auth.findreviews.com/curriculum-culture-and-citizenship-education-in.php I will continue to do so:. Now, I realize that everyone won't be happy one hundred percent of the time, because people are people. First off, we all have to recognize that we will never have a perfectly fair and balanced matchmaker. The only way that would happen would be if every tank in the game exhibited the same characteristics. Taking that into account, I'm going to propose a few changes that will make the matchmaker seem more reasonable and fair.
Depending on your feedback, I'll modify the solution as time goes on. The second deals with map rotation, and the third deals with the structuring of teams. This one is pretty simple to explain. The brackets table contained there, while outdated, provides a good visual for how the battle ratings matchmaker works. Knowledge about this subject is critical in order to fully understand my suggestion. The problem with this system is that the capabilities of vehicles can GREATLY vary within the battle rating range, especially in the higher tiers.
Take the Maus for example. At it's proper battle rating, 8. However, once, it gets uptiered to 9. All of a sudden, the match is very unfair for individual players. Some of you may even have experienced bugs in this spread system.
Next time I have a recording of such a match, I will post it as proof. What I am proposing is not new; players have talked about it for a long time. Back when the game was first developed, the spread of the battle rating was 0. However, with the addition of rank VI, the battle ratings are much more spread out.
Because of this, I think the reversion back to a 0. This way, uptiered vehicles won't have as hard of a time making an impact on the battle, and downtiered vehicles won't be completely dominating the battlefield. Otherwise, innocent Ts will be brutally wrecked by the mighty Maus. There have been two proposed alternatives to reducing the BR spread in the comments below, which would be more effective in creating balance, but would also require some additional work.
However the current 1. Fortunately there's a solution to this, we can keep the 1. All we have to do is divide current BR spread 1. Now if we multiply current BR 1. Current BR x 1. All Gaijin has to do is use that on current BRs and we'll have a virtual 0. Or it must be the amount of servers needed for what would be BR 10 would become BR Essentially, this would involve recalculating all the battle ratings in the game, but the result would be much better than what we have now.
The second idea is by Results An MM solution I would like to propose: There would actually only be the benefit of a less compressed game. Please help me if I'm wrong math is exactly my strong suit but every time I count the match possibilities I get the same number of I would like to point-out that current battle-ratings are static.
You get the vehicle and the BR never changes. Thus is shown here:.
More importantly, we have the vehicles to slot into such trees -- in addition to those currently playable in-game:. In my point of view, the more similar one vehicle model is to another co-developments and slightly-evolved variants the closer they would be clustered in terms of BRs. All this to say that we have no shortage of vehicles to fill the game with.
Of course, I might be reading both suggestions wrong, so please correct and explain to me if I've got it wrong, and that the suggestions account for this. This is why I believe there should be a difference in BR-levels between say a tank you just bought and one you have fully upgraded -- especially in Tiers Example of base vs.
Example of "stock" vs. This change mostly has to do with ground forces, as aircraft have many more maps, and the size of the maps with aircraft doesn't necessarily matter as much as it does with ground forces.
I've heard many players complain about certain maps that they have to fight on. Again, a lot of this has to do with player skill, but at times, the map selection really doesn't help that much. Each map usually has three types of battles: Battle fighting to capture the enemy's strategic point , Domination fighting to control three strategic point , and Conquest fighting to control one strategic point.
After choosing a map size, the matchmaker would choose at random one of the specified maps in that category. This way, different battle ratings would have map sizes that would suit the vehicles of the battle rating, and we'd see ALL the maps in rotation. A common situation encountered in arcade ground battles is the occurrence of absurdly unbalanced games. Even if we actually won! Once 32 players have been selected by the matchmaker MM , share the top BR players between the two teams, and minimize the difference between the number of players in squads between the 2 teams not a problem in this example.
Then minimize the difference between the mean BR of the two teams by properly allocating the remaining players to the two teams. In our case, this gives: In that case, the optimization problem may not have a perfect solution but this procedure cannot be worse than what actually happened in the example I give here. In any case, since the 32 players have been already selected by the MM, the queuing time is not affected by this proposed change of the balancing of the teams.
A better solution would be to implement this solution at the root of the MM, that is, also in the process of properly selecting the 32 players of the battle. This obviously demands more work but could help minimizing the current grief of most players against the MM. However, the proposed solution would be already a clear improvement to the very unbalanced ground arcade battles one often encounters and would be straightforward to implement. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and supporting this suggestion! FAQ about these changes to be updated as more of you ask questions: I dont' want to wait to get into the action!
The underwhelming choice that everything boils down to is this: I believe the community supports the latter. You suggest putting these maps back in rotation? Although the imbalance in these maps might indeed by due to the design of the map, my guess is that it has more to do with the setup of the teams, and the vehicles that fight on those maps. Additionally, I believe that people would be more willing to have more variance in maps as well. Regarding map design, there are sections on the forum to suggest changes to correct these map designs. The Devs do indeed update maps. Finally, you have to take into account that if all the maps are in rotation, the probability of getting an imbalanced map is a lot lower then just having a few maps.
You are proposing these changes for all game modes in the game? Perhaps the most important question! No, this suggestion is not set in stone. I'm eager to hear everyone's opinion and input, so that, in the end,the suggestion will work for the majority of the players. Remember, the goal is to correct the matchmaker system, an undertaking that involves more than one person's input. Thank you all for your time, and I hope you'll consider this suggestion! I like this quite a bit.
