Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

[S7affy]

1 hour ago, ForlornSailor said:

doest something wrong - blames the system - gets shown, its his own fault - runs out of arguments - blames other people

*rinse and repeat*

Tell us more about all the people that are at fault when something went wrong in your life.

^ that defensive response^ lol

 

1 hour ago, S7affy said:

Increasing the MM to find +2 is a mechanic they use to increase the 'players in range' pool to allow an other wise smaller pool to find a match with less wait time. This isn't for fairness but to compensate for a region locked pool of players to find a match with less waiting time

I've continued the discussion. You did not.

*EDIT*

[ForlornSailor]

1 minute ago, S7affy said:

I've continued the discussion. You did not.

 

Because there is nothing to discuss. You are wrong, others are right. This time, its as easy as this.

[S7affy]

2 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

Because there is nothing to discuss. You are wrong, others are right. This time, its as easy as this.

This is a place for discussion is it not?
 

From Giorgio Machiavelli via the ticket system.

 

Hello S7affy ,

Thank you for coming back to us.

As a player I fully understand your request / suggestion, but as player support, we have no influence on the aspects, balance of game. For this reason, I highly recommend leaving your opinion on the Forum! The Forum, in fact, is ''constantly monitored by our moderators'', who collect feedback and send them to our development team!

The discussion will never be over until all those players (like me) that need to be heard - get heard.

[ForlornSailor]

3 minutes ago, S7affy said:

The discussion will never be over until all those players (like me) that need to be heard - get heard.

 

Yea we hear you load and clear "I want the matchmaker to be shoehorned so I can rig games in my favour. Any everyone who disagrees, I shall insult and call an Elitist"

 

Also I like how you complain, that you are not allowed to talk, yet you told me to "gtfo". intresting dude. I think you havent fully understood the concept of free speach.

[loppantorkel]

31 minutes ago, S7affy said:

It is not rigging the system to play with a fair 4-5 tier only match compared to playing with tier 7 as the only tier 4 & 5 ships in the match.

Of course it's rigging the MM. If you play tier 5, you have the chance or risk of meeting anything from tier 4-7. If you play tier 4, you'll meet tier 4-5. By your rules you could game the system by never risking meet tier 7 ships (and probably not tier 6 either) when playing tier 5 ships, because you'd div up with a tier 4. That's obviously something that would be a detriment to the game. I'm sure you'll understand this and that it's not reasonable to lobby for its implementation. If you want tier 4-5 MM, you div up in tier 4 ships.

[S7affy]

1 hour ago, ForlornSailor said:

Yea we hear you load and clear "I want the matchmaker to be shoehorned so I can rig games in my favour. Any everyone who disagrees, I shall insult and call an Elitist"

 

Also I like how you complain, that you are not allowed to talk, yet you told me to "gtfo". intresting dude. I think you havent fully understood the concept of free speach.

^Still defensive^
Zero contribution to the discussion. Sigh.

#elitism was used more about the way the game is geared and the overly defensive players that defend a broken MM system, more than it was a 'personal' stab at you. 
I'm not here to defend myself just because you've ran out constructive criticism, yourself.
Please stick to the subject or *EDIT* and leave the discussion to those that are willing to stick to the subject at hand.

 

[S7affy]

14 minutes ago, loppantorkel said:

Of course it's rigging the MM. If you play tier 5, you have the chance or risk of meeting anything from tier 4-7. If you play tier 4, you'll meet tier 4-5. By your rules you could game the system by never risking meet tier 7 ships (and probably not tier 6 either) when playing tier 5 ships, because you'd div up with a tier 4. That's obviously something that would be a detriment to the game. I'm sure you'll understand this and that it's not reasonable to lobby for its implementation. If you want tier 4-5 MM, you div up in tier 4 ships.

Thank you for continuing the discussion.
a +1MM is fine, Tier 4-6 MM with a tier 4-5 division is workable but at +2 a tier 4-5 division will meet tier 7 & being the tier 4 carrier myself doesn't mean I'm trying to rig the game, does it. The division MM system ensure's 3 players max per division (discussing random MM here). How can you say it is rigging the system if it mirrors the MM to have the same tier for each team.
Again, my problem is the +2 MM at any level is just unfair to the lowest tier players on both teams within the match.

[ForlornSailor]

Just now, S7affy said:

Zero contribution to the discussion. Sigh.

