Friday, 20 March 2015

Armored Warfare: Matchmaker Reworked

Armored Warfare reworked their matchmaker article.

Instead of hard-coded vehicle tiers it uses a system of battle ratings who doesn't only works faster but also easy to adjust general tank balance.


The matchmaker takes into account this three categories which as a whole form a combat rating:
-The vehicle itself;
-Modules equipped;
-How many battles the player used the vehicle in.

The combat rating gives each vehicle a different rating depending on its tier (starts at 1000 and increases 10 percent of the previous value). One of the things that pleases me is that freshly unlocked vehicles are given a combat rating bonus in order meet easier opponents.

Once the battle is formed (matchmaker gathers 30 players) it will go into team-forming phase which takes vehicle class and tier as criteria.

If you are eager for Armored Warfare, there is more detailed information on the matchmaker mechanism including platoons, I do recommend you to read the entire article: http://aw.my.com/us/news/general/matchmaking-armored-warfare-0

So far things are looking bright for AW.

30 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. ps. it takes into account those factors (IF IT CAN) < thats the important part :)
      i bet even then ppl. will complain about //shitty MM// sadly

      i wonder if it manages to deliver a decent time to throw you in matches...
      WT can struggle at times... wot not so much.

      Delete
    2. They still need to add a skill rating to the equation... But so far they are on the right path...

      Delete
    3. Skill matchmaking kills the game, if they decide to implement it they will not succeed. There is a reason why there is no skill mm in WoT, WG is experienced - they know this won't work.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You want skill match making? seriouslt who honestly cares xD skill match maker is team battles.

      Delete
  3. Paraphrasing X-Files:

    "I want to believe..."

    AW FTW

    ReplyDelete
  4. Read the article, I can already see a few issues at various spots. Still, it can work out, it will be interesting to see how it works in the future.

    Though I have no doubts it will issue some sort of whining. Not the same as in WoT, but some whining nevertheless.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It sounds like its going to indirectly punish players for playing a large number of battles in a small number of tanks.

    That... kinda sucks actually.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup, the first thing I noticed in article. It can be solved by introducing some limits on ratings (which will probably happen), but still, having lots of rarely played tanks will grant you lower waiting times than having a few top tanks played thousands of times.

      Delete
    2. Well, it is nor release version yet. I want AW to be good game because of win/win situation for players. Good competiotion can possibly kick some crap out from WG heads.

      Delete
    3. Well, WG is doing great so far and are still planning stuff which will keep making it work, for example havok will be great, the reason they keep moving the end-date is probably because they want it to be great, rather then just being lazy. Also, czech tanks, SS has been hammering on that for really long and as it's looking right now it's going to happen too

      Delete
  6. "it uses a system of battle ratings who doesn't only works faster"?
    In English, "MM" is a gender neutral phrase.. "it uses a system of battle ratings that doesn't only work faster".

    You mention this is a rework of AW's MM. What was it (or he?) before the rework?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I can judge by seeing examples (not in beta), it was pretty much the same as basic WG MM (without pref MM and with custom weights)

      Delete
    2. he she it works faster... it singular, so works should be right.
      "Everything Works Out: The Making of 'The Falls" is solid and if "Everything" is singular, a simple "Matchmaking" is too

      Delete
  7. I disagree, AW has a CRAP future. This MM looks worse than WOTs. Nobody but NOOBs who suck want skill MM. AW will be lucky to beat WT tanks let alone even remotely challenge WOTs. On the other hand, WOWS looks like a blockbuster.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A stock E75 is still better than an elite Tiger II so AWs MM looks stupid it it will match stock tanks against elite tanks at a lower tier.

      Delete
    2. AW does have a few things going for it, most important of which IMO is their ammo selection system actually makes sense from a gameplay standpoint and isn't pure, broken BS.

      Graphics engine is better, though that's not really very important [and it would be extraordinarily hard for WG to actually "fix" this. Transferring a whole game into a different engine is extremely expensive and time consuming]. It remains to be seen how AW handles arty, for all we know it could actually end up being worse. I think "skill MM" will backfire horribly.

      Ammo balance though? That's definitely in AW's favor right now. I suspect WG either is planning to, or eventually will HAVE to do something about it because it compares extremely badly against the competition.

      Delete
    3. Skill MM sucks, I agree. But it is nothing wrong with the vehicle ranking.

      Delete
    4. ok, my previous comment dissapeared.

      Delete
  8. Well, the module tier weight would be nice even in WoT (some vehicles have waaaay too monstrous gun at their tier... yeah, I'm looking at you, BL-10-armed-ISU-152... it's not OP IMHO, but still, that damage/penetration combo is pretty high for a tier 8)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wg has actually cancelled havoc, i struggle to see anything that aw will not do better

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No it hasn't. It's being optimized, which will take a long time (because performance issues), but it wasn't cancelled.

      Delete
  10. Just wondering, is armored warfare has the some developer interview or something like the Q&A to WOT? Wish our friend SS is still working on it LOL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pff, translating news that will appear on WOTs website weeks later is one thing, developing the changes and news is another thing. And any fast and right information before Rita took over had been presented by SS. If u chinese guy are so smart u could do the same work, eh?

      Delete
  11. Limited matchmaking was tried in WoT, it was a great pay to win feature.

    Unlock a new tank, convert exp to upgrade it, profit.

    It was dropped after a few months.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And matchmaking based on modules was also tried, that idea didn't even make it to the end of closed beta.

      And I thought they were supposed to be learning from Wargaming's mistakes.

      Delete
    2. But Homer, remember how many modules and tanks had been in closed beta. There had been no necessity in accounting the modules and we had a tierspread of 4 tiers in MM. Many other technical games like mechwarrior take the build-in modules into account.

      Delete
    3. Tier spread when modules were taken into account was more than 4 and tanks had at least as many modules, some more. Upgrading your tank was sometimes a bad idea because it just meant you had to face harder enemies.

      And MWO has been such a success. :rolleyes:

      Delete