Updated Match Maker is not balanced

[unreal hound]

i get to much yoloed when trying so not for me

[digital orchid]

I mean SU has good camo it’s not invisible tho. The SU also was my second ever premium tank, and before Cold War came along, so I used it to grind credits. Ofc I have a lot of games in it

Not like an STRV or UDES

But sitting at the back of the map. Nah. I’d play arty if I wanted to do that

Contrary to popular belief you don’t do very well sitting on the redline. I don’t really understand where that belief comes from tbh

It’s actually bad players that play like that

[unreal hound]

it depends the knowledge to know when to be agressive and when to sit back is the difference between good and great players. I still make the wrong decision sometimes

[final robin]

Sits back so far leaves his stream on for 6hrs unattended 😂❤️

[unreal hound]

😬 😂 nobody needed to know that. At least the dog was happy 😂

[viscid gorge]

No lol

[digital orchid]

footage of me redline sniping

Lost with 9 enemy tanks left

[digital orchid]

Fantastic rebuttal

[viscid gorge]

Career makes plenty of players look way worse than they are. 90 day is much better so long as they have over 100 games

[digital orchid]

I’m flattered 🥰

Career is never going to be higher than recents though. That’s just how it works, and how that metric is calculated. You won’t ever have a player with higher career than recents

Unless they deliberately build up a high career wn8 and then go afk for thousands of games

That RHM in @simple zodiac game played like a 1900 player not a 3100 player which his recents show. His score is proof of that

Whereas that tusk played like a career 3200 player, even more so. Heck of a game

[viscid gorge]

Yes, career is never going to be higher, that's the point

If someone looked at my IS7 career, they'd think I'm braindead cause it was my first tier 10.

[lean scroll]

He doesn't get that the learning curve of the game skews the data

[digital orchid]

I won’t get into it because this isn’t the thread for it

[digital orchid]

You could fix that in 100-200 games easily

[viscid gorge]

I'm not going to play 100-200 games just to make myself look better to people who don't understand learning curves 🙂

[digital orchid]

Not my point. It’s easily fixable if you cared to, because you’re good now and your career shows that. Hence why I’m saying career matters more than recents

It wouldn’t be easily fixable if you were still a blue player by career. Even if your recents were ~3.5k

[uneven shoal]

Use mine for example.

3,100 career, 5300 recent. I didnt get my career into the super uni range until sometime last year. When your account has 11+ years of battles on it, it takes a while to change

Could I go through a bunch of low tiers and stat pad? Sure. Is that the point of the game? No

[digital orchid]

I guess. Seems I’m an outlier really then

I didn’t start playing until 2019. So quite late really compared to some

I went from crap to dark purple in 20k games. I didn’t have any of this halt in progression

I’ve plateaued at 4650 career. I’ve been there now for at least 2 years

Even though my recents are way higher. And I don’t stat pad

Either way. This isn’t really relevant to this topic so I’ll leave that there now

Back to it though. Another nice win rate session for today in the GSOR that I am number 2 in right now . 55.6% wr since the update

[lament mica]

Just a thought, but I wonder if maps affect this somewhat. Some maps are imho, more prone to some players doing terrible things and teamwork is more dependent. For instance, seeing 3/4 of the team including all the tier 10s immediately head beach on Overlord when there are zero arty in play makes me want to drive over the cliff.

Of course as I write this the guy with the 3.2k games in the E5 and 46 percent win rate in it has a monster game of almost 7k damage followed by the guy in the 268 v4 with a nearly 6k game and 49 percent win rate.

Just die early guys. It will shift the RNG delta and your team will do magical things to win. 😂

[paper anvil]

Have you tried being even better? - i see that as an easy solution.
But you could you the super secret consumables only the Super Unis have, it costs 10 times as much but is worth it 🤣

[gusty hedge]

That is expected. When the matches are created so that both sides have an equal chance at winning, this means your win Rates will be ~50% also. Using WR as a metric of skill no longer applies anymore. Its your performance that seperates you from others, not WR.

[digital orchid]

And this is not a fun mechanic as everyone is pointing out to you

Why are good players who play solo now being handicapped, regardless of how well they play?

[digital orchid]

I’ve not seen one reason given yet which makes sense

[unreal hound]

the reasons are obvious and are told many times you may not like them but thats another thing

[fleet elm]

"Makes it better for everyone else" is the official reason

[simple zodiac]

If it doesn’t matter anymore then why change it? I get more reta*ds than ever on my teams

I hope wot dies lol ive been saying it for years and each update we get one step closer😂

[fleet elm]

That’s misleading. Performance includes winrate which more or less correlate unless someone platoons excessively

[digital orchid]

So still no reason that makes sense because that’s not even true. It’s terrible for good players

They went from a system that was fair (as fair as it could be) for everyone, to one that isn’t 💁‍♂️

[uneven shoal]

It’s a heck of a lot harder to perform to the same level when your team is intentionally stacked against you!

Win Rate might not be the only metric of skill WG uses, but as you can see in #1407968911382675536 , it still correlates to some degree

[fleet elm]

Half the playerbase is going to win more and games will probably be more balanced. WG just seems comfortable sacrificing the top 5% to do that

[fleet elm]

It’s 3-4 metrics, probably similar to wn8, just with different weighting. WG likes to be pedantic to avoid the real topic

[uneven shoal]

Quite frustrating. All of the metrics players use have declined for the top X%, but WG pulls the actually, you are enjoying it more! they’d never gaslight you

[errant saddle]

I don't like it at all so I agree with ya on this system being bad since toons can just skip over the metrics.

[fleet elm]

You don’t skip the metrics, 3 good players is just enough to win regardless of how bad most teams are

[fleet elm]

I don’t think they think we should be enjoying it more. I think their stance is “too bad, so sad, pound sand”

[errant saddle]

Pretty much

[digital orchid]

Sadly that’s the attitude of people in general these days. If you don’t like something and can spot obvious flaws with it, YOU are the problem

Or it’s nonsensical arguments like “you just want to stomp bad players”. Like I’m still doing that, I’m just losing way more games under this new system because I don’t platoon

[fleet elm]

“You want stacked teams”. No we want normal teams

[digital orchid]

https://tenor.com/view/elections-obama-president-drop-the-mic-speech-gif-5454392

[simple zodiac]

With all this feedback being given they’re still not gonna listen. When talking to wg devs its like talking to a brick wall

[cursive tinsel]

Generally a reason its mainly called random battles. Not ranked

[fleet elm]

I’d take ranked over this. At least I wouldn’t have idiots on my team all the time

[golden agate]

The fact that they said it’s only applied to WW2 is kind of a slap in the face too
I know I saw that confirmed in the thread

[bleak oriole]

The WW2 and CW MM are entirely different. The plan was/is to eventually move CW to use the same style of MM - you all might remember that we tested that in LIVE a few years back. We decided to not go forward it with because there was an unacceptable rate of people waiting out the 5 minute queue w/o a match.

As for these threads, I'll continue to read them and answer questions as to how the MM works, and looking at specific matches to see "why" the MM that particular pairing. But, I'll leave answering the design-type questions to the ... designers.

[lament mica]

How can they be entirely different? Beyond the ERAs, what made CW different before this change to WW2?

[bleak oriole]

CW does not have an rule to absolutely balance on class and tier - you could have a case where one team has 5 top-of-era tanks and the other team only has 4

If you want the particulars, the CW matchmaker was based upon the previous version of the WW2 MM and adapted to an era system. That was gotten ready and launched in 7.0

While that was going on, we were listening to the feedback on the WW2 MM - eg: "my team 8 heavies and 0 TDs and the other team has 0 heavies and 8 TDSs, how the f is this fair" - and wrote the pairs MM.

We wanted to update CW to use it, but the key goal was to get it working for WW2. When we did test it for CW, we decided that we would have to make more extensive changes, and those have been waiting (tm).

[lament mica]

Ah. So WW2 actually has more balanced teams now more often than CW?

Seems like the ERA system makes CW better—bottom does not feel so bottom.

[fleet elm]

That’s not the era system, that’s module and HP balancing. The era system guarantees where your tank is (-2, -1, 0) and gives 3 top tier tanks on the progression (I just stop at era 2)

[lament mica]

You can say it’s not the ERA system but it’s designed as part of the system. WW2 spread in balance is because there is opportunities for what would otherwise be bottom tier (tier 8) to be top at times.

[paper anvil]

And the bottom too.

[sand dock]

And here's my matchmaking

1/3rd of the team 0 damage

[paper anvil]

Yeah since the update i see that trend a lot, you have some "normal" games and the you have several games (this can be on your team or the enemy team) 3, 4 or 5 players with zero Damage done.

[sand dock]

My g

[digital orchid]

I’m barely having any normal games

I mean my sample size is low cause I don’t have the time to spend playing 50 games a day anymore like I used to. But I’ve still played 235 games since the update

And I’m still performing the same, yet winning less. And it’s way harder to keep up this performance because of the crap team mates we are given as outlier players

Will I be the first super uni to achieve 49% wr with that wn8 and that average tier?

[uneven shoal]

That’s the goal! lol

[digital orchid]

I’m more impressed at this point tbh this is the best I have been playing for 90 days. Like I can’t do much more 😂. Yet the wr continues to drop and drop lol

But no ofc MM isn’t broken!

Waiting for Meat Dongus Dingus to come along and tell me it’s because I snipe from the redline every game

[paper anvil]

Na is because you play for damage, and damaging enemy tanks has no good valor for a match XD you should help your team? how i dunno put yourself Infront of them and die.

Jokes aside:
Every tank you hit = enemy weaker.
Every tank you destroy = one less for you and your team to worry about.
the more you do the more you are rewarded in the end, Silver, TANK XP, Crew XP, and Free XP.
Something that even if done with the matchmaker doing the damage of 3 to 5 tanks that contribute zero would ask a sole player to do the damage of those players plus your extra own to help win the game, so if 3 players do 0, you have to do 3 + you equivalent, if you have 5 tanks that also do 0 you have to do 5 + you, so you are carrying the weight of 6 players, that is what seems to be unbalanced and unfair.

[lean scroll]

Hey to all the people posting screenshots are you actually looking up and comparing wn8's of teams or just complaining about people with no damage? I know thats blasphemy of me for asking. I'm just sayin the numbers would help prove or disprove your arguments

[paper anvil]

Is there a miss Angus?

[digital orchid]

My 30 day wr and wn8 is proof enough

Don’t get a win rate that low unless you’re being given idiots more frequently. That’s just common sense

On wait, that’s exactly how the new system works

[lean scroll]

Huh?

[uneven shoal]

#1407968911382675536

I haven't had time to pull more teams, but I actually did pull all the numbers

[paper anvil]

Thanks for offering your time to do it, you have enough pictures here to do so @uneven shoal could use the help, he is actually doing it as a man of science for free and when he has time, you are suggesting to do something that requires quite a bit of time to do, and that is for 1 game.
you can use Macros if you want but all yours my good ser.

[fleet elm]

Well finally had a day with a decent win rate. Only took 6700 dpg in some of the most OP TDs in the game

[digital orchid]

Every game so far 4 minute battles for me today, not one game longer than 5 minutes

Can’t do anything before my team has melted or melt the enemy team

So much for this system apparently making more close games

[fleet elm]

Idk I didn’t track that. Hard for use to tell on match length

[vale maple]

It's garbage getting tier 10 players with no clue doing zero or 1 shot of damage making players leave will be what happens

[vestal cypress]

Sounds relatable lmao

[tulip cliff]

I guess I should try harder 🤣

[digital orchid]

Poor effort from Dav there. Not even 10k 😂

Just gotta do 13k then you might win

[tulip cliff]

😂😂🙂

[digital orchid]

The two sessions above 50% were platooned. The others all solo

[fleet elm]

@bleak oriole is there any data you can share about match length and battle quality (closeness of matches) now that it’s been a few weeks?

[bleak oriole]

I'll point in BAM's general direction

[errant saddle]

Yikes.....

[uneven shoal]

Going to try to pull these teams tonight. Do you remember the match duration?

[tulip cliff]

Umm, can’t really remember if I’m honest. It was last week. Feels fairly similar match duration as before. Plenty of white watch games over in 5mins. With the odd longer game thrown in.

[austere osprey]

@uneven shoal might be one to investigate!

[uneven shoal]

I’ll try. I’m getting a lot busier with classes, so not had the time to get to any more.

Worst case, I’ll make a blank form of the sheet where everyone can enter the information and see results for themselves

[austere osprey]

No pressure man, you’ve done plenty and much appreciate what you’ve done! That would be great - a sheet or template would be a great resource for us all to have!

[digital orchid]

It’s crazy how much easier games in light tanks are than heavy tanks under this new matchmaking

Like the difference in caliber of players is hilariously noticeable. And I’m also having a wider spread of players too. Not being matched with the same names in back to back games all the time

Play heavy tanks where I have 70% wins and my teams are stacked to hell 24/7

Play light tanks where the win rate is naturally lower anyway because they aren’t damage dealers, and the games are hilariously easy. I can’t be the only one noticing this?

[fleet elm]

That's the system working the way it was designed

[digital orchid]

Oh so tank win rate matters way more than your overall then

Guess I’m just gunna play light tanks now then if that’s the only way I can enjoy this game anymore

[fleet elm]

Beyond a certain number of battles, your tank "performance" is what drives the delta

[errant saddle]

Pretty much tank your stats for ez matchmaking....

[digital orchid]

Yeah

Sad really. COD style matchmaking then.

Two box and get ez lobbies

[errant saddle]

Yup

[digital orchid]

bUt itS wHat tHe plAyeRs wAnTeD

Literally nobody

[grizzled vessel]

I mean I'd be lying if I said I never asked for balanced teams and less steamrolls. This was WG's attempt to do it

[fleet elm]

The issue for players is that 50/50 often doesn’t feel like 50/50. Highway is a 50/50 on spawns but it feels weird and bad if you spawn field. Steamrolls that people describe aren’t always that bad. Some maps fall apart if you lose map control and 2 tank disadvantage turns into a route

[devout wyvern]

That is exactly the case. Trying to correct something which is based on feelings by doing factual stuff is doomed idea from get go. Steamrolls are equally (or even more) frequent after MM update as they were before. Statistically games might last bit longer as unis sweat and refuse to lose while blueberries don’t throw their vehicles. Better overall "balance"? I don't think so. More exciting matches? Maybe bit more for ones who had no issue with old MM.

[lament mica]

Those premiums, use the factual spreadsheet to balance them, and not the player feels.
—AVRE

[hoary lance]

I started collecting my own data on August 15 and wrote down the match durations and final scores of each game. I put everything into a small spreadsheet and analyzed the results (see link below). What stood out to me immediately: out of 256 matches, not a single one ended 15:0, and only two ended 14:0. For me, that’s clearly something that comes from the new matchmaker. Now there are good players on both teams who always manage to get at least one or two kills, and there are weak players on both sides who get taken out. That means those extremely one-sided results basically don’t happen anymore — at least not for me.

Of course, I don’t have any old data from before the MM update to compare directly. But I still feel like the matches are lasting longer now and often feel much more exciting. I also think it’s a bit exaggerated when people here say that they always get the bad players and the enemy team gets none. I’ve looked at some of the replays people posted here, and the weak players are actually quite evenly spread between both teams. It’s definitely not like you’re playing 10 vs. 15. People often forget that the enemy team also has bad players. And in the evenings on the EU server, there are so many players with high winrates playing that balance often just happens naturally — those players end up on opposite teams.

For example, I watched the match from that short Twitch clip posted by Gamblt, and the two players in the Czolg and the Sturmtiger — the ones everyone was complaining about — both had over 50% overall winrate. You really can’t call them bad players and then blame the matchmaker for putting them on your team. They're just average, decent players. If they miss some shots, that’s not the MM’s fault. Koza already made a good post about this and explained it really well.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NxX0q7ejNzil2EFbciErUUt992ssf18mx630J4--sCk/edit?usp=sharing

Also, don’t forget that even before this update, the matchmaker already tried to build two teams of roughly equal strength. The problem was that it used total number of matches played as the main factor, which just isn’t a great metric. There are players with thousands of matches who still play poorly, and new players with fewer matches who are already good — maybe because they have PC experience and already know the maps and mechanics. So to me, it still makes no sense that total matches played is apparently still part of the formula. But okay, at least it’s better than it was before.

That said, I still think the number of matches that only last 4–5 minutes or end 10:0, 11:0 is way too high. I hope that’ll improve once the commander skills for accuracy and reload are removed.

