[Discussion] Balance, Bias, Matchmaking and Battle Ratings

[Nefer666 3,807]

Battle rating has to be extended to 9.0 or even 10.0. Seeing friend Maus getting rekt by ATGM every game is pretty sad. It would solve many early-mid-late tier issues also.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Nefer666

[TyphoonCro 6,833]

I'm really thinking of creating suggestion for new BR system... To 15.0 with step of 0.5 and spread of +/- 0.5

Old 20 tiers system may have been bugged at time but today if they kept it and fixed it, it would be great system...

 

I still don't like BR system...

[Jahrain 1,590]

2 minutes ago, Hunternz said:

<snip>

Now Enough About Staff Ok .. not good we talk about it..even me with this reply 

 

Agreed. I do not want to cause troubles to one of the forum staff members I can actually repect .

[CrossEyedN00b 2,397]

46 minutes ago, TyphoonCro said:

I'm really thinking of creating suggestion for new BR system... To 15.0 with step of 0.5 and spread of +/- 0.5

Old 20 tiers system may have been bugged at time but today if they kept it and fixed it, it would be great system...

 

I still don't like BR system...

 

Uhum, that would make the game boring because you'd see one type of vehicles throughout all the battles with certain vehicle.

20 tier system was actually more compressed than todays one:

1.0>1.3>1.7>2.0>2.3>...>8.0(tanks)9.0(aircraft) contains more steps than 20 tiers.

Edited July 13, 2016 by CrossEyedN00b

[TyphoonCro 6,833]

2 minutes ago, CrossEyedN00b said:

 

Uhum, that would make the game boring because you'd see one type of vehicles throughout all the battles with certain vehicle.

20 tier system was actually more compressed than todays one:

1.0>1.3>1.7>2.0>2.3>...>8.0(tanks)9.0(aircraft) contains more steps than 20 tiers.

 

But there was key difference... Before it was +/- 1 tier, now its +/- 1BR (equivalent of 3-4 tiers in previous MM)

[CrossEyedN00b 2,397]

Just now, TyphoonCro said:

 

But there was key difference... Before it was +/- 1 tier, now its +/- 1BR (equivalent of 3-4 tiers in previous MM)

 

And that was boring. I'd say +/-2 tiers (so 0.7 BR spread) would be nice.

[QuatreSaisons 1]

This bugged me (quote from original post):

"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."

 

PvP isn't simply a duel or a 1v1 confrontation, where stepping into the battlefield and tunnel vision on an enemy and getting the first shot. Granted to satisfy a broader audience, adjustments have to be made, but I find the example irritating (kamikaze an I-15 into a B-17, and watch a B-17 go down in flames. /sarcasm).

 

The suggestions some ppl have added to the thread, I like, but how is the player's skill measured in a match? Is it solely with the BR selection, and in most cases a player with a B-17 has more experience than a player with an I-15, but does the MM attributes skills with players of different BR? Grinding RP doesn't equal skill level, the percentage of participation does, and capturing objectives, kills/assists, and high win rate, imo equate to a skilled player.

 

Edited July 13, 2016 by QuatreSaisons

[ADHD_Cake 204]

7 hours 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  

 

May I ask then why identical planes that are literally copy-paste have different BR's then?

 

Sure, the p47's are slightly different (bomb loads and lack of rockets I feel should not auto lower a planes BR) so thats a seperate argument.

 

HOWEVER

 

The PBY 5a from the american tree and the russian PBY 5a are literally the same aircraft but the russian one is lower BR (.3 lower). And with this change to MM the russian one will not face the same aircraft at the high end that the other ones will. (the poor british one is also a 2.0br btw)

 

The i-153-m62 at 2.7 is the same thing that is the premium one i-153-m62 at 1.7br. the premium one is a whole 1 br lower? This I've never understood.

 

The F2a-1 buffalo is a 1.7, while its premium one is a 1.3. Same plane, different BR's

 

The American Ki-43-ii being the same BR as the Japanese ki-43-ii, but the Japanese one can carry bombs. If the lack of bombs on the p47 warrants a lower BR why doesnt it here? Same applied to the American zero vrs is Japanese counterpart. The japanese one can carry bombs but the american one cant. Same BR.

 

The p36 is a 1.7, while its premium counter part is only a 1.3

 

The Xp-38g having a 3.0 Rating, while the regular p38-g is a 3.7? ok sure, lack of rockets. But again does the xp38g need to be a full .7 lower when its the same as the 38g?

 

The Japanese corsair being a mix of the 2 lower american ones, but not being able to carry bombs but is as fast as the marine one... I'm not sure whats going on here.

