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

PSA: MM change for T8-T10 in the upcoming 7.11 Update

65 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,788
[PVE]
Members
6,446 posts
11,447 battles

Matchmaker Optimization

In response to numerous requests from our players, we are improving the matchmaker and enhancing the algorithms responsible for creating teams. This change will be more relevant to Tier VIII–X ships. Tier X battles will have fewer Tier VIII and IX ships as these will more often be matched to Tier VIII and IX battles.

https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/development/update-0711-rule-britannia/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,433
[ARGSY]
Members
7,173 posts
4,869 battles
1 minute ago, AdmiralThunder said:

Tier X battles will have fewer Tier VIII and IX ships

If it means that Tier X ships have fewer numbers per side, that might be a good thing; cut their MM down far enough in the lean hours and it will be good practice for Ranked. :Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
970
[TSPC]
Members
2,377 posts
7,255 battles

Am I the only person that reads this to mean "you will be uptiered to TX just as  often but now, only 1-2 tier 8s will be in every TX game - you will never have a game with 5 T8s in a TX game ever again!"

 

 

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,761
[5BS]
Members
5,014 posts
2 minutes ago, enderland07 said:

Am I the only person that reads this to mean "you will be uptiered to TX just as  often but now, only 1-2 tier 8s will be in every TX game - you will never have a game with 5 T8s in a TX game ever again!"

 

 

No, that's how I read it too. As it stands most of the time I'm uptiered from a T8 it's maybe me and 1 other person per team and the rest 9's and 10's, so I don't see how this will change much. And in reality, even if this works, this just shifts the problem to T6 who get's stomped on all the more (and there's a FAR greater difference between a T6 ship and a T8 ship than a T8 to T10, overmatch mechanics alone shift that dynamic dramatically). +-1 MM is the the fire they keep dancing around and just don't want to admit that it's probably the only thing that will work.

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
898
[HYDRO]
Members
1,858 posts
3,959 battles
5 minutes ago, enderland07 said:

Am I the only person that reads this to mean "you will be uptiered to TX just as  often but now, only 1-2 tier 8s will be in every TX game - you will never have a game with 5 T8s in a TX game ever again!"

Same, if this means you will more often be the sacrifice to the tier X gods as a lone tier VIII on each team I don't see much point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,361
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,019 posts
10,699 battles

I'll believe it when I see it, if it's the positive they infer.

Hopefully Arms Race sensible edition will be a bit of a band-aid too when it comes.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100
[-BUI-]
[-BUI-]
Members
260 posts
2,136 battles

Hopefully there is improvement, I'm getting really sick of getting up tiered into Tier 10 and getting blapped....in my BB, because Yamato can just fire through everything in the universe.    Oh, you're in a Massachusetts?    You mean tissue paper?!   Cause its tissue paper against basically any T10 in the game...against T8 I'm a tank, against T10 I'm basically a cruiser.    Clearly there is a balance problem at T10 IMO, all the ships are crazy powerful.    Its even worse in a DD.   I haven't had a single fun game in the Cossack as I'm radar'ed and insta killed every single game.

I'll certainly be more willing to try more T8 games after this goes live, but if my first 5 or so games are against T10, I'm just going to shelve to entire Tier again.

Edited by Zenn3k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
204
[MEIST]
Members
883 posts
3,171 battles
4 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

Same, if this means you will more often be the sacrifice to the tier X gods as a lone tier VIII on each team I don't see much point.

No, what they are trying to do is have TX playing TX and having T VIII & T IX ships less often in TX matches.

"Tier X battles will have fewer Tier VIII and IX ships as these will more often be matched to Tier VIII and IX battles."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
77
[-TKS-]
Members
337 posts
6,885 battles

I was more often seeing 1-2 t8s per side. if there was actually 5 t8s it wouldn't have been so bad the past few months. also if this works itll be a buff to the vanguard . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
125
[OGRES]
[OGRES]
Beta Testers
505 posts
13,290 battles
33 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

+-1 MM is the the fire they keep dancing around and just don't want to admit that it's probably the only thing that will work.

