Jump to content


How the new MM is influencing all recents game changes.


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

brumbarr #1 Posted 24 August 2017 - 08:16 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,326
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

With the new MM, certain problems arose. One of the biggest problems is the  that tier8s are almost always bottom tier.

This is a massive problem for WG, and if you pay attention, this problem has been influencing major descissions in the last 2 patches.  

Almost all recent changes  WG made are to solve that problem,  but  the big problem with their approach is that they are treating the symptoms, and not the actual problem.

 

So , what did WG implement in the last 2 patches and next patch?

-Introduction of ranked battles: Goal: remove tier10 vehicles out of the random que.

-Easy and lots of marathons to oversaturate tier6 to fix tier6 and tier8MM.

-Introduction of grand battles to remove tier10 vehicles out of randoms.

-Bonds in full tier10 battles so the MM can create more tier10 games??

-Earning of resources in tier 10 games to create more  tier10 only games??

-Encouraging tier10 platooning by making platoons earn more resources => platoons are less toptier.

 

Basicly they are trying to get tier10 vehicles out of the que, but the last 2 descissions seem a bit odd, since what this will do is  put more tier10 vehicles into the que, unless WG encourages the MM for more full tier10 games.

 

Now, is this a good approach?

IMO, NO. why?

1) It hinders the development of  making what the introduce good in its own right, instead, they try to make it a solution to a problem isntead of makign the gamemode good.

2) This approach demands tier10 only modes,  and a lot of these modes should be lowertier aswell. 

3) The actuall problem will still persist and is not being fundamentally fixed, these are jsut temporary solutions.

 

 

What should WG do then? They need to fix the problem at its core, change the MM itself:

- make MM favour 5-10   and 15 MM over 3-5-7.

-let the MM wait a bit more to find enough tier8 tanks.

-change the MM format to a different template at higher tiers.

 

What do you think? Is WG trying to fix the problem like I think they are?  Or is WG just doing random stuff?



Dava_117 #2 Posted 24 August 2017 - 08:27 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 18578 battles
  • 2,764
  • [B-BAS] B-BAS
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014
Personally, I like your first proposal. I like 2 tires and single tire battle. IMMO are more balanced and fun to play.:great:

CmdRatScabies #3 Posted 24 August 2017 - 08:42 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 35907 battles
  • 3,822
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015
Some of these patches will have been planned a long way in advance - reasonable to assume that they knew the effect the new mm would have & planned for it.  It sucks, but I think they'll let all their changes play out & only revert as a last resort.

Long_Range_Sniper #4 Posted 24 August 2017 - 08:43 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 30681 battles
  • 8,293
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

This is the current, up to date share of vehicles for the EU server.

Spoiler

 

I know it's a rough estimate but on weekends you'll have maybe 80k players on EU1. That's roughly 1,000 tier 10 vehicles selected or in game at any one time, 1700 tier 9, and 3,500 tier 8.

 

If you convert those tanks on the server to a ratio by tiers X/IX/VIII it becomes 1/1.7/3.5 or roughly 3/5/11.

 

With a ratio of tanks by tier on the server of 3/5/11 is it any wonder that 3/5/7 might be a common selection by MM.

 

Just a theory on the back of a fag packet, and up for red pen!

 



Thuis001 #5 Posted 24 August 2017 - 08:45 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5923 battles
  • 463
  • [-SBN-] -SBN-
  • Member since:
    05-29-2015

Another way to fix this problem is to remove +-2 MM, and make the system use templates like 7/8 and 15, this way you won't meet tanks that you have no hope of penning, damaging, spotting, whatever it is, and instead have more stuff that you can beat. Since this would also mean that the amount of tanks from the different tiers would be about 50/50, you should be top tier a lot more. For tanks with preferential MM the MM could be changed to -1 and 0, so they would keep the selling point.

Even though this means that there will be less damage for you to get, I think it will also safe you a lot of frustrasion when you meet a tank that is 2 tiers higher.

