In theory, but if both are very close together as you say it just seems like it’s about creating more balanced matches and both side ends up with weak teams, in the long run that gives the same result as getting games with very strong and very weak players.
it’s not a theory, it’s a fact. You can verify it yourself at any time. Random server replay and make calculations. You don’t get the point, if I have to carry the weight of winning on my back all the time, it limits my individual performance because my team just dies and leaves doing nothing. And the more I try and make a better result despite “adversity”, the more I hurt myself because in the next rounds I will get even more garbage for the team. That’s why I die more, that’s why I lose more. The game artificially mini-pumps who is on my team and puts a lot of strain on me. This is especially noticeable in AB matches where I like to play sometimes and I always have “better players” on the opposite side. I go into a match and I can bet with 99% accuracy which side will win seeing only a few nicks. Getting someone better for my team borders on a miracle, and when playing a new vehicle, my progress is artificially limited only because I have above-average results on other tanks.
That can’t work though, they can’t hold you back specifically because it would benefit someone else, and you would also be placed on teams as a better player to hold back someone else. Both sides are going to have good and bad players and both sides will suffer from it with the better players just having to carry games and force out a win.
You can’t always just have a bad team, and all the bad players on your team would also be disadvantaged just in an attempt to hold you back?
I’ve definitely noticed how players are placed on the list when a battle begins and always wondered how that was determined. Interesting thoughts. Battles yesterday seemed more balanced rather than Sunday when I played and just got steamrolled one battle after another.
There were a lot of interesting post in the old forum. Some of them were not deleted fast enough. The observations of the fellow player above a just the most obvious.
Others have analysed matches for months and showed different MM approaches/results also during the daytime and deviations between different servers and nations and after some unusual streaks…
This looked first like tin foil hat theories, but if you observe some patterns closely enough you might get other conclusions.
I just logged in and had 4 Defeats in a row at 8.7-9.0 BR and had to log off.
Here is matchmaking = pay4win wall. If you have tank with elite crew with all skills maxed out vs new player with basis crew then you you beat the person already regardless the BR.
I agree. I’m also frustrated with the fact that we’re now getting thrown into a battle that’s already half over. I accept that every other battle is either getting steamrolled or steamrolling the other team, but it’s a waste of a booster when you’re thrown into a fight that’s already lost and you can normally only play one vehicle before it’s over.
I dont get the complaint…IF there is a team balancing system, isn’t this supposed to make for FAIRER matches? Or are you saying you want to be on a stronger team so you can win more?
BTW…all players should check their win ratio before complaining for too many losses…most players are within the 45-55 win ratio, usually 49-51…which is the usual value. Simple reason, the individual effect is small, so if you play enough matches you will win as many as you lose…at least in arcade. In RB and SB the nation and BR have a larger effect.
Of course there are some bad days…i also get 5+ losses in a row on occasion…but we usually notice more “losses” than “wins”…even if the are balanced…
The fellow player described an easy to watch phenomenon - the longer you play successful, the less skilled your own team becomes, your full uptier ratios get higher and your enemies gets smarter - all on average view.
This EOL or player rating system has from my view some flaws as somehow the mode you are good at is not really considered, so you find often better than average tankers on top of the enemy team.
But at a certain point you run into a quite good enemy team with a hell of good fighter pilots and your own team consists of rookies - at least in Air RB.
And from a holistic pov ELOs in all f2p games have the goal to serve the overall purpose of the game - to support income by selling stuff.
A fair match is not really supporting such a goal.
Even if you as an individual see this different - psychology and the ability to predict player behavior show that you need fully intended obstacles in order to keep the average player motivated. Btw the same rules apply to everything in life…
Why? If you proceed too easy you might not see the need to increase your SL/RP income by buying premium stuff - if you proceed too slow you might lose interest. Very delicate balance.
I’ve definitely noticed in the higher BR fights that many quit after they lose their first or second tank, which for those who still are trying to mod their vehicles, that makes for a much longer grind. I can’t imagine what it’s like for a developer of such a game that’s not only trying to make money to stay in business, but also keep their player base happy. I never expect to win every battle, that’s unrealistic, but after an already stressful day I jump on to continue working on mod’ing vehicles and then just get smoked, sometimes right off of the spawn point by helicopters, that enthusiasm wanes really fast.
