Updated Match Maker is not balanced

[near pond]

They are the same players that would have been in the match regardless

[fleet elm]

Yes and my teams are worse on average bc more of the bad players get stuck on my team

Most of my matches don’t have anyone close to my skill

[autumn light]

i mean if there is any system to address the 3 issues/aims, then that is likely impossible. I mean with your defacto +-1 system it would potentially be worse, because you will be a +1 99% of the time and with 15 pairs there is going to be an 8/7 split. So you are quite likely to get the 7 every time. The current system has a bit more nuance than that.

[fleet elm]

Yeah but that’s everybody above average. No penalty for improving beyond that

[near pond]

Its not more bad players than the enemy team though. Which is the point

[fleet elm]

It is. That is the issue. Bfg said it’s likely consistently 2 more bad players on my team than the other

[unique lance]

There's a huge difference between 40% win rates and even 50% win rates, when the really bad players don't understand basics and run out and die, it doesn't matter the the 75% win rate is in the game because he is left facing 6 50% win rate that don't do that and are capable of shooting another tank.

[fleet elm]

And consistently with the 7 might end up being better just because it’s consistent. Most losses for good players in random mm were because of unlucky mm stacking of teams

[autumn light]

I mean couple of things there,

1. I asked a question in response to something i stated being questioned, and openly then said i have nothing to prove it but i think anecdotally it can be seen in here - would they agree. So that's me asking if their opinion matches based on something i'm openly calling anecdotal.
2. Our anecdotal feedback is dismissed i'm sorry but this is such a wide of reality statement i am not sure how you felt it fair to say. An issue openly that can not impact more than a very very small % of the community has now had staff talking about and reacting to for months, and we openly said we made changes to specifically address the issues brought up here. That is literally the opposite of "dismissed". You can say you are not happy with the current outcome, but to say it has been dismissed is just factually inaccurate.

[paper prism]

Just wondering, after recent tweaks, what is tolerated delta for two players matched against each other? Say, a player A, tier 8, class HT, wr 53.

1. Is mm pairing him with another player B strictly same tier 8 and class HT and somewhat similar wr?
2. and what is considered as tolerated wr delta between two players given same tier and class?

[autumn light]

I feel like "i feel like i'm being punished, so you should punish more people" is not a great solution/approach 😅

[near pond]

No. It isn’t. The distribution system was adjusted specifically to have an equal number of high winrate and low winrate players on both teams.

BFG can you confirm if what I’m saying is true or not rq?

[autumn light]

i didn't say that, i said it's much closer to 0 now with the max extremes now being something like 2. It'll never be 0 because 7/8 split, but it should be much closer to averaging out at 0 now even for outlier players

AKA if pre any change you could have all 15 on 1 side "stacked", then after the change it may be 7, now it should be 2.

[unique lance]

That's what your doing in response to the players complaining about BLOWOUTs your punishing the higher win rate players whether you believe it to be true or not. Yours driving the win rates to 50%, then your not going to sort very well at all when all the players are 50% on both teams and the actual skilled players with a 50% are all on the same team! BLOWOUTs again!

I think WG is trying to solve the wrong problem with the wrong solution, can't be any more direct then that. I'm not saying that Rudolph and other that have responded in this form don't care, because I don't believe that to be the case.

There is a difference betwee probability and statistically, just saying

[autumn light]

for 1. the pairing mm doesn't include win rate. It has 0 care about stats. It cares about class, tier, time in queue and i think a couple other things related to stuff like platoons. But not stats. So when they are paired it's in relation to how long they have been in the queue as a player in a specific tank/tier combo.

For 2, there is no limit. Due to the first part not considering win rate when creating the pair any combo is possible and therefore it will create a delta of whatever size the mismatch is. What was done in the tweaks resulted in that maximum delta imbalance being drastically reduced, meaning the "amount to overcome" for even the most outlier of situation was made much closer to 1. Basically the sorting system is built to act AFTER the pair MM, so it looks at each pair, works out points and creates a delta, then moves on to the next pair and does the same, then assigns to a team to reduce the delta between the 2 teams. It's possible that one pair is a 68 and a 41, another pair is a 69 and 67 and another a 42 and a 41... it doesn't care. It just creates a number to say how far apart those 2 players are.

[fleet elm]

Perfect logic. Let’s punish 0 people and remove it. You’re better than this logic

[unique lance]

DOCUMENT this on a webpage!!!!!!!!!!!!

[near pond]

Can always just pin it

[fleet elm]

No it does not

[near pond]

That is explicitly what was said multiple times

[unique lance]

I would STRONGLY encourage someone at WG to document the enter process in detail, with the correct terminology so when we do have discussions we are all using the same process detail and terminology in the discussion.

I feel sorry for Rudolph and others who try and repeat the same thing over and over again.

[fleet elm]

That logic works when you have a normal distribution of players. It falls apart for outliers in the current system

[grizzled vessel]

yeah with how much it is asked about it should really be put together in an easier to read format

[near pond]

The game is not attempting to lower your winrate by stacking more bad players on one team than the other.

[fleet elm]

Then how is it lowering my winrate?

[unique lance]

Not directly, but in effect it is

[fleet elm]

MOEs lol

[near pond]

N O

[autumn light]

Even you acknowledge that people have long complained about the teams getting "stacked" though, and it has been a long standing complaint. So the aim has never been to punish anyone, but to reduce something that was a constant source of negativity brought up by players for years and years. If this can be done better, ways of doing that will continue to be explored

[unique lance]

THE RESULT is you are effecting high win rate players!

[fleet elm]

That’s the issue. You’re ok screwing us for the good of the game

[unique lance]

I do want to address the BLOWOUTs, but this isn't the way!

ITS NOT GOOD for the game either!

[autumn light]

FWIW as a slight random side note, most will know me as BFG or Jack, maybe HEAT. The current name is a rename to make it most festive, i believe decided by general chat in some way 😅 So just a heads up if someone gets confused by your referring to me as Rudolph... has made me go "huh?" a couple times as i forgot too lol

[fleet elm]

If you’re not changing the players in the lobby, how do I win less now? The only answer is worse teammates

[unique lance]

You have your thumb on the scale of the primary goal of the game!

OMG I didn't realize that BFG!!!!

[near pond]

Nate. You really need to stop and think.

[unique lance]

Cheese you need to try and understand what higher win rate players are saying

[fleet elm]

What aren't you getting? How does my winrate go down if the same 30 players are in the lobby as before?

[near pond]

I do understand. And what keeps being repeated is coming partly from a huge misunderstanding about how the matchmaker actually works

[unique lance]

Is there something prioritary about the sorting logic? Can we not see the detail of how it works?

We aren't talking about the MM, we are talking about the sorting

[near pond]

Because the winrate of the players is distributed more evenly between the teams

[fleet elm]

Yes. If my winrate is high, one or several lower win rate players gets "distributed" to my team to make it even

[autumn light]

all good, thought it would be useful to point out 😄 i had forgot my name had even been changed several times tbh 😅

[unique lance]

It is NOT a misunderstanding, as I have personaly experienced the issue and continue to do so when playing outside a platoon.

[unique lance]

Sorry, I was like this guy must be new! I'm the idiot that didn't put 2 and 2 together!

[fleet elm]

Come on Cheese, you're about to get it

[near pond]

No. Wrong. If there’s a bad player on your team its to match against one on the enemy team.

Your match in this system is a player of similar winrate on the enemy team. Not someone on your own team

[unique lance]

Have to drop for now, but I'll try and catch up later on this chat

[near pond]

This system balances winrate between teams not within teams

[fleet elm]

What if I'm by far the best player in the lobby? This is pretty likely that there's nobody close to me in skill in a lobby

[near pond]

Then the next highest WR player is put on the enemy team

[fleet elm]

Cool but it takes more bad players to balance my winrate than theirs so I end up with more bad players on my team

[autumn light]

To be pedantic again @fleet elm, lower score of a pair and not specifically "lower win rate". Because if one pair has a 45% and a 46%, they may get a 46% player due to your created delta. But the next pair may be a 58% and a 57% and you now get the 58% if the delta has been undone. So it's all about relation to within the pair.

Also, the "amount of undoing" is drastically lower. That is the "max extreme of 2" i mentioned

[bleak oriole]

Geez. I go to a meeting for an hour or and I have a freaking essay to read.

[autumn light]

that is an estimate, not fact i should add

[near pond]

The game makes pairs of similar winrate players then distributes them as evenly as possible between the teams. Is this correct?

[fleet elm]

No. Pairs don't consider winrate

[autumn light]

the pairs are only tank class + tier... it cares 0 about stats

and time in queue and platoon stuff

[near pond]

I meant for the winrate distribution. Not the matchmaker

[autumn light]

It only looks at the pair created by the MM

So there is 15 pairs spat out into the lobby by the MM, it then looks at them in those pairs

[near pond]

Ok yeah that makes sense. Needed to clarify rq

[autumn light]

It then says "Player 1, Pair 1, to Team 1", looks at the next pair "okay, Player 1, Pair 2, to Team 1" etc etc until all 15 pairs are in a sorted

with which team they are "sent too" designed to reduce the delta

So nates concern is that when he is compared, the next say "5 pairs" will all send the worst of the pair to his team

That, under ideal conditions, should not be possible now. Basically

[near pond]

Yeah that definitely would not happen in this system

[autumn light]

in theory, in the original system, all 15 of the "best win rates" of pairs could end up on the same team

Which is why i say this system has drastically reduced the stacking of matches

[near pond]

Basically the concern of having more “bad” players on one team than the other is in actuality the effects of having a more even spread of winrate between teams

[autumn light]

But again, nates point is that no matter how many it takes to "undo", he as a player who will be the "better" of a pair 99% of the time will always have an, on average, worse distribution of those pairs. Even if it's say averaging "8" of the worse pairs VS 7.5. His point (again, correct me if i'm wrong @fleet elm) is that any thing that feels like it is by design making him have a average that is "worse" is punishing him and is unfair

[near pond]

From what i gathered the concern is that the game is actively putting worse teammates on his team specially to lower his winrate

[fleet elm]

It's to make teams more even, not to target me specifically. The result of that policy is that I get worse teammates and win less

[near pond]

I don’t think you are accounting for the fact that the enemy team now gets better player more consistently than before. Its not just a worse player thing you should be looking at.

The game isn’t stacking the odds against you. It just isn’t stacking them in your favour as much anymore

[fleet elm]

It never stacked them in my favor though

[haughty terrace]

I hope your statement about no better solution is wrong. Because if you truly think it. Then why should wg go back. The majority will always out weigh the minority. So, if its helping the majority should we not keep it? Yes, some good players will leave, but some will stay. We all know that its human nature to complain when unhappy. However, I believe there will be a group ( good players) that will still continue to play. To tell wg simply to cater to a small group and ignore the majority simply won't happen. It's the majority of players that wg makes their money from sales. Yes, good players buy things, but not enough to keep things rolling. As I stated earlier in the thread. I do not have an answer to the issue, but I don't think returning to the old way is an option.

[near pond]

When was the update again?

[fleet elm]

When my winrate started dropping lol

[near pond]

Dude. It dropped .05%

5% of 1%

[fleet elm]

Look at my 90 day win rate and stats and compare it to my overall lol

[near pond]

Look. What was changed was the distribution of winrate between teams. It is now more equal than before more consistently. If your winrate went down it isn’t because the game is stacking all the bad players on your team

Because it isn’t

[fleet elm]

I’m not saying I’m getting stacked with bad players. I just have worse teammates on average than before (and worse teams than other players too)

[lament mica]

No matter where you draw the line, somebody always feels sacrificed. Ask Notre Dame.

