Liberty75

Verified Tanker [NA]
  • Content count

    122
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Liberty75

  1. The Case Against The 3/5/7 Match Maker (updated with a 400 game sample size in each MM) A few months ago I studied the changes to the match maker (MM) implemented in patch 9.18 and noted that it pushed players into more matches as a low tier vehicle, as would logically happen with a template that is built like a pyramid with more tanks at the bottom than the top. Initially I was neutral about this change and was only curious about how it would affect the game in general and more specifically me as a player. After a few months of playing and studying the effects of this new system I find it to be an overall negative to the game in general and a frustrating bore to me as a player. I wanted to make my viewpoint about this issue clear from the start so that the player reading this who is invested in defending Wargaming's new system can take a moment to pause and consciously listen to my arguments with an open mind instead of becoming defensive as you read. This is difficult for most of us to accomplish, including myself, as our egos are involved, but I am hopeful that some readers will overcome this hurdle. My arguments for removing the 3/5/7 template system are straightforward and backed up with numbers. My main points are that the system failed to achieve its stated goal and that the tradeoffs we surrendered to get this system were not worth giving up for what we received in exchange for them. We lost some obvious and some not so obvious aspects of the game when WG implemented this policy. As a side note, I will use "3/5/7 template" to describe the new system even though it also has other variations (such as 5/10 and all the same tier matches) since that is the name WG has given it and since most matches are in the 3/5/7 format during game play. As I said above, I was open minded about the new template when it arrived in 9.18. It was bundled with a lot of large changes if you remember. In the same patch we also received tier 10 light tanks, reusable consumables and vast artillery changes (stun effect, limited to 3 per side, and removal of artillery from platoons). WG didn't exactly sneak the 3/5/7 template into the game since it was a featured change in their communications to the player base, but since it was part of a larger bundle of changes, I think the player base noticed it less than the other changes and they simply believed the company line that the new template would bring more balance to matches by ensuring an abundance of bottom tier tanks. How would a higher amount of bottom tier tanks in a match create more balanced games? To quote WG in their 9.18 Update video, they said "this will guarantee that you find your target," and this is the only reasoning they gave to us in North America (as far as I know) on how flooding the bottom tiers of a match would balance teams and make more competitive games when this change came out. People have since claimed that they made the change to help weaker players by giving them more targets to shoot at. While this may or may not be true, the original stated purpose of this system to create more competitive matches has not materialized to any significant degree. By their own standards, this template was a failure and that alone should be enough to reverse their decision, but don't hold your breath. In an article titled "Matchmaking in 9.19.1 and the Road Ahead" published on WG's North America website on June 28, 2017, they have doubled down on the 3/5/7 template and have stated that it is successful. How did they come to this conclusion? They arrived at it by reading forum comments about how much happier players are with the new MM. After reading this statement, I had two issues with it. First, only a small minority of players actually post on the forums and the players that consistently post on the forums generally tow the company line on most issues for whatever reason. And second, the weaker players that post seem to be happier because they supposedly have more targets to shoot at in matches. It is the side effect of the 3/5/7 template that players are happy with and not the main objective that was stated by WG. In that same article mentioned above, WG is now pushing the 3/5/7 template more on allowing players to contribute rather than on balancing games as they did back in April. They have shifted their emphasis. They write, "remember the less-than-desirable scenario of playing Tier VIII and getting matched against Tier X? Now think how it feels in the game as it stands today. Having a few top-tiers on the other camp no longer makes you question the point of battling." (Apparently they have missed or ignored the angry complaints on the forums about the new system and being bottom tier all the time in tier 8 matches). So WG has changed their stance from balancing teams to allowing players to contribute more as a bottom tier tank. This shift in emphasis is rather peculiar, but in their defense, they are trying to sell us an idea in this case and a product in general and they will do it however they can. Now if we look at the unintended (or intended?) side effect of this 3/5/7 template change, that of helping weaker players as a bottom tier tank by giving them more targets than they had before 9.18, it could still be a good change and not a total failure. The perception that many have now is that players always have targets to shoot at and players feel that