Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

[ForlornSailor]

3 minutes ago, surfer_gr said:

well not very true cause to get there with this win rate means he retained his star in a number of battles so even if his team lost he kept progreessing somehow !!!!!

 

Yes - shooting HE in his Kurfürst!

[DFens_666]

28 minutes ago, surfer_gr said:

well not very true cause to get there with this win rate means he retained his star in a number of battles so even if his team lost he kept progreessing somehow !!!!!

 

Wanted to guess its an HE slinging Thunderer, but after i just checked, it was actually a Venezia player No idea how thats possible, must have been really hardcore camping in spawn or something.

I just calculated his survivability with his K/D, from 494 games with 46% WR, he only died 190~200 times, so >60% survivability.

Definetely not someone who want on your team.

[kraco]

Is this forum read some of a influential guys in Wargaming or just us players?? again divine matchmaking from creators. 

 

 

 

 

 

really dont understand why is that difficul to match a even gun power, WR, PR and number of games. This can do a student in Phyton for abouth 20 minutes ig you allowe him to seek on google. Time to give up.

 

 

 

 

 

[ColonelPete]

12 minutes ago, kraco said:

really dont understand why is that difficul to match a even gun power, WR, PR and number of games. This can do a student in Phyton for abouth 20 minutes ig you allowe him to seek on google. Time to give up.

Yes, extremly easy to program, but totally useless. The MM would never find enough player for a match.

[GarrusBrutus]

@kraco

"Oh my, I lost three battles. Better go complain on the forum..." 

You lost a battle against a better team. Get over it. It happens the other way around as well, but I guess that is easily forgotten. 

[Glock_40]

1 hour ago, GarrusBrutus said:

@kraco

"Oh my, I lost three battles. Better go complain on the forum..." 

You lost a battle against a better team. Get over it. It happens the other way around as well, but I guess that is easily forgotten. 

What do you mean "You"? There is usually 11 more in one Team. Are you Trolling or something? "Get over it" ?  I probably played 50 Battles since Friday... Been in the losing team like 46 times

 

No, I don't run around sinking 8-10 Team mates in the beginning of every Battle. It is totally ridiculous what has happen to the game. Battles are often over in 10 min or less. It is common Team only manages to sink one or two enemy ships.

[ColonelPete]

11 minutes ago, Glock_40 said:

What do you mean "You"? There is usually 11 more in one Team. Are you Trolling or something? "Get over it" ?  I probably played 50 Battles since Friday... Been in the losing team like 46 times

The troll is you, when you obviously ignore that "you" can also be plural...

[Glock_40]

7 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

The troll is you, when you obviously ignore that "you" can also be plural...

Thank YOU, sir for the English lesson.

[DFens_666]

21 minutes ago, Glock_40 said:

What do you mean "You"? There is usually 11 more in one Team. Are you Trolling or something? "Get over it" ?  I probably played 50 Battles since Friday... Been in the losing team like 46 times

 

No, I don't run around sinking 8-10 Team mates in the beginning of every Battle. It is totally ridiculous what has happen to the game. Battles are often over in 10 min or less. It is common Team only manages to sink one or two enemy ships.

 

Ofc we will just take your word for <10% WR with a hidden account

[surfer_gr]

guys i really noticed that the more battles you play  during a day ans specially solo  the more chances are you will run into weird MM setups specially if you keep pressing the battle on button LOLs now if you play 3 or 4 battles on average with breaks in between and in divisions  you will see nothing LOLs everything is fine :)

[ColonelPete]

8 minutes ago, Glock_40 said:

Thank YOU, sir for the English lesson.

You are welcome 

[Birkebein]

13 hours ago, kraco said:

really dont understand why is that difficul to match a even gun power, WR, PR and number of games. This can do a student in Phyton for abouth 20 minutes...

I believe WG balances tiers, and has a "soft limit" (I suppose it means the MM attempts within a short time frame) to match the number of players in divisions - and that's it, everything else is supposed to be random.  So, to win more, invest more and find similarly minded players to form a division - those are the rules of engagement as far as I can tell - if you sail solo you will win less.  

