Jump to content


MM worse lately?

MM worse lately

  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

Captain_Underpants53 #1 Posted 12 December 2019 - 11:46 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 25523 battles
  • 3,793
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    04-17-2017

The MM has been discussed and cussed to death already.  But it seems to be getting even more wonky lately.  I know they are constantly tinkering with it but it does seem to me to be regressing.  More and more battles I am seeing with the results determined more by the bots than the players.

 

I had 2 back-to-back battles against a flighted pair (very good players, BTW.  Kudos OWSS).   Anyway, the first battle was a righteous loss for me and my Tater Tot team mate.  Then, the next battle my side won.  Still a Tater Tot team mate but we had the A Team bots on our side.  It did not feel good.

 

Later today I had back-to-back all bot games.  Both of them my side lost big time.  Being first in defeat is nicer than last in victory, I suppose but it is very irritating to see in the after action report that your side got issued all the short-bus-riders and the red team got all the A+ graduates. 

 

It just seems quite extreme for one side or the other lately.


MSgt, USAF, (ret)

Captain_Rownd #2 Posted 13 December 2019 - 02:08 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2690 battles
  • 1,209
  • Member since:
    09-28-2015

 

  Matchmaker just balances the class slots.  Otherwise, as far as I know no other "balance" is intended.  I just wish they'd stop putting both Specialist planes on the same side. I don't care if the team skill level is unbalanced, but intentionally creating a gear imbalance like that makes no sense whatsoever.  


Edited by Captain_Rownd, 13 December 2019 - 02:08 AM.

Favorites:

SPAD S.510:: MiG-3 :: I-250 :: Ju 88 P :: He 100 D-1 :: Caudron C.714


White_Widow18 #3 Posted 13 December 2019 - 02:31 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 12533 battles
  • 2,535
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    10-08-2018
People who claim not to know how MM works.. Here. From the Devs this is exactly how MM works:
https://worldofwarplanes.com/news/devblog_matchmaker_209/

 

Captain_Rownd #4 Posted 13 December 2019 - 02:49 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2690 battles
  • 1,209
  • Member since:
    09-28-2015

View PostStygian_Alchemist, on 12 December 2019 - 04:31 PM, said:

People who claim not to know how MM works.. Here. From the Devs this is exactly how MM works:
https://worldofwarplanes.com/news/devblog_matchmaker_209/

 

 

That's generally how it works, but it isn't the whole story. 

 

 

 


Favorites:

SPAD S.510:: MiG-3 :: I-250 :: Ju 88 P :: He 100 D-1 :: Caudron C.714


White_Widow18 #5 Posted 13 December 2019 - 03:47 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 12533 battles
  • 2,535
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    10-08-2018

View PostCaptain_Rownd, on 12 December 2019 - 08:49 PM, said:

 

That's generally how it works, but it isn't the whole story. 

 

 

 

Any proof of that? Because otherwise I'd request you stop spreading disinformation about the game.



vcharng #6 Posted 13 December 2019 - 01:47 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 3961 battles
  • 889
  • Member since:
    10-25-2017

View PostStygian_Alchemist, on 13 December 2019 - 03:47 AM, said:

Any proof of that? Because otherwise I'd request you stop spreading disinformation about the game.

Oh wow we have a loyalist silencing opinions he doesn't like here.

Remember Devs do not necessarily tell the truth, or all the truth, and thus there is always room for skepticism. The burden of proof will be on the side trying to tell others NOT to doubt.

 

If it was higher tiers, it is not impossible to lose all bot games, they are "set" to be stronger, which means if something didn't go right (e.g. being trapped by terrain) then the individual difference between the "best" (in terms of result, not in terms of AI setting) and the "worst" would be more significant.

 

As for recent time being a factor, I think it's because we *may* be experiencing a temporary player increase due to holiday season, which means more uncertainties when making a match.



White_Widow18 #7 Posted 13 December 2019 - 02:26 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 12533 battles
  • 2,535
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    10-08-2018

View Postvcharng, on 13 December 2019 - 07:47 AM, said:

Oh wow we have a loyalist silencing opinions he doesn't like here.

Remember Devs do not necessarily tell the truth, or all the truth, and thus there is always room for skepticism. The burden of proof will be on the side trying to tell others NOT to doubt.

 

If it was higher tiers, it is not impossible to lose all bot games, they are "set" to be stronger, which means if something didn't go right (e.g. being trapped by terrain) then the individual difference between the "best" (in terms of result, not in terms of AI setting) and the "worst" would be more significant.

 

As for recent time being a factor, I think it's because we *may* be experiencing a temporary player increase due to holiday season, which means more uncertainties when making a match.


Sure.



CorvusCorvax #8 Posted 17 December 2019 - 05:52 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 4402 battles
  • 4,648
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postvcharng, on 13 December 2019 - 01:47 PM, said:

Oh wow we have a loyalist silencing opinions he doesn't like here.

No, she thinks she's always right, and can't be wrong.  It's a pattern you'll notice if you pay attention.