they can always make a difference in this new system. That is what WG told us and that is what they believe. But is it true that these weaker players are now better off or does it even matter if they are better off if the overall gaming experience is being ruined for the greater population? Let's take a closer look at what happened when they implemented the 3/5/7 template. The biggest and most obvious change was the frequencies of being selected top tier, middle tier, or bottom tier in a match. To get information for this I used WoT Replay Analyzer to inspect 400 games from tier 5 to 8 before and after the 9.18 update. I excluded light tanks and tanks what get special tiering. Otherwise, I selected the matches in four separate 100 game periods from before 9.18 to collect that part of the data set. I took an old sample of 100 games that I had under the 9.18 update and added another 300 games from under the 9.19 update to also give some diversity to that sample. Due to the new system having 6 likely breakdowns instead of the old 3, I combined those 6 into 3 to match the old system.* For top tier, I combined 3/5/7 and 5/10 matches as a top tier. For middle tier, I combined middle tier (3/5/7) and all the same tier matches since they were closest to each other in dynamics. For bottom tier, I combined bottom tier games in the 3/5/7 and 5/10 formats. Here is the breakdown of what I found: top, middle, and low tier in the old system were 36.0%, 35.5%, and 28.5% respectively and in the 3/5/7 template system they were 7.0%, 36.0%, and 57.0% respectively. Before I gathered the data I guessed that the old system would break down into about a 1/3 for each tier. This perception was wrong on my part. The middle tier games were slightly greater at about 36% and my memory of being top and bottom tier were also off by a little. I was shocked that bottom tier only occurred 28.5% of the time. I thought it would have been a little more than that. This shows how faulty our memories can sometimes be. As regards the 3/5/7 template, I already had a good idea of what those numbers would be since I had studied them already and posted them here a few months ago. My greatest curiosity was in gathering the second set of 3/5/7 numbers (another 300 games) and whether or not they would still mirror the old numbers. They generally did, except that there were more overall bottom tier matches, but mainly in the 5/10 set. Those numbers essentially speak for themselves in what we had to give up to get this 3/5/7 system. The general player lost almost 30 points of top tier matches and gained about 30 points in bottom tier matches. If the general player base was better off with these changes, then maybe it would be a good tradeoff to have this 3/5/7 template, which leads us to the question: is the general player base better off being a bottom tier tank 57% of the time now as compensation for more bottom tier targets in those matches, and are the weaker players, the real supposed beneficiaries of this policy, even better off now (keeping in mind that being bottom tier was their struggle in the first place)? The general understanding of this issue by weak players can be summed up in a recent quote I have from a response I received on the official game forums. It was written by Pipinghot and he said, "players have been complaining for years that they don't like being bottom tier when there are only 2 or 3 tanks on each team that are bottom tier. Lots of people have been saying for a long time that bottom tier would be more fun if there were more tanks on both teams that are bottom tier, and this would allow all of the bottom tier players to be more relevant to their battles, and be able to contribute more to their teams." I think he did a good job of summarizing the concerns of weak players. While he is correct in understanding why a player would struggle as a group of 2 or 3 bottom tier tanks, he is misguided in thinking that the old system had a great frequency of matches like that and also that the current system is better for weak players. It is at this point that you may say, "now hold on Liberty! Bottom tier players are guaranteed at least 7 tanks and that is much better than being in a pathetic group of 2 or 3. Of course the new system is better for these players!" If those are your thoughts, Pipinghot would support you as he added to his post saying, " Many (many, many) people hated the old system that limited your ability to help your team when you were bottom tier, that problem has been significantly improved now that there are more middle and bottom tier tanks." Let's see if this perception that weak players or players in general are better off now or has WG pulled the wool over our eyes. When I analyzed those 400 pre-9.18 games for information, I also recorded the team breakdowns and my positional tier. This took some time, but I think it was worth it. I wasn't sure what I was going to find either. Perhaps players were getting crushed as bottom tiers before this 3/5/7 template and I was all wrong about this. What did I find in those 400 games taken from tier 5-8 tanks I was in? Well, first I should define what I was looking for. I sought out battles that had 5 or more top tier tanks and 3 or less bottom tier tanks, as defined by Pipinghot. I chose 5 or more top tier tanks since 3 is apparently the current magic number and I figured that 1 more wouldn't be much of a change from 3. With those parameters, out of 400 matches, I found 102 instances of these horrible