

#1 Posted 11 January 2018 - 06:38 PM
#2 Posted 11 January 2018 - 06:42 PM
This is a topic that is rarely discussed and should be looked at in more depth. If only there were a pinned Matchmaking thread where a Wargaming employee explains the Matchmaking process and how it works. If only...
Find me on Discord, [SpartacusDiablo#7879]
Rest in Peace CJ. You will be missed.
#3 Posted 11 January 2018 - 06:45 PM
Not necessarily; I've seen teams with even larger statistical advantages end up getting spanked.
Believe it or not; matchmaking is random. Which means over the long run; the only thing that is present in every game is you.
I'd say ~80% of games winnable if you play perfectly; so usually; there's something you could've done to win the game. Just keep trying to improve yourself; and you'll find you win more of your matches. Simple.
You can track your own personal progress here: https://www.blitzsta.../com/SqueakyNut
336 tanks in the garage!
Your local friendly credits guru: http://forum.wotblit...__fromsearch__1 (Most upvoted post on the forums!!!!)
Certified Batignolles Chatillon 25t addict
#4 Posted 11 January 2018 - 07:10 PM
I had a game the other night with 7 tds on green. So much for the updated mm algorithm
#5 Posted 11 January 2018 - 07:43 PM
Everything doesn’t have to be what everone considers fair or what nubs consider fair. That why the game is where it is with its current configuration.
I don’t have a problem being matched in a game where my team is at a disadvantage by tank type. As far as experience is concerned, it’s every players job to take responsibility and carry their weight in every battle. If they can’t do that then they should drop tiers. If they’re not willing to do that then they deserve to lose.
Snowflakes - 1, Good Guys - 0
FREE _stealy!!!
#6 Posted 11 January 2018 - 07:55 PM
That's a classic thinking trap. It's also not true. Get some mental relaxation by picking up some thinking trap defeating guidance HERE
Also, there's an official MM thread HERE
Edited by VikkoTheTusken, 11 January 2018 - 07:57 PM.
Rage Quit? Bad Teams? MM got you down? Click HERE for my Blitz Guide to better tanking
My presence here on the forums is over. You can find me at the links above and on various Discord servers. If you're curious or feel like trolling, peruse [This Thread]
#7 Posted 11 January 2018 - 08:24 PM
SqueakyNut, on 12 January 2018 - 04:38 AM, said:
That is an interesting idea, no one has ever thought of it before........
#8 Posted 11 January 2018 - 09:19 PM
My E4 has a cup holder
#9 Posted 11 January 2018 - 11:11 PM
I am hoping an administrator reviews the post. I could not find another link for user feedback. Thanks for your comments. I am a numbers oriented guy and have watched pretty much every game. The numbers don't lie, there are exceptions, but when you see a blow out take a look. Blow outs are almost always mismatched win/loss percentages.
#10 Posted 12 January 2018 - 08:05 PM
SpartacusDiablo, on 11 January 2018 - 01:42 PM, said:
This is a topic that is rarely discussed and should be looked at in more depth. If only there were a pinned Matchmaking thread where a Wargaming employee explains the Matchmaking process and how it works. If only...
Yeah bro I just used the wrong one (matchmaking clarification) Check it out a game I tried to play this morning. Think its what you were talking about the wrong way tanks are put in battle. The other team was mostly all pros also. Would like your input. Have a great day.
#11 Posted 12 January 2018 - 08:57 PM
wolfpack1941, on 12 January 2018 - 03:05 PM, said:
Yeah bro I just used the wrong one (matchmaking clarification) Check it out a game I tried to play this morning. Think its what you were talking about the wrong way tanks are put in battle. The other team was mostly all pros also. Would like your input. Have a great day.
Okay. I'll give this a go. Hypothetically I'd be all for splitting team by win rate. For example, give each team of seven 1 60%er, 2 50%ers, and 4 40%ers and let the team that comes together best win. Seems nice but it wouldn't work. We'd be in que for a match for a small eternity. Here's why. If you take 10 players you'll probably a end up with 1 unicum 60%er (and that is a huge maybe), three 50%ers and six sub 50%ers... Now add 4 more players into the mix. Based off the numbers above, chances are you'll have one 50%er and three sub 50%ers. Now how do you spread them out equally among the two teams??? But that's not all. Now you need to take into account vehicle tiers, are they Platooning, are the two platoons the same tier, and are the win rates of the platoon members roughly equal. With all these limitations the matchmaker simply wouldn't be able to generate matches in anything resembling a timely manner. We'd be stuck in que forever, people would lose interest and the game would quickly die. Nobody wants that.
Find me on Discord, [SpartacusDiablo#7879]
Rest in Peace CJ. You will be missed.
#12 Posted 12 January 2018 - 09:27 PM
There is no MM problem. Bad teams because of responsibility issues. Nobody takes ownership of being a bad player, they all just want to assume that playing whatever tier they want is their right and since are no repercussions for it.
This is the only reason we have bad teams. Guys that aren’t effective play tiers that are out of their wheel house. It flies in the face of the guys that have earned the right to play higher tiers Then they get downvoted for expressing the obvious by the exact same guys.
Entitlement has ruined more aspects of this game than anything else. The matchmaker is fine, the playerbase is [edited].
Snowflakes - 1, Good Guys - 0
FREE _stealy!!!
#13 Posted 12 January 2018 - 09:33 PM
4sfield, on 12 January 2018 - 04:27 PM, said:
There is no MM problem. Bad teams because of responsibility issues. Nobody takes ownership of being a bad player, they all just want to assume that playing whatever tier they want is their right and since are no repercussions for it.