[fleet elm]

There's a difference between people feeling slighted and actively handicapping people though. In this case, WG thinks that the benefits of the 99% who feel slighted when they get wrecked by unfair matchmaking are more important than the 1% who they're actively hindering. Is WG right? Probably honestly but it really drives home a reason to quit for a lot of us, especially after the hostile takeover of the comp scene

[lament mica]

You miss the point. Perhaps study that up.

[near pond]

The alternative is to sacrifice the 99% for the 1%

[fleet elm]

There’s no line when it’s random, that’s the point. No arbitrary decision made on who deserves what

[lament mica]

That’s not exactly the correct alternative logic as the base you are challenging is off, let alone that logic being controlling.

A lot of drama for such tiny amounts of variance though.

I am surprised that this imperfection if you will, is what sets some players off over others, particularly in comparison to a number of other imperfect queueing systems in life and in games—and even what was done previously in this game.

[stray star]

winrate is dead stat

dpg rising

[lament mica]

Then you never understood

[stray star]

📈

[fleet elm]

Always has been. Fun is falling further

[stray star]

if you play this game for fun you need to switch hobbies icl

td simulator

unless you're the td rat ig

[fleet elm]

I understand why WG did it, the logic is there. Mostly sad that it’s gonna push me out

[autumn light]

i would honestly say the loudest voice in terms of complaints about teams being "stacked" over time have been high win rate players honestly. Like in my time around the game it wasn't "the average joe" who complained the most about a stacked team, it was my super uni friends annoyed that they lost a game because the other team got 5 super uni's and "they never had a chance" or their team got "all the worst players" and so they never had a chance... combined with the lesser spotted "my team got like 6 super uni's and so i couldn't get any damage and messed up my MoE".

If you're being honest i imagine your experience reflects that too. All players were equally impacted by the extremes of the standard distribution and solving this issue was as the core of the change. Doing some quick math earlier around 42% of games would be outside of the "only 1 to 2" variation (number of "the worst pair" on a single team) max that should happen now, the other 58% are games that happened before and should be the 99% that happen now.

[coral zephyr]

I am not a super uni overall. Although the light tanks that I played had/have much higher stats than my average. I never complained about others out-playing me. I always looked at the bottom of the team.

Why did I have most of the useless players? That is what I was concerned about. Regarding the players who out played me, the solution was to try to get better, which is what I did.

I guess that is not normal. I am a stranger in a strange land. I have just been told most people complain that they were out played. They want a system where they don't have more 'better players' on the other team.

[fleet elm]

Well more games are now negatively impacted by the team so obviously it didn’t address that feedback

The only positive feedback I have is that it no longer seems hopeless seeing a super uni platoon on the other team

[coral zephyr]

unless they are two tiers higher than you. Then you are assured a loss.

But I don't play tier 10 like you. However, obviously only playing tier 10 isn't the solution to this mm either. If it was, you would be fine.

[rocky plank]

The current balancing system isn't doing anything right. I'm a Unicum player, so I think I can say I know how to play the game. How can you explain going from an 80% win rate over 20-30 games one day to 17% the next? With crushing defeats... Trying to adjust matchmaking so that less skilled players have a better chance of winning is a race to the bottom, because eventually the good players will leave.

[fleet elm]

That's not how it works. Day to day is and always has been volatile. Hundreds of games are needed to actually see any sort of trend

[rocky plank]

Except that a few years ago such a large age gap was rare, now it happens very often

[fleet elm]

Was it? I've always noticed that I'll have good days and bad days. The difference now is that the good days aren't as good and the bad days are worse

[rocky plank]

For me, bad days are more frequent, and the worst part is that I often have good stats on those days, but that's not difficult when two-thirds of your team can't even deal 1000 damage. I'm sure that if you look at all the players' stats, the average skill level has dropped because Wargaming prefers to ensure a stable player flow and keep the vast majority of players in the game, at the expense of good players with this kind of matchmaking. Wouldn't it be more interesting (or even possible?) to simply balance matchmaking based on each team's overall stats?

[coral zephyr]

The MM of course is setting each match separately. It depends on the composition of who is in the queue. It can either screw you over most matches in a day or hardly any. Or any mix/ratio.

Since you don't know who is playing, you'll never know from day to day or even match to match.

[thin quest]

Did you say the same when you got 100% on a day? Guess not. That's when you were killing it. Best of the best.

[bleak oriole]

My general comment on "the matches were bad" is post a screenshot of the team composition - blur the results if you worry about name & shame. The relevant info is:

• Gamertag
• Vehicle
• Platoon Number (if any)

Or I think that someone made an excel spreedsheet where you can type in the GTs and it will look up everything for you.

[rocky plank]

There's a subtle difference between losing because the opponents were too strong and losing because our allies were disastrous. It's been a long time since I've lost simply because the enemy was superior, but far too often because the allies don't deal more than 1000 damage...

[proud sluice]

this is excactly what happens 8/10 games

[carmine nebula]

BOOM!

[cunning dew]

Wowwwwww

Magic

[coral zephyr]

There is also a big different between have those disastrous players on your team randomly and having them on your team on purpose.

While some jump in and say it is "not every match". It certainly is a significant amount (whatever that unknow amount is). I can confidently say it is significant because some players are going from 60% win rates to near 50% for 30 days.

[paper prism]

I suppose the problem many are reporting got it roots from a fact that MM basically ignores WR and only match tanks in pairs by tier+class. In result WR difference in a single pair can be disastrous or opposite, totally random, which is bad. I guess it won’t be changed since you don’t want to put extra stress on MM.
Anyway.
Once MM is done with matching pairs, a sorting comes in play and only sorts players within a single pair, it goes pair by pair up to last one, assigning a player to one of teams based on paired players WR difference so to keep current total WR difference between teams ideally as close to 0 as possible.
But I guess sorting never goes back to pairs it already processed, right?
And what is unfortunate since sorting mechanic basically doesn’t take into account WR difference of pairs that aren’t processed yet what may and does cause not predictable imbalance after sorting is done.

What I suggest - sorting should first determine WR difference in each matched pair, and only then assign players within a pair to teams. Goals: 1) achieve as close to zero total WR team difference and same time 2) achieve as close to zero of median teams WRs difference.

That would give an option to take advantage of larger scale WR difference data and assign players more effectively and minimise or even avoid scenarios when unsorted pair with a significant WR difference may ruin team WR balance since sorting never goes back to resort processed pairs.

[fleet elm]

No what you’re suggesting would make it even worse than it is now

[paper prism]

Prove it with arguments

[fleet elm]

Equal teams are the issue. Equalizing my skill level requires several bad players. I don’t want several more bad players on my team than the other team

[paper prism]

You say you want bad players but then you say dont want it. Funny. What current WG sorter is aimed to do - actually avoid disbalance scenarios like one you refer. What i suggested - basically tweaks to improve what sorter is already doing, including to minimize odds of scenario you mentioned. Have something against WG sorter - not what my suggestion can address. Ask WG.

[fleet elm]

That scenario I described is pretty much every game for me. And I’m describing balanced scenarios. That’s just what it takes to balance a very good player. There’s no debate. Literally the best we can do is complain and hope the data sucks and WG reverts it

[proud sluice]

When WoT : HEAT comes out and all the players punished by this MM leave to it. I wonder what use the devs of Modern Armor will be to WG? Glad we are getting some competition.

[lament mica]

Sooo you are basically saying go play Cold War now. 😂

Also one percent of the playerbase is not a lot of a threat. 😆

[unique lance]

This isn't the way the sorter works today, as is my understanding. I wish they would document it, so people could have the correct understanding before suggesting further changes. Also I think we should have the stated goal from WG documented too. This way we are all know what we're trying to solve or at least make better. Other things that would help having documented is the data WG had before the change was made and the data after WG made the change. I don't agree that making changes to the sorter or the MM would solve the "Blowouts" that occur. In fact I played 5 consecutive battles yesterday were the match was 10+ to 0, all resulting on myself and a platoon mate on the losing side. I believe these "Blowouts" were actually caused by the very sorting change that WG has put in place. Here's a hint again, of why this occurs is that high winrate players are matched with very low winrate players more then the sometimes more then the other side. There is a HUGE difference between at 40% winrate player and 50% winrate player, in that 40% winrate players almost immediately die, because they don't understand the game at all, while 50% ish winrate players at least know running out and dying doesn't work. I hope WG takes my suggestion and documents these things so we can have a production conversation as a community about the actual issue at hand here and ways to actually help resolve them, vs. tampering with the integrity of the game by forcing some players to be on one side or the other.

Sorry second sentence should say " I wish they would document it..."

I believe this change that WG made is driving the winrates of all players closer to the 50% mark, which ultimately will then totally defeat itself because then the sorting change will have a more difficult time in the future identifying good players vs. worse players. To be honest though winrate is a poor measure of a skilled player vs. an unskilled player. When I say skilled I mean a more knowledgeable player vs. a less knowledgeable player. This is the crux of the problem, is the knowledge gap between players, plus communication is the real reason at issue here.

[unique lance]

The comment here is correct, but I would scratch the 1000 damage part because your clearly talking about a specific tiers here. Which honestly is another actual question I have! Why aren't we looking at the data for each tier, why are we doing this across all tiers? Why wasn't this change made to CW? You don't have CW blowouts?

[unique lance]

Yes, that's were these complaints came from in my opinion as well. MOE driven! I've been around since the beginning of WoTC and I know players would complain that I would have gotten my MOE had it not been for the other players!

[unique lance]

Can you provide more information about how the sorting is accomplished under the change? My understanding is that points are assigned to players based on the total number of battles and the tanks winrate the player has (or if not enough the players overall winrate). Can you or someone at WG provide more concrete information?

[unique lance]

Even maybe an example with numbers, so that people can see what is actually happening with the sorter.

[fleet elm]

@unique lance this is a pretty correct description of how the MM picks players and makes teams. Leaves out platoons but it isn’t relevant

[fleet elm]

They don’t use winrate alone. We call it that for a simplified explanation but WG has a “skill” metric sorta similar to WN8 that they use. There’s always gonna be a spread of winrates, it’ll just be smaller

[bleak oriole]

FYI - I'm PTO after today until the new year - I probably won't be posting in this thread, but I will be monitoring it.

[candid fable]

From an average Joe pov MM is, was and will be atrocious for at least 50% of games.
Too many factors to balance teams.
Platoons, WR, DR, KD, classes, tiers etc.
WG tried but failed imo.

[haughty terrace]

Enjoy your holiday and time off...🎄 🎄 🎄

[fleet elm]

For average joe, WG thinks it has gotten better

[haughty terrace]

I have talked to several of my friends and they think it has gotten better. They are not unicums. However they are all above the 50% win rate.

[fleet elm]

Yeah the primary complaint is by very good players

[candid fable]

What I'm trying to point out is the fact that for me new matchmaking is neither better or worse. Very few close games, some wins or defeats with 5+ tanks advantage and some complete fistings.
Again I speak from my point of view.

[unique lance]

Sorry are you from WG? I never said they only use winrate

[unique lance]

Also, they don't use there own internal score (player rating) in the sorting either. I believe they currently only use number of battles and winrate as I described above, however, I'm trying to get someone from WG to confirm this.

[unique lance]

I don't know if the primary complaint comes only from very good players, however, the more your winrate is away from 50% the more your affected by the current sorting.

By the way, win rate doesn't always indicate very good players, but neither does WN8, which has nothing to do with WG (not a topic for this thread).