 

If you would actually care to read the discussion, you would have found ALL the answers to your problem and there was no need to post ANYof that - including your first post. Among others, I myself have explained the reasons behind it several times. But no, you just stomp in the room (forum/this topic), pretend there didnt exist any life here before you graced us with your existance and start shouting as if this is an echo chamber. And once again, blame others for your personal shortcoming. This is really developing a pattern here and it doesnt look good for you.

Thats why:

3 minutes ago, S7affy said:

Please stick to the subject or 'GTFO' and leave the discussion to those that are willing to stick to the subject at hand.

 

this is another huuuge fail. Read - the - topic! Instead of shouting stuff that has been discussed thousand of times. YOU literally are the one that doesnt follow the discussion.

 

 

 

[ColonelPete]

3 minutes ago, S7affy said:

Thank you for continuing the discussion.
a +1MM is fine, Tier 4-6 MM with a tier 4-5 division is workable but at +2 a tier 4-5 division will meet tier 7 & being the tier 4 carrier myself doesn't mean I'm trying to rig the game, does it. The division MM system ensure's 3 players max per division (discussing random MM here). How can you say it is rigging the system if it mirrors the MM to have the same tier for each team.
Again, my problem is the +2 MM at any level is just unfair to the lowest tier players on both teams within the match.

Then do not put a Tier IV carrier into a Tier V division, problem solved.

How hard is it to find a common Tier where all division members can play in? Are these really teammates when you cannot find a solution that works for all?

[S7affy]

Reading 120 pages of this forum is not how I 'voice' my own complaint/concerns. I'm not looking for a quick fix to the problem I'm looking to get my voice heard to help new players in the future have & enjoy a fairer MM system for everyone at all levels not just tier 4's.

[S7affy]

12 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

this is another huuuge fail. Read - the - topic! Instead of shouting stuff that has been discussed thousand of times. YOU literally are the one that doesnt follow the discussion.

Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

I'm on point, are you?

[Thracen]

17 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

Does not change the possible results.

No it doesn't but how likely something is matters, I could have been detonated by a single dd shell but it is unlikely. I find you misunderstand this surprising?

[ForlornSailor]

16 minutes ago, S7affy said:

Reading 120 pages of this forum is not how I 'voice' my own complaint/concerns. I'm not looking for a quick fix to the problem I'm looking to get my voice heard to help new players in the future have & enjoy a fairer MM system for everyone at all levels not just tier 4's.

 

11 minutes ago, S7affy said:

I'm on point, are you? 

 

On top of that you dont even care that @ColonelPete and @loppantorkel explained to you in detail where your logic fells of the train. Whats your point? Why you keep on going? You are wrong, your ideas are bad, they do not fit the game, nobody, that understands how any of this works, is in favour of them. At what point are you going to accept, that YOU made the mistake, YOU are to blame and that YOUR idea is actually open the gates for match rigging - unline now, where the system in place prevents and even punishes attemps of getting a favourable matchmaking.

[_Teob_]

Please keep things civil.

 

If there are disagreements you can still be polite about it.

[S7affy]

2 minutes ago, _Teob_ said:

Please keep things civil.

 

If there are disagreements you can still be polite about it.

Thank you.

[_Teob_]

Just now, S7affy said:

Thank you.

I meant you as well. 

[S7affy]

1 minute ago, _Teob_ said:

I meant you as well. 

I apologize for the use of GTFO, I  just wanted the discussion to stay on topic. I have nothing else to apologize for.

 

[GarrusBrutus]

2 hours ago, S7affy said:

Increasing the MM to find +2 is a mechanic they use to increase the 'players in range' pool to allow an other wise smaller pool to find a match with less wait time. This isn't for fairness but to compensate for a region locked pool of players to find a match with less waiting time. There is a problem with the system but to many people are happy to ignore it. I'm going to assume it is because you are all to high a tier to care & it's likely that in that it is 'rigged' in your favor because of it. #elitism

I play tier five as well. Against tier 7 as well. Yet I am not complaining about it. 

Because it's fair. And it doesn't happen all the time. 

Also I never meet +3 tier ships because I play by the rules set by the game. Aka don't make a fail div as many here have already explained to you. 

 

I see you make use of the word "fair" quite a lot but I think you misinterpret it's meaning in this case. If you'd be the only tier 5 on your team versus a team without tier 5's then yes it would be unfair. But the game is fair when both sides have a equal number of ships from each tier. This can mean eleven TX's and one T8 on each team. In this instance the sole T8 on each team would probably feel like they got trolled by matchmaking. This instance is also highly unlikely. But it still is fair. 

 

Besides this: - 2+2 mm gives room for more variation in team lineups. So I wouldn't want to change it because it would make the game less exciting. 