This is the only reason we have bad teams. Guys that aren’t effective play tiers that are out of their wheel house. It flies in the face of the guys that have earned the right to play higher tiers Then they get downvoted for expressing the obvious by the exact same guys.
Entitlement has ruined more aspects of this game than anything else. The matchmaker is fine, the playerbase is [edited].
I agree completely with one exception. Seeing teams that are composed nearly entirely of lights vs heavies or five tank destroyers vs two is a huge problem right now.
We definitely have a playerbase problem but we also have a problem with a team / vehicle balance. The types of tanks should ideally be split evenly per team (or as close as the can get).
Edited by SpartacusDiablo, 12 January 2018 - 09:34 PM.
Find me on Discord, [SpartacusDiablo#7879]
Rest in Peace CJ. You will be missed.
#14 Posted 13 January 2018 - 03:31 AM
Okay. I'll give this a go. Hypothetically I'd be all for splitting team by win rate. For example, give each team of seven 1 60%er, 2 50%ers, and 4 40%ers and let the team that comes together best win. Seems nice but it wouldn't work. We'd be in que for a match for a small eternity. Here's why. If you take 10 players you'll probably a end up with 1 unicum 60%er (and that is a huge maybe), three 50%ers and six sub 50%ers... Now add 4 more players into the mix. Based off the numbers above, chances are you'll have one 50%er and three sub 50%ers. Now how do you spread them out equally among the two teams??? But that's not all. Now you need to take into account vehicle tiers, are they Platooning, are the two platoons the same tier, and are the win rates of the platoon members roughly equal. With all these limitations the matchmaker simply wouldn't be able to generate matches in anything resembling a timely manner. We'd be stuck in que forever, people would lose interest and the game would quickly die. Nobody wants that.
I can deal with that answer, or any answer that is rational. thank you for the feedback. I am certain that the programers (assuming you are one) are always looking for a way to improve programs. Maybe one day this can be overcome.
Edited by SqueakyNut, 13 January 2018 - 03:33 AM.
#15 Posted 13 January 2018 - 11:18 AM
SqueakyNut, on 12 January 2018 - 10:31 PM, said:
I can deal with that answer, or any answer that is rational. thank you for the feedback. I am certain that the programers (assuming you are one) are always looking for a way to improve programs. Maybe one day this can be overcome.
Just a player. I'm not a programmer.
Find me on Discord, [SpartacusDiablo#7879]
Rest in Peace CJ. You will be missed.
#16 Posted 14 January 2018 - 06:59 PM
Tank type is not the problem, just call town or hills based on team makeup.
Surely they can evenly match better than 5 greens and 2 whites VS 2 greens and 5 whites
#17 Posted 15 January 2018 - 02:10 AM
#18 Posted 15 January 2018 - 04:22 AM
consider how MM randomness works over a sequence of games. MM Randomness seems to work out such that about half my games host operators who can work synergistically together. The other half of game sessions are mercifully quickly forgettable. The ratio is about 50/50, so that’s pretty close to a random selection of user capabilities . Not bad really. Concentrate on enjoying those games in which some users exercise remarkable situational awareness. Don’t get too bent about the rest.
And don’t be resistive to moving on to something different for a while. Familiarity can breed contempt. You may find changes made while you were gone promote a different perspective. The game isn’t what I’m looking for lately either. I’m taking a break.
Edited by celestron2, 15 January 2018 - 04:25 AM.
#19 Posted 15 January 2018 - 05:23 AM
celestron2, on 14 January 2018 - 11:22 PM, said:
consider how MM randomness works over a sequence of games. MM Randomness seems to work out such that about half my games host operators who can work synergistically together. The other half of game sessions are mercifully quickly forgettable. The ratio is about 50/50, so that’s pretty close to a random selection of user capabilities . Not bad really. Concentrate on enjoying those games in which some users exercise remarkable situational awareness. Don’t get too bent about the rest.
And don’t be resistive to moving on to something different for a while. Familiarity can breed contempt. You may find changes made while you were gone promote a different perspective. The game isn’t what I’m looking for lately either. I’m taking a break.
So, the playerbase sux and you shouldn’t get honked off about it?
Nice revelation Einstein, nobody has ever come up with that before.
Snowflakes - 1, Good Guys - 0
FREE _stealy!!!
#20 Posted 05 September 2019 - 04:54 PM
SpartacusDiablo, on 12 January 2018 - 08:57 PM, said:
Okay. I'll give this a go. Hypothetically I'd be all for splitting team by win rate. For example, give each team of seven 1 60%er, 2 50%ers, and 4 40%ers and let the team that comes together best win. Seems nice but it wouldn't work. We'd be in que for a match for a small eternity. Here's why. If you take 10 players you'll probably a end up with 1 unicum 60%er (and that is a huge maybe), three 50%ers and six sub 50%ers... Now add 4 more players into the mix. Based off the numbers above, chances are you'll have one 50%er and three sub 50%ers. Now how do you spread them out equally among the two teams??? But that's not all. Now you need to take into account vehicle tiers, are they Platooning, are the two platoons the same tier, and are the win rates of the platoon members roughly equal. With all these limitations the matchmaker simply wouldn't be able to generate matches in anything resembling a timely manner. We'd be stuck in que forever, people would lose interest and the game would quickly die. Nobody wants that.
This is completely untrue. There is a very simple way to get around this: you split the teams based on winrate and battles AFTER the initial matchmaking which is in place now. Because the tanks are already balanced, you simply switch one player for the other to get as close to a 'numerical' balance as possible. That way you avoid seeing 4 >%55 players on one team with the other having negatives. I don't think the people over at Wargaming thought this through very well.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users