Storm is asking about MM


Hello everyone,

Storm is asking about MM on the developer blog:

“Hello everyone, you’ve all seen the MM video probably. What do you think – what is working well in current MM? What is not working well? How is it supposed to work according to your opinion?”

From the discussion:

- Storm states that “common opinion is that stock and elite vehicles should be considered differently”
- there will definitely not be 3-arty hardcap
- apparently there won’t be a rule that stock vehicles will overall end up more as top of the team, because that sucks for the team
- Storm states that current TD situation is 100 percent different from the previous arty (SS: as in – no hardcap is planned)
- Storm states that map-based MM (SS: MM rules different for each map) is unfortunately impossible, because it would lead to even more common map repetition for individual players
- mirror teams (SS: won’t be implemented), they’d kill battle variety
- Storm states that the idea to consider the tier of the gun during MM “is not meaningless”
- there is apparently a bug that when a Chaffee platoons with KV-1S (or other lower tier spread heavies), it will get their MM spread, Storm states he needs to check
- apparently, Storm thinks that the rule for stock vehicles having preferential MM for a while has been cancelled, but he will doublecheck

And what do YOU think of the matchmaker? Please, politely – I will forward your comments to WG RU, I doubt they’ll be interested in tons of “OMG WG U SUX”. Be constructive. Thank you.

183 thoughts on “Storm is asking about MM

  1. Engine level for lights and gun level for everything else should influence a tank MM weight if not preferential MM for stock tank.

    • I agree with u. Lights with scout MM. Gun like on ARL V39, TD tier 6 with gun tier 3 and u must unlock track befor next gun…

        • Great, so you want a tier 8 with a stock gun to have limited prem ammo in a tier X game?!
          Please explain how that helps the MM’ing situtation! It would only make it worse.

    • if you seriously think only engine for lights and guns for the rest should be considered, you need to think again. also, we all know the module tiers aren’t really a good way to measure its capability.

      tanks with stock tracks usually move A LOT slower than they would if they have upgraded tracks no matter what engine they have.
      many tanks perform just fine without final gun, some even have non-final guns perform nearly as good as final gun.

  2. The only thing I would like to see is getting rid of Scout +4 MM weight. I’d like them to have exactly the same MM as let’s say heavy tanks.
    Scout tanks used to be very powerful and useful, but now with so many changes, new maps scout’s life is getting harder and harder. And because of that I no longer see a reason for them to have harsher MM than other tanks. The only problem is that there are no T10 scouts, so before doing something about scout MM, they’d have to either introduce them or let only T8 scouts into T10 battles.

    • U wrong, it is like arty not have tier 10. Maybe they should add new scouts and change MM?
      I think better option is tell player that tank have different MM.
      In my opinion ppl have problem to play scout like scout, nothing more.

      • Though a lot of people don’t understand how to play a scout that is not the majority of the problem. Scouts have been outclassed mainly since the camo rebalance. Tier 10 medium tanks have better view range and in some cases better camo rendering scout tanks useless. There are a lot of people (myself included) who think it is time to introduce full trees for scouts up to tier 10 AND scouts should have the best view ranges in the game as well as the best camo values. With the current meta scouts have to almost use the 50m proxy range to spot TDs which obviously is extremely dangerous and usually ends up with a dead scout. Again, I do not deny that there are a vast number of players who don’t know how to scout (then again, a vast number of players don’t know how to play any tank) but that isn’t the issue.

        • Some of the higher tier meds also have better mobility than the scouts (BatChat, Lorraine, Leopard-1, and it’s prototype) and some of the heavies have better view ranges than lights do as well.

          While giving lights significantly better view ranges is certainly one way of going about it, I think that it would be better if light tanks were re-balanced as light tanks, as opposed to being classified as scouts, that all just happen to also be light tanks. Honestly, scouting is something that you should do when you are able to, and not something you are forced to do because your tank is “special,” or something that you never do because your tank isn’t one of the “chosen ones” you should do it when you can.

          Really, scouting should be just like everything else, doing damage when you can, taking hits when you can, flanking when you can, scouting when you can, regardless of tank. obviously some tanks are better at these things than others, and some of them are in the same class too. Which is why you don’t see people being forced to flank, when they are in a “flank” class tank, or to take damage when they are driving a “damage sponge” class, those tank classifications don’t exist for a reason, so forcing that sort of thing onto an entire class of tank is kind of silly/stupid. Especially not when light tanks have at least as much variety as heavies and mediums do.

          • while i disagree with the ‘every class should do everything when they can’ sentiment in general (i think tank roles helps the players understand what they’re ‘supposed’ to do in a tank type), i do agree that lights should get regular match making overall, then much like they did with mediums and spas, introduce t9 and 10 lights with enough health to survive a shot or two from a 268, jpaz100, or waffle.

          • Completely agree. T20 is a good medium scout for it’s tier and i play it as a scout able to shoot, retreat and self defend when needed. T49, Hellcat, E-25 can scout as well and they have better camo when firing then scouts (even firing JgPantherII with net has better camo than Chaffee or T71). T-54, T-62A with strong turrets are actually better scouts when peeking over the hills and they have pretty good camo on the move. Another problem is that half of TDs and heavies playing TDs won’t relocate to shoot tanks that are spotted anyway.
            Low tier scouts are completely useless since every hellcat player with brain can predict when they are gonna suicide and take 2/3 of their HPs without being spotted (what can poor pz38nA with 75% crew do?).
            Arty hunting / defending role is over, no one can efficiently shoot beyond enemy lines and most of the games changed to simple scheme (from my point of view as mostly TD/med played) – take defensive position, stop enemy at the point where you have support of TDs, let him push just a little so mediums can shoot at side and/or TDs frontally and attack when you have more tanks using every terrain feature to reduce damage taken from TDs. Where is the place for scouts? By the way there are not many maps where scout can be useful, just Malinovka is awesome.
            I’m still playing Chaffee and T71 from time to time, but just for fun … not for efficiency.

        • I’m(was) a dedicated Scout-Player of the german tree, but the last few patches destroyed my playstyle completely, more then often i had to scout TDs or meds sitting in a bush blazing guns, but nobody got spotted form me (I might add: i have a 399% crew on my AfkPanther with Optics and both viewrange skills).

          They have to consider how the new camo is working, TDs or meds having more viewrange, camo AND mobility is just not fair to any scout driver, because they in return do no have much hitpoints…

        • There is one more thing: with arty nerf, scouts gotten stealth-nerfed too – with arty less dps output you earn less on spotting, you have less enemy arties to go after (and they are much less dangerous to your team then before), and whey you decide to you cannot count on your arty support because they aim so horribly slow and reload once in a hundred years.

          • Let me add one more thing: with scouts “buffed” to higher tiers, they got too costly to use them in companies. They just don’t offer enough to get them instead of some low-tier mobile shittank.
            I would be much for reverting scout uptiering or at least giving them “secondary” tiers for companies to lower their cost there.

  3. I think that the new PR value should be taken into account.

    I would rather sit in a queue for 2 minutes and play with other WN7 1400+ players than have to face yet another match loaded with useless sub-500 WN7 redballs that can’t find their own ass with a map.

      • Any form of skill based with an opt in is a tomatoes charter.

        Why bother playing well when you can play badly and get an easier ride.

        • Baceuse you want be good? And i don’t bother some only want ride, if he want it, go ahead.

    • omg there was countless time sad that skill based MM WILL NOT BE MADE. and btw PR doesnt correlate with WN(what ever number) statictic

      • But they made, for team battle. So let tell them we still want it. And tell why they should too.

