[Discussion] Balance, Bias, Matchmaking and Battle Ratings

[DocProfit 2,663]

Scrapping Tiers in the MM is one of the best things Gaijin has ever done.

 

Now sure, there will be some mismatches going on, and the need for a few BR changes (lets not wait 6 months+ on this pls).

 

But this simplifies the MM greatly, making it easier for players to understand and build their lineups, and opens the way for a better MM and playing experience overall.

 

Best of all it opens up a lot more planes that hardly ever got used. (competitively at least).  Particularly planes around BR 4.0-4.3 at T4 - which would have seen you face 5.0-5.3 all day in AB, should see a much better spread of planes.

 

 

P.S. None of the P-47's should have ever been below 3.3, and where is my razorback version? 

 

 

 

 

[Sarin 2,329]

Ugh. BR compression at 1.0-3.0 will now strike hard. P-47 butchering biplanes, Hawks, LaGGs....I've had a few flights in Jug today, and it was mostly turkey shooting, made more difficult only by .50 cal nerf and team incompetence often forcing me to overextend.

[Flashtirade 1,944]

If this goes through, I'm going to have to get me a B-3 Duck to farm Tier 1 planes.

[warrior412 14,723]

Abolishing the tiering guidelines would not be an unreasonable thing to do...if proper battle ratings were given to vehicles based on the performance specifications of those vehicles and that those specifications were already in place by the time that the tiering guidelines were taken out of force.

 

The fact that neither of these things has proceeded the abolition of the tiering guidelines means balance problems have only been exacerbated, not made better. In turn, these worsened balance problems will infuriate and drive away players, leading to longer queue times.

 

If you really want to make queue times shorter, this is not the avenue to take.

[PzGren 4,043]

Hahahahahahahaha someone is desperate to improve queue time!!!

 

There are winners and the losers in this change.

 

On 1 hand, Things like 190A4 will now be far more frequently placed in 4.3-5.3 games against tier 4 Griffin spits that it will not be able to match, and 190A5U2 will again be facing jets. 

 

On the other hand, La7, Yak9U, are now eligible to become guest in usually tier 2-3 3.0-4.0 matches. Which would have yielded  such massacre if it weren't for the 20mm nerf.

 

On the extreme side, I am unable to imagine the kind of havoc, a down tiered USA premium  Bf109F4 can do, in a tier 1-2 2.0-3.0 match... so. This will definitely be your favor  of the month. 

 

 

[EinsamerWolf_93 120]

2 hours ago, PzGren said:

Hahahahahahahaha someone is desperate to improve queue time!!!

 

There are winners and the losers in this change.

 

On 1 hand, Things like 190A4 will now be far more frequently placed in 4.3-5.3 games against tier 4 Griffin spits that it will not be able to match, and 190A5U2 will again be facing jets. 

 

On the other hand, La7, Yak9U, are now eligible to become guest in usually tier 2-3 3.0-4.0 matches. Which would have yielded  such massacre if it weren't for the 20mm nerf.

 

On the extreme side, I am unable to imagine the kind of havoc, a down tiered USA premium  Bf109F4 can do, in a tier 1-2 2.0-3.0 match... so. This will definitely be your favor  of the month. 

 

 

you say new MM is very good for russian plans ? and is very bad for germany ?

[ADHD_Cake 204]

So, since my thread asking about the new MM relation to current BR changes that need to be fixed to their non-premium counterparts was locked...

 

With the new MM change being done, will BR changes be done to fix imbalanced ones? 

 

Best examples=  

The p47's from germany and russian at 2.7br.

This means now this thing can face bi-planes if used right. But the american ones are still 3.0? 

 

The russian pby being a 1.7 in arcade while all the other pby's (american and british) are 2.0? 

 

The russian 153 biplane thats a 2.7, while its duplicate premium one is only a 1.7? 

 

Will these be addressed?

[Idontknowwhy 87]

Maus - Prototype from 45 ( Br 7.7 - V )

T-44-100 - Prototype from 45  ( Br 7.0 - IV )  THIS TANK IT WAS BIG FAIL, BUT IN GAME IS LIKE A GOD 

 

PT-76 - from 1951 ( Br 5.7)

 

Where is the balance ?

