Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Maine_ARC_1

Why the MM changes aren't what you want.

55 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,054
[LRM]
[LRM]
Members
2,956 posts
7,724 battles

I know this is probably going to get me chewed out by a lot of people so desperate for a MM change, but this new system isn't going to fix the problem. If anything this new system is going to be a glaring issue and I think the community needs to speak up about this as much as they are against the Research Buero (NTC 2.0). For starters here, let's look over the initial announcement (contained in spoiler with source link) of the MM changes. The whole post I have written is in spoilers so it is easier to wrangle when you quote it.

 
 
 
 
Spoiler
 
 
 
 
Spoiler

Matchmaker Changes:


The World of Warships matchmaker is constantly evolving. In Update 0.8.7 we are introducing strict limitations on the tiers of battles that you can be sent to. For each player, the matchmaker will take into account the number of battles they have played with ships of the same tier as theirs, and the number of ships one or two tiers higher.

After a short calibration period that will last up to 20 battles for each battle type and ship tier, the matchmaker will ensure that the percentage of battles with ships of the specified tier does not exceed the set limits. For example, for Tier VIII ships, the limits are expected to be 40% of battles with ships two tiers higher. This means that out of 20 recent battles you play with Tier VIII ships, a maximum of eight battles will include Tier X ships.

https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/public-test/bulletin-087/


So, if we read specifically what they have written, this system is clearly vague. There are 2 options based on the rhetoric here so I am going to explore each option and why each variant, should one or the other exist, be equally detrimental to the situation.

Option A: Calibration period is proceeded by the percentile MM balancing. 

So as the words on the page speak for themselves, it claims "After a short calibration period that will last up to 20 battles for each battle type and ship tier, the matchmaker will ensure that the percentage of battles with ships of the specified tier does not exceed the set limits." This implies that a player must log 20 battles of the same tier and same game mode in order to even begin to kick in. So if you play 10 battles in Co-op with a tier 8 and 10 battles in Randoms with a tier 6, then congratulations, the system isn't even on yet. Oh, and if you play 8 battles at tier 8 in randoms and 12 battles at tier 4 in randoms, then the system is ALSO not on because the tiers are different. This means you have to play the same tier for 20 games with no MM system protection before the system kicks in. And if I play 20 battles at tier 8 in randoms, I now must go play 20 battles at tier 6 in randoms to turn THAT rebalance on.

Now let's say this system kicks in after 20 games at say, tier 8 in randoms. I have to play 20 battles at tier 8 so I can get 8 of them to be low tier and the rest be mid or high, as written by, " For example, for Tier VIII ships, the limits are expected to be 40% of battles with ships two tiers higher. This means that out of 20 recent battles you play with Tier VIII ships, a maximum of eight battles will include Tier X ships." So I have to play 20 tier 8 battles to turn on the system and then play an additional 20 battles to try to get the rewards of my calibration. Or does it take my 20 battles and then says "hey, 50% of your tier 8 battles in randoms are low tier, let's give you mid or high". How does the game know how long you are going to play? You could play 8 games at bottom tier in the MM and then if you have to log off, then the system doesn't even kick in. 

Option B: Calibration period is congruent with percentile MM balancing.

This is the system I hope actually is the case. In that case, the MM system is claiming that over 20 battles 8 of my battles in a game mode at the same tier will be 40% bottom tier and remainder mid or higher. This however still doesn't solve the problem of how many battles an individual plays. If this is a running tally system, and you jump around tiers or game mode, it STILL won't fix the issue of if it kicks in or not.

Ok, so now that I have laid out the 2 ways you could possibly interpret this information, let's look at the issues of this system. Each one will be listed for there cause/effect interaction with either Option A or Option B.

1. The time required to activate:
 

Spoiler

Option A: WARGAMING PLEASE TELL ME THIS ISN'T HOW IT WORKS!!! If we look at the time it could take to activate the system based on how it could be interpreted, it is going to take HOURS to turn on. Hypothetically per 20 battles, it would take 3 hours and 20 minutes at 10 minutes per battle, 5 hours at 15 minutes per battle, and 6 hours and 40 minutes at 20 minutes per battle; for this system to even turn on. On top of that, it would then take another stack of time. Meaning that this whole system could take possibly anywhere from 6 hours to 12 hours to not only complete but begin to get the benefits from. I am SERIOUSLY concerned that this is what is being communicated or expected based on what wargaming has specifically written in the exact structure of the sentence. They are implying you have to throw your day away at one single tier in order to actually get the system to work. 

