Jump to content


Match Maker, Match Maker, Make Me A Match

MM Match Maker Devs Patent

  • Please log in to reply
128 replies to this topic

Zoney45 #41 Posted 10 December 2018 - 05:17 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 952 battles
  • 43
  • Member since:
    11-10-2018

View Postbradk62, on 10 December 2018 - 12:31 AM, said:

Why is win-rate the primary judging criteria?

 

I guess most of us ultimately are competitive plus you get far more goodies when your side wins -- as long as the win percentage is based on a player with a track record (say, they've had a chance to establish themselves beyond the initial grind-and-learn period) then it proves whether or not they're a rounded player that understands basic piloting, gunnery, tactics and so forth. (They're not puzzled by the hard use of a rudder and they know the importance of a central airfield, etc etc.) So, yeah, I can get behind the concept of win-rate being the most tell-all stat for matchmaking fairness.

 

As an aside, here are some basic numbers from another 3 vs 3 match where I was on the losing end of a lopsided result. Note the avg win percentage and also note the tiers. I mean, who doesn't love to play when you're basically set up to be cannon fodder? :great:

 

my team
victory % (tier)
56.31(V)
56.1 (V)
39.2 (VI)
the rest were bots
Avg win % of human players = approx 50.5

two fighters and one multirole


other team
victory % (tier)
67.33 (V)
54.1(VI)
51.95 (VI)
the rest were bots
Avg win % of human players = approx 57.8

two fighters and one bomber

 

--- the matchmaking could have evened this out quite a bit by swapping out the two worst-ranked on each team -- both of those players were flying tier-VI Spitfires (a Spitfire V on my side and a Spitfire Vb IM on the other side). Do the math, the human win-percent avgs would have been 54.8 on my team vs 53.5 on the other -- a 1.3 pct swing instead of the 7.3 pct that was actually instated.

 

Don't get me wrong -- things could be worse. I am still new so maybe I'm not as jaded but I admit I have a hard time staying away from this game. As I said earlier it gets a lot of things right in a big way. The MM seems to be among the major gripes these days.

 


Edited by Zoney45, 10 December 2018 - 06:09 AM.


blindfoId #42 Posted 10 December 2018 - 12:40 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Administrator
  • 8 battles
  • 1,300
  • Member since:
    07-19-2018

View Postnwlxn12, on 07 December 2018 - 08:30 PM, said:

 

That's a swell write up of the match maker.  Now can we have one that describes bot behavior and why a match consisting of minimal human players ends in a landslide when the humans just do an average performance?  If bots are programmed with the same coding, wouldn't it stand to reason that they perform equally on both sides causing the match NOT to be one sided?  Also, why on earth does WG program 1-2 bots to go to the farthest sector away from the spawn point at the start of the match?

 

I will pass along your request but cannot be sure about any estimated time (if) guys will be able to come up with the article.

There are too many variables which affect bot behavior that any prediction may be false regarding pace of battle and constantly-changing combat situation.

 

View PostCaptain_Underpants53, on 07 December 2018 - 10:18 PM, said:

 

I beg your pardon but the part about karma not playing a part in the MM is absolute hogwash.

 

You may think whatever you like :) But this is actually how it works at the moment. The only things MM takes into account are listed in the article.

Winrate, Karma, status of account, etc. have no influence on MM.

 

View PostPerrigrino, on 10 December 2018 - 02:57 AM, said:

Just had my first go thorugh the article, and as predicted, more questions than answers; 

 

Yes, the implemented changes are tracked and evaluated basing on the received data which is not the information for public use. 

Thank you for your feedback and ideas. We greatly appreciate your suggestions and input! The balancing system clearly needs much more work to be done and we are overseeing and monitoring the situation constantly. The work on MM never stops and is not put aside or swept under the carpet. We are struggling to use all possible experience in our work. As soon as any changes are on their way we will be glad to share our ideas if possible.

 

View PostPerrigrino, on 10 December 2018 - 02:57 AM, said:

7. When it comes to the subsets of levels of difficulty as set out in the Patent, it appears that this was accomplished by having Bots of varying levels of difficulty- Beginner, Warrior, Veteran?