match ups. 102 out of 400 is an alarming number too, but before we faint, we need to remember our rough frequency breakdown of 35% top, 35% middle, and 30% bottom. Out of that 102 we would probably see only 30% of those matches as a bottom tier. After taking that 30% into account, we get 13 matches. So out of 400 matches, players would get horrible matches about 31 times, which equates to 8% of our matches. Although, after getting these numbers, I realized that the more high tier tanks in a match, the less likely it would be to get stuck as a bottom tier tank. That 30% of bottom tier matches is the wrong percent to use to find out the frequency of horrible match-ups. So now I instead individually counted the actual matches that I was bottom tier in that set of 102. To my own shock, I came up with 6 matches that I was bottom tier out of that 102. So out of 400 games, I was put in a horrible match 6 times (that is 1.5%). Even if I were lucky, the likelihood of someone getting a horrible match would probably still be very low, probably no more than 5% with the worst luck. If you think the criteria I used is too extreme and I should have broaden the numbers, I did. I looked at matches that had 5 or more top tier tanks and now 5 or less bottom tier tanks. This criteria gave me 185 matches out of the 400 and I was bottom tier a total of 29 times in these matches, only slightly over 7% of the time. In general, if I look at the frequency of matches that had 3 or less top tier tanks, it came to 18.5 %. Matches with 4 or 5 top tier tanks was 37.0%. Added together, 55.5% of the old matches had 5 or less top tier tanks, a decent majority. Matches with 6 or 7 top tier tanks had a frequency of 30.75% and matches with 8 or 9 top tier tanks was 10.25%. Matches with 10 or more top tier tanks was at 3.5% (and of that 3.5%, 4 matches, more than a 1/4 of them didn't contain any bottom tier tanks). Now I ask again, are we helping players by making them bottom tier tanks significantly more of the time because they had bad experiences about 2% of the time in the past (or even 7% of the time!)? We must remember when addressing this question that most of the bottom tier matches in the old MM had a good mix of tanks already without a 3/5/7 template. It was only a tiny amount of matches, as defined by Pipinghot, that players struggled with. And if weak players struggled with 4 or 5 top tier tanks in the old system then what difference would the new system make for them? They will actually be struggling more because they see bottom tier matches 57% of the time now instead of about 30%. These weak players and the player base in general would be better off having 35% top tier matches instead of 7% as they can control their fate more in those matches. In top tier matches players have more armor, hit points, firepower, etc. over their opponents. When we strip them of these top tier matches, they are not better off, but worse off. While being bottom tier 57% of the time is bad enough, we also sacrificed some other more subtle characteristics of the game when we moved to this new MM. These tradeoffs may concern players that otherwise don't care about this issue on a top or bottom tier perspective. These other issues are more about aesthetics, but still affect our interaction with the game greatly. One new trend is that the current system becomes tedious after a while. We are constantly thrown into the same match-ups game after game. We get either 3/5/7, 5/10, or all the same tier. I have seen other variations than these only 3 times in over 1000 games, so these 3 are basically all that is expected. In a game that is repetitive already, we don't need mechanics that make it worse. This system encourages a boring environment. The old MM, with its flaws, was able to create over 130 different team lineups in a 3 tier pool of tanks (tier 8, 7, and 6 for example). When I did my research on pre-9.18 games, I identified 114 unique team lineups out of that 200 games. There was a certain beauty in seeing that mosaic of different teams listed across my Excel spreadsheet. There were matches that were 1/8/6, 2/10/2, 5/3/7, 8/1/6, 12/3/0, and everything in-between. After 9.18, in those 400 games, I saw 3 different team lineups over and over. Maybe it is just me, but I find this to be on the lame side. They took a dynamic way of making teams and made it strictly uniform now with no chances of an exciting or odd lineup of tanks. Flat out, this is boring. On top of being dull, the new 3/5/7 template takes an element of chance out of the game too. I find that as much as I dislike random number generation (RNG) consciously, humans have a subconscious affinity for games of chance and keep coming back to them. There is an element of excitement when you get what you want, whether it be a top tier match or you high roll a Skorpion G with an HE round. It keeps us coming back for more despite the disappointments in-between our triumphs as long as the odds aren't that bad. That aspect of the MM is now unfortunately gone. Another issue that we have is also connected with the new monotonous format that we went over above. WG is "dumbing down" the game. In the article on the MM mentioned earlier, there is a line that caught my eye on this topic. They wrote, "It’s much easier now to analyze the power balance and the situation before the countdown is over, meaning there’s time to think over the enemies’ moves and plan your own." I'm not sure about every player out there, but this was not