Updated Match Maker is not balanced

[proper valley]

Idk. We all get bad teams

[digital orchid]

It should allow us to push these campers and dig them out though

[proper valley]

But here's something important

[digital orchid]

Since they won’t be able to hit us so accurately

In theory anyway

[proper valley]

Those team mates will still be bad after the nerf

They won't improve. If they already can't hit the side of a barn. What makes you think handicapping them would help them?

And with this current match maker. It just means those bad team mates will perform even worse.

Again. Nate. Your issue sounds like a matchmaker issue

Not a equipment or perk issue

But you made some amazing points. High alpha is annoying.

Lets remove tank destroyers

High dpm is annoying. Lets remove mediums.

It doesn't make sense to get irritated with some of these mechanics. Its how those classes have always functioned

[vague vortex]

Surely you can understand why this MM is referred to as SBMM? If your skill improves (as shown by the increase in winrate), the MM will add lower winrate (aka lower skilled players) to the (now outlier) higher winrate player.

Even if it is not SBMM, it is using the same algorithm as SBMM does to balance out the teams.

Nerfs, TDs, accuracy has no part to play in this discussion as a 20% wr player can RBRT and snap anyone.

My play style has not changed, I still blueberry into enemy territory. How has my winrate gone up from 50 to 53%, and my WN8 gone up from 1100 to 3k+?

By matching me with players in the same wr (skill) bracket to where I do better in the rankings compared to both teams. After a few Ws, I get matched with better players, and I lose.

I loaded into a match yesterday using the Tiger Maus I got from the season. 1st game ever in it. Got the preferential MM with a +1-1 and got annihilated due to my wr being higher than 50%. Played a few more matches, lost a few more, and then got some wins due to the enemy team being muppets and it was a steamroll. Then back to progressive losses.

I'm not sure what can be done with any MM to make it fair for all since everyone is on a different level. Career, tank, WN8 - all different.

The only thing I have ever noticed that works better than others is "tierd MM" - and this is based on skill. Similar to stages, a tierd MM will put you in a group of similar players until you reach a certain point of being top 5% or better, then advance you to the next higher tier of competition. Bronze level, silver level, gold level, etc. This has been the closest and most efficient way of balancing players with and against players in the same bracket to determine advancement or regression in skills, wins, etc.

[paper anvil]

All tanks are snipers, some are better than others quite simple.

Nope, good players are going to stay good and the MM is going to change a bit, but in general you might see more of the powerful tanks being used and less the super slow aiming ones, carry potential doesn't depend on accuracy, but on player behavior and adaptability.

[paper anvil]

Camo nerf is the good help there.

[errant saddle]

Ohh yes can't wait to be fully aimed and also not moving just for the shell to go way above the tank or into the dirt.

[digital orchid]

Happens with the accuracy now. RNG giveth and RNG taketh

It’s even more frustrating that happening when tanks are so accurate

[errant saddle]

Not for me on console

[digital orchid]

You’ve never been fully aimed and have a shot miss a weak spot? Damn I want that RNG

My point is though, anything to increase the skill gap when we are having our win rates capped with an algorithm akin to SBMM is a good thing

[vague vortex]

And... we're back to another thread's discussion. Well, don't cry when mods make this a read-only. Just saying.

[digital orchid]

That’s why I’m going back to my original point. I am making a link between the accuracy changes and this matchmaking

[errant saddle]

Ahh yes can't wait to see more 15/0 cause no one could pen the chieftain sitting on a hill that farmed 10k DMG/assisted. -.- when blueberry's can barely do better now even with accuracy equipment and skills.

Or purposely killing themselves first 30 seconds into a match yha this will absolutely make matchmaking better...wait were already seeing this which means it's gonna be every match once the changes go through.

[vague vortex]

It is possible QoL will impact the MM, but I don't see much of a difference in relation to outlier and what they get matched with. Muppets will still muppet and earn the L for the team.

[errant saddle]

Tons of donuts for team 1 and no donuts for team 2.

[vague vortex]

Hence my idea pitch for a tiered (tierd?) system. Would place Kermits with Kermits and Gonzos with Gonzos

[errant saddle]

May work idk...rn the WW2 mm is bad than before on my end

[vague vortex]

It's like riding tidal waves for me - massive losses followed by massive wins, repeat.

///\

Oof, didn't work

Ups n downs

[errant saddle]

Also depends if your three manning it as well...because that bypasses the system and yha I see it

[vague vortex]

I solo most of the time because I'm not as good as others and I bring my platoon down dying a lot. Too much co-op mentality (mine) going into MP

I realize that skill is learned, and takes a while to "git gud", so that would be another + to a tiered system.

[errant saddle]

Idk when I do platoon it's mostly punching down because you have support compared to randoms not knowing what to do, kinda like the great wall issue....you have 8 guys go top right and 7 bottom left ....team 2 sends 2 top right and rest bottom left....team 2 generally wins that match cause not enough tanks/support.

[digital orchid]

That would be true SBMM then which we definitely don’t need in the random queue

They might as well just add a permanent ranked mode. That would be exactly the same as what you’re proposing

[vague vortex]

Right. Lemmings usually always get the W from rolling over a weak flank and surrounding the rest

[digital orchid]

I wouldn’t be against having ranked permanently. Ranked was great pre 6.0

[vague vortex]

Ranked. If that's what it'd take to get a leveling system for MM to work off of - I say yes

[digital orchid]

But it’s important that we don’t turn casual battles into sweat fests so a separate ranked mode I’m all for. I think lots of people would be

[errant saddle]

Only way of stopping a lemming train is certain tanks like an is-7 or high alpha tds. Or hull down tanks otherwise they lemming on thru w.o an issue which is why equipment changes ain't going to do much.

[vague vortex]

And ranked is another word I've seen used for tiered. Separates players by skill, but not oppressively

[digital orchid]

That would be better for the game than what they’re doing with the matchmaking now

Revert the MM changes, add a ranked mode. Add some rewards for playing ranked and accept that if you’re playing “casual” matchmaking, then games will be more lopsided

[vague vortex]

In theory a good hull-down beast should hold off a lemming from advancing, until the op lights run around and reck ya lol

[vague vortex]

But would WG be able to implement that based on server capabilities, queue times, and without wrecking the core code(s)?

[errant saddle]

Honestly I don't think I had an issue with the mm before they changed it for ww2...

[digital orchid]

None of us did. There wasn’t really anything wrong with it

The only things I can think of were it allowed too many lights on each team and too many TD’s

Which is directly responsible for fast matches

[errant saddle]

Ehhh tds maby not as much lights I rarely ever see a light....

[vague vortex]

Steamrolls, lemmings... but you get that all the time when the tanks are lopsided with 6 LTs on one side, 6 TDs on the other

[digital orchid]

I had 12 in a game the other day. 6 against 6. It was over in 3 minutes or it might have been 5 v 5 can’t quite remember. Definitely 5 a side minimum

[vague vortex]

It would almost take a complete overhaul of the current game to produce a "better" MM. And a lot of players may not be willing to deal with the issues of "under construction" error codes that boot you to dashboard.

[errant saddle]

WW2 or cw?

[digital orchid]

WW2. Tier 8

[errant saddle]

Can blame the current earn a free tank in the contract. I haven't had many lights like that in WW2 in a long while

[vague vortex]

? for the "reds" here (without having to ping them)... What problems/circumstances would instituting a ranked system involve?

[digital orchid]

My final thoughts really are that it’s just the nature of this game, and the gap between poor and good players. You’re never going to have balanced matches 24/7. There’s just too many variables for that to happen

You’re never going to be able to make the game fair for everyone, without screwing over one portion of the players, which right now happens to be the top percentile.

They should have just focused on balancing tanks properly, and tweaking the matchmaker so that it doesn’t put tonnes of lights or TD’s in matches, because that causes fast games

Reducing all of the 850 alpha nonsense TD’s to 750, adjusting DPM accordingly, stop adding nonsense tanks like the T249 and AVRE. Just try their best to make the tanks themselves balanced to create slower and fairer games. Not by manipulating the win rates of players.

But they undid anything resembling balance when they made loads of already strong heavies 440 alpha, and mediums 420. The accuracy and DPM changes should go some ways into helping slow things down. But it would be better if we weren’t coming off the back of all these mega buffs and MM changes. Because the difference between bad and good tanks now is even larger. Which guess what? Makes games faster. And the MM is going to cloud the water when it comes to assessing how the accuracy changes are affecting the game

[paper anvil]

Yeah same-ish here with the system in place.

[errant saddle]

Look at the progetto...been needing buffs since and how long now?.....

[paper anvil]

Not if you have 105s and above caliber HE and aim for hatches or similar weak spots.

[digital orchid]

The progetto 65? It did actually get a tiny tiny buff to the reloads. The standard B got buffed much more I believe

But the 65 is still bad. Then you compare those buffs to something like the E5 or a MK6.

[paper anvil]

And if you see one it barely survies or moves at all.

[errant saddle]

I haven't the slightest idea why they refuse to buff it....hell they nerfed the Caliban so quick a week or two after release so it couldn't shell swap.

And the shell swap was the saving grace of that tank in my opinion.

I was so happy when I got my progetto but was saddened by i think it was either camo, speed, or reload I can't remember which ...I also haven't ran it in like a year or two...

[paper anvil]

P65? tier 10??

[errant saddle]

Yes

[paper anvil]

Skill issue

[errant saddle]

???? Why are you saying skill issue ? I said I was saddened doesn't mean I have issues running it?

[paper anvil]

Ok, sorry.... Skill issue.

[errant saddle]

Someone woke up on the wrong side of bed that they just gotta be toxic and say skill issue w.o meaningfull conversation.

[paper anvil]

That reminds me, what is more aggressive towards this MM the tank stats or the player stats? 🤔

[paper anvil]

And i am joking.

[errant saddle]

I would have to say skill and amount of matches overall.

A good tank is only as good as the user.

[paper anvil]

Pretty much, yeah.

[paper anvil]

Yeah but if you play a new or not played a lot tank, the game only takes your personal performance as base for the MM, after a certain point the tank stats.

[errant saddle]

The matches overtime gives you insight on general, TD spots and where mediums will potentially go.

[errant saddle]

Should be going off your total amount of matches but that's not even good...best thing they have is wn8 but they don't like it so idk .

[paper anvil]

Maybe they have other variables, but hard to say.

[fleet elm]

They made up their own in house version of wn8 for this mm

[paper anvil]

Pic or it didn't happen XD

[fleet elm]

What do you think performance based on winrate and damage is lol?

[paper anvil]

Ah so no pic.

[fleet elm]

What do you think wn8 is lol

[paper anvil]

A player performance rating made by the community.

[fleet elm]

Based on what?

[paper anvil]

Damage, kills per battle, spots, defense points and Win rate.

[fleet elm]

Sounds a lot like what WG is doing

[paper anvil]

They are the main devs, they have the Stats system and share some data and keep other Data, if someone has the best numbers is them.

[nocturne cloak]

In my last 7 battles i had 5 games with like 0:8->0:12 Pretty good game experience 👍

[digital orchid]

6 for me half the team dead in 2 minutes from the start

Absolutely pointless

I am currently playtesting on a friends account who is 2800 overall and it’s the same experience on that too

[nocturne cloak]

Wn8 doesnt matter

If im right, its the winrate specific of the tank u are playing

[digital orchid]

Career win rate is 57% I’m currently 50% after 20 games playing the Taran bro

The solo experience is absolutely cooked

[digital orchid]

Had to turn the game off. Absolutely infuriating

Straight 50% wins after 25 games. Coming across the same gamertags all the time too. Good job wargaming 👏

[grizzled vessel]

Interesting

[digital orchid]

Small sample size I know but it’s making me too annoyed to play more

[crystal ember]

At this moment, the gaming experience is on a long time low for me.
Im not one of the top 1% players here, but im sitting on a career WR of 58+% and a WN8 of around 3.4k recent an 3k overall.
But since the changes done to the MM i feel like the game is slipping away from me.
Its nothing new with a certain skill level, to do the carry work. Im fine with that. But, for the last weeks it has become more and more tideous. Its feels more like work. You have to constantly do exceptoinally good, to compensate your teammates. It feels like, you get punished for not playing meta tanks. If i dont play tanks that have a reliable heavy impact on every match, or can stand for theyr own, or are flexible enough to rotate across the map, or threaten the enemy by theyr pure presence in a corner of the map, i just cant carry all of the low skilled players to a win... I also see the same, happening on the oposite teams.
At this moment, i sporadicly check the lineups before the match starts, or after the game. Only to see horrible stats matched besides, or against me.
If you play solo, you are way to often on the backfood. Me, sitting in a medicore mid tier heavy... On the other team, a top tier platoon made out of three Super Unis. I check my teammates in theyr counterparts to the platoon, just to realise, that this platoon is not only a platoon, no they are skillwise miles higher than my teammates. Dont get me wrong. This also happens the other way around, wich equals in a hacksaw for the enemy team. This cant be fun for everyone.
It becomes more grim dark if you specificly check playerstats on tanks with keyrolls. Each team has one light. The one has 55%+ WR the other 43%. You dont have to be a genious, how that works out on a map on wich viewrange advantage is cruchial.
I could go on and on with different exampless ive experienced in the last weeks. In my opinion, does the new MM not work that well and it keeps me away from playing more often.

Btw, sry for my bad english..

[simple zodiac]

2,111 feedback responses later and still no change.

[digital orchid]

They’ll just tell you most of the comments are from the same people and that not many people are actually complaining about it

[olive bolt]

Its called a Sisyphean Task

Its been hilarious to watch

Keep at it, maybe a breakthrough is in sight

🤣

[digital orchid]

Good luck to the guys who are going to continue playing this game. But I am done for the foreseeable future unless this gets reverted ✌️

[high oyster]

We are complaining

[acoustic mist]

We just don't all use Discord or sit in these threads 24-7. But we are complaining on their other media channels like Twitter/X for example but they don't interact there either.

