Jump to content


Why the matchmaking is done so?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
13 replies to this topic

ValkyrionX #1 Posted 09 August 2017 - 10:31 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 42460 battles
  • 1,020
  • [ORKI] ORKI
  • Member since:
    02-07-2015

Does the idea of a matchmaker seem to be so horrible based on player statistics too for greater balance? Seeing so much times losing 15-0 teams or winning 15-0 has nothing to do with funny or even play with players who seem to be bots driven by a computer with 512 mb ram and a first generation intel pentium is not fun .. come on wg developers .. give yourself a move in that direction , is not so hard to do.

This game is a "multi-singleplayer", in plain words, has nothing to do with team working as everyone is intent on doing their own facts and damages or camping or afk time or "kto polak" and blablabla on the chat with stupid racist comments all daylong, trying to base this game on the team working ..would be interesting

 

peace



Jigabachi #2 Posted 09 August 2017 - 10:59 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17858 battles
  • 18,524
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011
Such feedbacks, very construct, so very vents.

Edited by Jigabachi, 09 August 2017 - 11:00 AM.


Aikl #3 Posted 09 August 2017 - 11:10 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25167 battles
  • 4,253
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

'Git gud?'

 

On a more serious note, as long as you have teams, nothing can really balance it - even making WoT a rail-shooter wouldn't prevent a 15-0 loss from happening. While it hasn't exactly solved the problem, at least the matchmaker tends to give the teams roughly equivalent tanks. Imbalance of heavy tanks are still a thing, though, and not a lot of fun on many maps. Still, teams are typically not doing anything to compensate for that.

 

The willingless to learn for some players is, and always will be, close to zero. Getting rid off (creating separate matches) for the ones that mostly want to 'drive tank go boom' is a fair idea, though there are a lot  of players who wouldn't exactly be thrilled to realize that they've been assigned "bot" status - they typically think there's nothing wrong with them or how they play, but that they instead just get bad teams/RNG/Poland/hackers/goldnoob.

 

I mean, would you (OP) liked if the game stated that you were a truly average player, and that you've been assigned to play with others with highly inconsistent performance or playstyle that doesn't impact the game much? Didn't think so. :)



Kozzy #4 Posted 09 August 2017 - 11:11 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 38855 battles
  • 2,705
  • [EAB2] EAB2
  • Member since:
    06-29-2011
Thread locked in 3..2..

RockyRoller #5 Posted 09 August 2017 - 11:15 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29913 battles
  • 1,170
  • [NR-NS] NR-NS
  • Member since:
    06-15-2016

More people playing higher tiers are looking for games so WG make MM work for them. They only add three to a battle in the hope three will not make a tier unable to MM when more log on. It will make the lower two tiers suffer but who cares when that earns real money from all three tiers. Its a capitalist model and working as intended?

 

The social bone thrown to the pack is Tier 10 is getting lots of new battle features, from 30 v 30 to rankings. That would indicate perhaps T 10 are the cash cows WG wants to keep happy and playing.

 

They must be a bigger cash cow than tiers 6, 7, 8 and 9 combined?



jabster #6 Posted 09 August 2017 - 11:19 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12532 battles
  • 22,811
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostAikl, on 09 August 2017 - 10:10 AM, said:

 

I mean, would you (OP) liked if the game stated that you were a truly average player, and that you've been assigned to play with others with highly inconsistent performance or playstyle that doesn't impact the game much? Didn't think so. :)

 

Well I can't speak for the OP but if they created two league, one for bottom and top 15% and one for the rest of us I'd be more than happy.



Aikl #7 Posted 09 August 2017 - 11:27 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25167 battles
  • 4,253
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

While a 'light skill-based/league-based MM' is an idea I actually like, the main point was that at lot of players would be rather angry they got into the 'bottomfeeder' leauge - because they think it's just the teams being bad. Also, I imagine a lot of players who actually try their best wouldn't be very satisfied if they suddenly got to play with a lot of bad players. I, frankly, enjoy playing with/against players that are better than me, because I improve and learn that way. That has been the case since way less complicated games than WoT - Counter-Strike for instance.



Spurtung #8 Posted 09 August 2017 - 11:28 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 61586 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostKozzy, on 09 August 2017 - 12:11 PM, said:

Thread locked in 3..2..

 

Block Quote

Due to the high number of Match Making, we want discussions to take place in the main pinned thread here. 

