Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

[DFens_666]

8 hours ago, kraco said:

funny how i cant win with conq, every time when i play it on other side is a much better. Is it so hard to create rule of MM with PR numbers. Both teams should have balanced PR numbers but someone in WG

 

You basicly had the 2 best players available on your team... but that happens if you only go by the colour MMM presents you.

 

And you cant balance by PR because

- WG didnt invent PR

- PR is not accurate for every ship

 

But let me guess, that gam ended in a self-fulfilling prophecy?

[Leo_Apollo11]

Hi all,

 

30 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

You basicly had the 2 best players available on your team... but that happens if you only go by the colour MMM presents you.

 

The "Match Making Monitor" has option to "background color" according to overall WinRate (and not the actual selected in-game-ship rate which I think is the screenshoot made from) - I prefer it that way... it is so much better...

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

 

P.S.

Yours truly helped the author and gave him several ideas which he implemented...

[RamboCras]

I have a suggestion for a new MM rule:

 

You can't be matched up as a tier 8 to ridiculously OP ships like:

- Kremlin

- Petropavlovsk

- Stalingrad

- Smolensk

 

 

[DFens_666]

6 minutes ago, RamboCras said:

- Smolensk 

 

Being a T8 or T10 BB against Smolensk doesnt make any difference. Smolensk cant pen either, and fire damage is percentage based. So if you have 40k or 100k makes no difference, since a fire will take 18% either way.

And regarding fighting Smolensk, T8 BBs might actually be better suited for that, since they create less overpens than T10 BBs with their high caliber guns. >430mm shells wont arm under certain circumstances against it.

 

As for Cruisers, it depends if the Smolensk has IFHE or not. Only with IFHE can Smolensk pen Cruisers, but not T10 CA midsection.

[RamboCras]

5 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Being a T8 or T10 BB against Smolensk doesnt make any difference. Smolensk cant pen either, and fire damage is percentage based. So if you have 40k or 100k makes no difference, since a fire will take 18% either way.

And regarding fighting Smolensk, T8 BBs might actually be better suited for that, since they create less overpens than T10 BBs with their high caliber guns. >430mm shells wont arm under certain circumstances against it.

 

As for Cruisers, it depends if the Smolensk has IFHE or not. Only with IFHE can Smolensk pen Cruisers, but not T10 CA midsection.

 

Yes, and the Smolensk shoots 4 x 4 with 8,5% fire chance (one volley:16 x 8.5 = 136%). And that every 3.6 seconds.

 

Add the damage HE does on the superstructure and the conclusion is that a  Smolensk can melt a tier 8 BB in no time.

[ForlornSailor]

2 minutes ago, RamboCras said:

Yes, and the Smolensk shoots 4 x 4 with 8,5% fire chance (one volley:16 x 8.5 = 136%). And that every 3.6 seconds.

 

Yes, because your Battleship has 16 seperate sections that all can burn - and ofc Smolensk has an absolute hitrate of 100% no matter the skill of the player. And also the Smolensk will hit each of the 16 sections with exactly 1 shell to forfill your glorious match gymnastics. 

[DFens_666]

18 minutes ago, RamboCras said:

Yes, and the Smolensk shoots 4 x 4 with 8,5% fire chance (one volley:16 x 8.5 = 136%). And that every 3.6 seconds. 

 

Add the damage HE does on the superstructure and the conclusion is that a  Smolensk can melt a tier 8 BB in no time.

 

In reality, its roughly

~ 3,6% vs TX BBs or

~ 4,6% vs T8 BBs

assuming both are running full anti fire build. But that doesnt matter so much, since you can only burn at one place at the same time. Not to mention, you wont hit all shells anyway.

 

As for direct damage:
Ofc its true, that a T8 BB will die faster by direct damage, however, T8 BBs are also smaller than their T10 breathren. Just look at NC vs Montana or Tirpitz vs GK.

 

So you can expect less hits. Also they are more nimble, so they can dodge better.

[RamboCras]

On 8/20/2020 at 12:19 PM, DFens_666 said:

 

In reality, its roughly

~ 3,6% vs TX BBs or

~ 4,6% vs T8 BBs

assuming both are running full anti fire build. But that doesnt matter so much, since you can only burn at one place at the same time. Not to mention, you wont hit all shells anyway.

