the system. This rating is internal and will not be displayed in battles – based on previous experience with a similar system, we really don’t feel like this would contribute to positive game environment in any way.

 

And what the response would be.

 

Yeah, they won't publish it because then you can't tell if the battles are balanced or not.

 

As for hiring SS - it's cheaper to pay someone to shut up than fight them.



John_Preston #25 Posted 05 March 2015 - 08:04 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 17436 battles
  • 6,373
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012

View PostAsghaad, on 05 March 2015 - 07:40 PM, said:

 

it doesnt,

 

which is the WHOLE point - do not punish individuals for playing good, but instead ballance TEAMS so the battle is in hands of the players, not matchmaker

 

simple system to prevent one team to roflstomp other not because they made mistakes but by simply having worse team by default ...

 

You see...it's a game people have thousands and thousands of battles. Statistically speaking you get just as many good teams as bad ones.

It's totally balanced.

The difference between your stats and the average is due to your own contribution in those multiple thousand battles.

It doesn't really matter whether you get steamrolled once or twice, because the opposite can happen just as often.

Bad players have just as many "bad teams" as good players. Still, there's a difference in their stats.  It will be still there if they get "balanced teams".

Bad players will still contribute less than good players. But now they are going to be carried more.

 

But still my main problem with an MM like that is that it's boring. Having the same vehicles driven by people of the same skill level is going to be very repetitive. Right now in WoT there are sooo many possibilities. You press the battle button and you don't know what's going to happen.

Every battle is unique and new in some way.

Or you can just have the same boring "balanced" battles over and over again.



Schmeksiman #26 Posted 05 March 2015 - 08:20 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 16670 battles
  • 6,606
  • [INC] INC
  • Member since:
    03-10-2012

View PostHomer_J, on 05 March 2015 - 07:47 PM, said:

As fr skill based matchmaking, can you imagine the response if Wargaming posted the following.

 

Quote

In case you are wondering how skill is measured in Armored Warfare – we developed an internal rating system, based on multiple factors (including winrate, average XP and other things). However, here’s the thing – we will not disclose the exact formula to prevent users from „playing“ the system. This rating is internal and will not be displayed in battles – based on previous experience with a similar system, we really don’t feel like this would contribute to positive game environment in any way.

 

And what the response would be.

 

You know when people here complain that WG is doing something shady behind the scenes and rigging their matches? Well AW will be doing that for sure but those same people will praise them because skill based matchmaking (even though they don't have a clue about it).

 

I feel like their devs were having a discussion like this:

Dev1: WoT players are crying about no skill based matchmaking.

Dev2: Cool, release an article we'll have that as well.

Dev1: But how will that work, it isn't and easy thing to do in a 30 player team game?

Dev2: I don't care, we'll just say it's a secret and come up with something in time, from now we have skill based MM

WoTTomato: Yay, now I'll be a top player while camping the entire game, FU WoT!

 

A huge hype, lots of promises and revolutionary stuff on paper but how well do those translate to gameplay? I'm sceptical about some of those.



Asghaad #27 Posted 05 March 2015 - 09:33 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 14092 battles
  • 3,103
  • [PPDCZ] PPDCZ
  • Member since:
    01-23-2013

View PostJohn_Preston, on 05 March 2015 - 08:04 PM, said:

You see...it's a game people have thousands and thousands of battles. Statistically speaking you get just as many good teams as bad ones.

It's totally balanced.

The difference between your stats and the average is due to your own contribution in those multiple thousand battles.

It doesn't really matter whether you get steamrolled once or twice, because the opposite can happen just as often.

Bad players have just as many "bad teams" as good players. Still, there's a difference in their stats.  It will be still there if they get "balanced teams".

Bad players will still contribute less than good players. But now they are going to be carried more.

 

But still my main problem with an MM like that is that it's boring. Having the same vehicles driven by people of the same skill level is going to be very repetitive. Right now in WoT there are sooo many possibilities. You press the battle button and you don't know what's going to happen.

Every battle is unique and new in some way.

Or you can just have the same boring "balanced" battles over and over again.

 

point me anywhere that article says there will be exactly same vehicles chosen with exactly same skill level of players ...

