Jump to content


MM


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

ajay3672 #41 Posted 15 July 2017 - 05:28 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 26814 battles
  • 84
  • [BULL] BULL
  • Member since:
    12-20-2013

Hopefully I will not be abuse or insulted by what I am going to say, I am trying to some degree of thought into this. Generally speaking I do not have too many issues with the last update, with regards to the arty mechanics, light tanks going to +2, and apparently better map rotation, although that one is debatable.

For the most part from what I have seen these changes have worked ok, the reusable consumables the arty doing less damage although the stun mechanics can be a pain.

However one thing that has cropped up and become a major issue has been the number of times that tier 8 tanks are put into tier 10 matches. Now no doubt someone will not read this properly and point out that tier 8 tanks always could see tier 10 tanks and yes that is true, However some of the recent changes have made things just a tad more difficult.

The Maus has practically no weak spots front on and if someone could correct me on this point but I have heard that the side armour has also been buffed. Whether this is going to stay like this I don't know. I have heard rumours that this will be looked into but we all know what WG are like.

Then there is the Type 5 heavy, not only did they give it a derp gun with some ridiculous prem ammo, I do not know how effective the original gun was. But then they increased the armour so that this too had no frontal weak spots, now apparently WG are looking to address this by reducing 2 spots at the front by a massive 10mm so you will need a gun with excellent accuracy to be able to hit them.

Then there are the issues with tier 8 itself. Now I have always believed and others that I have spoken to that the tier 8 premium tanks should have preferential match making, and not be as good as tanks that are in the tech tree. The benefits of these tanks were that they were cheaper to repair, had better credit earning potential and that you could use these tanks as crew trainers. Now if I can dredge through my memory there are 2 tanks in particular that have been negatively affected by these new premium tanks that have been introduced. The Super Pershing and the IS6. Both tanks are not particularly quick, and both had poor guns. The Super Pershing finally got the much needed gun buff, but it has obvious weak spots and over all the Pershing is a better tank. The IS6 has a gun that belongs at tier 7 and it is not as good as the IS3. Now if either of these tanks come face to face against the new premium tanks that have been introduced you have to ask yourself what chance do you have. Neither of these tanks are more maneuverable than the new premium tanks and with both of these tanks firing premium ammo will still not work. Also what is interesting to point out, that after the buff to the gun on the Super Pershing, you could say that that as far as the gun was concerned you could be more effective, but now with the introduction of these new premium tanks the Super Pershing is really right back to where it was before the buff.

So is this an example of Pay to Win. I don't know but what you most definately can say is that all of these new premium tanks are better than the tech tree tanks whilst maintaining the bonuses of the credit earning potential, and the crew training.

This is not a rant, but merely I am trying to look at this clearly by pointing out some things that I have noticed through either personal experience when playing certain tanks and from what I have seen with regards to the results screen. The problem that WG have here would to either buff these older premium tanks, but that would mean that the premium match making would be removed and that these older premium tanks would be better than the tech tree tanks. The other approach and this has only happened once would be to nerf these new premium tanks. Perhaps nerfing these new premiums and offering gold as compensation to players who have bought them may be acceptable. I don't know. I do remember WG offering gold as compensation for players who bought the Super Pershing when it first came out, I can't remember the reason why, but there is a video by Pointed Haired Jedi where he mentioned this.

So what is the answer to this, I have mentioned a couple (and no doubt knowing what this forum is like I will get a load of abusive for this) but I doubt that either of these suggestions would be taken seriously. More than likely WG will do absolutely nothing, but I believe that this at least needs to be looked at.

Please try not to be too damning about this. But I hoping that this will get people thinking.



benydos #42 Posted 15 July 2017 - 07:47 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 12797 battles
  • 16
  • Member since:
    02-13-2013

12 t8 games, just to test it out

10 t10

1 t9

1 t8

 

Yeah, it is better than the old system... Much better



jabster #43 Posted 15 July 2017 - 08:00 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12598 battles
  • 24,106
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View Postbenydos, on 15 July 2017 - 06:47 PM, said:

12 t8 games, just to test it out

10 t10

1 t9

1 t8

 

Yeah, it is better than the old system... Much better

 

What tank class(es) were you playing as there has been some speculation that it may be worse for some than others.



benydos #44 Posted 15 July 2017 - 08:20 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 12797 battles
  • 16
  • Member since:
    02-13-2013

View Postjabster, on 15 July 2017 - 08:00 PM, said:

 

What tank class(es) were you playing as there has been some speculation that it may be worse for some than others.