Edit:
We also tried to talk about the down side before this came out or at least I did & was shot down because they thought any changes would be better than none.

[autumn light]

you basically wrote out a longer version of my shortened version, except now with a some inaccurate bits.

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.
Actually this is (mostly) the literal opposite of many of the complaints and counters your literal next point. Before it was definitely more random because there wasn't anything stopping the "15 strongest" players being on 1 team, you could have 1, 2, 3, etc of the "strongest" from any pair (Strongest definition as it's being defined now, opposed to the old system which didn't take into account win rate). Whereas now this won't happen and you'll always have less extremes. The main complaints voiced by the higher win rate players is that due to equalling out the delta a high win rate player can consistently get "at least X" weaker of the pair on their team, unless they are low enough in the pair order, hence Nate's attempts to join every game as a fresh queue joiner (this being the bit that makes it "mostly"). So whereas before they may will have a seemingly quite random distribution of "weaker" pair players on their team, now they will get less extremes but a consistent number.

So, for clarity, i fully understand the complaint(s) and i have likely put a lot more thought into both how it causes the complaints and how to resolve it than many (i made an excel in my spare time that functionally mimics the way it works so i can test inputs and outcomes and see it in real time) 😅 but the post you are replying to was me openly saying i'm being very pedantic about it not technically being a SBMM because it causes people to misunderstand how the system does work, not because i do not understand peoples issues with our current system.

[autumn light]

that's techincally still not how it works, and why i keep being quite pedantic about it. It won't simply "add lower win rate players" it adds "the weaker of a pair" and it only cares about those within the game already and isn't pulling people from the queue to achieve a certain outcome.

So for example, the following 3 pairs being looked at where Team 1 has a high delta due to having a 49% player with lots of battles is paired VS a 39% player with very few.

Pair 1
Player 1 = 44% win rate, XXX battles
Player 2 = 46% win rate + XX,XXX battles
Pair 2
Player 1 = 58% win rate, X,XXX battles
Player 2 = 61% win rate + XX,XXX battles
Pair 3
Player 1 = 55% win rate, XX,XXX battles
Player 2 = 58% win rate + X,XXX battles

In all situations situations, Player 1 is the lower win rate of the pair, but in pair 3 Player 1 may have a higher score and so will be put on team 2, and in pair 1 and 2 a 44% and a 58% player are both used to reduce the team delta. So our system effectively cares very little about your win rate in terms of the final team composition, there is no attempt to make the final win rate average of both teams "50%" or that both sides have the same number of XX% players. And it can put a higher win rate player on the side that already has a higher average win rate if that balances the deltas. And once the delta imbalance has been reached it now has 0 care about the previous pairs total win rates, it just cares about making that delta back to 0.

So it works on functionally different aim than a SBMM, shares no algorithms similar to a SBMM, and works at a different stage of the mm processes. So although i fully understand why people go there, the assumption that it is a SBMM keeps resulting in people misunderstanding how it works - with some irony and meant with humour, yourself being a perfect example 😅 .

[autumn light]

388 so far from you alone, so you currently make up 18% of total comment. Nate is another 11%. Protus is another 8%. That means 3 people are over 37% of the entire comments, i'm about another 5% and several others in that range. More than 50% can be accounted for by less than 10 people, probably 5 or 6.

So i'm not sure what kind of "gotcha" you think that is to try imply ridicule to something that can be checked in a few seconds by pretty much anyone is 😅 But the number of comments =/= the number of people experiencing an issue. Perfect example the other way around. the Xbox crashes the other day, where we know how many were experiencing it, and it was not reflected by the number of people commenting about it.

[paper anvil]

Hello!

https://tenor.com/view/rookie-numbers-gif-26135237

[autumn light]

for clarity, not picking on you 3 specifically. I just remembered those names as being quite active 😅 nothing wrong with that but was apt in context

if me and nate kepts our relevant side convo's going in here rather than DM there'd be even more from us both

[paper anvil]

Is ok i don't mind, please keep going is very interesting, i try to be the less hostile (there is no need), so don't worry about me. 😝

[native plaza]

@autumn light TBF though this has 120ish people agreeing with the thread based on the interactions which is a lot more than any other threads

[paper anvil]

I believe mine were more worries than complains anyway, and shown some games that at the beginning were a bit more aggressive in the MM, but as i stated before at the moment for me and others i seen the system is a bit less aggressive, not sure why, but i am ok with it, it doesn't affect me a lot or at all, so i am just trying to help if i can or show evidence.

[autumn light]

i haven't said there is a very small number agreeing, just that there being X,XXX comments isn't proof of wide spread confirmation/agreement. Some of the people commenting in here disagreed. Some didn't care. And even with those on the same "side" there is disagreements on how to change it.

I use to have a guy i worked with at PC pull the comments from threads so i could get more accurate scale of engagement... i should try get the code he used for that off him some time.

To add, the original stuff that came up around number of comments was the number of comments being used to say that the # of comments was reflective of how many people agreed, and Max simply said that isn't accurate and realistically there is a quite small number in comparison to total playerbase/size of discord. So stuff is somewhat going around in loops lacking context

[native plaza]

Again not everyone will be asked to comment because they will read what has been said here and agree or disagree and hit the icons

And move on

Even though this thread has been about for a bit, 120 interactions is way higher then any other feedback thread

[cursive tinsel]

Multi platforms and threads mean people may not want to keep hammering the same point over and over again.

Probably still good majority of players that dont have or don't want to use the social media platforms and even discord itself.

[autumn light]

that works both ways though, some people will not comment because they don't care. Some will not comment because the thread is in disagreement with their stance and the few people who have posted in here and said they disagree have been somewhat piled on.

[autumn light]

yeah i'd guess less than 10% of our current monthly active users interact with any of the social spaces, and less than say 1% engage.

[native plaza]

Agreed but there is little to no disagreement in the reactions so people must not feel that strongly against

What has been said here

[paper anvil]

In some cases i noticed is because of how they interact, rather than giving feedback or a well placed opinion, they come pretty much looking for violence and when their energy gets matched, they either abandon ship or behave in a childish way.

[cursive tinsel]

Which then in itself doesn't really help. But in the same breath the argument of, well it a minority that are voicing in, could be a heavy lean one way or another heavy lean the other way. should of just keep the forums man or just make an in game poll on things like this and gauge a responce from that aswell.

[paper anvil]

A poll would be interesting.

[native plaza]

Honestly a ingame poll , about how do you feel about the mm changes at the start of the season in ww2 something along them lines would be good

[coral zephyr]

But not really useful. To get useful results one would need to randomly survey the entire player base.

[cursive tinsel]

The thing is though anyway. Across any game the actual, player base communication is always incredibly low on feedback.

Like, you could put out a poll or have one dedicated place, but even then the actual responce to count is always going to be so low.

[paper anvil]

There is always going to be a part that is extremely casual and won't participate or just don't really care, so... That is expected, but it would be interesting to do the poll to see how many would interact with it.

[unreal hound]

I like the MM but most complains would stop when they show data on match length and how close they were its like 2 clicks but always the silence is disturbing just post it and dont try to tell people its sth top secret

[native plaza]

Still collecting data first 2 weeks were void because of new map

[unreal hound]

data collecting was not important when they sold the nemesis mbt 1st nobody bought it so they insta buffed it .
They can just show the data and tell us they need more but they are just talking here without any progress

[native plaza]

The data which was important is that no one bought it

[unreal hound]

but when a prem is too strong it takes 4 years to nerf it like the taran avre and stuff

[native plaza]

Also wasn't it like a full price bundle for 18k gold or something

[autumn light]

this is likely to go around and around because so much is if's, maybes, opinion etc 😄 So i would sort just end my comments on the engagement aspect as follows

• An issue that is impacting the top X% of players primarily will mostly be noticed by a small % of the total player base, by literal definition
• That portion of the playerbase tends to be highly engaged, so it would also be expected to have a higher engagement around an issue impacting them
• The issue is somewhat complicated, and so there has been a lot of back and forth both in explaining it and giving thoughts/opinions on the problem and potential solution, this will also create a lot of engagement.
• there has been a number of red names trying to engage due to the point above, this will further drive up engagement
• regardless of how many or who it's impacting, if players are perceiving a negative change we do not want that. This is why we are investigating it but we also need to see what positives are happening and find a balance.

i'm sure there will be more to share soonTM in terms of next steps but that's going to be when it's going to be

[native plaza]

Like the avre & taran nerfs we have still yet to get another update on

[nocturne cloak]

I think its not a problem of the matchmaker.. its a problem of the unbalanced equipment,amount of high caliber guns and unbalanced maps

[autumn light]

Plague did once explain on a stream that sometimes they can't be 100% if a tank is strong enough as the ST is a smaller sample size, and so if they are worried they'll prep some buffs and set targets that if it drops below certain performance criteria it'll get buffed.

And yes, nerfs are not as simple as buffs on multiple levels (including legal ones) and so that is far easier to do. But that's very off topic so let's leave that to a different place/thread/etc 🙂

So to bring it back, Data Collection = part, Data analysis = more, Solutions = more, etc etc. Would you prefer a rushed solution?

[autumn light]

that's coz you didn't bribe people enough, so we delayed that #BlameFault

[unreal hound]

dont tell me you guys did not nerf the manticore on purpose to sell a manticore 2.0 in form of Technodrome later you guys know that many Prems are broken before you release them so that they sell better.

[native plaza]

TBF this felt like this mm change was rushed, we had no chance to actually test it

[digital orchid]

The matchmaker changes seem like they were a rushed solution to a problem you were claiming that lots of players were voicing

How many times was +1-1 tested

4 times at least?

[native plaza]

Something as big as this should have been tested in the live game, like the old times

[cursive tinsel]

+1-1 was always tested back and forth on weekends, put player concurrent it would just be a nightmare, or basically half a bot lobby garenteed apart from maybe two tier spreadsheet.

[nocturne cloak]

We dont have enough players for +-1mm

[cursive tinsel]

These changes, arguably could of been held out until the QoL and equipment changes

The next tank boance reworks and then run off of that.

[autumn light]

fundamentally different things though. +-1mm is a change to the core MM, this was a change to the sorting system that already existed. So as much as they may feel related, as i explained in relation to the SBMM comments they are actually very different changes

[native plaza]

I think the point was more that WE tested it

[digital orchid]

No I know we don’t, I was just saying look how many times that was tested before deciding ultimately it wouldn’t work

[nocturne cloak]

Ok

But i prefer to test things just for a weekend like the +-1mm

[digital orchid]

Though on the flipside of that, had we got to test this, the feedback would have been the same anyway 💁‍♂️

[native plaza]

Not that here is a change, we hope it works and we haven't really collected any meaningful/accurate data to test it properly/ to a extreme

[autumn light]

yes but it's a very different change is my point. A change to a core gameplay system that could break the system entirely and cause huge problems is not the same as what is effectively a small change to an existing system. The felt impact is very disproportionate to the change in this situation.

[native plaza]

Imo any changes to a mm are a huge change and think most people would agree as it effects every battle

[autumn light]

if i was to be a bit cheeky i could also say that if changes happen it would effectively make this a test 😅

[autumn light]

Similar changes were made in the past as SPG mentioned somewhere in this thread and there was no issues and most people basically didn't notice/care.

[digital orchid]

Was that the comment about if you guys had implemented this and not told anyone we wouldn’t notice?

[native plaza]

I think they changed the battle count range or something along those lines a long time ago

[autumn light]

The thing here as i say is the felt impact, it's been very large by a group of users and is very different to the scale of the change

[autumn light]

nah that was not a WG person, that was someone else. I did reply about how a CS dev did something similar with ping though

[autumn light]

Earlier SPG laid out a short history of the MM and all the different changes and when stuff was added. And as Fault says there were some changes here and there, always announced and they are within the same scale of change as this one from a sense of process change.

[native plaza]

@autumn light while you're here is it possible to get tds removed from the hardcase contract before another TD apocalypse happens

[autumn light]

off topic bonk

[native plaza]

It's about the mm technically

Just 10+ tds per team is pain

[cursive tinsel]

Think to a degree, even when the class MM change was brought in while back, it didn't really feel any different because the amount of TD's around then and still are just at absurd levels.

To the point where its just numb seeing a high amount of TD's a team and when you dont see many, or any almost feels illegal

[autumn light]

i may be remembering wrong, but i feel when that went live it also just "went live" with a "if it runs into problems we'll look to fix or revert"

[bleak oriole]

The previous MM was happy to make a teams where Team 1 had 10 heavies + 0 TDs and Team 2 had 0 heavies + 10 TDs.

The new MM guarantees that it's either 5-5 or 6-4...

but if players all want to queue up in TDs, then well, that's what's in the match

[nocturne cloak]

A td limit on a team would be good like scouts and artys

[cursive tinsel]

The high mass of 'X class here' or omg that tank is broken or OP for really the most part has been the core breakdown most people's complaint of MM. Kind awhy in other chats I've tended to say, MM just gets the blame when its not at fault. Its just people's go to to blame for stuff.

[bleak oriole]

yeah, what happens is that the number of TDs in the MM queue pile up because everyone is queuing with them, and you get to a situations where the MM had 300 players in queue all with TDs...

[native plaza]

Yes but it ruins the experience of playing the game, no one enjoys playing in 20+ TD lobby

[nocturne cloak]

Td is a easy class for beginnees

High alpha and sneaky

U dont need alot of shots to do high damage

[cursive tinsel]

Would it not just be easier to open up the class requirements for certain contracts in that regard?

[native plaza]

So maybe take them off the contract for the hardcase

[cursive tinsel]

There alot of end contracts where rhe mass xp is a say, TD heavy only, is just going to completely wreck and MM for that period of time which doesn't really help.

[bleak oriole]

you'll have to poke others if you want that - I have nada to do with contracts

[native plaza]

Who

Names we need names

[bleak oriole]

I will flat out tell you that if I have to put a limit on a class, then I will need to implement a safety valve ... which means that if there are more than X players in queue, then the limits go off and you'll get something like a 14 TD vs 14 TD match

[cursive tinsel]

I think really, the last two stages should really just be an 'Any class' to not screw the MM. The first few stages fair, but the last two just garentedd a complete mess of class imbalance in the queue

[native plaza]

That's fine, similar to how arty is now with the limit of 3.

