Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Raptor95662

Match making - 11/2017 discussion

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3
[SC]
Members
25 posts
1,727 battles

Can we have a opt in check box or something for those of us willing to wait longer for a more balanced match?

 

It is getting annoying to be in games where you and one other are 2 tiers lower than everyone else. This make for not a fun experience. At most it should be a tier above or below. 

The games when it is the same tier or only 1 above or below I find the most fun as things are more closely matched.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
423
[1IF]
Alpha Tester
4,252 posts
8,203 battles

How about WG actually try to balance the two teams better. I'm getting sick & tired of garbage teams and auto-losses.

The present MM is a cheat.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[SC]
Members
25 posts
1,727 battles

Random is always going to be a Sh** show. If the ships were more in the same level of ability, at least then it is a skill thing and a few ticks less when you get a run away team. I am ok with that then taking on a tier 10 in a 8 or 7 tier. Not fun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,757
Members
9,862 posts
10 minutes ago, Raptor95662 said:

Can we have a opt in check box or something for those of us willing to wait longer for a more balanced match?

 

It is getting annoying to be in games where you and one other are 2 tiers lower than everyone else. This make for not a fun experience. At most it should be a tier above or below. 

The games when it is the same tier or only 1 above or below I find the most fun as things are more closely matched.

 

WG does not believe in options, and they know what you want better than you do...:Smile_teethhappy:

And I'm a believer now that WG intentionally games the MM to push people to tier 10, where they can make the big money off them.

Edited by awiggin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[SC]
Members
25 posts
1,727 battles
Just now, awiggin said:

 

WG does not believe in options, and they know what you want better than you do...:Smile_teethhappy:

 

HAHA well played.

 

Still resistance is not futile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,757
Members
9,862 posts
Just now, Raptor95662 said:

 

HAHA well played.

 

Still resistance is not futile.

 

I resist regularly, which is why I've gotten a couple warnings and a strike. WG really doesn't like having their dirty laundry aired..:Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,257
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,780 posts
14,796 battles
On ‎11‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 10:27 AM, aethervox said:

The present MM is a cheat.

This is the reason you will never see +1 matchmaking across the boards in WoW; it leaves no room for the sacrificial players.

In every match there are (usually) 3 tiers of players. The top tier, the Lucky. The middle tier, the Masses. And the bottom tier, the Meat.

The Lucky are expected to have a good game, and by the laws of probabilities they usually do. They use superior armor and guns and mods to out perform the other two classes of players.

The Masses are the players who will see the most action, and be in on almost all the battles, as they are competitive with their higher tier brethren, albeit at a substantial disadvantage which good players can certainly overcome. Most players who have great games are in this range and are just simply outperforming everyone.

The Meat are the players WoW has selected to be sacrificial lambs for the Lucky and the Masses; literally they are in the matches to die well. If they can do well they are totally outperforming the game expectations; WoW put them in the match because they are playing sub-standard ships, and poorer players from higher tiers now have something to kill. Someone has to die or players won't come back, buy more ships and consumables, and more premium time; so WoW keeps the +2 matchmaking tiers alive.

Can you imagine the crying that the player base would have to endure if all that players had to play against were players in the same tiers? Why, you could only seal-club and pad stats based on skill and divisioning!

+2 matchmaking is here to stay, regardless of player input.

(sorry Voxer!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
9 posts
5,768 battles

Its time Match making was -1+. There are enough ships in game now and coming for this to be done. This will help with the balance of the game. Give COOP more value too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,006
[PVE]
Members
5,305 posts
17,730 battles
On 11/17/2017 at 11:31 AM, awiggin said:

And I'm a believer now that WG intentionally games the MM to push people to tier 10, where they can make the big money off them.

I believe you are right. Personally I hate upper tier play in PvP and PvE, much happier at the mid and lower tiers. I plan on grinding my way to some tier 10 ships and as soon as I have them, plan on letting them rot in port. I only want to have them so I can farm the annual rewards they give players for having them. IMHO tiers 9 and 10 just blow. In case Wargaming is reading this, I plan to spend ZERO dollars on premium camo for anything beyond tier 8. In PvP play the meta is stale, old, and boring. In PvE play it is just more of the same co-op play only it costs way too much to enjoy. I find a certain beauty to grinding my way to the top tier and letting the ships rust away unused. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[SC]
Members
25 posts
1,727 battles
On 11/22/2017 at 6:24 PM, captiantarheel79 said:

Its time Match making was -1+. There are enough ships in game now and coming for this to be done. This will help with the balance of the game. Give COOP more value too. 

 

That would be ideal but no one from corp ever listens to the forums so this is all systematic anyway. One can dream

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,391
[O_O]
Members
4,333 posts
9,274 battles

My "always bottom tier" observations, as of tonight (since I started keeping track of these things out of curiosity):

T5:  31 games played, 23 of them I was low tier.  74% low tier.

