Uneven matckmaking

These were purely ships, not planes. I have played plenty of Naval to know the difference. I always check the BRs before the match. I even waited for the AI to be replaced by human players. There are also matches that I’ve seen that just have 0.3 BR spread for some reason. I prefer these than the constant uptiers.

The plane’s BR still makes their lineups 5.7 even if they don’t use the aircraft.

1 Like

Equal? hardly.

Most of the ground arcade battles today were complete mismatches - not even close.
AT BRs 3.7-5.3 enemy teams had multiple Marshals with uptiered vehicles and they just crushed us. It was laughable.

And what exactly is the magic BR you speak of?
Every single battle I play, be it 3.3, 3.7. 40., 4.3, 4.7, 5.0, 5.3, 5.7… I get uptiered. EVERY battle. And more often than not it’s a FULL BR.

1 Like

Your rant didn’t address anything I said, nor this topic.
Being up-tiered doesn’t mean teams are unequal.
And up-tiers occur more often if you play popular BRs.

1 Like

Laughable battles aside…

You have NOT explained anything about the uptier. What is the popular BR?
How can I be uptiered EVERY time I play in battles between 3.3-5.7.
I’m wondering when I get my uptier - because it never happens.

Averages say I should be on the high end too. But I am not. Each time I check the stats after a battle, I see multiple enemies with a full BR better than my best tank. But I never see the opposite. I am never a full BR better than the oppositions best tank.

It’s not “every time”.
Different BRs are more & less popular at different times.
Some are always popular, some are never popular.
The less popular a BR is the less likely it’s going to be uptiered UNLESS the BR below it is also unpopular.
Same goes for popularity.
This is what happens when you restrict both sides to only 4 top-BR players. Meaning the chance of uptier is always higher than the chance of downtier, and it’s even higher if it’s a popular BR.
Guess what?
Everything 3.7 - 5.7 is popular. Some BRs don’t exist there. 3.0 doesn’t exist, 2.7 isn’t popular, thus 3.7 will most of the time see 4.0 & 4.3, sometimes 4.7.
4.3 is popular, and sometimes more popular than 3.7 thus will see 4.7 - 5.3 matches usually.
And so forth.

1 Like

This does not explain how my enemies are downtiered - in the ranges mentioned - but I am the opposite. Always uptiered.

It doesn’t matter which of the BRs mentioned, I am never the top-dog in a battle vehicle-wise. Every now and then my best tank should be equal to or better than all the enemies best tanks. This is not the case.

2 Likes

I play mostly Naval, as it’s a bit less stressful and annoying, but still…
When I play 5.0 destroyers, most of my matches are 5.7, 6.0 even with the circle of death. I switch to another nation to 5.7… the matches are 6.3 and 6.7. I switch to Soviet 6.0, my matches are 6.7 and 7.0 with half of the team being bots, so enemy players tend to single me out from the start.
I played more than 100 matches that I wrote down the BRs and even the losing streaks. That was for tanks and naval. The majority of the matches were 0.7 BR uptiers. No question about it and no matter where I went. It was pretty bad before, but I kinda noticed this sick uptier trend increase ever since the Steam review bombing. Also, gaijin introduced “more income” and easier grind. How do you negate it? By constantly uptiering certain number of players. It looks to me (some may call it a conspiracy theory) that certain players/customers from certain nations may have a more preferential treatment when it comes to the match maker and the win rate.

2 Likes

Lately I try to give the uptiers an asymmetric approach. If a 7.0 happens to my 6.0 lineup it´ll be a torpedo-mission. Some might call it boring, for me it is exciting and often successful.

Yet another match where we were winning the whole time and then gaijin switched a magic switch and we lost. It is sooo much fun dying from a Pe-8. Why is this damn thing not higher spawn points??? Dumbest thing ever. Maybe I should start spamming it every match as certain players do… spawn in a boat, cap a point, die and voila… Pe-8. Gaijin, you sooo suck!!!

