Jump to content


Skill Based Matchmaking: Why Not?

Matchmaking

  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

__WarChild__ #1 Posted Dec 09 2017 - 21:41

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 25098 battles
  • 3,694
  • [Y0L0] Y0L0
  • Member since:
    06-03-2017

Please feel free to answer one or both of the following questions.  I'm primarily interested in Part 1, but I'm also curious about Part 2 today.

 

PART 1:

Remind me again why it would be a bad idea to try and have even teams so there's an equal chance of winning every game?  I honestly cannot remember the logic behind the current system.  Something about we'd all have 50% winrates or something like that.  I really need a refresher on the reasoning and why so many people are in support of it.

 

PART 2:

In the meantime, where do players get Bots and how do you install them?  I don't mind losing games and being put in completely unwinnable situations (my UR today is 67% - all time high for Wargaming), but I'm trying to grind my Churchill line to the Super Conq.  Today, I'm at Tier 5 and all I'm seeing are Tier 7 games.  With a mostly stock set up, its a hard place to be in. Mind you, I finish in the top 1-3 every single game, but XVM shows me how bad the situation is and sure nuff, I'm losing almost all my games - vast majority of the losses are landslides too.  Again, I don't mind the losing, but if it doesn't matter whether I'm a live body or not, I want one of those bots people install that don't do diddly but move a little bit so you don't get AFK complaints.  It won't have any effect on my winrate and no one seems to care about winning or learning how to play, etc. so it shouldn't matter to folks.  And then I can move up to the Tier VI and start the whole process all over again.  What say you?

 

:confused:



Hellsfog #2 Posted Dec 09 2017 - 21:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 35779 battles
  • 5,642
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011
Because the forum search function would show you the 1,234,5483,985,8374 threads giving you an answer. 

Edited by Hellsfog, Dec 09 2017 - 21:45.


Dead_Zombie #3 Posted Dec 09 2017 - 21:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 39503 battles
  • 3,355
  • Member since:
    10-09-2011
my response is that u don't know the difference between skill based MM and Balanced MM, which leads to everybody disregarding ur argument

Gothraul #4 Posted Dec 09 2017 - 21:49

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 2162 battles
  • 5,075
  • Member since:
    11-17-2014
I am ok with it provided that it evened out the teams so no more unicum mike tyson vs steve urkel battles where one team gets curbed stomped in two or three minutes or less.

Nixeldon #5 Posted Dec 09 2017 - 21:51

    Captain

  • Players
  • 58799 battles
  • 1,637
  • [PRTSN] PRTSN
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostHellsfog, on Dec 09 2017 - 15:44, said:

Because the forum search function would show you the 1,234,5483,985,8374 threads giving you an answer. 

^^^This

 

 



__WarChild__ #6 Posted Dec 09 2017 - 21:58

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 25098 battles
  • 3,694
  • [Y0L0] Y0L0
  • Member since:
    06-03-2017

View PostDead_Zombie, on Dec 09 2017 - 14:46, said:

my response is that u don't know the difference between skill based MM and Balanced MM, which leads to everybody disregarding ur argument

 

Excellent.  Please explain that to me because I really don't know.  I admit, I'm dumb this way so please dumb it down for me.

 

 

 

PS - When I log in and see all purple/blue/green players (good stat players) on one team, and the other team (my team) has mostly red/orange players (bad stats) - what is that called?  To me, most of the "skill" is on one side.  If they put some of the skill on both teams, then I would get a more "balanced" MM.  But again, that's just me.  I'm sure there's logic behind one sided runaway teams and the fact that something in the system puts me on the underdog side the vast majority of the time.



__WarChild__ #7 Posted Dec 09 2017 - 22:03

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 25098 battles
  • 3,694
  • [Y0L0] Y0L0
  • Member since:
    06-03-2017

Funny, right after making this post, I finally get 1 game at high tier:

 

 

So, I don't need the bot anymore  :trollface:



rich73 #8 Posted Dec 09 2017 - 22:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 54322 battles
  • 6,488
  • Member since:
    10-17-2011
Because unicoms win rate wouldnt be as high as there would be no stacking.They want us to look up to these high win rates and think we have to use premium consumables and ammo to keep up.Even tho you people see the stacking and the resulting lopsided battles,you continue to support the WG economy thus insuring stacking will go on.

