Jump to content


The 3-5-7 template isn't to blame. It's the +2/-2 matchmaking.

+2/-2 sucks matchmaking 3-5-7

  • Please log in to reply
114 replies to this topic

Havenless #1 Posted 17 October 2017 - 08:58 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 413 battles
  • 435
  • Member since:
    12-18-2014

*
POPULAR

Well, hello Clarice.

 

It's been around half a year now since we got the notorious 3-5-7 template in patch 9.18. The system is getting tons of hate and there are constant demands on this forum alone to return the "old" system when everything was so much better. Personally I found 9.18 matchmaking a brilliant change. It had its flaws, such as that the new matchmaker treating heavies and mediums as the same and its fetish to stack specific tanks(if there were 6 Mauses in a battle it often put 5 into one team) instead of splitting them. Tank balance was still bad. There was definitely room for improvement in many aspects but honestly, my tanks got tons of +1/-1 and even +/-0 battles and I loved the game. Even "meh" tanks were tolerable to play when they were mostly seeing tanks that didn't completely overpower them. Defender was still overpowered, but less so when it didn't have a retardproof system defending it and I could at least gold pen its lower plate with most tanks I played. I could just pick a tank and usually the tank would be able to somewhat do its thing. I really liked 9.18. It was the 9.19 or whatever patch it was that ruined the matchmaking for me. You see, the patch that made the system heavily prioritize the 3-5-7 template above all else. All those +1/-1 games and single tier games just vanished and my tier 8 silver mining tanks were being shoved to the bottom of the list game after game. Some people have talked themselves into thinking it's a "challenge" to be bottom tier and they "have to adapt". I for one like to contribute and be useful so I grow tired of playing an irrelevant tank game in and game out pretty quickly. 

 

Many people have made tests with the new matchmaking. There were a couple of good ones but I think the common flaw in most of these experiments was that lots of people still counted the results as "top tier", "mid tier" and "bottom tier" which is just an invalid strategy with the new templates. Your tier 8 tank being bottom tier in 3-5-7 game isn't compensated by being a top tier in a 5-10 game once in a while. You're on the receiving end of that bargain. Tier 8 only battle isn't "top tier" any more than "middle tier" or "bottom tier" but many of these tests counted it as such. In my own experiment I recorded how many tanks of each tier I faced when I ground through my Emil I and the results were that I played against a grand total of 1035 tanks of which 21 were tier 6 and 74 were tier 7 while everything else was 8-10. I made the Emil I experiment as result of my O-Ho grind, a tank I never saw one tier 6 tank with. I suspect that the situation has slightly stabilized since then but the cold truth is that the system is still severely broken. If you're interested, you can read about my Emil I experiment here: http://forum.worldof...making/#topmost

 

Unfortunately posting in the linked thread is closed. When it was mentioned in Quickybaby's video a while ago and the discussion was resurrected, the moderation team simply closed it. The new moderation team has decided that effectively shutting down the debate on the pressing issues is the way to deal with the problems. Instead of determining that the overload of arty and matchmaking threads is a result of those things being the most critical issues, they've created one big junkyard thread for anything related to arty and matchmaking and killed off any debate regarding these matters. I put quite a lot of effort and tried to make this an educational thread and I can only hope it won't be buried alive.

 

To continue with the subject, the new 3-5-7 matchmaker is receiving a lot of hate and it clearly isn't working. That much is obvious. What's the point of being a tier 8 tank if you effectively get tier 8.5 matchmaking? The only reason why most of my friends(and me) people play tier 8 anymore is because of some grind or because that's where you make your credits. It's not fun or interesting, it's just a forced grind. Constantly playing an underwhelming tank is a joke that gets old pretty quickly. Quite simply the 3-5-7 system is a failure. But let's be honest - the new matchmaking system was implemented because there was just as much whining about the old one. The old system gave you a lot more "real" top tier games but by now many people have forgotten that it also gave you tons of games where your tank was more or less unplayable. Players are so busy with hating the 3-5-7 that they forget those sessions when their tier 8 medium tank was put into an unplayable battle 3 times in a row where the enemy had 8 tier X tanks each time and they could do nothing at all because their tank was totally worthless. If you ask me that was just as bad. The problem isn't the template system. It's the +2/-2 matchmaking.

 

The 3-5-7 template system was a statement from Wargaming that they know that +2/-2 is a bad system, and that they "kind of" wanted to give us +1/-1 without actually giving it to us. They wanted to fix the problems without touching the actual problems. They wanted to keep the "good sides" of +2/-2, including more gold spam, more RNG and lower skill cap while at the same time they wanted to "listen to the players and fix the problems." The template system as a solution was the same as trying to contain 2 liters of water into a bottle of 1 liter. It just won't work. If a system if fundamentally flawed, fine-tuning some nuances of it won't help. So let's forget the 3-5-7 for a moment and talk about +2/-2 and its problems instead.

 

+2/-2 matchmaking. What is it and why does it suck so much?