 

As for direct damage:
Ofc its true, that a T8 BB will die faster by direct damage, however, T8 BBs are also smaller than their T10 breathren. Just look at NC vs Montana or Tirpitz vs GK.

 

So you can expect less hits. Also they are more nimble, so they can dodge better.

I was in my Massa... running secondary build, not anti-fire. Even with the quick heals, I was gone faaaaaast!!! Trying to run (turn) gives broadside and you will be shelled more effectively by other ships so it is just a matter of taking it and die...

[ColonelPete]

20 minutes ago, RamboCras said:

I was in my Massa... running secondary build, not anti-fire. Even with the quick heals, I was gone faaaaaast!!! Trying to run (turn) gives broadside and you will be shelled more effectively by other ships so it is just a matter of taking it and die...

That is not caused by the Smollensk, but your overextension.

[ImTryingButYouDontHelp]

One can't help but congratulate the "clever" WoWs' people that run the MM, and also the ones that decided that (even it's sprint), you can make a two players division....in a three people team. Ofc, note the irony of my words. Incredible how obtuse you can be  Some examples (one of them has 18 points difference in WR between teams):

 

[ForlornSailor]

On 8/22/2020 at 9:28 PM, Miblogdegolf said:

One can't help but congratulate the "clever" WoWs' people that run the MM, and also the ones that decided that (even it's sprint), you can make a two players division....in a three people team. Ofc, note the irony of my words. Incredible how obtuse you can be  Some examples (one of them has 18 points difference in WR between teams):

 

So what are you expecting? those are all 2x divisons in your example. Ofc super unicums division with super unicums in 99% of the case, and potatos like to surround themself with other vegetables. Should the mm take the divisions appart and place those two on the opposite side of each other? And dont try to point the finger at the third guy andtry to tell me, that mm should "balance" the teams by placing a vegetable as a sidedish to the super unicums always while putting a lonley super unicum into a bowl of red veggies. Because that would need to happen each and every time then, thus totally screwing super unicums, that play alone, since they dont see anything else then deep red & clueless players in their team. Not to mention the tomato-front gets to be hard carried from super unicums each and every time.

 

But I have a solution for your problem: allow divisions of 3 in the next 3x3 ranked sprint. Yes, im actually serious, would be much better for everyone.

[hardkur911]

i got one simple question . would You mind waiting for match longer (even way longer lets say 5 minutes) if that lead to more balanced games ?

im honestly super tired of these broken matchmaking , games are not fun in 90% cases people swim around with no clue whats happening , win or loose team wipes when opponent loose 1 ship or none are not fun for me .

 

[Excavatus]

8 hours ago, hardkur911 said:

if that lead to more balanced games ?

skill based matchmaking will not result in more balanced and fun games.. 

It has been 7 years (including wot for me) and people still having a hard time to accept this fact... 

 

Reasons? 

 

1) High RNG

2) detonations

3) MOST IMPORTANT: NO RESPAWN MECHANIC

4) impossible to match skills because tooooo many variables (Ship type X ship tier - PR? WR? DmG?) 

5) no respawn mechanic

6) DCs

7) did I say No respawn mechanics? 

[ImTryingButYouDontHelp]

14 hours ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

So what are you expecting? those are all 2x divisons in your example. Ofc super unicums division with super unicums in 99% of the case, and potatos like to surround themself with other vegetables. Should the mm take the divisions appart and place those two on the opposite side of each other? And dont try to point the finger at the third guy andtry to tell me, that mm should "balance" the teams by placing a vegetable as a sidedish to the super unicums always while putting a lonley super unicum into a bowl of red veggies. Because that would need to happen each and every time then, thus totally screwing super unicums, that play alone, since they dont see anything else then deep red & clueless players in their team. Not to mention the tomato-front gets to be hard carried from super unicums each and every time.

 

But I have a solution for your problem: allow divisions of 3 in the next 3x3 ranked sprint. Yes, im actually serious, would be much better for everyone.

Of the four battles, there were only two divisions. And divisions wouldn't have been permitted in a 3 vs 3 ranked. 

 

2 hours ago, Excavatus said:

skill based matchmaking will not result in more balanced and fun games.. 

It has been 7 years (including wot for me) and people still having a hard time to accept this fact... 

