Jump to content


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


  • Please log in to reply
206 replies to this topic

SovietBias #21 Posted 21 March 2015 - 12:34 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37407 battles
  • 1,347
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013

View PostEnforcer1975, on 21 March 2015 - 12:13 PM, said:

You would need a person with knowledge to judge your skill imo.

 

Yes that's also a problem. The way I see it, players that now complain because of random MM and it's inability to match players by skill, will then complain that skill MM is a nice idea except the skill formula is wrong and is (usually) undervaluing their potential. In a 15 player team where players are roughly the same skill level the 'team' component is a big part. This means the player feels that he is being matched with 'bots' and his win ratio hurt because of that.

 

All in all, nothing changes.


Edited by maDNauseam, 21 March 2015 - 12:38 PM.


PanzerKFeldherrnhalle #22 Posted 21 March 2015 - 01:50 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 2872 battles
  • 816
  • Member since:
    09-14-2013

Armored Warfare picked up on a great game / concept (World of Tanks) and are willing to improve it introducing the changes that many have been demanding for a long time. Looking forward to try and if the game-play is good then AW has (in time) everything to overcome World of Tanks.

 

Of course, balanced matchmaking sounds like a lousy idea for statpadders who play broken low tiered V or VI tanks all day against ignorant players.



Element6 #23 Posted 21 March 2015 - 02:02 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30854 battles
  • 11,176
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013
However they design the MM to make teams, it will still be 15 uncoordinated people, just like in WoT.

IrisveilVonReith #24 Posted 21 March 2015 - 02:05 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 217 battles
  • 707
  • Member since:
    03-02-2012
Proper MM? Nice joke.

Vestrick64 #25 Posted 21 March 2015 - 02:10 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 11492 battles
  • 6,210
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013

View PostLegioCenturion, on 21 March 2015 - 01:50 PM, said:

 

Of course, balanced matchmaking sounds like a lousy idea for statpadders who play broken low tiered V or VI tanks all day against ignorant players.

No, it sounds a lousy idea for people who are good at this game. Unlike mediocre guys who will never climb beyond 52% WR, so they don't care either way.



_Grim_ #26 Posted 21 March 2015 - 02:12 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22990 battles
  • 1,431
  • [-DFA-] -DFA-
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostYuri_Yslin, on 21 March 2015 - 01:12 PM, said:

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

 

I guess they want to fulfill the poor tomatoes dreams of not having a negative WR:sceptic:.

 

Well,one more reason to not bother with AW.



PanzerKFeldherrnhalle #27 Posted 21 March 2015 - 02:24 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 2872 battles
  • 816
  • Member since:
    09-14-2013

View PostElement6, on 21 March 2015 - 01:02 PM, said:

However they design the MM to make teams, it will still be 15 uncoordinated people, just like in WoT.

 

That's what matchmaking does: matchup teams. What WOT tries to do is match-up results, by consistently aligning-up uneven teams.

 

With regards to matchmaking Armored Warfare's concept is evidently better than WOT's.

This of course doesn't mean that it will be a better game as only after going public we'll be able to determine that. 

 



Vestrick64 #28 Posted 21 March 2015 - 02:26 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 11492 battles
  • 6,210
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013

View PostLegioCenturion, on 21 March 2015 - 02:24 PM, said:

With regards to matchmaking Armored Warfare's concept is evidently better than WOT's.
 

For bad or average players - sure.

 

 



PanzerKFeldherrnhalle #29 Posted 21 March 2015 - 02:28 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 2872 battles
  • 816
  • Member since:
    09-14-2013

View PostYuri_Yslin, on 21 March 2015 - 01:10 PM, said:

No, it sounds a lousy idea for people who are good at this game. Unlike mediocre guys who will never climb beyond 52% WR, so they don't care either way.

 

People who are good at this game generally want to see it improved. People who think they are good are usually resistant to change.



sady3296 #30 Posted 21 March 2015 - 02:34 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 57174 battles
  • 239
  • Member since:
    03-12-2011

So let me get this straight....i would have a lower "combat rating" with my new (non elite) tank than a bot with 5k battles in the same elite tank?


Edited by sady3296, 21 March 2015 - 02:35 PM.


Vestrick64 #31 Posted 21 March 2015 - 02:39 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 11492 battles
  • 6,210
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013

View PostLegioCenturion, on 21 March 2015 - 02:28 PM, said:

 

People who are good at this game generally want to see it improved. People who think they are good are usually resistant to change.

 

Correct. Too bad "skill MM" does nothing to improve the game. It merely makes bads win more, unicums win less. When excellent players have the same WR as bots, how is that "improving the game" exactly?

Edited by Yuri_Yslin, 21 March 2015 - 02:39 PM.


SovietBias #32 Posted 21 March 2015 - 02:42 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37407 battles
  • 1,347
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013
I

View Postsady3296, on 21 March 2015 - 02:34 PM, said:

So let me get this straight....i would have a lower "combat rating" with my new (non elite) tank than a bot with 5k battles in the same elite tank?

It appears that combat rating and player quality are not part of the same process. So, yes. Because you would be weighted as a Stock tank, and consequently you'd only be swapped if a better outcome was possible by swapping only with players in the same situation as yours. (ie: you would not be swapped with a bot 1 tier higher)

 

Therefore, hardly anything changes. It all depends on the impact that a lower tier has in that game. Because tier balance is the rule that stands.


