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

Has WG done any studies or tests on effect of +1/-1 Tier MM

71 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

282
[ADPT2]
[ADPT2]
Members
883 posts
2,505 battles

I know it would have "some" effect on MM times but they are pretty good now, if it is only an extra 15 to 30 seconds I would be interested, but first you need data.

Is anyone aware of any tests done to see what actual effect this would have?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,757
[WOLFG]
Members
6,000 posts
3,853 battles

If they have, I don't believe they have shared the results with us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
578
[EQRN]
Members
1,321 posts
12,254 battles

Doesn’t matter, would not address the “MM is rigged” faction of the game.  As long as players lose a match, MM is going to be blamed by a large part.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
793
[GREEK]
Members
1,007 posts

They have supposedly.  They think that T10's need T8's to feed on(from a live stream they held with a Russian dev), and that waiting less than 30 seconds to get in a match is more important than actual balanced game play.

Edited by JonnyFreedom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,638
[TARK]
Members
3,319 posts
1,438 battles
23 minutes ago, SJ_Sailer said:

I know it would have "some" effect on MM times but they are pretty good now, if it is only an extra 15 to 30 seconds I would be interested, but first you need data.

Is anyone aware of any tests done to see what actual effect this would have?

I think the studies focus on its impact on in game purchases...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
387
[INR]
Members
1,224 posts
4,060 battles
7 minutes ago, JonnyFreedom said:

They have supposedly.  They think that T10's need T8's to feed on(from a live stream they held with a Russian dev), and that waiting less than 30 seconds to get in a match is more important than actual balanced game play.

I thought it was due to a lack of Tier 9 players making queue times longer. I can see both sides of the argument, but I personally don't hate Tier 10 games in Akizuki, Edinburgh, Mogami, or Atago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
793
[GREEK]
Members
1,007 posts
Just now, WuYixiang said:

I thought it was due to a lack of Tier 9 players making queue times longer. I can see both sides of the argument, but I personally don't hate Tier 10 games in Akizuki, Edinburgh, Mogami, or Atago.

If you search my post history I linked the time and stream at which the dev stated it.  They literally want T10's to have target practice to keep the game fun for the people who exclusively play T-10 (which subsequently is the only tier that requires RL cash to play or be very good at to sustain).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
387
[INR]
Members
1,224 posts
4,060 battles
1 minute ago, JonnyFreedom said:

If you search my post history I linked the time and stream at which the dev stated it.  They literally want T10's to have target practice to keep the game fun for the people who exclusively play T-10 (which subsequently is the only tier that requires RL cash to play or be very good at to sustain).

Big oof. That blows.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,707 posts
7,771 battles

There is no real way to do a test outside of adding it to production.  Play tests will not have enough players to make any real life comparison.  There is a lot less up-tiering since the last MM change to mix up the tiers.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26
[FFLY]
Members
157 posts
9,027 battles
59 minutes ago, JonnyFreedom said:

They have supposedly.  They think that T10's need T8's to feed on(from a live stream they held with a Russian dev), and that waiting less than 30 seconds to get in a match is more important than actual balanced game play.

If this true then why is it I play a t8 ship I am the only one or just two in a t10 match?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
793
[GREEK]
Members
1,007 posts
4 minutes ago, Capt_Apollo said:

If this true then why is it I play a t8 ship I am the only one or just two in a t10 match?

You are the easy target broseph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
282
[ADPT2]
[ADPT2]
Members
883 posts
2,505 battles
2 hours ago, JonnyFreedom said:

If you search my post history I linked the time and stream at which the dev stated it.  They literally want T10's to have target practice to keep the game fun for the people who exclusively play T-10 (which subsequently is the only tier that requires RL cash to play or be very good at to sustain).

That is really sad, but I can see the logic in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
352
Beta Testers
1,285 posts
3,690 battles
2 hours ago, SJ_Sailer said:

I know it would have "some" effect on MM times but they are pretty good now, if it is only an extra 15 to 30 seconds I would be interested, but first you need data.

Is anyone aware of any tests done to see what actual effect this would have?