        • Exactly. They already introduced something they said they would not do, albeit in a limited form.

          Right now a lot of good players I know on the NA server are taking time off because the red tides have gotten so bad that you either platoon or don’t bother playing.

          Let the redballs play with each other, I want to only see green, blue and purple players in matches and I do not care if it takes 2 minutes to assemble them for a match.

    • I agree. Better longer wait and team with eg +/-300 rating different (in WN7, not know scale of PR).
      Is only make game better for everyone. Good player not grumble on idiots in team, which die in first minute. Avg player not grumble on invisible tank etc. Weak player not get in battle, and die not know why, and from who. Weak player need more time to get how it works, so can learn something. And some player not want to learn, so let them play with more fun.

    • I think eventually they will do this, but they’ll deny it heavily right up until they implement it. Timetable is hard to say, but quite possibly within a year knowing how quickly WG changes its ‘mind’. So long as the rule is increasingly relaxed depending on how long a player has been in queue, and number of users online, it won’t dramatically increase waiting times.

      Specifically, I would favour equality between teams rather than within them, e.g. roughly equal amount of bad players on both teams, rather than all players on both teams being similarly skilled. It’s terrible for someone to get stuck on a team full of ‘reds’, but it’s also unfun to have to face a wall of players as skilled as you. It’s healthy to pick on bad players for your own entertainment and to motivate them develop as well (hypothetically :-P).

    • Then find 4 like minded mates and play team battles.

      Can’t have it all your own way and a majority don’t want skill based mm.

      • what… what majority are you referring to? skill based matchmaker is what most people want, read the forums, read the countless pages of complainers who lament the assload of talent disparity on teams. reds don’t want to play with purples, and vice versa.. skill based mm is the only real solution; it should have been done long ago.

        • The forumers are not the majority. Many players will never look at the forums, and even within the forums there are plenty of people who do not advocate skill based MM. Also, seeing as pretty much every metric we have for calculating skill involves doing more then those on the other team and your own, how are we gonna calculate skill when skill based MM comes out and everyones stats start to even out?

      • No. I want to be able to chop and change tanks as I see fit. I want to be able to drop out and load into a new battle with new tanks.

        Team battle and platooning make this hard.

    • I guess if they do this, ill probably quit. This is the most pointless ideas possible… At least when you think about it a bit more.

      First, because both teams are exactly equal, skill doesn’t matter anymore, the game is only winnable with RNG luck and whatever else you need, but stats are not equal skill so this isn’t that true.

      If both teams are equal in skill and you would make, let’s say that team match up 1000 times, you get around 50% WR, because both teams are equally skilled so they win equal amounts of battles.

      This is around the same if you don’t do the same team again and again. So, let’s say now we have 14 tomatoes and 1 unicum on both sides. And match them against each other. So with the 50% rule the tomatoes will get better overall WR and the unicum will get worse overall WR because only half of his battles are won. Ok, sure he won’t get the same enemys all the time, but hey because of skill mm he will get always the same skilled enemys as he is. This ends up in the same. Entire WoT would be 50% in a few years/months like that…

      Sorry for wall of text. But I don’t like that idea at all, since as 57% I really wouldn’t have anything out of that.

      • It not be 50%… is only your imagination.
        They always be player who get better, and vice versa. Worst game (go wrong place etc.) and better.

        But skill MM mean all player are in range, not avg of skill. So u get better and worst player, but uniq not get tomatoes and vice versa.

        And if u quit, you be in the minority, so not count. Most players want game where they do something, and get fun => enemy must have compare skill.

      • personally i wouldnt not mind losing 10 games but being loses against equal players cause both sides had the same lvl of players so it means that one of the losing team did something wrong such as bad map decision rather then having 10 games lost cause players on my side are incopitment i get many times gone into team where the majority are red and some of the left ones are yellow and some green
        and also i dont like the fact thAt one team consists of bad to avg and the opposite team is full of unicoms or great players (in simple words the match is unbalanced in terms of stats )

      • No, this silly.

        You’re assuming the if you pit two equalish teams of green/blue/purple against each other they will act exactly the same.

        The thing is, people are not robots. Each players has their own playstyle, strengths and weaknesses and will not play the exact same way.

        You’re confusing Clan Wars play (Where there are set strategies and callers) with pub play.

        I hear this argument against skill MM a lot and all I can ask is: If skill MM doesn’t work, why does it get used for other games and spots successfully? Maybe because it can work?

  4. I think they should add the battle tiers of tanks to their in game info. Would help avoid unintentionally bad platoons.
    Or less likely, get rid of the scout MM.

  5. A couple of patches ago, the WOT EU (I don’t know about other sites) there was some news that some tanks such as M5 Stuart or A-20 won’t receive scout matchmaking any more with the following patch. This, however, wasn’t put into effect. Why?

    • Nope, the only plan was to mark them as non scouts, because MM puts equal scouts or 1 scout difference in the matches.

  6. So far we’ve been told that the modules’ tier is meaningless, as in it’s not a balance parameter.

    I believe a decent idea could be for the tank to have different MM weight depending on how ‘close’ to stock this is. This could be achieved by, for example, have the modules’ tier function as a MM weight coefficient.

    i.e. if an HT was an MM weight of 48 when in top configuration and its top gun has a tier of 8, for example, its stock gun could be tier 7, which would act as a coefficient upon the MM weight in such a manner that it reduces it by a little bit.

    This could work with different modules for different classes of tanks, such as the turret for the light tanks (since they need good viewrange), the engine for mediums etc etc

    • 1st module lvl is not good to use. They say is not balance.
      But agree is good idea, but i think every tank should get own weight of module. I think is realy difficult to do, so players not use it in bad way. Not get top radio so get lower weight.

    • I agree, I think a tanks MM weight should be determined by the tier of the modules it has.

      For example the KV-1S (elited) has a tier 7 gun, tier 7 radio, tier 6 turret, tier 7 engine, and tier 6 tracks; therefore an elited KV-1S should have a MM weight of 33, at least with respect to modules. I’m not sure what the MM weight of the KV-1S is now but I believe it’s higher. So what they could do is give every tank a base MM weight that is arbitrary and then the module weight is additive to the base number. So for the purposes of this example let’s say the KV-1S has a base weight of 15 (without taking modules into account) so a stock KV-1S would have a MM weight of 41 (base 15+ t5 gun+ t5 radio+ t5 turret+ t6 engine+ t5 tracks) and an elited KV-1S would have a MM weight of 48 (base 15+ t7 gun+ t6 turret+ t7 radio+ t7 engine+ t6 tracks). Here an elited KV-1S has a completely different MM weight than a stock one (7 point difference).

      Now they could obviously tweak the formula but this is a general idea that would allow tanks to have MM weights more in line with the performance of their modules so even if a tank is relatively poor when elited then it would have a slightly lower MM weight than other tanks of it’s tier because the weight is dependent on the tier of the modules and not some arbitrary number.

  7. I think it would be already possible to make +/-1 MM for normal tanks and +/-2MM for arty and spotters, because there is a lot of players and the waiting time wouldn’t be unacceptable

    • Not only have they said a +/-1 MM spread won’t be implemented but it shouldn’t. If they implemented a +/1 spread then the T-34 wouldn’t be able to face the Tiger which is a historical match up. +/-2 is perfect the way it is, a good player on the bottom can still outperform the top tiers. Anything higher would be too much and anything lower would be boring and OP.

    • please… stop thinking about +/-1 MM for normal tanks. too many archievement require you to kill 2 tier higher tanks. how you can achieve that with +/- 1 MM?

