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

Matchmaking Broken

42 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

154
[BOMBS]
Members
122 posts
11,128 battles

Since 0.10.0, the teams seem horribly out of balance. Battles where one team loses a single ship and the other loses 8 or more are now common. Its pretty much over 50% of the matches. Wargaming needs to re-examine how MM does its work, or - after 5 years - I'm moving on. The game isn't fun when your win or loss feels pre-ordained.

And to be clear, the counter-arguments to my assertion must be applicable to BOTH sides of a match. If MM is truly "fair", there really shouldn't be a consistent, lop-sided pattern. It seem broken to me, plain and simple.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 4
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
250
[RCNW6]
Members
425 posts

Did the matchmaker change with 0.10.0 ? I don't recall reading anything about it. From what I saw over the weekend randoms didn't seem any different with respect to one sided games (at least at T7 & T8), most of the matches I was in were pretty close with a just a few blowouts, of course maybe I was just lucky. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
276
[REKTD]
Members
533 posts
10,704 battles
5 minutes ago, LaurenBacall said:

Since 0.10.0, the teams seem horribly out of balance. Battles where one team loses a single ship and the other loses 8 or more are now common. Its pretty much over 50% of the matches. Wargaming needs to re-examine how MM does its work, or - after 5 years - I'm moving on. The game isn't fun when your win or loss feels pre-ordained.

And to be clear, the counter-arguments to my assertion must be applicable to BOTH sides of a match. If MM is truly "fair", there really shouldn't be a consistent, lop-sided pattern. It seem broken to me, plain and simple.

This has been a consistent topic in these forums. If anything: 0.10.0.0 confused people enough early on that the matches were closer. My thought is this happened because no one knew what they were doing, and the really good players were “experimenting”. 
 

I imagined a return to the normal steamrolls was just a matter of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,973
[WORX]
Members
12,504 posts
19,722 battles
10 minutes ago, LaurenBacall said:

Since 0.10.0, the teams seem horribly out of balance. Battles where one team loses a single ship and the other loses 8 or more are now common. Its pretty much over 50% of the matches. Wargaming needs to re-examine how MM does its work, or - after 5 years - I'm moving on. The game isn't fun when your win or loss feels pre-ordained.

And to be clear, the counter-arguments to my assertion must be applicable to BOTH sides of a match. If MM is truly "fair", there really shouldn't be a consistent, lop-sided pattern. It seem broken to me, plain and simple.

Nothing is preordained or predetermined... MM has nothing to do with your argument...

As per MM, its within parameters based on the highlighted information ^^^ in Bold.

 

Edited by Navalpride33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
154
[BOMBS]
Members
122 posts
11,128 battles
1 minute ago, SuperComm4 said:

I imagined a return to the normal steamrolls was just a matter of time.

And that's my frustration. I can't speak for how the red stats lose when we streamroll them, but on my end, I can routinely put out poor numbers (say, 20k) and still be in the top 4. That tells me the other players are REALLY bad. And its consistent. Assuming the players don't all suck that bad (I can hit 100k when properly supported), I'm forced to conclude that MM is building "bad" teams. Consistently. At least, that's how it feels.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
154
[BOMBS]
Members
122 posts
11,128 battles
1 minute ago, Navalpride33 said:

As per MM, its within parameters based on the highlighted information in Bold.

Regardless of the arguments for/against the "fairness" of MM, my point is I no longer feel there's a lot of agency for me to actually influence the outcome when the rest of my team is obviously outmatched (or vice-versa). I'm not witnessing that many close or even battles. 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10
[WHARF]
Members
34 posts
17,540 battles

I noticed this well before the 10.0 patch. It has been getting steadily worse over the last year. As for the "good players experimenting", that is true...BUT...I see that the new skill rework has completely wrecked the meta and made it so that only a few ships...i.e Yammies and Thunderers, can sit at the back of the map and spam shots all day without begin seen. The lineup I see most all Thunderers with a Yammy or two...and when I see it, which side has that lineup has an automatic win. It's plain and simple...this game is getting worse and worse every patch/ rework/indtroduction of anything. Im starting to really hate this broken game.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SuperTest Coordinator, Beta Testers
6,737 posts
12,346 battles

Nothing changed with matchmaker. The passive play currently rampaging the meta creates massive voids when a single ship is sunk because no one fills in that spot to prevent pushing. Territory is literally gained or lost when a BB is destroyed because no one is willing to apply counter pressure once that one ship folds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,973
[WORX]
Members
12,504 posts
19,722 battles
Just now, LaurenBacall said:

Regardless of the arguments for/against the "fairness" of MM, my point is I no longer feel there's a lot of agency for me to actually influence the outcome when the rest of my team is obviously outmatched (or vice-versa). I'm not witnessing that many close or even battles. 

