Jump to content


Supertest News 31/08 – Preferential Matchmaking

supertest

  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

Kandly #1 Posted 30 August 2018 - 01:03 PM

    Player

  • Player
  • 1020 battles
  • 808
  • Member since:
    08-23-2016

Greetings tankers!


The redesigned Personal Missions system, Polish tanks, brand new maps—all these things delivered in 1.1 are great and fun. Yet we have to do more, and this includes improving the state of tanks with preferential matchmaking. Well, we’re working on it. :justwait:

 

During the first testing round, we improved the stats of these vehicles. Then we checked the dynamics of battle statistics and your feedback. Both the battle data and your reaction showed that we should make additional adjustments. The tanks with preferential MM fared better, but not enough.

 

Before that test run, the combat efficiency of these vehicles had varied greatly: some had played a bit better, some had been truly abysmal. The first Supertest iteration gave us a firm ground for going further: the "prefs" level of battle performance is now (roughly) the same. So, we’re about to take the second step.

 

The second Supertest for the preferential MM tanks with reworked stats launches today. The initial changes will slightly boost these vehicles’ efficiency. Nothing extreme: we’ll study the numbers and will drive these tanks to being able to hold their own against Tier IX vehicles and those with full-tier battles. More stat adjustments may ensue.

 

The prefs won’t become as efficient as the tanks with full-tier battles, as they don’t face Tier X monsters in battle. So (for example) the performance of the IS-3 and the IS-6 should not become even, but the latter will be an asset in battles with the tiers accessible to it.


Once more: the initial fixes to the prefs’ stats are not final and the tanks’ parameters may change again before they roll out onto the main server. :)

 

1_T26_E4_SuperPershing.jpg2_Type59.jpg3_IS-6.jpg4_112.jpg5_WZ-111.jpg6_M6A2E1.jpg7_T34_3.jpg9_KV-5_en.jpg10_JagdTiger_SdKfz_185_en.jpg

supertest_trunk_IS_6.jpg

supertest_trunk_KV_5.jpg

supertest_trunk_M6A2E1.jpg

supertest_trunk_T26_E4_SuperPershing.jpg

 

Make sure to follow the news and good luck in every battle!

 

Cheers!



Gkirmathal #2 Posted 31 August 2018 - 05:15 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8539 battles
  • 1,673
  • [2VTD] 2VTD
  • Member since:
    01-14-2013

View PostKandly, on 30 August 2018 - 12:03 PM, said:

Greetings tankers!

 

So no news, on the work being done on the 'Template Tier Placement Algorithm' (TTPA) we could be expecting a few months from now as per the previous article published on the portal a month or so ago.

 

Could you inquire, for us interested, what's the current status of that project.



Balc0ra #3 Posted 31 August 2018 - 05:26 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 71562 battles
  • 20,039
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

I still don't get why the SP needs over 200 pen. It's one aspect of it that's fine as is. As it's the same as every US tier 8 med with +2. And 187 on the 122mm's HT's is still too low for my taste, as that's still bad for a tier 8 HT considering the armor there of late. I'm not worried about the tier 9's. It's the VK 100.01, Defender and Patriots with the 200+ mm weakspots. So if it still stays at sub 190. It's still just a good med. And not meant for the HT line in a pure tier 8 game that 3-5-7 more or less makes it see constantly. 

 

I know it's still subject to change and all that. But it seems odd testing it that low first in terms of pen change vs the SP etc. 


Edited by Balc0ra, 31 August 2018 - 05:28 PM.


FataLsToKE #4 Posted 31 August 2018 - 05:51 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 25670 battles
  • 231
  • [V1PER] V1PER
  • Member since:
    08-17-2011
182 mm of penetration doesn't enough for heavy tanks like IS6, 112 etc. How you can penetrate frontal armor of Type 4 with mediocre penetration values like this? Penetration values of these tanks must be around 190-210 mm. Also dispersion values like 0,44~ is still too high for a heavy tank with mediocre penetration. If penetration values stays at 180~mm, dispersion values must be reduced to 0.39 or 0.40 so maybe players can get a chance to hit weakspots, while a Type 4 is spamming HE on them without aiming and thinking.

Edited by FataLsToKE, 31 August 2018 - 06:07 PM.


