Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

[Camperdown]

2 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

In this topic it has been explained over and over why WR based mm won't work.

PR alone is a useless metric.

 

@KHETTIFER please post the screens of all other matches please. You say you had 20% wr diffetence in all of them, statistically possible but very improbable.

 

I still don't understand why everyone keeps insisting that one screenshot of a lost game shows rigged mm.

OK, let me explain:

They don't understand statistics

They are in denial 

 

There you are 

[DFens_666]

9 hours ago, KHETTIFER said:

Can't balance divisions then remove them from random battles, they are one of the primary sources of balance issues in matches, groups in a balanced game are a force multipler, and considering WoWs has no balance at all it's an even larger force multipler. 

 

So why wasnt your division a force multiplier then?

 

2 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

Combination of PR and WR should work. At the very least, it will ensure that lemmings / AFK players do not get all thrown into one team.

 

Neither WR nor PR can distinguish the difference between a lemming, suicider or a spawn camper. If you balance teams by that, you will still have teams where half the team is dead by the 5 minute mark, because thats just what they do.

And unless someone is deliberately AFK all the time (then he would get punished anyway), nothing can tell if someone is gonna be AFK or not.

[surfer_gr]

5 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

No, that is wrong. That table obviously does not show daily battles as nobody plays 20k battles per day. 

The table shows the accounts of players with more than 100 battles on the EU server.

i did not say that ofc noone can play over 100 battles in a day LOL nvm 20k but id you add down the column of the accounts with up to 1k battles in total thats the 80%+ of the player base right ? ok and why you have a sample pf 5.7 million battles when with shima alone are plaied over 12 milion lols pls clarify what this table shows if its the total accounts .......or accounts that logged in  a specific day ? that plaied at least on battle? so no idea what this table shows

 

 

if that 5.7 milions is accounts and not batles asumming thats the total means that there are another 4.5 milion accounts with less than 100 battles in total? LOL or 4.7 million accounts are inactive i.e have not plaied a single battle in a 6 month period just guessing here :)

therefore if its the active accounts experience 80% have almost 1k battles on average total in all tiers and classes cant blame MM the way it is regardless of wr .pr etc

 

 

btw i have over 14k  battles with tier10s alone :P

[DFens_666]

9 minutes ago, surfer_gr said:

i did not say that ofc noone can play over 100 battles in a day LOL nvm 20k but id you add down the column of the accounts with up to 1k battles in total thats the 80%+ of the player base right ? ok and why you have a sample pf 5.7 million battles when with shima alone are plaied over 12 milion lols pls clarify what this table shows if its the total accounts .......or accounts that logged in  a specific day ? that plaied at least on battle? so no idea what this table shows

 

 

1 million out of 5,7 million accounts have more than 100 battles played.

Its not battles, its individual accounts.

Those are the battles played by the 1 million accounts, which is 1.215.570.818 battles

[surfer_gr]

1 hour ago, DFens_666 said:

1 million out of 5,7 million accounts have more than 100 battles played.

so you have either 4.7 inactive accounts or accounts with less that 100 battles? oks so you agree that the vast ammount of the active player base has a very low experience in termas at least of battles and maps plaied not to say classes tiers etc etc in order to expect quality game play i assume in terms at least of map potioning ,,captain skilles upgrades etc etc thats my point no offence just an observation so no complains when for example old days would take at least 1k battles to grind a tier 10

so the 40% of the battles plaied are plaied with accounts of people with up to 1k battle experience in all tiers and classes i assume

[DFens_666]

8 minutes ago, surfer_gr said:

so you have either 4.7 inactive accounts or accounts with less that 100 battles? oks so you agree that the vast ammount of the active player base has a very low experience in termas at least of battles and maps plaied not to say classes tiers etc etc in order to expect quality game play i assume in terms at least of map potioning ,,captain skilles upgrades etc etc thats my point no offence just an observation so no complains 

 

Yes, 4,7 million accounts have less than 100 battles. Doesnt mean that they are currently playing the game.

