Jump to content


Matchmaking in 2.6


  • Please log in to reply
316 replies to this topic

Senator_Ratbat #181 Posted 09 February 2016 - 09:50 AM

    Producer

  • Administrator
  • 5781 battles
  • 1,393
  • [WGA]
  • Member since:
    06-27-2014

Tier dispersion will remain so as long as the server pop is over 10k there will be equal distribution of tiers across teams. When it's under 10k the server will try to keep the variance to a minimum.

 

Still on vacation so I haven't seen the data but I can't wait to study it in depth. There are arguments for keeping it and not but one thing was clear there needs to be more review of tank balance with a new MM set-up. Could it come back in the future? Maybe.



Braehead62 #182 Posted 09 February 2016 - 11:00 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 13001 battles
  • 87
  • [MOM2]
  • Member since:
    06-28-2014

Bad move, going back to the old MM. Much more balanced as 1+/1-. But as Doubletap said; it's about the profits.


Edited by Braehead62, 09 February 2016 - 11:18 AM.


miskoma #183 Posted 09 February 2016 - 01:40 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 20638 battles
  • 1,738
  • Member since:
    01-19-2015

View Post__Boomer2__, on 08 February 2016 - 10:32 PM, said:

 

That sucks...Comets aren't even that scary.

Well im not scared of them(was just being sarcastic) but when you have no armor and fire 6 rounds a minute. Running into a comet with its rof of 15...yeah super fun~ 



Geewizz3 #184 Posted 09 February 2016 - 02:17 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 13510 battles
  • 319
  • [CAWAL]
  • Member since:
    01-10-2015

Nooo! The old MM only benefits tiers IX and X tankers. Tiers V - VIII must suffer the old MM for their benefit and it sucks.

BTW, I have a few tier X tanks and prefer not having some stock tier VIII tank trying to help my IS4 take down an E100. I prefer the 54's assistance...

Bring back PMM! Please.


YES to +1,-1 MM. The game is more fun with PMM on every tank.

High tiered tanks, E100,IS4,E-75,ST-1 and T-54.


Foo4Boo #185 Posted 09 February 2016 - 02:27 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10322 battles
  • 971
  • [WINDX]
  • Member since:
    11-24-2015

You know when a store raises the price so they can drop the price and it looks like a sweet deal?

 

That's all this MM experiment was for.

 

Update 2.7 will have a choice of mm 1/1 and 2/2.

 

Best of both worlds and when you are feeling board with facing the same tiers 1/1 you can kick it up a notch. 

 

They just needed some data to see what the change in game economics will produce, so they know what other changes will be nesecary to make the dual MM system work.



Lephturn #186 Posted 09 February 2016 - 02:28 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Club Wargaming
  • 17567 battles
  • 3,647
  • [III-S]
  • Member since:
    07-28-2014

View Postddoubletapp1, on 09 February 2016 - 02:42 AM, said:

So much thought put into so many comments about the gamer's experience.

 

I really do believe its very much simpler than that.  WG ran an experiment with +1/-1 MM, and - while it had an arguably positive impact on the gamer's experience, it had a negative impact on the financial bottom line.

<SNIP>

Despite the fact that this experiment evened the playing field, it has evidently been a failure in WG's eyes - and I very much doubt we will see it's return.

 

You need to actually read the posts about this, because you are way off base. If reading isn't your thing (which would surprise me because you seem to write well) hit the links in my signature and listen to my podcast. In the latest two episodes Lokeen and I discuss the match making changes.

 

 This was an experiment for one month to collect data. NO DECISION HAS BEEN MADE YET. They told us from the start that this was an experiment to be run for one patch cycle and then they will go and analyze the data and use it to make decisions in the future. Wargaming doesn't even know the impact of it yet - they are still collecting data. We are going back to +2/-2 because the 1 month experiment is over, that's all.


Edited by Lephturn, 09 February 2016 - 02:29 PM.

Lephturn Triarii Signature Media Producer

Host of the World of Tanks Blitz podcast TANK BOOM!

 

Search for "tank boom" on iTunes, Stitcher, SoundCloud or your podcast player of choice!

Android user? Get the Tank Boom! App: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tank.boom


KROOS_0 #187 Posted 09 February 2016 - 03:00 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 17111 battles
  • 725
  • [EAP]
  • Member since:
    09-08-2015

View PostGeewizz3, on 09 February 2016 - 02:17 PM, said:

Nooo! The old MM only benefits tiers IX and X tankers. Tiers V - VIII must suffer the old MM for their benefit and it sucks.

BTW, I have a few tier X tanks and prefer not having some stock tier VIII tank trying to help my IS4 take down an E100. I prefer the 54's assistance...

Bring back PMM! Please.