[unique lance]

So if your win rate is in the low 40s or upper 60s then your more affected by the sorter then say a 50% win rate player. However, the 40s probably don't notice as much, because they are still destroyed early in the battle and move on, while the 60s notice the number of times they can "carry" is a lot less and results in a lot more losses for them, in turn lowering their win rate.

[unique lance]

Wishing you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

[sleek flume]

While this is an intresting subject, I would like to have been able to see the original posters actual message, and with over 5000 'replies' It takes too long to scroll right up 5k plus replies. This discord is just awkward and WG shudda just kept their forum open.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all.

[near pond]

#1405193097079689458 message

Thankfully filters exist to make finding it easy

[fleet elm]

They have a relatively new ranting system that they use. They very loosely describe it near the top of this thread

[unique lance]

I don't think you know what your talking about and since you aren't WG, I would like to hear from them. This is why I've asked repeatedly that someone from WG document the "Battle Creation" process which would include both the MM and the sorting process. The best explanation I've seen/heard, I outlined above about assigning points based on number of battles and win rate (first for the tank, if enough games or overall win rate if not). There was no detail give for this point assignment system, just general hand waving. Instead of trying to piece information together and use of different terms, it's best that they document the processes involved and then state (document) the actual problem they are trying to solve. Yes, different WG staff have said different things. If they are trying to create a player rating system (which again I'm unaware of), they should say so, document what they are going to use to create it and ask for community feedback.

[unique lance]

I feel your frustration, WG should have documented the current process for MM and Sorting prior to any change being made. Stated the problem they were trying to solve and then documented the changes to the both processes to effect a result. Then asked the community for feedback prior to implementation. Imagine if there was a webpage with this information, you wouldn't have to read through all the comments to understand what's going on, as the comments would be feedback and reaction to the proposed documented change. Also WG staff wouldn't have to repeat themselves over and over and what they say would be consist. We would all be using similar terminology to discuss the subject as well.

[fleet elm]

@unique lance

@unique lance go look through the messages. It’s all there from WG

[unique lance]

It is not and the message you reference includes platoons. I'm trying to keep this simple and not include platoons as platoons complicate things a bit.

[unique lance]

MaxCoal24 didn't say they were using personal rating in the sorter and I don't believe they are. Your confusing everyone by saying so.

Your using the wrong criteria and you didn't have to make this change. You aren't making this more balanced, your putting your thumb on the scale to insure worse players are on a higher win rate players team. I specifically used the word worse here and then didn't use the word good player with the higher win rate because you think they are the same. Win rate doesn't speak to good or bad. YOUR USING the WRONG criteria and trying to solve the problem the wrong way.

[unique lance]

In fact I would recommend if you are a high win rate player to only play in 3 person platoons, which you probably do, to reduce the impact of this change on you.

[fleet elm]

I never said they were using personal rating. It’s a new skill measurement

[lament mica]

This just feeds into it by the way. Same as playing a vehicles with a higher rating. Try to beat the sorter and the sorter will beat you, just later. 😆

[fleet elm]

With the caps that are on personal skill and pair delta, most good players are already (likely) maxed out on their rating in most of their tanks just from playing them pre mm update. There's likely no penalty from platooning

[near pond]

[lament mica]

If the caps are so low then there has been a lot of academic complaining about nothing. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[fleet elm]

I more mean that regardless the cap, most good players have so many battles at high win rate in so many tanks that it’ll take hundreds of battles to get below that cap. Playing in platoons extend that number but people will probably quit before they get awful teams long enough to drop below the cap

[near pond]

Yeah there’s no penalty for platooning

But thanks to the restrictions of logic platooning does have a direct impact on how the game handles players

Whereas the game would have ordinarily likely split those 3 players up between teams. In a platoon the game has to handle the platoon as 1 entity. Then try and select 3 players that the matchmaker has already selected for the match for the enemy team. If Theres another platoon in the match then it will select that regardless of winrate.

[unique lance]

GP your comment makes no sense.

[unique lance]

Then why did you bring it up? Are you suggesting some other solution here? I'm simply trying to get them to document how it actually works and convey why this isn't the solution.

[unique lance]

Exactly Cheese.

[unique lance]

Using win rate is not a solution or certainly won' t be a good solution to address the problem WG is trying to solve, cap or not.

[unique lance]

FYI, it takes about 100 games for my winrate to change 0.01%

[near pond]

It’s the least terrible solution right now

[unique lance]

What's the least terrible solution right now?

[near pond]

Sorting players by winrate

[unique lance]

Absolutely not, it's worse then what it was before.

[near pond]

This system of sorting players is a logistical issue more than anything

[unique lance]

No it's directly incentives people not to get better at the game (wining battles are bad), severely handicaps those that have and will drain the community of knowledgeable players as they quite and go else where.

[unique lance]

I'm not sure what even that means

[scarlet mantle]

First we have to fill up lobbies with bots. Now they implement a form of skill based matchmaking.

I for myself stopped playing right now.

Maybe it’s time to look for a gaming pc and enjoy world of tanks 2.0 🤷🏻‍♂️

[uneven shoal]

They have a free TT for Christmas this year. My laptop can barely run the game, but I downloaded it just to go ahead and make the account so I could start collecting if I ever do switch over

[scarlet mantle]

That’s a great idea and I will get the free tech tree as well? May lap top should handle this at least the download.

[uneven shoal]

I think it runs through early Jan, but I dont know for sure. During WoT 2.0 they gave away 2 TT. Idk if that is still ongoing as well

[scarlet mantle]

If console handles me like that I have no other chance.

[near pond]

Genuinely not a bad idea

I have been wanting a Maus buff for years but that clearly won’t happen.

Meanwhile PC just made the tashenratte

[lament mica]

Sure just keep doing what you’re doing then because that seems to be working for you. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[unique lance]

Let's just say words and hope they make sense👍

[coral zephyr]

I have given up on WW2. It also only seems like a matter of time before the win rate based MM comes to CW. I would trade ALL the other changes to go back to the old MM in WW2.

Yes, I would. What do the equipment, etc. changes matter if the MM craps on me? New UI? All that stuff doesn't matter if the MM is working against me.

So what do I do? I am not going to PC. I am not a PC gamer. But I am not playing WW2 anymore. It was bad enough BEFORE with the amount of terrible players on my team not even shooting at all. Now the MM gives me more.

It turns out I can get a whole separate game for the price of a single premium tank or stack of season chests. So that is what I did. Note this is not a "threat" or anything. Just reality. As such, my time in WOTMA has decreased very dramatically. Just playing the minium daily battles in CW.

I may be one of few players that don't like having the MM work against them enough to just quit playing WW2. I suppose WOTMA is going to find out.

Again either the 'good players' are few enough to NOT have the MM consider them, OR the 'good players' are numerous enough that one can't risk losing them. But like I said. Nothing left but to find out.

[unique lance]

What ever you decide to do, have fun man! I feel your frustration!

[tulip cliff]

It’s not just the winrate loss, which has been effected by skill bace match making, for the top % of players.

The general gameplay and enjoyment of the matches have been affected.

If your team gets stacked with more negative win-rate players, then the orther team.

The game play is effected, you can not take control of the map, gain assistance, make plays. Because your team will do one of two things, sit in the bottom corner of the map and not move to take positions, giving up all map controls. Or die in the first minute of the game.

Unfortunately the enjoyment of solo play and the quality of the gameplay, has significantly dropped in my experience.

Probably the last comment I will make in this post, as I don’t want to come across as I’m whining. I’m genuinely a positive person. But my opinion of the induction of skill bace match making remains unchanged.

[thick cosmos]

Just gonna add a quick question here.
Has it ever been though to use average scoreboard position to balance the matchmaker?

Balance person A against person B with similar scoreboard average.
So on so forth down the list.
Average 2.25 for team one average 2.32 for team two
Average 4.5 for team one average 4.12 for team two etc etc, all the way down to 15.
Obviously doesn't need to be stated but no one can perfectly average 1.0 or 15 😅

This may also encourage playing your role as xp is given for spotting, assistance, etc

This way neither team can complain about "im high skilled so I get matched with cans" as you're getting matched your opposite? You average finish is 3rd place? Your getting matched with someone who averages the same if not very close.

To avoid new players coming in winning two matches and screwing the avg you could have anyone under 50 battles or sumn be classed as "New player"

Thoughts?

[lament mica]

This is essentially what the equipment and commander skill changes were meant to do—slow the game down, make it more team based, make it more strategic. Prevent a single player from being able to react quickly to the other team. All teams are reacting appropriately—hide in the back or rush as a group because as often said for the last 11 years, you can’t count on your team.

[fleet elm]

Impractical. It would require recoding the matchmaker, something that WG is very unwilling to do. This change barely required any coding, just a simple modification to the existing matchmaker

[thick cosmos]

Is the only reason its impratical the fact it requires an overhaul? Because if so i dont see it as impractical 😅

[fleet elm]

Impractical bc WG won't consider it lol. It's also a bad solution, queue times are hard if you aren't matched nobody wants longer queues just for being really good (or really bad)

[lament mica]

So if you are top of bad teams you continue to get bad teams? This seems way worse for good players. Maybe I’m reading it wrong.

[fleet elm]

He's saying to pair players with other players with similar average placements. Your thinking is just what it is now.

[lament mica]

Yeah so if you get a bad team you are equal to a guy with a good team—both on top. That’s hardly right, let alone the considerations for under tier or tanks with extra xp that routinely place you higher. Team gets demolished—whelp you are just as good as that team that had a uni platoon. Or heaven forbid having bot teams.

At least with the current system there teamwork is better considered. Winning should be the focus of the game. If it isn’t, might as well just play PvE.

[proud sluice]

the vibe is off for sure

[thick cosmos]

Nah average it over number of games played excluding new players

[scarlet mantle]

You was right… with a new account u get 2tt till tier 10
👍

[unique lance]

The scoreboard is base on experience, which is not an indication whether someone is skilled or not. I don't this XP should even be on the scoreboard and it certainly shouldn't be sorted by it either. If your going to rewrite the part, this isn't the solution in my opinion.

[unique lance]

"Winning should be the focus of the game." I couldn't agree with this statement more! WG should be doing things that encourage people to achieve this period, rather then trying to pursue solutions that don't achieve this and actually incentives people not to win.

[noble siren]

Match maker is broken

Even in toy mode, you can get 10 losses in a row. Not to mention the Cold War and World War II, where 20 losses in a row is the norm. People will soon stop playing this garbage dump if nothing changes.

[lament mica]

While there may be those issues—the match maker here for discussion is only WW2 as they all three are different.

[tawdry sky]

I want to say that like 50% of my WWII matches are bot matches.

[scarlet mantle]

If you notice that you are riding a dead horse stop riding.

[abstract fog]

Which Tiers?

[tawdry sky]

8-10. Time, 9am-3pm MDT

[abstract fog]

Ok. Don't play Tier 8 much any more and have always disliked T10. But Tier 5 and 6 about one third are Bots, Tiers 4 are 5 about the same, Tiers 1 to 3 at least 50%. Of course its worse now due to Toy mode and next the Krampus OP.

[grand garden]

I don't think it's right to treat players with a high win rate as if there's something wrong. Furthermore, intentionally close matches are no fun.
I'm sorry to keep saying this, but some of the players who lose in this game are irresponsible and immoral, such as going AFK or ignoring the role of vehicles.
A system that benefits such players can't be right.

[fleet elm]

At the end of the day, players super negatively affected are super rare. WG seem to be ok sacrificing our playing experience for the “greater good” as they see it

[grand garden]

You seem to be right. However, this method has an even more serious problem.
For example, even if a player has a win rate of over 60%, if this continues over the long term, it will slowly drop to 50%, and they will become indistinguishable from players with a lower win rate. However, differences in ability still exist, so in the end the original goal of "eliminating large differences in matches" is not achieved.
Or, players with a win rate above 60% will see their win rate drop or retire, and the next players to be affected will eventually see their win rate drop to 59%, 58%, etc. In the future, the impact will spread to players who are not currently affected.

