Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

[ColonelPete]

21 minutes ago, CSS_modding_1 said:

yea but wen no one caps u still loose 

and dd,s who try to cap war already gone

Only when you have less points or do not manage to sink all enemy before the time is up.

And one gets points for sinking enemies...

7 minutes ago, CSS_modding_1 said:

yup but wen no one sinks ships but just run 

and do not tel me u have these fights to

• they you did not do your job
• extremly rarely

[Oncle_Fetide]

Quote

Which has nothing to do with playing a game, especially when paying is optional.

Then don't do non sense comparison. You compare a job to a hobby.

Quote

When you pay for a product, you tell the seller that you like the product. If you do not like it, do not pay.

So in this case thew will never have support. You show them that game is good in some fields, but need improvement in others.

Quote

 

The game does not work like that, since teams are mixed. A league based on WR and PR would not work as winratings and statistics would change in a league.

Two leagues would double the waiting times, with three leagues mid Tiers and off-hours would be dead.

 

How do you know, have any test been made ?

Sorry but I prefer to wait 1 min, than playing a 8 min game with a stomp for me or the enemy team. A lot of players are going away anyway, I pretty sure that player base WR is melting like snow under sun. But if you like the game like it is, it's your opinion, not mine and I express it.

 

[Oncle_Fetide]

1 hour ago, SmegTheNoob said:

Wargaming will NEVER change the matchmaker to a skill based one.

They are scared that increased queue times will drive away players.

Player are going away for others reasons too.

is waiting 1min worth it ? Yes if you can have a good game more balanced.

[ColonelPete]

2 minutes ago, Oncle_Fetide said:

• Then don't do non sense comparison. You compare a job to a hobby.
• So in this case thew will never have support. You show them that game is good in some fields, but need improvement in others.
• How do you know, have any test been made ? Sorry but I prefer to wait 1 min, than playing a 8 min game with a stomp for me or the enemy team. A lot of players are going away anyway, I pretty sure that player base WR is melting like snow under sun. But if you like the game like it is, it's your opinion, not mine and I express it.

• I did not start that comparision and that is how games work, no matter on what level you play
• There are obviously enough players who spend money on the game, I did that too in the past
• basic math and no, the playerbase WR does not melt, that is not possible - if 24 children played wows against each other, 12 would still win

[SmegTheNoob]

1 minute ago, Oncle_Fetide said:

Player are going away for others reasons too.

is waiting 1min worth it ? Yes if you can have a good game more balanced.

I agree with you mate.

Many players have said they are prepared to wait longer, to get a fairer game.

 

But Wargaming are not interested in accommodating that idea.

They have to cater for the smaller servers such as the NA server, and they have to cater for less players playing during the early hours.

They don't want players to give up because of longer queue times.

 

There is a way for Wargaming to stop the players that are leaving for other reasons.

Get rid of stupid homing torpedoes on Submarines.

If they did that, I am sure a lot of leaving players would stay.

But that is a discussion for another thread.

But its also another discussion that Wargaming seem to just ignore.

[CSS_modding_1]

44 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Only when you have less points or do not manage to sink all enemy before the time is up.

And one gets points for sinking enemies...

• they you did not do your job
• extremly rarely

sure 

[Oncle_Fetide]

Quote

I did not start that comparision and that is how games work, no matter on what level you play

Well the other guy is talking about stat, and you are talking about will to play, 2 different things, and you bring the point of willing.

 

Quote

There are obviously enough players who spend money on the game, I did that too in the past

I don't have any doubt about that, and now my money is well spent somewhere else.

 

Quote

basic math and no, the playerbase WR does not melt, that is not possible - if 24 children played wows against each other, 12 would still win

Of course you always have 50% winner and 50% loser, but still mean WR is 48%,  an explanation for that ?

 

[ColonelPete]

18 minutes ago, Oncle_Fetide said:

• Well the other guy is talking about stat, and you are talking about will to play, 2 different things, and you bring the point of willing.
• I don't have any doubt about that, and now my money is well spent somewhere else.
• Of course you always have 50% winner and 50% loser, but still mean WR is 48%,  an explanation for that ?

