Jump to content


Match making


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

lookedsquirrel7 #21 Posted 08 March 2017 - 12:21 PM

    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

  • Players
  • 20832 battles
  • 2,931
  • Member since:
    01-27-2015

View Posterovi, on 06 March 2017 - 10:34 AM, said:

 

​You don't contribute any reasonable arguments to the discussion. You have no respect for others and therefore your participation is worthless.

 

Just for the record, I´ve played over 17,000 battles. My personal record is over 3,500 which is much higher than many of those who argue that it has to do with how good a player you are and whose number or battles is below 3,000. You guys need to play more to consider yourselves "experts" on MM. 

 

My personal Rating is currently 6056, and I only have 2426 more battles than you. I agree with Spartacus.

 

If you are really gonna base it on a bad rating system then make sure you are above average. I have nearly double your personal rating with a Marginal 14% more battles than you and I disagree with the OP because he clearly isn't doing his part to help the team, and is asking the team to do something he can't.

 

Let us also not forget that the OP also Called himself a "Top Notch Player" when the evidence is there that that isn't true. Never ever on forums like this make claims like that, we will fact check it.

 

Let's be honest here you yourself are doing less than the OP, the only reason your personal rating is that high is because you can't seem to stay away from tier 4.

 

http://wotbstars.com...&geo=NA&lng=eng


Edited by lookedsquirrel7, 08 March 2017 - 12:27 PM.


Centrill #22 Posted 08 March 2017 - 02:51 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 8060 battles
  • 3
  • [RAFE]
  • Member since:
    08-16-2016
Y'all need to take it easy out there... There are no "dumb" or "horrible" suggestions. I am simply curious why this would or would not be a viable option. If not... fine. Why put down others who are inquisitive and interested in the game play?

SpartacusDiablo #23 Posted 08 March 2017 - 02:57 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5551 battles
  • 1,457
  • [UW]
  • Member since:
    02-17-2014

View PostCentrill, on 08 March 2017 - 02:51 PM, said:

Y'all need to take it easy out there... There are no "dumb" or "horrible" suggestions. I am simply curious why this would or would not be a viable option. If not... fine. Why put down others who are inquisitive and interested in the game play?

I never put you down. I simply said that your idea was horrible.

 

Case in point. I have a little over 3k games played. Please look at my in game performance and explain why I should be limited to tier III.


Edited by SpartacusDiablo, 08 March 2017 - 03:05 PM.

 

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


Centrill #24 Posted 08 March 2017 - 05:04 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 8060 battles
  • 3
  • [RAFE]
  • Member since:
    08-16-2016
OK. Good & valid point... sorry I brought it up. Just trying to learn more about MM and how the system works. End of discussion. 

Edited by Centrill, 08 March 2017 - 05:06 PM.


dayton07277 #25 Posted 08 March 2017 - 07:17 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 9944 battles
  • 2,623
  • [CROWN]
  • Member since:
    09-13-2015

View PostCentrill, on 07 March 2017 - 09:55 PM, said:

Why doesn't Wot Blitz  require a minimum number of battles to be completed before allowing a player to move to the next Tier? In the real world we don't allow a pilot to fly a commercial 757 jetliner without first having finished training in a Cessna and spending years of experience in smaller commercial aircraft. 

 

I have 7,000 battles and often find myself lashed to the mast in Tier 5, 6, & 7 battles with players who have less than 200 battle experience. This afternoon I battled in a Tier 6 tank alongside a player in a Tier 5 heavy who had only 76 battles experience.

 

Why not require 1,000 battles of experience before allowing a player to move up to the next Tier?

 

0 to 1,000 = Tier 1

1,001 to 2,000 = Tier 2

2,001 to 3,000 = Tier 3

And so on.

 

I'm just asking why this would or would not be a good modification to the game.

 

Thanks

Dude way to many battles in the lower tiers start at 1k at tier 5. Maybe 500 at tier 4. And 100 per tier 1/3



sonofblacksmith #26 Posted 11 March 2017 - 06:10 AM

    Private

  • Players
  • 14249 battles
  • 6
  • [WRPGZ]
  • Member since:
    10-04-2016
Such a volatile topic. I have a 52%Wr and do not consider myself a good tanker-I'd say I'm medium. I could care less about WR. I want to go out and have a good battle. What I find that effects the battles more than anything is the discrepancy in # of battles. I just played a game where 5 of my team were below 1000 battles and 4 of theirs were over 16,000. The battle was done in a flash-and I find that incessantly boring, on either side of that ledger. I can't figure out for the life of me why the # of battles can't be factored in. If someone with 80 battles wants to buy a tier 8 premium, great-but have the teams reflect that.

Full_Shane #27 Posted 12 March 2017 - 08:12 AM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 4586 battles
  • 251
  • [MOM5]
  • Member since:
    12-30-2016

View Postsonofblacksmith, on 11 March 2017 - 12:10 AM, said:

Such a volatile topic. I have a 52%Wr and do not consider myself a good tanker-I'd say I'm medium. I could care less about WR. I want to go out and have a good battle. What I find that effects the battles more than anything is the discrepancy in # of battles. I just played a game where 5 of my team were below 1000 battles and 4 of theirs were over 16,000. The battle was done in a flash-and I find that incessantly boring, on either side of that ledger. I can't figure out for the life of me why the # of battles can't be factored in. If someone with 80 battles wants to buy a tier 8 premium, great-but have the teams reflect that.

 

The battles matter, up to a point, and that point is going to vary from player to player. That's why it won't be factored in (and shouldn't be), because you can't predict when players are going to get educated enough to start playing competitively. I could play at a 45% WR level for 1,000 battles, then watch a slew of gameplay vids, get picked up by a strictly regimented clan, or get mentored by some super-unicum player and within a week, or a couple hundred battles, start effectively performing like a player with a substantially higher WR.