[fleet gyro]

Nice idea. But there is only a few ways to stop the win rate. I dont like it when im fixed as a loser

just give the spuds bot matches to feel good about them selves. Cause id rather have bots my side than players below 500wn8.

[grand garden]

I'm sorry if my English is strange. What I'm saying is, "Because this is what happens, you shouldn't do matching that takes win rates into account."

[fleet gyro]

My hard earned win rate is Sabotaged by wging saying, its your turn to lose. If it goes 15-8 in 3 minutes, you know you got the bumble bees that match

well, why, just get a bunch of bots to throw?

it wastes my, time, effects damage both ways, (if you survive the steamroll, you likely do good damage due to target rich environment). But you dont know when you have them

Maybe i should hang at back, say stuff the win. Il just sit here and farm like the idiots, the CCs and the "good" players. And just farm WN8

Why put the effort in, why take the risk

Just stay at spawn, the spuds will have left a flank open anyway, soooooo. IM STILL WASTING 5 minutes.

Poorly executed. Yeah the MM broken, this hasnt fixed it.

And it doesnt help the passivity problem the game has atm either. Bunch of dumb campers is all that is left.

[fleet gyro]

That wasnt all 4u. When i weigh in, im all in.

what was for you that missed was, wging could only get my winrate down with me noticing. Nothing they can do (fair) except put out a team of "hunters". On red team, aka, a toon of bots, who only want 50%+ and have the riens taken off them, (good bots)

i still get my battle. All i want is a game of tanks.

[unique lance]

I've made this point multiple times in this channel

[unique lance]

I've also made this point as well, more experienced players will play even more conservative and get there "stats", but at the experience of the team trying to win the match, because they know the match is already a loss, because it was stacked by WG against the more experienced player.

[unique lance]

ie...my points above about WG now not incentivizing winning, which was the primary purpose of their game. When a game company abandons the primary purpose of their game, there's unfortunately not much left and things begin to fall apart pretty quickly.

I've played for almost 12 years and I've already informed by gang/group I play with, this would and will be the reason I leave this game. I don't say that easily and I'm trying to give WG a chance to back this change out, but I'm running out of patience (that they don't deserve).

[viscid gorge]

Ragebait

[fleet gyro]

I dont know how to play game not crazy ivan. Honest i play eager, and my WR comes from it. Aggro,

[fleet gyro]

Insulted farming "super uni"

just as muppeted as the 500wn8

[viscid gorge]

"Jarvis, say something outrageous and then call them names when they call me out"

[fleet gyro]

I was a Verb, else it would just be Muppet.

[viscid gorge]

The idea that "I'm going to throw the win and farm like the CCs" is so illogical considering they win more

That's all there is to it

[unique lance]

Not sure what your saying here, you can play the game anyway you want. How you play is up to you.

[viscid gorge]

Alas though, this thread isn't about that

[fleet gyro]

I cant wait. Im still learning patience. But right now the game needs something and this goes in wrong direction

[unique lance]

I agree that the change to the sorter, to consider win rate, is the wrong direction, but I also think they are trying to solve the wrong problem, in my opinion (IMO).

[fleet gyro]

I mention stats, i dont honestly give 2 hoots. But 500wn8, 37%. Is actively hurting the team, in at least half of their battle. They afk until they spotted, they picture in picture while watching sport, they get youngling to grind. Considering 800 wn8 45% is push forwards and RBRT.

I collectively call these the "stupids", <500

Just make sure each side has equal numbers of them in first place

[unique lance]

This thread isn't about stats, which you probably know. However, I think I understand what your trying to say and I do agree that they shouldn't be sorting the players by win rate, the way that they are, because it creates the potential imbalance your speak of. I kinda think of it this way there is a very big difference between players with 40ish% win rates and 50ish% win rates. When a 60ish+% gets stuck with more 40ish% win rate players, the game is stacked against that team. Again, in IMO win rate shouldn't be consider at all to solve the problem WG has said they are trying to solve - "Blowouts".

[fleet gyro]

fair play, there has to be some "stacking" going on, if we want a proper fight more of the time. But the difference between 37% and 45% is huge. 37% means you straight away 1 or 2 guns down. And the likely not help getting to battle either so you dont get their HP, so it really was 13vs15. Can i just have some bots instead?

So You lets say totally discount the stupids. <43%. You share the stupids. Then you start stacking deck?

[unique lance]

Why does there need to be "some stacking" going on? Can you explain?

[fleet gyro]

else id have 65% WR with 2k wn8

i think im 58 atm

a steam roll either way is bad, its bad for both sides

[unique lance]

Again this isn't about WN8, which isn't anything WG has to do with

[fleet gyro]

it helps slower tanks too

[unique lance]

a "steam roll" or "blowout" which ever way you want to say it, is neither bad or good if you don't understand why it occurs in the first place.

[fleet gyro]

Yes, but i maintain almost 60% solo. Toon me up, we win 75%

[unique lance]

Platoons is a whole different convo, but solo play is very impacted for players with 60ish+% win rates.

Just so it's understood, "Blowouts" still occur, they haven't been eliminated and will never be eliminated.

[fleet gyro]

Well both modes do it in different ways. And i accept WoT snowballs hard. But 13vs15 is still not right

[unique lance]

Do you believe WG should pull the current logic in the sorter? Yes or No, what we do beyond that should be a discussion in my opinion.

[unique lance]

I would vote to pull the logic that was introduced in the sorter. Then I would document how the MM and Sorter work. State the problem that we would like to solve and have discussions about the problem so it can be fully understood. Then potential solution might be identified and we could get community feedback on the potential solutions and try them as a test continuing to get feedback on the results.

[fleet gyro]

My adjustment above should stop the total wash out when its our turn. It swings less. WoT has always needed a better MM, at least after 10 years they trying.

[unique lance]

I don't think the MM is the whole problem

[fleet gyro]

Id adjust this. Its sensible, as most analysis Requires you to remove outliers before you start anything. I Really really wish 37% was an outlier

[unique lance]

I didn't ask about your adjustment....the first step is pull or leave the current logic. It's that simple...having a discussion about the solution(s) isn't the first step.

[fleet gyro]

Dont pull, it needs to be done. Go 3 mark a Tog, you need your team to lose slowly

[unique lance]

You understand your only dealing with at most 30 players at a time right? This isn't statistic, where you need to consider outliers.

Then when you throw platoons in it's even less impact, so the 30 isn't even that.

[unique lance]

Wow so you would vote to leave the current logic in, well that's certaining your opinion, and your entitled to it. How I couldn't disagree more.

[fleet gyro]

Well if you give me your 37% for all my 45% im losing. And losing hard, im lucky if team even move. The ARE outliers because it actually takes afking, trolling arty, camping behind arty to get 37%.

dead weight

[unique lance]

This is exactly what at 60ish+% win rate player gets under the current logic.

[fleet gyro]

it take effort to be that bad

[unique lance]

No it actually doesn't, but it does take a lot of effort to have a 60ish+% win rate

[fleet gyro]

yeah, i dont mind them losing, just stop losing so dam quickly, three marking a tank?

[fleet gyro]

does it?

[unique lance]

Yes, to solo play and get high and higher winrate, takes a lot of effort. Certainly much more then a sub 50%.

[unique lance]

What does marking tanks have to do with the sorter logic? I personally try hard not to mark tanks and have asked WG for an option to remove them from my tanks.

[fleet gyro]

Well, im ok with the 40+, 50% chance they get off spawn. 37%ers have a habbit of afk until they spotted, while walk around house doing chores. ZERO gaming etiquette. Is a sacriment if iv pressed launch. If i was busy, id have the manners to play farcry instead

So you HAVE to totally discount them from calculation. They are door stops, book ends. Sry both of those are usful. You have to share the stupids and then do exactly what they trying

[unique lance]

Again your talking about issues that have nothing to do with the sorter, definitely a problem in the game, but nothing to do with the sorter. Not the thread to address here. However, your entitle to your opinion, and I don't think the current logic is good for the game and does more harm then good. Don't solve the issue of the stated problem and I really question if it even makes it better, though WG has claimed such.

[unique lance]

Good luck to you and happy tanking

[fleet gyro]

It has everything to do with WR. 42% might be there, might take a hit for you. The 37% just pressed go and walked the dog.

[coral zephyr]

IF ANY balancing was attempted, this would be the way to do it. I 100% agree it is the people not doing anything and/or actively sabotaging their teams that are hurting the game.

Just balance the really bad people and let everyone else land where they may. That way "good players" are randomly assigned and NOT negatively effected by MM design.

[unborn pagoda]

Yeah this is utterly god awful

Two marked two tanks recently and getting the last percent was absolutely horrid because of the matchmaker

If wg is gonna slime up the matchmaker gives us +1-1 then at least I can be happy about THAT

[fierce hazel]

Literally cannot play solo as a 70%winrate player because if I play solo in ww2, it's 4v13 within a minute or two, like wtf.

9/10 games have been bottom tier with every single top tier tank doing less than 1000 damage, average wn8 has been 920 for all top tier players on my team

[thick cosmos]

Im gonna call this out, whats your GT

[devout wyvern]

Sorry to call you out but MM doesn’t work like that (9 out of 10 bottom tier) unless you are doing low tier seal clubbing. In addition new mm has 0 impact on your tier positioning.

[near pond]

The best part is it wasn’t the matchmaker that was changed. So that whole thing is a placebo effect.

[viscid gorge]

It can do that if he keeps switching tiers/tanks

[fierce hazel]

Drop yours or DM me, I'd rather keep my account private, but I can completely provide proof.

[unique lance]

The sorter is what was changed to consider winrate

[near pond]

I am aware. I have been in at least 6 arguments about it in this thread

[fleet elm]

It’s effectively the same. I’d even argue against WG’s definition. Matchmaker to me is the process of taking queued tanks into battle and the sorting is part of that. The changes are no placebo

[near pond]

The changes are not placebo. But what everyone keeps attributing them too 100% is

[fleet elm]

When people say the mm they mean the whole process. The technical definition is wrong but they mean the sorter, the act of balancing teams based on skill

[fierce hazel]

People just like to be pedantic

[unique lance]

Yes, and I've repeatedly asked WG to document the entire process so that everyone can understand the entire process. Also, everyone would be able to use the same terms.

[unique lance]

For those that are challenged with "pedantic" (ie...precise, exact, etc.)

[fleet elm]

they have explained it all. The issue is that it’s in a combo of multiple threads and dms. A proper article would do wonders (see basic game mechanics and MOEs for similar lack of documentation)

[near pond]

There’s a difference between being pedantic and making sure people know what they are complaining about

[devout wyvern]

This. All tinfoil hat stuff flying around only frustrates people and creates pointless arguments. Simple articles would be real QoL improvements.

[modest ivy]

12/29 22%WR
12/28 50%WR
12/27 30%WR
12/26 37%WR
12/25 50%WR

This MM and game is an absolute joke. I am seriously about done. I’m not a great player, career WN8 is 2100 and WR is 53% but these teams, this MM… since the change has been an absolute joke. I’d rather have the 0-15 blowout games back than deal with this. It is so infuriating and defeating. I don’t even want to play anymore.
How is anyone having fun and enjoying the game?

