Jump to content


Does WG admit that MM balance is wrong in the new game mode? (And in general)


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

Danger__UXB #1 Posted 11 September 2017 - 10:49 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 9746 battles
  • 2,666
  • Member since:
    03-07-2013

I bring you to this article here..https://worldoftanks.eu/en/news/general-news/ranked-battles-2beta-season/

 

WG say that in order to fix the MM they are willing to change it to what players believe is 'Fair' ..(Their words not mine) in order that players believe that the outcome of the game is

governed by skill and not team composition (Again!! their words not mine)..

 

So wasnt it 'Fair' before??....wasnt it governed by skill before?? (HMM food for thought)

 

 

So it got me thinking as to why cant they implement this in random battles if its such a 'Quick fix'??...

 

So!!!...is it intentional (The MM imbalance) or is WG just a cute little puppy that cant do any wrong in some players eyes??

 

Interesting parts..

 

Quote;.  

 

Matchmaking

The way teams are assembled was enhanced to provide for a more enjoyable experience and ensure both sides have equal chances at victory:

Vehicle types: No more guessing the result the second you see makeups. The matchmaker now balances teams by the number of medium and heavy tanks. It should leave the battle outcome to player mastery and team play, undeterred by uneven vehicle composition, leaving victory squarely in the hands of you and your team mates.

 

 


Edited by Danger_UXB_, 11 September 2017 - 10:50 PM.


qpranger #2 Posted 11 September 2017 - 10:58 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 32489 battles
  • 5,061
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013

"Player mastery"?

With no balance by skill?

More WG BS.



UrQuan #3 Posted 11 September 2017 - 11:14 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19467 battles
  • 6,185
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

What they likely plan to do, is to start rigging the games; so people will find it more fair/random feeling (while in reality it will be less randoml)

 

It's an interesting phenomenon. People don't experience true random as random, but associate random more with regular small groupings of results. Example 111221122211221211121112211 (where I made sure no result can happen more then 3 times in a row) feels more random then 112222221122111112111, even tho the latter is more random (as I just pushed the 1 & 2 button, without considering a cutoff point) 

 

True randomness is fair for everyone, but it can feel very unfair because of it, especially when you get a bad streak. Rigging games is more unfair, but will feel more fair for most of us, as we are no longer faced with long strings of good/bad luck.

Currently, the game is governed by skill (even tho a certain loud group of folks don't believe it), to win more games then the average,you have to be better then average too. The further you divert from average, the better you are (or the worse you are if your WR goes below average)


Edited by UrQuan, 12 September 2017 - 09:44 PM.


Danger__UXB #4 Posted 11 September 2017 - 11:19 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 9746 battles
  • 2,666
  • Member since:
    03-07-2013

View PostUrQuan, on 11 September 2017 - 10:14 PM, said:

What they likely plan to do, is to start rigging the games; so people will find it more fair/random feeling (while in reality it will be less randoml)

 

It's an interesting phenomenon. People don't experience true random as random, but associate random more with regular small groupings of results. Example 111221122211221211121112111 (where i made sure no result can happen more then 3 times in a row)f eels more random then 112222221122111112111, even tho the latter is more random (as I just pushed the 1 & 2 button, without considering a cutoff point) 

 

True randomness is fair for everyone, but it can feel very unfair because of it, especially when you get a bad streak. Rigging games is more unfair, but will feel more fair for most of us, as we are no longer faced with long strings of good/bad luck.

Currently, the game is governed by skill (even tho a certain loud group of folks don't believe it), to win more games then the average,you have to be better then average too. The further you divert from average, the better you are (or the worse you are if your WR goes below average)

 

I think you need to argue with WG as they are the ones stating what they state??..

 

 

...I just would like to see the same applied to 'Randoms'



laulaur #5 Posted 11 September 2017 - 11:34 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 46660 battles
  • 986
  • [BLAUR] BLAUR
  • Member since:
    08-11-2011

Ranked Battles:

-15 random players in every team

-random map

-same number of TD, lights, meds and heavy tanks in each team

-arty limited to 2

 

Random battles:

-15 random players in every team

-random map

-just TD's and light are mirrored

-arty limited at 3

 

I really do not understand why we have double standards....

Why what is good for ranked is not good for random, mm wise ???



Balc0ra #6 Posted 11 September 2017 - 11:53 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 66286 battles
  • 16,291
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View PostDanger_UXB_, on 11 September 2017 - 10:49 PM, said:

I bring you to this article here..https://worldoftanks.eu/en/news/general-news/ranked-battles-2beta-season/

 

WG say that in order to fix the MM they are willing to change it to what players believe is 'Fair' ..(Their words not mine) in order that players believe that the outcome of the game is

governed by skill and not team composition (Again!! their words not mine)..

