Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

[Smegger213]

17 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

So you think that the unicum ratio from the 4th year of the game and the 6th year of the game is vastly different to the 7th year of the game and now far above 2%? Without any proof or reason?

Despite the fact that the numbers of the 4th and 6th are quite similar?

Yes, these are counted to and the ratio is still that low...

I don't think anything of the sorts.

I am just saying that you haven't provided current data.

So what, that numbers for 4th and 6th years are similar.

It does not prove that the figures today will be the same.

They may be, but who cares. I don't.

The percentage of unicom players is irrelevant as far as the matchmaker is concerned.

[ColonelPete]

1 minute ago, Smegger213 said:

I don't think anything of the sorts.

I am just saying that you haven't provided current data.

So what, that numbers for 4th and 6th years are similar.

It does not prove that the figures today will be the same.

They may be, but who cares. I don't.

The percentage of unicom players is irrelevant as far as the matchmaker is concerned.

Yeah, the not thinking part is the problem.

 

If you do not care, why ask the question? 

And the number of unicums seemed to be relevant to you as you claimed to run into unicum enemy teams in random regularly...

[Smegger213]

6 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Yeah, the not thinking part is the problem.

 

If you do not care, why ask the question? 

And the number of unicums seemed to be relevant to you as you claimed to run into unicum enemy teams in random regularly...

Go look back at my posts.

It was not me that complained of unicoms on teams.

My beef was the number of times being bottom tier.

Get your facts right for once.

[Aethervoxx]

On 7/24/2022 at 11:06 AM, S7affy said:

Have you heard a massive pop yet?

Unfortunately, no, Pete's head has not yet exploded  ...... 'it' is still here ... .

On 7/31/2022 at 7:27 AM, ColonelPete said:

Yes and no.

Mr 'Contrarian'  strikes again.

 

[Bear__Necessities]

7 hours ago, Smegger213 said:

I don't think anything of the sorts.

I am just saying that you haven't provided current data.

So what, that numbers for 4th and 6th years are similar.

It does not prove that the figures today will be the same.

They may be, but who cares. I don't.

The percentage of unicom players is irrelevant as far as the matchmaker is concerned.

And you have not provided ANY data. None. Zero. Nada. 

 

You have no evidence that shows a significant rise in the amount of Unicums players rising. 

 

You're entire point is moot. 

[Smegger213]

1 hour ago, Bear__Necessities said:

And you have not provided ANY data. None. Zero. Nada. 

 

You have no evidence that shows a significant rise in the amount of Unicums players rising. 

 

You're entire point is moot. 

Again, get your facts right.

 

I never said there was any significant rise in the number of Unicoms.

I just said nobody has provided up to date data, to state the number of Unicoms in the game today.

 

[Bear__Necessities]

1 hour ago, Smegger213 said:

Again, get your facts right.

 

I never said there was any significant rise in the number of Unicoms.

I just said nobody has provided up to date data, to state the number of Unicoms in the game today.

 

We've shown you data from almost 6 years of this game being played. You know, you could also just go tally it yourself. But again, it seems like you just don't want to admit you made an error. 

[lup3s]

4 minutes ago, Bear__Necessities said:

But again, it seems like you just don't want to admit you made an error. 

 

When in doubt, blame MM ! 

[Smegger213]

1 hour ago, Bear__Necessities said:

We've shown you data from almost 6 years of this game being played. You know, you could also just go tally it yourself. But again, it seems like you just don't want to admit you made an error. 

You people really make me laugh. 

 

How can I be in error, when I never disputed the figures quoted in the first place. 

 

I just said that you cannot possible prove any percentage of unicom players at any time. 

 

The number of active accounts at any one time will be a different figure every day. So how can you put a figure on number of unicoms?

 

How do you define a unicom player? A 60% win rate player with 250, 500, 1000, or 2000 battles? 

Besides, what you class as a unicom will defer wildly to what another player would class as a unicom. 