[nocturne cloak]

Maximum of 6 tds in a team

[cursive tinsel]

Fair enough people may still play a certain X class more, but atleast provide more options to try and massively reduce the influx

[nocturne cloak]

We need more heavys and Mediums in the mm to keep is more healthy and longer games

[native plaza]

So have a limit of 7-8 but try to make it 4-5 on AVG like how arty is a limit 3 but an AVG of 1.5 or something

[digital orchid]

14 v 14 td’s would be hilarious

[native plaza]

No it was pain

[bleak oriole]

I guess it depends if you are in queue as a TD or not

[native plaza]

And then what TD you are in que as, turns out the v4 doesn't really have armour if half the enemy has 360+ pen

[digital orchid]

Does anyone even play that thing anyway

[native plaza]

@bleak oriole who do we need to poke about contracts then?

[cursive tinsel]

I'd imagine it would be feedback suggestion and go from there without pinging the said responsible person for them. Its would help sort some of the overflood of class tank when people hit the last two stages that basically cripple MM for weeks at a time.

[bleak oriole]

Generally, make a feedback thread about the contract - if there isn't an official one - and post your comments to it. The responsible people will hear about it

I see that you made one already ...

[native plaza]

Yep

[vague vortex]

So, getting back to MM (regardless of contracts/TD parties)... And this is for the "Reds" here... What would be the ramifications/problems associated with using a ranked system to MM to further "balance" out team building?

Also going to add that not everyone uses the same social media outlets, so player feedback won't ever match playerbase. FB, X, Reddit, Discord all have their users but not many cross post to multiple platforms. Are there any "Reds" monitoring official WG media posts from other medias?

[native plaza]

There was talk about what was said on Reddit a bit ago, so i would imagine so

[bleak oriole]

As a general rule, I rarely read other social outlets, but to be fair, interaction with players is not part of my job description at all.

Ranked System would probably make the purples unhappier because how do you balane things when you have an odd number of high skill players.

If you try to not put them in the match, then it results in queue times shooting up for them.

If you put them in the match, and you don't want it to be a guaranteed blowout, then you sort of need to try to balance the teams, which results in the best players have some of the "worst" teammates to compensate...

[native plaza]

Personally fill like every game should have a standard mode and a ranked mode, these changes just blur the lines between the two and create impossible tasks imo. I can't think of one game that does this well

Every successful game splits the two

[wanton wagon]

In your honest opinion do you think having extreme amounts of one class overwhelming a game like 11 TDs vs 11 TDs is a healthy/positive game?

Slightly off topic I apologise but it was briefly mentioned

[vague vortex]

If you put them in the match, and you don't want it to be a guaranteed blowout, then you sort of need to try to balance the teams, which results in the best players have some of the "worst" teammates to compensate...

🤔

Isn't that where we're at with the MM as is anyway? WCGW?

To be fair, I've had blowouts any day of the week before and after this MM. Even being platooned we've been steamrolled. I don't see how uni vs uni could be any worse than uni vs blue.

Not being mean, just stating what I've seen and read thus far

[bleak oriole]

On a personal level, I'm fairly big believer in player agency and minimal queue times. I loath that limits had to be put in for SPGs and lights.

I'm also big on the variety - I want to be able to enter a match and see something other than a vanilla 5 TD / 5 Heavy / 3 medium / 1 light, 1 spg match.

So, I don't really mind the 11 <class X> match - because if I see that that queue is filled with <class X>, I will pick a tank that I think can do very well against them.

On a professional level, I hate limits because they make the MMs job harder. As I said above, if there are limits put in, then there has to be a safety valve implemented because really bad things happen when the MM is allowed to fill up.

[wanton wagon]

Thanks for the reply, I just wanted to understand your perspective, I think base standards for classes need to be met but I see your point of view, I believe maps were designed with key roles all being filled with abundance even if some of them are incredibly dated cough mountain pass👍

Looking into when the matchmaker could handle it, promote a best of case class system and as you said close the valve when restrictions on numbers too little/much. but I understand it’s very complicated however it could be beneficial for QoL

[bleak oriole]

I want to clarify that the changes we added to 9.5 were not intended to remove blowouts - that's not possible for us to do.

Players can skill play while intoxicated, high, tilted, or while being yelled at by their SO, parent, sibling, friend. Players can ignore the enemy team 3-capping their base just as easily here as a before. Players can lemming train and fail to protect their flank sufficiently. Players can get an unlucky ammo detonation / engine fire just like before.

What we hoped to achieve is that the battles would be more interesting.

[wanton wagon]

Drinking while driving a tank will lower your WR confirmed😂

[fleet elm]

Or a good player could decide to go afk or get racked or fall off a cliff. Given how teams are made, some of us could set records for the lowest monthly winrate ever if we tried

[autumn light]

short answer is yes, we read everywhere we can.

[autumn light]

damn rocks, swerving all over the map

[vague vortex]

Understood, and I said that in response really to those who have said the new MM has "appeared" to cause more lopsided matches. I was opaque in my meaning, but I was referring to the MM not being a factor in steamroll matches, as those have always been an issue.

I did create a suggestion thread (doubt it'll go anywhere) for contract issues (as did the other one) but with a different take. Off-topic, but just letting you know you were heard about maintaining here for MM discussion

I do think later on (without any adjustments to MM as is) QoL changes with skill/equip will also add to the data for the MM to have to run longer for the "new" data to amount to anything informative.

[autumn light]

So to try explain, a lot of the issues the players here are saying isn't that matches are overall (across all players games) more lopsided, but that as a result of how the delta system works in "outlier" circumstances.

Basically if you view the match not as 15 vs 15, but 15 sets of 1v1.

So to compensate for a high delta created by a high win rate player being matches vs a lower win rate player it'll have to give the "worse" of several of the pairs to compensate for that high delta. What that would effectively mean is that although they will still see less extremes (all the best pairs on 1 team, 14 out of 15 best pairs on 1 team, etc in theory) the average number of "worse" pairs on their team will now be much more consistent and higher.

So that means in theory, those 1 v 1 fights will be won by the other team (to the high win rate player) more often, due to them having more of the "better" pairs. This could mean that games will snowball quicker and create situation where no matter how good you are you can't win.

In this theoretical it could be argued that the teams are more balanced overall (depending on the metric used), and the system in theory would still work for the majority of situations BUT the concern raised here is that for someone who is that outlier you will consistently be exposed to this outcome.

So TLDR, it's consistent exposure to outcomes and not "more" of them that is being raised here. Hope that helps 🙂

[neon dagger]

Well i dont try to even argue about it wgc is head strong about thingd you implement and you wont necessarily change so soon as always you rather gather data

I also understand there has been meetings to plan this

But i personally dont even play ww2 till i see a good change

Because i had games i did lots of damage and kills and actually did it challenging the objectives and still lost
First few rounds i said meh i have a bad season
The secound day same thing i said its week end
Waited and 2 days later still the same

I might be paranoid but i feel that was a real thing

I even like a conspiracy theorists thought it was also secretly added to cw!

But recent winrates shows i was wrong

[raw star]

okay then, I hope this topic will receive a high priority within your team. It’s positive that you acknowledge the reasonable concerns being raised. However, as many have already mentioned regarding vehicles like the AVRE or the way the T249 was “nerfed” without addressing its core issue, there is a lot of skepticism about whether the scale of the problem is truly understood.

While your data may suggest more consistency, the question remains: consistency for whom? Many players, myself included, have frequently encountered battles where an entire enemy team outperforms our side so significantly that one player can deal more damage than 14 others combined. This is not simply a matter of bad luck, but rather an indication that the matchmaking system is not functioning as it should.

Situations like this have certainly happened before, but since the last update the frequency of such matches has increased drastically, which makes it a much more pressing issue now.

[acoustic mist]

I have never been a supporter of limited classes either. However you changed arty so that it fired so fast a change was forced you also listened to a very vocal group of players who didn't like ruble, rocks & indestructible buildings & you removed those things from the maps. So arty had to be limited & now other limits are needed not because the Tonks are OP but in reality because the maps are way to open. There is limited cover including haul down locations especially in towns because of a lack of lower layers of ruble creating long straight lines of fire for rockets, arty & TDs. If you truly wanted to make matches last longer & be closer you would return cover to the maps along with tactical choke points & strategic points of control.

[autumn light]

AVRE hasn't been nerfed yet 😅 so jumping the gun a little there.

And for clarity i don't mean some data we have collected would suggest consistency i mean mathematically. I'm sure @fleet elm can share some numbers he generated on odds of seeing certain situations from the info he has available.

Also, honestly i don't work on this, not really at all. I took an interest because most of the people effected are old comp friends and people i've known a long time and in theory if i was able to play atm possibly me too. That's why i have been doing much of "my looking into it" as extra's on top of my normal work stuff 🙂 There is already people looking into it and as i said before, i'm sure once there is more to be shared it'll be shared

[fleet elm]

This is the matchmaker performing perfectly. It’s designed to give very good players a bunch of the worst players in the lobby

[vague vortex]

"If you truly wanted to make matches last longer & be closer you would return cover to the maps along with tactical choke points & strategic points of control."

Good and bad as this would promote the lemmings and one-sided flanks more than likely.

I for one would like to see more cover positions myself.

[raw star]

the point about avre was that despite its broken state and its long existence in the game, i think right around when paingod left and bam joined, you begin just now to adress its issue, same with taran

[proper rapids]

I've played a bit more battles since my last post here and I still haven't experienced anything odd or different in my games. Game feels the same as it did before the updated MM

[paper anvil]

They/we mean more games like these Where you constantly see players doing absolutely nothing on the bottom 3 to 5 (there might be a variation but in general is between those numbers) in the loosing team and the winning team has at least something done in the bottom

[proper rapids]

That's seems completely normal to me and nothing unusual

[fleet elm]

Your winrate is down in the last month and if you look at your all time win rate graph, it started dropping around the time of the update. It could be playstyle or luck that you’re affected less but it should be a universal thing

[paper anvil]

Is not... before it was a bit rare to see several players doing so little, you had some with at least 1 pen or so, but now you can see it clearly, you win? check the bottom in the enemy team, you lost? check the bottom in your team, is kind of there, it doesn't happen all the time, but quite regular now.

[proper rapids]

I haven't played platoons too much since the last update.
I was playing and I still play tanks I don't enjoy or don't perform well with, so I'm not surprised it's dropping. Only tank I could check as one I'm okay to play with lately is the Starchild.
I've also became more inconsistent in the last months, so it could also be reason for my wr% drop

[bleak oriole]

are you trying to use this match as a example of why the MM is against you?

because I did just look up the win rate of that Tier 8 platoon and they look like they are very good players, so your team is the one that is was likely the "better" of the pairs...

[paper anvil]

No i am not saying that it is against me, i am saying that now i see games like that a lot more, i also saw several examples from other players in the "Updated MM is not balanced post". (Woops we are here my bad hehe i am jumping between posts and got lost) apologies.

[bleak oriole]

I'm not sure what is net new about that - the 9.4 MM featured a bunch of matches withs 0s across the board at the bottom

[paper anvil]

If you want i can take more examples if i have more time to play today, winning or loosing you will see a lot of those bottom 3, sometimes 4 to 5.
I will avoid BOT games, and focus on full house of players

[bleak oriole]

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding your point?

I think that the complaint is that you are seeing a bunch of 0s at the bottom of your team when it's on the losing side.

I don't think that's net new - or even something that we can do anything about.

[paper anvil]

Well in my personal experience i noticed that in a lot more games the loosing side has a lot more players doing zero damage, and i see a more common constant of 3.
Also seen this when i win and the enemy has 3 - 0s.

@bleak oriole 🙂

[fleet elm]

Maybe that’s the cause. You don’t like them or do well in them so expectations are low. Obviously among players of our skill level, it’s been widely noticed

[paper anvil]

Side note: I have no idea why that player is above the one with 1 pen, when he blocked more damage and did at least 1 pen of damage. 🤔

[paper anvil]

Am... you will regret saying that before doing a bit of background check XD

[fleet elm]

What?

[paper anvil]

Cough cough, he is not a bad player.

[fleet elm]

lol obviously. Read what I wrote

[paper anvil]

Ah my bad, i misread then.

[vague vortex]

I've actually noticed this as well, like it's a requirement to have three 0s W or L (more 0s on the L side tho). Used to be one maybe two, and that being due to dying quick, or being grayed out from connection issues. 50/50 mix with AFKers

[paper anvil]

Yeah i am not saying that it happens every game, but that now is quite common.

[fleet elm]

Single game screenshots are meaningless. All this did happen fairly frequently with the old mm

The only relevant examples are breakdowns of every team to show a trend

[paper anvil]

Disagreed, if you play enough games you are going to see a pattern and enough players shared that several times, i can just play and keep posting games like that.

[fleet elm]

Yeah but you’ve shown like a dozen screenshots which isn’t relevant

[vague vortex]

I even see 3-0s on CW co-op side of things too. I might be insane, but I think I've even seen a bot do 0 before. Sorry, a lil off-topic

[fleet elm]

And, it’s expected. Idk what you hope to gain showing it off. That’s what WG wanted when they made the mm. More low damage players on good players’ teams

[paper anvil]

I am not showing off anything, i am trying to share some proof of pattern.

[fleet elm]

Everybody believes it. It was the goal all along, not some weird, unexpected pattern

[paper anvil]

Well BOTS doing 0 i seen it a lot to in general.

[paper anvil]

Not everybody.

[fleet elm]

WG believes it importantly

[paper anvil]

Doesn't sound right, i would like them to say it if that is the case.