an issue for players that cared about doing better. I never had a big problem with this skill in the past once I consciously tried to master it. I recall watching the old DeathsArrow video series called "WoT I'm Thinking" and listening to him go over the team lineup and that in turn prompted me to do the same thing and improve as a player. When a player decides that they want to get better, they will figure it out without the help of WG. Also, WG should have higher expectations for its customers than what they wrote there. They make it seem like players weren't capable of doing this in the past. And the players that didn't analyze the teams in the past will doubtfully all of a sudden start to do it now. The most helpful tool they could give, and did give to the player base was the list of tank classes at the top of the screen which is not dependent on a 3/5/7 template. These issues in the new system, being mundane, taking away an element of chance from the game, and dumbing it down, are secondary to my main concern about tiering and how that affects the player base, but they are still serious concerns. Many of us have enjoyed playing this game for years and I would hate for us to be pushed away from it because it became boring due to a failed MM change. The new 3/5/7 template isn't helping the vast majority of players in the game and it is leading to frustration and creating a dull playing environment. Many players seem to have been given a false impression by WG and the player base is falling prey to the myths created that support the company line. WG wants the players to think that this new system is a runaway success. Perceptually to some players it is, but in reality It isn't. This system hasn't fixed the problem of team balance that it was stated to have been created for and it also doesn't help bottom tier players. The old system usually had a good spread of tanks in each battle and the few battles that didn't should have been bearable compared with the current 57% of bottom tier matches we now have. The old MM certainly needed to be altered. The old MM needed to be tweaked to make sure that there were the same amount of top, middle, and bottom tier tanks on each side, and also to make sure that each side had a similar amount of tank types (TD, Arty, etc.) per tier, with a +1/-1 differential for variety and to cut down on MM queue time. It also needed a cap on top tier tanks in tier 1 and 2 battles to help protect the new players a little, but beyond that it was pretty good and dynamic compared to what we have now. These changes are simple and would please most of the player base, if not all of it. To conclude, I will leave you with two quotes that are related to this topic. One is from a great player, LemmingRush. He recently stated in one of his videos after he was destroyed at the end of a difficult match, "so when you're bottom tier like this, it's very difficult to actually come out on top, but you just have to understand that, you have to go in into battle with the expectation that you are not going to win and still understand that and be okay with it. Because when you're bottom tier, you know, you're bottom tier." The other quote is from, well, a lesser great player, Claus Kellerman (who essentially represents the average Joe World of Tanker). He said recently when ranting about the old preferential matchmaking premium tanks (IS-6, KV-5, etc) that are getting into too many bottom tier or same tier matches and only seeing tier 8 and 9 tanks now, "shouldn't you be able to make some credits with your IS-6 or KV-5 without being frustrated as f**k, just getting owned by every f**king tank in the game now and having guns that can't do s**t and facing tier 9s and 8s. Like what happened to the preferential matchmaking? What happened to playing against tier 8s and 7s and 6s? I don't know." Constantly being bottom tier is becoming frustrating for many old players and especially our new players. Let's get it back down to 30% bottom tier matches and bring top tier matches back up to 35% so more players can enjoy the game again. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * The complete numbers for the 3/5/7 template broke down as follows: Top Tier 3/5/7: 4.25%; Top Tier 5/10: 2.75; Middle Tier: 18.5%; Same Tier: 17.5%; Bottom Tier 5/10: 12.25%; and Bottom Tier 3/5/7: 44.75%. Further Reading: http://forum.wotlabs.net/index.php?/topic/26886-is-something-wrong-with-the-new-match-maker/ http://forum.wotlabs.net/index.php?/topic/27372-hopefully-strict-template-mm-will-die-soon/ http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/551557-the-great-mm-debate-357-trash-or-triumph/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix: Other charts I later created with the data A more specific chart of player position frequency. Frequency of top tier tanks in a match, but with a players percent of games in those matches from their total matches. These next two are the amount of games in the 400 game sample that the players were bottom tier in a select number group of bottom tier tanks in the match. One chart is the exact number, and the second chart is that percent out of all of a players games. Finis
  2. Liberty75

    The Case Against The 3/5/7 Match Maker (READY)

    It was posts like yours and some others last year that encouraged me to dig into the data and discover this information and eventually to crusade about the issue. So in a way, I should be thanking you too! /salute! Good luck out there on the battlefield!