Finally, I just want to say something more general: I play this game mainly because I want exciting, tactical, and balanced matches. A hard-fought win against an equally good team feels way better to me than a 13:0 stomp. So for me, matches with totally random teams just make no sense. And even if I end up losing more games that way, I’d still prefer it. I’d rather lose 3 matches in a row 0:2 than keep winning 13:0 or 14:0. There’s just nothing better than a 3 vs. 3 or 5 vs. 5 endgame — that’s exactly what this game is about.

[fleet elm]

The old MM didn't try to build equal strength. It just tried to even battle counts so one side didn't get a bunch of inexperienced players. The new MM targets equal strength.

The issue isn't the games with equal numbers of each skill level of player on each team. The issue is with outlier matches where there is a 65%er and the next best player is a 53%er. The 65%er will get on average 50% more of the worst players in the lobby compared to before and playing with a bunch of bad players is, as I'm sure we've all experienced, not very fun. It doesn't end up being tactical. It ends up being trying to carry and force the issue before the flank I'm not on completely collapses. Many games, you can see it's a lost cause before you even see an enemy and just try to farm damage before dying

[hoary lance]

But the data of the battles that has already been shown here does not indicate that one team had "a bunch of" extremely bad players while the other had none. This applies, for example, to the battle from the Twitch clip. For me, it is absolutely fair and understandable that in the team with the 3 players with over 60% win rate, the 2 weakest players are also included.

[fleet elm]

Was this a battle with a platoon?

[hoary lance]

Yes

[fleet elm]

That can severely mess things up. Plus the order of the matchmaking affects how balanced teams are. One battle isn’t enough to show that. But even still, this example shows that the left team got more bad players

[hoary lance]

Yes, because they had more exceptionally good players. That’s what 'balancing' means.

[fleet elm]

Yes so good players get more of the “worse” players on their team, exactly what I said

[digital orchid]

I can’t provide proof of anything, because quite frankly I don’t care enough to, since it won’t be listened to anyway. But I can certainly speak on what I have noticed playing purely solo

I can say that yes, 15-0 battles are less common. But they weren’t even that common before anyway I didn’t think. What’s more common now without a shadow of a doubt is 14-1, and games like that. Tonnes of lopsided matches where one team rolls and the other gets a couple kills if that (if you’re playing solo with a high win rate and tanks with a high win rate).

If you play lower win rate tanks, you get easier games that feel like how the system worked before. Harder fought victories, more close matches and longer match duration. This is what I noticed immediately when playing my lower win rate light tanks. But like Nate said, that’s how it has been designed to work

The games weren’t necessarily easier, and so far my win rate is still quite bad relative to my career WR, because carrying in a light is hard anyway, but they were noticeably more balanced games. With way more games coming down to 6v6, 4v4 etc etc towards the end where I could be really effective. I’m not getting any of that in these hyper stacked lobbies, it’s just steam rolls in both directions, since everyone can actually aim in these stacked lobbies. playing my heavies with 70+ win rates on a lot of them from before, and so once the bad players fall in my team, which they do, quickly, when they’re put in games with multiple super uni’s , it spirals into an uncontrollable game very fast. My 30 day win rate is now at 54 % lmao as a 62 overall. I’m only playing light tanks now going forward if that’s what I have to do to get fair games, better quality games, and longer more tactical games as a solo player

[random chasm]

I can’t play this game solo anymore it’s actually unbearable how much it feels the games are against you.

Ww2 games are feeling like Cold War getting aped by the whole team In positions I shouldn’t be

[uneven shoal]

I put together a document where anyone can see some stats for their matches as I’m now busy enough that I definitely won’t be able to pull individual games

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hf38l5Wc6upOLszvps-k3v9ZiGpEse_EwIFLl3rSCfg/edit?usp=sharing

I highly recommend doing this on a computer of some kind

First thing Make a copy of the document and save it

• Each player needs entered in this form: Gamertag-console (ex: Bilder Nick-x for xbox or Bilder Nick-p for playstation)
• Use the dropdown menus for the tank names

When you hit the Process button, it might require you to authorize the script.

1. Click OK
2. Click your email/account
3. Click advanced, then go to "whatever the name of the sheet is"
4. Select All, then continue

[digital orchid]

Your 30 day win rate has tanked just like mine

You’re a couple of percent better off but still shockingly low compared to your 60 and 90 day, and career

You mostly solo?

[sand dock]

Don't matchmake me with these guys again please and thank you

[fleet elm]

This is a perfect field team play. Why did you go hill with so little support, that’s a losing play

[sand dock]

Nobody goes over there bro, its for snipers only man

You dont take that hill you dont win

[fleet elm]

Nope. Your team owns half the map and has safe spotting positions and a tank lead. They’d have a 2 tank lead if you held back at A7 instead pushing mostly alone

[sand dock]

Its era 1 no need to spot, plus no one should be going up the hill

[digital orchid]

Not being funny his team positioning is a huge L

WW2 or Cold War

That’s immediate loss

[sand dock]

Theres only 3 prices of cover, its very open on that side

[fleet elm]

Field >>> hill, especially ww2. You can’t leave hill and get bombed with arty until you lose

[sand dock]

No bro

If you dont hold the hill you dont spot

[fleet elm]

A6-A7 spots everything leaving for e7 to farm. Field is just as viable as long as you don’t have 3 tanks go hill without support and die for nothing

[sand dock]

Everyone should be going Hill

Especially heavies

[fleet elm]

If you have numbers sure. If not, don’t. Field is as viable

[digital orchid]

Yeah I’ve never had a game won by teams that go 0 line

[sand dock]

It just aint bro

[digital orchid]

Even if I spot K line we still lose

Cause the caliber of player that goes 0 line is terrible

[digital orchid]

That position where your light and two mediums are is viable only when you have hill control

Or if hill is still contested

[sand dock]

Im not as a heavy going up 0 line

You cant leave it free either

[fleet elm]

It’s better in ww2 with arty. You have all the vision and safe cover. That light and 2 meds are in amazing position

[fleet elm]

Go e7 or a7 in heavies

[sand dock]

Bro e7 is not viable, and a7 isn't good for no gun depression

[lament mica]

You might take the map discussion to dms or somewhere else. Also e7

[random chasm]

Since I had kids yeah cause the only time I can really play is later in the evening when everyone is in bed lol

[digital orchid]

Damn us solo guys are cooked

[random chasm]

For show!

Games busted

[bleak oriole]

Not sure about that screenshot, it's cut off for me - but the fact that there at least 6 platoons on it could have resulted in up to 12 players per team having "fixed" assignments.

That could easily have stack things incredibly in the favor or one side or other. It's doubtful that the 6 random players that could have been assigned to either team would actually make that much of a difference

There could easily be 3 man platoon on team 1, which would could have fixed things for up to 13 players per team being "fixed"

[digital orchid]

https://tenor.com/view/confused-black-guy-what-akward-gif-26811297

[bleak oriole]

3man platoon #1 on Team 1 -> forces 3 specific solo players on team 2
2man platoon #3 on Team 1 -> forces 2 specific solo players on team 2
2man platoon #5 on Team 1 ->forces 2 specific solo players on team 2

That's because if the platoons on Team 2 do not match those on team one directly, they must be matched against solos. So at this point, there's 7 players on team 1 and 7 on team 2 - where skill doesn't even come into the equation.

On team 2, there are three 2 man platoons - I cannot see what they are given the screenshot. So similar to the above, that's 6 solos players on Team 1 that are fixed.

That's a total of 13 players per team that have fixed team assignment.

EG: 3man platoon #1 might be SPG + 2 lights ... well unless, there's a matching platoon in the pool that means that the pair that is made is by finding a solo SPG and two solo slight lights.
The platoon is put on team 1 and the solos are on team 2.

Then platoon #2 is added - because there's a 3 man platoon team #1, it has to be added to team 2...

etc etc

[cunning dew]

Im am so sick and tired of getting sh**ers on my team. I feel I can no longer carry. I am a good player 63% winrate recents but cant carry anymore. Its went down about 5 percent since the update

Goes to show i did this the other day and almost lost. Thats how bad my team was. 11.5k damage and it came down to a 1vs 1

More than half my team did less than 1k damage. Pathetic 😂

[muted oracle]

You would have had that situation before the update with carrying people, also coming down to a 1v1 finish is exactly what great games are made of no? …proves nothing to me that game and actually supports the changes (enemy team had 6 players less than 1k damage too)

Great game by the way 👍🏻

[unreal hound]

Those are the Games i love to have close unpredictable until the end thats why i play this game

[cunning dew]

Yea i definitely understand that but o made 0 errors and every shot penned. If I made any mistake we would have lost. Thx btw😁

[bleak oriole]

I would feel for you, but I look at the enemy team list and noticed that one of the Tier X heavies - the ones that would match up against your platoon - one of them had a 62% win rate.

IE: a value where the MM thinks that both teams are balanced at that point and tries to keep assigning teams round-round.

I didn't go thru the full list of players, but I would challenge yours assertion that your team was considered "superior" and thus the other team got the "good" players while you got the "bad" ones.

[autumn light]

you said this was Cold War Era 1, Cold War MM didn't change at all. So it's completely irrelevant to this thread btw

[fleet elm]

True or not in any specific case, the psychological aspect of knowing you’re gonna to, on average, have several more “worse” players than before and the implications of how you need to play and how much you need to carry is tiring and unfun

[autumn light]

that's likely not true, that on average you will have more "worse" players than before. It seems statistically unlikely to be the case

[bleak oriole]

my take - fwiw - is the messaging incoming is that the MM sucks because every single match, the deck is stacked against you.

Yet, when I look, it's not the case that the it's the whole MM point system that is causing the issue - usually it's something like platoons, or something like the above screenshot where both teams look like they had the same amount of outlier players

[sand dock]

1984

[fleet elm]

How else does it make fair teams where I win 10% less than before?

[fleet elm]

Not every match and not all matches equally. Just on average. Unless there’s been an incredible influx of very good players to match against for the past month, the only other way my (and others) winrates to drop the way they have is to give them worse teammates

[bleak oriole]

tbh, I'm waiting to see what @autumn light says here

i keep seeing him type, so ...

[digital orchid]

Holy hell your win rate has done what mine has

Welcome to the 53% club man

[unreal hound]

after 30 days i can say my winrate stayed the exact same so did many top players i would like to know whats the difference to some people losing more % in winrate

[digital orchid]

How many platooned battles you have?

[unreal hound]

less than normal for testing purpose

[digital orchid]

I have zero for reference. Whether or not that’s enough to shift the balance, idk

I purposely have avoided platooning to see how low it would drop

After I first saw it dipping a few %

[unreal hound]

i stay solo at 62 roundabout i checked Durchblick guys they stay the same roundabout so did some of the 1f guys some fell a bit but all are still way above 60 %

[fleet elm]

Idk look at my technodrome. Pretty much half the battles before, half after the change. Dropped 10% win rate and effectively the same dpg

[digital orchid]

My manticore has 8% less wins than my RHM with more DPG in the Manti

[unreal hound]

i have tanks with much lower winrate than others that happened before the update as well i think people are just blaming the MM for everything now like the game was working perfect before

[coral zephyr]

Does the new MM rules effect arty if there are only 1 per side? Will the MM just put one each side and leave them out of the "skill/win-rate" balancing?

[gray kernel]

The WG staff should tell everyone it changed back without changing it. I'll bet everyone would talk about how it's finally back to normal without realizing they've been played.

[digital orchid]

SBMM is impossible to not notice regardless of what people are saying

[autumn light]

i said it's likely not true that the you get more "worse" players than before. Realistically the same number of those players will be in the game, I mean for many of the people bringing up the issue the other 14 on their team are "worse" players and so that number can't change. Previously they will have had a more random distribution, so the bell curve would have been wider but the centre point will likely be the same.

And to the "the only way" comment, that's not true either. What can change is how consistently even the fight is amongst those 14, and how often it will stack the 2 best players in the game on the same team. That could mean that rather than 2x 60% players, 2x 45% on one side and then 4x 55% on the other, you end up with 1x 60%, 2x 55% and 1x 45% on each team. So rather than have 2 45% and 1 60% on your team you get 2x 55% and 1x 45%. So you have more "good" players on your team, not less. You may not win those games as reliably due to the individual battles within the game being more even and less mismatched, which is technically what a lot of players have been repeatedly asking for over and over. It's still a random grouping of win rates brought in by the MM, but the teams are "less stacked" and more consistently balanced once the game begins. And i'm sure people like SPG will be looking at ways to make any improvements that could be required.

[digital orchid]

Sure, you would have some outlier tanks before the changes with lower win rates

Such is the nature of “random” battles

[autumn light]

Counter Strike did something similar with ping once, they just changed what it displayed and people commented loved the patch... no one knew until a dev spoke about it years later at a conference

[errant saddle]

11k in a VZ.55.......

[autumn light]

sorry trying to tab in and out while doing other stuff 😅 probs should have typed up in a word doc or something so it doesn't keep making it seem likely i'm actively typing

[digital orchid]

Post nerf too

[autumn light]

the MM has hard rules that are always followed to create the "pairs" in game. So matching class, tier, etc. The MM pays 0 attention to things like skill/win rate. The change is once those players are pulled from the queue by the MM, they need to be distributed between the 2 teams but again with the pairs being fixed. AKA it can't take a Tier 10 TD from one side and put it on the other side so that team has 2 Tier 10 TDs because some form of skill/win rate balancing.

So the new system added win rate to part of the already existing calculation for how to assign each player from it's pair to which team. So it'll work out a point difference between the 2 arty players and then based on the "difference" between the players so far in the pairs order, it'll put players on the teams that reduces that difference.

[errant saddle]

I know... I'm not sure if I can do it but with current mm it might be possible....

[fleet elm]

That’s not the way the math works though. If I’m a 65% player and the next best player in the lobby is 55%, how is the MM going to balance teams beyond that? The only way it works is to put more of the lesser players on my team. You can cite fifo and narrowing curves or platoons, it doesn’t matter. On average there will be more “worse” players on the team of a high outlier in a lobby.

There is no other way the math works over large samples baring some outside factor that you haven’t told us or that we have no way of knowing

[cunning dew]

Nerfed to. Not even a great heavy anymore

[digital orchid]

All I care about is uncovering why some of us 60%+ players are taking 10% hits to our recent win rates despite the same, if not better performance than normal, while other good players aren’t seeing quite the hits, if any at all

The only factor that we know plays a part is platoons because they’re less affected

[cunning dew]

Cause like me its only been a little, -5%. But im usually platooning. Also ive been player 7 and 8 for frequently as usually im strickly 10s

[errant saddle]

I mean I love it but I think the reload nerfs was unjustified...I haven't ran mine in a while :/... When the update came out I did like 8k in my waffle...

[errant saddle]

Lately I've been running my tds before there nerfed to and back...

[cunning dew]

Yes it rly just needs a little pen buff i think and slight reload buff. Why play vz when there t57. Only difference id armor

[cunning dew]

Ive been playing arty😂

[errant saddle]

It feels nice but at the same time I know your right with that low pen.... XD

[errant saddle]

Batchat or the tier ten American?

[autumn light]

that is how the math works though. You are stating that it will factually give more "worse" players now that before but that assumed the old one never did that or did it "less" than now... but as my example pointed out that just isn't true. The old system was probably more likely to stick you with "more worse players" than the new one because it didn't factor in win rate and so it didn't care if you had 14x 45% players on your team and 15x 55%+ on the other. Obviously a hyperbolic example, but it's just not accurate to say that it is fact that you'll have "more worse" players now than before. Before it may give you 10 worse players, then 5, then 0, then 10, etc etc... it was a likely wide and almost random distribution, whereas now the number would be more consistent and quite equal across both teams.

And yes, without knowing how the brackets, points and so on work any assumption on how it works is very unlikely to be accurate. As is pointed out by @digital orchid the drop in win rate is not being seen consistently across all "high win rate" players, so if it was as black and white as you are saying then it would be seen unanimously amongst all players. But it is being looked into to see what is happening and why, and i'm sure more info will be shared in the future.

Consistent =/= More

[cunning dew]

Batchat. Idk why but always is my favorite 😂

[cunning dew]

Can't you just revert it back? Lots are complaining and wouldn't be that hard. Just leaving it is going to make the good players not want to play as it screws us over

[fleet elm]

I'm sure more extremes were possible before but the average (negating battle count sorting) was 7 top halves of pairs and 7 bottom halves of pairs for the rest of my team. If I have the highest winrate in the lobby by a significant margin, my average team is no longer 7 top, 7 bottom. I obviously can't get enough data easily to work out the actual average but there is no world where that average improves based on the math you've described. My guess is 5 top halves and 9 bottom halves as an average, but it could be 6/8 or 6.5/7.5. I get consistent worse teams but I also am unlikely to get the worst examples of the previous mm

[autumn light]

objectively, lots aren't complaining about it. A small number of highly engaged and dedicated players are having an issue that is not being seen consistently amongst a similar segment.