 

You can say so but pretty relatively. Bot levels of difficulty are closely tight to the level of battle which means that you can not find a Veteran bot on Tiers I-III for example even if you are very experienced player. 

 

All tests are driven with the help of Supertesters. As for common tests, we mentioned that the practice of conducting common tests was stopped a long time ago. At the moment, we do not consider the possibility of its renewal for objective reasons: it is a time-consuming and resource-intensive procedure, which, for certain reasons, did not justify the expectations of both the players and the developers. But we do have an awesome Super Test Team, that examines the changes before the Production and provides us with great feedback.

 

View PostPerrigrino, on 10 December 2018 - 02:57 AM, said:

9. This needs a little clarification: Step 3. The matchmaker balances the teams using bots based on aircraft tiers and additionally makes their class composition as close as possible. It aims to make team aircraft tier totals equal and make the number of aircraft of each class (not class group anymore!) as close as possible to a desired ratio that we set for each game mode. 

Particularly the part about "class group"?

 

10. Is this why some battles in Conquest will have 3 human Bombers on one side and none on the other, or Ground Attack in lieu of Bombers? This too has led to experiences of imbalance.

 

Class group here reffers to PVP/PVE types of aircraft described above in the article.

Yes, that is pretty much the reason. The MM aims to balance aircraft types but sometimes it appears to be impossible and only class (type) groups are taken into account. 



Xr901 #43 Posted 10 December 2018 - 02:04 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 6152 battles
  • 330
  • Member since:
    07-10-2017

View PostblindfoId, on 06 December 2018 - 09:54 AM, said:

"Invite them here, let them speak. Isn't this one of the Reasons these WoWP FORUMS were created?"

As far as I know, some of developers do read the forums, some of them don't. Still it is not their first priority. The ones who read the forums, collect and deliver the customers' desires/complaints/needs are CMs. That is the part of their work. As well as expressing the official position of the development and publisher, clarifying issues and answering questions. 

 

 

Well... I will say this, Blindfold isn't lying I've seen the red lettered 0 battles, 0 posts "developer" marked accounts cruising topics not infrequently on the forum, particularly when people (Perrigrino :P) has kept me up playing into the middle of the night and I cruise the forum activity before going to bed. Although I just saw one now too.

The way that classes are balanced definitely needs some work though. The number of human vs bot PvE and PvP players on each team for example... when one team gets 2 or 3 PvE planes and the other gets 3 human PvP planes on a map with plants... Good luck... unless the players of the PvE planes are idiots they can flip them before the PvP players in light fighters or multiroles can shoot them down, particularly at higher tiers.



CorvusCorvax #44 Posted 10 December 2018 - 02:29 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 4243 battles
  • 4,317
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

I have had the misfortune of being matched in my Dora (T7) against T8 human bombers, and T7 human bombers, repeatedly.  I can sometime catch the bombers low enough to do something about them, but rarely.  And when I review the data after the loss, it always turns out that the human bomber is far and away the high scorer on the red team.

 

I understand that my success with a particular aircraft is being taken into account, because when I run the aircraft in which I don't play as well, all of a sudden there is more balance, and I have an actual chance to win if I play well.

 

 



Captain_Underpants53 #45 Posted 10 December 2018 - 06:30 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 23571 battles
  • 3,371
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    04-17-2017

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 10 December 2018 - 09:29 AM, said:

I have had the misfortune of being matched in my Dora (T7) against T8 human bombers, and T7 human bombers, repeatedly.  I can sometime catch the bombers low enough to do something about them, but rarely.  And when I review the data after the loss, it always turns out that the human bomber is far and away the high scorer on the red team.

 

I understand that my success with a particular aircraft is being taken into account, because when I run the aircraft in which I don't play as well, all of a sudden there is more balance, and I have an actual chance to win if I play well.

 

 

 

It has been my experience that going into a Tier IV battle is tantamount to clicking 'I want to be the lower tier player.'  Almost every battle has that result.