Comrade_XAM #9 Posted Dec 09 2017 - 22:17

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 22367 battles
  • 118
  • [200IQ] 200IQ
  • Member since:
    06-28-2013

Skill based match making has already been implemented. It's called XVM sniping and XVM camo. 

 

Any purple player can increase his/her DPG by at least 25 - 30 % by playing an account with average or below average stats.  However because of their stats, the get yolod by "I will show that padder" tomato and are Arty magnets. 



DOAmaker #10 Posted Dec 09 2017 - 22:31

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16817 battles
  • 2,883
  • [TCH] TCH
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010
Here is why it is a bad idea.  There would have to be a factor that divides the players into skill, do we pick WR, which old school players like Garbad said is everything, or do we use WN8, or PR?   Once we make that choice on what to use then we divide the player base into the two groups those above and the ones below the mark.  What will happen to the top?  They will lower that stat because now they are limited to facing an overall more skilled player base.  What happens to the middle of that group?  Some will go up others will go down.  The bottom will have some players move up and some will end up in the lower group.  This will repeat in the lower half as well.  So what is the problem with it?  All rating systems would have to be reworked, some of the purple and blue players that act as if their stats in a game make them special would not be happy if they went down a color, and I do not see how what 27k 30k at bets players on the NA at a peak during the day could allow for such a division.  Think about it you are saying hey lets divide the player base in half by skill, imagine what it would be like trying to find a match in the off times with what 4-6k on?

Dead_Zombie #11 Posted Dec 09 2017 - 22:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 39503 battles
  • 3,355
  • Member since:
    10-09-2011

View PostWinningWithWarchild, on Dec 09 2017 - 14:58, said:

 

Excellent.  Please explain that to me because I really don't know.  I admit, I'm dumb this way so please dumb it down for me.

 

 

 

PS - When I log in and see all purple/blue/green players (good stat players) on one team, and the other team (my team) has mostly red/orange players (bad stats) - what is that called?  To me, most of the "skill" is on one side.  If they put some of the skill on both teams, then I would get a more "balanced" MM.  But again, that's just me.  I'm sure there's logic behind one sided runaway teams and the fact that something in the system puts me on the underdog side the vast majority of the time.

 

in ur example, you would be asking for balanced MM... around these forums, people take the term skill based MM and literally assume it means all the purples play vs Purples, blues vs blue etc etc etc... so try to keep skill out of it, and just refer to it as balanced 

Horribad_At_Tanks #12 Posted Dec 09 2017 - 22:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 2268 battles
  • 6,263
  • Member since:
    11-07-2012

View PostComrade_XAM, on Dec 09 2017 - 16:17, said:

However because of their stats, the get yolod by "I will show that padder" tomato and are Arty magnets. 

 

I always focus the guds when playing arty because they have the most influence on the match outcome. Why waste shots on the tomato in the open when I can wait for the gud to poke out and smack him back making him retreat and take him out of the fight? 



Gunadie #13 Posted Dec 09 2017 - 22:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 42479 battles
  • 4,876
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostWinningWithWarchild, on Dec 09 2017 - 12:58, said:

 

Excellent.  Please explain that to me because I really don't know.  I admit, I'm dumb this way so please dumb it down for me.

 

 

 

PS - When I log in and see all purple/blue/green players (good stat players) on one team, and the other team (my team) has mostly red/orange players (bad stats) - what is that called?  To me, most of the "skill" is on one side.  If they put some of the skill on both teams, then I would get a more "balanced" MM.  But again, that's just me.  I'm sure there's logic behind one sided runaway teams and the fact that something in the system puts me on the underdog side the vast majority of the time.

 

And that is neither skill based or balanced in the MM

This is the biggest problem with the balance of the MM , there is no balance

WG uses tanks alone to balance the teams but one side may have a significant advantage over the other in player ability so the game is hopelessly one-sided.

This is the why a majority of the games that are blow outs happen!



