Jump to content


How I'd fix MM...


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

Wintermute_1 #1 Posted 02 October 2017 - 01:50 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 41449 battles
  • 940
  • Member since:
    11-25-2013

... I'd keep how the tank types in each team are matched up against each other as WG do actually seem to have solved that problem. But additionally I'd give each player a single cumulative stat, the figure would start at zero and each time a game was played the stat would get -1 if the player was bottom tier, zero if mid tier and +1 if top tier. Each time a game was started those players with the lowest stat score (the exact proportion would need some tweaking) would be given priority filling the top tier places and vice versa for those with the highest scores filling bottom tier places. At tier X, a higher score increases your chance of being placed in an all tier X game which alternates between adding a 0 and a -1 to your cumulative score. Outside of these rules, placement into top, middle or bottom tier would be at random.

 

At least this way everyone should end up playing the bottom tier a similar amount of times and streaks of bottom tier games wouldnt be too drawn out.



Ceeb #2 Posted 02 October 2017 - 03:20 AM

    Major General

  • Beta Tester
  • 30073 battles
  • 5,015
  • Member since:
    01-14-2011
Personally.  I'd have it that it's +1 MM max.  

Or even frack up the MM like back in July where T8 games were fun.  Best week in WoT IMO

Mike_Mckay #3 Posted 02 October 2017 - 03:22 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16681 battles
  • 1,009
  • [-AWF-] -AWF-
  • Member since:
    09-02-2015
I think the main thing wrong with MMs is theres not enough of the peanut ones :)

Ollieboy_7 #4 Posted 02 October 2017 - 05:58 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 9305 battles
  • 86
  • [RDDT] RDDT
  • Member since:
    07-29-2015
Wouldn't that completely mess up tier 9 and 10 gameplay? If you like to play tier 10 a lot, then your "rating" will get so high, that you will basically get bottom tier every game you play which is not in a tier 10 tank.

psychobear #5 Posted 02 October 2017 - 08:10 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 18475 battles
  • 1,513
  • [7EVEN] 7EVEN
  • Member since:
    06-21-2012

View PostOllieboy_7, on 02 October 2017 - 06:58 PM, said:

Wouldn't that completely mess up tier 9 and 10 gameplay? If you like to play tier 10 a lot, then your "rating" will get so high, that you will basically get bottom tier every game you play which is not in a tier 10 tank.

 

Not if those variables would be kept separate for each tank.

RamRaid90 #6 Posted 02 October 2017 - 08:12 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 19672 battles
  • 5,847
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View Postpsychobear, on 02 October 2017 - 07:10 PM, said:

 

Not if those variables would be kept separate for each tank. tier.

 



Wintermute_1 #7 Posted 02 October 2017 - 09:51 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 41449 battles
  • 940
  • Member since:
    11-25-2013

View PostOllieboy_7, on 02 October 2017 - 05:58 PM, said:

Wouldn't that completely mess up tier 9 and 10 gameplay? If you like to play tier 10 a lot, then your "rating" will get so high, that you will basically get bottom tier every game you play which is not in a tier 10 tank.

 

​Tier 9 should be OK because it could randomly place in top, middle or bottom and it should self correct. Tier 10 I tried to account for by saying higher scores get tier 10 single tiered games with a 50% chance of those games getting a 0 or -1 which is kind of the same as counting those games as random mid tiered and bottom tiered games... and bringing their overall score down until they started randomly having top tiered games again. ....

 

 

 

 

 



Homer_J #8 Posted 02 October 2017 - 10:26 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27030 battles
  • 27,666
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

The problem with making suggestions to improve the matchmaker is that you don't know that it doesn't do that already.

 

WG have said that the matchmaker "tries" to stop you being bottom tier too many times in a row.  It's impossible to tell if it tried and failed or just didn't try at all though.



Wintermute_1 #9 Posted 03 October 2017 - 01:54 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 41449 battles
  • 940
  • Member since:
    11-25-2013

View PostHomer_J, on 02 October 2017 - 10:26 PM, said:

The problem with making suggestions to improve the matchmaker is that you don't know that it doesn't do that already.

 

WG have said that the matchmaker "tries" to stop you being bottom tier too many times in a row.  It's impossible to tell if it tried and failed or just didn't try at all though.

 

Under this proposal there'd be a threshold score, say 15 and -15 which you could not go beyond. Which would mean it would be impossible to go beyond 15 games in either the top tier or bottom tier. Except tier X which would just get put into single tiered games which would counts as either mid or bottom tier games. 