[Jahrain 1,590]

3 minutes ago, Mai_Cake said:

So, since my thread asking about the new MM relation to current BR changes that need to be fixed to their non-premium counterparts was locked...

 

With the new MM change being done, will BR changes be done to fix imbalanced ones? 

 

Best examples=  

The p47's from germany and russian at 2.7br.

This means now this thing can face bi-planes if used right. But the american ones are still 3.0? 

 

The russian pby being a 1.7 in arcade while all the other pby's (american and british) are 2.0? 

 

The russian 153 biplane thats a 2.7, while its duplicate premium one is only a 1.7? 

 

Will these be addressed?

 

Here you have it. Maybe in three, maybe in six months. May not happen at all as well, as the last time they took 6 months to assess BRs - and made exactly ONE change in GF RB BR. Apparently everything else is just okay in their opinion. Must have been six months of VERY HARD WORK  

4 hours ago, Hunternz said:

<snip>

As said more than likely BR adjustments will come possibly  ... stay tuned watch news feed .. we do assessments every three months 

 

[EinsamerWolf_93 120]

They want remove BR limitation rule, what is new rule ? pls tell me

Edited July 13, 2016 by IA3HH

[Flak_Dancer 9,733]

Comunity wants extend BR to 9.0 and reduced BR spread to 0.7 like in early GF relase and "Failjin" compress more the BR and MM ... WTF THUNDER strikes again!!!!

[Idontknowwhy 87]

T-44-100 Should be minimum 7.3

[MaybeMaybeNot 1,759]

36 minutes ago, Jahrain said:

 

Must have been six months of VERY HARD WORK  

 

 

 

as sarcastic as you made it , i'm still going to say yup  just because we assessed every three months don't mean expect changes every three months gosh 

[Jahrain 1,590]

3 minutes ago, Hunternz said:

 

as sarcastic as you made it , i'm still going to say yup  just because we assessed every three months don't mean expect changes every three months gosh 

 

So basically you say you do an assesment, just do not act on it ?

[MaybeMaybeNot 1,759]

Just now, Jahrain said:

 

So basically you say you do an assesment, just do not act on it ?

 

Really ?? with this question it seems more of a bait then actual question. But nice short answer for you is Yes we Do if it's applicable  

[CrossEyedN00b 2,397]

Hunternz! Good to see ya.

Can you please explain to me what was the reason behind T32 being put at TierV? It does not belong there, really. Gun is outclassed, turret armor is not that much of a reason to put it so high.

 

These actions forced me to play Caernarvon in SQB and that thing is a monster capable of going through T44 or Panther 2 (now available on SQB) frontal plate with ease and I feel unskilled now.

[MossPiglet 790]

29 minutes ago, Hunternz said:

 

Really ?? with this question it seems more of a bait then actual question. But nice short answer for you is Yes we Do if it's applicable  

Since the imbalances / inconsistencies  mentioned by Mai_Cake and PzGren are in the game for quite a while (P47 is a very obvious one, 2 versions with bombs/rockets at 3.0, 1 version with bombs at 2.7, 1 version without bombs at 2.7 , 109F4 only without the useless 15mm gun pods at a lower BR in the American tree, different PBY Br's and so on) how did they score on your last assessment? Not applicable? And if yes, why? Can we expect new assessments to have different results?

 

Edit:

And as a follow up: Why wasn't there an assessment before these new changes on how the MM works (at least that's what I assume since nobody could have overlooked all these new imbalances) went live? Why did you change the rules without even checking that the new ones make sense with the old numbers?

Edited July 13, 2016 by MossPiglet

[Jahrain 1,590]

14 minutes ago, Hunternz said:

 

Really ?? with this question it seems more of a bait then actual question. But nice short answer for you is Yes we Do if it's applicable  

 

Well, that was a question. Believe it or not, I do not see you as an enemy. In fact, I quite appreciate your work in SB section, no matter whether it has an impact or not. Both SB sections (forum and ingame) desperately need a bit of attention. And sorry if I am being sarcastic...lets say i have been around for some time, during which I have seen lots of losses and lots of fruitless victories.

 

Especially when it comes to BR system. So it really baffles me to hear that you do quarterly revisions the compressed crap the BR system became - and still there is not a lot of advancement in this area. Is it caused by the fact the BR system is regarded as working (judging by the amount of changes in last update) almost perfectly ? Or are there some other concerns ? You mentioned that the player numbers are okay, in the very same post I posted the snip of, so that should not be the case.