  3. Can someone please identify which program or website Circon is using here at 22:43? https://youtu.be/p4EJW4pu1BI?t=22m43s
  4. Liberty75

    What's your Wot Xmas wish list?

    As a collector, I'd like to see the Type 59 (yes, I said it. Somebody was going to). And I don't want it to be part of some $900 bundle either. I know it is a pretty mediocre medium these days, but it would be nice to play it a few times before I stop playing this game.
  5. Sorry 3MAJ86. I didn't see your reply here until now. :-\ I don't know if Excel export would work. Do you mean comma delineated (or something like that? It's been a long time since I played with that stuff).
  6. Ever since I started researching and comparing the previous MM with the current MM, it seems more and more obvious that strict templates, like our current 3/5/7, 5/10, and all the same tier matches, need to be removed. I have campaigned hard in the NA forums, posted an article here in the early stages of my efforts, and recently spent time on the EU forums. My foreign language skills are non-existent so I am unable to communicate on the RU and SEA platforms. Aside from replying to posts and the occasional fact check on people when they claim odd things, I think this is the end of the road for the campaign. The only other thing I can think of now is to use google translate and send an actual snail mail letter to the WG HQ. I just fear it would read something like this: "Containers need to be evenly given out at different floors so the game has more options," and they will just scratch their heads. Withstanding that, I can only hope that WG will remove these strict template matches soon and restore a match system that has as much variety and interest as the previous system with a few balancing tweaks. I am still optimistic that they will change it overall. The NA Forums are mixed with players of different opinions, but WG tends to ignore the NA server anyway. Here on the now quiet WotLabs, players seem indifferent to the current MM. I'm guessing that is because this community has a high level of skill and easily adapts to the changes and some may even like that it is easier to farm damage under the current system. But again, I don't know if WG monitors this forum frequently. On the EU forums, there seems to be a super-majority of players that want the MM removed. That is a good sign. They have a population WG respects and I get the feeling that their forum admins have good communication with the parent company and that those sentiments will be passed along. The recent spat of content creators criticizing the MM is also heartening. Before I scale back, I'd like to post the information that I have gathered over the past few months, some charts that go along with it in case anyone wants to use them for their own efforts or information, and some sentiments to tie up any loose ends. When I gathered information about the old MM to compare to the new MM I was a little surprised at how wrong my memory was when it came to bottom tier matches. I could have sworn my bottom tier matches would have been more challenging than what I was looking at in my research under the old system. Since I was only looking at 100 games at first, I figured the sample wasn't big enough and it was skewed. Then as I gathered another 100 games from my own replays, and then 200 more games from my friend, I began to see a pattern and that in fact my memory was wrong. As I contemplated this I then remembered that our memories and perceptions are faulty. We tend to recall outstanding events more than common events. So while I was playing thousands of games, the best or the worst matches were the ones that would stand out the most in my mind. This is probably why so many players are paranoid about being in a small group of bottom tier tanks, when in reality it didn't happen that often. Another thing that became visible to me from doing this research was that we formerly had a cornucopia of different match-ups. In that 400 game sample, there were 114 unique matches. Now that number would be smaller with the new light tank system that we have today, but it would still be much MUCH more than what we have in our current set of three strict templates (3/5/7, etc.). The variety of games and balance of top, middle, and bottom tier matches stands out like a beacon of excitement compared to the drab experience we are left with presently. Once you become conscious of these things, it is hard not to notice them. I was smacked in the face with reality and have cursed myself with this knowledge and I apologize for ruining anyone else's perception of the the game now. That isn't my general intention. My goal is to have this MM changed back to what it was, or something similar to what it was as had been proposed on the NA and EU forums. For anyone that wants this information, here is a link to the google doc where I transferred it. It is a copy of the pertinent information from my excel spreadsheets, and while I am confident that the main part is correct, there could be an error or two at the