 

I mainly play with my friend in plat. Plat mm was always fucked up, but now it is pathetic at high tier. Frankly, since the new patch, I have basically stopped playing, cos of the op as crapprems and the mm, but before I have had enough we grinded two t8 tanks, and only saw t7 2 times.

Tanks i have played: 

fv4202 (managed to get the op mm above with this one, and I swear, this always gets this mm. not even funny)

t28 proto (same, both of the t7 matches was played with this)

VK 4502 P

T9 is fine, mainly cos you can grind the lower t8 easily, and you have some chance against t10, but everyting bellow that is garbage for a platoon. 



jabster #45 Posted 15 July 2017 - 08:27 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12598 battles
  • 24,106
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View Postbenydos, on 15 July 2017 - 07:20 PM, said:

 

I mainly play with my friend in plat. Plat mm was always fucked up, but now it is pathetic at high tier. Frankly, since the new patch, I have basically stopped playing, cos of the op as crapprems and the mm, but before I have had enough we grinded two t8 tanks, and only saw t7 2 times.

Tanks i have played: 

fv4202 (managed to get the op mm above with this one, and I swear, this always gets this mm. not even funny)

t28 proto (same, both of the t7 matches was played with this)

VK 4502 P

T9 is fine, mainly cos you can grind the lower t8 easily, and you have some chance against t10, but everyting bellow that is garbage for a platoon. 

 

I don't play platoons myself but the general consensus seems to be it's very rare or non-existent to be top tier in a platoon.



HidesHisFace #46 Posted 15 July 2017 - 08:46 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17975 battles
  • 1,303
  • Member since:
    05-12-2012

First batch of results from this evening. All games played in medium tanks without preferential MM to rule out any possible differences related to vehicle class being treated differently. So far a very small sample size, but I will keep updating it.

Tier 8: Sample - 10 games.

5  tier 8-10.

2 tier 8-9.

1 tier 7-9

2 tier 6-8

 

Tier 7: Sample - 8 games.

3 tier 7-9

5 tier 6-8

 

Tier 6: Sample - 8 games.

2 tier 6-8

3 tier 6-7

1 pure tier 6

2 tier 5-6

 

Now, it is too early to say anything constructive at this point - sample sizes are too small to be statistically relevant but still - 70% games in a tier 8 tank were effectively bottom tier games. That was either a bad luck, which I doubt, or a symptom of a major issue with the MM. Time will tell as the sample size will keep on growing. What is notable - a relative lack of any pure top tier games (-2 tiers that is).

I will post fresh results once I reach 50 games in each tier sample. That will give us some insight. After that, I will post it once I reach 100.


Edited by HidesHisFace, 15 July 2017 - 08:47 PM.


ZlatanArKung #47 Posted 16 July 2017 - 08:05 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,169
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014
Not only does the new MM gives you buttom tier to much.

It also seems to favour putting lights/TDs/arty as top tiered.
So you have like 2-3 sup port vehicles as top tiered which further increases the problem.
Since these support tanks (TD/light) should be front liners anyway because they have the hp and guns to be it as they are top tiered.

And if you are really unlucky, you get WT auf Pz IV (or other paper TD)as your top tiered while enemy get T30/Jagdtiger/T95 (or other heavy tank/break through tank).


Karasu_Hidesuke #48 Posted 16 July 2017 - 08:59 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 16175 battles
  • 4,017
  • [I-S-L] I-S-L
  • Member since:
    12-03-2013
Based on the posts here it looks like the MM is 'biased' (not saying it is rigged) to put you more often in a disadvantaged position (40-60 % of the time) than an advantageous position (10 to 20 % of the time) in terms of MM spread. This probably favors the more skilled players more than the average casual like players who will quickly get frustrated at the situation.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users