Jump to content


MM


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

ZlatanArKung #21 Posted 14 July 2017 - 07:01 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1537 battles
  • 5,309
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostExclamationMark, on 14 July 2017 - 04:44 PM, said:

Yes, please bring back the old MM where the enemy could have 1/2 more top tiers, 2/3 more mid tiers etc. That was very enjoyable.

Something that is extremely easy to tweak.



VonniVidiVici #22 Posted 14 July 2017 - 07:02 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 38759 battles
  • 12,521
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

View PostKozzy, on 14 July 2017 - 02:23 PM, said:

I'm I the only one who feels this MM change has only really negatively affect T8?  I really don't have a problem in any other tier.

 

I do.

 

View PostBrowarszky, on 14 July 2017 - 02:37 PM, said:

Are there actually any statistics available on this? It certainly feels like tier 8 MM is worse than before, but is there any data to back up this feeling?

 

I don't have numbers from before 3-5-7 but I'm pretty sure it wasn't like this:

 

Spoiler

Battles played: 100

VI-VIII: 17

VII-VIII: 1

VII-IX: 18

VIII: 6

VIII-IX: 19

VIII-X: 39

 

And for tier VI (not done yet but 88 games is close enough):

 

Spoiler

Total battles: 88
IV-VI: 6
V-VI: 6
V-VII: 19
VI: 8
VI-VII: 11
VI-VIII: 37


Edited by 1ncompetenc3, 14 July 2017 - 07:02 PM.


WindSplitter1 #23 Posted 14 July 2017 - 07:06 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 19160 battles
  • 3,478
  • [ORDEM] ORDEM
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

View Postqpranger, on 14 July 2017 - 01:13 PM, said:

I am willing to forgive many of WG's transgressions if they do revert to the old MM.

Never thought they could make MM any WORSE than it was already, but now they have done it.

 

There's no forgiveness to what they've done to Light Tanks [nerfing them and not selling the premiums].

 

I would rather be bottom tier in all battles from this point onward with my Chaffee than be top tier with the current stats.



ZlatanArKung #24 Posted 14 July 2017 - 07:07 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1537 battles
  • 5,309
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostXOR42, on 14 July 2017 - 05:35 PM, said:

 

I guess this just comes down to personal perspective and outlook.

 

If you expect it to be a mix and you constantly get bottom tier, you are going to get disappointed and angry with the game.

 

If you expect to be bottom tier all the time, you are going to be ok and pleasantly surprised when you are mid or top tier.

 

If you are in a platoon, you will be bottom tier :teethhappy:

 

I don't mind being bottom tier (although this is some what subjective given the low and mid tiers I play) and I expect it. I'm fine with it, both old and new MM. Maybe it's cause I'm a little older and wiser*.

 

However, watching a lot of streamers and tubers, I do think the issue is exacerbated between tiers 8-10.

 

* Intelligence is knowing a tomato is a fruit and not a vegetable. Wisdom is knowing that you don't put tomatoes in a fruit salad.

 

 

 

 

The problem is that you are never top tiered anymore.

Which puts you in the hands of the top tiered every game.

I want to be able to reliable influence my battles and I don't want to be forced to play compete against 2 tiered higher tanks to win every other battle. Because such a huge disadvantage is not entertaining every other battle. 

 

I would rather have a 3 buttom tiered, 5 mid tiered and 7 top tiered MM. 



ZlatanArKung #25 Posted 15 July 2017 - 12:10 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1537 battles
  • 5,309
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014
MM is still terrible

JuliusCheddar #26 Posted 15 July 2017 - 12:46 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 34290 battles
  • 564
  • Member since:
    08-27-2014

View Postqpranger, on 14 July 2017 - 02:29 PM, said:

rigged

ffs, you were doing so well 



ZlatanArKung #27 Posted 15 July 2017 - 12:55 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1537 battles
  • 5,309
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostJuliusCheddar, on 15 July 2017 - 12:46 PM, said:

ffs, you were doing so well 

I think he will still be an awesome CC.



ZlatanArKung #28 Posted 15 July 2017 - 12:56 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1537 battles
  • 5,309
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014
T7 today.
2 T9 battles.
2 T8
1 T7 (full T7)
1 battle where I saw T6.

THE_JACK_OF_HEARTS #29 Posted 15 July 2017 - 01:56 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 9794 battles
  • 912
  • [CMC3] CMC3
  • Member since:
    02-04-2015
But you guys must remember, I looked back at 2015 posts and some of you said how bad the mm was then, make your minds up ??????. I am sure I am guilty of that also.

Edited by THE_JACK_OF_HEARTS, 15 July 2017 - 01:57 PM.


CmdRatScabies #30 Posted 15 July 2017 - 02:15 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 38551 battles
  • 5,207
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015

View PostTHE_JACK_OF_HEARTS, on 15 July 2017 - 01:56 PM, said:

But you guys must remember, I looked back at 2015 posts and some of you said how bad the mm was then, make your minds up ??????. I am sure I am guilty of that also.

 

So because it was bad in 2015 and they changed it, the change must be better?  Logic?