bottom with the layout of matches. The figures above them are correct, but I am not checking the 400 different matches to make sure I copied every single one correctly. So forgive me if there is an error there. IF there is an error, the chart above the matches is correct and I miscopied the match(s) below it. Please note the difference in top tier matches between me and Macduff48 under the current system. He platoons a lot. For the periods I gathered from myself, I rarely platooned. Together, they give a decent rough average for most players in the game whether they platoon or not. Partial top or bottom tier matches refers to 5/10 matches or +1/-1 matches in the old MM. For a more specific description of the data collection, see "The Case Against the 3/5/7 Match Maker" article. I updated it recently and I hope I converted all the numbers correctly. If something doesn't make sense, please let me know. The impetus for starting this research was to see how many top tier tanks were in matches because players kept telling me the old MM was full of games with enormous amounts of top tier tanks. From there it grew to other things, but you will see the top tier tank emphasis in there. Here are the charts I created with the information to make it easier for people to understand the information. Feel free to copy them for your own use. First, here is a general comparison followed by a more specific comparison of the frequency of Top, Middle, and Bottom tier matches. The "partial bottom" for the old MM was included in the Middle Tier numbers on the first chart. (Partial top and bottom refers to the 5/10 format in the new MM and +1/-1 in the old) Here are two graphics on top tier tanks in matches overall, and then with the percent that players were bottom tier in that range out of all of their games. Here are some charts that show the amount of bottom tier tanks in the bottom tier matches from the sample studied. The first one is the raw numbers from the 114 bottom tier matches and the second one is the percent of those raw numbers. This last graphic was created to show the drastic decline in variety. Perhaps it isn't as important, but I will include it anyway. Thank you for your patience if you made it this far. No matter which side of the debate you were on, all civil input was appreciated. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Further Reading: http://forum.wotlabs.net/index.php?/topic/26886-is-something-wrong-with-the-new-match-maker/ http://forum.wotlabs.net/index.php?/topic/27139-the-case-against-the-357-match-maker-ready/ http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/551557-the-great-mm-debate-357-trash-or-triumph/ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  7. I have Office, but without Access. So I couldn't really do much with it.
  8. You're welcome! You took time out of your life to help out, and you didn't have to do that. I appreciate it. You can send me the info, if you want. How large is the file? It is the replays?
  9. No, it is okay. Approximate numbers are good. I was off by one, but I will check my math again. Thank you for all of your help! I sent you a small gift. It is from my EU account, Bisquik. Good luck out there on the battlefield!
  10. This is great 3MAJ86! Do you have the actual numbers for each tier? 1 bottom = 7 2 bottom = 9? 3 bottom = 5? 4 bottom = 11? 5 bottom = 32? 6 bottom = 61? 7 bottom = 64? 8 bottom = 32? 9 bottom = 7? I know I must be off somewhere. Can you let me know which one it is? THANK YOU again for your help! I appreciate it!
  11. Liberty75

    November Tank Marathons

    This was a nice write-up to put the event into perspective. Thanks. I'll attempt all three until the grinds or the wife force me to stop.
  12. This weekend would be great. Thank you again for your help! I appreciate it!
  13. Hi 3MAJ86. I hate to bother you again, but if you still have your old match information, can you tell me how many bottom tier tanks were in your bottom tier matches? How often were you a single bottom tier tank at tier 8? Or in a group of 2, 3, or 4?
  14. I understand your desire in general. But for me and many people that I play with, the bigger picture is having game mechanics that minimize the repetitive nature inherent in this game. I have played thousands of matches, as most players have at this point in the game's life, and I would like to play thousands more. The strict template mechanics introduced in 9.18 or any mechanics that lessen the variety of the game should be avoided. After 6 months of this new MM, I am actually indifferent to seeing all the same tier matches. They tend to be the dullest matches I have. That could just be my luck in those matches, or perhaps it is in the nature of those matches. I don't know for sure, yet.
  15. All same tier, and even +1/-1 are awfully dull propositions for a system. While they are fine to have sometimes, when they are the only system it would drive people away from the game. The predictable nature of the 3/5/7, 5/10, and same tier matches is already becoming overly tedious to me.
