One more MM is a joke post

[Average_Joe___]

I have played 7 battles today, all at Tier 5.  Five of the seven have been total blowouts, four of the five have been over in less than 12 minutes.  Of course, I was on the losing team in four of them, which caused me to come here and rant.  But I would not have enjoyed being on the winning side either.  I play randoms for the fun of competing, whenever I just want to play sinky boats I choose co-op.  

MM is broken, ALMOST everybody knows it, and the WG position is they will do nothing to fix it.  I find it sad that so many would like to see more balance and all we get is a middle finger from our host.

[Navalpride33]

1 minute ago, Joe_918145 said:

Of course, I was on the losing team in four of them, which caused me to come here and rant. 

MM is random...

MM is not your personal tool to rig the odds in your favor to win..

[SKurj]

8 minutes ago, Joe_918145 said:

I have played 7 battles today, all at Tier 5.  Five of the seven have been total blowouts, four of the five have been over in less than 12 minutes.  Of course, I was on the losing team in four of them, which caused me to come here and rant.  But I would not have enjoyed being on the winning side either.  I play randoms for the fun of competing, whenever I just want to play sinky boats I choose co-op.  

MM is broken, everybody knows it, and the WG position is they will do nothing to fix it.  I find it sad that so many would like to see more balance and all we get is a middle finger from our host.

ppl including wg have been tweaking and discussing mm for 10 years... it is in as good a state as it can be atm based on the one variable they cannot control... (YOU)  lots of threads have been posted by much smarter people discussing the math (that is all it is) 

there is no easy solution and for now the mm works as advertised...   

[Dr_Powderfinger]

Working as designed.

It's not a skill-based MM, never has been. Making it so would be a massive change to the game.

Random MM will include blowouts, sometimes they come in bunches. Over a larger sample size you probably aren't getting any more of them than anyone else.

[desmo_2]

23 minutes ago, Joe_918145 said:

MM is broken, everybody knows it

Since I haven't spoken with you about this to give you my opinion, please don't assume you know my opinion.

[Average_Joe___]

OK all you guys that WG keeps in its pocket.  How about keeping the guys with 1000 battles or less out of games with more experienced players?  That's not skill based by stats, just by relative experience.  

Everybody except @desmo_2 knows MM is broken.  

 

 

[Vasili_One_Bonk_only]

MM seems fine to me. Unless you think G are targeting you because you think you are special for whatever reasons....

[Jolly_Rodgered]

OP you sound just like a guy on the opposite team yesterday in a T5 match who was complaining about the match making. As I recall the enemy team was farming my team quite handily until the very end when another player and myself, I was in a Oklahoma, turned the tables. Never heard any complaining from the enemy team until they started losing. The complaint was that I had 6k or so random matches while the other team didn't have anyone above 500. I would assume that the player complaining had more matches since he was running MMM or another mod.

Was that you?

Regardless, the match maker just matches players based on ships, not skill or experience. I'd certainly be in favor of matching players by skill and experience but I doubt that will ever happen here. 

Fair seas. 

[SKurj]

23 minutes ago, Joe_918145 said:

OK all you guys that WG keeps in its pocket.  How about keeping the guys with 1000 battles or less out of games with more experienced players?  That's not skill based by stats, just by relative experience.  

Everybody except @desmo_2 knows MM is broken.  

 

 

we are all more than willing to listen to those who can present data and facts to back up their claims, its those with feelz that are hard to take seriously

[madgiecool]

This was me in a tier 8, against tier 10's.

I had to use the "GG it was close"

They won on points, we were close to the forfeit - lol

All over in 8min.  

[Vasili_One_Bonk_only]

3 minutes ago, madgiecool said:

This was me in a tier 8, against tier 10's.

I had to use the "GG it was close"

They won on points, we were close to the forfeit - lol

All over in 8min.  

This is me in the same situation. A T8 in a T1-/9 heavy game.

1 off anecdotal evidence means nothing. 

[SKurj]

Just now, Vasili_One_Bonk_only said:

This is me in the same situation. A T8 in a T1-/9 heavy game.

1 off anecdotal evidence means nothing. 

as opposed to all the data presented to prove its broken?

 

i think this is a lot more than any proof i have seen to support that mm is broken.

[Vasili_One_Bonk_only]

What data, in 5 years nobody has presented ANY with ANY credibility. 