[159Hunter]

3 hours ago, S7affy said:

Reading 120 pages of this forum is not how I 'voice' my own complaint/concerns. I'm not looking for a quick fix to the problem I'm looking to get my voice heard to help new players in the future have & enjoy a fairer MM system for everyone at all levels not just tier 

You must be new here. WG allows these topics. End of story

[RenamedUser_556458253]

Hello to l..er developers

Have you played your game?

What chaos is that with the match making and the f....ng cvs? every time that those sh..tty cvs are in the game lemming training is on the way and if someone tries something else those cv lo...s that plays cv go to him or her and dies. your s...ty aa doesn't work only if the hole team is there otherwise you are dead.

I dont give a s..it about your answers i simple want to write it here , of course you dont give a s..t to fix something but who cares.

For the moderators i dont give even a siiit if you ban me from the forum

 

good luck to the playes

[Floofz]

On 6/25/2020 at 12:15 AM, GarrusBrutus said:

No mate, youre so deep into confirmation bias... The reason we have roflstomps is because there is no respawn mechanic in wows, so an early death creates a snowball effect that is very hard to stop.

Lets hypothetically have two teams that both consist of 50% potatoes and 50% unicums, and one team loses some of its potatoes in the opening minutes. The remaining unicums, despite being unicums, cant make up the sudden difference in HP pool + dmg output and get obliterated. Its still a roflstomp despite having perfect matched teams.

Its the ever increasing skill disparity between individual players that causes more and more short and one sided games.

 

There was no respawn mechanic 2 years ago either and the game was not nearly as roflstompy.

Warthunder has respawns and they also has a lot of roflstomps, not nearly as much as this but still.

 

I do not believe in the snowball effect, not in a game like this. In certain games yes, maybe even in ranked with fewer players, MAYBE. But in randoms with 12 players on each team? Na. I used to see teams that were under with 4 ships pull it back and win despite that. If the snowball effect was such a strong presence in games then that feat would be impossible.

If I can oneshot an enemy ship sailing full broadside without losing a single hitpoint, or devstrike an enemy DD with a torpedo in a smokecloud then one early death will have very little snowball effect. A snowball effect would only be a real issue if everyone had the same dpm and the same healthpoints, everyone took the same percentage of hp off an enemy ship per salvo, despite angles. Then youd see a snowball effect.

[DFens_666]

34 minutes ago, Floofz said:

There was no respawn mechanic 2 years ago either and the game was not nearly as roflstompy.

Warthunder has respawns and they also has a lot of roflstomps, not nearly as much as this but still.

 

I do not believe in the snowball effect, not in a game like this. In certain games yes, maybe even in ranked with fewer players, MAYBE. But in randoms with 12 players on each team? Na. I used to see teams that were under with 4 ships pull it back and win despite that. If the snowball effect was such a strong presence in games then that feat would be impossible.

If I can oneshot an enemy ship sailing full broadside without losing a single hitpoint, or devstrike an enemy DD with a torpedo in a smokecloud then one early death will have very little snowball effect. A snowball effect would only be a real issue if everyone had the same dpm and the same healthpoints, everyone took the same percentage of hp off an enemy ship per salvo, despite angles. Then youd see a snowball effect.

 

I can only descibe it like, more and more people are actively not playing the game. If you have those in your team, or too many yoloers, its gonna be a roflstomp. Yesterday in Bourgogne game, i had a Zao pretty much not shooting. I was fighting a Moskva within each others spotting range, the Zao ran circles around me without shooting it. Later I watched the Zao again, not shooting ships in range. He was in no danger, yet he did nothing.

 

 

You see where he ended.... Interesting fact, the Gearing had 3k damage. So, you pretty much know what the Zao did? What happens if he doesnt have good players in his team who actually can fight? I guess its 1 more piece to roflstomping.

Also, a lot of wins from my perspective look like roflstomps, because in a 3man division, where you deal a lot of damage, pressure the enemies and draw fire, you wont lose many ships (unless your team still suicides). Its hard to call those roflstomps imo, even if you only lost 4 ships or so.

 

Like this, took 13 mins to win. Looks pretty much like a stomp, but atleast for me didnt feel like it. I heavily capitalized on the enemy giving me central position to move and i just charged in. Even more interestingly, a lot of ships were near dead on my team, but that doesnt show ofc.

Id say roflstomps are those games, where both teams still have many ships alive, and despite that it ended in 5-8 minutes or so.

