Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
tksf_2013

Extremely broken matchmaking

52 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[UKSF]
Players
4 posts
6,011 battles

I have been playing the WOWS for 2 years. I used to enjoy playing the game a lot. However, recently, I feel more and more frustrated and unconfortable to play the game. Although WG keeps bringing us new ships and game modes, but it feels like they never try to improve some basic but important features of the game, like the matchmaking system. I feel like the matchmaking becomes even worse in the passed 2 months. It is more often that I got massive wins or massive losses in a row. This can be shown from my win rates of different ships.(from 40% to 70%). 

Today I got an very unfair matchmatking: 

Enermy team has a T10 3 men's Rank 1 division with midway, des moines and montana, and a  T8 division

But we only have one T8 BB division.

5bad20ec95eae_2018-09-27(4).thumb.png.0fcf06ecbecbe90d15f27bd454435a52.png

 

I tried my best to win the game, but at last I just melted by the fires of 2 des moines and CV drop.

5bad239572f85_2018-09-27(1).thumb.png.6c958781a961492102baac192bbe6ade.png

I don't think it is a problem of bad luck to get such terrible matching. I have experienced a lot such unfair matchings recently. Today I feel very mad of this unfair and unpleant game.(I was planing to test the submarines on PTS, but this game ruined everything.) So I decide to post my complains of this broken MM system on the forum. I hope the developers can hear their customers' voice and improve the current MM system. I love to play WOWS very much, and I hope it can become better. It is just quite painful to play with the current matchmaking system.  

 

 

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
248 posts

I have 1600 average xp  / game in des moines and 38 % WR.

 

IT's not me. It's this stupid rigged game.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
13,613 posts
10,385 battles

Another one who thinks that Rank 1 means much and players with low/no ranks must be bad....

  • Funny 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
3,623 posts
6,487 battles

Selective Perception

 

Where were you complains about the bad MM last week? Do I have to remember you?!

Spoiler

5bad2d842e519_Screenshot_2018-09-27WoWSStatsNumbersEU-tksf_2013-Playerinfoandstats.thumb.png.869fc930b3c3d0bf3aae4fe3bdb79917.png

Last week you played "very good" in Personal Rating, but you achieved a winrate at "super unicum" level. Totally undeserved too, that doesn't fit! But you didn't complain about that? Why? But just now, where you still play on "very good" level, but suddenly only reach a winrate of "bad" you start to complain?! What do you think was the reason for your lucky winning streak, if not the "extremely broken matchmaking".

 

I guess if the "broken MM" let you win, there is no reason to complain, right?! :Smile_sceptic:

 

 

  • Cool 4
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,871 posts
5,156 battles
12 minutes ago, principat121 said:

Last week you played "very good" in Personal Rating, but you achieved a winrate at "super unicum" level. Totally undeserved too, that doesn't fit!

 

Side note: Meh, the Personal Rating doesnt really show, how good you played. Its focused too much on the damage-number and kills (+if you won). You cant really tell by that number, how good someone did. Unless it says 0 or 5000+.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
3,623 posts
6,487 battles

While I understand the objection: As he plays mostly the same ships in the regarded days, the PR is still capable of judging his performance (compared to himself).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UKSF]
Players
4 posts
6,011 battles
1 hour ago, principat121 said:

Selective Perception

 

Where were you complains about the bad MM last week? Do I have to remember you?!

  Reveal hidden contents

5bad2d842e519_Screenshot_2018-09-27WoWSStatsNumbersEU-tksf_2013-Playerinfoandstats.thumb.png.869fc930b3c3d0bf3aae4fe3bdb79917.png

Last week you played "very good" in Personal Rating, but you achieved a winrate at "super unicum" level. Totally undeserved too, that doesn't fit! But you didn't complain about that? Why? But just now, where you still play on "very good" level, but suddenly only reach a winrate of "bad" you start to complain?! What do you think was the reason for your lucky winning streak, if not the "extremely broken matchmaking".