 

Reasons? 

 

1) High RNG

2) detonations

3) MOST IMPORTANT: NO RESPAWN MECHANIC

4) impossible to match skills because tooooo many variables (Ship type X ship tier - PR? WR? DmG?) 

5) no respawn mechanic

6) DCs

7) did I say No respawn mechanics? 

 

¿High RNG?¿Detonation?¿impossible to match skill? (yeah, there aren't othe games using ELO MM system). Do you really think these are valid reasons to not implement a, p.e., PR ELO biased MM?  Incredible 

[Excavatus]

1 hour ago, Miblogdegolf said:

Of the four battles, there were only two divisions. And divisions wouldn't have been permitted in a 3 vs 3 ranked. 

 

 

¿High RNG?¿Detonation?¿impossible to match skill? (yeah, there aren't othe games using ELO MM system). Do you really think these are valid reasons to not implement a, p.e., PR ELO biased MM?  Incredible 

ok lets go in.. 

 

Show me a game with ELO system which covers the bases below... 

 

Show me a game where your shells don't go where you aim with a %25 variance, 

Show me a game where you explode with a random shell which only has a random chance to do that. 

Show me a game where you can play with wastly different guns, on types, on levels, on fire power, on playstyle..

 

let me give you an example.. 

 

What should MM considers when it makes a balanced team.. 

 

General WR? 

General PR? 

Class PR? 

Class WR? 

Tier WR? 

Tier PR? 

 

What? 

 

because I can give examples showing inconsistency for any of that.. 

 

Lets say, I play Moskva... 

 

My general WR: %57,91 PR: 1578

My Tier 10 WR: %58,25  PR: 1592

My Cruiser WR: %55,97  PR: 1506

My Moskva WR: %40,95 (105 battles) PR: 1106

or Let me play My Lexington, 
Same general PR and WR

 

Tier 8 WR: %60,97, PR: 1799
CV WR: %65,52, PR: 1927
LExy WR: %67.14, PR: 2262

How about helena? 

 

Tier 7 WR: %59,09 PR: 1600
Cruiser WR: %55,97 PR: 1506
Helena? WR: %72 PR: 2212

 

I'm not diving into the solo / division stats.. 

What do you think the MM should consider matching me into a game... 

 

Additionally, 
lets say a completely balanced game.. playerwise skillwise.. 

What happens when the best player on your team detonates with the first shell.. or just DCs.. 
or just makes a mistake and dies like a potato in the first 3 mins.. 

Where did your balance go now? 11v12? 
because he cannot come back into the game to restore the balance.. 

This is WHY NO RESPAWN is extremely important.. 

 

another point, 

With a SBMM you are forcing good players to carry more and more.. and bad players to be carried more and more.. 

You are taking the incentive from bad players to be better. The good you are, the bad players will be in your team that is %100... 

you cannot escape that.. 

So you will be actively punishing good players with bad teams just because they are good.. 

and you are rewarding bad players with good teammates just because they are bad... 

 

How fair does that sound to you? 

[Sunleader]

I would Suggest the Game to have 2 Gamemodes.

 

1.

Would be Skirmish Mode. Which is Basicly the Current Random Battles. However. No Statistics are Recorded and you get a 10% Bonus to the Team Shared Experience Gain. 

Where Casual Players basicly just Play for Fun without Pressure. Or where Good Players can go to Test out New Builds without Risking their Stats etc.

 

2.

Would be War Mode. Which is also the Current Random Battles. But where Statistics are Recorded and you get a 20% Bonus to the Exp you Earned by Personal Performance upon Victory. (And only upon Victory)

Thus being a Mode where Good Players can Play to get Better Rewards and where People are more likely to Aim for Victory.

 

 

This would likely Help much more than a Skill Based Matchmaking. Because this way the Players which just want to have some Casual Fun can go for the Skirmish Mode and have Fun. And will likely get more Exp there cause they wont be getting Exceptional Personal Performances in most cases anyways.

 

While the Competetive Players which want to have a Reward based on their Performance which often will be very Good. And which want to Win Battles and Play for Victory can Play in the War Mode where they will meet other Players with that Intention.

