Jump to content


Convince me about Skill-Based-MM


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
24 replies to this topic

_Tsavo #1 Posted Nov 18 2017 - 22:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 38913 battles
  • 14,590
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

Alrighty, boys and gals, convince me.  I, and many other members of this community, are against Skill Based Match Making.  There are others who are very passionate about wanting SBMM.  So, for those of you who want it, convince me.

 

Now, this thread is not about my stance on SBMM or my opinions in the matter, this thread is about presenting a clean avenue where we can discuss in a civil manner your views on SBMM and why should I be swayed by them.  Far too often we end up going into direct insults and miss the point.  Let us discuss something and let you try to convince me.

 

In responses, please include the following (or they will be ignored) :

 

1.) Discuss how you would implement a SBMM system.

1a.) What would your criteria be for skill?

1b.) How would you distribute this skill around?

 

2.) Why would your system be better than the blind-to-skill system we have now?

 

3.) .Who would benefit the most from your system?  

3a.) Why?

3.b) Why is this a good thing?

 

4.) . Who would suffer the most from your system?

4a.) why?

4b.) Why is this a good thing?

 

5.) I will present a few team pools in the SPOILER section, how would you arrange them with your system?

Spoiler

Why are they arranged as such?

 

6.) What is fair?  An equal starting point or an equal result and which one does your system point to?  

6a.) If it presents an equal starting point, how does it not result in a closer, more equal result?

6b.) If it presents in an equal result for each player, why?

 

 

BE CIVIL AND RESPOND TO ALL POINTS, PLEASE

 

Discussions are hard, ya'll can piss off


Edited by _Tsavo, Nov 18 2017 - 22:40.


Rake #2 Posted Nov 18 2017 - 22:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 49163 battles
  • 5,776
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

I'm not sure the players using that term actually all mean the same thing.  I think many of them mean the best play only the best and the worst play only the worst.  I think there is a percentage of them that want WG to balance the teams by skill levels to increase the odds of a closer battle.  What I mean by the second one is that each team would have equal or similar number of top players like yourself, along with an equal number of red players per team.  It wouldn't prevent bad players from facing the top players, it would just make it more likely that one team isn't loaded with them compared to the other team.

 

I personally don't believe WG has the talent and competence to devise a system that would operate in that manner, however.



Strike_Witch_Tomoko #3 Posted Nov 18 2017 - 22:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 15574 battles
  • 12,014
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

My answer: Skill based MM wont do anything.

 

people use it as an excuse when they get creamed and want an excuse other than  that they did badly,  or the team just didnt work together

 

 

even if skill MM is put in,  you'll still get the 1 sided slaughters.   as one side works together better than the other,    and when this happens, its a cascade effect,  leading to a rofl stomp.

 

 

and more excuses will be created saying "oh well it should ahve done this, or that"

 

and it will never be satisfying because in pvp. someone needs to lose.

and in wot,  no one admits they a bad player.  its always someone, or something elses fault



cnumartyr #4 Posted Nov 18 2017 - 22:16

    Captain

  • Players
  • 10820 battles
  • 1,323
  • [REL2] REL2
  • Member since:
    08-18-2013

If SBMM is to exist, it has to be a seperate battle mode.

 

Ranked Battles will be fine once it's actually out of beta and running more often.



Slone #5 Posted Nov 18 2017 - 22:18

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 17564 battles
  • 513
  • [DD-S] DD-S
  • Member since:
    05-30-2011

I would implement a skill based MM with the intention of making the individual pubbie matches more balanced and more competitive. Blow out games are no fun regardless of which side I am on. While a close game grabs my attention to such a degree that I will stay and watch the outcome even after I die instead of heading back to the garage for another battle.

 

As far as how to work that out? It's the weekend and I'm not putting that much brain power into it right now. But I would use a variant of the current system which balances type and weight of the vehicles, and then shift players of similar tier, type and weight back and forth to adjust the skill to achieve my goal of a competitive battle. Whether you use PR or Wn#, or some new metric doesn't matter to me because whatever system you use the max/min players will attempt to manipulate it.

 

Who benefits? Me. And people like me who like competitive battles.

Who loses, the ADD crowd who like quick fights in rapid succession regardless of the outcome.



__WarChild__ #6 Posted Nov 18 2017 - 22:25

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 9604 battles
  • 1,145
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    06-03-2017

 

View PostRake, on Nov 18 2017 - 15:12, said:

I'm not sure the players using that term actually all mean the same thing.  I think many of them mean the best play only the best and the worst play only the worst.  I think there is a percentage of them that want WG to balance the teams by skill levels to increase the odds of a closer battle.  What I mean by the second one is that each team would have equal or similar number of top players like yourself, along with an equal number of red players per team.  It wouldn't prevent bad players from facing the top players, it would just make it more likely that one team isn't loaded with them compared to the other team.

 

I personally don't believe WG has the talent and competence to devise a system that would operate in that manner, however.

 

 

THIS!  I just want the opportunity to win EVERY game.  Right now, I have a 42% UnWinnable rate - that's 42% of my games that are automatic losses no matter what I do. I can submit around 560 photos to show you what I mean (yeah, not exaggerating).  

 

Putting all things aside, why can't MM use XVM and match the tiers and colors team per team?  An equal number of purple, blue, green players per team?  I don't know if this is fair or what, but when I see 5 blue players on the enemy team (none on mine) and 5 red players on my team (none on the enemy team) AND I'm lowest tier - it's a loss.  Every time.  Personally, I'd rather just not play that match.  During the grinds, I did the unethical thing and departed aggressively due to time constraints.  I'm not trying to farm damage or mark my tanks or anything other than trying to get the win.  I play to win, even if the odds are stacked against me.  But they're stacked too much against me, too much of the time.  XVM shows me this, and in the rare occasions when I really need the win, it makes me think that those who vote against skill based MM aren't playing with a full deck.