Hezs #5 Posted 31 August 2018 - 06:22 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 28519 battles
  • 145
  • Member since:
    03-18-2011
Jt 88 apcr will basicly be now useless. 212 ap and 237 apcr is pretty much the same vs angled armor. One thing a TD with a 40€ price tag needs is more premium ammo pen and better hp/t. It doesn't matter if the tank has 2000 hp if it can't pen other tanks. 

ares354 #6 Posted 31 August 2018 - 08:28 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 76297 battles
  • 3,442
  • Member since:
    12-05-2010
WG still dont get it 

IS 6 dont need armor buffs, HE need gun that can pen. If need be nerf 390 alpha to 350 BUT BUFF pen on all 122 mm guns. 182 change nothing. 

And weakspot removal from M6A2E1 is just silly, same goes for IS6, KV 5....

Tell me that WG, what T34-2 have over Type 59 or T34-3 that he see tier X. ?

Denton_0451 #7 Posted 31 August 2018 - 10:56 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 25921 battles
  • 1,748
  • Member since:
    02-18-2011
Most of the armour buffs are unnecessary. The end result will make the life of lower tier tanks who have to fight these vehicles way harder instead of helping the PMM tanks with 107-122mm guns against Tier VIII-IX superheavies, Defenders or Chryslers. They need a regular penetration buff to ~190-200mm, premium ammo buff to somewhere between ~240-250mm and the proposed gun handling buffs wouldn't hurt either in my opinion.

Hezs #8 Posted 01 September 2018 - 10:52 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 28519 battles
  • 145
  • Member since:
    03-18-2011
Wg is very reluctant to buff penetration values for some reason. Something to do with the upcoming premium ammunition overhaul? 

sidalistrike #9 Posted 02 September 2018 - 04:10 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 42096 battles
  • 3
  • [DZAIR] DZAIR
  • Member since:
    04-14-2014

The 182mm is still weak for HT tier 8 ,it should at least have 192mm


Edited by sidalistrike, 02 September 2018 - 05:28 AM.


ares354 #10 Posted 02 September 2018 - 02:52 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 76297 battles
  • 3,442
  • Member since:
    12-05-2010

View PostHezs, on 01 September 2018 - 10:52 AM, said:

Wg is very reluctant to buff penetration values for some reason. Something to do with the upcoming premium ammunition overhaul? 

 

That is funny how they buff armor with np, which lead to spam gold ammo even more...Make no sense. 

Is 6 is very hard to pen with 175 mm pen, after those buff, load HEAT in wz111 , 112 or dont pen. 

tanker818 #11 Posted 02 September 2018 - 10:53 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 11617 battles
  • 149
  • Member since:
    08-01-2011
182 pen isn't enough, I would rather sacrifice those armour buff for 200 pen

MrEdweird #12 Posted 03 September 2018 - 10:44 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 22295 battles
  • 426
  • [-FUR-] -FUR-
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

The T-34-3 needs the engine power upgrade, too.

There is no clearly visible reason for the Type 59 to both get better mobility and armor than the T-34-3 when the tank already suffers from bad gun handling.

The T-34-3 needs to be able to flank even more than the Type 59 does.

 

The 112 needs more, as well. Using the gun on it is outright painful. Make the gun depression be -7 at least.



sidalistrike #13 Posted 04 September 2018 - 04:37 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 42096 battles
  • 3
  • [DZAIR] DZAIR
  • Member since:
    04-14-2014
Why WG don't give a chance for players who want to change their limited mm tanks for only a non limited mm tank if these buffs didn't satisfied them , that will reduce the problem of the matchmaking that WG did posit

puffbodie #14 Posted 04 September 2018 - 08:27 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 25088 battles
  • 73
  • Member since:
    09-23-2015

Yeah buff armor on things like IS-6, KV-5, SP.......like they need it........ tier 9/10 will still be able to pen them with regular ammo. But tier 8 and down will have even more troubles. Especially eg. that IS-6 sci-fi bouncing ruski machine. About the pen on IS-6.....pfff best games with full HE load :-)

 

I am more curious about when finally something will be done with AMX CDC????