 

I guess if the "broken MM" let you win, there is no reason to complain, right?! :Smile_sceptic:

 

 

It seems you don't understand my purpose. I am not complaining because I have a bad luck to win. I am complaining about the system. It's "broken" because you can keeps winning a lot and keeps losing a lot. If the matchmaking system is good, you should not have a huge difference in winrate as I had recently. Your recent winrate shouldn't go from "superunicom" to "bad". The thing that makes me mad is that, it feel like the matchmaking system has some power to decide your winrate. If the sever decides to let you be in the bad team for the next few games, you can't really do anything to stop losing. This experience is frustrating, when you really want to get a first win of the day, but in the current MM system, you will problably be in the same losing side for a while. I don't think I deserve a better winrate, and I am not complaining about bad luck. (I don't care about the winrate as it won't change my stats anyway). I think the game will be more fun to play if your team are much more balanced. (not in the case when you have a T10 CV division with des moines on enermy team while you have solo players on your team). I don't want to be on either side of the match. For the winning team, one-sided match is also boring right? 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
Players
2,893 posts
14,827 battles
2 hours ago, tksf_2013 said:

I have been playing the WOWS for 2 years. I used to enjoy playing the game a lot. However, recently, I feel more and more frustrated and unconfortable to play the game. Although WG keeps bringing us new ships and game modes, but it feels like they never try to improve some basic but important features of the game, like the matchmaking system. I feel like the matchmaking becomes even worse in the passed 2 months. It is more often that I got massive wins or massive losses in a row. This can be shown from my win rates of different ships.(from 40% to 70%). 

Today I got an very unfair matchmatking: 

Enermy team has a T10 3 men's Rank 1 division with midway, des moines and montana, and a  T8 division

But we only have one T8 BB division.

5bad20ec95eae_2018-09-27(4).thumb.png.0fcf06ecbecbe90d15f27bd454435a52.png

 

I tried my best to win the game, but at last I just melted by the fires of 2 des moines and CV drop.

5bad239572f85_2018-09-27(1).thumb.png.6c958781a961492102baac192bbe6ade.png

I don't think it is a problem of bad luck to get such terrible matching. I have experienced a lot such unfair matchings recently. Today I feel very mad of this unfair and unpleant game.(I was planing to test the submarines on PTS, but this game ruined everything.) So I decide to post my complains of this broken MM system on the forum. I hope the developers can hear their customers' voice and improve the current MM system. I love to play WOWS very much, and I hope it can become better. It is just quite painful to play with the current matchmaking system.  

 

 

Being ranked 1 can only show that player being patient. nothing more. 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,871 posts
5,156 battles
13 minutes ago, tksf_2013 said:

It seems you don't understand my purpose. I am not complaining because I have a bad luck to win. I am complaining about the system. It's "broken" because you can keeps winning a lot and keeps losing a lot. If the matchmaking system is good, you should not have a huge difference in winrate as I had recently. Your recent winrate shouldn't go from "superunicom" to "bad". The thing that makes me mad is that, it feel like the matchmaking system has some power to decide your winrate. If the sever decides to let you be in the bad team for the next few games, you can't really do anything to stop losing. This experience is frustrating, when you really want to get a first win of the day, but in the current MM system, you will problably be in the same losing side for a while. I don't think I deserve a better winrate, and I am not complaining about bad luck. (I don't care about the winrate as it won't change my stats anyway). I think the game will be more fun to play if your team are much more balanced. (not in the case when you have a T10 CV division with des moines on enermy team while you have solo players on your team). I don't want to be on either side of the match. For the winning team, one-sided match is also boring right? 

 

Lets leave everything else, that you said, on the side for a moment and focus on that division. I mean, what is the matchmaker suppose to do with such a division? He cant tear them appart and he cant let them wait in queue for a couple of hours, until it finds a division, that is equally build and is equally skillful - because, lets face it, if its puts three 40%-ers in the exact same ships against those on your screen - the outcome would be the same. Would you then still complain of accept it?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
143 posts
2,289 battles

You want a skill-based MM to prevent steamrolls?

Mmm.... Could be nice to have and perhaps they can look into it and try it out. Steam rolls aren't fun indeed, no matter what side you are on.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UKSF]
Players
4 posts
6,011 battles
2 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

Another one who thinks that Rank 1 means much and players with low/no ranks must be bad....

I am not saying low ranks are bad. But rank 1 guys are surely experienced players.(I played ranked battles, I know it is not easy to reach R1.) The point is that in that match, enermy has a T10 carrier division with strong aa ships and also a solo des moines from OM. We have no T10 division. There was already a huge disadvantage on our side. Look at the result, they have shot down 96 planes. 

