27 replies to this topic

[Millardthemk]

Vaporous, on Aug 11 2012 - 03:33, said:

I saw this post yesterday and I can't believe how many neg rep the author has gotten after posting it
http://forum.worldof...to-account-wl/. To be honest, I fully support OldManBill's post and I want to make a point in my own view why such MM is needed for the sake of enjoyment of all players

The problem with current MM, is it ignores player performance when making a match. The result of purple vs. red is often like it described in this post: http://forum.worldof...s-abomination/. I'm not a heavy wot player like many other on the forum who has gotten over 10k games under their belt but when I play this game, I found out there's nothing makes me more upset than watching my team losing the game because they don't know how to play.

You may think I'm a new player and thus this problem must be common among new player base, but I promise you it isn't. I play up to tier 4 scout and arty and I have seen this problem exist in even tier 8 players, they don't hide from arty, they stay out in the open and just wait to get killed and next thing you know, that team loses.

I don't enjoy a lopsided game, it doesn't matter I win or lose. I play this game for fun and there's not fun when you click battle button and you suddenly win or lose (I think playing minesweeper is more fun for that matter). If I win, I want to see the effort I put into it and if I lose, I want to learn how to improve.

Now people against this MM argue bad player will only play with bad players and thus they never learn how to improve. Here is my view: if you want to be good, there's nothing can stop you to be good. Even as a new player, with blow average performance, as long as you learn from your mistakes and willing to improve, you can still quickly improve win rate and able to challenge next higher ranked ladder.

Then there are people argue this MM will give more people close to 50% win rate. I think this is a pathetic reason. I play this game for fun, not for win rate. Besides, I don't think there's anything stopping you achieving 60% or even 70% win rate as long as you want it, starcraft uses ladder system and go check their global racking, I don't see anyone there is stuck with 50% win rate.

Here's a quick view of what will happen if MM start to consider w/l:
1. There will be more teamwork if you are a team player, because you will be playing with most of them.
2. There will be more close games and you can really see yourself work hard in this game in order to achieve victory.
3. This game becomes more competitive in the higher ranked ladder and more lay-back in lower ranked ladder except a few progressive new players.
4. WG don't have to work hard to advertise this game to recruit new players because this game will be much more forgiving to new players
5. Both competitive and lay-back players will be satisfied with their team more and have less complaint to the MM
6. You will see a lot less stats caller, trolls. Maybe only some in the lowest ladder.
7. Because higher ladder become more competitive, more players will be spending gold to keep up with their position in ladder. WG, are you listening? It's win-win!

That's just my thoughts after work today, I think I'm going to play a few games now.

NOTE: MM consider w/l =/= put a bad on good team or put a good on bad team

Serb has said specifically they will not and will never implement W/L in MM. He sees it as denying bad players to learn from good.

[Skpstr]

Can anyone give me an example where a ladder system is used, where you have to depend on random teammates to successfully advance? I read the Wiki article, and every example is either a solo game/sport, or one where you have a select team that remains the same.

Propose a ladder system where my advancement is 100% determined by my skill alone, and I'll extol its virtues from the rooftops.

[MrSparkle]

swingshift, on Aug 11 2012 - 03:43, said:

I agree with you that it would be nice if there were more close games but not sure what WG can actually do to ensure that happens.  As anyone that uses XVM will tell you, the amount of games where XVM predicts a one sided game that goes the OPPOSITE way to predicted is very common.  Assuming matchmaker used the same efficiency ratings as XVM does, there would be no guarantee that games would be closer than they are now.

XVM may get it wrong sometimes but it's right most of the time, so far. If my team has a 25% chance to win, then they're probably gonna lose, even proho defense.

Maybe it's different at top tier but I would like MM to consider win rate. There are way too many tier 7-9 tanks with bad stats, I mean 45% and below win rate and terrible efficiency. And when they're all lumped together on the same team it's laughable. They don't where to go, where to aim, how to avoid arty, not to drive off lone wolf, don't know what "defense" means in assault games etc.

[Dissidence]

Bads should not be propped up by the matchmaker. If they are terrible they deserve to lose, and to cause their teams to lose.

Good players should not be gimped by the matchmaker. If they are good, let them shine, don't gimp them with teams full of sub 45% glue eaters and shoe lickers.

[Vaporous]

Pavol_Preznik, on Aug 11 2012 - 07:44, said:

Bads should not be propped up by the matchmaker. If they are terrible they deserve to lose, and to cause their teams to lose.

Good players should not be gimped by the matchmaker. If they are good, let them shine, don't gimp them with teams full of sub 45% glue eaters and shoe lickers.

by letting bad lose you are punishing good player on bad team. There's no control who is on who's team. Why not just let bad go play with and against bad? If a bad wants to be good, there's nothing in a bad ladder stoping him to be good

[rinying]

Vaporous, on Aug 11 2012 - 15:59, said:

by letting bad lose you are punishing good player on bad team. There's no control who is on who's team. Why not just let bad go play with and against bad? If a bad wants to be good, there's nothing in a bad ladder stoping him to be good

except think about this.
i go start a brand spanking new t1 account. i then proceed to obliterate noobs. in every. single. game. until they stick me up a tier, i am considered "god-like" and will obliterate accordingly. also, with the small number of good players in this game, the higher ladders would be empty. imagine garbad fighting 10 other 60%ers with 9 on his team..... wouldn't even be able to make an even match.

[legoo22]

Lert, on Aug 11 2012 - 03:42, said:

MM doesn't take rating into account at the moment, 1sl1.

@OP: I'm strongly against the idea. Several reasons.

1) Everyone would be around 49% win rate. This doesn't sound like a bad thing, but think about it: If you're absolutely terrible at the game, MM puts you against other losers to maintain your 49%. If you're absolutely bad-ass at this game, MM balances that out as well. So there would be no difference between highly skilled and completely useless players anymore. What then would be the purpose of practising hard and becoming highly skilled, if you don't see any return-on-investment? The guy hiding behind a rock all match would become just as much an integral part of the team as the guy who pulls more than twice his own weight.

2) One step further: if MM considers W/L in making perfectly balanced matches, then everyone's W/L would pull towards 49%, and then MM wouldn't have anything to balance with anymore. This whole idea defeats itself by purposely getting rid of its own data-set.

3) Platoons. How would MM balance a platoon with a highly skilled and a terribad? What would it do to balance that out with the other team?

MM balancing will encourage bad play, because of zero return-on-investment in learning how to play the game better.

This^

Edited by legoo22, Aug 11 2012 - 18:27.

[Das_Schlippo]

Why is everyone so desperate to have the matchmaker accommodate their mediocrity?

Noobs learn nothing from noobs.  You don't get punished for bad tactics or play if everyone is equally bad.  Wouldn't you rather learn to be a better player than just be mediocre and getting by with it?

I just do not understand this notion of "I'm pretty bad, and I'd like to stay that way."

Edited by Das_Schlippo, Aug 11 2012 - 18:30.