Is MM going to mess with good players AGAIN?!?

[cherry2blost]

Spent a bit of time with the patent application and here are my notations....

 

In some aspects, assigning may include calculating the permissible range of battle levels as a function of a number of battle sessions previously played using the vehicle. In one specific aspect, the calculating may be performed by determining a current maximum permissible battle level C based on the following: For B<N: C=L+(B−1)((M−L−1)/N); For B≧N: C=M, where L represents a lowest battle level defined the battle level table for the vehicle type and vehicle tier of the vehicle, M represents the maximum battle level defined the battle level table for the vehicle type and vehicle tier of the vehicle, B represents the number of battles previously played using the vehicle, rounding to a nearest integer value.

 

According to another aspect, the matchmaking server may store a win/loss percentage for each user (or vehicle) at a given battle level. As the player's win/loss ratio decreases, the player becomes more likely to be placed in battles having battle levels at the lower end of the allowable range, whereas as the player's win/loss ration increases, the player becomes more likely to be placed in battles having battle levels at the upper end of the allowable range. Thus, when a player has been repeatedly put into too many difficult battles, the balancing is done in favor of easier battle sessions, thereby encouraging the player by providing an easier game environment. Similarly, when the player has been repeatedly put into too many easy battles, the balancing is done in favor of harder battle sessions, thereby keeping the player challenged instead of letting the player become bored with easy games. A first possible algorithm is to divide the permissible battle levels evenly across a range from zero (0) to two (2), and place the vehicle into the battle level corresponding to the win/loss ratio, where any ratio greater than two (2) automatically results in the vehicle being placed in the highest possible battle level. Another possible algorithm is to increase the battle level by one (within the permissible range) for a vehicle each time a player wins a battle with that vehicle, and decrease the battle level by one (within the permissible range) each time a player loses a battle with that vehicle. If the battle level is already at the upper end of the range and the player wins the battle, the battle level may remain constant. Similarly, if the battle level is already at the lower end of the range and the player loses the battle, the battle level may remain constant.

 

According to yet another aspect, with reference back to FIG. 8, a variable may be defined (here, referred to as range variable N) that defines a number of battle sessions that a vehicle must participate in before the vehicle may be assigned to the highest possible battle level within its allowable range of battle levels. Range variable N is used to define a sub-range within the otherwise permissible range of battle levels for a given vehicle. In one variant, a vehicle may be placed in any battle level except the highest allowable battle level, based on any placement algorithm described herein or otherwise, until the player plays at least N battle sessions with a particular vehicle. For example, in the example shown in FIG. 8, Tier 4 SPG's are permissible in battle levels 6-10, where N=8. For the first 8 battle sessions that a player uses a particular tier 4 SPG vehicle, the vehicle is only eligible to be placed in battle levels 6-9 (e.g., matchmaking server 106 may randomly select a battle within battle levels 6-9 for that vehicle). After 8 battle sessions, for each battle session, matchmaking server 106 may randomly select a battle within battle levels 6-10).

Battle level tables may vary or be changed based on the strengths and weaknesses of vehicle types at different tier levels. Battle level tables may be changed based on an analysis of vehicle performance and battle session results. For example, if certain tier vehicles are identified as winning or losing a disproportionate number of battle sessions at a given battle level, that battle level may be adjusted as described above to make that battle level more fair. New battle level tables 801 may be published with game updates to clients, or may be adjusted at the matchmaking server without requiring a game update on the client side. Different battle level tables may be used for games using vehicles other than tanks, e.g., helicopters, planes, drones, warplanes, spacecraft, boats, ships, and/or battleships, among others.

[Tugnut]

 

Even if we had a ranked matchmaking system, you're still going to lose matches 4-0.  Skill/player rating has never been a factor in random battles. I was in a match last night and our team was wiped out without sinking a single enemy ship. It happens. The MM system is fair for everyone right now as everyone is subject to the same system. There is no magical settings that can be toggled on or off for each player. Of course our MM is only rigged when players are on a losing streak. When it's a winning streak it's nothing but pure skill, or bad enemy teams right?