 

It's beta, as it far from final. And always subject to change. You did not thought it was going to be perfect on the first season did you? Then again, most that did get high up got carried along to "glory". As only the last 3 on the winning team did not get anything. And thus with the last system, most got higher up in less games sitting in base doing nothing, because they got carried.

 

View PostDanger_UXB_, on 11 September 2017 - 10:49 PM, said:

So it got me thinking as to why cant they implement this in random battles if its such a 'Quick fix'??...

 

Because random is not "ranked", nor do drop down if you lose a match. Or do you want the bots to be carried "up" a tier there to?


Edited by Balc0ra, 11 September 2017 - 11:54 PM.


Rato_Black_Baron #7 Posted 12 September 2017 - 12:18 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 31160 battles
  • 459
  • Member since:
    02-22-2013

MM. They gathered data that proved that: HTs are different from MTs, 3 SPGs are disturbing, and some maps are unsuitable.
You are being unfair. This game has a steep learning curve. :trollface: Give them time.
----
Diverging more the ranked MM from random MM, could be very useful for future changes on randoms!

 

The fairness of the MM comes from randomness, over a large number of battles (WR tends to skill).
Other thing is getting a fair battle most of the time. This is what they are aiming (Ranked and 3/5/7 randoms).
I still miss those old setups in tier X, 14/0/1 vs 15/0/0 with me in Pershing, or Panther II.

 

UrQuan has a point. 
If I were a imaginary "rigging Victor" the first thing I would do, would be ending with the losing streaks...
Now serious, give them time. They are looking for fairness for each battle. More value for our time.



HundeWurst #8 Posted 12 September 2017 - 12:30 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 69956 battles
  • 4,337
  • [ROIDS] ROIDS
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

I mean its one single step in the right direction, however many more are needed.

 

In the meantime they add some of the most cancerous maps to the mappool and remove some of the best. I might play, lets see how painfull the game is going to be.

Since you can earn bonds in randoms there is n point playing ranked if its as idiotic as the first season. And by the looks of it its going to be the same as before.



Homer_J #9 Posted 12 September 2017 - 01:44 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 28767 battles
  • 30,064
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postlaulaur, on 11 September 2017 - 11:34 PM, said:

 

I really do not understand why we have double standards....

Why what is good for ranked is not good for random, mm wise ???

 

Because ranked is supposed to be the skill mode.

 

With randoms if you get a bad lineup for the map it's no big deal, you move on to the next battle.  

 

In ranked there are chevrons at stake, and having the wrong lineup on the wrong map can decide the outcome, especially since the teams are supposed to have similar skill (at least at higher ranks anyway).



ZlatanArKung #10 Posted 12 September 2017 - 07:29 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014
It wasn't governed by skill before, and it isn't governed by skill now.

And in WGs eyes, everything they do is close to perfect and essentially flawless. Like Defender release, the awesome PR surrounding Fochs Chrysler video, the awesome new maps for ranked, the flawless new Matchmaker.

Danger__UXB #11 Posted 12 September 2017 - 07:23 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 9746 battles
  • 2,666
  • Member since:
    03-07-2013

View PostBalc0ra, on 11 September 2017 - 10:53 PM, said:

 

It's beta, as it far from final. And always subject to change. You did not thought it was going to be perfect on the first season did you?

 

This whole game is still in Beta...and subject to change? (And it is constantly)

 

Point is if they realize there is a problem with 'Tier balance' (As they state)?(Too many heavy,s V Meds).. then why cant they apply the same to randoms??...after all they admit its a problem as in; ''Effects the outcome of the game''

 

 

Mabye im just asking for too much here??

View Postlaulaur, on 11 September 2017 - 10:34 PM, said:

Ranked Battles:

-15 random players in every team

-random map

-same number of TD, lights, meds and heavy tanks in each team

-arty limited to 2

 

Random battles:

-15 random players in every team

-random map

-just TD's and light are mirrored

-arty limited at 3

 

I really do not understand why we have double standards....

Why what is good for ranked is not good for random, mm wise ???

 

^^ THIS!!

View PostWunderWurst, on 11 September 2017 - 11:30 PM, said:

I mean its one single step in the right direction, however many more are needed.

 

Mabye they will eventually reach a 2nd step and learn to walk after how many years of learning to crawl??

 

 

These people are not fools and id like to know why its not implemented in random battles as it is seen as ''Ensuring each side has an equal chance of victory'' (Again!! Their words not mine)



RamRaid90 #12 Posted 12 September 2017 - 09:15 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 21494 battles
  • 6,485
  • [D0NG] D0NG
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View PostWunderWurst, on 11 September 2017 - 11:30 PM, said:

 

Since you can earn bonds in randoms

 

No you cant...

