Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

[Psychatogg]

I am wondering how there still can be some people defending MM and WG - it is so obvious how massively imbalanced this game is . Is it too much to ask to have balanced,fair game in 21st century? How is it fun when nearly 70% matches are decided on the loading screen,streaks occuring, seaclubbers in lower tiers,RNg letting you miss full broadsides,turbomacthes, unequal divisions distribution etc. Why it cannot be "when I play good, I win and get good result every time" and "when I play bad, I loose and get bad result every time".Dont get me wrong, I dont want to win all the time, just want the outcome to be equal to my performance - even if it means to loose, but I will know the match was balanced and I lost because I did not play well - which is not always the case in WOW. Recently I have time to play only during weekends, and that is increasing my frustration slowly. I like the game, but something needs to change or it will get old and unfun for me.

[DFens_666]

57 minutes ago, The_GooD_Old_One said:

Why it cannot be "when I play good, I win and get good result every time" and "when I play bad, I loose and get bad result every time".

 

Because you are 1 in 12... how could this make sense? So if you die with 0 damage, but half of your teammates get 2 kills each with 100k damage, you want them to lose because you did poorly?

[159Hunter]

2 hours ago, Birkebein said:

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 )

See. Why should WG do all this work of creating equal matches when people don't even want to learn?

If learning the basics of a game in which you invest time and money is too much then they should just quit. Any leisure requires input, the benefits just outweigh the input.

 

Leveling the playing field as you call it, is maybe levelling 40%. You can't level the people playfield as you cannot predict what they'll do. So all you end up doing is increasing queue waiting times for a marginal improvement. Not worth it, and looking at WG's actions that's a fact that trumps all facts you throw at us.

[Birkebein]

44 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

Not worth it, and looking at WG's actions that's a fact that trumps all facts you throw at us.

I appreciate someone views my opinions as facts.  Anyhow, my suggestions aren't a cure, just an incremental improvement that is possible - teaching and making people "git gud" isn't 

[159Hunter]

12 minutes ago, Birkebein said:

I appreciate someone views my opinions as facts.  Anyhow, my suggestions aren't a cure, just an incremental improvement that is possible - teaching and making people "git gud" isn't 

That's just it. It won't improve things noticeably. The only thing that will is teaching people.

[SV_Kompresor]

20 hours ago, zekai7498 said:

I decided not to play on weekends for sake of my sanity.

The weekend warrior meme isn't really relevant anymore as this stuff happens way too often during the week too.

[Bear__Necessities]

21 hours ago, The_GooD_Old_One said:

Why it cannot be "when I play good, I win and get good result every time"

But it pretty much is.

[DFens_666]

29 minutes ago, Bear__Necessities said:

But it pretty much is.

 

But half the playerbase deserves 0% WR

[159Hunter]

39 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

But half the playerbase deserves 0% WR

Half the 'playerbase' shouldn't be qualified as such.

[Psychatogg]

Před 1 hodinou Bear__Necessities řekl/a:

But it pretty much is.

Ok, so answer yourself, how many times you have been top 3, having great result yourself, but ended up in a defeat.

[Bear__Necessities]

28 minutes ago, The_GooD_Old_One said:

Ok, so answer yourself, how many times you have been top 3, having great result yourself, but ended up in a defeat.

Well. Currently I'm grinding a fresh account, with the self imposed challenge of playing nearly all of of it solo. 

 

I'll let my results speak for themselves. https://na.wows-numbers.com/player/1036458028,Vasili_One_Bonk_only/

 

[DFens_666]

42 minutes ago, The_GooD_Old_One said:

Ok, so answer yourself, how many times you have been top 3, having great result yourself, but ended up in a defeat.

 

How often people do nothing and still win?

It cant be changed so complaining makes little sense.

[ApolloJFK]

On 2/24/2019 at 11:37 AM, Excavatus said:

Hey there ladies and gentelmen,

Same as other similar titles, the matchmaking of this game will never give rest to people.

The discussion about that will never cease to exist.

 

+-2 tier differences,

Radar ship imbalances in MMs,

or anything regarding to the MM.. from now on, goes here.

 

 

So, please keep your Discussions about the subject on this pinned thread for now on.