 

1. Remove hidden code (it is really boring and frustrating to have that penalty in program code even after 5 years)  from FR guns shooting everywhere around the circle, but hardly in where you aim. Plus it's paper values are total lie. Accuracy I mentioned already, but pen. With T-54 mod. 1 I easily and reliably and repeatable pen tanks on places where CDC (if it hits at all because of accuracy with 4 skills crew, vents, stabiliser.....)  just bounce or do crits with 0 dmg. These differences are too much visible for anyone with IQ at least 50 and should be fixed

 

2. Give it back preferential MM. Why FCM 50t can have it and AMX CDC can't especially when meeting all the time of hordes of various Obj. meds/heavies, FV4005 and so on

 

3. Return original mobility values when it was actually moving as it should

 

4. Improve it's camo values. They are insanely wrong



Hiisi #15 Posted 10 September 2018 - 05:26 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 16586 battles
  • 305
  • Member since:
    03-21-2011

View PostMrEdweird, on 03 September 2018 - 09:44 PM, said:

The T-34-3 needs the engine power upgrade, too.

There is no clearly visible reason for the Type 59 to both get better mobility and armor than the T-34-3 when the tank already suffers from bad gun handling.

The T-34-3 needs to be able to flank even more than the Type 59 does.

 

The 112 needs more, as well. Using the gun on it is outright painful. Make the gun depression be -7 at least.

 

T-34-3 is getting big buff in gun depression. Type 59 should be faster and t-34-3 more brawler. Maybe bit more base pen for t-34-3. 

 

Why 112 needs more gun depression? It has really good hull already. OP if depression is buffed. 

 

Also 

P88 pen buff is not enough. At least buff premium ammo. 

MrEdweird #16 Posted 10 September 2018 - 11:27 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 22295 battles
  • 426
  • [-FUR-] -FUR-
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

View PostHiisi, on 10 September 2018 - 04:26 PM, said:

 

T-34-3 is getting big buff in gun depression. Type 59 should be faster and t-34-3 more brawler. Maybe bit more base pen for t-34-3. 

 

Why 112 needs more gun depression? It has really good hull already. OP if depression is buffed. 

 

Also 

P88 pen buff is not enough. At least buff premium ammo. 

 

It needs the gun depression because the huge cupolas render the armor pointless at anything less than 50m.

And I don't know where you and WG get their concept of brawling, but the T-34-3 has neither the armor, penetration, gun handling nor the DPM to "brawl".

If anything, you will fire at most 2 shots before you die in any sort of meaningful brawl.

The Chinese meds have always been passive snipers or opportunistic vultures with inadequate guns for the task.

In fact I find it funny that they advertise the 5/1 with the T-34-3, when the 5/1 is more likely to bounce frontal shots.


Edited by MrEdweird, 10 September 2018 - 11:31 PM.


NoobySkooby #17 Posted 11 September 2018 - 12:51 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 16263 battles
  • 4,480
  • [S052] S052
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011

i find the IS6 a great tank to play, sadly it needs the gun of the IS3, I won't go as far as saying the gun of the Defender.

 

Surely it is well within WG's ability to just swap the gun for the IS3's



ConductiveMetal #18 Posted 16 September 2018 - 01:34 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 47132 battles
  • 186
  • Member since:
    09-10-2011
I don't need penetration on my SP, I need its armor back. I got the tank when it was like a superheavy. Now it's like a light tank with a 99.9% destroyed engine...

Gkirmathal #19 Posted 16 September 2018 - 06:45 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8539 battles
  • 1,673
  • [2VTD] 2VTD
  • Member since:
    01-14-2013

View PostKandly, on 30 August 2018 - 12:03 PM, said:

Make sure to follow the news and good luck in every battle!

 

Cheers!

 

So Kandly, have you had the opportunity the inquire regarding my first request for development information?

 

View PostGkirmathal, on 31 August 2018 - 04:15 PM, said:

So no news, on the work being done on the 'Template Tier Placement Algorithm' (TTPA) we could be expecting a few months from now as per the previous article published on the portal a month or so ago.

 

Could you inquire, for us interested, what's the current status of that project.

 

Or is it more important for* new moderators to close perfectly fine constructive MM and 3-5-7 effectiveness discussions in favour of a mile long pinned MM thread non of you EU reps ever reply in nowadays?

 

I'd like to know and what is being conceived to tackle the current MM tier placement issues what was blamed on PMM tanks months ago and then got retracted in the last official PMM and MM article.


Edited by Gkirmathal, 18 September 2018 - 08:46 AM.


PauI #20 Posted 21 September 2018 - 08:38 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 30378 battles
  • 511
  • Member since:
    10-15-2011

it was beyond me why type59 gets again more armor than t-34-3 if t-34-3 is more of a "brawler"

then it hit me, we are talking wg logic here, so you can not expect to much i guess







Also tagged with supertest

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users