Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'mm'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General Posting Place
    • News and Announcements
    • Newbie Palace and New Users Introductions
    • Shenanigans
    • Patron Plaza
    • Ask Me Anything
  • Purple Player Interaction Centre
    • Casual Purple
    • Ask a Purple Poaster
    • Purple Poaster Replay Place
  • Serious-Face Enabled Discussions
    • Core Skills & Mechanics Discussion
    • Metagame Discussion
    • People, Platoons and Pwning
    • Vehicles
    • Upcoming Changes Discussion
    • Mathematics Corner
  • Improvement and Study
    • Mentor Meet-up
    • Tape Study
    • Articles
    • Tanks Media
  • Clam Rivalry and Posturing
    • Clam Wars Recruitment
    • [NA] The Drama Llama says: WTF Subversions?
    • [EU] Professional Pro Gamering: stronk tenks and stronk taktiks
    • [SEA] Low Server Population Clam Wars Edition
  • Related Games
    • World of Warships
    • World of Warplanes
    • World of Tanks Console
    • World of Tanks Blitz
    • Armored Warfare
    • War Thunder
  • The Archive
    • Garbage Can

Blogs

  • Never's Blog
  • Melol's Blog
  • Melol's Blog
  • bjshnog's Game Dev Blog
  • TayTay's Diary
  • DROPLET'S SHITPOAST LAND OF OBJ.140 AND PADDING/CANCER
  • Noobs corner
  • Evelyn's Biting Corner
  • Dire's Blog
  • Constie's Awesome Adventures
  • Deft Penk Hidey Hole
  • blerg
  • Mundane Things
  • Majestic's Blog
  • WoTLabs Blog
  • German fanboy sperg blog thingy
  • A cheesy blog
  • Kuroi's Clubhouse
  • B-log
  • Ollie Tabooger's House Of Buttpiracy
  • vonblogger
  • _Clickers Blog of Rando Things
  • Blog name *
  • The_Illusi0nist's Blog
  • Shitposting With Skittles
  • rojo180's Blog
  • Tomhwk's Titillating Teal Time
  • how do i use a Kv2 effectively when teamates refuse to help me in WOT?
  • my blob
  • my blog
  • Shoe's Blog
  • Grumpy fail purple siema player is here
  • No Bullshit Reviews
  • The Journey
  • Sigh...
  • Reports of a beginner
  • CSI: Chinese Server Insanity
  • Hallo1994: Simply, Me
  • Wanderjar's Notebook blog
  • My journey to being a better player

Categories

  • World of Tanks
    • Tank Reviews
    • Strategies
    • Videos
    • Mods
  • Game Theory

Found 16 results

  1. I was just thinking, when I talk to some other players about the new tier 8 tank releases, a few are quite cold about buying a tier 8 premium, not because the tank itself is bad, but because the mm is hard on tier 8s. Do you think that the current mm has lead to reduced sales in tier 8 premiums, which seem to be the main marketing strategy wg has been going for (judging by how many they are churning out)...
  2. A contributor of reddit has done a 99% UCL calc on a personal data set and came up with the following: https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldofTanks/comments/6dg5tf/the_918_matchmaker_saga_part_two_new_data_and/ I have no idea of whether this could be discerned from the API, but this kind of ninja nerf would be such a WG kind of thing to do. I wonder if the OP is a member here, it'd be interesting to have him present to our math guys.
  3. There are a number of issues withe the current mm. Although I think 357 is a good tier division in team composition I've never seen so much anger in general from the player Base and vocal dissatisfaction from cc s. Issues as follows: 1. Pref mm tanks are screwed. 2. Tank balance totally destroyed at p2w tiers, therefore what's the point in tier balance (effectively you have tier 7s 8s and 9s all classed as tier 8), so tier division means what. 3. Older premiums unusable. Or new premiums disgusting. People are fed up, asking for refunds over defunct purchases but does that sentiment really result in reduced profits? And is tank balance now at the point of being irreparably broken? Will players be finally put off? And behind the calm exterior of pr, is wg in a crisis of direction?