As it is at the moment you can play bottom tier pretty much forever at tier 8, when I first got the Rev it was 26 games before I ever saw a tier 6 tank. 

Admittedly I don't know what it would do to wait times but you could tweak the threshold numbers to adjust things.



Homer_J #10 Posted 03 October 2017 - 09:09 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27030 battles
  • 27,666
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostWintermute_1, on 03 October 2017 - 01:54 AM, said:

 

Under this proposal there'd be a threshold score, say 15 and -15 which you could not go beyond. Which would mean it would be impossible to go beyond 15 games in either the top tier or bottom tier.

 

OK, so what happens when you have so many people in the queue who hit their -15 that the mm can't accommodate them all?  You start throwing people back to garage?

 

Whatever you do to fiddle it you only have the same number of top/middle/bottom slots so all you are doing is rearranging the chairs in a game of musical chairs, somebody will still have nowhere to sit. 

 

Just leave it to random and it will work it's self out eventually.

 

 



Pansenmann #11 Posted 03 October 2017 - 09:12 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 33263 battles
  • 12,020
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    08-17-2012

good idea but I would exclude SPG and LT from being top tier altogether,

limit SPG to max. of 1 per team, TD to 5 per team

and prefer HT for being top tier > all.


Edited by Pansenmann, 03 October 2017 - 09:12 AM.


Kozzy #12 Posted 03 October 2017 - 09:19 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 38497 battles
  • 2,298
  • [EAB2] EAB2
  • Member since:
    06-29-2011

View PostWintermute_1, on 02 October 2017 - 12:50 AM, said:

... I'd keep how the tank types in each team are matched up against each other as WG do actually seem to have solved that problem. But additionally I'd give each player a single cumulative stat, the figure would start at zero and each time a game was played the stat would get -1 if the player was bottom tier, zero if mid tier and +1 if top tier. Each time a game was started those players with the lowest stat score (the exact proportion would need some tweaking) would be given priority filling the top tier places and vice versa for those with the highest scores filling bottom tier places. At tier X, a higher score increases your chance of being placed in an all tier X game which alternates between adding a 0 and a -1 to your cumulative score. Outside of these rules, placement into top, middle or bottom tier would be at random.

 

At least this way everyone should end up playing the bottom tier a similar amount of times and streaks of bottom tier games wouldnt be too drawn out.

 

I don't hate the idea but it wouldn't work with WG's template system.  Also, I feel people could 'game' this system.  If you notice you were top tier and about to get put in bottom tier you could manage your tank accordingly (i.e. play tanks that are still strong when bottom (like arty) when you know you will be bottom and vice versa).

brumbarr #13 Posted 03 October 2017 - 09:48 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,284
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostOllieboy_7, on 02 October 2017 - 05:58 PM, said:

Wouldn't that completely mess up tier 9 and 10 gameplay? If you like to play tier 10 a lot, then your "rating" will get so high, that you will basically get bottom tier every game you play which is not in a tier 10 tank.

No it wouldnt, since there are tier12 and tier11 battles, making the T10 have a balanced score. 

Tier12 matches are games with tier10 only , tier11 games are games with tier9 and tier10.



Cannes76 #14 Posted 03 October 2017 - 10:41 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 62447 battles
  • 1,476
  • [3V] 3V
  • Member since:
    04-16-2011

View PostHomer_J, on 03 October 2017 - 09:09 AM, said:

 

OK, so what happens when you have so many people in the queue who hit their -15 that the mm can't accommodate them all?  You start throwing people back to garage?

 

 

 

There is still the possibility of making all same tier battles under such circumstances.



Wintermute_1 #15 Posted 03 October 2017 - 06:20 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 41449 battles
  • 940
  • Member since:
    11-25-2013

View PostHomer_J, on 03 October 2017 - 09:09 AM, said:

 

OK, so what happens when you have so many people in the queue who hit their -15 that the mm can't accommodate them all?  You start throwing people back to garage?

 

Whatever you do to fiddle it you only have the same number of top/middle/bottom slots so all you are doing is rearranging the chairs in a game of musical chairs, somebody will still have nowhere to sit. 

 

Just leave it to random and it will work it's self out eventually.

 

 

 

15 was a number plucked out the air. It could be 10 or 20. But there IS an actual number where players could be placed in a top or bottom tier game as a matter of priority with minimal effect on their wait time, it would just be a matter of identifying what it was. 

 

The only reason i suggest this method is because it sucks so bad at the moment playing tier 8. They need to do something.

