Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

[Floofz]

13 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Atleast for me, that doesnt work. I had no interest in playing sub-mode, after what ive heard from my clanmates. It was like a total shitshow, people yoloing left and right, not playing properly. How is that fun? How is it fun, getting slaughtered without counterplay because your team was eating that glue with a snowshovel.

If there is no teamplay in a teamgame, and everyone is playing their own [edited], its not fun (regardless of gamemode). The exception being, that i can be selfrelient so it wont matter, like the sprint 1v1. But thats something im not looking for in this game: Its a teamgame for me, not a 1v1. Ships arent balanced for 1v1s, as we could all see.

Thats why i only play divisions, atleast there is teamplay. The reason to play a PvP teamgame, is to win. But everyone thinks, its about "Damage/XP/Grinding/Missions" and THATS whats ruining this game. They dont care about winning, they only want they need to do, so they are literally working, not playing.

Sub mode had like 80% bots, so its hardly comparable. The early games with a lot of real players were not much different from random battles. Infact I think it had more teamplay than randoms

Where as I agree that the ideal mode would be cooperation to win, we both know that will never happen in random battles. Especially not on the EU server where a lot of players dont even speak the same language.

So yes, me aswell as you we play in divisions, to get that cooperation. But... having experience, being in a good clan with other good players and having access to good ships gives you a ridicolously high advantage over other players. That is why we can maintain an 80%+ WR. 

That is why I would like a mode that I can easely log in to and relax and play a few games when I feel like it, without having to wait for clanmembers to pop up on discord. But any mode that measures stats will automaticly put pressure on you, atleast if youre a competitive person.

I might be the only one to think this thou, and thats fine I guess. I however is hardly playing anymore, at all.

[ForlornSailor]

43 minutes ago, Floofz said:

Especially not on the EU server where a lot of players dont even speak the same [any] language.

 

FTFY.

 

44 minutes ago, Floofz said:

So yes, me aswell as you we play in divisions, to get that cooperation. But... having experience, being in a good clan with other good players and having access to good ships gives you a ridicolously high advantage over other players. That is why we can maintain an 80%+ WR.

 

This is true. However, the reason for that is only, that 80% of the playerbase is unwilling or incapable of any sort of basic teamplay. And you know that aswell. Else, we wouldnt need to play in division in the first place.

[Darkeid]

On 7/3/2020 at 2:04 PM, Excavatus said:

so let me ask to understand better.. 

When those 3 guys are in the enemy team... you want game to put more "BAD" players on their team, and more "GOOD" players on your team, 

and you call this balanced? fair? 

fair for whom? 

why those guys have to carry every team just because they are good players? 

Why do they have to get always bad players on their team? how fair it is for them? 

What would be ideal is "BAD" players equally distributed as well as "GOOD" players with an overall % ratio difference of -+ 3% in the teams

I cant answer to you / WG official employee? what to do exactly, all i know it is already not fair for the teams to be so imbalanced. One thing that can be suggested is that the teams should have more balance in terms of PR or WR. 

[Darkeid]

On 7/3/2020 at 2:45 PM, The_Reichtangle said:

How many games did you have where this was exactly the other way arround... This happens from time to time, and from experience this is one of 25 Games that was easier to carry. But if the TOP Player in EXPERIENCE on the Enemy team has 1200 base XP then there was more wrong in that match than TTT in the enemy team. A LOT MORE. And  i find it a bit appaling that there is now an example set where other people try to shame others instead of working on their own game.

 

 

Also everyone is beatable, even TTT....

You are saying that if i worked on my game and lets say had a 58% WR it would be possible to win in the exact same teams that i showed. Ofc i`m joking in saying this but take me to your dealer please. One player is not the problem in these matches , the team composition is. 

[ForlornSailor]

36 minutes ago, Darkeid said:

What would be ideal is "BAD" players equally distributed as well as "GOOD" players with an overall % ratio difference of -+ 3% in the teams

 

Disagree.

 

38 minutes ago, Darkeid said:

One thing that can be suggested is that the teams should have more balance in terms of PR or WR.

 

Also disagree.

