Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

[Hyborian_Punk]

Hello Dear Community,

 

my last battle for the next two patches for sure,

I was playing with Aviere, got 2 tier 8 CVs, with two tier 8 subs in division. One more tier 8 BB on each side, one BB, CA and DD on tier 7, last on tier 6.

can you tell me how on earth this is a balanced MM ?? If you don't feel the disappointment then something is wrong with you.

Still don't believe that WG is not willing to balance the MM. - I don't need comments for this from paid moderators, THX

 

[Smegger213]

3 hours ago, Pesti_Mauser said:

Hello Dear Community,

 

my last battle for the next two patches for sure,

I was playing with Aviere, got 2 tier 8 CVs, with two tier 8 subs in division. One more tier 8 BB on each side, one BB, CA and DD on tier 7, last on tier 6.

can you tell me how on earth this is a balanced MM ?? If you don't feel the disappointment then something is wrong with you.

Still don't believe that WG is not willing to balance the MM. - I don't need comments for this from paid moderators, THX

 

Yep, 2 x CV's and 2 x Subs on each side is a complete joke.

Esp if you happen to be a tier 6 in a game with tier 8 CV's and tier 8 Subs.

[quickr]

It wasn't the CV rework it won't be the subs. If I'm gonna quit wows it will be cos of the incapable players.

 

 

[Yosha_AtaIante]

Some games are just not winnable.. On others you brought the Hornet :D

[Dampfboot]

T IX vs 5 super ships. So fun & engaging! Game decided with divisions by MM before it starts.

 

 

[SurfaceFish]

Blowout MM, colour me surprised! All the 9 random games I played this month are blowouts, such a shame as I feel there is almost nothing to learn from those kind of games, so there is very little to improve my skill by playing random solo.

[SurfaceFish]

Can't even enjoy co op in peace without WG insert double subs. now since I'm the only human in this match, would WG ban me for unsporting behaviour if I quite to port?

[Fuel_Inspector]

Info found in the wow's wiki:
There are upper limits on the percentages of battle tiers a ship will be sent to.[12] For Tier VI–IX ships, the maximum number of battles with ships two tiers higher has been reduced to no more than 37.5% over the last 16 battles. Thus, Tier VI–IX ships will more often find themselves in battles with their own tiers or ships one tier higher.[10]

 

So while grinding french cruiser tier 7 Algerie one day I decided to take some notes on the matchmaker.

Double uptiered NO MORE than 37.5%, did WG miscommunicate some numbers? 

Math says 43.33% double uptiered and for a tier 7 cruiser thats some rough games, yes yes there were some games where good xp was farmed aswell.

It saw it's own tier games a whopping 2 times.

 

I would be perfectly fine with waiting in queue for a little longer to get a better matchmaker. 

[ColonelPete]

36 minutes ago, Fuel_Inspector said:

Info found in the wow's wiki:
There are upper limits on the percentages of battle tiers a ship will be sent to.[12] For Tier VI–IX ships, the maximum number of battles with ships two tiers higher has been reduced to no more than 37.5% over the last 16 battles. Thus, Tier VI–IX ships will more often find themselves in battles with their own tiers or ships one tier higher.[10]

 

So while grinding french cruiser tier 7 Algerie one day I decided to take some notes on the matchmaker.

Double uptiered NO MORE than 37.5%, did WG miscommunicate some numbers? 

Math says 43.33% double uptiered and for a tier 7 cruiser thats some rough games, yes yes there were some games where good xp was farmed aswell.

It saw it's own tier games a whopping 2 times.

Did you play any other Tier VII ship in between?

[Fuel_Inspector]

48 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Did you play any other Tier VII ship in between?

No, played just that ship for some science on MM.

[ColonelPete]

16 minutes ago, Fuel_Inspector said:

No, played just that ship for some science on MM.

Then you should have taken a look after 20 games, not 30, as the MM rule applies to the last 20 matches.

[LiveWire___]

On 10/19/2022 at 6:09 PM, ColonelPete said:

Then you should have taken a look after 20 games, not 30, as the MM rule applies to the last 20 matches.

 

So do you think the current MM is fit for purpose?

[ColonelPete]

19 minutes ago, LiveWire___ said:

 

So do you think the current MM is fit for purpose?