 

And the new MM only favors potatoes, who do not know when to play support, who do not know that they should not always be on the front lines, who can not be versatile, that are changing shot in the open to see who has more HP, instead of crying by playing in the botton list, should learn to be smarter, think before you play, and play for the team and not for himself.

Garage:  Tankstein, kv13, t43, Ferdinand, Jpanther II, IS3, T44 tiger 2, is6, Hype 59

Tier 9 - is8, E75, T54, JagdTiger

Tier 10 = E100, T62A,  Is7, Object 140 , MAUS,  AND THE KING JagdPanzer E100


_1204_ #188 Posted 09 February 2016 - 03:13 PM

    Admiral Kitty

  • Players
  • 21736 battles
  • 6,135
  • [501ST]
  • Member since:
    08-24-2014

View PostSenator_Ratbat, on 09 February 2016 - 04:50 AM, said:

Tier dispersion will remain so as long as the server pop is over 10k there will be equal distribution of tiers across teams. When it's under 10k the server will try to keep the variance to a minimum.

 

Still on vacation so I haven't seen the data but I can't wait to study it in depth. There are arguments for keeping it and not but one thing was clear there needs to be more review of tank balance with a new MM set-up. Could it come back in the future? Maybe.

 

YASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Viper8757NC #189 Posted 09 February 2016 - 03:19 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 17666 battles
  • 1,551
  • [III-S]
  • Member since:
    07-04-2014

View PostKROOS_0, on 09 February 2016 - 03:00 PM, said:

 

And the new MM only favors potatoes, who do not know when to play support, who do not know that they should not always be on the front lines, who can not be versatile, that are changing shot in the open to see who has more HP, instead of crying by playing in the botton list, should learn to be smarter, think before you play, and play for the team and not for himself.

 

This post makes ZERO sense.  

How will moving inexperienced players from -1/+1 to -2/+2 improve their gameplay?  And exactly how does -1/+1 favor potatoes?

 

Your post makes you sound like the gal/guy that tosses their 2 year old into lake and says ‘sink or swim, kid’ rather than taking the time to teach the child how to swim in a safe environment.

 

ps.  Yes, this is a public service announcement in favor of training rooms.

 


Edited by Viper8757NC, 09 February 2016 - 03:30 PM.


Viper8757NC #190 Posted 09 February 2016 - 03:28 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 17666 battles
  • 1,551
  • [III-S]
  • Member since:
    07-04-2014

View PostSenator_Ratbat, on 09 February 2016 - 09:50 AM, said:

Tier dispersion will remain so as long as the server pop is over 10k there will be equal distribution of tiers across teams. When it's under 10k the server will try to keep the variance to a minimum.

 

Still on vacation so I haven't seen the data but I can't wait to study it in depth. There are arguments for keeping it and not but one thing was clear there needs to be more review of tank balance with a new MM set-up. Could it come back in the future? Maybe.

Well, then here’s to hoping the server pop maintains itself @ 10K or above.  

 

And FWIW, there has been a need for improved tank balance for well over a year now.  I’m surprised it has taken WG this long to figure that out, particularly given the daily access to BIG DATA sets.

 

Please take the above criticism in the constructive spirit that it was offered. 



junaluska7 #191 Posted 09 February 2016 - 03:46 PM

    _persona non grata_

  • Players
  • 16162 battles
  • 337
  • [CBOYS]
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

View PostLephturn, on 09 February 2016 - 08:28 AM, said:

 

 This was an experiment for one month to collect data. NO DECISION HAS BEEN MADE YET. They told us from the start that this was an experiment to be run for one patch cycle and then they will go and analyze the data and use it to make decisions in the future. Wargaming doesn't even know the impact of it yet - they are still collecting data. We are going back to +2/-2 because the 1 month experiment is over, that's all.

 

Interesting...

 

Will b interesting all the more once it shakes out in its finality. Thanks for this reminder of what this was actually intended to accomplish! Much appreciated!

 

And now...

 

I'm no genius but it just seems that on the surface of it, if ur claim to fame as a superior tanker (those in general and non-specifically) is that u r forever an ace, what does it matter who u go up against n a challenge/battle at any tier?

 

I would think it might b more of a "bring it on...I can deal with it" type of reaction. All u hear all day is "noob this, noob that" so why wouldn't u want a more equal tier to tier fight equation?

 

If the odds r stacked slightly against u as opposed to what u have become accustomed to, isn't that what an actual challenge personifies? Always seeking the next rung up to Vahala? (Metaphorically speaking)

 

Idk, but I'm guessing if it were only all the best tankers fighting against one another, all time time, theoritically, wouldn't there naturally b a drop in win rate anyway? For someone? U know, an "only so much room at the top" scenario? Idk, is that an ultimate preference for some? Would b interesting to know, tho.