Maps should be specific to nation combinations. This is a very needed change and would greatly improve the game. However I think that large maps should not appear at all for lower tiers. I thought about that when I was drafting this suggestion. The reason why I didn't include it would be because if maps were specific to certain nation combinations, then you would have some nations that would never play on certain maps, which a lot of people would be upset about.
For example, the United States or Britain would never play on Kursk. The Russians would never play on Ardennes, and so on. And I know that a lot of people would be fine not playing on Maginot Line, but nevertheless, there's always the group of players that are going to feel excluded if a new map is introduced and they don't get to play it because their nation "didn't historically fight on that map. With the Challenger 1, the Leo 2K, and potentially a few other s tanks coming into the game, this is definitely a possibility.
While I realize that nobody likes large maps at low tiers, excluding them entirely would drive a lot of potentially new players away from the game, as they would feel "excluded" from these maps. Thus, I think the solution should be, as I mentioned in the OP, reducing the probability of large maps at low tiers, rather than removing them from the map rotation altogether. In some battles, the outcome relies too much on how well the few top BR players are doing, and how many of them are on both teams. It is boring to play always the same maps at a given BR, and I cannot understand why Gaijin would want to bore their players I suggest that Gaijin take them out and ensure that maps are time neutral not too many elements allowing to identify the time period.
At some BR, some of these combinations will lead to very unbalanced teams unless the number of players are not the same in both teams, which would be too delicate to implement. Moreover, this suggestion will reduce even more the probability to find a battle quickly.
Considering the proposed narrowing of the BR range to 0. I mean, that would promote people playing more than one nation, which might be good. It would require Gaijin to make lots of new maps though, which won't happen. I've been in battles were their were too many of 1 vehicle. Their needs to be more variants in battle so you don't get faced with the same vehicle several times in the same battle. I think Tier 2 is popular as their is some variant.
Let's take the IS Set the BR to be 4. This way, new players or tanks with no modifications have a chance. Fixing the matchmaking is far more difficult than what can be thought. With the help of machine learning, it can become very balanced. If the machine learning took into account how well a player plays, then the balance could be improved. This is something that would take time to implement. Regarding your comment about time neutrality for maps, I personally would like it to be so as well. The problem is that there will always be the large player base that doesn't necessarily have access to all tiers, and hence would never get to play certain maps.
These players would definitely harbor resentment if a new map was introduced, but one that would only be in rotation at a certain tier. Regarding suggestion number three, I acknowledge that at certain battle ratings, many of the matches will be unbalanced. How do you account for that? The underwhelming truth is, no match will ever be perfectly balanced, for reasons mentioned before. Also, if you have a specific match in mind, and you take a second to calculate the probability of that match getting chosen, you will find that it is most likely very low, given the hundreds of possible scenarios that I have listed.
And yes, at certain battle ratings, certain nations will do better than other nations An important thing to notice is that this is already the case in the game. Think about some of the matches that the current matchmaker uses:. I can guarantee you that I can name a whole bunch of battle ratings at which teams are unbalanced based on just these matches. If we're going to have unbalanced matches, then we should at least get variety, and a reduced probability of getting the same team at a certain battle rating But after playing some more and having to play All vs All i felt that it was so unaturall to see your own teams tanks on the enemy team that it just felt wrong.
You might feel wrong, but mirror match is something that happen in real life ex: And there is nothing to fell wrong about, just think it's a civil war, where part of the army decided to rebel, you know like republic of Texas becoming independent. Yeah i know that the same vehicles have and could face eachother. But when you have played RB for so long and have played less than All vs All just estimating here.
To play an All vs All messes with my target identification. And i atleast look at the team composition when we start so i know what to look for and i doubt that many do that. I think its more fair to have all vs all since some team compositions are way better than other typical Ger, USSR, france is pretty solid and this would get rid of that. On the other hand if they make them just more common then atleast i need to "reconfigure my head" to see my teams tanks as enemies aswell if that make sense.
We have battle tier is extremely important, war thunder case low rating of vehicles. There have been two proposed alternatives to reducing the BR spread in the comments below, which would be more effective in creating balance, but would also require some additional work. Your proposition 3 has no chance to be accepted has it actually comes with those risks long queues, new balance issues. In a regulated system, T10M's would be allowed into a match in certain quantity if they are the highest battle rating in the match, every other T10M player or 8. Considering the proposed narrowing of the BR range to 0. A top tier heavy tank will have to kill at least 2 tanks or cap one zone and make one kill to respawn. Just add mixed teams.
Log in or sign up in seconds. Submit a new link. Submit a new text post.
Get an ad-free experience with special benefits, and directly support Reddit. Do not abuse the NEWS flair. It is intended only for official War Thunder news from Gaijin sites and sources. Please do not overuse it for e. The MEME flair is intended for memes. It is not a catch-all flair for jokes and satire. Submitting low-effort posts of any kind in quick succession will lead to post removals and may lead to a ban. If your submission has an unclear title you should submit a top-level comment explaining the content.
Posts with "clickbait" titles will be removed. Memes must be clearly visually relevant to War Thunder. This means just having a witty related caption or title is not enough. Be creative and tie it into War Thunder. Posts made to promote other games will be removed. If for a vehicle suggestion, please first refer to the updated list of previously suggested vehicles.
If your suggestion is there already, don't post it again. Must be clearly explained: