Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

[ColonelPete]

19 minutes ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

That's not proof. That's a statement of intent. My testing showed me, that it doesn't work as described in that piece of text.

So, again: have you hard proof that it works? Have you tested it yourself? Or do you believe the sky is pink because WG wrote so somewhere here in the forum?

It was tested by multiple players, even in this thread.

When you count as you are supposed to count, it works.

[Deckeru_Maiku]

25 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

It was tested by multiple players, even in this thread.

When you count as you are supposed to count, it works.

You know what, I'll do another test.. just for you.

Still got my alternate account, which I haven't played for more than a year (19th June 2020 was my last battle on it) so results probably aren't tarnished by previous battles.

Then I'll report the outcome...

Personal, y'know... better than "I read it on the forum... somewhere..."

[xe_N_on]

Vor 6 Stunden, Deckeru_Maiku sagte:

Nope... tested that a couple months before already, with writing down tier of ship played and if it's L-M-H tier in the battle... and the %s weren't nowhere close to what WG had proposed them to be.

It might (!) work if one plays the same ship for 20 battles in a row... which is not what was proposed by WG.

Of course if you have some hard proof yourself, feel free to show it here. A blank "it works" isn't proof though.

This only really works if you playing multiple games with the same ship.

 

The best solution is however to play T9.

[Deckeru_Maiku]

18 hours ago, xe_N_on said:

This only really works if you playing multiple games with the same ship.

Exactly what I thought after my previous testing.

Only did five battles on my alt account today in three different T5 ships and ended in T7 battles three times and as a "mid tier" and "high tier" (so T6 and T5 battles) each once.

I'll go on for a while...

 

18 hours ago, xe_N_on said:

The best solution is however to play T9.

Not really... you can still end as the only T9 with 11 T10 ships.

And you have to endure the utterly stupid and borin T10 "hug the island, as the one that moves get nuked" meta.

[ColonelPete]

The MM limitation works per Tier, not ship.

 

A Tier IX ship should not be the lone Tier IX in a Tier X team. WG added minimum numbers for lower Tier ships ages ago.

 

 

[Deckeru_Maiku]

8 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

The MM limitation works is supposed to work per Tier, not ship.

 

fixed that for you, until hard facts come unto the table about it being really a fact and not only an "proposal" by WG

 

8 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

A Tier IX ship should not be the lone Tier IX in a Tier X team. WG added minimum numbers for lower Tier ships ages ago.

 

Yeah, it probably shouldn't. There also shouldn't random battles with only 9 or 10 players per team during prime time, and still there are such battles. And occasions where a lone low tier ends in an otherwise full +2 battle.

And in fact it doesn't make any difference if there's one or two T9 ships meeting 11 or 10 T10 battles... or T8s instead of those T9s

[gabberworld]

On 7/4/2021 at 6:01 PM, Dusan_The_Mighty said:

I'll stop.. sorry. Enough is enough.

 

you give up at point where you should start push up hard. we cant choose mm in this game, but we can give from self everything for try the victory

 

i had below 50% win-rate myself as well in 4000 battles, what means in this days i lose more than i win

 

your mistake is that you was soo desperate for want go high tier but statistic shows that you not even good at tier 3

 

point is if you not have skills how you think to win skilled players in higher tiers?

[ColonelPete]

2 hours ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

And in fact it doesn't make any difference if there's one or two T9 ships meeting 11 or 10 T10 battles... or T8s instead of those T9s

The number is not 2.

[Deckeru_Maiku]

7 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

The number is not 2.

And what is it then?

And what is your proof for your assumption?

Validated proof, of course, not another "proposal" or something like it.

Or do will again only give an answer without any real value, devoid of facts, another one-liner which would leave the reader with the desire to shout out "Where's the beef?" like in that old american TV commercial spot?

So..

Where's the beef?

[ColonelPete]

1 hour ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

And what is it then?

And what is your proof for your assumption?

Validated proof, of course, not another "proposal" or something like it.

Or do will again only give an answer without any real value, devoid of facts, another one-liner which would leave the reader with the desire to shout out "Where's the beef?" like in that old american TV commercial spot?

So..

Where's the beef?

Where is your proof?

Quote

List of changes

• For Tier VII–X battles, we've placed a limit on the minimum number of ships two tiers lower than the battle tier.
• We’ve placed a limit on the maximum number of ships whose tier corresponds to the battle tier, with the exception of battles where all ships are of the same tier.
• We’ve updated the settings that restrict the number of ships of a specific type in a battle.

For example: in Tier X battles, the team will consist of at least 3 ships of Tier VIII (if such ships are waiting in the queue), and not more than 5 ships of Tier X, provided that the matchmaker's queue has a normal number of players waiting. The number of destroyers and battleships in the team will not exceed 4 and 5 ships of each type, respectively.

For each battle tier, several sets of settings will be used that will replace each other, depending on the waiting time in the queue—the longer the battle waiting time, the softer the restrictions. The new settings will allow us to avoid a significant increase in waiting times if there aren't many people looking to play a battle in a particular moment, and at the same time, still assemble battles with the most efficient team rosters possible.

 

https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/game-updates/update-093-europen-destroyers-part-2/#matchmaking-improvements

 

[totally_potato]

13 hours ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

Yeah, it probably shouldn't. There also shouldn't random battles with only 9 or 10 players per team during prime time, and still there are such battles. And occasions where a lone low tier ends in an otherwise full +2 battle.

