Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

[159Hunter]

5 hours ago, ObiWankov said:

Takes 5 seconds to see t8 div on bottom vs t10 div on top

So? There are good players and bad players? Is that what you're implying?

[Alogeniger]

Still trying to understand how MM worked in this case 

[DFens_666]

1 minute ago, Alogeniger said:

Still trying to understand how MM worked in this case 

 

Faildiv sat in queue for 3+ mins, so they can get matched against highertier ships (not toptier tho). Västeräs got thrown under the bus with the same rule.

Faildivs need to be prohibited below T8, its just causing trouble all the time, because there are so many people who want to rig MM in their favour, which doesnt work.

[Lootboxer]

5 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

Faildiv sat in queue for 3+ mins

It just shows how popular are lower tiers.

[DFens_666]

9 hours ago, DariusJacek said:

It just shows how popular are lower tiers.

 

Thats MM forcing them to wait, because the T6 ship was supposed to face T8 opponents

Since MM can only do that with another faildiv OR if they sat in queue for 3+ mins, it will just keep them waiting till either happens. Thats the glorious thing which happened after WG added the xx/xx/xx% low-mid-toptier rule. If you had your share of top- or midtier games, you will be lowtier.

[Darkeid]

Another suggestion that has not been addressed so far , is to use the battle influence metric when distributing players in Battles. For those that need more context, watch the recent Flamu video about cv imbalance. For those that don't want to watch it, to keep it short, since 2018 WG has developed a metric called battle influence to reflect which class influences battles % to victory. Thx to Flamu video we have this "spreadsheet" type slideshow info:

 

Basically what this graph tells us is that if your team has an afk/bot/bad CV or DDs there is an imbalance and thus a greater %/chance of losing the battle. Since it is obviously already known that CVs and DDs are the classes that influence the battle outcome at a greater % than others, my question is WHY does the company allow the MM engine to randomly distribute player slots disregarding the class/ship type player PR or WR ? Should they not starting looking into that since they obv acknowledge this ?



 

[ColonelPete]

19 minutes ago, Darkeid said:

Another suggestion that has not been addressed so far , is to use the battle influence metric when distributing players in Battles. For those that need more context, watch the recent Flamu video about cv imbalance. For those that don't want to watch it, to keep it short, since 2018 WG has developed a metric called battle influence to reflect which class influences battles % to victory. Thx to Flamu video we have this "spreadsheet" type slideshow info:
...

Basically what this leaked? nowadays shown? graph tells us is that if your team has an afk/bot/bad CV or DDs there is an imbalance and thus a greater %/chance of losing the battle. Since it is obviously already known that CVs and DDs are the classes that influence the battle outcome at a greater % than others, my question is WHY does the company allow the MM engine to randomly distribute player slots disregarding the class/ship type player PR or WR ? Should they not starting looking into that since they obv acknowledge this ?

• Battle influence is a made up metric
• Battle influence is a ship based metric, would be difficult to use it for MM
• the video of the summit was public
• MM is supposed to be random in Random Battle

[Darkeid]

@ColonelPete Thanks for outlining that the video was public , i corrected it.
 

Dear WG unofficial employee or official employee, if you are reading this. Repeating that MM is supposed to be random / working as intended for 200 pages is the actual problem. By your own metrics it is acknowledged that certain ship types influence the outcome of a battle at a greater % than other. 

Thus, having an unfair / imbalanced / working as intended / supposed to be random selection at the critical ship classes is unintended rigging of battle outcomes. That is what we are trying to outline to you. Please improve the MM WG. As your own metrics outline and as your unofficial employees outline it will be difficult but please do it for the sake of your playerbase. One players input/effort should not be disregarded because "hey its supposed to be random".

 

[ColonelPete]

On 3/5/2021 at 2:46 PM, Darkeid said:

@ColonelPete Thanks for outlining that the video was public , i corrected it.
 

Dear WG unofficial employee or official employee, if you are reading this. Repeating that MM is supposed to be random / working as intended for 200 pages is the actual problem. By your own metrics it is acknowledged that certain ship types influence the outcome of a battle at a greater % than other. 

Thus, having an unfair / imbalanced / working as intended / supposed to be random selection at the critical ship classes is unintended rigging of battle outcomes. That is what we are trying to outline to you. Please improve the MM WG. As your own metrics outline and as your unofficial employees outline it will be difficult but please do it for the sake of your playerbase. One players input/effort should not be disregarded because "hey its supposed to be random".

Ship classes are mirrored. Both teams have the same number of ships of a certain class at each Tier, unless some fail division messes it up.

Class imbalance is not something you solve at the MM level. When classes are imbalanced, you modify the classes, not doctor around with the MM.

[Dragontrn]

36 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Ship classes are mirrored. Both teams have the same number of ships of a certain class at each Tier, unless some fail division messes it up.

Class imbalance is not something you solve at the MM level. When classes are imbalanced, you modify the classes, not doctor around with the MM.

are you sure about this ? 

On 2/17/2021 at 12:21 AM, GoneFishingAgain said:

 

 

[ColonelPete]

1 hour ago, Dragontrn said:

are you sure about this ? 

 

Yes.

[Darkeid]

20 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

Ship classes are mirrored. Both teams have the same number of ships of a certain class at each Tier, unless some fail division messes it up.

Class imbalance is not something you solve at the MM level. When classes are imbalanced, you modify the classes, not doctor around with the MM.

