Jump to content


A final proposal for all balancing and matchmaking issues


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

Anymn #1 Posted 29 March 2019 - 04:04 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 19627 battles
  • 367
  • [RHPA] RHPA
  • Member since:
    07-06-2011

Dear fellow tankers,

As we all know, there are currently major issues with vehicle balance within World of Tanks. Tanks currently for sale in the premium shop, such as the Object 252U Defender, are currently over performing, while other tanks that are introduced long ago such as the Indien-panzer are struggling to keep up. This enforces the often rebalancing of tanks, making players unhappy about the work they put in grinding those hard fought for assets.

 

A second major problem reported by many players, are the harsh matchmaking conditions. When playing in tier 8, many players report up to 70% of the time being bottom tier in a 3/5/7 match-making template. Wargaming confirmed this issue by proposing a fix to the system, giving players a better battle distribution. While this definitely might help in solving the second issue, it does not address the first.

 

I therefore propose an additional solution, that might solve a lot of those balancing issues. In summary, I propose that the average matchmaking level fluctuates for each independent tank, depending on the average (population wide) win-rate per tank. This means that over performing tanks will fight more often against higher tier tanks, while underperforming tanks will fight more often against lower tier tanks.

 

Further detailed information

Unlocking any high tier vehicle will cost any player quite some effort. That might be an offline effort by paying a vast amount of money, or an in-game effort by playing for an extensive period of time, grinding the tanks one by one, al up to the desired tanks. Often was the end result of such a grind that the player left playing world of tanks bitterly disappointed, as the tank he just unlocked was totally crap. Or even worse: the tank he just unlocked got rebalanced and he was left behind with a tank that was just a shadow of its former glory.

 

In the current matchmaking model, all tanks should perform equally to prevent this from happening. This is a tremendous effort however, costing both Wargaming many resources, as well as leaving many room for error. Whenever a map is changed or the meta has changed, new opportunities arise for tanks to become over performing, drawing the attention towards yet another vehicle balance change.

 

Now a solution for this problem, could be a dynamic, intelligent matchmaker, which should be able to work very well in combination with the proposed change by Wargaming. The main idea of this dynamic matchmaking, would be taking into account the current performance of vehicles. This then would result in a tank specific matchmaking.

 

How would this work?

Imagine any given number of tier 8 tanks are joining the battle queue in a 10 seconds period. In the proposed situation of Wargaming, the following distribution would follow:

  • Tiers 6-7-8:   8%
  • Tiers 7-8:      16%
  • Tiers 7/8/9:   10%
  • Tier 8:           33%
  • Tiers 8-9:      15%
  • Tiers 8-9-10: 18%

In the current situation, the players are randomly distributed over these formats. The soul of this proposal is, to change this last step, and give tanks (not players!) with a higher average win-rate a higher chance to end up in the higher end of this spectrum, while giving less successful tanks a higher chance to end in the lower end of the spectrum.

 

For example, a tank with a win-rate of 55%, will have a 70% chance to be selected for a tier 8+ matchmaking, while another tank of 45% average win rate, would have a 70% chance to fight against a lower tier vehicle.

 

This system then would be in place for any tier in the game.

 

Benefits

The beauty in this solution is that there are multiple benefits to this system. First of all, it balances the matchup for both players in the upper tiers of the matchmaking, as they are getting targets there are designed for to fight against. But also for the lower tier tanks, they now get targets that are closer to their own performance, thus giving lower tier players a higher impact on the battlefield. At the same time, it gives strong tanks still a chance to get in a battle against a lower tier, but now with a much lower probability.

 

Secondly, players would be able to influence their own destiny with regards to matchmaking. No longer could someone complain about unfair matchmaking, instead he now has the control to get a better matchmaking by picking a less powerful tank. This would finally end all the arguments about the matchmaking, as well as giving players a better opportunity to finish their campaign missions requiring a higher tier opponent.

 

Thirdly, this is a self-balancing mechanism. As soon as a too powerful tank has been introduced, the tank will see more higher tier tanks, thus lowering the tanks average win rate. This will fluctuate until an optimum is found for that particular tank, in which the win rate of the tank will be 49,5%.

 

Fourthly, this will allow players to choose any tank to their liking or preferred playing style. No longer will that tank be useless: as soon as it’s win rate drops, it will be compensated by giving it easier opponents to fight against. This will ensure people no longer are disappointed after the effort they put into getting towards a high tier vehicle. It allows for more dynamic gameplay, as it makes all tanks competitive again, being it into their own league.

 

Fifthly, no longer are hard-caps required, such as ‘no tier 3 can play against a tier 5’. Instead, the stronger tier 3’s now happily can fight against weaker tier 4 and 5 tanks, while the weaker tier 3 tanks can compete more often against tier 2 tanks. At the same time, this system would allow hard caps such as the restrictions of Premium Matchmaking Tanks: they simply would have a 0% chance of playing against two tiers higher, while still being able to have a fluctuating optimal enemy tier. 

 

Lastly, non-preferential premium tanks no longer will have a performance advantage over tech tree tanks, as their matchmaking would be also subject to this system. They still will be able to print more credits and xp, and thus remain a viable option, as well as offering unique playing styles.

 

What does this proposal not solve

While this change will result in a more healthy random battle performance for all tanks, this would not mean that any given tank can be introduced carelessly. There still are other game modes, such as Frontlines, which require a more delicate balancing of tanks.