And as always, keep calm, stay civil and be nice to each other.

 

Have a good day.

:)

 

[ForlornSailor]

1 hour ago, The_GooD_Old_One said:

Ok, so answer yourself, how many times you have been top 3, having great result yourself, but ended up in a defeat. 

 

How is that related tho? Quite the opposite: In a defeat, its mure more likely, that a good player come on top - after all, he loses, because his team is bad. So how could the be ahead of him in XP unless that player in questions effes up himself?

This is some sort of twisted reverse-logic that only makes sense on the first glimpse, but when you think 5 sec about it - it doesnt at all.

[GarrusBrutus]

1 hour ago, Bear__Necessities said:

Well. Currently I'm grinding a fresh account, with the self imposed challenge of playing nearly all of of it solo. 

 

I'll let my results speak for themselves. https://na.wows-numbers.com/player/1036458028,Vasili_One_Bonk_only/

 

Spoiler

 

[Psychatogg]

Před 14 minutami ForlornSailor řekl/a:

 

How is that related tho? Quite the opposite: In a defeat, its mure more likely, that a good player come on top - after all, he loses, because his team is bad. So how could the be ahead of him in XP unless that player in questions effes up himself?

This is some sort of twisted reverse-logic that only makes sense on the first glimpse, but when you think 5 sec about it - it doesnt at all.

I am not talking about Xp or so, I am just talking about the fact that WOW can be extremely unrewarding... So many times I just sit to play,because I have time that day, and even performing well, but loosing one after another resulting in me turning off the game for the day. If I loose 1 or 2 times due to the bad mm, then fine, I can process it, but when it gets out of hand, it is really frustrating. My point is,that games should reward you - you played good, you win. :) I guess thats the problem of this teamgame where no teamplay is taking place lol.

 

And regarding XP - the way the gamesystem awards XP is also flawed, you can have tremendous impact on winning battle yet getting moderate XP.

[ForlornSailor]

5 minutes ago, The_GooD_Old_One said:

And regarding XP - the way the gamesystem awards XP is also flawed, you can have tremendous impact on winning battle yet getting moderate XP.

 

And vice versa. Biggest fools camping in the back, shooting HE with their BBs and get top XP. Thats nothing new, most of us here are aware of this and its undisputed.

 

6 minutes ago, The_GooD_Old_One said:

I am not talking about Xp or so, I am just talking about the fact that WOW can be extremely unrewarding... So many times I just sit to play,because I have time that day, and even performing well, but loosing one after another resulting in me turning off the game for the day. If I loose 1 or 2 times due to the bad mm, then fine, I can process it, but when it gets out of hand, it is really frustrating. My point is,that games should reward you - you played good, you win. :) I guess thats the problem of this teamgame where no teamplay is taking place lol.

 

Same as above - we all know this. Thats the way how it is. It helps to use your clans Discord to rant. Or you only play in divisions, this way you can raise your impact on the game a lot. You are not going to win all of them however, even with the 3 best players of the entire game playing the 3 most OP ships you can get your hands on. But you win more and you can actually execute teamplay, so thats nice.

 

On another note about the "you play good your should win" - often enough, someone in the enemy team did really good aswell, potentially even better then you.

[Seepheerd]

Today, Wesser approx 5 battles in t6 teams. Then 2 battles in t7 teams and came the t8.
I watching you wg...

[Camperdown]

5 hours ago, The_GooD_Old_One said:

Ok, so answer yourself, how many times you have been top 3, having great result yourself, but ended up in a defeat.

About 20% of the games I play.

[Aethervoxx]

22 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

How often people do nothing and still win?

Not often, ofc, but the fact it does happen makes the whole MM system really suspect especially when you believe those players who say it's your solo play that makes the difference & they also say 'git gud' (those 'types').

[DFens_666]

50 minutes ago, Aethervoxx said:

Not often, ofc, but the fact it does happen makes the whole MM system really suspect especially when you believe those players who say it's your solo play that makes the difference & they also say 'git gud' (those 'types').

 

Id disagree. Yes, on an individual level it wont happen often. But when you look at your teammates, its not uncommon that some of them actually didnt do anything and they still win.