Option B: What I honestly hope is the case. If the system is cumulative per tier and game mode, then it would take maybe 2-3 hours to see results. However, this doesn't change the fact that you have to stay at a single tier and game mode in order to use the system. 


2. Anchoring the MM in Divisions:
 

Spoiler

 

Someone on the forums asked on the announcement thread here about how it works for divisions. Kami said the following:
 

3 hours ago, Kami said:

Hey DustRhino,

When it comes to determining the MM for the division it will be based off of the division leader. 


Option A: Let's say that it does the variant of this where after 20 battles it starts adjusting your MM focus commutatively. Let's say your friend has 20 battles and 15 of them were at low tier. That is 75% at low tier and the game needs to get you to 40%. The chances of you getting a high tier game are high in order to cut your low tier battle percent down by 35%. You can now anchor your div mates to see certain games. You could take a tier 8 CV and 2 tier 8 AA ships and now the game will give you a high probability of rigging the matches in your favor to always have a top tier CV WITH two AA ships. This obviously can be a div in the current game state, but this allows someone to weaponize the system to put the odds in their favor for a short while. Even if they hit mid-tier, they still only have to worry about one tier higher in power level while being able to take care of the lower-tier ship and same tier peers. 

Option B: Your friends can track how many battles in a row they get a low tier and then have you jump in to benefit from mid and high tier pre-dispositioned luck, making the game STILL in the favor of the division as they can still, while the MM is still random, begin to pseudo-guarantee the odds being in there favor. They can then use consumables and signals/camos ect on the games they bet will be mid or high tier so they can have a known tactical advantage, removing the random element from random battles of being assigned to teams at, well, RANDOM.

 



3. Division MM screwing over your gameplay:
 

Spoiler

Option A: Let's say that your friend has 80% of his 20 battles in tier 8 at top tier for whatever reason, and you have had 60% of your 20 battles in low tier for whatever reason at also tier 8. This now means that you will most likely continue to be crapped on because if your 80% high tier game friend is div leader, you will CONTINUE to see more mid and lower-tier games, meaning you will just continue to be dragged through the mud. This means to avoid this, you and your friends need to actually track on pen and paper how many games you have at any tier and find the one with the most balanced MM in order to maintain a "fair" division MM for you and your 2 buddies. This basically means that you have to do the math in order to figure out how to now get screwed over by MM.

Option B: This can still screw over the division if the tier is split, meaning that if tier 8 is the div leaders tier and your ship is tier 7 and you have seen nothing but low tier in tier 8, you will continue to get dragged through the mud. This forces divisions to be monotier, of which would prevent this from being a glaring issue in the proposed system.



4. We clearly are being deceived of the full information of the system.
 

Spoiler

So to once again quote the announcement, "After a short calibration period that will last up to 20 battles for each battle type and ship tier, the matchmaker will ensure that the percentage of battles with ships of the specified tier does not exceed the set limits. For example, for Tier VIII ships, the limits are expected to be 40% of battles with ships two tiers higher. This means that out of 20 recent battles you play with Tier VIII ships, a maximum of eight battles will include Tier X ships."; however, Kami said that the MM for divisions goes off of the div leader. This clearly shows that we aren't getting the whole story and that this system has WAY MORE going on to the point where I would be so bold to even call this a trick. At this rate in WG history, I would not trust anything that isn't clearly written in clear and concise English.



At the end of the day, this seems like a polished turd of a token change that is going to do nothing. It takes too long to turn on, doesn't guarantee it works, can be used to cause grief, and just requires alot of actual planning to have the player actually use. I think a +/-1 MM system would be better because it removes all this extra math and RNG so a player can just play the game and not be blown out of proportion by a difference in power. I hope I am wrong about some of this and that this doom and gloom is for nothing, but honestly with all said and done I have no reason to trust the announcement as entirely transparent. Once again WG doesn't understand its own game as it clearly is implementing a system with way too many moving parts that is only going to serve to cause more problems. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,054
[LRM]
[LRM]
Members
2,956 posts
7,724 battles
Just now, TheKrimzonDemon said:

Or, you could just be like me, and not care one bit about the MM, or being uptiered.