That is not a MM issue... That is an OP/over capable ship population issue...

Your argument is not a MM issue.. MM is the scapegoat...

If anything, (if you're looking to what to blame), its the population in queue that MM have to choose... Now that you can wave your fists at all you want.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,219
[WOLFG]
Members
11,593 posts
10,718 battles
4 minutes ago, Compassghost said:

Nothing changed with matchmaker. The passive play currently rampaging the meta creates massive voids when a single ship is sunk because no one fills in that spot to prevent pushing. Territory is literally gained or lost when a BB is destroyed because no one is willing to apply counter pressure once that one ship folds.

Or they give up map control because they have no idea how Deadeye actually works (missed, better back up some more) where one teams destroyer both denies it to the other team and enables it to work (by spotting) for his team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
558 posts

I've noticed this as well lately. I have a different take on it: the commander skill rebork broke more than just ship balance. The MM is somehow more broken because of the changes. That's my guess anyways. 

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
154
[BOMBS]
Members
122 posts
11,128 battles
3 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

If anything, (if you're looking to what to blame), its the population in queue that MM have to choose...

OK, but I find it hard to believe that MM can't be tweaked to account for player performance issues that you describe. After all, WG has pretty much have all the data regarding over-pushes (die early, consistently) and snipers (live to the end and probably lose more often than not.) Shouldn't that be incorporated into the MM algorithm to even each team's odds?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
276
[REKTD]
Members
533 posts
10,704 battles
4 minutes ago, LaurenBacall said:

And that's my frustration. I can't speak for how the red stats lose when we streamroll them, but on my end, I can routinely put out poor numbers (say, 20k) and still be in the top 4. That tells me the other players are REALLY bad. And its consistent. Assuming the players don't all suck that bad (I can hit 100k when properly supported), I'm forced to conclude that MM is building "bad" teams. Consistently. At least, that's how it feels.

For kicks, many months ago, I looked up stats on several matches. The losing side always has 5-6 sub 47% win rate guys, while the winning side has usually only 1-2. 
The mix is similar when considering Ship WR, Ship PR, and even main gun accuracy. Sadly, there are players that would appear to “not zoom in” when shooting longer range shots. In a classic “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory” match recently 2 full HP BBs (Colorado & Gneisenau) had a crossfire on a 1/3 HP Scharnhorst. Scharnhorst sunk both. Despite bad tactics early, the two potatoes found themselves in perfect position to finish off the red BB and thus win the match. But both were sub 20% main gun accuracy BB mains. For many excruciating minutes they collectively got a total of 3 hits through countless single turret shot sequential firing. They were both sunk.

This is a problem, but being realistic I do not know how a fix would manifest: if one went on WR it would help, but the more even the spread on “balanced teams” will then start to decrease the spread on WR. PR seems skewed by being on the winning team. Gun accuracy is certainly skewed by class of ship, and does not encompass bad/good DD play, which also determines a lot of matches.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,759
[SALVO]
Members
4,620 posts
21,182 battles

So how does match maker match a bunch of horrible players?  That's the only ones that play randoms anymore good luck....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,647
[A-D-F]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,619 posts
7 minutes ago, LaurenBacall said:

OK, but I find it hard to believe that MM can't be tweaked to account for player performance

WG has said a bunch of times, that they have no plans to include player skill or stats in MM. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
376
[NAVAL]
[NAVAL]
Members
237 posts
13,666 battles

it isn't matchmaking, it's the horrible commander skill rework. managed to ruin the game with 1 patch. it's not fun at all and no one likes it. 

 

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
276
[REKTD]
Members
533 posts
10,704 battles
1 minute ago, syp_twiz said:

it isn't matchmaking, it's the horrible commander skill rework. managed to ruin the game with 1 patch. it's not fun at all and no one likes it. 