This is the only fix, and I would rather wait a little bit longer for a good match than get instantly dumped in as filler.  Yes I know 8 can compete in 10 and every other excuse they use.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,761
[5BS]
Members
5,014 posts
13 minutes ago, AdmiralPiett said:

Hopefully this brings some meaningful improvement without throwing tier VI under the bus.

Without +-1 MM there is literally no way to do so. Decreasing the volume of T8's vs. T10's means, without changing the number of T8 players, there has to be, by definition, more T6 vs. T8 matches. Only a +-1 MM would act as a barrier.

  • Cool 4
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,761
[5BS]
Members
5,014 posts
Just now, Black_Sheep9 said:

This is the only fix, and I would rather wait a little bit longer for a good match than get instantly dumped in as filler.  Yes I know 8 can compete in 10 and every other excuse they use.

I've never seen a mathematical justification to how queue times would increase. +-1 MM. A lot of, "Well this," and "Well that," but never any kind of factual based, mathematical justification of said claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,331 posts
6,739 battles
4 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Without +-1 MM there is literally no way to do so. Decreasing the volume of T8's vs. T10's means, without changing the number of T8 players, there has to be, by definition, more T6 vs. T8 matches. Only a +-1 MM would act as a barrier.

The way they noted the change, with "more T8 and T9 battles" does seem to imply that they're basically telling MM to favor more specific bands on games - in particular the T9 ones, which seem to be pretty rare currently.  I predict this means more T10 only games, an increase in T9 top tier, and more T8 top tier as well.  This would have the knockoff effect of increasing the amount of times T7 is bottom tier, and possibly the same for T6 depending on how willing MM is to create 8-9 only games.  However, by dragging up more T7 ships it could possibly lead to the revival of T5.

I'm cautiously optimistic about this change.  My predictions are probably wrong, but anything to remove the pressure on T8 would be fine.  Even if it does make T7 a less stompy place.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,361
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,019 posts
10,699 battles
35 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Without +-1 MM there is literally no way to do so. Decreasing the volume of T8's vs. T10's means, without changing the number of T8 players, there has to be, by definition, more T6 vs. T8 matches. Only a +-1 MM would act as a barrier.

The way to do it is to increase the number of T9 top-tier matches. Those keep T8 out of T10 - mid-tier is usually acceptable to everyone - while still keeping the T8's out of T6's. The T7's will get uptiered more, but right now they seem to see T5 75% of the time, so they can probably take it.

WG has neglected T9 for a long time, there are a bunch of paywalls at the tier, the perma-camouflages are less efficient, they don't allow grinding some of the insignia, they don't have or contribute toward the Legendary Upgrade grinds and there are relatively few, especially accessible premiums there. WG is now belatedly looking at improving some renowned T9 garbageboats - Ibuki, FdG, Izumo (even Iowa...) - but it's been a long time coming.

Lert looked at some T8 outcomes here:

The really statistically significant outlier was the simple lack of T9 battles at 18% - while 37% top tier and 45% bottom tier still mean lots of T6, and even more T10 games.

For myself I recorded the tier of my first 24 Lightning games - just 12% were T9, while <40% were +2 or -2 games.

Hopefully by releasing a stream of T9 FXP/coal ships - Jean Bart with Alaska and presumably Neutrashimyy to come they can rebalance things. The issue is that the T9's have been more unbalanced than most, predominantly battleships - the most common class - and have been subject to removal more than the general population.

Edited by mofton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,164 posts

Bout freaken time... I have tons of T8 battles.

q9cI8uL.jpg

Almost half my games are T8... So I'll be putting this new MM'er algorithm to the test.