 

In any case, there is plenty of evidence that WG developers tweak the code without publicly documenting it, by the many after-the-fact admissions over the years.  The idea that the code is static, especially the MM, which is a large source of player complaints, can be put in the category of "wishful thinking", if one were to put the best possible spin on it.

 

The matchmaking that takes into account number of battles, but not equipment or skill level?  This almost guarantees that high-battle-number pilots get stuck with n00b potatoes that strafe armored ground targets with MG-equipped light fighters, matched up against veteran pilots with well-equipped machine that one person with a high battle count really can't stand against, unless some miracle occurs.  I don't think it's a coincidence that several veterans who play often notice that there seems to be a sudden difference.

It is the holiday season, but really, that doesn't start in ernest until this week, since it's finals week for a lot of colleges, starting today.  You'll soon see some serious potato action, I predict.



Captain_Underpants53 #9 Posted 17 December 2019 - 06:24 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 25523 battles
  • 3,793
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    04-17-2017
While I believe you are quite right about who gets stuck with the Tater Tots, again, can we just lay the animosity and angst aside?
MSgt, USAF, (ret)

Booze_Morgan #10 Posted 17 December 2019 - 07:23 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1130 battles
  • 635
  • [A_C_E] A_C_E
  • Member since:
    10-01-2018

No. It isn't worse.

 

Booze


Spoiler

 


GonerNL #11 Posted 17 December 2019 - 09:11 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1120 battles
  • 1,378
  • Member since:
    01-17-2018

View PostBooze_Morgan, on 17 December 2019 - 08:23 AM, said:

No. It isn't worse.

 

Agreed.

IMHO it's the same random team composing (I can't call it balancing) it always was. Sometimes it's just worse than other times. RNG rules ...

And the blog confirms that, there's no serious balancing ; just same number of humans and same number of plane types, that's it. Flights, experienced players, specialists, not important. No long queue times, that's all it does. Just horribly mismatched battles ...

 

Just wondering, what give some players the idea they're actually working on it and tinkering ?? :unsure:

 

 

 


Edited by GonerNL, 17 December 2019 - 09:12 AM.

Flying on EU, NA, ASIA and CIS servers

White_Widow18 #12 Posted 17 December 2019 - 10:13 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 12533 battles
  • 2,535
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    10-08-2018

View PostGonerNL, on 17 December 2019 - 03:11 AM, said:

 

Agreed.

IMHO it's the same random team composing (I can't call it balancing) it always was. Sometimes it's just worse than other times. RNG rules ...

And the blog confirms that, there's no serious balancing ; just same number of humans and same number of plane types, that's it. Flights, experienced players, specialists, not important. No long queue times, that's all it does. Just horribly mismatched battles ...

 

Just wondering, what give some players the idea they're actually working on it and tinkering ?? :unsure:

 

 

 

Mix 1 part Argumentum Ad Ignorantium - They expect you to believe them because you can't "prove" them wrong in their mind.
      2 parts Argumentum Ad Speculum - Speculative logic based on incomplete understanding of the observed variables/effects in this case.
 A dash of Non Sequitur - Literally.. their logic just doesn't follow, skipping steps in the logic train to make a point and ignoring data/information to draw a conclusion.
Top it off with a false slippery slope argumentation based on the idea that "well.. they did this thing over here, so obviously they'd be willing to do this over here!"

Voila. Conspiracy theory.

That's why I asked for proof. It's unlikely anyone can provide any proof (which can be attained by collating a large enough data set to mathematically prove a pattern (if someone did, I'd accept that we've been fibbed to.. but since no one is... and my own observations line up with what's described as to how the MM functions, I'll stick with my position))... they can argue it all day if they're given a chance, but the second they're asked for proof suddenly they go to ad hominem as their next line of defense. Of course, when fire is returned.. they claim victimhood and make an emotional appeal in order to try to strengthen their position via Argumentum Ad Misercordiam, or literally an emotional appeal. One based on false flagging to boot.

That's my outlook on how.. they argue it...
Why?
Well, because sometimes people people simply cannot accept that a very simple piece of code can have very unpredictable and random behavior.. I suppose it makes them feel better to to think that somehow they've been slighted by the powers that be, as opposed to it being random or somehow a failing on their part?

We have multiple points of the MM being described, it's so painfully simple that the odds of it spitting out something imbalanced are far greater than it not. I don't know if that's for better or worse than adding to the complexity of the MM.. though I would argue that Spec should also be taken into account as well as pilot skill point level in your plane to try to create a rough approximation of "even" teams. 

Just my two cents.

-Widow


Edited by White_Widow18, 17 December 2019 - 10:14 AM.


CorvusCorvax #13 Posted 17 December 2019 - 02:20 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 4402 battles
  • 4,648
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostCaptain_Underpants53, on 17 December 2019 - 06:24 AM, said:

While I believe you are quite right about who gets stuck with the Tater Tots, again, can we just lay the animosity and angst aside?


Look, your forum cop thing is only two posts old, and it's already, umm, old.