I don't care either, but at the same time, if the majority want a change, I don't want that change to come at the cost of being rediculous and not solving the problem. I feel the need to call out things I see that could hurt others. 

"Complacency kills"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,041
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
11,410 posts
15,850 battles
6 minutes ago, TheKrimzonDemon said:

Or, you could just be like me, and not care one bit about the MM, or being uptiered.

Yep so much this ^^^

It is not "why me" it is "Try Me!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,030 posts
16,897 battles

Changes in the last year have mostly been for the worse, but assuming a change is going to be meaningless or even bad before it has any implementation or true testing is just stupid, flawed logic. Beggars can't be choosers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,054
[LRM]
[LRM]
Members
2,956 posts
7,724 battles
5 minutes ago, Kebobstuzov said:

Changes in the last year have mostly been for the worse, but assuming a change is going to be meaningless or even bad before it has any implementation or true testing is just stupid, flawed logic. Beggars can't be choosers.

Would you like to say that to every thread about the NTC/RB? I would love you see you post that EXACT same sentence on every thread on this forum about the RB system right now. 

I don't have to be impaled to know being so will injure me. Please, be real. I ain't begging for a change in the first place but at the same time if I see something that looks problematic I am going to speak up about it.

  • Cool 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,005
[DPG]
Members
1,927 posts
9,578 battles

Nobody will even notice the difference.  Say you play 10 battles at tier 8 one day and mm decides to expend your 40% all at once.  You log off and now the system has "reset."  Log in the next day and you might end up with the same mm.  Yeah is getting up-tiered annoying, sure.  Is it really the end of the world, no.  Muddle though, end up deleted in the first 5 minutes, have the game of your life, or somewhere in the middle.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
2 minutes ago, Maine_ARC_1 said:

I am going to speak up about it.

Good for you. But I fear, individually constructive feedback will be drowned out.

Which is why the community is being bum rushed with NTC v2.0 news, in August (quietest time of the year) right now, along with this new MM approach (which will further enable division anchoring), and doubtless sundry other questionable changes to the game.

The forum is parsed for "sentiments", statistics gathered on comment "types", probably added to a spreadsheet somewhere, then "filed".

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
976
[KAPPA]
Members
3,110 posts
8,239 battles

Doesn't it say up to 20 battles? I imagine it depends on what MM gave you. Maybe 8 bottom tiers in a row as your first 8 games at T8 would be enough to trigger it. Maybe 12 top/mid tiers in a row would trigger it.

It's hard to say without knowing how it works, but up to means it could be less than 20.

Edit: 20 may be the upper limit, as it builds around the last 20 matches. So, if you exhaust half of the equation, I imagine it probably kicks in early.

Edited by Shoggoth_pinup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,054
[LRM]
[LRM]
Members
2,956 posts
7,724 battles
4 minutes ago, Shoggoth_pinup said:

Doesn't it say up to 20 battles? I imagine it depends on what MM gave you. Maybe 8 bottom tiers in a row as your first 8 games at T8 would be enough to trigger it. Maybe 12 top/mid tiers in a row would trigger it.

It's hard to say without knowing how it works, but up to means it could be less than 20.

Edit: 20 may be the upper limit, as it builds around the last 20 matches. So, if you exhaust half of the equation, I imagine it probably kicks in early.

But that would still mean that if you did get those 8 out of 20 at bottom tier before it kicks you up, you still have to spend 2 hours at low tier before the system compensates. And if the right ships aren't there to support you being uptiered to you keep on through the mud?
 

 

12 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

Good for you. But I fear, individually constructive feedback will be drowned out.

Which is why the community is being bum rushed with NTC v2.0 news, in August (quietest time of the year) right now, along with this new MM approach (which will further enable division anchoring), and doubtless sundry other questionable changes to the game.

The forum is parsed for "sentiments", statistics gathered on comment "types", probably added to a spreadsheet somewhere, then "filed".

