Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

[BLUB__BLUB]

1 hour ago, 159Hunter said:

One big caveat: this is calculated per ship and not per session. 

This is quite important as most people don't know this. 

It means if you are doing what most people do, that is: one ship dies - skip - game - enter next battle with another ship ---> then you get FFd. 

[ForlornSailor]

19 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

This is quite important as most people don't know this. 

It means if you are doing what most people do, that is: one ship dies - skip - game - enter next battle with another ship ---> then you get FFd. 

 

What im wondering: does it keep seperat track for each game mode? Or does it track for anything else than randoms anyway? afaik there is no offical info on this or is there? somehow im always top tier in coop and I feel I throw myself under the bus for randoms with that. talking about observation bias eh

[BLUB__BLUB]

5 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

What im wondering: does it keep seperat track for each game mode? Or does it track for anything else than randoms anyway? afaik there is no offical info on this or is there? somehow im always top tier in coop and I feel I throw myself under the bus for randoms with that. talking about observation bias eh

I don't know about co-op, IMO doesn't matter what tier you are there.

Most important there is to get "the right ship".... AKA do not take anything that wants DoT.

 

But yes there was an official statement somewhere last MM-change, it would keep track of what MM you got.

And it was also pointed out that it would only work if you took the same ship for a few games in succession.

Which would mean it doesn't work when you put a few co-op games in between.

 

 

 

[ImTryingButYouDontHelp]

07:52 minutes battle. I had time for......nearly nothing. My team seemed like a plantation of liliacs at the matchmaking monitor, and the enemy team was like a plantation of lemon trees ready to harvest. Fun and engaging, working as intended.

 

 

 

[ForlornSailor]

2 minutes ago, Miblogdegolf said:

07:52 seconds battle. I had time for......nearly nothing. My team seemed like a plantation of liliacs at the matchmaking monitor, and the enemy team was like a plantation of lemon trees ready to harvest. Fun and engaging, working as intended.

 

I hear what you saying but isnt it more a problem of players skill? I can picture the game (ive seen them aswell, from both sides) but such players are pretty much unfit for the game. Quite frankly: I dont want them on my team nor the enemy team. They are just bad for the game itself. Thus I will not agree (if thats where you are headding) that the game gets any better, if you distribute the rotten potatos evenly across both teams.

[Furius_Marius]

5 minutes battle. I was on a BB, and i was the one of the few that shot. Had time for 3 salvos before battle ended.  Cause everybody was hiding behind islands, and even like that some got killed. 

[ObiWankov]

@ACe_1983 if you don't like being up-tiered I suggest you go and spend some money to get T10 asap.

Alternatively Georgia or Friesland is a nice ship. 

[ImTryingButYouDontHelp]

3 hours ago, ForlornSailor said:

if you distribute the rotten potatos evenly across both teams.

I'm sure I would be a lot less frustrated than now. I don't mind if people would tend more to be 50% WR because what I want the game is to have exciting close battles. This is boring like hell.

[ForlornSailor]

5 minutes ago, Miblogdegolf said:

what I want the game is to have exciting close battles. This is boring like hell. 

 

I absolutly agree on that part. I just wish people overall would be better / care more about objectives and winning instead of having the game bend to somehow fit them in.

[ObiWankov]

1 minute ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

I absolutly agree on that part. I just wish people overall would be better / care more about objectives and winning instead of having the game bend to somehow fit them in.

 

That's called Clan Battles.

 

Let Randoms be just that, random.

[Floofz]

Made another attempt, and my last, on my f2p account. 11 defeats and 2 wins, several steamroll defeats and no steamroll wins. Exactly the same outcome as 2 days ago when I last played it.

The game is not playable without a unicum division. Its a joke, absolute joke. Might aswell delete that account. Once again, I dont understand what keeps solo players playing, do you really think this is random? Really? There is no statistical plausability that I should have no chance of winning 80% of the games I play for several days straight, there is no chance that its random. The game is forcefully pushing you towards 50% WR, thats as easy as that. There is zero enjoyment in playing a game with no challenge, its unwinnable games after unwinnable games. And the mythical thing people are talking about where "oh but sometimes you get to win a lot" simply doesnt happen on that account, it doesnt happen, you only see defeats after tier 7. The simple reason is because you ALWAYS end up in the worse team, and youre ALWAYS bottom tier, so you can never ever carry a game, and even if you do manage to "carry" the team finds a way to throw so hard its pointless. Completely pointless. 

 

And before you talk about ships. Im playing ships on that account that I already have on my main account, that I already know how to play, that I have very good stats in. Im not new to them. Yet I only get put into situations where I have no chance, over and over again.

