War Thunder has never once switched the BR matchmaker in the history of War Thunder.
It’s been 1.0 since introduction, and has always been narrower than WoT’s matchmaking system, & still is narrower.
thats two down and two up. Where is it uneven? You are arguing about arbitray numbers which do not matter. two up two down perfectly even.
11.7;11.3;11.0;10.7 is also four but between these two lie 98% of all vehicles. so no it is only 1.0 and 11.7 for tanks which have this. This is the kind of argument you make when you have no argument. You are against sth because you do not want to understand it. You are the worst kind of person to argue with as you can not fathom to be wrong.
and? So it is fine if my Tank can easily best 5.0 tanks and 3.0 tanks just have to deal with it? In that case the Tiger I should be 4.0 because 5.0 tanks are fully capable of destrying it it what do I care about 3.0
The reason why we have compression is because we have to balance for every single BR a tank can meet at once. The only way to not do that would be to buff your tanks sats according to the BR it fights.
No. You would always look at the preceeding side you balanced. So if I balance 1.0 to 3.0 I would look at both sides of 2.0 and so on.
There are lierally thousands of more important steps. Like the post game UI and calc which literally cost players millions of RP a day because of missing calculations and you main argument against a system meant to drastically improve the game balance is “but it would not look so nice when I look in great detail”?
Already listed them multipüle times but ok
- You decompress all BR`s at once as you further limit all BR´s from interaction with their weakest prey
- You make the difference in capabilities of vehicles which can meet each other smaler therefore you can better adjust for outliners and act more percisely.
- You make gameplay more precictable because capabilities of vehicles are closer together and hopeless situations like a T44 VS Maus are much rarer.
- You can still further adjust BR´s and increase them as you see fit down the line.
- New vehicles only need to be balanced around a more percise scale as well. making blatantly OP new releases much more rare in theory.
and more
Wrong it was switched at least three times.
In Beta it was a +1/-1 Rank matchmaker. Later increased to 2 for speedier MM. Then it switched to the current BR system where the +3/-3 system came into place to this day.
During Ground Beta Simulator Battles where limited to +/-0.7 BR for the first month of testing.
Just FYI WoT has a +/-1 Matchmaker. One up and one down. WT has a +/-3 Matchmaker three vehicle ranks down and three up. In WoT capabilities of a tank are also manualy balanced around a 30-35% difference between one rank to the next while in WT no such rule exists and as mentioned a full 3 rank (+1BR) increase often is a 100% difference or more.
and what does that matzter? even if we had 100 tiers I would still argue for a +/-2 tier matchmaker instead of a +/-3 tier matchmaker
War Thunder’s matchmaker is the narrowest in the industry.
Being 4/24 to Maus in WT.
Vs 3/10 to Maus in WoT.
There is no compression happening by limiting what can meet what. Are you dense?
If anything this would decompress.
I already wrote why above but here again for the brick thick guys.
Compression is when to many vehicles of extreamly different capabilities can meet in the same match causing far inferiour vehicles to meet far superiour vehicles. It is caused when there is not enough room to move the offending vehiclkes out of the way without putting them into the prey role instead.
Decompression is limiting the matchmaker from putting to strong a vehicle into a match where it does not belong. Commonly we increase the BR of such a vehicle which causes said vehicle to ne suffer from the prey syndrome. decompression is the act of moving all vehicles up inorder to free all prey.
You can alternatively also limit the range of which vehicle can meet which and achive a similar result without moving multiple vehicles. In this case you literally limit the access of the prey to its food. We call that a limiter of the Matchmaker
It is the wides.
Can you perhabs not comprehend
WoWs and WoT +/-1 Matchmaking.
WoWp +/-2 Matchmaking
WT +/-3Matchmaking
0.3 is 1
0.7 is 2
1.0 is 3
There you have it three levels in the matchmaker the widest in the industry
WHAT HAS THAT TO DO WITH ANYTHING???
The matchmaking spread is the amount of Tiers/Levels/BR`s allowed into a single match. It has nothing to do with the amount of Tiers/Levels/BR´s whatsoever.
Where are you pulling these absurd mind games from. This is utter nonsense you are talking.