 

So why the need for an added lower tier "buffer" to insure the status quo? I think that's what some are wondering...maybe not quite as simplistically as that, (but close?). Who knows..

 

Sorry, just more piled on food for thought n an already contentious debate.

Either side makes some strong points n stating their case and all with individual and collective interests at stake, don't forget. 

 

This is a good one WG! Good luck!

 

and remember, it still, 

                                                       ...a mean ol' world!

 

Lol!...respectfully

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

"Face facts with dignity" - (fortune cookie proverb)

 

junaluska7

 

 

ddoubletapp1 #192 Posted 09 February 2016 - 04:43 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 7953 battles
  • 145
  • Member since:
    09-01-2015

View PostLephturn, on 09 February 2016 - 06:28 AM, said:

 

You need to actually read the posts about this, because you are way off base. If reading isn't your thing (which would surprise me because you seem to write well) hit the links in my signature and listen to my podcast. In the latest two episodes Lokeen and I discuss the match making changes.

 

 This was an experiment for one month to collect data. NO DECISION HAS BEEN MADE YET. They told us from the start that this was an experiment to be run for one patch cycle and then they will go and analyze the data and use it to make decisions in the future. Wargaming doesn't even know the impact of it yet - they are still collecting data. We are going back to +2/-2 because the 1 month experiment is over, that's all.

 

I wish I had more time to listen to podcasts - I would undoubtedly be better informed.

 

However, while not necessarily informed on all aspects of this MM experiment - I'm hardly gullible enough to believe that the data generated has not already been compiled, dissected, reviewed and decisions made.

 

WG knows exactly how many credits, how much gold, and how many cash purchases are made on a minute by minute basis - and they have access to this information immediately. 

Do you have a picture in your head of a review group of folks, meeting with reams of paper containing the data collected - to be poured over and discussed over the next week or so?

 

I believe it to be much more likely that WG has a number of algorithms that supply them up-to-date information on virtually any aspect of this game - with emphasis on how much prammo is used, amount of credit/XP from gold conversion made, number of tanks purchased, free XP used to upgrade those tanks, premium tanks purchased, premium time purchased, gold/credit bundles purchased.

 

These are the things that affect the financial bottom line - and the data regarding how the experimental MM impacted these things has already been compiled, examined in minutiae (likely on a daily basis) and decisions made. 

I would be very disappointing in WGs business acumen, and available technology were this not the case!

 

I'm sure data was collected about win rates, damage and kill ratios as well - but this would be of secondary importance, and perhaps this is the data that will be examined over the coming weeks - but I don't think anyone is kidding themselves that this is the data that decisions are based on.

 

If there had been a measurable positive impact on the financial bottom line - this experiment would have been extended and expanded to the other servers.  That it isn't would lead me to strongly believe that it hasn't worked out financially - and I think we can all see reasons why this is likely.

 

WG is a multi-million dollar company - they have access to statistics, information and in-game patterns and they have access to that information immediately for review and decision making - and while I'm sure gameplay balance is also considered, it will not be the number one consideration going forward.

 

Your mileage - however - may vary.


"If the tanks succeed, then victory follows."

                                           Heinz Guderian

 

https://www.youtube....ubletapp/videos


Foo4Boo #193 Posted 09 February 2016 - 04:54 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10322 battles
  • 971
  • [WINDX]
  • Member since:
    11-24-2015

So they have all the data and have abilities to deduce this data the same day , can manage a multi million dollar company.

 

But they don't have the skills to manage the GC.

 

 

 

Fuuunnyyyy



CC_Sly #194 Posted 09 February 2016 - 05:02 PM

    Former Blitz Community Manager

  • Administrator
  • 3076 battles
  • 1,441
  • [WGA]
  • Member since:
    02-02-2015

UPDATE: Original Post

 

Block Quote

 

Oh right, the news of what is happening.

 

In 2.6 Matchmaking will be reverted to its normal +2/-2 format. It will be like it was in 2.4. As far as if it will be coming back or not, that will take more time to determine. We need to pore over the data and feedback to discuss what the best thing for Blitz is in the long run. The feedback section will remain open until Monday so be sure to provide any feedback you want us to see! 

 

Alright - so I got up this morning to be greeted by an e-mail explaining that the devs have started to look at the data for +1/-1 matchmaking and have come to a realization. They need more data. A single month of data was not enough to properly evaluate how +1/-1 would affect the server and game. As a result of this need to for data the test has been extended another month. That means with 2.6, +1/-1 matchmaking will continue in order to provide the devs with all the information they will need to make a well informed decision! 

 

I apologize for the short notice and appreciate your understanding!   