T6:  41 games played, 15 of them I was low tier.  37% low tier.

T7:  24 games played, 4 of them I was low tier.  17% low tier.

T8:  61 games played, 26 of them I was low tier.  43% low tier.

 

Your results may vary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
16 posts
8,249 battles

 I do not believe either the match making is just random. There are in my opinion mechanism in play to try to keep everybody around 50% winrate. So what they do is put the good players with the bad to have an average team. The good is probably a combination of winrate and captain skills. The more skewed teams do remain in my opinion much more likely to loose. This is how i believe the better players get onto these loss streaks. Statistics with true random play and 50% probability of win would say that winning or loosing for example 6 times in a row is 0.5^6=0.015625 or 1.56%, very very unliley. 10 losses in a row gets to 0.0009765 or 0.09%, just about impossible. Nevertheless, some of us experience these type of long loss streaks. I do while i had 55% winrate over 6000+ games and have now dropped to 54%. Frustrating really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,006
[PVE]
Members
5,305 posts
17,730 battles
6 minutes ago, Duke_of_York_ said:

 I do not believe either the match making is just random. There are in my opinion mechanism in play to try to keep everybody around 50% winrate. So what they do is put the good players with the bad to have an average team. The good is probably a combination of winrate and captain skills. The more skewed teams do remain in my opinion much more likely to loose. This is how i believe the better players get onto these loss streaks. Statistics with true random play and 50% probability of win would say that winning or loosing for example 6 times in a row is 0.5^6=0.015625 or 1.56%, very very unliley. 10 losses in a row gets to 0.0009765 or 0.09%, just about impossible. Nevertheless, some of us experience these type of long loss streaks. I do while i had 55% winrate over 6000+ games and have now dropped to 54%. Frustrating really. 

I think the truth is that there is not much to matchmaking. It is totally random. You are giving way too much credit to the developers, I honestly don't think they care about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,257
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,780 posts
14,796 battles
On ‎11‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 7:59 PM, Taylor3006 said:

I think the truth is that there is not much to matchmaking. It is totally random. You are giving way too much credit to the developers, I honestly don't think they care about it. 

I do believe this to a point; that they set up the +2 tier system to "force" players to move up and get better ships, and then they just forgot about it because it is still working as intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,006
[PVE]
Members
5,305 posts
17,730 battles
34 minutes ago, Umikami said:

I do believe this to a point; that they set up the +2 tier system to "force" players to move up and get better ships, and then they just forgot about it because it is still working as intended.

Yes I agree with that totally. My point that you were quoting was meant for the almost conspiratorial nature of Wargaming in reference to matchmaking that some posters have alluded to. I honestly don't think that WG fiddles with what players or what ships go on which teams other than a DD for a DD, BB for a BB, CA for a CA, etc. and what tier they sit at. Player abilities or ship capabilities are not taken into account. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,257
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,780 posts
14,796 battles
2 minutes ago, Taylor3006 said:

I honestly don't think that WG fiddles with what players or what ships go on which teams other than a DD for a DD, BB for a BB, CA for a CA, etc. and what tier they sit at. Player abilities or ship capabilities are not taken into account. 

Yeah, I believe this also. You would have to have some Analyst level programming skills to have it any other way, and which criteria would you rely on, as statistics are so misleading at times. Not to mention that thinking MM has it out for certain players has a tin-foil quality to it that I won't even begin to delve into.

Random battles are really just that, I think; a pit fight where 24 players are tossed in and we see what comes out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[SC]
Members
25 posts
1,727 battles
2 hours ago, Umikami said:

Yeah, I believe this also. You would have to have some Analyst level programming skills to have it any other way, and which criteria would you rely on, as statistics are so misleading at times. Not to mention that thinking MM has it out for certain players has a tin-foil quality to it that I won't even begin to delve into.

Random battles are really just that, I think; a pit fight where 24 players are tossed in and we see what comes out.

It is random as you said but at the same time you can change the criteria to be +1 or -1. You could even make this a opt in feature as ques time could take longer. I for one would not mind the wait as of the 5-8 games I can play every few nights I am in most cases the low tier ship. AKA tier 8 with rest being 9's and 10's.

Solution is simple but how to get anyone to listen is what seems to be the issue. Look at the plane guys and asking for features and functions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
16 posts
8,249 battles
On 11/30/2017 at 0:59 AM, Taylor3006 said:

I think the truth is that there is not much to matchmaking. It is totally random. You are giving way too much credit to the developers, I honestly don't think they care about it. 

The maths going into the statistic calculation do not lie,,, Those with winrates closer or below 50% will not see these as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×