Jump to content


Regarding MM post form WG


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
36 replies to this topic

Mr_Too_Late #1 Posted 30 July 2018 - 11:45 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 41020 battles
  • 92
  • Member since:
    07-06-2013

So referring to MarkGFL latest video regarding the new mm post from WG.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=LmABLkFqm1k

 

 

He said that when the first patch for the new tenplate system went live, it was bugged. (I dont know, since i downloaded the game for 1.0 update after a 18 months break)

 

I was bugged, so a lot of the time you only meet same tier for a week or two before they patched the bugg.

 

So i was wondering. Way will it take 6 months for WG to make you not 80% bottom tier in all the games you play.

 

I'm not a programmer but this it not sitting well for me. The fix a bug in 2 weeks when it`s not in there interest but now they ask for 6 months more.

 

What`s your thought about this. If you are a programmer you might have some more insight,

 

"Roll out the Gold"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Aikl #2 Posted 30 July 2018 - 12:17 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25530 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostMr_Too_Late, on 30 July 2018 - 10:45 AM, said:

(...)

 

Not a programmer and mostly in before the lock, but it follows naturally from having a '3-5-7' pattern as a priority that you'll be bottom-tier most of the time - and potentially more if the matchmaker isn't able to compensate for ratios of available tanks per tier.


Keep in mind that Wargaming stated earlier this year that they've modified the matchmaker more or less every single patch. Trying to fix it is not something new. It's obviously flawed - but still kept in high regard by Wargaming. It is apparently good for creating 'memorable experiences'; i.e. there's a higher potential for games where matchmaking, teams and map align to give you a good result. Not a huge fan myself, but that seems to be the idea.



Rati_Festa #3 Posted 30 July 2018 - 12:33 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 42756 battles
  • 1,369
  • Member since:
    02-10-2012

It's a joke/lie it will take 6 mths to resolve what is basically a mathematically equation.

 

So we have the 2 scenarios of they can't do advanced maths or they are so greedy that they are willing to continue *edited* the game for 6 more mths to eek every last drop of cash out of the players ignorant of the issue.

 

What I find confusing is that the it must have "broke the camels back" with regard in tricking us all into buying t8 prems and grinding through t8s. I can't think of a valid reason to keep it as it surely must be the main reason people are leaving the game. Less players mean less money, or perhaps the players leaving spend less than the remainers on avg and they have worked out through analysis that keeping the *edited* in place is still making them more money....arghhhhh but that would mean they understand advanced maths... I'm going round in circles here :)

 

View PostAikl, on 30 July 2018 - 12:17 PM, said:

 

Keep in mind that Wargaming stated earlier this year that they've modified the matchmaker more or less every single patch. Trying to fix it is not something new. It's obviously flawed - but still kept in high regard by Wargaming. It is apparently good for creating 'memorable experiences'; i.e. there's a higher potential for games where matchmaking, teams and map align to give you a good result. Not a huge fan myself, but that seems to be the idea.

 

That may be their plan "memorable experiences" but players had that before the changes. I'm getting more "nightmare experiences" in my t8 prems with the current MM, its failed on a grand scale it needs fixing asap.


 

Edited by NickMustaine, 31 July 2018 - 08:45 AM.
Inappropriate remarks


Agent_327 #4 Posted 30 July 2018 - 12:47 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 16882 battles
  • 438
  • [CAF] CAF
  • Member since:
    09-20-2010

As a developer I can say that it can take months to fix even the smallest errors as it can be very hard to find the root cause of the problem. Like the sound bug it still happens from time to time and is very annoying but that's also one of the hardest errors to find.

Regarding the MM they implemented the 3-5-7 to remedy other problems that are now solved (ie. no more complains about it on forums) They are trying (i guess) to avoid re-introducing those old errors and every comma they change have a huge impact on a statistically scale. (Just see the minuscule changes they made to obj-268-4 and the rather large impact on statistics for the tank)

They are also working on something that ppl have payed for with real money so they are extra careful (I guess).

 

As a developer I find it plausible to take at least 6 months to fix this.



Baldrickk #5 Posted 30 July 2018 - 12:50 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30109 battles
  • 14,280
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View PostAgent_327, on 30 July 2018 - 12:47 PM, said:

As a developer I can say that it can take months to fix even the smallest errors as it can be very hard to find the root cause of the problem. Like the sound bug it still happens from time to time and is very annoying but that's also one of the hardest errors to find.

Regarding the MM they implemented the 3-5-7 to remedy other problems that are now solved (ie. no more complains about it on forums) They are trying (i guess) to avoid re-introducing those old errors and every comma they change have a huge impact on a statistically scale. (Just see the minuscule changes they made to obj-268-4 and the rather large impact on statistics for the tank)

They are also working on something that ppl have payed for with real money so they are extra careful (I guess).

 

As a developer I find it plausible to take at least 6 months to fix this.

Except it's not a bug as such.

The whole concept is broken.

Fixing the implementation won't fix its problems.