Dead_Zombie #14 Posted Dec 09 2017 - 22:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 39503 battles
  • 3,355
  • Member since:
    10-09-2011

View PostDOAmaker, on Dec 09 2017 - 15:31, said:

Here is why it is a bad idea.  There would have to be a factor that divides the players into skill, do we pick WR, which old school players like Garbad said is everything, or do we use WN8, or PR?   Once we make that choice on what to use then we divide the player base into the two groups those above and the ones below the mark.  What will happen to the top?  They will lower that stat because now they are limited to facing an overall more skilled player base.  What happens to the middle of that group?  Some will go up others will go down.  The bottom will have some players move up and some will end up in the lower group.  This will repeat in the lower half as well.  So what is the problem with it?  All rating systems would have to be reworked, some of the purple and blue players that act as if their stats in a game make them special would not be happy if they went down a color, and I do not see how what 27k 30k at bets players on the NA at a peak during the day could allow for such a division.  Think about it you are saying hey lets divide the player base in half by skill, imagine what it would be like trying to find a match in the off times with what 4-6k on?

 

its easier then u think.. they do it with tank balance now just fine... once the 30 tanks are selected, MM equals out the teams as best it can so the PR total for both teams is within 1-2k of each other.. may be times its a bit more or less so you dont lose the tank balancing as well.. but as smart as WG acts, it shouldn't be that hard to do.. hence u have more players enjoying the game knowing that teams are balanced it will come down to who plays the best as a team..not just a shooting gallery for one team vs the another team. its something they could easily test on the test server first.

Comrade_XAM #15 Posted Dec 09 2017 - 22:48

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 22367 battles
  • 118
  • [200IQ] 200IQ
  • Member since:
    06-28-2013

View PostHorribad_At_Tanks, on Dec 09 2017 - 16:41, said:

 

I always focus the guds when playing arty because they have the most influence on the match outcome. Why waste shots on the tomato in the open when I can wait for the gud to poke out and smack him back making him retreat and take him out of the fight? 

 

I completely agree with your logic, I would do the same thing (I don't run XVM though) ... Your comment proves that there is already a mechanism that is reminiscent of a skill based MM. 

Gunadie #16 Posted Dec 09 2017 - 22:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 42479 battles
  • 4,876
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostDead_Zombie, on Dec 09 2017 - 13:45, said:

 

its easier then u think.. they do it with tank balance now just fine... once the 30 tanks are selected, MM equals out the teams as best it can so the PR total for both teams is within 1-2k of each other.. may be times its a bit more or less so you dont lose the tank balancing as well.. but as smart as WG acts, it shouldn't be that hard to do.. hence u have more players enjoying the game knowing that teams are balanced it will come down to who plays the best as a team..not just a shooting gallery for one team vs the another team. its something they could easily test on the test server first.

 

I agree, it would be easier than most think and using PR would probably work

Pipinghot #17 Posted Dec 09 2017 - 22:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 9,241
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostWinningWithWarchild, on Dec 09 2017 - 15:41, said:

PART 1:

Remind me again why it would be a bad idea to try and have even teams so there's an equal chance of winning every game?  I honestly cannot remember the logic behind the current system.  Something about we'd all have 50% winrates

You already know the answer, now you need to use your brains and think about why that would be a problem. If you want to play a game where you don't have to work to win, then go play a single-player game. This is a competition game.

View PostWinningWithWarchild, on Dec 09 2017 - 15:41, said:

PART 2:

In the meantime, where do players get Bots and how do you install them?  ... I want one of those bots

You are a cancer and I hope WG bans you.



Gurdy2383 #18 Posted Dec 09 2017 - 23:05

    Captain

  • Players
  • 50143 battles
  • 1,118
  • Member since:
    11-05-2012

View PostWinningWithWarchild, on Dec 09 2017 - 13:41, said:

PART 1:

Remind me again why it would be a bad idea to try and have even teams so there's an equal chance of winning every game?  I honestly cannot remember the logic behind the current system.  Something about we'd all have 50% winrates or something like that.  I really need a refresher on the reasoning and why so many people are in support of it.

 

 

My previously posted thoughts on SBMM (Skill Based Match Making): In this I'm referring to a system where the MM would pick 30 players first, and then balance the teams equally from there.

 

1.) First of all, I would argue that a Skill Based MM system would be largely ineffective to solve the so-called problems that people want solved in the first place. This

     system would rarely result in balanced teams. Things that would throw it off are:

 

*  3 man unicum platoon on one side, vs. a 3 man tomato platoon on the other team.

*  The unicums on one team are high tier, while the unicums on the other team are bottom tier.

