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

WG, fix the match making or im out.

84 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

283
[SOTHS]
Members
65 posts
7,513 battles

This is just mess up crap. Again forever MM is broken. I'm sick of being in team even 15% higher skill or lower skill. That is not FUN! I just play game for 4 minutes. wth? Why cant you fix that? Like you making this purposefully for high rank players to get easy wins matching them with weak ones. 

  • Cool 6
  • Funny 3
  • Boring 15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,261
[PVE]
Members
4,253 posts
18,541 battles
17 minutes ago, amoncz said:

This is just mess up crap. Again forever MM is broken. I'm sick of being in team even 15% higher skill or lower skill. That is not FUN! I just play game for 4 minutes. wth? Why cant you fix that? Like you making this purposefully for high rank players to get easy wins matching them with weak ones. 

The problem can't be fixed.....  Skill isn't a defined metric for this game.  There are no skill gates to or for advancement.  Why are you expecting a MM when "skill" isn't used for anything??  Our host drove off so many "average players" that the game no longer has a random distribution of "skill".........now, that is an educated guess because we don't have actual server data but..........games that have stomps as we are seeing them, tend to be new players playing veterans......  And, you get a large win or a large loss !   A ELO style MM would need some hard "skill numbers" that don't exist.   Sorry, the MM is working as intended for a FFA cooperative shooter Arcade game.....  Sorry.

Edited by Asym_KS
  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,818
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
12,592 posts
26 minutes ago, amoncz said:

This is just mess up crap. Again forever MM is broken. I'm sick of being in team even 15% higher skill or lower skill. That is not FUN! I just play game for 4 minutes. wth? Why cant you fix that? Like you making this purposefully for high rank players to get easy wins matching them with weak ones. 

I ran a statistical test and found no significant difference in the long run for the average winrates between Random teams. However, don't take my word for it. Download the Matchmaking Monitor (you can get a beta version from the author's Discord). Play 50 games and collect the average winrates for your and the opposing team. Now, do a T-test on the data to see if there is any statistical significance between average winrates. Like I said, I did this and there was none. The sum of the winrate averages came in close to 50% too.

If you want a skill-based game you will have to play clan battles and only allow the best from your clan to participate. You may still come up against better teams but that's what competitive team sports are all about -- the best teams are expected to win most of the time.

Edited by Snargfargle
  • Cool 3
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Banned
627 posts
27 minutes ago, amoncz said:

This is just mess up crap. Again forever MM is broken. I'm sick of being in team even 15% higher skill or lower skill. That is not FUN! I just play game for 4 minutes. wth? Why cant you fix that? Like you making this purposefully for high rank players to get easy wins matching them with weak ones. 

bye-have-a-beautiful-time-gif-3.gif

The MM is fine, you just refuse to adapt and overcome, that is your problem, not Wargaming's. 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 4
  • Boring 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,675
[A-D-F]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,470 posts

 

 

 

 

 

Etc etc.

 

 

 

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 19
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,791
[PVE]
Members
1,696 posts
14,401 battles

The Matchmaker IS fixed...to keep players frustrated.

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,767 posts
36,481 battles

MM matches ships not players. You have better success with a highly skilled division. Be part of that division and if you are as good as your team, then you should do fine.

 

However, I hear winning is more of who has more divisions on one side.

So, play solo or have one division versus two divisions, then expect a tough battle. Just don't mentally concede to your opponent because of it. Get in there and fight anyway.

Just because they appear good players on some monitor, does not mean they are actually good. Numbers can be manipulated. It's all smoke and mirrors or fake implants. LOL.

Just practice hard, play hard, and sometimes you die hard. But you sometimes win big over a perceived mismatch and just imagine the sulking by those"superior" players? 

Losing to someone that has no business losing is worse than having to face an opponent that has every expectation that you do lose.

Be the unexpected.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,769
[WORX]
Members
10,589 posts
18,482 battles
47 minutes ago, amoncz said:

This is just mess up crap. Again forever MM is broken. I'm sick of being in team even 15% higher skill or lower skill. That is not FUN! I just play game for 4 minutes. wth? Why cant you fix that? Like you making this purposefully for high rank players to get easy wins matching them with weak ones. 

Its not a MM issue, its a player issue... You been complaining about a player issue since 2019... I think its time for a new complaint...

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,622
[SALVO]
Members
4,321 posts
3,749 battles
17 minutes ago, Burnsy said:

 

Etc etc.

 

LOLOLOLOL ... best laugh of the night, TY

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,535
[RKLES]
[RKLES]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,976 posts
20,643 battles
58 minutes ago, amoncz said:

This is just mess up crap. Again forever MM is broken. I'm sick of being in team even 15% higher skill or lower skill. That is not FUN! I just play game for 4 minutes. wth? Why cant you fix that? Like you making this purposefully for high rank players to get easy wins matching them with weak ones. 

I find those that hide their stats, show how bad they are the minute the hit battle button.

Improve you map awareness and positioning. You will find you'll live longer, do more damage, and influence the battle.