Well, I have to at least try. This next round of changes is just not needed. They should just give us ranked sprint and let us be on our way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,737
[SALVO]
Members
2,011 posts
6,198 battles

@Maine_ARC_1  excuse for a second . Part of your arguments, and some from other users that I have read. Seem to assume that the system will reset with each login.  Did WG State this anywhere specifically?  I would have assumed that it keeps track day after day So that once the point of Calibration is reached , then each  time you log in the system is already active. 

Maybe WG simply mentioned the way the system will start and calibrate itself the very first time.   After the first activation it should always have the data from the previous loggins to work with.

 

Edited by eviltane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,054
[LRM]
[LRM]
Members
2,956 posts
7,724 battles
1 minute ago, eviltane said:

@Maine_ARC_1  excuse for a second . Part of your arguments, and some from other users that I have read. Seem to assume that the system will reset with each login.  Did WG State this anywhere specifically?  I would have assumed that it keeps track day after day and from then on each time you log in the system is already active. 

Maybe WG simply mentioned the way the system will start and calibrate itself the very first time.   After the first activation it should always have the data from the previous loggins to work with.

 

WG does not have the servers save the entire chat conversation between two people in port. They do not save post-battle results if your client crashes and you reopen before the battle ends. They had problems with excess info stored on their servers making clan wars unplayable at one point. I do not believe they would save it. However, like I said, their only comment about the system is this. Once again to quote:

 

"The World of Warships matchmaker is constantly evolving. In Update 0.8.7 we are introducing strict limitations on the tiers of battles that you can be sent to. For each player, the matchmaker will take into account the number of battles they have played with ships of the same tier as theirs, and the number of ships one or two tiers higher.

After a short calibration period that will last up to 20 battles for each battle type and ship tier, the matchmaker will ensure that the percentage of battles with ships of the specified tier does not exceed the set limits. For example, for Tier VIII ships, the limits are expected to be 40% of battles with ships two tiers higher. This means that out of 20 recent battles you play with Tier VIII ships, a maximum of eight battles will include Tier X ships."
 

Taking that paragraph at face value, it does not seem like it will. Like I said earlier, Kami gave us info based on how Divisions work with this, but it was neglected from the announcing paragraph. I think there is more to it but I do not think it includes saving info as WG currently doesn't save some information, and since this system is heavily implied to be per instance, you have to sit around for a while before the system decides to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,414
[CYNIC]
Members
2,638 posts
6,217 battles

This is a good change.  After getting an average of 9/10 battles in T8 against T10s, I just FXP past T8s.  That's broken AF.  I have T10s, if I want a T10 battle, I'll take one.  There are significant differences between the tiers, ships in a tier are balanced among themselves and the power creep between 8 and 10 is arguably the largest in the game.  T8 is a bass-turd tier and while some 8s can swing it in 10s, some have no business there most notably DDs and CVs.  T8 DDs get wrecked against most T10s.  Worse spotting, worse guns, laughable torps, etc...

Edited by NoSoMo
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
274
[P2W]
Members
426 posts
12,211 battles

I’m presuming that this is going to be based on a rolling 20 game window with a persistent copy of your history kept on the server. Thus it doesn’t matter if you play 20 games in 1 day or 1 game for each of 20 days. Similarly, switching from tier to tier doesn’t lose you anything- it just starts tracking against the saved states for the new tier. 

I also assume that the 40% cap is applied to the history with no guesses about what you play next. Once your rolling history shows 8 games of bottom tier then you are kept out of another one until you play at a mid or top tier, which updates the history to having 7 of the last 20 as bottom tier. 

With divisions it seems like the best solution would be to compute the percentage for all three players as a whole, effectively giving a 60 game history. That should make div rigged games harder to do for long, and would be ok when you get in and out of division. 

I’m hoping that is what they have in mind. 

Edited by KaptainNemo_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,054
[LRM]
[LRM]
Members
2,956 posts
7,724 battles
Just now, NoSoMo said:

This is a good change.  After getting an average of 9/10 battles in T8 against T10s, I just FXP past T8s.  That's broken AF.  I have T10s, if I want a T10 battle, I'll take one.  There are significant differences between the tiers, ships in a tier are balanced among themselves and the power creep between 8 and 10 is arguably the largest in the game.  T8 is a bass-turd tier and while some 8s can swing it in 10s, some have no business there. 

