Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

[Darkeid]

@159Hunter I am sorry if it bothers you. Feel free to block me with no hard feelings. I am only stressing how frequently these imbalances happen, plus i`ve mentioned more than 3 times at an average 25% of all games played are kind of similar to what is shown, plus it helps when new visitors to this thread have a clearer image. 

[ColonelPete]

1 hour ago, Darkeid said:

In the meantime this is what happens

... and this:

[ForlornSailor]

59 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

... and this:

 

Yes, but as we all know, thanks to the hard evidence brought up during this scientific research paper over 153 pages - you have favourable matchmaking because you are getting payed by WG and in return defend the company on the forums.

 

Spoiler

/s just because someone will take it serious.

 

[Birkebein]

Apart from matching WRs is there another way to program the MM to provide more balanced battles?  Would it be better if each team has the same number of:

 

1. Captain skills,

2. Non-premium ships,

3. Combat flags and camos?

 

 

[ColonelPete]

8 minutes ago, Birkebein said:

Apart from matching WRs is there another way to program the MM to provide more balanced battles?  Would it be better if each team has the same number of:

 

1. Captain skills,

2. Non-premium ships,

3. Combat flags and camos?

1. pointless
2. pointless
3. pointless

All points have much less influence than player skills or have even a neglible effect on performance.

 

As explained multiple times what could work:

• ELO like system in a competitive enviroment (not random)
• limited skill based MM (based on different WR parameters) that changes only few players (max 3) around between the two teams, this will reduce the skill gap a bit, but will not be the holy grail, teams will not become better, landslides will not suddenly vanish, people will still blame MM for their lack of skill

[ForlornSailor]

36 minutes ago, Birkebein said:

Apart from matching WRs is there another way to program the MM to provide more balanced battles?  Would it be better if each team has the same number of:

 

1. Captain skills,

2. Non-premium ships,

3. Combat flags and camos?

 

I can show you, what would help. Making BB players understand "hey, if you guys all sit in the last corner of the map, the enemys will take control of all caps, the map, kill all cruisers, DDs and eventually win the game". THAT is the only thing that would help improve the situation of this game. No matter how you change the matchmaking THESE people will continue to play as bad as they did on that screen. And they dont even have any reason to wizz their pants there.

 

[EsForza]

[GarrusBrutus]

@PisiReis ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[ColonelPete]

He has to face cruisers in a BB...

[Sea_w0lf]

2 hours ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

I can show you, what would help. Making BB players understand "hey, if you guys all sit in the last corner of the map, the enemys will take control of all caps, the map, kill all cruisers, DDs and eventually win the game". THAT is the only thing that would help improve the situation of this game. No matter how you change the matchmaking THESE people will continue to play as bad as they did on that screen. And they dont even have any reason to wizz their pants there.

 

 

How much I feel you, really.

I had a same battle today.

There is a chance also to report you because you don't stay back with them 😂

 

Players still confused with domination and standard battle..

In standard battle they rush everywhere far from base and in domination stay back and let the enemy cap everything. 

So @Birkebein MM is not broken because enemy has19lvl cpt, premium ship or additional flags..is broken because of clueless people.

[159Hunter]

9 hours ago, Darkeid said:

@159Hunter I am sorry if it bothers you. Feel free to block me with no hard feelings.

I am only stressing how frequently these imbalances happen, plus i`ve mentioned more than 3 times at an average 25% of all games played are kind of similar to what is shown,

But you fail to prove this point, as you only show a few screenshots of MM monitor. Moreover you do not show the result of the battles.

So we have to take your worth for it? Doesn't work like that. 

 

Plus, actually looking at the whole picture might show you (or us) a whole different picture.

Quote

plus it helps when new visitors to this thread have a clearer image. 

Except they don't, they are shown that MM monitor leads to attitude problems with some players. That's all you demonstrate here.

 

@PisiReis yes, I know BB players have been spoiled by ranked matches with lot's of BBs and very few DD. So now you get a challenging BB matchup. Is that so bad?
Plus: this is fully within MM rules, just a match made with the players available at the time.

[GarrusBrutus]

A fine example of how matchmaking has no influence over how people play that specific match. I bet if you compare all stats both teams would be quite similar, so it should have been an even match.... Right? 

Well, no. 

Two players in my team thought it was a good idea to yolo straight into the enemies, dying without doing anything. Funny enough this was a signal for my remaining teammates to sit in the back of the map until they lost. Also funny: my suiciders weren't even last placed. Go figure... 