How many different Tiers are in a WoT match? 3 at most. How many different BR`s will be in a WT game? 4. That is wider than WoT
Math is not “mind games”.
War Thunder DOES NOT HAVE TEN TIERS.
War Thunder has 24 equivalent steps to tiers from BR 0 to 7.7.
where is your math?
yes makming your whole argument utterly pointless
I AM NOT ASSUMING IT HAS
you know what I am only going to quote myself here because there is 0 need to further interact with your utter stupidity. Learn to read bro.
THE AMOUNT OF OVERALL TIERS/BR`S OR WHATEVER ELSE YOU CALL IT HAS NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. to do with the matchmaking spread.
Here’s the math: From Panzer 2 to Maus in WoT is 9 matchmaking steps. WoT has a +2 matchmaker.
9/2 is 4.5.
Panzer 3 to Maus in WT is 21 matchmaking steps, WT has a +3 matchmaker.
21/3 is 7.
The higher the number the more narrow the matchmaking system is.
7 indicates a more narrow matchmaker than 4.5.
You could divide 9 by 3 & get 3.
21 by 4 and get 4.25.
Which still indicates WT has a narrower matchmaker.
1 Like
where? And I dare you to quote my comparrison because in that case I will find you and smack your head in with a dictionary
That has nothing to do with my points and is about as usefull for this discussion as people gluing themselves to a road.
Your number is a randome number gotten by math sure. but it has nothing to do with matchmaking spread
Once again:
No
No
Anything else you want to repead for the umpfteens time and still be utterly incorreect by doing so?
I just proved to you that WT has a narrower matchmaker.
Why not then have ±1 with halves in the middle? Or current system and you don´t use x.7 for example. The 0.7 is inherently bad UI design. That is all I was prooving by that axample.
11.7;11.3;11.0;10.7 is also four but between these two lie 98% of all vehicles.
That is lie in fact more then 80% of the vehicles are outside of the 11.7 - 10.7 range. This is of corse sarcasm but it is precisely how you are trying to argue. I am arguing about the fidelity of the 0.7 and 1.0 and you are talking nonsence.
and? So it is fine if my Tank can easily best 5.0 tanks and 3.0 tanks just have to deal with it? In that case the Tiger I should be 4.0 because 5.0 tanks are fully capable of destrying it it what do I care about 3.0
The reason why we have compression is because we have to balance for every single BR a tank can meet at once. The only way to not do that would be to buff your tanks sats according to the BR it fights.
No. You would always look at the preceeding side you balanced. So if I balance 1.0 to 3.0 I would look at both sides of 2.0 and so on.
Do you know what I meant by “from scratch and gradualy”? I meant from scratch and gradualy from lowest to highest so you would have vehicles only on one side. And again you are spewing out nonsence by bringing Tiger I into the conversation. Please read again what I wrote to understand it properly.
There are lierally thousands of more important steps. Like the post game UI and calc which literally cost players millions of RP a day because of missing calculations and you main argument against a system meant to drastically improve the game balance is “but it would not look so nice when I look in great detail”?
My main argument against such system is that it is useless with no benefit and look bad.
- You decompress all BR`s at once as you further limit all BR´s from interaction with their weakest prey
- You make the difference in capabilities of vehicles which can meet each other smaler therefore you can better adjust for outliners and act more percisely.
- You make gameplay more precictable because capabilities of vehicles are closer together and hopeless situations like a T44 VS Maus are much rarer.
All this can be easily done with same results by running one script which would switch old BRs for new ones from this chart https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13h8pFzf32lUyOF6nyHCy6OqbpqAu_kLcWQEHzNkBW04/edit?usp=sharing
- You can still further adjust BR´s and increase them as you see fit down the line.
You can do this already now.
- New vehicles only need to be balanced around a more percise scale as well. making blatantly OP new releases much more rare in theory.
You don´t understand how the scale works. With ±0.7 you don´t have more precise scale you actually have less precise scale with less room for adjustments. What will you do when you get vehicle which is too weak for the two up and too strong one up? Because you have one less BR space you can fit it in you will have more problems like these then in the decompressed ±1.0.
no you have not
I do not care about the looks. So take what you like I care about reducing the number of vehicles any one vehicle can face from +/-3 to +/-2
If you want them to use different numbers for that so be it.