 

Its called "Random game mode" for a reason. its random. It shall stay random. In clanwars you are matched according to your rating/league. There you find, what you are looking for. You shall be save of those guys you discredited with your earlier screenshots, since they are way above you. Problem solved.

[DFens_666]

1 hour ago, Darkeid said:

What would be ideal is "BAD" players equally distributed as well as "GOOD" players with an overall % ratio difference of -+ 3% in the teams

 

Theoratically what you propose is this, using myself as an example:

- Me (65%) and a 45% guy to balance it out

- enemies get 2 x 55% players

which results in equal WR (both 55%). I can basicly tell you, the 2 x 55% guys will win 100 out of 100. The 45% guy will pop like a bottle cap instantly, and the 55% will then kill me just by angling and right ammo choice.

 

The same can be said for an entire team, if you would have 3x 65% SU division on one team, the enemies get all the 50+% players, while the <50% WR guys go all in the SU division side. The problem is, the 50+ players actually participate in the battle, thus deserving their WR, while <50% players literally dont do anything. The only reason they have a WR, is because they cant lose every game, so they just win by default most of the time.

 

 

[Floofz]

1 hour ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Theoratically what you propose is this, using myself as an example:

- Me (65%) and a 45% guy to balance it out

- enemies get 2 x 55% players

which results in equal WR (both 55%). I can basicly tell you, the 2 x 55% guys will win 100 out of 100. The 45% guy will pop like a bottle cap instantly, and the 55% will then kill me just by angling and right ammo choice.

 

The same can be said for an entire team, if you would have 3x 65% SU division on one team, the enemies get all the 50+% players, while the <50% WR guys go all in the SU division side. The problem is, the 50+ players actually participate in the battle, thus deserving their WR, while <50% players literally dont do anything. The only reason they have a WR, is because they cant lose every game, so they just win by default most of the time.

 

 

 

Yes, at the start. But you would not have a 65% WR for very long would you? You would lose everything for a while until you get down to around 55%. My suggestion was to balance ship WR instead of players overall WR, it would also remove all those cursed ships that never wins no matter what you do.

It doesnt need to be perfect, but if there was a regard to distributing players somewhat equally in both teams it would atleast prevent the more obvious steamrolls.

[ForlornSailor]

15 minutes ago, Floofz said:

Yes, at the start. But you would not have a 65% WR for very long would you? You would lose everything for a while until you get down to around 55%.

 

In practice, this means, he would have to suffer 1000 losses in a row with absolute horrible teams of people with ~40% WR in his team to get from 65 to 55% Why would he do that? Who would keep playing through a 1000 game lose-streak? Especially when you know beforehand whats going to happen?

[DFens_666]

10 minutes ago, Floofz said:

Yes, at the start. But you would not have a 65% WR for very long would you? You would lose everything for a while until you get down to around 55%.

 

Which with my current random battle number would be 925 losses till i reach 55%... sounds like fun?

 

15 minutes ago, Floofz said:

My suggestion was to balance ship WR instead of players overall WR, it would also remove all those cursed ships that never wins no matter what you do.

Isnt the result the same, just depending what ships you play?

As long as i play ships with low WR, i could increase it, but if id play a ship with very high WR, i would basicly just lose? You could almost certainly tell when you will lose or win, especially with ships that have few battles played. The only way to have "random" teams would be, if there are enough people in the game who have very little games in their ship. (which, surprise, could result in horrible roflstomps aswell)

 

TBH, i dont see the point of artificially increasing/lowering WR. The result is, skill matters less on both ends. Instead of looking at ways, to make the game more "fun" (which i doubt - maybe for the slightly above average player it would be more fun, as he has permanently semi-competent teammates around him), we should focus on getting player skill up.Or absurdly bad players out of hightier, since they simply are incapable of performing. They can perform on T5-6 probably, but not on TX.

 

[snddim01]

32 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

.Or absurdly bad players out of hightier, since they simply are incapable of performing. They can perform on T5-6 probably, but not on TX.

 

I like this idea. 

 

I've been playing Iowa today. I averaged 77K damage (ship average is 58K), made 0.86 kills per game (ship average is 0.64) and won a grand total of 4 matches in 15. 

