Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Rina_Pon

Mirrored matchmaking introduced in 0.7.4

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
347 posts
4,845 battles

https://worldofwarships.asia/en/news/common/ver-07_4-patchnotes/#balance_change

Quote

We’ve taken the next step in enhancing the work of the matchmaking algorithm. This time, in Random Battles. Now, for a period of three minutes after the first player in the queue for battle pressed the "Battle" button, teams will be matched to mirror each other's lineup. It means that the lineups of opposing teams will be identical by ship types and tiers. This change is expected to produce maximum effect during the day and in the evening when there are enough players in queue for battle. To avoid long queue times during a lower server population time, the matchmaker will revert to the previous operation should the waiting time exceed three minutes.

I have three issues with this.

1. It's not what people were asking for. What people were asking for was skill based matchmaking. The problem was not ship asymmetry, e.i. Nelson vs. Colorado, it was skill asymmetry, for example unicum Kaga player vs. noob Kaga player.

2. It's boring. Each team has the same ship roster. Like in Co-op. I want more variety in Random, not less. I'm willing to play a few matches with a handicap (disadvantaged) team lineup because statistics means I'll also get the same number where I have an advantage.

3. This is going to increase wait times considerably, especially for people who play less popular ships. Good luck Belfast. Kami R. Kii. Yubari. Texas. ... Flint? just forget it.

Edited by Rina_Pon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
354 posts
9,048 battles

It's not going to match ships - just ship types and tiers.

eg if there's a t7 bb on one team it will try to ensure there's a t7 bb on the other team.

Edited by Moldavia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
627 posts
6,893 battles
1 hour ago, Rina_Pon said:

1. It's not what people were asking for. What people were asking for was skill based matchmaking. The problem was not ship asymmetry, e.i. Nelson vs. Colorado, it was skill asymmetry, for example unicum Kaga player vs. noob Kaga player.

2. It's boring. Each team has the same ship roster. Like in Co-op. I want more variety in Random, not less. I'm willing to play a few matches with a handicap (disadvantaged) team lineup because statistics means I'll also get the same number where I have an advantage.

3. This is going to increase wait times considerably, especially for people who play less popular ships. Good luck Belfast. Kami R. Kii. Yubari. Texas. ... Flint? just forget it.

A few people were asking for skill based matchmaking, definitely not most.  This wouldn't be great considering everyone's win rate would just stick around 50%.  There's no feeling of advancement through getting better by winning more.

Also, you've misunderstood the changes.  It's pairing tier and class so they are identical, not actual ship types.  If you queue in a Flint, it will look for another T7 cruiser to pair you with, not another Flint.  It will prefer a US T7 cruiser, but this isn't a necessity.

These are good changes, but I personally didn't think there was much wrong with the old match making.  I don't remember ever going in to a battle and thinking 'MM has stuffed us and we can't win'.  I just assess what strengths and weaknesses each team has, and play accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
347 posts
4,845 battles
1 hour ago, Moggytwo said:

Also, you've misunderstood the changes.  It's pairing tier and class so they are identical, not actual ship types.  If you queue in a Flint, it will look for another T7 cruiser to pair you with, not another Flint.  It will prefer a US T7 cruiser, but this isn't a necessity.

These are good changes, but I personally didn't think there was much wrong with the old match making.  I don't remember ever going in to a battle and thinking 'MM has stuffed us and we can't win'.  I just assess what strengths and weaknesses each team has, and play accordingly.

If that's correct and it's only coercing MM by type i.e. BB, DD then it's not that much different from what it is now where it's almost always within +/- 1 (i.e. some times one team has one more DD and one less cruiser, but I've personally never seen say 1DD  vs 3DD)

I agree with you in that I never felt MM was broken.  I just learned to roll with the variance. Some of the outlier matches were quite funny.

Edited by Rina_Pon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
156 posts
4,055 battles
1 hour ago, Moggytwo said:

These are good changes, but I personally didn't think there was much wrong with the old match making.  

 

4 minutes ago, Rina_Pon said:

I agree with you in that I never felt MM was broken.  I just learned to roll with the variance. Some of the outlier matches were quite funny.