Blubba #31 Posted 15 July 2017 - 02:18 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 60575 battles
  • 2,378
  • Member since:
    05-30-2011

I like the MM. I hated being the the only -2 tier tank in the battle. At least now I know theres almost 50% of the enemy I am able to deal with on equal terms.

A lot of players asked for an MM with + OR - 1 balance. Well they have pretty much got that.

View PostZlatanArKung, on 15 July 2017 - 11:56 AM, said:

T7 today.
2 T9 battles.
2 T8
1 T7 (full T7)
1 battle where I saw T6.

 

Even ZlatanArKung, with 6 battles at tier 7 today, having faced 90 tanks only fought 6(six) tanks +2 tiers above him.

The only bug bear it seems to me is that everyone wants to be the guy with the +2 tiers. I appreciate that he and others may think thats too many but for me - and it's purely a personal thing - those kind of numbers are fine.

I like the MM compared to the old one. Yes it could be better but as far as I am concerned it's still an improvement and I apologise if you are not a 'he' Ms Kung.


Edited by Blubba, 15 July 2017 - 02:32 PM.


ZlatanArKung #32 Posted 15 July 2017 - 02:39 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1537 battles
  • 5,309
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostBlubba, on 15 July 2017 - 02:18 PM, said:

I like the MM. I hated being the the only -2 tier tank in the battle. At least now I know theres almost 50% of the enemy I am able to deal with on equal terms.

A lot of players asked for an MM with + OR - 1 balance. Well they have pretty much got that.

 

Even ZlatanArKung, with 6 battles at tier 7 today, having faced 90 tanks only fought 6(six) tanks +2 tiers above him.

The only bug bear it seems to me is that everyone wants to be the guy with the +2 tiers. I appreciate that he and others may think thats too many but for me - and it's purely a personal thing - those kind of numbers are fine.

I like the MM compared to the old one. Yes it could be better but as far as I am concerned it's still an improvement and I apologise if you are not a 'he' Ms Kung.

Was the games I have played today.

 

And this trend is still going on now. roughlt 50% of battles against T9.

And facing T9 every other battle is not really fun.



Aiston #33 Posted 15 July 2017 - 03:11 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 20591 battles
  • 1,462
  • Member since:
    03-26-2013

This MM is the worst there has been for awhile.

 

Hell, I thought they were making it so you cannot have long runs of being bottom tier?

Had a good 30 battles in the last week, about 3 of them being top tier, the vast majority being on average tier 9+...while I only use tier 7 mediums. Stock A-44 = incredibly shite, never mind without the top gun, it's a pea shooter that cannot pen anything.



Blubba #34 Posted 15 July 2017 - 03:36 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 60575 battles
  • 2,378
  • Member since:
    05-30-2011

View PostZlatanArKung, on 15 July 2017 - 01:39 PM, said:

Was the games I have played today.

 

And this trend is still going on now. roughlt 50% of battles against T9.

And facing T9 every other battle is not really fun.

 

It may be that half my post is missing. I am seeing an odd glitch here but essentially, 6 out of the 90 tanks you faced were two tiers higher than you.

What is your definition of fun?

6 battles fought, two with tier 9's containing 6 tanks which will pound for pound generally wipe the floor with you, one on one.

Even every other game (which I admit would run a little tiresome for me too), you'd still only see three tanks at tier 9, and ten at tier 8 along with either a minimum of 14 (possibly 17) tier 8's you can deal with. So out of the thirty you meet, at least 14 are in the same boat as you.

Whilst I do see an issue here, most of it boils down to WG saying players would see a balance to their personal MM allowing them to be top tier about the same as bottom which whilst isn't true, the MM still enables you to have plenty to dominate.


 



God0fwar300 #35 Posted 15 July 2017 - 03:38 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 22917 battles
  • 908
  • [R3BEL] R3BEL
  • Member since:
    12-27-2012
I really believe that +1/-1 matchmaker would significanfly improve this game.

God0fwar300 #36 Posted 15 July 2017 - 03:38 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 22917 battles
  • 908
  • [R3BEL] R3BEL
  • Member since:
    12-27-2012
I really believe that +1/-1 matchmaker would significanfly improve this game.

ZlatanArKung #37 Posted 15 July 2017 - 03:45 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1537 battles
  • 5,309
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostBlubba, on 15 July 2017 - 03:36 PM, said:

 

It may be that half my post is missing. I am seeing an odd glitch here but essentially, 6 out of the 90 tanks you faced were two tiers higher than you.

What is your definition of fun?

6 battles fought, two with tier 9's containing 6 tanks which will pound for pound generally wipe the floor with you, one on one.

Even every other game (which I admit would run a little tiresome for me too), you'd still only see three tanks at tier 9, and ten at tier 8 along with either a minimum of 14 (possibly 17) tier 8's you can deal with. So out of the thirty you meet, at least 14 are in the same boat as you.

Whilst I do see an issue here, most of it boils down to WG saying players would see a balance to their personal MM allowing them to be top tier about the same as bottom which whilst isn't true, the MM still enables you to have plenty to dominate.