 

I know that this reaction will most likely get a lot of negativity from players that (atleast I expect this, if this is not the case for you but you still have a negative opinion about it, sorry, just making a expectasion.) want to kill tanks that have no real chance of beating them, but I simply don't care. 



Thuis001 #6 Posted 24 August 2017 - 08:49 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5923 battles
  • 463
  • [-SBN-] -SBN-
  • Member since:
    05-29-2015

View PostLong_Range_Sniper, on 24 August 2017 - 08:43 PM, said:

This is the current, up to date share of vehicles for the EU server.

Spoiler

 

I know it's a rough estimate but on weekends you'll have maybe 80k players on EU1. That's roughly 1,000 tier 10 vehicles selected or in game at any one time, 1700 tier 9, and 3,500 tier 8.

 

If you convert those tanks on the server to a ratio by tiers X/IX/VIII it becomes 1/1.7/3.5 or roughly 3/5/11.

 

With a ratio of tanks by tier on the server of 3/5/11 is it any wonder that 3/5/7 might be a common selection by MM.

 

Just a theory on the back of a fag packet, and up for red pen!

 

 

don't forget that battles on lower tier generally tend to last about 3-5 minutes, while higher tier matches tend to last a bit longer. So the fact that there are a lot of tier I-IV tanks, and a lot less high tier tanks is explainable. Also a lot of players don't have a lot of high tier vehicles, so if they die they will would have to play something of a lower tier. Altough intresting that you got this chart in the first place.

Pantzer #7 Posted 24 August 2017 - 08:57 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 19561 battles
  • 158
  • Member since:
    06-30-2011

View Postbrumbarr, on 24 August 2017 - 07:16 PM, said:

-Earning of resources in tier 10 games to create more  tier10 only games??

-Encouraging tier10 platooning by making platoons earn more resources => platoons are less toptier.

 

Basicly they are trying to get tier10 vehicles out of the que, but the last 2 descissions seem a bit odd, since what this will do is  put more tier10 vehicles into the que, unless WG encourages the MM for more full tier10 games.

 

They are doing this because in the next update they will introduce 'Grand battle' where it is 30vs30 tier X only. You can earn bonds in this gamemode. This means that (hopefully) a lot tier X will be playing this, giving tier 8 a much needed rest. But we will see soon.



Long_Range_Sniper #8 Posted 24 August 2017 - 09:27 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 30681 battles
  • 8,293
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

View PostThuis001, on 24 August 2017 - 07:49 PM, said:

 

don't forget that battles on lower tier generally tend to last about 3-5 minutes, while higher tier matches tend to last a bit longer. So the fact that there are a lot of tier I-IV tanks, and a lot less high tier tanks is explainable. Also a lot of players don't have a lot of high tier vehicles, so if they die they will would have to play something of a lower tier. Altough intresting that you got this chart in the first place.

 

Vbaddict has low tiers taking 5.5 mins on average up to 7 mins for tier X. With the spread of tanks in the tiers I think that might account for more games at low tiers that are a lesser spread of tiers and some single tier.

 

It obviously doesn't give the detailed tier spread by time of day, or day of week. 



HundeWurst #9 Posted 24 August 2017 - 09:36 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 67756 battles
  • 4,281
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

Well ofc Wargaming is inly tring to treat the symtoms rather than the problem itself.

 

There is not a SINGLE reason why they would have implemented +/-1 mm like 2 years ago. Not a single. Well there is one, but that has nothing to do with the gameplay. Its das money jajaja!? +/-2 makes people spend money on the game. Wargaming loves money. They dont care...

 

Well they do. But they dont want to stop this money blessing for their sake and are willng to compromise the gameplay for that. Now they are trying to hide that as much as possible and TRY ot find a solution for the problem when there is no solution which would lower their income.