[uneven shoal]

I will say, teams are almost always worse around the holidays. I’ve noticed they seem more imbalanced the past 2-3 days though. Several instances of multiple 0s on one team and none on the other

[coral zephyr]

Something like Winterfest with lots of earn ops and an event mode will completely destroy the integrity of the pvp modes. It is not necessary the mm.

Players simply care little about trying to win, etc. Even less than normal. "Big" earn ops several years ago would do the same thing. Now it is even worse.

[autumn light]

12/24 75%
11/16 58%
11/15 64%
11/12 78%
11/10 80%
11/8 55%
11/7 63%
11/6 100%
11/2 63%

The days you picked were 43 battles out of the 558 in the past 90 days. The days i picked are 91 battles, a larger sample that all have better than career average - are those also the fault of the mm? In those 90 days you averaged 54.3% win rate, higher than your current career average of 53.1%. And for full accuracy, more than 230 of your battles were in CW, where literally nothing has changed.

[near pond]

[modest ivy]

Right. It is mass hysteria. It's all in our heads. My WR remained the same or better when playing CW where there are no MM changes, but my WR absolutely tanks in WW2 where the MM changes are present. You literally just said it yourself. It doesn't matter though. I don't want to argue anymore, or end up saying anything I'll regret later. After today/tonight I'm just done with this game and the playerbase. It's not fun or engaging to play anymore. I'm just going to move onto playing WoT PC or something else.

[unique lance]

How do you know the days that you picked he wasn't platooned? It's a lot worse when your not platooned. 60+ win rate players are not making the impact up. Are you just trying to frustrate people so they stop providing feedback?

[unique lance]

My historical win rate was 64.14% and rising prior to the change in WW2. It is now 64.11% (at 75k in battles is takes lot to change my overall win rate), the last 30 days 60.74%, the last 60 days 60.60%, the last 90 days 61.63%. I guess I'm just getting worse at the game, right? Especially, when my other stats don't reflect this. Actually, I have to try harder to win every game then before and some are impossible to carry, because I'm out numbered 6:1, 7:1, 8:1, 9:1, 10:1

Even platooned you can still notice a considerable difference.

This data is completely observational, but I've noticed more "blowouts" in the last 90 days then I have in the last 12 years.

How's the documentation and article coming explaining the MM and Sorter?

[fleet elm]

Lol you know that'll never happen

[fleet elm]

We don't play the same game as everybody else. Somewhere in the range of 1/4 to 1/3 of games have even one player >55% winrate. Your experience playing the game doesn't represent the norm that WG is trying to measure and correct for.

[unique lance]

Oh so they are only trying to prevent "blowouts" for players with <55% win rate (while punishing those that are achieving higher success at it)? The original games primary purpose was to win the battle, so WG is changing their primary objective of their game? Again, I believe this is the wrong way to even help those players who are achieving <55% win rates. There are multiple factors why people experience "blowouts", only one of them is the other team is stacked! However, now, if you are an experienced player achieving >55% win rate, it's almost always stacked against you. This is completely illogical on multiple levels and so is a total lack of effort to try and fix this specific problem by WG. The real problem is the lack of understanding most people have about how to play the game. The next problem is the lack of communication players use to play their strategic 15 v 15 game. There are more issues, but trying not to write a book here. All of these are a larger problem then "Blowouts", because these issues are the causes.

[fleet elm]

Seeing as how WG has said a few times that they’re seeing some improvements to their targeted metrics, it seems like it’s a success to WG. It comes at our expense but that trade off seems worth it to WG. I don’t think they’re missing anything. We’re just being sacrificed for their “greater good”

[coral zephyr]

Seems like retaining long term players would be a more important metric than others.

[fleet elm]

Yes exactly. Long term average skill players are a far larger group than >55% winrate players. WG wants to retain them, and especially the bad or new players

[uneven shoal]

In my experience, it feels like the game is moving towards a new player base. There’s a decent amount of long term players around, but the skilled ones have been slowly dropping.

I’ve played the game a decent amount the past few days, but my motivation hasn’t really been there. I know if I want to consistently have high performing games I need to play tanks (T110E5 for example) to carry my team, and I just don’t feel like doing that rn.

[fleet elm]

I'll be honest, I'd rather just have a better defined sbmm with an updated reward structure. Make an ELO system or something, have periodic rewards and soft ELO resets, etc etc

[coral zephyr]

It simply isn't any fun when you know the MM can push the odds against you. I haven't played WW2 in some time. We randomly got bad teams before. Now we get assigned bad teams MORE often. That is not an improvement, but the last straw.

[scarlet mantle]

Playing on pc since about a week makes me reading this tread more calm now 😄

[wicked steppe]

"The new matchmaker doesn't work against better players"

[near pond]

20 battles is a crazy small sample size for 30 days

Besides. Your 60 day winrate is higher than your career winrate. Even if that is also a tiny sample size

[uneven shoal]

60 avg tier is also 10.14, so def was playing CW

[wicked steppe]

Yup, a game mode I don't want to play, I wanna play WW2

[fleet elm]

Who is saying that? WG says it works against better players

[unique lance]

Your cutting down to many trees!

[unique lance]

Yes, WG would never lie

[fleet elm]

Who’s disagreeing with them lol? We all know we’re getting shafted by the mm. We all agree with WG on what’s happening

[modest ivy]

Working as intended brother. You're supposed to have a low WR in WW2.

[acoustic mist]

Sorry for asking this but again I'm not as good as most of you. But until recently my win rate had stayed above 51% close to 52% now I'm lucky if a 30 day rate is even close to 49% my teams will throw away a 7 to 3 or worse advantage regularly. Why does WG not want us to have a winning win rate? Have they given a logic for this? Are they trying to drive players away to get ready for that new tonk game that they are developing?

[modest ivy]

Well it’s not WG it is WGCB, they are different entities. WG is actually somewhat competent, WGCB is not and honestly hasn’t been in a long time. Even after paingod and jeffgreg left.

According to WGCB it’s all in our head, and the MM is working as intended. Go play CW if you want to retain your WR and have good games. That’s how I took it.

[wicked steppe]

Greenpeace after me

[wicked steppe]

Obscene

[fleet gyro]

The tier difference in CW means you will notice less. You notice when you look up and are 10 guys down.

[fleet gyro]

if you both think that is a lot of trees, both of you need to go learn your camo game

[near pond]

[fleet elm]

That's not what WG is saying. They're saying suck it, it's real, your suffering is worth the marginal improvements in blowouts, deal with it

[modest ivy]

Yes.

[modest ivy]

Still boggles my mind how Im only able to pull a 30%-40% WR in WW2, but in CW where the MM hasnt changed I'm back at a 60%-70% WR. I guess I really am losing my mind and need to check myself into a mental institution.

The game and MM in WW2 is clearly fine and working as intended.

[unique lance]

I pretty sure I'm good on my camo. I was joking with Ceptava.

[unique lance]

I assume this is sarcastic?

[modest ivy]

Yes.

[lament mica]

How many games do you have in CW?

[modest ivy]

1359. CW career WR of 55%. How many games do you have?

[acoustic mist]

I have over 123K battles & that's with taking 3 yrs off. I don't play nearly as much & I never have free XPed through tanks I grind them out. (Not that it makes a difference my stats would still be bad). The point of me telling you this is that I may not have the skills but I have the experience & knowledge.

The WWII MM is seriously flawed & there is a reason the PC has so few people that they let mess with it & why they are so reluctant to make changes. The console should have left well enough alone & not have tried to reinvent the wheel.

[grand garden]

Lately, I've only been playing Krampus events, and even in this mode, there are players who are gaining XP without dealing any damage. This may seem unrelated to this thread at first glance, but it has a significant connection.
This type of idling is not uncommon in WW2 or CW PvP matches. I've been reporting idling for years, but I haven't noticed any decrease.
A system that adjusts based on win rate and other performance factors means that everyone approaches a 50% win rate, which increases the efficiency of unsportsmanlike earning through idling and other such behaviors.
Naturally, including idling players can make a big difference in match outcomes. One of the root causes of this problem is not the gains or losses of players with a certain win rate, but the fact that WG is failing to weed out unsportsmanlike players.

Additionally, during the Krampus event, we frequently saw multiple accounts belonging to regiment members named XYZV earning XP without dealing damage. We suspect this is coordinated or intentional behavior by multiple accounts, and that the accounts may even be being bought and sold. This is just a guess, though.

[autumn light]

PC tried something like 8 (3/7/5, 5/10, +-1, +-5, +-2, lt mm, etc) or more variations and changes to their MM before doing a ground up brand new one that launched with 2.0 a few months ago. The literal opposite to reluctant to make changes and left alone. It's probably the most changed aspect to the core game since launch with the most changes, and will likely be somewhat forever like that as it tends to be one of most blamed things and an area where it can always be improved without overhauls to other parts or even the rest of the game.

[grand garden]

I just thought, maybe the wot console operators benefit more from letting people play CW than WW2?
This is just a guess, but for example, the income from WW2 means they have to pay license fees to the operators of the PC version of wot, but that's not the case for CW.
If that's the case, this long thread is pointless and makes me laugh. It's just harassment to get people to switch to CW. If you want to play WW2, you'd be better off playing it on PC. (There's no intention to steer people to the PC version.)
I'd appreciate it if you took this half-jokingly.

[autumn light]

The system being discussed in this thread may narrow the win rate spread but it doesn't try and force a 50%. To force a 50% it would need factor in win rate when it selects the 30 players, which it doesn't. Nothing with the current system stops a game having only 1 player with a 55+% win rate in the entire game, the concern raised is that said player would end up with (up to) 14 of the worst players from the 29 remaining on their team to overcome their higher win rate making it is harder for them to win - not making them only win 50%. Even some of the most against the changes people here can attest to it hasn't and won't force a 50%.

In terms of people AFK'ing, that exists in every game on every platform. It will never go away no matter what we do. But, AFK'ing is uncommon, it's a small fraction of people in a small fraction of games. It likely feels more prominent because if playing for a week and we have 199 battles with no AFK person but 1 with, next month we will remember that 1 far more then the 199. Extrapolate that out and you can play 5k battles and remember very little to nothing of over 4.5k of them, but the 500 with the epic moments and also inversely annoying/terrible moments are what we remember most. And for funsies (and survival instincts) we are hardwired to remember negative stuff more and stronger 😅, so they'll be even more prevalent in our memories.

[autumn light]

None of that is true, just FYI we are the same company and no one pays fees to anyone

[lament mica]

Almost 10k of my almost 75k. Asking in part b/c believe they've said CW considers games played.

[lament mica]

With your games played you are probably slightly better off now under the newer system because previously it balanced in part on games played. This would give you the newer players regardless of the 3 uni's that may end up on the other team if those uni's were lower game count. Number of games played was and is still considered but it seems they've lowered that factor, similar to win rate. Seems you took a break for most of that team balance based on games played.

[unique lance]

It doesn't force it, but it's driving everyone towards, because of what you just outlined.

[unique lance]

How's that transparency with the documentation coming along? Made any progress on documenting how the MM and Sorter work, so that everyone can see, understand and use the same terms?

[grand garden]

I said that the win rate will approach 50%, but of course I don't think it will be exactly 50%.
You also seem to be saying, "Don't worry, even people with high win rates won't drop to 50%, so don't worry about it." I'm not sure if that was intentional, but it misses the point I made earlier.

I'm concerned about unsportsmanlike behavior and the increase in win rates of accounts that leave matches idle.

You also seem to be saying, "AFKs won't go away, so don't worry about it," but I also agree that it's impossible to completely eliminate them. Starting a match could set your house on fire. However, for example, nowadays, I think that if a player is inactive for a certain period of time, they can switch to bot mode, strip the player of that match's achievements, and warn or punish the account. In any case, we can see better measures against AFKs in other games.