  8. Keep coming back to the MM being a bit more negotiable with the “liberal matchmaking” for stock tanks, as when in particularly higher tiers, say 7+ , it gets difficult to keep up with the kind of elite tanks that are up against you. It’s not necessary that the stock tank has to be given easy matchmaking till it becomes elite, but atleast for say 30 – 50 battles would be a great relief to the players.

    • No please. MM weight is better solution. Top tier stock tank has better chance to do some damage, but on the other hand it can hardly outperform fully upgraded tank on the opposing team. Sometimes I feel that stock tank is worse than tank tier below. Stock KV1S is KV1 without armor, stock IS is slow KV1S, stock T20 is slow Jumbo without armor, stock Patton is huge T20 two tiers higher with more HP. I don’t want arguably slightly more XP in exchange of 20% win rate and say “sorry, i’m stock, can’t do more” every game

    • I would go as far as bringing all lights into line with normal mm but the tier 4 lights would be a start, and the easiest to achieve.

  9. I have to respectfully partially disagree with OOPMan. I don’t think MM should create teams of all similar skill levels. It is important for all battles to have a variety of skill levels represented in random battles.

    Instead, I think it would be much better if there were some attempt to balance skill levels between opposing teams. I don’t think anybody enjoys a battle where one team is mostly highly skilled players and the other is mostly inexperienced players.

    • I not agree. Is not fun only best player play in battle, but bad player will go die, not work too.
      So i best is have like +-2tier, +-300 rating. It may be different depending on the player rating. 2300wn7 can get 1500, but 1500 can get 1100 etc it not range of rating, but how many player in it.

  10. Will WG ever lower the Comet’s MM weight? It’s ridiculous that a medium tank with a pea-shooter gun has the same MM weight as a Tiger or a T29

    • Gun isn’t the only thing that matters. The Comet is fast, has good gun depression, and good RoF. Besides, I don’t think it has the same MM weight as the Tiger or the T29, you are probably thinking of battler tier which is tiers 7-9 and that’s a +/-2 spread just like every other tank (except scouts).

  11. IMO average number of games played should be as close as possible on each team. Same with platoons. For example: it’s T10 game, both teams have 1 platoon, 1st team platoon is 3 T10 tanks with 20k games per player, and the 2nd team get’s also T10 platoon but this players play their first T10 tank with few k games played, or in worse case 2nd team gets T8 platoon with players who dont even have a T10 tank, in both cases 1st team have advantage on start. I dont know if this things are balanced in some way but i think platoons and teams overal experience should be roughly the same.

    • Well, it’s already really for the MM to find same tier platoons for a battles, just thing how many planets must be aligned to ger 2 platoons of tier 10 with 3 players with more than 20k battles

    • Not agree.
      Number of battle not determinate skills. And many players creat new account so in 3k games he get tier 10, and not be noob.

    • Number of battles does not matter in any way. Sure there are players that have a 1900 WN7 with 20k battles but there are also, probably more, players with 600 WN7 and 20k battles. I have 7k battles and I have seen players with 4 times as many battles that are just garbage. I honestly don’t understand how you can play tens of thousands of battles and still not figure out how the game works but there are players like that out there. Number of battles shouldn’t be taken into account at all. PLUS that would take forever for the matchmaker to get an even number of battles per side, especially with platoons.

      • For the quetions of how they are so bad after so many battles
        consider the bot users which are seem to be growing a bit now and WG doesnt do anything about them if you report them for idle/Bot it doesnt work so does the Team dmg complain or they are just dont see it

        • Honestly, (at least on NA) the bot users are a minority when it comes to these players, there’s just a lot of really bad players. I honestly think it’s because WoT is one of those games that’s easy to learn but hard to master so you’ve got people who aren’t turned away due to an overwhelming amount of complexity when they are learning the game and just continue to be bad because the intricacies of improving play is much more difficult (and in many cases not readily apparent).

  12. The matchmaker is fine apart from when; you are the only bottom tier on the team i.e. the only T7 in a T8/9 game (this isn’t a problem for arty or scouts however), a team has an extra tier something i.e. 1 team has 3 T10′s, the other team has 4, and for battles being completely pre-determined due to skill level of the teams (we know this will never be addressed as random MM will always be random MM as SerB said.) Too many T10 TD’s are also a problem, but that’s not MM’s fault…I think?

  13. I consider that skill MM has a pretty simple solution, just +1 spread matchmaker and if you are really good you can rather easily carry, wich is not the case when you are a lonely T-44 on tier 10 battle agains an IS-7. Just saying :P

  14. Give +/-1 MM to vehicles in completely stock configuration (all modules), regardless of how many battles a player has in the vehicle. This gives players a choice: play better upgraded vehicle in +/-2 MM or worse stock vehicle in +/-1 MM.

    • That would hugely favor tanks that are already good stock. For example the Borsig WT. Stock gun is a gun from T9. Since its not dependant on speed, the engine is not needed at all since it is a bush camper and sniper.

      • Most tanks normally see MM positions as top, middle, and bottom tier in battles. Tier 10 is always top tier. Tier 9 is always either top tier or middle tier. Where this will have a huge impact is in the middle tiers. For example, a tier 6 Type 58 is a very capable stock tank. With this MM change, it would only see tier 6 and tier 7 battles.

        • Instead of just saying “oh that tank is stock, limit it’s MM spread” what they need to do is give a different MM weight depending on the tier of the modules. So if a stock tier 8 tank has a tier 6 gun then it will have a lesser MM weight, whereas something like the Rhm WT that has a tier 9 gun stock won’t have much of a lesser MM weight.

          • You might have to look at engines and suspensions with lights and mediums. They often have much lower tier guns than the tank destroyers and some heavies, yet they are quite competitive with them.

            • Yeah different types of modules may need to have different weights depending on the class of tank but my idea is just a general outline.

    • Yes lets give the Tiger II who can deal 3k damage fairly easily when stock a limited MM. A stock Tiger II has about 500ish more DPM than a fully upgraded one and has more pen than all but the J.T8.8 and FCM of the limited MM Tier 8′s and has more pen than the T32 fully upgraded. Or give a stock IS-2 with its 100 mm gun limited MM Or you want to see more 152 mm SU-152′s slinging heat appearing in Tier 7 games than there already are?

  15. The current MM for certain tanks is pretty much broken, especially t8 tanks (heavies, meds and lights). The power creep in t10 (t10 meds/tds + autoloaders + >1K alpha + viewranges bigger than 400m) make these tanks pretty much useless there. The times when we had +/-3 MM were much better in that regard. Fighting t10 heavies in my t8 is no problem. Sure I ll lose against a good player, but I can be a pain in the ass. But masses of t10 meds and TDs make certain tanks pretty much useless there.

    Furthermore the team composition has to be reworked – what does that mean?

    Fails like this kill the game for many players and in certain tanks that happens quite often (*cough unplatooned t8 @primetime *cough) . A team should consist of many “lower/mid” tier tanks and few top tiers, build like a pyramid standing on its base, not on its top. If like in the example from the screenshot above there are to many higher tier tanks waiting apply +/-1 MM or even create matches only consisting of of one tier t10 only for example.
    The additional waiting time of maybe 5sec especially on prime time with many players available is no problem, if everyone gets a better balanced MM.

    T5 Scouts have no buisness anymore in t10 matches, they are nothing more than rolling free XP/Credits there, limit them to t9.