 

The concept of +2/-2 matchmaking is pretty simple. It mean your tier 8 tank meets tanks between tiers 6-10. The reason this is bad is because it simply [edited]s up the balance of the game. I'll use one picture to illustrate how:

 

 

Here we have a super heavy Japanese O-Ho's armor layout against two tanks from the same line, the Russian mediums. The left side is the tier 10, the right one is the tier 6. These are both tanks O-Ho faces thanks to the +2/-2 matchmaking. Just look at the image above and try to say with a straight face that this doesn't destroy the balance of the game. This will be a free lunch for the Object 140 driver, and a lost cause for the T-34-85 who needs to roll high even with his gold round to pen parts of the O-Ho's armor. To make the matters worse he could easily be 1-shot by the O-Ho. How about the O-Ho driver? It all depends on the matchmaking. Either his tank is an invulnerable faceroll machine that 1-shots things, or he's a big fat roll of toilet paper that the 140 is going to use to wipe his arse with. This is broken, plain and simple. 

 

Now, there are probably a few of you who are thinking "but the T-34-85 driver must be stupid if he faces the O-Ho frontally!" I've noticed this is very common in World of Tanks - instead of focusing on the core of the problem we focus on the workaround. The answer to why the T-34-85 is facing the O-Ho frontally is that World of Tanks is a dynamic game with small maps that have 1-2 focal points, which in turns means that avoiding big tanks forever is just a wet dream that ignorant people keep bringing up as a local version of "arty prevents camping" argument. The real question shouldn't be "why is the T-34-85 facing the O-Ho frontally" but rather "why are these tanks being put into the same battles?" World of Tanks is a deep game with tons of variables(including some awfully designed maps) and in many cases it's correct for the T-34-85 to face the enemy O-Ho frontally even if he'd much prefer not to. If your team lemming trains the hill side of Murovanka, are you taking your bottom tier medium to the forest alone "because you don't want to face the O-Ho"? I hope not because that's called throwing your tank away. So basically you either camp some useless bush with a weak gun, or you make an early call and try to do something useful with the risk of running into the enemy O-Ho. Simply put you're choosing between bad and worse. And I wonder how do you avoid the frontal engagements with the O-Ho in Mountain Pass? The generic "flank it" argument just won't fly here. I will cover more of this subject later but my point is that "T-34-85 shouldn't face O-Ho frontally" is not a solution to the problem, it's only babbling of an ignorant bob who insists on treating the symptoms rather than the disease.The solution is simple: Not putting these two tanks into the same battle.

 

Just look at the armor layout image above one more time and ask yourself, "would the removal of 3-5-7 make this fine?" No, because this isn't related to the 3-5-7 system at all. The 3-5-7 system was Wargaming's way of keeping the +2/-2 matchmaking in the game without the players having "unplayable" battles where a bottom tier tank has to face 13 higher tier tanks. Instead, now we get a steady stream of "kind of bad" matchmaking where both teams have 5-6 relevant tanks and the rest are passive support tanks and the team with less braindead top tiers wins. The real problem was never touched, only the goal posts were moved. What is the "real problem" that Wargaming ignored then? That it is fundamentally impossible to balance a tank to face both tier 6 and tier 10 tanks without it being overpowered against tier 6 tanks while also not being deadweight against tier 10s. This is simply an impossible equation. The templates system didn't solve this, and the removal of the templates system again wouldn't solve it either. We'd have more top tier games, but we'd also once again get more unplayable battles. Pick your poison.

 

+2/-2 creates lots of "no play" battles where a few lucky tanks determine who wins the game while the rest are at the mercy of the few most powerful tanks. +2/-2 damages dynamic gameplay and interaction by creating artificial imbalance that turns many tanks unable to do anything but sit behind a corner and pray that their top tiers aren't useless. It encourages bad plays like brainless Maus pushes through an open area and autoloader yolo rushes because we all know what happens when the much more powerful tank also has burst damage. +2/-2 highlights the flaws of bad map design, with one top tier tank often shutting down an entire flank. It encourages gold spam because it's often the only way for the bottom tier tanks to damage the enemies. It also encourages playing overpowered tanks because they are the only viable options when you have to fight against higher tiers. +2/-2 creates lots of frustration when your top tiers decide to camp or play some useless flank and 30sec into the game you already know the key flank is lost and you'll have a miserable game and there's nothing you could've ever done about it. What's the point of having 15 tanks on each side if only maybe a third of them can properly play the game? Just so once every 100 games a 45% bot can have a great game which only further discourages him from learning even the most basic things of the game? Yeah, sounds good...

 

The worst part about +2/-2 though is that it rapes the tank identities. Yes, that's the right word. If you're playing a tier 8 heavy like Löwe that has very well balanced armor, you're going to be able to play it aggressively in around 20% of the battles because in most battles half of the enemies can easily penetrate your angled upper plate. If you're playing a T-54 Mod 1, a medium that has armor as its highlight, 80% of the time it's going to be a sluggish medium with lackluster view range and a terrible gun that won't penetrate anything without gold spam. Gee, I wonder why the tank isn't worth the money. As result, TDs that are less affected are becoming more popular which only results in even campier and even less interactive gameplay. You can't even blame the players who choose this approach. With 288 APCR standard round you're going to burn far fewer credits than with a medium with 240 alpha and 190-212 penetration that can't even frontally penetrate the newer same tier tanks and that often has to resort to spamming gold. If you can't play the medium to its strengths 80% of the time and you'll feel miserable anyway, you might as well camp with the TD with a big gun that requires no gold rounds. If you do this in a premium TD, at least you can expect to make some credits which seems to be the only reason to play tier 8 nowadays.