But… I still play. lol Glutton for punishment, I guess.
I’d honestly be interested to see what the turnover rate is for WT - how many inactive accounts there are.
If you want to invest some time and money - google your question and you find a lot of pages like this:
I am quite sure i found some time ago a similar site offering their annual reports for aroujnd 20 € - and they stated that revenues were 121 million € some time ago.
In all developed countries financial data have to be published if the company is a “limited company” (no matter of share or capital based). The duty of making their annual report publicly available was created to protect investors, customer or others doing business with them - so they have the chance to assess if they lose money or not.
As Hungary is part of the European Union they have to publish their annual financial reports like in Germany, France, etc.
At least in theory the access to these data is free, but it is a complicated process if you are not living there and you have no clue how to ask the right local authorities to get these data.
Hence, there are a lot of service providers offering those data for a small fee - like in this link 30 $.
The main problem is that the duty of publishing financial data does not imply to expose extremely detailed data; usually your question:
…can not be answered by ordering the annual report foreseen to be published as those data are just fulfilling minimum standards. That is the reason why several versions of annual reports exist.
In any case - seeing that a Chinese state investor is involved since a few years you might see a correlation between bias and suffering for certain nations and why China and Taiwan are in the same TT…
That explains a few things, definitely. I wonder how much say that investor actually has in game development though.
Translation…as you get better, the game matches you with also better opponents.
You made a long text…but it reads as wanting to get easier matches, even when the player is already experienced??? How…making lopsided matchmaking???
There is no middle ground…if you have 8 good, 8 average and 8 bad players…fair way to mix, would be 4 of each on each team…not clear to me what alternative is being proposed.
No - the described increase in difficulty within games has nothing to do with getting better as this effect is related to current (let’s say the last 10 matches) performance and has nothing to do with your overall performance.
No clue how you came to your conclusion that i want to have easier matches vs less experienced enemies. I was talking multiple times about hidden / undisclosed “features” within the MM in case you have ongoing win strikes - and nothing else.
Maybe a translation issue or i was not precise enough…
That is just it…HOW do you (and others asking for this) want MM to handle it?
Assuming there is some hidden/undisclosed algorithm based on previous results…THIS would be actually a good thing IMHO. A “large” group of players playing at some BR would be adjusted between matches so those winning more were distributed by both teams…i fail to see the problem IN GLOBAL.
Players (probably other players) complain they are always on the worse team, or that they have a losing streak…the system you describe would gradually place ALL players on even teams…it would not “single out” any player, would pick the winning players and distribute them on different teams…BUT even after the distribution, someone would win…
AS ALL SYSTEMS, there is always someone who MAY get a bad series due to bad luck…but overall i dont see an issue, as this system would make for most players having a daily 50% win ratio…
Actually…one of the reasons i think the system does not exist…is that RNG provides roughly the same results…albeit with more “lopsided” games…the “last results used for MM” should make more balanced games, pure RNG should have more uneven games. Both converge on roughly 50% win ratios.
Currently, I’m at 48%, but I’ve also noticed that when I play in the evenings - EST US - I see more losses than wins. Of course, the population on the server has gone from 160k down to around 88k by that point. To be honest, I don’t think there’s an easy answer for a system in matchmaking.
All video games have player rankings added to their MM - just google “ELO”.
What you fail to understand is that players and game providers have different views on things - especially regarding balance and how to use ELO in their MM.
So if i refer to posts in the old forum or own experiences with the MM this is totally independent from your own view on things.
From my pov you should invest some time researching “goals of and psychology implemented in f2p games”. Don’t get me wrong, from a holistic pov i share most of your general view on things, but as soon you refer to wt you simply assume that your view is somehow reflected in wt - even in case it is objectively seen not.
So as nobody wants to repeat himself in infinite loops - check the whole thread again regarding educated guesses of what is or might be implemented in the MM and just try to align your view on things with them. Even admitting that this is more less speculation as nobody here has seen the MM rules in detail, a lot of indicators are confirming various assumptions of “sinister” features within the MM.
I look at it to decide what might be the best vehicle for me to spawn in first. If I’m at 6.7 and I get Ardennes, it’s probably better for my odds if my first spawn is a LeK rather than a Tiger II.