Edited by maDNauseam, 21 March 2015 - 02:45 PM.


Evil_Mungo #33 Posted 21 March 2015 - 02:46 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Clan Commander
  • 28225 battles
  • 3,332
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    06-12-2012

It doesn't make a distinction between player skill, just battles played.

 

Fine by me.



_b_ #34 Posted 21 March 2015 - 02:56 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 56287 battles
  • 4,150
  • Member since:
    04-06-2011

And for those so very concerned that the overall wr would be 50% for both good and bad ... You saying that a bot also would have high ratios on kills/dmg/survival/spotting/capping/defence??

 

'Cause current "let's compare the size of ours ..." methods does totally ignore these right? :p

 

to:dr relax, you can still show how good you are


Edited by _b_, 21 March 2015 - 02:57 PM.


MhUser #35 Posted 21 March 2015 - 02:57 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 31682 battles
  • 636
  • Member since:
    07-15-2011

great MM

i hope that most players will leave wot when AW will be released -> whis will force WG to make a proper MM finally

 

this system punishes stat padders - the more you pad (artifically increase your stats over your skill level) the tougher it will get; it will reward 'playing for fun' which will mean you can rush 5 enemy tanks alone and have fun outplaying them all; not like the wot meta: 1 vs 29, have to camp and use my allies as meatshields to GRIND damage for WN8, use  situational awareness and map awareness to deny my own team damage and xp so I can GET MOREEEEEEE



Gl0cK_17 #36 Posted 21 March 2015 - 02:58 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 34794 battles
  • 204
  • Member since:
    02-02-2011

View PostInfernalesBrot, on 21 March 2015 - 12:02 PM, said:

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? 

Least important parameter? Skills isnt even on the list, lol :)

 

Block Quote

 

To create as balanced teams as possible, we have developed a system where several elements are taken into account:

  • The vehicle itself
  • The equipped modules
  • How many battles the player used the vehicle in

These three categories form what we call “combat rating”.

 

In non of these parameters i see skill beeing a factor tbh.

Oh yes buying tank X, lot of skill involved there.

Buying and equiping modules is also skill based then?

Now the ammount of battles played in a vehicle is garanteed to reflect a players skill level?

 

So basicly what this does is make sure that a player who elited a tank and plays it, gets downtiered alot. And still in a battle with random skill distribution.

 

Im sorry if i fail to see how thats a improvement tbh.

 

 

What most likely will happen with that game is.

People will play it the first month orso, will then realise its not the wotkiller they hoped for and that my com also is just a company trying to make a profit.

Basicly the same thing we seen in the past decade orso with every market leading game and their killers :P Strangely enough games like WoW, LoL, BF or CoD are still going strong after a decade despite all those killers popping up on a yearly basis...

 

 


Edited by Gl0cK_17, 21 March 2015 - 03:06 PM.


SovietBias #37 Posted 21 March 2015 - 03:00 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37407 battles
  • 1,347
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013

View PostMhUser, on 21 March 2015 - 02:57 PM, said:

great MM

i hope that most players will leave wot when AW will be released -> whis will force WG to make a proper MM finally

 

this system punishes stat padders - the more you pad (artifically increase your stats over your skill level) the tougher it will get; it will reward 'playing for fun' which will mean you can rush 5 enemy tanks alone and have fun outplaying them all; not like the wot meta: 1 vs 29, have to camp and use my allies as meatshields to GRIND damage for WN8, use  situational awareness and map awareness to deny my own team damage and xp so I can GET MOREEEEEEE

 

Tell me how you outplay 5 enemies of the same skill as you?

 

Let's think about that for a moment...



Homer_J #38 Posted 21 March 2015 - 03:01 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 31489 battles
  • 34,493
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Post_b_, on 21 March 2015 - 01:56 PM, said:

 

to:dr relax, you can still show how good you are

 

Yeah, just don't expect being better or trying harder to mean you will win more.

 

Which begs the question why try at all?

 

Also, how are the equivalents of WN8 going to be able to prove they are a proper skill measurement?  With WoT you have win rate to back it up, if your win rate is forced to 50% then you will just have to believe and you only have to look at early efficiency rating formulas to see how wrong you can get it.


Edited by Homer_J, 21 March 2015 - 03:03 PM.


Gloris #39 Posted 21 March 2015 - 03:02 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 19748 battles
  • 1,691
  • Member since:
    08-14-2011

Block Quote

 

  • The vehicle itself
  • The equipped modules
  • How many battles the player used the vehicle in

These three categories form what we call “combat rating”.

 

So if i like a tank and play it a lot i get punished by having a higher "Combat rating" in it ?

 

Why is this good exactly?


Edited by Gloris, 21 March 2015 - 03:04 PM.


SovietBias #40 Posted 21 March 2015 - 03:04 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37407 battles
  • 1,347
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013

View PostGl0cK_17, on 21 March 2015 - 02:58 PM, said:

 

 

So basicly what this does is make sure that a player who elited a tank and plays it, gets downtiered alot. And still in a battle with random skill distribution.

 

Im sorry if i fail to see how thats a improvement tbh.

 

 

 

+1.

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users