T5 MM imbalance: Aggravated chart

[Verence196]

Just to provide some more data on the current MM balance issue. It's still early days, and my number of matches do not really add up to statistical significance yet, but I'm posting nevertheless.

The below graph shows the aggregated tier balance of my matches on tiers 3-6 since 5.10 was released, with the x-axis showing number of battles, and y-axis showing tier aggravation.. 

 

 

Method:

 I've added up, battle for battle, my tier placement in every match I've played. Bottom tier in a two tier battle yields +1, bottom tier in three tier battle yields +2, top tier in a two tier match yields -1, top tier in a three tier match yields -2, and mid tier in any match yields 0. 

There really should have been more data, but even with what little there is here, the difference between t5 and t6 is striking. You're regularly outtiered at t6, but at t5 it happens in the vast majority of matches - often by two tiers.

 

edit: Just to make it absolutely clear: If the matchmaking was balanced, then all the lines should be hovering around 0 - ideally they should be completely flat. A rising graph indicates you're playing bottom tier a majority of battles, while a falling graph indicates you're playing top. I'd be very curious to se the graph for t7, but I don't have any of those ships yet. =)

 

edit 2: Just realised I wrote "aggravated" instead of "aggregated". Oh well. =p

[ColonelPete]

You have to count every ship. Two Tier VII ships in a match are not a problem.

[Verence196]

You have to count every ship. Two Tier VII ships in a match are not a problem.

 

Dependent on what you're playing. If you're a Minekaze, then two Blyskas on the enemy team is terribly bad news.

But yeah - overall you're right. Statistics should ideally be even more detailed. I've attempted to show these in an easy-to-understand graph, and the level of detail suffers for it. The kind of tracking you have in mind is beyond what I can be bothered to note down. Wargaming have these stats directly from their servers. If they wanted an informed discussion, they could have released them. =)

In the meantime, we have to make do with this.

 

[xXx_Blogis_xXx]

dotn see any problem in t5

[Verence196]

dotn see any problem in t5

 

In the graph, or in your personal experience? =)

[ColonelPete]

 

Dependent on what you're playing. If you're a Minekaze, then two Blyskas on the enemy team is terribly bad news.
 

 

Since we have mirrored MM, one of those Blyskas is supposed to be on your team.

[Verence196]

 

Since we have mirrored MM, one of those Blyskas is supposed to be on your team.

 

Now you're just quibbling. =)

It's quite possible to have a Minekaze+a Blyska vs two Blyskas - the imbalance being made up by the cruisers or battleships. Still bad news for the Minekaze.

[AnotherDuck]

I think the point was that if the vast majority of ships in a game are bottom tier, it's not nearly as bad as if you're the sole bottom tier ship. I mean, recently I was in a T7 battle in König. But there were only three T7 ships and two T6 ships per team, leaving seven T5 ships. In those games it doesn't feel nearly as much as if you're in bottom tier as if half the ships are T7, a few T6, and only you and maybe another at T5.

[Nechrom]

I think the point was that if the vast majority of ships in a game are bottom tier, it's not nearly as bad as if you're the sole bottom tier ship. I mean, recently I was in a T7 battle in König. But there were only three T7 ships and two T6 ships per team, leaving seven T5 ships. In those games it doesn't feel nearly as much as if you're in bottom tier as if half the ships are T7, a few T6, and only you and maybe another at T5.

 

But wouldn't the amount of tier 7 battles with few/many tier 7 and 6 ships even out over time? Unless you're arguing that tier 7 battles on average contain less tier 7 ships than lets say a tier 6 battle contain tier 6 ships.

[AnotherDuck]

But wouldn't the amount of tier 7 battles with few/many tier 7 and 6 ships even out over time? Unless you're arguing that tier 7 battles on average contain less tier 7 ships than lets say a tier 6 battle contain tier 6 ships.

 

I wasn't arguing either way, just trying to rerail a derailed argument that went into useless specifics. Without stats on it, we don't know.