Me personally, I would say anybody with over a 1000 battles and a win rate of 55% or over, could be classed as a unicom in my eyes. 

 

Besides, it was not me that complained about the number of unicom on the enemy team in the first place. 

The number of unicom is irrelavent as far as the matchmaker goes. 

[ghostbuster_]

Is this guy saying "unicom" on purpose? its kinda annoying after repeating it several times in one post. like unicom unicom unicOm unicOm UNICOM

[Smegger213]

4 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

Is this guy saying "unicom" on purpose? its kinda annoying after repeating it several times in one post. like unicom unicom unicOm unicOm UNICOM

Who cares? I don't.

You can call them super dooper good players, for all I care. 

[ghostbuster_]

Just now, Smegger213 said:

Who cares? I don't.

You can call them super dooper good players, for all I care. 

Well, if you don't care, maybe you shouldn't answer, especially to a question which obviously wasn't directed at you. 

[Bear__Necessities]

49 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

Is this guy saying "unicom" on purpose? its kinda annoying after repeating it several times in one post. like unicom unicom unicOm unicOm UNICOM

Honestly, with that guy? Who knows. But they care an awful lot for someone claiming to not care. 

[SV_Kompresor]

2 hours ago, ghostbuster_ said:

Is this guy saying "unicom" on purpose? its kinda annoying after repeating it several times in one post. like unicom unicom unicOm unicOm UNICOM

Well he did say it 8 times in one short post. And managed to misspell it every single time.

[Smegger213]

2 hours ago, ghostbuster_ said:

Well, if you don't care, maybe you shouldn't answer, especially to a question which obviously wasn't directed at you. 

I was responding to the claim that 2% of the player base are unicoms. 

A claim that cannot be proven, due to the reasons I set out above. 

 

A guy was complaining about being put in a team of tomatoes. When the enemy team was full of 55% and above win rate players. 

Mr matchmaker supporter Pete claimed that only 2% are unicoms. 

 

But time and time again, I will just repeat what I said before. 

Wargaming will NEVER bring in Skill based matchmaking EVER. 

So it's pointless complaining about it. 

[Smegger213]

2 minutes ago, SV_Kompresor said:

Well he did say it 8 times in one short post. And managed to misspell it every single time.

Who gives a S___

[Aethervoxx]

4 hours ago, Smegger213 said:

You people really make me laugh. 

These kind of responders make me retch.

4 hours ago, Smegger213 said:

How can I be in error, when I never disputed the figures quoted in the first place. 

This doesn't matter, at all, to the self-appointed Forum Know-it-Alls.

9 hours ago, Bear__Necessities said:

You're entire point is moot. 

As are your drivel responses.

Don't bother responding to these known Forum Sea Scums, Smegger213. These Human Waste Effluent Pipes just foul the waters with their 'contrarianism' & their 'I'm the Expert so 'I will dump all over your opinions'.

[SV_Kompresor]

8 minutes ago, Smegger213 said:

Who gives a S___

Not you clearly.

[RuruushuVuiBuritania]

8 minutes ago, Aethervoxx said:

 

Don't bother responding to these known Forum Sea Scums, Smegger213. These Human Waste Effluent Pipes just foul the waters with their 'contrarianism' & their 'I'm the Expert so 'I will dump all over your opinions'.

The problem of the MM is mainly bad/casual players vs. good players. You may not like being told the truth, but that does not take away that it is the truth. MM being random is something you take advantage of as a good player. WG should cater more to good players, as they did with the fact that bad players now find it harder to earn credits after the economy rework.
It is not about being contrarian, it is about stating facts.

[Aethervoxx]

3 minutes ago, Smegger213 said:

A guy was complaining about being put in a team of tomatoes. When the enemy team was full of 55% and above win rate players. 

Which, ofc, happens a lot. All to induce uninformed & unaware poor players to spend money .   

