Jump to content


Photo

Matchmaking and Battle Ratings - answers


  • Please log in to reply
1375 replies to this topic

#1 todace

todace

    Officer cadet

  • Gaijin Administrators
  • PipPipPip
  • 436
  • 4 Thanks

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:32 PM

Introduction


War Thunder - is an unique and complex game from different points of view. We are making things that were never ever done before by anyone and our challenge is that we have ambitious goals for our players satisfaction.


Players are fighting using vehicles that reproduce the actual ones with a high degree of reliability. Vehicles in the game are from different dates of release and operations, different countries, types, they were used for different tasks and which cannot be compared directly one to another: bombers, attackers, hydroplanes, fighters, carrier-based fighters, heavy tanks, anti-aircraft artillery, tank destroyers and so on.


In real life most of the vehicles would never be fighting together in one battle (or even at the same theatre of operations).


At the same time the battles themselves are made for random players. A player may choose any aircraft or ground vehicle and press “To Battle”.


Matchmaker (and the battles themselves) should be made so it won’t just create battles, but create them for any vehicles that will be in the queue, for example, there could be only bombers in there, or fighters, or only attackers (in any combination for any country and at any rank), and battle still need to start, since players won’t (and shouldn’t) choose specific vehicles to get balanced teams on both sides.


Matchmaker will try to select the most optimal combinations, but for battles with no ability to re-spawn multiple times, nothing can technically guarantee the ability to select teams based on vehicle combat roles.


Additional nuance is the fact that players progress is personal and not team oriented, a player should have ability to earn, and progress in research and play in any vehicle he chooses.


No real balance based on “technical characteristics”, or “historically fought against each other”, or “production date” is even theoretically possible.


For example, B-17 was produced in same years as I-15, it even has similar speed characteristics, but it is obviously not an equal foe for I-15. In an imaginary duel of B-17 versus I-15 (even against four I-15) the B-17 will most likely will be the winner.


At the same time in hypothetical battles (its impossible right now by ranks of the planes and their BR), where in one team there were one or two B-17’s and in another team - one or two I-15’s, victory can be achievable by any side given decent team play - more so, the personal effectiveness for the I-15 may be higher than for the B-17 (because there are obviously more aircraft than just B-17s on the other team).


The matchmaker system (and the battles themselves) are calculated this way:

  • it will gather battles for any vehicles in the queue

  • it will provide the maximum possible balance in sessions (in average)

  • it will provide maximum equal personal efficiency (based on research points and silver lions amounts) in battles (in average)


Matching occurs only based on the BR and the vehicle rank: vehicles of 3 rank differences cannot be in the same battle, only one rank or two, the BR difference will not be more than 1 for aviation and 0.7-1 for ground forces (we are not counting that there is a possibility to get weaker vehicles into a battle while in squad or in games with multiple re-spawns).


We are calculating BRs based on statistical data. It is gathered from the amounts of fly outs, average life time, shot down enemies, lost vehicles, critical hits, destroyed AI vehicles, destroyed bases and generally by everything what affects victory and personal progress, but without accounting if the team won or lost (we collect that information as well and analyse it to evaluate matchmaker job and also balance of the mission, but since teams are not necessarily created balanced by the type of vehicles, the fact of the victory and loss is not considered for BR calculation).


This happens approximately once per month and also usually after 2 weeks after changes in FM/DM/Missions etc. The BR update is not always happening right after it.


Incoming changes:


Incoming changes to BR are aimed to complete two goals.


For aviation - it is just a regular re-calculation based on the statistics. We have taken into account players opinions and, possibly, will change only the most changed planes BR (by statistic) from last patches. It will allow us to better analyse those changes and make them smoother.


For ground vehicles we also plan to increase possible brackets, while saving the possibility of any tank is able to destroy any tank it meets in battles. The old brackets (for 0.7 BR that is more than 20 possible brackets) was leading to the possibility of very long queues for tank battles, especially at 3-5 ranks, and at the same time variety of the vehicles in combat was very limited.


