Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

[Pukovnik7]

6 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

 Yeah, when I post the information that someone asked for, I am defending WG. Riiight.... And yes, it is completly plausible to disagree on that and find it unconstructive...

 When people comment on ALL my posts of two months in a thread in 15 minutes, they are not following me, riiiight (that is rougly the time you need to scroll through all the pages of the discussion)...

It is not disagreement that is unconstructive, it is just that you often do not add absolutely anything of value:

Worthless post

Again

Earlier

 

And so on. Even when you do add a somewhat constructive comment, you almost never develop it. Most of your posts are essentially naysaying, but you rarely elaborate on them or try to provide evidence or even just argument to support it. This post for example is fundamentally correct - but just like majority of your posts, it is qualitatively on the level of Twitter shitposting.

 

You are not the only one making such posts, of course. But your frequency of posting, and nature of responses, means that it is very easy for people to notice you. And when you are noticed, you will be responded to.

[ColonelPete]

1 minute ago, Pukovnik7 said:

 

Worthless post

Answer to an offtopic post and personal attack...

2 minutes ago, Pukovnik7 said:

Again

Answer to an offtopic post and personal attack...

2 minutes ago, Pukovnik7 said:

Earlier

Questioning the non-argument of a forumite....

6 minutes ago, Pukovnik7 said:

This post for example is fundamentally correct - but just like majority of your posts, it is qualitatively on the level of Twitter shitposting.

Did you expect a scientific treatise on this?

 

Btw. this is another meta discussion about me...

Quote

  On 8/28/2021 at 7:26 PM, ColonelPete said:

I am just answering...

If people would stop discussing me, I would post less...

 

[Pukovnik7]

57 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Answer to an offtopic post and personal attack...

Answer to an offtopic post and personal attack...

Questioning the non-argument of a forumite....

Did you expect a scientific treatise on this?

 

Btw. this is another meta discussion about me...

 

You complained about something, I tried to explain you what I think the cause is so that you can change something so that the thing you are complaining about does not happen again. I tried to help you - you responded with nothing but complaints.

 

So if you are refusing to change, then accept that nothing will change, and stop complaining. Ironically, the same advice you give to people who complain about the game.

[ColonelPete]

2 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

You complained about something, I tried to explain you what I think the cause is so that you can change something so that the thing you are complaining about does not happen again. I tried to help you - you responded with nothing but complaints.

 

So if you are refusing to change, then accept that nothing will change, and stop complaining. Ironically, the same advice you give to people who complain about the game.

I explained something. Note the difference. I do not mind the dicussions, otherwise I would not engage in them.

The cluelessness of most people trying to engage me with offtopic discussions is quite entertaining.

[djole7]

32,213 POSTS AND YOU ARE NOT A WG EMPLOYEEE?

 

[RuruushuVuiBuritania]

2 minutes ago, djole7 said:

32,213 POSTS AND YOU ARE NOT A WG EMPLOYEEE?

 

He is critical of WG quite often, how can he be a WG employee?

[ColonelPete]

11 minutes ago, djole7 said:

32,213 POSTS AND YOU ARE NOT A WG EMPLOYEEE?

 

Your logic does not compute. Please rethink your post

[Darkeid]

- The MM system creates unequal teams (latest match a few minutes ago)
- In recent examples previously discussed there are cases like this one 7 below average players being matched with 7 above average players (enter dialogue - check average damages, battles played, Account WR etc etc)
- Even though it was stated clearly on the CC summit of 2018 , that the classes of CV and DD have the biggest impact on the outcome of the game, no action has been taken to either improve the current system or have ever given any thought of offering the chance to the player base to play competitively against opponents of equal rating,

Excavatus himself has created a number quenching project that points that it is to be expected that 4 out of 10 matches are a guaranteed loss regardless of player effort. 

 

Since the start of this thread we have repeatedly mentioned that the existing MM system creates imbalances tragically one sided games that can be regarded as a predetermined loss regardless of what a player does in-game. Look at the MMM pictures since page 97 & after if you are still unclear of the problem)

And still people and more over WG refuses to acknowledge or address the issue. All we have been seeing here are repeated answers by players claiming that they are not WG employees. In todays stream the all mighty @Sub_Octavian stated that the MM is not going to change because according to what the "brains" at WG have determined , queue matching speed is the only thing that matters, class and tier are the only variables implemented and if something is affecting MM externally the possible solution is to change this??????????? (Official WG stream, official World of warships channel, timestamp 00:51:22 - twitch.tv/videos/1136869055) 
 

 The only thing affecting MM and makes the games unpleasant , annoying and frustrating is the fact that weaker-unskilled accounts are unfairly distributed between teams. That is what needs to be changed & is what people mentioned in your stream as the "hardcore gamers" have been asking over the years and over 235 pages of forum debate. 