 

World of Warships isn't like CS:GO or League of Legends where 1 person can either take out half a team solo, or snowball where their damage is unmatched. Your contribution is only part and your team needs to do their part. That's something you can't control and if you expect to carry every match regardless of what you're playing, it's a bit of an unrealistic point of view.

 

 

Thats what you at WG want us to think      its like thats not a UFO its swap gas hahahahahahaha

 

TBH skill wise you can be just unlucky.... but the MM can be a real @~{::?@ at times... had quite a game in domination where the enemy team had a CV and DD and we had all BB but for 3 CA :/  and had a few games that we did not get a DD on our side.     I know its changed now but yesturday the poor guy in a tier 6 CV vs me in my tier 8.   some times you look at the ship line up and you can guess the out come more oftern than not.

[Sake78]

 

 

Spent a bit of time with the patent application and here are my notations....

 

In some aspects, assigning may include calculating the permissible range of battle levels as a function of a number of battle sessions previously played using the vehicle. In one specific aspect, the calculating may be performed by determining a current maximum permissible battle level C based on the following: For B<N: C=L+(B−1)((M−L−1)/N); For B≧N: C=M, where L represents a lowest battle level defined the battle level table for the vehicle type and vehicle tier of the vehicle, M represents the maximum battle level defined the battle level table for the vehicle type and vehicle tier of the vehicle, B represents the number of battles previously played using the vehicle, rounding to a nearest integer value.

 

According to another aspect, the matchmaking server may store a win/loss percentage for each user (or vehicle) at a given battle level. As the player's win/loss ratio decreases, the player becomes more likely to be placed in battles having battle levels at the lower end of the allowable range, whereas as the player's win/loss ration increases, the player becomes more likely to be placed in battles having battle levels at the upper end of the allowable range. Thus, when a player has been repeatedly put into too many difficult battles, the balancing is done in favor of easier battle sessions, thereby encouraging the player by providing an easier game environment. Similarly, when the player has been repeatedly put into too many easy battles, the balancing is done in favor of harder battle sessions, thereby keeping the player challenged instead of letting the player become bored with easy games. A first possible algorithm is to divide the permissible battle levels evenly across a range from zero (0) to two (2), and place the vehicle into the battle level corresponding to the win/loss ratio, where any ratio greater than two (2) automatically results in the vehicle being placed in the highest possible battle level. Another possible algorithm is to increase the battle level by one (within the permissible range) for a vehicle each time a player wins a battle with that vehicle, and decrease the battle level by one (within the permissible range) each time a player loses a battle with that vehicle. If the battle level is already at the upper end of the range and the player wins the battle, the battle level may remain constant. Similarly, if the battle level is already at the lower end of the range and the player loses the battle, the battle level may remain constant.

 

According to yet another aspect, with reference back to FIG. 8, a variable may be defined (here, referred to as range variable N) that defines a number of battle sessions that a vehicle must participate in before the vehicle may be assigned to the highest possible battle level within its allowable range of battle levels. Range variable N is used to define a sub-range within the otherwise permissible range of battle levels for a given vehicle. In one variant, a vehicle may be placed in any battle level except the highest allowable battle level, based on any placement algorithm described herein or otherwise, until the player plays at least N battle sessions with a particular vehicle. For example, in the example shown in FIG. 8, Tier 4 SPG's are permissible in battle levels 6-10, where N=8. For the first 8 battle sessions that a player uses a particular tier 4 SPG vehicle, the vehicle is only eligible to be placed in battle levels 6-9 (e.g., matchmaking server 106 may randomly select a battle within battle levels 6-9 for that vehicle). After 8 battle sessions, for each battle session, matchmaking server 106 may randomly select a battle within battle levels 6-10).

