Jump to content


What do you think about this change to Match Making?

Skills MatchMaking

  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

Poll: CHANGE MATCHMAKING (77 members have cast votes)

Would you be ok with WG using your stats as well as the tier of your ship for matchmaking in order to even out the teams better.

  1. yes (30 votes [38.96%])

    Percentage of vote: 38.96%

  2. no (47 votes [61.04%])

    Percentage of vote: 61.04%

Vote Guests cannot vote Hide poll

Umikami #21 Posted 17 April 2017 - 02:15 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,582
  • Member since:
    05-14-2013

View PostMurotsu, on 16 April 2017 - 09:26 PM, said:

 

​Then MM should simply make smaller sides in a battle.  If the roster can't be filled what's wrong with say 6 on 6 or 8 on 8 instead?  It's already that way with the Coop matches.  Better a game with more evenly matched ships (not necessarily players) where your skill as a player is the dominant factor rather than being in a far better ship and seal clubbing.

In fact, that isn't all that bad an idea.  Since you'd never know if you're going into a game with 6 or 15 ships, or something in between, the strategies you'd have to employ would be more varied.  The importance of any one ship on your side could be magnified or diminished with that happening.

Imagine going into a game with five same tier destroyers and a single carrier on each side.  That'd be totally different from a 15 ship game where there are BB, CA, CL, and DD along with a CV or two mixed together.  Two totally different strategies involved to win.

 

that used to happen during CBT; unevenly balanced matches, matches that involved 4 or 5 different tiers, all manner of unregulated nonsense. I would much rather have it the way it is now.

navalcommand #22 Posted 17 April 2017 - 06:19 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 20
  • Member since:
    06-12-2014
my view on this is that yes we get alot bad players at times but i think if they want to make it better just make it  so that tier 6 does not end up with 8s cap it at 7s   so 5-7s  only instead of getting 8/9 tier battles when your in  a six   but i like the idea this survey has as i know alot of people are getting ticked  from    people who will not work as a  team  but this idea has been brought to light a few times 

Murotsu #23 Posted 17 April 2017 - 07:53 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 134
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostUmikami, on 17 April 2017 - 02:15 AM, said:

 

that used to happen during CBT; unevenly balanced matches, matches that involved 4 or 5 different tiers, all manner of unregulated nonsense. I would much rather have it the way it is now.

 

​You misread what I was saying.  I meant that a match of 6 on a side all from the same tier would be preferable to 12 on a side with Tier 5, 6, and 7 mixed together.  That evens out the technology / inherent ship characteristics making it far more a game of player skill than being  a Tier 7 in a game where most of the ships are tier 5 or 6.

Original_Prankster #24 Posted 17 April 2017 - 09:27 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 31
  • Member since:
    01-12-2017

View PostCruiser_kebobstuzov, on 15 April 2017 - 11:05 AM, said:

I say no because it just confuses MM more and divisions will [edited]with it so hard, if me and a couple unicum guys from my clan div up our team would be potato and the other team would be okayish as a result. Especially with divs SBMM is not a good idea for pubs.

 

So basically you and your clan mates would not be able to dominate battles anymore.  Cuz that is what is going on now. Clans like OPG and BOTES etc Div up and sometimes even time drop more Div into a battle and just dominate to the point it looks like an NFL team playing a High School Football team.  How is that good for the game? How is that good for the WOWS community of players?  Under the way, I want to do it you all would still be together in a DIV but you are less likely to then also get a bunch of high skilled players to boot. You would actually have to earn your wins instead of manipulating the system to your advantage. 

Fishrokk #25 Posted 17 April 2017 - 09:28 PM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 834
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostMurotsu, on 14 April 2017 - 06:50 PM, said:

While my experience with WoW is more limited than with WoT, I suspect the same issues are at fault here that are in WoT.  The main one is, as you increase tiers, the lower tier players / ships in a game become increasingly worthless to the outcome.*snip*

I think from what I've seen with WoW the same applies here. *snip*

 

While I agree with you to a large degree in WoT, I disagree that it translates so closely in WoWs. 

 

I think tier 10 ships are definitely linearly better than the 8's, but I've put Tirpitz shells into Yamato citadels on more than one occasion.  Torpedos are a high damage threat regardless of what tier of destroyer is launching them.  Especially in the higher tiers, cruiser guns really become effective at: quickly deleting underage botes, punching their counterparts in the face and keeping red battleships nice and toasty.  I can't really speak to a bottom tier carrier's capabilities, but I haven't really played them past tier 5. 

 

In my opinion, it is far easier to do well and influence the outcome of a match as a bottom tier ship in WoWs than it is as a bottom tier tank in WoT.