Discussion and further changes for matchmaking


Players always discuss matchmaking saying that its not ideal. Partly it happens because people instinctively think that vehicles with equal BR should be “equal” and “fair” (based on technical characteristics, date of construction or participation in real battles), while forgetting that comparison of the incomparable - different types of vehicles made for different tasks and often never encountering each other in real life battles, like carrier-based fighters or long-distance fighters and frontline attackers and fighters.


Often players forget that specific aircraft can meet other planes more often from the list of possible opponents, than those which they are comparing one to each other, vica-versa, its rare that there will be teams made from one type of vehicle only. At the same time balance should be based on teams and within the limits of our in game missions.


But we are listening to every constructive suggestion and are ready to participate in any dialogue.


Of course we cannot physically participate in dialogue with all the hundreds of thousands of our players at the same time.


So if you will collect suggestion for matchmaking (with taking into account specific points, like, for example, not excluding from the system any type of vehicle and not creating the situation that some player may never get into the battle if the rest of the players select same type of the vehicle as he did) - then we will look into it and will answer to them. At least to those that take into account all the specifics tasks required of the matchmaker.


We are also ready for online discussions and answers to questions in real time with “emissaries” of the community - of course you will need to select those who will be presenting your case and asking your questions.

 

I hope you understand where I am coming from with this and would ask, rather than assume we are not listening, try and appreciate we are really only doing our best for the entire community, not just one group or another.


  • 48

#2 RNGesus

RNGesus

    Gib Coffee

  • Steel Generals Testers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,118
  • 89 Thanks
8214
=StB= Strategic Bombers

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:33 PM

*
POPULAR

ok hows this 262 at 7.0

 

Keep in mind these are from a RB perspective

editing in progress.

 

262 is a large reason people are upset.

 

Read these reasons why it should be at 7.0 the 262 A1

 

1. It will fight the following aircraft.

 a. Meteor F3 6.7 BR

 b. Sea Meteor 7.0 BR

 c. Bearcat 1b   6.3 BR

 d. Tempest 2    6.3 BR

 e. Mig9s E/L     7.0 BR

 f. B-17G            6.0 BR

 g. B-24              6.3 BR

 h. Tu2 44?         6.3 BR

 i. P-80               6.7 BR

 j. F-80 C            6.7 BR

 k. B-29  whenever its implemented

 m. Almost forgot the Thunderjet  6.7 BR

 L. Lancaster with the correct bombload will be a complete nightmare for the germans.god bless its soul is sitting at 6.0 BR at the moment.

 

these late war/post war jets are all similar in speed/armament to pose a great matchup for the 262-A1.

the Props are nothing to sneeze at, in fact the F8F-1b and soon to be implemented F8F2b are late war/post war props with impressive armaments and flight characteristics.

 

The 262-A1 has a similar climb rate to most of these planes and i see no reason why it should not be fighting them as all of these planes are extreme late tier 4 and early tier 5. Also we will not be having the 262s simply run away and causing undo grief cus as is the game is won by the allies after 20 minutes anyways by ground forces on the german RB maps.

 

this is the most simple solution i can give you for a part of this complicated matter.

 

 

Your statistics are based on people who cant fly worth a damn. I am not saying the 262s should face P-51s but we have better aircraft than the P-51 for them to face. Hell the P-51 H from what i understand will cause all sorts of headaches to the germans.

 

 

EDITED: ty batidari


Edited by ___Kirito___, 22 July 2014 - 10:58 PM.

  • 209

aRieJAr.png


#3 Juliet_Six

Juliet_Six

    Professional Lancer Fanboy

  • Steel Generals Testers
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,547
  • 836 Thanks
3391
=SIM= Simutopia Aircombat Division

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:39 PM

MEGABLASTA is always discussing fair BRs in an objective manner and is a good player too.