 

Matching teams' WRs would not be hard, but many high WR players value winning more than balanced hard fought battles and WG appears to believe that the player base feels it's fair that good players/divisions win more often, perhaps they view it as encouragement for players to get better, invest more (time and money), and find team mates.  Some players won't have a chance to be part of competitive divisions, won't feel like investing the time/effort/money to get better etc... so the MM is what it is, maybe for good reason(s) - just depends on your perspective.

[GarrusBrutus]

4 hours ago, Birkebein said:

WG appears to believe that the player base feels it's fair that good players win more often

Do you think it isn't fair? Should good players win less than they do now? 

[zekai7498]

Top 3 on scoreboard with 26k dmg.I decided not to play on weekends for sake of my sanity.

I hope someone realise that something has to be done...

[Birkebein]

41 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Do you think it isn't fair? Should good players win less than they do now? 

Personally I wouldn't want WRs to be matched as I can understand that high WR players and everyone who aspires to become a high WR player would view it negatively.  Winning isn't everything but for some people it really matters.

 

To make winning matter even more, I'd prefer if the MM balanced the assets of each team (number of captain skill points, modules, camos, combat flags, premium ships, players in divisions etc).  The response might be that players will then "game" the system - chose to not sail premiums, not use camos, not mount flags or use highly skilled captains... personally I don't think this would happen very much as there would be economic consequences and each player would still have an incentive to do well (cap and do damage to earn xp and currencies).  Anyhow, winning on a level playing field is truly rewarding and losing a genuine incentive to "git gud"!

 

Being on the team with the tier nine Lion that's got no modules, camo or flags, and by the looks of it a 0 skill captain, feels like a loss from the very start and isn't much of an incentive to improve - BUT, if I knew the other team had a similar handicap it would make a world of difference.  If the MM is there to match teams, then why not make the word "match" more meaningful?

[DFens_666]

20 minutes ago, zekai7498 said:

Top 3 on scoreboard with 26k dmg.I decided not to play on weekends for sake of my sanity. 

I hope someone realise that something has to be done...

 

If you killed the shima, it might not be a surprise actually? You are T8, he is T10 and a low-HP ship. Dealing one overpen worth of damage might be worth more than if the GK citadels a T8 Cruiser.

 

21 minutes ago, Birkebein said:

Being on the team with the tier nine Lion that's got no modules, camo or flags, and by the looks of it a 0 skill captain, feels like a loss from the very start and isn't much of an incentive to improve - BUT, if I knew the other team had a similar handicap it would make a world of difference.  If the MM is there to match teams, then why not make the word "match" more meaningful?

 

Well, thats really subjective. Most people think, it doesnt matter what they do because they are 1 in 12. But this prevents you from auto-losing every game with a stock ship aswell (btw playing a stock T9 ship without captain/camo/flags pretty much deserves to have bad results - just saying). But even playing with a sub-optimal ship at decent levels would probably grant you >50% WR.

[GarrusBrutus]

1 hour ago, Birkebein said:

Anyhow, winning on a level playing field is truly rewarding and losing a genuine incentive to "git gud"!

It is. But how is the playing field not even right now? The assets you spoke about (captains, upgrades, flags, etc.) are available to everyone yet not every player chooses to make optimal use of them. How is the matchmaker supposed to account for all those DDs without Survivability Expert and without detonation flag..... I think the difference in "assets" is the least of matchmakings problems. 

1 hour ago, Birkebein said:

Being on the team with the tier nine Lion that's got no modules, camo or flags, and by the looks of it a 0 skill captain... 

If you play a tier NINE ship stock, without camo, flags and a zero point captain you need to get back to either tier 1 or coop and relearn the basics. That's just mismanagement of your resources or willfully handicapping yourself and your teammates. There is zero reason for any player to not use every asset available to maximize his combat efficiency. 

[ColonelPete]

2 hours ago, zekai7498 said:

Top 3 on scoreboard with 26k dmg.I decided not to play on weekends for sake of my sanity.