 

Ex. Have yourself 10 games in a row where you're the lowest tier tank and your teams are horrific and get steamrolled.  Are you having fun?  Is your skill/ability able to overcome? - answer NO.

 

I don't really know the solution to these things or how to gauge them.  But if teams are equal, I have a 90% chance of having a significant impact on the outcome.  IN the current system, it's almost completely up to luck.



Sturmgeschut #7 Posted Nov 18 2017 - 22:26

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 10026 battles
  • 904
  • [SEELS] SEELS
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012

There are 6 unicums in queue and 24 reds.

 

3 unicums and 12 reds on one team, 3 unicums and 12 reds on the other.



_Tsavo #8 Posted Nov 18 2017 - 22:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 38913 battles
  • 14,590
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011
Please answer the questions presented, not just throw out your opinions without responding to them.

Hellsfog #9 Posted Nov 18 2017 - 22:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 31754 battles
  • 4,242
  • [WONKA] WONKA
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011

View PostSturmgeschut, on Nov 18 2017 - 16:26, said:

There are 6 unicums in queue and 24 reds.

 

3 unicums and 12 reds on one team, 3 unicums and 12 reds on the other.

 

What's a unicum? Wn8? Which version? PR? What level would be a unicum?  What do you do when the queue isn't as even split as in your example?

cnumartyr #10 Posted Nov 18 2017 - 22:34

    Captain

  • Players
  • 10820 battles
  • 1,323
  • [REL2] REL2
  • Member since:
    08-18-2013

View Post_Tsavo, on Nov 18 2017 - 16:27, said:

Please answer the questions presented, not just throw out your opinions without responding to them.

 

They can answer however they like.

 

You're asking for a thesis statement.  In addition who cares if you support SBMM or not?  Why would anyone need to convince you?



Sturmgeschut #11 Posted Nov 18 2017 - 22:35

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 10026 battles
  • 904
  • [SEELS] SEELS
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012

View Post_Tsavo, on Nov 18 2017 - 13:27, said:

Please answer the questions presented, not just throw out your opinions without responding to them.

 

No.



_Tsavo #12 Posted Nov 18 2017 - 22:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 38913 battles
  • 14,590
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

View PostSturmgeschut, on Nov 18 2017 - 16:26, said:

There are 6 unicums in queue and 24 reds.

 

3 unicums and 12 reds on one team, 3 unicums and 12 reds on the other.

 

that addressed nothing in my post.

_Tsavo #13 Posted Nov 18 2017 - 22:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 38913 battles
  • 14,590
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

View Postcnumartyr, on Nov 18 2017 - 16:34, said:

 

They can answer however they like.

 

You're asking for a thesis statement.  In addition who cares if you support SBMM or not?  Why would anyone need to convince you?

 

I'm asking for details on why their system is better.

 

If one can't -or won't- elaborate on their view point, why should I even consider it.



_Tsavo #14 Posted Nov 18 2017 - 22:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 38913 battles
  • 14,590
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

View PostSturmgeschut, on Nov 18 2017 - 16:35, said:

 

No.

 

then get out

Sturmgeschut #15 Posted Nov 18 2017 - 22:36

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 10026 battles
  • 904
  • [SEELS] SEELS
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012

View Post_Tsavo, on Nov 18 2017 - 13:35, said:

 

that addressed nothing in my post.

 

It answered 1.

 

I'm not about to give you an essay.



_Tsavo #16 Posted Nov 18 2017 - 22:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 38913 battles
  • 14,590
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

View PostSturmgeschut, on Nov 18 2017 - 16:36, said:

 

It answered 1.

 

I'm not about to give you an essay.

 

and without acknowledging the rest, it only leaves questions and isn't an answer

Sturmgeschut #17 Posted Nov 18 2017 - 22:38

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 10026 battles
  • 904
  • [SEELS] SEELS
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012

View Post_Tsavo, on Nov 18 2017 - 13:36, said:

 

I'm asking for details on why their system is better.

 

If one can't -or won't- elaborate on their view point, why should I even consider it.

 

Who cares if you consider it? You're just some guy on the internet.

_Tsavo #18 Posted Nov 18 2017 - 22:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 38913 battles
  • 14,590
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

View PostSturmgeschut, on Nov 18 2017 - 16:38, said:

 

Who cares if you consider it? You're just some guy on the internet.

 

I see discussions are hard.

 

 



cnumartyr #19 Posted Nov 18 2017 - 22:40

    Captain

  • Players
  • 10820 battles
  • 1,323
  • [REL2] REL2
  • Member since:
    08-18-2013

View Post_Tsavo, on Nov 18 2017 - 16:36, said:

 

I'm asking for details on why their system is better.

 

If one can't -or won't- elaborate on their view point, why should I even consider it.

 

Then don't consider it.  Why should anyone care about your opinion on SBMM?

__WarChild__ #20 Posted Nov 18 2017 - 22:40

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 9604 battles
  • 1,145
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    06-03-2017

View Post_Tsavo, on Nov 18 2017 - 15:36, said:

 

I'm asking for details on why their system is better.

 

If one can't -or won't- elaborate on their view point, why should I even consider it.

 

My detail is: I'd like the opportunity to win every game I play.  If skill levels are skewed too much in favor of one team, it's no contest.

 

Real Life Example: Alabama was beating Mercer 58-0 earlier today and the game was no where near finished (no clue what the score is now, don't care) - not much of a competition. I, personally, am tired of being put on Mercer's team. And I don't think we're all treated the same.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users