  4. The Case Against The 3/5/7 Match Maker 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 200 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 two 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 100 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 30.5%, 40.5%, and 29% respectively and in the 3/5/7 template system they were 9.5%, 41%, and 49.5% 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 much greater at about 40% and my memory of being top and bottom tier were also off by a little. I was shocked that bottom tier only occurred 29% 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 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 20 points of top tier matches and gained 20 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 50% 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 200 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 200 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 200 matches, I found 44 instances of these horrible match ups. 44 out of 200 is an alarming number too, but before we faint, we need to remember our rough frequency breakdown of 30% high, 40% middle, and 30% bottom. Out of that 44 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 200 matches, players would get horrible matches about 13 times, which equates to 7% 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 44. To my own shock, I came up with 3 matches that I was bottom tier out of that 44. So out of 200 games, I was put in a horrible match 3 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 74 matches out of the 200 and I was bottom tier a total of 12 times in these matches, only 6% of the time. In general, if I look at the frequency of matches that had 3 or less top tier tanks, it came to 24.5 %. Matches with 4 or 5 top tier tanks was 37.5%. Added together, 62% of the old matches had 5 or less top tier tanks, a large majority. Matches with 6 or 7 top tier tanks had a frequency of 28.5% and matches with 8 or 9 top tier tanks was 6.5%. Matches with 10 or more top tier tanks was at 3% (and of that 3%, 6 matches, 1/3 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 6% 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 50% of the time now instead of about 30%. These weak players and the player base in general would be better off having 30% top tier matches instead of 10% 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 50% 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. This system gets boring after awhile. 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 72 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 200 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 50% 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 high, 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 fuck, just getting owned by every fucking tank in the game now and having guns that can't do shit 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 30% 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: 8%; Top Tier 5/10: 1.5%; Same Tier: 21.5%; Middle Tier: 19.5%; Bottom Tier 5/10: 9%; and Bottom Tier 3/5/7: 40.5%.
  5. This is something I've been pondering for a while. Doing 3k damage in a tier 10 was usually a baseline for a unicum player where 4k damage was usually reserved for a top tier super uni player. With the new MM changes do you think we are seeing a shift in avg damage at this tier? Personally, I feel like I've been playing better but I'm not sure if that is just a perceived notion because of damage pools being much higher. Thoughts?
  6. I am usually better than average in tier 6 tanks so when I struggled to get wins I began to notice that most of my matches were tier 8 and I was constantly becoming powerless to influence games enough to pull out the odd win here or there to pull my win rate above 50%. It was so bad actually that my win rate after 50 games is 42%, 21 wins and 29 losses. I played these 50 games over three days with no other battles in any other tanks. The new tiering possibilities seems to be broken down like this, using the VK3000D as the sample tank and in order of difficulty: Top tier (ex. Tier 6 to 4) Partial Top Tier (Tier 6 to 5) Middle Tier (Tier 7-5) Only Tier (Only tier 6) Partial Bottom Tier (Tier 7-6) Bottom Tier (Tier 8-6) After 50 games, a decent sample size, here are the results (WN8 2435 for these 50 games): Top = 5 (4-1 80%) Partial Top = 0 (NA) Middle = 5 (3-2 60%) Only Tier 6 = 13 (5-8 38%) Partial Bottom = 1 (1-0 100%) Bottom = 26 (8-18 31%) Bottom tier games dominated my play time more than any other bracket combined. If I add together all the other brackets to get a win rate, it is 54%. Which is lower than I hoped it would be, but compared to being bottom tier with a WR of 31%, it is amazing. Is this an isolated incident or have others been experiencing the same thing? I'd personally like to know so that I can save whatever is left of my WR and not play tier 6 anymore until this is addressed by WG.