 

Going in to a Tier VII battle is almost, not quite, as bad.  But way more than probability would suggest.

 

I wonder why some tiers are an invite to higher tier players to come at you?


MSgt, USAF, (ret)

Perrigrino #46 Posted 11 December 2018 - 05:39 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 5975 battles
  • 322
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    10-02-2013

View PostXr901, on 10 December 2018 - 02:04 PM, said:

 

Well... I will say this, Blindfold isn't lying I've seen the red lettered 0 battles, 0 posts "developer" marked accounts cruising topics not infrequently on the forum, particularly when people (Perrigrino :P) has kept me up playing into the middle of the night and I cruise the forum activity before going to bed. Although I just saw one now too.

 

<0 hehe!



Perrigrino #47 Posted 11 December 2018 - 06:41 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 5975 battles
  • 322
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    10-02-2013

Yes, the implemented changes are tracked and evaluated basing on the received data which is not the information for public use. 

Thank you for your feedback and ideas. We greatly appreciate your suggestions and input! The balancing system clearly needs much more work to be done and we are overseeing and monitoring the situation constantly. The work on MM never stops and is not put aside or swept under the carpet. We are struggling to use all possible experience in our work. As soon as any changes are on their way we will be glad to share our ideas if possible.

 

Blindfold

 

thank you for your responses! Again, I believe that this kind of discourse is very good for the community and as you can see from this and other threads, there is a lot of interest and, ideas! There is no shortage of great ideas here. Much of the community, I think, appreciates the acknowledgement of their ideas, even in the smallest of ways, and are likely willing and eager to help. So even if they just come to hear ideas about ways in which to increase balance in the game, that's a win/win for everyone.

 

So, in the interest of keeping the flow of ideas moving forward:

 

11. Specialization: I can see the parallels of this approach with that implemented in WoWS and the use of Signal Flags- where certain qualities of the vehicle are enhanced. I also understand the economic reason for the implementation of "Specialization". In Ships, signal flags are available to all players, even before all modules are researched. In Planes, not all slots are open, and depends on XP and modules researched on plane. Why not implement something similar in Planes? Let all pilots have access to all the slots and remove the necessity of grinding to unlock Specialization. Even things up a little bit? This would have the potential of reducing the disparity between players in similar vehicles. Modules still need to be researched, but reduce the onerous grind. This would have the combined effect of retaining more new players, since there would be less imbalance, and more chance of FUN.

 

12. Has TYPE of vehicle been considered for input into the algorithm? Consideration of not only Tier and Class, but also Type. Sorry to keep referencing Ships, but I see what is possible there, and think- "Why not in Planes? When playing Co-op, each vehicle Type is matched right across the Roster, as well as for Class and Tier. The algorithm is there in Ships MM to set up matches that are mirror images on each side. Has utilizing (even parts of) the algorithm in Ships been considered?

 

two more, I have mentioned in the past and bring up here for consideration:

 

13. Anonymity, ie., no Usernames during battle? Remove the wings of Specialization visible during battle, especially after everyone has the ability to Specialize, and remove usernames in the HUD of the battle, to reduce head hunting, and create focus on strategy and game play. Has this been considered?

 

14. Couple years ago I asked about inclusion of win rate of players, or something similar. I see the subject has come up again. There are many stats within players profiles, as has been mentioned above ( Bradk?) and I suppose in a perfect world - all vehicle identical, equal (vehicle type/class/tier), players matched by profile (whether they like GAA, Bombers, Fighters etc, and not just Win Rate)...that would be, I think, a huge leap toward balancing the matches for the purpose of FUN. Competition is another story. The feasablity of producing such a balanced algorithm is beyond my understanding and I would hazard is likely complex and costly, and would require a lot of time, and may not be perfect in the end?

 

What would the developers say?

 

 


Edited by Perrigrino, 11 December 2018 - 06:42 AM.


Zoney45 #48 Posted 11 December 2018 - 06:51 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 952 battles
  • 43
  • Member since:
    11-10-2018

This is an example of what might cause a player to feel stiffed by the matchmaking.


