Jump to content


The main problem with world of tanks.

3 5 7 pay to win problem with world of tanks new players problem wargaming wargaming slowly ruin game bad money

  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

Poll: 3, 5, 7 matchmaking is good? (236 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battle in order to participate this poll.

Do you think 3, 5, 7 matchmaking is good?

  1. Yes (62 votes [26.27%])

    Percentage of vote: 26.27%

  2. No (154 votes [65.25%])

    Percentage of vote: 65.25%

  3. No opinion (20 votes [8.47%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.47%

Vote Hide poll

ZlatanArKung #41 Posted 29 January 2018 - 08:22 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1537 battles
  • 5,309
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014
65% thinks 3-5-7 is bad..... to bad WG thinks it is flawless....

thiextar #42 Posted 29 January 2018 - 10:49 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 15481 battles
  • 536
  • Member since:
    06-21-2012
biggest issue atm, id love to be able to play more of my tanks and not just tier 9, where i have currently exiled myself.

Thejagdpanther #43 Posted 29 January 2018 - 11:06 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 37277 battles
  • 4,796
  • [TKBS] TKBS
  • Member since:
    07-16-2012

View PostIgnoreAnts, on 26 January 2018 - 08:52 PM, said:

Before you start crying at me for calling the game pay to win, please ask yourself, and check facts when you do, every tanks statistics are available to all. Is the Patriot better than both other American tier 8s? Is the Scorpion better than its tier 8 German counterpart? Is Defender the best tier 8 Russian tank? Is the Liberté better than the other tier 8 French tanks? Is the Löwe better than Tiger 2? Was the Primo Victoria better than the regular Centurion, and is the WZ-120-1G FT better than other Chinese tier 8s? ... The answer to all these questions is yes. All premium tier 8s in this list are just flat out better in almost every way than their tier 8 counterpart. So if I buy one and I run into the tier 8 from the line in a battle I have a clear advantage because my tank is just better than his. This is pay to win. Your money doesn't make you directly win but it gives you a clear advantage.

 

This.

 

For the mm, the 3-5-7 could had be a good solution IF the rotation of be in the top 3 or bottom 7 work. For a game where you are in the top 3, you get other six where you are bottom.

The concept of this template is that a bottom tier must have a role in any game and they are not cannon fodders, on the other part, the top tier have more responsabilities

(combined with the pay to win tier 8 and zero game knowleds, its a total disaster).

 

The MM formula should be changed to a dinamic model where

top tier<middle tier<bottom tier

 

I was sick tired before the new mm of be the only one bottom tier tank...



Tinbawx #44 Posted 29 January 2018 - 12:31 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14747 battles
  • 1,265
  • [SNOB] SNOB
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

Well, at least when it comes to MM, we´ve got a good chance of WG giving a damn.

It affects tier 8, which for WG means premium tank sales.



Ehern #45 Posted 29 January 2018 - 12:40 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21619 battles
  • 335
  • [DTM] DTM
  • Member since:
    09-08-2012
imo its not about 357 but the wild mixing of players with different skills

they must use their ingame rating system for matchmaking

Hero_of_Tython #46 Posted 29 January 2018 - 01:00 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 26305 battles
  • 822
  • [AOTO] AOTO
  • Member since:
    04-19-2014

3-5-7 on it's own isn't the problem. The real issue is that WG have programmed the MM to try and give player 3-5-7 games as the default because apparently having 7 players on each team 2 tiers lower than the best tanks is the "Most fun" MM (WG must think we're all masochists). If one of the other templates (5-10 or single tier) was selected as the first choice instead of 3-5-7 the current MM (especially for tier 8) would be a lot less painful.

I really fail to see why WG won't acknowledge this problem as everyone of the forums and in game seems fully aware of it. I assume they are getting paid extra by "Steve the IS-7 driver" to make sure he always has tier 8 tanks to kill as tier 9 and 10s are too hard for him.

 

Also I predict this thread will get locked within the next 24 hours as it is an MM thread and MM threads are not allowed as we have a sticky MM thread at the top of the thread list. Which IMO is totally BS and just so WG can bury constructive MM complaints that they don't want to read in amongst one single massive thread that no one can keep track of.