[Gnolfus]

I am genuinely wondering what it is about WoWs that attrack people that, in my sweaty gamer eyes, have massive cognitive impairs. Never in any other online team game, WoTs included, have I come across people with a substantial number of hours in the game displaying a level of incompetence so shocking it boggles the mind. I do not claim to be a great player, and that is not even what I am talking about, I am talking about the great deal of people lacking the absolute minimum level of ability, knowledge and frankly common sense/situational awareness I would expect someone to pick up after a few hours in any game. Nevermind randoms, you can get unlucky, enemy team can snowball, etc. But when queuing random operations (Killer Whale, which imo is one of the easier ones) in order to get some (theoretically) easy first win of the day multiplier stacks out of the way, my low expectations are routinely shattered time and again. It's a PvE mode, the enemies behave nearly identical every single game, sure you can mess up and take damage, but things like being unable to read a clock and move to point X on a map? Is it the older demographic? The lack of skill based MM?

[DFens_666]

36 minutes ago, Gnolfus said:

. It's a PvE mode, the enemies behave nearly identical every single game,

 

One of the worst things i remember in operations, was a Bayern actively staying OUTSIDE of his gun range. I asked him, why is he running away without the ability to shoot. Answer was "stfu, i play how i want" I wonder how thats actually PLAYING the game, guess there are some really special people out there, who think this is cruiseship-simulator - not a game with warships.

[hardkur911]

18 hours ago, Excavatus said:

skill based matchmaking will not result in more balanced and fun games.. 

It has been 7 years (including wot for me) and people still having a hard time to accept this fact... 

 

Reasons? 

 

1) High RNG

2) detonations

3) MOST IMPORTANT: NO RESPAWN MECHANIC

4) impossible to match skills because tooooo many variables (Ship type X ship tier - PR? WR? DmG?) 

5) no respawn mechanic

6) DCs

7) did I say No respawn mechanics? 

 

where i say skill based ????? why you people always get out of way to twist our words ??? at least customer support cares

[Excavatus]

3 hours ago, hardkur911 said:

where i say skill based ????? why you people always get out of way to twist our words ???

sorry then my mistake. 

Please tell me what did you mean by this? If not balancing teams according to the player skill level? 

 

On 8/25/2020 at 3:07 AM, hardkur911 said:

i got one simple question . would You mind waiting for match longer (even way longer lets say 5 minutes) if that lead to more balanced games ?

im honestly super tired of these broken matchmaking , games are not fun in 90% cases people swim around with no clue whats happening , win or loose team wipes when opponent loose 1 ship or none are not fun for me .

 

 

[hardkur911]

 

What i mean is game start as fast as possible , when 24 ships are available . i get it nobody like to wait , people have short attention spams etc etc . but what if u wait a bit longer , get more ships to choose teams from ? my question is would You accept longer time to wait if that lead to better games ?  also i think game make poor job balancing teams , i got a game where one team got all smoke ships other team got all radars . i cannot figure out why ? these ships are in same game , why not put them on both sides evenly ? i think working matchmaking is very important for multiplayer game , and it be nice if wargaming acknowledged there is a problem with it , i don't expect immediate change but as long as they think its not broken they not gonna fix it . And these is not only me , every time i turn on any streamer they got same experience , 90% of games is brain-dead team-wipes .

 

 

i got one other idea cuz root problem is that people develop skills to slow or not at all . what about adding to the game some exercise with small reward , for example go solo against 3 bots and tank 2m potential damage (to teach to not give broadsides) or 3 dds running circles in 3 caps and u try to stop them from taking them . dunno something simple that will show people basic mechanics that are often overlooked cuz nobody cares and they just like to shoot stuff . and u need give them something or they not gonna play it .

[britinmadrid]

9 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Riiight....

In other words: nobody can have fun.

 

That is clearly a superiror tactic to make a successful product. Wonder why not all companies do this

ColonelPete, I agree with what you type on this forum 95% of the time and disagree with BesseWisser3000 whom I do not know, but you are both dealing with absolutes.