 

they only say they will ballance classes and tiers across the teams (probably deviation of +-1 vehicle per class in team) and they will balance overall team level - meaning that in wot terms they will ballance extremely good players in one team in other team as well, that doesnt mean one for one as i tried to explain above ... so ill repeat that - lets say one team gets an "unicorn", system balances that with two "smurfs" in opposing team and  one "orange" in his team. Only thing that is complicated about this is a required computation power and more complex coding

 

 

one of the most frustrating things that happen in WoT MM is team unballance by class (one team has 8 heavies, second has one on close quarters city map ...) or by "skill" (xvm shows us often how atrotiously bad MM can be pretty clearly)

 

 

PS: your argument is only valid if you consider "statistics" and "winrating" important. Id rather have good battle and lose than participate in onesided slaughter and win. Secondly, WoT was and is suspected to have some "ballancing" coding in MM because there are a lot of highly above average players barely hovering above 50% winrate which frankly does not fit the "if you do good your winrate will be higher"



Asghaad #28 Posted 05 March 2015 - 09:41 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 14092 battles
  • 3,103
  • [PPDCZ] PPDCZ
  • Member since:
    01-23-2013

View PostSchmeksiman, on 05 March 2015 - 08:20 PM, said:

 

You know when people here complain that WG is doing something shady behind the scenes and rigging their matches? Well AW will be doing that for sure but those same people will praise them because skill based matchmaking (even though they don't have a clue about it).

 

I feel like their devs were having a discussion like this:

Dev1: WoT players are crying about no skill based matchmaking.

Dev2: Cool, release an article we'll have that as well.

Dev1: But how will that work, it isn't and easy thing to do in a 30 player team game?

Dev2: I don't care, we'll just say it's a secret and come up with something in time, from now we have skill based MM

WoTTomato: Yay, now I'll be a top player while camping the entire game, FU WoT!

 

A huge hype, lots of promises and revolutionary stuff on paper but how well do those translate to gameplay? I'm sceptical about some of those.

 

difference is, that the complaint is : that if you do well the MM then finds you matches you are supposed to lose by default to keep you down.

 

i wont get into the debate about this being truth or not, but if you cant see the difference between system : you do good = you have to lose versus : you do good = lets find you some challenge equal to your skill, you have to be blind.

 

lastly, you are way too acustomed to lies being told by WG to think about a company that actualy has to maintain a good name (and Obsidian has a hell of a reputation with theyr previous games being good, hell some of them are cult classics by now - yes im talking about KotOR2, the BEST StarWars game to this date ...) so if they say this openly that this system is being implemented its going to be implemented unless its physically impossible.

 

PS: so far they delivered on all promises they made (all promises im aware they made that is)  - trust me, i was in last alpha ...



Schmeksiman #29 Posted 05 March 2015 - 10:43 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 16670 battles
  • 6,606
  • [INC] INC
  • Member since:
    03-10-2012

View PostAsghaad, on 05 March 2015 - 09:41 PM, said:

difference is, that the complaint is : that if you do well the MM then finds you matches you are supposed to lose by default to keep you down.

 

i wont get into the debate about this being truth or not, but if you cant see the difference between system : you do good = you have to lose versus : you do good = lets find you some challenge equal to your skill, you have to be blind.

 

How about you prove that with a number of replays or anything that could confirm your conspiracy theory?

Why wouldn't AW have the same system, they didn't say anything how it will work but you are damn sure it will be better.

Your arguments are simply non-existent yet you believe in it.

 

View PostAsghaad, on 05 March 2015 - 09:41 PM, said:

lastly, you are way too acustomed to lies being told by WG to think about a company that actualy has to maintain a good name (and Obsidian has a hell of a reputation with theyr previous games being good, hell some of them are cult classics by now - yes im talking about KotOR2, the BEST StarWars game to this date ...) so if they say this openly that this system is being implemented its going to be implemented unless its physically impossible.

 

PS: so far they delivered on all promises they made (all promises im aware they made that is)  - trust me, i was in last alpha ...

 

And you're now telling me I believe in lies yet you've made the previous statement. Well give me one piece of evidence that Obsidian isn't cheating on you and WG is, please do before you make claims you can't prove.



Asghaad #30 Posted 05 March 2015 - 11:14 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 14092 battles
  • 3,103
  • [PPDCZ] PPDCZ
  • Member since:
    01-23-2013

View PostSchmeksiman, on 05 March 2015 - 10:43 PM, said:

 

How about you prove that with a number of replays or anything that could confirm your conspiracy theory?

Why wouldn't AW have the same system, they didn't say anything how it will work but you are damn sure it will be better.

Your arguments are simply non-existent yet you believe in it.

 

 

And you're now telling me I believe in lies yet you've made the previous statement. Well give me one piece of evidence that Obsidian isn't cheating on you and WG is, please do before you make claims you can't prove.

 

1. as i sayd, i dont care if its true or not (not anymore that is :) )

 

your argument was that AW is going to introduce the same thing - which means you were not paying attention at all to what they actually were saying.

 

the only thing they sayd was they will be implementing skill based matchmaking to make teams BALLANCED which is far cry away from "WoT conspiracy" that is based on people being actively punished for being good by putting them in unfair matches - basically exact OPPOSITE what AW statement was ...

