Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

[DFens_666]

11 minutes ago, Greek_Patriot said:

And you wont cause you already have 151 pages to read the suggestions the players made including my own.

 

Because things that wont work clearly are solutions

If they dont have bread "let them eat cake" ...

[Greek_Patriot]

16 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

You have made no suggestions. All you do is complain.

Look harder.

[Greek_Patriot]

14 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Because things that wont work clearly are solutions

If they dont have bread "let them eat cake" ...

How do you know that the suggestions made by hundreds of players wont work? The answer is you dont.

[DFens_666]

13 minutes ago, Greek_Patriot said:

How do you know that the suggestions made by hundreds of players wont work? The answer is you dont.

 

If they dont understand math, its not my problem.

99% of the suggestions will defeat themselves over time. Its "hidden" several times over the last 151 pages. Wait, its 152 now.

The last 1% is just screwing over good players to give bad players a better WR - and im allowed to be against such proposals.

[Greek_Patriot]

SO you are allowed to be against something that will probably improve the game cause you will start losing more? Is that what you say?

[GarrusBrutus]

22 minutes ago, Greek_Patriot said:

SO you are allowed to be against something that will probably improve the game cause you will start losing more? Is that what you say?

What will probably improve the game? 

Skill-based matchmaking? - this topic has been discussed about a hundred times before. There are plenty of reasons why it will not work in WoWs. 

 

Tldr: 1) no respawn mechanic, 2) playerbase too small, 3) too easy to rig such a system with f.e. Smurf accounts, 4) most players in this game don't care about their performance, they just want to sail and shoot, 5) game is too heavily based on RNG. 

 

Also, what I do not understand: let's assume we are all groupie acolytes paid by WG and wargaming is the company you make it out to be. Why are you still playing this game? I for instance wouldn't want to play such a game. 

[Greek_Patriot]

12 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

What will probably improve the game? 

Skill-based matchmaking? - this topic has been discussed about a hundred times before. There are plenty of reasons why it will not work in WoWs. 

 

Tldr: 1) no respawn mechanic, 2) playerbase too small, 3) too easy to rig such a system with f.e. Smurf accounts, 4) most players in this game don't care about their performance, they just want to sail and shoot, 5) game is too heavily based on RNG. 

 

Also, what I do not understand: let's assume we are all groupie acolytes paid by WG and wargaming is the company you make it out to be. Why are you still playing this game? I for instance wouldn't want to play such a game. 

If they wanted to fix the mm they would have found a way to do it all this time that wasnt based on skill-based mm or something else that would be easily rigged.. OR at least they would have tried to. The problem is that they dont even realize that the MM is a total crap even if hundreds of players tells them that it is. Playerbase isnt that small, rigging is something that can be dealt, players that dont care about their performance already play the game doing the same thing, and rng is something that is wrong, it was pointed out years ago and could change is they wanted to. And to answer i dont play anymore. Maybe 2-3 battles a week. And the reason is the crap MM.

[GarrusBrutus]

3 minutes ago, Greek_Patriot said:

The problem is that they dont even realize that the MM is a total crap even in hundreds of players tells them.

Let's say you're wargaming CEO. Would you change the way the matchmaking works when you see your game is growing and making more money than ever? I wouldn't. Even when hundreds complain. Apparently thousands of others enjoy it and play it. 

6 minutes ago, Greek_Patriot said:

and rng is something that is wrong, it was pointed out a years ago and could change is they wanted to.

Without RNG I would have a kraken each game. The better players would walk all over the lesser players. RNG makes sure even the worst of the playerbase can have epic moments to keep them addicted to this game. Everyone loves to have that one Salvo that deletes an enemy from 100 to 0. RNG is what makes this game, even when we hate it most of the time. 

 

[Greek_Patriot]

13 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Let's say you're wargaming CEO. Would you change the way the matchmaking works when you see your game is growing and making more money than ever? I wouldn't. Even when hundreds complain. Apparently thousands of others enjoy it and play it. 

