Jump to content


Fairness of tanks in game


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

Mr_Africa_6972 #1 Posted 26 April 2018 - 08:30 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 21 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    02-12-2016

This is my first post on this forum, although I have been playing for a while, 9700 battles. I am not sure what is happening lately as far as even matching of tanks per game, but there seems to me to be a lot more imbalance between teams. Last night We played, my team had 2 heavy tanks ( my IS and a Tiger 1 ) and a host of mediums and some TD’s against 9 heavy tanks and others. Needless to say we were wiped out, the opposing team losing 3 tanks. Some nights I cannot win a single game, playing in all tiers and then my team losing badly the whole evening. Some times I am lucky to win one game.

Then there are times when we win far too easily, again through mismatching of opponents.

How are these games set up to ensure evenness and fairness?



UrQuan #2 Posted 26 April 2018 - 08:41 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19477 battles
  • 6,191
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

During the night, MM is less good at matching tanks well, simply because there's not enough people playing. Albeit a mismatch of 2 HT's vs 9 HT's should be rare & generally hints that the tier you play on has too low population for proper matchup creation.

 

The MM tries to match class versus class per tier; When it is unable to do that, it simply tries to match class vs class (ending up sometimes with a T8 HT being balanced against a T9 one), doing its best to not deviate beyond 1 difference.

Failing that, it simply throws 15 tanks together & let them duke it out (albeit arty matching & TD matching tends to get respected longer, with arty matching failing as last)

So higher population: better balance. Fairness is achieved by randomness, everyone has an equal chance to get in the better suited team for the map & over the long run it evens out.

Keep in mind, the MM does not take skill in account, that's completely random.


Edited by UrQuan, 26 April 2018 - 08:41 AM.


MeetriX #3 Posted 26 April 2018 - 08:41 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 20517 battles
  • 2,745
  • Member since:
    08-12-2012

Since you're new in here forum, I'll tell you couple of important rules, guidelines and tips.

First things first.  Replay?

That is all.



Mr_Africa_6972 #4 Posted 26 April 2018 - 09:09 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 21 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    02-12-2016

Replay? Yes I do watch the replays occasionally if that is what you mean? Tips and tricks, always open to learning something, never too old to learn....

It is swings and roundabouts and I have found evening play in the U.K. is different to playing in the day.



StinkyStonky #5 Posted 26 April 2018 - 01:14 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 28441 battles
  • 2,146
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    11-02-2015

View PostMr_Africa_6972, on 26 April 2018 - 07:30 AM, said:

Last night We played, my team had 2 heavy tanks ... against 9 heavy tanks and others. 

 

That's hard to believe.  With 11 Heavies in the game it's hard to believe that the MM would put 9v2.

 

WG have explained in great detail how the MM works and it not only puts heavies against heavies it also distinguishes super heavies from softer heavies.

 

So if that did indeed happen it would indicate a very severe (and rare) bug.

 

"Replay ?" means ... Can you post the replay so we can take a look and have a go at working out what happened.

 

With your description we can only conclude :-

1) Extreme bug

2) You mis-remembered or mis-reported what actually happened.

 

2 is more likely.



Orkbert #6 Posted 26 April 2018 - 05:46 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 25513 battles
  • 1,678
  • Member since:
    08-29-2013

View PostMr_Africa_6972, on 26 April 2018 - 08:30 AM, said:

This is my first post on this forum,

 

Then why not actually using your 9700+ games account to ask the question?

Mr_Africa_6972 #7 Posted 26 April 2018 - 05:59 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 21 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    02-12-2016

It is possible that I miscounted as the game started as I was looking but they had many more but we did have a lot more TD’s but no worries, I am not hassled about it as it evens out in the end as UrQuan has commented. I suspect that StinkyStonky might be correct in what he refers to as super and soft heavies, something I have not taken into account, as well as the tiers of those heavies.

Thank you for the replies



Laukaus #8 Posted 26 April 2018 - 07:23 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 8551 battles
  • 120
  • Member since:
    03-27-2013

When a so-called game lasts short time, WG gets more money per time unit. Players have to repair their tanks, reload their prem ammo and consumables. 