  16. I wasn't offended. I just didn't want to offend you. I can understand your preference for all the same tier battles. They are fun sometimes. I just wouldn't like them all the time. My wife is going to kill you, then me for diverting my attention to another hour of "her" time with forum posts. 6/6/3 vs. 4/6/5 is close. I get your point. The old MM did create mismatches in tiers and classes due to the weight system it employed and believe me, I am not celebrating it. It had its own issues. Those issues could have been addressed by WG though, but instead they went with a whole new untested system of strict templates (one of the reasons I am suspicious of their motives). When WG praises the new system, all I have to do is remember that they used to praise the old system as well, then trashed it. So their enthusiasm about the success and benefits of any system is suspect at this point. They are selling something and are not to be trusted. While the difference in some game mechanics can be subjective, the MM doesn't exactly fit into that hole completely. The current MM is bland and repetitive compared to the previous system. That is measurable. Players might not consciously admit to this, but it is a factor nevertheless. Chances are most players won't notice anything overtly. They will just tire of the game and move on. The younger and more intelligent players will be affected by this the most as their minds crave a challenge and they get bored more easily than the rest of us. How that hurts the overall population in the short term, I don't know. Over the long term, me and the other average intelligence players will also be affected by this. This game plays best when it is fun, includes a certain amount of unpredictability, it is challenging, and it is perceived to be fair. Perhaps I missed something, but I think those are the main ingredients for success. The old MM covered the first three items very well. Players at most skill levels had the opportunity for fun at top tier. The team setups and placement of top, middle, and bottom tier were unpredictable. In the +2/-2 system players were challenged at bottom and middle tier. The perception of fairness was lacking, whether or not it actually was (it most likely was over extended games). The new MM includes the challenge aspect and the perception of fairness (perhaps unfairly), but it lacks unpredictability and fun. Had they tweaked the former system with some of the balancing features that they introduced in the current system, it would have been an overall winner for most, if not all, players. Note about defining top tier. I remember being in a battle with only one tier 10 and a few tier 9s. I was in an 8. It was something like this: 1/3/11. Everyone on both teams knew the tier 10 was top tier. It only takes one tank to fill that slot to create that perception. WG has trained us well. Tanks of higher tiers also have more obvious advantages on average. So in a 1/14/0 situation, most players recognize the superiority of the top tier tank. Now in a 1/14/0 match, there is a top tier tank, but the other tanks also recognize it is only one and it isn't a big deal. That was the beauty of the old MM, the teams were always varied. One match you would be bottom tier, but in a group of 9 tanks, so it wasn't that bad and you could play more aggressively. Later in the evening you had a bottom tier match that was 6/5/4 and you knew you had to be more cautious and play a support role. The variety was great and sadly it seems to be lost now. About the reason for 3 tanks having too much of an influence... If those 3 tanks are not distributed well, 3 good players vs. 3 bad players, then the 3 good players at top tier have an advantage. My friends focused on this aspect of the new MM back in May and June. It was every battle where the top tier tanks were noticeably better on one team than the other, that team won. It didn't matter what the skill level was beneath them. No one wants to make 10 tanks top tier to fix this, but as you add in tanks to the top tier, the chances increase that the top tier tanks on both teams will come closer to the mean of the player base logged into the game. Going to 4, 5, or 6 increases the odds of getting more even teams at the top. It isn't guaranteed, it is just more likely. I'd write more, but I need to go practice soccer with my son. If there is something you want me to hit on that I missed in your last post, just copy and paste it into a reply. Take care Hussars!
  17. Just a word about my writing style: when I rant about the MM, I am not attacking you. I am attacking a poorly thought out game mechanic by WG. You and everyone else here are probably good people and we're just having, what I hope is, a constructive conversation. My tone is my own defect. For me, it isn't just getting more bottom tier tanks to share my misery. It is about a few factors, including getting the same dull format over and over. It isn't exciting. It is predictably dumb and really makes moving up these tiers a real mental grind. Our level in the match does matter too. Being bottom tier, no matter how many tanks are with you, is still bottom tier. Halfway intelligent top tier players farm the hell out of the bottom tier tanks (as they should!). Bottom tiers are easy to penetrate and top tiers can quickly remove these guns from the fight. Just because there are 7 and we are one of them doesn't make it any better. It just ensures that the top and middle tier tanks always have targets. As a bottom tier tank, you're basically food. Just because there is more food at the bottom now doesn't really help the food. It helps the feasters at the top. The ideal situation, with the whole population being considered here, would be to return to a format similar to the previous version, but to include the balancing factors (such as the same amount of tanks per tier, etc.) of the current version. Players would have a more exciting game if they were to move freely and unpredictably between being top, middle, and bottom tier. Each level has its own challenges and play styles. On top of that, team makeup should also be unpredictable (from how many top, middle, and bottom tier tanks are on each team). This also creates another level of excitement for what is otherwise a very repetitive game. IT IS easier to be bottom tier now. The rub is that now we are bottom tier TWICE as many times, so any advantage gained at being bottom tier is lost since you are bottom tier much more now. At best, someone can claim that it is a wash (which it isn't even that). Couple that with a boring strict template system (huge loss in variety!) and this new MM is a failure. As a failure, I mean it wasn't an improvement in the game. It was a net loss.