That said, I appreciate your recent efforts to improve the play experience.

[acoustic mist]

You are right they did but after how many years. BTW how long was this change to console tested in Supertest before going live?

[autumn light]

"How long was it tested"
A few months on 1 server, for the brand new mm. Not years.

For all the other changes? They weren't. They went live. The exact same way, because you can't really test mm changes anywhere but a live server. So all you can do is run simulations using known data and then adjust based on those results.

[autumn light]

I didn't say any of the things you said I said, not even close. For the driving to 50% win rate thing I pointed out that is factually not how it works.

For the AFK thing, I said it is not a "common" thing as you said and therefore it isn't the scale you are concerned about. Also, for your fix suggestions, these already happen. If you are AFK for an entire game you get 0, if players are repeatedly reported for AFK they will get banned, etc. So my point was that we already take measures and it is a very small scale thing, so it having the ramifications you are saying is extremely unlikely.

But yes, the changes of the last year or so have all been directly addressing issues raised and hopefully will continue to improve overall gameplay experience for all players - even it will sometimes need fine tuning.

[wooden snow]

I have an advice. Try playing a game in Cold War multiplayer in the Centurion 9 and see how you do.

[autumn light]

The changes in this thread are about mm in WW2 only. Cold War didn't change and hasn't, afaik, since launch

[wooden snow]

But CW needs some changes.

[autumn light]

Well beyond the sudden shift, feel free to create a thread (or see if one already exists) for changes to the CW mm. This thread isn't related to that and as all over the place as it gets, we should try and keep it as on topic as possible.

[wooden snow]

Many threads were created and many of them were ignored.

[unique lance]

No reply?

[unique lance]

No update or even rely?

[near pond]

[fleet gyro]

Ty, for calling out the bottom feeders

[fleet gyro]

then Y havent we got all those juicey PC maps for CW already? Please, pretty please.

[fleet elm]

That’s the goal of the system. Each match has a more fair distribution of team. Why does that need a reply when it’s the baseline goal?

[unique lance]

Disagree completely, each match doesn't have more fair distribution, the current way they are doing it. People are getting screwed and the result is driving those players closer to 50%. Which, in end when all these players have dropped closer to 50%, then it will be doing exactly what it did before, because it can't tell how much some one can affect a battle and then players will keep on complaining. This isn't a solution now, nor will it be a solution in the future. Besides the fact, the stated goal was to reduce "blowouts" not produce fair matches. This is why this all needs to be documented and shared with the player base (if they want to be transparent). Your completely wrong about matches being fair, this simply isn't true.

They haven't even really define a "blowout" either, so good luck getting them to be honest about any results.

[fleet elm]

There will always be stratification with the current system. I'm easily maintaining above 55% win rate as is. Of course matches aren't fair, the system just makes them more fair. Less blowouts means that matches are more fair btw, but so does everyone's win rate getting closer to 50%.

And it's not about being absolutely fair, just more fair

[fleet elm]

Players would disagree on what a blowout is. I think they're way less common than people think. A 12-0 finish might not be a blowout depending on how it's difined

[unique lance]

Your clueless and pointless to discuss this with, as you just contradicted yourself. I just looked at your stats and your win rate was 62.61% on 12/1 and now is 62.58% on 1/5. Thus a downward trajectory.

[unique lance]

If players disagree about what the problem is then why is WG persuing a solution to a problem not yet defined? Again, the problem should be defined, so that we could measure any solution against stated problem to understand the results. But maybe logic is lost on you.

[unique lance]

I have and will continue to recommend WG not use general terms, such as "Blowout" or "More Fair" as these are subjective terms. If they define the terms and give them non-subjective definition, such as a "Blowout" is 12-0 then people would be in a better place to agree or disagree with any solutions results. I would again agrue WG does this on purpose, just like not documenting how this all works. WG doesn't want it to be clear, so that you and I agrue about vague terms in a discord channel, while they go on doing what they want to do without real player feedback.

[fleet elm]

I'm so confused. I've said everyone is getting closer to 50%. I've said 55% is easy for me even after the changes. 55%<62%. My overall winrate is dropping since I'm winning less now than I did before. What here is a contradiction?

[coral zephyr]

There is only one solution if you don't like the new WW2 match maker. The solution is don't play WW2 anymore. That is pretty much it.

One can play CW. YES, CW can and will be full of random yoloing, camping, wolf packing, etc. etc. But at least it is RANDOM (for now).

Since the WW2 tanks that I played had ~60% win rates, I would get the bad players on my team at a noticeably higher rate than normal. So, I left. That appears to be the only option. Adding more comments to this thread doesn't seem to be changing the MM back. I think they even said they aren't changing it back.

[unique lance]

Generally I would have to agree with you, that the only real option right now is not to play. However, the only thing that I've seen WG say is that they are still monitoring. I've not seen a statement by WG that they aren't changing it. Just to be clear we're talking about the sorter not the Matchmaker, because that seems to confuse them.

[unique lance]

There are strategies to keep your win rate higher then others, so I'm not saying you won't be able to maintain a win rate higher then 50%. I take issue with your definition of "Fair" even "Fairer"....It is not Fair to stack the team against any player period. To undermine the integrity of the game to assist players in this way is not, nor should ever be the direction whether it's directly as it is now, or in EOM situation either. At best the "snake" method described above, 10,000 lines up, is "Fairer" then the current implementation. I'm not arguing that changes can not or should not be made, but I think we should understand what we are trying to solve for and measure whether the solutions brought to bare are resulting in the targeted change without adverse effects. WG never had a real problem statement other then some bullet points presented above about game duration and blowouts. None of the bullet points where defined with measurable criteria. Then no solutions where purposed, however, a solution was implemented without the players feedback. Resulting in a situation, where they see match times being slightly longer, but can't really describe whether the blow out situation is better or not, because they never defined it.

[unique lance]

I think match duration is a joke of a problem personally, as you can simply make match duration longer by simply adding HP to every tank in the game if that was a big problem, which it is not. As I've stated before, there could be many ways to solve the problems, but you have to first really understand what your trying to solve. I would argue, and have before, all of this is primarily due to lack of player knowledge in how to play the game. WG apparently has decided. "Oh people don't understand our game, okay how can we change our game so they don't have to." I have feedback on how to provide and incentives players to acquire knowledge on the game, but that's a completely separate discussion thread.

[fleet elm]

I play 100% solo and there's nothing really you can do beyond that to boost winrate. For the record, I'm 100% against whatever this sbmm is. It's unfair to players but the match itself is more fair since each team is similarly likely to win

[unique lance]

First, there are strategies even 100% solo! Second, I appreciate you stating clearly you are against the current solution. However, here is the contradiction in your argument about "fair", no you don't know the probability is 50/50, even if the total numerical win rates where 50/50. There is a huge difference between players knowlege of how to play the game of 50-55% vs. 45-50%. Thus, when stacking the teams as they are now, the probability is not 50% for both teams, though the numerical win rates might be even.

[unique lance]

Also let's be clear here... WG has not disclosed exactly how they are scoring the sorting of players. We know it's a point system which comprises(uses) win rate (first tank, then player) and number of battles to assign points to players. How this is done has not been shared. However, the results are pretty clear at this point that players with 60+ win rates are adversely effected, in that they aren't able to maintain those historical win rates.

[unique lance]

Also let me say, I do understand what your trying to say, and this is exactly how WG would try to frame the situation as well. "Making it unfair, makes it more fair." This isn't a logical argument and the only way you can say this is to use subjective terms where the literal meaning of the term "fair" changes in the statement itself. Please understand, I'm not picking on you, I just want WG to be clear and honest with us both. I do think we're on the same side here.

[fleet elm]

I mean the strategy to win solo is just to be good lol

[proud sluice]

the games feel so passionless and meaningless now. theres no compete from the playerbase anymore

[proud sluice]

Did you guys every consider that these changes would make a very homogenized milque toast experience? 99% of games are exatcly the same. boring.

[proud sluice]

28 battles yesterday 21% winrate yippie thanks for the balance

gotta work my way down to having balanced games again!

[fleet elm]

lol you’re at 55% in the last month in tier 9 and 10

[proud sluice]

yeah look at my current session and last session

also every tier9 game basically is with a platoon and 1 nightstalker. cant run more than 1 because you cant get any games in it.

[proud sluice]

the last thing they do is to mess with your tanks stats to help you lose even more. lower pen lower your module health etc. no reason to be clear as mud is this wasnt the case.

[fleet elm]

20 battles aren’t a sample size

[fleet elm]

lol full tinfoil

[proud sluice]

good thing my feedback isnt for you as you arent on the team so pipe down mr always have something to say to someone,

[viscid gorge]

https://tenor.com/view/shrek-shrek-rizz-shrek-hat-tinfoil-hat-tinfoil-gif-3875013234316655688

[weak smelt]

I've definitely had my fair share of matches like this where almost the whole team drives to one side and leaves our flank open for the enemies giving them the win.I just had 4 matches in a row all defeats better players on the enemy team than my team.

[crystal rivet]

I don't even want to see my yesterday's winrate

Hey

55,56%

Not that bad score

[unique lance]

ROFL, your overall win rate is 51.36% and yesterday you played a Sturmtiger with a win rate of 50%...Yeah the sorter doesn't stack teams against you.

[unique lance]

Not trying to do one-ups here, but I had 4 straight matches (all losses) where not only was the team I was placed on bad, but I was in a tier 6 against tier 8s, and the good players on the other side had the 8s. Funny how that works. I of course finished first on my team every time, with 1700 - 2500 in damage all the while the second place on my team didn't even break 1000s in tier 8s. My session yesterday I was 54.55% and I was platooned most of the time. My grandson played a game (in a T-50), on my account (he's 5) and the team won the game, crazy! He didn't do any damage and finished 15th.

[weak smelt]

Pretty much the same experience as me no matter how good I do it's just a loss after loss especially with 6 and 8s

It's a shame with the match maker

[lament mica]

Obviously adjusts rng based on XP earned per minute. 😉😆😱😇

[near pond]

Careful. Someone might actually take this seriously and regurgitate it later

[coral zephyr]

Of course, matches will have worse gameplay now. Better players are being discouraged to play. So the overall skill level or whatever you want to call it will be lower than it was before.

Less strategy, etc. more random plays or no plays whatsoever. Campers, yoloers, AFKers will end up being a larger percentage of the population as Good Players pull back, playing less or not at all.

This could certainly lead to a downward spiral in overall strategic gameplay. Not something that happens overnight, but trends over time.

[dapper sentinel]

Could a better tutorial help? One that focusses on strategy more? Now it’s more like drive toward enemy, shoot enemy in the face. Repeat till one of the two is dead.

[coral zephyr]

It's been tried. People simply don't want to take the time to learn to be strategic.

There is a reason why WOT HEAT is in development. WOT thinks that is direction players want to go--causal, fast paced, yolo-style gameplay.

[unique lance]

What actually teaching people to play a strategy game! Stop it!

[unique lance]

It's not been tried correctly and no it hasn't been tried before either. Others outside of WG have tried, but WG has given very little effort to teaching people to play the game, especially with the correct incentives to learn.

[weak smelt]

what an interesting match 7.9k in a BZ-75 match but we lost cause I had to 1v1 an e3 things gold pen is ridiculous and none of my teammates even broke 3k and barely broke 2k

[modest ivy]

100% agree. I've essentially been forced to play ERA1 and ERA2 due to the new MM.

[lament mica]

WG won't even tell players how things function as is. No chance they want players to understand the game. They want players to eat the chilli and not ask about it.

[unique lance]

Yes, that seems to be true based on their actions!