 

Tell me a good reason why there is not +/- 1 MM already please. I would like to know one. They never gave a single good, or better valid reason for that. Well they cant go out there and tell the world the truth either. But I like to know if anyone has a good reason at hand.

 

View PostLong_Range_Sniper, on 24 August 2017 - 08:43 PM, said:

This is the current, up to date share of vehicles for the EU server.

Spoiler

 

I know it's a rough estimate but on weekends you'll have maybe 80k players on EU1. That's roughly 1,000 tier 10 vehicles selected or in game at any one time, 1700 tier 9, and 3,500 tier 8.

 

If you convert those tanks on the server to a ratio by tiers X/IX/VIII it becomes 1/1.7/3.5 or roughly 3/5/11.

 

With a ratio of tanks by tier on the server of 3/5/11 is it any wonder that 3/5/7 might be a common selection by MM.

 

Just a theory on the back of a fag packet, and up for red pen!

 

 

That statistic... Where is that coming from?

It looks fishy at best. there is no way in hell that there are more people playing tier 7 than tier 8.


Edited by WunderWurst, 24 August 2017 - 09:39 PM.


Long_Range_Sniper #10 Posted 24 August 2017 - 09:53 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 30681 battles
  • 8,293
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

View PostWunderWurst, on 24 August 2017 - 08:36 PM, said:

That statistic... Where is that coming from?

It looks fishy at best. there is no way in hell that there are more people playing tier 7 than tier 8.

 

Straight off the wot-news.com site and as reliable as they are, so no promises.

 

Edit: Here's the one from the RU server stats of the same page, and it also has more 7 than 8.

 

Spoiler

 


Edited by Long_Range_Sniper, 24 August 2017 - 09:55 PM.


shane73tank #11 Posted 24 August 2017 - 09:57 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27428 battles
  • 1,989
  • [USAGI] USAGI
  • Member since:
    03-01-2014
I think an mm change at tier 10 and 9,  different from other tiers would be good and would not chuck all the tier 8'premiums in with them , who knows it might mean t8 premiums don't need to be op against tier 6-8 

Noo_Noo #12 Posted 24 August 2017 - 10:04 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 21559 battles
  • 2,029
  • Member since:
    05-05-2013
Mad idea. is it time to introduce Tiers 11 and 12?

if there's too many people playing tier 10 then this suggests an ageing game population so something higher to spread the load a little might be a help. I do wonder if this is a consequence of tier 8 premiums and other bonus features. The game is also a few years old I guess so there has been time. 

Anyway I digress. In addition doing something at low tiers to attract new players is also important

Version43 #13 Posted 24 August 2017 - 10:19 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 6606 battles
  • 180
  • [0N] 0N
  • Member since:
    12-07-2013
At least they are starting CW again soon and that removes some tier Xs even if they are waiting in queue.

japtank #14 Posted 24 August 2017 - 10:34 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27619 battles
  • 1,046
  • Member since:
    04-20-2012

I would like lower tiers to be temporarily buffed for the duration of the game.

This would add diversity, full tier X games are boring.

 

Even a slight buff would do, some pen or some hitpoints, just a little something to even the odds a tad.

Of course, a complete overhaul of the whole trees to get rid of the absurd gaps between tiers would be the best solution, but it will never happen, so just a small flat buff would do IMO.



krismorgan #15 Posted 24 August 2017 - 10:57 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 31375 battles
  • 349
  • [UKT] UKT
  • Member since:
    10-18-2013
I cannot say what i think as the stasi will give me another warning point.

Balc0ra #16 Posted 24 August 2017 - 11:42 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 64443 battles
  • 15,457
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

Well lets wait and see how the new 30 vs 30 mode affects tier 8. As most inc me thing that will make it easier for that tier. Then it's only tier 6 left to fix. But with the recent influx of 240 000 T-34-85M's. And considering that half of those are using it as their main income tank, as the only premiums they had besides it is a tier III gift tank. Then tier 6 will be broken for some time to come. As pure tier 6 games usually have 5 on each team still.