[SKurj]

Just now, Vasili_One_Bonk_only said:

What data, in 5 years nobody has presented ANY with ANY credibility. 

thats what i am saying... sorry i think you and I are on the same side of this one :)

[Vasili_One_Bonk_only]

Ahhh, maybe I don't read so good :P

[madgiecool]

12 minutes ago, Vasili_One_Bonk_only said:

This is me in the same situation. A T8 in a T1-/9 heavy game.

 

1 off anecdotal evidence means nothing. 

You won - What is your point?

 

[Herr_Reitz]

What it seems everyone needs is access to the same data WoWS uses, but anonymously of course. Think about that - what harm would come to WoWS to release it, eh? Just generic player identifiers substituting for valid player account numbers so you could track players but nobody would know who the player was... 

Then some serious data slicing, dicing and summing could take place. 

Until then, we're all spitting in the wind. 

[Vasili_One_Bonk_only]

Just now, madgiecool said:

You won - What is your point?

 

That there ISN'T any point or proof MM is rigged. Because, well, there isn't. One guy claims it's rigged because he's down tiered and it's a loss. Instantly countered by the opposite scenario. 2 players, who have never meet each other. Both playing.... wait for it.... Randomly!

[ThiccLoliThighs]

take a break and play something else?

[SKurj]

11 minutes ago, Herr_Reitz said:

What it seems everyone needs is access to the same data WoWS uses, but anonymously of course. Think about that - what harm would come to WoWS to release it, eh? Just generic player identifiers substituting for valid player account numbers so you could track players but nobody would know who the player was... 

Then some serious data slicing, dicing and summing could take place. 

Until then, we're all spitting in the wind. 

you can do this in tanks...   not available for ships? it must be or mmm would not work...

[Pugilistic]

I don’t want anything that moves MM closer to mirrored matchmaking. I preferred the old MM where teams could have different numbers of ship types; I even remember matches where teams didn’t have the same number of ships. 
 

Other than one carrier per side limit, I don’t care what MM does at all. 

[Average_Joe___]

1 hour ago, Jolly_Rodgered said:

OP you sound just like a guy on the opposite team yesterday in a T5 match who was complaining about the match making. As I recall the enemy team was farming my team quite handily until the very end when another player and myself, I was in a Oklahoma, turned the tables. Never heard any complaining from the enemy team until they started losing. The complaint was that I had 6k or so random matches while the other team didn't have anyone above 500. I would assume that the player complaining had more matches since he was running MMM or another mod.

Was that you?

Regardless, the match maker just matches players based on ships, not skill or experience. I'd certainly be in favor of matching players by skill and experience but I doubt that will ever happen here. 

Fair seas. 

It was not me, @Jolly_Rodgered.  I don't run MMM, and I never complain about matchmaking in game.  It is after the game is over when I take a look at individuals on the Team Score display that I start to foam at the mouth. 

It sounds like the jury has voted and I'm the one that has this all wrong.  So I'll just whine to my friends in the game, most of which agree there is a problem.  

[desmo_2]

2 hours ago, Joe_918145 said:

Everybody except @desmo_2 knows MM is broken.  

See, there you go again.

I didn't say I disagreed with you, I just asked you not assume to know everyone's opinion. 

Which you promptly did...again.

[Herr_Reitz]

1 hour ago, SKurj said:

you can do this in tanks...   not available for ships? it must be or mmm would not work...

The data available to that particular program I believe you mention accesses only the limited data columns available to the public, for only the players who share their data publicly. Not all of us do that... 

WoWS has told us more than once they know a lot more about player data than we can possibly begin to guess. Anonymizing that data so players would not be known but still unique would allow the data pool to grow exponentially. 

So two things would need to change - provide access to all data columns (fields) and assign unique but anonymized player IDs to the data. 

[SKurj]

1 minute ago, Herr_Reitz said:

The data available to that particular program I believe you mention accesses only the limited data columns available to the public, for only the players who share their data publicly. Not all of us do that... 

WoWS has told us more than once they know a lot more about player data than we can possibly begin to guess. Anonymizing that data so players would not be known but still unique would allow the data pool to grow exponentially. 

So two things would need to change - provide access to all data columns (fields) and assign unique but anonymized player IDs to the data. 

correct wot doesn't allow you to hide your data like here unfortunately... now what would you specifically want this for?  mmm can already show the balance (or at least its prediction) based on those players not hidden, and gives you their id's...  and you can look up their performance with that...    i dunno how many players per match are hidden, doesn't appear to be that many from any mmm shots i see it looks like it is rarely more than 1 or 2 per side... 

just wondering what more would you want... in respect to MM balance is all...    WoWs data has alot more sure like what skills you are using and that sort of thing but that is irrelevant.