Upcoming MM changes

[BlitzReaper 7]

https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/general-news/matchmaker-status-update/

 

Seriously, if this changes from me seeing 3-5-7 games about 80% of my t8 games then that'd be great.

[sundanceHelix 348]

If it's anything like what has been recently run on the SEA server it should be a lot more enjoyable. I have found the new matchmaking a lot more forgiving for me (picking up tanks after hiatus and stock-grinding 7s/8s/9s), as it's mostly +1/-1.

That does mean you get less chances to bully like hell as a top tier on a +2/-2 game. 
The other issue, I suppose, is that the chances are lower for huge damage games as a bottom-tier, so that does affect the 1st Personal Campaign missions a bit (not sure about the 2nd Campaign).

[MagicalFlyingFox 901]

If they change the MM to prioritise 2 tier spread like they have in ASIA, the difference it makes to the game compared to the 3-5-7 is basically night and day.

 

The change in quality of the game is significant enough that it can actually be fun again. There is a thread somewhere here about it with a couple of responses. 

[Madner Kami 377]

2 hours ago, sundanceHelix said:

If it's anything like what has been recently run on the SEA server

If it were, we'd have it by now. The mere fact that we don't have it yet, over 3 months after they announced that they want to change something, is telling.

[MagicalFlyingFox 901]

How can you talk when you haven't actually experienced it first hand? 

[Madner Kami 377]

13 minutes ago, MagicalFlyingFox said:

How can you talk when you haven't actually experienced it first hand? 

I edited my post to hopefully more accurately convey what part of the post I am refering to. Sorry. I have no doubts that what they did on the SEA server is more fun and would be for EU and NA as well. I just have my doubts that they are implementing the same system  here or that whatever they end up creating will have the same effect here.

[MagicalFlyingFox 901]

WG can't decide to do anything. It doesn't surprise me that its been on test for 3 months and no other server has it yet.

 

It took them how many months to admit 3-5-7 was an issue? 

[Madner Kami 377]

3 minutes ago, MagicalFlyingFox said:

WG can't decide to do anything. It doesn't surprise me that its been on test for 3 months and no other server has it yet.

It took them how many months to admit 3-5-7 was an issue? 

True. Their flip-flopping on reacting to issues raised by the community never cease to hit me like a brick. On the one hand, they take literally years to "gather more data" and then don't do anything or something so minute, that the effect can only be observed under a microscope. On the other hand, a clear-cut issue is adressed by blanket nerfing everything in even the remotest vicinity of the issue within a week. This company is so frustrating.

[MagicalFlyingFox 901]

And how long it took them to nerf the V4 in the face of multiple upon multiple months of shit tier 10 and CW meta. 

[sundanceHelix 348]

They are LITERALLY still gathering more data. I'm not surprised it hasn't been rolled out on other servers

https://worldoftanks.asia/en/news/general-news/matchmaker-status-update/

[Fulvin 336]

What prompted change to 3-5-7 MM in the first place? I don't remember the official reason. Was it really just to boost queue times for tier tens? Well, now everyone gets into miserable games, but REALLY quickly \o/

I'm looking at their list of problem about present template MM and seems like old MM had none of them, so maybe just switch back?

[Madner Kami 377]

Allegedly queue-times and more "fair games", where you are not the only low tier tank in the match. EU never had a problem with the former and the later was something that was so rare to happen, that I can't even remember it happening once to me even once.

[Wanderjar 179]

people were pissed about MM making imbalanced teams like 7 tier X on 1 side and only 5 on the other, or lots of hard heavies on one side and squishy sutoloaders on the other. that kind of crap. they did need a balancer, but leave it to WG to pick the most AUtistic way to fix the issue...

also to block fail platoons where you have a platoon of a Maus and a Loltraktor or similar BS but while I did see a few of them they were rare. Mostly I think WG wanted to stop off tier platoons becayse it was breaking MM and the personal missions (dat e25/cromwell toon tho...)

[MacusFlash 2,237]

Yes, give us 5-5-5. That will rekt pubbies all the way from their mouths straight to their anuses. They will play 33% as top tiers but in the other 33% they will feel MM's might. 