This is where i want to paste todays "important message for the community"

 

Prove it. 

[PaxtonQuigly]

48 minutes ago, Darkeid said:

The only thing affecting MM and makes the games unpleasant , annoying and frustrating is the fact that weaker-unskilled accounts are unfairly distributed between teams.

The ONLY thing? No.

 

"In the matches were there were equal numbers of red players on the teams (very balanced teams based upon account win rates) there were still blowouts in 45% of the matches."

 

Source:

 

[Pukovnik7]

On 9/3/2021 at 2:47 AM, Darkeid said:

 The only thing affecting MM and makes the games unpleasant , annoying and frustrating is the fact that weaker-unskilled accounts are unfairly distributed between teams. That is what needs to be changed & is what people mentioned in your stream as the "hardcore gamers" have been asking over the years and over 235 pages of forum debate. 

No, it isn't. I have found that team WR does not necessarily have that big impact on how enjoyable the game is - unless the difference is extreme. Far more important are maps: if there is cover to enable defense, limiting enemy lines of fire and so on, then the matches will be quite close. If maps are open and allow focus fire and crossfire, then you get blowouts as the less skilled team just falls apart.

[Darkeid]

2 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

No, it isn't. I have found that team WR does not necessarily have that big impact on how enjoyable the game is - unless the difference is extreme. Far more important are maps: if there is cover to enable defense, limiting enemy lines of fire and so on, then the matches will be quite close. If maps are open and allow focus fire and crossfire, then you get blowouts as the less skilled team just falls apart.

 You have 3,345 battles. I think you should keep an open mind. 

[Pukovnik7]

1 hour ago, Darkeid said:

  You have 3,345 battles. I think you should keep an open mind. 

Number of battles does not make an incorrect statement suddenly correct. So long as your own team a) somewhat knows what they are doing and b) has the tools to somewhat negate the enemy advantage (MAP), even a major WR difference still does not prevent an enjoyable battle. Of course, a team of potatoes can ruin it, hence why I noted "unless the difference is extreme" - but if the team has the tools in terms of the map design, they can put up a stiff resistence regardless of anything else.

 

I never use matchmaking monitor - or any odder mods, really - so I can't give solid examples RE: team quality, but I have also heard similar complaints when it comes to ship quality. Yet I have had fun brawling in Bismarck against Friedrich der Grosse and Grosser Kurfurst class battleships. You'd think that I'd be toast thanks to their massive advantage in, well, everything other than agility - but terrain matters. If I can force them to make a mistake, show broadside, or cut them off from support and let my allies feast - victory is not just possible, but likely. But again, this requires proper map design. In a long-range slugfest, ship quality matters a lot more.

 

But I did notice that, when maps are open, even well-matched teams that lose no ships at all for first half of the game and appear to have good positioning - these matches can still end by the landslide. One lost ship leads to loss of spotting or firepower, which means that the opposing enemy ship can reposition to provide better spotting or crossfire, which leads to another loss, and another... and because maps are open, there is no place to run to. Unless enemy overcommits or makes a major mistake, the game is basically over once a team has a two-ship advantage on such an open map. Everything else is a mop-up.

[lup3s]

On 9/3/2021 at 2:47 AM, Darkeid said:

The MM system creates unequal teams (latest match a few minutes ago)

 

Advocate of the devil here; aren't unequal teams part of a random matchmaker system ?

 

(Just as much as equal teams are.)

 

::: edit :::

 

* "equal" here being about players' skill, NOT about specific ships / ship types (since I do think there should be some more balance regarding number of "torpedo" DDs & "gunboat" DDs, radar cruisers, battlecruisers ...).

[General_Alexus]

17 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

Number of battles does not make an incorrect statement suddenly correct. So long as your own team a) somewhat knows what they are doing and b) has the tools to somewhat negate the enemy advantage (MAP), even a major WR difference still does not prevent an enjoyable battle. Of course, a team of potatoes can ruin it, hence why I noted "unless the difference is extreme" - but if the team has the tools in terms of the map design, they can put up a stiff resistence regardless of anything else.

 

I never use matchmaking monitor - or any odder mods, really - so I can't give solid examples RE: team quality, but I have also heard similar complaints when it comes to ship quality. Yet I have had fun brawling in Bismarck against Friedrich der Grosse and Grosser Kurfurst class battleships. You'd think that I'd be toast thanks to their massive advantage in, well, everything other than agility - but terrain matters. If I can force them to make a mistake, show broadside, or cut them off from support and let my allies feast - victory is not just possible, but likely. But again, this requires proper map design. In a long-range slugfest, ship quality matters a lot more.