I do not know if they have done specific tests for such a thing, but they do have numbers from the tanks/planes/ships that have/had +1 matchmaking.  So likely they have an idea of what +1 matchmaking did for those particular vehicles, and can extrapolate what that means for other vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,852
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
8,815 posts
12,548 battles

Pretty sure they ran what was called the "boredom test".  Players were %50 more likely to get bored with the game when subjected to +1/-1 MM vs +2/-2 , The control group of exact parity in mm the +0/-0 group became bored %100 more quickly so the results were a bit skewed because it was hard to maintain compliance in the +0/-0 group. Essentially the findings suggested that variety of game play is king. Some even went as far as to conclude that +3/-3 might be even better.

rocket science space GIF by US National Archives

satellite communications vintage GIF by US National Archives

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,242
[5BS]
Members
7,625 posts
3 hours ago, SJ_Sailer said:

I know it would have "some" effect on MM times but they are pretty good now, if it is only an extra 15 to 30 seconds I would be interested, but first you need data.

Is anyone aware of any tests done to see what actual effect this would have?

They have not, although I disagree that queue would be longer under +-1 MM. It's a math thing, but assuming the sample pool stays the same, reducing the 'n' should not decrease the rate of draws. Remember the current queue empties the moment a viable match of any spread is formed (it does not prioritize one particular MM Tier over another, that is to say, if only 2 TX's are in the queue and 22 T8's, it doesn't wait for a few more TX's to even it out or vice versa) so it is impossible to determine at the moment if different matchups than currently are sent into a match would happen if you pulled +-1 MM out of the top and bottom. Math would suggest it would, that alternative matchups would be made instead and continue on with no, not less, NO additional time.

THAT SAID.

I believe they SHOULD do a large scale test, on live, in Randoms, of a +-1 MM. And I would do it at T7. The reason being? That is very much a 'crunch' point due to the fact T7's can see T5's, which have VASTLY different upgrades and tier inherent plating than T7 and upwards, T9's have the same with the T8's getting new plating. As such, seeing the impact of that would be the most readily usable test to see both how queue times are effect, and how balance works out.

12 minutes ago, paradat said:

Pretty sure they ran what was called the "boredom test".  Players were %50 more likely to get bored with the game when subjected to +1/-1 MM vs +2/-2 , The control group of exact parity in mm the +0/-0 group became bored %100 more quickly so the results were a bit skewed because it was hard to maintain compliance in the +0/-0 group. Essentially the findings suggested that variety of game play is king. Some even went as far as to conclude that +3/-3 might be even better.

 


Source? And the situation of now is very different than Beta/Alpha given that tier disparity has increased over time (there was only 1 T6 capable of overmatching in Beta (Warspite), now there's 5 (Warspite, Mutsu, WV, Baryne, QE) for example).

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
64
[TURD]
Members
155 posts
2,200 battles
3 hours ago, FrodoFraggin said:

Doesn’t matter, would not address the “MM is rigged” faction of the game.  As long as players lose a match, MM is going to be blamed by a large part.

That's a separate issue. This is concerned more with boats being rendered wholly ineffective because of uptiering, i.e. Tier VI AA trying to cope with Tier VIII CVs.

I seriously hope they give it a try at some point. The main counter argument seems to be it would make wait times too long especially at off peak hours, though I don't know why they couldn't make it dynamic and use +1/-1 as a base and loosen that up if MM is taking too long. I think most players would prefer to wait an extra minute if it provided better rounded matches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,155
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
4,744 posts
15,464 battles
2 hours ago, CylonRed said:

There is no real way to do a test outside of adding it to production.

This is actually a very easy thing to test via simulation. You simply take the log of ships queuing up in some night, and you feed it into a fake (simulated) MM server running +/-1 and see what the average wait time is. There are some small differences between this and a literal test, but the results should be very, very close.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,852
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
8,815 posts
12,548 battles
12 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Source? And the situation of now is very different than Beta/Alpha given that tier disparity has increased over time (there was only 1 T6 capable of overmatching in Beta, now there's six for example).

Well it was a confab in Minsk :

"For a number of years now work has been proceeding in order to bring perfection to the crudely conceived idea of a match maker that would not only supply inverse reactive current for use in unilateral phase detractors, but would also be capable of automatically synchronizing cardinal grammeters. Such an instrument is the turbo encabulator. Now basically, the only new principle involved is that instead of matchmaking being generated by the relative tiers of ships and fluxes, it is produced by the modial interaction of magneto-reluctance and capacitive-directance. The original matchmaker had a baseline of prefamulated algorythms, surmounted by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two spurving interpretations were in a direct line with the panametric level of player skill. The latter consisted simply of six hydrocoptic marzel vanes so-fitted to the ambifacient lunar wane shaft that side fumbling was effectively prevented. The main winding was of the normal lotus-o-delta type placed in panendermic semi-boloid slots of the stator; every seventh conductor being connected by a non-reversible trem'e pipe to the differential girdlespring on the up-end of the grammes. The Turbo Encabulator has now reached a high level of development, and is being successfully used in the operation of nofer trunnions. Moreover, whenever a farescent skor motion is required, it may also be employed in conjunction with a drawn reciprocation dingle arm to reduce soinasodial repleneration."

Was so obvious that they felt fairly silly even bringing it up.

I blame Serb. Fortunatly cooler heads prevailed and we end up sticking with +2/-2 MM Where MM only looked at the ships and not the players for maximum sustainable fun.

chris colfer GIF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,757
[WOLFG]
Members
6,000 posts
3,853 battles
35 minutes ago, SJ_Sailer said:

That is really sad, but I can see the logic in it.

It is also to encourage you to grind up to Tier 10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,937
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
23,712 posts
3,895 battles
29 minutes ago, paradat said:

Pretty sure they ran what was called the "boredom test".  Players were %50 more likely to get bored with the game when subjected to +1/-1 MM vs +2/-2 , The control group of exact parity in mm the +0/-0 group became bored %100 more quickly so the results were a bit skewed because it was hard to maintain compliance in the +0/-0 group. Essentially the findings suggested that variety of game play is king. Some even went as far as to conclude that +3/-3 might be even better.

Ahh, the hollow "boredom" argument that's used as a smokescreen for "I am only good when I can kill things significantly weaker than me who can barely fight back". This framing device is almost clever, but still blatantly transparent.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,242
[5BS]
Members
7,625 posts

 

11 minutes ago, paradat said:

malleable logarithmic casing

This is the line that makes it...

So they never actually tested anything real to see the effects on both MM and player satisfaction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,852
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
8,815 posts
12,548 battles
2 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Ahh, the hollow "boredom" argument that's used as a smokescreen for "I am only good when I can kill things significantly weaker than me who can barely fight back". This framing device is almost clever, but still blatantly transparent.

I and human behavior sciences think the Boredom/variety argument is valid. The more you dumb down the game the quicker we will all get bored. You can also go to far and make it to hard of course. WG clearly has found the balance. 

"hollow" , "smokescreen" , "I am only good when I can kill things significantly weaker than me who can barely fight back"  That is all bull crap. 

If you really believe that then just grind to tier 10 and stay there. But some how I think you will probably claim that tier 10 is broken somehow as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,852
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
8,815 posts
12,548 battles
1 minute ago, _RC1138 said:

 

This is the line that makes it...

So they never actually tested anything real to see the effects on both MM and player satisfaction?

Obviously my post is meant to poke fun and is a bit trollish. 

The whole MM range was tested and settled in World of Tanks (I played a bunch of +3/-3 Wot games). World of Warships adopted the same basic principal when setting up their MM. 

So did Warships test it? No, Did WG test it? Yes

I think WG made the right choice. In fact thanks to Coop , Operations, Ranked and Clan Wars they have even covered the full gambit of difficulty. The game is a remarkable achievement for fun to be had in a wide range of difficulties. Everyone should be able to find there happy place.

I love it. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,242
[5BS]
Members
7,625 posts
Just now, paradat said:

I and human behavior sciences think the Boredom/variety argument is valid.

Both are wrong here; McDonald sells millions of the same product hour by hour. People vote conservative to keep things the same. Modern media is increasingly based on nostalgia factors: people dislike change of variety and draw comfort from consistency and sameness.

And I do not believe +-1 MM would dumb the game down: on the contrary I think it will elevate play. Now when I play a T7 CA I cannot just derp load AP at every T5 CA/CL knowing I'll get massive cits for free. I know in a T8 DD there's *going* to be T8 or T9 CA/CL's with radar present in large numbers and need to learn to adapt accordingly. I know when I play a T5 BB it becomes less of a game of hiding and sniping and I can make real moves forward since fewer of the T6 BB's can overmatch me.

I think it will make the game harder, but more consistent, rather than the wacky steamrolls we see. And frankly, I think that's the real reason people want to avoid +-1 MM; they both want to keep the occasional steam rolls and are afraid/unable to elevate their play when the playing field is more evenly match. +-1 MM makes the game HARDER as skill becomes the dominating factor, not tier. If you cannot meet that challenge than I suppose I can see where you are coming from. Personally, I welcome it. I'm one of those weird people that LIKES Ranked a lot. And a great deal of that is that it makes the gameplay WAY more influenced on individual skill than tier.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×