• he was talking about American Baseball, as was I
• good for you
• read this thread, it is math

[Oncle_Fetide]

9 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

• read this thread, it is math

You want to talk about math, then let's go, a balanced game would have a Gaussian bell curve with a peak at 50%WR, the peak here is at 48% and not even sure we have a beautiful Gaussian curve. That's math and stats.

 

And if WG was honest, they would published these numbers so that we could draw that curve ourself.

[Barbarussa]

Everyone here is talking nonsense. Wargaming sees us all as just cash machines. Nothing you write is taken into account. There was only one thing to do, but you were too late again. dont buy christmas box and see results

[ColonelPete]

1 minute ago, Oncle_Fetide said:

You want to talk about math, then let's go, a balanced game would have a Gaussian bell curve with a peak at 50%WR, the peak here is at 48% and not even sure we have a beautiful Gaussian curve. That's math and stats.

Nope.

And we have a gaussian bell curve.

 

Data taken from EU Server through the WoWs API and stored here:

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/

[Oncle_Fetide]

31 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Nope.

And we have a gaussian bell curve.

 

Data taken from EU Server through the WoWs API and stored here:

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/

Thanks, and as I said, peak between 46 and 47%WR, which is worse than I thought, so far from being balanced.

[ColonelPete]

24 minutes ago, Oncle_Fetide said:

Thanks, and has I said, peak between 46 and 47%WR, which is worse than I thought, so far from being balanced.

That is has nothing to do with balanced. With that view, soccer would not be balanced either...

[SmegTheNoob]

23 minutes ago, Oncle_Fetide said:

Thanks, and has I said, peak between 46 and 47%WR, which is worse than I thought, so far from being balanced.

This has got nothing to do with a matchmaker discussion!!

So, what if the average player win rate is 47%.

It has no bearing on the matchmaker, because we do not, and will not have a skill based matchmaker, EVER.

[Oncle_Fetide]

37 minutes ago, SmegTheNoob said:

This has got nothing to do with a matchmaker discussion!!

So, what if the average player win rate is 47%.

It has no bearing on the matchmaker, because we do not, and will not have a skill based matchmaker, EVER.

It has to do with balancing, and thus MM.

[SmegTheNoob]

14 minutes ago, Oncle_Fetide said:

It has to do with balancing, and thus MM.

No it has nothing to do with balance.

 

Wake up to the fact  that Wargaming will NEVER change to a skill based matchmaker.

So, there is no point banging on about the win rate of the player base.

 

You can argue that balance does not occur sometimes because the matchmaker does not spread out the radar ships equally between the teams.

Or you can argue about the fact that the brawl matchmaker fills one team before the other. Which can result in one team getting 2 destroyers and the other team getting 2 cruisers.

 

But its a waste of time calling for balanced teams due to win rate, or any other stat for that matter.

Wargaming will never change to skill based matchmaking.

 

 

[Bear__Necessities]

7 hours ago, SmegTheNoob said:

Many players have said they are prepared to wait longer, to get a fairer game.

Why would I waste my time to eventually have my WR knocked down to the same as everyone and thus get the same boring results because the game rewards bad players and punishes good ones? 

[SmegTheNoob]

25 minutes ago, Bear__Necessities said:

Why would I waste my time to eventually have my WR knocked down to the same as everyone and thus get the same boring results because the game rewards bad players and punishes good ones? 

Oh, I forgot to say "many players except Bear" lol.

[Bear__Necessities]

4 minutes ago, SmegTheNoob said:

Oh, I forgot to say "many players except Bear" lol.

I do love being an exception ;)

[159Hunter]

12 hours ago, SmegTheNoob said:

Oh, I forgot to say "many players except Bear" lol.

I agree with @Bear__Necessities as well. Good players will be severly punished because there are too few of them.

The vast majority of this playerbase is pure trash: well over 50% of the players don't even manage a 50% WR.

 

So no thx, I will not wait longer because you'll end up with plenty of bad players no matter what.

You want good games: get people to learn to play the game.

[ImTryingButYouDontHelp]

On 12/27/2022 at 5:18 PM, SmegTheNoob said:

No it has nothing to do with balance.

 

Wake up to the fact  that Wargaming will NEVER change to a skill based matchmaker.