@autumn light how's the documentation coming for the current MM and Sorter? Any progress or updates? I'm sure transparency takes time.

[wicked steppe]

The chilli in question

[cunning dew]

Ooff

[modest ivy]

Tin foil hat time lads.

My last 5 gaming sessions, which have ALL been in CW where the “new and improved” MM is not present. My average win rate combined is 67.53% WR. Yet… I can barely get a 40% WR in WW2 where the “new and improved” MM is present. Really juggles my jimmies.

[cunning dew]

Bro I went from 70% before the update to 57% recents💀its bad. Im finally started to get it back up but its still like 10% lower than before

[modest ivy]

It’s just working as intended my friend. Nothing to see here. We’re all just suffering from mass hysteria.

In all seriousness, it’s really pitiful. I just stopped playing WW2 all together.

[cunning dew]

Only way I can keep it above 65% is with 3 man super uni platoon try Harding the whole time. It should not be that difficult

[wicked steppe]

It would be so simple to revert the change seeing as though it's clearly an awful decision but they'd rather lie and say this was intentional

[ocean pendant]

@lament mica Well WG can f off no money will ever go there anymore..

[near pond]

It is very humorous watching people not understand numbers

[lament mica]

Not so simple because winrate is only the latest thing they added. Basing teams on games played was worse and the iteration before the at least two winrate versions.

[near pond]

Look. I hate to say it. But 70+% winrate just isn’t normal for a game like this and was very likely caused by the game not distributing players evenly enough

[modest ivy]

https://tenor.com/view/sips-tea-sip-gif-25933597

[acoustic mist]

Exactly this has NEVER been a strategic game. It's an arcade F2P gatcha game it has always been that on console & it always will be. Trying to force the majority to play a game that never was will not work. WT & PC are different games & at some point that reality will set in on those who think they can force people to play this game differently after 11 plus years.

[lament mica]

Well there were 5 man platoons that used to be abused by experienced players when many of the rest of us were pretty much noobs.

[near pond]

I am aware

[lament mica]

That's interesting that you two agree since Maxminer thinks so much it should be strategic and get rid of "yolo rush" play styles.

[near pond]

My point stands though. If you have a 70%+ winrate it wasn’t only skill that brought you there. Chances are the odds were stacked in your favour.

[lament mica]

Dang YouTube yolo rushers
https://youtu.be/iv_9H3cqg1o?si=bFBiFiqTSBTHCRyQ

[lament mica]

I don't disagree that may have happened some when it was based more on games played though the degree I don't know. I think platooning, skipping grinds, top crews and premium consumables push ability up. That's a very hot plasma take otherwise. Essentially why would they be favored-- money spent or just a kink in the Al Gore?

[viscid gorge]

70%+ is platooning and playing meta tanks

60-65% is fairly normal

[near pond]

That’s what i mean

Before the changes to how the game distributes players (NOT THE M A T C H M A K E R) there was essentially nothing stopping the game from just favouring some players more than others through pure luck

It’s basically eternalism but for world of tanks

[fleet elm]

That’s just rng though. Getting favorable enough teams to have a winrate skewed more than like 0.5% over 10k battles is basically impossible statistically

[unique lance]

This is not true and you don't actually understand the new sorter. You probably don't even understand math.

[near pond]

I do. We have had BFG and Max in here.

[unique lance]

ROFL, we already know they don't understand math and more importantly are dishonest at best.

[grand garden]

You say you're already taking measures against AFKs, but when I look at the scoreboard, I see that experience points are actually being awarded in most cases. I think they're probably avoiding this by making some minor inputs.
In any case, I see AFKs almost every day I play, and I report them whenever I notice them, but since the game started, it hasn't improved at all, and in fact it seems to be increasing recently.
So I'm arguing that this is not a minor issue, but one of the root causes of the discussion in this thread.
Taking win rate into account when matching means that losing makes it easier to team up with strong allies, so if you can AFK without getting banned, it will be easier to earn experience points.
This is a bit off topic, but in the Krampus event up until recently, I saw AFKs with the same name repeatedly earning experience points, and no matter how many times I reported them, there was no improvement. I have saved several screenshots of the scoreboard.

[near pond]

So….what you know how the sorter works better than they do?

[viscid gorge]

People who AFK in random battles do get banned/suspended btw

[weary siren]

Yeah right. I don’t think anyone has proof to back this up

[gusty hedge]

https://discord.com/channels/630895439520202783/1450454088432226378
You will see the odd post of players who have been banned post about it. Recent Example.

Most don't advertise that they've been banned.

But we do ban players weekly.

https://discord.com/channels/630895439520202783/1336832796957737043
Some others who have posted

[weary siren]

Sure that guy is claiming he has been banned but I’m supposed to just take his word for it?
Taking peoples word in this discord generally isn’t a great idea
I also don’t see anything saying exactly what he was banned for?
Only says “unsportsmanlike behavior” but that could be many different things besides AFK.
One of those players claims to have been banned permanently but is still playing the game?
This is why I do not take anyone’s word without hard evidence

I also see the same player in my matches constantly drive off a cliff and explode at the start of the match and this player has likely been reported hundreds of times and yet I still see this player often.

[cunning dew]

This ^^^

[gusty hedge]

If you won't even believe players saying they are banned, I'm not sure there is anything that can be said to make you believe.

[cunning dew]

It didn't say what for

Unsportsmanship can be for many things

Doesn't mean they were afk

[near pond]

16.12.2025

Wasn’t that around when the christmas event started?

Considering the number of AFKers in that event i think it may be reasonable to assume the 2 are linked

[gusty hedge]

That is the standard ban message. They will all say unsportsmanlike conduct.

[cunning dew]

Thats my point exactly

We dont know if they are getting banned for being afk

[gusty hedge]

If you won't take our word on it, then nothing we say will change your mind I guess. There isn't anything else we can do to "prove" it.

[near pond]

I think what they want is confirmation that the ban was for AFKing in particular

[gusty hedge]

We cannot tell you why a player was banned, that is against the law.

[near pond]

Yeah. Just figured I’d clarify what was being asked

[weary siren]

One of the people in the thread you linked me to said they got banned permanently but their wotstars shows they are still playing battles today, why would I take that persons word or any other random persons word?
Clearly they were incorrect?

[unique lance]

I definitely understand it's impact on 60%+ win rate players, would like for WG to actually share in detail information (documented with terms) about how it works. However, even with that said, this isn't a complex math problem, your dealing with 30 players at a time. There approach is the worst possible solution, unless your goal is to get all the good players to leave your game. Don't worry this probably doesn't impact you.

[unique lance]

Your lazy. Just look up how many players have been banned in the last week and report it. Don't give us links to discord channels, where someone might say they are banned.

[unique lance]

Still no comment or update, they don't even read this discord anymore and only reply to gas light people.

[near pond]

[ocean pendant]

Time to ditch this game....sad to see wg f it up so much.

Its a waist of my time

[near pond]

[fleet gyro]

I wouldnt call that yolo. That is getting fed up of whole teams who were just camped. Its an agro spot in a heavy, no big deal, nothing new. Its really nice compared to the silly CCs we normally get.

[fleet gyro]

If you would put up Monthly reports. In a blind way, or group reasons of bans and total numbers it would go some way to removing a few tin foil hats.

[lament mica]

Yolo

[fleet gyro]

Oh im sry, he got off spawn, how dare he push the camo tanks. E5 does same.

[candid fable]

12 battles, 2 wins 😂😂😂

[lament mica]

You should be sorry. Anyone driving their tank and engaging reds is not playing strategically--yolo rushing. People want this game to be sit back and snipe cupolas strategic like. Counting whether you low rolled or your won/lost on a daily basis is where the real manly action is at. That kind of off the cuff stuff infecting PC will just cause all the noobs to want to play. He should be banned from the CC program for causing unrest.

[fleet gyro]

Some body got to be first https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8koZF-8du78

[fleet gyro]

And btw. I do that in a borsig. Phat gun. Scout borsig best borsig

[wooden snow]

we still beating on dead borse?

[cursive tinsel]

I think really the only thing we can do as a next step is actually get and article or pre and post comparison of things. If the wipeouts and such haven't dropped by much then Id argue why the effort. The battle time is no so difficult to say what would be affecting it more with the QoL changes during it all.

Really why any MM changes should of only been started to look into around this sort of time if the QoL stuff didnt do enough personally.

We are still missing a massive chunk of 'MM gets the blame but not MM fault' being half the tanks needing an actual rebalance and not just here and there, but here we are

[past oak]

This new MM really makes grinding fun. Sure we get bad streaks every now and then but I grinded CW for few weeks and my winrate was about normal. Switched to ww2 3 days ago and this sums up my experience.

[weak smelt]

That's my issue in WW2 if I don't have a tank a defensive sit back type of tank you really cant do anything without getting yolod

I've had so many matches where I get yolod and nothing I could've done about it

[bleak oriole]

As per BAM's announcement, the win % portion of the battle points will be yanked in the next major release (9.8)

[cursive tinsel]

https://tenor.com/view/star-wars-poe-dameron-our-jobs-done-here-lets-go-home-our-job-here-is-done-gif-25199875

[unborn pagoda]

So glad it’s going bye bye. W

[uneven shoal]

Only took almost 6k comments, a spreadsheet tool, etc lol

[fleet elm]

I get the feeling that we didn’t actually win. Our “win” was WG’s metrics not being met by the changes so they reverted it

[coral zephyr]

They tried it. Then observed. That is how you learn. I won't fault them for trying.

That being said. I am glad it is reverting.

[uneven shoal]

Agreed. Still glad they took action rather than continuing on as if nothing was wrong tho

Who knows how much it affected the playerbase numbers

[viscid gorge]

https://tenor.com/view/i-used-to-pray-for-times-like-this-celebrating-gif-6529507804860980052

[native plaza]

TBF alot old players left/taken breaks because of sbmm

[cunning dew]

Same here

I know people that are coming back cause of it

[coral zephyr]

I'm looking forward to playing my tier 8s again.

[lament mica]

And the other metrics being used to divide the teams, they are staying?

[bleak oriole]

There will be some sort of official annoucement - I was paraphrasing what BAM said in the chat.

As I said in the twitch - we make no promise that we lock down the MM implementation.

[fleet elm]

Battles?

[bleak oriole]

And no, I don't know when the official annoucement will be. The announcement will be that we are running to the 9.4 MM config

[lament mica]

What does that mean no promise that WG lock down the MM implementation?

Are you just saying reserve the right to make future changes?

[bleak oriole]

yes

basically, I don't want to introduce new feature to the MM in the future and then you lot go "but you said in the 9.8 that you were locking down all MM development".

[cursive tinsel]

I think if they were maybe drafted and thought more towards and actual ranked mode the further you proceed it makes more sense as that were you would expect to see it.

Its just it being in random battles started throw a bull into a China ship really.

If the ideas can be discussed to a high a level as possible, even if it talks multiple talks it can clear up any issues or potential problem. Ive always been vocal.on it but the order of the changes, then QoL, then other tests, its just became too much that affected how much it alone would actually achieve.

[sharp lily]

Was 9.4 before the sbmm got implemented for the first time or the second iteration of sbmm ?

[lament mica]

Lol not really skill based mm but his first recent post about it summed up Bam's statement that the win percent of the battle points will be yanked.

Note battle points. We are still left with the remainder battle points for dividing teams. Article to come.