 

Pointing out the obvious is nothing but shining a light on facts.  Now, if you're poking me to get non-productive postings going, in order to manipulate the rulebook in your favor, that street goes both ways.

 

In this thread, we are discussing the matchmaker.  The matchmaking process is opaque, and what WG tells us is not necessarily the whole truth.  THere may be new information that has not yet trickled down, and without any evidence that the MM has been a static entity for the last year, claims to the contrary have no basis in fact. 

 

Do you have more commentary on the matchmaker, or are you going to continue to low-key whine about the style of my postings?



Captain_Underpants53 #14 Posted 17 December 2019 - 02:32 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 25523 battles
  • 3,793
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    04-17-2017

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 17 December 2019 - 09:20 AM, said:


Look, your forum cop thing is only two posts old, and it's already, umm, old.

 

Pointing out the obvious is nothing but shining a light on facts.  Now, if you're poking me to get non-productive postings going, in order to manipulate the rulebook in your favor, that street goes both ways.

 

In this thread, we are discussing the matchmaker.  The matchmaking process is opaque, and what WG tells us is not necessarily the whole truth.  THere may be new information that has not yet trickled down, and without any evidence that the MM has been a static entity for the last year, claims to the contrary have no basis in fact. 

 

Do you have more commentary on the matchmaker, or are you going to continue to low-key whine about the style of my postings?

Take it how you will.  I was, apparently in vain, hoping to get some of the vitriol out of this thread.  But if you wish to offend, you have accomplished that.   :izmena:


MSgt, USAF, (ret)

CorvusCorvax #15 Posted 17 December 2019 - 03:34 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 4402 battles
  • 4,648
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostCaptain_Underpants53, on 17 December 2019 - 02:32 PM, said:

Take it how you will.  I was, apparently in vain, hoping to get some of the vitriol out of this thread.  But if you wish to offend, you have accomplished that.   :izmena:


No, sir, I *do not* wish to offend.  But you have pointedly commented on my postings twice today.  And NO OTHERS.  If you want to be a forum cop, I'm all for it.  But you may want to make sure you call out ALL snarky commentary, not just a select few, or two.  Otherwise, it could appear as though you are purposefully trolling for non-productive commentary, which as we both know, is contrary to WG's TOU.  One might claim, with some validity, I imagine, that such trolling in and of itself might be considered non-productive.

 

Now, to the subject, if we may - is there any evidence, at all, that WG has not made undocumented changes to the matchmaker?  If there is not such evidence, then yes, indeed, your original question has some merit - WG may indeed be experimenting with the matchmaker to see what changes have which effect, especially on how players perceive the fairness.  We would never know, except indirectly, and anecdotally.



Captain_Underpants53 #16 Posted 17 December 2019 - 03:57 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 25523 battles
  • 3,793
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    04-17-2017
Thank you for getting back to the topic I posted.
MSgt, USAF, (ret)

GonerNL #17 Posted 18 December 2019 - 08:39 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1120 battles
  • 1,378
  • Member since:
    01-17-2018

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 17 December 2019 - 04:34 PM, said:

is there any evidence, at all, that WG has not made undocumented changes to the matchmaker?  

 

Without any communication whatsoever, we are completely in the dark about changes to the game ; there only is the dev blog about MM from months ago.

I haven't noticed any changes in MM, but I'm interested in what others have experienced ...

 


Flying on EU, NA, ASIA and CIS servers

CorvusCorvax #18 Posted 18 December 2019 - 02:01 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 4402 battles
  • 4,648
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostGonerNL, on 18 December 2019 - 08:39 AM, said:

 

Without any communication whatsoever, we are completely in the dark about changes to the game ; there only is the dev blog about MM from months ago.

I haven't noticed any changes in MM, but I'm interested in what others have experienced ...

 


That was indeed my point.  Nobody can say, with any amount of certainty, that changes aren't manifold and ongoing.  Declaring it, without information to the contrary, is at best, illogical.  And that's the best spin to put on it.  Deliberately obtuse would be the more realistic position.

There are some of us with years of experience with WG documentation and communication, across multiple games.  Undocumented and unannounced changes have been commonplace.


Edited by CorvusCorvax, 18 December 2019 - 02:01 PM.


iuserockets #19 Posted 13 January 2020 - 09:50 PM

    Airman Basic

  • Member
  • 2750 battles
  • 4
  • Member since:
    07-12-2015
whenever i have a mission where "it only counts if you win"......the game will screw me quite often....without such a mission not so much.........ive gotten 21 kills and still lost...

Edited by iuserockets, 13 January 2020 - 09:51 PM.


Captain_Underpants53 #20 Posted 13 January 2020 - 10:11 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 25523 battles
  • 3,793
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    04-17-2017

View Postiuserockets, on 13 January 2020 - 04:50 PM, said:

whenever i have a mission where "it only counts if you win"......the game will screw me quite often....without such a mission not so much.........ive gotten 21 kills and still lost...


LOL.  I thought I was the only one seeing this.


MSgt, USAF, (ret)





Also tagged with MM, worse, lately

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users