Jump to content


Where to Start

WG moderators report this one

  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

arthurwellsley #1 Posted 13 October 2017 - 11:49 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 47711 battles
  • 1,815
  • [PFU] PFU
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

So new MM parameters made, WG seek feed back. I am posting it here and not in the feedback forum, because more players on EU read gameplay.

For the full text of how WG is proposing to alter the MM criteria for making a match read https://worldoftanks...rovements/#tab4

Essentially they are now going to sub-divide lights, mediums, tds and heavies into separate groups and then try to match them. But looking at the groups I would suggest that in the present suggestions there are a couple of anomalies.

EDIT - just to be clear this is also already posted in feedback section as well.

 

Tier VIII

LT = all one group - no problem there

MT - Group 1 = Object 416, Indien Panzer, 58 Mutz, Ravioli, CDC, STA, STA 2 (black mutz not mentioned), (WG missed out that famous Defender killer the TVP VTU)

MT - Group 2 = T69, Lorraine 40T

MT - Group 3 = T54 first proto, SPershing, Centurion mk1, FV4202, Primo Victoria (last three should be in Group 1 as they are support snipers on ridges and not assault mediums)

HT - Group 1 = KV3, KV5, vk 100, Mutant, Chrysler GF, AMX M4 mle 49, O-HO, Object 252/Defender, KV4 Kreslavskiy

HT - Group 2 = AMX 50 100, Emil

HT - Group 3 = T32, T34, T34B, FCM, Caenarvon, IS3, IS6, IS5, IS3A, Tiger II, vk45.02(P), Lowe, T26E (Patriot not mentioned), wz 111, 110, wz 112. This group is screwed up. The mix is almost too great. Personally I would consider splitting this group into two, between Support heavies and fast heavies (sometimes referred to as Heaviums).

HT - Group 3A (support heavies) = T32, T34, T34B, FCM, Caenarvon, Tiger II, vk45.02(P), Lowe, T26E

HT - Group 3B (Heaviums) IS3, IS6, IS3A, wz 111, 110, wz 112.

There may even be an argument to be had for splitting them further given how different they are.

TD - Group 1 = ISU 152, SU 101, AMX CD 105, wz 120 GF, Ferdy, JadgPanther II, 8.8 JadgTiger, T28, T28 proto, AT 15, wz 111 GF, ISU 130

TD - Group 2 = RHM, Skorpion G, Charioteer, UDES, STRV S1

TD - Group 3 = AMX AC mle 48

SPGs - don't care.

 

Tier IX

LT = all one group. I think that the T49 should be in a second group. As a pure scout it is far weaker than the others. IWG almost wanted it to be the anti-scout, or hunter of light tanks, not that anyone really plays it like that as it needs to shoot targets as big as a barn door, or non-moving targets.

MT - Group 1 = Leo PTA, AMX 30 1er proto, Type 61

MT - Group 2 = T54E1, Baby Bat, Skoda T50

MT - Group 3 = T54, Object 430 II, E50 (yes we all know it is weak)

MT - Group 4 = M46 Patton, Centurion 7/1, wz 120, T55A. This group is unnecessary. M46 and Centurion 7/1 should be with the support snipers in Group 1. T55A and wz 120 should be in with the assault mediums in Group 3.

HT - Group 1 = ST-1, vk45.02B, E75, Mauschen, Type 4 Sumo wrestler

HT - Group 2 = AMX 50 120, Emil II

HT - Group 3 = M103, Conqueror, T10, wz 111 1-4. Split this group into two, between the fast ones, T10 & wz 111 1-4 together, and the turret hull downers M103 & Conqueror.

TD - Group 1 = JadgTiger, 704, T30, T95, Tortoise, wz 111 GFT, SU-122-54

TD - Group 2 = Waffen PzIV, Conway, STRV 103

TD - Group 3 = AMX 50 Foch

SPGs - no one cares.

