Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Paul_Ward_2017

Matchmaking - more than t8 vs t10

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
11 posts
11,231 battles

Everyone is complaining about T8 vs T10. At least this can be solved by going to T10 although the result is probably a lot of players with T10 who dont belong (myself included). But what about skills and win ratio. Why doesn't MM consider this. I just played a game that match making monitor reported thusly

 

*edit

 

Who enjoys playing a game like this? Even the winners must have a bad taste in their mouth. A CV like this placed together with other superior players??

 

Am i missing something here? Why doesn't the MM consider players skills when making teams?

battle1.JPG

Edited by Alaa789
naming and shaming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,136 posts
5,261 battles

I am all in for an improved MM. Mostly what a potato team needs is 1 or 2 good player(s) who set the example. By balancing good players over both teams the gameplay will improve I think. 

Others think it won't. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,608 posts
8,081 battles
1 hour ago, Paul_Ward_2017 said:

 I just played a game that match making monitor reported thusly

 

 

 

Who enjoys playing a game like this?

 

so... why use that crap in the first place? Why not just play the game without giving yourself an extra reason to [edited] and moan because "boohoo game is lost/won anyway, MM Monitor says so"?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,887 posts
10,897 battles
6 minutes ago, Tyrendian89 said:

so... why use that crap in the first place? Why not just play the game without giving yourself an extra reason to [edited] and moan because "boohoo game is lost/won anyway, MM Monitor says so"?

 

Many people in Tanks even used a mod that predicted an exact "chance to win", leading to endless bitching before the game even began...unbelievable. 

 

In the end more games were lost because people gave up early of course... 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PMI]
Players
2,564 posts
6,009 battles
1 hour ago, Paul_Ward_2017 said:

Who enjoys playing a game like this? Even the winners must have a bad taste in their mouth. A CV like this placed together with other superior players??

 

Am i missing something here? Why doesn't the MM consider players skills when making teams?

 

You seem to enjoy such game looking at your stats, just FIY...

 

You seem to miss the point on which you would not be allowed to have the game running?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WG Team, WoWs Wiki Team
3,499 posts
12,575 battles
Vor 5 Stunden, Paul_Ward_2017 sagte:

Why doesn't the MM consider players skills when making teams?

It would create more problems than solve.

What do you think, how many CV players with 86% Winrate are on the server? How long would you have to wait in queue before a second one arrives?

I surely don't want waiting times of multiple hours before getting a game.

 

Or do you balance good players by putting more potatoes in their team? Great incentive to play good if your only reward is more idiots in your team, every match.

 

Next problem: How would you rate skill?

If you balance teams by player's winrate, all players would end up at 50%, making the skillbased MM useless again.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,887 posts
10,897 battles
11 minutes ago, Commander_Cornflakes said:

Or do you balance good players by putting more potatoes in their team? Great incentive to play good if your only reward is more idiots in your team, every match.

 

Next problem: How would you rate skill?

If you balance teams by player's winrate, all players would end up at 50%, making the skillbased MM useless again.

 

This. It would just feel like swimming against the current. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
2,943 posts
17,701 battles
1 hour ago, __Helmut_Kohl__ said:

Many people in Tanks even used a mod that predicted an exact "chance to win", leading to endless bitching before the game even began...unbelievable. 

 

In the end more games were lost because people gave up early of course... 

True dat. I remember 1 game, where someone in our team actually had the time to check all or most of the enemy team player's stats before the match started. Epicenter on, "Tears of the Dessert" map and announced to us in the beginning that since our team has all 50%+ WR players and the enemy mostly 40%+ WR lads - We are going to win easily. :cap_cool:

 

The results were quite predictable :Smile_bajan2: and we very nearly got our donkeys well and truly kicked, barely managing to pull a narrow win at the last minute, when our only surviving ship finally managed to sink their remaining 2 (who were luckily in poor health at the time). It was a close call tho... :cap_rambo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
183 posts
6,864 battles

If I may, my 2 cents.

Personally I despise the +2/-2 MM. It is unfair and feels arbitrary. I get punished for getting better and more experienced by having to face off ships that are far superior to mine. So the reward for my improvement is punishment. That makes ZERO sense and I hate it. Tbh I simply don't care for winning anymore, all I get is my MM "reward" anyway. And when I get uptiered with my inferior ship I stay in the back and play passively, I'm not sticking my neck out for this kind of treatment. Just to be clear; I also feel sorry for those getting uptiered into my tier.

 

Just thought someone at WG might like to know. Your MM sucks. I want to play either purely in my tier (so what if a t10 at 3am has to wait longer? That's not my problem, it's his) or in a +1/-1 mix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OP]
Beta Tester
102 posts
5,439 battles
4 hours ago, Paul_Ward_2017 said:

Am i missing something here? Why doesn't the MM consider players skills when making teams?