 

And when they implement 30 vs 30 on other tiers, as they plan to. It might even be better there again.



SovietBias #17 Posted 24 August 2017 - 11:59 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37225 battles
  • 1,262
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013

View PostLong_Range_Sniper, on 24 August 2017 - 07:43 PM, said:

This is the current, up to date share of vehicles for the EU server.

Spoiler

 

I know it's a rough estimate but on weekends you'll have maybe 80k players on EU1. That's roughly 1,000 tier 10 vehicles selected or in game at any one time, 1700 tier 9, and 3,500 tier 8.

 

If you convert those tanks on the server to a ratio by tiers X/IX/VIII it becomes 1/1.7/3.5 or roughly 3/5/11.

 

With a ratio of tanks by tier on the server of 3/5/11 is it any wonder that 3/5/7 might be a common selection by MM.

 

Just a theory on the back of a fag packet, and up for red pen!

 

 

I'm not discrediting your hypothesis but I do believe these shares are wrong. From wot-news 'server statistic' - 'amount of vehicles' you get the same 'vehicle tier dynamic per week' with different values. I believe the ones you took ( from 'vehicle shares and tier' tab) are some sort of cumulative but I can't tell for sure.

 

Also, if you go to 'all vehicles' tab, select last two weeks, and take tier 1 for example, sorted by 'Total played' you'll notice that it is not even close to that 49 Million figure. 

 

Anyway,  I do agree that there is a large pool of tier 8 players which is problematic under this fixed 3/5/7 template. I'd say the higher number of lower tiers partially mitigates the issues of +2/-2 MM, although I rather have them address the MM issue directly, but I figure this must be a handier approach for them given the natural tier distribution.


Edited by SovietBias, 25 August 2017 - 12:00 AM.


Long_Range_Sniper #18 Posted 25 August 2017 - 07:22 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 30681 battles
  • 8,293
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

View PostSovietBias, on 24 August 2017 - 10:59 PM, said:

 

I'm not discrediting your hypothesis but I do believe these shares are wrong. From wot-news 'server statistic' - 'amount of vehicles' you get the same 'vehicle tier dynamic per week' with different values. I believe the ones you took ( from 'vehicle shares and tier' tab) are some sort of cumulative but I can't tell for sure.

 

Also, if you go to 'all vehicles' tab, select last two weeks, and take tier 1 for example, sorted by 'Total played' you'll notice that it is not even close to that 49 Million figure. 

 

Anyway,  I do agree that there is a large pool of tier 8 players which is problematic under this fixed 3/5/7 template. I'd say the higher number of lower tiers partially mitigates the issues of +2/-2 MM, although I rather have them address the MM issue directly, but I figure this must be a handier approach for them given the natural tier distribution.

 

If there's better data then I couldn't find it. The only other server stats site I could find was https://stats.wotapi.ru/, and they don't go down into that much detail.

jabster #19 Posted 25 August 2017 - 07:47 AM

    Field Marshal

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

View PostLong_Range_Sniper, on 25 August 2017 - 06:22 AM, said:

 

If there's better data then I couldn't find it. The only other server stats site I could find was https://stats.wotapi.ru/, and they don't go down into that much detail.

 

If you go to the Amount of Vehicles tab you can find a chart with the same title that seems to have more reasonable figures. 

ZlatanArKung #20 Posted 25 August 2017 - 07:47 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostLong_Range_Sniper, on 24 August 2017 - 09:53 PM, said:

 

Straight off the wot-news.com site and as reliable as they are, so no promises.

 

Edit: Here's the one from the RU server stats of the same page, and it also has more 7 than 8.

 

Spoiler

 

 

Weirdest thing with that statistic is the number of T1 battles.

Yet, if I play a T1 tank, I will often wait a few minutes to get into one, and then it is a 7v7 or 8v8 battles.

But when playing T8 I get instant battles.

 

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users