#1405193097079689458 message

[modest ivy]

wait... i was told by wg staff and others that the mm in ww2 was fine and working as intended. i even checked myself into a mental hospital

are you telling me i was right the whole time?

wow

[fleet elm]

It was working as intended. It just didn’t get the match length and quality results WG wanted

[unreal hound]

They said that the Games got longer and less steamrolls but apparently not enough to compensate for all the moaning it created.
For example (i dont know the actual numbers) are 1minute longer battles and 3% less steamrolls worth getting pinged everyday in here and have drama every time ?

[sage lynx]

Im quite happy they are changing it back. It really sucked the variety out of the game.

[lament mica]

Lol the biggest moaners will just find something new. Oh noes the Grom is OP now! Must nerf! The question is not will they moan, but what they will moan about.

[fleet elm]

1 min longer battles is a massive amount

[fleet elm]

Grom has always been op though

[lament mica]

Stop with the nonsense argument

[fleet elm]

The grom has been incredibly op since release. That’s just a fact

[viscid gorge]

#1463481535838683157 message I already argued with him over this. You'll get no where

[unreal hound]

Was a random number it can be 5 sec 30 sec or more but WG does not show us the numbers sadly

[fleet elm]

This is the screenshot you should be posting btw. Raw stats are mostly meaningless

[fleet elm]

Not sure you know what nonsense means. I'm pretty sure you were railing against mm being changed back too. At least WG listens to reason

[cursive tinsel]

Hmm, remind me who brought up the Grom in here again?

[lament mica]

Lol relevance is key

[fleet elm]

I’ll help you understand. Nonsense means nonsensical means it doesn’t make sense. So, it makes sense despite being off topic, relevance to the discussion isn’t a consideration. Saying the Grom should be a medium tank is a nonsense argument for example

[sage lynx]

Do we know when they are fixing the MM? When the update is?

[uneven shoal]

Next major update, sometime in early Feb

[sage lynx]

Thanks. I’ll be holding off on playing until then 👍

[cursive tinsel]

Current season finishes on the 3rd so likely then. Watching back through the stream its basically back to normal, so both player WR and tank WR will be removed from the sorting equation. Dev blig going though explaining how the MM actually operates will be out during the week, most likely towards the end of the week.

At around the 52 minute mark for those that want to listen back to what was said.

[lament mica]

Might ask that here:
#1466372959177408606 message

[noble siren]

There still aren't any balanced teams, just as there never were. It's impossible to play this garbage.

[noble siren]

Battles last 3-4 minutes, and one team always has an 11-0 advantage. I haven't seen a single even battle this week. Is it really that hard to create a proper matchmaker? Get tanks from PC. People come here to relax, but instead, they get stress and negativity.

[grand garden]

From what I've seen, it seems like the number of AFKs has decreased significantly since the latter half of January. I used to have several AFKs during my daily play, but now it's down to just one at worst. This has been going on for about two weeks, so I don't think it's a coincidence. I don't think it'll ever be zero, but I'm still really happy that it's noticeably decreased compared to before the first half of January. There are still games where I lose one-sidedly. But I feel that just the fact that AFKs are less likely to be the cause is a big improvement. Thank you.

[sand dock]

The matchmaking is poo

Got a game vs zeek and one-

Good luck

Teams are so ahh

[vale maple]

Teams are worse then ever with new mm

[autumn light]

it's not a new MM, it's the old one

[lament mica]

Yeah it's actually worse.

I feel like WG has changed from arranging the team line up to manipulating the rng. I've never seen so many of my dead on shots fly off while red numpty driving in the middle of the field is pulling off repeated cupola shots or shots to places they must be maximizing their pen repeatedly--eg repeated shots through upper plates.

Just letting you all know how the chilli is.

Should note also--the first 3 minutes maybe slow full of camping, but then the avalanche happens and it still ends off 0-14.

[cunning dew]

All ill say is i love it

Its exactly as it was, and I had no real issues before

Yea theres more steam roles and stuff but overall I think its better. I feel I can now carry my team to a win way more than before

[lament mica]

Steam rolls would actually say you are not carrying.

[unreal hound]

Steamrolls actually mean there is worse balance than before but who would have thought that no balance is worse than Balancing with W/R 🧐.
Who can carry bad teammembers if not a super unicum ?
But now you can have the 2 best players again in one team who will just fight for damage.

[cunning dew]

Thats not what I mean. Yes im obviously not carrying as much in those games but OVERAll I am more often

[lament mica]

So you are carrying a steamroll? And there are more steamrolls you agreed. So the competitive games you could actually be effective in carrying are less. But hey you are carrying more steamrolls now.

Also noticed capping is up.

[coral zephyr]

I think the event mode running the last two week has had an effect on who in in the MM and regular battles. Many were busy working on the 200 point op.

I think this took a significant number of "average" players away from regular pvp. This left higher percentages of lower skill players (who gave up on the event) and higher skill players (who finished the event quickly). My theory is that taking out a large amount of the players in the middle created more extreme matches.

Is it a seismic shift? maybe not. But enough to notice.

[cunning dew]

A steam roles means the enemy team gets absolutely crushed, so that means the team doing thw "crushing" performed better, if you score mvp during that you are helping "carry" your team. Not as much as a close game tho

[lament mica]

So you 1 v 15'd the reds often?

Do you really think having 2 of 3 games being steamrolls is better? Because next is the capping that happens because you can't trust your team. Oh I can put them up 3-4 tanks before eventually succumbing but why should I risk the loss and lower XP now? Better to take my 800 than 400 particularly if I'm running boosters.

[cunning dew]

What?

Im saying me team is steam rolling the enemys?

My team steam rolls the enemies more than they steam roles mine

[proud sluice]

100% they are messing with things beyond how the teams are matched, they never wanted to give the full story on what they did to change the MM. like its some sort of secret proprietary sauce? get real its because they are doing insidious things that would cause outrage

[cursive tinsel]

I mean, they did. On nu.erous occasions it was discussed through what they changed in the beginning when introducting the SBMM. The second set of parameters were probably briefly touched on. The MM article was released as basically explaining how that system runs.

But at this point, you know, the games 12 years old, if people arent willing to learn abit of the game, no end of SBMM introduction is going to benefit anyone. There will always be a pool of players that it effects more then other with or without SBMM being introduced.

[muted gorge]

Please can you guys at WG stop this insistence on using WR for, well, anything. Team balance based on 90 day WN8 would work best, imho. As things currently stand, matches are commonly so poorly balanced (through a combination of unbalanced vehicles and randomised teams fishing in a pool of a mostly bad playerbase) that it is severly affecting the re-playability of the game. I'm nearly at level 100 and honestly I'm very unsure I'll play another match once complete. It's a chore not a pleasure currently.

[autumn light]

1. He isn't WG.
2. The change this season was to remove WR from the sorting and return it to the way it's been for years. So your complaining about the mm AFTER win rate was taken out, which defeats your entire comment.
3. WN8 is not a WG thing and is not a good metric for balancing a team.

[muted gorge]

1. I know he's not from WG, I was merely replying along the same theme, as I know staff read the Discord.
2. I was providing feedback on the method of trying to balance teams by WR that wasn't received very well (see this thread) with my idea on how to improve it.
3. I think you can probably come up with something better than WR to improve things, if not "WN8". You have the data available.

[autumn light]

1. Replying to someone, specifically, a "random" comment a long way down the thread is a very odd way to do that. So you can see why that would be an odd conclusion to draw.
2. If this is the case, then why did you mention the current season and your progress? and use the terms about the current state. The entire text after "imho" seems to be saying that the current state has changed to be "worse" vs some previous state. But the change this season was literally to return it to the way requested in this thread and how it's been for years. What you said there and then after don't seem to match up. And in terms of "received", the majority of this thread since the change was reverted and threads since on the issue have been saying they dislike how it is now VS how it was with the change. That includes multiple people (before and after) attributing things to the changes that are completely unrelated though - being objective.
3. I mean it depends on the aim, we added win rate to the existing system (that it is again) and had an aim. It did do that aim, but not to the extent we wanted and so we made more changes and will now continue to look at data with and without to determine things. If aims were/are achieved, then it by definition worked.

[viscid gorge]

🗣️ Thank you WG for rigging my games at 72% winrate

[muted gorge]

1. The comment I replied to was from a few hours ago. Hardly random. It was specifcally about possible worse balance with the reintroduced old system than the WR system.
2. Unless I am missing something the WR MM system wasn't well received. And the return to "normal" is equally poorly received. Or in other words, people are not happy with either system tried recently. My contention is that neither WR or random are not the best way to balance teams. Random used to be fine in the years gone by, but I'm not sure that works anymore for a complex range of reasons linked to the games age, changing player base, power creep, tank balance etc.
3. Generally speaking I would say WR is bad way to balance teams. All players will have tanks they perform well in (high WN8) with a low win rate. Using this data for balance doesn't appear optimal. Whereas, a calculation of "performance", be that WN8 or any other similar method, may potentially lead to better outcomes.

A definition of "better" would be needed of course. What are the goals. I can only speak for myself but the most exciting battles are those that are closely fought. Steamrolls, either way, are not much fun. There are many factors to a steamroll, from tank balance to the MM to wolf packing etc. The test where autoaim was reduced to under 200m showed real promise, it was a shame that was only temporary. A combination of that and performance based MM may improve the experience.

[viscid gorge]

WN8 is not a great metric

It's so manipulatable

[cursive tinsel]

Any of the WN series of number can be horrifically manipulated in one way shape or form. Its a horrific measurement to judge a player off of.

[viscid gorge]

Surely my 10K WN8 in the Patton 120 is not because the average user is not good, right?

[autumn light]

the point on the reply was more that when people are leaving feedback to a thread, the norm isn't to reply to a person. Especially if it starts with a targeted (to WG in this case) start to a message. So was just saying you can understand why a reply to a message from "a few hours ago" to someone with a shade of name closer to that of WG staff, that says "you guys at WG" would look like you think they are WG. Looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.

And both times it was received well by some, and not by others... now it has changed back the peoples stance is the same but with different poles (someone happy is now unhappy, someone unhappy is now happy) with a number being far more neutral. My reply was more to do with all of your wording seemed to imply you thought that the win rate aspect was being applied now, so again "Looks like a duck, swims like a duck" and so on. FWIW it hasn't been "truly random" in a very long time, and it isn't now.

It was a stated aim to reduce steamrolls and increase average match time - it did both of these things by adding Win Rate to the calculation used. It also made games closer on average. So by the metrics you just laid out, adding WR to the calc in the way we did was indeed "better" 😅. But as with anything we want to be sure and look into it more, especially as we obviously do not wish to make the experience worse for any group of players.

[autumn light]

fear my purples! 😄

also, rarely use this... is that 15th best in Jagdtiger? If so, proud moment 😄

[viscid gorge]

By WN8, yes

[autumn light]

fancy... but enough off topic 😅

[cursive tinsel]

We were more looking at your 20K WN8 in low tier bot clubbing to be fair

[coral zephyr]

The simply random MM may really be the best option. Over time your "good mm" will balance out your "bad mm".

[lament mica]

"Over time" people are going to quit even more.

Based on just about everything else WG has done, I have my doubts about the quality of their recent fix. It seems they had some important parts left over they thought were unnecessary so just threw them in the trash. Something is not right. It is not like it was before. I even see it on some of the streamers.

[bleak oriole]

It is 100% the MM that was present before 9.4

[sharp lily]

The thread should be closed as the MM changes were reverted.

[lament mica]

I appreciate that but the chilli seems worse. Things get missed sometimes. I was no fan of using winrate but I am serious in seeing funky RNG--too consistently one sided. I should also mention the servers in general have been shakier. Went to watch a replay of a ghost shell and there were ghost shells everywhere in the match. Perhaps it's some instability leaking in. I don't know the technical details--just know the chilli is bad.