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
13,613 posts
10,385 battles

The enemy team got carried HARD by a Rank 10 player. Your teams Rank 1 did not do well.

Your teams CV player (Rank 11) sank more ships than the CV player of the Rank 1 division, despite the fact that he had to deal with extremly strong AA.

The problem of your team can be seen at the bottom of the scoreboard.

 

Btw. the enemies Mogami is also a Rank 10 player and came third.... 

So much for Ranks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PMI]
[PMI]
Players
1,974 posts
4,959 battles
32 minutes ago, tksf_2013 said:

I am not saying low ranks are bad. But rank 1 guys are surely experienced players.(I played ranked battles, I know it is not easy to reach R1.) 

BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH...

 

 

BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • Funny 3
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,421 posts
10,075 battles
2 hours ago, LemonadeWarrior said:

You want a skill-based MM to prevent steamrolls?

Mmm.... Could be nice to have and perhaps they can look into it and try it out. Steam rolls aren't fun indeed, no matter what side you are on.

As i understand the OP, this is exactly what he wants.

 

1 hour ago, ColonelPete said:

The enemy team got carried HARD by a Rank 10 player. Your teams Rank 1 did not do well.

Your teams CV player (Rank 11) sank more ships than the CV player of the Rank 1 division, despite the fact that he had to deal with extremly strong AA.

The problem of your team can be seen at the bottom of the scoreboard.

 

Btw. the enemies Mogami is also a Rank 10 player and came third.... 

So much for Ranks.

Basically 9 of 12 friendlies were useless glue sniffers so..hardly the bottom of the scoreboard :cap_book:

It still bugs me though - why does one team get the 3 man div AND 2 man div vs just a 2 man div (I KNOW why, WGs idea of prioritizing ship tier > players for some obnocious reason)

MM should balance divisioned ships at least so 2+2 vs 3.

1 hour ago, Juanx said:

BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH...

 

 

BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

Laugh all you want, most rank 1 players are above average players. 

 

Have you not been to random battles recently? That might explain your ignorance (or maybe it finally killed off your brain). 

 

Otherwise explain to me how how the Rank 1 windowlicking Worchester with 563 xp STILL managed to beat out 50% of his team in base Xp.

 

It is scary how much incompetence it takes to be "average" in this game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
3,695 posts
10,594 battles
3 hours ago, tksf_2013 said:

If the sever decides to let you be in the bad team for the next few games, you can't really do anything to stop losing.

I'll tell you a secret. The skill of players isn't even taken into consideration by MM. MM tries to balence tiers and ship classes, that's all. It doesn't care who sails them. This results in two things:

1. It's fair, you don't get better opponents and weaker teammates just because you happen to be good.

2. It can lead to one team getting plenty of great players and the other - plenty of potatoes.

 

It should be also noted that MM is pretty vulnerable to divisions - a division of good players can have great results and a division of baddies can drag down team after team by filling three slots with useless scrap metal that only looks like ships that could threaten the enemy. In the match you mentioned in the very beginning, you specifically met a t10 division with a carrier. That's usually a force that decides the match right there - but it's been like this pretty much forever, that's no new development.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
3,695 posts
10,594 battles
2 hours ago, Juanx said:

BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH...

 

 

BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The weakest of the weakest Rank 1 players have some 48% Random winrate - and these are the low-end exceptions. Let's say: 1% R1 players have Random WR below 50%. This is probably a high estimate - but let's say that it's one percent. Now, so that you can't hang on the numbers, let's take this high estimate and multiply it by 10 - let's assume that we live in the alternate reality where as much as 1/10 of R1 players are actually the below-average crowd with less than 50% WR in Randoms.

Even in that alternate reality R1 players are an elite bunch where 90% of them are above average or better when compared to the overall population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DEXIL]
Players
61 posts
2,942 battles

Maybe something should be done to division mm. It has not been the first time when me and my friends T8 division has been matched against a division of three T10 players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
3,695 posts
10,594 battles
21 minutes ago, Fatal_Ramses said:

Maybe something should be done to division mm. It has not been the first time when me and my friends T8 division has been matched against a division of three T10 players.