 

Personally, my experience is that it's more common to have more bottom tier ships than top tier ships in three-tier spreads, but I've not payed that much attention to exact numbers. I've just noticed that if I'm top tier, I rarely have many equals, and if I'm bottom tier, I'm rarely alone or mostly so.

[CavScorpion_2014]

Just to provide some more data on the current MM balance issue. It's still early days, and my number of matches do not really add up to statistical significance yet, but I'm posting nevertheless.

The below graph shows the aggravated tier balance of my matches on tiers 3-6 since 5.10 was released, with the x-axis showing number of battles, and y-axis showing tier aggravation.. 

 

 

Method:

 I've added up, battle for battle, my tier placement in every match I've played. Bottom tier in a two tier battle yields +1, bottom tier in three tier battle yields +2, top tier in a two tier match yields -1, top tier in a three tier match yields -2, and mid tier in any match yields 0. 

There really should have been more data, but even with what little there is here, the difference between t5 and t6 is striking. You're regularly outtiered at t6, but at t5 it happens in the vast majority of matches - often by two tiers.

 

edit: Just to make it absolutely clear: If the matchmaking was balanced, then all the lines should be hovering around 0 - ideally they should be completely flat. A rising graph indicates you're playing bottom tier a majority of battles, while a falling graph indicates you're playing top. I'd be very curious to se the graph for t7, but I don't have any of those ships yet. =)

 

​Given your WR remains above average, is there a feeling this is due to better players / those on a win streak finding themselves at bottom tier more often?

[GulvkluderGuld]

Your data seems to confirm my impression and reason that tier 5 ships are no fun to play atm.

 

They mostly are ok vs tier 6 ships, but it is nothing like being top tier and racking up the damage, like other tiers can.

I realize tier 5 can be top tier in a tier 4-5 spread, but that happens is 1/10 games tops, so for practical purposes, tier 5 ships are 'always' bottom tier. Which really sucks when you have to grind them!

 

I have no statistics, but I seems Tier 4, 7, 9 and 10 are sweetspots for matchmaking in terms of getting top tier games atm, while 5 gets shafted big time and 6 is no prize. There are usually enough people playing tier 8 to make for fairly frequent top tier games.

[OiMateYouSankMyBattleShp]

Hmm will be making my Wyoming my main ship, experience is telling me that it is more stable in the ''fun factor category''.

 

MM is to spiky with this new patch, sailing my precious Kongo these days means you have to fend of Scharnhorst and co. ;Well at least in the majority of (my) your time. 

 

 

 

Edit; @CavScorpion_2014 But I want people to like me because of me and not because of my name. I feel so violated. :<

 

 

Edit; xoxoxoxoxooxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo

 

Edit; Also goodbye New Mexico my sweet Prince you are just to slow paced for the current mm.

[CavScorpion_2014]

Hmm will be making my Wyoming my main ship, experience is telling me that it is more stable in the ''fun factor category''.

 

MM is to spiky with this new patch, sailing my precious Kongo these days means you have to fend of Scharnhorst and co. ;Well at least in the majority of (my) your time. 

 

​Liking just for the username.

[Verence196]

Given your WR remains above average, is there a feeling this is due to better players / those on a win streak finding themselves at bottom tier more often?

 

Don't think so. The MM system doesn't take win rate into account when creating battle set-ups, at least as far as I know. My guess is it's purely a result of T5s now being unable to match against T3s, creating a pile up. Why that should result in an imbalance at T6 I can't say, but there appears to be one. I'd welcome suggestions. =)

[Lin3]

There's also a lot of Shineyhorses about at the moment, with this being the current flavour-of-the-month pay-to-win ship.

Meaning that tier 5's will be called into a lot of tier 7 battles to make up the numbers.

 

Ships like the Omaha and the King-Kongo can still make a very good contribution when bottom tier.

[Ubertron_X]

The thing is, being low tier is more punishing for some classes, than it is for others, mainly because the rock-paper-scissors principle is still working for those classes.