Battle level tables may vary or be changed based on the strengths and weaknesses of vehicle types at different tier levels. Battle level tables may be changed based on an analysis of vehicle performance and battle session results. For example, if certain tier vehicles are identified as winning or losing a disproportionate number of battle sessions at a given battle level, that battle level may be adjusted as described above to make that battle level more fair. New battle level tables 801 may be published with game updates to clients, or may be adjusted at the matchmaking server without requiring a game update on the client side. Different battle level tables may be used for games using vehicles other than tanks, e.g., helicopters, planes, drones, warplanes, spacecraft, boats, ships, and/or battleships, among others.

 

This was discussed at lenght when it was actual - just because they have theoretical models of doing the MM - of which some are mutually exclusive if you actually take your time and read it properly - it is no guarantee they are in effect.

 

And they already admitted they will rig it slightly here - put players on top tiers if they had an unlucky streak of bottom tier, but some will never be happy and they will always see conspiracies everywhere.

[FieserNiesel]

The system in WoT is not rigged in any way. In WoWS it will get rigged so you wont get in high tiers or low tiers too much in a row, cause you know Q_Q'ers like someone here.

And you give your self too much of a importance, specially talking about ONLY 20 games.

 

This is BS!

 

Games in WOT are rigged in several ways. If you lose too many games in a row the MM first tries to compensate your lose-streak by putting you as hightier tank into battle.

If that doesnt work because you just have no skill you will be put as low tier into battles with better winchances.

MM in Wot also compensates for players with high WR in order to fall down to a 55% WR.

 

In WOWS it appears to be similar, i have fallen from 64% WR to 58% or something like that, cant remember, stopped playing after all those micro-nerfs to DDs.

And i have games with sometimes 5 or more kills, and games in division where we score 11 kills, but it still is not enough to win because MM gives you a crap team.

 

 

[FaceFisted]

 

Even if we had a ranked matchmaking system, you're still going to lose matches 4-0.  Skill/player rating has never been a factor in random battles. I was in a match last night and our team was wiped out without sinking a single enemy ship. It happens. The MM system is fair for everyone right now as everyone is subject to the same system. There is no magical settings that can be toggled on or off for each player. Of course our MM is only rigged when players are on a losing streak. When it's a winning streak it's nothing but pure skill, or bad enemy teams right?

 

World of Warships isn't like CS:GO or League of Legends where 1 person can either take out half a team solo, or snowball where their damage is unmatched. Your contribution is only part and your team needs to do their part. That's something you can't control and if you expect to carry every match regardless of what you're playing, it's a bit of an unrealistic point of view.

 

 

While I respect your answer, I would write the same in your place because it would be disastrous for WG if you actually said something that is not in line with this.

 

I would like to debate with you on this subject, but we both know that you can't give me a straight and truthful answer publicly. You know that I am right ;) Every company has it's own secrets. But it would be nice for a change to take into account what good players think from time to time. We are paying customers as well even if we are minority.

[simonmd]

OMFG people...

 

 

If you dislike losing so much just play divisions. With three friends, I had 95% wins yesterday.

And we're not stellar players or anything.

 

Good advice, the key to this game is TEAMWORK, sometimes a team will pull together in chat but on the whole, divisions are the best way to play as you tend to back each other up better instead of looking out for No1 all the time.

 

As for the OP, the game has just had a MAJOR patch which has changed the MM system and also added a new ranking system as well so I think most of what has been said here is now out of date and this thread should be stopped until we know how the changed have effected things. 

[Syrchalis]

Skill/player rating has never been a factor in random battles.

 

My suspicions were correct. Explains why often my team crushes the enemy completely and sometimes despite me doing 300k damage half my team is gone after 8 minutes.

[Takru]

 

Even if we had a ranked matchmaking system, you're still going to lose matches 4-0.  Skill/player rating has never been a factor in random battles. I was in a match last night and our team was wiped out without sinking a single enemy ship. It happens. The MM system is fair for everyone right now as everyone is subject to the same system. There is no magical settings that can be toggled on or off for each player. [...]

