Jump to content


Match making


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

Dan_Deerso #41 Posted 22 March 2017 - 05:14 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10969 battles
  • 359
  • [MOMS]
  • Member since:
    11-13-2013

View PostSlipperyHitch, on 22 March 2017 - 11:29 AM, said:

The following link has the posted information regarding the MM which I have previously confirmed via a ticket with Wargaming:

http://wiki.wargamin...tchmaker_(Blitz)

 

This is what the MM does not consider:

It is important to know that matchmaker does not consider the following factors:

  • Personal Rating
  • Tank progress
  • Nation and class of the vehicle
  • Vehicle configuration
  • Crew mastery level
  • Player’s statistics

 

And that my friend is ENTIRELY "The Problem"!

Given the current MM, both of us could have entirely different experiences even if we had exactly the same skill level. 

NOT BALANCED!

If they bothered to incorporate even one of those factors - Personal rating for ex - the games would be much more symmetrical, enjoyable, playable, everything that it currently is not.

 

They say that it would lengthen pre-battle time greatly. This I doubt and would be happy to wait another 30 sec for the calculation to ensure a better balanced game.

  •  

 

You're right. For a single battle. However, when we start talking a thousand, ten thousand, fifty thousand battles, the experiences average out for the most part. 

Unfortunately, skill based MM isn't a catchall answer, and frankly it would take the variety out of the game. 

 

Example:

Two teams of Uni's in heavies on Winter Mal follow heavy meta #1: Mill. Slugfest ensues, tanks die, RNG causes one side to win. Rinse, repeat.

 

Two teams of scrubs in heavies go on Winter Mal, and follow their own path, and the randomosity causes one side to win based on better positioning. Next time, losing team tries something else, and wins. Different, fun.

 

Also I nerfed your font size.


LIVESTREAM AND VODs at twitch.tv/dandeerso

Top 10: T110E4 (9th), A-20 (9th), Angry Connor (8th), T69 (8th), T-34 (2nd), Type 98 Ke-Ni (3rd)

Top 100: KV-2, Cruiser Mk. IV, Spähpanzer Ru 251, T-46, Spähpanzer SP I C, M4A2E4 Sherman, Type 5 Chi-Ri, VK 16.02 Leopard, M4A3E2 Sherman Jumbo, T-54 ltwt., Pz.Kpfw. V/IV, Helsing HO, SU-152, T54E1


SlipperyHitch #42 Posted 22 March 2017 - 05:34 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 5523 battles
  • 15
  • [RM_3]
  • Member since:
    10-12-2016

This is a game of chance - as I believe it is. You have been dealt as you see it favorable teams over the last X battles. However the make up of those team players was entirely random. If the number of new sub par players increased you will have a correlative decrease in your WR over Y time.  As the number of lower quality players flows in there is no mechanism to assure that this effect does't happen. This as you have surely found happens quite frequently after new updates as the number of players spikes. You believe that this fluctuation does not need to be balanced at all and everyone should be affected Equally. However, since the allotment of payers is random there will not be an even spread in how each player is affected during those times of high sub par player influx and as such there is not an EQUAL affect between players. This is not opinion it is simply mathematics. It is true that if we spread the battles out into the 10k's the differences would become less between players and my WR would even out. Would the inclusion of a means to reduce the impact poor-player spikes have on the gaming community improve the game? It most definitely would!  

 

You are fortunate to have not experienced the quality of players I have been dealt for too long of a time. As such, I am done. And the only reason I am on the forum is because Wargaming "may", probably not, read this.  For they refused to read anything else on the matter and rejected all of my tickets referencing this system as somehow "Customer Service" Wow!!!! This must be Self Serve Customer Service. I wish you great games as this will be the last post I make on the matter. 

 

BONA FORTUNA TIBI ET VAE VICTIS. SALVE


Edited by SlipperyHitch, 22 March 2017 - 05:37 PM.


tankcrunch #43 Posted 22 March 2017 - 05:37 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 54 battles
  • 2,067
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011

View PostSlipperyHitch, on 22 March 2017 - 05:00 PM, said:

So You agree that the exclusion of : 
  • Personal Rating
  • Tank progress
  • Nation and class of the vehicle
  • Vehicle configuration
  • Crew mastery level
  • Player’s statistics

 

could lead to asymmetrical player experiences? I certainly hope so. If you only disagree on the factor to include. - PROGRESS. I noted personal rating as an example. You will note that if they included CREW MASTERY specific to each tank (a variable that has nothing to do with player stats) the game could become more balance.

 

Side Note - tankcrunch - 54 battles hardly make you an authority on any matter. 

 

excuse me? i played WoT PC for 5 years and little bit in Blitz, i think i have some knowledge at least. so knock IT off.

Banzai_Wave #44 Posted 22 March 2017 - 07:00 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 9638 battles
  • 12
  • [RM_3]
  • Member since:
    03-03-2016
I will believe the what the numbers say long before I "take your word on it". Play a few thousand then chime in.