I guessed but am fairly certain that it is more than 95% including all the event vehicles, premiums and so on. Always remember gajin says there are over 2000 playable vehicles in this game so saying 100 of them fall into that specific range is not that far off, but I really do not want to count. Lets say majority and be done with it. ok?
YOur argument was that “from scratch” you only ever look at one side of the vehicle. Which is true if you look nly ever at one vbehicle in order. But whenh looking at the finished “build from scrtach” TechTree every vehicle but the first and last one will have hjad a look at their stats from both sides.
Or by changing a single line of code in the MM. Does it really matter?
which is why I brought it up. RazerVon seems to think that this option will vanish if the MM spread is changed. That is the reason why I put it there. the player named RazerVon
The very same propblem exists right now in a much stronger field because a vehicle might be too good against two BR`s instead of just one and to week to two instead of one.
Your example could not be fixed in the current system as well and is far more likely from popping up.
As the BR´s remain unchanged you can still put the offending tank at any given BR just like right now. Just becaus ethe MM changes does not mean that suddenly you can only move vehicles up by Two BR´s instead of just one.
Why anyone would want 0.7 BR spread instead of just expanding the BR ceiling significantly is beyond me. And just to clarify I’m not talking about increasing it to 12.3 or 12.7, more like adding several whole BRs to the top and changing the BR of all the vehicles accordingly to redistribute them through the new BR range. By Adding BRs you could achieve the same separation as a 0.7BR spread while having more individual BRs to allow for more fine-tuned balancing and future proofing.
A 0.7 BR spread is just a lazy fix because people think it can just be done quickly and easily without having to do many BR changes (it can’t be), it is most certainly not a long term solution. It will decrease the variety of vehicles you get to play against and still won’t help with the issue of compression in the long term. Also it will make the BR system even more confusing for new players.
Gaijin have made it clear that they don’t want 0.7 BR spread, just like they don’t want major decompression, so if you are going to push for something Gaijin doesn’t want you may as well go all the way and push for an actual solution rather than some bodge-job fix that won’t work in the long term.
5 Likes
You’re correct until
They’re having difficulties figuring out compression, and have only analyzed a minority of vehicles thus far.
Because this will lead to empty tech trees. Minor nations will have literally 2-3 full BR`s without any vehicle in it. It will destroy any chance to get proper lineups. Hence why the way to decompress via a more narrow spread is an aditional option. It is not there to remove the other decompression ( I don´t know why everyone who reads this suggestion things that this would be the case) it is in adition
why not? It was a longterm solution elsewhere (WoT had the very same argument you brought and as predicted it fell flat just like your will)
How will your pure decompression not lead to the same if not more? The aim of decompression is the removal of certain vehicles from a BR range thereby decreasing the number of vehicles in that range. Like there is no difference other than that your way will lead to more holes whiule mine exists to avoid that.
I can`t see how. It is literally a oneliner like right now to explain it.
Gajin is irellevant it is about what players want. And I disagree that a pure BR decompression is a better solution hence why and many others want the 0.7 spread in ADITION to the BR decompression.
Your idea ends all lineups.
Decompression ends no lineups.
WT has the narrowest matchmaker in the industry as proven previously, so you just want to ruin WT & make it unplayable.
To reduce the flexibility of balancing for no real gains is not good.
how?
how is for example a 6.7 lineup ended if it can only meet 6.0 and 7.3 lineups?
And how is it not ruineed if 4 tanks of it are moved to 7.0 6.3 7.3 and 6.0?
No it will never be true no matter how often you repeat your imaginations
Will you finally tell me where it cauises compression? You do not even understand what you are talking about as I have proofen tqwice already here and 4 more times in other threats on other matters
I have at least 25 times said I AM PRO DECOMPRESSION
6.7 lineups are already perfectly balanced against 7.7 heavy tanks.
If you were for decompression you’d be arguing AGAINST 0.7 matchmaker, not for it.
that is your opinion and defenitly not a fact. so it is irellevant for thsi discussion. And I disagree with that
Why?
I have shown how and where it decompresses and you have shown nothing of where it compresses.