 

Omitting CVs this translates to the following for tier 5:

 

If you are a BB and low tier you are still fine most of the time (Kongo, König, New York). Kill CAs and damage or kill other BBs as opportunities presents themselves.

If you are a DD and low tier you are still fine most of the time (Minekaze, Gnevny, Nicholas). Avoid CAs, cap and either kill DDs or hunt for capital ships like BBs or CVs.

If you are a CA and low tier however you will not be fine most of the time (Königsberg, Kirov, Furutaka, Omaha). Higher CAs will kill you, as will any BBs. DDs will try to avoid you as usual. No one left to fight.

 

I had plenty of matches with a teammate (König and Murmansk), where he was the only T5 CA and struggled a lot despite being a decent player and having a good ship. I never had any problems in my BB in the same battles.

[cherry2blost]

 

Don't think so. The MM system doesn't take win rate into account when creating battle set-ups, at least as far as I know. My guess is it's purely a result of T5s now being unable to match against T3s, creating a pile up. Why that should result in an imbalance at T6 I can't say, but there appears to be one. I'd welcome suggestions. =)

 

Yes it does take into account was changed few patches ago matey... if you have X number of games as bottom tier then MM 'tries' to give you Y number of MId/Top tier games.... Problem with T5 is that this is working for T6 and 7 but being as T4 is now protected then T5 can only see T4/5/6/7, whereas T7 (for example) can see T5/6/7/8/9... T5 'loses' the lowest tiers that would/should be available to it.

T4 has +1 /-2

T5 has +2/ -1

T6 has +2/-1

T7 has +2/-2

 

So for T5:

if they are Top Tier then the game will be T4/T5

If they are Mid Tier game will be T5 only AND T5 / T6

As bottom Tier T5/T6/T7

 

For T6:

if they are Top Tier then the game will be T5/T6

If they are Mid Tier game will be T5/T6 AND T7

As bottom Tier T6/T7/T8

 

For T7:

if they are Top Tier then the game will be T5/T6/T7

If they are Mid Tier game will be T6/T7 AND T8

As bottom Tier T7/T8/T9

 

As you can see factor in the MM 'allowing' for someone to be retiered due to excessive Lowest Tiering affects the T7 ship the least and the T6 a % more and the T5 a further % more than T6 ship....

 

Hope this makes it clearer......

 

[GenerallKrizmuz]

 

Dependent on what you're playing. If you're a Minekaze, then two Blyskas on the enemy team is terribly bad news.

 

Nothing is bad news in a Minekaze

[22cm]

MM on 5, 6 and 8 is bad. At least on tier 6, you ll get enough middle tier games(5-7). On 8 when you get camping tier 10 idiots on your team,  it s hopeless. 

[GulvkluderGuld]

Nothing is bad news in a Minekaze

 

CV 

[Spuggy]

A manly man will ALWAYS see being bottom tier as an OPPORTUNITY to deal even more damage to the enemy.

[Admiral_noodle]

 

I think a better graph would be average tier. So add up all the ship tiers and divide by 24.

At the moment although being top tier is rare in a tier V and even VI the balance has improved. Usually now on a tier V (in a tier VI game) the average is closer to 5.5 - yes they are tier VII games but they aren't dominating.

 

My main gripe is that it's harder to get high caliber because the HP pool is bigger and you have less capability to do damage. And I like medals - although to farm that go play a tier IV BB this weekend. With so many DDs around the HP pool is lowered so HC is easier. There is an issue with HC... But that's a different topic. 

[Spuggy]

My main gripe is that it's harder to get high caliber because the HP pool is bigger and you have less capability to do damage. And I like medals  

 

 

~Be manly and press left mouse button. And keep pressing it.

[AnotherDuck]

T4 has +1 /-2

 

Just that one thing. Typo? T4 don't meet T2.

 

Nothing is bad news in a Minekaze

 

Two Blyskas is bad news, though. It means there are two ships with a lot less health than a battleship for you to farm damage on.