Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

[pissBoiler]

5 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Its called sticking to lowertiers. If people, who are not that good, would play low-midtiers, where they can perform better, we would have less issues than we have now in hightiers.

 

Actually it's not.

 

Tiers are for progressing in the ships models of the game, so that the customers may evolve slowly as players  -  not a trashbucket for junior players, while the senior ones rack up credits, rewards and ships. 

 

I see no problem in a MP game engine allowing players to toggle criteria for MP games - e.g. tier preferences, class prefences, game types, map types. 

 

Almost any other MP game allows that, no sweat. 

[DFens_666]

8 minutes ago, YidDogg said:

Actually it's not.

 

Well, yeah technically its not, but in a sense, thats its easier down there due to slower engagements, smaller maps, shorter ranges and less punishing ships.

[pissBoiler]

9 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Well, yeah technically its not, but in a sense, thats its easier down there due to slower engagements, smaller maps, shorter ranges and less punishing ships.

 

I don't think players are per se that much better high tier, when accepting the obvious routine and map knowledge. 

 

What irks me are rather the unbalanced ships. Something, which is heavily accented by the matchmaking system. 

 

I also just played a very large open map with opp team having 4 BB, 2 Musachi, 1 Thunderer and 1 Georgia IIRC. On our team were 3 low tiers, a.o. 2 Clevelands. LOL, they primaries have same range as the secondaries of the T10 BB's, almost. They were gone within about 4 mins. 

[GarrusBrutus]

20 minutes ago, YidDogg said:

 

I don't think players are per se that much better high tier, when accepting the obvious routine and map knowledge. 

 

What irks me are rather the unbalanced ships. Something, which is heavily accented by the matchmaking system. 

 

I also just played a very large open map with opp team having 4 BB, 2 Musachi, 1 Thunderer and 1 Georgia IIRC. On our team were 3 low tiers, a.o. 2 Clevelands. LOL, they primaries have same range as the secondaries of the T10 BB's, almost. They were gone within about 4 mins. 

Teams are mirrored. So besides Radar disadvantages there is nothing imbalanced about the ship lineups.

Cleveland is one of the stronger T8 Cruisers. Even on large open maps. You just have to play patiently. But 99% of players suck in it so no wonder they die within 4 minutes.

[pissBoiler]

Just now, GarrusBrutus said:

Teams are mirrored. So besides Radar disadvantages there is nothing imbalanced about the ship lineups.

Cleveland is one of the stronger T8 Cruisers. Even on large open maps. You just have to play patiently. But 99% of players suck in it so no wonder they die within 4 minutes.

 

They were spotted by DD, turned and ran and were then torped / one salvo demolished by a Thunderer IIRC even though both ran as fast as they good.

 

No islands, no cover, no tactical cards to play. 

 

The ships within a team are unbalanced, even within a tier, as e.g. T8 BB's prove. That is why you can run into entire teams of nothing but Yamatos, Musashis, Des Moines, Smolensks, Minotaurs etc. Because they are blatantly better than e.g. GK etc. In other words unbalanced. And that shows, when the top performing ships run two tiers up in random. 

 

Which brings me back to my point. Why not let players define parameters for games? 

[GarrusBrutus]

Just now, YidDogg said:

The ships within a team are unbalanced, even within a tier, as e.g. T8 BB's prove. That is why you can run into entire teams of nothing but Yamatos, Musashis, Des Moines, Smolensks, Minotaurs etc. Because they are blatantly better than e.g. GK etc. In other words unbalanced. And that shows, when the top performing ships run two tiers up in random. 

Wow you know so much about ships and balancing. Maybe you should go work for wargaming....

Mate. Seriously, what you wrote makes no sense. Those ships you mentioned are not "blatantly better" than other same tier counterparts.

Just ask @ColonelPete if you want to see the cold hard facts about ship performances.

It is individual players that make ships look OP or bad. A bad DesMoines player will lose to a good Hindi player. A bad Musashi player will lose to a good FDG player.

Next point is that most ships have strengths and weaknesses and certain shiplineups/maps will boost those strong points.

F.e. a DM will most likely struggle on Ocean.

5 minutes ago, YidDogg said:

Which brings me back to my point.Why not let players define parameters for games? 

a thousand times

[pissBoiler]

Just now, GarrusBrutus said:

Wow you know so much about ships and balancing. Maybe you should go work for wargaming....