 

So I kindly disagree. I don't see the correlation between skill and battles played as clearly as I do the correlation between skill and WR%. There is no set mark where every player has some epiphany and then suddenly understands how to operate their tanks. I think that by 1,000 battles, I was doing well enough. Hell, I might've even had a better WR% then. I'm still only at 2.5k-ish battles and occasionally I'll check the enemy team's stats after matches only to find that I slapped around players with 16k battles and WR's in the mid forties. 


Edited by Full_Shane, 12 March 2017 - 08:13 AM.

3.8 can suck a fart out of my butt.


CarlosDanger_1 #28 Posted 12 March 2017 - 02:08 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 21393 battles
  • 52
  • [USAF]
  • Member since:
    10-10-2014

View PostCentrill, on 08 March 2017 - 05:55 AM, said:

Why doesn't Wot Blitz  require a minimum number of battles to be completed before allowing a player to move to the next Tier? In the real world we don't allow a pilot to fly a commercial 757 jetliner without first having finished training in a Cessna and spending years of experience in smaller commercial aircraft. 

 

I have 7,000 battles and often find myself lashed to the mast in Tier 5, 6, & 7 battles with players who have less than 200 battle experience. This afternoon I battled in a Tier 6 tank alongside a player in a Tier 5 heavy who had only 76 battles experience.

 

Why not require 1,000 battles of experience before allowing a player to move up to the next Tier?

 

0 to 1,000 = Tier 1

1,001 to 2,000 = Tier 2

2,001 to 3,000 = Tier 3

And so on.

 

I'm just asking why this would or would not be a good modification to the game.

 

Thanks

 

​Worst idea I have ever seen on this forum.  1,000 battles to escape tier 1?  Not ever gonna happen.

WW2_54 #29 Posted 21 March 2017 - 10:58 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 15740 battles
  • 13
  • [DW1]
  • Member since:
    04-09-2016

View Posttankcrunch, on 03 March 2017 - 09:09 PM, said:

MM is working as intended,comrade.

 

Sure is, if you play on Red.

tankcrunch #30 Posted 22 March 2017 - 12:50 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 195 battles
  • 3,365
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011

View PostWW2_54, on 21 March 2017 - 10:58 PM, said:

 

Sure is, if you play on Red.

 

hehehe:trollface:

SlipperyHitch #31 Posted 22 March 2017 - 01:50 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 6213 battles
  • 35
  • [RM_3]
  • Member since:
    10-12-2016

I see a moderator must have removed my posts. Apparently my comments that this is a multimillion-dollar company that would have no interest in improving the Matchmaker system struck a nerve. Obviously my comments were accurate otherwise there would have been no reason or content which would have been necessary to remove.

 

In short would it not be necessary for such a company to ensure a higher WR for sub par players that they might not get too disappointed otherwise these paying customers might leave the game altogether.  In order to ensure that how could the Matchmaker be balanced and fair? I can play the same tank in a different account with a low 40% win rate and get win after win after win, but if I play it in my account I barely get a 50% win rate. Makes one Wonder! This is nothing other than a game of chance. Keep rolling those dice!


Edited by SlipperyHitch, 22 March 2017 - 01:54 PM.


SpartacusDiablo #32 Posted 22 March 2017 - 01:55 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5551 battles
  • 1,457
  • [UW]
  • Member since:
    02-17-2014

 

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


SlipperyHitch #33 Posted 22 March 2017 - 02:30 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 6213 battles
  • 35
  • [RM_3]
  • Member since:
    10-12-2016

YOUR NEW PROPAGANDA POSTER

Destroy anything that might topple our reality!!! (Cries from the MM enforcers) 



SpartacusDiablo #34 Posted 22 March 2017 - 02:47 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5551 battles
  • 1,457
  • [UW]
  • Member since:
    02-17-2014

Sure and this can be the poster for the matchmaking is rigged crowd.

 


 

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


SlipperyHitch #35 Posted 22 March 2017 - 04:22 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 6213 battles
  • 35
  • [RM_3]
  • Member since:
    10-12-2016

WHAT YOUR RESPONSES MAKE ME THINK OF:



SlipperyHitch #36 Posted 22 March 2017 - 04:29 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 6213 battles
  • 35
  • [RM_3]
  • Member since:
    10-12-2016

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.

  •  

Edited by SlipperyHitch, 22 March 2017 - 04:31 PM.


SpartacusDiablo #37 Posted 22 March 2017 - 04:43 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5551 battles
  • 1,457
  • [UW]
  • Member since:
    02-17-2014
Personal rating??? Are you serious? That number is a joke. A huge part of it is battles played. Using it as a guideline could net you a team of AFK players for all you know..

Edited by SpartacusDiablo, 22 March 2017 - 04:46 PM.

 

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


tankcrunch #38 Posted 22 March 2017 - 04:51 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 195 battles
  • 3,365
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011

View PostSlipperyHitch, on 22 March 2017 - 04:29 PM, 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.

  •  

 

Image result for stalker shadow of chernobyl memes

SlipperyHitch #39 Posted 22 March 2017 - 05:00 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 6213 battles
  • 35
  • [RM_3]
  • Member since:
    10-12-2016
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. 


Edited by SlipperyHitch, 22 March 2017 - 05:06 PM.


SpartacusDiablo #40 Posted 22 March 2017 - 05:07 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5551 battles
  • 1,457
  • [UW]
  • Member since:
    02-17-2014
I don't think it's necessary. It's adding unneeded cogs to a machine that in my opinion already works fine.  Like I've said already, a good player is going to overcome the obstacles that are placed in front of them. The current system is balanced because it is applied evenly to every player.

 

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





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users