 

OP, on your original topic - so long as the tiers and classes are balanced pretty close, I'm happy with MM.  How much would 'skill-based' really add, anyway?  I'm an average player overall - but that represents a very high degree of variability in my performance from match to match.  There's a good deal of games where I went into the drink before the 14 minute mark with no damage done, and a number of 100K, 150K, 200K damage multiple kill and cap games in there.  (Hey, '1' is a number!  LOL!)  Sure, you can slot me by my 'average' statistics, but they don't necessarily represent me well on a game-by-game basis.  And because of that, for those of us who don't consistently put up high numbers (or really low ones), the system won't be able to do a whole lot better than the current random selection anyway.  Or at least that's what I'm going to use as a coherent argument for now.


 “OPEN FIRE WHEN READY. FEAR GOD. DREADNOUGHT.” - R Adm J Edward Snyder, USS New Jersey (BB-62)

I'm trying to expand my mind.  First I gotta do something about all these hobgoblins.

 

 


Original_Prankster #26 Posted 17 April 2017 - 09:29 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 31
  • Member since:
    01-12-2017

View PostMurotsu, on 17 April 2017 - 11:53 AM, said:

 

You misread what I was saying.  I meant that a match of 6 on a side all from the same tier would be preferable to 12 on a side with Tier 5, 6, and 7 mixed together.  That evens out the technology / inherent ship characteristics making it far more a game of player skill than being  a Tier 7 in a game where most of the ships are tier 5 or 6.

 

Still, your idea does not even out the player's skill level. There would still be one-sided battles because under the random matchmaking they all ended up on one side. Especially true if there are Division involved. 

Original_Prankster #27 Posted 17 April 2017 - 09:32 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 31
  • Member since:
    01-12-2017

View PostFishrokk, on 17 April 2017 - 01:28 PM, said:

 

While I agree with you to a large degree in WoT, I disagree that it translates so closely in WoWs. 

 

I think tier 10 ships are definitely linearly better than the 8's, but I've put Tirpitz shells into Yamato citadels on more than one occasion.  Torpedos are a high damage threat regardless of what tier of destroyer is launching them.  Especially in the higher tiers, cruiser guns really become effective at: quickly deleting underage botes, punching their counterparts in the face and keeping red battleships nice and toasty.  I can't really speak to a bottom tier carrier's capabilities, but I haven't really played them past tier 5. 

 

In my opinion, it is far easier to do well and influence the outcome of a match as a bottom tier ship in WoWs than it is as a bottom tier tank in WoT.

 

OP, on your original topic - so long as the tiers and classes are balanced pretty close, I'm happy with MM.  How much would 'skill-based' really add, anyway?  I'm an average player overall - but that represents a very high degree of variability in my performance from match to match.  There's a good deal of games where I went into the drink before the 14 minute mark with no damage done, and a number of 100K, 150K, 200K damage multiple kill and cap games in there.  (Hey, '1' is a number!  LOL!)  Sure, you can slot me by my 'average' statistics, but they don't necessarily represent me well on a game-by-game basis.  And because of that, for those of us who don't consistently put up high numbers (or really low ones), the system won't be able to do a whole lot better than the current random selection anyway.  Or at least that's what I'm going to use as a coherent argument for now.

yes I am the same kind of player as you and you are right for the average player it will not do much but it would prevent the dramatic swings from battle to battle. It would take that 10% that is really good and that 10% this really bad and evenly divide them instead of them all ending up on one side which is what happens all too often now. 



Original_Prankster #28 Posted 17 April 2017 - 09:35 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 31
  • Member since:
    01-12-2017
The end goal here is competitive games. No one likes to go to a football game or watch one on TV if it is a blowout.  Why should it be ok here? What is wrong with more even competition? 

Murotsu #29 Posted 17 April 2017 - 11:25 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 134
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostDeathDealer32G, on 17 April 2017 - 09:29 PM, said:

 

Still, your idea does not even out the player's skill level. There would still be one-sided battles because under the random matchmaking they all ended up on one side. Especially true if there are Division involved. 

 

​I'm not worried about player skill levels nearly as much as either match maker or a player using technology to give an "unfair" advantage to somebody.  Putting a higher tier ship up against much lower tier ones leaves the later at a disadvantage right from the start.  If the playing field were reasonably level in terms of the ships and their technology then it becomes more a game of player skill than it otherwise would be, and is now.

I have no problem being up against a good player, or an excellent one.  That's part of the game.  But, being up against an average or even mediocre player that's using technology to make up for their lack of ability is another thing entirely.  While that's good for the WoW business model, selling all sorts of add ons and other perks, it does detract from this being a game of skill rather than money.