[fleet elm]

They have, it’s the whole basis for the mm in the first place, more even matches. We’re winning less than before. There’s only one real way to do that without changing who the 30 people in the lobby are, and that’s giving us worse teammates than before

WG’s only decision here is if there’s any benefit to the new mm and if it’s worth it to continue screwing us over, if our unhappiness has any benefit

[digital orchid]

That’s crazy. How quick was that changed since complaints started rolling in?

[autumn light]

technically speaking, some time around May 2023

[native plaza]

The power of the poke can never be underestimated

[autumn light]

so about 2 years and 4 months

[fleet elm]

Why are contract tank classes still messed up lol? The sharpshooter was messed up on release, you'd think things wouldve been figured out by now

[unreal hound]

hey thats quick taran and Avre took longer

[autumn light]

i mean it's not messed up so to say, but thematically mediums makes more sense for the tank than TDs and this was brought up last time it was ran (May 2023) but i basically forgot to follow it up 😅.

[unreal hound]

i hope techno rogal nightstalker leman russ dont take 4 years as well

[fleet elm]

Techno is the least toxic very good tank

Nightstalker too sorta bc its useless at range

[native plaza]

A tier 7 disagrees strongly

[errant saddle]

Last checked rogal gets penned easily with two giant tumors and massive lower plate that everyone can hit...haven't ran leman in awhile but last time I ran it everyone was penning me loads

[native plaza]

DPM is the problem with rogal

[fleet elm]

It's broken point blank but much worse past 300m. It's why i said "sorta" lol

[unreal hound]

is that the reason you played it extensively to compensate for W/R loss becaus its so fair ?
All the tanks i mentioned are stupidly strong the techno is manti 2.0 even after its rebuff.
Rogal has alpha, dpm, 2 guns and troll armor.
Nightstalker has better armor than any t9 and most t10 heavies and it can push and clip anything out.

[fleet elm]

Insanely good top end, but not as broken as the Taran or AVRE

630 alpha and fair dpm

[unreal hound]

which it can switch to 250 alpha for perma tracking and killing oneshots a small silhouette so its hard to hit and very good camo

[fleet elm]

Oh yeah it's one of if not the best high skill tanks in the game, not denying that

It's just not gonna take half your HP away in one shot through a Chief turret

Like i wouldn't be scared of an average player in it but I would be if they were in an avre or taran

[autumn light]

Try to keep the thread on topic pls 🙂

[fleet elm]

Relevantly it's the tank I'm queue resetting with lol

And stuff like the AVRE and Taran are gonna be rough with the MM bc they're special and will likely be early queue every time

[errant saddle]

That's all it has going for it let's be honest here

[neon dagger]

To be brutally honest the only path you can take to improve battle lengths and quality of each battle is to stop giving high tier premiums in ww2

Think about just this season
A new play can buy the season pass ans have a tiger maus and jump into the battle at tier 9 and 10

How is he or she going to do anything other than 0 to 1000 damage?

He or she cant
I think each tier has to have a certain requirement like to play tier 9 and 10 you have to have a certain amount of battles played

And just as important as that we need the changes to the camo that are due to happen happen sooner

I understand quite well that as devs you dont want to control player freedom
But we have to face worl of tanks is not a straightforward game like cod or a generic shooter this game requires experience at least 5k battles so you just begin to understand weakspots
A general understanding of maps
How ammo even work
The very basics of each mechanich
Ideally you need 10k batles in low tiers before you are even ready for higher tiers
Ofc there are more casual players well passed those battle numbers but still we need this change

It would be alright let the newer players have their tiger maus and high tier battle pass tanks

[nocturne cloak]

Nice gameday only 5 out of 6 battles are 12:0 battles

[wanton wagon]

@fleet elm My experience from testing queueing up to 3 seconds or so was fairly negative. I played yesterday and at one point I achieved a 34% WR, after basically having enough of perma losing (mostly landslide game with no chance of winning) I spammed 2-3 man platoon to recover lol, shame as I play 99% of the time solo.

[vague vortex]

@fleet elm is there a length of time between exiting queue and re-entering queue that works better for placement in this new MM?

[fleet elm]

Idk. We don’t know the specifics. It might not even do much. It can’t hurt. I’ve improved my winrate (by like 6%) and it feels slightly better but maybe it’s my own play. And still half the matches feel awful

[vague vortex]

So it would seem platoons would be the only deciding factor to adjust the MM ourselves?

(and I keep throwing MM in my comments to keep it "in line" with thread lol)

[nocturne cloak]

As good player u get punished if u play alone, and thats it

And it doesnt care how good u play the game

[fleet elm]

Well it does care and does everything in it's power to give you more bad teammates to make things even

[vague vortex]

I've noticed that here, with the way MM keeps teams at 50% results in more tomatoes on one team than another when an outlier is in it

I don't even MP that much but even I see how the MM has changed matches for me when I do.

Steamroll losses, or steamroll wins. Haven't had any "close" games yet.

[olive bolt]

Serious question - Do the folks here complaining about Win Rate have that on their Resume? Are you getting paid to have certain % WR? This is honestly insane how much discourse this is getting. 🤣

[vague vortex]

It's about contracts and challenges along with wr. Can't finish anything when sitting in the garage.

Plus WoTwanted feedback...

Sure it's been centered around wins (either the matches themselves and/or winrates), but the thing is - if you're a superuni, and running solo, your team will be made up of more tomatoes than the enemy team with the way the MM pairs everyone up.

[nocturne cloak]

I dont care ablut losing wr, it cares about the amount of 12:0 matches for both sides

[vague vortex]

Exactly. Steamrolls too.

WoT says this MM has not/does not affect how steamrolls operate. But if one team has better players than the other - how can a steamroll not happen?

The outlier (superuni) can't hold off the enemy flank of 8+ tanks by themselves for long while the tomatoes are running into enemy fire catching everything shot at them.

[nocturne cloak]

80% off my matches are like it

1 player cant do work for 5 bad player

[vague vortex]

And it is based on winrate - either career or tank used. And it's this statistic that is being affected the most by the MM due to being put on teams with a higher chance of losing due to the lower %s used to "balance" the team.

[lament mica]

You should ask them how much capping they have done next. Obviously they are losing so much because they are being put with cappers and they refuse to be a team player. 🤪

[autumn light]

SPG said MM can never stop steamrolls, the aim of this MM change has been quite openly to lessen them.

[bleak oriole]

that's not quite true .... the MM can stop steam rolls by forcing everyone into T1 tanks and then putting them on dezful / mannheim.

But something tells me that this solution won't be universally appreciated.

[gray kernel]

I thought someone from WG said earlier that a high wr player doesn't get multiple low wr players to compensate? It basically divides the teams ladder style highest to lowest. Did I read that wrong?

I'm just curious because all that I read is "I get matched with 3 (5,8,etc) bad players because I'm Super" comments. So I'm wondering is that factually true or not?

[autumn light]

it uses a points system that creates a delta between pairs, the way these points are generated includes win rate, but isn't only win rate (also uses battles played). And it goes through in pair order (which is linked to what order they were dragged from the queue) to go through each pair, there is no "sorting" done of some form of highest to lowest.

So it doesn't care that a player is a "low win rate" player, it cares how they compare to their other part of the pair.

So it's entirely possible for a 59% player to be matched VS are 64% player, and a 46% player VS a 51% player. In both situations the mm change will put the lower point player on a team to reduce the delta between the 2 teams. That may mean the 59% and the 46% player are treated the same. And it may be the 59% player is used to "counter" the delta created by the 51% player.

The previous system did the same, but only with battles and so was very random with how it distributed the win rates of players within the team spread. What the complaint is, is that now Win rate is factored in, "outlier" win rate players (people will who see a weaker point player in their pair very often) will end in getting the "worse" of the pair multiple times after them in the order to undo the delta their points creates. This in theory means they will get a consistently higher number of "worse" player of the pairs, although likely they'll get less extremes (so getting 8 to 10 may happen more, getting 12 to 14 will happen less sort of thing).

In terms of how often it's happening now VS before (having a team loaded with worse win rate players), i don't have anything concrete but likely not as much as people think but clearly a negative impact is being felt by some players.

[olive bolt]

6 very vocal ones. Who maybe need another hobby 🤣

[digital orchid]

We don’t care about the exact number

We do care however about being handicapped with worse players on our team resulting in worse quality matches which is not fun

[digital orchid]

Same could be said for someone who is so bothered by what others have to say about a game

Nobody’s forcing you to read it bro

[uneven shoal]

I need a minute to get to my computer before I can send screenshots, but I pulled stats for a match last night that was balanced by win rate, but turned into a complete steamroll entirely due to where the enemy team went on the map.

Not sure if/how the MM could account for behavior like that - maybe using something more like WN8 to score players

Using this one to emphasize that battle count and win rate does not translate to a balanced game. The majority of team 2 tried to hang out in the dunes near their base and lost because my team actually played the entire map, not just one corner

I understand that the MM can not take into account what players will do, but just wanted to add this data point

If someone is bored, I'm sure the WN8 numbers from this match would be interesting to us as players, even if WG doesnt use it as a metric

[cunning dew]

Bro some games are literally not winnable at all no matter what and it sucks. Its decided once the players are matched up. I could do 15k and still lose cause the guys on my team will do less than 1k

You guys need to revert it

Im sick of it and I want my 70% winrate back😭

[uneven shoal]

I'm mostly playing in platoons atm and that seems to help

[cunning dew]

It helps some but I cant always count i have a friend with me

Or we all still loose on a steamroll😭

[cursive tinsel]

Thats what alot of people are starting to do. But shouldnt mean it has to be the norm to not have a terrible session.

[uneven shoal]

I agree, just seems to be the closest to a solution atm

[cursive tinsel]

Yeah. I know Randy Duck at the minute is having to do it pretty much constant to not have a miserable session. Which as a CC aswell just sucks that he has to do it or risk gettings gets session after session of terrible games just to get a video.

It just currently blows for any solo player which just force you to not even bother risking playing or knowing you going to have everything go against you.

[olive bolt]

Never seen that many goose eggs at those tiers. Holy. What map??

[fleet elm]

The equipment/crew change will do more for that

[uneven shoal]

Sand River. Almost all of team 2 tried to sit in the bottom left corner

They didn't push, so it gave my team control of 2/3 of the map. A pretty clean win since several players on my team were willing to push/spot

[autumn light]

https://tenor.com/view/i-wish-dreamy-hopeful-if-only-dream-gif-22239214

[proud harbor]

Fixing and removing unbalanced maps as well

[bleak oriole]

Remember how I said that platoons can mess stuff up?

Well, if you look at that match, the 2 Tier X platoons were 1 TD + 1 HVY matched up against each other. One of them was slightly better than the other, so the next platoon gets assigned to the "weaker" team - which is your platoon. Then the Tier 8 platoon gets processed and it has to be put on the other team.

So, the variables at this point are whatever tanks matched against your platoon. Since there are only 2 Tier X MED on the Team 2, that really wasn't much of a choice. So that leaves whatever matches the 2 Tier VIII TDs + 1 LGHT. And again, there was only one possible match.

So that's a total of 7 tanks on each team whose assignment was absolutely forced.

I didn't look at the rest, but you can work out the relative skill at that point

[fleet elm]

Province, Death Valley and Ardennes are great and fair maps for tier 10

[uneven shoal]

I figured the platoons would mess with it, but its one thing for platoons to mess with it and be the diff between a win or loss. Its another when that loss includes 9 zeros on one team

[proud harbor]

So true!

[uneven shoal]

I dont want to get extra off topic here, but agreed lol

[autumn light]

"Nate and Kellen want more small maps at tier 10, and if anyone dislikes it we can now blame them because we listened to their feedback"

[fleet elm]

Those 3 maps span a very wide range of sizes lol

[uneven shoal]

Honestly, small maps can be ok

[autumn light]

it's late and i cba putting much effort into the joke 😅

[autumn light]

"also can blame Bilder nick"

[uneven shoal]

Why not lol

[fleet elm]

Ensk is solid. Chaotic but solid

[proud harbor]

Eh

[gray kernel]

Ensk is fine but we need the new pc version. Maybe even have both in rotation.

[digital orchid]

Not just that but PC Erlenberg as well

Ours is such a dreary camp fest. You push you die

[cedar bluff]

Just curious had anyone suggested matchmaking people vs similar overall damage ratio?

[fleet elm]

lol that’s a bad method

[proud harbor]

nah wait hes cooking

all the arty players would be together then

[cedar bluff]

Seriously you always play against people at your level within a few % difference... what would the problems be? One sided maps, maybe some disparity where TD mains are playing high skill people? Arties mixed in.

Let arties fall where they may

[proud harbor]

Any form of SBMM is bad, no matter the metric.

[cedar bluff]

Yeah but playing against better players makes you better. Its less horrific than the current situation

[cedar bluff]

I completely agree by the way

[proud harbor]

Not necessarily, but I get where you are coming from. There are too many other aspects to take into account like maps and tanks for anything to matter. If anything it pushes the need to only play meta vehicles and thats not fun.

[cunning dew]

Bring in small maps at tier 10. But make lights not allowed on the maps. Cause something like mines or port would be a death wish for lights

Cause you ain't doing 5k in a light on mines😂

[cedar bluff]

Devil's advocate here. Yes, unbalanced maps would be wack, but they already are, have been for years. I thought about the meta tank issue, Overall damage ratio of the individual player not the player's tank should negate the meta thing. Plus isn't the whole point of world of tanks to grind marks? How can we grind more marks on the same meta tanks we've been grinding marks on already?

[native plaza]

Grinding marks is just one of the metrics

Some play for winrate

Some for dpgs

Some play for fun

And honestly no one plays just for the one

[coral zephyr]

What if any win rate above 50% was treated as 50%? Or another value that is near average.

So if I have a 60% tank win rate, the delta is calculated off 50. Or 55% overall win rate is calculated as 50%. Depending if it is tank or life time.

That way the mm still is balancing players but outlier players are not "being punished" with more sub players. At least not any more than someone with a net positive win rate.

[paper anvil]

I play for Fun, marks, DPGS and... trying new tonks

[fleet elm]

That’s the main component of most of the suggestions. Capping win rate at 55% or only looking at who is better in a pair

[coral zephyr]

I have not been able to keep up with the 2K+ posts.

