Jump to content


Historical note


  • Please log in to reply
124 replies to this topic

Spurtung #1 Posted 21 May 2018 - 08:05 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 60673 battles
  • 5,846
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

Here.

 

Block Quote

A little over a year ago, World of Tanks upgraded to version 9.18, introducing important enhancements to the game’s matchmaker. As opposed to its predecessor, the new version’s functionality was based on several templates that regulated pre-battle team formation. Since then, the tool has gone through several changes, until it reached a level of performance that met the expectations of both the community and the dev team.

 

 

Quite the bold statement, WG EU, considering the daily topics that get locked and told to keep the rant in its proper place. Might as well call moderators "sweepers" and that topic "under the rug", because that's what it really is.

 

The expectations are far from being met, telling BS like that, repeating it over and over won't change that reality. 3-5-7 has been a fail, everyone a lot of people sees it on a daily basis for the past year. WG is in such denial that it's getting sad to watch.

 

 

 

Edit: apparently a single word rubbed wrongly, so it's an easy fix. Now, is WG's claim perfectly fine now?


Edited by Spurtung, 22 May 2018 - 05:01 PM.


Dava_117 #2 Posted 21 May 2018 - 08:12 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 17823 battles
  • 2,426
  • [B-BAS] B-BAS
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View PostSpurtung, on 21 May 2018 - 08:05 PM, said:

Here.

 

 

 

Quite the bold statement, WG EU, considering the daily topics that get locked and told to keep the rant in its proper place. Might as well call moderators "sweepers" and that topic "under the rug", because that's what it really is.

 

The expectations are far from being met, telling BS like that, repeating it over and over won't change that reality. 3-5-7 has been a fail, everyone sees it on a daily basis for the past year. WG is in such denial that it's getting sad to watch.

 

Well, they said a true thing. 9.18 template system was indeed good, with lots of single tier and 5/10 battles.

It's 9.19 that ruined it giving to 3/5/7 the priority.



Strappster #3 Posted 21 May 2018 - 08:23 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 23685 battles
  • 8,828
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

"... reached a level of performance that met the expectations of the community ..." doesn't mean it's not crap. If the community expected it to be crap and it turns out to be crap, it's met those expectations.



Bulldog_Drummond #4 Posted 21 May 2018 - 08:51 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 28054 battles
  • 9,709
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

View PostStrappster, on 21 May 2018 - 07:23 PM, said:

"... reached a level of performance that met the expectations of the community ..." doesn't mean it's not crap. If the community expected it to be crap and it turns out to be crap, it's met those expectations.

 

I have always found it a good rule in both my personal and professional life to set low expectations and fail to exceed them.

Element6_TheSprout #5 Posted 21 May 2018 - 08:58 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28638 battles
  • 10,033
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostSpurtung, on 21 May 2018 - 08:05 PM, said:

The expectations are far from being met, telling BS like that, repeating it over and over won't change that reality. 3-5-7 has been a fail, everyone sees it on a daily basis for the past year. WG is in such denial that it's getting sad to watch.

I find it funny how eloquently you assume to know the opinions of millions of players, based on what you read among a small fraction of self selecting players.

 

And please do not include me in this "everyone" idea of yours, I find the template system a substantial upgrade from the old MM.



Spurtung #6 Posted 21 May 2018 - 09:01 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 60673 battles
  • 5,846
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 21 May 2018 - 09:58 PM, said:

I find it funny how eloquently you assume to know the opinions of millions of players, based on what you read among a small fraction of self selecting players.

 

And please do not include me in this "everyone" idea of yours, I find the template system a substantial upgrade from the old MM.

 

LOL? You are aware it was WG making such assumption to begin with, right?

DaniulSims #7 Posted 21 May 2018 - 09:09 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 9122 battles
  • 323
  • [WRECK] WRECK
  • Member since:
    03-29-2014
I hereby challenge anyone to stop using pink tinted glasses and tell me pre 9.18 was legitly better than what we have now even. I for one, no matter how frustrating it can be at times, still prefer the 3-5-7 format as a bottom tier 8 tank than J did having to be the only of two bottom tier tanks before.

malachi6 #8 Posted 21 May 2018 - 09:12 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 48809 battles
  • 3,133
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011
How many people play the game v's how many whine on the forums?

Element6_TheSprout #9 Posted 21 May 2018 - 09:15 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28638 battles
  • 10,033
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostSpurtung, on 21 May 2018 - 09:01 PM, said:

LOL? You are aware it was WG making such assumption to begin with, right?

No, but now I am aware that you are one of those players that think the developer of a 7 year old, highly successful pay-if-you-want-to game, are guessing left and right at what the playerbase want, like a headless chicken.

 

Me, on the other hand, persume that they use their server statistics to make qualified predictions, like, if we change feature X and notice that the playerbase at large seem to inclrease their playing sessions, then it is a sign they liked the changes we did. For example.