The problem with divisions isn't about three divisioned t10 ships or three divisioned t8s. There might be a problem of AA builds when a division ensures a CV match by having their own CV but the real problem lies elsewhere and isn't really fixable - it's too deeply rooted in the very essence of what divisions are. And the nature of this problem is: up to three players that don't conform to normal "player randomness". And usually they are of similar skill. Effect? Well, most divisions consist of roughly average players that might get a little edge from divisioning but that's ok. Unfortunately, not all divisioning people are average. This, in turn, produces two dreadful scenarios:

1. Three great players. People who individually would get close to 60% winrate or even cross that threshold. When these people get together, suddenly the team has a tremendous advantage. They don't even need to get ships with good synergy, they don't need to cooperate - just be there, all three of them, and the enemy likely has a huge problem.

2. Three absolute potatoes. It's almost like having 3 AFKers - a big problem to make up for for the friendly team. It gets worse if they pick the same class (and many are fond of 3xBB for some reason - triplets of other classes are much less common, although I've also seen three 45% DDs a couple times). Imagine a t10 match where all 3 top tier BBs are not only useless - they coordinate their uselessness and camp as a BBBlob in one place so that they don't even fool the enemy in other parts of the map into thinking that there's some potential BB pressure to be wary of. I have a fond (no, not really) memory of a match on North (the old one, obviously) where 3 Yamatos went to D. Oh, and they didn't have a DD either - in that match the only DD that went to that cap was the enemy Shimakaze, you see. You can imagine how the match unfolded. Although, I must add, the Yamatos somehow killed that Shima and only one of them died in the process - now that's another epitome of fail: to be a lonely Shimakaze vs 3 Yamatos and somehow end up spotted and killed. Still, by the time the two remaining damaged Yamatos appeared from behind the island, the match was long decided - the enemy had 4 BBs against our 1. At first it wasn't as bad as you might think, North has a lot of islands and all that. Unfortunately, at some point they finally figured out that there's no way we can stop them if they just push.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
3,623 posts
6,487 battles
9 hours ago, LemonadeWarrior said:

You want a skill-based MM to prevent steamrolls?

A skilled-MM would not prevent steamrolls, but increase the number of them!

 

The more equal both sides are, the more likely a steamroll win is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
3,623 posts
6,487 battles
9 hours ago, tksf_2013 said:

If the matchmaking system is good, you should not have a huge difference in winrate as I had recently.

Why? Any statistical back up to this? Or is this just "a feeling"?

 

9 hours ago, tksf_2013 said:

The thing that makes me mad is that, it feel like the matchmaking system has some power to decide your winrate.

How? Does the MM play your ship? Does the MM make your decisions ingame? Or for your team or your opponents?

 

9 hours ago, tksf_2013 said:

when you really want to get a first win of the day, but in the current MM system, you will problably be in the same losing side for a while

How does the current MM system keep you losing? How does the MM "know" which team will lose?

 

9 hours ago, tksf_2013 said:

I think the game will be more fun to play if your team are much more balanced.

Ever heart of mxStat? It is a thirdparty tool for analyzing your gaming sessions afterwards. You can find a thread here in this forum. It is an exellent piece of software. You can for instance display the team winrate (related to the overall account or played ships). If you do so, you would very fast recognize the most of the game are quite balanced with a team WR-difference below 1%.

And to go a step further? Ever heart of Lancaster's Law? That is the mathematical proof for all this above! The more equal both side are, the more likely a steamroll is.

 

You see... your feelings are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WTFNO]
Players
147 posts
3,799 battles
7 hours ago, GulvkluderGuld said:

MM should balance divisioned ships at least so 2+2 vs 3.

That could be a good start.

Maybe also forbid same type 3-div ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WTFNO]
Players
147 posts
3,799 battles
10 minutes ago, principat121 said:

And to go a step further? Ever heart of Lancaster's Law? That is the mathematical proof for all this above! The more equal both side are, the more likely a steamroll is

Do you mean Lanchester's law ?

The one I found only states that in long battles of attrition, damage rate should be considered to depend on the square of the army size...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
2,309 posts
13,595 battles
2 hours ago, Fatal_Ramses said:

Maybe something should be done to division mm. It has not been the first time when me and my friends T8 division has been matched against a division of three T10 players.

