Jump to content


Unbalanced Teams

Teams Match Making

  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

MP246 #1 Posted 20 March 2017 - 03:21 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 20459 battles
  • 24
  • Member since:
    10-20-2016
I think a lot of people have experienced this issue: the two teams on the battle field are usually unbalanced. The first case is one team has 3-4 unicums/super unicums while the other team has 3-5 sub 40%ers/sub 50%ers. The second case is one team has 7 medium tanks + light tanks while the other team has 5-6 tank destroyers. The matchmaker probably needs to be adjusted, it can ruin the run in random battles.

Posit1ve_ #2 Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:15 AM

    Credits Master

  • Players
  • 32905 battles
  • 4,165
  • [IRD]
  • Member since:
    04-12-2011

I will keep saying this until noob threads go away (Which will be never)

 

Bad players are good for everyone.

It seems counter-intuitive, but it's true.

 

1. There is only a 6/13 chance a bad player will be on your team vs. a 7/13 chance they will be on the other team

2. They amplify the effect a skilled player can have on a game. Ever noticed it's ridiculously easy to win at tiers II and III compared with higher ones? Wanna know why? It's because everyone is a noob and a bad player at those tiers.

3. Fewer Good players = fewer good players stealing your damage (And XP and credits) and it means there'll be fewer competent players on the other team. What makes you lose is competent players on the other team, not noobs on yours

 

 

Also, potatoes aren't always bad. I had my team of potatoes beat a team with 501, SRT, GRIM, and PURPL today (7-1)


271 tanks in the garage!

 

Your local friendly credits guru: http://forum.wotblit...__fromsearch__1 

Certified Batignolles Chatillon 25t addict


Beercanradio #3 Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:27 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 23310 battles
  • 29
  • [7SINZ]
  • Member since:
    12-25-2015
I don't understand why there can't be a ranking system so we would know what are team is composed of. Something like the rank that is given in the forum. I would rather follow and listen to someone higher in rank than private.

_CH3F #4 Posted 20 March 2017 - 10:01 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 42391 battles
  • 2,603
  • [TAKEN]
  • Member since:
    12-24-2014

View Postpanzermk6, on 20 March 2017 - 04:15 AM, said:

I will keep saying this until noob threads go away (Which will be never)

 

Bad players are good for everyone.

It seems counter-intuitive, but it's true.

 

1. There is only a 6/13 chance a bad player will be on your team vs. a 7/13 chance they will be on the other team

2. They amplify the effect a skilled player can have on a game. Ever noticed it's ridiculously easy to win at tiers II and III compared with higher ones? Wanna know why? It's because everyone is a noob and a bad player at those tiers.

3. Fewer Good players = fewer good players stealing your damage (And XP and credits) and it means there'll be fewer competent players on the other team. What makes you lose is competent players on the other team, not noobs on yours

 

 

Also, potatoes aren't always bad. I had my team of potatoes beat a team with 501, SRT, GRIM, and PURPL today (7-1)

It's kinda hard to farm damage when your team vanishes within the first 45 sec of a game. I understand what your saying but not really. Take this for instance. Tier 10 matches are way more balanced because you have a lot of really good players. The games take longer and are a lot more fun win or lose. I love the game when there's teamwork and everyone knows what to do. Tier 6-8 players have less idea whT to do and games are over in 2.5 minutes. Not fun!  



NateDawg2k16 #5 Posted 20 March 2017 - 10:19 AM

    All Hail Dogface, The Great One

  • Players
  • 10598 battles
  • 2,826
  • [META]
  • Member since:
    01-23-2016
If you whine enough about it (includes threatening to report and file lawsuits against WarGaming), chances are we'll all have fair matchmaking just for the snowflakes

"If you're gonna go out, go out with a bang." - Nobody said this. But somebody should have.

 this dude is on to me... 

 He's part of the Society! - Seal


rickmic #6 Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:52 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 2077 battles
  • 53
  • [RWX]
  • Member since:
    02-15-2012
I've noticed the biggest problem, to be disparity in number of battles played. If you have a team with 8,000 battles and the red has 50,000 battles you are rarely going to when,and likely to be blown out, but when the battles are evenly matched Its a much closer game. But all the threads I read about MM nobody seems to mention that as a factor. To me WR doesn't seem as important as number of battles played, especially in lower levels. Am I wrong in my thinking ?             