So that is why it's being looked into to find out as much as we can and to look at what can be done to remedy their issue

[errant saddle]

Still on 8 almost tier 9 for it.

[cunning dew]

Ok thanks for atleast trying to fix the problem. Love this game and cant have it die. So many people in my clan have complained about it and are so frustrated. They are all 60% plus players so they get the short end of thw stick

[cunning dew]

9 is better than the 10😂

[errant saddle]

Doese it get the auto?

[cunning dew]

No. Thats what makes it good

Same reload as the intra clip for the 10

[errant saddle]

But I'm going for the auto lol xD ahhh ok I see...

[cunning dew]

Ah I see

[digital orchid]

Appreciate that it’s being looked into, thanks

[simple zodiac]

Lots arent complaining?? You have 1,251 responses of complaints in this thread😭

but thanks for looking into it

[gusty hedge]

Responses doesn't equal players in this case. There are 53 different people in here with this discord server having 33k people in it.

[cunning dew]

Not all people actually talk in it tho. 79 upvotes is alot for this server. T249 thread had something like that when people were complaining

[digital orchid]

Yeah like most players are going to be silent because they don’t care enough to make a discord and participate in threads like this

Chances are, if you got multiple top level players complaining about something, others are noticing it too. Even if they don’t speak on it

[cunning dew]

Top players are the ones who are good for a reason and notice things that casuals dont. Probably why gambit made the thread

[digital orchid]

Loads of the comments under gambits YouTube video agree with him too. And how many of those commenters don’t have discord?

Or even know that there’s a discord server for this game lol

[autumn light]

Even 79 people is a very small % of people who play daily (talking in the 2 digit decimals of a %). We are of course monitoring across all social media (Facebook, instagram, etc) and even if people complain via Customer Support.

Objectively, in the complaint raised itself it would exclude 95% of players anyhow - so it would be logical that as i mentioned it is something impacting a smaller, dedicated and highly engaged group. That makes it no less important, but within scale "lots" isn't really accurate.

But also again 😅 it's somewhat irrelevant how many or who, because it is being looked into and if there is ways to make it so more people are enjoying the game then steps towards that would of course be taken

[cunning dew]

I understand but 79 for a thread on discord is more than usual. You have 30k people on the server but most do not use it. I see the same people commenting on every thread

[autumn light]

i think the main thing in what i said should probs be

But also again, it's somewhat irrelevant how many or who, because it is being looked into

[cunning dew]

It reminds me of communism. Everyone will have the same winrate by the end of it. You have 65% winrate so we will give you bad players and lower it so Everyone is the same. This is a comparison not getting political, im not trying to do that🙂

[cunning dew]

Understandable man thanks for responding 👍

[errant saddle]

Just seal club at era 1 or tier 5 till they remove it tbh...

[cunning dew]

Tier 5 is a fun place ngl

[errant saddle]

Churchill 3 needs more souls to be sacrificed....

[digital orchid]

A lot of games do this now tbh. They adjust parameters and things to try and make sure everyone is as close as possible to each other and nobody is way better than someone else

Gone are the days where we just played the damn game

[cunning dew]

Like I put in the work and time to become good lmao

[digital orchid]

None of this matchmaking manipulation

[digital orchid]

Have you seen what PC are doing with the balance changes? They’re limiting lights and TD’s in each match

Like console should just do that. It would be a much better way to balance the game overall

I had a match earlier with 6 lights a side lmao. You can guess how that went

That’s more of a problem imo, the sheer amount of one class that’s allowed in a single game

[cunning dew]

@autumn light here's an idea you could maybe tell the executives. These would be great changes. Just an idea to improve 🙂

[digital orchid]

This was Berlin too btw

[cunning dew]

Pcs new matchmaker looks very good. Like grille should be matched with tarans and ebr 105 with manti etc

[digital orchid]

I think first and foremost they should look at limiting the amount of tanks in one class. That would genuinely improve the quality of games

Some games you get like 12 TD’s per side

Nobody does anything because it’s insta death if you get spotted

But I understand our playerbase is severely limited. So maybe this isn’t possible. Idk

[cunning dew]

One side gets 3 techno drone and the other 3 jagas, not balanced lol

[cunning dew]

Maybe just slightly limited

Like 6 tds max and 3 lights

[autumn light]

We're aware of PCs new MM, but worth considering that it is an entirely new MM that took them years and is unlikely to be something we could just copy pasta at a code level. If there is learnings to be taken from it, i'm sure we'd look into it 🙂

We'd need a massive overhaul to add the subclass stuff though, i was at PC when that stuff was added and it's a nice addition but for some time scale, that's around 4 years between then and now 😅 so keep that in mind for time frames lol

[cunning dew]

Mediums and heavys dont need to be limited. Almost All Heavy games are literally some of the most fun games I get

[cunning dew]

Yea im sure. Something like that would be cool in the future

[digital orchid]

Exactly that. Meds and heavies are fine. A full game of heavies would be lit

It’s the lights that can die fast with limited HP, and the invisible TD’s that smack for 700+ that are the problem

When too many of them are in one game *

[autumn light]

Personally i'll wait to see which rules are hard and which are soft, and how it handles the different servers they have and low pop times. That will be where the biggest learnings are likely to be, IMHO.

[fleet elm]

@bleak oriole I found that an outlier player in a simulated lobby had the same or better teammates than the pre update average (7 better halves, 7 worse) ~30% of the time. Is this around what you would expect?

I simulated 10k battles where there is a 65% player and all other players between 45% and 60% with a "performance" point system starting at 0 points below 38% win rate and increasing by 1 point every 3%.

[formal pilot]

all I see is wg just saying anything and everything to defend thier stance when it's obvious alot of players don't like the changes. It's just as simple as that. But let's watch wg listen tto themselves once again.

[viscid gorge]

79 isn't "a lot" and this system negatively impacts actually a small amount of players tbh

[formal pilot]

ah so it's fine for it to negatively impact those players. Gotcha

if thier are 79 vocal players affected, then just think about all the non vocal players that are also affected. Just because those non vocal players aren't saying they hate doesn't mean that they enjoy it.

[cunning dew]

Why should the good players play them? If they all leave, the game will go down hill as it will be yolo fests and nobody will enjoy

[fleet ermine]

Because good players can say they're going to quit playing but in reality tanks is life and they won't 💯🙏, calling all bluffs.

[uneven shoal]

You'd be wrong

[viscid gorge]

No, I didn't say that

I'm just saying, relatively, it's not really "a lot"

🤷‍♂️

Heat kinda mentioned that earlier. They are listening, but relatively, the negative parts impact a small portion of players

[fleet elm]

WG is gonna decide what’s better for their bottom line. I think there’s a middle ground that doesn’t shaft good players and makes matches more fun and competitive for everyone

[viscid gorge]

I agree. I'm just pointing out to people, we are the minority

People seem to forget that

[fleet elm]

Wait, the new matchmaker is abusable because of how it does FIFO. If you're the 15th pair, the lobby is gonna be balanced and an outlier will massively tip the scales. You just queue for 5s, if you don't launch, back out and reenter the queue. You're going to lower your average spot in the queue and get better teammates on average

[open ravine]

I am glad it is, as you say "being looked into". The data seems very clear to me.

[low crane]

Oh you wanna see me bluff?

[bleak oriole]

Since the pair system requires matching class and tier, all you would be doing is arranging that you are the 2nd half of the pair.

As for expectation of outcomes - a lot it depends on the specifics of the queue contents. If you are simulating things where class and tier are all the same in your data set, you'll come up with one answer, but odds are that it won't match reality. Then if you throw platoons into the mix ... <ugh>

The other thing is that this is very much an outlier problem - it's only an issue if there is a very win rate player in the pool, and everyone else is far on the below average side. I haven't seen a screenshot yet of a match where it's situation you report - a 65%, a 60%, the rest "average", where the MM stacked things in a horrible way that would result in a very unfair match for the 65%.

That, btw, is because the change means that the MM will produce fewer of that type of outlier match - it was very possible in the 9.4 MM for the teams to be the 65% + 14 worst players vs 60% + 14 remaining. It was also possible for it to be the 65% + 60% + next 13 players by win rate vs 15 worst players.

I think we can all agree that the above matches are not actually desirable?

[fleet elm]

Like it’s been said a few times already, what’s being done is too forcing in how it narrows the curve. Nobody wants the extremes that were possible with the old mm but there are other ways to prevent that without majorly impacting game quality for players who dare to improve. For people like me you’ve actively shifted the mm to, by your own words, an outcome that is less desirable

As for gaming the fifo system, it can’t hurt requeueing every 5s. Being in the first 5 pairings makes a bad (to me) lobby much more likely. Doing what I can to make myself later in the queue will only help

[native plaza]

So if you're a really good player don't sit in que for a long time ?

Interesting might try this out

[bleak oriole]

Personally, I don't think that will do much and I don't think I could enjoy queuing and dequeuing consistantly, but I obviously cannot stop you from trying it

[digital orchid]

Me too

[native plaza]

Its what people do to get easier bot lobbies

[bleak oriole]

As for the outcomes being shifted, I've said that I will look at screenshots of team compositions to see if it was "fair" or not. Or at least if the composition wasn't severely hampered by the platoons.

While I do not endorse outside tools, there's a spreadsheet in one of the other channels that will auto-look up the stats for a player. I have no idea if it's "safe" to run a google docs spreedsheet that way, but that will do a bunch of the work for you

Or you could just post the screenshot and ask that person to do the lookups for you and paste the rules in one of these channels

I'm more than willing to entertain thing like "we didn't pick the right point system" or "there's a bug in the MM where in case X it does the wrong thing".

The first bit might be true - that's why we are looking at it and discussing it internally - but I don't think the second bit applies. However, these are complicated systems, so it's possible, but it's very subtle.

There's also the question of frequency - if you can point to one match in hundred where the deck is severely stacked against you, that's one thing.

If you can point to ninety five matches out of a hundred where the deck is severely stacked against, then that's another thing altogether

[native plaza]

This seems more like I have a 1/5 while another person has a 3/5

[fleet elm]

That’s easy, just look at winrate. It’s about ~1/20-1/10 games that were winnable and are not anymore. And that’s not counting easy wins that have turned into hard wins

[fleet elm]

Capping your performance metric at 55% or making each pair have a delta of 1 or 0 both address the issue of all the good players being on one team pretty conclusively while also not overly punishing higher performers.

[native plaza]

Honestly I feel like this mainly addresses the issues

[bleak oriole]

So, see earlier statements about the point system being in design's playspace.

And me wearing my "I'm a player hat, not a WG employee hat" - 5% to 10% of matches is the impact level for better MM for the rest of us? Geez...

[fleet elm]

5-10% it changes the result. Probably double or triple that for it being noticeably worse

Also, is it better for the rest of players? No info has been given out

[unreal hound]

i looked many good players up most have no real change in their Winrate.

My guess is either people who lost more than 5% of their W/R got really lucky before the MM change in their games since all was random so they got good Teammates most of the times it was artificially boosting their Winrate.
Or they just happen to have bad luck now and are getting people who are not pulling their stats now.
Either way more fair matches are good and i dont want it to revert i dont care about losing 3% more if the games i have are more fun to play.
And despite people saying they cant win and better players get punished they still pull of 60%+ recent in a 15 vs 15 game so you still can decide those games.

[fleet elm]

Can’t track platoons so that data isn’t exactly good. Idk what to do differently, my technodrome has like 30 less dpg and 10% worse winrate. Not sure what to do differently

[bleak oriole]

I'm horrible at discord, but someone said earlier that the number of unique people in this particular thread is in the sub 100s - given that a bunch of reds have been posting here, which has the tendency to get people to post due the "hey, they are going to notice my post" effect (although we do read the feedback and suggestions, and simply don't comment 99.9% of the time).

So my perception is that the vast majority of the players don't have a problem with the system. Which doesn't invalidate the complaints, but rather helps frame the discussion

[unreal hound]

and you dont know the winrate in a platoon before the update i played way less now and my winrate stays the same

[unreal hound]

to be fair he is talking about the top players it wont effect the average or bad players much. His fears are that WG is trying to throw great players under the bus so that the average joe can have good games. I dont feel that at the moment but his question is legit

[bleak oriole]

see the 2nd part of my statment

[fleet elm]

It’s obvious that the top players were getting sacrificed for the “greater good” with this. That’s why we’ve suggested lesser examples within the prebuilt framework because it keeps with your goals while affecting us less

[uneven shoal]

I’ve gone from 66 to 62, mjc40 posted above that he’s gone from 61 to 57. You have to look at 90 day vs 30 day for most good players as their all time stats are not going to see significant changes

Only reason my drop isn’t as significant is after I realized what the MM was doing, I started playing almost only in platoons

[unreal hound]

I dont know but i have the feeling people here are complaining the cant farm average players in 7/10 rounds, like its a bad thing to struggle for a win.
Thats how its supposed to be if it would be as hard as people are describing it their winrate would be not at 60% but at 35%.
I have games where i have 0 influence still but that happened before and much more than now and for me a close defeat with 2 persons left is not wasted time compared to 13:0 victory where we stomp the enemy team

[proud harbor]

I mean just taking a look at my clan, there are 8 players (who primarily play solo) with more than 100 battles this month. Seven of them have lower 30 day winrates than 90 day and all time. I wouldnt say its random chance that they achieved 60-70% winrate over 50,000+ battles.

But my problem is not with the winrate, it is with the quality of matches. I have had more lopsided losses now than I have ever had before where I can't even begin to have an impact before my team is dead withing a minute or two. Tank choice obviously plays a role as well. The carry ability of games in an E5 is much greater than for example an AMX M4. I could discuss player performance variation, platoons, etc. but I dont feel like typing an essay. Point is, this MM punishes good players that dont want to just crutch meta tanks in a platoon.

[unreal hound]

for me its the exact opposite 😅 i had many sessions where i had 4-5 close games back to back. Much more than before and im not playing Meta tanks but stuff like TL7 and 30B

[uneven shoal]

Your win rate has gone from 66 to 61

[unreal hound]

yes with little platoon and meta tanks obviously far less than normal and its still on par with my overall W/R and much closer games like i said i rather loose a close game than rofl stomp the enemy because they got all the bad players and my team has all the good one

[cursive tinsel]

As it been generally established, some players are getting a rougher experience then others so, you might be okay, but others are having a worse experience.

[gray kernel]

I'll get lots of hate for this, but it seems like the complaint about the new mm is that it's no longer easy to farm damage off the bad players because the teams are more even. And that sounds like maybe (just maybe) some of you don't like a fair match.

The mm has issues (I still personally think they should have 3 tiers (low, mid, high wr) and the low / high would never battle each other. That way the bad players get to play without getting clubbed and the good players get a challenging battle) but it's a better system than before. I'm as blue a berry as can be and being the lead damage on a team of Muppets is no better than being the Muppet.

This game has been hemorrhaging players for years and this is their first real attempt to make the average player get a better experience, and y'all want to sh*t on it because your wr dropped 5%.

[digital orchid]

Teams aren’t more even though

Kellen literally just described that teams are folding before you can even get involved in the game. And that’s been my experience too

It’s not that it’s harder to do damage, it’s that there is way less time to do it now

[cursive tinsel]

I probably need to look at playing another round of game when I can generally be bothered. But after the first round of experience playing solo, it just became frustrating to even get the bare minimum.

[native plaza]

It is a random queue, not ranked why do some people not understand this

I have been playing a lot less because I'm having less fun and there are a lot of good players who agree with this, just look at the amount of people streaming ww2 on twitch who play solo

[cursive tinsel]

I dont really want to load up playing solo, in any tank if im just going to have a consistent overall worse time when my monthly battle count is already so low.

If I cared about keeping high damage, id sit up and go farm bots if I cared that much. I've never focused purely on getting damage, just playing.

[digital orchid]

Dropping 5%-7% win rate is massive too for someone who is a 60-63% player normally

The lower win rate directly correlates with poorer quality matches for us. Again, it’s not about the win rates, it’s about the quality of the gameplay, the battle duration, and the lack of anything resembling a competent team

[cursive tinsel]

I dont really want to boot up and have an overall consistently and infuriating time playing every single time I play solo. Not if im going to have to sure game after game after game before I hit the right percentage in whatever value to get out of having an insufferable experience.

Really I need to play more battle anyway, but if know im not going to have a decent time regardless it really going to limit how much im going to put up with it to the point of, A) why bother loading or B) only running 3 man platoons. Which as a majority solo player, I don't want to do to have a half decent time.

