Jump to content


Ranked battles MM - I don't get it


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

HassenderZerhacker #1 Posted 01 October 2017 - 07:51 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 27815 battles
  • 2,469
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

I bought my E100 yesterday and played ranked three times.

 

So far, I got 3 from 3 times unbalanced matchmaking.

Bad players on my side, good players on the other side.

??

what is the probability of getting balanced battles?


Edited by HassenderZerhacker, 01 October 2017 - 07:52 PM.


Homer_J #2 Posted 01 October 2017 - 08:01 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 29705 battles
  • 31,448
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010
At rank 0 you have either bad players or people playing their first battle in ranked, or bad layers playing their first battle in ranked.

HassenderZerhacker #3 Posted 01 October 2017 - 08:43 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 27815 battles
  • 2,469
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View PostHomer_J, on 01 October 2017 - 08:01 PM, said:

At rank 0 you have either bad players or people playing their first battle in ranked, or bad layers playing their first battle in ranked.

 

I have read several people complaining that ranked battles were "balanced" - but obviously they are not?

 

I have played 2 more times - the fourth time was unblanced in my team's favor with the result that inspite of driving forward almost all the time, my E100 was too slow to get a clear shot before all enemies were dead ?!?

 



qpranger #4 Posted 01 October 2017 - 08:54 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 33779 battles
  • 5,061
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 01 October 2017 - 08:51 PM, said:

what is the probability of getting balanced battles?

 



Homer_J #5 Posted 01 October 2017 - 09:55 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 29705 battles
  • 31,448
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 01 October 2017 - 08:43 PM, said:

 

I have read several people complaining that ranked battles were "balanced" - but obviously they are not?

 

 

It tries to make battles containing players of as few different ranks as possible.  Since everyone starts at rank 0 there is no way for the matchmaker to determine who is skilled and new and who is not skilled and new.

 

By rank 5 you should have only good or lucky players.


Edited by Homer_J, 01 October 2017 - 09:55 PM.


laulaur #6 Posted 01 October 2017 - 10:14 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 47052 battles
  • 1,374
  • [FUSED] FUSED
  • Member since:
    08-11-2011

You bought your first tier 10 tank today (after 18k battles), just because you wanted to play ranked battles? :amazed:

 

 

 



Homer_J #7 Posted 02 October 2017 - 12:13 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 29705 battles
  • 31,448
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postlaulaur, on 01 October 2017 - 10:14 PM, said:

You bought your first tier 10 tank today (after 18k battles), just because you wanted to play ranked battles? :amazed:

 

 

 

 

And from his other thread he's playing it with the Maus gun.

 

And expects to win.



HassenderZerhacker #8 Posted 02 October 2017 - 03:49 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 27815 battles
  • 2,469
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View Postlaulaur, on 01 October 2017 - 10:14 PM, said:

You bought your first tier 10 tank today (after 18k battles), just because you wanted to play ranked battles? :amazed:

 

 

 

 

it's funny how people interpret juxtaposition of words or events as a causality link.

 

No, I didn't buy the first tier 10 because of ranked, I bought it because it is the first tier 10 I completed research on a few days ago and it was discounted.

18k battles... yes... I started many tank lines and have no premium account. At least you can't accuse me of rushing tiers...

 

Then I thought what to do with it, and oh, there is ranked, let's try to get to rank 1...


Edited by HassenderZerhacker, 02 October 2017 - 04:52 AM.


Mike_Mckay #9 Posted 02 October 2017 - 04:03 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 21401 battles
  • 1,554
  • [-AWF-] -AWF-
  • Member since:
    09-02-2015

If its like the ranked battles on console you have to play X amount of battles before you get your starting "rank", once that happens you "should" end up playing with equally bad players to yourself on both teams


But until you get your starting rank it will be more like a random game with players of varying skill levels all getting their x amount of games done so they get their starting rank


If on the other hand they use the system where everyone starts at the bottom rank and has to work their way up the bottom group will always be imbalanced getting less and less so as the better players bubble towards the top groups, but I was sure the PC system used the starting rank system which tends to be the better approach as the teams are fairly evenly matched once the initial sample of games have been played



clixor #10 Posted 02 October 2017 - 09:50 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 51961 battles
  • 3,088
  • Member since:
    08-07-2011

View PostHomer_J, on 02 October 2017 - 12:13 AM, said:

 

And from his other thread he's playing it with the Maus gun.