CLUCH_CARGO #30 Posted 18 April 2017 - 09:18 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 773
  • Member since:
    11-30-2015

View PostDeathDealer32G, on 13 April 2017 - 04:26 PM, said:

I Really do not understand where you all are coming from. How would it make stats meaningless? Why would "middle of the road players leave" (and by the way I am a middle of the road player)? Maybe I am being unclear. Let me give an example. let says there is 90 people in Que and 30 of them are in your range. It would pick 24 as normal, but once it did then it would try to make sure that not too many of a certain skill level were on one side. So you do not end up with a lopsided battle. I happened to talk to a guy just today who worked for Relic as a game developer and he said that was pretty standard for online games. He was surprised WG did not have this already built into their matchmaking. 

I do find it a bit funny that MOST of you who are against it have really good stats. Like close to if not above 60% win rates and the rest of your stats look pretty damn good too.  Afraid you won't be able to maintain those numbers if the game was more balanced by skill? Won't be able to kick the crap out of newbie inexperienced players as much? 

 

This is Right on the money. Those who don't want it know if they have to play the same lvl.  stat people their stats will suffer. They won't be able to Seal Club. They won't be able to Pad their Stats. This is called Superiority Complex.  It would also make a Feudal Caste System reminiscent of early Civilizations. Therefore will not be considered by WG.

But it is good to know this type of thinking is here and can be easily pointed out. The elitist mentality thrives especially here in the forums. Don't be dissuaded  by them . Rightfully put forth Ideas are seen by Developers. If they have merit they look into them further. There is no guarantee anything will be done, but Don't Stop the flow of Ideas.

Posted Image.  


Edited by CLUCH_CARGO, 18 April 2017 - 09:20 PM.


 



 


Murotsu #31 Posted 19 April 2017 - 01:26 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 134
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Here's an example from a game yesterday.  I was playing a Tier 5 Konigsburg cruiser.  I had to go 1 on 1 with a Cleveland Tier 6.

The Cleveland has 20% more HP than my ship.  In one minute of fire it can theoretically deliver 40% more damage than I can.  My only two potential advantages are a slight advantage in my armor piercing round in damage and a slight advantage in maximum range fire.  The second wasn't going to apply in the current fight.  The first is offset in good part by the Cleveland having much better armor.

Then there's collateral damage with HE.  Fires add to damage.  Critical hits add to.  That last cuts both ways.  The first however is an advantage to using HE fire.

Basically, I started out in that engagement at a big disadvantage and it would only get worse as the fight continued.  That's a one tier difference.  A roughly 40 to 50% increase in effectiveness over my ship.  It works out as an exponential curve overall.  Simply comparing the raw stats makes it look arithmetic, but it isn't.

That's why you need more limiting of tiers in battles more than anything. 



Umikami #32 Posted 19 April 2017 - 03:44 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,582
  • Member since:
    05-14-2013

View PostMurotsu, on 17 April 2017 - 07:53 PM, said:

 

​You misread what I was saying.  I meant that a match of 6 on a side all from the same tier would be preferable to 12 on a side with Tier 5, 6, and 7 mixed together.  That evens out the technology / inherent ship characteristics making it far more a game of player skill than being  a Tier 7 in a game where most of the ships are tier 5 or 6.

 

No, I didn't misread, nor misinterpret, what you said. I do not believe a match with 6 players from the same tier would be better than 12 players from 3 tiers in a row.

 

I DO believe a match with 12 players from 2 tiers in a row would be better, but if it comes down to 12 players vs 6 players, give me the 12 every time.

small matches suck, especially outside of ranked, because of the "everybody for himself" meta that dominates random matches.

I know what you are saying. I sincerely disagree with your stated opinion.



Original_Prankster #33 Posted 19 April 2017 - 07:06 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 31
  • Member since:
    01-12-2017

View PostMurotsu, on 18 April 2017 - 05:26 PM, said:

Here's an example from a game yesterday.  I was playing a Tier 5 Konigsburg cruiser.  I had to go 1 on 1 with a Cleveland Tier 6.

The Cleveland has 20% more HP than my ship.  In one minute of fire it can theoretically deliver 40% more damage than I can.  My only two potential advantages are a slight advantage in my armor piercing round in damage and a slight advantage in maximum range fire.  The second wasn't going to apply in the current fight.  The first is offset in good part by the Cleveland having much better armor.

Then there's collateral damage with HE.  Fires add to damage.  Critical hits add to.  That last cuts both ways.  The first however is an advantage to using HE fire.