    Further discussion regarding that topic:

    • I totally agree to this. We need a more “pyramidal” approach, better not with just one “TopTier”, but definitely NOT with just one “BottomFeeder”… From my experience this happens way too often from T6 onwards; and, incidentially, T6+ is where the problem with this really starts (DPM, armor etc difference feel a lot less pronounced on the lower tiers… At least I really feel I can do something for the team in a T7 battle with my Stug3. With the 30.01(d) in a T8 it’s often different.)

      Apart from that: I personally don’t think there’s so much wrong with MM, I just think a massive rebalancing of all tanks and tiers is needed. HP/Alpha/RoF/Pen needs to be adjusted across the board, IMHO. In the end the goal must be fewer one-shots and the tactical option to actually take a couple of hits, even when one is not in the TopTier heavy. IMHO this would make for more tactical possibilities, even out team experience/skill (to a certain degree), at the “cost” of creating longer battles.

  16. Please make the match rigging algorithm (as described in your patented matchmaker) more subtle, because now it’s really obvious and annoying… Thanks!

    • You mean that Match rigging algorithm that if its actually used would give everyone a fair team? If that patent is used every game you are in will have the top tier tanks on both teams be bad players and the bottom tier tanks on both teams be good players.

      Remember that patent if it is being used is being used on both your team AND THE OTHER TEAM.

      I am sorry to burst your tin foil bubble but the patent if used does not affect just the team you are on while stacking the enemy team.

  17. +1/-1 1-30 seconds.
    +2/-2 31-60 seconds.
    Problem solved 99% of the time.
    I certainly wouldn’t mind a slightly higher queue time (30 seconds or so) for a much more balanced game.

  18. For me skill level MM is mandatory for a good gaming experience.

    In this game you cant resurrect in the map (like in cs or battefield), winning is a team work. And in any competition, if you play in a team you play with people who’ve got the same level of skill.

    Imagine Usaiin Bolt giving the baton to Stephen Hawking.
    Well that’s exactly what i see most times in this game between 16h to 23h

    Ah, it comes to me another example:

    • Have you tried playing in the modes that give you a team who are of the same skill? They have a lot of modes that do this: Clan wars you pick who is on your team, tank companies, you pick who is on your team or if you join the team with other people, team battle you can pick who is on your team or pick if you join the team.

      If you want to only play with people of the same skill then use the 3 game modes that will give you games with people of your skill level on your team. How hard is it to figure out to stop playing pubs if being with only players of your terrible skill is that important to you.

  19. My thoughts:

    1. MM should put weight only for the gun actually equiped.

    2. The mechanism should double the chances for heavy tanks when stock being put in same tiered games, mediums a 40% better chance of being in same tier and stock TDs 30% higher chance of being put in a same tier game.

    3. MM should reward T8 tanks (or any tanks that are two tiers lower in a game then the top tanks) with more exp and credits, bcoz damage done to higher tier vehicles with a lower tier one should be rewarded more as it is now.

    4. The MM should also balance the team setup according to the map. Not only equaling scouts, but also the other tanks. While one team gets 5 heavy tanks in an urban area and the other meds it already favors one team from the start. Or 6 med tanks on Fisherman Bay/ Steppes for example.

  20. I encounter this quite often in high tiers where (for example) the enemy team would have four tier 9s where as we only have 3 and a tier 8 is put in place as a tier 9. Or there would be 8 TDs per side and my team gets wrecked because we decided to push. This can occur quite regularly whether is peak time or when there is just a few thousand on and can be quite off putting sometimes.

    These are only small things but it happens so regularly from my experiences on the ASIA server that you have to get over it and in some cases getting a win out of an unbalanced game can be quite gratifying. I honestly wouldn’t mind waiting a bit longer for much more fair,balanced matches that isn’t spammed filled with TDs.

    I do feel a bit sorry for light tanks like the Pz38na getting stuck in tier 8 matches – throwing most likely new players into the deep end.

  21. The only thing I can think of is getting rid of scout mm for some tier 4 light tanks. If it doesn’t lead to a dedicated tier 5+ scout, give it standard +/-2 spread.

    Pz38na, a20, m5a1 stuart. And pz38na.

    Since there were many tier 6+ light tanks introduced, as well as quite many fast tier 10 mediums – is there really a need for those trashcans to get into games with monsters? “Tier 4 hell” anyone?

    Something would have to be done about t-50 though, since it leads to t-34 and by the time I played it, it was one of OP (a bit, but still) tanks, so giving it regular mm would be bad. Are there any possibilities to link it to mt-25 vie some scout-capable light tank that would fit tier 5? Or is it possible to up-tier t-50? Would that even make any sense – to make a scout line like that? Your opinions, plz!

  22. i have seen it too many times that mediums are matched against Heavies even when not in a platoon.
    how hard is it to switch them ans both sides get equal MTand HT. would also like to see MM to take into account the stock – elite situation. not everyone has an endless supply of free Xp to fully elite a vehicle, and i am pretty sure the game wasn’t designed to operate that way.

  23. 1.The idea of MM based on the status (Elite) of the tank is very good.
    2.+1 spread would be better,so any player could have a real influence on the battlefield.Right now only in rare cases tier 3 tanks turn the outcome of a tier 5 battle (same for all tiers).
    3.I know skilled MM is out of discussion but still,it would be a very good idea in my opinion.Every team should have a roughly equal number of noob/average/good players,so that the outcome of the battle could go either way.It`s no fun to destroy the enemy team in the first 3 minutes of the battle and it`s definitely no fun to lose the battle before it even started.

  24. +- 2 tier spread is fine
    And i would like to see that if a vheicle stock…and stock should well defined, not necessarily the vheicles with basic stuff some vheicle has enormous amount of modules , so it should deicided performancewise
    So “stock” vheicles(up to tier VIII) should get 70% top tier ranking, vheicles with some modules researched should have 55% top tier ranking, and elite vheicles should have mm as now it is.

  25. It was a very interesting video of the MM process, and I am glad they made it.

    I guess my main thought is that all the weighting they do, heavies, lights and arty, seems fine for the 2011 maybe 2012 versions of this game.

    But due to accuracy changes, arty nerfs, and light tanks being left in the dust. I think most would say that mobility and firepower are much stronger than armor (ie heavies.)

    So I question that their entire system (while fine as a system) is tuned for a meta game that is long gone. If it was me I would instead weight TDs specially, maybe arty, and not use scout MM for lights, and rank everything else at normal weight.

    Or maybe scouts do still get scout MM but why not try a 3-tier spread for a but instead of 4-tier.

    And I agree that the stock/elite status of a tank should change points value. Let’s say an elite tank is using 48 points of team space, maybe the stock version uses 44, or lighten the weight by multiplying by .8 or something. But to me the real issue is the current weighting is valuing the wrong vehicle types at this point in WoT not the question of stock tanks.

  26. I guess skill MM, is a bad idea, but… why not “ReBalance/ReSort” the players between a ready set of teams, so that [s]overall skill is equal[s] both team have chances to win.

    • …which would even out everyones w/r back (or up) to around 50% in the long run. Every mm principle with any skill based component would result in this. Take overall skill per team, for example a few unicums and shitload of tomatoes against a team full of fairly decent players, though balanced, the unicums will find themselves far more often thrown into teams they cant rely on, killing the fun for them. Another situation would be two teams consisting of only good and unicum players, after 10k battles I had quite a few of those matches and I have the impression that these battles more often than not result in a draw as it is insanely hard for both sides to win, because there are far less mistakes that can be exploited for a match winning move.

      Not to speak of the insanely long queues.

      • “Not to speak of the insanely long queues.”

        What 4oby describes wouldn’t change waiting times at all, as 30 players for a single battle would already be selected.