If the old MM is not broken and most players are good with how it matches up ships, then why do we have to wait for an increased time now in the queue? :fish_viking:

IMO the the most impactful change this will bring is increased wait times to enter a battle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
455 posts
8,038 battles

What I have against the so called "skill based MM" that people keep asking for in WoWs:
>First of all, a true skill based MM that only matches you up against players who are close to you in stats will never be possible due to the game being 12v12 and the player count being insuffiecient. Even in some other online games with millions of players and cross server MM with skill based MM and only 5v5 format, finding a match takes quite some time

>The other option is to not limit MM to players within your skill range but instead mirror players of equal skill in each team. i.e, each team gets the same number of unicums and red stats players. This is a horrible solution for anyone with any level of competence because they are being punished for being good and their wr will fall towards 50% while players who earlier had 40% wr will see their wr approach 50% without really contributing much to their teams. Why would anyone want such a system?

We already have limited skill based MM in the form of clan wars and ranked.
Sure I understand the frustration when you try your best but you get an incompetent team while the enemy gets a good team. But over a large number of games you will get good and bad teams(compared to enemy) equally. So your win rate is a reflection of your own ability to carry some of the bad teams. If you think that you keep getting worse teams than the enemy, remember that YOU are the only constant in all those games while your enemies and allies keep changing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
627 posts
6,893 battles
5 minutes ago, Adm_Kunkka said:

We already have limited skill based MM in the form of clan wars and ranked.

This is true.  At any point there is generally going to be a ranked or CB season happening, both of them have skill based MM to some degree.  If any people would prefer skill based MM, these are the modes they should play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,135 posts

skill base MM at standard random battle would end up in catastrophe for sure.

(well, it may be fine for most player but those who has 60+ win-rate would wait for HOUR to play, and worst, they would drag other standard player with 50 rate in team to wait with them.)

 

so, let it be only for clan or rank battle.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
347 posts
4,845 battles
1 hour ago, Adm_Kunkka said:

>The other option is to not limit MM to players within your skill range but instead mirror players of equal skill in each team. i.e, each team gets the same number of unicums and red stats players. This is a horrible solution for anyone with any level of competence because they are being punished for being good and their wr will fall towards 50% while players who earlier had 40% wr will see their wr approach 50% without really contributing much to their teams. Why would anyone want such a system?

Well, what people were asking for, in essence, was for skill-based MM only where it reduced the chance of them losing. i.e. they were upset and grasped whatever appeared to solve their problem (more good players on my team!) without thinking it through to the logical conclusion.

No one complains when the unicum CV is on their team!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
354 posts
9,048 battles

I'd like it if there were enough players to reduce the tier difference to +/- 1 instead of 2.

I know, I should look on it as an opportunity to excel, carry the team and get lots of experience but many ships really don't suffer being uptiered 2 levels too well and it happens so often it takes a lot of the fun out of the battle for me.

Otherwise, I don't have any real complaints with the current mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
331 posts
6,991 battles

Personally i think WG should address the +/- 2 issue and only make it +/-1.

I've had a few games where it's mainly heavy on T5 with a light sprinkle of T6 and of course a T7 CV. Enemy had a Saipan which pretty much danced around the map immune while our CV could do little to deal with it. Even the cruisers couldn't do much.

Oh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
347 posts
4,845 battles
2 hours ago, Moldavia said:

...but many ships really don't suffer being uptiered 2 levels too well and it happens so often it takes a lot of the fun out of the battle for me.

I've been playing a fair bit or T8 recently and ... well you get used to being the only T8 in a T10 match as it happens often enough. Sure it's less fun I guess than being alpha dog, and your options for battle contribution are often limited to support roles, and very conservative play generally, but the satisfaction when you do well is higher in proportion, and as you say WG is quite generous with the XP multipler on bottom tier ships. ..

And back at T5-7, being a T5 doesn't phase me in the slightest. I just dial back the aggressiveness proportionate to the anticipated threat level.