 

The American 109f4 being a 3.3 while the german ones are 3.7?

 

And The last one I can think of- 

 

The British Avenger TBF naval bomber, being a 2.3 while its american counterpart is only a 2.0...

 

Ground forces- 

The only one I can think of is the lower BR russian panther 5.7, that is a 6.0 in the german tree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sovengardian 200]

22 minutes ago, QuatreSaisons said:

This bugged me (quote from original post):

"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."

 

PvP isn't simply a duel or a 1v1 confrontation, where stepping into the battlefield and tunnel vision on an enemy and getting the first shot. Granted to satisfy a broader audience, adjustments have to be made, but I find the example irritating (kamikaze an I-15 into a B-17, and watch a B-17 go down in flames. /sarcasm).

 

The suggestions some ppl have added to the thread, I like, but how is the player's skill measured in a match? Is it solely with the BR selection, and in most cases a player with a B-17 has more experience than a player with an I-15, but does the MM attributes skills with players of different BR? Grinding RP doesn't equal skill level, the percentage of participation does, and capturing objectives, kills/assists, and high win rate, imo equate to a skilled player.

 

Thats why balancing shouldn't depend on player skill. Using perceived player skill  statistics is a completely wrong approach, vehicles should be balanced in themselves, regardless of player skill, let me elaborate:

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.

 

[_Snowboarder_ 106]

Just want to leave it here. (Count 8.0 planes in every team)

[Leandrys 4,241]

QMM doesn't work at all these days, was it retired ?

[SUPERBYRD 321]

Why don't they hold a Dev server and have the Community determine the Battle ratings of Aircraft/Tanks?

[QuatreSaisons 1]

1 hour ago, Sovengardian said:

Thats why balancing shouldn't depend on player skill. Using perceived player skill  statistics is a completely wrong approach, vehicles should be balanced in themselves, regardless of player skill, let me elaborate:

  Hide contents

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.

So you're suggesting that balance pvp should revolve over the tanks/planes BR? I find the MM "attempt" to balance both teams evenly based on individual BR, to be fair in most cases. Where I find the biggest loop-hole is in the player's skill, that regardless of how well the MM works, where map knowledge and flight maneuvers, are some of the things I have yet to figure out. Many GMs have, for a while now, used player's skill as a mesure to better balance PvP. Player skills aren't the only attributes to best balance MM, but should none the less be mixed into the MM machine when crafting team comp.

 

[_Gray_Hawk_ 354]

Now that the +-1 Rank restriction to the MM has been removed we now have unrestricted +1.4/-1.4 BR matchmaking.

 

Example Rank 1 1.7 aircraft meet BR. 3.0 P47.  2.0 Rank 1 meet 3.3 Rank whatever.

 

Please remove BR down averaging now.  Unrestricted +1/-1 BR is bad. Unrestricted  +1.4/-1.4 BR MM is very bad.

[tizianenel 2,124]

9 hours ago, _Byrd said:

Why don't they hold a Dev server and have the Community determine the Battle ratings of Aircraft/Tanks?

 

Dev server wouldn't attract a large enough crowd for that.

[SUPERBYRD 321]

Just now, tizianenel said:

 

Dev server wouldn't attract a large enough crowd for that.

What do you mean by that?

[Sovengardian 200]

2 hours ago, QuatreSaisons said:

So you're suggesting that balance pvp should revolve over the tanks/planes BR? I find the MM "attempt" to balance both teams evenly based on individual BR, to be fair in most cases. Where I find the biggest loop-hole is in the player's skill, that regardless of how well the MM works, where map knowledge and flight maneuvers, are some of the things I have yet to figure out. Many GMs have, for a while now, used player's skill as a mesure to better balance PvP. Player skills aren't the only attributes to best balance MM, but should none the less be mixed into the MM machine when crafting team comp.

 

Not exactly, the MM is currently revolving around BRs ( if you were to buy a premium jet and take it out, you'd be placed with and against people in its jet bracket, regardless of your levels), im  just suggesting those BRs have to be adjusted per individual vehicle performance ie the ability to have some advantage over other vehicles in that br bracket (barring to some extent bombers and CAS b/c they have a specific role). Currently Gaijin takes  "vehicle statistics" i.e. how players did in said vehicles to balance the game, leading to multiple absurd and unbalanced matchups. These might be less noticeable in AB (especially air, b/c you can kill jets with rank 1 planes, even in rb. However in Ground Forces AB its pretty apparent, in several situations like tiger 1 vs II H or stock 105 sherman (until we get spalling its HE rounds can only pen it in very few select places and from strange angles like top down) vs t34) but they become apparent in RB. So yeah i do think vehicles should be matched up according to their own characteristics, like in the long post in the hidden tab in my previous post.