 

Tier X

LT - all in one group. Same issue as tier IX, the XM551 Sheridan should be in a separate group due to game play differences see above.

MT - Group 1 = Leo 1, AMX 30B, STB-1

MT - Group 2 = Bat, TVP 50/51

MT - Group 3 = Object 907, Object 430, E50M, T22 (really interesting to see this here. Probably confirmation is is the new tier X personal mission reward. Does not have SR after the name). M48 Patton (really an M48 is as flexible as a USSR hover medium?).

MT - Group 4 = M60, M95E6, CAX, T62A, Object 140, 121, 121B. As per tier IX I would cut medium tanks down to three groups. M48 Patton from Group 3 to the sniper support Group 1. Also to Group 1 M60, M95E6, and CAX. To the assault group Group 3 place T62A, Object 140, 121, 121B.

TD - Group 1 = Object 269, T110E4, T110E3, wz 113 GFT, Object 263

TD - Group 2 = Grille 15, STRV 103B

TD - Group 3 = AMX 50 Foch (155), Foch 50B, FV215B, JadgE100, FV4005. Now this goup is really wrong. JadgE100 should be in Group 1 with the other assault tds. FV 4005 needs to be in Group 2 with the paper snipers. FV215B is an anomaly but not an auto loader. It either needs replacing or a serious armour buff to be in with the assault td's in Group 1. I believe it will be replaced by the FV 205 which if armoured enough should be in Group 1.

HT - Group 1 = IS4, Maus, E100, Pz.VII, vk70.01(k), Type 5 Sumo

HT - Group 2 = T57 heavy, AMX 50B, Kranvagn

HT - Group 3 = wz 111 5A, FV215B, IS7, Object 260, T110E5, Super Conqueror, 113. The FV215B looks out of place here as it is so weak in comparison to the CH and USSR tanks, but it's replacement the Super Conqueror is here.

SPGs - don't mention them. But ... Should the French auto loader be in a separate group?

 

I feel sure others will have comments, and indeed I may even change my mind over a few points.


Edited by arthurwellsley, 13 October 2017 - 04:46 PM.


cragarion #2 Posted 13 October 2017 - 11:59 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 39098 battles
  • 1,316
  • Member since:
    07-10-2010

Where to start ?

 

1/ In the correct area of the forum for a start.

2/ Like you said its WG that wants this feed back so post it where they ask you to post it.


Edited by cragarion, 13 October 2017 - 12:00 PM.


eldrak #3 Posted 13 October 2017 - 12:23 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 42027 battles
  • 787
  • [NE-VO] NE-VO
  • Member since:
    01-27-2011

Poor KJP, WG always forgets it's a regular premium on the EU server.

 

At tier 8 I would group is6 and 112 with the support heavies and not the heaviums. Otherwise I pretty much agree with everything.

 

@crag Posting here to raise awareness is good.



Dava_117 #4 Posted 13 October 2017 - 12:30 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 13844 battles
  • 637
  • [B-BAS] B-BAS
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014
I'm feeling bad for my IS-4...

arthurwellsley #5 Posted 13 October 2017 - 12:32 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 47711 battles
  • 1,815
  • [PFU] PFU
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View Postcragarion, on 13 October 2017 - 10:59 AM, said:

Where to start ?

 

1/ In the correct area of the forum for a start.

2/ Like you said its WG that wants this feed back so post it where they ask you to post it.

 

I also posted it in the correct section ie the feedback section as well.

That section (a) has fewer readers, and (b) some of the few posts that there are there are rubbish. I know that it might seem counter intuitive, but actually the posts in the gameplay section are sometimes more constructive than in the feedback section.

You rather proved my point, for if you had been reading the feedback section you would also have seen my post there and not made this comment.



Jumping_Turtle #6 Posted 13 October 2017 - 12:33 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 53247 battles
  • 4,399
  • [CNUT] CNUT
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013
And what if you don't use the 152mm on the T49 or Sheridan ?