 

WG has several methods to make sure that "games" are short.

 

1) manipulating hitting, penetrating and damage-making values so that "privileged" team is offered those values in their "advantageous" part of dispersion pattern and "un-privileged" team in their "non-advantageous" part.

2) using server-generated bots that either do only mistakes or play brillianly. The former is less favorable because bots dont pay for prem ammo and repairing.   

3) setting OP tanks against non-OP. Consider for example a "game" in which 2 of 3 top tier tanks are, say 2 x Object 430U versus 2 x Leopard 1. 

 

But still, nowadays it shouldn't be possible to have 2 heavies vs 9 in same "game". On the other hand, this is a russian game so dont expect anything to work in it. 


Edited by Laukaus, 26 April 2018 - 07:48 PM.


trrprrprr #9 Posted 27 April 2018 - 12:46 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 24020 battles
  • 324
  • Member since:
    04-12-2011

View PostLaukaus, on 26 April 2018 - 06:23 PM, said:

When a so-called game lasts short time, WG gets more money per time unit. Players have to repair their tanks, reload their prem ammo and consumables. 

 

WG has several methods to make sure that "games" are short.

 

1) manipulating hitting, penetrating and damage-making values so that "privileged" team is offered those values in their "advantageous" part of dispersion pattern and "un-privileged" team in their "non-advantageous" part.

2) using server-generated bots that either do only mistakes or play brillianly. The former is less favorable because bots dont pay for prem ammo and repairing.   

3) setting OP tanks against non-OP. Consider for example a "game" in which 2 of 3 top tier tanks are, say 2 x Object 430U versus 2 x Leopard 1. 

 

But still, nowadays it shouldn't be possible to have 2 heavies vs 9 in same "game". On the other hand, this is a russian game so dont expect anything to work in it. 

 

ABout privileged match making - cant agree more.  There is no good explanation when you get a roll in ateam that all dies in first minutes and loses without killing any enemy tank or at max one. And those arnt some special unique games with somehow different tactics - same layout, same spots by best fitted for the tanks role, but yet, you get once in a while game where you are on losing side with no killed enemies at all, then you roll in a winning one with same outcome for enemy team.  If they make MM (as they claim) cos they are "fixing" it for last 6 years, they should take in account player score to average out teams.

 

Plus there are alot of botters even in tier X. Last game i played was with FV215b in team, first 7minutes he didnt even move much out of the spawn point. When he started to move away from fighing spot his gun was stuttering, like someone moving mouse not by one move, but with small steps  and as soon as enemy was spotted out of his LOS, he still turned gun exactly towards that enemy spot.  So if WG would even care about making fair gameplay for everyone, we would of had this kind of MM LONG time ago.  And im sure, its not hard to take some base score from wr/damage done/or even wn8, to make a good mixed game, where you have equal amount of bots and equal amount of uniqums in both teams.   And as mentioned before, there is still a problem with same type of tanks on both sides, where one gets slow armored heavy, other team gets fast autoloader - same with meds and TDs.



Dead_in_30_seconds #10 Posted 27 April 2018 - 09:23 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 2503 battles
  • 589
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    11-07-2017

Forgive my ignorance in these matters, but if WG were in the habit of using bots as 'filler', or as a device to influence team 'weighting', wouldn't it be expected that ALL games, even in the early hours of the morning when servers are quiet, would be 15v15?

If a limit exists on the number of bots WG can control in any one battle, you would still expect 11v11 or 12v12 every time, instead we get a 'timeout' message when in the queue.

 

WG can obviously control 29 bots in a battle, as seen in 'Proving Ground', and it is in their interest to have you in battle where you are more likely to purchase premium ammo, so I see the 'time out' scenario as reasonably strong evidence that they aren't in fact as prolific in their use of bots as some might suggest.

 

I may very well be talking nonsense of course, and I'm sure some kind person will see to my further education, but I can't help thinking that an unhealthy amount of paranoia exists around this subject.