CA_vampire #7 Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:55 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10974 battles
  • 515
  • [MOM4]
  • Member since:
    11-21-2016

View Postpanzermk6, on 20 March 2017 - 04:15 AM, said:

I will keep saying this until noob threads go away (Which will be never)

 

Bad players are good for everyone.

It seems counter-intuitive, but it's true.

 

1. There is only a 6/13 chance a bad player will be on your team vs. a 7/13 chance they will be on the other team

2. They amplify the effect a skilled player can have on a game. Ever noticed it's ridiculously easy to win at tiers II and III compared with higher ones? Wanna know why? It's because everyone is a noob and a bad player at those tiers.

3. Fewer Good players = fewer good players stealing your damage (And XP and credits) and it means there'll be fewer competent players on the other team. What makes you lose is competent players on the other team, not noobs on yours

 

 

Also, potatoes aren't always bad. I had my team of potatoes beat a team with 501, SRT, GRIM, and PURPL today (7-1)

 

The problems is not that there are bad players. 

 

The problem is that one team has only bad players and the other team only good players. It is boring. 


Edited by CA_vampire, 20 March 2017 - 11:56 AM.


XplosivEnema #8 Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:59 AM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 7949 battles
  • 371
  • Member since:
    12-13-2016
Funny part, for every post complaining there's an equal ammount of players happy with the matchmaking in that battle who wouldnt make a post about it, for disproportions like all lights vs all tds... im sure you wouldn't complain if you were on the other side. Any mm complain is basically void because no matter how many looses theres and equal ammount of wins, and the fact that you only complain when you lose.

tedg5 #9 Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:00 PM

    Tater salad

  • Players
  • 35703 battles
  • 3,647
  • [AGOGO]
  • Member since:
    07-04-2014
No. Please search for all the other threads on skill based MM for the reasons this is a bad idea. :amazed:

CA_vampire #10 Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:05 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10974 battles
  • 515
  • [MOM4]
  • Member since:
    11-21-2016

View PostXplosivEnema, on 20 March 2017 - 11:59 AM, said:

Funny part, for every post complaining there's an equal ammount of players happy with the matchmaking in that battle who wouldnt make a post about it, for disproportions like all lights vs all tds... im sure you wouldn't complain if you were on the other side. Any mm complain is basically void because no matter how many looses theres and equal ammount of wins, and the fact that you only complain when you lose.

 

It's boring, either way. If one team has only good players and the other team only has bad players, then it is boring no matter which team you are in. 

MRobertsRCS #11 Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:44 PM

    Supreme Fettuccini

  • Players
  • 24555 battles
  • 1,528
  • [501ST]
  • Member since:
    09-03-2014

View Postpanzermk6, on 19 March 2017 - 11:15 PM, said:

I will keep saying this until noob threads go away (Which will be never)

 

Bad players are good for everyone.

It seems counter-intuitive, but it's true.

 

1. There is only a 6/13 chance a bad player will be on your team vs. a 7/13 chance they will be on the other team

2. They amplify the effect a skilled player can have on a game. Ever noticed it's ridiculously easy to win at tiers II and III compared with higher ones? Wanna know why? It's because everyone is a noob and a bad player at those tiers.

3. Fewer Good players = fewer good players stealing your damage (And XP and credits) and it means there'll be fewer competent players on the other team. What makes you lose is competent players on the other team, not noobs on yours

 

 

Also, potatoes aren't always bad. I had my team of potatoes beat a team with 501, SRT, GRIM, and PURPL today (7-1)

 

Wha?!?  :hiding:

My E4 has a cup holder            

 

 


solopido #12 Posted 20 March 2017 - 01:15 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 19780 battles
  • 11
  • [-INV-]
  • Member since:
    10-23-2015

View Postrickmic, on 20 March 2017 - 03:52 AM, said:

I've noticed the biggest problem, to be disparity in number of battles played. If you have a team with 8,000 battles and the red has 50,000 battles you are rarely going to when,and likely to be blown out, but when the battles are evenly matched Its a much closer game. But all the threads I read about MM nobody seems to mention that as a factor. To me WR doesn't seem as important as number of battles played, especially in lower levels. Am I wrong in my thinking ?             

 

I agree with your point about matches played. In addition to matches played, I believe average damage must also be taken into account. I can recall many times playing in tier 9/10 matches where the majority of the losing team had players in the 600-700 average damage range.