I think I would look at capping win rate at 1 standard deviation.

Whatever that might be,

[fleet elm]

It’s like the 1-3rd post in the chain

[coral zephyr]

I'll take your word for it. I am not going to even look.

[proper valley]

This man here. A true legend.

[vague vortex]

A small section (or two) has been talked about Ranked matches, which would be better than a SBMM. But I'm unsure if it got much traction here, or in another thread.

[cedar bluff]

I liked ranked back when it was around

[vague vortex]

I had mentioned a "tiered" system, but saw that it focused on SBMM, so Ranked would be the way to go.

[vague vortex]

I'm relatively a new (just over a year) player, so I missed the Ranked matches.

[fleet elm]

They were mid but had amazing rewards

7v7 but 10 e4/4005/183/waffles per lobby

[vague vortex]

I like waffles 🧇 with butter and... oh. OH. You meant the tank. Oh, yea, that can be a problem then.

[vale maple]

If I play a tier 8td in this new Matchmaker my heavys are absolutely crap. Out of 30 games today 3 or more top tier heavys with 1 shot or less of damage in 16 of the games. Unplayable this game will be

[autumn light]

All aspects of the points and Brackets are being looked into 🙂

[maiden hornet]

Has anyone paid attention to less skilled player win rate after mm update? I've only noticed recently that some of my not well performing teammates have about 48-50% wr in last 30 days but lifetime wr is 45 or less.

[simple zodiac]

I hope this is a joke

[fleet elm]

Yes lol. Those maps are awful

[autumn light]

https://tenor.com/view/im-super-cereal-al-gore-south-park-s10e6-manbearpig-gif-20854895

^ @fleet elm when he wrote that

[fleet elm]

Let's get rid of abbey at tier 10 while we're at it too

[digital orchid]

That’s the system working as intended

Trying to get everyone closer to the same win rate

[manic galleon]

How can i read the threat message at the top?

[raw star]

almost no one i know likes ardennes

[raw star]

overlord before anything else

[bleak oriole]

I would suggest that you take map rotation requests to a different feedback thread

[fleet elm]

It ties closely to this issue. Picking a light or superheavy and getting a tough map is basically an auto loss for good players

[unreal hound]

same for bad players

[fleet elm]

Not really. Our teams are balanced around our contribution to have a chance. A maus on Death Valley or manti on Ensk can’t contribute well and you end up auto losing

A bad player isn’t expected to contribute much so losing some doesn’t do much

[unreal hound]

i was with my 30B on himmel vs a techno also super uni he did 9.7k and they won 5:0.
Its not a good map for both tanks
i did 4k so its also the performance which is important many super unis make also mistakes and its always the fault of the MM

[fleet elm]

Cool one example with not awful tanks for the map. Have you ever played a super heavy on Death Valley? The game can literally be decided before you have a shot at someone

And that’s usually with me on the losing side bc the other team has better players than my team

[unreal hound]

5 out of my 6 last Games are this close so if i would be better i could have won most of them.
But i was not i could now blame the MM but tbh i like that who cares if i lose those games if they are that close.

I think the Problem most have that they wont get another super uni in their team to farm the whole enemy team. Now they have to work for the dmg and victory more and are mad its not as easy mode as before

[raw star]

rage bait? i hope you are aware that thanks to this MM it is basically impossible to make up the bad players. a lot of people including myself have expirienced more frequent battles with 7 or more people with zero damage

thats one of my recent matches, how much more do we have to do? ironically you are in the opposite team, maybe you are one of the people who profit from this MM

[fleet elm]

Most of those games have good players on both teams. Those games are fine. I mean a lot of us are obviously having the same issue

[unreal hound]

sure not i have now much more close games i enjoy a 0:2 lose more than a 13:0 win but thats my view people like farming bots playing OP Platoons etc i dont like that stuff but it happens

[unreal hound]

So you basically have a problem with 10% of the games that hashappened before and will happen in the future but i prefer close games > high Winrate

[raw star]

id rather said that thanks to this change more people begin to bot farm since regular MM is pointless

[fleet elm]

It feels closer to 1/3-1/2 of my games. Nobody here cares about winrate. We just care about not having the 7 worst players in the lobby on our team every other game

[raw star]

this MM let us feel like pushovers

[unreal hound]

The MM eliminated the most unfair matches in which all good players are on one side i can not see how that is bad. The matches HAVE TO be more balanced now than just random before

[fleet elm]

We don’t want all the bad players on our team. It’s that simple. We want the bad players split more evenly between teams

[raw star]

that happened at max 5% of the time to everyone, now it happens as nate described every 2nd or 3rd tim for the top 10-5%

[unreal hound]

Dude it does not happen you have a 15 vs 15 match the ego of some players who think the are the only decent player in a 30 man match

dont play bot hours and in most matches there are also enough good players around you just can not farm them like you can potatoes so you lose tilt and are mad about the MM

[raw star]

if 5 45% player at one side and 50% players at another side then it will lead to a snowball because the 50% wont throw away their tank in the first 2 minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AYdWx4EDtQ&pp=ygUVdmlzaGF3IHdvcmxkIG9mIHRhbmtz

watch this video

[unreal hound]

you assume only bad players play this game and you are the only 60% player i have in 80% of my matches good players in the enemy team

[unreal hound]

https://youtu.be/BY8GCtsV1-U

[raw star]

the point is that we wont get the good players because theres too many bad players and hence people like us that have +60% WR will get a lot a delta treatment to balance us with bad players

[unreal hound]

so if you are 60% and the enemy team only has 55 % that means you get one 45 and the enemy one 50% that should be doable

[raw star]

from 50% th spread is usually betwenn -8%+25%, theres too much room up you see and if a lot of people have 45%-50% WR it takes a lot of people to balance out a single 60+% player

[raw star]

no

45% is basically a dead player

thats not simple math

[unreal hound]

the difference between you and the 55 should make you able to equal the difference between the 45% and 50% and if not it means you played not good enough simple

[raw star]

a 60% player will have a lot more issues dealing with a 55% than a 50% with a 45%

[unreal hound]

not really

50% will make mistakes and 45 will use autoaim to pen him

[raw star]

45% wont do anything

these are red players

[unreal hound]

dude those are the players who hit their 2 shots per Game magically in your cupola with 60km/h

[raw star]

2 shots wont be enough to deal with a 50% even close, please just watch the video, then you might get at least some degree of understanding for us

[unreal hound]

Dude i watched it i made my own and looked it up but i disagree i rather have balanced games than high winrate

[raw star]

valid but in fact they are not balanced for us and are unfair, the current MM is literally designed to sabotage the chances for winning and having fun of good players

you could even say its oppressing good players

[unreal hound]

wrong it just makes fairer games if you are better you can carry more than a bad player, if you would make the mm you want you would always get the better Winrate Team and win 100% of games

[raw star]

its a fact mate

[fleet elm]

They’re fair like 1/3 of the time and unfair in one direction or the other 1/3 of the time. The system isn’t great.

[unreal hound]

it can be improved but 200% fairer than what we had before

[fleet elm]

It’s not fair though. All the players on our teams have to fight against superior opponents and get rolled and rely on us to actually win

[unreal hound]

is it fair that all good players are on one side ?

[digital orchid]

Nothing is more fair than random

[fleet elm]

No. Good and bad players should be evenly split

[digital orchid]

You good you win, you bad you lose

[fleet elm]

Emphasis on good AND bad

[unreal hound]

and they are most of the time

[fleet elm]

No. Our feedback (and how the system literally is described by WG to work) is that they’re not

[raw star]

1 good player cant make up for 7 very bad players against a team that has 10 decent players

[raw star]

i watched your video, no offense but this video has a lot less substance than vishaws

vishaw even used own created data with over 200 battles to make his point clear

[unreal hound]

again 2/3 rounds close until end

[unreal hound]

all the peopleher complaining are still winning around 60% of the games if your argument would be right you would win 0%

[fleet elm]

They were winning a lot motr

[unreal hound]

they dont have it just means people are not worth their actual winrate

[fleet elm]

More bad players on our team is needed to make more fair teams

[unreal hound]

i showed how a MM works and how he balances teams in a simplified version and that good players will win less but for closer games

[raw star]

no

you use made up data which is surely no average and then you cherry picked a possible(but not likely) outcome of the pair system with a low delta difference in which the winrates of the individual player is not too far apart from the other team

you dont understand the issue

[formal pilot]

[autumn light]

"Look mom, i'm famous!"

[unreal hound]

you always look on it with your view not objective like i tried to show. You are a Gambit fan and try to take his point which is ok but you are wrong here.
Many matches have good players on both side as well as bad players you take the worst example always which is not the Case if you dont play 2am most of the time.
Most are salty here because they cant hold their inflated winrate most super unis are really not a 65 % W/R player and now are toxic because it goes down

[uneven shoal]

I went from 66-67% to 61-62%, and my new rate includes playing more platoons

[unreal hound]

The wont admit it but losing Winrate bothers them more than having fair equal games

[uneven shoal]

Go look at many of the screenshots I have posted. I think you are a little too caught up on "we are Gambit fans"

[raw star]

gambit provided real data, you provided made up data with 2 possible outcomes out of millions (probably one of the best possible ones) what are you trying to accuse me of

[fleet elm]

Say it with me again, we don’t want our teams flooded with bad players

[autumn light]

To play ref for a second, i think this conversation is going in circles. You have had different experiences and have taken different things away from that.

If there is improvements to be made we will attempt to do that 🙂

[raw star]

well i just think that his shown example in his video is far from average and reality

[digital orchid]

But we are getting more unfair games

[fleet elm]

Depends on how you define “fair”. Games we’re in are more likely for either team to win. But it’s not fair to us or our teammates the way engagements might go

[cedar bluff]

@autumn light is there a way to tell the average length of a battle prior to the SBMM roll out and the after?

[autumn light]

for us yes, for you no 😅

[unreal hound]

we have a pool of 30 players and if my team gets a bad player to "compensate" my higher winrate that is fine because if he goes to the other time that would be even more unfair. how would you move them between teams ?
I bet most of your picks would result in your team having the much higher winrate

[fleet elm]

Split the top 15 between teams and the bottom 15 between teams. Simple

[unreal hound]

but in your examples there is always a massive gap between you and the 2nd best player should they then be counted as the same lets say 65% and 55 % ?

[cedar bluff]

Has the sbmm really done much to slow down matches?

[autumn light]

When and what info will be shared isn't up to me. You'll have to wait until something official is announced 🙂

[raw star]

thats what i got with your imo unrealistic winrates, theres basically just 3 cases

[fleet elm]

Yes. Each team having close to the same number of top and bottom players as possible should be the goal. If the mm can move players to close that delta if there is an outlier, it should, but they are outliers so it shouldnt be an issue

[raw star]

most of the time if i got it right, theres a very large difference in delta and not just 2% like you said

[unreal hound]

so you always want the edge in winrate sound not fair to me

[fleet elm]

Is it fair to be handicapped just because you are good?

There’s 2 ways to look at it

[autumn light]

Just to try and ref x2, without knowing the points, brackets and so on you have no way to accurately predict how the delta system is working. So to summarise these are all "i believe my guess more than yours".

So again can i recommend that if the convo gets to cyclical and unproductive people agree to disagree and move on

[unreal hound]

i said the new MM eliminates the most unfair MM where for example all good players are on one side which could happen before by random chance

[fleet elm]

This part we agree with

Hence, half the good and bad on each team

[raw star]

and then youd need to look at the high WR player and how often these ones appear in a team with bad players

[raw star]

it artificially creates bad matchups due to this condition, before it happened randomly, now it happens systematically

[fleet elm]

It depends where in the queue order you are, but if you’re 1st and the only good player in the lobby, it’s guaranteed

[bleak oriole]

I'm going to flat out state that you'll never ever always get teams that are half of the good and and half of the bad - platoon restrictions make that impossible.

[fleet elm]

Unless there’s more than 7 platooned players, it’s possible

But platoons screw up every mm so that’s not super relevant

[raw star]

well you cant use some side conditions to make it up with a failed system. even if its not always, the fact that its within the alogorithm to try to make it worse for you is already a red flag

[proper valley]

Isn't getting everyone to a similar win rate a good thing? Just means very diverse games still.

[raw star]

true, but their way to distribute the team is very bad

[fleet elm]

Most games are problematic for very good player

An outlier for the matchmaker is every other game for us

[bleak oriole]

"worse for you" is a relative position

I'm sure that the 55% player is happier that the 65% has to carry an extra 45% win rate player...

[proper valley]

I think thats a fair thing. It means better players still have a challenge in matches.

[raw star]

55% is still within the healthy spread

WR is between 40-75%

-10 downwards but 25 upwards

[fleet elm]

It’s not relative. Our experience is worse

[cedar bluff]

My biggest issue with this team balancer is that I'm seeing a lot more flag cap situations and rapid team disintegration on both sides now. It's frustrating because I can't often pull off reaching 3 MoE levels of damage when i have people on the team who are willing to throw away their tanks to cap the base early or just to drive. In order to achieve marks, it seems the best strategy is to not play whichever tank for a while, let the MoE sink from this change, then hop on after a week or so, pray i get the damage I need and then hope that the recalibration bumps me above 95. Not a very fun way to do this.

[bleak oriole]

you know, I'm not going thru this debate again - I have other tickets that need to be worked on.

[proper valley]

Damn.

You know the community is annoying when even the devs just walk away lol

No offense. But this has been a very annoying topic

[raw star]

btw guys if you split by 15 you get the average of difference in WR

[proper valley]

I just feel bad for the devs man

Literally walking in a minefield.

[fleet elm]

WG’s position is toxic. They’re willing to make the game incredibly frustrating (to the point of quitting) to play solo for good players for a debatable enjoyment improvement for other people. And not even with a test, just did it

[proper valley]

As someone who always plays solo

...its fine.

