Jump to content


Finally a proper MM...enjoy..:)


  • Please log in to reply
206 replies to this topic

mokosha #1 Posted 21 March 2015 - 08:45 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 1242 battles
  • 329
  • [N17R0] N17R0
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011

Hello all,

 

Here it is the MM we have been dreaming of.

 

http://aw.my.com/us/news/general/matchmaking-armored-warfare-0

 

Thanks.

 

Hello,

 

You're totally free to discuss other games, but when the entire point of your post is focuses just on a non Wargaming game, that's what the off topic is for.

Please remember that the "General Discussion" section of the World of Tanks forum is for discussing World of Tanks.

- Ectar

 


Edited by Ectar, 27 March 2015 - 01:04 PM.


Baidur #2 Posted 21 March 2015 - 09:28 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 12293 battles
  • 67
  • [-NUTS] -NUTS
  • Member since:
    09-11-2011
Hope it's gonna work as advertised. Will check that game out. Doubt if it will be without it's own problems.

Karukute #3 Posted 21 March 2015 - 09:51 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 6145 battles
  • 558
  • Member since:
    07-12-2012
Everything sounds good on paper, wait and see if it actually works as it says. Hype is a powerful but deadly thing.

Shnuks #4 Posted 21 March 2015 - 10:15 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 36652 battles
  • 4,990
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    06-16-2012
Since Obsedian is making the game it will take like 25 patches to make it actually work....

thoso1973 #5 Posted 21 March 2015 - 10:34 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 45016 battles
  • 438
  • [TEC] TEC
  • Member since:
    03-07-2013

It's not just that AW's matchmaker algorithm is being designed to account for tank modules and player stats. It will also prevent platoons driving tanks several tiers apart from joining a game, hard cap max artillery at 3 per team and reduce the tier spread in any game to +/-1 if enough players are online.

 

^ MM mechanisms that most WoT players have wished to see implemented in WoT since they started playing the game.



SovietBias #6 Posted 21 March 2015 - 10:46 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37404 battles
  • 1,301
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013

This may sound good, but will hardly address the usual "top tier noob vs pro" problem. Because the "player rating" appears only on the team forming phase, it is limited by a pool of 30 players, whose ratings are most likely random despite some early differences ( good players unlocking things faster).

If being top tier in AW has the same impact as in WoT,  there will be a lot of rage.

 

Taking into account the modules is a nice touch, and it should reduce those stock +2 MM battles. It may also mean that elite tanks play more against high tiers. I do not now how the game plays, so this might/might not be desirable.

 

Arty hard caps are in place in both games, nothing new here. Same with platoons.

 


Edited by maDNauseam, 21 March 2015 - 10:52 AM.


Homer_J #7 Posted 21 March 2015 - 11:04 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 28311 battles
  • 29,587
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postmokosha, on 21 March 2015 - 07:45 AM, said:

 

Here it is the MM we have been dreaming of.

 

What, take a couple of old, failed WoT ideas?

 

WoT had matchmaking based on modules, yeah that was great when your fully upgraded Tiger II was top tank facing a stock IS-4 or VK4502B on the other team.  I'm sure you can guess how that worked out.

 

And we had restricted matchmaking for newly bought tanks for 1 or 2 patches.  It was dropped because it was pay to win.



lord_chipmonk #8 Posted 21 March 2015 - 11:05 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 33727 battles
  • 10,250
  • [-HOW-] -HOW-
  • Member since:
    12-23-2012
And this is in the general discussion as opposed to off-topic because...?

SovietBias #9 Posted 21 March 2015 - 11:19 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37404 battles
  • 1,301
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013

View PostHomer_J, on 21 March 2015 - 11:04 AM, said:

WoT had matchmaking based on modules, yeah that was great when your fully upgraded Tiger II was top tank facing a stock IS-4 or VK4502B on the other team.  I'm sure you can guess how that worked out.

 

I did not know about that. In that case, it serves as an idea how this MM with module factoring might turn out. Thanks.


Edited by maDNauseam, 21 March 2015 - 11:27 AM.


jabster #10 Posted 21 March 2015 - 11:25 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12535 battles
  • 23,141
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostHomer_J, on 21 March 2015 - 10:04 AM, said:

 

And we had restricted matchmaking for newly bought tanks for 1 or 2 patches.  It was dropped because it was pay to win.