I don't care about explanations of how it works or "myth-busting" bulletins -- the proof is in the pudding. This is lopsided. Everyone on my team except me has a less-than-50% record. Look at the other team -- if you didn't laugh you'd cry.


Amazingly enough the match was competitive for the first half of the mission.

 

But I don't think you need to be a Las Vegas odds-maker or professional sports handicapper to guess which side won.

 

(Click for a larger image)

 

 


 


Edited by Zoney45, 11 December 2018 - 08:38 AM.


Zoney45 #49 Posted 11 December 2018 - 08:25 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 952 battles
  • 43
  • Member since:
    11-10-2018

One last time and with feeling:

 

I'm about one session away now, from quitting or taking a long break in the hopes they get this sorted out.

 

I consistently place first, and score appreciably including establishing progressive aircraft grades for the mission, while consistently losing at first place. That is broken.

 

Once in a while I'd like to see someone else above me when I take a loss. I feel lonely. (I exaggerate slightly -- of course I've taken a loss while under-performing -- but the trend of consistently losing at first place is very real. Maybe the other players are just giving up after the writing is on the wall in the first three minutes.)

 

I mean c'mon ... it's like being punished rather than playing a game for recreation. "Here, have some lackluster teammates and lower-tier placement time after time, ya jerk. Hah! That'll teach ya!"

 

I don't even want to tell you the latest match I played. Not only did the other team have the superior players and higher-tier aircraft, but even the bots were ridiculously overpowered in the side-by-side comparison. The match completed in just over five minutes. Oh, but I placed "first" head-and-shoulders above the rest of my team. Yay.

 

The matchmaking is just not making it. Seriously, other skirmish-based MMO's get this sorted out without causing a hue and cry among the players. What is the big deal....


Edited by Zoney45, 11 December 2018 - 08:49 AM.


GonerNL #50 Posted 11 December 2018 - 08:38 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1098 battles
  • 1,284
  • Member since:
    01-17-2018

View PostZoney45, on 11 December 2018 - 09:25 AM, said:

I'm about one session away now, from quitting or taking a long break 

 

I get that feeling often lately. But because of circumstances (nothing serious) I will be out for a week. Hopefully I can enjoy Wowp again after a week without frustration.

 

And I would love to see some serious explanation about the totally unbalanced teams, like in your previous post. I also asked about one team having an ace human B-32 and the other team a dumb bot Do-217M ... that's a deciding factor. But nothing. Just same old story of how difficult it is.

 


Flying on EU, NA, ASIA and CIS servers

Xr901 #51 Posted 11 December 2018 - 08:48 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 6152 battles
  • 330
  • Member since:
    07-10-2017

View PostZoney45, on 11 December 2018 - 08:25 AM, said:

I'm about one session away now, from quitting or taking a long break in the hopes they get this sorted out.

 

View PostGonerNL, on 11 December 2018 - 08:38 AM, said:

 

I get that feeling often lately. But because of circumstances (nothing serious) I will be out for a week. Hopefully I can enjoy Wowp again after a week without frustration.

 

And I would love to see some serious explanation about the totally unbalanced teams, like in your previous post. I also asked about one team having an ace human B-32 and the other team a dumb bot Do-217M ... that's a deciding factor. But nothing. Just same old story of how difficult it is.

 

 

 Go play World of Tanks, I did to get a discount on the new T8 tank destroyer... By the time I got through the first 2 missions on my first day back I was at the 'I hate my life' stage... Made me really appreciate and enjoy the time I spent playing WoWp... at a time when I was even experiencing stupid issues with the connection to the server...

 

 

 


Zoney45 #52 Posted 11 December 2018 - 08:58 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 952 battles
  • 43
  • Member since:
    11-10-2018

View PostGonerNL, on 11 December 2018 - 08:38 AM, said:

 I also asked about one team having an ace human B-32 and the other team a dumb bot Do-217M ... that's a deciding factor.

 

 

lol yeah they hand you that and then shove you into a map with three mining plants and one airfield -- you've chosen your Spitfire or maybe a Mosquito and your teammate is in a Yak-9 so you're ready to rock that airfield and maybe even make a scary face at one of those factories. It's all good!