 

Now tell me: how should matchmaking account for players playing like that, giving their team an unsurmountable disadvantage to overcome? 

[DFens_666]

2 hours ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Now tell me: how should matchmaking account for players playing like that, giving their team an unsurmountable disadvantage to overcome? 

 

Imagine getting a 58% Thunderer player for "balance", and he drives up and down the H-line in spawn, losing the game with full health Last place in XP ofc.

Totaly not a recipe for a roflstomp.

[Darkeid]

8 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

But you fail to prove this point, as you only show a few screenshots of MM monitor. Moreover you do not show the result of the battles.

So we have to take your worth for it? Doesn't work like that. 

 

Plus, actually looking at the whole picture might show you (or us) a whole different picture.

Except they don't, they are shown that MM monitor leads to attitude problems with some players. That's all you demonstrate here.

 

- The MM system creates unequal teams (enter MMM screenshot)
- In the singular example previously discussed there are 7 below average players being matched with 7 above average players (enter dialogue - check average damages, battles played, Account WR etc etc) 
- In the most recent example (19hrs ago) we had a team with 9 below average players and no good rating players being matched vs a team that only had 4 below average and 3 good (blue coloured) 

You, yourself shared /agreed that as per Excavatus number quenching project it is to be expected that 4 out of 10 matches are a guaranteed loss regardless of player effort. 

 

Personally, since page 97 of 154 i have repeatedly mentioned that the existing MM system creates imbalances at a rough estimate 4 out of 10 matches are tragically one sided and can be regarded as a predetermined loss. Look at the MMM pictures since page 97 they show the problem 100%. 

Why are you refusing to even comprehend the idea that the system needs improvement? Instead of offering ideas or contributing possible solutions based on your experience, like the remaining 4 non WG employees? Forum fanatics? you illogically call it an attitude problem, then you ask from another player to stop posting proof of the imbalance and now you are asking to see battle results of singular battle efforts of whoever is posting?
I call B.S. you are purposely? trying to change the subject. Again.

"So we have to take your worth for it? Doesn't work like that." Democratically do as you please but take note since you are refusing to even see the picture as a non WG affiliated player, democratically you can join these 4. 
 

 

[GarrusBrutus]

32 minutes ago, Darkeid said:

the existing MM system creates imbalances at a rough estimate 4 out of 10 matches are tragically one sided and can be regarded as a predetermined loss.

Wrong, not a predetermined loss. A predetermined result. So two wins and two losses, regardless of your own performance.

That is why even the worst of the worst do not have 0% WR and why the best of the best do not have 100% winrate.

So is the nature of random.

35 minutes ago, Darkeid said:

Why are you refusing to even comprehend the idea that the system needs improvement?

Because the system works perfectly fine. Two teams, equal number of players, equal number of classes. That is it.

There you cannot blame Wargaming for these bad matches. What do CAN blame Wargaming for though....is letting players treat the game like a singleplayer sailing simulator instead of a PVP action game.

You want to win more? Git gud. Want to win even more? Play division. Want to win almost everything? Play in a unicum division.

[159Hunter]

59 minutes ago, Darkeid said:

- The MM system creates unequal teams (enter MMM screenshot)
- In the singular example previously discussed there are 7 below average players being matched with 7 above average players (enter dialogue - check average damages, battles played, Account WR etc etc) 
- In the most recent example (19hrs ago) we had a team with 9 below average players and no good rating players being matched vs a team that only had 4 below average and 3 good (blue coloured) 

You, yourself shared /agreed that as per Excavatus number quenching project it is to be expected that 4 out of 10 matches are a guaranteed loss regardless of player effort. 

 

Personally, since page 97 of 154 i have repeatedly mentioned that the existing MM system creates imbalances at a rough estimate 4 out of 10 matches are tragically one sided and can be regarded as a predetermined loss. Look at the MMM pictures since page 97 they show the problem 100%. 

Why are you refusing to even comprehend the idea that the system needs improvement? Instead of offering ideas or contributing possible solutions based on your experience, like the remaining 4 non WG employees? Forum fanatics? you illogically call it an attitude problem, then you ask from another player to stop posting proof of the imbalance and now you are asking to see battle results of singular battle efforts of whoever is posting?
I call B.S. you are purposely? trying to change the subject. Again.