  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,308
[SIM]
Members
4,914 posts
7,991 battles
4 hours ago, Burnsy said:

Etc etc.

 

269433B6-E3C3-441D-974E-82B727754CE1.jpeg

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
534
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
2,138 posts

i'm guessing wg will be bringing everyone into the office on this long weekend to discuss what to do about the game with all these people leaving...

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,848
[WPORT]
Members
5,370 posts
10,403 battles
7 minutes ago, SKurj said:

i'm guessing wg will be bringing everyone into the office on this long weekend to discuss what to do about the game with all these people leaving...

481120924-16118-sarcasm-meter.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,261
[PVE]
Members
4,253 posts
18,541 battles
9 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

I ran a statistical test and found no significant difference in the long run for the average winrates between Random teams. However, don't take my word for it. Download the Matchmaking Monitor (you can get a beta version from the author's Discord). Play 50 games and collect the average winrates for your and the opposing team. Now, do a T-test on the data to see if there is any statistical significance between average winrates. Like I said, I did this and there was none. The sum of the winrate averages came in close to 50% too.

If you want a skill-based game you will have to play clan battles and only allow the best from your clan to participate. You may still come up against better teams but that's what competitive team sports are all about -- the best teams are expected to win most of the time.

Although your sample size is biased, it's a start to understand "why" many experience constant losses......   You aren't the "average player" maybe.  So, the battle outcomes are built around games "you play".....   Now, if I were to do the same thing, my results would be "different" and then assumed to be some sort of "standard"...........which, it isn't.    The only way to actually determine what is statistically going on is to have the source data from the NA server and run several weeks of data through an analysis.    In another game that folded, a masters candidate team did just that:  obtained all of the stored data and ran the actual numbers:............what I said above was actually the reality for mature game, non ELO/skill based, 1D arcade MM stomps......  If you just use vehicles to match up teams, you incur whatever population issues are present and that infers that that WYSIWGY at that time of day.....   There is no statistical validity to any sample that comes from a partial scan of data from only prime time E/C/M/PST in the NA Server.......  You'd need months of data to take into consideration event effect.  Sales effect.  Pandemic effect to conclude anything.

And, a 50% win rate means what?  You lose no matter what you do half the time???  Is that a winning and gold standard accomplishment for a game some contend is "skill based?"   No.  It's why chess got ELO.........and, in the very near future, Combat Effectiveness (CE) systems that will make most players cry angry tears of disbelief;..................or, in reality, adapt the game to their "actual skill level" and tailor the game to make it fun for them..........and that isn't a 50-50 win rate.

BTW, Learning Effectiveness (LE) systems are being created for educational games that actually "teach" are fascinating as well................teachers unions are scared!!!  Home schooling based on playing a game several hours a day isn't a bad idea for those whom don't live near cities....  Food for thought and a good try to make sense of this game....!

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,791
[PVE]
Members
1,696 posts
14,401 battles

Oh no another MM thread. Allow me to cover the basics: 

1. First page of comments are the usual suspects agreeing with each other that MM is random and attacking anyone that suspects otherwise. If enough opposition arises then reinforcements in the form of a certain CC will be brought in. 

2. Terms such as steamroller/snowball effect will be repeated in order to derail any serious discussion from taking place. You can make any counter point imaginable and the reply will be the snowball effect causes one sided matches. Bring up the WG MM patent or proof of MM monitor skill discrepancy, the reply will be the same statement repeated over and over. 

3. Not enough data sets. This one has already been played on this thread, it's another form of derail tactic. "You can't prove it because not enough data..." the game is literally a spreadsheet but there's not enough data. I don't care who y'ar, that's funny rite there!

4. Where is their evidence to the contrary, proving that everything is as they say? One must wonder... 

5. Any doubters of MM will be deemed "tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists." This is one of the rules in Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals: demonize and minimize a target in order to make them irrelevant. Here's a link to the list: http://www.openculture.com/2017/02/13-rules-for-radicals.html

6. I would also like to bring attention to the paradox that these "players" twist themselves into: These certain forum users are 100 percent sure that MM is random and at the same time also claim that we logically thinking forumites don't know enough to prove it isn't. :Smile_veryhappy: 

 

My personal favorite talking point,  "it's called random because it's random!" Will be used eventually. I guarantee it.

Leave your objective thinking caps at the door and enjoy the show folks!  :cap_like:

  • Confused 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,791
[PVE]
Members
1,696 posts
14,401 battles
1 hour ago, RipNuN2 said:

Confirmation bias is one hell of a drug.

From the WG MM patent:

when the player has been repeatedly put into too many easy battles, the balancing is done in favor of harder battle sessions, thereby keeping the player challenged instead of letting the player become bored with easy games. A first possible algorithm is to divide the permissible battle levels evenly across a range from Zero (0) to two (2), and place the vehicle into the battle level corresponding to the win/loss ratio, where any ratio greater than two (2) automatically results in the vehicle being placed in the highest possible battle level. Another possible algorithm is to increase the battle level by one (within the permissible range) for a vehicle each time a player wins a battle with that vehicle, and decrease the battle level by one (within the permissible range) each time a player loses a battle with that vehicle. If the battle level is already at the upper end of the range and the player wins the battle, the battle level may remain constant. Simi larly, if the battle level is already at the lower end of the range and the player loses the battle, the battle level may remain constant. 