 

 



8126Jakobsson #9 Posted 09 August 2017 - 11:42 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 62792 battles
  • 3,101
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

I had a 15-0 win in 2 minutes and 57 seconds the other day. Is that a record?

 

edit: tier 8-10


Edited by 8126Jakobsson, 09 August 2017 - 11:43 AM.


unhappy_bunny #10 Posted 09 August 2017 - 05:04 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 17926 battles
  • 2,459
  • [-OC-] -OC-
  • Member since:
    08-01-2012

View PostValkyrionX, on 09 August 2017 - 10:31 AM, said:

Does the idea of a matchmaker seem to be so horrible based on player statistics too for greater balance? Seeing so much times losing 15-0 teams or winning 15-0 has nothing to do with funny or even play with players who seem to be bots driven by a computer with 512 mb ram and a first generation intel pentium is not fun .. come on wg developers .. give yourself a move in that direction , is not so hard to do.

This game is a "multi-singleplayer", in plain words, has nothing to do with team working as everyone is intent on doing their own facts and damages or camping or afk time or "kto polak" and blablabla on the chat with stupid racist comments all daylong, trying to base this game on the team working ..would be interesting

 

peace

OK I'll bite.

 

Just how many battles actually end 15-0? Agreed that these are not the most exciting most of the time, there are probably the odd exception where superior team play leads to a quick victory, but even then, it can be subjective. But I would say, from my experience, that these are rare.

As to adding players skills into the equation, this raises a whole load of questions:

1. What measure of skill would be used?

2. Would the skill be based on overall figures or done on a per tier or per tank basis?

3. Would the skills need to be balanced between the tiers in each team, (i.e. 1xblue + 2 xRed in top tier then 2xgreen + 2x orange + 1x red in middle tier - etc act you get the idea) or just overall across the team (as in 2xblue + 2xgreen + 3xorange + 8xred)? 

4. Would there player base be split into leagues? If so, how many? And based on what? 

5. If leagues, at what point does a player get relegated or promoted? 

6. Bearing in mind the more variables MM has to take into its calculations, the longer wait times are going to be, should there be a point at which MM ditches all attempts to balance and just creates teams on current formula? 

 

Personally, I am happy with things as they are. Sure I wish T8 got a few more same tier or topper battles, but I can live with that. 

 

Interesting* stat. VBAddict lists spilt for the various tiers. In the T8/9/10 range, T8 comes out as 50%, T9 as 30% and T10 as 20% (vehicles chosen for battle), This quite closely equates to, in reverse order, T10 = 3, T9=5, T8=7. Maybe the answer to T8's MM problems is for more players to take T9 & T10 tanks instead of T8's. 

 

*possibly interesting to some, interest is not guaranteed.



Alabamatick #11 Posted 09 August 2017 - 09:11 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 31849 battles
  • 2,965
  • Member since:
    04-11-2011

IB4 qpranger likes post :popcorn:

 

Edit: how right i was:)


Edited by Alabamatick, 10 August 2017 - 12:34 AM.


Homer_J #12 Posted 09 August 2017 - 09:39 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27652 battles
  • 29,000
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postjabster, on 09 August 2017 - 11:19 AM, said:

 

Well I can't speak for the OP but if they created two league, one for bottom and top 15% and one for the rest of us I'd be more than happy.

 

Those bottom 15% are what give me a win rate over 50% so I need them.

Sebenza #13 Posted 09 August 2017 - 10:35 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13652 battles
  • 1,046
  • Member since:
    03-19-2013

View PostAikl, on 09 August 2017 - 11:10 AM, said:

 Imbalance of heavy tanks are still a thing, though, and not a lot of fun on many maps. Still, teams are typically not doing anything to compensate for that.

Sometimes there's just nothing to compensate with.... I had an all tier X battle yesterday where the hitpoint difference between both teams was around 8000...thats 4 tier X mediums more for the opposing team and those hitpoints were not found in squishy meds or td's but in armored behemoths...even more difficult (and costly). 

How do you think this battle played out on this map and what would you've done to counter things?


Edited by Sebenza, 09 August 2017 - 10:36 PM.


Jbnn #14 Posted 10 August 2017 - 06:21 AM

    Moderator

  • Moderator
  • 9210 battles
  • 614
  • [WG_M] WG_M
  • Member since:
    05-23-2017
Good morning 

 

Block Quote

Due to the high number of Match Making, we want discussions to take place in the main pinned thread here. 

 

So, have a nice day :)




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users