"So we have to take your worth for it? Doesn't work like that." Democratically do as you please but take note since you are refusing to even see the picture as a non WG affiliated player, democratically you can join these 4. 
 

 

You seem to have misunderstood why I asked you to keep track of ALL your MM screens + results.

To show you that the losses are not predetermined by MM (which you seem to think). Factors contributing to the result of a match:

- your own skill;

- your own choice of ship;

- did you div up;

- your own skill;

- other ship choices in your team;

- enemy ship choices;

- state of mind of players (eg. drunk, angry, ... );

- your own skill;

- yes MM plays a part ( but NOT only in losing, you will win some games regardless of what you do);

.... ( a ton more factors )
 

You seem to think your losses are mostly down to MM. And that is just plain wrong [ other people, including my self, have shown that it's not because you have a "worse team" that you will suffer an auto-loss  ].

 

Calling my opinion [edited] is your opinion and your right, freedom of speech and such. If that's what you feel, suits you. [ keep in mind there is another well known CV player doing this, and all this means is that he gets ignored by virtually everyone with half a braincell]

As I don't have issues with the game that can be resolved by changing the MM I do not propose any changes to the MM

Yet you still fail to point out a solution that will "fix MM". ( if it's really to difficult to explain your solution in as 10 lines then it aint a solution ).

 

But keep in mind: WG MM's main purpose is to create matches asap. The aim is not to look for "the perfact match", the aim is to get people to play in a somewhat equal environment asap.

[DFens_666]

Why bother anymore?

@159Hunter

 

How can one not understand, that with a "fair" MM, you would still get wins and losses out of your influence.... Even more so, since those ideas always result in 50% WR for everyone, which means 5w/5l regardless of how you play So we went from influencing atleast 4 games out of 10, to 0 out of 10. Such an improvement.

[CptBarney]

1 hour ago, Darkeid said:

- The MM system creates unequal teams (enter MMM screenshot)
- In the singular example previously discussed there are 7 below average players being matched with 7 above average players (enter dialogue - check average damages, battles played, Account WR etc etc) 
- In the most recent example (19hrs ago) we had a team with 9 below average players and no good rating players being matched vs a team that only had 4 below average and 3 good (blue coloured) 

You, yourself shared /agreed that as per Excavatus number quenching project it is to be expected that 4 out of 10 matches are a guaranteed loss regardless of player effort. 

 

Personally, since page 97 of 154 i have repeatedly mentioned that the existing MM system creates imbalances at a rough estimate 4 out of 10 matches are tragically one sided and can be regarded as a predetermined loss. Look at the MMM pictures since page 97 they show the problem 100%. 

Why are you refusing to even comprehend the idea that the system needs improvement? Instead of offering ideas or contributing possible solutions based on your experience, like the remaining 4 non WG employees? Forum fanatics? you illogically call it an attitude problem, then you ask from another player to stop posting proof of the imbalance and now you are asking to see battle results of singular battle efforts of whoever is posting?
I call B.S. you are purposely? trying to change the subject. Again.

"So we have to take your worth for it? Doesn't work like that." Democratically do as you please but take note since you are refusing to even see the picture as a non WG affiliated player, democratically you can join these 4. 
 

 

Too be honest, weegee will never change the system since it works enough for them to get lots of moneh (apart from cv's at low tiers which judging from forum posts are driving peeps newer ones anyways away, but i could be wrong). So whatever works will stay, especially if no more than 10 peeps at a time ask or rage for a new mm system.

 

We could change the current ranked system into a proper ELO system, but im not sure how popular that will be at all and with such a small playerbase im not sure if it will be worth it.

It's why gaijin keeps to its BR system despite it creating lots of powercreep (due to the systems restrictiveness and questionable vehicle placements by gaijin).

 

This thread is like the CV reeeework thread, it will never get looked at and is just a bin for weegee to shove anything related to into the relevant thread. 

Maybe the odd employee reads, but reading and the telling people about something are two different things.

 

Dunno if the guys on world of tanks would be more receptive due to a large playerbase but its been 2-3 years since i last played so i have no clue.

[Eikkuu]

 l just grind US cruiser (the Des Moines one), l have Baltimore. l like when you played against have Ohio, GK, Yamato and Musashi (a T10 in T9) and get full cita from behind/front, not having heal for recover a little of damages taken and no range, need camping behind island BUT how l can deal against ? That a great enjoyable game, better fix MM +2/-2 then CV. 