 

And expects to win.

 

It's not the gun that is the problem (and actually maus gun is pretty ok).

 

The main issue with e100 is that everybody can pen your turret cheeks. Sure you can angle, but at some point you want to shoot. That said, if you play it like you normally would you can have a good game now and then, but don't expect to rank up.



Bennie182 #11 Posted 02 October 2017 - 09:56 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 54905 battles
  • 1,773
  • [WGL-A] WGL-A
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012

ranked environment is trash. Once I win a few and get a rank up, I still get the same trash players who ruin it for others and lose my rank again. Getting loads of battles ending in top 5 and still lose, because others don't bother to play at all. I don't see much difference between randoms and ranked environment. Only reason I play ranked it for the bonds. If it actually would be more skill defined, I would have a lot more fun in it and actually have a challenge with it.

 

I play a few ranks and then stop, because it's just throwing away my credits, that's I rather use on a lot of other stuff.


Edited by Bennie182, 02 October 2017 - 09:57 AM.


HundeWurst #12 Posted 02 October 2017 - 10:03 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 70355 battles
  • 4,381
  • [ROIDS] ROIDS
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

I dont quit get what you want us to tell. Might you be willing to show us the maps and matchups of these battles?

 

Or are you complaining about stomps as in one team lost/won in a short amount of time in a very "clean way", or what others call it: steamrolls.

Ranked is full of these. The current ranked features two camping teams. The team with a bit of brain generally wins since they camp a tiny bit less. That often results in steamrolls in favor of the more agressive team since the hardcore campers dont have a single good position to defend from and will just get shot to bits and pieces.

 

Thats ranked for you.



clixor #13 Posted 02 October 2017 - 10:12 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 51961 battles
  • 3,088
  • Member since:
    08-07-2011

View PostWunderWurst, on 02 October 2017 - 10:03 AM, said:

I dont quit get what you want us to tell. Might you be willing to show us the maps and matchups of these battles?

 

Or are you complaining about stomps as in one team lost/won in a short amount of time in a very "clean way", or what others call it: steamrolls.

Ranked is full of these. The current ranked features two camping teams. The team with a bit of brain generally wins since they camp a tiny bit less. That often results in steamrolls in favor of the more agressive team since the hardcore campers dont have a single good position to defend from and will just get shot to bits and pieces.

 

Thats ranked for you.

 

You forget too add that often you get like 5 tds sitting in the exact same position without any targets and thnk that's a good way to win battles.

 

The upside though is that, at least last season, upwards from rank3 or so you didn't see that much of those kind of players anymore and battles were much more competitive. 


Edited by clixor, 02 October 2017 - 10:12 AM.


HassenderZerhacker #14 Posted 02 October 2017 - 01:51 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 27815 battles
  • 2,469
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View PostWunderWurst, on 02 October 2017 - 10:03 AM, said:

I dont quit get what you want us to tell. Might you be willing to show us the maps and matchups of these battles?

 

Or are you complaining about stomps as in one team lost/won in a short amount of time in a very "clean way", or what others call it: steamrolls.

Ranked is full of these. The current ranked features two camping teams. The team with a bit of brain generally wins since they camp a tiny bit less. That often results in steamrolls in favor of the more agressive team since the hardcore campers dont have a single good position to defend from and will just get shot to bits and pieces.

 

Thats ranked for you.

 

it's a bit of each really.

I use XVM to get a feeling for players' strength. The matchups were mostly yellow and light green sprinkled with orange in our team and dark green and blue in the other team.