So, there is no point banging on about the win rate of the player base.

 

You can argue that balance does not occur sometimes because the matchmaker does not spread out the radar ships equally between the teams.

Or you can argue about the fact that the brawl matchmaker fills one team before the other. Which can result in one team getting 2 destroyers and the other team getting 2 cruisers.

 

But its a waste of time calling for balanced teams due to win rate, or any other stat for that matter.

Wargaming will never change to skill based matchmaking.

 

 

 

Yes, because these SOB need to manipulate the MM to make you have those "random" long losing streaks....that are not random at all. We know they play with our frustration. Then, release an OP ship, that everybody buys....and then, 2 months later, gets nerferd hard....but they don't return the steel, coal, etc when they have PLENTY of time to test the ships and balance them. This [edited]company spent the last 7 years lying about everything, starting on MM, continuing about the bugs they say they don't have, with the loot boxes, and even with the epic containers (once they were forced to publish the mechanics to get them, oh surprise, I get them regulary). Not strange that these bastards are russian, even they are no to pay taxes (Cyprus, of course). They only know to manipulate, to ruin the game (HE spammers, randoms ruined by subs, OP CVs that don't matter the AA, now ranked ruined by a system that allows a lot of monkeys to get to gold AND STAY THERE WEEKS, etc). I don't care if they ban me, because this forum us absolutely useless. They will do what they want, no matter what we say. Asume it, dudes, they are NOT interested in balancing anything. Only in milking and lying. Period. FU WG!!! 

[ColonelPete]

9 minutes ago, DontExpectMeToCarryThis said:

Yes, because these SOB need to manipulate the MM to make you have those "random" long losing streaks....that are not random at all.

There is no need for that. Certain players manage that all on their own.

[CSS_modding_1]

On 2/24/2019 at 10:37 AM, Excavatus said:

Hey there ladies and gentelmen,

Same as other similar titles, the matchmaking of this game will never give rest to people.

The discussion about that will never cease to exist.

 

+-2 tier differences,

Radar ship imbalances in MMs,

or anything regarding to the MM.. from now on, goes here.

 

 

So, please keep your Discussions about the subject on this pinned thread for now on.

And as always, keep calm, stay civil and be nice to each other.

 

Have a good day.

wy is it possible in clan battles ranked 

and not random ???????????????????????????????????????????????

[ColonelPete]

23 minutes ago, CSS_modding_1 said:

wy is it possible in clan battles ranked 

and not random ???????????????????????????????????????????????

Because Clan Battles and Ranked are limited to specific times and Tiers. Notice the differences...

[SmegTheNoob]

2 hours ago, DontExpectMeToCarryThis said:

 

Yes, because these SOB need to manipulate the MM to make you have those "random" long losing streaks....that are not random at all. We know they play with our frustration. Then, release an OP ship, that everybody buys....and then, 2 months later, gets nerferd hard....but they don't return the steel, coal, etc when they have PLENTY of time to test the ships and balance them. This [edited]company spent the last 7 years lying about everything, starting on MM, continuing about the bugs they say they don't have, with the loot boxes, and even with the epic containers (once they were forced to publish the mechanics to get them, oh surprise, I get them regulary). Not strange that these bastards are russian, even they are no to pay taxes (Cyprus, of course). They only know to manipulate, to ruin the game (HE spammers, randoms ruined by subs, OP CVs that don't matter the AA, now ranked ruined by a system that allows a lot of monkeys to get to gold AND STAY THERE WEEKS, etc). I don't care if they ban me, because this forum us absolutely useless. They will do what they want, no matter what we say. Asume it, dudes, they are NOT interested in balancing anything. Only in milking and lying. Period. FU WG!!! 

Maybe you should stop playing tier 10 so much.

Playing tier 10 probably helps you get losing streaks.

I only have 1 tier 10 ship (Salem), and I only got that ship recently.

 

Pretty sure I don't get losing streaks like this.

Mind you, since I found out that I can do a good few of dockyard missions in Coop battles. I have been kicking the ar__ out of Coop.

100% wins in Coop so far (157 battles). But it still amazes me how many players do not get a 100% win rate in Coop lol.