Edited by Dead_in_30_seconds, 27 April 2018 - 09:23 AM.


mpf1959 #11 Posted 27 April 2018 - 01:04 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 15753 battles
  • 792
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-29-2017

View PostOrkbert, on 26 April 2018 - 05:46 PM, said:

 

Then why not actually using your 9700+ games account to ask the question?

 

Really? lol!

Jigabachi #12 Posted 27 April 2018 - 06:19 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17935 battles
  • 19,087
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostLaukaus, on 26 April 2018 - 07:23 PM, said:

WG has several methods to make sure that "games" are shshort.

Spamming the same baseless claims everywhere while still ignoring everyone asking for evidence really doesn't help taking you any seriously.



HeidenSieker #13 Posted 27 April 2018 - 10:23 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 10046 battles
  • 4,651
  • Member since:
    03-26-2016

View PostMr_Africa_6972, on 26 April 2018 - 09:09 AM, said:

Replay? Yes I do watch the replays occasionally if that is what you mean?

 

He means:-

 

"If you claim something's happened a game, upload the replay to wotreplays.eu so that people can see, verify & comment on your game".

 

Quite a lot of people don't do this, leaving their claims open to question, as it were (you get the idea) . Comments along the lines of "I suppose the dog ate it?" are often seen.

 

So, switch "save all replays" on in your game settings (replays are not large files - 2-4MB generally), and upload freely!



Laukaus #14 Posted 28 April 2018 - 12:27 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 8551 battles
  • 120
  • Member since:
    03-27-2013

View PostJigabachi, on 27 April 2018 - 05:19 PM, said:

Spamming the same baseless claims everywhere while still ignoring everyone asking for evidence really doesn't help taking you any seriously.

 

Jigabachi. You should try to post more so that your number of posts would exceed your number of games. So you would have something to be proud of. 

Jigabachi #15 Posted 28 April 2018 - 07:28 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17935 battles
  • 19,087
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostLaukaus, on 28 April 2018 - 12:27 PM, said:

Jigabachi. You should try to post more so that your number of posts would exceed your number of games. So you would have something to be proud of. 

And you could post something intelligent every now and then. As a starter, feel free to tell me where I'm wrong with what I wrote. :)



Brodie_ #16 Posted 28 April 2018 - 10:23 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 78990 battles
  • 529
  • Member since:
    10-21-2013
WOT can feel so horrible at times when it throws Shxt rng in your face & aweful teams at times.
It generally does sort of equal out though.
But there are times when it feels like everything is against you for a week or so!

Yes,I am beyond certain that some things are rigged!
Personal mission match-up's etc...

But apart from the personal mission stuff, In my experience it does sort of equal out over time.

At times though you do get unrelenting unbelievably bad rng & teams for periods!
These are horrible when they happen!

That is just the way wot is unfortunately.

Good luck!

Baldrickk #17 Posted 30 April 2018 - 10:44 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30142 battles
  • 14,301
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View PostDead_in_30_seconds, on 27 April 2018 - 09:23 AM, said:

Forgive my ignorance in these matters, but if WG were in the habit of using bots as 'filler', or as a device to influence team 'weighting', wouldn't it be expected that ALL games, even in the early hours of the morning when servers are quiet, would be 15v15?

If a limit exists on the number of bots WG can control in any one battle, you would still expect 11v11 or 12v12 every time, instead we get a 'timeout' message when in the queue.

 

WG can obviously control 29 bots in a battle, as seen in 'Proving Ground', and it is in their interest to have you in battle where you are more likely to purchase premium ammo, so I see the 'time out' scenario as reasonably strong evidence that they aren't in fact as prolific in their use of bots as some might suggest.

 

I may very well be talking nonsense of course, and I'm sure some kind person will see to my further education, but I can't help thinking that an unhealthy amount of paranoia exists around this subject.

I've certainly had a few low occupation battles.

You're right, if WG were to use bots, that wouldn't happen.

I've also seen WG's bots.  They are pretty stupid and obvious. We don't see them in random battles. 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users