 

But I did notice that, when maps are open, even well-matched teams that lose no ships at all for first half of the game and appear to have good positioning - these matches can still end by the landslide. One lost ship leads to loss of spotting or firepower, which means that the opposing enemy ship can reposition to provide better spotting or crossfire, which leads to another loss, and another... and because maps are open, there is no place to run to. Unless enemy overcommits or makes a major mistake, the game is basically over once a team has a two-ship advantage on such an open map. Everything else is a mop-up.

In adition to the maps, it does not help that shipspawns are unequal and in addition influenced by divisions spawning together. Just Yesterday I had three games in a row spawning with an afk DD on an empty flank (3 people in total)

You dont even know if there will be up to 5 people infront of you until they are spotted so you have the choise of beeing outnumbered heavyly or give up caps/important positions from the start.

[Darkeid]

 

On 9/5/2021 at 2:20 PM, Pukovnik7 said:

No, it isn't. I have found that team WR does not necessarily have that big impact on how enjoyable the game is - unless the difference is extreme. Far more important are maps: if there is cover to enable defense, limiting enemy lines of fire and so on, then the matches will be quite close. If maps are open and allow focus fire and crossfire, then you get blowouts as the less skilled team just falls apart.

As much as each persons opinion is respected, however i can not imagine you being honest in saying that and claim to be enjoying being wiped in a 7-8 min battle because some players should not be allowed to join tier X games. (suicide dds with account WR of < 45% , ignorant cvs that disregard their role, afkers, teamkillers) 

 

20 hours ago, lup3s said:

 

Advocate of the devil here; aren't unequal teams part of a random matchmaker system ?

 

(Just as much as equal teams are.)

 

::: edit :::

 

* "equal" here being about players' skill, NOT about specific ships / ship types (since I do think there should be some more balance regarding number of "torpedo" DDs & "gunboat" DDs, radar cruisers, battlecruisers ...).

Equal would be offering equal chances to both teams to win. Equal would mean that even after the CC summit video of 2018 (whereas the CV role and the DD role are characterized by WGs own devs as the 2 roles with the biggest affectability in % of winning) at least in the most important picks of the team you should distribute players in a balanced way.

 

EDIT:  latest battle right now

 

[PaxtonQuigly]

@Darkeid why you on -1 karma?

[Pukovnik7]

5 hours ago, Darkeid said:

As much as each persons opinion is respected, however i can not imagine you being honest in saying that and claim to be enjoying being wiped in a 7-8 min battle because some players should not be allowed to join tier X games. (suicide dds with account WR of < 45% , ignorant cvs that disregard their role, afkers, teamkillers) 

 

And again, "getting wiped out in a 7 - 8 minute battle" is something that happenly only in two cases:

1) On open maps where there is no cover to limit the enemy's ability to set up crossfires

2) In cases where majority of one team are not just less skilled than the enemy team, but outright potatoes

 

If a map is well designed, then yes, you will likely lose against a more skilled team - but even that is not certain, and in any case it will not be a landslide loss of the kind that will happen on an open map.

 

I am honest, you just do not - or refuse to - understand what I am saying.

12 hours ago, General_Alexus said:

In adition to the maps, it does not help that shipspawns are unequal and in addition influenced by divisions spawning together. Just Yesterday I had three games in a row spawning with an afk DD on an empty flank (3 people in total)

You dont even know if there will be up to 5 people infront of you until they are spotted so you have the choise of beeing outnumbered heavyly or give up caps/important positions from the start.

Agreed. Granted, a weaker flank can also often hold out against a superior enemy - but that requires either good cover, or extremely skilled players. And as you noted, you do not know whether you are outnumbered until you spot the enemy, which again leads to need for good cover.

[geschlittert]

On 9/3/2021 at 2:47 AM, Darkeid said:

Excavatus himself has created a number quenching project that points that it is to be expected that 4 out of 10 matches are a guaranteed loss regardless of player effort. 

No, I can tell you that you can win about 7/10 battles when playing solo T10, even more if you play the meta ships (73-75% should be the ceiling for the best ships).