 

 


FORMER

  Please read the WoT Blitz Game and Forum rules.

   Forum Rules - EULA TOS

   Find us on Facebook & Twitter!

 


alexbuildit #195 Posted 09 February 2016 - 05:03 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Club Wargaming
  • 17479 battles
  • 5,192
  • [501ST]
  • Member since:
    06-30-2014

View PostCC_Sly, on 09 February 2016 - 07:02 AM, said:

UPDATE: Original Post

 

 

 

:amazed:


 


Youtube Channel: ALEXBUILDIT PRODUCTIONS

Leader of the 501st, Pm for details.  


Foo4Boo #196 Posted 09 February 2016 - 05:08 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10322 battles
  • 971
  • [WINDX]
  • Member since:
    11-24-2015
On a unrelated topic the Dev's extended the GC for another month as it is not worth the back lash being generated  on the forums.

Lephturn #197 Posted 09 February 2016 - 05:11 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Club Wargaming
  • 17567 battles
  • 3,647
  • [III-S]
  • Member since:
    07-28-2014

View Postddoubletapp1, on 09 February 2016 - 11:43 AM, said:

If there had been a measurable positive impact on the financial bottom line - this experiment would have been extended and expanded to the other servers.  That it isn't would lead me to strongly believe that it hasn't worked out financially - and I think we can all see reasons why this is likely.

 

WG is a multi-million dollar company - they have access to statistics, information and in-game patterns and they have access to that information immediately for review and decision making - and while I'm sure gameplay balance is also considered, it will not be the number one consideration going forward.

 

Your mileage - however - may vary.

 

Wargaming is just a bunch of people - they do not have extraordinary powers of reasoning. They do not (as far as we know!) have an A.I. that can sort through all of this data and try to isolate a particular change and it's effect instantly. I would only agree with your line of thinking if I knew that there had been a sudden and massive change in the financial metrics AND that it was driven by the MM test. I don't think you can say that. I highly doubt that it will be easy or fast to sort through the data to try and find the financial impact. Wargaming is managing a complex system, and financial success is driven from the success of the overall system - but with a significant lag time. There are many more things going on that will drive revenue numbers - say the relative success of the Dragon - than a MM change. They will have to do a deep analysis, have a bunch of meetings about it, and think carefully about how this change will affect the community overall in the medium to long term. These guys are not short-term $ chasers, they are smarter than that. If they were that short term in their thinking this thing would be pay-to-win like just about every other bloody game out there.

 

I give them more credit for having a long term vision, and less credit for supernatural data analysis and decision making powers.

 

The history of Wargaming and of Blitz leads me to believe they will not make a snap judgement either way, and will in fact deal with this thoughtfully as Senator_Ratbat has tated.


Lephturn Triarii Signature Media Producer

Host of the World of Tanks Blitz podcast TANK BOOM!

 

Search for "tank boom" on iTunes, Stitcher, SoundCloud or your podcast player of choice!

Android user? Get the Tank Boom! App: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tank.boom


wannabeunicum #198 Posted 09 February 2016 - 05:11 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 20955 battles
  • 4,068
  • [-AFK-]
  • Member since:
    10-25-2015
:(Damn it I want +2 -2 mm because being bottom tier sometimes is fun. Especially in a med. I can do what I want without vastly affecting my team. I can flank harras. The only problem is player mindset. They pick the cromwell behind them instead of the is3 in front of em.Thats the problem +2 -2 mm. People don't understand what targets are more dangerous. If im in a is3 ill be angling and just not get hurt by the cromwell and kill the enemy is3 then move on to the cromwell, instead of taking 1200 dmg from the is3 before I can kill the cromwel. IMO this game doesnt reward flanking enough for bottom tier meds

Lephturn #199 Posted 09 February 2016 - 05:13 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Club Wargaming
  • 17567 battles
  • 3,647
  • [III-S]
  • Member since:
    07-28-2014

View PostFoo4Boo, on 09 February 2016 - 11:54 AM, said:

So they have all the data and have abilities to deduce this data the same day , can manage a multi million dollar company.

 

But they don't have the skills to manage the GC.

 

 

Oh they have the skills - they just don't think it's worth the investment. :)


Lephturn Triarii Signature Media Producer

Host of the World of Tanks Blitz podcast TANK BOOM!

 

Search for "tank boom" on iTunes, Stitcher, SoundCloud or your podcast player of choice!

Android user? Get the Tank Boom! App: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tank.boom


Red_Ping #200 Posted 09 February 2016 - 05:19 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 21379 battles
  • 2,062
  • Member since:
    07-05-2012
I Think the NA server should get a 7 day prem time + A honorary medal for being the test mice for the devs ;)
                           
                            Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me.           
 
                                                                                  

                                           





5 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users