Liberty75

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

52 posts in this topic

On 7/5/2017 at 7:46 PM, Liberty75 said:

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.

Preface: I know I'm necro'ing an old thread (July 5, 2017), so if you're not interested in this topic now is your chance to move on. I was only just now made aware that this thread existed.

 

It figures that the one time I get quoted & referenced extensively on WoTLabs is also a time when I made some pretty serious errors, and committed the sins I have argued against frequently when people write posts using tin foil hat thinking on the forums. Life is funny that way.

 

1) Confirmation bias. I was thoroughly convinced that the old MM had a lot more "awful" match ups than there really were, and confess that I was thoroughly surprised by seeing the numbers showing that being bottom tier was simply not much of a problem in the past. Relying on memory is relying on a faulty tool for discussions of this type.

2) Using intuition-math instead of actual numerical-math. I was using reasoning on how it seemed 3/5/7 was working, rather than looking for real data on how it truly was working. No matter what you feel is true, it's important to allow the data to tell you what's actually true. Feelings are not facts.

3) Got sucked in by Wargaming's marketing tricks. Never take it for granted that the game company is correct, even when you believe that their intentions are sincere. I still believe that WG's change to the 3/5/7 format was well intentioned, and was a sincere attempt to address long standing complaints from their player base. But even if they were honest and sincere that doesn't mean they got it right - and as it turns out they got it wrong.

 

So first to @Liberty75 I would like to say, "Mea culpa", and then say that I'm thankful someone did the work, used good methods to gather data and then did a good analysis of the data to arrive at valid conclusions.

/salute

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

So first to @Liberty75 I would like to say, "Mea culpa", and then say that I'm thankful someone did the work, used good methods to gather data and then did a good analysis of the data to arrive at valid conclusions.

/salute

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.