I hope someone realise that something has to be done...

Yes, weekends are insane...

 

[Birkebein]

4 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

There is zero reason for any player to not use every asset available to maximize his combat efficiency. 

I agree.  

 

Of course, not all players have access to the same assets (not the same camos, flags, special captains etc etc).  The MM could match these assets to create balanced teams.  Personally I wouldn't worry about which combat flags are being used - merely that each team have the same number mounted, again, with camo, just matched on concealment and dispersion camos deployed. 

 

WR as a reflection of individual player skill is only possible if it's otherwise a level playing field.  As an example, the very essence of sport is a level playing field and a fair contest, no one calls it unfair that someone is better, but if one side has demonstrably superior equipment... Anyhow, let's try to think of wows as an e-sport, balance the assets and create a level playing field via the MM.

 

We won't educate the players to improve their game play, we can't stop people crashing and being afk, but the MM can balance the assets - it's something that can be done.  I'd settle for something rather than wish for the unattainable. 

[DFens_666]

13 minutes ago, Birkebein said:

I agree.  

 

Of course, not all players have access to the same assets (not the same camos, flags, special captains etc etc).  The MM could match these assets to create balanced teams.  Personally I wouldn't worry about which combat flags are being used - merely that each team have the same number mounted, again, with camo, just matched on concealment and dispersion camos deployed. 

 

WR as a reflection of individual player skill is only possible if it's otherwise a level playing field.  As an example, the very essence of sport is a level playing field and a fair contest, no one calls it unfair that someone is better, but if one side has demonstrably superior equipment... Anyhow, let's try to think of wows as an e-sport, balance the assets and create a level playing field via the MM.

 

We won't educate the players to improve their game play, we can't stop people crashing and being afk, but the MM can balance the assets - it's something that can be done.  I'd settle for something rather than wish for the unattainable. 

 

E-sports game have way less RNG involved in deciding who is the better team/player. Take a FPS as an example. Its about how well you aim. If you get a headshot, you get a headshot. In Wows, you aim for the citadel, you can get everything from 0 damage to full HP devstrike.

Lets not forget detonations, which can just cause anyone to be taken out of the game without any chance to influence the game again, because there is no respawn mechanic in wows, contrary to shooters f.e.

 

Also, everyone can have a level playing field, neither WG nor the enemies are stopping anyone from equiping a basic camo and put effort in to get freeXP so you can use it to upgrade your stock ships. I think that level playing field in terms of captains and stock ships should be left behind at T5-6. Once you hit T7 or higher, you are expected to have atleast a 10pt captain, which is enough to get the most urgent skills imo.

Lets not forget, this game is about grinding. And WG is offering shortcuts for that grind in exchange for money. So you have the choice between grinding with a handicap (playing stock ships and captains on retraining), slower grinding but without handicap (playing ships more, gather FreeXP, retrain your captains with commander XP) or premium grinding by spending money (exchange freeXP with doubloons, buy credits and retrain captains for doubloons).

[GarrusBrutus]

25 minutes ago, Birkebein said:

I'd settle for something rather than wish for the unattainable. 

Unfortunately "leveling the playing field" regarding assets is as likely as straight up banning every 3X%wr player to coop, since that is simply their business model: create disadvantages that can be overcome by spending money. That's how a "free to play" can exist without ludicrous amounts of ingame commercials. 

[159Hunter]

9 hours ago, Birkebein said:

We won't educate the players to improve their game play, we can't stop people crashing and being afk, but the MM can balance the assets - it's something that can be done.  I'd settle for something rather than wish for the unattainable. 

And you also forgot: we can't force people to play to win ( as opposed to farming damage for missions, yoloing for secondaries, being drunk...) all of these things cannot be balanced by MM and have a far greater impact on a match outcome than 'matching captain points'.

 

Also, the assets as you call them, are the "symptom", not the "disease". The "disease" is players messing up albeit intentionally or not.

And just as with any real disease: the only thing you achieve when focussing on symtoms is the comfort of the sick person. You're not working on the real issue. 