Edited by Zoney45, 11 December 2018 - 09:09 AM.


CorvusCorvax #53 Posted 11 December 2018 - 04:06 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 4243 battles
  • 4,317
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostZoney45, on 11 December 2018 - 06:51 AM, said:

This is an example of what might cause a player to feel stiffed by the matchmaking.


I don't care about explanations of how it works or "myth-busting" bulletins -- the proof is in the pudding. This is lopsided. Everyone on my team except me has a less-than-50% record. Look at the other team -- if you didn't laugh you'd cry.


Amazingly enough the match was competitive for the first half of the mission.

 

But I don't think you need to be a Las Vegas odds-maker or professional sports handicapper to guess which side won.

 

(Click for a larger image)

 

 


 

Yeah.  About the only defense we have is to flight up.  I was on a losing streak of 8 battles last night until I flighted up with another forum guy here.  Hmm, guess what happened?   Yup, it was a slaughter.  Add me to your contacts.  We'll fly together and defeat the matchmaker.



Soylent_Red_Isnt_People #54 Posted 12 December 2018 - 03:57 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 2395 battles
  • 412
  • Member since:
    12-08-2015

View PostGonerNL, on 11 December 2018 - 06:38 AM, said:

Hopefully I can enjoy WoWp again after a week without frustration.

And I would love to see some serious explanation about the totally unbalanced teams, But nothing. Just same old story of how difficult it is.

Kind of in the same boat.

Unlike other titles I've simply uninstalled I keep coming back to this because it offers something besides a full-on simulation, only to end up playing just a few months before taking as much as a year off from it.

 

Right now, only having played on and off since some time in October, I have to push myself to queue even five matches, and while I might login two days in a row more often I take a week or two off between sessions.

 

 

And most of the time it's the matchmaker, with its inability to do anything but create failure-oriented teams while catering to a small handful of pilots driving me away.

- Curbstomping a team, or getting curbstomped in turn, being the norm for almost all battles I end up flying isn't any fun.

- Likewise, seeing the same player two or more matches a session in their "specialized" uber-pilot Pancake/'Spit/Zero/GAA/bomber/Fw57 because they feel the need just to farm tokens is every bit as boring and thus no fun.

 

As with Warships, I have no idea what game title the devs think they're playing but it clearly isn't, nor has been in the past, this same one.


Edited by Soylent_Red_Isnt_People, 12 December 2018 - 04:44 AM.

"If they don't chase you after a mile, they don't chase ya.... Maybe it's two miles...."   ---   "You wanna play it soft, we'll play it soft. You wanna play it hard, let's play it hard."

5801234590.png

''Under control? You're grabbing a f**king bazooka, you dumba**!''

 

Capture Points & You --- Graphic Settings Explored --- Grinding Tokens; Not so Daily Missions --- Ground Targets & Mission Types in 2.0 --- Equipment 2.0.5; Huh?


blindfoId #55 Posted 12 December 2018 - 03:34 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Administrator
  • 8 battles
  • 1,300
  • Member since:
    07-19-2018

View PostPerrigrino, on 11 December 2018 - 09:41 AM, said:

Yes, the implemented changes are tracked and evaluated basing on the received data which is not the information for public use. 

Thank you for your feedback and ideas. We greatly appreciate your suggestions and input! The balancing system clearly needs much more work to be done and we are overseeing and monitoring the situation constantly. The work on MM never stops and is not put aside or swept under the carpet. We are struggling to use all possible experience in our work. As soon as any changes are on their way we will be glad to share our ideas if possible.

 

Blindfold

 

thank you for your responses! Again, I believe that this kind of discourse is very good for the community and as you can see from this and other threads, there is a lot of interest and, ideas! There is no shortage of great ideas here. Much of the community, I think, appreciates the acknowledgement of their ideas, even in the smallest of ways, and are likely willing and eager to help. So even if they just come to hear ideas about ways in which to increase balance in the game, that's a win/win for everyone.