That is no solution. This is just repeating for the 100th time that the existing MM system creates imbalanced / unfair games. We kind of the get the idea. We are just pointing / stressing out the problem and ask for WG to improve the MM system. Messing with the classes is something even more difficult than setting parameters when picking players in random games (which is what WG should look into).

[ColonelPete]

1 hour ago, Darkeid said:

That is no solution. This is just repeating for the 100th time that the existing MM system creates imbalanced / unfair games. We kind of the get the idea. We are just pointing / stressing out the problem and ask for WG to improve the MM system. Messing with the classes is something even more difficult than setting parameters when picking players in random games (which is what WG should look into).

And that is why MM cannot solve balance issues.

[159Hunter]

2 hours ago, Darkeid said:

That is no solution.

Then what is a solution?

[Excavatus]

18 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

Then what is a solution?

For the last 10 years, (yes including WOT too) WG does not believe there is a problem with the MM. 

They see all these, and they say, "hey, thats Random MM for all".. 

so no problem, no solution.. :) 

[buttonF1]

Rank MM yes i was on wining side but i  am most of the time in other side 4-5 playes 40-44% ...
 

and for some stupid reason MM decided to get all  crap for me every day defeat ... for this march idk wtf happens with this game anymore...

 

[159Hunter]

5 hours ago, Excavatus said:

For the last 10 years, (yes including WOT too) WG does not believe there is a problem with the MM. 

They see all these, and they say, "hey, thats Random MM for all".. 

so no problem, no solution.. :) 

I know better than to ask WG, but I have yet to see a player solution that would actually fix the issue...

[xe_N_on]

Yesterday I was serveral times queues as T5 with T7. First I thought there is a fail division, but there was none. Did WG change the matchmaking?

[ColonelPete]

Tier V can meet Tier VII since Open Beta or longer...

[xe_N_on]

Vor 10 Stunden, ColonelPete sagte:

Tier V can meet Tier VII since Open Beta or longer...

Oh, good to know, I always thought that T5 only meets T4/T6 and starting with T6 it is T5 and T8

[Fatal_Ramses]

2 matches in a row where you can see from the ship lineup that your team has no chance.

After 5min its 6v11 to enemy's advantage.

Just total roflstomps.....

 

Why am I even playing this game anymore? It has stopped being fun  so long ago. I'm just angry and frustrated all the time.

 

T6 DD vs 2 VIII CVs... good times. Both your CVs are 44%ers and the enemy gets a division CV with 60% and other CV is 55%.

Just so unfair.

[HP3070]

This is easily explained. WG doesn't see a problem with how the MM works cos it's working as intended. The goal of wg's mm is not to produce a maximum number of "50/50 chance to win" games. The goal is to actively balance the game so players are forced to 50% wr. If you can overcome a small number of "against you" games then your wr will increase slightly. If not it will drop slightly. WG never obscured this. It's even present in the patent they have on their mm. How do you think it happened that the vast majority of players are in 40%-60% wr range? With total randomness or with 50/50 chance of winning every game that would be impossible.

 

TL;DR

MM will force you to 50% wr by rigging (from the lack of a better word) some games you have. It's designed to do so. It always has been.

[ColonelPete]

5 minutes ago, Fatal_Ramses said:

2 matches in a row where you can see from the ship lineup that your team has no chance.

When you decide you lose, because of the lineup, then you will lose, because of your attitude.

There is no lineup that guarantees a loss.

5 minutes ago, HP3070 said:

 It's even present in the patent they have on their mm. How do you think it happened that the vast majority of players are in 40%-60% wr range? With total randomness or with 50/50 chance of winning every game that would be impossible.

50/50 chance is 50% WR...

And the vast majority of players being between 40-60% is statisticly to be expected. Everything else would be extremly suspicious.

[DFens_666]

20 minutes ago, HP3070 said:

This is easily explained. WG doesn't see a problem with how the MM works cos it's working as intended. The goal of wg's mm is not to produce a maximum number of "50/50 chance to win" games. The goal is to actively balance the game so players are forced to 50% wr. If you can overcome a small number of "against you" games then your wr will increase slightly. If not it will drop slightly. WG never obscured this. It's even present in the patent they have on their mm. How do you think it happened that the vast majority of players are in 40%-60% wr range? With total randomness or with 50/50 chance of winning every game that would be impossible.

 

TL;DR

MM will force you to 50% wr by rigging (from the lack of a better word) some games you have. It's designed to do so. It always has been.

 

So how much game influence should one single person out of 24 players have? How would it be possible that people get a WR of lets say 20%? In randoms, players can hardly go below 40%, its possible yes, f.e. very bad CV players can go towards 30%. In ranked, people can get below 40% easily, but even there going below 30% is not common.

Its simply not possible to screw your team so hard if you are only 1 in 12. Same goes for carrying your team, alltho best CV players can get 80% Solo WR.

[HP3070]

5 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

50/50 chance is 50% WR...

And the vast majority of players being between 40-60% is statisticly to be expected. Everything else would be extremly suspicious.

Yes it is. What's your point?

 

And the vast majority of players being between 40-60% is statisticly to be expected.

With a mm actively trying to push everyone to 50% wr? Yes. With a totally random mm or a mm that is focused on producing as much evenly chanced games as possible? It's not. It should be more flatten out. Do you even math?