Basically, I started out in that engagement at a big disadvantage and it would only get worse as the fight continued.  That's a one tier difference.  A roughly 40 to 50% increase in effectiveness over my ship.  It works out as an exponential curve overall.  Simply comparing the raw stats makes it look arithmetic, but it isn't.

That's why you need more limiting of tiers in battles more than anything. 

First off there are not enough players online at any given time to make what you suggest feasible. That is why they have to group the tiers as they do. Second, a 6 on 6 battle would not have the same excitement and if skill level was not also considered the battles would be over in a matter of minutes due to seal clubbing.  Third, you said you are not worried about facing an excellent player. Neither am I. I am worried about facing 8 out of 12 excellent players while being on a team with only a couple of excellent players and dominated by low skill players. All I am saying is EVEN IT OUT. Finally, from a historical perspective that is the way it was in real life to some degree if not worse. For example, the Katori was sunk by the Iowa. Now can we tweak the matchmaking concerning tiers? Most likely if people are will to wait longer for a battle.​



joe7778 #34 Posted 20 April 2017 - 12:15 PM

    Seaman Recruit

  • Members

  • 2
  • Member since:
    04-11-2016

View PostDavidHoagland, on 15 April 2017 - 06:09 PM, said:

I have never seen a fair Navy engagement.  You have the exact same ships on both teams.  That never happens in the real world.  Just ask any Navy WW2 vet.  I think you need to mix it up more.  One thing I absolutely hate is your disappearing ships.  That is an absolute game killer for me.  If you want to do that, start a new game and call it "Star Wars".  

 

​star wars is correct or maybe arcade game, this feature is one that makes stats and ranking worthless, ranks and stats are based how well you can disappear not your battle skills.  Lets play one week of battles with no total disappearing  and it will prove my point.

Umikami #35 Posted 20 April 2017 - 02:21 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,582
  • Member since:
    05-14-2013

View Postjoe7778, on 20 April 2017 - 12:15 PM, said:

 

​star wars is correct or maybe arcade game, this feature is one that makes stats and ranking worthless, ranks and stats are based how well you can disappear not your battle skills.  Lets play one week of battles with no total disappearing  and it will prove my point.

 

only a battleship main, who is already visible from across the map, would suggest taking away the stealth from other ships

how about we do that, but remove ALL the battleship armor and give you DD armor?

think you might like your stealth then?

all this nonsense comes down to is some lame BB main crying about how he can't be bothered to learn game mechanics and wants the game changed to match his playstyle. the saddest part of this whole fiasco is how often WoW has catered to these childish, whining demands



Bigsandwich #36 Posted 30 April 2017 - 04:02 PM

    Seaman Recruit

  • Members

  • 5
  • Member since:
    05-10-2015
If I sink a ship it is rare. I am always with ships two tier higher. I have been playing a long time so my commanders are high. This sucks........

jagdoc #37 Posted 30 April 2017 - 06:37 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 240
  • Member since:
    10-27-2015
This would be an excellent idea to test.  Just don't us that we are testing a new MM formula (we will probably figure it out anyway).  I suggested last year that the island airstrips launch bot bombers and fighters against the opposing side that does not control the strip much like Bastion mode.  That way we don't waste an AA build when less than 10% of the battles have aircraft in them.  This definitely might be a consideration for ranked battles.

Cruiser_kebobstuzov #38 Posted 30 April 2017 - 10:15 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 65
  • Member since:
    03-12-2016

entirely random is the best way, SBMM would just make things more complicated than needed. I get potato teams and hate it, then I get good teams and love it. thats how it works and thats fine by me

 


dark.png

Rolkatsuki #39 Posted 02 May 2017 - 01:47 AM

    Admiral of the Navy

  • Members

  • 18,747
  • Member since:
    09-03-2014
No because after some time everyone gonna have roughly the same stats if the longer Matchmaking duration isn't enough...

The Great South Land's most truculent Dunkerque captain~

2s1vtak.png

 


Wowzery #40 Posted 02 May 2017 - 03:59 PM

    Commander

  • Members

  • 3,009
  • Member since:
    09-27-2015

I'm not really seeing it as a good thing overall.  You're limiting an already small player base even more.  Say you put in this skill MM, it takes and tries to put, the top 1/3 against itself.  The math shows that there will become a bottom group among that 1/3.  That bottom group goes down (as does their stats to mirror this), and the top of the next group goes up.

And lets say you make it so 6 on 6 games occur, that means that for every player the amount of damage one can do, and ships you can sink is reduced.  That will have an effect on stats as well.

And finally, what stats does one use for skill MM?  WR?  Average damage?  Experience?   I just see it as too many problems to implement correctly.







Also tagged with Skills, MatchMaking

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users