However, i agree that knowledge plays its part, and that MM shouldn't make unbalanced teams in terms of one side being all high levels and the other all low. On the other hand that opens the following can of worms: how do you quantify player skill? By k/d? Wins? Levels? All these are flawed, people playing only OP vehicles will have  a higher k/d, but not necessarily a higher skill level (so if the MM was to consider their k/d as skill, if they'd try to play anything that isn't OP they'd be placed against better players, who would club them), winrate is much higher for people that play in squads, individually they might not fare as good, account levels mean nothing, Ive killed countless players that were of higher level and vice versa, anyone can kill anyone. Also high levels only show that you've been playing for a long time or moderate time with premium. That being said, more time in game means that you know maps and mechanics better, so i do think that the game should, when it forms a match try to distribute players by levels equally to each side .

[TyphoonCro 6,833]

46 minutes ago, _Byrd said:

What do you mean by that?

 

He means that only 1000 people would get on dev server....

[MaybeMaybeNot 1,759]

10 hours ago, _Byrd said:

Why don't they hold a Dev server and have the Community determine the Battle ratings of Aircraft/Tanks?

 

Because we would have a majority voting for there favorite vehicle to be at low BR. 

[SUPERBYRD 321]

1 minute ago, Hunternz said:

 

Because we would have a majority voting for there favorite vehicle to be at low BR. 

True...

 

 

7 minutes ago, TyphoonCro said:

 

He means that only 1000 people would get on dev server....

So I'm guessing there's a limit to how many people can join the Dev server, eh?

[TyphoonCro 6,833]

1 minute ago, _Byrd said:

True...

 

 

So I'm guessing there's a limit to how many people can join the Dev server, eh?

 

No.... Dev server (according to devs) is just to see new things in live server...

BR testing should be done on live server.. I said it countless times ago.. And I'll say it now...

 

For a week or even 2 weeks test new BR, compare stats to new one... 

[Pr0letari0s 73]

Matchmaking System HAVE TO BE AT +/- 0,5  BR

Increase Spawns to 5 with mix Tanks and/or Planes.

Use of any Plane in Arcade Ground Battles HAVE TO BE EQUAL TERMS AS Tanks. Pay for ammo/bombs/rockets/repair etc.

i believe this is a Good and Fair Game System (matchmaking etc) to everyone.

 

Gaijin look your statistics.. How many quits in game-before and ingame- all theese last days.. Teams ruins,players leave the game.. 

Your matchmaking system,

those "brave heroes" chepies kamikaze (destroy Tanks with no cost at all for them),

bomber spamming (every 15'') ruins the game..

I'm talking Especially about Arcade Ground Battles.

 

We want (take a look at forum's post, polls etc ) a Fair Arcade Ground (Tanks) Battle Game.

 

Edited July 14, 2016 by EL_ALeko

[lyrillvempos1327 34]

On 2016/7/13 at 3:55 AM, tizianenel said:

 

Vickers S is better as it has the choice of ammo, while vickers P is limited to AP only (which actually has trouble killing armoured targets). It's also mounted on a plane with much lower BR.

nah uit's more like the plane is bigger and cannons are ratio situated further out on the wings that makes hitting anything harder unless u tone down your regular verti number

[lyrillvempos1327 34]

also id on'tw anna repeat this again and again this is literally so basic

 

gaijin, anton, seriously

 

queue shorter, people are gonna expect **** games, cus that's what short q ueue brings, low quality, bs **** low games

 

queue longer, people are gonna expecet epic games, cus that's what long queue SHOULD bring

 

you reap what you sow, basic universal principle, why make it any more complicated than that, as if you can bend that logic

 

"player be mad it took long to queue" yes

 

"player be mad games took short to queue and is ****" helllo?

 

"playuer be mad gmaes took long to queue and is still ****" i bet that's what really is at stack here

"player be mad games took short to queue and is actually legit" in your dream?

 

seriously just give everyone what they want or tell us you don't care and be done with it

 

i don[t nkow, publish the full stats, make an open name poll, whatever you can't decide if it hurts this guy and make that happy, seriously, automate the process, so everyone ca join, like automating tournaments joining process which u are so good at already , fix the br so long queue game results won't also be **** vs good as it should have earned

Edited July 14, 2016 by lyrillvempos1327
why do you make me say this

[PowderMonk 77]

match making simply don't work, last mach whe had ONE 7.7 and all 6.7 the enemy team half of them was 7.3 and UP, 2x 7.7 and the rest 6.7, we lost obiviously....