[ColonelPete]

13 minutes ago, Floofz said:

Made another attempt, and my last, on my f2p account. 11 defeats and 2 wins, several steamroll defeats and no steamroll wins. Exactly the same outcome as 2 days ago when I last played it.

The game is not playable without a unicum division. Its a joke, absolute joke. Might aswell delete that account. Once again, I dont understand what keeps solo players playing, do you really think this is random? Really? There is no statistical plausability that I should have no chance of winning 80% of the games I play for several days straight, there is no chance that its random. The game is forcefully pushing you towards 50% WR, thats as easy as that.

• there is a chance, just a very low one
• there are enough players who do not have 50% winrating
• we have shown you the bell curve, the distribution of WR of the playerbase is statisticly expected

[ForlornSailor]

26 minutes ago, ObiWankov said:

Let Randoms be just that, random.

 

Thats what I said tho oO

[GarrusBrutus]

[edited]

 

Look, currently I am grinding the Amalfi. The T8 ITA CA. Sometimes I find myself in a T6 battle and do absolutely nothing, but on the other hand I find myself in a TX battle but I still top the scoreboard and do insane damage. It isnt all black and white when it comes to +2-2 MM. Most of it comes down to how skilled your opponents and teammates are. Bad opponents in +2 boats? You wreck them. Good opponents in -2 boats? A tough match for you even though you're top tier.

 

 

[snddim01]

9 hours ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Look, currently I am grinding the Amalfi. The T8 ITA CA. Sometimes I find myself in a T6 battle and do absolutely nothing, but on the other hand I find myself in a TX battle but I still top the scoreboard and do insane damage. It isnt all black and white when it comes to +2-2 MM. Most of it comes down to how skilled your opponents and teammates are. Bad opponents in +2 boats? You wreck them. Good opponents in -2 boats? A tough match for you even though you're top tier.

 

This is the most important point of all. It invalidates EVERY argument the original poster makes about how unfair T2 matchmaking is.

 

I'm not a good player. My stats are decidedly average, as a look at them will clearly show. I've grinded every single tech tree ship up to and including tier eight and am half way through tier nine. I've done that in over 10,000 battles, many of them bottom tier by two, so I have a LOT of experience at being bottom tier. 

 

It doesn't bother me. I couldn't care less if I'm bottom tier. It's far more important to get competent teammates so that the battle lasts long enough for me to do something useful.

 

I can easily kill a tier 8 battleship in a tier 6 destroyer if he sails in a straight line.

 

I can easily kill a tier 9 cruiser in a tier 7 battleship if he gives me broadside.

 

I can easily kill a tier 10 destroyer in a tier 8 cruiser if he sits in smoke within hydro range or chooses to gunboat me in open water.

 

To the original poster - forget about +2/-2 matchmaking. It's irrelevant. Focus your annoyance instead on how frequently the matchmaker gives you half a dozen potatoes as teammates while the enemy get all the unicums.

 

There will, however, be occasions when that doesn't happen. When your team doesn't suicide or collapse and as a result the match is still evenly balanced after ten minutes. At that point your own personal skill (or lack of it) can often decide the outcome regardless of what tier you're up against. Concentrate your energies on improving your skill level and you'll be in a better position to take advantage when those opportunities arise.

 

Surely that's a more productive use of your time than multiple posts on a messageboard about how unfair the game is?  

[humpty_1]

come on WG at least you can/could distribute the radars fairly, i'm sooooo tired of having 4 radars etc vs none. it gives such an advantage..

[MZL_Makrele]

@ACe_1983 First: Don't get overly excited, that's not good for your blood pressure. And I doubt that anything will change in the short run, so why get overly upset...

I am new too to this game and thus not biased by 10k or 20k matches. So I may be right in my perception to have a clear and clean outside view on things happening here.

[By the way, I have have a MBA degree in Marketing and Management (if any elitist aloof comrade should question if I made it to high school) so I can read statistics and know how they are created. For the last 30 years I played Railway Simulations, have been active in localisations EN->GER and know a bit about the gaming markets] 

This said I congratulate you on your insight and the ability to make your point (although I feel the emotions behind it, which give your red team here chances to fire some AP shells at you in this respect). You articulate exactly what I think too (you may have noticed my little Emoji-Captains underneath your posts). But nonetheless the prevailing mood and the prevailing elitist aloof "speakers" within this forum say something else (and have driven me out of the same discussion in the German thread with the same topic).