[digital orchid]

And that’s been how my sessions have been going too. I boot up, play a few games. None are close whatsoever. Maybe 1 or 2 might be, if that

Get frustrated with the poor gameplay. Switch off. My recent battle count has plummeted

[gray kernel]

I get that, hence why I said the mm has issues. This system isn't the best solution, neither is the one I suggested. But at least it's an effort, and if it means more players staying you need to ask yourself (not you directly) what's better for the longevity of the game? Making it better for 50% of the base or 5%?

[digital orchid]

Making it better for the majority I am all for

There are just way better ways to have gone about it. Limiting the numbers of a certain class of tank would be a start so we don’t have matches with 12 lights in it, or 12 TD’s

[gray kernel]

I can agree with that 100%

[coral zephyr]

Is there any question that the mm will pair good players with poorer players now? Maybe not 100% of the matches but some, when the MM can.

This being the case, the MM is stacking the deck against good players. Certainly more so than it used to.

Is this not punishing players for having a good win rate? -- you have a 60%+ win rate, now you are required to carry these real low win rate players. (note: I am using win rate as my term here. no need to correct me on semantics)

Seems like if you want players to get good, you don't punish them when they are good. Don't handicap them.

It seems like poor players are getting rewarded. They get to ride the coat tails of the best players in the Queue. Not EVERY match. But certainly the MM is attempting to set it up that way.

Seems like a random team selection was better.

If you want to matches to be better and more competitive, figure out a way to encourage poorer players to play lower tiers where they can learn and be successful.

[cursive tinsel]

Class based MM we didn't have before. We had the odd, tank mirror matching that was it. I'd rather try run a period with just class based MM and go from there. But it hard aswell as any upcoming QoL changes to crews, equipment and tank reworks is going to change the experience anyway. I just dont think trying to make a match as close to 50/50 is a way to do it.

We all had white washes against us, we all had one for us. We have all had game where it could be a 40% winnable game or less and won, we all had a 60% winnable game and lost. Because you know, random battles.

Again for me, it feels like people jump to blame MM before this, when MM hasnt really had anything to do with the outcome. Ti me, more of the blames have been, Im a bottom tier, im facing X tank, X tank is broken, I cant do anything in X tank against X tank. MM is just the easiest thing for people to jump at and say is at fault, heck even if the play they tried didn't work, it not, man that didn't work, it becomes, this is MM fault.

[viscid gorge]

My winrate has declined 11% (66 -> 55) since these changes went into effect. That is quite a large margin

[gray kernel]

This would be true only if there was only one 60+ in the game. What if you're 60 and the player opposite you is 62? Now he's carrying and you've got the better team?

No. Not how that works. Now the teams aren't lopsided as much (in theory) so you'll have some games with more average players and some with worse, across both sides.

But this is the yin to the yang. You can't have the bad players only on the other team, every time. So either separate them into their own mm (which gets soundly rejected every time it's brought up) or what? Because the only thing getting suggested is tank limiting (which I'm for) and not letting bad players be on high wr player teams (which sounds even lamer now that I typed it out).

[coral zephyr]

Is not the best player always getting to carry the worst player? My argument stands.

Also when someone states you only [get shafted] some of the time is no consolation. The difference between 50% and a good 55% is a single match in 20. Between 50 and a great 60% is a single match in 10. So having the MM nerf your team even 5-10% of the matches is no small thing.

[fleet elm]

The problem is that, when there’s an outlier, a lot of the worse players in the lobby get put into their team. The suggestions are to more evenly spread the good and bad players so that they’re not concentrated on one team or the other

[gray kernel]

Sounds look a good suggestion

[grizzled vessel]

Sounds achievable even with the current mm style by just expanding the size of the bins it sorts players in (example B1<48<B2<52<B3)

[cunning dew]

i cant count how many games that are 3-4 minute games. ive never seen matches this fast before

And why do you always cater to the Sh**ers of the game? never understood that

Its literally like communism. everyone will have the same winrate by the end. I put in the work to become good so I fell I should enjoy that and not be punished.

Another thing is I either have an amazing game or a terrible game. I've had 3 10k games in ww2 in 1 week, something I've never done so often. Also ive had so many 2-3k games cause my team dies in 2 minutes and im the last one. its very bizarre how this matcmaker works.

[rocky plank]

I have a WR of 59% overall and good stats, and since the update of the balance system I spend my sessions around 30-40% so I conclude that it is not enough for Wargaming to have lost a lot of old players, it was also necessary to spit on the good players....

[uneven shoal]

Highlighted players were platooned

Team 2 stats is the side with the 52.97% weighted, didnt realize I missed those titles

[fleet elm]

I started requeueing (3-4s max in queue) on August 29th. So far I'm at 68% win rate over 28 games. Not quite a large enough sample but promising

[uneven shoal]

I guess I'll give that a try

Anything to get a decent team

[uneven shoal]

Down 5, nearly 6% win rate so far

WN8 has droped by 500

Literally every metric on wotstars has gone down for me. Whats the point of playing with these trash teams

(Yes, I made the mistake of playing a few solo games, not doing that again)

[fleet elm]

The requeue stuff is solo only

[uneven shoal]

I figured, tried it tonight and had an amazing 42% win rate

[fleet elm]

Yeah idk if my sample was lucky so far or what. Today was def lucky, averaged 8800 combined over 10 matches. Yesterday I had normal dpgs but still better than normal win rate

[uneven shoal]

I couldnt make anything happen tonight, horrible teams. A few games I was lucky to get more than 2 shots off

[crimson fern]

This is one of worst mm I ever experienced in tier 8 and win % and wn8 dropped. Feel like they are forced me to lose more frequently and facing tier 9 and x constantly no top tier in last 9 match. Yea i was in tier 9 match too.

[unreal hound]

9 battles 110 overall...

[unreal hound]

Still 9 battles that means nothing also 110 Battles overall with under 50% winrate means you are least effected by those changes

[crimson fern]

@unreal hound then why do it effect only 1 tank I have no problem with other tanks dont make any sense.

[simple zodiac]

Looks pretty fair to me right guys?

wg is gonna say “ThE nEw Mm Is A fAiR cHaNgE”

Ive been dealing with this since this update. It’s absolutely ridiculous and out of control. Talking to wg devs is like talking to a brick wall.

[cunning dew]

Well actually only a small amount of players have noticed ☝️🤓

Like bruh everyone i know notices it

[fleet elm]

And everyone you know happen to be super unis

[fleet elm]

Fair to WG is each team having a 50/50 not each player being able to contribute to their skill level. WG knows it screws us over and doesn't care

[cunning dew]

They actually aren't. Most but even the casual have noticed

[digital orchid]

Most of us yeah

But even the 2k-3500 players have noticed

[wanton wagon]

This new MM is as about as positive as your wonderful 6.0 update. I have had a horrendous experience, I was close to 80% win rate for last 90 days, I am now since the implementation of this abomination of a decision to change something we never asked for (a common mishap that is prevalent in this game) plummeting in wr. My games are nothing short of insufferable, landslide games resulting in losses and with no solution other than to platoon and simply do the most insane carries ever just to have a chance of winning, I have noticed that I seem to be getting so many 45% wr players on my team, it is unreal I simply cannot keep playing in this current health of the game, good job I guess that the sister game to this has just released something that's promising, looks like my only option currently as we need 6 months of data most likely to find out why it's suboptimal. Food for thought though, MM are so complicated I would say that even the data you're seeing gets interpreted in an incorrect fashion. Easy solution revert change and actually release and balance problem tanks, which by the way there is like 15 at tier 10. peace

[digital orchid]

https://tenor.com/view/gerwynprice-darts-earmuffs-gif-27329758

Wargaming when reading the feedback in this thread

[cunning dew]

Well actually not enough players are noticing this and it's only the good players☝️🤓 - wargaming

But yea I agree man

Was up to 70% winrate and am at 60 now

You guys im tempted to go to wot pc as they be giving away 2 free tech trees to new players 😂. Seems like they care a lil more about us

[digital orchid]

Not just 2 complete tech trees. 10 mil silver, 15k bonds, 2.5k gold, a like 50 X5 free experience boosters

[cunning dew]

Yes

We get a tier 3 for an 11 year anniversary 😂

PC is really tempting now cause I can actually get started

[digital orchid]

Real lol

[cunning dew]

With mods I can use a controller there to😂

[unreal hound]

we get much more stuff for free to be honest like every season free t8 and enough gold to buy a new season pass

[cunning dew]

Yea i agree. Buts nows a good time to start playing it

[digital orchid]

Tier 8 premiums are pointless with the addition of Cold War

[unreal hound]

i suck with mouse and keyboard so not for me

no they are not i dont play cw

[digital orchid]

Neither do I, but I make an exception for the ELC and Wiesel to grind credits as it’s the most efficient. I cba to play in a tier 8 prem when I can play one of those tanks, and make 3x the credits in one game vs like 4 in a tier 8

[cunning dew]

Thats why I want to try pc now that you apparently can use a controller

Its a mod I believe

One of my friends tried it

[wanton wagon]

Also saying that there is little engagement because of X amount of individual players interacting with this post is intellectually dishonest as this os not an official feedback post from WG as I guess they don’t want feedback on this cesspit of a decision. Don’t forget that this discord used to be a popular place but saying out of 30k people only 80 odd have interacted is just weak. We both know that the large majority of those 30k are no longer active because of what WG have decided with their game so don’t blame the small but passionate community. Last I’ll say on it to keep it on topic.

[nocturne cloak]

For me to feels like, there are much more 13:0 games

I tracked my team (left) and the enemy team (right) and compared it.

Its funny to see that my team gets 2 player with huge 37% winrate

Btw i tracked the winrate with the tanks they played

[digital orchid]

And this is the problem. We get players like this who die immediately and then the game spirals into a loss because you’re 2 tanks down right from the start

13 v 15 basically

[nocturne cloak]

Team result

Our light was playing heavy line which was the 37% player, and the other player was the 0dmg 215b

[wanton wagon]

Interesting as when you find anyone under 45% win rate they’re negatively impacting the game, you can go afk for 1000s of battles and get a 47% win rate. 45% means they’re either trolling and griefing or they place themselves in positions so players ‘believe’ they have help and then drive away and sell them constantly while being toxic I.e spamming map and Good Game while selling their team.

[nocturne cloak]

Exactly, u have to work against your own team to reach under 45%

[wanton wagon]

I know a player who has actively griefed for 2 years and has never been banned he plays type 5 heavy and sits behind TDs to get them killed, he physics abuses constantly and he has a 45% wr

He also afks after any sign of loss or heavy in spawn

[cunning dew]

Whats his name lets get him banned😅

Hate players like that

[wanton wagon]

No name, no shame rule. The report system isn’t great it’s actually very flawed. There is plenty of ways to avoid it.

[sharp lily]

The biggest illusion the MM has is think a great player(65%) can 1v2 a decent player(51-52%) winrate as 45-47% just die by driving or are afk.. Let alone 4-5 45% on one side

[fleet elm]

Even with all the balancing good players are still winning >50% so technically the mm isn’t balancing us enough for truly equal teams

[sharp lily]

Yea, we are able to win when queued in at 12-15 position essentially

[autumn light]

tbh the most dishonest thing i've seen in this thread is what is being claimed we have said.

several staff have been replying a lot and openly saying it's being looked into, but apparently no one is listening and we're just ignoring it.

Yes, it was pointed out that the number of people commenting here is not "a lot" when it comes to our playerbase... because it was in direct reply to people stating that there is clearly a lot of the playerbase complaining about this but it's being ignored. And the full context was to say that it isn't a lot as a % of the playerbase, BUT it is still being looked into (not ignored) and we're using the data we have to get a full scope and look into it and not just discord posts.

Gonna be kinda blunt, the people replying to a lot of this are not paid to do so. They are doing it because they care, because they want to help and they want to do what they can. If the response to that every time is going to be people making up stuff and distorting what has been said then do not be surprised if there really does become a point of no replies and no attempts to converse on the issues. If i hadn't been a player frustrated by feeling ignored by staff for years myself then i'd struggle to find the justification to put extra effort/time to listen and reply to a lot of it.

You're writing here because you care about the game, so are we. So we should all approach it with the same level of respect.

[fleet elm]

Have you tried queueing for no more than 3-4s at a time? My winrate’s gone up 5-10% in the ~45 battles since I started doing it

[fleet elm]

It doesn’t feel like it’s being looked into on our behalf. It feels like if the mm doesn’t help blowouts or match length significantly then you’ll remove it

[digital orchid]

I’ve not had the patience to try this personally. Many times it takes me 40-50 seconds, upwards of a minute to get in a match. I just wasn’t finding games doing this

[sharp lily]

Didn't actively tried it but the way it works that will make it so you don't get handicapped that harshly

[fleet elm]

SPG downplayed it a bit, and we don’t know exactly how the pairing process works but from what we do know, it can only help

[autumn light]

If several staff telling you it's being looked into doesn't make it "feel like it's being looked into" including the main MM guy literally asking for people to send him examples and then spending likely hours explaining and answering stuff about it, then i'm not sure much will.

[fleet elm]

Everything I’ve seen is the system working as intended. We’re not sending bugs, we’re confirming that the system works. That’s not productive or looking into anything, that’s confirming what already exists. His comments at some point were essentially ‘don’t you think it’s worth it to help the 99% even if it hurts the 1% a little bit’. Doesn’t exactly inspire confidence

[autumn light]

SPG also said in those same things that if it's working as intended but changes to the calculations can mean the negative impact being felt by some can be reduced/removed then he is more than open to that. So literally at every point everyone has said they are open to change and improvements, but yes there is of course an intended aim for the change and there will also be an interest if it succeeds in doing that. That is kinda my point in the reply before, people are picking and choosing what to read or just flat out changing what was said. I appreciate your point with that quote (going to trust it's a quote, or at least close enough) but without the context around what else has been said - in a very long thread at this point lol - then it's an inaccurate portrayal of intent.

He also said that the things people have said and what they send haven't matched up, that people are saying they are getting teams loaded with "worse" players and therefore that's why they are losing but then when asking for examples most have been pretty even split of "worse" players. And so he encouraged people to use the tool posted in the other thread to get more data of actual examples because it is also possible that "wrong" games are happening and those also need investigating. So, again, at literally every situation "it's being looked into" is an accurate statement, and it was even encouraged to find more info to prove the case "against" the MM - i'd argue seems pretty implicative of trying to help and find a resolution that pleases all.

[fleet elm]

Obviously the changes meant a negative impact for outlier players. There’s no way to make a 70% win rate player win less without changing how teams are picked other than giving them worse teammates. It’s obvious enough that the dislike shouldn’t be unexpected which means the decision was made with the understanding that it would screw over some players

[autumn light]

the aim was to stop/reduce/lessen one of the most common complaints in the history of the game, 1 sided games and uneven mm spread. I think even Kellen said someone in this thread that people have been complaining about that a LOT but likely it was a misplaced issue, but that's a different issue in a way and welcome to fun side of "why don't you listen to your players" . I'd put money that several people in here saying they dislike this change at one point posted something about that and how they want it fixed. But none of that changes anything i said in these posts and your point has shifted from "it doesn't feel like it's being looked into" to "well the way it's being looked into doesn't inspire confidence" to "well you know it would screw us anyhow". Which is kinda exactly my entire point.

What i was saying was purely if the approach to people going frankly above and beyond is hostility and twisted words, then no one should be surprised when people stop going above and beyond to reply.

[wanton wagon]

Without carrying on any debate I said what I believe to be true and still do, I would encourage everyone to keep on topic as to not clutter the base discussion,on the key issue which is the MM. However I did find a way to achieve an 80%+ win rate and that was to platoon with horrendously broken vehicles and yes they were TDs.

[fleet elm]

Shouldn’t matter what you platoon with as long as there’s 3 players like you and it’s not arty/lights/inflexible tds

[wanton wagon]

I just did a 2 man so having unbalanced tanks exaggerates how much influence you can have and we did this in non pref 8s just to experience the horrors of tier 8 which are often found looking at a technodrome if it ever gets spotted during the game😂

[viscid gorge]

My experience with the new matchmaking has just been steamrolls either way, all day. I either have 40-50% winrate one day and then 65-75+% winrate the next

[errant saddle]

Just had a match where a t98 art full penned lower side skirt of my maus....

[native plaza]

I had 70% winrate by insta queuing, honestly still had tones of one sided battles

[errant saddle]

Gotta love it getting worse mm in cw cause most unis moved to there so they can avoid the 50/50 mm in WW2 then to top it off you still got the 13-0 happening or 15-0 in ww2 -.-

[fleet elm]

Most unis quit or just platoon

[errant saddle]

Well seeing more hop into cw now.