Those are accounts with 1-99 battles played. Which are only 2,4 million out of the 4,7. So 2,3 million never played a single random battle. Maybe they started the game, played the first 2-3 coop games, didnt like it and moved on. If you are actively playing randoms, how long does it take to play 100 games? Not too long, so basicly all those accounts are just inactive. And then you have a few Coop only players i guess... hard to say how many of those are around.

 

Another point as to why a lot of people dont stick with this game

Thats the steam achievements. Only 10% of the steam players win 50 random battles...

[ForlornSailor]

11 hours ago, KHETTIFER said:

Can't balance divisions then remove them from random battles, they are one of the primary sources of balance issues in matches, groups in a balanced game are a force multipler, and considering WoWs has no balance at all it's an even larger force multipler.

 

Ah, great, so punish people, that actually care about winning and teamplay, so wows can become more of a shitshow? Is that what you are saying? How about you become better yourself, so you can be that force multiplier?

And just for the record: the primary source of balance issues are players, that are not interested in playing the game and the ones that dont manage to go past 40% WR and avg damage of 20k in their tier X BB. Believe it or not, but if the enemys play decent and not brainless, even a 3x division of unicum players has not many options left.

[Pukovnik7]

2 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

Neither WR nor PR can distinguish the difference between a lemming, suicider or a spawn camper. If you balance teams by that, you will still have teams where half the team is dead by the 5 minute mark, because thats just what they do.

And unless someone is deliberately AFK all the time (then he would get punished anyway), nothing can tell if someone is gonna be AFK or not.

Actually, they can. Well, PR can:

https://wows-numbers.com/personal/rating

 

It is far from perfect, but it does provide a measure of player's influence on a battle. Neither lemming, suicider nor spawn camper have high PR, true, but they have one thing in common: they are useless to their team. Meaning that teams balanced by PR will still be far more balanced than ones not balanced at all.

[DFens_666]

10 minutes ago, Pukovnik7 said:

Actually, they can. Well, PR can:

https://wows-numbers.com/personal/rating

 

It is far from perfect, but it does provide a measure of player's influence on a battle. Neither lemming, suicider nor spawn camper have high PR, true, but they have one thing in common: they are useless to their team. Meaning that teams balanced by PR will still be far more balanced than ones not balanced at all. 

 

For good players, it actually matters for carrying if your team is useless in spawn or dead after 4 minutes. When they are all dead, you cant carry anymore, because the enemy team gets all the point and you have 0 points. So you still get roflstomps. Suiciders are cause for those stomps, because they are dead. Only on Epicenter, campers are the ones causing the loss because the points tick so fast if one team gets all the caps and no enemy is contesting them.

Spawncampers will still shoot and cause damage to me, contrary to a ship that is already sunk.

 

If you get rid of bot-like suiciders, who always die within 3-5 minutes, games would be much more enjoyable and not end after 5-8 minutes.

[Camperdown]

2 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

Actually, they can. Well, PR can:

https://wows-numbers.com/personal/rating

 

It is far from perfect, but it does provide a measure of player's influence on a battle. Neither lemming, suicider nor spawn camper have high PR, true, but they have one thing in common: they are useless to their team. Meaning that teams balanced by PR will still be far more balanced than ones not balanced at all.

PR is heavily dependent on damage.

So, if you have a play style that does not emphasize farming damage, your PR will be lower.

For example I am a DD main (51% of battles DD) with a focus on hunting and killing enemy DDs and contesting caps. My WR is good, but my PR is average.

[159Hunter]

10 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

Combination of PR and WR should work. At the very least, it will ensure that lemmings / AFK players do not get all thrown into one team.

Pray god, do tell me how PR / WR / or any other statistic ... will tell the MM that he is dealing with an AFK player.

 

[Pukovnik7]

22 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

Pray god, do tell me how PR / WR / or any other statistic ... will tell the MM that he is dealing with an AFK player.