 

It's so incredibly frustrating when you've been playing for three hours solid, haven't won a single match and then look at matchmaking monitor just before going into battle again. And see that all four of your DDs have red stats and two of them have an average damage of 20K in a tier nine ship. 

 

I've never yet gone AFK and given up on a battle before it began, but by god I was tempted a few times today.  The gods of matchmaking really had it in for me. 

 

Setting some sort of basic stats barrier that has to be met on the preceding ship before you could research the next one would be a massive help. It would force people to learn if they wanted to progress up the tech tree. 

[Floofz]

1 hour ago, ForlornSailor said:

In practice, this means, he would have to suffer 1000 losses in a row with absolute horrible teams of people with ~40% WR in his team to get from 65 to 55% Why would he do that? Who would keep playing through a 1000 game lose-streak? Especially when you know beforehand whats going to happen?

 

59 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

Which with my current random battle number would be 925 losses till i reach 55%... sounds like fun?

 

That is why I said that. Also having a very inflated WR because of only playing in divisions will punish you no matter how you change the system.

I proposed it being balanced from ship WR and not overall WR.

 

1 hour ago, DFens_666 said:

Isnt the result the same, just depending what ships you play?

As long as i play ships with low WR, i could increase it, but if id play a ship with very high WR, i would basicly just lose? You could almost certainly tell when you will lose or win, especially with ships that have few battles played. The only way to have "random" teams would be, if there are enough people in the game who have very little games in their ship. (which, surprise, could result in horrible roflstomps aswell)

 

TBH, i dont see the point of artificially increasing/lowering WR. The result is, skill matters less on both ends. Instead of looking at ways, to make the game more "fun" (which i doubt - maybe for the slightly above average player it would be more fun, as he has permanently semi-competent teammates around him), we should focus on getting player skill up.Or absurdly bad players out of hightier, since they simply are incapable of performing. They can perform on T5-6 probably, but not on TX.

 

There would be much less battles before it starts to even out and you reach a more normal WR level. 65% is hard to match for the balance system because very few people have such high WR, keep in mind this will only get wonky until it evens out, and will not even be a factor on new ships or new players.

It also goes both ways. If you have ships like me that are apparently cursed, like my Iowa. I would have a much better chance of actualy winning in it

 

This way youll always fight against another player with equal skillevel to you. If you lose then you do not deserve said WR.

Its not really about artificially increasing or lowering WR, its about making battles more even and reduce the number of roflstomps.

 

Speaking of WR as it is now, its a mostly meaningless stat because its too easy to manipulate. The only thing you can safely say is that if a player is below 50% hes usually not a very good player.

You have a 65% WR, I have a 57% WR, are you a better player than me? Most likely not, I have a 2% higher WR solo than you do, youve just played WAY more in divisions that I have.

Infact Im pretty convinced that if you actualy wanted to I can keep an above 90% overall WR in 2-3k battles simply by playing very overperforming ships in the right setup in low tiers in a unicum division.

 

Im not saying its a perfect system, I just havent figured out a better one. I just know that what we have now is awful. I want to be able to enjoy playing the game alone when I get home from work, not being forced to wait for people to get on discord only to have a chance of affecting the outcome of the battle, to prevent not getting roflstomped game after game after game by inept teammates and a godmode enemy team

 

However, discussing it further is meaningless because WG has shown time and time again that they arent interested in fixing it because in their minds it isnt broken. Its much better to milk the playerbase until we all leave.

[ColonelPete]

11 minutes ago, Floofz said:

Speaking of WR as it is now, its a mostly meaningless stat because its too easy to manipulate. The only thing you can safely say is that if a player is below 50% hes usually not a very good player.

You have a 65% WR, I have a 57% WR, are you a better player than me? Most likely not, I have a 2% higher WR solo than you do, youve just played WAY more in divisions that I have.

Infact Im pretty convinced that if you actualy wanted to I can keep an above 90% overall WR in 2-3k battles simply by playing very overperforming ships in the right setup in low tiers in a unicum division.

That is why you look at solo WR.

And no, getting over 90% is not that easy. A few Super Unicums tried that, I know of only one account that succeeded with over 1000 battles and a lot of people participiated in that experiment.