[Birkebein]

1 hour ago, 159Hunter said:

 

Also, the assets as you call them, are the "symptom", not the "disease". The "disease" is players messing up albeit intentionally or not.

And just as with any real disease: the only thing you achieve when focussing on symtoms is the comfort of the sick person. You're not working on the real issue. 

If the cause of mismatched matches is that one team has players that are messing up while the other team doesn't and if a lack of combat assets is a symptom, then how about matching the symptoms of the two teams - make each team equally sick/symptom laden.  No flags, no modules, no camos, not bothering to find team mates, and no or low skilled captains might all be symptoms of players who are not really trying (they're "messing up"), for whatever reason, so match these assets/symptoms and the number of players in divisions for a more level playing field - don't worry about how people actually perform/mess up in game - there's no way to educate or force players to become better.  The analogy works, I think it's why we have the Paralympics and the Olympics - there's usually a sense that in competition, the playing field should be level.  The MM can match team symptoms (make up two teams of Paralympians and Olympians in equal ratios).

 

10 hours ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Unfortunately "leveling the playing field" regarding assets is as likely as straight up banning every 3X%wr player to coop, since that is simply their business model: create disadvantages that can be overcome by spending money. That's how a "free to play" can exist without ludicrous amounts of ingame commercials. 

You're probably correct in your assessment - at least that's the way it looks now.  I'd like to think that under a balanced match maker, players would still strive to get better and they'd recognise that their game enjoyment, progress and win rate relate to the effort (time, money and focus) they put into the game.  Achieving a good WR, obtaining rewards/ships etc would still keep people playing. 

 

Personally I've subscribed for premium membership simply to have a better economy to allow me to try different ships and equip them sooner than if I was a free to play player - WG seem pretty clever at monetizing the game.  Creating more balanced battles should retain more players and allow WG to farm money off more people - win-win

[159Hunter]

49 minutes ago, Birkebein said:

If the cause of mismatched matches is that one team has players that are messing up while the other team doesn't and if a lack of combat assets is a symptom, then how about matching the symptoms of the two teams - make each team equally sick/symptom laden.  No flags, no modules, no camos, not bothering to find team mates, and no or low skilled captains might all be symptoms of players who are not really trying (they're "messing up"), for whatever reason, so match these assets/symptoms and the number of players in divisions for a more level playing field - don't worry about how people actually perform/mess up in game - there's no way to educate or force players to become better.  The analogy works, I think it's why we have the Paralympics and the Olympics - there's usually a sense that in competition, the playing field should be level.  The MM can match team symptoms (make up two teams of Paralympians and Olympians in equal ratios)

WG wants quick MM. So if they need to start adding those extra factors the MM slows down.

Moreover, a 40% WR player with a 5 point captain is not on the same level as a 60% player. So purely matching those symptoms aint helping.

Moreover there are symptoms you can't factor in. So the issues still aren't solved.

 

The ONLY thing that works is getting players to learn the  game and playing it properly. And unfortunately WG doesn't care and so do a lot of players. 

[Birkebein]

1 hour ago, 159Hunter said:

WG wants quick MM. So if they need to start adding those extra factors the MM slows down.

Moreover, a 40% WR player with a 5 point captain is not on the same level as a 60% player. So purely matching those symptoms aint helping.

Moreover there are symptoms you can't factor in. So the issues still aren't solved.

 

The ONLY thing that works is getting players to learn the  game and playing it properly. And unfortunately WG doesn't care and so do a lot of players. 

I'm sure WG wants a game that players are happy to play.  Being forced to learn something isn't everyone's idea of fun and some people just aren't able to learn, it's a fact and I feel we should agree to agree on it... it will make coming up with ways to improve the MM/balance easier and our discussions more productive. 

 

It's also a fact that a good player can do more with fewer combat assets than a less good player... but if the playing field is level then maybe it's a good idea to allow good players to win more often and poor players to lose.  Anyhow, that's what I believe and it's one reason I try to improve (and you can see from my stats that some people appear to simply not be able to learn )