 



anonym_VJVVUp5heVv5 #47 Posted 29 January 2018 - 01:22 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 1,055
  • Member since:
    01-15-2019

Yes i agree somewhat,

 

I don't have an issue with 3-5-7 as a concept. its just the fact that being top tier is so rare especially at tier 8 its hardly worth playing at all.

 

Platooning MM is also stupid in over 100 games with a friend we where only top tier 3 times even at tier 3 :ohmy:

 

 

 

 



xPraetoriaNx #48 Posted 29 January 2018 - 02:09 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 20564 battles
  • 304
  • [_HOD_] _HOD_
  • Member since:
    05-15-2011

Problem is, in a game like this, you can't create a perfect matchmaker. Someone will always draw the short stick.

 

The current matchmaker atleast tries to put some order in this mess. Problem is, mathematically it makes you top tier only in ~20% of matches, while you're bottom tier in ~47%... So yes, in nearly half your matches, you play with a (huge) handicap.

But then remember the previous iteration of the matchmaker. Enemy team having more top tier tanks, you're being the only bottom tier in a match (for example you play a tier 7 vehicle, only to end up in a match where EVERYONE else is either tier 8 or 9, even on the enemy team), etc. 

And then remember the very first iteration, which was complete chaos was back when I started the game in 2011, I remember going against tier 10 as tier 6 and stuff like that.

 

Sure, there are "everyone is in the same tier" matches, but that's not completely fair either, as certain vehicles are stronger than the others in the same tier. Not to mention someone playing a stock tank, etc.

 

So yeah, it's kind of a "pick your poison situation", but as long as we have tiers and OP / UP tanks, the matchmaker can't be perfect either.



Shivva #49 Posted 29 January 2018 - 02:26 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29996 battles
  • 1,960
  • [J_A_G] J_A_G
  • Member since:
    05-20-2012
Back after a break of just over a month or two...first thing that annoyed me was the 3/5/7..that aside it was great being back playing but the 3/5/7 is something that just niggles at me. As soon as you platoon it just magnifies the problem too.

Edited by Shivva, 29 January 2018 - 02:28 PM.


kaneloon #50 Posted 29 January 2018 - 02:48 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 30951 battles
  • 3,655
  • [RHIN0] RHIN0
  • Member since:
    11-18-2011

I didnt notice that full same tiers games are any different in terms of 15-2 than 3-5-7 games.

It is always that one "less numerous" side is trampled by an agressive enemy team (or commiting suicide) while the other "more numerous" side camp, and is then crushed.



bitslice #51 Posted 29 January 2018 - 03:14 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 23946 battles
  • 686
  • Member since:
    12-28-2013

View PostProcjon, on 27 January 2018 - 07:49 PM, said:

 

I have games when 8 players sit in the base and basically move turret only. When i check their personal score, most of them fit between the range of 1600-3000 of personal score.

 

I suspect an all or nothing approach may not be ideal.

WG do have a (and I believe it to be small), problem with bots, now we pretty much know that if its a bot then it has a WR of <44% - bots are not better than most players (yet)

 

If we cut out that bottom 44% and hold them down in their best performing tier, then they would be forced to learn to progress and the bots would only ever see other bots.

If someone only manages <44% then he never leaves the lower tiers

If he has a few good games (ie he's learning) then he gets to see the next tier up, and so on

 

This would keep the bots down below tier V, and it would kick off the 12 yr old kids in E100's at tier X

 

This isn't a linear cutoff, it's a curve where you'd have to adjust it to see what the average progression is - like most people suck at tier I, but as they progress then their WR goes up until say tier VII then it starts to level off I think.

 

Basically you have to keep bumping people up into tiers that they mostly fail to perform in and they can learn off better players, but not allow kids into higher tiers where they are just dragging everyone down with their shitty 40% WR and don't care attitude.

But if their WR goes up by playing say a T-29 well, then they'll get to play their E100 again, but then their WR will drop because they suck, and they'll have to stop playing it.

 

 


Edited by bitslice, 29 January 2018 - 03:16 PM.