 

Defender is literally the only tier 8 tank in the game that can consistently be played to its strengths because its turret and upper plate are so strong that it can withstand higher tier enemy fire, and that's because it's effectively a tier 8.75 tank. Everything else is "most of the time a support tank" including tanks like Löwe, IS-3 and KV-4, and even the O-Ho that goes from an impenetrable fortress 20% of the time into usually being a big fat box of plastic with a broken HE gun that has to be played very cautiously. And that's a super heavy. What I'm saying is that if you don't have a Defender and you don't enjoy playing support most of the time, you're screwed.

 

Myths "why +2/-2 exists".

 

There are a lot of bad things about the +2/-2 system and I could continue much longer with the rant. But there are good things about it too, right? It creates variety and makes sure OP tanks aren't OP every time... right? Besides, it's the same for everyone so there's no problem! That's all nonsense. There are lots of myths like this that are extremely flawed or even categorically wrong. I'll address the 5 most common ones and hopefully someone will learn something and maybe one day we stop seeing these lines flying around and we're one step closer to good matchmaking. I doubt it, but it's worth a try.

 

Myth #1: "It's the same for everyone."


This one is simple. The logic is that because you get to faceroll the enemy team sometimes as a top tier tank in a 3-5-7, it's also fine that you are on the receiving end sometimes. The system is all good and needs no fixing. Would a plague that kills all the humans on earth be fine because it affects everyone? Lying on my deathbed, I'd feel so great knowing that my neighbor is facing the same fate and never got to buy the expensive boat he was saving for. Guy got rekt so badly. Or maybe I'd just prefer a cure for the plague, for both of us. Just because something affects everyone doesn't mean there's no problem.

 

Myth #2: "It adds diversity to the game and prevents it from becoming boring! It also forces you to adapt to different situations!"


The logic here is that you get more "diversity" or "variety" by adding masses of tanks without any qualifications. This logic assumes that putting a Japanese Tiger against a Defender is going to have a positive impact on the game because technically there is a longer list of possible tanks to face. Quite frankly I can't think of anything more predictable and less diverse than a Japanese Tiger and Defender fighting each other. Because Defender will 2-shot it and will pen virtually every shell, the Japanese Tiger will be sitting in cover, doing nothing because it can't even gold pen the Defender, or it can go and try to slug to some other area with the hopes of finding something softer to shoot at before the game is over. Sometimes it finds an irrelevant tier 6 to shoot at a few times, and sometimes it'll find another tier 8 that will effortlessly farm it in 2-3 shots. Oh boy the dynamic gameplay is real. Variety at its best!

 

There are some who are going to tell you that +2/-2 "assigns you a role" and "makes you adapt". The problem I have with this is that with the huge and ever-increasing number of tanks in the game I don't need the matchmaker to tell me what I feel like playing. If I pick a slow, armored heavy tank I play it because I want to brawl, lead the line, trade and bounce shots. I don't pick it because I want to be a slow support tank with non-existent view range and no camo. I just fail to see the awesomeness in a system that castrates a well armored frontline tank of its strengths and turns it into the handicapped little brother of a support tank. It doesn't only become a support tank, but it becomes bad at it. A bad support tank that probably needs to spam a lot of gold shells because it's too slow for any sneaky plays and even with full gold it still has only very limited impact on the outcome of the battle. If the support role is what I feel like playing, I pick my Lorraine 40t or some TD. Or some random medium I feel like playing. But definitely not an armored heavy tank. When I pick an armored heavy I want to play a frontline brawler.

 

Myth #3: "+2/-2 adds challenge to the game. It'd be so damn easy to be top tier all the time!"


This may be a bit of an unfriendly remark to start with but looking at the average performances of the players at tier 10, being top tier all the time doesn't look all too easy. Many of the players who bring up the "challenge" argument can't seem to manage better than 47% in tier 10 despite it being "easy mode" while their tier 6 tank in a tier 8 game is supposed to be the epitome of challenge to play. That smells a bit funny, doesn't it? Can't win games when always top tier, but complaining how there is no challenge in being top tier.

 

Contrary to a popular belief, being bottom tier isn't challenging at all. It is some of the easiest, most dumbed down gameplay the game has to offer. Basically you have a tank that is almost always forced into a narrow support role. Your options? You follow your higher tier teammates around and hope they create some openings for you. If they don't, you kindly sit behind a corner and do nothing. Your other option is camping. This isn't exactly rocket science and I'm failing to see where's the "challenge" that's being brought up all the time. You can't lead charges. You don't have any tough decision trees to process. Even flanking is very risky to do on your own because if you run into a bigger enemy tank you're screwed. All I can see is players playing a useless tank and taking all the credit from the rare battles when they get lucky and everything works out, while happily forgetting the countless instances where they couldn't do a thing because their team(and/or the enemy team) didn't set up a buffet for them. It's actually much harder to be a decent top tier than a bottom tier goofing around, when you have plenty of responsibility to not only pull your own weight but also to create openings for your teammate. Maybe it's only me but I just fail to see how playing an underpowered tank with dumbed down gameplay is a challenge.