[olive bolt]

My Winrate has been up.

.8%

[proud harbor]

You only play in 3 man platoons

[wanton wagon]

I will try insta queuing and I’ll see what win rate I can obtain solo, I’m curious

@native plaza

[olive bolt]

Wrong.

Dont spread fake propaganda.

I see the sweaty 3 and 2 man's though, they out there trying to cope with these hard times. 🤣

[cunning dew]

I only platoon now

Don't rly have a problem winning anymore. 3 65% winrate players almost a gurnetee win

But its impossible solo now

[uneven shoal]

Almost only platoon vs only solo

[sand dock]

Even when I toon I lose 60% of matches

[uneven shoal]

Got shafted in platoons and solo today. Started out ok, then nosedived

[cunning dew]

Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesnt

They've ruined it

[wanton wagon]

Any updates on this? As this solo experience is awful.

[errant saddle]

Prob won't be doing anything and keeping as is

[fleet elm]

They’re gonna gather data and determine if it helped match length/steamrolls and make a decision based on that. It was put in with the intention of making good players win less, it’s a feature not a bug. Maybe they throw us a bone and reduce the severity

[digital orchid]

I’d have more respect if they just came out and said “yeah this is staying, this is how we want the game to be”. This was a decision made with intent

Rather than “we’re looking into it”. We all know nothing is going to change anyway

[gusty hedge]

We are in looking into it and planning changes.

Lets try to be a little more positive instead of negative. 🙂

[errant saddle]

Any chance we getting what PC has with there free tt tier 10? The last event was very nice and generous.

[wanton wagon]

Here is some sessions recently from myself. Never felt so handicapped, gonna go straight into the deep end here and say it actually feels rigged as you can’t win no matter what you do solo. I know it isn’t rigged I’m not one of those players but holy it’s getting there.

[errant saddle]

It's the fact you have underperformers instantly getting themselves killed off via bridge drowning or sitting in the open or just outright not playing the match afk knowing they will get carried.

[wanton wagon]

As I’ve said before 45% wr players are behaving negatively in the game to achieve this wr, now I’m 5%-7% off that. Crazy times

[errant saddle]

And I agree bud

[digital orchid]

The irony being how the matchmaker works now, is exactly the same way that all the tin foil hat wearers were claiming it worked for years just because they had a low win rate

[fleet elm]

None of the results so far are surprising, it’s all easy enough to simulate. This is obviously the intended effect and you (WG) were ok releasing something that severely reduces game quality for a small subset of the population. There’s no positivity because the expectations are so low based on your own actions

It’s not like you did a 2 week test to see how it performs. It was straight in the deep end bc you knew what the result would be and were ok with it

[wanton wagon]

Something to keep in mind is that, the majority of players are pretty hardy when it comes to things not being great. If I could hypothetically change things to directly increase average game time in a meaningful way without fiddling with the MM. I could within a days work. No doubt in my mind.

[cursive tinsel]

Hard to stay positive when you spend time to learn the game and improve as much as you feasible can, to then get basically messed around with and get forced to have a aggravating time you launch into a battle solo. It just become more and more frustrating. Oh just put up with it, well when players are in the high thousands of games, how long are they going to have to suffer with it, just to play a slighlty less stressful game then currently being experienced..

As Nate said, this was just thrown in at the deep end. Could of just started with Class based MM to start, see how that runs which wasn't even mentioned to start with. After that if it hadn't improved then start the tweaks here and there.

We still have the QoL changes, equipment changes and further tank reworks then then still have to hit the field as well. Which is another thing that going to shake the outcome around again. Class based MM, then do the QoL and equipment changes, monitor and if it still bad , then start to look at adding the other factors.

[gusty hedge]

Class based MM has been in game for a very long time now.

[wanton wagon]

I think he is alluding to the fact we can have 11 TDs per team perhaps

[gusty hedge]

The only thing we did was change how players were sorted for who went on which team.

The issues players continued to have with Class-based matchmaking was: Steamrolls / Lopsided matches.
This is the feedback that we are attempting to address so that both teams had a more equal chance at winning.

[wanton wagon]

For the longest time we had a potential for 5 arty per team, it was restricted very late but eventually to 2 per team max. But nobody thought that it could be healthy to make sure that there is more than 1 heavy in each high tier game and not the chance of having more than 2-3 lights per team. Our maps don’t have more than 1 light tank position on average.

To put in Lehman’s terms. How can you think having too much of one class can’t be bad for the game.

[gusty hedge]

I think you may be on a different subject altogether as that isn't related to what we changed or what this thread is about.

If you want to see changes to the Class-based matchmaker or other class restrictions, that would be it's own thread topic.

[wanton wagon]

Exhausting stuff. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

[fleet elm]

This is why we we're negative. It's obvious that "equal chances at winning" are much higher on your priority list than fun for players as they improve

[gusty hedge]

But we are here listening to the feedback, responding to it, and telling you we are looking into it and you continue to be negative.

If that was the only factor that mattered, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The negatively isn't needed and is not helpful for anyone.

[olive bolt]

The majority of people complaining about a matchmaking game change are the most toxic whiniest entitled players in this game. Im not even sure why half of them play at this point. Good luck 🤣 its been fun watching and experiencing, hoping for the best.

[fleet elm]

You’re not looking into our issues. Our issues are a feature of the system. You’re looking into the other goals of the system and will address our issues only if the system isn’t giving the “better” matches you were trying for

[gusty hedge]

Unless you are in the meetings where we are discussing this, I'm unsure how you came to that conclusion. Again, this blind negative commentary serves no helpful purpose and is unnecessary.

[fleet elm]

Making games “even” means saddling really good players with a lot of bad players to negate the advantage they bring. It’s an obvious consequence of the system. You implemented the system which means said feature was approved. No need to be there

[gusty hedge]

I see this is going no where, have a good day.

[fleet elm]

I’m stating the obvious. You’re saying obvious stuff is negative. I wonder why this thread is negative. Almost like it’s obvious

[wanton wagon]

I can tell you who wasn’t in the meeting, TJ Wagner and Jeff Gregg

[lament mica]

This thread has just become a meme itself.

I wish WG staff would spend as much time talking to more players about other broader issues in game as they have spent here.

[digital orchid]

I respect them for taking the concerns of us top players seriously, since we are a minority

But at the same time, they could have ASKED what their playerbase thought would create more balanced games. Or at the very least trialed this out over a couple of weeks. Instead of just dropping it immediately without warning

But as with +1-1, which received overwhelmingly positive feedback across all skills levels of the playerbase, still was not implemented

So really does any of it even matter 💁‍♂️

They’re gunna do what they want anyway

[lament mica]

Oh they’ve been asking. That’s why there are a whole host of changes flowing as well—commander skills, equipment, terrain, etc. Lots of opinions who all think they are right though.

I’m not unsympathetic to players here though I think it’s a waste of time arguing over positivity (the meme).

I’ve seen no negative change personally with this recent change—wildly up and down teams have been part of my experience for the last several years and I feel I’ve dealt with more losing streaks since the change to number of games played mm. I do not know what goes into their point system calculation but feel the number of games played is not being held against me as much anymore. I do wonder if what natedaishmaster is experiencing is some type of devaluation due to his games played vs others with many more games.

CW is still a much more enjoyable mm experience overall so I have sanctuary there as well.

[lament mica]

People think they want +/-1 because they want less power disparity. What they want is less power disparity between tiers. I think people still want to play their TT M4s against Tigers.

[fleet elm]

+1/-1 is impossible with the playerbase. This teambuilding change didn't affect the actual matchmaking part at all

[digital orchid]

Maybe now it’s not possible, but it certainly was when it was being tested

We had way more players

[autumn light]

what if you were to learn... i am one of you! DUN DUN DUHHHHHHHHHHHH

[autumn light]

tbf, we talk as much as it can be talked about. I think due to the complicated nature of this and the type of people feeling impacted there is a lot of back and forth. If a feedback is simply "i would like this" or a discussion between players on what they'd like, there isn't much to say. If you have examples where you think there is more to be said and we haven't, please highlight them

also timing, i am up early a lot because of my kid and then she sleeps on me and i have nothing to do but doom scroll on my phone 😅 so that probably helps

[lament mica]

You get favorable low battle count 😜

[autumn light]

i was a player at the time, but from what i remember even at the time of testing it was viewed as detrimental to the health of the game to implement. I mean look at the changes to PC atm where their brand new MM is going to "try" to give +-1mm when possible. And their server pop now is still higher than ours at peak, so if they can't implement it hard now, there is no way we ever could. It's just an assumption people make because it fits the narrative that bad decisions are the cause of all problems, opposed to accepting the reality that sometimes there is a legit good reason that a good thing can't happen.

[uneven shoal]

I think a lot of the frustration here is that we the players are not seeing action.

Yes, we appreciate staff’s willingness to listen, chime in, and explain, but at the end of the day, the system hasn’t changed.

[native plaza]

What about the last 30 days 🤔

[autumn light]

What i want and what is best for the game have oddly little cross over if i'm being honest. As i just exposed what i want tends to be what a very small % of the playerbase would also like/want, and we'd love it. But i also know it'd be bad for overall game health. So what gets done, rightly or wrongly being a different argument, is done for the best intentions of the games health and longevity... which has been very successful in being achieved objectively - so something is being done right or we'd not have a game/discord to complain about lol

[autumn light]

Well given i haven't had a console in over 6 months, it'd be impressive if it was above 0

[lament mica]

I feel some of these technical discussions would be better in ask the team but that is frowned upon. If I put “feedback thread” of fix floating/sticking reticles, it will be ignored because it is super generic, yet I am prohibited, posts deleted if I ask about how something works or about possibilities, or worse—told to post a feedback thread.

[autumn light]

the other side of that is we've said repeatedly that it will take some time and once we can share we will. There isn't anything to share right now. I'd argue the frustration isn't that there is no action, because literally the comment from @lament mica is how much "action" there is in this thread... it's that people don't believe the action or that more action will follow.

[autumn light]

being fair, "fix a thing" is a bug report, not a feedback. But again, if there is a feedback thread you have posted/seen where info we can share isn't being done so then feel free to highlight it. In a not being an arse way, saying that a hypothetical situation could exist and is therefore bad i can't do anything about. Give me something actionable and i can at least try

Oh, i'd also add, this is a current/ongoing thing that's new. So the engagement around this is a first time. If you look at anything that meets that criteria it tends to have more engagement from all sides. But if something is about something much older it's possible if not likely things about that have been answered already, maybe multiple times. So it becomes decreasingly likely that a person is going to want to come and post the thing they have posted a dozen times to a new person (or sometimes the same people saying the same thing lol)

[open ravine]

It has been 30 days since the MM changes. I think this illustrates there is clearly an issue. I have not changed my gameplay. The only change is the MM. 10% drop.

All solo.

[fleet elm]

An issue? This is what the system was designed to do, make everyone’s win rate closer to 50%. This is a completely expected outcome for WG

[open ravine]

I know. The "expected outcome" is the issue. I'm glad they are looking in to it. I won't be playing again until the MM changes are reverted.

[uneven shoal]

I keep trying to play some (I must be a glutton for punishment or something) and every time I get off frustrated and annoyed.

It’s almost constant now, I can’t perform to the level I normally do because my teams just collapse. If anything, I’m seeing more steamrolls, not less.

I know WG has said they are working on it, but it’s hard to have faith in change when we haven’t seen any action beyond “it’s being discussed.” I want to have faith in them, but when it takes weeks of complaining and making a tool to help collect data! Just to get “we are talking about it,” it’s hard to

[desert flower]

I share your frustration. I’m not a high win rate player. I have 9 years and over 20k games having shared the early game time with my son and having a laugh. Last two years I decided to try and get better and climb above 50% career win rate(my 90 day has been sitting at around 55% since then). Since the MM update it’s just not fun. Yes my Win8 has increased but the sense that you can affect the game as a solo player has evaporated. The MM changes should have benefited a player like me but it’s had the opposite effect and I guess I’m not the only one feeling despondent about the game.

[cunning dew]

My winrate still keeps going down. Getting annoying tbh

And im not doing anything different

[devout wyvern]

Questions remain regarding how WG will assess the results of the new matchmaking system. Possible metrics could include the development of win rate span of active players, average match length, or the number of games determined by fewer than five vehicles. The latter can be considered to be a significant metric, while others are inherent to the system and do not require analysis, nor do they relate to match balance.

[fleet elm]

Has anyone else played a significant number of battles queue resetting?

[cunning dew]

yes about 75. havent noticed a difference. im still loosing just as much

[paper anvil]

https://tenor.com/view/bugs-bunny-bunny-no-nope-nou-gif-14651222

The main problem i see here is the last 3 to 5 players are completely incompetent, at worst you see 0 damage done, at best they might do 200 to 500 each, or some the others still stay at 0 and 2 got a lucky pen or got rammed...
So the top player has to do the heavy carry of those 3 or 5 players plus himself, so you are putting one player with the job of doing the lifting of 4 to 6 players at once, that can't just happen every time, maybe if you reduce the MM to 2 at worst 3 terrible players per team, it would be better for the bottom and the top.

[errant saddle]

Shhh tryna get a free spg or td line >.>

[coral zephyr]

I would look at the winrate of sub 45% too. Has theirs gone up?

[coral zephyr]

I think there was a misunderstanding.

When players asked for "better team balance", they didn't mean this. They weren't asking that the complete player roster be balanced out between the two teams.

So what DID they want and mean??

Players asking for better balanced were asking that all the sub 100 damage players NOT be put on one team. It is quite frustrating for you to get the highest damage in the match. Yet lose because you had six on your team that did zero.

Perhaps the really low damage ratio players can be balanced on each team. Then just randomly assign everyone else.

[digital orchid]

They just need to revert the changes

You’re never going to balance the games when we can still have 12 invisible TD’s vs 12 invisible TD’s

Or 5 light tanks on each side

[olive bolt]

Ive never seen 12 triangles vs 12 triangles

[vague vortex]

Maybe WG can adjust the MM to put 15 of the same tank on each side. 30 LTs, or 30 Mediums, etc.

Yuri would say "Papadanya! Is balanced!"

[cunning dew]

Maybe if wargamming taught they're players there wouldn't be so many bad ones

Like 70% of my team do under 1k damage at tier 10

Thats literally 2 shots maybe 3. Pathetic

[cunning dew]

Because of this i have to make up for it and puts all the pressure on me to help win

[paper anvil]

Yeah the game is both infamous and famous for having a huge learning curve, and there are a ton of hidden little mechanics most players have no idea about, WG PC made a lot of very useful videos of how the game works years ago, but i am not sure if most players or new player even know about them, they are still very relevant today.

[cunning dew]

I dont think they do. Probably why so many are bad

[raw star]

well could also be the goal of this update, get rid of most if not all players who are too far away from the average so the overall expirience is improved for average players

[paper anvil]

That and the classic high tier tanks being gifted or rewarded, with no real prior experience of grinding the lines or tanks.

[paper anvil]

It is also not being improved by newer or casual players, they are the bottom 3 or 5 doing 0 damage.

[paper anvil]

No because you average is below Tier 9, you need to grind those 9s and 10s, also don't forget CW ERA 2 and 3 XD see you in the battle tanker XD.

[raw star]

if what gambit said is true then over time when WR Max is 55%, all good players have left and we assume that this WR is actually representing the skill WN8/DPG as of pre update, then the overall skill ceiling of the game itself is lowered. This would result in no one being actually capable of influencing the game as much as before which would give bad players (since the spread of WR is way smaller thanks to the update result they would obviously meet more players of their own skill level) the opputurnity to perform to some degree better as with the good players around

[autumn light]

well that was a delayed response 😅

[autumn light]

the changes made no changes to how the 30 were pulled into the game, so it would have 0 impact on the spread of player skill within each game, and therefore no impact on "meeting more of their own skill". The change is purely to how the 30 are sorted onto each team.

[nocturne cloak]

I like that wg Stuff is writing here

I would have liked to see it on my "Moe Thread" before it was stomped

[raw star]

if theres no high wr player among the 30 to sort anymore because of the changes then i think it doesnt matter anymore how it gets sorted since theres no one who is too far away from the average

[paper anvil]

I just woke up XD

[paper anvil]

It is possible to change the outcome on those selected games, just very hard.