[ForlornSailor]

44 minutes ago, Floofz said:

I do not believe in the snowball effect, not in a game like this. In certain games yes, maybe even in ranked with fewer players, MAYBE. But in randoms with 12 players on each team? Na. I used to see teams that were under with 4 ships pull it back and win despite that. If the snowball effect was such a strong presence in games then that feat would be impossible. 

If I can oneshot an enemy ship sailing full broadside without losing a single hitpoint, or devstrike an enemy DD with a torpedo in a smokecloud then one early death will have very little snowball effect. A snowball effect would only be a real issue if everyone had the same dpm and the same healthpoints, everyone took the same percentage of hp off an enemy ship per salvo, despite angles. Then youd see a snowball effect.

 

What you decribe, are counters to the snowball effect. It still exists, because its logical. More ships vs less ships means the few ships are under a heavier pressure. Thats like part of the very defintion of the snowball effect. Now as you mention: this is not liniar. Its not like every hit deals the same amount of damage, then we would ofc have a real, unstoppable snowball effect. But since we are actually capable of turning the tides, even if heavily against us, isnt that proof of game balance? So my stand is: ofc there is a snowball effect but the games gives you tools / has mechanics, thats allows you to turn the tide. In that sense, imo, the game is perfect. The team, that does some work, takes the advantage on kills/caps, is favoured but its by no means a secured win. The few guys left standing might be skilled enough to turn the game. Im actually happy with the balance in that category, wouldnt want it any other way - in both directions.

[Floofz]

1 hour ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

What you decribe, are counters to the snowball effect. It still exists, because its logical. More ships vs less ships means the few ships are under a heavier pressure. Thats like part of the very defintion of the snowball effect. Now as you mention: this is not liniar. Its not like every hit deals the same amount of damage, then we would ofc have a real, unstoppable snowball effect. But since we are actually capable of turning the tides, even if heavily against us, isnt that proof of game balance? So my stand is: ofc there is a snowball effect but the games gives you tools / has mechanics, thats allows you to turn the tide. In that sense, imo, the game is perfect. The team, that does some work, takes the advantage on kills/caps, is favoured but its by no means a secured win. The few guys left standing might be skilled enough to turn the game. Im actually happy with the balance in that category, wouldnt want it any other way - in both directions.

 

I have never denied that the game is balanced. Gameplay wise and on a ship to ship basis I think this game is very balanced. The problem is with the matchmaker, on a player skill level. The problem itself is that the matchmaker for whatever reason seem to put most of the good players in the same team. That is what causes the roflstomps, nothing else.

You know this is very easy to prove. Just run a WR mod when you end up in a roflstomp, look at the difference in overall WR between both teams.

[GarrusBrutus]

2 hours ago, Floofz said:

There was no respawn mechanic 2 years ago either and the game was not nearly as roflstompy.

Says who? You? You can read threads on this forum from two years ago complaining about rofl stomps. You can read threads from three years ago about the same issue. Rofl stomps are part of the game, because of the way it is designed. 

 

2 hours ago, Floofz said:

Warthunder has respawns and they also has a lot of roflstomps, not nearly as much as this but still.

And call of duty/battlefield/league of legends/etc. Etc. All have rofl stomps. That is not the point. 

 

The point is: in world of warships its hard to come back from behind unless those in front make capital mistakes, such as pushing into the remaining ships one by one. 

 

2 hours ago, Floofz said:

I do not believe in the snowball effect, not in a game like this. In certain games yes, maybe even in ranked with fewer players, MAYBE. But in randoms with 12 players on each team? Na.

Then how do you call it when you lose in 6 minutes after your three DDs all died in the first two minutes? You can watch replays of stomps. It often starts with the misplay of one or two players. Those mistakes are the start of other players being forced into unfavorable situations, weakening their input in the game, weakening the team even further. F. E. If the only DD on one flank dies, the cruisers and bbs have no vision, so they can't deal dmg. Then they start running, give up map control and that leads to the other flank getting shot in the side. 

2 hours ago, Floofz said:

I used to see teams that were under with 4 ships pull it back and win despite that. If the snowball effect was such a strong presence in games then that feat would be impossible

Outliers. This happens maybe in 5% of those situations because the team that has the lead f***s up. The other 95% the team that is four ships behind loses. 

2 hours ago, Floofz said:

A snowball effect would only be a real issue if everyone had the same dpm and the same healthpoints, everyone took the same percentage of hp off an enemy ship per salvo, despite angles. Then youd see a snowball effect.

Again, watch some replays and see how a single mistake can cost a whole team their match. I frankly don't care what you "belief" because it's not a matter of believing. This isn't some religion. This is about statistics and match analysis.