Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Original_Prankster

What do you think about this change to Match Making?

  • You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.

CHANGE MATCHMAKING   80 members have voted

  1. 1. 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.

    • yes
      33
    • no
      47

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

44 posts in this topic

 

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. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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. 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

LR5ocui.gif.  

Edited by CLUCH_CARGO

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

​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.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.​


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

​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


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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........


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No because after some time everyone gonna have roughly the same stats if the longer Matchmaking duration isn't enough...


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

At the very minimum, then give us the option to check a box that says, let me wait for a game that I am NOT up or down 2 tiers (1 tier is fine and understandable), even if that is going to take 10 minutes.  At least then you have a **CHOICE** if I want to play a game with ships that are outclassed one way or the other.

 

If I am in the middle, there is 1 up and 1 down but that is not fair for the 1 down guy as he as a 2 up also to contend with.  Make the games have a max of 2 tiers rather than the current 3 then. 

Edited by Squib_Surefire

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I certainly don't claim to have the answer but MM has been terrible lately. I have never paid to much attention to stats and play all levels and types of ships. Overall my stats are average or above, except for wins. I usually find myself on teams that just get blown off the map by the other team.  I absolutely agree with the comment about not facing ships 2 tiers up from mine, that is always a mismatch.

 

Talk about increasing the population of the game, I can tell you that having them lose 8 out of ten matches with crushing defeats does nothing toward keeping players around long term.

 

 

 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matchmaking should only be allowed to construct a team on either side with random players of ALL the same tier.  There will be times that one team may have a inferior number of players which collectively have worse stats than the team they battle.  What would be interesting is that at the END of the game the STATs of all the players could be revealed to show what everyone was up against.  Don't want to show the stats BEFORE as some whiners will just cave and say WE LOSE before the game even started.  What would be the point of that for some eh?   


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.