Here’s just an example from today showing my gaming experience I’m having. Never mind that this is happening while my win rate for the month is 45%… fricken FORTY FIVE PROCENT AND DROPPING. What kind of sick design is this??? On the old forum I started complaining about constant losses something like 7 years. Back then I had 68% win rate. I had to endure constant losing streaks until my win rate went all the way down to 53% (thanks gajoobles). Now my overall win rate shows as 53%, but it’s quite below it. Imagine how many losses you have to endure to get your overall win rate down just by 1% when you have 16,000 battles under your belt. The things, once again, started getting worse ever since that infamous Steam review b0mbing. Yes, we got increased income, but I don’t see it much with all these endless losing streaks. This is malicious and nefarious design. It makes me sick. I have lost all the respect to this “gaming” company. Pathetic…

How are Gaijin meant to know if your team is trash or not (in terms of the goal being to win)?

16 players per side. 32 random goals. I’m not sure what any of this has to do with Gaijin.

The problem is that this is not a coincidence, but simple manipulation. Snail presents the version that the only aspects taken into account are +/- 1 BR, while the actual actions of MM are much more complex.

I played thousands of battles on top BRs, if I didn’t notice it I would probably be an idiot.

If the MM creates teams with similar “skill” determined by the “average relative position in the team” parameter from your profile and in each battle the sum of each side is very similar, it is not a coincidence, not every time.

To avoid excessive domination by better players, after a series of wins, MM will create such hopeless teams that even a team of 3-4 top players will have a problem winning everything. It will simply lower your total and raise your opponent’s total. However, this is always within a certain “skill” framework.
However, these are mechanisms that are intended to stop excessive progress in the game, regardless of how well you play MM with 16 people per side has enough influence to stop excessive domination.

With this in mind, please note that:
You get an XP bonus for winning
The main XP reward depends on time and activity, not the number of people killed (but it does affect activity)

So as a super top SL player you earn huge amounts for above average performance in almost every game, but your XP progression will always be dependent on time spent in the game.

Snail imposes certain time frames that, no matter how well or poorly you play, you will have to spend in battles to research a new vehicle. It will very easily limit your progress by adding very weak teams and lowering your win rate.

It’s a F2P game, so the emphasis on monetization is huge and the number of mechanics that work in the background to subconsciously tempt us to buy premium content will be very important for them. Some things simply cannot be hidden, but determining the dependencies when they occur by individual players will be extremely difficult to find/prove because no one has insight into how it really works and how much is happening outside our field of view.

However, for anyone who does not believe that it is not “random” as they claim:
open the battle replay, extract the “average relative position in the team” parameter in a given mode from each player’s profile, add up both teams. No matter how many times you count it, it will always be close and within certain limits of the sum. Such a coincidence.

1 Like

Though I am sure there is tweaking within the MM I do believe there is the human factor that takes over any other system added to the game.

I will have to say I mucked up and did not see the AB tag, so was approaching this from the RB angle (where nation decides placement within the teams too, therefore making “balancing” by relative position much more complicated/almost impossible).

The “random” I see is player intent. Something no algorithm will be able to predict.

All I know is that players do certain things, in general, which are not going to win any matches outside of flipping a coin and see who crumbles first in a yolo rush.

I also do not see the use of using the data that you assume Gaijin uses due to the vast number of nations and vehicles that can be put together. I often am on a team wondering if they truly believe 90% SPGs will do much if the enemy have picked more versatile first spawns (grind over gameplay).

If there was a better “balance” II doubt I would see the number of complete wipeouts I have seen over the years (and reason I have now fallen to just play PvE air as all other modes (RB) are not very enjoyable anymore after seeing the countless brain dead ways to scupper a team’s chance to win over and over and over… infinity!).

The general quality of my teams over time appear to pin point me as the KING then, as having to try and carry an entire match (on the whole) to win happens far too often and turned me off the game as a whole (of course I am super average and more a collector/spader than a competitive player- but the teams I get seem to stick to the “why do I bother” category whereby always sticking to the end became too much a LONG time ago).