  18. Sorry, not end of discussion. This new MM brutalizes new players, even in tiers 6 and 7. And most players have an easier time grinding when they are top or middle tier. Do you deny that top and middle tier are better than bottom? Combined with the fact that the old MM gave a good spread of tanks in most bottom tier battles, that left only a small fraction of a player's battles that were challenging. So to avoid 5 or 6 challenging battles out of 100, we get a dull predictable system that sucks the life and variety right out of this game. Great trade-off.
  19. Actually, I go on and on about variety. Bottom tier is just a dull fact. In the old MM you didn't face bad teams most of the time as a bottom tier tank, and the bulk of your games were top and middle tier. I'd say that is much better than 60% of your games being bottom tier now. Face it. The old system gave a good spread of top, middle, and bottom tier matches and a good spread of tanks in those matches. The old system also had much more variety! Something this current system lacks. That isn't bullshit, it is reality.
  20. The most popular tier is broken.The MM is broken. The most expensive tier of premium tanks sold by WG is a mess. There are A LOT of unhappy customers out there. Also, EVERY tier suffers from the same boring strict template system. You might enjoy VERY repetitive gameplay, but there are many players that would rather have more variety.
  21. Over time you see a general trend. I looked at 200 of my own games and also 200 of a friend of mine. He had more top tier games than me and I had more middle tier games than him. There were a few things that remained constant. For both of us, the worst matches we had in those 200 games was being in a group of 3 tanks at the bottom in only 3 games each. There were no single tank or two tank bottom tier games for either of us in those 400 games. Now obviously sooner or later it would happen since someone has to be the single tank. I'd guess that it happened very rarely, but it obviously did happen. Getting a consistent mess like we have now to avoid battles that rarely occurred is a bad deal. Also, my friend was bottom tier 28% of the time and I was bottom tier 29% of the time. Recently a player from the EU posted only his tier 8 matches, and he was bottom tier 25% of the time. The information that has been gathered so far is pretty consistent that players were bottom tier less than 30% of the time and when they were, a great deal of those matches had a decent spread of tanks between top, middle, and bottom. So while some information will be a little different from player to player depending on when they played and what they played, measurable trends are identifiable and measurable. This all started when people kept telling me on the forums how happy they were to not be a single tank at the bottom anymore (essentially parroting WG's marketing). I recalled some bad matches, but these players seemed to be exaggerating so I went to see how bad it actually was. Maybe I was wrong? What I found surprised me. Bottom tier was was even better than I remembered it. I guess our memories play tricks on us. Once I gathered enough information I started to expose my findings. It looks like WG hasn't been completely forthcoming on why they changed the MM, or they just screwed up and are unlikely to admit it.
  22. When I thought the goons who run our governments couldn't surprise me anymore, they even hide shit like this too. Wow! I recall hearing years ago that the EU squashed a study on second hand smoke because it went against the narrative that it was bad for you. In other words, the study showed that it wasn't bad for you. Thanks for sharing this.
  23. WG can sue them since they patented this idea years ago.
  24. I mistook the tone of your response and I was reacting to it. My apologies. Perhaps we can both learn to communicate more diplomatically in the future. As for the main topic, MM differences, the positive changes that were made to the current MM could have been implemented in the old system while retaining most of the positive aspects of the old system as well. The move to a strict template system was unnecessary and detrimental to the community as a whole. If we make a comparison checklist of positive characteristics between the previous dynamic system and the current static system, the old system would prevail. That was the main point I was essentially making.
  25. I said, " inferior on so many levels." I didn't say on every level.