        A simple and “non-mandatory” (i.e. if not possible, MM just leaves the teams as they were) redistribution between teams would take only a fraction of a second.

  27. 99% of the playerbase will say this and they are right: get rid of scout matchmaking on non dedicated scout tanks, and lower the overall MM difference on low tier scouts.

  28. imho it would be nice to have a special MM case where lights and some mediums can be placed in a battle together, without any SPG’s, HT’s, or TD’s. If the queue allows, it might be nice to see – almost analogous of a two armies’ scout forces engaging. A quick, super fast game without the plodding other tanks around would appeal to me and hopefully others!

    Hopefully this “fast match” would still use a slightly different weighting (maybe +/- 1 tier) to make things fun.

    A “flyweight” MM if you will, instead of the current “heavyweight” version we know now.

    I hope this makes some sense and is of some interest to the devs.

  29. IMO,
    Tier 1s should have +0 MM.
    I dont think a new player would like to fight T18s with his horribly slow Tier 1 vehicle.

    Tier 2s should have +1 MM with the exception of TDs and SPGs.
    Panzer IIs would love to fight AMX 40s right?

    Tier 3s should also have +1 MM. Exceptions are TDs and SPGs.
    Most tier 3 vehicles lack the capability to scout and they can only tickle tier 5 tanks.

    Tier 4s should have +1 MM as well. Exceptions are TDs, SPGs and Scout tanks.
    At the moment, Tier 4 scout tanks meets Tier 8s. IMO they should meet up to Tier 7s as a +4 MM kinda hurts.
    At tier 4, they lack the HP to not survive oneshots.

    Starting Tier 5 the MM should be +2.

    What do you guys think?

    • Yeah, more gradual tier difference expansion would be good, and profitable for WG: lower probability of a new player being completely destroyed several games in a row means less likely to quit means more likely to spend money on the game. You might say that it works the other way as well (less likely to demolish other players), but everyone knows that bad experiences affect people more and longer than good ones.

      • Is not why they should do skill MM?
        New player have 0 rating, so play with 0 rating player. Same skills. Tier are not important

    • I disagree, if you don’t have +2 MM spread until tier 5 then that means tier 5s and 6s will be on the bottom way more often. The way it is now is fine, +2 starting at tier 3. A bottom tier tank is more than capable of doing well, the problem is the people driving them. I got top experience and mastery badge Ace tanker with a T-46 in a tier 5 game and I’ve gotten top exp being bottom tier plenty of other times too (first place T71 in tier 10 game for example), as have many other players. It isn’t hard, you just have to play smarter.

    • New players only see tier 1 unless there is a shortage of tier 1 in the queue.

      If you give all tier 1 tanks same tier matchmaking then it will be seal clubbers paradise.

        • Out, if he play a lot in T18 he need realy many kills and dmg to get avg. Because stats on this tank is high.
          Like i lost my rating on Hellcat, in wn7 i have 1853 in wn8 1639. Baceuse many good player play it..

  30. IMHO the MM is already almost sufficient as it is. strict skillbased MM would eventually lead to 50% WR for everyone, as many players have mentioned and theorized about already.

    my solution though would be to divide the playerbase into at least 2 groups: some kind of rookie-class (eg until players reach a minimum personal rating value) and a class for “normal” players. so total beginners, regular AFKers and people with a very flat learning curve won’t be teamed up with “normal” players until they gained some tactical sense and start become valuable teammembers.

    • It not lead to 50% WR, look at game where it is implemented. And WR is not important, but ppl like to play game.
      And your “solution” is skill mm, but heavily truncated.

      • true. I heard league of legends does it that way. that would be so nice to have those exciting battles regularly (instead of 1-2 per day).

        • OR instead of skillbased MM, i’d love an option to put people on lists for avoided/preferred players. I hate it when I meet the same “AFK-Tier-VIII+”-player twice or three times in a week.

          *shaming on* yes, I’m talking about you, Jaba_X_C_V *shaming off*

          BUT, I think skillbased MM won’t happen because WG is either unable to reprogramme the MM, OR it would lead to a lack of players suitable for a battle.

          • Is not so hard to implement as map MM. Only lead to longer wait, not get battle in 2s, but in 1min. But i can wait, if i have nice battle. Not on start “oh, great, my team going to lose”

  31. maybe they should make something like a probability for where you are in the team, for example 33% for being higher tier, 33% middle tier and 33% being the bottom tier.. and if you were let’s say the higher tier for one game, the prob. that you will be higher tier again is reduced.. same for the other two.

    only an idea.. what do you think? I wonder if it is easy to implement or not?

    • In the long run, according to WG statistics, this is what happens anyway, without them forcing it. I think if they force proportions in the short term there might be some nasty side-effects (longer waiting times?).

  32. In my opinion the greatest threat against matchmaking today is the hi-tier Tank Destroyers dominating the battles with both tough armor and hardcore cannons easily giving other people a bad day (especially if they are in a lower tier).

    1750 alpha +/- 25% is not balanced against tier 8 vehicles with 1000-1600 hp and much lower armor.

    The TD issue aside, would it makes sense for Storm to implement more MM templates giving us battles with more tanks in the middle spectre of the battle? I see many battles with only 2 or 3 tanks in the middle of the MatchMaking and I wonder if people don’t play those tanks enough to make it happen…

    If instead the MM would often give you 3-5 topdogs and only 3-4 underdogs that would make a lot of room for mid tiers with plenty possibility of really making a difference in battle. The MM is still +/-2 but for a majority of players it feels better…


    • “If instead the MM would often give you 3-5 topdogs and only 3-4 underdogs that would make a lot of room for mid tiers with plenty possibility of really making a difference in battle. The MM is still +/-2 but for a majority of players it feels better…”

      I like this idea!

  33. Fewer +2 (-2) battles for tanks. We shouldn’t get more than 20% +-2 battles. The most amazing battles are where the whole team consists of similar tiered tanks. I know its not possible to have +-1 tier spread, but there should be an effort to minimize the +2 battles as much as possible.

    MM should also not give 3-5 bottom tiered games in a row, its very depressing and unpleasant. Since 8.9, tanks with 60% win rate see mostly bottom tier games. I have gone through 11 games in a row without a same tier game at times.

    • I love t8 battle in my Hellcat, so why you take it away?
      Some random in tiers, tanks is good, u must use skill to do best according to this.

      • And I love T10 battles in my ISU152. Please, don’t look at things from the perspective of a single tank, which is OP for its tier. TDs are generally fine in +2 games, its heavies/meds which suffer the most. Try a T1HT against a T29/IS…. enjoy.

  34. Stock vehicles are often horrible to play, so I would like them to have lower spread (do not fight against +2T tanks). I hate grinding, so I do not grind, so I play lower tiers (more fun), so I do not need (or even consider) premium account ;)
    On the other side, my favourite tanks are good enough to have ±2 spread and it is not a problem for me.

  35. A lot of people complain about a need for skill based MM, all I see this as is an attempt to approximate hardcore mode. I, for one, am glad we don’t have it. I like playing a mix of good and bad players. Sure, sometimes my team gets roflstomped, and sometimes my team does the roflstomping, and sometimes the matches are more even. I think the good makes up for the bad.

    Now, for my opinion about MM, I think all premium tanks should have reduced MM, not a full spread based on “winrate”, and I’m not advocating this because I like pay-to-win, cuz I don’t. Everyone knows premium tanks have worse stats than an equivalent elite vehicle of the same tier. The purpose of these vehicles, other than for collecting, is to earn credits, XP, and crew training, not to PWN. And rarely do they PWN (PzB2 is the exception, and everyone sez the Type 59 used to PWN but less so now). Now, people laid down cold hard cash for these babies. I think they should get something in return. The return is to not be in a tier 5 match all the time in my Pz S35, which it seems I am. I can deal with a tier 4 match, but tier 5 this thing is useless. And I don’t like dropping bones for something that is useless. To balance this out, if there are premium tanks that overperform with their reduced MM I would not be opposed to minor nerfs to adjust the scale some.