 

I believe the reason given was that it was bad enough having a stock tank in your team let alone making it far more likely to be top tier. Ten games with a reduced tier spread is hardly pay to win is it?

Vestrick64 #11 Posted 21 March 2015 - 11:35 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 11481 battles
  • 6,210
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013
Enjoy the 50% WR :)

Shaka_D #12 Posted 21 March 2015 - 11:35 AM

    Colonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 37657 battles
  • 3,761
  • Member since:
    10-18-2010
The way I see it is if I don't get my hopes up I won't be disappointed and anything more than this will be a welcome surpise.

Pansenmann #13 Posted 21 March 2015 - 11:39 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 33974 battles
  • 12,521
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    08-17-2012

sounds interesting.

 

question for me is: how well does that scale with ~ 5-6k players in the queue?

the math can waste a lot of cpu resources and can have interesting side-effects. :):)



jabster #14 Posted 21 March 2015 - 11:41 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12535 battles
  • 23,141
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View Postjinx_uk, on 21 March 2015 - 10:35 AM, said:

The way I see it is if I don't get my hopes up I won't be disappointed and anything more than this will be a welcome surpise.

 

See that's what I keep telling my better half :rolleyes:

Schmeksiman #15 Posted 21 March 2015 - 11:47 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 16280 battles
  • 6,601
  • [INC] INC
  • Member since:
    03-10-2012

Why would they take player win rate into account when calculating skill?

The point of a skill based system is to make the games as even as possible (or as close to 50% as we would say) so if the goal of your system is win rate why use it as a variable? It will just punish people with higher win rates, making them win less overall...

 

Also number of battles in a vehicle =/= skill.



Homer_J #16 Posted 21 March 2015 - 11:52 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 28311 battles
  • 29,587
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postjabster, on 21 March 2015 - 10:25 AM, said:

 

I believe the reason given was that it was bad enough having a stock tank in your team let alone making it far more likely to be top tier. Ten games with a reduced tier spread is hardly pay to win is it?

 

Whatever the official reason I know which tanks I abused it on, and from my experience it was more than 10 battles.



InfernalesBrot #17 Posted 21 March 2015 - 12:02 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 19073 battles
  • 152
  • [FALLN] FALLN
  • Member since:
    07-04-2011

I like that player skill is the least important parameter considered by that matchmaker. Skill 'based', totally. 

Though, now that apparently neither your vehicle, nor your equipment, nor your skill will make a real difference, I don't see why you would grind for new tanks and extend your garage, or even spend money on AW? 



Schmeksiman #18 Posted 21 March 2015 - 12:07 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 16280 battles
  • 6,601
  • [INC] INC
  • Member since:
    03-10-2012

I'm not sure this guy even understands the subject:

Spoiler

 

First off it's a horrible example where he basically describes how the idea behind it is for awesome players to club bad ones.

Secondly he says this: "wouldn't you rather have most matches have 3-3?Well isn't that the case with random matchmaking? Aren't your games overall equal (as your win chance should correspond to your overall win rate)?

Lastly, if you're going for each battle being balanced according to win rate and skill don't introduce 50% credits and exp bonus for the winning team, it doesn't make much sense when the game wants you to win 50% of the time and the better you are the more difficult it gets. Something you can't influence shouldn't determine your rewards if you ask me.



Vestrick64 #19 Posted 21 March 2015 - 12:12 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 11481 battles
  • 6,210
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013

if you distrubte the players evenly (the "3-3" example), you end up with forced 50% WR over a large number of battles. There is absolutely no way around this, so if they go for it, they should also remove WR from display, because it's meaningless: the game enforces 50% WR, so what's the point of even displaying it?

 

Bot is going to have 50% WR, and a super unicum would have 50% WR also. What a great system :P



Enforcer1975 #20 Posted 21 March 2015 - 12:13 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 20760 battles
  • 10,794
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014
They forgot to take Murphy's law into account. A plan never survives the first enemy contact. But you can dream as much as you want until they start to nip and tuck here and there. Player skill and form can never be accurately measured by a program especially with all the meta gaming going on and stat padders exploiting that system. You would need a person with knowledge to judge your skill imo.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users