So no, I wouldn't want to see the end of the T,T+1,T+2 battle bracketing.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
287 posts
23,960 battles

The MM will match Tiers and Types, not Nations (and variations of ships of the same tier and type within the same nation). The diversity is sufficient.

Mirror MM is an improvement on the status quo. I'd prefer they now reduce the range from +/-2 to +/-1.

If we did have skill based MM, a huge number of players would never get cues on what they're doing wrong or be driven to improve as their team will statistically always have better players to carry them to a win.
Additionally since it effectively caps your potential win rate, super unciums and other skilled players will be incentivized focus more heavily on their individual performance and damage numbers and not in dragging their team to  a win (individual games don't matter to most of these players, its the bigger stats view that matters).

The last thing this game needs is more self serving behavior from fishing divisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
129 posts

this new MM is practically BETTER than before....

 

my team vs enemy

a T6 leander vs Fiji

a T6 La Glass vs Pensacola

 

or on another match

 

a single t6 Russian DD vs Lo Yang and akatsuki and + 1 T5 BB << best bullsheet ever (in exchange we got new orlean (againts 1 T5 BB), Algerie (me) and enemy have Cleveland)

 

obviously this result loss on my team....

 

JUST SAME TYPE and SAME TIER IS GUT ENOUGH!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
7,716 posts
8,025 battles
8 hours ago, Rina_Pon said:

Well, what people were asking for, in essence, was for skill-based MM only where it reduced the chance of them losing. i.e. they were upset and grasped whatever appeared to solve their problem (more good players on my team!) without thinking it through to the logical conclusion.

No one complains when the unicum CV is on their team!

Honestly, people never asked for skill based MM. People only ask that all the bad players should go in enemy team. Skill based MM is something like you have in the ranked. It is very competitive and not fun for average playerbase. Anyone who is familiar with high rank or top clan battles, know how boring those matches can be. Even if wargaming introduces that, will have to be a sidegrade of random battles that we have.

Also, mirroring class and tiers are extremely valuable imo. It is not fun for a T6 DD to be facing two T7 DD alone. Which is very common case since MM before 7.4 did not balance DDs. As a DD player, I welcome this change with open arms. Infact this is not much of a change from previous MM. Old MM used to mirror CV, top BB tier and top CA tiers anyway. (It's not ships, only tiers and classes, as other's have pointed out already).

Only thing now WG need to do is stop CV anchoring divisions, and eventually move onto +1/-1 MM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,050 posts
7,711 battles
18 hours ago, Rina_Pon said:

I have three issues with this.

1. It's not what people were asking for. What people were asking for was skill based matchmaking. The problem was not ship asymmetry, e.i. Nelson vs. Colorado, it was skill asymmetry, for example unicum Kaga player vs. noob Kaga player.

2. It's boring. Each team has the same ship roster. Like in Co-op. I want more variety in Random, not less. I'm willing to play a few matches with a handicap (disadvantaged) team lineup because statistics means I'll also get the same number where I have an advantage.

3. This is going to increase wait times considerably, especially for people who play less popular ships. Good luck Belfast. Kami R. Kii. Yubari. Texas. ... Flint? just forget it.

2

Re 1 –As a rule of thumb, people complain when they lose, they are happy when they win. Obviously, 24 players want to win, but only 12 will. There are of course the noobs, but no change to matchmaking changes how they play. And there are the battles where a player feels nothing he does could change the outcome and I would not expect matchmaking can change that.

 

Re 2 – I think you misunderstood. I believe they will simply attempt to match Belfast with another T7 cruiser for 3 minutes, not another Belfast.

 

Re 3 – the matchmaking will try to match the ships by type and tier for 3 minutes, fair enough, that may cause delays if there are not many players in the queue. But at least WG shows they try to do something.

 

I guess the new matchmaking was already active in the public tests, I didn’t notice changes to the “player experience.” After all, it is still PvP online gaming. No matchmaking will change that human element.

 

I think WG aims at making battles fairer, by matching ships per class and tier.