 

So, in the interest of keeping the flow of ideas moving forward:

 

11. Specialization: I can see the parallels of this approach with that implemented in WoWS and the use of Signal Flags- where certain qualities of the vehicle are enhanced. I also understand the economic reason for the implementation of "Specialization". In Ships, signal flags are available to all players, even before all modules are researched. In Planes, not all slots are open, and depends on XP and modules researched on plane. Why not implement something similar in Planes? Let all pilots have access to all the slots and remove the necessity of grinding to unlock Specialization. Even things up a little bit? This would have the potential of reducing the disparity between players in similar vehicles. Modules still need to be researched, but reduce the onerous grind. This would have the combined effect of retaining more new players, since there would be less imbalance, and more chance of FUN.

 

12. Has TYPE of vehicle been considered for input into the algorithm? Consideration of not only Tier and Class, but also Type. Sorry to keep referencing Ships, but I see what is possible there, and think- "Why not in Planes? When playing Co-op, each vehicle Type is matched right across the Roster, as well as for Class and Tier. The algorithm is there in Ships MM to set up matches that are mirror images on each side. Has utilizing (even parts of) the algorithm in Ships been considered?

 

two more, I have mentioned in the past and bring up here for consideration:

 

13. Anonymity, ie., no Usernames during battle? Remove the wings of Specialization visible during battle, especially after everyone has the ability to Specialize, and remove usernames in the HUD of the battle, to reduce head hunting, and create focus on strategy and game play. Has this been considered?

 

14. Couple years ago I asked about inclusion of win rate of players, or something similar. I see the subject has come up again. There are many stats within players profiles, as has been mentioned above ( Bradk?) and I suppose in a perfect world - all vehicle identical, equal (vehicle type/class/tier), players matched by profile (whether they like GAA, Bombers, Fighters etc, and not just Win Rate)...that would be, I think, a huge leap toward balancing the matches for the purpose of FUN. Competition is another story. The feasablity of producing such a balanced algorithm is beyond my understanding and I would hazard is likely complex and costly, and would require a lot of time, and may not be perfect in the end?

 

 

Specialization system changes are not in the immediate plans at the moment as there are much more work to do considering some other aspects of the game.

 

Type of aircraft has been and is considered in the current MM but with a lower priority than class of aircraft. The developers team acknowledges scope of work to be done with MM system but there are certain difficulties. For example, adding extra balancing parameters (configuration, any of skill basing parameters, etc.) is likely to affect the queue timing and it must to be taken into account when developing.

 

The idea with removing (optionally) Specialist wings is a decent one, I'll pass it along, probably the team can take a look at it, but there's definitely no plans for hiding players' nicknames.

 

As for the portal page (HoF, Clan Ratings, etc.) this one point is discussable and there's definitely much work to do. At the moment we cannot be certain about any estimated time but some work and re-work is planned and is under the process of estimating and coordination. 

 

View PostZoney45, on 11 December 2018 - 11:25 AM, said:

One last time and with feeling:

 

I'm about one session away now, from quitting or taking a long break in the hopes they get this sorted out.

 

I consistently place first, and score appreciably including establishing progressive aircraft grades for the mission, while consistently losing at first place. That is broken.

 

Once in a while I'd like to see someone else above me when I take a loss. I feel lonely. (I exaggerate slightly -- of course I've taken a loss while under-performing -- but the trend of consistently losing at first place is very real. Maybe the other players are just giving up after the writing is on the wall in the first three minutes.)

 

I mean c'mon ... it's like being punished rather than playing a game for recreation. "Here, have some lackluster teammates and lower-tier placement time after time, ya jerk. Hah! That'll teach ya!"

 

I don't even want to tell you the latest match I played. Not only did the other team have the superior players and higher-tier aircraft, but even the bots were ridiculously overpowered in the side-by-side comparison. The match completed in just over five minutes. Oh, but I placed "first" head-and-shoulders above the rest of my team. Yay.

 

The matchmaking is just not making it. Seriously, other skirmish-based MMO's get this sorted out without causing a hue and cry among the players. What is the big deal....