HeidenSieker #7 Posted 13 October 2017 - 12:34 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 7423 battles
  • 3,214
  • Member since:
    03-26-2016

View Postarthurwellsley, on 13 October 2017 - 11:49 AM, said:

So new MM parameters made, WG seek feed back. I am posting it here and not in the feedback forum, because more players on EU read gameplay.

 

You should still post it in the proper place.

Jahrakajin #8 Posted 13 October 2017 - 12:35 PM

    Moderator

  • Moderator
  • 1791 battles
  • 984
  • [WG_M] WG_M
  • Member since:
    11-02-2013
Couldn't but notice the hashtags. You didn't do me a favor with that huge post but oh well part of the job. I'm finishing a couple of things and will pop up in an hour to see what you guys have written till then. 

arthurwellsley #9 Posted 13 October 2017 - 12:39 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 47711 battles
  • 1,815
  • [PFU] PFU
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View PostHeidenSieker, on 13 October 2017 - 11:34 AM, said:

 

You should still post it in the proper place.

 

I did post in the correct place as well, but the comments in gameplay are normally better quality, and more people read gameplay than feedback, and if you'd read feedback, you would have seen this post, and that rather proves my point of posting it here.

Edited by arthurwellsley, 13 October 2017 - 12:40 PM.


K_A #10 Posted 13 October 2017 - 12:48 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 12787 battles
  • 3,312
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    04-18-2013

I mostly agree with arthurwellsley's proposed changes. Tier 8 HT group 3 is a mess and is just a complete mish mash of completely different kinds of tanks and should be split somehow. MT group 4's on tier 9 and 10 are indeed useless and can be divided among the first 3 groups.

 

Also I strongly disagree with the whole premise of groups that consist of a single tank. I know the French are the only ones that have autoloading TDs, but it's gonna get super boring if every single game always when you play one you face the exact same one.



Rati_Festa #11 Posted 13 October 2017 - 12:53 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 35124 battles
  • 249
  • Member since:
    02-10-2012

Id suggest that the t10 AMX lt tank has a huge advantage over the Lt100 as well. When I have been playing my Lt100 a lot of the time the opposing lights is the Amx, it's quite a mismatch on the first encounter when do the early spot quick spots on the open maps.

 

I can't see anything else I have an issue with though.



bstb3 #12 Posted 13 October 2017 - 01:09 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 34227 battles
  • 190
  • [VBRJ] VBRJ
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

View PostK_A, on 13 October 2017 - 11:48 AM, said:

I mostly agree with arthurwellsley's proposed changes. Tier 8 HT group 3 is a mess and is just a complete mish mash of completely different kinds of tanks and should be split somehow. MT group 4's on tier 9 and 10 are indeed useless and can be divided among the first 3 groups.

 

Also I strongly disagree with the whole premise of groups that consist of a single tank. I know the French are the only ones that have autoloading TDs, but it's gonna get super boring if every single game always when you play one you face the exact same one.

 

Yes, agree here too. IS3 <>FCM 50t, Thats just nuts. Probably would be better if tanks weren't grouped by the traditional HT , MT but more by roles.  For example, I would group the CDC and FCM together, along with the Charioteer (mobile, kinda snipey), Centurion 1, Primo Victoria. The way a tank should be played is more important than the arbitrary class it's given. This will give more variability of line ups which is better in the long run, while keeping the same overall balancing intentions you are aiming for. 

 

Also, I would suggest bracketing all Autoloaders together, not by Tank Class. No idea what that does to the MM rules, but it keeps a little more variety whilst at least still meaning each team gets some burst damage. 

 

edit - except light autoloaders, obviously. All lights should be together as they have intended now.


Edited by bstb3, 13 October 2017 - 01:11 PM.


Dava_117 #13 Posted 13 October 2017 - 01:12 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 13844 battles
  • 637
  • [B-BAS] B-BAS
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

May be it's better if I expand my thought.

IS-4 don't fit well in the superheavy class, IMO.