 

At least WG seems to listen and try to do something. That’s a start! Let’s see what this does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
250 posts
13,342 battles

I don't think we need +-1 MM range for the sake of variety, it's challenging to play against ships that has 2 tier higher and you get better as more challenges come by, also ship by design were designed to be able to fight ship that 3 tiers higher (look back in CBT day and you will get it), thus +-2 is sweet and work just fine. Also, do not forget that you have to rebalance every ship to fit inside +-1 MM bracket and you have to remember that premium ship cannot be nerfed directly, +-1 MM will only make OP premium ships being more overpowered and no one want that.  

What is not fine about this +-2 MM is there are different templates that inserted inside +-2 MM formula such as protected MM around T3-T4 that use different formula in which ship from tier 5,6 and 8 are forced to get constantly put it uptiered. Simpler term for this is the ratios between being top, middle, and bottom tier is not exactly 33/33/33 

The solution should be marker that check whether you are in top tier, mid tier or bottom tier in previous game of the day for tier you played. This marker should check and distribute your MM to guarantee you get good distributed MM which should be ratio 33/33/33 as I mentioned. Or remove protected barrier at T3/4 so T5/6/8 getting more distributed as tor tier or mid tier and implement new measurement to protect new player from getting kicked by experienced player.

that's all I could say
+-1 MM isn't an answer 

For SBMM 
this game has no need of that, if you need it badly,  you have to answer so many questions that come afterwards such as
> What is determination factor for "skill based" to be input into MM? 
> How you make sure that "stats" you picked for SBMM cannot be padded and entirely depends on your own skill
> Would you consider SBMM to balance all ships type and tier or just certain type
> Will there be any format you have to put in SBMM
> How long MM take to match it reasonably well balanced?
> Will it work in long term
And so on

My answer is there is no need of it at all due to those factors. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
347 posts
4,845 battles

So after playing a few random matches last night after 7.4 came through,

It's ... not much different than before. It's certainly more balanced. There is always the same number of DDs and CAs on each team, with matching tiers, but personally I find it a bit vanilla to have this match after match after match.

I thought it was interesting to sometimes get one team with an extra DD, one team with an extra CA, or even in extreme cases one team with no DD at all. Much like having CVs in game it shakes up the strategy a little. If you don't have a DD on your team for example, you are forced into thinking about how to maximize your advantage in CA firepower. Sometimes you are looking to press an advantage, sometimes you are looking to minimize a handicap, but either way it presents a different strategic puzzle to solve. There are still differences in MM, like who has radar cruisers for example, or who has the gunboats, but they are comparatively less significant.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
7,716 posts
8,025 battles
19 hours ago, Rina_Pon said:

So after playing a few random matches last night after 7.4 came through,

It's ... not much different than before. It's certainly more balanced. There is always the same number of DDs and CAs on each team, with matching tiers, but personally I find it a bit vanilla to have this match after match after match.

I thought it was interesting to sometimes get one team with an extra DD, one team with an extra CA, or even in extreme cases one team with no DD at all. Much like having CVs in game it shakes up the strategy a little. If you don't have a DD on your team for example, you are forced into thinking about how to maximize your advantage in CA firepower. Sometimes you are looking to press an advantage, sometimes you are looking to minimize a handicap, but either way it presents a different strategic puzzle to solve. There are still differences in MM, like who has radar cruisers for example, or who has the gunboats, but they are comparatively less significant.

 

If you think it through, the strategic variety has nothing to do with balanced MM. And from my experience, which team have radar cruisers or which team have the gunboats are way more important than the tiers themselves. What makes you think that random players will think of something when there's no DD, given the fact that they cannot think straight for much easier condition, i.e. helping the allied DD when he is contesting caps etc.

And like you said, its not much different than before. If WG hadn't told you that there was a change, you probably wouldn't even notice by yourself in a few months, just like most of us.

What you are saying, is something like, lets make a football team with no goal keeper to come up with new strategies, when in reality, the strategy lies among team play around objectives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
347 posts
4,845 battles
10 hours ago, icy_phoenix said:

What you are saying, is something like, lets make a football team with no goal keeper ...

I wouldn't be against that once in a while. Or baseball with 5 bases. Basketball with two balls in play simultaneously. ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×