 

Lol all you like, I'm chuckling right back at you.



Spurtung #10 Posted 22 May 2018 - 04:32 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 60673 battles
  • 5,846
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostStrappster, on 21 May 2018 - 09:23 PM, said:

"... reached a level of performance that met the expectations of the community ..." doesn't mean it's not crap. If the community expected it to be crap and it turns out to be crap, it's met those expectations.

 

Wow, that's fine then. All good because we expected it to be crap and it turned out to be crap. Nothing to see here, move right along.
 

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 21 May 2018 - 10:15 PM, said:

No, but now I am aware that you are one of those players that think the developer of a 7 year old, highly successful pay-if-you-want-to game, are guessing left and right at what the playerbase want, like a headless chicken.

 

Me, on the other hand, persume that they use their server statistics to make qualified predictions, like, if we change feature X and notice that the playerbase at large seem to inclrease their playing sessions, then it is a sign they liked the changes we did. For example.

 

Lol all you like, I'm chuckling right back at you.

 

Ok, I'll bite. Please show me the increase of players or time played since the mm changes. I'm not saying they're guessing anything, left or right, I'm saying reality doesn't add up, and boastful propaganda won't change that.
 

Baldrickk #11 Posted 22 May 2018 - 04:42 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29219 battles
  • 13,116
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View PostDaniulSims, on 21 May 2018 - 09:09 PM, said:

I hereby challenge anyone to stop using pink tinted glasses and tell me pre 9.18 was legitly better than what we have now even. I for one, no matter how frustrating it can be at times, still prefer the 3-5-7 format as a bottom tier 8 tank than J did having to be the only of two bottom tier tanks before.

I'll take you up on that.

Go read one of my various posts spread over the forum detailing the things I dislike over the old MM.

Short beakdown:

  • Not bottom tier all the time
  • Sensible MM for light tanks to play as scouts
  • Games not full of support* tanks with no-one to support
  • Loss of battlefield structure because bottom tiers too damn scared to move up.

*role, due to being bottom tier



Strappster #12 Posted 22 May 2018 - 04:52 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 23685 battles
  • 8,828
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostSpurtung, on 22 May 2018 - 03:32 PM, said:

Wow, that's fine then.

 

Where did I say or imply that? I understand that apathy isn't what you wanted but it's what you've got. Deal with it or don't, I'm not bothered, but don't pretend I've said something I didn't because it's a better fit for your polemic. 



Spurtung #13 Posted 22 May 2018 - 05:02 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 60673 battles
  • 5,846
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostStrappster, on 22 May 2018 - 05:52 PM, said:

 

Where did I say or imply that? I understand that apathy isn't what you wanted but it's what you've got. Deal with it or don't, I'm not bothered, but don't pretend I've said something I didn't because it's a better fit for your polemic. 

 

You're the one saying expectations were met because they weren't high to begin with.

LordMuffin #14 Posted 22 May 2018 - 05:06 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 47010 battles
  • 10,212
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View PostDaniulSims, on 21 May 2018 - 09:09 PM, said:

I hereby challenge anyone to stop using pink tinted glasses and tell me pre 9.18 was legitly better than what we have now even. I for one, no matter how frustrating it can be at times, still prefer the 3-5-7 format as a bottom tier 8 tank than J did having to be the only of two bottom tier tanks before.

I prefered the 9.18 and before MM.

 

I prefer being sole bottom tier in <1% of the games and being top tiered in ~35-40% of the games then being one of the 7 bottom tiers in ~40-45% of the game and top tiered in <10%

 

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 21 May 2018 - 09:15 PM, said:

No, but now I am aware that you are one of those players that think the developer of a 7 year old, highly successful pay-if-you-want-to game, are guessing left and right at what the playerbase want, like a headless chicken.

 

Me, on the other hand, persume that they use their server statistics to make qualified predictions, like, if we change feature X and notice that the playerbase at large seem to inclrease their playing sessions, then it is a sign they liked the changes we did. For example.

 

Lol all you like, I'm chuckling right back at you.

There are less unique players online per week/month now then 1 year ago, a nd less number of battles played per week compared to 1 year ago.

 

So calling the MM change a success is stretching the truth.


 
 

View PostStrappster, on 21 May 2018 - 08:23 PM, said:

"... reached a level of performance that met the expectations of the community ..." doesn't mean it's not crap. If the community expected it to be crap and it turns out to be crap, it's met those expectations.

Do you think the community expected MM to be crap?


 

Edited by Daxeno, 23 May 2018 - 02:41 PM.


Baldrickk #15 Posted 22 May 2018 - 05:17 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29219 battles
  • 13,116
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View PostLordMuffin, on 22 May 2018 - 05:10 PM, said:

Do you think the community expected MM to be crap?

Well it is WG we are talking about. 