[CptBarney]

3 minutes ago, Az_Akagi said:

 l just grind US cruiser (the Des Moines one), l have Baltimore. l like when you played against have Ohio, GK, Yamato and Musashi (a T10 in T9) and get full cita from behind/front, not having heal for recover a little of damages taken and no range, need camping behind island BUT how l can deal against ? That a great enjoyable game, better fix MM +2/-2 then CV. 

Besides kiting and sitting behind an island, there isnt much you can do. Just the ship you have is limited in what i can do.

Blame weegee for their pen mechanics and also armour schemes as well.

[159Hunter]

1 hour ago, Az_Akagi said:

 l just grind US cruiser (the Des Moines one), l have Baltimore. l like when you played against have Ohio, GK, Yamato and Musashi (a T10 in T9) and get full cita from behind/front, not having heal for recover a little of damages taken and no range, need camping behind island BUT how l can deal against ? That a great enjoyable game, better fix MM +2/-2 then CV. 

Has nothing to do with +2/-2 MM. The buffalo and DM will suffer the same faith. 

Better thank WG for adding those high calibre BB guns that rrenderthe armour useless by virtue of overmatching

[Eikkuu]

Il y a 3 heures, CptBarney a dit :

Besides kiting and sitting behind an island, there isnt much you can do. Just the ship you have is limited in what i can do.

Blame weegee for their pen mechanics and also armour schemes as well.

 

Il y a 1 heure, 159Hunter a dit :

Has nothing to do with +2/-2 MM. The buffalo and DM will suffer the same faith. 

Better thank WG for adding those high calibre BB guns that rrenderthe armour useless by virtue of overmatching

Yes it's the sad life of US cruisers.

[Birkebein]

21 hours ago, Sea_w0lf said:

 

So @Birkebein MM is not broken because enemy has19lvl cpt, premium ship or additional flags..is broken because of clueless people.

I find myself part of the clueless horde all too often and totally agree that when it comes to winning games it's player skill that makes the difference. 

 

But, what I'm hearing is that players concerned with stats and winning aren't interested in dividing teams in such a way that WRs are balanced so they prefer the current MM, they also aren't in favor of balancing teams with skill points, premium ships etc... I suppose the conclusion is that the "winners" aren't for change, only the losers... nothing new there perhaps.  Right now the MM is best "gamed" by playing as an effective division, other than that... it's down to player skill and chance.

[DFens_666]

22 minutes ago, Birkebein said:

I find myself part of the clueless horde all too often and totally agree that when it comes to winning games it's player skill that makes the difference. 

 

But, what I'm hearing is that players concerned with stats and winning aren't interested in dividing teams in such a way that WRs are balanced so they prefer the current MM, they also aren't in favor of balancing teams with skill points, premium ships etc... I suppose the conclusion is that the "winners" aren't for change, only the losers... nothing new there perhaps.  Right now the MM is best "gamed" by playing as an effective division, other than that... it's down to player skill and chance.

 

Who is stopping me from playing a ship without 19pt captain? If that ensures better teammates, id do it. Most signals are also not "needed", anti-fire/heal-flag are ofc very strong for BBs/BCs, and secondary BBs want the secondary flag. DDs want Deto-flag.

Apart from those? Anti-flooding flag is 99% useless, because you dont want to take torps in the first place. Extra fire flags are not necessary, AA flag is useless, Ram flag is gimmick and 99% useless, extra flood chance is for CVs. Lower CD for consumables and extra speed are nice, but by no means necessary.

That just means, the system can be rigged without much impact for those doing the rigging, if i can avoid being matched with 400 battle players who use no signals at all.

 

As for "winners dont want to change it", should that be a surprise? They all invested time and effort into becoming better players. So the better they become, the worse their teammates get... what kinda incentive is that to get better?

 

Many decent players leaving the came since CV rework didnt help, as more and more bad players decide the game. Ofc "average" players suffer from that, since they cant influence the game, if they have too many bad players on their team.

Blame WG for it. And more and more good players play less, i know it from me and the people around me. Shouldnt be a surprise, that the level of play becomes worse and worse...

[ColonelPete]

7 hours ago, Birkebein said:

I suppose the conclusion is that the "winners" aren't for change, only the losers... nothing new there perhaps.  Right now the MM is best "gamed" by playing as an effective division, other than that... it's down to player skill and chance.

Obviously.

When you cannot get better, you just demand from WG to make you win more.