 

I am sorry to hear it and hope that you won't abandon the game or come back after a break. We are preparing Christmas update with some beautiful rewards and event so probably you will want to check it out :honoring:

The MM does not take into account winrates so matches like this may appear. As well as "snowballed" arenas when one team dominates from the very beginning and it is really hard to turn the tide of battle, in such cases it may seem that enemy bots are much more strong but the truth is they are not. They are equal for each team on the particular tier. It is just as the battle goes. 



Zoney45 #56 Posted 13 December 2018 - 08:30 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 952 battles
  • 43
  • Member since:
    11-10-2018

View PostblindfoId, on 12 December 2018 - 03:34 PM, said:

The MM does not take into account winrates

 

That right there is probably a big part of the problem. Like I said earlier, the proof is in the pudding.

 

Thanks for the polite reply admin -- I'm sticking with it for the time being. My fascination with the physics and excellent content along with the all-around agreeable community are outweighing the frustrations with lopsided matches and matches where it's clear you were doomed from the word go.

 

(Like I mentioned, I put an entirely positive review up on Steam.)

 

But they need to continue addressing and hopefully improving the matchmaking. Win rate is arguably among the key statistics/factors for instituting some kind of workable parity. (Obviously this is not entirely cut-and-dried and of course I'd rather be teamed with a 45-percenter with 1,000 games than a 50-percenter with two games.)

 


Edited by Zoney45, 13 December 2018 - 08:50 AM.


Zoney45 #57 Posted 13 December 2018 - 10:38 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 952 battles
  • 43
  • Member since:
    11-10-2018

... then there's matches like the one I just narrowly lost, 800-708. A one-on-one with mostly bots, I have a tier-VII multirole that I just started to grind, they match me up against a tier-VII specialist fighter and plop me into one of those maps with a central airfield surrounded by garrisons. Of course the "matchmaking" logic apparently figures the dumb bots will pick up the slack. It's really fun trying to compete for that utterly crucial airfield in your P-47N with the lowest-grade stock engine and weapons while the objective is being worked over by your opponent's specialist Ki-84 and your bots are chasing down "defense aircraft" to the outer edges of the objective while being merrily picked off.

 

(A fun grind, trying to get that P47-N to resemble something other than a floating pumpkin -- let's pit it solo against the deadliest specialist fighter available in the queue!)

 

"win rate" is not factored, obviously aircraft types and status aren't accounted for properly either.

 

Like I said earlier, hitting the "battle!" button is starting to feel more and more like pulling a slot-machine lever. :coin:

 

Admins, pass along player experiences and constructive criticism, if you're able to find receptive ears. I understand the devs would rather work on "fun" stuff like modeling aircraft and balancing fighter lines, but the matchmaking must be the leading factor of turning people away. It's sucking the joy out of it for me, I can tell you that much.

 

Maybe all of us "squeaky wheels" are up against a brick wall -- maybe the devs are like "it is what it is, deal with it." I don't know.


Edited by Zoney45, 13 December 2018 - 10:56 PM.


Perrigrino #58 Posted 14 December 2018 - 06:31 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 5975 battles
  • 322
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    10-02-2013

View PostZoney45, on 13 December 2018 - 10:38 PM, said:

... then there's matches like the one I just narrowly lost, 800-708. A one-on-one with mostly bots, I have a tier-VII multirole that I just started to grind, they match me up against a tier-VII specialist fighter and plop me into one of those maps with a central airfield surrounded by garrisons. Of course the "matchmaking" logic apparently figures the dumb bots will pick up the slack. It's really fun trying to compete for that utterly crucial airfield in your P-47N with the lowest-grade stock engine and weapons while the objective is being worked over by your opponent's specialist Ki-84 and your bots are chasing down "defense aircraft" to the outer edges of the objective while being merrily picked off.

 

(A fun grind, trying to get that P47-N to resemble something other than a floating pumpkin -- let's pit it solo against the deadliest specialist fighter available in the queue!)

 

"win rate" is not factored, obviously aircraft types and status aren't accounted for properly either.