Hero_of_Tython #52 Posted 29 January 2018 - 04:02 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 26305 battles
  • 822
  • [AOTO] AOTO
  • Member since:
    04-19-2014

View Postbitslice, on 29 January 2018 - 02:14 PM, said:

 

I suspect an all or nothing approach may not be ideal.

WG do have a (and I believe it to be small), problem with bots, now we pretty much know that if its a bot then it has a WR of <44% - bots are not better than most players (yet)

 

If we cut out that bottom 44% and hold them down in their best performing tier, then they would be forced to learn to progress and the bots would only ever see other bots.

If someone only manages <44% then he never leaves the lower tiers

If he has a few good games (ie he's learning) then he gets to see the next tier up, and so on

 

This would keep the bots down below tier V, and it would kick off the 12 yr old kids in E100's at tier X

 

This isn't a linear cutoff, it's a curve where you'd have to adjust it to see what the average progression is - like most people suck at tier I, but as they progress then their WR goes up until say tier VII then it starts to level off I think.

 

Basically you have to keep bumping people up into tiers that they mostly fail to perform in and they can learn off better players, but not allow kids into higher tiers where they are just dragging everyone down with their shitty 40% WR and don't care attitude.

But if their WR goes up by playing say a T-29 well, then they'll get to play their E100 again, but then their WR will drop because they suck, and they'll have to stop playing it.

 

 

 

I highly doubt WG would introduce such a model into the game, mainly because it goes against one of the unwritten principles of the game, that is that if you put in enough time and effort (regardless of skill) you can get to the top tier, (I realize some people might think this isn't one of the games principles, but the vibe I have picked up from what WG have posted over the last few years and what various CCs have stated make me think it is). Also I can not think of a single MMO game that has any kind of enforced skill based limit on what/where you can play, if anyone can please feel free to correct me.

In an ideal world you idea would work but I do not think WG would consider it an acceptable approach as it would run the risk of turning off a sizeable part of the players base, no not the part that uses bots (they can rot in hell) but the bellow average players that make us over half the player son the EU server. If you said to them that you will only be allowed to play in tiers 8-10 if your win rate meets so pre-determined (and in your plan moving) target then they may get to tier 7 find they have insufficient win rate to progress and go "well stuff it" and stop playing, sure they could also go back and player lower tiers or actually try to improve but the risk that they'd just quit and go play AW instead is too great IMO for WG to even trial such a system.

 



kaneloon #53 Posted 29 January 2018 - 04:03 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 30951 battles
  • 3,655
  • [RHIN0] RHIN0
  • Member since:
    11-18-2011

All this WR talk is a bit BS since (ok almost) everyone with 10k+ battles rerolling will have a +5% to his WR.

And even tiers X needs some practice to perform in it.

And good players platooning at tiers X have a WR boost.



blacky3443 #54 Posted 29 January 2018 - 04:11 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 72381 battles
  • 39
  • Member since:
    12-14-2012

To be honest I think we have to accept that the 3/5/7 template is here to stay, it is annoying especially with the % of time at the bottom but it is still better than the previous iterations of MM. I have more of an issue with how WG matches types of vehicle. So for example having a platoon of type 5 heavies matched up to IS7s or even AMX 50Bs. And as another having an FCM 50T matched up to an IS3..... This also impacts how the games will play out. 

 

I personally think that 3/5/7 is a decent metric but if only implemented better to account for an even spread of top middle and bottom tier games instead of current 60% bottom tier and to be fair if you are a decent player you can account for yourself very well in this kind of MM (not that we want to all the time). However, when the MM gives clear advantages to one side this becomes monotonous and does not bring any fun to a GAME, but fustration and rage... A better "like for like" MM would improve the game play no matter what tier your in.

 

Also players have different skill bases and lets be fair not all players run ferrari based PCs and therefore will suffer in this realm as well. It is a game and some are here to just shoot crapwhereas others take it verrrrrryyyy serious, including me at times and I got out of tomato play after a few years of being ignorant..... Expecting Skill base match making is not what it needs, more an even spread of player skill over both teams.......