 

It surely is harder to win games as bottom tier than top tier. This isn't the same as "bottom tier is hard to play" even though a lot of players have been brainwashed into thinking that. No, it's because bottom tier tanks are weak and irrelevant. The gameplay itself on them is very straightforward and easy. Your win rate on bottom tier tanks isn't lower because it's harder or "more challenging" but simply because you're playing a bad tank. 

 

Of course the "challenge" logic fails to mention that +2/-2 is also the reason why we get the worst kind of top tier Farmville games. The "challenge" guys are so consumed by the challenge of epic proportions of playing ABC game in a useless tank once in a while, that they forget those instances when their top tier IS-3 could just crap on everything it faced. But that's just a boring detail.

 

If the game had +1/-1, you'd have some chance against more or less anything you face. On the other hand you'd also meet less weak tanks and the game would be more interactive and depend more on the decisions the player take and there would be less "Oh, my tank is useless. Fun!" moments. You wouldn't see bottom tiers uselessly sitting behind a corner because they literally don't have a viable play available. Instead you'd only see top and mid tier tanks that should be looking for opportunities to outplay each other, not sitting behind a corner and hoping that their top tier tank who could well be AFK decides to do something. Having decision trees to process and having to pick the right option is much harder than "pley suport :) ". There's nothing difficult in playing a low impact tank that you can freely throw away without really hurting your team but still we all like to show the glorious screenshot when our bottom tier tank did the most damage.

 

+1/-1 would result in a much more interactive and balanced game where the players would have options to choose from. The gameplay would be less campy because each team would have more than a few tanks that can properly play the game. Instead we're stuck with a matchmaker that is making it a priority that in each battle at least 50% of the tanks are weak and can't do anything significant to win the game or play aggressively.

 

Myth #4: "You don't have to fight the enemy top tiers, when you're bottom tier there are 7 bottom tier tanks for you to shoot at!"


This one has been gaining lots of popularity since 3-5-7 because you're guaranteed to have 7 bottom tier tanks in the enemy team when you're bottom tier yourself. I think I already crossed this subject earlier but whatever. The mentality here is that World of Tanks battle is a candy store where you go and cherrypick some of your favorite sweets and leave behind the ones you don't want. You click "Battle" and then you place your order of which enemy tanks you wish to fight and which ones you don't, and then you play vs. the tanks you want to fight while the tanks on your "do not want" list just do not exist. Unfortunately this isn't really how the game works. The higher tier enemy tanks typically won't ask for your permission to play certain areas. Quite the contrary really, they're usually more than happy to run into you and farm some free damage. This is where this logic falls apart. 

 

If your T-34-85 never plays the key areas out of fear that the enemy O-Ho could come there, how do you expect to win the game? Not only is your tank underpowered, but you're not even trying to help the team secure the important flank "because it isn't your role". If you always run away with your tail between the legs when the O-Ho gets spotted on the same flank, you're wasting precious time in the critical early minutes driving around with no guarantees of any reward. It's easy to say "just find softer targets to shoot at" but in practice that's not how the game works. What if the enemy has the numbers on the other flank, or if they have another big top tier tank there or just a bunch of mid tiers that are still driving tanks stronger than yours? What if the other flanks are more of the same? What if the map only has one relevant area? What exactly do you do in these situations? Typically the answer here is "absolutely nothing of relevance" and you end up sniping with the hopes that your team wins the game for and you get to farm some clean-up damage. 

 

Then we come to the philosophical part. Are you trying to win the the game or is the goal to just find a similarly useless enemy tank to shoot at a few times before you die? Because if you intend to ignore the 8 strongest enemy tanks in each battle(good luck with that...) and only focus on the weakest tanks of their team, you're not really taking your team any closer to victory, you're just farming a few shots of cheap damage. But wait! Because it isn't "your job" it's fine! Again, why is your tank even there?

 

There are 30 tanks in each battle and the maps of World of Tanks are notorious for being small. If you intend to avoid the top half of the enemy tanks because, you know, it's not your job to deal with them.... Good luck I guess? Imagine if we had +1/-1 instead. How terrifying would it be if you could actually play the game and try to do something useful instead of playing your own mini-game of driving around in a useless tank and and hoping to find the enemy tanks doing the same and ignoring everything else going on?

 

Myth #5: "+2/-2 balances overpowered tanks by making sure they're not always top tier!"

