Jump to content


A Serious Design For A New Matchmaker (MM)

matchmaker MM

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

Bisquik #1 Posted 21 September 2017 - 04:21 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 390 battles
  • 181
  • Member since:
    08-28-2017

From debating the new MM in what has become one of the biggest threads on the NA forums (here is the link), and months of reflection on this issue, I would like to introduce a solution for the matchmaker that I hope most of us can attach ourselves to and advocate for. I believe WG is more likely to notice a single idea that is well supported than 50 of us throwing out random ideas. No MM will be perfect, but I believe this solution covers many of the issues most of us care about. In fact I have seen some of the features of this solution in some of the previous posts here on the forums. Some of the better current MM features are also included.

 

I will copy it directly from that debate page and post it below and I will be happy to answer any comments/questions that you may have.

 


 

SOLUTION FOR A BETTER MATCHMAKER

 

Revert back to a random matchmaker, such as existed before the 9.18 Update (+2/-2), that includes vehicles from a 3 tier group of tanks (example: tiers 5, 6, and 7 would be gathered together for a battle) and uses some sort of weight or identifier system to place tanks evenly on teams, with a few extra restrictions on the MM for lower tiers.

 

Included in this system would be mechanisms to ensure that:

  1. teams would have the same amount of tanks per tier of top, middle, and bottom;
  2. teams will have similar amounts of tank types per each tier with a +1/-1 differential, and a +1/-1 differential per team overall. This means the same amount of TDs, Mediums, etc., with one difference allowed;
  3. platoons will be placed as close to the same tier level as possible when teams are created or the inferior team will get two (2) lower tier level platoons to counter a top tier platoon on the enemy team;
  4. tanks of similar attributes will be identified with each other in the weight/identifier database and placed evenly on both teams at the same tier level (for example, the Bat.-Châtillon 25t and the TVP T 50/51 will both be identified as a medium AND an autoloader so each team has them placed evenly);
  5. the MM will attempt to create all Tier I tank battles first, and only have up to six (6) Tier II tanks per match if it cannot create an all the same tier battle for them;
  6. Tier II and Tier III tanks have +1/-1 matchmaking;
  7. an option in the Settings panel above Grand Battles will allow players to have the MM try to create all same tier matches for them at any tier.
  8. some of the above rules will be relaxed when server populations are low to cut down on wait times.

 

Since the previous MM was a random system that included some of the currently proposed options, it is realistic to believe that this is in the realm of possibility to be developed by WG. This system takes the rich variety and balance in top, middle, and bottom tier matches and combines them with the balancing factors introduced in the current MM. Some of the general balancing factors are that teams would be created with the same amount of tanks per tier and tank types would be similar on each team. The +1/-1 differential in tank types is for a greater variety of situations in our matches that some players enjoy and also to help maintain a speedy match creation while at the same time making sure that teams are pretty evenly laid out against each other. Platoons would also be distributed as evenly as possible or a team will be compensated to ward off advantages a top tier platoon may have over a bottom tier platoon.

 

The weight or tank database identifier system (for lack of better terms) would be a three (3) level system. Tanks would be identified:

  • First by TIER,
  • Second by CLASS, and
  • Third by CHARACTERISTICS within its class.

 

Tanks would be pulled for matches based on these identifiers in the order listed above. It could even be tailored to have tanks of different classes (heavy, medium, etc), but similar characteristics (autoloader), distributed as evenly as possible as a secondary feature. For example, the AMX 50 B and the TVP T 50/51 are both autoloaders and could be used to fill that +1/-1 differential in class if available to keep the teams as close as possible.

 

Overall, here is an example of how a match may look:

 

GREEN TEAM                                             RED TEAM

Maus                                                            Type 5 Heavy

AMX 50B                                                       T57 Heavy

Obj. 62a       (Platoon 1)                               Obj. 140

B-C 25t         (Platoon 1)                               TVP 50/51

Skoda 50t                                                      AMX 50 120      

Tortoise                                                         T95

AMX 30                                                          E 50          (Platoon 1)

WZ-120                                                         T-54           (Platoon 1)

T49                                                                Ru 251

IS-3                                                                IS-3           (Platoon 2)

T34                                                               Tiger II        (Platoon 2)

Jagdpanther II                                               SU-101

Pershing                                                       T28 Prot.    (Platoon 2)

T-44-100                                                       STA-2

WZ-132                                                         LTTB

 

This system gives players most of what they want in team balance while at the same time it still provides a high degree of variety and interest from battle to battle.

 

 


Edited by Bisquik, 21 September 2017 - 04:25 AM.


StrikeFIN #2 Posted 21 September 2017 - 05:30 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 6297 battles
  • 797
  • [FIPDR] FIPDR
  • Member since:
    03-05-2014

Strange, 30 pages full of interesting to read about benefits and problems of the new MM vs old MM but no any answers from WG even topic been there since Aug 04 (one from moderator, but not really about suggestion...)


Edited by StrikeFIN, 21 September 2017 - 05:33 AM.


Thuis001 #3 Posted 21 September 2017 - 07:14 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5978 battles
  • 466
  • [-SBN-] -SBN-
  • Member since:
    05-29-2015
This certainly seems like an improvement. And perhaps this will make having fun easier XD.