 

So what is holding you back ? Why do we still have "Realistic" battles with jerry wartime Panthers fighting against bolshevik T-44-100s, tommies with Centurion Mk10s and yanks, all that in the lush fields of Northern Ireland then ?

Edited July 13, 2016 by Jahrain

[MaybeMaybeNot 1,759]

Well guys this is Scaper's area , yes we are a team and i can answer and post here and address your concerns , but i have many project threads on the go already and diving into this one i won't have much time to have a life 

 

But your concerns here don't go unnoticed ok 

[VampShogun 88]

Rank limits being removed causes some major imbalance issues.

 

Fw A1 (the very first Fw at 3.7) can now fight a Fw D9 (the last generation at 5.0) when averaged down.

Spitfire Mk IIb can now fight Griffon Spitfires.

1.3 pre-war biplanes can now fight P47Ds

Those matchups should simply not be possible, ever.

 

Basically what this means is that things got compressed even more.

For this change to work many individual BRs and the BR spread itself need to be adjusted first and now more urgently than ever.

Edited July 13, 2016 by VampShogun

[PzGren 4,043]

LoL. This is basically more BR compression .

 

6 hours ago, IA3HH said:

you say new MM is very good for russian plans ? and is very bad for germany ?

 

Not completely. Russian early  T4 is one of the few that could reap significant material reward from this because they can, with this change, for all intents and purposes, research jets while playing tier 2-3 games, due to the strength of their low BR T4 single engine fighters.

 

But there are many other locations that would benefit more, from a seal clubbing perspective . 109F4 being one, P47s being another. 

 

The real loser, is new players. The veteran with spaded planes and full lineup wont be in trouble As it mattered little when 190A5U2 faces jets because Germany have so many effective tools at T3, 4 to play, IF you know to avoid toxic BR trap such as A5U2. Guess who won't know the traps? New players. 

 

Further more, newest player playing in T1 will now lose the tier protection, and will be pitted against veteran in highly effective aircrafts such as 109F4 and thunderbolts pretty much as soon as they unlocked their first 2 planes. 

 

Newbs with First hurricanes, Bf110 and He112s, Laggs, will now face Quad cannon P51, P47, 109F4, La5 and Yak9T etc off the top of my head. 

 

LoL. All I gotta say is.. good luck. LoL 

Edited July 13, 2016 by PzGren

[Thunder421 9,398]

9 hours ago, PzGren said:

Hahahahahahahaha someone is desperate to improve queue time!!!

 

There are winners and the losers in this change.

 

On 1 hand, Things like 190A4 will now be far more frequently placed in 4.3-5.3 games against tier 4 Griffin spits that it will not be able to match, and 190A5U2 will again be facing jets. 

 

On the other hand, La7, Yak9U, are now eligible to become guest in usually tier 2-3 3.0-4.0 matches. Which would have yielded  such massacre if it weren't for the 20mm nerf.

 

On the extreme side, I am unable to imagine the kind of havoc, a down tiered USA premium  Bf109F4 can do, in a tier 1-2 2.0-3.0 match... so. This will definitely be your favor  of the month. 

 

 

 

You seen the German/Soviet P-47s arcade BR yet?

2.7

2.7

Now it can face tier 1s such as the Do-17, D3A1, F2A-1 and such.

8 machine guns and a 2000HP radial, and if the damage model were realistic, airframe immunity against rifle caliber bullets.

(Doesn't help that the soviet versionr etains bombload options and API-T tracer belts)

(German P-47 doesn't have any bombload options and API-T tracers)

(US P-47 is 0.3 higher)

 

RIP low tier games. (Atleast in arcade, where lots of new players are likely to reside, and possibly quit, having experienced facing a much superior opponent no less than a couple hours of starting the game, atleast in Air Battles)

[MaybeMaybeNot 1,759]

3 hours ago, CrossEyedN00b said:

Hunternz! Good to see ya.

Can you please explain to me what was the reason behind T32 being put at TierV? It does not belong there, really. Gun is outclassed, turret armor is not that much of a reason to put it so high.