The skill based matchmaking would:

  • eventually make everyone average out at 50% win rate;
  • make the game even less diversified (matches with all skilled players on a map will play out similarly more often - good example of this is current ranked play);
  • punish the skill - the better you play, the better opponents you get. No rewards/ranks included;
  • increase the matchmaking time for extremely good and extremely bad players (and currently CV players as those are more rare).

Yes, the current system results in total stomp games that you simply can not affect, however this provides diversity and increases the possible player win rate to something like ~30%-70%.

 

16 minutes ago, Bratwurst_Bob said:

Just thought someone at WG might like to know. Your MM sucks. I want to play either purely in my tier (so what if a t10 at 3am has to wait longer? That's not my problem, it's his) or in a +1/-1 mix.

Personally I don't have a problem getting uptiered in most ships and carrying game as a bottom tier is very satisfying. Unlike in World of Tanks, ships don't struggle to deal substantial damage to higher tier targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WG Team, WoWs Wiki Team
3,499 posts
12,575 battles
Vor 23 Minuten, Bratwurst_Bob sagte:

Just thought someone at WG might like to know. Your MM sucks. I want to play either purely in my tier (so what if a t10 at 3am has to wait longer? That's not my problem, it's his) or in a +1/-1 mix.

So what if some potato player is too bad to deal with +-2 MM? That's his problem, not mine. I want to keep +-2 and farm T10 ships with my T8 ship for increased XP and Credit gains.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THROW]
Weekend Tester
994 posts
5,602 battles
2 hours ago, Commander_Cornflakes said:

Next problem: How would you rate skill?

If you balance teams by player's winrate, all players would end up at 50%, making the skillbased MM useless again.

Nah, actually outliners on one side would be matched with outlines on the other spectrum (so someone who won a lot lately would get someone that lost a lot). It's simple statistics - no matter how good you are an algorithm could break your WR to 50% given long enough time.

 

And that's the problem. Weekends are enough already, a skill based MM would mean constant weekend only on their team for good players. Imagine a game where you ALWAYS get the borderhugging morons, the yamato that charges a 3 shima smokescreen, the DD that caps behind hard cover or goes flank torping, the radar cruisers that don't use it, etc. etc.

Skill based MM is a surefire way to alienate your consumers (see AW for example, how they all knew better despite everyone telling them that's a moronic idea).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THROW]
Weekend Tester
994 posts
5,602 battles
14 minutes ago, Commander_Cornflakes said:

So what if some potato player is too bad to deal with +-2 MM? That's his problem, not mine. I want to keep +-2 and farm T10 ships with my T8 ship for increased XP and Credit gains.

I want fail platoons back, Fujin was hilarious against clueless t10 BBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,887 posts
10,897 battles
1 hour ago, Commander_Cornflakes said:

I want to keep +-2 and farm T10 ships with my T8 ship for increased XP and Credit gains.

 

Don't forget the fun factor. Farming a GK in Massachusetts is hilarious. 

 

Also what would Asashio do without TX fatties? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
94 posts
5,804 battles

Why would I want to have a fair game? I play this to stomp mercilessly on pubbies, not to give them a fair chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,428 posts
2 hours ago, Bratwurst_Bob said:

Personally I despise the +2/-2 MM. It is unfair and feels arbitrary. I get punished for getting better and more experienced by having to face off ships that are far superior to mine. So the reward for my improvement is punishment. 

Punished? How? You get better so being uptiered should be less and less of an issue. If by punished you mean you face higher tier ships and boohoo you can't yolo in anymore.... Well. Sucks for you. Go play tier 1 if you want "fair" matches. 

 

Ps. +2/-2 means you also get to play against ships two tiers below but what a surprise, I don't hear you about that. :cap_tea:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BS4]
Players
1,132 posts
6,321 battles
2 hours ago, Cippalippus said:

Why would I want to have a fair game? I play this to stomp mercilessly on pubbies, not to give them a fair chance.

There is that.....which ironically is why we have so many of these threads. Not every person at tier VIII should be playing at tier VIII.

Its a product of WG genius..

 

Jrpr5Ga.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6 posts
2,316 battles

yeah am pretty tired of this.. this game been out for years and we still have to deal with being the ONLY tier VIII of the game on each side.. why? I mean I wouldn't mind so much if we had a good mix at least, but when you feel like the BB pinata it's just pissing me off that's all

you can bow in all you want you're still getting burnt through like nothing, same with your cruiser, angle as much as you want when a volley of yamato rips you apart, what you wanna do? "get gud nub"?

and I don't want to be either the guy 2 tier higher one shotting tier VI, it might be funny at first but then what's the point?

 

it can't be that hard to just limit to +1-1, even if it means adding a few more seconds in queue, I mean no one complaining about tier 3 battle taking well over a minute in queue, same would apply to higher tier if it means not wasting 10 mins afterwards just getting rekt just so that the top tier can finally get to serious business once that lonely low tier is out of the picture.

 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×