Tomio_Hara #13 Posted 20 March 2017 - 01:31 PM

    Monteagle madness

  • Players
  • 20300 battles
  • 3,401
  • [XWING]
  • Member since:
    07-31-2014

He is not suggesting skilled based mm. He is suggesting that the mm could be rebalanced some. 

 

Remember back in 2000's when iTunes was new and people were using it to listen to music? Well Apple started receiving complaints that their shuffle feature kept playing songs by the same artist back to back too much. After some research Apple concluded that the process was indeed random, but the chances of playing the same artist back to back were still too high for most people and some adjustments had to be made. Now there is a very small chance of hearing the same artist again when listening to a shuffled playlist. 

 

How does that apply to blitz? Well since MM is random, Blitz has the same problem. All too often are we put into a match with one team of all meds/lights (most powerful classes in blitz) against a team of mostly td's/heavies (weakest classes in blitz). The result isn't hard to imagine. Same thing with skilled player team vs noob team. What could be done is a limit set to how many tanks of each class can be on one team (like no more then 4 td's unless the cue is filled with them) thus forcing the teams to be more balanced in regards to class composition. As for skilled vs noobs, there is no easy solution and we just have to deal with it until a ranked battle mode is added. 

 

Just an idea based off of history.


Edited by Tomio_Hara, 20 March 2017 - 01:31 PM.

 

Tomio Hara was the chief of Japanese tank development during the pre war period and WWII

Want to cap base? Read this!


5150NinjaWJ #14 Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:21 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 4560 battles
  • 59
  • Member since:
    02-10-2017
Yes i agree there needs to be some MM changes. Firstly, MM based on skill levels of both teams. Another thing is the balance of teams. For example, my team could have five heavies while the other team only has one. Both teams should get roughly the same number of each tank type. 

iEatChickenMcNuggets #15 Posted 20 March 2017 - 05:03 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 13384 battles
  • 684
  • [COD-R]
  • Member since:
    03-28-2015
MM definetly needs a change

Officer of the Training Room Police Department (TRPD)

Boosters are a meme 


_SuicideKing_ #16 Posted 20 March 2017 - 07:37 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 6940 battles
  • 1,614
  • [OGRE]
  • Member since:
    12-29-2015

You do NOT want skill base MM -unless you don't care about winrate or personal stats, because skill based MM is, basically, surrendering your stat management to Wargaming. 

 

Now MM somewhat based on number of battles played could be interesting, but it would also give players even more incentive to re-roll. 

 

I cannot even conceive all the metrics and big data involved to make and tweak a good MM system, so I'm just going to let the professional game developers work it out. If time goes by and they drop the ball enough to make the game is unenjoyable for me. I'll go play a different game. 



phmerrill381 #17 Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:05 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 15057 battles
  • 2
  • [-F34R]
  • Member since:
    04-09-2016
I am so frustrated. 3/20 at 16:24:02 hours I played supremacy in the Vineyards. My team had a total experience of 8034 for our 7 tanks. The opposing team had a total experience of 18355. How is this fair or fun. WG needs to fix this problem.it shouldn't be difficult to set up a filter to even the odds. They wonder why players get angry.  

ValGord #18 Posted 21 March 2017 - 02:33 AM

    Private

  • Players
  • 38838 battles
  • 7
  • Member since:
    03-22-2015
Game become nonplayble.  90% time in my team people with 40-45 % win rate. You just can't fight alone against red team. They have to change MM somehow to balance team's. 

phmerrill381 #19 Posted 21 March 2017 - 12:54 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 15057 battles
  • 2
  • [-F34R]
  • Member since:
    04-09-2016
I am so frustrated. 3/20 at 16:24:02 hours I played supremacy in the Vineyards. My team had a total experience of 8034 for our 7 tanks. The opposing team had a total experience of 18355. How is this fair or fun. WG needs to fix this problem.it shouldn't be difficult to set up a filter to even the odds. They wonder why players get angry.  

cheasesteak #20 Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:02 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 16543 battles
  • 3,195
  • [DOGZ]
  • Member since:
    11-15-2014
Had a couple of games recently where I was the only player on either team with greater than 50% WR.  It was great.  2 masteries.
 
Seriously, as some seem to suggest above, I could see some sort of MM change that balances total number of battles per side. It wouldn't be skill based MM, but it would at least balance experience a bit. 

 

 

Overpriced Lackey to the Barons of Entrenched Corporate Greed






Also tagged with Teams, Match Making

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users