SpartacusDiablo #45 Posted 22 March 2017 - 07:11 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 3552 battles
  • 713
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-17-2014
Spoiler

 


If you want to talk tanks then head on over to the Bunker.

http://thebunker.freeforums.net

​If you are always on the losing team it may be time to admit that "the team" isn't the problem...


Dan_Deerso #46 Posted 22 March 2017 - 07:16 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10969 battles
  • 359
  • [MOMS]
  • Member since:
    11-13-2013

View PostSlipperyHitch, on 22 March 2017 - 12:34 PM, said:

This is a game of chance - as I believe it is. You have been dealt as you see it favorable teams over the last X battles. However the make up of those team players was entirely random. If the number of new sub par players increased you will have a correlative decrease in your WR over Y time.  As the number of lower quality players flows in there is no mechanism to assure that this effect does't happen. This as you have surely found happens quite frequently after new updates as the number of players spikes. You believe that this fluctuation does not need to be balanced at all and everyone should be affected Equally. However, since the allotment of payers is random there will not be an even spread in how each player is affected during those times of high sub par player influx and as such there is not an EQUAL affect between players. This is not opinion it is simply mathematics. It is true that if we spread the battles out into the 10k's the differences would become less between players and my WR would even out. Would the inclusion of a means to reduce the impact poor-player spikes have on the gaming community improve the game? It most definitely would!  

 

You are fortunate to have not experienced the quality of players I have been dealt for too long of a time. As such, I am done. And the only reason I am on the forum is because Wargaming "may", probably not, read this.  For they refused to read anything else on the matter and rejected all of my tickets referencing this system as somehow "Customer Service" Wow!!!! This must be Self Serve Customer Service. I wish you great games as this will be the last post I make on the matter. 

 

BONA FORTUNA TIBI ET VAE VICTIS. SALVE

 

Remember when Blitz PC first came out on a different server partition than mobile, where only high-skill players and veterans had high tier carry overs from mobile?

 

Oh, my bad, I forgot you were new here for a second, you almost convinced me with your ridiculous oversized text that you knew what you were talking about for a second there.

 

ANYWAYS, I remember not having very much fun, because the reds (and the greens) were closeish to my skill level, so pseudo-skill MM. Everyone went the correct way every time. You could take a recording of a single battle on each map for each side, and there was your game every single mind-numbing game, and I hated it.

 

With scrubs, I mean sure, they don't contribute as much, and they make me rage sometimes. At the same time, when my team goes a way on a well-worn meta map, and it works, often I find new and interesting ways to play my game. I find more spots to use, and am a better player for it.

 

Once again, it's not so much that I win, it's that I get to enjoy the game, and it's always different.

 

Random makes it different.

Random makes it interesting.

Keep my game random.


LIVESTREAM AND VODs at twitch.tv/dandeerso

Top 10: T110E4 (9th), A-20 (9th), Angry Connor (8th), T69 (8th), T-34 (2nd), Type 98 Ke-Ni (3rd)

Top 100: KV-2, Cruiser Mk. IV, Spähpanzer Ru 251, T-46, Spähpanzer SP I C, M4A2E4 Sherman, Type 5 Chi-Ri, VK 16.02 Leopard, M4A3E2 Sherman Jumbo, T-54 ltwt., Pz.Kpfw. V/IV, Helsing HO, SU-152, T54E1


Banzai_Wave #47 Posted 23 March 2017 - 04:24 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 9638 battles
  • 12
  • [RM_3]
  • Member since:
    03-03-2016
Funny, I didn't know it was just "Your" game.  If they assigned Crew mastery, as he suggested above, as a variable in match making it would not eliminate the RANDOMNESS you so crave. Scrubs would still YOLO and make rediculous choices. But there would be a more balanced line up at the start of each game. I vote yes to that! 

tankcrunch #48 Posted 23 March 2017 - 04:59 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 54 battles
  • 2,067
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011
Image result for frozen let it go meme

Banzai_Wave #49 Posted 23 March 2017 - 06:18 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 9638 battles
  • 12
  • [RM_3]
  • Member since:
    03-03-2016

Only thing some no how to do is follow Wargaming like little puppies that can't think for themselves.  As if you really need to worry that they well change your beloved MM God.



WW2_54 #50 Posted 24 March 2017 - 02:15 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 13581 battles
  • 5
  • [DW1]
  • Member since:
    04-09-2016

I'd like to see matchmaking rest on a level playing field. The current setup is clearly biased toward Red teams. I've seen enough war games professionally to know when the other side has a coherent C2. Red teams exhibit obvious C2 support. Green teams in contrast start every battle looking like a jail break. The removal of ability to talk has become a definite impediment to Green team effectiveness and the results are obvious in the dropping level of WR. Dissention in the ranks is growing.



WW2_54 #51 Posted Yesterday, 07:17 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 13581 battles
  • 5
  • [DW1]
  • Member since:
    04-09-2016
I think most of us know when we play badly. We also know when we're being played.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users