[autumn light]

https://tenor.com/view/asdf-movie-skateboard-you-can't-tell-me-what-to-do-mine-field-death-gif-9630383160470440171

[fleet elm]

No offense but you’re not good enough to be severely affected by it

[proper valley]

Like. Sure. Team mates are not great sometimes. Its just how it goes. You win, you lose, it's whatever.

I mean. Personally I actually find it quite fun to carry. At least in this game

[raw star]

youd need 3 45% to balance 1 65% player, assuming the other team already has 50% if not lower

[proper valley]

The rush of having like 11k damage by the end of the game

Being a monster for the enemy team to fight

[autumn light]

To point it out again, that's an assumption. You have no idea what the points, brackets or weighting is

Also, it doesn't factor in "team win rate" at all

So i correct that to "that's not how it works"

[proper valley]

Maybe you guys should make a video.

[fleet elm]

That’s evasive. It correlates to performance and delta close enough to have a discussion

[proper valley]

Like. It would be nice to know how the matchmaker works. Explained in a video.

[autumn light]

In theory it can give a team a 58% player to decrease the delta (because they were matched against a 62%) and it can give a 44% player to increase a delta because they were matched against a 42%... Or it can give a 55% to decrease because they were matched against a 53% but their battle count or tank stats meant they created a delta imbalance.

[cedar bluff]

If you know how it works you could 'game' it

[fleet elm]

People are paired in queue. The mm selects the oldest in queue 15 viable pairs for a lobby, chooses a map, and balances pairs from oldest to newest in the queue based on the difference in their performance aiming for a delta of 0 in the performance category between team A and B

[autumn light]

As i've been this entire thread, i'm sticking to what is factually accurate and the statement i replied to was factually inaccurate to how it works. It's not evasive in the slightest. They are more than welcome to correct their example and make the same point, but more accurately now

[raw star]

the MM builds up the team with pairs and not at once with all 30 in the pool, which adds a certain randomness of the process it gets build

[autumn light]

and this point, over and over

[fleet elm]

We don’t know the performance numbers to represent an average player or outlier with them. Winrate is all we have

It’s easier and faster

[autumn light]

[fleet elm]

If you can find a way to force yourself to be last in queue for any lobby, you’ll win more as a good player

[proper valley]

So? You are basically tricking the matchmaker to meta game?

[autumn light]

And you can still make accurate statements even without knowing it, saying you'll receive a number of "worse" player from each pair until it resets the delta = accurate and correct

[proper valley]

Sounds...wrong

[fleet elm]

Doing it is hard, maybe impossible

[autumn light]

technically trying to min/max would be an accurate statement. Because it's not like you can control the pairs already before you in the order

[raw star]

1. thats on you with not providing us with no every tiny info, how much it weigths and the whole stuff 2. we have a hang of how the selection system works which is by far the most important piece to be able to work with the MM 3. with WR alone we maybe wont get "accurate" data of simulations but clear tendencies of this system which in no case is against our point

[raw star]

especially with the fact that a lot players are losing around 5% WR

[autumn light]

i have no issue with you blaming us for not sharing, but all i've done in this thread is trying to make sure it's kept accurate and to the facts because a lot of people are getting things wrong and misunderstanding, and that snowballs. And as i say here (#1405193097079689458 message) you can still make the same point without adding in some inaccuracies

[proper valley]

I mean. Wouldn't this be the definition of balanced? If there are pairs of players at similar skill levels/win rates? Wouldn't this technically be almost as balanced as can be?

[honest oracle]

On a mm issuexwhy is there now 5-6 adts lights in EVERY era e game???? Talk about ruined that really needs sorting

[proper valley]

Thats not a matchmaker issue really. Its just a lot of players using that tank. Theres no way to help it.

Can't just tell people to stop playing the tank. And restrictions on them don't actually work

So.

:/

[fleet elm]

Fun >>> balance

[honest oracle]

Well there is force the mm to not put more than x3 of the same tank in a match per side lol

[autumn light]

the mm change didn't impact CW btw, so that's not related to this thread at all

[honest oracle]

Still needs sorting it's ruined cw era 3 atm

[proper valley]

Eh.

[autumn light]

Feel free to make a dedicated feedback thread with what actionable things you'd like to see and why you think they'd help/what they'd achieve. Although at a guess you are saying more or less the same as https://discord.com/channels/630895439520202783/1413549605689360444 this. So perhaps it's worth going and adding your opinion there 🙂

[proper valley]

Nah. At this point I'd say balance and fun have to be equal

Fun doesn't go over balance.

[autumn light]

this thread has had enough derailment in it's many comments 😅

[honest oracle]

Ill post in there sorry didn't read patch notes but that seams like the right thread ty

[autumn light]

All good 🙂

[proper valley]

Honestly upsets me that this game is almost always in some hot water. Getting a bit tired of seeing my favorite game like this.

[digital orchid]

No, because as things are, the players with exceptional win rates are getting more bad players on their team. That’s not a balanced system

[proper valley]

But that is balanced? Its cancels the good players out with more bad ones. So the good players have to fight harder.

I think thats fair

[digital orchid]

It doesn’t matter how hard you fight when your teams are collapsing in 2 minutes

You’re one player

[proper valley]

Know that feeling.

[digital orchid]

Wins in this game come from a team effort

If my team is doing nothing and dying immediately, we cannot win, regardless of what I do

And that’s more common for us now

[proper valley]

Rip.

[fleet elm]

It’s a debate for WG if our suffering is worth the improvement for everybody else

[proper valley]

Need of the many out weigh the need of the few.

I think you might just have to take one for the team. Lads

[digital orchid]

That goes against everything you’ve just been saying about wanting a fair and balanced system

It has to be fair and balanced for everyone

WG’s mistake is not realising that you’re never going to balance it for everyone. It’s the nature of this game and the mechanics

[proper valley]

It is. I'll admit.

[digital orchid]

People are still gunna complain about the matchmaker

Average players I mean *

[proper valley]

Good point!

So why change anything

Lets leave it like this. For fun!

[digital orchid]

Exactly our points

That’s a good thing to agree on

The best you can do in a game like this imo is to balance the actual game and the tanks

[proper valley]

Which I'd say you can't do either

Like you said

There will always be complaints

So why change anything?

[digital orchid]

Balancing tanks and maps better will absolutely improve the quality of matches regardless of who’s complaining

If the taran didn’t exist, avre etc etc matches would be slower

Every new OP tank that gets released is another contributing factor to landslide games

[proper valley]

But you said it yourself. People will still complain. Why should we change it?

Also. Isn't this match maker sorta the same idea?

[paper anvil]

Something some don't understand: the main complain is not about Win rate, the main complain is that the game feels more sweaty, less fun, more frustrating after you do everything right, and you still get the boot, you carry your weight and some extra and you get the boot not once, but several times, then you see how your team did and there is your answer, then you see the enemy team and boom, magic numbers in their favor, Screw W/L i want to play for funs and substance, not for WORK.

Is that clear enough?

[proper valley]

Improve match quality regardless of who's complaining

[digital orchid]

The difference is those who are endlessly complaining, are doing so without bothering to understand the system and how it works, and usually can’t be bothered to get better at the game either which is one huge factor as to why they’re losing so much

So why should they be taken seriously

We understand how this new system works and can see it’s clearly unfair. We aren’t complaining just to complain

[paper anvil]

Pretty much, i see a lot of blind people pointing a finger at the wrong direction. "Is because you can't steam roll dumb players or BOTS" i mean it if you think that you are not smart and i am being kind.

[digital orchid]

100%. Those players fail to realise, I’m still farming those bad players in the lobbies. That hasn’t changed. My performance hasn’t changed. My wn8 shows that

What’s changed is I’m being given more bad players on my team so I win less regardless of what I do, and that’s not fun lol

[paper anvil]

Someone stamp that next time a goofball thinks he is being smart. 👆

[acoustic cedar]

As been said NUMEROUS times.. want to improve the game.. STOP with the + 2 matchmaking in Tier 8 of WW2 . First match of the day + 2... Second +1 .. play for a little bit, take a break for a couple of hours. Change to the NA server , first match AGAIN +2.. second match +1 . FFS no wonder new players don't want to stay and play, as who wouldn't get tired of this !!!! Yes a 7 year player... yes it is part of the game.. yes I switched tiers to 9 and 10 .. no consistency, but come on

[honest oracle]

That thread you linked me is also ww2 are there any specific cw feedback threads?

[paper anvil]

Pretty much, i am going to say this as personal experience, not as a fact BUT.
I never saw people complaining about an unfair MM because of the quality of the players, the complain was about the +2/-2 for the entire game, never have i seen a "The enemy team was lucky and has a lot of Unis and Super Unis and they destroyed us in less than 5 mins", (Still happens but now in 6 minutes).

[honest oracle]

2bf I don't have many issues with the ww2 mm only thing is when you 8v10 x2 the 3rd game you should be guaranteed 8v6 not 2 8s in a battle with 13 9s

[paper anvil]

I am not sure if the MM has changed a bit since it was implemented, but outside of some odd games, the change can be felt, you notice it more when the game is over and you see the performance of both teams.

[acoustic cedar]

With all teams , there are good and average players. We all learn sometime , and it is in every team game. I am no unicum but pretty good, but have average stats. Just want to go out and shoot things, but the field is not level when you can get one shot or two shot by an enemy tank. Make it fair that way and see where it all goes. Most games that are even, seem to last a lot longer and people play better.. just my observations

[paper anvil]

Some play better and the ones that played better still do, the issue is less team performance in many games.
Quite demoralizing when you see you already lost 5 to 7 teammates and the enemy has like 13.
Some games? sure, happening more often... makes one want to play less.

[honest oracle]

Iir changed ages ago to be tier based not wn8 ect I've been in a game with a type 5 heavy before with 200 games who bought his way to a tier 10 tank and had a 23.8% win ratio and a 0.23 damage ratio and this was when I was over 5000 battles in with a roughly 50% win ratio and a 125% kd ratio question was why is he on my team lol

[paper anvil]

Well there was a change in expected skill when high tier tanks became free rewards, you put some sheep painted as a lion, in the lions den.
But that is a different problem and not that common XD

[honest oracle]

Common with me lol it's like cause your a good player it puts really bad people with you to even the team out and hope you can carry them lol

[paper anvil]

Exactly.

[simple zodiac]

Doesn’t matter. You’re still not gonna listen to the feedback.

[fleet ermine]

Why would someone want to listen to you? Keep crying and posting negativity that accomplishes nothing.

[autumn light]

don't think so, these threads are player created though - so if you feel a seperate one is required then you're welcome to create one. Or just add your points to the same thread but specify it's for CW 🙂

[autumn light]

i have 100 million % seen many times people complain about the "potato's" on their team, or the "dropping 0's" and so on. Shockingly people are unlikely to complain their team was stacked with good players, but people complaining their team was stacked with bad players? I feel you'd have to be kidding yourself to say no one complained about that. Now as is being alluded to (i think Kellen said it first here) whether that IS/WAS the issue is a different question. But it was definitely a major comment for a long time.

[wanton wagon]

I created this thread you linked specifically for WW2 (as was apparent in my posts title) and not CW as these are very different matchmakers, both with an independent set of problems which are complex so I’d encourage that my thread keeps on topic👍

[olive bolt]

Seems like the "Can of Worms" was opened here. Guess I now have 1st hand experience seeing that!

🪱 🪱 🪱 🪱 🪱

[autumn light]

fair enough, didn't feel that "i agree, but also for CW" was derailing and while trying to do a lot at once it seemed kinda harmless to try and link to somewhere with a similar concept. I did also say a couple times make your own thread if you want something about specific issue.

[paper anvil]

Well i never said that there weren't post like that, i meant that i never saw them personally, now Potatoes XD i see them all the time, here and there or bad luck Ryan too, but to change the MM, nah i prefer jungle laws.
Also i really don't notice if i have amazing teams on my favor all the time, sometimes i notice 1 or 2 good players and others carrying their weight, it just sucks when you get matched with POTATOES several times in a row, at least give a Golden POTATO xD

https://tenor.com/view/potato-potatoman-420-gif-21121834

[native plaza]

Honestly don't really care for this whole battle on spreadsheets, we all saw how balancing tanks on spreadsheets failed this has done the same thing. Now about 60% of my battles are stream rolls either for or against me, it's not fun. I couldn't care less about my winrate but my overall solo experience has been massively downhill since the change.

Sbmm just doesn't work across the board when AVG'ing out teams

[paper anvil]

You need several teams to do it right, The spreadsheet guy, the historical guy, the logistics guy, the pro player, the Potato and the Engineer XD

[native plaza]

They changed their approach and thank god for it, we heard the avre and taran are balanced according to our spreadsheet for the longest time.

Data doesn't like humans it's simple, humans like variables and it's impossible to take into account all of these. Think mrSpg said it earlier it's impossible for the game to know if you're drunk or if it's your child playing instead

[paper anvil]

Yeah i seen that often, don't forget the smokers, and i don't mean cigars or cigarettes.

[native plaza]

I kinda feel sorry for the Devs as sbmm ( or whatever bfg wants to call it 😁) is impossible to work at all levels, there is not a single game out there that does well, all of them cater to the AVG player in some form.

[autumn light]

old Waffle (i mean OG OG 6 shot boi) was "balanced" realistically, didn't mean it wasn't considered Toxic. I think bam mentioned it on the stream announcement, the intent here isn't to change a tank just because it's "not balanced" but because players find it toxic/unfun/etc. But again let's not derail 😅 so last i'll say on that in this thread

[native plaza]

It's fair point just because the stats can state a game is 50/50 doesn't mean a game will be fun to play

[paper anvil]

Agreed, GAU 8 is super dangerous in the right hands, but i don't see anyone saying it is OP, or super Toxic.

[native plaza]

People have forgotten that these changes were aimed at increasing the general feel of battles, making them more enjoyable that's the focus, personally I think it's better to just have a way looser match maker, where it just focuses on the extremes and makes sure they are spread out across the two teams

[wanton wagon]

I’ve decided after my responsibilities are exceeded (end of rush) I’m stepping away from the game, it’s as simple as this, the game isn’t made for me for anymore, sbmm derivatives are a slippery slope, I play games for enjoyment, currently and in the future I cannot achieve that.