  7. Christmas tree event is fun, in one hour I got tier VIII tree and three out of four female crew members. So after I recieve my crew, I've run my new tier I tank and... well I think I forgot how does it look at tier I games... PS: As I won't play until 27 of December I decided to bought 5 extra boxes, which allows me to gain tier IX tree (with fourth and final crew member) and as a bonus 1500 gold. Worth it
  8. Since there is no topic about this yet: Few days ago i saw the following on TAP: – +-1 balance is not planned, but instead a 3-5-7 system; https://thearmoredpatrol.com/page/4/ This was only lised once, and not in more detail, but i think its a change as big as gold ammo or the switch from +3 to +2 mm. The reason beiing, that if that rule is enforced ``strict`` it means: no more sole bottom tier tanks (always atleast 7 low tiers) no more top tier ehavy fights, so no more games with 4-10 tier 10 tanks no more fight with only 2 tiers ???? (say 8 and 9 or 9 and 10) The impact of this change is massive, since it means: The moment there is a tier 10 platoon, its only that platoon as tier 10, The moment there is tier 10 arty, it means at most 2 tier 10 tanks. Triple arty platoons will totally fuck mm, unless WG adds ``special measurements`` since you get 3 tier 10 arty as top tiers, and thats it, so unless mm balances this with 3 other tier 10 arty you get full retard mm, something WG wants to prevent.... Light tanks get way better mm, since a tier 8 scout will always get into a game with at most 3 tier 10, 5 tier 9 and 6 other tier 8. It also leads to 2 very important questions: no more +3 mm for light tanks??? tier 7 scouts no longer see tier 10? no more arty platoons at all, since triple platoon as top tier is basically impossible, or do arty platoons get mm penalty? what about tier 10 arty platoons? What about spmm vehicles? IS6 always top tier 10 2 other tier 8? no way WG is this stupid right?? tier 8 spmm platoon = only tier 8 when top tier = 90% winratio possible?? And it ofc means a massive balance shift, since tanks will fight much more same and lower tier tanks, balance wise tanks with good armor and bad guns will benefit while those with bad armor and good guns will ``suffer`` (relative speaking) A Black Prince will become much better, while an Tiger becomes less effective, paper medium tanks with good guns loose their strength while slow bricks become ``stronger``. So: Will we really get this mm? given that WG is very silent last months and everything is moved to: ``the great rebalance`` i get more and more the feeling that either nothing will change, or that WG will go full retard, changing: Chaning mm to 3-5-7 Banning arty platoons Worse mm for platoons (hence they get the exp bonus ) Penetration nerf of a year back Would totally change the game, a tier 10 medium with 240 pen is shit, but not when it can club tier 8/9 tanks all day long, while banning arty platoons would also improve the game... Or is it just dumb talk from Storm and will nothing happen? WG even made a video about the ``significant changes`` http://worldoftanks.com/en/media/6/veh-bal-20-test-ann/ Total new mm would certainly require total rebalance (like how gold ammo needed total rebalance, but WG somehow forgot that...)
  9. So, since yesterday 9.7 is up. I've started grinding the last US med line and am currently grinding the T20 (which is awesome btw ). Did a few battles and noticed there is like hardly any arty in the game anymore (5 battles played, 1 arty ...). Other members from my clan noticed the same thing (although we were not platooning). And it stayed like that all night. Then we started noticing the queue itself. 30-50 meds and heavies in queue while there were consistantly 300-400 arties and lights in queue. Not being anti-light we hadn't even noticed the number of lights per battle, so we decided to check. And sure enough, 1-2 lights per battle. A guy playing his bulldog complained MM took at least 1 min to get into a battle. So was yesterday a fluke? Or did they change the MM, where I just missed the info? Anyone else notice the lack of arties (hurray!! ) Is it the same on the US servers? Thx,
  10. http://ritastatusreport.blogspot.nl/2015/03/armored-warfare-will-have-skill.html?m=1 So AW is doing what players have been begging WG for 3 years now ... For me, I don't really want skilled MM. That is, I don't mind playing in battles crowded by pubbies/potatoes/... Hell, I consider myself to be barely any better than most anyways. However, what I do really dislike in WoT is the unbalanced MM. So often I see teams of complete green-blue-purple against teams of red-orange-yellow. Now I'm not saying I'm always in the worse team, that does balance out in the end. But I don't understand how hard it would be to take the same 30 players and switch the teams around to spread the skill level (in other words: balanced MM). Often this can be done even with the same tanks that are in the battle, but if not, let the MM have 5 seconds longer to fill the gaps ... I'll try just as hard as in any battle, but in my opinion, it's not that fun. Even if you are on the winning side. Steam rolling the enemy team, barely doing any damage ... *thoughts?*
  11. need to set enemy 1 tier higher, on fire >>>need pref 8 or pref 7 because Matchmaker actually wants me to be top tier every game..... Anyone willing to help?