 

Here we go again. +2/-2 is in the game to balance things out. Doesn't the O-Ho screenshot I showed above just smell of excellent balance? Defender has +2/-2 matchmaking so it is a beautifully balanced tank, right? The "balances OP tanks" logic obviously fails to account for the fact that +2/-2 also "balances" the underpowered/balanced tanks that don't need "balancing". Defender isn't the only tank that gets bottom tier games, and it doesn't get them more often than a random weakling of the same tier. If you happen to have been unfortunate enough to buy a Panther 8,8 you can expect your tank to be "balanced" by the +2/-2 system just as much as the Defender. The difference is that the Defender is still a tolerable bottom tier while your Panther 8,8 already struggles against its own tier and is more or less unplayable in tier 10 games. Yes, those tier 10 games that you're getting all the time with your weak tank. But that's just some collateral damage, all is good! At least the Defender has an odd bad game right?! #worth

 

The other side of the coin is that some people seem convinced that the +2/-2 system helps the underpowered tanks because they are more likely to have more good games if they're top tier sometimes. I mean, Panther 8,8 is one of the best tanks in the battle if it's top tier in 3-5-7. It's so hard to buff a bad tank that we need to put it against tanks that are two tiers lower for it to ever be powerful. That's a great solution! On the other hand just think of a top tier Defender in a 3-5-7 game. That thing facerolls through everything and mostly cannot even be gold penned. This clearly has a positive effect on the game balance.

 

I know this is probably a huge discovery for some people but the way to fix OP tanks is to nerf them. Screwing the whole game balance for every tank of the same tier just to ensure the Defender has some bad games isn't a fix. The "contribution" of +2/-2 towards OP tanks is that players are even more likely to play them because they're the only ones that are still useful in bottom tier games.

 

Myth #6(added later): "But bad players love +2/-2 so it can't be changed!"

 

Alright, this one is an extra. There seems to be a common belief that bad players love the +2/-2 and therefore it can't be changed. There's never been any worthwhile data offered to support this, and I don't know why it keeps being brought up. Now that I think of it, the lack of accessible data is probably a big part of why. It's easy to make claims that can only be finally debunked with numbers, when nobody has the numbers. The verbal arguments are harder to make stick because most of them can be cracked with rational thinking.

 

I have invited 3 friends to play World of Tanks. Although the sample size is small and not definitive, it is quite alarming that all of them quit exactly because they couldn't cope with the matchmaking. They were very competent players in other FPSs but gave up on World of Tanks long before they had the time to become good at it, which I am sure they would've done over time had they kept playing. They quit because they didn't see any point in having a matchmaker artificially creating broken battles. They were still baddies, so bad that they hadn't even learned to hate artillery yet. Still they were able to quickly understand how the matchmaking works, and they all hated it with a passion. They felt the tides were against them badly enough because they were novices with bad crews, stock tanks and little understanding of the game itself. They didn't see it as "fun challenge" or "diversity" when their tier 4 tank was put there to feed the enemy O-I. Even though it was in their advantage that +2/-2 dumbed down the game, it had a very negative impact on their fun.

 

When you're a more advanced player, even if you hate the +2/-2 system like I do you can still at least pen a few shots and farm a bit of damage. What if you are a 46% player who already struggles hard enough even as top tier? Yeah, those are the players who are going to be utterly worthless as bottom tiers, and I highly doubt that most such baddies find it fun when they can already conclude from the loading screen that they have a miserable battle ahead. Acing their IS-3 once every few hundreds of battles in top tier game won't compensate for this constant misery.


Technically +2/-2 does slightly benefit the bad player because it dumbs down the game and ensures that the tank he threw away was irrelevant at least some percentage of the time. But do the baddies really enjoy the +2/-2 spread? I very much doubt that. I think even the baddies would prefer to always have at least some equity, even if they usually fail to utilize it. It's one thing to die because you played badly, and a completely different thing to die because the enemy top tier tank mongolpushed you and you never even got to pen him once. There's a pretty thick line between the two. Being bad or casual doesn't mean that a player enjoys complete BS going against him.

 

Since my friends sucked anyway and didn't expect to (yet) win a lot of games, and because they played for fun I am pretty sure they would've been fine with a slightly lower win rate if they'd gotten a consistent stream of fun games in return. They didn't quit because they were bad. They quit because the matchmaking ensured that the game wasn't fun enough to be worth playing.

 

Summary:

 

There is a ton of bad information being spread about the matchmaking and although there are lots of unhappy players, a lot of the blame goes to the wrong direction. The objective of this thread is to simply educate people, and I've done my best to cover the most glaring issues and give the "whys". Feel free to link it to your friends when they tell you that +2/-2 adds diversity to the game and balances OP tanks. With some luck one day we are going to see masses of players understanding the problems, and Wargaming actually has to do something about the problems without giving us yet another half-arsed solution.

 

+2/-2 doesn't exist to add diversity or to offer challenge. It exists to make players shoot more gold ammo and to frustrate them to buy gold to skip bad tanks and modules.

 

If you don't agree with some part, feel free to disagree and point it out. This isn't The Bible, just a collection of logical conclusions.

 

Regarding the moderators, I am hoping this thread is allowed to stick. 

 

Thanks for reading and here's a TL;DR section for whoever is too lazy to read the whole thing:

 

- The 3-5-7 template isn't the root of the problem. It's just a symptom of +2/-2 matchmaking being broken. The old matchmaker was replaced because people whined about it so much, and frankly it was just as bad.