 

 

My idea of fun is being top tiered 1/3 of the battles or more.

 

Yes there are 7 enemy T7 tanks.  But those are little more than practice targets for the T9 tanks.

And if you get base camping T9 tanks while enemy T9 tanks are actually playing the front lines. Then you are lost.

The 3 tip tier idea puts waaay to much power and influence in to few tanks. I believe every game should have at least 5 top tiered tanks.



HidesHisFace #38 Posted 15 July 2017 - 03:56 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 18413 battles
  • 1,304
  • Member since:
    05-12-2012

Agreed, I didn't think I would ever say this... But I wish the old, horrible MM would return. This atrocity we have right now is terrible.

 

Statistically speaking - you land as the strict bottom tier around 40% of the time but... THE REVERSE IS NOT TRUE - you do not land as a top tier another 40% of the time. In fact, battles where you are bottom tier by at least one tier happen MORE THAN HALF THE TIME. At least from the data posted by others so far - I will run my own statistics, for tier 6, 7 and 8 - the ones I play the most.

Sure, in the old MM we had a situations like a single tier 3 tank in otherwise tier 5 battle - that was crap, I admit it, but generally speaking, you were landing as middle or top tier far more often than now. 

 

Even playing the preferential MM tanks doesn't help - you will be thrown in a single tier battles more often, pitted against new, overpowered premiums, which literally negates the advantage of preferential MM to nothing. 

 

In theory, this new MM was supposed to make life easier for bottom tiers - by eliminating the "single bottom tier tank" syndrome from the game.

The thing is - HALF of bottom tiers is NOT ENOUGH - bottom tier tanks are just easy prey for higher tiers most of the time - half the team is CATTLE - this doesn't create a fun game for half of the bloody team. Higher tiers should not be more than 1/3 of the entire team - in such case, they would be the hard hitters, anchor for the team without turning the remaining tanks into stupid XP pinatas. 

Given the fact that now you land as bottom tier MORE than half the time makes this game simply NOT FUN - the games are not balanced - more often than not, it is an uphill struggle. 

So what that there are more low tiers in every battle? I mean, theoretically it means you have a greater chance of meeting them, right? Wrong, they are just more likely to get slaughtered by high tiers anyway in first minutes of the battle.

 

We don't need this fancy 3-5-7 crap. We just need 5-10 MM with only +1 spread.

 


Edited by HidesHisFace, 15 July 2017 - 04:07 PM.


Blubba #39 Posted 15 July 2017 - 04:11 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 60575 battles
  • 2,378
  • Member since:
    05-30-2011

View PostZlatanArKung, on 15 July 2017 - 02:45 PM, said:

 

My idea of fun is being top tiered 1/3 of the battles or more.

 

Yes there are 7 enemy T7 tanks.  But those are little more than practice targets for the T9 tanks.

And if you get base camping T9 tanks while enemy T9 tanks are actually playing the front lines. Then you are lost.

The 3 tip tier idea puts waaay to much power and influence in to few tanks. I believe every game should have at least 5 top tiered tanks.

 

Fair enough but for me, three is enough. Many games I've played where half my team goes to the beach on Overlord or stops in the valley on Lakeville to slowly get chopped to pieces at the enemies leisure. It doesn't matter that there are three or five top tiers (to me). It's normally lost at that point anyway.

The level of understanding you seem to wish to see is more a skill/experience based MM rather than random player/equal tank balance. The idea that the tier 7's are target practice for the 9's is unique too. If they sit, exchanging with tanks 2 tiers up, they are as lost as the guys on the beach or in the valley.

Currently, WG can't/won't balance brains. Only tanks (apparently) and I am happy with that.

I think we can safely assume you and I will differ on this one.



ZlatanArKung #40 Posted 15 July 2017 - 04:19 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1537 battles
  • 5,309
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostBlubba, on 15 July 2017 - 04:11 PM, said:

 

Fair enough but for me, three is enough. Many games I've played where half my team goes to the beach on Overlord or stops in the valley on Lakeville to slowly get chopped to pieces at the enemies leisure. It doesn't matter that there are three or five top tiers (to me). It's normally lost at that point anyway.

The level of understanding you seem to wish to see is more a skill/experience based MM rather than random player/equal tank balance. The idea that the tier 7's are target practice for the 9's is unique too. If they sit, exchanging with tanks 2 tiers up, they are as lost as the guys on the beach or in the valley.

Currently, WG can't/won't balance brains. Only tanks (apparently) and I am happy with that.

I think we can safely assume you and I will differ on this one.

 

I had a game where I lost simply be a useful 2 of my 3 T9 tanks went Valley on Lakeville.

It was lost the second those 2 decided that.

That is NOT fun battles.

Fun battles are those you can influence and where your contribution matters.

 

I would have an easier time contributing and supporting my team as a low tiered tank if I had 5+ top tiered tanks in my team and in enemy team.

Because then chances that a majority of your top tiered tanks are windowlickers  (useless) is lower, and you will have an easier time (or at least a possibility) to support your top tiered tanks.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users