  12. Hello all, Looking at old wotlabs topics, there has been spoken quite a bit about differences between NA and EU server (more baddies / unicums, more gold ammo, more/less camp) But just as important as perception and so on, is what tanks are driving around, lots of tds / heavys will lead to camp, lots of mediums counter that, different tiers beiing popular leads to a different mm distributions, also popularity of certain nations can lead to different playstyles. I copy pasted some global server data from wot-news (`recent` 4 weeks data, from before new german TD line) into an excel file and made some quick comparisons (While the data is alrdy a little old, long term differences will still be visible) I compared: - nation distribution - tier distribution - class distribution And this showed some interesting things imo.. Beforehand i had assumed that (when looking from EU pov towards NA pov) - less US tanks / chinese - more brits / french / german tanks - more high tiers in EU (avg tier in EU has been higher since Snib started making server stats comparisons i think) - more TDs / SPGs - less mediums / light tanks If you have a look at the above tables, you can see i was both wrong and right - on US server there are almost 45% more US tanks as on EU - on US server there are a lot less german and russian tanks - on US server there are more british tanks (imo suprising) - on US server there are less french and chinese tanks the biggest suprise was for me the huge difference in USSR tanks 29 vs 23,8 %, that is quite a lot, also on US server there are even more US tanks as i though (20,85 vs 29,12%) Tier distribution is rather straight forward, lowest 5 tiers are more popular on NA, highest 5 tiers in EU Tank classes are also a bit suprising - TDs are equal (EU tiny bit more) - EU has much more heavys (31,06 vs 25,75) - NA has more light, medium and SPGs This tank distribution is interesting, since it means that EU has (relative): - less spotters (less light/medium tanks, NA has 10% more of these) - less arty (NA has 25% more arty as EU) - equal TDs (difference is marginal, however, US tanks and low tiers (T18) are (much) more popular on NA, so chance is that there (relative) more high tier tds on EU) - way more heavy tanks (20% more heavy tanks) this means that EU has less people moving around and less arty, while having more heavys. Important remarks here are: - on low tiers there are more light tanks and less heavys, due to the overall lower tier of NA the numbers of light and heavy tanks might be a little inflated (mostly light tanks) - new german TD line is not included, i guess new WTF line is the most popular td line on EU at this moment and it thus boosted the overall amount of german tanks, mostly at the cost US and medium players (my own feeling, no numbers sadly) - USSR meds and Japan meds are not included, these lines are however not (yet) very popular, so influence wont be that big (i think) ps: this might also explain why, EU players are more opposed against gold ammo, gold ammo is mostly a medium thing,
  13. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwGiwkPqmbw WG explains how their MM works. Self explanatory. Did a cursory search and didn't see this topic elsewhere. This can be junkyarded if no one cares or the info appears elsewhere.
  14. http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/286163-so-i-made-a-macro/ Basically, anyone with pair of eyes and few working brain cells could do this at low server population. I sometimes used this "exploit" when server population was under 10-15k (late night on EU server, NA server is prob easier to rig). Problem starts when tomatoes start using this macro to alter MM and it causes problems due to widespread usage. Then WG is forced to take action, easiest one being disabling leave queue button for 5 seconds after joining (edit: or removing tank count from interface). Either way, he is an idiot for publishing it on official forum. EDIT2: Post was about using client side macro that enters queue , checks amount of players waiting in each tier , takes screenshot and then does the math about favorable match probability ( being top tier!) . It takes screenshot of tank counts throughout tiers and then picks best moment to join match. According to authors post, it had 90%+ success in doing so. Again, nothing players didnt do manually before, but making such mod available for mass use is dangerous. Should have taken screen of an opening post....