Mate. Seriously, what you wrote makes no sense. Those ships you mentioned are not "blatantly better" than other same tier counterparts.

Just ask @ColonelPete if you want to see the cold hard facts about ship performances.

It is individual players that make ships look OP or bad. A bad DesMoines player will lose to a good Hindi player. A bad Musashi player will lose to a good FDG player.

Next point is that most ships have strengths and weaknesses and certain shiplineups/maps will boost those strong points.

F.e. a DM will most likely struggle on Ocean.

a thousand times

Oh well. 

 

Why bother trying to discuss things at this level.

 

Goodbye. 

[ColonelPete]

15 minutes ago, YidDogg said:

Oh well. 

 

Why bother trying to discuss things at this level.

 

Goodbye. 

A GK on your team gives you a slightly better chance at winning than a Yamato.

[DFens_666]

25 minutes ago, YidDogg said:

The ships within a team are unbalanced, even within a tier, as e.g. T8 BB's prove. That is why you can run into entire teams of nothing but Yamatos, Musashis, Des Moines, Smolensks, Minotaurs etc. Because they are blatantly better than e.g. GK etc. In other words unbalanced. And that shows, when the top performing ships run two tiers up in random.  

 

 

Ive thought about the game just now, how blatently imbalanced the Cruisers had been just by pure stats. (we just played this game, and quite incidently with @GarrusBrutus since he is talking to you anyway)

Hindi vs Hindi so far so good.

Moskva/PR/Stalingrad, Battlecruisers + tons of HP and armor. Hindenburg itself is pretty tanky too. Zao? Smolensk? They have no health compared to them, and DM/Salem. Salem sure can heal a ton of HP, depending whats hitting it. But none of those has the tankiness of the others.

Not to mention, our DM/Smolensk just were free kills for the enemies.... While all the enemy Cruisers pretty much survived most of the game. I started killing the Moskva, then the Stalingrad. PR fell soon after them by combined fire, and the Hindis were the last to die (well the last one survived even, but would have died)

And Bourgogne with its small 380mm guns cant achieve much on those if they angle... Hindi + PR are iron blocks, while Stalin and Moskva atleast have some 25mm parts. But i got their broadsides so it didnt matter that much.

[Hopeless_Guppy]

What bugs me the most about MM is when you are in a Nelson, or Sinop, (Roma and Vlad fall into this category as do any other ships) and every other red ship seems to out range you, or in your Kaga you get tier 10 MM, in basically a tier 7 ship, thats what makes me throw my hands up in despair.

[lossi_2018]

19 hours ago, YidDogg said:

Oh well. 

 

Why bother trying to discuss things at this level.

 

Goodbye. 

I liked the idea of another mode, where we choose opponents like an arena or something. Or ship classes.

[pissBoiler]

54 minutes ago, lossi_2018 said:

I liked the idea of another mode, where we choose opponents like an arena or something. Or ship classes.

Oh, we're back on track :) 

 

My suggestions would be a sort of tick-box systems where you could choose:

 

- Maps (all, some)

- Tiers (your own, +/- 1/2/3)

- Classes (will be particular relevant with submarines etc.)

- Battle mode

- Expanded use of divisions

 

Obviously if you are very picky, you could end up queuing way longer, but that is the logical price to pay if you only want to play one map, domination with only your own tier, no subs and carriers. 

 

Fully expecting this to be hounded down by regular players, as is the custom in this community, nevertheless other multiplayer games have similar mechanisms. 

[ColonelPete]

1 hour ago, YidDogg said:

- Maps (all, some)

- Tiers (your own, +/- 1/2/3)

- Classes (will be particular relevant with submarines etc.)

- Battle mode

- Expanded use of divisions

• will not happen
• chose your ship
• will not happen
• already there
• will not happen

[pissBoiler]

10 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

• will not happen
• chose your ship
• will not happen
• already there
•  will not happen

 

Well, I'll just add the bit you left out in the quote, then, and leave it here:

 

Fully expecting this to be hounded down by regular players, as is the custom in this community, nevertheless other multiplayer games have similar mechanisms. 

[Darkeid]

On 4/18/2020 at 12:49 AM, GarrusBrutus said:

Teams are mirrored. So besides Radar disadvantages there is nothing imbalanced about the ship lineups.