Seriously, just give all time Frontline for VIII, remove any airstrike and artillery support and we can play this tier all the time. Meanwhile bring back a balance to X. 

 

[Jesse_the_Scout 1,890]

"Gathering more data" means "waiting to see if it negatively affects sales".

[Hellsfog 239]

4 hours ago, MacusFlash said:

Yes, give us 5-5-5. That will rekt pubbies all the way from their mouths straight to their anuses. They will play 33% as top tiers but in the other 33% they will feel MM's might. 

Seriously, just give all time Frontline for VIII, remove any airstrike and artillery support and we can play this tier all the time. Meanwhile bring back a balance to X. 

 

Exactly this.  Whatever WG does, if it does result in being top tier 80% of the time, the masses will complain about it.  With this template, they will also complain that they can't do anything when bottom tier. 

[nemlengyel 846]

I wonder if it'd help the game if MM treated superheavies (e.g. Maus) as a class distinct from other heavies. Right now there are situations where MM throws in e.g. a T110E5, an IS-7 and a 50 B vs a triple platoon of Type 5s, which can easily result on a steamroll for one side depending on the map.

[Haswell 2,180]

18 minutes ago, nemlengyel said:

I wonder if it'd help the game if MM treated superheavies (e.g. Maus) as a class distinct from other heavies. Right now there are situations where MM throws in e.g. a T110E5, an IS-7 and a 50 B vs a triple platoon of Type 5s, which can easily result on a steamroll for one side depending on the map.

MM weight does that in theory, but you can always trust WG to fuck it up.

[nemlengyel 846]

2 minutes ago, Haswell said:

MM weight does that in theory, but you can always trust WG to fuck it up.

Ohh didn't know that, thanks for the clarification! Should have done some searching on the wiki first

[Madner Kami 377]

2 hours ago, nemlengyel said:

I wonder if it'd help the game if MM treated superheavies (e.g. Maus) as a class distinct from other heavies. Right now there are situations where MM throws in e.g. a T110E5, an IS-7 and a 50 B vs a triple platoon of Type 5s, which can easily result on a steamroll for one side depending on the map.

That was what people have been calling for for a long time, when we still had the old MM-system. Argueably, it was the only thing we needed, more classes beyond heavy-medium-light.

1 hour ago, Haswell said:

MM weight does that in theory, but you can always trust WG to fuck it up.

Wasn't that the system that literally weighted light tanks as heavy as heavy tanks? Wasn't there some silly twist in there?

[Haswell 2,180]

1 hour ago, Madner Kami said:

Wasn't that the system that literally weighted light tanks as heavy as heavy tanks? Wasn't there some silly twist in there?

That's the fucked up part. The original idea was to weigh tanks differently to account for same-tier imbalances and to make sure some classes weigh more than others (ie. heavies weigh more than meds), but we all know how well that turned out.

[Tarski 283]

Vehicle roles were introduced in 9.20.1, and in my experience have been evenly matched more often than not since the changes. It's not perfect, and there's less variety now, but hit point disparities between the two teams have slimmed considerably. 

[Haswell 2,180]

6 hours ago, Tarski said:

Vehicle roles were introduced in 9.20.1, and in my experience have been evenly matched more often than not since the changes. It's not perfect, and there's less variety now, but hit point disparities between the two teams have slimmed considerably. 

They put the IS-4 in the same group as the Maus, E100 and Type 5. In what world is the IS-4 possibly an equal to any other tier 10 heavy?

[Tarski 283]

2 hours ago, Haswell said:

They put the IS-4 in the same group as the Maus, E100 and Type 5. In what world is the IS-4 possibly an equal to any other tier 10 heavy?

It can't have worse performance than other tier 10 heavies if nobody ever plays it!

 

[lavawing 302]

9 hours ago, Haswell said:

They put the IS-4 in the same group as the Maus, E100 and Type 5. In what world is the IS-4 possibly an equal to any other tier 10 heavy?

When the other side is firing 340 pen or above HEAT exclusively, I'd take the IS-4 above the E100 and the Type at least. The Type is strong and broken, but even pubbies have long learnt to focus them down with gold.

The IS-5 is also faster than the others and the least inflexible option.

It would be a pretty decent tank if only they'd give it something like 200 more DPM and E5 soft stats.