 

Bonds are awarded only from ranked battles.


Edited by RamRaid90, 12 September 2017 - 09:16 PM.


HundeWurst #13 Posted 12 September 2017 - 09:16 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 69956 battles
  • 4,337
  • [ROIDS] ROIDS
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

View PostRamRaid90, on 12 September 2017 - 09:15 PM, said:

 

No you cant...

 

Bonds are awarded only from ranked battles.

 

Play tier 10 tanks and you get bonds.

Homer_J #14 Posted 12 September 2017 - 10:05 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 28767 battles
  • 30,064
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostRamRaid90, on 12 September 2017 - 09:15 PM, said:

 

No you cant...

 

Bonds are awarded only from ranked battles.

 

Funny, I got 8 the other night for a fairly dismal effort in my Obj 261.

clixor #15 Posted 12 September 2017 - 10:18 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 51483 battles
  • 3,058
  • Member since:
    08-07-2011

View PostZlatanArKung, on 12 September 2017 - 07:29 AM, said:

It wasn't governed by skill before, and it isn't governed by skill now.

And in WGs eyes, everything they do is close to perfect and essentially flawless. Like Defender release, the awesome PR surrounding Fochs Chrysler video, the awesome new maps for ranked, the flawless new Matchmaker.

 

In all fairness, one of the main complaints was meds vs heavies and the total inbalance to either one (depending on map ofc) and WG adressed the issue. You'll still going to see 50bs mm-ed against a MAUS, but, especially on the new maps, it's a step in the right direction. 

 

On a side note, i don't see a reason to repeat Defender/Chrysler issue again and again, that's getting a bit stale isn't it.

 



ZlatanArKung #16 Posted 12 September 2017 - 11:59 PM

    Major General

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

View Postclixor, on 12 September 2017 - 10:18 PM, said:

 

In all fairness, one of the main complaints was meds vs heavies and the total inbalance to either one (depending on map ofc) and WG adressed the issue. You'll still going to see 50bs mm-ed against a MAUS, but, especially on the new maps, it's a step in the right direction. 

 

On a side note, i don't see a reason to repeat Defender/Chrysler issue again and again, that's getting a bit stale isn't it.

 

First paragraph: What?

New Maus was completely overpowered. Like the most overpowered tank above T5 this game has ever seen, maybe except Defender.

The new maps (Paris, Pilsen, Stalingrad, Charkov (latest 4 maps I think)) are terrible, just terrible.

WG hasn't done anything to balance Heavies and mediums in the new template based matchmaker for randoms actually, they have even gone so far to treat them as equals (something that wasn't true up to T8 in old MM). And they hadn't done anything in ranked season 1.

 

2nd paragraph. It just shows how badly connected WG is with their own game. Like, TVP VTU can best Defender....



RamRaid90 #17 Posted 13 September 2017 - 03:43 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 21494 battles
  • 6,485
  • [D0NG] D0NG
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View PostWunderWurst, on 12 September 2017 - 08:16 PM, said:

 

Play tier 10 tanks and you get bonds.

 

View PostHomer_J, on 12 September 2017 - 09:05 PM, said:

 

Funny, I got 8 the other night for a fairly dismal effort in my Obj 261.

 

Hmm, I play The Object 263 and Object 140 regular and have never recieved any...

Homer_J #18 Posted 13 September 2017 - 03:51 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 28767 battles
  • 30,064
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostRamRaid90, on 13 September 2017 - 03:43 PM, said:

 

 

Hmm, I play The Object 263 and Object 140 regular and have never recieved any...

 

That suggests you have not been on the winning team in an all tier X battle since 9.20 was released, or if you were you scored less than 400 base exp.

 

https://worldoftanks...e-announcement/

 

Quote

Bonds

Up to 9.20, engaging in Ranked Battles has been the only opportunity to earn Bonds. Starting from the update's release, you'll also be able to gain the new currency in Random Battles, if you roll into a Tier-X fight.


Edited by Homer_J, 13 September 2017 - 03:53 PM.


Sfinski #19 Posted 13 September 2017 - 04:17 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 31728 battles
  • 2,637
  • [-PJ-] -PJ-
  • Member since:
    09-26-2013

View PostRamRaid90, on 13 September 2017 - 04:43 PM, said:

 

 

Hmm, I play The Object 263 and Object 140 regular and have never recieved any...

 

Full t10 games only

 



_EXODUZ_ #20 Posted 13 September 2017 - 04:24 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 34979 battles
  • 1,938
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    11-05-2014

View PostSfinski, on 13 September 2017 - 04:17 PM, said:

 

Full t10 games only

 

 

So a 3 man T10 platoon has the best chance for bond farming.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users