 

5 minutes ago, Smegger213 said:

 Wargaming will NEVER bring in Skill based matchmaking EVER. 

Exactly. Still, one can complain about the horridly unbalanced MM, although, it won't make any difference at all.

WG Ocean never notices any player tears over the state of the MM. I believe this 'consideration' is in WG MM patent somewhere (never to be acknowledged specifically, ... for ...   business ( ) reasons.

[Smegger213]

4 minutes ago, RuruushuVuiBuritania said:

The problem of the MM is mainly bad/casual players vs. good players. You may not like being told the truth, but that does not take away that it is the truth. MM being random is that you take advantage of as a good player. WG should cater more to good players, as they did with the fact that bad players now find it harder to earn credits after the economy rework.
It is not about being contrarian, it is about stating facts.

Being put bottom tier time and time again, has nothing to do with good or bad players. 

That is my matchmaking complaint. 

It doesn't bother me if the enemy team have better players than my team. 

I don't run the potato meter or whatever its called lol. 

 

Or is it Tomatoe meter? 

[RuruushuVuiBuritania]

3 minutes ago, Smegger213 said:

Being put bottom tier time and time again, has nothing to do with good or bad players. 

That is my matchmaking complaint. 

It doesn't bother me if the enemy team have better players than my team. 

I don't run the potato meter or whatever its called lol. 

 

Or is it Tomatoe meter? 

Being put bottom tier has everything to do with good or bad players, since for good players it is not really a problem. As long as you play well in bottom tier, you can at least save your own score, if not make a winning contribution. We talk about potatoes in this game, tomatoes are from that tank game that manages to be worse than that other tank game 

[Aethervoxx]

2 minutes ago, Smegger213 said:

Being put bottom tier time and time again, has nothing to do with good or bad players. 

I don't mind being bottom or under-tiered sometimes, however, when it happens battle after battle too often this does get old fast.

I don't run the potato meter either.

Whether or not I'm any good (& the trolls here would say I'm not) I am seldom the first dead player on my team, however, on more of my battles, my team has the couple idiots who rush out & die first.

It does bother me that the MM is not truly random (never was & never will be).

[Aethervoxx]

This is just one example of how the MM tries to effect a battle.

A T5 - T7 random (I was T6 btw) with one 2 player div on my team &  two 2 player divs on the other. 

My initial thought was great, they have the advantage (& they did & it almost got them the W).

Three caps map.

Surprisingly, my team captured all three while enemy team tried the 'camp' strategy.

Here's the kicker, the one div on the enemy team were these 2 NMs, both with 50%+ WRs - between them they sank 6 on my team (including me). Ofc, they were getting KSs whether they did all the damage or not.

Fortunately, we had one DD who survived & won it for us via the time running out.

After battle, I messaged these two guys to tell them that next time they might have tried to push earlier instead of camping so much. I love it when these players with good WRs lose.

The hilarious part was they both went after my WR & my alleged poor play plus my middling performance. LOL - I wasn't the worst on my team & I did cap & did sink one enemy plus I had 3-4 enemy on me at that point.

I pointed out that my team won despite their stat shaming (you should have seen how they both tried to stat shame - just like well known stat shamers/stat braggers * who frequent the Forum).

It sure is satisfying seeing stat shamers lose a battle - their 'pwecious WR' gets a scratch - oh, so sad (ROFL).

* 2 well know stat shamers/stat braggers - CP & BN (amongst others)

[Bear__Necessities]

1 hour ago, Aethervoxx said:

These kind of responders make me retch.

This doesn't matter, at all, to the self-appointed Forum Know-it-Alls.

As are your drivel responses.

Don't bother responding to these known Forum Sea Scums, Smegger213. These Human Waste Effluent Pipes just foul the waters with their 'contrarianism' & their 'I'm the Expert so 'I will dump all over your opinions'.

Just stick to your regular downvoting. less embarrassing than the stuff you write old chap.