[native plaza]

Agreed, sbmms kill any game they touch

[paper anvil]

I am still going to play, just a lot less - or when a new engaging and fun mode is released, but there are many more games out there, and some that are releasing very soon.

[candid fable]

11 battles, 3 wins, 8 defeats in a row.
Balanced, right?

[paper anvil]

Not balanced for you XD

[candid fable]

It's 12 now 😂

[fossil girder]

So true. These veterans always find something to complain about. I enjoy closer matches more even if it means having a few players do no damage

[paper anvil]

LOL friendly fire is active i see.

[olive bolt]

Which ones? Im curious to see if I have played any of the games that SBMM destroyed

[paper anvil]

COD is the biggest example so far.

[digital orchid]

https://tenor.com/view/godfather-massacre-sad-gif-16810633

[paper anvil]

https://tenor.com/view/bo6-unicorn-bo6-finisher-waraone-gif-14078058823343328147

[digital orchid]

Cod is so dead even they’re using bots now in warzone. The first warzone was so fun because guess what? It didn’t have SBMM

Xdefiant was one of the only modern FPS games that didn’t use it and I loved that game. You weren’t punished for being good. Shame it shut down

Anyway… off topic

[olive bolt]

So you named the most popular gaming IP of all time, that's your response? 🤣 🤣

[native plaza]

Apex

Any triple AAA multiplayer pretty much

[olive bolt]

Apex was killed off by SBMM??

🤣 🤣 🤣

2 great examples so far. I still play CoD and dont play Apex.

[digital orchid]

You might still play cod but most people don’t

Black ops 6 launched with record numbers and then March 2025 recorded record player number lows . I wonder why that could be

[vale maple]

Bring in -1+1 might solve this problem

[paper anvil]

SBMM hurts any game it touches.
and COD is not getting any love lately i wonder why?

[native plaza]

I saw that cod had like 50k players

I'm waiting for the list games sbmm hasn't killed by the way

[olive bolt]

Hurry up and wait kiddo

[native plaza]

And cod ain't the most popular title

League of legends & csgo and Dota are so clear it's crazy

[olive bolt]

Crazy enough to be complaining about SBMM for 3k comments with no end in sight?

[paper anvil]

So you demand things but don't seem to concur back... huh

[olive bolt]

Apex pulled in 3.4 B so its a laughable example, like all these examples, no facts just conjecture, unless you have actual data your commentary is useless

[paper anvil]

you are free to leave whenever you want, nothing is mandatory.

[native plaza]

Apex playbase is just ranked

[paper anvil]

I never played that game but i deffo heard it wasn't doing good lately.

[olive bolt]

You always state the obvious? This is amusing to me all this effort and input everyone seems to have

You guys must have amazing TPS reports

[native plaza]

Also pulled not pulling

[olive bolt]

Im curious to see what changes after all this, um, discussion

[paper anvil]

Ah you are not meant to be taken seriously, got yah 👍

[olive bolt]

Dude if you think SBMM "killed" apex you are out over your Skis ⛷️

[digital orchid]

If I stop being given more bad players than average players get then it’s done it’s job

[native plaza]

Bro it's only ranked no one plays standard queue

[paper anvil]

haha pretty much XD

[digital orchid]

I played 50 games in a taran of all tanks on a friends account. Solo, came away with 51.6% wr

That was with 5k+ DPG

The experience went like this, 4 shots maybe right at the start, then the team gets rolled in 2-3 minutes, spotters all dead, another 3 or so shots before I get annihilated because I’m a taran with no armour. Rinse and repeat

If your teams constantly suck you can’t flex around the map = more losses

[paper anvil]

Stop complaining and deal with it dude.... also git gut XD

[native plaza]

Guess what apex player count is also 40k

I wonder what the spilt between standard and ranked is

[paper anvil]

Dude don't waste your time... interesting tho XD

[native plaza]

Nah I was actually just interested as well

[fleet elm]

The taran and AVRE will get super shafted by this mm because the game tries to mirror them. You’re much more likely to be top of the queue (because it takes longer for the mm to get you a game) which means you’re guaranteed to have a mediocre team

[proper valley]

Wonder if the devs are starting to memorize names.

"Ah, its (so so) again."

[olive bolt]

Youll know after the next Bot naming scrum occurs

That would be a high level trolling

So unlikely

[digital orchid]

Not difficult when you only have about 60 of the same users who actually use the discord on a regular basis

[manic galleon]

Can anyone tell me whats the deal with the new matchmaking please?

[unreal hound]

The new MM tries to take winrate into account and is sorting the teams after the 30 players got picked .
(Winrate is not the only factor battle count tank winrate etc many factors)
Some of the better players are unhappy with the changes because they say they get bad teammates more often so their winrate suffers.

[cursive tinsel]

Its not really win rate, its just more that battles feel more like a constant uphill battle/ more frustrating from the get go. Only so many games you can deal with solo before the frustration is going to lead to reduce battle count or just not loading the game.

[olive bolt]

https://tenor.com/view/whats-the-deal-brother-macho-man-randy-savage-baywatch-whats-the-your-problem-whats-up-with-you-gif-19264817

[digital orchid]

The better you are the more worse players will be put on your teams to try and create a better experience for average players

Who are buns at the game, which is the reason they lose so much. But they blame the matchmaker for this so wargaming has to hold their hand

[digital orchid]

The enjoyment levels suffer. I couldn’t care less what the number is personally. Just when that number is higher then it’s more fun

[unreal hound]

I enjoy it much more because i have so many close rounds

[digital orchid]

I hit a record low of 52% at one point last 30 days, and let me tell you, that was an horrendous experience

It’s only back up to 58 now because I’ve been spamming tier 8’s and there are worse players at low tiers

I’m not having any more close games than before though. They were rare before, they are still rare now for me. Doesn’t feel like that’s changed

[unreal hound]

even with 40 % W/R i would enjoy those Games more

[fleet elm]

I have never had more games decided by the 2 minute mark. There might also be more close games but the positives of those are outweighed by the negatives of my team folding 2 minutes in 1/3 of the time

The close games are just my team folding but I had enough support and was fast enough to fold my flank first

[wanton wagon]

This statement is purely false followed by your previous comment, I would encourage you to revise that.

[digital orchid]

If you were winning 40% none of the games would be even remotely close

[unreal hound]

? Even if i would get from now on 40% W/R i would enjoy that more because the Games are close (im not saying i get 40%) who cares about the winrate when you steamroll enemy team in first 3 min i rather lose 6/10 games with close fights to the end . What was unclear here

[paper anvil]

Close fights are indeed fun.

[fleet elm]

Close games are just rolling your flank as fast as the other flank gets rolled in this mm. It’s fun if you get the right map for your tank, impossible and awful to play if you don’t

[unreal hound]

no i had so many round where teams fall back to better positions to hold the line against a push

[fleet elm]

And you gotta do something about that before your team gets rolled yes

So you either get it done or it’s a blowout because you’ve more than likely got awful teammates

[wanton wagon]

Nothing whatsoever close from the example you used. Having a 40% win rate is statistically impossible to have “close games” surprising as you should know this.

[unreal hound]

You dont have to yolo in you can play calm as well many rounds last over 10 minutes if i cant push i stay back and cover or change flank but pushing in will get me killed so i save my HP for when it matters

[unreal hound]

what are you talking you can lose games in a 2vs1 at the end you know its a lose but a close game where is the problem ?

[fleet elm]

Close games means 50% wr

Or else they weren’t close

[wanton wagon]

I hope he realises this at some point.

[fleet elm]

It was obvious

[wanton wagon]

What is obvious to us isn’t so to everybody else unfortunately.

[native plaza]

Also 90% of my close games I have done 5k minimum, rarely am I carried by my team

The games are close because of the great players impact not because of the teams impact

[fleet elm]

You just very obviously having a different experience than the rest of us

[native plaza]

I think I have had 4 or 5 games where 5 or more people have done more than 4k dmg on my team

[unreal hound]

and i highly doubt that i just think that most are just either tilting because their first two games went south or having 5/10 close rounds but are losing them so they say all were bad

[cursive tinsel]

Its be great if team mates fell back and actually covered. However, being able to do that your self is still incredibly tank dependent, and even half the time if teammates do fall back. The likehood of cover is never going to be there.

[native plaza]

Bruh I have had a session where I'm AVG 6k dpg and have 55% winrate, make it make sense

In a heavy as well

[nocturne cloak]

As heavy you get more punished, because you dont have the Curry Potential like a stealthy td/medium

And thats why i avoid to play heavys.. and thats wrong because ever class should find his way to the game

[fleet elm]

We’re all down win rate which can only be the case if we’re all getting bad teams. You focus on your (potentially) increased close games. The rest of us are worried about our team melting every other match and the annoyance of having to play perfectly to not get rolled

[cursive tinsel]

Again its each person's experience, some are going to get it more then others. again I do just need to play more but solo play is just awful, but when key positions just get ignored, or lemming trains fall to s small pocket of enemy tanks each and every time, its not a fun experience to keep running into on a higher frequency.

[unreal hound]

Here i played too aggressive got killed and my team nearly made it to the end. It happens but those round will be overlooked because people either quit or ignore them

[nocturne cloak]

Because your team overall performs better than the enemy

[native plaza]

Nah the enemy platoon just carried, and platoons are irrelevant to the mm changes

[unreal hound]

You are too much fokused on W/R who gives a f play it safe try to hold dont try to win a fight you cant and maybe your team will surprise you

[fleet elm]

No, the implications of lower winrate

I feel like a broken record. You must not listen

[wanton wagon]

After taking a look into your account, with all due respect, I believe you have a lot to learn and hopefully you do so.

[cursive tinsel]

There is like maybe, very few players that genuinely care about WR

[native plaza]

Most people ain't talking about winrate more the implications that it represents

[digital orchid]

His win rate is around the same as mine is right now for the last 30 days, down from his career and 60/90 day, and he’s apparently not noticing what the rest of us are 🤔

[unreal hound]

you are right i can improve but i dont care about lowtier MOE farming so much that i would go back to play every T5 to improve my WN8 i would say im a good player at tier 8-10 not in the top 1% but good enough

[wanton wagon]

As your proclivity for improvement increases so will your knowledge of understanding the game and mathematics👍

[unreal hound]

and as much as i like to tell you that i have had a great time since the MM its getting boring i say i have closer and better matches with more loses but thats not important for me i have more fun. we have different opinions on this you hope they revert i hope they dont thats it

[unreal hound]

hope you will learn a thing or two as well 🙂

[fleet elm]

You’re easily top 1%, LSWV is being toxic

[wanton wagon]

Nothing toxic about saying someone can improve in the most respectful way possible, so that they can gain a clear understanding of the game. Also let’s not side track the topic.

[fleet elm]

Stat shaming someone who is obviously good is counterproductive in the first place

[wanton wagon]

Not side tracking the thread.

[raw star]

i also think its pretty counterproductive to be against the majority of the minority and using nothing but idealism as an argument, not that i defend what he did, but it was an understandable crashout

its pretty frustrating arguing with someone who does not follow logical assesments and arguments

[raw star]

from all public info we got, i made a more deeper analysis to not show how the MM works but what trend the extra condition of the Winrate results in consequence and how High WR players are affected. The Result of this data confirms atleast the complains of many that almost guaranteed a high WR player will end up in the worse team 33% of the time if in every battle are around 3 65% players. even if the teams seem fair, lets say 48/52, but because its just a plain additive model it can result that theres a lot of 45% players in one team because of one 65%, but in a practical sense if you look at the damage ratio of said 45% and 65% youd see that the additive model does not balance at all the MM because the damage ratio of a 45% is by a lot lower than froom a 50% player. this would also explain why it usually ends up in a big steamrolls since important factors like Damage ratio are not aligned

[olive bolt]

Thats all anyone does here, even worse on Reddit. players cant even agree on who's good and by what metrics matter the most. Wn8, a made up metric from PC not even recognized by WG, is the go to. Tells you all you need to know about the disconnect.

[proud harbor]

I mean WN8 isnt really recognized by good players either

[fleet elm]

WG’s performance number is probably the best metric unironically and they won’t even release it

[olive bolt]

True, we never really know

"Industry Proprietary" right

Whenever asked why theres no transparency, that's what I remember seeing

[olive bolt]

I hope it includes distance traveled

I miss that stat.

[autumn light]

To TLDR what was just said on stream

• Improvement to average match time, but small
• Improvements to number of steam rolls (less of them now), but also smaller
• Improvements less than we'd like to see
• Changes coming in Tuesday to try and address concerns and improve results

[lament mica]

*more details to follow

[paper anvil]

https://tenor.com/view/mad-max-fury-road-thumbs-up-ok-got-it-gif-16912130

[cursive tinsel]

Cool, will wait and see. I mean this is going to be tough to do really when there is bigger changes lined up that we are still waiting on to be finalised.

[fleet elm]

What changes? Do we get a gist of them?

[autumn light]

don't think much more than what i said above

[fleet elm]

Bummer

At least it’s happening now and not later

Thank goodness your other goals didn’t get met

[digital orchid]

https://tenor.com/view/cringe-no-undecided-not-sure-gif-26295992

[autumn light]

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2564712933?t=00h31m03s discussion starts around here

[cursive tinsel]

Basically, small increase in average time, small decrease in steamrolls but only very small. Basically wait and see for parameter changes on Tuesday and thrown back into live testing and seeing again.

[fleet elm]

Is the time accounting for Death Valley lol?

[cursive tinsel]

didn't really wait the stream. Don't know whether here any mention of said maps in rotation

[native plaza]

Also no mention of the tiers either

[cursive tinsel]

I mean, i cant play next week as im away, but id imagine most of Tueaday changes are just going to be bracket changes. I feel the QoL, equipment and further tank blance changes will do more to lessen the impact of steamrolls and average time over this currently, but that just my 2 cents

[cunning dew]

Sub 2 minute game btw

Whole team went to cap.