 

He would be a perfect emisarry of the Realistic Battles-Community


Edited by Stona, 22 July 2014 - 10:41 PM.
next time create a proper post instead of stupid comment

  • 31

#4 Linx6

Linx6

    Constant Endeavour

  • Steel Generals Testers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,753
  • 163 Thanks
7343
[ThG] Thunder Guns

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:39 PM

*
POPULAR

Still going with the statistic based BR's: http://forum.warthun...d/#entry2600293

 

The community(of this forum at least) does not want it. As it does not work.

 

Why?

 

Because of multiple reasons here is a summary:

 

The system is statistic based. So it changes according to the average performance of the players in game with a specific plane. The problem is some nations are A: bound to be picked first by the majority(more new players= less skill in that nation) and B: they are bound to have a bigger player base( more people means the skill of the few affects it less and vice versa). To add to it some planes are harder to learn to use for example a P47 is harder to learn then an A6M2. So the P47 will have a lower BR as US gets more new players and has more players over all and the plane is harder to fly while the A6M2 is easy to learn and will be played by more experienced players on average and will have a larger effect do to smaller player base. Even if the P47 is superior the A6M2 in both performance and date of introduction.

 

The game has 3 modes: Arcade RB and SB. All 3 want something different.

 

Arcade wants balance. This could be achieved via testing the planes manually.

 

RB wants balance but still being somewhat historic. This could be achieved with a semi historic BR's focused on balanced.

 

SB wants pure historical accuracy. Based of combat records and introduction dates for non combat planes and possible introduction for prototypes.

 

 

And even the fans made some BR's of their own that minus some tweaking could work fine in game:

 

http://forum.warthun...n/#entry2797676

 

http://forum.warthun...hunder-updated/


Edited by Linx6, 22 July 2014 - 10:58 PM.

  • 155

isRp7KX.pngSKiRDLx.png

“Two Yak fighters can engage four enemies and four can engage sixteen. Flying these aircraft you can feel yourself a true master of the sky!”-Normandie Niemen


#5 Echorion

Echorion

    Group captain

  • Steel Generals Testers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,643
  • 84 Thanks
4822
-Furry- Furry Organized Gaming

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:40 PM

This news is good news mostly.


Edited by Echorion, 22 July 2014 - 10:40 PM.

  • 2

QHAUaFA.jpg


#6 BatiDari

BatiDari

    Corporal

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 42
  • 0 Thanks

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:48 PM

 

Your statistics are based on people who cant fly worth a damn and the swallows event. I am not saying the 262s should face P-51s but we have better aircraft than the P-51 for them to face. Hell the P-51 H from what i understand will cause all sorts of headaches to the germans.

Statistic is only affected by Random battles. Events have no effect on it.


  • 0

#7 ohsi

ohsi

    Officer cadet

  • Steel Generals Testers
  • PipPipPip
  • 471
  • 26 Thanks
5099

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:49 PM

We are also ready for online discussions and answers to questions in real time with “emissaries” of the community - of course you will need to select those who will be presenting your case and asking your questions.

 

I'm pretty sure this will clear things up. How can we choose such emissaries in an "official" way?


  • 7

¡Síganme en Zona de Tregua (foro)!


#8 WildBlueYonder

WildBlueYonder

    39ª Squadriglia LINCI

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,262
  • 96 Thanks
5117
-LINCI- 39a Squadriglia Linci

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:50 PM

*
POPULAR

No real balance based on “technical characteristics”, or “historically fought against each other”, or “production date” is even theoretically possible.

Ok....welp then the community will always be proving the statistic system as the wrong system and the community would want something else, as they've been asking for over 5 months.
 
Way to go. 

  • 120
"you're heavier, don't expect to zoom-climb better."- A WWII Japanese pilot

Posted Image

#9 RNGesus

RNGesus

    Gib Coffee

  • Steel Generals Testers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,118
  • 89 Thanks
8214
=StB= Strategic Bombers

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:51 PM

Removed

Well TheFors got us into this mess lets have him get us out of it.