 

In this thread there are only two persons giving some insights which could be the true reason for this behavior of people who reached TX and numerous TXIX-captains long time ago:

• we had to go through all this, so everybody has to
• in the old days it was a lot worse, so for you it is a lot easier than for us, why are you complaining?
• why change a system we are profiting from (if everybody had a win-rate of around 50 % who would be the good ones then)

What I really despise is the elitist tone of some in this forum where the TX+ players are allowed to constantly insult players below their tier (I counted about 20 different swearwords in both languages) and the allowed use of inhuman phrases for dealing with less experienced players ("seal bashing" - German: Robben kloppen).

Constantly complaining about the inabilities of them while profiting most of this "Meta" in order to receive astronomical damage-, EXP-, FreeXP-, Elite-Captain- and other points, helping them to grind their desires. This was pointed out by you very correctly. 

 

So what is the point? I would wish and encourage a positive tone in this forum (I can only speak for the German and the English section, maybe the climate is more "southern" in the French, Italian, Polish or other language areas) which should not be focused on the perhaps 10 % top tier and the perhaps 20 % unteachable lower tier but on the sincere players in between, struggling to make their way through the tech trees AND have fun while playing with ships.

 

And please do not warm up the new speak about everybody having the same chance to win, even a TVIII vs a TX. Just read the "Which captain to use"-thread here and you will see that not in every TVI ship sits a captain of my caliber with perhaps 6 or maximum 8 skill points. Of course I can win more easily against a T+2 ship if my captain is a TXIX and my little Emile Bertin has built in everything possible from camos, flags, modules etc. laying around in my arsenal (compare the car market "it's only a VW Golf" or "it's only a Ford Fiesta").

 

Cheers

Norbert

[ImTryingButYouDontHelp]

14 hours ago, ObiWankov said:

That's called Clan Battles.

Let Randoms be just that, random.

 

Nope, we don't mind playing with random people if the potatos are equally distributed, because this has become a steamroll game and it's not fun anymore to many people. Not only not fun but extremly frustrating when playing alone, wich does most of the players. Just an example; you played only 16 battles alone from april 22nd, 48 two unicum players division, and 107 three unicum players division. Why don't you play alone more often?   I bet you don't have the same WR in the three cases (55% WR playing alone? 66% WR two players division? 76% three players division?). Not everybody can play divisions, and, of course, just a few can play along unicums. So, you are not representative at all.

[Saltface]

51 minutes ago, MZL_Makrele said:

why change a system we are profiting from (if everybody had a win-rate of around 50 % who would be the good ones then)

 

First of all, I am happy that a player with only 500 battles (like a month playing the game) is so well placed in identifying the reality of everything. Man, next step would be the unification of quantum and relativity theories. Congratulations. 

 

However, as much as I might be impressed and exhilarated by your insight and acute expression of the truth, I have to admit that your text looks as if an ape typed a random series of letters and by pure mathematical probability it turned out to be a text. Not a coherent text but a text nevertheless. 

 

Did you present any facts or data about how MM is correlated to WR? NO

Any data showing that MM is punitive for novice players? NO

Any data and facts at all? NO again

 

Actually you presented NOTHING to support ANY argument. Instead, you persistently and rudely characterized with a blanket comment ALL players that are better than you  as eltist stat padders. Good for you. 

 

EDIT because I pressed <enter> too fast LOL

 

What bothers me is that you seem to be advocating for a system that will result a 50% WR for all players. So, in my humble opinion, there is nothing of value in what you say because you start from a faulty premise that there should be an equality of outcome. 

 

And just to close this subject for now: If you are a bad player, even if you are +2 top tier, any good player will farm you till you populate Davis' locker. So, better stop thinking of everybody that achieves better results than you as an elitist and learn how to play the game.

 

I will add to this post also what I have found out. Bad players always complain about the game and call better players elitists. .

 

 

 

[ShinGetsu]

2 minutes ago, Miblogdegolf said:

Nope, we don't mind playing with random people if the potatos are equally distributed

It would make solo playing even worse. People really don't understand this.

 

One of the good things with random matchmaking is that you can get matched with good players too. And isn't it great when you can have those rare moments of actual teamplay or coordinated play with a random stranger ?

Ensuring potatoes are evenly distributed would mean I would have SYSTEMATICALLY potatoes in my team to compensate my "skill" (and I'm just above average) because the guy I COULD teamplay with is always on the opposite team. That means you'll have to fight constantly an uphill battle to make enough damage before your team collapses and drown in their abyssal gameplay.

[ImTryingButYouDontHelp]

7 minutes ago, ShinGetsu said:

It would make solo playing even worse. People really don't understand this.