I personally think it should be +1 and -1 MM, rather than +2 or -2. Or will that affect the MM spread too much???

[Deckeru_Maiku]

6 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

Where is your proof?

I did test it and I test it reight now. Did You do that? Or do You just believe in fairy tales what WG writes in Public Relation stints?

 

I just noticed a nice difference between two of those PR thingies, both quoted here by You:

---

Update 0.8.7:

We’re introducing strict limitations on the tiers of battles that you can be sent to. For each player, the matchmaker will take into account the number of battles they have played with ships of the same tier as theirs, as well as the number of ships one or two tiers higher.

After a short calibration period that will last up to 20 battles for each battle type and ship tier, the matchmaker will ensure that the percentage of battles with ships of the specified tier does not exceed the set limits. For example, for Tier VIII ships (which might mean, that for other tiers the limits might be different), the limits are expected to be 40% of battles with ships two tiers higher. This means that out of 20 battles you play with Tier VIII ships, a maximum of eight battles will include Tier X ships.

Another advantage of this change is that series of battles will be reliably interrupted, because the matchmaker will analyze the last 20 battles each time. This means that when calibration is done, long series of battles with ships of higher tiers will not occur when repeatedly using a single ship tier.

 

Update 0.9.3:

For Tier VII–X battles, we've placed a limit on the minimum number of ships two tiers lower than the battle tier. (without giving details how it gets handles, except for on example for T10 battles... is it the same rules for T7 to T10? Or are they different from tier to tier? No data given...)

...

The number of destroyers and battleships in the team will not exceed 4 and 5 ships of each type, respectively. (Also only T7 to T10 battles? But even it is restricted like that, it is, regularly, not handled like that at all.. lots of examples here in the forum with screenshots and whatever.. so... Oxfeces?)

---

Which allows us the following conclusion:

WG did some nice proclamation of intent, without giving any real details about how the rules are really are set and handled.

The "restrictions" mentioned in the Update 0.8.7 patch notes might or might not allow these mentioned restrictions work the same for T8 and T5 ships. Or not. We can't know... it's not in the text...

And it's the same for the patchnotes for 0.9.3 - they might work the same for all battles from T7 to T10... or not...

 

So, it's still the same... where is the effing beef?

 

[ColonelPete]

4 minutes ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

I did test it and I test it reight now.

Good for you, still no proof.

[Deckeru_Maiku]

1 minute ago, ColonelPete said:

Good for you, still no proof.

another one liner without a word about the facts given in my post. So just your usual discussion style. "Win by post number..." Doesn't work though...

 

 

[ColonelPete]

3 minutes ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

another one liner without a word about the facts given in my post. So just your usual discussion style. "Win by post number..." Doesn't work though...

That fact was that you had no proof.

The rest was speculation.

[Deckeru_Maiku]

7 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

That fact was that you had no proof.

The rest was speculation.

Other than You, I'm working on gathering proof... you just quote unclear statements of intent

[159Hunter]

@Deckeru_Maiku just post the test results (srry if you did and I missed them) and not only the conclusions.

[Deckeru_Maiku]

2 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

@Deckeru_Maiku just post the test results (srry if you did and I missed them) and not only the conclusions.

I will, as soon as I have enough numbers and not only a small sample size number of battles. But it will take some time, as I have a life besides WoWs..

[Saint_Michaelus]

I will put only this - MM on COOP - 5 destroyers on both sides..Wargaming - this is not a World of Warships but World of Destroyers...4 DD's are quite standard ( 2 should be as maximum) ..but 5 it's a madness. Again and again the same issue like in World of Tanks with 5-7 scout tanks or 4-5 arties on both sides. MM is another reason why so low ppl of players taking a fun in NA server. And you can sent there (to America)  a 1 000 000 community contributors like QuickBaby - bu if you not change a course towards to the player base, and you wan't to be listening what they reasonably proposing you will be abandoned..

 

 

[GarrusBrutus]

4 hours ago, _Hegemon_ said:

this is not a World of Warships but World of Destroyers

World of DD, you say?

 

[ColonelPete]

This was two days ago, please find the DD:

Spoiler

 

[totally_potato]

On 7/10/2021 at 11:13 PM, Deckeru_Maiku said:

another one liner without a word about the facts given in my post. So just your usual discussion style. "Win by post number..." Doesn't work though...

 

 

I think with the fair number of discussions I had with this guy, I have come to the same conclusion. When you give proof, he labels them as not proof. Oh well. There is a saying in children stories, "You can take a ****** to a river, you can't make him drink".

[totally_potato]

I still personally think MM should be +1 and -1. Its way more balanced imo. And it makes way more sense from an arcade perspective. 

[ColonelPete]

2 minutes ago, totally_potato said:

I think with the fair number of discussions I had with this guy, I have come to the same conclusion. When you give proof, he labels them as not proof. Oh well. There is a saying in children stories, "You can take a ****** to a river, you can't make him drink".

Then please show me the proof 

[totally_potato]

3 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Then please show me the proof 

I ain't the arguer here

I am the audience here

So it would take a bit of hard work to prove it, if I even bothered. 

Why should I suffer through 50 games of MM trend, just for a guy in the forums who doesn't give a crap, when its already obvious.