Edited by MorbidGamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100
[-BUI-]
[-BUI-]
Members
260 posts
2,136 battles
1 hour ago, _RC1138 said:

I've never seen a mathematical justification to how queue times would increase. +-1 MM. A lot of, "Well this," and "Well that," but never any kind of factual based, mathematical justification of said claim.

I think the issue isn't player numbers, but ship variety.    While I'd like +-1 as well, it would really lower the number of possible ships you could match against by half as well.    So, get ready to see Atlanta in EVERY game you start with Tier 7 ships...for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,183
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,946 posts
4,837 battles

Redistribution of tier 8 MM screwing in progress comrades. 

*looks at tier 6* yup forget about seeing your own tier now. 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,761
[5BS]
Members
5,014 posts
6 minutes ago, Zenn3k said:

, it would really lower the number of possible ships you could match against by half as well.  

Well no, as that predisposes that players play each tier equally. That is to say, per minute on the queue, x number of players enter the queue at T5, x enter at T6, x enter at T7 ect. That is definitely not true; by basic observations one can see that the tier distribution is far more amorphous than that (with emphasis on T7 and T8, likely due to the volume of Prems at those tiers). So no, it would not 'cut it in half,' as it would be HEAVILY determined by tiers. Also, and this is why I still am in favor of a full scale test of a +-1 MM, this assumes that the player population does not ALTER it's behavior when a +-1 MM is present. Perhaps more people will play T8. Maybe less will play T10. Maybe more will play T6 or T5. Short of actually you know, TRYING it, I'm yet to see something coherent that devalues the idea of a +-1 MM.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,920 posts
1,365 battles
1 hour ago, Black_Sheep9 said:

This is the only fix, and I would rather wait a little bit longer for a good match than get instantly dumped in as filler.  Yes I know 8 can compete in 10 and every other excuse they use.

Yeah the +2 mmd tier can compete in the game but its way the hell more work then its worth.  Meanwhile, the top tier of the battle get to brush the +2 tier ship aside like an mmorpg raid boss...

AL vs a QE?  That was a slaughter lol, I almost felt bad for the poor AI.  I recall all the times my fking NY got utterly deleted when I had to face Scharnhorsts and COs...getting sniped, cit [edited] and nothing I could do to avoid being dead.  Of NY is utter trash, I have 0 good to say about either the WY or NY.  Even went back n played it after I had many more games, first game, it got sunk effortlessly by an Izuzuchi(or whatever the the hell the name of that sake chuggin' hunk of bamboo is called).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
235
[TARFU]
[TARFU]
Members
1,031 posts
6,437 battles

Did anyone of you guys actually listen to what Octavian said in NoZoups interview? The current way is that thematchmaker gathers T10's first (because the population used to be lower in the past), then it grabs tier 9's and then 8's to plug any holes. I'm pretty sure they've flipped it, so tier 10's get spread out into prodiminantly tier 8/9 matches. This will cause tier 8 to rise in popularity, so t10's will have more "spots" to fit into. it's going to be great guys, trust me. 

It's going to be awesome being the sole T10 in a prodominantly tier 8/9 match... And it won't suck that bad being tier 8 anymore either.

Edited by HorrorRoach
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,992
[WOLF7]
Members
10,359 posts
1 hour ago, Dr_Venture said:

Redistribution of tier 8 MM screwing in progress comrades. 

*looks at tier 6* yup forget about seeing your own tier now. 

WG is king of unintended consequences..Would be great if they actually took this into consideration, but I have my doubts.

Funny how they are suddenly caving on a position they've held for years though.....:cap_hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,487
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,655 posts
3,895 battles
3 minutes ago, awiggin said:

Funny how they are suddenly caving on a position they've held for years though.....:cap_hmm:

I believe this is due to a Q&A question I asked a while ago. They never addressed it in the Q&A responses, but it probably made them look at the data and realize there was a problem.

 

Basically, I asked them if there was a decline in sales of tier 5, 6, and 8 premiums that might be due to the behavior of the MM reducing the player value placed ships in those tiers.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×