 

One of the good things with random matchmaking is that you can get matched with good players too. And isn't it great when you can have those rare moments of actual teamplay or coordinated play with a random stranger ?

Ensuring potatoes are evenly distributed would mean I would have SYSTEMATICALLY potatoes in my team to compensate my "skill" (and I'm just above average) because the guy I COULD teamplay with is always on the opposite team. That means you'll have to fight constantly an uphill battle to make enough damage before your team collapses and drown in their abyssal gameplay.

I'm sorry, but, as I said, those "rare moments" don't compensate the big amount of frustration that gives the now big number of battles that end in a roflstomp (no matter who wins).

 

 

[MZL_Makrele]

Vor 6 Minuten, Saltface sagte:

Instead, you persistently and rudely characterized with a blanket comment ALL players that are better than you  as eltist stat padders.

Did you really read my text before your face and your neck turned red?

I never said that. But that too is a way how sincere discussions are tried to be turned into pseudo discussions. I said "some top tier" not "everybody above me". 

 

With regard to "facts" "data" and "support for arguments": this and all the other threads relating to this topic are full of them. Why say it all once more? And please read the last paragraph of my post. Maybe you did not get that far in reading before starting to type.

 

With regard to "only 500 battles": Why are there more than a thousand battles here in my profile? Because you decide not to count them? How about excluding the aloof comrades from random statistics and -winrates? Only count those, where they happen to be among themselves?

 

Cheers

Norbert

[ShinGetsu]

9 minutes ago, Miblogdegolf said:

I'm sorry, but, as I said, those "rare moments" don't compensate the big amount of frustration that gives the now big number of battles that end in a roflstomp (no matter who wins).

 

 

But what you're proposing will makes things even worse for solo players. Really. It just ensure you'll ALWAYS have to carry the potatoes and that you'll NEVER get teamed with player around your skill level.

[ImTryingButYouDontHelp]

2 minutes ago, ShinGetsu said:

But what you're proposing will makes things even worse for solo players. Really. It just ensure you'll ALWAYS have to carry the potatoes and that you'll NEVER get teamed with player around your skill level.

I don't think so. There are 12 players, that can be classified in three or four cathegories (pe: 45% WR and below, 46% to 55%, and 56% and above), what would give you players of + or -  the same gameplay level. They should try not to put all at the same team.

[BLUB__BLUB]

18 hours ago, Miblogdegolf said:

07:52 minutes battle. I had time for......nearly nothing. My team seemed like a plantation of liliacs at the matchmaking monitor, and the enemy team was like a plantation of lemon trees ready to harvest. Fun and engaging, working as intended.

 

16 hours ago, Furius_Marius said:

5 minutes battle. I was on a BB, and i was the one of the few that shot. Had time for 3 salvos before battle ended.  Cause everybody was hiding behind islands, and even like that some got killed. 

 

Damn I should have screenshotted the 3,5 minute RFOLSTOMP yesterday.

We win, mega 1500 damage from Zara, LOL. 

@Excavatus see we have no fun. 

 

21 minutes ago, ShinGetsu said:

It would make solo playing even worse. People really don't understand this.

 

One of the good things with random matchmaking is that you can get matched with good players too. And isn't it great when you can have those rare moments of actual teamplay or coordinated play with a random stranger ?

Ensuring potatoes are evenly distributed would mean I would have SYSTEMATICALLY potatoes in my team to compensate my "skill" (and I'm just above average) because the guy I COULD teamplay with is always on the opposite team. That means you'll have to fight constantly an uphill battle to make enough damage before your team collapses and drown in their abyssal gameplay.

Yes, if it gets matched totally even then indeed everybody is 50%WR in the end. 

It doesn't need to do it 100% though. Just count the total average WR, or DMG. 

Then shift a certain number of players. Higher tier = less players shifting.

Means T10 you get NO PLAYERS shifted. 

 

2 minutes ago, ShinGetsu said:

But what you're proposing will makes things even worse for solo players. Really. It just ensure you'll ALWAYS have to carry the potatoes and that you'll NEVER get teamed with player around your skill level.

No it will not. Say you'd get 3 unicums (75%) each side,  but one side has 9 potatoes (35%) and one side has 9 average (50%) players.

That means the better side a has +200%WR if all WR are added, over the other one. 

 

Some of these, lets say 3, will get shifted around until the average DMG or WR per side is a bit more equal. 

Yes you could shift all the unicums... in which case you'd play with 6 unicums + 6 potatoes. 

You'd have 6 equally skilled teammates instead of 3.