Yeah, though I usually have no complaints about the MM, this sure happens a lot to me as well. And yupp, when you have a 2-man division with a Mogami and Monarch which ends up being matched against almost any 3 man tier 10 division, the news is generally not going to be good. Not saying it isn't winnable, but your division sure as hell isn't going to be very likely to do it and will basically be struggling just to stay afloat and have SOME impact on the game (hopefully a positive one).:cap_hmm:

 

Yeah, I have to agree. I would much prefer it, if the division tiers were balanced against each other. Don't really give a diddly about player ranks tho.:Smile_Default:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
3,623 posts
6,487 battles
10 minutes ago, AmiralPotato said:

Do you mean Lanchester's law ?

The one I found only states that in long battles of attrition, damage rate should be considered to depend on the square of the army size...

Yes, I meant that one. I misspelled it. Sorry for that.

 

This whole "the-MM-prefer-one-side" story is very old. Even to old WoT-times. There was once quite the same thread in the WoT-Forum, where a player complained about too many one-sided battles, suggesting that this can only happen because of a huge skill gap between both teams.

 

Long story short, I will cite an answer of SillyFox. Keep in mind this is WoT related, so 15 tanks versus 15 tanks. But the calculations are also true for 12 ships versus 12 ships.

 

Spoiler

Shade & Rita,

Firstly, props for measuring real data rather than speculating.

Your results are roughly what one would expect, actually, because of what others above have referred to as “snowball effect.” The basic idea is that once your team has more tanks, it can more quickly eliminate enemy tanks by focusing fire. But why would you get anywhere near 10? Let’s do a little math (eek!).

This very problem was studied during WW1 by a brilliant British engineer Frederic Lanchester. He was interested in predicting the outcome of ranged (in his case, aerial) battles, and derived equations known as Lanchester’s Power Laws (which you can Google). The relevant law here is Lanchester’s Square Law, which says that the number of casualties your tanks (or whatever) will inflict on the enemy over time is proportional to the *square* of the number of tanks you have [1].

What is the intuition for squaring the tank count? One factor is obvious: if you have twice as many tanks as the enemy, then you can inflict roughly twice as much damage. The less obvious factor is that you also have roughly twice the HP, so your tanks can survive about twice as long. In the end, if you are doing twice the damage for twice as long, then you are doing four times as much damage.

Let’s set up a simple stochastic process to see what margin of victory you would expect from WoT battles. Here are the rules:

1. calculate the relative chances of each team killing an enemy tank as the square of the number of tanks it has;
2. consult RNG gods to see who loses a tank;
3. repeat until one team loses.

Now let’s run this experiment lots of times (say 1,000,000), and count up how many times each margin of victory shows up. When I did this, I found that the median margin of victory was with 11 tanks surviving (see http://imgur.com/a/ro2gR). You can reproduce this yourself (see [2] below for code).

I don’t, of course, have WG’s data on this, but my guess is that the real distribution is to the left of what this model predicts (i.e., the median margin is fewer tanks, perhaps the 10 you saw). Lanchester’s Square Law essentially assumes that all friendly tanks fight in one group and shoot at all enemy tanks in one group, but during a WoT match there are two or more such “fights” going on most of the time; this will effectively make Lanchester’s exponent lower than 2. There are other factors, such as unequal tank firepower, HP, and mobility among tanks in a single battle, victory via base capture, platoons, spotting mechanics, and so on. I suspect the effect of these is so small that it can be ignored in practice, but I’ll leave working out the details as an exercise to the motivated reader

 

[1] Lanchester, F. W. (1956). Mathematics in warfare. The World of Mathematics, 4, 2138–2157.
[2] source below:

import random

def sample():
greens, reds = 15, 15 # start w/ 15 tanks each
while greens > 0 and reds > 0:
green_power, red_power = greens**2, reds**2 # Lanchester’s Square Law
prob_red_loses_tank = green_power / (green_power + red_power)
rand = random.random()
if rand < prob_red_loses_tank:
reds -= 1
else:
greens -= 1
return reds – greens

histogram = [0] * 16
for sample_count in range(0,1000000):
victory_margin = abs(sample())
histogram[victory_margin] += 1
print(histogram[1:])

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
390 posts
8,551 battles
12 hours ago, tksf_2013 said:

 

Today I got an very unfair matchmatking: 

 

Enermy team has a T10 3 men's Rank 1 division with midway, des moines and montana, and a  T8 division

 

First of all accept my condolences for bad MM.

 

Second, please explain it to me how on Earth would rank 1 relate to any skill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×