Without RNG I would have a kraken each game. The better players would walk all over the lesser players. RNG makes sure even the worst of the playerbase can have epic moments to keep them addicted to this game. Everyone loves to have that one Salvo that deletes an enemy from 100 to 0. RNG is what makes this game, even when we hate it most of the time. 

 

Im not WG CEO so i dont give a crap about the money. Neither should you. Im speaking as a player. And in case you havent noticed the angry players are thousands now and keep growing because they dont enjoy the game any more. RNG is a help to the idiots with no skill players to continue playing the game (and paying) and not quiting like they should. NOTHING MORE! They keep sailing in battles like fools and the only reason they play the game is cause they dont die like the idiots they are exactly cause of the RNGod that helps them survive. Thats is the main reason they quit other similar games even if they are more addictive, with better mechanics and graphics. I'll avoid telling what that is.

[DFens_666]

1 hour ago, Greek_Patriot said:

SO you are allowed to be against something that will probably improve the game cause you will start losing more? Is that what you say?

 

How will the game be better, if 44% players now might have 49% WR? Its still the same player dragging you down, only it "looks better" now.

Its like the one guy who proposed a "solution" to which i calculated i would pretty much lose 1000 battles in a row, because thats what he was saying. Yeah id just not play anymore?

 

The solution for better MM are better players, which eventually would also mean i would win less than currently. But that would be ok. Not artificially nerfing good players, which might actually dont do anything.

[Darkeid]

I couldnt believe it when i read it @159Hunter, then i saw the reactions of 2 out of the 4 nonWG employees that are resident in this thread to your post.

Lets take this match for example:

 

Pls take a few seconds and compare average damages, total battles played , account WRs and PR's . From your point of view, if, lets say the blue coloured 1883 PR rating from the tragically weaker team reaches this forum and says "These teams are so imbalanced and the loss was expected" its a problem with his attitude?????? And not that the MM system placed i.e. 7 below average players on his team?

Wow man. How hard is it to accept that the existing MM system needs improvement and as is, at a very rough estimate 4 out of 10 matches have predetermined outcomes. 
 

[159Hunter]

8 hours ago, Darkeid said:

Pls take a few seconds and compare average damages, total battles played , account WRs and PR's . From your point of view, if, lets say the blue coloured 1883 PR rating from the tragically weaker team reaches this forum and says "These teams are so imbalanced and the loss was expected" its a problem with his attitude?????? And not that the MM system placed i.e. 7 below average players on his team?

That's random MM for you. You'll be matched up with good and bad players. 

And yes, it is an attitude problem. All we see in this topic is people complaining about how they lose games due to MM.

Never due to their own mistakes, or the mistake of another player. Or the great play by an enemy player. No, it's always the problem of MM.

That is an attitude problem.

8 hours ago, Darkeid said:

Wow man. How hard is it to accept that the existing MM system needs improvement and as is, at a very rough estimate 4 out of 10 matches have predetermined outcomes. 

You are only half correct, if I remember @Excavatus' numbers correctly: 4/10 are almost a guaranteed loss, 3/10 almost a guaranteed win.

So you have 3/10 games to influence yourself.

And if is like that; why is that a problemt? We can't all have 50% WR, that's just not possible as that would mean that everybody has the same skill.

 

All people complaining: I have yet to see one solution that would FIX the so called MM problem.

So far, the only fix I can come up with is learn people how to play. If everybody knew how to play (even just the basics) than we'd have a lot less landslide victories / losses.

 

[Greek_Patriot]

4 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

That's random MM for you. You'll be matched up with good and bad players. 

And yes, it is an attitude problem. All we see in this topic is people complaining about how they lose games due to MM.

Never due to their own mistakes, or the mistake of another player. Or the great play by an enemy player. No, it's always the problem of MM.

That is an attitude problem.

You are only half correct, if I remember @Excavatus' numbers correctly: 4/10 are almost a guaranteed loss, 3/10 almost a guaranteed win.

So you have 3/10 games to influence yourself.