NUKLEAR_SLUG #6 Posted 30 July 2018 - 01:02 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29170 battles
  • 2,242
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015
It's not just as simple as change a number and everything is fixed. They also have to monitor the results of any change over a period of time to ensure any change is achieving the desired result.

Rati_Festa #7 Posted 30 July 2018 - 01:09 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 42756 battles
  • 1,369
  • Member since:
    02-10-2012

View PostNUKLEAR_SLUG, on 30 July 2018 - 01:02 PM, said:

It's not just as simple as change a number and everything is fixed. They also have to monitor the results of any change over a period of time to ensure any change is achieving the desired result.

 

Like they did the first time..... o wait

 

Are you actually being serious with that post?

 

They have X amount of players in tiers and X amount of matches, then they have the "balancing" for tank roles. It's not that complicated all they do is flag the tier =/-/+ the player has a history recorded and make sure this doesn't go to 80% like it does now. Even if they have to drop the player in to same tier to even it out for a while, it's not complicated at all.

 

The issue they may have is waiting times, but if they could be arsed to actually speak to the customer base and say if we implement a fix it may on occasion take 30 secs extra to get in a match or you can be bottom tier 80% of the time. I wonder how the customers would answer?

 

 



Agent_327 #8 Posted 30 July 2018 - 01:10 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 16882 battles
  • 438
  • [CAF] CAF
  • Member since:
    09-20-2010

View PostBaldrickk, on 30 July 2018 - 12:50 PM, said:

Except it's not a bug as such.

The whole concept is broken.

Fixing the implementation won't fix its problems.

That were not what OP asked about. He wanted to know if it can really be true that they need 6 months to fix PMM issues as they have stated in the news article.

As a developer I find that plausible.

 

According to WG is the template system not broken. IMO have it some good elements and some bad elements.


Edited by Agent_327, 30 July 2018 - 01:12 PM.


ThinGun #9 Posted 30 July 2018 - 01:14 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 34961 battles
  • 1,250
  • [SHYLO] SHYLO
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014

I can't understand how something that has a less than 50% chance of occurring is apparently happening 80% of the time.  

 

Is this actually happening, or is it one those 'feelings' that people have, based on their entitlement to be in a winning team every time they play?



Baldrickk #10 Posted 30 July 2018 - 01:22 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30109 battles
  • 14,280
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View PostThinGun, on 30 July 2018 - 01:14 PM, said:

I can't understand how something that has a less than 50% chance of occurring is apparently happening 80% of the time.  

 

Is this actually happening, or is it one those 'feelings' that people have, based on their entitlement to be in a winning team every time they play?

Why do you think it has a sub 50% chance of happening?

Bottom tier is 1/3 of the options in a 357 and 1/6 of all possible options, but that doesn't mean you encounter each with the same frequency. 

 

 

You can drive both ways along a one way street if you really want,  but you don't typically see proteome going the 'wrong way' do you?



TheR3dBaron #11 Posted 30 July 2018 - 01:28 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 34328 battles
  • 3,002
  • [REMY] REMY
  • Member since:
    01-22-2013

View PostAgent_327, on 30 July 2018 - 12:47 PM, said:

As a developer I can say that it can take months to fix even the smallest errors as it can be very hard to find the root cause of the problem. Like the sound bug it still happens from time to time and is very annoying but that's also one of the hardest errors to find.

Regarding the MM they implemented the 3-5-7 to remedy other problems that are now solved (ie. no more complains about it on forums) They are trying (i guess) to avoid re-introducing those old errors and every comma they change have a huge impact on a statistically scale. (Just see the minuscule changes they made to obj-268-4 and the rather large impact on statistics for the tank)

They are also working on something that ppl have payed for with real money so they are extra careful (I guess).

 

As a developer I find it plausible to take at least 6 months to fix this.

 

I'm not an active developer, but I have some experience with it. I'm guessing the MM is not part of the client, nor should it be part of the server(s) that host the battles. So they should be able to rapidly test new iterations of the MM process.

 

Here's an old server infrastructure article:

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/12/24/how-wargaming-servers-work/

It doesn't mention whether or not the MM is running on a separate instance, but it would make a lot of sense to do so.



jabster #12 Posted 30 July 2018 - 01:40 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12537 battles
  • 23,372
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostBaldrickk, on 30 July 2018 - 11:50 AM, said:

Except it's not a bug as such.

The whole concept is broken.

Fixing the implementation won't fix its problems.

 

My guess is that they realise that how it works isn’t quite inline with the expectation of how players think, or would like,  it to work so they’re just giving themselves sometime to work out what they are going to do with it. As you say, not a bug as such so the easy bit is implementation but the hard part is what should be implemented.

HQ65 #13 Posted 30 July 2018 - 01:47 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 29469 battles
  • 591
  • [CMERC] CMERC
  • Member since:
    01-16-2012

You could just take Tier X and you will be top tier 100% of the time..I wonder how they are going to fix that....:)

 

But seriously, it is annoying, but I live with it. Try to stay alive as long as possible, and try and not go where I know the higher tiered tanks usually would be.