They haven't got a good record with non-engine based changes for a while...

 

:P

 

I know i was thinking i didn't like the idea of the template system as soon as i heard about it


Edited by Baldrickk, 22 May 2018 - 05:18 PM.


LordMuffin #16 Posted 22 May 2018 - 05:18 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 47010 battles
  • 10,212
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View PostBaldrickk, on 22 May 2018 - 05:17 PM, said:

Well it is WG we are talking about. 

They haven't got a good record with non-engine based changes for a while...

 

:P

Point taken.



Gkirmathal #17 Posted 22 May 2018 - 05:28 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8125 battles
  • 1,481
  • Member since:
    01-14-2013

View PostSpurtung, on 21 May 2018 - 07:05 PM, said:

The expectations are far from being met, telling BS like that, repeating it over and over won't change that reality. 3-5-7 has been a fail, everyone a lot of people sees it on a daily basis for the past year. WG is in such denial that it's getting sad to watch.
 

 

@Sportung, I don't want sound harsh, but you are incorrect in stating that 9.18 is at fault.

 

 

Read the patch notes of patch 9.19 (!) under:

  • 9. Changes to the Matchmaker

 

Block Quote

 We made some changes to the matchmaker to decrease the number of one- and two-tier battles in favor of the 3/5/7 system.

 

  • The number of one- and two-tier battles will decrease in favor of the 3/5/7 system. The change will be noticeable at high battle levels (vehicle tiers: VIII to X).
  • Most three-tier battles will be created according to the basic 3/5/7 pattern.

 

We will slightly tighten the requirements for matchmaking in terms of Platoons, SPGs, tank destroyers, and light tanks, which will decrease the number of battles with the corresponding imbalances.

(source: https://worldoftanks.com/en/content/docs/919-update-notes/)

 

Especially take notice of the bolded part!

 

So please, could you and everyone else stop calling BS by blaming patch 9.18 and start blaming WG for patch 9.19. That gave 3-5-7 a much higher priority, which single handedly fcked this new template mm.



Baldrickk #18 Posted 22 May 2018 - 05:47 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29219 battles
  • 13,116
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View PostGkirmathal, on 22 May 2018 - 05:28 PM, said:

 

@Sportung, I don't want sound harsh, but you are incorrect in stating that 9.18 is at fault.

 

 

Read the patch notes of patch 9.19 (!) under:

  • 9. Changes to the Matchmaker

 

(source: https://worldoftanks.com/en/content/docs/919-update-notes/)

 

Especially take notice of the bolded part!

 

So please, could you and everyone else stop calling BS by blaming patch 9.18 and start blamingWG for patch 9.19. That gave 3-5-7 a much higher priority, which single handedly fcked this new template mm.

Templates were screwed in general. 

They went from a highly flexible solution that was well balanced overall for a strict one that required changes to entire lines of tanks and how they played to even make it work at all.

 

That should have been the first sign that something stunk



Spurtung #19 Posted 22 May 2018 - 06:00 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 60673 battles
  • 5,846
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostGkirmathal, on 22 May 2018 - 06:28 PM, said:

@Sportung, I don't want sound harsh, but you are incorrect in stating that 9.18 is at fault.

Did I even mention the patch version? I started by saying "people are happy with it" is a bold claim and that 3-5-7 has not been delivering. If it was at start, it hasn't been for the most part of its existence.



Gkirmathal #20 Posted 22 May 2018 - 06:16 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8125 battles
  • 1,481
  • Member since:
    01-14-2013

View PostBaldrickk, on 22 May 2018 - 04:47 PM, said:

Templates were screwed in general. 

They went from a highly flexible solution that was well balanced overall for a strict one that required changes to entire lines of tanks and how they played to even make it work at all.

 

That should have been the first sign that something stunk

 

I agree with this in general.

Though the first version of the template system of 9.18 was not half as bad. It gave a much better balance between the 3 templates, where 3-5-7 occurred far less than in the current state. Read the feedback from back then, even Circon and Foch mentioned 9.18 being an improvement and we all know how salty the latter of the two can be at times (understatement of the century).

 

View PostSpurtung, on 22 May 2018 - 05:00 PM, said:

Did I even mention the patch version? I started by saying "people are happy with it" is a bold claim and that 3-5-7 has not been delivering. If it was at start, it hasn't been for the most part of its existence.

 

Indeed you did not exactly ;)  But WG in quoting that idiocratic statement (by dear excruciating to read) that mentions 9.18, the MM issue is "tared with the same brush" again.

Patch 9.18 was not at fault and WG needs to be called out upon that! They feacked up with 9.19 and the priority change and they SHOVE that conveniently under the roughs.

 

So the community needs to call them out on that, especially if they state something being a success while the *edited*came a patch later.


Edited by NickMustaine, 23 May 2018 - 02:57 PM.
Inappropriate language





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users