[autumn light]

i mean there will always be "high win rate" players. All in all this isn't a SBMM because it still keeps a random spread of "skill/win rate/etc" in the 30 it pulls into the game. So you'll always have players who can influence the outcome more than others in that game, and therefore will have a higher win rate. Even in your hypothetical of every current say 60% or higher left, then the current next most influential players would start winning more as they see those players less and their win rates would go up and so on. Someone will always be better than someone else, in an extreme example of everyone is now within a very small amount of skill/influence of each other, you'll still get a win rate spread it's just the variation in the "most" and "least" influential will be oddly close compared to the gap in the win rate

[autumn light]

that message was from 2 days ago 😅 and it's not like this is an inactive thread 😄

[paper anvil]

I scavenged a bit, maybe i missed it there are some many now that i just missed the plot entirely.

[autumn light]

https://tenor.com/view/the-neighborhood-cedric-the-entertainer-you-got-that-right-yeah-youre-right-gif-16975254

[raw star]

how can you say it so confidently that you still have effectively a chance to influence the game, surely its there but not most of the time? from what i heard among people that strive for 4th marks it is especially noticeable that they have more often absolutely no chance to turn the battle. this shouldnt be suprising for you if you know that these player sit around 70-75% WR and cant make up with their dpm the hp lost of the team mates due to the bad spread.

[paper anvil]

Not to start anything but i am also sure that many of the Early Bot farmers that got their stats ramped up to 11 now are facing very dangerous legit high tiers Unis, is a possibility.
Now with the MM
And the Bots being a lot smarter.

[wanton wagon]

I’d be mindful how you word things as this is a very, very complicated Issue and simply stating values are 0 isn’t entirely correct👍

[raw star]

Gambit, a very skilled veteran who is an idol for most players even in competetive doesnt speak up for nothing, you should atleast take his wise adivce to some extent seriously.

[autumn light]

i mean objectively that part didn't change, so it won't change anything. In no way does that say it didn't change anything overall, but the MM process has several stages, and the changes all happened after a certain part of that process. I could probs word it better and state that "due to no change in the process the deviation across all 30 players won't change" if i was being quite pedantic i guess, but the meaning remains the same. It will be a random selection of players based on factors that have no relation to skill/ability/etc, same as before.

[autumn light]

For clarity, i wasn't commenting on things right now but on your statement about in a hypothetical where all the current "most influential" players left and how it would impact win rates in that future world.

[autumn light]

i talk to him a lot, even in person at tankfest 🙂

[vague vortex]

"It will be a random selection of players based on factors that have no relation to skill/ability/etc, same as before."

Agree to disagree as the original wordings stated the 70% wr mixed with 45% on one team, and 50%s mixed on the other. This would indeed allude to skill based as a 45% wr is not as skilled (in most cases) as a 70% wr.

[wanton wagon]

Just from your previous statement you had said that “it would have 0 impact on the spread of player skill within each game, and therefore no impact on “meeting more of their own skill” immediately after this quote you follow with “The change is purely to how the 30 are sorted onto each team” which contradicts your first statement as dependant on various factors like WR you may well be meeting more of your own skill but instead of your team, it’s the enemy team. I hope this is clear.

[vague vortex]

Put my 50% wr 🍑 in a 1v1 against a 70% wr superunicum and I'll be in the garage first every time.

[fleet elm]

It’s kinda a definition thing. Matchmaking is the process of selecting players for a lobby, which hasn’t changed

That being said, we use sbmm as an umbrella term to describe any game making process that pushes players towards 50%

[vague vortex]

After hearing everyone's side, I've been convinced to lean more into the "SBMM" line of thought.

Case in point - I've always been a greenbean. 1.1k WN8. I looked at WotStars yesterday and saw purple. I'm over 3k now and labeled superunicum. I know that ain't right.

[wanton wagon]

I think this is interesting as WG seem to be very against using the term sbmm but the system is set up to bring players closer to 50%
For me it seems like a very disingenuous way of justifying certain changes to MM.

[autumn light]

to be clear, it's a fact that the 30 taken is done the exact same now as it was before this patch. I'm not talking about the sorting of them once in the game and which side they end up on. This is just how the 30 who are then sorted are selecting - which is where the change happened.

[vague vortex]

Factoring in newbies that hang back and live till the end, the better players "carry" them to a W and tada - wr goes up.

[fleet elm]

Oh yeah it feels a bit scummy the way they danced around the issue

[vague vortex]

I know you (or another rep) had said it's FIFO, and the "sorting" % was given as an example, but it does still sort them by wr - which by most accounts is skill related because a blueberry isn't going to be that good.

Not arguing, just pointing out views and interpretations.

By the way, your boots are tasty 🤣 JK

[autumn light]

i think you are misunderstanding the terms i'm using. Spread of skill of the 30 in the game is talking to the selection of the 30. AKA if you take a random selection of players, there will be a standard deviation of X in the stats of the players. This will not change. What changes is how they are sorted within the lobby. So my statement is correct

[wanton wagon]

Very honest of you and I respect that a lot, do you personally want the changes to be reverted regarding the MM?

[native plaza]

I wouldn't have a problem with this if I was getting more even teams/longer games but from my personal experience it's seems to have the opposite effect. I have noticed more games being over in the first 2 minutes, meaning that I'm taking more passive positions to prolong my "game" but these games are actually impossible to carry/win and honestly not really fun to experience

[native plaza]

Whether or not we call it sbmm or sbts (skill based team sorting) in our heads it's basically the same thing because of the overall effect it has on lobbies

[fleet elm]

The mm doesn’t give equal odds per game. It’s like 50% queue order dependent. If you’re first in the queue you have probably half the win odds compared to last in the queue

[wanton wagon]

I have decided even though there is a tournament right around the corner to stop playing pubs, my enjoyment has completely ceased and I’m not putting up with insufferable games.

[vague vortex]

Honestly I'm not a major multiplayer activist as I see my garage more than a fight in MP (yea I'm that bad), but I do see where player's concerns are coming from now.

Other than a +1-1 MM, I don't see what really could be done to "smooth out" matches. WG is trying this out to see what it'll do, and (hopefully) make adjustments as needed when time elapses to provide a long term set of data. 1 month isn't that long in perspective to years of a game.

[wanton wagon]

Np, we can agree to disagree👍

[raw star]

https://youtu.be/9AYdWx4EDtQ

[fleet elm]

Like half the games are basically predetermined for us based on queue order plus players in the lobby

[proper valley]

Personally. Me? I didn't even know they updated the matchmaker lol.

What's the problem with it this time round?

[wanton wagon]

Which is why I won’t be supporting the change or playing the new system. Put up with it for too long already since the last season update.

[autumn light]

not against it, just in specific situations it's an accurate use of the term. And if you look at the confusion you had about what i was saying about the "spread" of players in the 30 selected kinda proves my point about being "correct" and consistent on the terms. It's nothing to due with justification, it's to be accurate and consistent. The same justification has been said for the change since the start, players wanted the teams to feel more balance/fair, this was aimed to do that.

[raw star]

watch the video to get the grasp, the higher your winrate the more you have to do to achieve a victory if its even possible to begin with

[vague vortex]

(it's been awhile but) Who said something about a "snake-step" MM? Team A has 1,3,5,7 and team B has 2,4,6,8? This would seem to make things closer to matched on both sides IMO

[proper valley]

That would explain it. I have a 50-51% win rate at this point

Could be lower

Probably lower

So basically nothing changed for me.

[raw star]

at 26:30 and forward he has a meaningful statement.

[proper valley]

Yal remember when those mixed games were still in rotation? Where the enemy could have like 7 TDs and you'll only have 3. I understand its gone for balancing reasons...but it was really fun seeing teams pick of different strategies based on their roster.

Of topic I know. I apologize.

[fleet elm]

That’s not possible with the way the mm sorts teams

[proper valley]

I'll go make a thread

[wanton wagon]

I understand your opinions and terms but I just don’t agree, that’s all. I’m not looking to validate whether I’m “correct” or wrong in the pursuit of discussion👍

[vague vortex]

I know, I was just mentioning how someone stated a "better MM" would be using the step system.

[fleet elm]

Probably gamblt

[vague vortex]

Not Steppes the map.

Lol

[wanton wagon]

It says a lot when all the top players I know aren’t playing the game currently like the previous season.

[autumn light]

correct, SPG said the system in FIFO. It technically uses a bit more than win rate, I'll summarise as info is somewhat spread all over 😄

• MM generates 15 pairs using hard rules (time in queue, class, tier, etc)
• it looks at pair 1, player 1 goes to team 1, player 2 goes to team 2. It generates a score for each player and then creates a delta between each player/each team.
• It looks at pair 2, works out their scores, and assigns them to a team to reduce the delta between the 2 teams.
• Repeat until all 15 pairs have been assigned to a team

Oh, and platoons throw spanners into this and make it more complicated than i can try to explain 😄 (correction from SPG)

the thing that changed was that score now has Win Rate taken into account, but it could be tank win rate or acc win rate.

Let me know if that makes sense, if anything isn't clear just let me know and i'll try explain/expand 🙂 (OR SPG can, as he is the expert and what i'm saying is based on reading what he has written lol)

[bleak oriole]

seems fairly correct - but skips the whole platoon stuff which happens before any of the score checking stuff and forces assignments

[bleak oriole]

the tl;dr summary is how do you balance 1 outlier player, and then an even mix of average to horrible players.

At some level, there is always going to be perceived unfairness - the team that doesn't have the skilled outlier, if they lose, is going to complain that they didn't have enough regular players to compensate to make it fair, and the steam roll was unfun.

If the team with the skilled oulier loses, then it's clearly because they didn't have enough of the average players and too many of the horrible ones

[vague vortex]

Welp, put me at the head of the MM then... I'll carry y'all 🤣

[bleak oriole]

my personal observation is that players never luck or RNG, or a bad player decision that caused the lose, it's always the MM

which makes me sad

and lets skip the whole discussion that would result if the MM didn't actually attempt to do balance the teams - hello team 1 with 7 60+ players vs team 2 with no one better than 45%...

[autumn light]

As SPG says above, the concern/complaint/feedback from gambit, nate, etc relates to a situation where a high win rate player is matched against a much lower win rate player and early in the pair order. So in that situation there is a potentially very high delta that results in the "worse of the pair" being put on the high win rate players team to balance the delta. And as a very high win rate player you will have this happen much more often.

[raw star]

but delta is nothing else than the winrate which quite surely in relation of skill. if the roster of 30 is very unbalanced (the fact that it only looks at 30 people at once and doesnt chnge within that to make it more balanced is actually proof that your system is undeveloped and weak) then the MM gets for the 1 outliner with 70% expontentially worse, especially if he is one of the first pair. how about you try to change the selection system first before doing much more issues for outliners.

[wanton wagon]

There is nothing lucky or RNG about achieving a very high win rate within 11 years of playing. This is the problem as it isn’t bad luck that barely positive win rate days occur for great players since the MM change.

[raw star]

the goal of a matchmaking should be to put both team equal and not to gamble when you get selected..

[uneven shoal]

Is it possible to change how the pairs are made? I’m no expert, but I imagine if the MM made the pairs in a different way, it might be able to balance them a little easier

[bleak oriole]

again, how do you make equal teams with a single 60+ player with a bunch of 50% and 45% in the queue

[autumn light]

it does take into account more than win rate for clarity, this delta system existed already. Win Rate was added to the existing calculations. It's entirely possible for a lower win rate player to have the higher score due to other factors.

Also, what you are saying you think would be better is a literal SBMM which is specifically being said as not wanted.

[raw star]

you could lock high wr players in a pair, since high wr players usually prefer balanced gameplay longer queue shouldnt be a big issue

[uneven shoal]

At this point, I’m wondering if taking into account tank would help. 4005 vs 4005 rather than 4005, 4005, vs 114, 263

[fleet elm]

Skilled outlier with a bunch of bad players might make an even match but nothing about the game is fair. Bad players are playing against only better players. The other team either stomps the opposition or runs into the brick wall that is the skilled player

[autumn light]

possible yes, but if you started taking skill into account for the MM pairing it would both have really big impacts on things like queue times, and would also be a literal SBMM that would REALLY push your win rate down towards 50%. So any issues with the current system would be far far worse.

The thing to do IMO is to look at the brackets, points, weighting, etc of how the current points are worked out.

[raw star]

first of all, how did you conclude that winrate is not in relation to skill?

[autumn light]

i haven't said that. You keep saying that we are assigning points by win rate. What i'm saying is that isn't what is happening, it's using several different things to create a score. Win rate is one, not the only one.

[bleak oriole]

this is more less taken into account - it will match up identical tanks when it can

[uneven shoal]

Does it do the same with platoons?. For example, example of platoon of two type fives I have seen get a third type five on their team.

[fleet elm]

Equal numbers of the better halves of pairs per team. Doesn’t make for an even outcome but makes for more even engagements

[raw star]

if this change would be that minor then we wouldnt see extreme winrate changes from top players

[bleak oriole]

yeah, negative on the platoon stuff - as I've said before, platoons make life harder for the MM

[bleak oriole]

yeah, see that's the answer that makes you happy, but I suspect strongly that the other players have different PoV

[uneven shoal]

Too complicated to add for many reasons?

[bleak oriole]

pretty much

[autumn light]

the change is literally that, that's it. Win Rate was added to the calc. That's why i said above that a more realistic thing to look at is changing that calc.

how the calc works, the weighting in it, brackets, points, etc etc you don't know so it would be impossible to guess the scale of the change

a small change in a formula can be a huge change in output

[uneven shoal]

IMO, if that was possible to add it would help a lot. It’s one of the things that frustrates me a lot with platoons.

[fleet elm]

What we have now is so queue dependent. Each match isn’t fair

[uneven shoal]

I wouldn’t mind this either, I’m fine waiting a little longer to get a match that’s closer to fair.

[raw star]

is there a reason why you just wont revert that calc? since this is already an intervenation to sbmm for a selection system and playerbase that is not good enough to handle it healthy/fairly then you should just revert it.

[autumn light]

no decision has been made on what to do next.

[raw star]

maybe you can do an emergency decision and procced further once you got a well tougth of MM clac?

[wanton wagon]

A thing to keep in mind is, WG always will say that you don’t want to wait for quality and then rather you spend on average X amount of seconds less and have a worse experience.

[fleet elm]

It’s handling it exactly the way WG expected it to be handled. They just are ok with a small % of players getting screwed

[uneven shoal]

And I’m sure they have stats to back that up. But personally as a higher skill player, I don’t feel it applies the same to me.

[fleet elm]

It’s more consistent and fair than before without screwing anyone over

[autumn light]

it's not WG saying this, it's multiple studies used across the entire industry. It's an accepted fact at this point. Does this mean that all players won't wait longer? no. Does it mean that longer queue times by shockingly small increases can kill off entire player bases? yes, unfortunately

[cursive tinsel]

I mean that really the observation all round really and that it is basically MM that will always get blamed as apposed to what the player did or didn't do or RNG just simply said nope. Kinda aswell like, yeah, we can tinker and play with it, but there still going to be either the same group of players that will still blame MM over everything else.

[bleak oriole]

first, not every match is "unfair" to you - it depends on the right combination of factors - and second, "unfair" is a relative term.

The skill difference between the teams tolerated by this system as compared to what the original pairs MM would generated ... is orders of magnitude smaller

[raw star]

hmm maybe its time that these few % which are mainly people that are related to comp and other stuff to just protest regarding this type of treatment?😆

[autumn light]

shockingly, people want different things 😄 and will do different things for it. Keeping everyone happy is impossible, but ideally you piss off as few people as possible keeping as many as possible happy

[fleet elm]

I’m gonna guess that the difference between being first in queue and last is somewhere between 10-30% win chance difference. That’s not exactly fair

[uneven shoal]

Welcome to compromise lol

[bleak oriole]

hence we why we are active here - we realize that the first pass of our points system could use some improvevements, so we are looking into the exact specifics

but at a high level, it's always going to have some kind of "lets try to make the teams even" - which appears to be a goal that isn't accepted by some of the players here

[uneven shoal]

And we appreciate it! We just wish y’all would move a little faster 🙂

[autumn light]

https://tenor.com/view/funny-very-sloth-slow-gif-15401812

[bleak oriole]

first we had to let the system collect some data, then we had to go thru it, then we have to make proposals, then we have to simulated the results of those proposals and discuss

and ...

and ...

[uneven shoal]

I’m sure there’s a ton of backend that we don’t see, but that’s what it feels like lol

[autumn light]

i just type in discord, it's poor sods like SPG who have to do all that back end stuff 😄

[uneven shoal]

I’ve worked in several “hurry up and wait” roles

[raw star]

since when is EU/NA your playground for this data? dont you have a supertest for this type of data

[bleak oriole]

and poor sods like me have a backlog of other tickets that they need to be working on

[fleet elm]

In any case, we all generally agree that we don’t want a large majority of good or bad players on either team

[bleak oriole]

"small sample size"

[vague vortex]

I totally read "that back end stuff" wrong...