 

 

What? I thought WG staff had some magical powers to always end up in games where they're two tiers higher than everybody else. And of course RNGesus would be on your side as well, tripling gun dispersion of everybody so much as looking your way! *cough*

[Takru]

In WOWS it appears to be similar, i have fallen from 64% WR to 58% or something like that, cant remember, stopped playing after all those micro-nerfs to DDs.

 

Well, well, well.... looking at your profile, it would seem you've got a 62,5% win ratio. Which isn't too far away from the 64% you say you had.

 

[AnuSuaraj]

Now I'm confused.

 

OP says he's been losing lately and threatens to quit because of WR drop to 58%.

OP then says his WR in tanks was 57% after 18k battles which makes his 58% in WoWS with way less than 18k battles sort of ok after all.

OP brags with killing Quickbaby in team battle, but then says he likes to solo PvP most of the time.

Like I said, I'm confused.

[FaceFisted]

Now I'm confused.

 

OP says he's been losing lately and threatens to quit because of WR drop to 58%.

OP then says his WR in tanks was 57% after 18k battles which makes his 58% in WoWS with way less than 18k battles sort of ok after all.

OP brags with killing Quickbaby in team battle, but then says he likes to solo PvP most of the time.

Like I said, I'm confused.

 

1. I am not threatening anyone. If I get bored, I will play something else. Simple. Few wins and few loses are ok, but streaks of 10+ games are not. Next time I will complain about winning streak because that also means that MM is not working as it should. There is no point in pwning noobs.  I remember I had 20 games losing streak in WOT. Few moths later I found something else to play.

3. Most of the time, doesn't mean all the time. I had ~90% solo games in wot. In 18K games, ~1800 were played in platoon, clan or team company. QB died in 2, cried in both during stream.

 

Better now?

[Xevious_Red]

I suspect ranked battles (hopefully) will resolve this: if you're good then you don't get scrubs on your team. You have to work for your kills (no more easy citadels anymore), and need to operate as a team instead of rambo style.

 

If you're average then you can probably still play solo. Your team probably won't work together, but neither will the enemy. There won't be any "easy" kills, but neither will you have a good player carrying you/rampaging through your team.

 

If you're terribad then your team will be awful, but at least the people you're shooting at will probably be stuck on an island. Games will be decided by which team manages to fail the least.

Side bonus: those people who manage to do terribly but like to blame it on their teams will be correct that they do have a useless team ;)

[Elgerino]

The 4.1 review video says that starting this patch they're introducing an algorithm that adjusts the tiers a player is matched with if MM gives them too many games as a low-tier ship. 

 

This would seem to suggest that A: This system is in it's infancy compared to WOT and it's no longer credible to say WoWs has the same system and B: That the system is other-wise random, adjustments are only just coming in now and still do nothing to screw over better players.

 

 

While I respect your answer, I would write the same in your place because it would be disastrous for WG if you actually said something that is not in line with this.

 

I would like to debate with you on this subject, but we both know that you can't give me a straight and truthful answer publicly. You know that I am right ;) Every company has it's own secrets. But it would be nice for a change to take into account what good players think from time to time. We are paying customers as well even if we are minority.

 

A debate with someone who claims an intangible truth but is unwilling to provide any evidence is a complete waste of time. We might as well argue the existence of God. You believe what you believe and you think it's an immutable truth because well, why would the world operate in any other way but how you see it? There's no arguing with someone who thinks like that.

[FaceFisted]

A debate with someone who claims an intangible truth but is unwilling to provide any evidence is a complete waste of time.

 

Don't you think that you have trolled enough?

[Elgerino]

 

Don't you think that you have trolled enough?

 

Only if you consider demanding actual evidence trolling, then I really have had enough.