 

View PostKozzy, on 03 October 2017 - 09:19 AM, said:

 

I don't hate the idea but it wouldn't work with WG's template system.  Also, I feel people could 'game' this system.  If you notice you were top tier and about to get put in bottom tier you could manage your tank accordingly (i.e. play tanks that are still strong when bottom (like arty) when you know you will be bottom and vice versa).

 

Yep you are right. I basically ripped this idea off from a blackjack card counting gambling method. The more you played bottom tier, cumulatively your chances of getting a top tier game would increase until you knew for certain the next game had to be top tier. 

 

Not many players would bother to really study the issue. Although i think most players would learn the feeling of a top tier game coming in the not to distant future. I dont really see this as a bad thing, and certainly a price worth paying for smoothing out MM a bit.



Homer_J #16 Posted 03 October 2017 - 06:45 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27030 battles
  • 27,666
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostWintermute_1, on 03 October 2017 - 06:20 PM, said:

 

15 was a number plucked out the air. It could be 10 or 20. But there IS an actual number where players could be placed in a top or bottom tier game as a matter of priority with minimal effect on their wait time, it would just be a matter of identifying what it was. 

 

And I refer you back to my earlier statement that as far as we know such a system already exists and fails so why do you think yours will fare any better?

Wintermute_1 #17 Posted 03 October 2017 - 08:24 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 41449 battles
  • 940
  • Member since:
    11-25-2013

View PostHomer_J, on 03 October 2017 - 06:45 PM, said:

And I refer you back to my earlier statement that as far as we know such a system already exists and fails so why do you think yours will fare any better?

 

They make no mention of it http://wiki.wargamin...Matchmaker_(WoT)

 

I'm not going to assume they have a mechanic they don't mention and there is no evidence for. Why would I? 

 

Asking me for a counter argument for a proposition that for all intents and purposes is non existent isn't logical. 

 

Its like saying an elf God lives on the far side of venus and controls the actions of Alan Sugar with its mind, prove it isn't so! Well I can't but given there's zero evidence for it I don't really need to bother.

 

 

 

 

 



Homer_J #18 Posted 03 October 2017 - 08:37 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27030 battles
  • 27,666
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostWintermute_1, on 03 October 2017 - 08:24 PM, said:

 

They make no mention of it http://wiki.wargamin...Matchmaker_(WoT)

 

 

 

The people who write the wiki don't?  Maybe you would like to update it then.  WG don't write or update the wiki.

 

If you dig around the news articles about the new mm then IIRC it's in there.



Homer_J #19 Posted 03 October 2017 - 08:43 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27030 battles
  • 27,666
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

https://worldoftanks...atchmaking-918/

 

Quote

After you’ve fought at the bottom for a few consecutive battles, the matchmaker will try to find a team where you get in the middle/top of the list, regardless of whether you play in the same vehicle or choose a new one during this session.


Wintermute_1 #20 Posted 03 October 2017 - 09:13 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 41449 battles
  • 940
  • Member since:
    11-25-2013

View PostHomer_J, on 03 October 2017 - 08:43 PM, said:

https://worldoftanks...atchmaking-918/

 

Quote

After you’ve fought at the bottom for a few consecutive battles, the matchmaker will try to find a team where you get in the middle/top of the list, regardless of whether you play in the same vehicle or choose a new one during this session.

 

Under their current system for tier 8 wait times don't vary and you can play bottom tier all day. Under my system the longer you played bottom tier at tier 8, you'd either: a) find yourself in a top tier game b) find your wait times increasing until you got into a top tiered game c) find yourself in a long series of single tiered games until you got a top tier game regardless of if you switched tiers or not.

 

You don't see these things so I assume they can't be using a system exactly alike, or anything alike, who knows.

 

If you read the next line of their MM description:

 

"After you’ve fought at the bottom for a few consecutive battles, the matchmaker will try to find a team where you get in the middle/top of the list, regardless of whether you play in the same vehicle or choose a new one during this session. However, if it sees that this will have you waiting for quite a while, it will match you into a battle with a suitable tier split." 

 

Its such a wishy washy vaguely defined sentence that it could mean anything from having a very loose mechanism to prevent long strings of bottom tier games to almost no mechanism at all, an entirely random MM would broadly conform to the definition above. Randomly a MM will 'try to find you a top tier matches' because randomly long strings of 1 result are hard to maintain. Its certainly no claim that the MM will attempt to balance the number of bottom tiered games you have to the number of top tiered games you have as would be the cause with a system which tried to return to 0 from a running score total. 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by Wintermute_1, 03 October 2017 - 09:14 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users