 

Sorry I am done for now ;)

 

 



Lycopersicon #55 Posted 29 January 2018 - 05:35 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 10814 battles
  • 3,655
  • Member since:
    07-30-2014
IMO almost all tweaks that have been done to the matchmaker the last two years have been detrimental. Not only the particular 3-5-7 template, but the idea of template itself was misguided; also mirrored team composition and light tanks MM change dumbed the game down for no good reason. If I miraculously had the power to change one thing in WoT, I would just declare these experiments unsucessful and roll back to the 2015 matchmaker.

bitslice #56 Posted 29 January 2018 - 05:56 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 23946 battles
  • 686
  • Member since:
    12-28-2013

View PostHero_of_Tython, on 29 January 2018 - 03:02 PM, said:

 

I highly doubt WG would introduce such a model into the game, mainly because it goes against one of the unwritten principles of the game, that is that if you put in enough time and effort (regardless of skill) you can get to the top tier, (I realize some people might think this isn't one of the games principles, but the vibe I have picked up from what WG have posted over the last few years and what various CCs have stated make me think it is). Also I can not think of a single MMO game that has any kind of enforced skill based limit on what/where you can play, if anyone can please feel free to correct me.

In an ideal world you idea would work but I do not think WG would consider it an acceptable approach as it would run the risk of turning off a sizeable part of the players base, no not the part that uses bots (they can rot in hell) but the bellow average players that make us over half the player son the EU server. If you said to them that you will only be allowed to play in tiers 8-10 if your win rate meets so pre-determined (and in your plan moving) target then they may get to tier 7 find they have insufficient win rate to progress and go "well stuff it" and stop playing, sure they could also go back and player lower tiers or actually try to improve but the risk that they'd just quit and go play AW instead is too great IMO for WG to even trial such a system.

 

 

It's just a way of limiting the 12yr old from exclusively playing his E100 once he's grinded that far.

 

Besides it's only affecting the group that is the most disruptive and the most selfish - bots and 12yr old kids, and I cant see that being more than a few percent.

 

You do need to balance it so only it's only affecting that bottom few percent,

 

Yes, WG would be sacrificing a few players, but vastly improving the gameplay at higher tiers (and the better players higher tiers are the most invested $$$ in this game).

 

 

 

 

 



Derethim #57 Posted 29 January 2018 - 05:58 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 18891 battles
  • 2,101
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

View Postwordy00, on 26 January 2018 - 09:30 PM, said:

I think the point about 3-5-7 MM and having poorer players at top tier is the most important. 

 

Game stomps (15-0) happen FAR more frequently due to this. You only have to look at the teams at the end of a game to know why. You had 3 x 46% top tiers and they had 3 x 52% top tiers. In that scenario when you are bottom tier it's so hard to influence a game. It's now even easier for platoons of good players to influence games especially if they get a platoon of bad ones. In my opinion the problem is worst in 3-5-7 with tier 9s as top tier. Most tier 9s have tier 10 guns which makes the problem worse.

 

This guy gets it.

BicycleOfDeath #58 Posted 29 January 2018 - 05:59 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 15759 battles
  • 352
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

View Postblacky3443, on 29 January 2018 - 04:11 PM, said:

 having an FCM 50T matched up to an IS3

 

 

 

 

The problem there is the FCM is so bad you would have to match it to like a Covenanter for a fair matchup  :trollface:



Chuwt #59 Posted 29 January 2018 - 06:19 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 39069 battles
  • 126
  • Member since:
    06-14-2012

Did not vote, because I do not fit one of the three answers.

I do not think the current MM is perfect, but it could (as has been posted above) be worse, and has been.
I also do not think it is the worst thing about the game, at the moment.

One of the things that differences combat games from social games like farmville is that there are things out to directly defeat you.
Part of the skill is doing your best in the situation you find yourself.....you will NORMALLY be bottom tier, so get over it, try to be useful and do some damage, crying, slagging your team, going AFK and suiciding actively or passively are weak options. Same if you do not care for the map.

If the ONLY way you can have fun is easily stomping everybody you face, in reality you are not up to a combat style game...


 



Vossil #60 Posted 29 January 2018 - 06:29 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 18322 battles
  • 98
  • Member since:
    03-21-2013
The 3-5-7 stuff pretty much killed premium vehicles with preferential matchmaking. One could say that was delibarate to make people buy new premium tanks. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users