 

You are obviously extremely knowledgeable about the game, but marketing is not and has never been based on statistics. Rather, its foundation is psychology which we can see in the 'pay-for-shortcut' mechanism in that we can exchange money for a quicker progression. There's no crime in that you might say as the company needs to make money to pay the staff to both maintain and develop the game. I'd agree with that but would counter with the arguments of F.O.M.O. (Fear of Missing Out), time-limited specials, windows-of-opportunity in the Premium Shop et cetera. It is an old and valid marketing tactic to place pressure on prospective clients to act now or lose out - the classic 'call-to-action' of the X% discount if you buy a twin-pack of coke before the weekend. I'm not saying it's bad as both the company benefit and the customer ... if s/he bags a good deal on something they wanted in any case.

 

However, 'older' customers such as myself are irrelevant to this game as I have already bought everything I want and it is difficult to motivate me to spring my cash for new content. Newer players, however, when presented with a frustrating obstacle and/or time-limited offer will be subjected to powerful psychological pressures to 'solve' that problem for what is a relatively modest payment. In short: taking away the fun in certain circumstances works depending on your tactical/strategic objectives. I studied statistics, psychology and marketing and I doff my cap to this company whilst patiently explaining to my young son exactly how people will be trying to manipulate him in the future.

 

Stupid WG is not.

[ColonelPete]

6 minutes ago, britinmadrid said:

I'd agree with that but would counter with the arguments of F.O.M.O. (Fear of Missing Out), time-limited specials, windows-of-opportunity in the Premium Shop et cetera. It is an old and valid marketing tactic to place pressure on prospective clients to act now or lose out - the classic 'call-to-action' of the X% discount if you buy a twin-pack of coke before the weekend. I'm not saying it's bad as both the company benefit and the customer ... if s/he bags a good deal on something they wanted in any case.

Which only works when the game is fun to you.

There are thousands of games out there, who use similar tactics. I do not play them. Some I played, I did not spend money on, since they were not that much fun to me.

 

9 minutes ago, britinmadrid said:

However, 'older' customers such as myself are irrelevant to this game as I have already bought everything I want and it is difficult to motivate me to spring my cash for new content.

I doubt that, otherwise WG would not need to implement new content all the time. They could live off the new customers.

I play this game over 5 years and do not own all the ships.

[britinmadrid]

1 minute ago, ColonelPete said:

Which only works when the game is fun to you.

There are thousands of games out there, who use similar tactics. I do not play them. Some I played, I did not spend money on, since they were not that much fun to me.

Completely correct! Balancing different wants and desires in a demographically-diverse client base is nigh on impossible, so you establish a meta culture and try to have the clients adapt to/understand/appreciate that. Hopefully, WG attracts sympathetic customers through well-crafted advertising.

 

1 minute ago, ColonelPete said:

I doubt that, otherwise WG would not need to implement new content all the time. They could live off the new customers.

I play this game over 5 years and do not own all the ships.

Wrong on your first point as the single most powerful marketing tool is the most uncontrollable: word-of-mouth. If there is a sizeable and vocal community of embittered ex-customers attacking you on viable channels (Reddit blah blah) this can significantly reduce your intake of new customers. Better to naturally exfoliate older customers than to alienate them and have them actively working against you.

 

Why would you own all the ships? Why would you wish to? In common with you I like some styles and not others. The great difficulty is to meld together several threads of playstyles into a stable product (World of Warcraft?). This is where I believe WG has acted precipitously and angered portions of its player base (CVs) and risks doing so in the near future (subs). They need to clearly and repetitively communicate to the player base the necessity and/or benefits of a particular course of action.

 

Frustrating obstacles to sell 'pay-for-shortcut' solutions is industry standard and will be forgotten in five minutes. Huge, ongoing internecine war between sections of the customers (ship mains, older/newer et cetera) will not be and risk damaging the business model.

 

You may well be happy. Others are not and whilst some of their objections are the laughable protestations of youngsters with unrealistic expectations, others are more deeply-rooted and reasonable.

[ColonelPete]

17 minutes ago, britinmadrid said:

Wrong on your first point as the single most powerful marketing tool is the most uncontrollable: word-of-mouth. If there is a sizeable and vocal community of embittered ex-customers attacking you on viable channels (Reddit blah blah) this can significantly reduce your intake of new customers. Better to naturally exfoliate older customers than to alienate them and have them actively working against you.

And that alone does not make them irrelevant.

Add their spending and they become quite important. Some are even whales who spend big regularly (Mulitple resets in the research bureau to get all the special ships there).