  • 8

aRieJAr.png


#10 LocutusRazor

LocutusRazor

    Pilot officer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 599
  • 2 Thanks
2414

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:51 PM

In reality the statistics based BR system would be ideal but as when it comes to statistics you need actuall numbers to be able to make such changes.

 

I am not sure that in some higher rank planes there is even close with all those RF and income nerfs.

 

I mostly play RB battles with both tanks and planes and so far up to rank IV i found it mostly ok. Other then the problem when i get thrown into a to high rank battle for some random nonimportant reason.

When it comes to actually fixing you should try to listen to the playerbase more.


  • 0

YRqZLPC.png

" If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it ain't fixed, don't use it "


#11 Epicolor

Epicolor

    Squadron leader

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,184
  • 114 Thanks
5171

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:53 PM

*
POPULAR

Todace

 

Statistics are good to reveal avarage player behaviour, but not for balancing!

 

Most players are like a river and will flow where are less resistance (easy low under tiered). If you keep doing what you do you make a waterfall in one place and a desert in another.

 

 

 

Lets say you decide to lower the BR of ME262 to a proper lvl. 

 

People will finally come to play it.

Many new people means many inexperienced with the plane.

They will lose their plane a lot. Your "statistics" will show that the ME 262 is getting worse (for some unexpected reason lol).

So normal what would you do? Further decrease its BR.

 

Now you see? Statistics are BAD!


Edited by Epicolor, 22 July 2014 - 11:07 PM.

  • 78

#12 Spitfire_

Spitfire_

    Stalins faithful and democratic fanboy.

  • Steel Generals Testers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,796
  • 208 Thanks
2581
[RECG] Royal Equestrian Canterlot Guard

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:53 PM

Still doesnt explain why (the main reason why this started) the Me262 was moved up.


  • 18

3w88648x.jpg WT_sig373_zpsa034f50c.jpgazvnicwexrbo.jpg

 


#13 apprehension

apprehension

    Air marshal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,620
  • 359 Thanks
6295

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:54 PM

*
POPULAR

Still why a plane that is completely outclassed (climb speed, top speed, just everything) like Me 262 has to face F86.

 

There is one HUGE flaw in your system, you take into account bad players. You let them influence BRs.

 

In other competitive base games, balance tweaks and changes are based on TOP of player population.

Meta/item/champion changes in Dota 2, LoL and so on are based on competitive/tournament scene. Since well a "pubstomper" champions or build are completely useless when faced with enemies using enough of their braincells.

 

Here we have similar situation Me 262, B6/R3 and so on are "pubstompers" they can walk over superior plane flown by incompetent pilot and this makes your current system generate "amazing" (to word it kindly), results.

 

The only real solution is team of testers piting against each other to determine usefulness of machines at TOP SKILL LEVEL.


Edited by apprehension, 22 July 2014 - 10:57 PM.

  • 58

ceCpt1l.jpg

Yea though I fly through the valley of the shadow of death... I fear no evil ... for I fly the biggest, baddest, meanest, fastest ********** in the whole damn valley.


#14 Scarper

Scarper

    Marshal of the Air Force

  • Community Manager
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,429
  • 1080 Thanks

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:54 PM

Matching making is not "not ideal" it's "shite." It's absolutely horrendous that you  and reading this confirms my absolute worst fears: You are creating this game and pandering ONLY to those who play arcade battles and completely leaving out those who prefer to fly historical and full real battles. You SAY that you are doing this for the player's satisfaction, but looking that these forums you know damn well that not only are players NOT satisfied, they're downright DISGUSTED and have every right to be; not only because the game shows a stomach-churning amount of bias towards the allied nations in terms of how planes fly, but also because that same bias is compounded by what can only be described as incompetence as you CONTINUE to make the allies (specifically the Russians, if you can even call them the "allies") even more powerful at every turn by not only buffing their planes but drastically decreasing their battle ratings.

not the way to start constructive dialogue, perhaps if you'd participated in more discussion here and not fling insults at people, others  would take you seriously, cut it out.