    This doesn’t just apply to the Pz S35 either. Play a Ram II in a tier 7 match and see how much lulz you get,
    To illustrate my point, examine the following comparisons…

    Tier 3:
    Pz S35: gun tier 2, 55pen 52alpha
    D2: gun tier 3, 66pen, 55alpha

    Tier 5:
    Ram II: gun tier 4, 105pen, 75alpha
    M4: gun tier 6, 128pen, 115alpha

    Being handicapped in a tank I paid bucks for pisses me off, regardless of tier.

    • Skill MM is not “hardcore mode”, i think u not like it, because u get ur rating on camping on bad players.

      Why premium tanks should have special MM, they are tanks, no different from others. You want earn more?
      “Everyone knows premium tanks have worse stats than an equivalent elite vehicle of the same tier.”
      T34, Lowe? Bad joke.

      I think you selfish, not want balance, only profit.

      • I beg your pardon, me not get me rating by camping on bad players. Me rating isn’t that great BTW.

        Is this a forum to bag on each other, or to make suggestions? I think my concept is legitimate.

  36. I think, that MM based on gun (or engine in case of LT) it good idea.
    Maybe you could do more complex mechanism, like
    each tank have base weight. Each mounted module add some weight to base weight.
    But gun MM is doing some kind of same job without wasting resources.

    Next thing, is skill base MM. It would be nice to MM take in consideration your skill with vehicle.
    Or scale weight of vehicle from 0.8 to 1.2 base on number of battles. At first you are learning, and e.g. after 100 battles you can have full MM weight. And you can even add more weight if you have like 500 battles with Matilda or other low tier tank.

    More generally I think about all matches with end like 15:1-5 like MM fail. Because MM should create matches with equal chance to win. It isn’t fun to have too much weak/strong opponents.

  37. IMHO current MM is pretty good, however if I were to overhaul the MM for stock tanks, it would be this way;

    Each tank is given a tier +/-0.5 of their actual tier, so a stock tier 5 is tier 4.5 and elite it is tier 5.5. As you unlock modules the tier goes up based on the number of modules you unlock, (These could be weighted for individual tanks, if certain modules have little effect when upgraded and others have a greater effect) I choose unlocked modules rather than mounted modules as this prevents people manipulating their tier by mounting top gun and stock everything else. Their MM weight then linearly interpolates between the integer tiers (so at tier 4.5 MM weight is 10 and tier 5.5 is 16).
    Especially weak stock tanks could then have a -1 tier weight and strong stock tanks +1, ditto for weak elite tanks and strong elite tanks.

    For scouts scrap the increased MM spread and re-jig some of the scouts, make the Chaffee tier 6 for instance.

    I think skill based MM would produce even more rage and hate then the current system, as alot of people rate themselves above average or good and would whine and rage in the forums about always getting bad people in their team despite them perceiving themselves to be good.

    • About skill MM. Will be rage, but normal ppl (not ppl want only stats) will be happy. WIll many uniq lost it, because they feed on bad player (not see uniq camp entire game in his HT and get good stats).

  38. There should be strict rules that prevent players from having too much games in tier+2 and tier+1 battles.
    If you play a large sample of games (like 20.000 for example) the numbers will probably even out and you will spend almost 1/3 of time as bottom tier, 1/3 as top, and 1/3 as middle tier. But how many players play so many battles with just one tank? – Practically none.
    Most players play 10-500 battles and in that small sample a lot of “shit” can happen. Some get lucky and end up in good games, others are completely ruined by seemingly constant +2 battles for the entire duration of their “small sample grind”.

  39. I think type of tank assigned vs maps need to be looked into. while sometimes it provides fun and interesting fights, other times, it makes the match nearly unwinnable for one team (ex: one team gets a bunch of TD’s on erlenberg (the one with the 3 bridges) and the other team gets a bunch of slow heavies) only way for the heavies to win in this case is to camp and hope the TD’s give up their advantage by pushing. result = boring campfest for everybody.

  40. If only i wasn’t at the bottom of the team every battle, yea, that would be awesome. Thanks Storm.

  41. - apparently, Storm thinks that the rule for stock vehicles having preferential MM for a while has been cancelled, but he will doublecheck

    Yeah… got a tier 10 game in my second battle in my Indien Panzer…

  42. A reasonable chance to damage enemy vehicles is a must for a good MM. Ergo, tanks without relevant gun upgrades should get a limited MM by default. (-2/+1). Also, some tanks should get a -1/+2 MM. Some tanks have simply so much alpha they are a plague in -2 MM games. The SU-100, the (I)SU-152 and the KV-1S come to mind. Beginning players should not be bothered with a scout MM. It is bad for them and it is bad for the top tiers who get a completely useless scout. Number of battles played should unlock full scout MM for light tanks. I would suggest 3.5K battles might unlock full scout MM. Something else that comes to mind is that skill might be a good thing as an added parameter. Not quite a fully fledged skill MM, but it would be good if the skill sums on both teams were to roughly match. For instance, 15*3K (skill) = 45K skill. The other team would the have be within a reasonable margin of said 45K (skill). Tank type might also be given more consideration. Last but not least, troll platoons ought to be impossible. Of course, tanks with a scout MM could be excepted from this, but I strongly feel that people trying to purposefully destroy the games for others should not be allowed to do as they please.

    • If only I could edit my post! The bit about tank types getting more consideration, I was thinking about heavy tanks being more likely to get into -1/+1 games. They are supposed to be the main assault force, something which is simply not going to work in +2 games. Tank destroyers on the other hand are usually blessed with a powerful gun and have much less trouble with +2 games and should therefore be more likely to get into top tier games.

      • You missed the point by a mile or two. Number of battles is in fact important to determine whether somebody is new to the game or not, alternate accounts excepted, obviously. So if you want to protect new players, number of battles played is not only a good, but the only criterium to decide whether or not a player may be new to the game.

  43. The only good side I see is that it is fast.

    What should be different:

    1 – Why give extra weight to your tanks, it would mean you balanced it wrong by the Tier. Adjust the tank weight and nothing more, a multiplication like this just make the MM more complex is imbalanced. Mainly about scouts that are aligned very high and are very difficult to use.

    2 – Weight for tanks:
    Stock = -10%
    Not stock but without last gun = -5%
    Elite = Normal.

    3 – Assure that at least the 5 higher tanks are on the same tier and have the same number of SPGs, this is a must be.

    4 – Use the player rating that you already have, at least on the 5 higher tanks, it is also a must have!

    5 – Never relax the rule, it is a lot more frustrating being in a trash fight than waiting more.

  44. I will start playing again when the mm start working whit players stats.Useless to play now when there is so big difference whit players.There are games where otherside has 7 unicum players and other side only wery poor players.