What I am arguing is the way they currently have this set up is not a good method of how to fix the situation. Do you want to waste hours at your computer before the system decides to kick in? This system may break up streaks but it doesn't inherently guard against streaks and allows people to play the odds to abuse the system in divisions to get the luck they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,737
[SALVO]
Members
2,011 posts
6,198 battles
1 minute ago, Maine_ARC_1 said:

WG does not have the servers save the entire chat conversation between two people in port. They do not save post-battle results if your client crashes and you reopen before the battle ends. They had problems with excess info stored on their servers making clan wars unplayable at one point. I do not believe they would save it. However, like I said, their only comment about the system is this. Once again to quote:

 

"The World of Warships matchmaker is constantly evolving. In Update 0.8.7 we are introducing strict limitations on the tiers of battles that you can be sent to. For each player, the matchmaker will take into account the number of battles they have played with ships of the same tier as theirs, and the number of ships one or two tiers higher.

After a short calibration period that will last up to 20 battles for each battle type and ship tier, the matchmaker will ensure that the percentage of battles with ships of the specified tier does not exceed the set limits. For example, for Tier VIII ships, the limits are expected to be 40% of battles with ships two tiers higher. This means that out of 20 recent battles you play with Tier VIII ships, a maximum of eight battles will include Tier X ships."
 

Taking that paragraph at face value, it does not seem like it will. Like I said earlier, Kami gave us info based on how Divisions work with this, but it was neglected from the announcing paragraph. I think there is more to it but I do not think it includes saving info as WG currently doesn't save some information, and since this system is heavily implied to be per instance, you have to sit around for a while before the system decides to work.

Well it would seem counter productive from my point of view if it had to calibrate each login.

 

@Radar_X  or @FemennenIy. Could you guys answer this question:  

With the upcoming Match maker changes that limit the number of times that someone gets uptiered.  Are the 20 games required to “calibrate “ it  ,  a daily affair?  Or in other words, will the MM keep track of our last 20 games all the time without loosing it through logout or daily server resets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,414
[CYNIC]
Members
2,638 posts
6,217 battles
Just now, Maine_ARC_1 said:

What I am arguing is the way they currently have this set up is not a good method of how to fix the situation. Do you want to waste hours at your computer before the system decides to kick in? This system may break up streaks but it doesn't inherently guard against streaks and allows people to play the odds to abuse the system in divisions to get the luck they want.

I'm  hoping those hours won't be spent in vain.  I'd really like the system to stop assuming it must always and instantly drop us right into battle.  I'd prefer, if the population allows for it, to be straight tiered, then difference of 1, as in a T7 will be against 6s or 8s, not 6s AND 8s as then 6s and 8s are fighting.

MM could change behavior based on population, obviously when there's 14k players on vs 3k players, things will be different.  I'll wait for a minute while a balanced tier system tries to put together some decent matches. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,054
[LRM]
[LRM]
Members
2,956 posts
7,724 battles
2 minutes ago, NoSoMo said:

I'm  hoping those hours won't be spent in vain.  I'd really like the system to stop assuming it must always and instantly drop us right into battle.  I'd prefer, if the population allows for it, to be straight tiered, then difference of 1, as in a T7 will be against 6s or 8s, not 6s AND 8s as then 6s and 8s are fighting.

MM could change behavior based on population, obviously when there's 14k players on vs 3k players, things will be different.  I'll wait for a minute while a balanced tier system tries to put together some decent matches. 

What you are talking about is +/-1MM. I would rather have that as the solution to the problem honestly. It doesn't involve a mathematical formula and works 100% of the time to restrict power level differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,414
[CYNIC]
Members
2,638 posts
6,217 battles
1 minute ago, eviltane said:

Well it would seem counter productive from my point of view if it had to calibrate each login.

