WW2 Matchmaker Feedback

[golden willow]

In lieu of an official thread, I'm making this one to direct feedback to from #1466372959177408606
@potent brook @near ember

[stark stratus]

It looks like wargaming have rigged the matchmaker. Makes past 6 months stats irrelevant. Itnalso nulified all my premium time and premium tank bonuses and MY TIME. Again !!! Remember when WG rigged the game so that NEW PLAYERS survived when they should have been destroyed. This from the company that refuses to change premium tanks ( for fear of Armadillo type refunds to buyers) but will BREAK ALL OVER 'agreements' regarding everyones time and the ACTUAL REAL VALUE OF PREMIUM ACCOUNT TIME.

[left surge]

If they are, "as wargaming say" trying to make games slower and more strategic, try reducing the rng so shots don't bounce and miss like they do. Also reduce the hit points of light tanks, it's absolutely insane that large caliber shells " just damage" lights or bounce.
Most of those hits would be a one shot for a light and for the light Td ' s.
This is the way to try and make players think about what they are doing and stop the ridiculous yoloing and think strategically.

[jaunty stump]

Reducing RNG and HP of tanks (and oddly the HP of one of the worst classes?), would actually speed the game up

And also is just a generally bad idea

[left surge]

I don't agree, neither do a lot of other people l have spoken to.
If you are fine bouncing light tanks and wiesels, ss 12s etc and taking 4, 5, 6 shots to kill them then you go for it!

Do you play ww2or cw?

[jaunty stump]

WW2 mostly

Anything about the matchmaker, which this thread is, has largely been aimed at WW2 recently

CW has recieved minimal changes

[dusty siren]

Yha I remember cw wasn't touched...I miss old matchmaking already though

[left surge]

Yeah cold War is bad, some light tanks have over 2000 hp.
Think what it takes to kill one of those.

[dusty siren]

Not too bad if your in a vehicle that kills and aims to kill lights sad part is most are premium

[golden willow]

They literally undid the winrate metric for the MM today

WW2 Matchmaker Feedback

[stark stratus]

Yes. I've hit FV107 with the 4005 and bounced, at times, and just 'damaged' for zero hitpoints. Surely almost all mediums and heavies and TD of era 1 would OVERMATCH the armour of FV107 ? and other lights.

[torpid solstice]

That not rigging though 😅 The replay mode exisit to see where the server registered the shot to hit as in game and server can be slightly different. Did it hit the gun? Did it hit a track etc. Nothing to do with MM

[golden willow]

Some of the points I've seen so far (will edit to add others as they come up):

• Increase the size of the battle count buckets used to make teams
  • The current cap (2000) is where I would say a player has just figured out the game. I would like to see the benchmarks extend to about 10,000 battles in the game mode being played. I have over 40,000 battles, none of them in CW. If I were to go to CW, I should be treated as a noob, and vise versa.
• If possible, the MM should always attempt to match tanks across teams.
  • On Himmelsdorf for example, the team with 3 type 5s is likely going to beat the team with 3 chieftains (assuming equal battle count, skill level, etc.). The better breakdown would be 2 types on one team, and 1 on the other, same for the chieftains. Overall, this would make teams more balanced as there is closer to equal opportunity for success.
• Balance tank types (not classes, but subclasses) across teams.
  • Continuing to use Himmelsdorf for an example, team 1 has a T110E4 and a Jagdpanzer E100 while team 2 has a Grille 15 and a Taran. Team 1 will likely win because their tanks are better suited for a city/brawl map. If the map was Prok, them team 2 would likely win. I am sure the community would be happy to help define these classes (I wrote a lengthy comment on reddit about a month ago explaining the player perception of subclasses - link)
• +1/-1 (including it because I've seen it brought up)
  • Would be nice to have, but based on HeatResistantBFG's comments in this post https://discord.com/channels/630895439520202783/1464068769503772835, it is not going to be implemented any time soon, if ever.
• 14 top, 1 mid/bottom tier tank
  • Never an ideal circumstance, but it does happen occasionally. The MM should always attempt to avoid this circumstance for both mid and bottom tier vehicles.
• Number of tanks of one class in a match
  • It is never fun to load into a match on Prok and see that each team has 10 TDs, so it would be nice if the MM attempted to take this into account with some form of soft limit, but personally I see this as a lower priority pain point. This is always more prevalent when there is a contract/op running or a new tank just got released, so it may be necessary to adjust that soft limit at times as player habits change.
• Which side of the map you get
  • There are some maps where one spawn is preferred over the others, it would be a great QoL improvement if the MM (or other system if its not the MM) accounted for which side you were last on, and attempted to put you on the other spawn to keep the map from getting stale. This would obviously be a fair bit of work to accomplish, but in the name of QoL, I think players would appreciate it.
• Platoon balancing
  • If there is a scenario where there are three platoons in the MM, one top tier and two mid/bottom tier, then the two mid/bottom should be placed against the top tier platoon to avoid giving that team an additional bonus.