Its not uncommon to have someone on the winning side, who has less XP than everyone on the losing side.

[159Hunter]

3 hours ago, Aethervoxx said:

Not often, ofc, but the fact it does happen makes the whole MM system really suspect especially when you believe those players who say it's your solo play that makes the difference & they also say 'git gud' (those 'types').

Because in every game, all players on the winning team have more or less the same XP?

Ofc not, you can have gaps up to 2000-2500 xp. Claiming that those on the lower end of the chart actually contributed to the win is questionable at best.

[Greuter29]

This is an age old discussion.

And I think we get it:
Random battles are true random when it comes to individual player skills.
There are some minor MM tweaks/rules such as a limit to CV ships on a team and things like Tier differences (none) and equal number of ship types on both teams.

But please stop saying that there is no inherent problem with this type of MatchMaking.
Because what we do not like seeing: Is games where you would have lost 4-5 ships within 2 minutes against 0 ships on the enemy team. Or the other way around, since it is equally less fun to play a battle where you would just push over the enemy team without a fight/challange.

Now I know there is data to support that is not the case. This data revolves around the game lengths being played.
At first I was convinced by this data that it shows there is no problem if you would compare data between Tiers.
But looking more closely and identifying the "problem" games. It turns out that these problem games are NOT listed in the game length data.
Why not?
Well these problem games are typically at a length between 12-16 minutes. Which would identify them as a "good" match.
It would have been better to have that game ended at the time the match was already played (roughly between minute 2-4)

Now out of all the games we consider "good" match how many are in fact horrendous to play out? (thus being miss labelled)
Well this might diver from person you would ask...
My estimate though would be roughly 1 out of 20 games. And to be honest that is not much.
However this number of miss labels seems to be happening a lot more within the regions of the higher Tiers.

What can be done about this?
Obviously something the community has been crying out for is the skill based MM. But honestly I do not believe the player pool is big enough to support such an MM. And thus it would not be worth the money, time and effort to create such a thing.
What else?
Well one thing is to look for a way to end the match when the match is already considered over.
Maybe it is as simple as lowering the starting points of the teams. So that when you get a team that has quick sinking of enemy ships early in the match the team points would reach zero and the match is ended. Maybe increase the points awarded per tick of a Capture point so the team that has dominance over the map would reach 1000 points and the match is ended.
And again I stress this is a thing to be looking for in the higher Tiers. From my observations the lower Tiers are doing way better in this light.

[Flosedus]

Vor 46 Minuten, Greuter29 sagte:

What can be done about this?
Obviously something the community has been crying out for is the skill based MM. But honestly I do not believe the player pool is big enough to support such an MM. And thus it would not be worth the money, time and effort to create such a thing.
 

 

I am not even sure whether the player base is a problem on that issue. If you take the 24 players starting a game you could just exchange players from the same class between the teams until the winrates are more equalized, cant you? I think there might be some cases were this finite number problem has no proper solution, but I think the number of players in a match should be large enough to be able to find better winrate matchings than we currently have sometimes (like 54% vs 49% or so...)

Of course divisions put some constraints on that, but I think you could still even out the winrates to a certain extend.

 

Or is there also contraints in the current matchmaking which types of ships are on each side (like matching the numbers of overpowered ships or so)?

[DFens_666]

31 minutes ago, Flosedus said:

I am not even sure whether the player base is a problem on that issue. If you take the 24 players starting a game you could just exchange players from the same class between the teams until the winrates are more equalized, cant you? I think there might be some cases were this finite number problem has no proper solution, but I think the number of players in a match should be large enough to be able to find better winrate matchings than we currently have sometimes (like 54% vs 49% or so...)

Of course divisions put some constraints on that, but I think you could still even out the winrates to a certain extend.

 

Or is there also contraints in the current matchmaking which types of ships are on each side (like matching the numbers of overpowered ships or so)?

 

Even disregarding other downsides of a system like this, what WR do you take?

- Acc WR

- Solo WR

- Ship WR

- Tier WR

- Class WR

? Which one is correct...

People with 70% WR on acc playing only T1, but when they jump into T10 they have 40% WR. You gonna match him against someone who has 70% WR playing T10? How is that balanced?