 

Like I said earlier, hitting the "battle!" button is starting to feel more and more like pulling a slot-machine lever. :coin:

 

Admins, pass along player experiences and constructive criticism, if you're able to find receptive ears. I understand the devs would rather work on "fun" stuff like modeling aircraft and balancing fighter lines, but the matchmaking must be the leading factor of turning people away. It's sucking the joy out of it for me, I can tell you that much.

 

Maybe all of us "squeaky wheels" are up against a brick wall -- maybe the devs are like "it is what it is, deal with it." I don't know.

 

many empathise with your frustration, having  battled the red circles for couple/few years. Don't stop squeaking. <0

 

 



Perrigrino #59 Posted 14 December 2018 - 06:51 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 5975 battles
  • 322
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    10-02-2013

View PostblindfoId, on 12 December 2018 - 03:34 PM, said:

 

Specialization system changes are not in the immediate plans at the moment as there are much more work to do considering some other aspects of the game.

 

Type of aircraft has been and is considered in the current MM but with a lower priority than class of aircraft. The developers team acknowledges scope of work to be done with MM system but there are certain difficulties. For example, adding extra balancing parameters (configuration, any of skill basing parameters, etc.) is likely to affect the queue timing and it must to be taken into account when developing.

 

The idea with removing (optionally) Specialist wings is a decent one, I'll pass it along, probably the team can take a look at it, but there's definitely no plans for hiding players' nicknames.

 

As for the portal page (HoF, Clan Ratings, etc.) this one point is discussable and there's definitely much work to do. At the moment we cannot be certain about any estimated time but some work and re-work is planned and is under the process of estimating and coordination. 

 

 

Glad some of the ideas are being considered, and I appreciate the feedback. I can see that you are busy trying to respond to as many posts and questions as possible. Your efforts are acknowledged. Just wanted to clarify :

 

11. Specialization- the idea is not to remove Specialization, since it seems it's here to stay, but to make it more accessible to all players so that the Matches can be more balanced. In other words, remove the requirements to unlock Elite/Specialization- which unlock the Slots. Let players have all the slots unlocked from the get go, as soon as the vehicle is researched and purchased- as in SHIPs. Signal Flags are available and allow for extra speed, and all sorts of other "specializations" which mirror to a degree the "specialization in PLANEs. This allows for a more balanced battle, since the difference in vehicles of similar type/class/tier are not as drastic as they are in PLANEs when one has Specialization (Superior capabilities) and the opposing player's aircraft has limited slots available (inferior capabilities). The system of Specialization has in and of itself led to an increase in imbalance, I believe as well as many others, and it would be a good starting point and a relatively easy fix by opening up the doors and let everyone into the party. Along with this, people could earn or purchase crates, for consumables, again much as in SHIPs. Even consider making some of the parts perishable (ie., consumable) and therefore requiring replacement. This could be a way to generate revenue, and rewards. By taking the idea/design/blueprint from the WoWS studio and applying it to WoWP, it should not be that difficult? Please give this some further consideration.

 

(BTW Santa already visited me in WoWS Festively decorated Port. Got another free Premium Ship- which does not require any additional grinding to achieve SPECIALIZATION. All slots are avaiable).

 

11. 


Edited by Perrigrino, 04 January 2019 - 08:36 PM.


Azis_ #60 Posted 14 December 2018 - 11:08 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1940 battles
  • 1,718
  • [RBL_] RBL_
  • Member since:
    02-20-2013

Match making used to be handled by the "players" long ago in a galaxy far far....

 

Would think current tech could support that type of match making again....oh wait? It does already.

 

Maybe a mode where players can build a battle and play in combat mode instead of only training room. Could even fill with bots option....It could be turned on/off once a month for a week or sumin like that to prevent any "abuse" WG may have concerns about.

 

I mean, that is how I remember "Clan Wars" being conducted   :B


Edited by Azis_, 14 December 2018 - 11:12 PM.

rblsquad.com                                                                                              Key vehicle - Bristol Beaufighter





Also tagged with MM, Match Maker, Devs, Patent

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users