- +2/-2 matchmaking makes the game less interactive and more campy. 

- +2/-2 rapes tank identities, encourages gold spam, turns almost every tank suffering from it into support tank and has countless other downsides(explained in the long version).

- What's the point of having 15 tanks in each battle if maybe 5 of them can play actively and the rest are support?

- The game has hundreds of tanks to choose from. We don't need the matchmaker to tell us what kind of a tank we feel like playing. If I pick an armored heavy, I want to brawl. If I want to play support, I pick an autoloader or TD. I don't need the matchmaking to "assign me a role" by rolling a dice and then telling me that my KV-4 doesn't have any armor in this battle and I need to play support... Just, why?

- It is an impossible equation to have balance if a (tier 8) tank is supposed to fight against tier 6 tanks and tier 10 tanks. How do you make armor that isn't overpowered against tier 6s but that still has value against tier 10s? How do you make a gun that doesn't lolpen tier 6 tanks, but still works against tier 10 tanks? It simply can't be done.

- +2/-2 matchmaking doesn't add challenge to the game. It doesn't add any kind of healthy diversity to the game. And it for sure does not balance overpowered tanks.

- +2/-2 exists to make people spam premium ammo and buy gold to skip frustrating tanks/modules.


Edited by Havenless, 23 October 2017 - 07:22 PM.


ZlatanArKung #2 Posted 17 October 2017 - 09:02 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014
While a +/-1 would really be fun if implemented, the need for prem shells would dwindle really fast.

I still believe the template thing is also a problem, b Eva use it creates static games of same type every game. It is just to rigid for my taste. I want different amount of top/buttom tiers, I want the amount of heavies/meds between teams to be a bit more different like a +/-2 of them etc.

Balc0ra #3 Posted 17 October 2017 - 09:06 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 62839 battles
  • 14,439
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

2+ MM is part of the reason for me sticking around for so long. Equal tier and +1 games now and then is fun. But it would kill the fun for most rather fast facing the same 10 tanks over and over and over again. As a recent RU pull did prove. 

 

IMO 3-5-7 MM is the issue. As it did screw over tier 6 and 8.. And tier 8 limited MM is broken due to all the +0 games full of VK 100.01, Defenders and Patriots more so then facing +1 targets.

 

And comparing the O-ho's armor vs the T-34-85 is rather pointless... when even the tier 6 and 7 Jap HT have more armor then he has AP pen. As he is a flanker vs those, not a brawler. And with all the super heavies around, especially on tier 8. Giving +1 MM to all will not spread them out, it will focus them. So the gold spam will be more real even with +1 MM for some.

 

That and WG have said that limited MM is a problem. Thus the reason why they are considering even removing it from current premium tanks.


Edited by Balc0ra, 17 October 2017 - 09:20 PM.


Aikl #4 Posted 17 October 2017 - 09:18 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25141 battles
  • 4,042
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostZlatanArKung, on 17 October 2017 - 08:02 PM, said:

While a +/-1 would really be fun if implemented, the need for prem shells would dwindle really fast.

I still believe the template thing is also a problem, b Eva use it creates static games of same type every game. It is just to rigid for my taste. I want different amount of top/buttom tiers, I want the amount of heavies/meds between teams to be a bit more different like a +/-2 of them etc.

 

Too bad it would make too much sense to tweak credit gain/repair costs to reward performance more. From what I can tell, you don't earn twice the credits in a T8 premium for doing twice the damage - and I'm pretty sure you can lose more credits in an awesome T10 carry than if you get 'recked without firing a single shot. 

 

Heck, should a T8 premium tank be able to make credits almost regardless of how it's being played? I'm inclined to say no - and that's even considering that the quality of my T10 gameplay would mean spending tons of credits on it. 

 

(Higher repair costs would likely come at less of a price than the usual need for premium shells in most tanks anyway.)


Edited by Aikl, 17 October 2017 - 09:19 PM.


Folau #5 Posted 17 October 2017 - 09:45 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 15254 battles
  • 2,557
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    05-19-2013

Don't forget that the 2 tier spread tries to encourage you up the tech trees, eventually getting to T10 where repair costs are prohibitive for most players. It's also part of the "everyone can win" idea so occasionally Random gets to smack T6s with their IS-3 and feel good about themselves.

 

I've always disliked the tier system. Being top tier smacking around players who can't pen you, or are slower, or whose armour is pointless is as dull as playing bottom tier.



Havenless #6 Posted 17 October 2017 - 09:47 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 413 battles
  • 435
  • Member since:
    12-18-2014

View PostFolau, on 17 October 2017 - 11:45 PM, said:

Don't forget that the 2 tier spread tries to encourage you up the tech trees, eventually getting to T10 where repair costs are prohibitive for most players. It's also part of the "everyone can win" idea so occasionally Random gets to smack T6s with their IS-3 and feel good about themselves.

 

I've always disliked the tier system. Being top tier smacking around players who can't pen you, or are slower, or whose armour is pointless is as dull as playing bottom tier.