 

2. WG nerfed the tank i already bought for real money - the Superpershing - to the level that is uncomparable to the state it was before the nerf. And no the nerfing was not warranted, SP was mediocre at best even then, even WG had to fall back on absolutely ludicrous "because of historical accuracy" which was ANOTHER lie - in fact SPs armor was even then WEAKER than in real life (real SP had both spaced armor plated go up the whole length of upper glacis and they were set up to provide combined LoS armor thickness of 288.62 mm ...). I also had posts in topics firstly completely deleted then restored and yet i was still banned from forums for a week unable to get the "forum muzzle" removed just because mod "cant make a mistake". Or should i talk about how they raped the Foch and Foch 155 to utter uselessness just to make people more interested in their new autoloader T10 line even though F155 had slightly above average performance that would have been more than solved by global TD alpha nerf, but it also screwed T9 Foch that basically had only bit of armor going for it and was mediocre in every other way. As for outright lies, how about HAVOC that was promised and promised and now it was so downplayed they only intend to use it for junk moving on tank models ... in far future ... or how about "rare premium vehicles - get them now or never" hen showering us with those during every oportunity (fools who bought KV220 thinking they got unique limited vehicle... yeah)...

 

as for AW i have yet to see anything they say they will do and dont do it, its too early to say if they really can be trusted, basically the first test will be how thew will or will not implement arty in theyr game...



Homer_J #31 Posted 05 March 2015 - 11:35 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 31481 battles
  • 34,486
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostAsghaad, on 05 March 2015 - 08:41 PM, said:

 

difference is, that the complaint is : that if you do well the MM then finds you matches you are supposed to lose by default to keep you down.

 

 

One makes sure the enemy team has a chance to beat you, the other makes sure the enemy has a chance to beat you.

 

The big difference is the WG one doesn't exist, or at least if it does it works very very badly.

 

If the proposed AW system works then everyone will be forced to a 50% win rate.  Then bad players can claim the reason they do little damage and get little kills is because they concentrate on awesome tactics like taking one for the team.



kaneAAA #32 Posted 06 March 2015 - 12:15 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 41691 battles
  • 1,880
  • [SKRAP] SKRAP
  • Member since:
    11-18-2012
Wow... it's like AW....they want to make the gaming experience....enjoyable!!.... notice how all the WOT fanboys are angrier and angrier the more AW comes up with good ideas...... lol.... same old handful of people, too

John_Preston #33 Posted 06 March 2015 - 12:31 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 17436 battles
  • 6,373
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012

View PostkaneAAA, on 06 March 2015 - 12:15 AM, said:

Wow... it's like AW....they want to make the gaming experience....enjoyable!!.... notice how all the WOT fanboys are angrier and angrier the more AW comes up with good ideas...... lol.... same old handful of people, too

I don't see any angry people here. Though your comment is everything but helpful.



Schmeksiman #34 Posted 06 March 2015 - 06:31 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 16670 battles
  • 6,606
  • [INC] INC
  • Member since:
    03-10-2012

View PostAsghaad, on 05 March 2015 - 11:14 PM, said:

as for AW i have yet to see anything they say they will do and dont do it, its too early to say if they really can be trusted, basically the first test will be how thew will or will not implement arty in theyr game...

 

Nobody prevents you from playing the game you like more but don't post crap which is misleading and false.

I don't know what kind of godlike play you're expecting from skilled based matchmaking but none would improve your battles much unless it's a separate league system. 

 

So can you tell me what BALANCED means according to them because they never said anything about how the system works or their willingness to disclose data?



jabster #35 Posted 06 March 2015 - 06:33 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12649 battles
  • 25,346
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View Postjinx_uk, on 05 March 2015 - 02:04 PM, said:

I love playing WoT but there are many things I hate about it. Does this mean I shouldn't play it because of a couple of things I don't like? This is an argument you can apply to many things in life too so your statement is irrelevant?

 

Fact is that many of the issues AW say they are addressing have been hot topics in WoT for years, and never implemented (largely). They're simply not going to do this because they feel it's as irrelevant as WG have made it out to be. There is obviously a good reason why they aim to do what they state to be planning to do.

 

 

To be fair saying that you don't have a good game experience, the majority of your games are woeful and not only that but games are rigged so that you lose sounds a bit hollow if you've stuck at it for almost 24k+ - work out how many hours played that is and the average number of games per-day. I didn't have what I would say was a good game experience with say Bioshock or Far Cry 2 but then again it would take me longer to play one hundred battles in WoT than I spent combined on both of those. To put it simply, I'm not enjoying the game as much as I used to but then again I've only played 1k games in the last year.

 

As for AW, it'll be interesting as to how their ideas for the MM pan out in reality in particular skill based MM and an arty hard cap.