[golden willow]

Please keep this thread focused on the WW2 matchmaker. If the thread gets off-topic, WG (aka @desert acorn ) will have even more trouble collecting any feedback

[river compass]

https://tenor.com/view/morgan-freeman-gif-24496452

[potent brook]

If possible, the MM should always attempt to match tanks across teams.
It does this as best-effort - but provides no guarantees for regular tanks. Only if the tank is marked in the special list of "must match tanks" - currently only the NightStalker, but included the AVRE, and Taran at some point, plus others that I forget - will be a 2-1 split. It is not possible to do this for every tank for performance reasons.

Balance tank types (not classes, but subclasses) across teams
This actually requires implementing subclasses at the level that the MM can understand it - ie: a very very large effort.

Number of tanks of one class in a match
If we introduce a new heavy line and everyone on the server wants to play, then that's what gonna be on the menu.

If we attempt to do limits, the only thing that achieves is slowing the MM and backing up the queue to the point where we would have to make 15v15 heavy matches.

[golden willow]

I understand that many of the items above are not immediately feasible, but I am trying to provide a list of the commonly noted items I think of/experience myself or hear from other players.

Some may not be part of the matchmaker or not directly relate for various reasons, but the list is essentially "what would you like changed with the matchmaker?" The player's definition of the matchmaker and WG's may be different, but this feedback is based on the player's perception.

I appreciate the responses and answered questions!

[worn sandal]

They only classes that need a limitation are lights,Artys and tds. In my opinion

[burnt vector]

Its amazing so far, my winrate has been over 75% today so im very happy!

[burnt vector]

But yes I aggree with this

[obtuse frigate]

The current (post sbmm) matchmaking is actually great and I do hope WG has learned enough about on “forcing the balance”. It does not work so it’s better to forget the whole idea. People ask for balance but what that actually means is very subjective. PC is currently failing with their new balanced MM 2.0 which has all kinds of stuff people have asked for. Outcome is dreadful boring meta.

WG should just make sure contracts and challenges does not break othewise well working MM. Creating light tanks swarms or triangle fests is just awful idea. Additionally, making new Tier 10 vehicle immediately available after purchase is like shooting on your own foot (or head if it is sniper TD).

Hard cap on lights is only addition I can think worth implementing as it would reduce number of S**t shows and increase likelihood that there is at least one LT in most of the matches.

[spare bloom]

While there might be room for improvement, I am happy with the WW2 MM reversion and win rate consideration removal.

My reaction to the reverted MM:

Back in Black

https://youtu.be/pAgnJDJN4VA?si=ZobHqHMB5oiqTqKC

[tepid grove]

Why do people want rng reduced when it comes to tanks alpha and accuracy?

Do you realize how boring this game would be if every shot you took was perfectly accurate and did the exact same damage every time? Smh

[golden willow]

Hey! This wouldn’t be related to the matchmaker, feel free to create a new thread for it!

[tepid grove]

There was multiple posts about it In here… lol

[lapis merlin]

Atrocious is the word that comes to my mind when I think about matchmaking.
It's nothing new but it makes me laugh now when WG is announcing with triumph that they improved something 😂😂😂

[proven holly]

From the latest information from the WG website on MM, what does "players waiting in queue" mean? For example queueing for a Tier 7 battle in a Medium tank, you see the number 100. Is that 100 Tier 5's or 100 Tier 5, 6 and 7's?

[crisp shale]

First, I want to thank WG for pulling the winrate logic out of the WW2 match maker! Second, I also want to thank WG for documenting with an example how the current match maker works! Both of these I asked for and WG delivered! THANKS it's appreciated!

[golden willow]

I've added a few more feedback points to this message, please keep them coming and hopefully this will be helpful for WG in the future and they'll take it into account!

[thorn mist]

Game is just a snooze fest now with the changes. matches all feel the same. vanilla white bread.

[raw violet]

Where can i find info about the matchmaking ww2? Is there any player stats involved?

[jaunty stump]

Just battle count