It didn't really matter if the team was aggressive or not - in fact, in two battles, the team charged like lemmings and was shreddered, and one game was more slow, but the better players killed the weaker team over 5-6 minutes.


Although not very reliable in randoms with mixed tiers, the XVM "prediction" for these games gave 25 to 39% for these games.

I believe XVM probability is more reliable when all tanks are of the same tier.

 

But anyway, just looking at the colors gives a pretty good idea of who's playing. And grossly unbalanced teams just make me feel WG is wasting my time (and credits), especially when playing a slow tank that either gets swarmed by enemies or that can't get to the action fast enough to get a shot in before all enemies have died :-(

 

In principle, the problem is the same as for steamrolls in randoms, just worse because of huge credits loss.


Edited by HassenderZerhacker, 02 October 2017 - 01:53 PM.


HundeWurst #15 Posted 02 October 2017 - 02:16 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 70355 battles
  • 4,381
  • [ROIDS] ROIDS
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

Well as you said everyone has to start at unranked/rank 1. So obviously in the beginning it will be rather random what happens. However the better you are to faster you get out of there.

 

I guess I dont have to mention yet again what kind of stupid system that is but its WG.... By now we should have learnt to expect the bare minimum of something often still to much to expect coming from WG.



qpranger #16 Posted 02 October 2017 - 02:18 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 33779 battles
  • 5,061
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013
I am happy getting 100 bonds per week + 100 more at the end of each season just for the first chevron or whatever that junk is called. A couple of battles per week and I am done. Eventually I will get that improved rammer for my S-51 and relax :)

HassenderZerhacker #17 Posted 02 October 2017 - 09:06 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 27815 battles
  • 2,469
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View Postqpranger, on 02 October 2017 - 02:18 PM, said:

I am happy getting 100 bonds per week + 100 more at the end of each season just for the first chevron or whatever that junk is called. A couple of battles per week and I am done. Eventually I will get that improved rammer for my S-51 and relax :)

 

that's interesting.

just got the first stripe, is that what you are talking about?

 

I just found out that the E100 doesn't need a vstab. replaced it with superheavy spall liner, seems to work well buys me some more time against stupid arties

 


Edited by HassenderZerhacker, 02 October 2017 - 09:07 PM.


Homer_J #18 Posted 02 October 2017 - 10:03 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 29705 battles
  • 31,448
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 02 October 2017 - 09:06 PM, said:

 

that's interesting.

just got the first stripe, is that what you are talking about?

 

 

First Chevron gets you to rank 1, at the end of the week you get bonds for the highest rank you achieve.  Rank 1 gets 100, rank 2 gets 300.   You need to get 3 chevrons to get from rank 1 to rank 2.  So far you have not been able to lose them but from now on, every loss where you don't come in the top 5 is a step back (assuming you took a step forward to start with).

omgdontkillme #19 Posted 02 October 2017 - 11:02 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 39415 battles
  • 409
  • [G__G] G__G
  • Member since:
    03-20-2015

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 01 October 2017 - 07:51 PM, said:

I bought my E100 yesterday and played ranked three times.

 

So far, I got 3 from 3 times unbalanced matchmaking.

Bad players on my side, good players on the other side.

??

what is the probability of getting balanced battles?

 

< 1% i would say. Even at rank 5 its rare for matches to be balanced.

 

Unbalanced tanks, unbalanced maps and so on and non existent mm, because of the small amount of players playing ranked.



brumbarr #20 Posted 02 October 2017 - 11:24 PM

    Lieutenant General

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

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 01 October 2017 - 07:51 PM, said:

I bought my E100 yesterday and played ranked three times.

 

So far, I got 3 from 3 times unbalanced matchmaking.

Bad players on my side, good players on the other side.

??

what is the probability of getting balanced battles?

 

Did you even think before you posted?

Imagine the teams where balanced, meaning each team had a 50% chance to win.

Then how do you think anyone would be able to rank up?  And how would going up ranks be skill based in any way then?


Edited by brumbarr, 02 October 2017 - 11:24 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users