 

The nice, if you can call it that, thing about the current MM is that we all get treated equally so everybody gets their fair share of bad and good teams. Put in a skill based MM and you have a real danger that won't by true. I may think the MM needs to be improved but I'm not sure I want to see a game where it's possible for good players to have worse win-rates than bad players.

 

Arty hard cap, the problem with that is that same as all hard caps i.e. if it's not matched to the number of players in that class then which battles do those players go into and if it is matched then there's no need for a hard cap. You can either have players waiting in the queue for ages or dump out the excess to "special" games. Neither of them sound like great ideas. If you don't think you can balance a class with a variable number per-battle then just don't have the class at all.

 

I'm going to play AW but my sceptical side says what they've said about the MM is less about what they think they can achieve and more about what they think they should say. What I really want to know is how they intend to make money and I hope they go down the lines that WoT have in that money is paying for time and not any practical in-game advantage.


Edited by jabster, 06 March 2015 - 07:22 AM.


Homer_J #36 Posted 06 March 2015 - 08:52 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 31481 battles
  • 34,486
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostkaneAAA, on 05 March 2015 - 11:15 PM, said:

Wow... it's like AW....they want to make the gaming experience....enjoyable!!.... notice how all the WOT fanboys are angrier and angrier the more AW comes up with good ideas...... lol.... same old handful of people, too

 

Angry?  Why would we be angry that the whiners are all either going to leave or have to shut the youknowwhat up?

 

I'm planning on having a party.



Boddom #37 Posted 06 March 2015 - 09:12 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 17337 battles
  • 72
  • [TERO] TERO
  • Member since:
    06-01-2013

Soo regarding your posts , i had games with 20% chanse to win and we won ( that`s 1 of 10) but i want to explain how this works for me. If the mm is bad for me , i play more carefull, calculating every move and trying to do my best because in your enemy`s mind is like this " ohhh we`ve got 70% to win, [edited]this i`ll go and kill all" and that`s wrong!!!! Regardless of your chanse to win, you need to do your best game by game. I know it is frustrating do make 3-4 K damage and lose because one idiot heavy is staying back and sniping (ROFL). For me this is the joy ... If a noob will always play with another noob will never learn to play ... but if u play with a blue one or even worse, with one fking purple one, show him that your lemming stats are sometimes WRONG !!! If we players press TAB and see 20% chanse to win and go like " ohh [edited]we gonna lose" hell ya that`s a lost game, but instand of that try to work toghether and crush the [edited]. Regarding the MM i dont like one thing, when u got to face 10 heavies and u got only 3 or 4 !!

 

Cheers !!


Edited by Boddom, 06 March 2015 - 09:25 AM.


trispect #38 Posted 06 March 2015 - 09:16 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 33282 battles
  • 1,767
  • Member since:
    01-16-2011

View PostBoddom, on 06 March 2015 - 10:12 AM, said:

Soo regarding of your posts , i had games with 20% chanse to win and we won ( that`s 1 of 10) 

 

Back to school, now! 

 

 



Boddom #39 Posted 06 March 2015 - 09:19 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 17337 battles
  • 72
  • [TERO] TERO
  • Member since:
    06-01-2013

View Posttrispect, on 06 March 2015 - 08:16 AM, said:

 

Back to school, now! 

 

 

 

your point ?

Edited by Boddom, 06 March 2015 - 09:20 AM.


John_Preston #40 Posted 06 March 2015 - 09:26 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 17436 battles
  • 6,373
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012

View PostBoddom, on 06 March 2015 - 09:12 AM, said:

Soo regarding of your posts , i had games with 20% chanse to win and we won ( that`s 1 of 10) but i want to explain how this works for me. If the mm is bad for me , i play more carefull, calculating every move and trying to do my best because in your enemy`s mind is like this " ohhh we`ve got 70% to win, [edited]this i`ll go and kill all" and that`s wrong!!!! Regardless of your chanse to win, you need to do your best game by game. I know it is frustrating do make 3-4 K damage and lose because one idiot heavy is staying back and sniping (ROFL). For me this is the joy ... If a noob will always play with another noob will never learn to play ... but if u play with a blue one or even worse, with one fking purple one, show him that your lemming stats are sometimes WRONG !!! If we players press TAB and see 20% chanse to win and go like " ohh [edited]we gonna lose" hell ya that`s a lost game, but instand of that try to work toghether and crush the [edited]. Regarding the MM i dont like one thing, when u got to face 10 heavies and u got only 3 or 4 !!

 

Cheers !!

Dunno, if i press tab i only see the players' names and what tank they are palying with.

We are probably playing a different game or smth...

 

View PostBoddom, on 06 March 2015 - 09:19 AM, said:

 

your point ?
Well, 20% is more like 1 in 5 chance.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users