[wanton wagon]

Yeah try telling that to LoL players, it isn’t always the case but I see your opinion.

[autumn light]

https://tenor.com/view/kenneth-williams-carry-on-films-ooh-matron-matron-oh-matron-gif-5549791979705370987

[uneven shoal]

I’ve got a major project sitting in my inbox waiting for the primary party to reply so my team can get started, but until then, we wait

[paper anvil]

I am guessing here but i think it changed a bit again, but not sure, i did realize something was very odd when many players at the bottom were doing terrible, you see that sometimes yes, but when you constantly see it after an update, something ticks in your brain, when i got suspicious i also started to pay attention to the enemy team when i was winning, and oh surprise they had several match making players like me when i was loosing, then i saw that indeed in the discord and YT there was something about it, and here we are.

[bleak oriole]

right, so at some level, there needs to be acceptance that the team with the uni player is probably going to end up with more of the bad players than the other team ... the question is really what is acceptable there

and at some level, there is also MM considerations that queue times matter most, so some truely weird outliers that happen 0.25% of the time are just gonna have to be a thing

[fleet elm]

0.25% for you is every other battle for us so…

[paper anvil]

By the way has the MM changed in anyway lately? like at the beginning i noticed more almost robotic games (3-5 players at the bottom doing continuously 0 damage on the losing team), now i am noticing less 0s on the bottom, still here and there but not as much.

[bleak oriole]

that's 1/4 of 1% not 25%

[wanton wagon]

We want more even matches sure but just not what we are currently getting as very high level players should be able to win 60%+ of their games currently we cannot do that without platooning on average.

[fleet elm]

Yes

[bleak oriole]

and I'm talking about the matches where you lot are involved

[vague vortex]

I would assume "supertest" doesn't have the same size samples as NA/EU servers do, so outcomes would be skewed from actual results. Unfortunately - WE are the test ground for some things.

Not to digress but look what happened with Xbox getting kicked the other day, it didn't happen in WG's supertest...

[bleak oriole]

because from the matches that I've looked at, the #1 cause of the disbalance has been ... platoons

[raw star]

its not ranked but pubs, usually this mode has no relation/consideration to ANY skill related stats..

[bleak oriole]

and you would get that no matter what

[fleet elm]

Yes. Every match I play is with me involved. A rare occurrence on your end is common for me

[uneven shoal]

Maybe some of those rules need looked at?

Just spitballing

[bleak oriole]

unlikely - because that would produce things like team 1 has 2 platoons and team 2 has 0

[raw star]

fair enough but since this matchmaking is very simple in how it creates any match, the potential backlashes would be very manageable if people like Gambit wouldve been in the process

[bleak oriole]

and that was an extremely high level of complaint in the original MM

[fleet elm]

Group platoons and their pairs as one delta and balance that rather than splitting platoons by default

[nocturne cloak]

For me, the matchmaker shouldnt be touched, its more a problem of the amount of tds/high alpha/camo tanks

[uneven shoal]

Is it possible to keep that restriction (num platoons per team) and look at other parts of matching players? I.e: Platoon with 58er gets a 58%er on the other team

[raw star]

thats already too much for their "system" i assume

[bleak oriole]

no - because there is not necessarily at 58% available to match

[autumn light]

no changes since the one being discussed heavily atm 😅

[bleak oriole]

and platoons are handled by making the pairs - so a 3 man platoon is paired up with 3 solos, the points for all of them added up, and the delta applied

[nocturne cloak]

Its impossible to match

[wanton wagon]

Even without platoons in my games. I’ve been losing very badly while putting up numbers.

[vague vortex]

Plus we really don't know how many new players have come to WoTC since the release of tier 1 and new season. There's always an uptick of players in any game when new stuff comes around.

Just saying this could be a factor in the "increase" of 45% players on a team.

[fleet elm]

Realistically 1-2 max. Teams where most players have an evenly matched counterpart on the other team are less likely to have a flank collapse and a steamroll happen

[bleak oriole]

but because platoons have to be assigned to specific teams, then the deltas mean that subsequent allocations have to correct any imbalances

[paper anvil]

In that case maybe some players stopped playing or the MM is putting me with a bit of a lower skill base due to my personal W/R going a bit down, but i am just guessing here, thanks for answering appreciated. 👍

[bleak oriole]

and this is what is being discussed / debated / simulated / prototyped / hashed out

specifically the 1-2 max bit - because well, that's an opinion and we need to back it up

[raw star]

we dont need to pretend that the tier to expirience structure is completely ruined thanks to the early accessable tier 10s for everyone who is willing to grind or pay 2k-6k gold

[fleet elm]

Well I hope the data supports not screwing us over

[vague vortex]

"and this is what is being discussed / debated / simulated / prototyped / hashed out by the lovely lot of you players"

There, fixed it for ya 😂

Just trying to keep it light y'all

[wanton wagon]

In hindsight. WG should have waited for the big changes to the game to go live so you could see some health return to the game first, as our current meta is NOT helping the horrendous games whatsoever.

[autumn light]

worth considering that there is also the other factors i mentioned, for example it can use tank or acc stats. So if you have been playing certain tanks you will be treated different than in others. So possible to see swings as a result 🙂

[raw star]

you could also think of giving the team with worse delta better overall rng if you dont want to revert it

[nocturne cloak]

Im not crying about losing winrate, its about how i Lose it, mostly battles are like 13:0 and my team is doing nothing

Im ready to losing winrate for close battles

[raw star]

7 people with 0 damage?

[nocturne cloak]

Yep

This battles

People with 38% winrate in my team

[fleet elm]

If it’s as rare as you say, capping performance at whatever 55% equivalent wr is won’t often have any effect the vast majority of the time

[nocturne cloak]

But i think its rly hard for the matchmaker to match it fairly, because we dont have player numbers like pc

[vague vortex]

I can vouch for that. Some tanks I'm great in, some I'm not. If I'm in a "not" I'll be paired with a Uni. If I'm in a great tank, I'll be paired with "not"s. Especially if I don't have a lot of battle stats to draw on. As I've said, I'm not a big MP player, so my 1k+ battles may not be factored into the % MM.

[paper anvil]

That makes sense, i normally hover around many of my favorites and silver makers, but i am always playing something different so a bit hard to say, i noticed the MM was very aggressive to me when i was grinding the T-64 line in CW, i know that the MM is not in effect there, but man i was getting similar results as WW2, even posted some games waay waaay up the comments 😝 .
But still hovering around between both games modes and i noticed it a bit less aggressive for me.

[nocturne cloak]

Btw, is it planned to limit the amount of tds in a team?

[fleet elm]

The matchmaker does make pretty “fair” teams now. People are winning a lot closer to 50% than before

[paper anvil]

I would not call it fair, i would go more for... Forced W/L equality XD

[wanton wagon]

Just at the sacrifice of any enjoyment lol

[autumn light]

to slightly repeat, who you are paired with doesn't and hasn't changed. You are paired because of the tank you are playing, tier of vehicle and how long in the queue and so on. The change is the score you VS the other in the pair. Just trying to make sure that is fully understood, so it isn't pairing you against someone to counteract that tank it's who from the next pair your team gets and so on.

[paper anvil]

Saddly i do agree some in there.

[fleet elm]

Hence the quotes on “fair” lol

[nocturne cloak]

I mean, it only sacrifice the top10% of players with good winrates

[autumn light]

just in case this bit was missed as a lot being said quite fast 😄 CW MM didn't change, so any change in CW you see is unrelated 🙂

[cursive tinsel]

Kinda why ive just given up player until there a development because, im not being the sacrifice each game and having an overall worse time.

[paper anvil]

I know, thankfully i was made aware of that, but the similarities were disturbing 👽

[paper anvil]

Patience my young padawan.

[vague vortex]

So in a case of 58% wr with a tank's wr of 32%, which stat would be accounted into the MM?

Similarly reverse the numbers 32% wr with tank 58% wr. Would there be a difference if the FIFO was static?

[cursive tinsel]

I am being patient. I left the game for two year after 6.0 and only came back because to platoon a little bit, started having a bit more of a bite to play the game and playing solo again, then this happened so

[autumn light]

the FIFO aspect is just the pairs. AKA when the lobby is creates it creates 15 pairs and the order they are "checked" is the FIFO.

In terms of which is taken into acc when, i'm not sure and i'm not sure if we're sharing that i'm afraid. So "it can vary which is used" is about all i know we have publicly confirmed

[cursive tinsel]

Been around the block long enough at this point.

[autumn light]

basically jLo

[vague vortex]

I know I'm asking a lot of hypothetical here, as FIFO isn't static as the people coming in aren't. It's just a hypothetical about which stat is used based on nothing else being variable.

[uneven shoal]

Thoughts on changing how those pairs are made? Maybe shift the points to that end rather than at the “make the team” phase?

[paper anvil]

I also left for a bit after 6.0, but i wanted to try the new Modern tanks and i stuck around cause i liked them XD
Cheers.

[bleak oriole]

the only things that the MM looks at are vehicle battles, vehicle win rate, and when not enough data is present at the vehicle level, account battles and account win rate

[vague vortex]

Nice. Gotcha. 😉

[wanton wagon]

I noticed after gaming in the 705a, I had an awful win rate as this tank is very weak and terrible at carrying games, I finished the session with a 38% win rate. Pretty eye opening experience for me.

[bleak oriole]

the above is in the context of the points system - everything else is related to the vehicle tier/class/platoon

[paper anvil]

If you don't mind my recommendation, try using ammo switcher and some HE on it, (i do it for every High caliber tanks and works wonders).

[autumn light]

i'd have to leave answering that to SPG tbh. The pairs are made before any score stuff is done for clarity though. But in the impacts of how changing stuff would impact mm things i'm john snow

[vague vortex]

So basically vehicle first, acc 2nd. I'm not trying to force an answer-all, just trying to understand the MM to do a test of my own to see how it works.

Not that I'm any good mind you, but to see how the MM handles me per tank

[fleet elm]

I thought fifo was how the mm got people out of the queue. The people that are in the longest get in first

[uneven shoal]

Looking from the outside, I’m just throwing ideas out there that might do something. No idea if it’s even possible

[digital orchid]

Yup. Weak tanks get even weaker, especially when we play them. Because normally our skill would allow us to carry games, not have it predetermined for us

It’s spam meta tanks or accept you’re gunna have an awful win rate

[wanton wagon]

I was averaging 5.7k dpg in the session, the games were out of any feasible chance of winning.

[paper anvil]

Skill issue XD

[paper anvil]

https://tenor.com/view/gif-gif-19494561

[wanton wagon]

It actually felt like I was playing a tower defence game.

[fleet elm]

No, weak tanks will just be bad until the winrate normalizes. Then they’ll be the same amount of worse that the were before

[paper anvil]

Yeah sometimes you have to.

[bleak oriole]

changing how the pairs are made is unlikely to be on the table.

the steps are what is outlined before:

• Make the pairs - FIFO rules
• Once you have enough pairs, then make the teams, again FIFO rules - the pairs with the tanks that are longest in the queue get serviced first (modulo platoon stuff)
• Once you are processing pairs, look at the points of the pairs and the current teams to decide which team gets which half of the pair

[autumn light]

AFAIK, it's kinda both? or well it's the same thing. The pair order is the pair order, aka pair 1 is always pair 1. And the being brought out the queue will put you in the pair 1 if you are longest in queue kind of thing. (SPG can correct if i'm wrong/not adding enough info)

ah, good timing 😄

[autumn light]

yeah all good, ideas welcome. Nate can confirm i've tried doing some side project stuff based on those suggestions and ideas 🙂 And SPG is openly saying he is reading stuff here to see what and where i can do things too.

[fleet elm]

Why do pairs have to be balanced in a specific order?

[vague vortex]

Last thing I'll ask, then I'm out...

Being rewarded the Tiger Maus and never having normally researched a tier 9 tanks at any time... if I go into a match with it the first time (having 0 experience in that tank), will it use career wr to MM me? Or will I be "bottom" matched with other low wr players?

[autumn light]

actually given what SPG said above the exact opposite should happen if the issue is purely as states of "high win rate = mm screws me". If you are in a tank with a lower win rate you are likely to now get a lower score and so it would mean that you get the higher score players on your team more.

[autumn light]

and when not enough data is present at the vehicle level, account battles and account win rate
from SPG a bit above 🙂

[vague vortex]

Coolio. Thanks for that. I guess I better git gud at that tank then 😂

And yes I'll admit - skill issue def applies to me 🤣

[wanton wagon]

If you play the Tiger Maus you’ll end up on Death Valley getting capped out on standard battle with mines cap times on it even though the map is CW size lol

[bleak oriole]

because we have rules like the number of SPGs allowed in a match, so if there are 3 pairs of SPGs, the first 2 pairs get in...

and the third pair gets put back into the queue

[bleak oriole]

and if we ever do something like limit the other classes, same stuff would apply

[vague vortex]

Aight y'all, I'm out so the big boys can talk without my blueberry 🍑 being a distraction ✌️

[fleet elm]

Why does that affect what order the delta calc and when they get put on a team? Why can’t the deltas be calculated then team sort from highest delta to lowest?

[wanton wagon]

Everyone’s welcome in the discussion lad, thanks for being a part of it.

[digital orchid]

Your feedback is equally as important

[bleak oriole]

I'm not sure that you understand what it means to sort by delta descending ...

[nocturne cloak]

I think we have to wait until wargaming has own data collected

[paper anvil]

Yeah but they are also checking our feedback, cries and wonders.
So keep crying my bannermen!

[bleak oriole]

but to answer the Q, because the decision was made that the only impact the points system would do is which team gets which half of the pair - changing anything changes the order of service

[fleet elm]

That’s the question I’m asking though. The answer in this case is it’s an extra processing step that you find unnecessary

[bleak oriole]

first, if we sorted [70, 40], [50, 40,] ... by delta descending, then the 70 pair is always done first ... whereas now, it can be last.

second, we don't sort because FIFO order matters when processing the pairs - as I said earlier, the 1st 2 SPG pairs get in, any others have to wait

[fleet elm]

Last is the least balanced sorting option for an outlier since the delta should be around 0 by that point

[fleet elm]

It sounds like the team building is done when you already have 30 players so why would the mm rules matter?

[bleak oriole]

because we take more than 30 players from the queue to make pairs because we have to deal with situations like limit on SPGs pairs

[fleet elm]

So the team building is done in the queue, before the 30 for the match are selected

[bleak oriole]

basically, the pair building process is a well-defined operation that doesn't have any real logic around it - it finds the pairs, and adds them to an internal list

then there is another step that is actually make the team - this is where all of the "business logic" lives - so rules like "no more than X spg pairs" are implemented here

this makes the system more flexible for additions - instead of having a whole bunch of business logic spread in 20 different places

[fleet elm]

Yeah the question is why isn’t there a sort function for largest delta here to avoid unbalanced matches where the highest delta goes last

[bleak oriole]

i've answered that

[fleet elm]

This isn’t an answer, it’s a question

[bleak oriole]

second, we don't sort because FIFO order matters when processing the pairs - as I said earlier, the 1st 2 SPG pairs get in, any others have to wait

[fleet elm]

It sounds like the pair processing happens in this step though from what you said earlier

I mean I’m not complaining. I think manipulating the queue is doable which explains why I’ve had a higher winrate while doing it

[wanton wagon]

I didn’t get around to manipulating the queue, what was your results?

[fleet elm]

Was ~55% wr before, 64% on 70 battles since

I’ve also had incredibly high dpg as well as winrate but it’s been mostly the technodrome before and after

[wanton wagon]

Very noticeable then, I’ll give it a go at some point, I’m curious.

[bleak oriole]

I might not be explaining it fully and clearly - I'm trying to do a bunch of things, so apologies if I'm not focusing on this.

Simply put, sorting the pairs by delta after they have been assembled is not currently in the cards because it will impact people queue times.

Basically put, any player that makes a near perfect pair will get sorted at the bottom of the list. If we have more than 30 players worth of pairs in the list - which we need to handle situations like the limit on SPGs in the queue - that could result in those players not being assigned to that team, and being delayed to the next one ... rince and repeat

[fleet elm]

Other people have had less success. It’s guaranteed not worse though

[wanton wagon]

Hey if it means my games are fair. I’ll happily try it out.