 

White knighting is a hell of a drug. 

 

Note: According to the patent, battle level DOES NOT mean tier.

Edited by Rabbitt81
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,506
[HINON]
Members
13,234 posts
1 minute ago, Rabbitt81 said:

 

Having a patent doesn't mean it's used. One company I worked for would sometimes buy out entire other companies and acquire patents and ideas even if they didnt have a use for them sometimes to just deny any potential competitors from using them. Tons of patents are created yearly that will never see the light of day. Tighten that tinfoil up a little higher.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,357
[BFBTW]
Members
4,181 posts
9,556 battles
5 minutes ago, Rabbitt81 said:

From the WG MM patent:

when the player has been repeatedly put into too many easy battles, the balancing is done in favor of harder battle sessions, thereby keeping the player challenged instead of letting the player become bored with easy games. A first possible algorithm is to divide the permissible battle levels evenly across a range from Zero (0) to two (2), and place the vehicle into the battle level corresponding to the win/loss ratio, where any ratio greater than two (2) automatically results in the vehicle being placed in the highest possible battle level. Another possible algorithm is to increase the battle level by one (within the permissible range) for a vehicle each time a player wins a battle with that vehicle, and decrease the battle level by one (within the permissible range) each time a player loses a battle with that vehicle. If the battle level is already at the upper end of the range and the player wins the battle, the battle level may remain constant. Simi larly, if the battle level is already at the lower end of the range and the player loses the battle, the battle level may remain constant. 

 

White knighting is a hell of a drug. 

You realize this is entirely about battle level/tier and not player skill levels... right?

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
534
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
2,138 posts
7 minutes ago, Rabbitt81 said:

From the WG MM patent:

when the player has been repeatedly put into too many easy battles, the balancing is done in favor of harder battle sessions, thereby keeping the player challenged instead of letting the player become bored with easy games. A first possible algorithm is to divide the permissible battle levels evenly across a range from Zero (0) to two (2), and place the vehicle into the battle level corresponding to the win/loss ratio, where any ratio greater than two (2) automatically results in the vehicle being placed in the highest possible battle level. Another possible algorithm is to increase the battle level by one (within the permissible range) for a vehicle each time a player wins a battle with that vehicle, and decrease the battle level by one (within the permissible range) each time a player loses a battle with that vehicle. If the battle level is already at the upper end of the range and the player wins the battle, the battle level may remain constant. Simi larly, if the battle level is already at the lower end of the range and the player loses the battle, the battle level may remain constant. 

 

White knighting is a hell of a drug. 

exactly, it could put you as low tier when you are winning alot, and high tier when losing a lot.  That is all, and it is currently not in play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,791
[PVE]
Members
1,696 posts
14,401 battles
32 minutes ago, SKurj said:

exactly, it could put you as low tier when you are winning alot, and high tier when losing a lot.  That is all, and it is currently not in play.

Battle level is mentioned, not tier.

There are 12 battle levels and only ten tiers. 

Try again. 

I'll take excuses for crap MM for 2000, Alex. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,791
[PVE]
Members
1,696 posts
14,401 battles
36 minutes ago, enderland07 said:

You realize this is entirely about battle level/tier and not player skill levels... right?

 

Battle level is not tier. 

There are 12 battle levels. 

Try again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,357
[BFBTW]
Members
4,181 posts
9,556 battles
1 minute ago, Rabbitt81 said:

Battle level is not tier. 

There are 12 battle levels. 

Try again. 

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Battle_Mechanics_(WoWS)

Quote

The battle tier (battle level) is the highest tier of the ships in the battle. Each ship has a maximal permitted battle tier of the battles she can be sent to, so this is the highest tier of the ships she may encounter in battle (unless she is in a division with a higher tier ship).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,791
[PVE]
Members
1,696 posts
14,401 battles
9 hours ago, RipNuN2 said:

Having a patent doesn't mean it's used. One company I worked for would sometimes buy out entire other companies and acquire patents and ideas even if they didnt have a use for them sometimes to just deny any potential competitors from using them. Tons of patents are created yearly that will never see the light of day. Tighten that tinfoil up a little higher.

Ah yes, the ole' they made it to not use it excuse. 

I like this one. Bonus points for the tinfoil hat personal attack. 

So, this complicated patent that cost easily close to a million dollars to create was made just in case they needed it. Need it for what?

I mean, I could see if it was a unique idea that WG didn't want other companies to steal, I could see that. But who on earth would want a MM designed with the intent of frustrating players?

That sounds like something a shady Russian shell company headquartered in some tax evading country like Cyprus would use... oh wait. 

Edited by Rabbitt81
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×