Cleveland is one of the stronger T8 Cruisers. Even on large open maps. You just have to play patiently. But 99% of players suck in it so no wonder they die within 4 minutes.

Please consider installing a matchmaking monitor to see the broken. 

Players with 50-300 rating and max 400 battles are being matched with players of 1000+ rating and 5k battles. At least 3-4/10 matches are very imbalanced 

[GarrusBrutus]

24 minutes ago, Darkeid said:

Please consider installing a matchmaking monitor to see the broken. 

Players with 50-300 rating and max 400 battles are being matched with players of 1000+ rating and 5k battles. At least 3-4/10 matches are very imbalanced 

That is exactly the reason why i will never install MMM. I dont want to know the odds beforehand. If i lose, i lose. But not because I see beforehand how bad my teammates are. That is just a self fulfilling prophecy.

Matches may be very imbalanced skill-wise, but MMM will NEVER be able to predict how a match is going to work out.

You can win against a triple super unicum division.

You can win when most of your teammates are 45% or lower.

But I simply do not want to know because it makes me play worse.

[Darkeid]

Choosing to ignore the problem and blaming it on poor gameplay is not a solution my friend. Identifying the problem, offering a way to resolve it and to see it not get any attention is what makes me play worse.

[Hogger4169]

SAME TIER SHIPS AND IF NOT -/+1 TIER DIFFERENCE IN BATTLE ROOMS. 

And even split in the teams in positioning good players with bad players. I suggested to be rooms where selection based winrate in a -/+ 5% but forum users declined that. they are afraid that they will lose their precious winrate and their purple status, pathetic. 

A question, how can you expect from a player to increase his/her stats when he/she falls constantly in teams full with bad players against in a team full of good players? In the end he/she will abandon the game....

 

We, the players can influence to convince WG to change the game for the better. Better game better profit!!!. The issue is, do we want it to change????

 

[GarrusBrutus]

52 minutes ago, Darkeid said:

Choosing to ignore the problem and blaming it on poor gameplay is not a solution my friend. Identifying the problem, offering a way to resolve it and to see it not get any attention is what makes me play worse.

The "problem" is a problem because you see MM as something problematic. To me it is not. One game I win, the next match I lose. Sometimes I lose six, seven or even eight in a row. But another time I win the same amount in a row. It has been like that since I started playing in 2015 or so, yet I am still playing despite this "problem". Some players have been complaining about it for over five years, despite it being upgraded time and time again. It is never good enough.

What is it exactly that you are looking for regarding MM?

Fight same skill opponents with exactly the same ships on the same maps over and over and over? That would become rather boring if you ask me.

MM that prevends steamrolls? MM cannot prevend that, because these are caused by mistakes by players and not by map, shiptype, gamemode, etc.

35 minutes ago, hogger4169 said:

A question, how can you expect from a player to increase his/her stats when he/she falls constantly in teams full with bad players against in a team full of good players?

By stopping to blame your results on exterior effects and start to look critical to your own gameplay. I started this game as a 48% player and now I am at 61% solo winrate. Because I wanted to get better and was self critical. Too bad most bad players just stick with blaming their teams for their own mistakes. That way you will never learn. Not in WoWs, not in life, not anywhere.

38 minutes ago, hogger4169 said:

I suggested to be rooms where selection based winrate in a -/+ 5% but forum users declined that. they are afraid that they will lose their precious winrate and their purple status, pathetic.

No, because if that where the case I had to carry players like you every game and my back can only take so much.

[ForlornSailor]

44 minutes ago, hogger4169 said:

And even split in the teams in positioning good players with bad players. I suggested to be rooms where selection based winrate in a -/+ 5% but forum users declined that. they are afraid that they will lose their precious winrate and their purple status, pathetic.  

 

Yup and you expect the game to be rigged in your favour, so you get artifical and better fake stats for doing nothing. But blame the people with good stats. I tell you what buddy: you are just full of envy, that you cant perform better and fail over and over again. Why dont you try to get better?

 

46 minutes ago, hogger4169 said:

We, the players can influence to convince WG to change the game for the better. Better game better profit!!!. The issue is, do we want it to change????

 

For the better? So the better I perform, the more clueless player shall be on my team to "balance" me. Thats EXACTLY what you are suggesting. Let me think about your suggestion. Nope. There. that was easy. If everyone is so bad at this game, then they deserve to lose. And the better players deserve to be rewarded with wins, credits and XP. Now hate me.

