Jump to content


I have this friend who is also unhappy with one-sided matches and ...


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

qpranger #1 Posted 14 July 2017 - 09:39 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 30715 battles
  • 5,061
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013
... he has this theory that if teams were expanded to 20 members the matches would be more balanced. He is a mathematician so I keep forgetting his complicated explanation, but do you guys think he might be right?

Velvet_Underground #2 Posted 14 July 2017 - 09:47 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 22243 battles
  • 3,164
  • Member since:
    12-19-2014


1ncompetenc3 #3 Posted 14 July 2017 - 09:47 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36772 battles
  • 11,489
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

How would more tanks make anything more balanced? The only thing that would achieve is even more tanks that overperform per match (as those are invariably the most popular), meaning people playing weaker tanks have an even crappier time. Not to mention 40 tanks on Mines or Ensk sounds absolutely idiotic.



leggasiini #4 Posted 14 July 2017 - 09:50 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 9619 battles
  • 5,807
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012


250swb #5 Posted 14 July 2017 - 09:50 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 20788 battles
  • 4,581
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-23-2015
Getting an new friend is easy, getting enough players to go 20x20 is more difficult, so ditch the friend.

Achibot #6 Posted 14 July 2017 - 09:55 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 17959 battles
  • 2,225
  • [HUSH-] HUSH-
  • Member since:
    05-16-2012

View Post250swb, on 14 July 2017 - 08:50 PM, said:

Getting an new friend is easy, getting enough players to go 20x20 is more difficult, so ditch the friend.

 

It's not old-school WOW here, the matchmaker takes care of the teams for you. From the player's perspective, nothing changes.

 

View Postqpranger, on 14 July 2017 - 08:39 PM, said:

... he has this theory that if teams were expanded to 20 members the matches would be more balanced. He is a mathematician so I keep forgetting his complicated explanation, but do you guys think he might be right?

 

Teams would be more balanced on average but it wouldn't eliminate steamrolls and I'm not at all sure the difference would be noticeable from a human perspective. You also have a crowding issue, 15 is already too many tanks for many of the maps. 30 x 30 on larger maps is promising though, I'd like to see them implement that quickly but of course HD Rock is delaying it indefinitely because Wargaming.



unhappy_bunny #7 Posted 14 July 2017 - 09:58 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 17409 battles
  • 2,132
  • [-OC-] -OC-
  • Member since:
    08-01-2012

You have a friend? 

Replay or it didn't happen.



qpranger #8 Posted 14 July 2017 - 10:20 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 30715 battles
  • 5,061
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013

View Postunhappy_bunny, on 14 July 2017 - 10:58 PM, said:

You have a friend? 

Replay or it didn't happen.

 

I have many friends among people and animals alike.

Junglist_ #9 Posted 14 July 2017 - 10:44 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35132 battles
  • 1,297
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013

No thanks, more tanks would mean individuals would have less impact on the outcome of the game.

View Postleggasiini, on 14 July 2017 - 08:50 PM, said:

 

Haha this made me laugh nice one leggasiini

Browarszky #10 Posted 14 July 2017 - 11:08 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 14904 battles
  • 2,749
  • [I-S-L] I-S-L
  • Member since:
    12-03-2013

I also have a friend (most likely not the same one as qpranger's) who mentioned that when you put premium tanks in a platoon it always gives you the worst possible MM. In the case of tier 8 premiums, that means facing tier X with greatly increased regularity.

 

We tested the theory tonight with tier 7 and 8 premiums in platoon. Always bottom tier.


Edited by Browarszky, 14 July 2017 - 11:08 PM.


Cannes76 #11 Posted 14 July 2017 - 11:12 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 62481 battles
  • 1,477
  • [3V] 3V
  • Member since:
    04-16-2011

View PostBrowarszky, on 14 July 2017 - 11:08 PM, said:

I also have a friend (most likely not the same one as qpranger's) who mentioned that when you put premium tanks in a platoon it always gives you the worst possible MM. In the case of tier 8 premiums, that means facing tier X with greatly increased regularity.

 

We tested the theory tonight with tier 7 and 8 premiums in platoon. Always bottom tier.

 

Did you redo the experiment with a control sample of non premium platoon? Also; how big is your sample size?

1ncompetenc3 #12 Posted 14 July 2017 - 11:14 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36772 battles
  • 11,489
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

View PostBrowarszky, on 14 July 2017 - 11:08 PM, said:

I also have a friend (most likely not the same one as qpranger's) who mentioned that when you put premium tanks in a platoon it always gives you the worst possible MM. In the case of tier 8 premiums, that means facing tier X with greatly increased regularity.

 

We tested the theory tonight with tier 7 and 8 premiums in platoon. Always bottom tier.

 

Yup, it's definitely the premium tanks causing that. :child:

Edited by 1ncompetenc3, 14 July 2017 - 11:18 PM.


Junglist_ #13 Posted 14 July 2017 - 11:14 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35132 battles
  • 1,297
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013

View PostBrowarszky, on 14 July 2017 - 10:08 PM, said:

I also have a friend (most likely not the same one as qpranger's) who mentioned that when you put premium tanks in a platoon it always gives you the worst possible MM. In the case of tier 8 premiums, that means facing tier X with greatly increased regularity.

 

We tested the theory tonight with tier 7 and 8 premiums in platoon. Always bottom tier.

 

I do hope you're being sarcastic since there has been dozen threads and loads of people reporting this issue regardless what tank it is since the major MM changes.

 



CoDiGGo #14 Posted 14 July 2017 - 11:15 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 14715 battles
  • 554
  • [MOARR] MOARR
  • Member since:
    05-10-2015
Replay? ( explanation) or didnt happen

HeidenSieker #15 Posted 14 July 2017 - 11:48 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 10046 battles
  • 4,396
  • Member since:
    03-26-2016

View Postqpranger, on 14 July 2017 - 10:20 PM, said:

I have many friends among people and animals alike.

 

Hm, Yorkshireman, eh?

laulaur #16 Posted 15 July 2017 - 12:02 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 46450 battles
  • 986
  • [FOXX] FOXX
  • Member since:
    08-11-2011

More players in a team means less individual influence on the outcome of the match. No thanks.

And maybe next time try to post for us the calculations of that 'mathematician friend' of yours, instead of:  ''I keep forgetting his complicated explanation''



NiemandXL #17 Posted 15 July 2017 - 01:11 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 37955 battles
  • 2,934
  • Member since:
    01-30-2013
Maps are already small as it is. On some maps like Mines it would get ridiculous with 20 tanks per team.

DracheimFlug #18 Posted 15 July 2017 - 07:01 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 8925 battles
  • 3,724
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014

View Postqpranger, on 14 July 2017 - 10:20 PM, said:

 

I have many friends among people and animals alike.

 

But how many people and animals are alike, exactly? :amazed:




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users