[Kenliero]

Did they change MM somehow, because the games are not balanced now. It's like rollercoaster. 5 wins, 5 losses, 5 wins... you either lose a lot in a row, or win a lot in a row.... or can it be just random luck?

[FaceFisted]

Only if you consider demanding actual evidence trolling, then I really have had enough.

 

This again? Someone posted, you didn't want to read and now you repeat this again with me? You deserved to be on ignore list.

[Elgerino]

 

This again? Someone posted, you didn't want to read and now you repeat this again with me? You deserved to be on ignore list.

 

No-one posted anything that said the system was rigged, especially in the way you claim.

 

You don't need to be on a list to be ignored, those who don't make a convincing case for their accusations tend to be ignored regardless. Enjoy.

[Maj_Havoc]

 

As long as you are topping or near the top of your team for damage and XP in most of your matches you are carrying your weight and the weight of weaker players, if you are sat about mid you are carrying your weight, if you are constantly in the bottom, then your team mates are having to play harder because of you and you likely have a w/r below 50%.  All you can do when playing solo is your best, trying to influence the outcome of a game as much as the situation and conditions allow, heck that's all you can do playing with friends, except coordination over voice comms does lend more weight to the joint efforts of a small group.

 

However, regardless of how well you play, you cannot carry every game, it is simply impossible. Over time we all of us play on as many good teams as bad, face as many good teams as bad, that's the nature of random distribution as is the inevitable situation of losing streaks and winning streaks. A run of games where the teams are so heavily stacked with better or weaker players that the outcome cannot be influenced by one player alone.

 

Ultimately, despite the naysayers who would argue otherwise, the efforts of better players are reflected in their overall w/r; the more consistently and the better someone plays the higher their w/r. Good players have a positive effect on the outcome of their matches often enough that the outcome of their matches as an average is positive. Conversely, bad players have a negative effect on the outcome of their matches as their team mates struggle to carry them, and over time their w/r reflects that too. Winning or loosing streaks mean nothing at all when considering a players ability or their impact on the games that they play in, only their efforts over hundreds, even thousands of matches taken as an average can reflect the weight of their efforts in the games that they play.

 

The only constant in our matches is US, the lump sat between chair and monitor; if you are constantly losing and your w/r is below 50%, stop blaming the MM, bad team mates, and anything else you care to point at, grab a mirror, and ask what you can do differently to improve your teams chances.

 

[Naskoni]

 

No-one posted anything that said the system was rigged, especially in the way you claim.

 

You don't need to be on a list to be ignored, those who don't make a convincing case for their accusations tend to be ignored regardless. Enjoy.

 

 

Mua-ha-ha, still going strong, still butthurt after over a week, and still just as illiterate as to read the patent yourself. I do enjoy, thank you very much. How are your multiple "statistical anomalies" doing, eh? 

 

 

Those that tend to excuse their screw ups blaming them exclusively on "statistical anomalies" are somehow better than those that claim the MM is rigged? Because you certainly sound as if you think that is somehow the case, only in one case there is a patent that says so (for those literate enough to actually be capable of reading) and on the other hand are those delusional enough to go into deep denial even in the face of simple numbers

 

 

I also particularly like how you think that you are actually "winning" anything by posting your already usual troll crap here - guess "winning" in an internet thread must be the highlight of your otherwise pretty empty life outside of your computer...? Figures...

[Elgerino]

Still going strong, making up for my inadequacies by playing dumb and putting trollfaces on everything. It doesn't matter that four people have annihilated my arguments, all I need to do is keep acting like a jackass until they get bored and I can tell myself I wasn't wrong and/or lying the entire time.

 

Not fooling anyone.

 

As for the patent, one saintly patient person went as far as quoting back every single relevant piece of the patent and challenging you to point out where exactly in any of it a single line backed up your position. I can see why it would be difficult for you to try, seeing as this text we're all apparently too illiterate to read is imaginary. 