 

PR specifically is a combination of statistics, such as damage dealt and so on (this article states it is damage, wins and frags). Regardless of WR, an AFK player cannot have high PR. Though as @Camperdown points out, it is not exactly a good measure either. Still, I do know that game keeps track of stuff other than damage: there were more than a few games where the only things I did were smoking, spotting and capping, and I still ended up at the top of the scoreboard by stars gained.

[159Hunter]

1 hour ago, Pukovnik7 said:

PR specifically is a combination of statistics, such as damage dealt and so on (this article states it is damage, wins and frags). Regardless of WR, an AFK player cannot have high PR. Though as @Camperdown points out, it is not exactly a good measure either. Still, I do know that game keeps track of stuff other than damage: there were more than a few games where the only things I did were smoking, spotting and capping, and I still ended up at the top of the scoreboard by stars gained.

For starters:

- these statistics will NEVER detect an occasional AFK, NEVER

- someone who is afk often will have bad stats. Or maybe only because he/she doesn't like a certain matchup and in the other games he/she will perform good

- there are potatoes who'd be more useful to their team if they were afk. And their stats reflect this. But there is no way to know this.

 

I still believe most afk are of the occasional kind: someone ringing at the door, gf calling for help, baby crying ... 

[Pukovnik7]

2 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

For starters:

- these statistics will NEVER detect an occasional AFK, NEVER

- someone who is afk often will have bad stats. Or maybe only because he/she doesn't like a certain matchup and in the other games he/she will perform good

- there are potatoes who'd be more useful to their team if they were afk. And their stats reflect this. But there is no way to know this.

 

I still believe most afk are of the occasional kind: someone ringing at the door, gf calling for help, baby crying ... 

I don't care about occasional AFK. I have had cases where my internet connection just crashed or the game froze while in the match, and by the time I had managed to get back to the game I was on fire, with 10% HP left, and being shot at by half the enemy fleet. While sitting in the spawn, because in the time it took me to sort out the issue, rest of the team had gotten roflstomped. Stuff happens, and that is something you simply can't get away from. I had it happen to me, so being angry over it would be rather hypocritical of me. And extremely stupid, too. What I am talking about, what I was talking about from the beginning, is when people regularly underperform by refusing to play - either by not giving a crap, logging in and then sitting in the spawn, logging in and going AFK, or just "playing" in the chatbox and not caring that half the enemy fleet is shooting at them. That is what a toxic behaviour looks like. Even if they are not technically AFK, they are away from the game. Somebody who regularly does that is clearly not interested in the game. And even if they are not toxic and are merely bad, it is not fun when the opposing team has 20% higher WR and 10 000 more PR on average and simply ROFLSTOMP the opposition. Or get stomped flat because they were running matchmaking monitors and thought it would be an easy win even if half of them go AFK.

[ForlornSailor]

2 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

Or get stomped flat because they were running matchmaking monitors and thought it would be an easy win even if half of them go AFK.

 

One of the problems (its not the only cause tho) is the matchmaking monitor. There seems to be a growing number of players, that straight out refuse to play, when they see, their team is at a disadvantage. Its kinda insane, because very often, these people are the cause, atleast to a degree, for their team to show up with a lower overall winrate.

 

And quite frankly, I think, tools like mmm and others have a negative impact on the game. They shouldnt exist, they serve no real value. I admit, that I do sometimes check a certain player, especially the CVs in ranked, when I dont trust their names. It makes me chose how to play. And yea, even that is actually wrong.

 

Now as fas as blocking such tools.. I see this as a bit tricky. After all, one could still run the names on a laptop next to him thought wows-numbers, if you REALLY wanted to. There would only be one option: at the start of the game - dont show the names of the players. And I actually think, this might be a good solution... You dont really need that information.