 

Thanks, I forgot about the tier climbing part.

Homer_J #7 Posted 17 October 2017 - 09:58 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27094 battles
  • 27,749
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostHavenless, on 17 October 2017 - 08:58 PM, said:

 

The concept of +2/-2 matchmaking is pretty simple. It mean your tier 8 tank meets tanks between tiers 6-10. The reason this is bad is because it simply [edited]s up the balance of the game. I'll use one picture to illustrate how:

 

 

This is exactly why +/-2mm is good for the game.

 

I note you omit an important comparison.

 

O-ho vs T-44

 

Posted Image

 

I rest my case.



brisha #8 Posted 17 October 2017 - 09:59 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 15242 battles
  • 1,486
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    10-11-2012
WOw who the fek would read all that. Keep it to 10000 words or less please.

Scabolcz #9 Posted 17 October 2017 - 10:03 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 13292 battles
  • 330
  • Member since:
    07-16-2014
Neither of them are to blame... What is to blame is the distribution of good/bad players, that in a matter of seconds turns a 15-15 game into a 10-15 (by camping in useless positions or dying in the first seconds of battle)... Problem will never go away.

Havenless #10 Posted 17 October 2017 - 10:09 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 413 battles
  • 435
  • Member since:
    12-18-2014

View PostHomer_J, on 17 October 2017 - 11:58 PM, said:

 

This is exactly why +/-2mm is good for the game.

 

I note you omit an important comparison.

 

O-ho vs T-44

 

Posted Image

 

I rest my case.

 

Yes, the lowest pen tier 8 tank is going to struggle against O-Ho. But at least it can load gold to pen O-Ho fairly well. The gold round of T-34-85 is practically useless vs. O-Ho despite being pretty good for a tier 6. There are much other differences than just the penetration as well.


Edited by Havenless, 17 October 2017 - 10:22 PM.


Uebergewicht #11 Posted 17 October 2017 - 10:10 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 11702 battles
  • 1,035
  • [ATD] ATD
  • Member since:
    11-15-2015

Very well written post. Kudos to the OP.

 

I would firmly support +/- 1 MM; however, as an intermediate solution, I would also be highly sympathetic to the 9.18 match making algorythm, where 3-5-7 matches were an exception (and thus fulfilled their job of adding variety without being constantly frustrating) while 5-10 and single tier games were much more common. It doesnt matter if any one tier is overcrowded if you just fill up slots with tanks from the same tier, and the single-tier games have been some of the most enjoyable games I had, given that I can be of value everywhere, but also can face eye-level opponents everywhere (which are neither fodder nor target practice). The patch tomorrow promises to put even more emphasis on 3-5-7 than there already is, something I positively dread to experience once it goes live.



Anxter_ #12 Posted 17 October 2017 - 10:18 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 26571 battles
  • 250
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    10-12-2012

Main reason I've only played tier 9-10 and pref mm for the longest time. Adding the frustration of not being able to do anything meaningful myself on top of the already existing frustration of seeing my teammates' usually stupid plays isn't a recipe for "fun" for me. Well, that and the better gun handling as you go up the tiers making aggressive plays more viable since looking at the W key doesn't spaz out your gun anymore.

 

But there comes the crux of the issue, I'd much rather shell out for premium account if I can than suffer through a few too many lower tier battles and I suppose a lot of other people do. 

 

View PostHomer_J, on 17 October 2017 - 08:58 PM, said:

 

This is exactly why +/-2mm is good for the game.

 

I note you omit an important comparison.

 

O-ho vs T-44

 

Posted Image

 

I rest my case.

 

I'm struggling to see why that pic justifies anything. Or why cherrypicking on of the lowest standard ammo penetrations for that tier proves anything. For reference that tank has 247mm gold penetration thus making it a trivial engagement if the O-ho is played incorrectly. 



Homer_J #13 Posted 17 October 2017 - 10:22 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27094 battles
  • 27,749
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostAnxter_, on 17 October 2017 - 10:18 PM, said:

 

I'm struggling to see why that pic justifies anything. Or why cherrypicking on of the lowest standard ammo penetrations for that tier proves anything. For reference that tank has 247mm gold penetration thus making it a trivial engagement if the O-ho is played incorrectly. 

 

I didn't cherry pick anything.  I chose a tier 8 medium of the same nation OP did.

 

The point is that it is not OP against tier 6.  It is as should be expected against tier 6.  Tier 8 has just as much trouble with it.  It's often only that these tanks meet higher tiers which keeps them in balance.



Anxter_ #14 Posted 17 October 2017 - 10:25 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 26571 battles
  • 250
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    10-12-2012

View PostBalc0ra, on 17 October 2017 - 08:06 PM, said:

2+ MM is part of the reason for me sticking around for so long. Equal tier and +1 games now and then is fun. But it would kill the fun for most rather fast facing the same 10 tanks over and over and over again. As a recent RU pull did prove. 