My whole team thought it was a good idea to cap and just sit there

[unreal hound]

is here the MM to blame or the players ?

[cunning dew]

Kinda both

Only sh**ers cap

But my team got the bad players and they just capped cause thats what they do

[digital orchid]

“But the matchmaker has reduced the number of steamrolls”

[cunning dew]

Ita literally gotten worse

I get more of them than ever

[digital orchid]

WG only cares about the majority remember

Doesn’t matter what we are experiencing

[cunning dew]

Ahhh yes. The sh**ers😂

[digital orchid]

It’s for the greater good

[cunning dew]

50% and below

[unreal hound]

so i would blame the better enemies here because they dont decap

[cunning dew]

Another problem is how big thw cap circle is on that map

It makes it so ez

Cause they can be in full cover cause the circle is soo wide

[lament mica]

You had the better team because the worse team let them cap it.

[cunning dew]

Good players dont cap tho

And the wholeee team did

Like 10 were on it no joke

[unreal hound]

good players dont let that happen either so both teams sucked

[cunning dew]

Thing is in that instance there is literally nothing I can do

[lament mica]

Exactly

[cunning dew]

Cause I cant just kill them. They are my teamates

[unreal hound]

but the enemies could do sth about it which they didnt so they are bad players so both teams seem to be bad

[cunning dew]

Its just annoying. Ive never had a sub 2 minute game

I swear this only happens when im marking to😂

[autumn light]

In bam's announcement he mentioned that changes are being made that consider all feedback + concerns. So there is quite some irony in literally complaining about not being listened within hours of an announcement at being listened to, while either actively ignoring or not listening to what is being said/happening 😅.

[fleet elm]

tbf we don't know the extent of the changes

[digital orchid]

It’s one of those “I’ll believe it when I see it” things, if we don’t know what changes are being made

[paper anvil]

He he no complains from me, i am waiting to see the changes. 😇

[cursive tinsel]

That really why the way i heard it it will be, we changed X brackets to this, or added another data point for it to go off. I dont really see why we cant just say, this is the next thing we are doing. Instead its what to Tuesday, 'changes have been made' and then have to wait for SPG to then come back to it to explain what parameters have changes or whats actually been changed.

[fleet elm]

Based on some of the stuff I've dm'd BFG about, my guess is that the direction is both limiting the high end of "performance" below 60% win rate and capping the delta between pairs

[digital orchid]

Imagine all this focus was directed at bringing old maps back instead or balancing tanks

You know, actually making the game fun again, instead of trying to artificially bundle everyone into the same win percentage based on the same complaints from idiots over the years, who’s reasons for their crap win rates are nothing more than their own lack of skill

[vagrant holly]

no wonder why i keep getting geuine offensive words

[lament mica]

Old maps not in the game at this point are bad. Bring us some of the good PC ones.

[dusk bough]

So is this why I keep getting absolutely just demolished in every match I play? The steam rolls and NASCAR style games have been awful the past 2 weeks.

[open ravine]

The MM changes have nothing to do with CW. Just WW2

[dusk bough]

What is up with these games then? It’s not a skill issue cuz I’m a Super Uni with a 1.81 KD I just don’t understand why almost every match has been like that

[open ravine]

No idea re CW. But this thread is about the WW2 MM changes.

[vale maple]

The other thing that makes this matchmaker worse. A good player who is grinding then has a stock tank and no player with half a brain on his team which makes the grind longer to get a gun upgrade or any other upgrade. I have noticed I get horrible top tier heavy tanks on my team in each game I play a td.

[vagrant holly]

so they made mm based off win rate?

who horrible idea was this

every game i had today had been 5 of my teammates just yoloing into death and other team is just all purple wn8s

does that make sense at all

id like to know how the new mm works

[autumn light]

All of what focus? Investigating issues that you are raising while saying they are being ignored? so in 2 messages it goes from "how dare you ignore us" to "well why are you listening to us and not doing these other things I want"... which, oh... we have been? Balance changes like the 2 premium tank changed announced today? Or the more than 100 with the season? Old and new maps have been returning about 1 every season.

And that's before you seemingly thinking people can't do different things at companies, and that doing thing A means that has to be a person taken off thing B. And then all those players you're moaning about and insulting, the only reason you can brag about ePeen on the Internet is those exact people and without them there would be no game and no one for you to win against.

[autumn light]

Search messages I've sent in this thread, done multiple TLDRs

[vagrant holly]

will do

[autumn light]

As was pointed out, there have been 0 changes to CW MM so any changes there are you or you're seeing something because you think there is something. And the issue people are raising is this thread will only really effect people with 60%+ win rates, we don't use wn8 so it's an irrelevant metric to the conversation.

[dusk bough]

Are y’all going to be fixing Cold War at all? The steam rolling and super fast heavies is making it kinda toxic

@autumn light

[autumn light]

There is no current MM changes coming to CW, but there is a lot of changes being suggested to different aspects of the game (skills, equipment, etc) and balance changes that the hope will positively impact these things across the whole game

[olive bolt]

Good question

[digital orchid]

Cold War is super unbalanced in general

[dusk bough]

I certainly hope so because as it is right now it’s quite difficult to enjoy Era 2 and 3 but nonetheless I’ll keep playing

[vagrant holly]

I just had a game back to back where 5 players on my team had zero kills zero damage and zero assists so much fun

[open ravine]

Please stay on-topic people. This thread is not about complaining about CW games or raging against WG staff. It is about discussing the new WW2 MM system, and how we can improve this.

[dusk bough]

Well if they would quit adding tanks that probably aren’t going to help the game we wouldn’t be raging against them @open ravine

[open ravine]

Sure, but this is not the thread to discuss it.

Rage in the general chat all you want. But please don't derail this thread.

[coral zephyr]

I didn't realize the MM changes were only WW2. 👍

[paper anvil]

Yeah only WW2... officially, but i also felt that weird unofficial MM change in CW, very absurd teammates.
That is all i am saying.

[vagrant holly]

idk why even added this im not even a good player quite average and im getting punished heavily

but

it is what it is for now

[open ravine]

If you are "quite average", then the MM will not be negatively affecting you.

[lament mica]

Depends really who is playing, similarly to MoEs.

[vagrant holly]

yet it is

quite literally most single game im doing pretty average 3k
thats not even that good if you compare that to somone like Kellen who does like 6k each game

its pretty much pathetic if you ask me

[proper valley]

What?

Same thing here

My team mates are almost always somewhat down there

My win rate is only 52 yet sometimes it feels like I need to carry. Its kinda fun

[vagrant holly]

no its not fun

I shouldnt have to be expected to carry mh teammates every single game

[lament mica]

Everybody’s teammates are always terrible, even red team’s. 😜

[vagrant holly]

@lament mica last time I checked there were only 13 primes

off topic

but like who gave you the matrix?

also do you have the touch

[lament mica]

13 Original Primes 😉
Matrix is full of past primes

My game touch is past it’s prime 😂

[vagrant holly]

https://tenor.com/view/jim-carrey-funny-good-one-gif-10820434279148874810

[thin quest]

Is there an improvement to the times of one team gaining an 20% hp advantage or one team reaching 5 tank alive? Not sure what metric is best for that nd what WG uses but something like that. Total match time is kinda irrelevant when the fate has been decided quicker.

[autumn light]

I don't have that answer tbh, what i wrote was just trying to summarise what was said by Bam on stream as I know not everyone will have seen it

[proper valley]

True. So true

Maybe the good team mates were the friends we made along the way

[vagrant holly]

no i am not

I am not at all

like how do you expect a 50% 55% to carry four 40% players

[proper valley]

I find it fun. Because still pulling through when you are disadvantaged is awesome, a massive dopamine rush. Makes some of your fights a underdog story. And everyone likes an underdog story.

[cunning dew]

Bru I can never pull through and im a 65% player

I could do 15k and still loose cause my team does sub 1k each

[vagrant holly]

I JUST had 6 zero damage players on my team@cunning dew

[cunning dew]

Ita honestly not uncommon now😂

So sad

[vagrant holly]

LIKE

how DO you expect me to play the game when the matches last less than 3 minutes cause 6 of my teammates decide to go suicide for no reason make it make sense

like I genuinely cant with with steamrolls

trying mark in a sub 2 minute game

[cunning dew]

Its impossible

Marks are higher than ever 2 btw cause of bot games

[ocean pendant]

MM is trash

[noble siren]

This game peace of sheath. MM is broken.

[fleet elm]

Nah, that's not how the math works

[cunning dew]

Bruh look at the requirements

Ive never seen higher

[fleet elm]

Yeah a splitting playerbase and power creep will do that

[cunning dew]

Bot games combined with dpm increases

[fleet elm]

Well bot games might drive some of the increase but not bot farming

[cunning dew]

Idk if you know how ez it is to farm

Ive seen 20k combined and 18k damage

In bot games

[fleet elm]

I more mean 3am eu type stuff

[cunning dew]

So many do it now

[fleet elm]

The 3am eu stuff doesn't affect marks very much

[cunning dew]

I tried 1 night to see if it was tru. Yes it is

[cunning dew]

Why wouldn't it?

[fleet elm]

Not a lot of battles

[cunning dew]

Someone averaging 8k in 1 tank for a week will

[cunning dew]

If its a low played tank

[fleet elm]

Yeah but it's not the reason the technodrome is at 6.5k for 3 MOE

[cunning dew]

Its partly. If bot games go away moes will go down

[fleet elm]

Bot games yeah, but not specifically 3am bot farming

[cunning dew]

Its not just 1 guy. I know like 5 people all trying to gold Leo and are bot farming. Doing that for weeks will increase

[cunning dew]

Ok but any bot games

[fleet elm]

People trying to gold the Leo would do that normally though at regular hours.

[fleet elm]

Yeah and that's a population issue. Population alone is the main MOE issue with rare tanks

Also why the Leo, it's not even special anymore lol.

[cunning dew]

Very much

Its impossible for me to gold mark some rare low tiers cause I raise them myself😭

[fleet elm]

Basically grind for 100-200 games then don't play for 2 weeks then play a battle and you won't compete against yourself

[cunning dew]

Still hard lol

But yea thats the only way

[vagrant holly]

just had a game where 7 people did

zero damage

I JUST WANTED to get my first 3rd mark ten but what do want me to do when my team dies in less than 3 minutes

[lament mica]

I don’t think they are, nor should they, design the mm around marks. That’s just a relatively meaningless metric to playing the game.

[uneven shoal]

Such a fun match. Team 2 had 57% HP remaining

Getting yolo’ed by 2 Maus and an E4 while my team watches is so fun

3 games of that and I'm off for the night. Yay

[cunning dew]

Ive been trying to gold mbt. Got to 99.8% and had a mega steam roll. Did 800 damage🫠

So frustrating

Haven't played it since 😂

[vagrant holly]

ive actually been trying to 3 mark it

[cunning dew]

It was gonna be my first 10 gold

[vagrant holly]

was at 91% but then came in the sub 4 minutes games

[cunning dew]

Yup

Been hard to mark tanks recently

[vagrant holly]

gonna try again in the morning tho

[cunning dew]

Just bot farm😂😂😂

Jk jk

[vagrant holly]

what do I look like a cw main?

[cunning dew]

I played some tier 6 this morning on a Sunday. 3 outa 6 games were bot games

Game is dead. People should be on at 11 am on a Sunday

[paper anvil]

Hey!
Oh wait i am not a CW main XD proceed.

[paper anvil]

People are playing new games, a few big titles came out and many only play or really play them on the weekends, hell even i was playing something else XD, so maybe the MM is going to be a bit different at the moment.

[digital orchid]

More amazing team balance from this matchmaker

[unreal hound]

if i post each time a close match when u find that will it be even ?

[fleet elm]

Stop posting individual games. They’re literally meaningless. The old mm could’ve produced that match same as the new mm

You literally need a dataset of at least 100 to come to any real conclusions

[cunning dew]

Look how many we have posted tho

Not just 1 hear or there

Im getting tons

I could post 10 games here a day but I dont

Probably will get banned

[devout anchor]

Dude… why are you even writing here if you’re happy with everything? If in your opinion everything is fine, then just don’t post in this thread and don’t react to comments.

I’m new to the game… but in the last month my winrate dropped from 62% to 59%. In almost every 2–3 battles I get AFK players on my team (before, that was very rare). Cases of players intentionally ruining matches (pushing teammates, blocking, etc.) have also increased a lot — this used to happen much less often.

Battles with 5–6 players doing 0 damage were almost nonexistent before, but now it’s nearly every game. If everything is “fine” for you, then honestly, that’s impossible.

The new matchmaking has affected almost everyone… and it’s something nobody asked for. So yeah, go buy yourself a new premium tank and some gold — and good luck on the battlefield.

[olive bolt]

Youde think that would be obvious, but here we are. I dont know how many games occur every hour but yeah, posting one offs as proof is hilarious

Spreadsheets even better

[raw star]

he is also very opposed of that MM, its just really pointless to post these results. you can send 1 screen that discribes your expirience but everthing else is just irrelevant

[devout anchor]

Well, if players want to post their results, why not?
What’s the problem?

[digital orchid]

There a 53 game solo sample on a friends account. Like @cunning dew says I could post multiple of these games a day if I wanted to

The system is working perfectly

[olive bolt]

If you dont see how posting random games is meaningless, you need to maybe take a statistics 101 to start to understand

Also, its not productive

[devout anchor]

Dear sir, no need to write me anything about this. I’ve been playing WG longer than you and I know more than you.
If I played 100 battles 4 months ago, I’d win about 60% and clearly understand what was happening in the match. Now, after 100 battles, it’s a complete mess… teammates do nothing + AFKs.
What are you even trying to tell me here?
Dude, I’m not from Europe or America, and I don’t have 50 IQ for you to write something like that to me. Think again and go your own way.

[olive bolt]

Nevermind, statistics 101 would be like trigonometry to you