[DFens_666]

12 minutes ago, Floofz said:

Speaking of WR as it is now, its a mostly meaningless stat because its too easy to manipulate. The only thing you can safely say is that if a player is below 50% hes usually not a very good player.

You have a 65% WR, I have a 57% WR, are you a better player than me? Most likely not, I have a 2% higher WR solo than you do, youve just played WAY more in divisions that I have. 

Infact Im pretty convinced that if you actualy wanted to I can keep an above 90% overall WR in 2-3k battles simply by playing very overperforming ships in the right setup in low tiers in a unicum division.

 

Well first of all, you can see T1 players statpadding 90% WR, those actually exist if you look at highest WR players on wows numbers. Noone would consider them good players. Funny side fact, i had one of them in ranked sprint few days ago, and i was like "how does that guy have 65% WR on his account" then i realized, that 80% of his games are T1 ships with >75% WR. And on T8, he wasnt able to do anything, he was just useless.

2nd, my solo stats are ~2,5 years old, i really only played solo for the first 1,5 years, and even then i already played in 2man divs. So if you feel better to compare to myself from back then, feel free to do so, just isnt really accurate

Spoiler

 

Here a more accurate version of my current skill level

 

 

[Excavatus]

20 hours ago, Darkeid said:

What would be ideal is "BAD" players equally distributed as well as "GOOD" players with an overall % ratio difference of -+ 3% in the teams

I cant answer to you / WG official employee? what to do exactly, all i know it is already not fair for the teams to be so imbalanced. One thing that can be suggested is that the teams should have more balance in terms of PR or WR. 

First of all, how many times It's been sid, I've already forgot but gonna tell this again, Moderators are not WG employees. 

We are regular players like others, just have some volunteered moderating duties in the forum. 

 

Anyway, thanks for the answer, 

so basically you want good players to be punished by being responsible to carry EVERY match they play, 

and bad players to be rewarded by getting carried.. So there won't be any incentive for them to git gud! 

Imagine the worse you get, the better players you get on your team :) 

Amazing!! 

 

And the opposite is true... the better you get, game will give you worse and worse players as team mates.. 

 

[deathsadow]

3 hours ago, Excavatus said:

First of all, how many times It's been sid, I've already forgot but gonna tell this again, Moderators are not WG employees. 

We are regular players like others, just have some volunteered moderating duties in the forum. 

 

Anyway, thanks for the answer, 

so basically you want good players to be punished by being responsible to carry EVERY match they play, 

and bad players to be rewarded by getting carried.. So there won't be any incentive for them to git gud! 

Imagine the worse you get, the better players you get on your team :) 

Amazing!! 

 

And the opposite is true... the better you get, game will give you worse and worse players as team mates.. 

 

That would be a silly idea :D

 

What i dont get is why WG just dont copy the MMR system of basically any decent pvp game....

 

i bet we wouldnt have constant 1sided games if the MM would put super unicum players on both side , and potatoes on both side too. The matches where 1 side has a 3 player super unicum division and the other one has a Tirpizt failplatoon are not even worth playing ... you know how will it end regardless of the effort you put into that game...

[DFens_666]

39 minutes ago, deathsadow said:

i bet we wouldnt have constant 1sided games if the MM would put super unicum players on both side , and potatoes on both side too. The matches where 1 side has a 3 player super unicum division and the other one has a Tirpizt failplatoon are not even worth playing ... you know how will it end regardless of the effort you put into that game...

 

So where do we take all these Unicum divisions to match them against each other? Is a T8 Unicum division the same as a TX div thrown in the same game? Clearly not.

While the idea sounds reasonable, it just wont work. The result is just, good players in a division are basicly unable to play any longer.

[ColonelPete]

42 minutes ago, deathsadow said:

What i dont get is why WG just dont copy the MMR system of basically any decent pvp game....