  • 14

#15 Linx6

Linx6

    Constant Endeavour

  • Steel Generals Testers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,753
  • 163 Thanks
7343
[ThG] Thunder Guns

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:55 PM

Still doesnt explain why (the main reason why this started) the Me262 was moved up.

A mix of good German players using it, bad US players and better head on capability and better turn fighter.


  • 10

isRp7KX.pngSKiRDLx.png

“Two Yak fighters can engage four enemies and four can engage sixteen. Flying these aircraft you can feel yourself a true master of the sky!”-Normandie Niemen


#16 Narushima

Narushima

    World's shortest Giant.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,036
  • 82 Thanks
2504

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:56 PM

Here's an idea. If you insist on statistical BRs then why not just take into account the statistics of the top 10 players of each plane. Because only the best players will show the true capabilities of an aircraft. It's not perfect, but provided the FMs are realistic enough you'll see the BRs will slowly shift towards what a historical match making would look like.


Edited by Narushima, 22 July 2014 - 10:58 PM.

  • 30

#17 CapturedJoe

CapturedJoe

    Flight lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 976
  • 55 Thanks
1856

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:57 PM

Don't make it all depend on GUNS.


  • 42

Qxr_m.jpgcOCcu.jpgg4axD.png


#18 Botan

Botan

    Historical Realistic Events Player

  • Community Helper
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,519
  • 227 Thanks
5154
-KOP- Korpus Ochrony Pogranicza

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:57 PM

*
POPULAR

For example, B-17 was produced in same years as I-15, it even has similar speed characteristics, but it is obviously not an equal foe for I-15. In an imaginary duel of B-17 versus I-15 (even against four I-15) the B-17 will most likely will be the winner.

 

First serial B-17B was introduced in 1939 when I-15bis is from 1937...

Also B-17B had much weaker armament that current in game late versions.

 

So this example is invalid.


  • 104

#19 tenkte

tenkte

    Waiting for my CBT invitation

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,935
  • 1136 Thanks
4391
[eXs] Exiles

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:58 PM

(We (community) don't want Player Statistic Influenced Automatic Battle Rating System. It is ruining the game, remove it and give us back 20 tier system! Then fix ranks of airplanes (eg. La 7 at level 12) and you will make a lot of people happy and actually spend money on the game again. That would be beneficial for both you-developers and us-customers and gamers. That should be your first step in improving a game with a lot of potential!)

No real balance based on “technical characteristics” is even theoretically possible.

I really don't understand how is it not fair for 2 planes that have similiar performance to fight each other? How is that not fair I have no clue!

 

Make Semi-Historical match system with some balanced examples from real life! For example RAMJB (in his awesome post you can read below) has written: When Germany got its FW 190 A-5 into service and when it was aparent that it was much better than Spitfire MkV, British rushed Spitfire Mk IX. Spitfire Mk IX F. vs FW 190 A-5, wonderful example how BALANCE and REALISM CAN be achieved and it is NOT that HARD.

 

Spoiler

 

And then my "reply"

 

Spoiler

 

War isn't balanced (it is just death but we are talking about a video game right now) but can find examples in which "balance" was achieved and two sided had a fighting opportunity.

 

EDIT: I deleted some text I thought was right


Edited by tenkte, 23 July 2014 - 12:16 AM.

  • 43

xJ2MdmE.jpg 

Non premium War Thunder (and Wargame)  player since 1.27.


#20 TheFors

TheFors

    Mighty Owl Lord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,819
  • 1331 Thanks
6409
-CAT- Pickle Army

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:58 PM

*
POPULAR


No real balance based on “technical characteristics” is even theoretically possible.

Please elaborate. How does putting planes with similar performance to similar BRs create imbalance?


  • 122

vDXB3Bx.pngCDhfnN2.png

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users