I know you dabble in all modes so is this just an AB thing or does RB also use a system like this? (with nations, especially minor, making a very different queue situation in terms of “balanced” teams).

I do not think it allows for the lineups the player have or the relative effectiveness of the individual player’s lineup (eg US 6.7 is a strong/varied lineup as opposed to only 2 meme vehicles for UK, if all 4 top were UK then it would be in theory less strong than if the top BR were all US, on paper and option-wise).

And for me, sometimes I joined matches and was full of “try hard” and others just passing the time. I do not think a MM can predict that one.

I have counted it myself many times over the years, and I have asked many of my friends to count it. As you know, most people are lazy and no one wants to mess with it, but the dozen or so people who also calculated it understood what it was about.

We counted AB and RB ground matches. With our participation and random. You can’t calculate everyone easily because some profiles don’t have this information (they haven’t played in the last 30 days or they have them hidden)

However, from all the matches calculated, the result was the same. Even though the matches looked very one-sided, the total “skill” of both teams was almost identical.

similar topics have appeared over time, there are probably more.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/s32hkd/is_there_a_shadow_match_making/

I have seen deviations from the norm for a long time, when purchasing a new machine and playing the first X battles. I don’t know if it’s until I research the first modification or after playing X number of games. I didn’t focus on analyzing so carefully what exactly was happening and when, I just recorded it. The newly purchased plane/tank, if it is the only machine allowed in the game, has much weaker opponents than I usually have, I have made all the improvements on over 1,000 machines in the game and it is quite noticeable.

It seems to me that MM reads the last +/-10 games, WR, point average somewhere in our profile. Always after a game in which I dominate the opposing team and make a huge score, I get a game in which my team is so hopeless that it has trouble leaving its own spawn, it dies and leaves and I have much more difficult players on the opposite side.

I don’t want to go further with accusations of manipulation and limiting progress, but I am 100% convinced that MM “balances” the game and there are certain mechanisms at work that snail does not want people to know about.

Imagine that you pay for a premium account that gives you +100% XP, but if the game artificially manipulates various parameters and cheats you by lowering your game results, it robs you of what you pay for. Theoretically, you get +100%, but the basis from which it is calculated is simply underestimated and you are not even aware of it.

In any case, if someone is interested in whether the game is screwing them up, they can check the replays themselves, calculate them and analyze them. I have already spent my time researching the topic and I reject the statement that it is all just randomness.

1 Like

Well I just finished a GA battle where the enemy had 3 Marshals that between them had 31 kills - a lot more than my entire team. My rank was the top on my team and I managed a whopping 3 kills.

Not sure how you would consider that “balanced”.

Also doesn’t help that MM allows 1 player to bring multiple players into the battle through squading when these players don’t meet the minimum BR threshold. This needs to stop.

In summary MM needs a lot of tweaking to be considered “balanced”.

1 Like

Because it is balanced according to the average + probably the results from the last X battles.

It doesn’t matter how the battle went, if you check the profile of each player, add up the results for both sides, you will get a “balanced” total level of both teams in terms of “skills”.

You forget that people have their own goals, someone has a daily task of shooting down several planes and will enter AA to kill planes, regardless of whether you lose or win, he focuses on his task and will not lead you by the hand to win.

1 Like

Yeah lets just ignore that it was 3 Marshals vs zero. The outcome of the battle was 100% affected by that parameter.

To suggest player rank does not make a difference is disingenuous.

The battle was NOT balanced.

Being rank 100 is nothing more than time served - you can lose every single game you ever play, coming bottom place in every game, and still get there eventually.

It depends why they were marhsals - I was level 100 in ground before I was out of biplanes in planes, someone might be a Marshal due naval quite easily too.

1 Like

10 days is all it takes to get level 100.

Because rank doesn’t matter, it’s just an empty level for experience gained. Bots that play thousands of battles, dropping bombs on the base and dying, reach lvl 100 in a short time.
I saw your in-game stats and I fully understand why you have no idea what we’re talking about.

1 Like