 

Another drawback of this method, would be that seal clubbing is no longer effective. Driving a T67 for example would result in a higher probability in seeing tier 7’s instead of tier 4’s. This would be very upsetting for players who like to seal club. :teethhappy:

 

Points up for discussion

Now, an interesting question could arise, whether stock tanks should be taken separately from their fully researched counterpart. One could argue that a stock tank should more often see lower tier matchups, easing the grind towards an elite vehicle. However, one could reply that this system could be abused by players deliberately using stock modules, thus taking advantage of the lower matchmaking standards. I’m not sure how much of an issue this would be, considering the overall win rate would therefore increase, and thus the matchmaking standards. But it is something to take into account.

 

This idea does assume that player skill should NOT be taken into account, as that would be punishing for good players. But maybe an argument could be made to take into account the relative performance of good players against the performance of bad players. Such that, a player with 45% overall win rate, will get an easier matchmaking when using a T67 compared to a player that has a 55% overall win rate. It’s possible, but I will leave this open for discussion as well.

 

So far, I would thank you for reading this whole idea, and I hope this will contribute to the further development of World of Tanks. Please leave any constructive feedback to this idea here below.

Edited by Anymn, 29 March 2019 - 04:55 PM.


Suurpolskija #2 Posted 29 March 2019 - 04:11 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 20884 battles
  • 1,749
  • [KANKI] KANKI
  • Member since:
    01-26-2016

I don't think this would improve the matchmaker all that much.

 

Plus it would affect the already bought premiums which, when they were bought, would have been performing so well that it's tempting to buy them. 

 

Plus it would hinder the sales of new OP premiums, which ofc is not so good for WG. 


Edited by Suurpolskija, 29 March 2019 - 04:20 PM.


Anymn #3 Posted 29 March 2019 - 04:13 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 19627 battles
  • 367
  • [RHPA] RHPA
  • Member since:
    07-06-2011

View PostSuurpolskija, on 29 March 2019 - 04:11 PM, said:

I don't want to be punished for playing well. 

 

You are not. In the above proposal, I'm talking about the average tank win rate of the whole world of tank population.

You will be 'punished' for playing over performing tanks however, but at the same time 'rewarded' for playing under performing tanks.



Homer_J #4 Posted 29 March 2019 - 04:19 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 31180 battles
  • 33,685
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

A final proposal?  I doubt it.

 

And this should be in the sticky thread.



Suurpolskija #5 Posted 29 March 2019 - 04:21 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 20884 battles
  • 1,749
  • [KANKI] KANKI
  • Member since:
    01-26-2016

View PostAnymn, on 29 March 2019 - 05:13 PM, said:

 

You are not. In the above proposal, I'm talking about the average tank win rate of the whole world of tank population.

You will be 'punished' for playing over performing tanks however, but at the same time 'rewarded' for playing under performing tanks.

 

Sry, I edited the post after actually reading it. 

TheDrownedApe #6 Posted 29 March 2019 - 04:22 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 47206 battles
  • 5,993
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    03-27-2013

there is only one way to solve the balance, MM and bug issues with this game

 

UNISTALL

 

however they know we won't do this :(



Balc0ra #7 Posted 29 March 2019 - 04:30 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 69698 battles
  • 18,721
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

33% equal tier games? That would be what 50% on pref MM tanks? You pointed out the Defender and overperforming tanks. Tier 8 has the most of them. Most of them are HT's. And they are the most common sights on tier 8. So putting them all together on one plate vs UP tanks or stock grinds more often is not gonna help more tbh. Even WG said 3-5-7 and the addition of equal tier games showed them tier 4, 8 and 10 have major issues that needs sorting. So if anything, the asian template test that gave people less +2 games the more they played. That got great feedback... would worked better here too I suspect. 

 

 

Then again with the Asian test in mind, and the current template tests coming and going on live. Let's wait and see what MM changes come this year. As either way, be it that or what we say here. 3-5-7 is not going away anytime soon and the tier 8 issues it made.


Edited by Balc0ra, 29 March 2019 - 04:32 PM.


Anymn #8 Posted 29 March 2019 - 04:57 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 19627 battles
  • 367
  • [RHPA] RHPA
  • Member since:
    07-06-2011

View PostBalc0ra, on 29 March 2019 - 04:30 PM, said:

33% equal tier games? That would be what 50% on pref MM tanks? You pointed out the Defender and overperforming tanks. Tier 8 has the most of them. Most of them are HT's. And they are the most common sights on tier 8. So putting them all together on one plate vs UP tanks or stock grinds more often is not gonna help more tbh. Even WG said 3-5-7 and the addition of equal tier games showed them tier 4, 8 and 10 have major issues that needs sorting. So if anything, the asian template test that gave people less +2 games the more they played. That got great feedback... would worked better here too I suspect. 

 

 

Then again with the Asian test in mind, and the current template tests coming and going on live. Let's wait and see what MM changes come this year. As either way, be it that or what we say here. 3-5-7 is not going away anytime soon and the tier 8 issues it made.

 

Those numbers are not made up, but are extracted from the proposed Matchmaking Graph, thus the Asian Test. 

 

Where I go further in my proposal, is that on top of the matchmaking changes, add a weight factor in depending on tank performance. This is thus primarily focused on rebalancing tanks (by using matchmaking mechanics), and thus improving the game for everyone (because even when in an equal matchup, over performing tanks have a slightly lower chance to end up into equal match ups compared to underpowerforming tanks).

 

15:59 Added after 1 minute

View PostSuurpolskija, on 29 March 2019 - 04:11 PM, said:

I don't think this would improve the matchmaker all that much.

 

Plus it would affect the already bought premiums which, when they were bought, would have been performing so well that it's tempting to buy them. 

 

Plus it would hinder the sales of new OP premiums, which ofc is not so good for WG. 

 

I don't think OP premiums is a good thing. With this system, Wargaming could instead rely on selling fun tanks that are actually a blast to play.

I really can't grasp why you are reacting the way you are.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users