 

[Camperdown]

On 9/6/2021 at 11:11 PM, Pukovnik7 said:

And again, "getting wiped out in a 7 - 8 minute battle" is something that happenly only in two cases:

1) On open maps where there is no cover to limit the enemy's ability to set up crossfires

2) In cases where majority of one team are not just less skilled than the enemy team, but outright potatoes

 

If a map is well designed, then yes, you will likely lose against a more skilled team - but even that is not certain, and in any case it will not be a landslide loss of the kind that will happen on an open map.

 

I am honest, you just do not - or refuse to - understand what I am saying.

Agreed. Granted, a weaker flank can also often hold out against a superior enemy - but that requires either good cover, or extremely skilled players. And as you noted, you do not know whether you are outnumbered until you spot the enemy, which again leads to need for good cover.

You do not need extremely skilled players to defend a weaker flank. The only thing you need is that all players on the weaker flank recognise the situation and turn to defense.

Now I will acknowledge that this is a rare occurrence. What typically happens is that at least 1 player does not understand the situation and overextends. He gets killed and the already weaker flank now collapses.

What also happens: a key ship sees his flank is weak and moves away to farm damage on the stronger flank. 

Do you need to be extremely skilled to avoid these stupid or selfish actions? I don't think so, most players with 2K battles and +50% winrate should be able to do this imo. But player skill is so insanely low now that a good defense of a weak flank rarely happens.

[Pukovnik7]

3 hours ago, Camperdown said:

You do not need extremely skilled players to defend a weaker flank. The only thing you need is that all players on the weaker flank recognise the situation and turn to defense.

 Now I will acknowledge that this is a rare occurrence. What typically happens is that at least 1 player does not understand the situation and overextends. He gets killed and the already weaker flank now collapses.

 What also happens: a key ship sees his flank is weak and moves away to farm damage on the stronger flank. 

Do you need to be extremely skilled to avoid these stupid or selfish actions? I don't think so, most players with 2K battles and +50% winrate should be able to do this imo. But player skill is so insanely low now that a good defense of a weak flank rarely happens.

Situations where ship(s) from weaker flank just ran away to center seem to be a regular occurence. But what I was talking about is the fact that, if map is wholly open, it is easy to farm HE damage - and there are few ways of mitigating it. So no matter what you do, weak flank will collapse, and relatively soon. Which means that if the strong flank does not push hard enough, or simply aren't as good at long-range targeting as the enemy strong flank is, the whole team collapses.

[Darkeid]

All these out of topic posts serve nothing or offer anything to the thread. This is "Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance"

I'm starting to think that all these bury the negative opinion bundles of text must serve their purpose.

 

 

 

[LiveWire___]

On 2/25/2019 at 10:24 PM, Chaos_Umbra said:

Isn't that around the time that Legendary module grind missions were added to tier 10 ships?

 

That might just be the reason why T8 MM is screwed... 

Which is a shame.

 

Because, imho, T8 is the last tier in which interesting ships and fewer Potatoes live.

[garfield06061991]

@Crysantos 

When are you going to remove the blacklist of players in matchmaking? It is difficult to play your game if you always have to lose because they put the worst players as partners. That way of punishing players is unreasonable in a game like this.

 

 

 

 

 

[ColonelPete]

20 hours ago, garfield06061991 said:

@Crysantos 

 

Yes, you lose always. We can clearly see that

 

https://wows-numbers.com/player/564423454,garfield06061991/

[geschlittert]

Ok, I want to give my opinion on the MM, or how I deal with it.

It must be clear from the outset that you cannot win all battles. It should be obvious that in a team game you are also dependent on your teammates. This circumstance can now also lead to the fact that even if you play perfectly, you can lose several games in a row - is statistically simply to be expected.

 

Now I come to an unpleasant truth: You can win 70% of the games playing solo - in almost all ships (speaking as a T10 main here). With a few BBs/DDs/cruisers you even get towards 75% with perfect play. Some CVs even approach 80%. How do I come to this conclusion? By looking at the stats of the best of the best.

A few examples:

https://wows-numbers.com/player/538619355,TheSailingRobin/?type=solo

https://wows-numbers.com/player/500701135,RNGsama/?type=solo

CV main: https://wows-numbers.com/player/526953200,El2aZeR/?type=solo

Thanks to conscientious reflection, I myself have managed to improve steadily over the years - but even now there are still a lot of mistakes that need to be ironed out.

You can follow the development of your own stats over the years very well here: https://proships.ru/stat/eu/main/

 

My conclusion: It simply doesn't make sense to get excessively worked up about the team members. The primary focus should always be on analysing what you have done wrong yourself and what you can improve - if you find this difficult to recognise yourself, there are also help offers such as the Help Me discord. It is also unhealthy to always get upset - it doesn't help you or the teammates you might be grumbling at.