First of all, it's the only tank in the group that can't mount a superheavy spall liner. It has the smallest caliber gun, that means that HE are not an option againt Maus and Type 5, while the standard pen is not enought to pen those 2 tanks reliably. That require a good ammount of HEAT (if this mm go live at least 10) so 1/3 of the total ammo, sacrifincing HE for decap or some of the already few AP. In addition the armor layout work well only if angled, while the other tanks require just to hide weackspot an at most turn a bit the turret to block gold. 

IMO IS-4 should be in tha same class with IS-7.


Edited by Dava_117, 13 October 2017 - 01:13 PM.


cragarion #14 Posted 13 October 2017 - 01:27 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 39098 battles
  • 1,316
  • Member since:
    07-10-2010

View Postarthurwellsley, on 13 October 2017 - 11:49 AM, said:

...................... I am posting it here and not in the feedback forum....................

 

View Postarthurwellsley, on 13 October 2017 - 12:32 PM, said:

......................You rather proved my point, for if you had been reading the feedback section you would also have seen my post there and not made this comment.

 

I have not go to that section of the forum yet or i would have seen it,

and since YOU SAID you were NOT posting it there is why i posted what i posted.

 

Hmmm where exactly did you post it in feedback i cant seem to find it and according to your profile you only posted it here.


Edited by cragarion, 13 October 2017 - 01:35 PM.


SirTogII #15 Posted 13 October 2017 - 01:36 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 44875 battles
  • 385
  • [EREQT] EREQT
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012
You wanted feedback so here it is: You have missed the point, completely.
WG are not seeking to completely match up the tanks in the two teams role for role. First of all it would be seriously complicated for the match maker but more importantly it would be boring as fack!
Differences between the teams are an important part of the game dynamics, not something that should be removed!
What they (and the majority I would guess) want sorted out are the imbalances that results when one team have a substantially higher number of tanks of a certain type. The extremes I guess 3 Mauses playing against 3 Leopards as the only tier 10s. There is no map that could make that battle fair. Solution is simple, just match equal no of super heavies against each other and let the rest be.

Edited by SirTogII, 13 October 2017 - 01:37 PM.


Jumping_Turtle #16 Posted 13 October 2017 - 01:55 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 53247 battles
  • 4,399
  • [CNUT] CNUT
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013

Can't seem to find it but does this new system also count stock and elite tanks different ? Or is a stock T-54 just as rated as a elite T-54 ?

And is a T49 with de 152 the same as the T49 with the small gun ?



Dava_117 #17 Posted 13 October 2017 - 01:58 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 13844 battles
  • 637
  • [B-BAS] B-BAS
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View PostJumping_Turtle, on 13 October 2017 - 01:55 PM, said:

Can't seem to find it but does this new system also count stock and elite tanks different ? Or is a stock T-54 just as rated as a elite T-54 ?

And is a T49 with de 152 the same as the T49 with the small gun ?

 

Stock and Elite tanks are rated the same...

_EXODUZ_ #18 Posted 13 October 2017 - 02:04 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 28354 battles
  • 1,028
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    11-05-2014

View PostDava_117, on 13 October 2017 - 12:30 PM, said:

I'm feeling bad for my IS-4...

 

IS-4 is good against super heavies.

Dava_117 #19 Posted 13 October 2017 - 02:19 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 13844 battles
  • 637
  • [B-BAS] B-BAS
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View Post_EXODUZ_, on 13 October 2017 - 02:04 PM, said:

 

IS-4 is good against super heavies.

 

VS E100 or the Pz 7 agree, but vs Maus and Type no... 

_EXODUZ_ #20 Posted 13 October 2017 - 02:26 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 28354 battles
  • 1,028
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    11-05-2014

View PostDava_117, on 13 October 2017 - 02:19 PM, said:

 

VS E100 or the Pz 7 agree, but vs Maus and Type no... 

 

Just dab that 2 key and melt em down. :trollface:




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users