 

 Those that tend to excuse their screw ups blaming them exclusively on "statistical anomalies" are somehow better than those that claim the MM is rigged? 

 

I don't remember claiming I was better than anyone who claims MM was rigged.

 

Did I even claim I was better than you? I don't remember, though I'd be right by a long way if I did. I doubt it though, unlike you I don't replace evidence based reasoning with a stat based ego war I can only lose because I'm too conceited to realise I'm not as great at the game as I think.

[Naskoni]

 

Not fooling anyone.

 

As for the patent, one saintly patient person went as far as quoting back every single relevant piece of the patent and challenging you to point out where exactly in any of it a single line backed up your position. I can see why it would be difficult for you to try, seeing as this text we're all apparently too illiterate to read is imaginary.

 

 

I don't remember claiming I was better than anyone who claims MM was rigged.

 

Did I even claim I was better than you? I don't remember, though I'd be right by a long way if I did. I doubt it though, unlike you I don't replace evidence based reasoning with a stat based ego war I can only lose because I'm too conceited to realise I'm not as great at the game as I think.

 

 

Funny there is already a post with plenty of quotes from the patent, maybe you just chose to ignore it instead? Text was too hard, nobody around to make you a summary of it so you could understand even a word, eh?

 

 

As for not remembering stuff - I guess if you post petty BS for long enough you no longer even know what it was all about. But then again it seems it is precisely the process of posting petty BS that you find so attractive in the first place, thus why you are still in this thread

[Hauptbahnhof]

 

But I really, REALLY don't get bored by winning. Honest!

 

And yes, this patent describes the mechanism that decides that certain people are obviously so bored that they have to play against impossible odds, usually in teams consisting almost completely of clueless apes...

 

The main problem honestly isn't you getting bored by always winning, but the guys on the other side with worse players getting bored by always losing if they meet same or higher level enemies all the time...

[Ectar_]

Nakitu_Michuchi, on 03 September 2015 - 03:39 PM, said:

While I respect your answer, I would write the same in your place because it would be disastrous for WG if you actually said something that is not in line with this.

 

I guess you don't really have much experience with me on the forums yet. I write what I write after I double check things with senior staff members. If I was asked to write something I didn't agree with or was a straight up lie, I wouldn't write it. A big part of what I do here is to make sure I provide as much factual and transparent information as possible. 

 

Nakitu_Michuchi, on 03 September 2015 - 03:39 PM, said:

I would like to debate with you on this subject, but we both know that you can't give me a straight and truthful answer publicly. 

 

But I have given you the answer. It's just not the answer you want to hear.  If we really could manipulate Matchmaking the way people think we do when they have a losing streak, those same people can never account for the players with worse stats or miles better stats.  Even if we had such a thing as a rated matchmaking system, you're still going to have matches where you're bottom tier in a team or top tier.  You're not expected to be able to carry every match and the "skill" of a player isn't something the Matchmaking considers (otherwise if you watch people stream World of Tanks who use XVM, those great players would constantly end up in matches with other "unicum" level players as the MM tries to balance them against other skilled opponents to "make them lose").

 

Nakitu_Michuchi, on 03 September 2015 - 03:39 PM, said:

You know that I am right ;) Every company has it's own secrets. But it would be nice for a change to take into account what good players think from time to time. We are paying customers as well even if we are minority.

 

No I don't think you're right. I think you're looking for a made up reason to account for losing games because you feel there should be a predictable pattern in something that is random.  It's human nature to look for such things and is simple as the thought that because a coin flipped 10 times in a row was heads, the next time it must be tails. 

 

We always taking into consideration what players think, but no one player has all the answers or should be listened to more than others. Please don't ever assume you're more important than the next player.

 

[Broevaharo]

Lolz, trust me on this one Ectar, they won't believe you, it's far easier to put the blame on the Bilderbergs, the Illuminati, the Martians, a Patent or you neigbors dog than to admit that you might actually have yourself to blame.