Yeah, it's not going to be a per-login basis.  It's going to be "from this point on".  They have to give it a starting point because if they were to choose a date, some people could have had 100 matches during that time or 5.  While I'd love for the system to give me the correction needed for my last 100 T8 games, it'd be a long time before I saw T10s in any 8.  For others much less.  Basically the pool of games needed to "calibrate" every player starts at the same time, regardless of when logged in.   If you knock out the calibration period sooner, cool.  If it takes you 2 weeks to hit 20 games, is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
293
[GT99]
Members
750 posts
12,074 battles
1 hour ago, TheKrimzonDemon said:

Or, you could just be like me, and not care one bit about the MM, or being uptiered.

^ This

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,054
[LRM]
[LRM]
Members
2,956 posts
7,724 battles
3 minutes ago, eviltane said:

Well it would seem counter productive from my point of view if it had to calibrate each login.

Yes, but tracking the Tier spread ratio of every ship for every player for every game mode would take up alot of space of saved data. If something happens to that data would it then just mess up the entire MM system?

Like I said, this system is entirely vague and doesn't account for various human factors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,414
[CYNIC]
Members
2,638 posts
6,217 battles
3 minutes ago, Maine_ARC_1 said:

What you are talking about is +/-1MM. I would rather have that as the solution to the problem honestly. It doesn't involve a mathematical formula and works 100% of the time to restrict power level differences.

That should be at the core of MM already, locked to server population however.  Near server reset, there's some pretty interesting games that pop off due to Q dumps.  We had an 8v8 last night w/ T10 and T8 CVs.  Was a fun match in T8 CV right up until the game crashed setting a waypoint. 

Edited by NoSoMo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,787
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
5,342 posts
19,563 battles

It seemed pretty straightforward to me with a few bad/weird wording choices.

It keeps a rolling record of your last 20 games in each tier (separated by mode) as top/mid/bottom tier. If you're at the cap for bottom tier games (8 games) for T8 Randoms, you're ineligible for T10 Randoms games until one of the bottom-tier games gets pushed out of the 20-game window.

I don't know why they say "up to 20 games" before it kicks in, or why they call it a calibration period. It may have to do with the fact that T1-T4 ships only have a two-tier matchmaking band and are often leveled out of in fewer than 20 games. It is also probably because they don't want you to get bottom-tier immunity on your second game just because your first one happened to be bottom tier.

Edited by Edgecase

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,054
[LRM]
[LRM]
Members
2,956 posts
7,724 battles
11 minutes ago, KaptainNemo_1 said:

I’m presuming that this is going to be based on a rolling 20 game window with a persistent copy of your history kept on the server. Thus it doesn’t matter if you play 20 games in 1 day or 1 game for each of 20 days. Similarly, switching from tier to tier doesn’t lose you anything- it just starts tracking against the saved states for the new tier. 

I also assume that the 40% cap is applied to the history with no guesses about what you play next. Once your rolling history shows 8 games of bottom tier then you are kept out of another one until you play at a mid or top tier, which updates the history to having 7 of the last 20 as bottom tier. 

With divisions it seems like the best solution would be to compute the percentage for all three players as a whole, effectively giving a 60 game history. That should make div rigged games harder to do for long, and would be ok when you get in and out of division. 

I’m hoping that is what they have in mind. 

 

1 minute ago, NoSoMo said:

Yeah, it's not going to be a per-login basis.  It's going to be "from this point on".  They have to give it a starting point because if they were to choose a date, some people could have had 100 matches during that time or 5.  While I'd love for the system to give me the correction needed for my last 100 T8 games, it'd be a long time before I saw T10s in any 8.  For others much less.  Basically the pool of games needed to "calibrate" every player starts at the same time, regardless of when logged in.   If you knock out the calibration period sooner, cool.  If it takes you 2 weeks to hit 20 games, is what it is.

The problem I have with that is the announcement doesn't tell how the data is handled or stored. WG doesn't normally talk about how their servers actually work unless it was a major issue or what-not. Remember, you have to save data per ship per person per game mode. That can add up really quickly. If WG has to store say, a GB of info per person 14k people means 14TB of info. Server space can get really expensive. I don't think WG wants to bust out money for a server upgrade just to handle a MM system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,787
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
5,342 posts
19,563 battles
2 minutes ago, Maine_ARC_1 said:

Remember, you have to save data per ship per person per game mode.

It says tier, not ship. All your T8s share the same rolling Randoms window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×