ThinGun #14 Posted 30 July 2018 - 01:53 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 34961 battles
  • 1,250
  • [SHYLO] SHYLO
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014

View PostBaldrickk, on 30 July 2018 - 01:22 PM, said:

Why do you think it has a sub 50% chance of happening?

Bottom tier is 1/3 of the options in a 357 and 1/6 of all possible options, but that doesn't mean you encounter each with the same frequency. 

 

 

You can drive both ways along a one way street if you really want,  but you don't typically see proteome going the 'wrong way' do you?

 

In any 3/5/7 game there are 8 chances to be top or middle tier and 7 chances to be bottom.  Surely that means that the chances are less than 50% of being bottom?

LCpl_Jones #15 Posted 30 July 2018 - 01:54 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 9770 battles
  • 712
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    06-17-2017

View PostMr_Too_Late, on 30 July 2018 - 11:45 AM, said:

So i was wondering. Way will it take 6 months for WG to make you not 80% bottom tier in all the games you play.

 

it won't take 6 months, it's wg i suspect they will never be able to fix it with out effing something else because of stronk coding skills :trollface:

 

View PostAgent_327, on 30 July 2018 - 01:10 PM, said:

That were not what OP asked about. He wanted to know if it can really be true that they need 6 months to fix PMM issues as they have stated in the news article.

As a developer I find that plausible.

 

According to WG is the template system not broken. IMO have it some good elements and some bad elements.

 

last time i checked, i was bottom tier in 70% of my battles 

 

so yeah just the feels :facepalm:



SovietBias #16 Posted 30 July 2018 - 02:00 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37406 battles
  • 1,310
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013

View Postjabster, on 30 July 2018 - 12:40 PM, said:

 

My guess is that they realise that how it works isn’t quite inline with the expectation of how players think, or would like,  it to work so they’re just giving themselves sometime to work out what they are going to do with it. As you say, not a bug as such so the easy bit is implementation but the hard part is what should be implemented.

 

I remember one dev at some point saying one of the purposes of new templates was to reduce the number of 'Sandwich matches', that is, matches where you were the only bottom tier and you might as well go have a sandwich instead. 

I wonder if they are slowly finding out that, given the current power level differences, +2/-2 is a nightmare to balance, and they should just move on to a less restrictive, in terms of templates, +1/-1.

 

View PostThinGun, on 30 July 2018 - 12:53 PM, said:

 

In any 3/5/7 game there are 8 chances to be top or middle tier and 7 chances to be bottom.  Surely that means that the chances are less than 50% of being bottom?

 

no. It's not a blind draw. It depends on the population level of each tier.


Edited by SovietBias, 30 July 2018 - 02:03 PM.


Baldrickk #17 Posted 30 July 2018 - 02:06 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30109 battles
  • 14,280
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View PostSovietBias, on 30 July 2018 - 02:00 PM, said:

 

no. It's not a blind draw. It depends on the population level of each tier.

Plus, according to WGs explanation, it works from tier X down.

So tier X  and tier 9 suck up all the tier 8s they can. 

Only the remaining tier 8s are left to be in tier 8 battles.

 

So we've lost almost all chances of being top tier in tier 8s before we get a chance to be in a tier 8 game 



SovietBias #18 Posted 30 July 2018 - 02:08 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37406 battles
  • 1,310
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013

View PostBaldrickk, on 30 July 2018 - 01:06 PM, said:

Plus, according to WGs explanation, it works from tier X down.

So tier X  and tier 9 suck up all the tier 8s they can. 

Only the remaining tier 8s are left to be in tier 8 battles.

 

So we've lost almost all chances of being top tier in tier 8s before we get a chance to be in a tier 8 game 

 

Plus, since the algorithm must start somewhere, they set it to favour 3-5-7, as per 9.19 patch notes. 

Rati_Festa #19 Posted 30 July 2018 - 02:16 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 42756 battles
  • 1,369
  • Member since:
    02-10-2012

View PostBaldrickk, on 30 July 2018 - 02:06 PM, said:

Plus, according to WGs explanation, it works from tier X down.

So tier X  and tier 9 suck up all the tier 8s they can. 

Only the remaining tier 8s are left to be in tier 8 battles.

 

So we've lost almost all chances of being top tier in tier 8s before we get a chance to be in a tier 8 game 

Its also a great way of prompting players to pick tier 10 tanks more... ironically as they are sick of being bottom teir in thier prrm tanks, this obviously then exasperates the issue as we have more t10 players. Vicious circle formed.

 

A quick win would flip it to 5/5/5 at least that would stuff more 10 per match in a game and free up 2 extra t8s for other battles.


Edited by Rati_Festa, 30 July 2018 - 02:18 PM.


SilentGaze #20 Posted 30 July 2018 - 02:26 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 836 battles
  • 314
  • Member since:
    03-22-2017

View PostRati_Festa, on 30 July 2018 - 02:16 PM, said:

....

 

A quick win would flip it to 5/5/5 at least that would stuff more 10 per match in a game and free up 2 extra t8s for other battles.

 

​which then leads that tier6 tanks have even more bottom tier games than now.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users