 

For me, the Captain Skills rework did not ruin the game, but it changed it significantly. It is the many long time players, who continue to play, but are in full vitriol mode because they are uncomfortable with the rework that has caused me to take a break from the game. Toxicity went up ten-fold. Everything “bad” about Randoms, including MM imbalances, jumps out and feeds toxicity. 
 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,033
Members
5,607 posts
10,859 battles
19 minutes ago, LaurenBacall said:

OK, but I find it hard to believe that MM can't be tweaked to account for player performance issues that you describe. After all, WG has pretty much have all the data regarding over-pushes (die early, consistently) and snipers (live to the end and probably lose more often than not.) Shouldn't that be incorporated into the MM algorithm to even each team's odds?

You somehow have to figure out how to define "skill"/"performance" and that is a huge issue as there aren't any really good answers to the questions - a crap ton is ship/upgrades/captain points skills and how good the player is AT THE TIME OF PLAY.  And MM can't determine how one person is going to play on any given day much less how 12 will play together and eventually how 24 will play together in a game.   Divisions, clan mates, voice comms all have their part as well and a zillion other factors.

In the games I have played since the rework - no significant changes in the games and their length though I have had a couple people yolo in the Georgia because they want to brawl.  I have had more game that have come down to the last few ships but not to a large degree.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
276
[REKTD]
Members
533 posts
10,704 battles

Maybe a game mode with respawns would help in this? The rinse and repeat playstyle of terrible (DD) players would tend to be drawn to such a mode, thus removing them from Randoms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
250
[RCNW6]
Members
425 posts
2 minutes ago, CylonRed said:

You somehow have to figure out how to define "skill"/"performance" and that is a huge issue as there aren't any really good answers to the questions 

 

It appears that WG may be attempting to match based on "skill / performance" ?  with Brawls in 0.10.1, unfortunately I can't find anything that says exactly how they are calculating "level of play".

Brawls update

Brawls are updated for 0.10.1. Now you can participate in them either alone or in a division. Brawls have a short duration and support small battle formats, like 1 vs 1 or 3 vs 3. 

Other features:

  • Brawl lasts for only a few days. During the day it's available almost all the time except for periods of low activity.
  • If you have no division, the teammates are selected randomly. When selecting allies, the tier and class of your ship are taken into account.
  • Teams can be asymmetrical in ship classes.
  • The matchmaker tries to pick enemies close to your level of play.
  • Battles are conducted on maps with reduced combat areas on ships of only one tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
67
[META_]
Members
204 posts
3,038 battles
35 minutes ago, LaurenBacall said:

And that's my frustration. I can't speak for how the red stats lose when we streamroll them, but on my end, I can routinely put out poor numbers (say, 20k) and still be in the top 4. That tells me the other players are REALLY bad. And its consistent. Assuming the players don't all suck that bad (I can hit 100k when properly supported), I'm forced to conclude that MM is building "bad" teams. Consistently. At least, that's how it feels.

There's more to your position on the scoreboard than raw damage numbers.  I had a 2200 bxp, top-of-the-scoreboard, game in Mahan yesterday where I did less than 40k damage and had only one kill.   What mattered was who I dealt that damage to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,973
[WORX]
Members
12,504 posts
19,722 battles
39 minutes ago, LaurenBacall said:

OK, but I find it hard to believe that MM can't be tweaked to account for player performance issues that you describe. After all, WG has pretty much have all the data regarding over-pushes (die early, consistently) and snipers (live to the end and probably lose more often than not.) Shouldn't that be incorporated into the MM algorithm to even each team's odds?

But then, its no longer the definition of "Random Battles"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,938
[A-I-M]
Members
3,764 posts
14,705 battles
1 hour ago, LaurenBacall said:

Since 0.10.0, the teams seem horribly out of balance. Battles where one team loses a single ship and the other loses 8 or more are now common. Its pretty much over 50% of the matches. Wargaming needs to re-examine how MM does its work, or - after 5 years - I'm moving on. The game isn't fun when your win or loss feels pre-ordained.

And to be clear, the counter-arguments to my assertion must be applicable to BOTH sides of a match. If MM is truly "fair", there really shouldn't be a consistent, lop-sided pattern. It seem broken to me, plain and simple.

I had my first PVP draw ever, yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×