Homer_J #4 Posted 21 September 2017 - 07:26 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 28771 battles
  • 30,090
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

Quote

teams would have the same amount of tanks per tier of top, middle, and bottom;

Boring.

Quote

teams will have similar amounts of tank types per each tier with a +1/-1 differential, and a +1/-1 differential per team overall. This means the same amount of TDs, Mediums, etc., with one difference allowed;

Boring.

Quote

platoons will be placed as close to the same tier level as possible when teams are created or the inferior team will get two (2) lower tier level platoons to counter a top tier platoon on the enemy team;

Boring.

Quote

tanks of similar attributes will be identified with each other in the weight/identifier database and placed evenly on both teams at the same tier level (for example, the Bat.-Châtillon 25t and the TVP T 50/51 will both be identified as a medium AND an autoloader so each team has them placed evenly);

Boring.

Quote

the MM will attempt to create all Tier I tank battles first, and only have up to six (6) Tier II tanks per match if it cannot create an all the same tier battle for them;

Tier 1, who cares, new players are sandboxed, seal clubbers deserve to be clubbed.

Quote

Tier II and Tier III tanks have +1/-1 matchmaking;

This isn't even a change.

Quote

an option in the Settings panel above Grand Battles will allow players to have the MM try to create all same tier matches for them at any tier.

No.  We don't need such a balance breaking option.

 

BTW, we have our own mm discussion thread, you should have posted this there.


Edited by Homer_J, 21 September 2017 - 07:28 AM.


adameitas #5 Posted 21 September 2017 - 07:31 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 63314 battles
  • 849
  • Member since:
    07-29-2011

dunno i really hate new mm.. as it is said you miss good things (mm before 9.16) only when you loose it.. still cant believe how good it was:) also i really really dont like idea that both teams must have same number of tds.. it makes so much games very boring when both team get 3 top tiers tds and the camp fest begins. Still believe that random randomless is the key why this mode is the most popular in game. Making every game unique helps not to stop playing it. Adding situation when every team gone have same number of tds, lights, meds, hv  would just kill this mode. Sadly but they are heading to it step by step..

 

 



IncandescentGerbil #6 Posted 21 September 2017 - 09:27 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35679 battles
  • 1,443
  • Member since:
    11-24-2015
I think it would help if experienced players (more than 10,000 battles, say) were bribed (for want of a better word) to playing more games at low - mid tiers. Giving serious credit bonuses for playing a set number of games down there each day might relieve some of the MM pressure. It's a shame that the lower tier stuff - which is really the essence of the game - is held by so many of us to be nothing more than a stepping stone.

Edited by IncandescentGerbil, 21 September 2017 - 09:31 AM.


Geno1isme #7 Posted 21 September 2017 - 09:33 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 42750 battles
  • 7,876
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

View PostBisquik, on 21 September 2017 - 05:21 AM, said:

Included in this system would be mechanisms to ensure that:

  1. teams would have the same amount of tanks per tier of top, middle, and bottom;
  2. teams will have similar amounts of tank types per each tier with a +1/-1 differential, and a +1/-1 differential per team overall. This means the same amount of TDs, Mediums, etc., with one difference allowed;
  3. platoons will be placed as close to the same tier level as possible when teams are created or the inferior team will get two (2) lower tier level platoons to counter a top tier platoon on the enemy team;
  4. tanks of similar attributes will be identified with each other in the weight/identifier database and placed evenly on both teams at the same tier level (for example, the Bat.-Châtillon 25t and the TVP T 50/51 will both be identified as a medium AND an autoloader so each team has them placed evenly);
  5. the MM will attempt to create all Tier I tank battles first, and only have up to six (6) Tier II tanks per match if it cannot create an all the same tier battle for them;
  6. Tier II and Tier III tanks have +1/-1 matchmaking;
  7. an option in the Settings panel above Grand Battles will allow players to have the MM try to create all same tier matches for them at any tier.
  8. some of the above rules will be relaxed when server populations are low to cut down on wait times.

 

1) not strictly opposed to this, but also not convinced it's needed if we get battleweight back (and adjusted properly)

2) no, this is one of the fails of the current crap-MM. Tank class (other than arty) doesn't tell you much about a tank or how it fits into a setup, that's covered by your rule 4. We have to get away from the idea that tier and class are relevant parameters by themselves. Even WG starts to realize that if you check the 9.20.1 patchnotes regarding MM changes.

3) no, the old MM was fine regarding platoons, just required a failsafe against failplatoons

4) that's the tricky part to get right.

5) no idea, I'd probably just remove T1 from PvP completely and limit it to PvE battles against bots

6) yep

7) no chance in hell

8) as usual

 

What I'd add:

- limit the number of support classes, e.g. max 2 arties, 4 lights and 5 TDs per team

- ensure a minimum number of non-arty top-tiers (old MM sometimes created teams with only arties as top-tier on one team)

- ensure a minimum number or low-tiers (to counter the template-MM argument of "I'm low tier against 14 top tiers" )



Asklepi0s #8 Posted 21 September 2017 - 09:38 AM

    Moderator

  • Moderator
  • 6874 battles
  • 846
  • Member since:
    01-23-2017
Nice thread indeed.
Can you share your opinion on the matter in our pinned thread ?
It will be more efficient when we collect feedback about MM.






Also tagged with matchmaker, MM

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users