  45. MM should be +/- 1. Scouts +/- 3 at the max, maybe +/-2.

    For non-light tanks, playing +/-2 is just retarded, especially at tier 7 and 8. Playing against tanks you have no chance of penning frontally isn’t fun, nor is it “challenging” as SerB claims. It’s just stupid. Stock VK4502a has a shot versus name a tier 10 how exactly? Given the amount of high alpha/high pen guns in the game, lower tiers have virtually no chance in high tier games. Tier 7 guns versus tier 10 guns isn’t fun. And killing fun makes people not want to play, which, spoiler alert, makes them not buy things from WG. There’s /some/ tanks that do alright with the +/- 2 spread, but the reason the current MM is shit is because of the concentration of higher tanks in the games. When MM was +/- 4, there would only be one or two high tier tanks, and 7 or 8 tanks that were about equal on the bottom. This at least led to interesting game play because there were tanks that you’d have a chance against.

    Light tanks have been powercreeped out of relevance, due to the sigma changes, and again, the high alpha guns. They don’t have the view range advantage on any tanks in high tiers (WTF E100 wolololo) and mobility is less useful now because of the accuracy of almost every high tier gun. Moving lights to a less punishing MM spread (where they can’t be oneshotted by half the tanks in the match) will give them a bit better shot. Tier 3-5 light tanks also need less stupid MM. The 38na is the best case of how stupidly broken scout MM is. It should never ever be facing tier 8s; even tier 6s can blast them to bits before they have a chance.

    I understand the current WG “lets promote people converting xp to free xp” model by having stupid MM, but promoting better game play by fixing MM to the point where people can have fun in almost every game rather than only some games will lead to a better bottom line.

      • ISU 152 would beg to differ…you really couldn’t give less of a shit what tier you go against…

        Yeah, some tanks are more suited to take on +2 tier opponents while others aren’t. KV-3 fares really poorly against tier 9…then again T25 AT or T29 or Tiger…well…not so bad, learn to aim for weak spots.

  46. MM weight of a tank currently depends only on type and tier; instead, I think that every tank should have its own weight based on server stats, that can be varied, so that all tanks are weighted accordingly. For example, all tier ten mediums are 120 mm points, and all tier 8 mediums are 40 mm points. Not many would think that those numbers are optimal….

  47. Overall, I think MM is ok. However, fail platoons ruin this game for me sometimes. For example, two tier 1 tanks platooned with a tier 10. I’ve seen it happen. Fail platoons shouldn’t be allowed to enter battle. There should be some mechanism in the game preventing it.

    A nice-to-have would be MM based on player Win Rate, to prevent grossly imbalanced teams, that seem to occur at least half of the time.

  48. “- there is apparently a bug that when a Chaffee platoons with KV-1S (or other lower tier spread heavies), it will get their MM spread, Storm states he needs to check”

    That’s only logical considering in the video they said that the MM spread of the vehicle with the higher MM weight is considered (really surprised me, I always assumed the MM spread mattered, not the weight, and that’s also what it says in the wiki).
    Although the Chaffee is weighed like a tier 6, tier 6 heavies get an extra 20% weight for being heavies, so their MM is considered.

    If the info in the video was correct, you could platoon 2 Chaffees with 1 TOG and would never see anything higher than tier 7. Or 2 Pz. 1 Cs with a Pz. 38H (which has higher MM weight than a regular tier 3) and you’d never see anything higher than tier 3. Or a tier 4 light with a Pz. B2 and never see anything higher than tier 4 (does that work? That really shouldn’t work).

    So either the info in the video was wrong, or they should fix it by just taking into account the highest battle tier rather than MM weight.

  49. One change I would like to see (hopefully) is if the balance weight is bigger than 10% after the two teams are made, it checks to see if swapped 1 or 2 players to the other team couldn’t brink them closer in weight.

  50. stock and elite vehicles should be considered differently, while this sounds like a good idea ,
    I think it would lead to new OP tanks with great armour and ok guns that people will exploit.
    would an E-100 get tier 9 MM and not see other tier 10′s if he used the 12.8cm gun ???
    and only really tier 9 tanks really suffer from being long time stock, due to XP requirements.

    Skill based MM will lead to every one having 50% WR in the end.

    just sort out the tier 4 lights , yes there are other problems but no easy solutions
    most solutions cause more problems than they will fix I think.
    getting rid of premium ammo would go a long way to rebalancing the game though and not have any unwanted side effects other than making the Brit heavy grind even harder work than it already is.

      • you miss the point about skill based MM
        bad players will end up with 50% WR
        great players will end up with 50% WR

        then you will be back to square 1 again , it will take a while but in the end it your back to the start.
        I play for fun , but hate idiot teams that are clueless,

  51. I think that t4 scouts, at least the fast ones, are relatively fine the way they are. Maybe tier 7 should be the limit for them, since it really is pretty difficult for the vast majority of players to get anything done at that tier in a t4 vehicle. The tier 6 scouts that have no business seeing tier 10, and the tier 8 scouts should not be given the tier 11 MM they currently suffer under. And as others have said earlier, camo rebalancing plus arty nerfs have really done a number on these tanks.

    Basically, shifting the MM for each level of scout down by 1 would be good. ELC can be an exception given that its gun is IMO good enough for it to take the pocket TD role at t9.

  52. What i would like to see is skill based MM what takes skill into account like it does with tank weight.

    for example it makes sure that all the players in each team have a around +- 10% skill difference.

    ”Beginners” are still able to learn from the better players since there in the same team.

    ”pros” can still do the things like they do now.

    • ”Beginners” dont learn from game with better. If some one want to be better he will be. Most ppl play for fun, are not interested in skills. I so many times wrote “don’t go” or “go” and red player do nothing. He don’t read, or ignore. So don’t put this stupid argument of learning it not work. Don’t believe look at stats player with 20k+ games, many not learn at all.

  53. Tell them that they should change the MM for A-20 and Pz. 38nA. I remember when I started to play WoT, I wanted Tiger so badly. But there was a pz 38 nA in the way, and you know how it feels when you dont even have 100 battles and you get into tier 8 battles? It really sucks + pz 38 nA had really low accelaration when I was playing that tank. Its really pain in the a** when you’re a newbie and don’t know how to play/scout and you get in the tier 8 matches. No wonder everybody complains about pz 38 nA drivers when they dont know anything about scouting.

  54. Well current match maker is either staged or made by idiots.
    And now the constructive part:
    - uneven number of top tiers per team (+/- 1 diffrence is fine, but usualy it’s +/- 3-5)
    - uneven number of types of vehicles (15 TD’s vs 15 HT’s on Campinovka yay!)
    - lack of arty balance per team ( having 3 tier 7 artys in team when enemy has 3 tier 9 artys is… )
    - wicked game assembling rules, by this I mean situation where for example: I pick tier 6 tank to battle, there’s 600 other tier 6 tanks in battle but I have to wait 3 mins for battle and it’s gonna be tier 8 battle. Wouldn’t it be easier, faster and more convinient for everyone if the priority would be creating even teams consisting of the same tiers?
    - situation when one team get’s a vehicle of highier tier as top than other (I don’t mean the bug where X tier could appear alone in battle of 8 tiers only)
    - (conspiracy theory warning!) Why the hell if you pick arty / scout / anything soft then it has to put you on Himmelsdorf or and reverse, you take slow ass heavy tank BANG you get Campinovka.
    - (conspiracy theory warning!) Why the hell it always “randomizes” me in the starting point as far from the place I want to go as possible
    - the map spread… Yea maybe in their useless overall statistics it looks even, but the fact is you usualy get to play 2-3 maps in particular game mode over and over during one day. If you don’t play daily and a lot, you can spend months on not seeing even once some maps / game modes.
    - light tanks as top tier – rly shouldn’t happen over tier 4, it’s not cool
    - match maker DOES NOT compensate troll platoons, or word ‘compensate’ means something diffrent in WG

  55. Oh and I forgot, team game mode “skill” based match maker doesn’t work. Or at least it has way too big spread.

    • league of legends?
      Is base more on WR, but it work in good way. Most battle you skill are important, not like in WoT 1/100 battle. I like use my skill and improve it, but is hard if in first 3min 2/3 team are dead.