• other games do not have teams of 12 players, TruSkill™ needs 91 matches to calibrate for random 8 player teams
• other games do not have 10 Tiers over which the players are distributed
• in WoWs your Skill, your Tier and your ship influence the outcome of a match, where in other games it is only your Skill
• considering that, a system like TruSkill™ would need more than 120 matches per specific ship to work properly, in my case that would be 12 out of over 300 ships, and I play only 1 of the 12 regularly

[deathsadow]

17 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

• other games do not have teams of 12 players, TruSkill™ needs 91 matches to calibrate for random 8 player teams
• other games do not have 10 Tiers over which the players are distributed
• in WoWs your Skill, your Tier and your ship influence the outcome of a match, where in other games it is only your Skill
• considering that, a system like TruSkill™ would need more than 120 matches per specific ship to work properly, in my case that would be 12 out of over 300 ships, and I play only 1 of the 12 regularly

Well .. yeah you are right on that one ... + as i guess the 20.000ish playerbase we have on an avg afternoon is also too few for that. Guess we are bound to use this pretty flawed MM.

[deathsadow]

 

24 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

So where do we take all these Unicum divisions to match them against each other? Is a T8 Unicum division the same as a TX div thrown in the same game? Clearly not.

While the idea sounds reasonable, it just wont work. The result is just, good players in a division are basicly unable to play any longer.

Anways .. now that i checked what WG plan for the next Clan Battle season i dont think they care much about the good players at all. 

 

Also i bet the decent divisions who are not just statpadders would enjoy to go up against other decent divisions instead of farming the hell out of teams which are unable to fight back properly.  The game is good when is a close call , not when its a 1 sided steamroll ... I just speak for myself .. but yeah there might be players around who prefer 80% WR with 50% of the games being fun , instead of 50% WR with 80% of the games being fun

 

[Besserwisser3000]

Vor 5 Stunden, Excavatus sagte:

First of all, how many times It's been sid, I've already forgot but gonna tell this again, Moderators are not WG employees. 

We are regular players like others, just have some volunteered moderating duties in the forum. 

 

Anyway, thanks for the answer, 

so basically you want good players to be punished by being responsible to carry EVERY match they play, 

and bad players to be rewarded by getting carried.. So there won't be any incentive for them to git gud! 

Imagine the worse you get, the better players you get on your team :) 

Amazing!! 

 

And the opposite is true... the better you get, game will give you worse and worse players as team mates.. 

 

What are you even talking about? Is this a joke?

That`s already the case, you can deny it however much you want.

10 games today, 6 losses. Every [edited]game I have glue lickers on my team, e.g. a top tier Georgia that`s losing the game at 100% hp at the map border.

 

What do I need to do to break even? Buy more premium time? I got that already?

Should I chargeback?

 

Your MM is so rigged, it`s not even funny.

[ColonelPete]

13 minutes ago, Besserwisser3000 said:

What are you even talking about? Is this a joke?

That`s already the case, you can deny it however much you want.

...

Your MM is so rigged, it`s not even funny.

That is the reason you won more games in the last 21 days than you did on average?

[Sea_w0lf]

2 minutes ago, Besserwisser3000 said:

10 games today, 6 losses.

What do I need to do to break even? Buy more premium time? I got that already?

 

Your MM is so rigged, it`s not even funny.

You must be happy, one day i lost in row 17 battles.

I don't think that premium gives you luck, in this game you can lose more or less with premium or without, it doesn't matter. Correct me if i have mistake.

Its completely random mode, the current problem is the tier difference.

[Besserwisser3000]

Vor 17 Minuten, ColonelPete sagte:

That is the reason you won more games in the last 21 days than you did on average?

No. The reason for that is that I would have 70% solo WR if I only played the T-61.

And guess which ship I played quite a bit in order to FINALLY win some.

 

Is reading stats that hard?

[ColonelPete]

2 minutes ago, Besserwisser3000 said:

No. The reason for that is that I would have 70% solo WR if I only played the T-61.

And guess which ship I played quite a bit in order to FINALLY win some.

 

Is reading stats that hard?

That is not the only ship you played...

There are quite a few other ships you played better in.

 

And when you want a stat analysis, you need to hire someone.

[Excavatus]

1 hour ago, Besserwisser3000 said:

Your MM is so rigged, it`s not even funny.

rigged for what? 

to make specific players lose? 

Why those people though? 

why not others?