 

These actions forced me to play Caernarvon in SQB and that thing is a monster capable of going through T44 or Panther 2 (now available on SQB) frontal plate with ease and I feel unskilled now.

 

ello you ,, no i don't want to play here  if i start to answer your question  i won't be able to stop myself to answer others  .. i only post because you said hi .. maybe later i will come here

[Jahrain 1,590]

3 hours ago, Hunternz said:

Well guys this is Scaper's area , yes we are a team and i can answer and post here and address your concerns , but i have many project threads on the go already and diving into this one i won't have much time to have a life 

 

But your concerns here don't go unnoticed ok 

 

Thats completely okay. At least you are not just trolling around the forum. . A player asks on a disparity in team composition, and the reply is just a very, very BS remark and thread closure. The clossure I can understand, the trolling...well lets say I think he should know better.

 

Edited July 13, 2016 by Jahrain
Edited to fit within the forum rules

[Sovengardian 200]

Worse MM to shorten queue times -> frustrated players -> players leaving -> less players -> longer queue times -> Worse MM to shorten queue times etc.

"But Soven players arent leaving" Hm ok, i play at two times, European mid-day (10h-15h) and European evenings (20h+), depending on my work, last year at those times during the working week RB air had about 40-70 players in queue depending on BR, and waiting times were seldom over 30 secs. Last month i see 15- 40ish tops, and waiting times of 45secs up soo...

Here are my 2 cents on balance in general
 

Spoiler

the way i see it, balance is the type of matchmaking that pits a certain vehicle, manned by an average player, against other vehicles against which it has certain advantages and disadvantages. In my opinion good balance will mean that any side could potentially win, depending on their own aptitude in using their strengths and/or enemies weaknesses.

Now ive seen the argument of "I can beat vehicle X in vehicle Y so its balanced for me" but i don't think this holds any weight. Sure an above average player might be able to squeeze out every last bit of performance out of his plane/tank and win a higher rating opponent, but that doesn't mean the match is balanced. If one vehicle has to rely on cunning and careful placement, perfect timing and aim, and the other can roll in crashing through and oneshot the other if it makes the slightest mistake, the match isn't balanced. A great player will still be able to destroy the superior enemy, without much trouble, but balance isnt about great players, its about average players. Balance should provide equal grounds for vehicles as they are, and then personal skill kicks in making some players do better, and motivating others to work harder to get better.

A good balance in my opinion would be a match between bf109f4 and spit IIa in RB, both climb well, spit turns far better but the 109 dives far better and overloads harder, the spit has 7mms (which do good damage) but can stay on target more easily, while the 109 has a 20 (albeit a single 20, the germans 7s do very little) but cant afford to be kept in long maneuvering fights, so it has more firepower but demands more precision. So the 109 has to hit and run and bnz, while the spit has to catch the 109 in a low energy state, lure him into a turn fight. Both can bait as well, spit can turn away from the 109s boom, while the 109 can dive away. Both can outdo the other, all thats left is personal skill.
Basically balancing for aerial combat should take in consideration speed, climb rate, dive, sturdiness of the airframe (for overloads), acceleration, energy retention, turntime, roll rates, firepower, airstart etc. in comparison to other vehicles in the same MM bracket, as well as game mode. Firepower is important in all for them, but it makes a bigger impact in AB, while other qualities may be more important in RB and SB respectfully.

The same can be said about tanks, one should look to armor, penetration, agility, weakpoints, pen at range and other factors to make a balanced match. A Chaffee can outmaneuver a stug or even a jagdpanz IV at close range and kill it from the side, the TD on the other hand can oneshoot it from distance almost anywhere, which gives each side some advantage to work with, unlike pitting a tiger 1 vs a tiger II (H) or some panther variants, where the second tank has every advantage over the first one. Some players might say "we dont have trouble taking out Tiger IIs in our tiger Is, you just have to aim for that spot right above the drivers viewport" or something similar, but the fact that one tank has to aim for one precise point in the enemy armor, while the other can pen anywhere makes the engagement unbalanced. It just creaters a David vs Goliath situation, sure David  could "oneshoot" Goliath in the head, but if he was to miss, or hit anywhere else, Goliath would just crush him without much trouble.

Of course these examples arent perfect, but they give a general image. IMHO MM and BRs, just balance in general should allow both sides to have  some advantage over the other, something to work with.