  56. Well the MM works with what it has, some improvements that could be done would be to visibly mark the scout vehicles as scout effin’ vehicles.

    A new player won’t have any idea that the Pz38n(ot)a(vailable) gets scout MM or what that even means and he gets put up with his nooby friends tiered at tier 8…hurp durp. That’s retarded.

    They should really implement some sort of a warning: “X tank has scout MM, you sure you wanna go to battle with the current setup? YES NO CANCEL”

    When such a “fail” platoon enters a battle, the MM will try to unfuck a fuckup of massive proportions(that really originates from the devs)

  57. Let us submit more than one tank to MM queue at a time. Other online games do this. This would then allow them to modify MM to be more picky and balanced – +1 tier, caps, etc. Also, show us what is waiting in the MM queue BEFORE we hit battle. If I know the waiting time is shorter for one tier or tank than another, I choose that one.

  58. Any game that ends 15:5 or worse is a FAULT that WG should be working to fix. Screw everything else. I don’t care what side of a stomping I am on, or my win rate %, when most of my games end in lop-sided scores, I am not having fun.

  59. The main issue I have is with the 20% leeway allowed in the teams. What I believe should happen is that after the 30 tanks are picked, the teams should be shuffled to ensure they are as close in MM weight as possible within the current strictures of equal arty, etc.

  60. Scout tanks like the Pz38na and A20, should have their mm spread reworked, they arent fast enough to be good scouts and their weapons are severely underpowered, also make the game almost cruel to new players that still dont grasp the mechanics of the game.

  61. They should implement the limitation skill MM which activate after the tradition MM chosen the 30 players and divide into 2 team.
    Then compare two team’s list one by one from the top to the bottom. For example, we combine the weight and winrate as the value to adjust the balance.
    1. Choose the first member from two teams. Remember their value. Then remove them from old team and push them into two new teams.
    2. Choose another member from the top of the two team’s list. Push the higher value member into the lower value team and push the lower value member to the higher value team. Calculate the new value of the two teams.
    3. Repeat step 2 until 30 players reallocate.

    It won’t delay the MM and cause just a little stress to the server which not impact the server’s work.

    In my statistics which from the Chinese Server, the 10% weight differ means the lower weight team have just 16% win chance. It is unacceptable. And this new system will greatly optimize the MM.

  62. First of all I think they should make failplatoon creation impossible, or allow tank tier difference in a platoon to be no bigger than 1, though I understand that there could be problems with scout tanks.
    Secondly I think they should give longer preferential MM for stock tanks, and if a tank is fully upgraded before the first battle by using free exp, then no preferential MM should be given to it.
    With everything else I believe MM forks fine and it should stay as it is.

  63. One of the MM rules is that the weight difference between the two teams can’t be more than 10%
    Would not be better if that 10% will be lowered to 5%?

  64. I think there is an easy way to implement semi-skill based matchmaking:
    Once you have both teams assembled (they are within 10% vehicle balance already), you shuffle players slot after slot top-down order between teams based on skill calculation (total team wr probability). If you go from 10% range, you suspend the rule for the bottom 3-5slots and reshuffle them again without skill restriction.

    You know, guys, it bugs me how WG cannot think of some very simple algorithms to optimize any feature of their games…

    Oh, Frank, please reply to comments that you forwarded so we know which ideas you liked ;) .

    • PS: for platoons, you calculate their average wr and reshuffle all players at the same time of course. So, in platoon-heavy battle you may have even less than half reshuffling “slots/actions” compared to players slots.

      • PS2: after a bit of thinking it came to me that taking WR as a skill coefficient is not a good idea because it would get equalized pretty soon and lead to bigger error margin as more players get carried. PR is not a good idea too, because it is evertyhing but skill now.

        For now i think that it should be average vehicle xp, as it has WR hidden in it and other efficiency factors too, and from the beginning tells you about players proficiency with current vehicle. Moreover, it is an ultimate comparator between all vehicles in battle, as good players stay good and bad players who got carried in platoons/companies can still be seen as bad. And if for some vehicles it is balance economy-wise, it would be a point to rebalance calculation formula for them.
        It has an additional benefit: without percentage and complicated formula you get rid of power consuming calculations, only add to total team xp and compare teams (to stay within certain limit from total 30players xp), even no division instuctions ;) . Can anyone get to make it simpler :P ? Self-optimalization FTW!

  65. I think the idea that the vehicles from same country won’t be split into two side would be interesting. For example, we might get USSR+German vs USA+British+French+China in one match, and USA vs all other countries in next, but won’t have USSR vehicles in both of the teams of a single match.

    With number of countries increased by now, I don’t think it is impossible, and it would improve the telepresence of the game. Tiger + Panther vs IS3 + Pershing is definitely more interesting than Tiger+Panther+IS3+Pershing vs Tiger+Panther+IS3+Pershing.

  66. They need to add a skill based factor or efficiency of some sort to Random Battles. Too many times have there been matches where, it’s a rofl stomp from one side. More “balanced” matches do happen, but not often. Yes I am aware of the 7-42 mode. Prefer random battles. I would think more people would like to play with others of their similar skill level than having to go a smaller less known game mode. Only other complaint on MM, for Heaven’s sakes WG you need to rebalance Lights like you did for artillery. We need this!

  67. IMHO there shouldnt be skill MM not personal ratings MM because when you re good you deserve to own so there should only be MM based on number of battles.

  68. This is probably arriving too late to take into consideration but still it’s worth a try. For me the problem is not the tank assignation part of the MM. At 31k battles and with Senior Technical Engineer earned (not paid for with free XP) I know that there is enough you can do with any tank if you play it right in almost any battle (there is always that 5%).
    My problem is with the map assignation. For example yesterday night I played 5 battles in a row, 4 of them were on serene coast and this is not a rare occasion, there are days when I never get a certain map and days when I get that map 25% of the battles.
    At some point there were discussions of a system to allow a player to restrict one map when going into random. I saw no mention of it in the last 6 months though. Don’t know why though, there are 34 different maps (without Dragon ridge, widepark and provence) thus whatever each player restricts, MM still has 4 options left to pick.
    If restriction is not ok then maybe a points system:
    Each player has a mark for the last 5 maps he played, previous map 5 points, the one before 4, 3 2 and 1.
    When MM chooses the map it sums up all the points from each player and chooses the map with the least points (preferably 0)
    If this is costly for the server then maybe give 1 map per minute, all matches started in a certain minute will have the same map (different modes). This means that a map rotates once every 34 minutes so no chance of the same map 3 times in a row for anyone and, best of all, if there is a map you really don’t feel like playing at that point, you can wait until the minute passes and it’s another map’s turn (this is however prone to minor exploitation as Arty will avoid Himmelsdorf, Ruinberg and Ensk).

    • This.

      From what I unsderstand teams are chosen first, then map is assigned.
      So it can be anything – it is “random” at the moment, but there is so many options.

      1. Least played map today (summed from all players)
      2. Random with chance to choose a specific mp inversely proportional to the number of times this battle was played by 30 players in the game.

      3 same as 1 or 2 above but instead of number of time battle was played, let’s use player preferences.
      Every player can assign from 0 to 10 points to any map, scores from every player in a battle are summed up and 1 map is randomly chosen with the chance proportional to the player preferences.

      Hell, even disregarding players factor, just maps being distributed evenly, not 5 times in a row karelia assault :D