And if is like that; why is that a problemt? We can't all have 50% WR, that's just not possible as that would mean that everybody has the same skill.

 

All people complaining: I have yet to see one solution that would FIX the so called MM problem.

So far, the only fix I can come up with is learn people how to play. If everybody knew how to play (even just the basics) than we'd have a lot less landslide victories / losses.

 

So according to the numbers you just gave -and lets say they are true- 3/10 are the games are determined by the skill of the player and that is something that even if it was true you would be fine with it. Your words not mine. Right? So 30% of the games can be won or lost by your play and the rest 70% is already decided. Then if 70% is already decided what is the point for a player to try and learn how to play if his is going to lose or win no matter how he plays? Isnt that something that needs to change? Why the f would you even bother to try and improve just to benenif from a lousy 30%?? Unless for some the 4/10 games that is a certain loss isnt 4/10 at all but much less and they dont want it to change so that they will keep on winning even if they dont deserve it. As for the attitude. What you are actually say is: "Lose but keep your mouth shut to whatever crap you see". As for suggestion. I've said it again and i'll say it again. Lets see what would happen if the MM was determined on lets say the WR of SOLO games only (and lets say it had a minimum of 2k solo battles). Believe me when i tell you that many of the high WR players that think themselves as "skilled" would make us laugh with their play.

[ForlornSailor]

35 minutes ago, Greek_Patriot said:

o according to the numbers you just gave -and lets say they are true- 3/10 are the games are determined by the skill of the player and that is something that even if it was true you would be fine with it. Your words not mine. Right? So 30% of the games can be won or lost by your play and the rest 70% is already decided. Then if 70% is already decided what is the point for a player to try and learn how to play if his is going to lose or win no matter how he plays?

 

LOL and you think by rigging every match, YOU could have an impact on 100% of the games and win them. Summer is over my child. Winter is coming.

 

36 minutes ago, Greek_Patriot said:

Isnt that something that needs to change?

 

Go play a single-player game. that offers what you are looking for. There you can influence 100% of the game and can only blame yourself once you lose.

 

36 minutes ago, Greek_Patriot said:

What you are actually say is: "Lose but keep your mouth shut to whatever crap you see".

 

Nice putting words in his mouth that he never used. You must be fun at parties.

 

37 minutes ago, Greek_Patriot said:

Believe me when i tell you that many of the high WR players that think themselves as "skilled" would make us laugh with their play.

 

I already saw how you play XD and then whine :D

[DFens_666]

27 minutes ago, Greek_Patriot said:

So according to the numbers you just gave -and lets say they are true- 3/10 are the games are determined by the skill of the player and that is something that even if it was true you would be fine with it. Your words not mine. Right? So 30% of the games can be won or lost by your play and the rest 70% is already decided. Then if 70% is already decided what is the point for a player to try and learn how to play if his is going to lose or win no matter how he plays? Isnt that something that needs to change? Why the f would you even bother to try and improve just to benenif from a lousy 30%??

 

Why should 1 person out of 12 (or 24 if you want) have more influence than 3 out of 10 games? Btw i would say is 6 games are win/loss, and 4 games can be decided by ones own actions, so 4 out of 10 games.

The way people "suggest" to change MM, this actually changes to 0 out of 10 games. What some people suggested is, to get better players if you are a bad player, and vice versa. So if i play bad, i get good players to carry me, thus i win more regardless of how i play. Same for good players, only they lose more because they get dragged down by bad players and again, it doesnt matter what they do, they still lose.

 

Look at this ranked game i just played

 

I expected it to be a loss from the get go, but actually i managed to turn it around. We were down 2 ships right away, and an AFK smolensk for a few mins aswell.

Through damage and tanking, it actually became a 2vs1 for our side, with a Repu and a Shima vs 1 Repu... Well, the Shima (28% WR in randoms btw) decided, its smart to sit at an island so Repu (a 43% player= can rush him from behind and kill him, without the Shima being able to torp him. Meanwhile, our Repu ran away behind an island to not even spot for the shima.

Both teams could have won, and we actually won already. But because my Shima has less brains than a dried slice of bread, we lost.