[159Hunter]

7 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

I don't care about occasional AFK. I have had cases where my internet connection just crashed or the game froze while in the match, and by the time I had managed to get back to the game I was on fire, with 10% HP left, and being shot at by half the enemy fleet. While sitting in the spawn, because in the time it took me to sort out the issue, rest of the team had gotten roflstomped. Stuff happens, and that is something you simply can't get away from. I had it happen to me, so being angry over it would be rather hypocritical of me. And extremely stupid, too. What I am talking about, what I was talking about from the beginning, is when people regularly underperform by refusing to play - either by not giving a crap, logging in and then sitting in the spawn, logging in and going AFK, or just "playing" in the chatbox and not caring that half the enemy fleet is shooting at them. That is what a toxic behaviour looks like. Even if they are not technically AFK, they are away from the game. Somebody who regularly does that is clearly not interested in the game. And even if they are not toxic and are merely bad, it is not fun when the opposing team has 20% higher WR and 10 000 more PR on average and simply ROFLSTOMP the opposition. Or get stomped flat because they were running matchmaking monitors and thought it would be an easy win even if half of them go AFK.

All very nice. I understand your feeling. It's frustrating. But it's a player issue thay cannot be solved by looking at WR or PR. 

 

Also @ForlornSailor has a great point: ppl should just stop using mmm at the start of a game. All it does is create an even more toxic environment. If you "need" this to see which players are good enough to support / who can support you: look at the opening positioning of those players. That tells you all you need to know about a player's skill. 

[Camperdown]

1 hour ago, 159Hunter said:

All very nice. I understand your feeling. It's frustrating. But it's a player issue thay cannot be solved by looking at WR or PR. 

 

Also @ForlornSailor has a great point: ppl should just stop using mmm at the start of a game. All it does is create an even more toxic environment. If you "need" this to see which players are good enough to support / who can support you: look at the opening positioning of those players. That tells you all you need to know about a player's skill. 

Wise words. Look at what people do, not what MM says.

[Darkeid]

On 4/30/2021 at 9:43 AM, Camperdown said:

Wise words. Look at what people do, not what MM says.

You are matched with 8 below average PR & WR players and the opposing team has 3 super unicums and 2 below average. And your advice is look at what people do. Evidently, the only person in denial is you

[Darkeid]

On 3/8/2021 at 2:48 PM, 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.. :) 

This is basically what is going on (as already discussed about 30 pages ago). Nothing has changed , matches are still very imbalanced unfair and no one from WG is gaf

[ColonelPete]

16 minutes ago, Darkeid said:

You are matched with 8 below average PR & WR players and the opposing team has 3 super unicums and 2 below average. And your advice is look at what people do. Evidently, the only person in denial is you

And still it depends on what people do. When three enemies are AFK, you have a chance.

[RoyaleFlush]

Getting close to 600h and I can only complain about +/- 2 tier matchmaking difference... Make absolute no sense tbh.

 

Please do something before I move on another game, this is very disapointed...

[DFens_666]

23 minutes ago, RoyaleFlush said:

Getting close to 600h and I can only complain about +/- 2 tier matchmaking difference... Make absolute no sense tbh.

 

Please do something before I move on another game, this is very disapointed...

 

Well, guess you should move on then. We have had this MM for like 5 years, before that it was worse (probably because not enough players). WG said, they wont change +/-2 MM so... yeah, probably nothing is gonna happen with that.

[159Hunter]

1 hour ago, RoyaleFlush said:

Getting close to 600h and I can only complain about +/- 2 tier matchmaking difference... Make absolute no sense tbh.

 

Please do something before I move on another game, this is very disapointed...

And what exactly don't you like about it?

[RoyaleFlush]

Il y a 49 minutes, 159Hunter a dit :

And what exactly don't you like about it?

AP dmg / ships global resistances. (especially T8 vs T10)

 

Surprised you didn't figured it out by yourself.

[ForlornSailor]

12 minutes ago, RoyaleFlush said:

AP dmg / ships global resistances. (especially T8 vs T10)

 

Then how come, your worst performance is with T10 ships, when you, according to yourself, have the biggest advantage?

 

And just for the record: with your "especially T8 vs T10" you are wrong. very wrong.