[Hogger4169]

@GarrusBrutus and @ForlornSailor, thank you for the reply.

I am the 8% who influences the battle in my favor or in a loss.

I expect a fair split in terms of team, not all good on one team and all the junk on the other team.

I want no advantage, I want the mm to be fair.

Clear and simple...

[Darkeid]

28 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

The "problem" is a problem because you see MM as something problematic. To me it is not. One game I win, the next match I lose. Sometimes I lose six, seven or even eight in a row. But another time I win the same amount in a row. It has been like that since I started playing in 2015 or so, yet I am still playing despite this "problem". Some players have been complaining about it for over five years, despite it being upgraded time and time again. It is never good enough.

What is it exactly that you are looking for regarding MM?

Fight same skill opponents with exactly the same ships on the same maps over and over and over? That would become rather boring if you ask me.

MM that prevends steamrolls? MM cannot prevend that, because these are caused by mistakes by players and not by map, shiptype, gamemode, etc.

By stopping to blame your results on exterior effects and start to look critical to your own gameplay. I started this game as a 48% player and now I am at 61% solo winrate. Because I wanted to get better and was self critical. Too bad most bad players just stick with blaming their teams for their own mistakes. That way you will never learn. Not in WoWs, not in life, not anywhere.

No, because if that where the case I had to carry players like you every game and my back can only take so much.

In addition to all the parameters that already exist in MM , the ideal way to move forward would be to take into account the personal rating of each player. Players from 5-300 ? Should only play together , 300-1000 , 1000+ and so on. Imagine what would happen in other games if lets say platinum tier players were matched with bronze tier players.

In addition to this, the phrase: "The "problem" is a problem because you see MM as something problematic" can be resembled as an ostrich hiding its head underground. To you it might seem fine , to me, i would prefer it if i dont waste my time and the game automatically counts a defeat without starting because "Hey, its random MM".

 

[ColonelPete]

The MM is fair. All team slots are random, except yours.

When you are an average player, the enemy team is on average as strong as yours.

When you are above average, your team is on average stronger than the enemy, thanks to you.

When you are below average, your team is on average weaker than the enemy, thanks to you.

[DFens_666]

Just now, Darkeid said:

In addition to all the parameters that already exist in MM , the ideal way to move forward would be to take into account the personal rating of each player. Players from 5-300 ? Should only play together , 300-1000 , 1000+ and so on. Imagine what would happen in other games if lets say platinum tier players were matched with bronze tier players.

 

Unless those bad players dont do anything, and camp the entire 20 mins in the back, not dealing damage, their rating would automatically rise.... But meanwhile, good players would definetely lose rating, as everyone in one game is good, and there is only a limited amount of damage/kills to farm. If you need a certain amount of damage for Unicum rating, its literally impossible for everyone to get that amount of damage to keep their rating high.

[ForlornSailor]

3 minutes ago, Darkeid said:

the ideal way to move forward would be to take into account the personal rating of each player. Players from 5-300 ? Should only play together , 300-1000 , 1000+ and so on. Imagine what would happen in other games if lets say platinum tier players were matched with bronze tier players.

 

No it wouldnt. And I can explain you the three reasons, why.

A) you would create "a game within the game". Players with 300 PR noobing around in their own universum, never experiance how skilled players really play. Which makes is impossible for them to move up. Once they reach your 300 PR border and face the more skilled group... they dont understand whats going on, get raped and fall back to the <300 class.

B) Economy. This game is based around XP and credits. If you make it easier for the bad players (because it would be, since a game with only low skilled players prevents from people beeing deleted early. So they get more XP and credits. At the same time, skilled players need to put more work into gettign the same results. Like on the 300 PR group, you have perma broadside BBs too stupid to use DCP, while in the super unicum group, you have BBs dodging, controlling their fire perfectly etc. Why should the bad players get the same XP and credits as high skilled players for playing much worse? Nah, I dont see it.
C) Personal rating comes from kills and damage. IF you devide skilled players and bad players - the bad players will have their PR artificually boosted into super unicum ratings. Why? because now they get away with their mistakes. And get more damage and kills because all enemys are bad too. So then, essentially, you have noobs with a super unicum rating. Are they staying in the 5-300 Personal rating class, because looking at the skill - they still belong there. But according to your logic, they need to move up the super unicum class. There they get raped. Then what?