[fleet elm]

So there’s no 2nd step where teams are sorted, they’re sorted as they’re taken out of the queue into the lobby

[fleet elm]

Like I said, small sample, 1 person, one tank. It could be I’m getting better at it or have gotten lucky. But 64% is 64%, that’s good now

[wanton wagon]

My last 90 days has dropped from 78% to 73% already 😂

[digital orchid]

I hit a whopping low of 53% from 62 %

Still only at 57 now

I’m over it. The enjoyment is simply not there when it’s rigged against you. And that’s not even conspiracy anymore that’s the sad thing that’s literally how the matchmaking has been programmed now

I tried using Nate’s method but I didn’t have the patience for it. Wasn’t finding games consistently after ~5 seconds so I just started to let it queue normally

[fleet elm]

I’m resetting at 3 lol

[digital orchid]

You’re playing at peak hours I’m assuming?

[wanton wagon]

That’s a dedicated user - WG

[fleet elm]

Whenever

[wanton wagon]

I’d queue for 10 minutes if it meant that I enjoyed a good ole game of tanks.

[fleet elm]

It’s a bad system if the outcome is tied to what order you are in the queue.

[lament mica]

It seems to satisfy individuals that are high win rate here and unsatisfied with the MM change and those that would oppose giving them more stacked teams more often—eg putting more of the normal instead of the horrible, that changing pairing might be a consideration.

Eg match (build the PAIR) those with 65+ winrate that are in same class and tier so they are on opposite teams. Eg high winrate players wait in queue for a matching player to pair with—another high win rate player in same tank, tier. This will ensure they have the high quality mm and a challenging adversary on the other team.

This of course probably ignores what I imagine would create a tremendous load and possibly wait time issues to satisfy an issue with a tiny amount of games, but that sometimes is what quality of life is right? More wait but better matches has been mentioned a few times here. Just put the wait on the group that is otherwise burdened for quality.

[lament mica]

You do realize the old system did that worse?—more random, but definitely more often.

[fleet elm]

Random sure but it’s at least a little manipulative

[zinc summit]

🤮 where is the simp emoji

[paper anvil]

Now now don't be jelly.

[fossil girder]

That’s Daddy Gambit to you

[lean scroll]

Jelly of a gold spammer who always runs premium consumables i think not😆

[digital orchid]

He’d whoop you with none of those things

[lean scroll]

What you just said was the equivalent of my dad could beat up your dad...

And please stop complaining about a matchmaker that you aren't willing to collect data on and test. You admitted to it in an earlier comment. Thats like complaining about the terrible cake you baked but didn't follow the recipe for.

[digital orchid]

Hardly. It’s just an objective fact. Gold spam is not the reason you might be struggling with the game 🗣️. Saying that is like saying that you want your adult soccer team that you play for, to play against a team of U16’s, because you don’t want to play teams that might be better than you

We can all make asinine comparisons. That’s not the ‘gotcha’ you think it was

I’m not getting paid to collect that data. Why would I do it? Wargaming have all the tools needed to come up with that data on their own

I’ve already done my part by simply playing and being part of the statistics

[lean scroll]

Im not struggling my dude.

Your lack of patience, research, and fact finding doesn't validate your opinion. If you aren't willing to actually view stats and compare things you shouldn't be whining.

I think it was @fleet elm who put in work and found no supporting evidence

[digital orchid]

I just assumed you must be. Because I’ve never heard a good player say “Gheez, I wish they would remove gold spam”. And you might say in response to that “well of course good players don’t complain because it’s a crutch that they exploit against lesser skilled players”

But here’s the kicker. Anyone can fire it back at us and even the playing field immediately

WG give out premium days and premium tanks like candy in every season pass. It isn’t like the old days where silver was much harder to earn

I genuinely don’t understand gold spam as a complaint if you’re claiming that you’re performing fine. I’ll take your word on that.

[viscid gorge]

Don't come here to this attempt at constructive feedback thread throwing clown reactions and trying to insult people for using resources provided to them, especially considering they'd do better than you even without it

🙂

[fleet elm]

This mm is a big issue for me

[viscid gorge]

Same here.

Me being down 13% winrate is a big issue lol

[autumn light]

Can i request we keep it civil please 🙂 This thread has been rather productive (IMO) and rather extensive and it'd be a shame for it to be derailed and moderated

[digital orchid]

The dude has been maining Cold War so it explains why he hasn’t been seeing any issue with it himself

[lean scroll]

Vickers contract requires CW

And sorry @autumn light all I did was ask questions on data collecting and apparently that sparked controversy

And my bad @fleet elm I thought it was you you that did the sample size of 250+ games

And it the matchmakers job to get a perfect 50/50 WR for the game though I do acknowledge the difficulties its running into when lots of platoons come into play in a game. That one's a hard one to solve

[viscid gorge]

It isn't the MM's job to get perfect 50% winrate, that just ruins motivation to improve at the game

Now if I improve, doesn't matter, won't win more.

If I'm bad at the game I win just as much as someone doing 3x my damage?

[lean scroll]

Matchmakings goal is to achieve a fair game. That doesn't mean your skill lvl goes unrewarded you still get kills and xp then progress through lines

[digital orchid]

No problem with you playing Cold War. I’m just pointing out it’s inflating your win rate since it doesn’t use this algorithm

[lean scroll]

What do you think MM job is?

[viscid gorge]

Match players together and insure fairness on classes in this game

[lean scroll]

Meaning statistically 50/50 is the ideal scenario

[viscid gorge]

Trying to make everyone's winrate 50% makes it worthless to improve at the game. Yay, I killed 10 people, still lost

Or, on the flip side, I put 0 effort in

Still recieve bonuses from winning

Yay!

[fleet elm]

Wins get you way more exp than kills and damage

[lean scroll]

Youre right they do im not saying they dont

[digital orchid]

I cannot imagine grinding a line now with this algorithm

Would take you twice as long

[viscid gorge]

Honestly, I don't even think the old MM was bad. I think there is quite literally a skill issue amongst a LARGE portion of the playerbase.

Which that and randomness leads to steamrolls. Part of that is to blame for lack of a tutorial, live armor viewer, and other excessible features to teach people how to play well 🤷‍♂️

[autumn light]

to slightly interject, part of why i've been quite pedantic/obtuse on "this is not a SBMM" is kind of this aspect.

In a true SBMM as you improve, you will be matched against people of as close to your skill as possible, meaning that as stated you will win ~50% of the time and it's other metrics that will be used to define your skill as going up or down. In ours, if you get better you will still win more, because our system doesn't aim to match you exactly against someone or a team of people of your skill. It takes a selection of 30 players and cares 0 about their win rate until they are deiced as the 30 in that game. It then tries to sort people onto each team as best it can to create a more even team. This means that the better you are, the further from 50% your win rate will be, far more easily than a SBMM would allow.

The feedback being given is that due to this sorting, to make the team even our current system is potentially stacking the team with too many players that are the "worse" of their pairs and that in reality due to the snowball nature of fights being won and how much harder it is for a 2 v 1 to be won by the 1 (even if they are a vastly better player) it results in more losses for that better player and more landslide games. This is part of what we are looking at.

I also think it's quite possible to have the best of all worlds, by altering what is already being done to reduce the impact of a single outlier player on the rest of the team sorting. Such a change/middle ground wouldn't be possible in a SBMM.

[viscid gorge]

I think the current one certainly uses aspects of SBMM

But no, it isn't fully SBMM

[autumn light]

i think i've been annoying enough that most have accepted that bit 😅 i was just pointing out that because it isn't, the thing of "getting better won't result in you winning more" isn't really true for this. And thanks to it being more adaptable, i think room for improvement can be found that (hopefully) will make many people much happier

[neon dagger]

Respectfully i didnt had an enjoying experience in the queue

[fleet elm]

True SBMM would be better. At least you'd know what your teammates could do. The current one is "which 4 of my 14 teammates aren't completely garbage" roulette

[viscid gorge]

Your essay unfortunately buried my previous message but I hope people still see it lol

#1405193097079689458 message

[autumn light]

i mean if the complaint atm is that win rates are dropping, a true SBMM would drop them way more while also giving much longer queue times and i'd imagine more bot games 😅 feels a bit lose lose to me - although i do get your point

[digital orchid]

It’s definitely not as aggressive as normal SBMM. Lord knows I’ve played enough cod over the last few years to know that. But it leaves the same sour taste in my mouth, that no matter what I do, I’m now going to have a capped win rate that’s lower than my normal

Which strips the fun from it

That’s the bottom line for me

[fleet elm]

Assuming a proper pop for it. You're not getting shafted for being better. The assumption is 50%, your ranking is the measure of skill

[lean scroll]

Those players were always there even before now they are just evenly distributed from what i understand

[fleet elm]

No. A significant majority of the bad players are on our team. That’s what we’re complaining about

They’re not evenly spread in our lobbies

[lament mica]

Sometimes

[tawdry sky]

I definitely feel like the quality of my overall matches have gone down.
Im not talking about my individual games, but rather how my teammates perform.

It really feels like I get 1-2 players on my team who will do their tanks health in damage, and the rest are sub 1k.

[tawdry sky]

(Tier 8-era 3)

[digital orchid]

It feels like for me that the only close games I’m getting anymore are when it’s mostly bot lobbies, the bots are killed off, then it’s left as a 6v6 with the real ones left 😂

Steamrolls have increased dramatically when it’s full player lobbies

[tawdry sky]

I very much hate blaming my team for losses, but Ive been feeling that a LOT more as of late.

[lament mica]

CW not changed…

[digital orchid]

I missed that lol

Yeah CW is unaffected @tawdry sky . Still uses the old algorithm

[tawdry sky]

Tier 8-Era 3 for the matches I play

[cunning dew]

Maybe you guys should revert it. You can say we are a small percentage that think this but ive never seen this many comments on thread

Even some lile t249 nerf were less

You guys listen to threads alot smaller than these to. Pls revert it. Your killing off more players including me

[olive bolt]

Are you begging?

[raw star]

to call it simping is just disrespectul to not just me but Gambit, you seemingly dont understand that he earned that admiration and respect by being a consturctive cc and a skilled player throughout the years. its fine if you dont understand the layers of skills required to be a top player but dont use that as reason to be offensive

[raw star]

maybe this can help you more to understand the point, i used ai to express my point better

SBMM focuses on overall balance

Classic SBMM tries to minimize team skill difference as a whole.

CTBMM (Class-to-Tier Balanced Matchmaking) is order-sensitive: balance depends on the sequence in which pairs are processed, not the best global distribution.

High-skill players as “anchors”

Strong players repeatedly get forced onto the weaker side, because the system always hands the “worse” of a pair to the stronger team.

Over time, high-WR players constantly feel dragged down.

RNG dominance

Since pairs are random, two identical lobbies can produce very different outcomes.

Players feel like results are more about lottery luck than skill or fair matchmaking.

Forced outcomes perception

Because every pair is “corrected” to shrink delta, players sense that the matchmaker is manipulating results more actively than SBMM.

Composition ≠ fairness

Even though both teams have mirrored classes/tiers, that doesn’t ensure fair skill distribution—especially when early pair assignments snowball.

One-line summary

CTBMM : Both teams get identical class/tier compositions, but players are assigned in random pairs where the stronger team is forced to take the weaker player. This makes outcomes highly order-dependent, punishes high-WR players, and often feels more manipulated and less fair than standard SBMM.

[paper anvil]

I still play, lots to do and many tanks to buy back.

[proper valley]

My humble opinion? This game needs a 2.0 like wotpc.

Or maybe just a complete remaster that'll transfer progress.

Graphics overhaul, looking back at current issues.

Basically just a general overhaul of the game. Its been long due

[errant saddle]

Most people would cry just because the bush hides tds , it wouldn't work...atleast maps on console are loads better.

[proper valley]

:/

Yea thats how it feels like sometimes.

[errant saddle]

You can be 20 feet away and still not spot a TD on PC behind a bush

[proper valley]

Truly?

That sounds. Terrible

Also you misunderstand.

I mean a 2.0 as in a rework.

Not just copying WoTPCs work

[errant saddle]

That's what it feels like to me, most the people asking for nerfs just want to neuter tds, the type5 seems to be good when I go against it anyways.

I wouldn't mind tech tree buffs but we got that and people are still crying about those buffs. I want lights to get a big overhaul @proper valley

[proper valley]

As I said before.

The community is very opinionated.

The devs have to walk a tight rope any time the want to do anything

[fleet elm]

We got 6.0 lol look how that turned out

[proper valley]

Do one thing? They annoy this part of the community.

Revert it? Annoys another part.

They can't catch a win.

[cursive tinsel]

I mean TD with the current camo are too over the top when they are built into currently. Thats kind athe reason of the QoL changes and equipment changes that should help swing the balance and give scout their ability to spot back. But, that doesn't mean a TD that's double bush is going to be spotted since double bush is like an 80% camo boost.

Just because of the nature of this thread id say try to not steer to far off and keep this as close to a MM thread as possible. Just so stuff isnt lost or filled with stuff about X Y and Z

[proper valley]

Nate. You are currently supporting a massive rebalancing of perks that will change how all of us will approach combat and how some classes will have to play the game. Thats kinda 6.0 did.

I don't particularly like them mainly all kinda niche.

And make commander skills just feel inadequate.

Ah yes! A 5% reload buff? 0.50 seconds off the reload.

But this topic isn't about that.

I genuinely think we need a much larger rework than just commander skills.

Maybe the insane penetration can be toned down?

But back to the matchmaker.

[fleet elm]

The removal of most of said perks yes that's what I'm supporting

[proper valley]

Why tho?

Why should we even have commanders then?

If the commander will literally only apply minor buffs what the purpose?

It was completely fair because everyone had access to commanders

[fleet elm]

Power creep. If everyone gets blown up the second they're spotted, it creates camping

[proper valley]

Some perks needed nerfing. Yes. Mainly camo ones.

[fleet elm]

And dpm and accuracy

[proper valley]

Now that. That was fine.

It made it so you had to react quickly to being shot.

You can't just sit there for 10 more seconds after being hit in the side.

You have to react.

[fleet elm]

How do you react before you get shot?

[proper valley]

You don't. Simple as.

[fleet elm]

Yes. Nerf accuracy

[proper valley]

You just take precautions to just not.

WHATM

Hold I really need you to explain that reasoning.

[fleet elm]

Getting snapped by a TD HE round when I poke a ridge for 1s isn't exactly fun

[proper valley]

Shouldn't have peeked.

Simple.

[fleet elm]

Yes. It creates camping

You're making my points for me

[proper valley]

In this game. You're gonna get shot. You can't blame the sniper for doing his job.

[fleet elm]

Is an E100 really the best sniper?

[proper valley]

You peeked over a hill. He shot you. Thats how the interaction goes.

Either you continue to push and shoot back. Or back down with the knowledge that there is a sniper

[fleet elm]

lol

[proper valley]

Am I wrong?

In this game, you won't know when you're about to be shot.

If you are the unlucky individual that finds a sniper. You have not only informed yourself but your team that there is a sniper.

Another route should be taken or someone with higher HP or maybe just bull rush the thing.

[cursive tinsel]

Im just going to reiterate the last part of this. If we going to continue talking about the upcoming QoL and equipment changes take it out this thread please.

[proper valley]

Yes sir.

[cursive tinsel]

Don't give the certain mods the idea to make this a read only thread.

[proper valley]

I'll just stop this here.

Nate will probably just call this rage baiting anyways lol.

[digital orchid]

I can’t wait for these accuracy changes so many players going to be crying that they have to actually aim now and can’t be fully accurate after a split second

[cursive tinsel]

Guys, game discussion or another thread end of.

[proper valley]

Please. Shut. This is over. You're late. The talking stick is no longer ours.

[fleet elm]

Reducing accuracy will help deal with the awful teams I get with this MM. My teammates can't hit shots anyways so at least the enemy will have the same issue

[digital orchid]

What I said is related to the matchmaking, I was getting to it

The accuracy nerfs will widen the skill gap, which this matchmaking has narrowed, since our performances, no matter how good they are, are capped at how often we can win

[proper valley]

Ah. On topic.

Now. That seems more like a matchmaker issue rather than a "must be the accuracy perks" issue

[fleet elm]

Unfortunately I think accuracy and dpm narrow the gap a bit. Less carry potential

[proper valley]

I do agree the matchmaker should probably be looked at again

Or maybe they can release a video on how this works

[fleet elm]

High alpha with good accuracy is probably the biggest MM issue

[proper valley]

That'll help greatly.

Won't reducing accuracy making camping worse tho?

Tank destroyers will just sit further back.

Sure they might miss but their accuracy will still be useable.

[fleet elm]

And they'll miss everything

[proper valley]

No they won't

[fleet elm]

Won't hurt me since I get bad teammates who cant hit shots to begin with

[proper valley]

Guess you gotta carry just a little harder. Friend.

[digital orchid]

Then nothing will change because camping is awful now since everything is so hyper accurate

Poot one foot wrong and you lose all your HP immediately