 

Read the diversity part in the OP. You'd see the same 10 tanks(maybe) over and over again, but the variety in tactical decisions dropped your way is vastly improved by virtue of you not being in a useless tank. Meaning the quality of gameplay will invariably improve. Just as not having 8 udes per team improves games. More tanks that can carry their weight means more fights that matter for the outcome of the game means better gameplay. 

 

Block Quote

 That and WG have said that limited MM is a problem. Thus the reason why they are considering even removing it from current premium tanks.

 

It's a problem in a +2-2 environment because t8 becomes bloated by tanks that can only really get top tier slots, so non-pref t8s tend to get more bottom tier matches than they technically should which means they need to limit their pref matchmaking premium saturation somehow and/or their non-pref tier 8s have a way worse value proposition. Meaning pref matchmaking makes WG lose out on cash in the long run or breaks their game with premiums, neither of which is gud 4 game.

 

That has nothing to do with how (non-)problematic +1-1 matchmaking is. Just that adding +1-2 tanks to +2-2 tanks screws up the system.



somegras #15 Posted 17 October 2017 - 10:26 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 46224 battles
  • 8,668
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013
Another thing i really dislike about the system is not only being bottom tier, but being top tier is very boring most of thr time. I dont enjoy rolling over anything i meet and the game is over before i know it because there isnt enough hp to go around for me.

Ilknur_Ibryam #16 Posted 17 October 2017 - 10:26 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 10926 battles
  • 157
  • Member since:
    03-28-2016
I also dislike the 3-5-7. And right now I try to play tanks that are not a victim of the 3-5-7. PZ H - the durp can do well even against t7. Cromwell - can scout in t8. t71 - can scout in t9, T10 - in which I have max view range so I can fullfill every role regardless of the tier. I occasionally play the stug IIIG and some of my other tanks, and unfrotunatelly due to lack of credits I cant play my 2 t10 tanks. 

Enforcer1975 #17 Posted 17 October 2017 - 10:26 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 18462 battles
  • 9,852
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014
The strength difference between 2 tiers is just too big, they should have known that yet they buff tier 10s so tier 8 gets *edit until they buff it....they do that it gets repeated for the tiers -2 below...

Edited by Jbnn, 24 October 2017 - 09:18 AM.
This post has been edited by the moderation team due to inappropriate remarks.


Anxter_ #18 Posted 17 October 2017 - 10:27 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 26571 battles
  • 250
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    10-12-2012

View PostHomer_J, on 17 October 2017 - 09:22 PM, said:

 

I didn't cherry pick anything.  I chose a tier 8 medium of the same nation OP did.

 

The point is that it is not OP against tier 6.  It is as should be expected against tier 6.  Tier 8 has just as much trouble with it.  It's often only that these tanks meet higher tiers which keeps them in balance.

 

Firstly, pressing the 2 key once alleviates any and all problems said t8 medium had if he can aim for the cupolas or the O-ho is unangled, unlike the T-34-85 that can't pen it frontally ever in any situation. It's false equivalence. 

 

Seconly, reading the OP might take a while, but if you really try reading it you'll see that that last line is addressed in there. As in, pointed out like the BS it is. 



Havenless #19 Posted 17 October 2017 - 10:31 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 413 battles
  • 435
  • Member since:
    12-18-2014

View PostHomer_J, on 18 October 2017 - 12:22 AM, said:

 

I didn't cherry pick anything.  I chose a tier 8 medium of the same nation OP did.

 

The point is that it is not OP against tier 6.  It is as should be expected against tier 6.  Tier 8 has just as much trouble with it.  It's often only that these tanks meet higher tiers which keeps them in balance.

 

I could've picked IS-3 for an example and the T-44 with its poor penetration would be able to damage it while T-34-85 would never pen it, but it would be pointless. I wanted to pick a tank that's extremely well armored for its tier so it would also illustrate how it works as bottom tier. Contrary to a popular belief IS-3 isn't super well armored anymore, but it's still practically immune to any tier 6 gun. 

 

I think the part you're missing is that T-34-85 can't pen O-Ho in practical situation, it needs to roll very high even with gold rounds and although it has great alpha for a tier 6 medium, 180 damage is laughable against O-Ho. O-Ho will also 1-shot the T-34-85 with its derp gun. On the other hand Object 140 will butter the O-Ho with ease without ever shooting a shell of gold or havung to aim for a weak spot. The image is only supposed to illustrate how big the difference of two tiers really is and how it rapes the identities of each tank, being completely invulnerable when top tier and being a box of plastic when bottom tier. It's not just about the penetration value, that image just illustrates the overall power level gap that +2/-2 creates and prioritizes.


Edited by Havenless, 18 October 2017 - 02:51 AM.


_Avenger_SRB_ #20 Posted 17 October 2017 - 10:52 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 22263 battles
  • 146
  • Member since:
    06-08-2014

+2/-2 would be okay if the MM templates were distributed evenly (the 3-5-7, 5/10 shenanigans)

 

Still won't be quitting the game because of +2/-2. Changing it to +3/-3 would probably make me stop playing low tier tanks forever, with the lowest tier being Tier 8 (one single tank - the credit printer)


Edited by _Avenger_SRB_, 17 October 2017 - 10:54 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users