  15. Let's do an experiment. Let's say you flip a coin with a 50% chance of landing heads. You flip the coin X times. What is the longest streak of continuous heads (or tails) you can possibly hope to achieve? My answer is below: The longest streak of heads (or tails), out of a series of X throws, you can expect is approximately that of log2(X) More on Streaks Here's why. The chance of a streak of N consecutive heads is (0.5)N, this is because the odds of flipping four heads in a row, for example, would be (0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5), or 0.0625. Now look at a streak of N consecutive heads, it is bound to start SOMEWHERE. So, in a series of X flips, we have a certain number of starting points, if there are G starting points for a series, the average number of times a streak of N will occur is therefore G (0.5)N. For example, if there were 100 start points, one would expect about three sequences of length 5 or more, because 100 x 0.03125 is 3.125. Hence, we would expect six streaks of five, three streaks of five heads, and three more of five tails, on average. What if we had a streak of 10 in a row out of 100 starting points (i.e. 110 flips)? The average number of streaks of ten heads in a row out of 100 is that of 100 x (0.5)10, which is about 0.1 (0.977, to be precise), doubling that, the odds of having a streak of ten heads or tails, in a row would be double that, 0.2 Let's see where this gets us. If three players flipped a coin 109 times (109 coins means 100 start points), the odds of at least ONE of them getting ten heads or tails in a row is about 50%. So, how do we find what the longest expected streak is? In general, when X(0.5)N is greater than 1, we can expect at least one streak of the sort to occur, when X(0.5)N is less than 1, we can expect the streak NOT to occur. The point between these two can be approximated to log2X, to give us the longest expected streak. Note that X is the number of STARTING points, not the number of FLIPS. Let's use an example, if I flipped a coin 32 times, I would have 28 possible starting points for a streak of 5, 27 start points for a streak of 6, and 26 for a streak of 7. On average, I can expect 0.42 streaks of 7 to occur, meaning that it is unlikely, but I could expect about 2 streaks of 5 to occur. So what do we have here? Let's assume a player determines his games purely by luck. He plays 1000 games. His longest expected streak would be about 10 games, and he can expect to have about two such streaks. The Best Part: This is if the player has a 50% chance of winning, good players drag their odds of losing streaks down, bad players drag them up For the purposes of this experiment, we shall ignore draws Let's say we have five players playing 1009 games (for 1000 start points), let's calculate the number of times they can expect to have a ten game losing streak (we can calculate the losing streak by NOT doubling the number) A 40%er would expect to have SIX such losing streaks A 45%er would expect to have just 2.5 such losing streaks A 50%er, as said earlier, could expect to have just ONE such streak A 55%er is unlikely to have such a streak, he could expect just 0.34 of a streak, meaning he could expect to have such a streak after about TWO such cycles of 1000 games, and even then, the odds of a streak of 10 losses after that many games would just be seven in ten. A 60%er could expect just 0.1 of such a streak, he would expect to have just a 50% chance of having such a streak after SIX cycles. All this, of course, is theoretical, and doesn't account for factors like playing form, but it's interesting to know. A bad player on bad form could easily be expected to have losing streaks of more than that, and a good player is certainly not exempt from the 60% chance either.
  16. Over the next few weeks I will develop first a realistic tank population simulator and then work on algorithms to improve MM fairness and reduce queue times. The eventual aim of this is to provide enough evidence to show that MM can be made faster and fairer. If anyone has a suggestion to either increase the realism of the player population simulator or improve MM algorithms please share them and if I have time and they are credible I'll try to implement them or at least provide enough resources for others to do so. This isn't a place to whine about MM or say I told you so, this is crowd sourcing 101. Population simulator The plan so far is to create a population simulator that generates tank type and tier in a realistic manner following the proportions of type and tier that can be found in this post: http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/267691-arty-statistics-and-other-changes-after-86/ The idea is to basically recreate the MM waiting queue so we have realistic conditions to deal with for our new MM algorithms. Many more details to come. My coding preference is Matlab and it will be used for all of my simulations. Short description of MM algorithms: Current MM system: Appears to choose a battle tier and then fill up teams with the first tanks that meet the criteria. Restricted maximum number of arty Some balancing of arty. Restrictions and balancing of light tanks? I don't know, someone help me out. Overall limit on tier imbalance. I think this one has been thrown out to be honest. New MM proposal #1: Two team balancing act. Draws on 30 tanks with overlapping battle tier. Balances top tier with a maximum difference of 1. Balancing of second to top tier with max diff of 1. Restricts the maximum number of arty drawn into the pool of 30. Balances the number of arty on each team with a max difference of 1. Same balancing act for light tanks. No overall tier balancing. No balancing of other classes to maintain some variety. Skill based MM Not gonna write about it, not gonna code it. Action plan 0) Get advice an listen to algorithm proposals from community. 1) Create pop simulator 2) Recreate current MM to see if we get similar balance problems with similar frequency. 3) Code up and run simulations on the best MM algorithm suggestions. Your suggestions: Go! Start! Schnell!