A computer program cannot ignore its code.

[Darkeid]

Fun and engaging

 

More like unfair and rigged 
 

[Darkeid]

A collection of "fun and engaging" games 




 

[LiveWire___]

20 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

A computer program cannot ignore its code.

I asked you if you thought it was fit for purpose. 

 

Not if it can ignore its code. 

[ColonelPete]

13 minutes ago, LiveWire___ said:

I asked you if you thought it was fit for purpose. 

 

Not if it can ignore its code. 

That was my answer. The code is written for the purpose, not something else like handling payments in an online shop.

[LiveWire___]

55 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

That was my answer. The code is written for the purpose, not something else like handling payments in an online shop.

Your answer does not answer my question.

 

Maybe it's because English is not your first language.

 

Let me put it another way.

 

Do you think that the current MM is good, or not?

[Yosha_AtaIante]

12 minutes ago, LiveWire___ said:

Do you think that the current MM is good, or not?

Let me also answer this. The current MM in the context of assigning random players against each other it fulfills this purpose perfectly. So it does a good job at it.

 

Do I like the idea of random battles? Sometimes I do sometimes I wished there was more orderly MM.

 

Since I played more than 15k battles in randoms so far it points to me really liking it though.

[LiveWire___]

12 minutes ago, AtaIante said:

Let me also answer this. The current MM in the context of assigning random players against each other it fulfills this purpose perfectly. So it does a good job at it.

 

Do I like the idea of random battles? Sometimes I do sometimes I wished there was more orderly MM.

 

Since I played more than 15k battles in randoms so far it points to me really liking it though.

 

I mean, I know it WORKS.

 

I was coming at it from the angle of "does it assign fair, balanced teams?"

 

Because, at the moment, matches tend to go something like this:

 

 

[ColonelPete]

27 minutes ago, LiveWire___ said:

Your answer does not answer my question.

 

Maybe it's because English is not your first language.

 

Let me put it another way.

 

Do you think that the current MM is good, or not?

It does answer your question, but your question was not distinct as fit has multiple meanings and it does especially not mean good...

And yes, the MM is good, it does its job. The problems are caused by differents aspects of the game.

[Yosha_AtaIante]

9 minutes ago, LiveWire___ said:

 

I mean, I know it WORKS.

 

I was coming at it from the angle of "does it assign fair, balanced teams?"

 

Because, at the moment, matches tend to go something like this:

 

 

It can't as the amount who qualify as good players to be matched against each other is to small and it won't grow. MM doesn't change people and doesn't make them change.

 

Its why hardcore PVP games are always a small following. The casual gamers will never fill the queues as they will always be food and never evolve to not be food.

 

WGs ideal is to always have a match available as you click battle. This cant be achieved if the MM needs to sort players to performance and it will never be popular. This is why the MM hasn't changed since 7 years of game being live. As it is it works and its played to the same extend as it always was.There is no need for WG to change a working system into something that might very likely actually not work. The risk is not worth it for the happiness of a select few good players.

 

The reality is that good players aren't made and that the ones who are there are way to small in number 

[Panocek]

2 hours ago, AtaIante said:

WGs ideal is to always have a match available as you click battle. This cant be achieved if the MM needs to sort players to performance and it will never be popular. This is why the MM hasn't changed since 7 years of game being live. As it is it works and its played to the same extend as it always was.There is no need for WG to change a working system into something that might very likely actually not work. The risk is not worth it for the happiness of a select few good players.

Wargaming did introduce symmetrical MM to at least remove most egregious of imbalances, like 1v0 CV or 2v4 destroyers. They also I think attempted to balance ships better based on utility or playstyle, so possibly equal split of Radars or destroyers proper instead RU/French and the like, but that went nowhere, probably due to unacceptable impact on queue time.

[Yosha_AtaIante]

37 minutes ago, Panocek said:

probably due to unacceptable impact on queue time

yes and if it already fails at something as simple as that then matchmaking that takes player skill into account can never work

[Panocek]

29 minutes ago, AtaIante said:

yes and if it already fails at something as simple as that then matchmaking that takes player skill into account can never work

And its against core idea of RANDOM battles - random teammates, random ships, +-2 tiers included. And that unpredictability adds a lot for the game longevity, if it can be triggering from time to time.