 

From a mate i saw a game yesterday, where they had already lost, it was 1BB/DD vs 2 BBs, and the former were leading by points. 40 secs before the game ended, the DD decided to gunboat a 35k HP lion, only to die and lose the game.

 

HOW SHOULD MM ACCOUNT FOR STUPIDITY LIKE THIS?

Its 2 won games, thrown away by pure retardation and/or greed. You could invent the fairest MM of all, only to made obsolete by brainiacs like those.

And then you tell me, i should WANT to get people like this on my team all the time to make it more "fair"... yeah right, how about no?

 

Same game situation before i died. Shima could just torp the gap with the 2 BBs, they SAT there killing me. Repu does nothing, Shima does nothing.

Its like "ah let this M*F* die SO I CAN KEEP MY STAR MUAUHAHUAUHHUAH" and joke is on them because i got to keep my star because im not retarded like they were.

[ForlornSailor]

1 minute ago, DFens_666 said:

Why should 1 person out of 12 (or 24 if you want) have more influence than 3 out of 10 games?

 

Because, as established, he has a problem with mathematics and logic.

[ColonelPete]

18 minutes ago, Greek_Patriot said:

Hunter said that 4/10 battles are predetermined as a defeat and i answered according to that assumption that if 7/10 battles are already a loss or a win and you need skills to win the 3/10 that are influenced by your play then why would someone bother and improve?

To get from 60% loss ratio to 30% loss ratio, halving the matches you lose. That is a big difference.

[buttonF1]

5 days in row i had 70% winrate and on the weekend i drop to 30% . Always in first 5 min we been losing all DDs. 
Random is a joke ...

[ColonelPete]

3 minutes ago, buttonF1 said:

5 days in row i had 70% winrate and on the weekend i drop to 30% . Always in first 5 min we been losing all DDs. 
Random is a joke ...

Here is another example of what I wrote.

The complaints are about the bad games, but nobody complains when they get lucky.

[buttonF1]

4 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Here is another example of what I wrote.

The complaints are about the bad games, but nobody complains when they get lucky.

what kind of lucky , when  you win one side without losing a ship well i hate even more that kind of game from WoT .. I want 50/50 game. I don't want wast my time for bloody RNG..
 

[ColonelPete]

1 minute ago, buttonF1 said:

what kind of lucky , when  you win one side without losing a ship well i hate even more that kind of game from WoT .. I want 50/50 game. I don't want wast my time for bloody RNG..

Overall you have 54%, close to what you wish for.

I do not understand your complaint.

[buttonF1]

The problem that in this 2 days i got brutally defeats in row like there been balancing mechanism for  wins i got before ,the problem is that  always my weekend get this mess when i have more time to play

[ColonelPete]

11 minutes ago, buttonF1 said:

The problem that in this 2 days i got brutally defeats in row like there been balancing mechanism for  wins i got before ,the problem is that  always my weekend get this mess when i have more time to play

• People win and lose all the time, streaks are neither uncommon nor unexpected. That is basic statistic.
• People win on weekends like mad and lose on weekdays: Wins and losses have nothing to with the time of the week.

I myself won big on Thursday, Friday and Satuday.

[GarrusBrutus]

Vor 8 Stunden, Greek_Patriot sagte:

Oh and Forlorn im amazed by your solo skills. The team that has you while playing solo must be really lucky

 

[edit]

 

Funny to pm players after a match in which you did nothing btw.

 

Image removed

 

 

 

[Greek_Patriot]

Vor 2 Stunden, GarrusBrutus sagte:

[edit]

 

Funny to pm players after a match in which you did nothing btw.

 

Image removed

 

 

 

 

You should have seen the game. It was great. 3 or 4 DDs died like fools in the first 3 mins and without doing anything. It was really great. I really enjoyed that defeat. And yes i didnt play well. So your points are valid. My bad. Oh and i know that your bf had his last solo game ages ago. Thats my point exactly. People with no balls to play solo dont get to critise other who do.