*  If based on lifetime stats: One team gets a bunch of yellows that have recent blue stats, while the other team gets a bunch of yellows with recent yellow stats.

*  If based on recent stats: One team gets a a bunch of blues who have green recent stats because they've been grinding things that bring their stats down, while the other side
   gets a bunch of true greens.

 

Re-rolls vs. true lifetime stats, good players in Chi-ri's vs. good players in T-54's, players that have good stats but are just starting to play higher tiers, stock tanks, etc. would also add to the unlikelihood that this system would result in balanced teams.
 
2.) Putting any type of skill based MM into a game that has tech tree progression doesn't jive. That's even if it's a simple extra sorting of teams once the players have been
     chosen. The status quo is purely random therefore fair. Any messing with the randomness will inherently lead to some unfair distribution of credits and experience in many
     situations.

 

Example: The MM pulls 30 players 3 of which are purple, 4 green, 5 yellow, and 18 reds. Whatever metric the system uses to sort the players, it would always have to value purples way higher than even greens, because the gap between a purple and a green is much greater than the gap between a green and a yellow, etc. So:

Team 1 could expect a team that consists of 2 purple, 0 green, 2 yellow, & 11 reds.

Team 2 would then be 1 purple, 4 green, 3 yellow, & 7 reds.

 

Maybe it would be a little different, but the theme would always be the same: the team with the most unicums will have the most tomatoes as well. These unicums will be asked to carry their teams to victory more often than other players will. They will therefore earn less credits and experience if they don't carry. The MM will consistently place tankers based on their stats into the same situations which either benefit their progression through the tech trees, or hurt it. This example doesn't even start to talk about how unfair a unicum placed on a team of tomatoes in a low tier vehicle will be. Remember that progression through the tech trees is the part of this game that is monetized. SBMM creates a situation where the monetization of the game is uneven for all players.

 

3.) This system will also encourage players to not improve. Whenever a player, for example, turns from green to blue they are instantly transformed into a player that has

      worse teammates with SBMM. There's no way around this. Improvement means that you will be responsible to carry your team more, and if you don't you won't make
      as many credits and experience as you used to. This is not a good way to encourage better play, and in fact is the opposite. This also ties into the fact that the fairness of
      the distribution of experience and credits is compromised in a in a tech tree progression style game when you add any skill based mm. There would
      undoubtedly be sandbaggers with SBMM that would be a big negative to gameplay.

 

4.) This system would also reduce the effect of one's own skill level on influencing their win rate. The status quo is purely random. This means that good players win more, while
      poor players win less. Average players will fall somewhere near 50% win rate. With SBMM the mm would always attempt to make the teams even. This way good
      players win about 50% of the time, poor players win about 50%, and average players will win 50% of the time. This is another side effect of your system that reduces the
      players' drive to improve their play. If they will win half of the time regardless of how good they are why care to improve? With your system if somebody starts winning more
      often than 50% of the time the mm will make sure to balance out that person's matches, and get them down to 50%. You're going from a random system that sometimes
      screws players out of winning to a structured system that is actually designed to constantly screw players over that start winning too much, and is designed to assist those
      who are winning too little.

 

SBMM wouldn't really result in much greater balance in matches. Steamrolls would still exist with nearly the same frequency as before. The MM would be powerless to sort through all of the variables that make up this game and it's player base. There is no good way to compare players apples-to-apples since this is a tech-tree centered game where everyone has different vehicles, crews, gold usage, tiers played, etc, etc, etc. SBMM would, though, create some new problems that are pretty unfair, and don't really make sense with the core premise of the game. This is not a good trade-off, and SBMM will do more harm than good the way I see it.

 

It's not that WG isn't listening, don't care, are stubborn, or think it would be too hard to implement. It's just that they've thought about it a lot more than you and I have, and have decided that it's not a good idea.

 

Here's the main reason why Skill Based MM will never happen, though:

 

WG doesn't want to go to the "Pay more money to make the game harder for yourself" model? Think about it:

 

Take, for example, Player A and Player B. Lets assume that they both are the exact same person with the same skill, learning curve, etc. They are exactly the same, except Player A decides on day one to buy $50 worth of gold. Now player A is running in matches with a 100% trained crew while Player B is running with sub-100% trained crews. In a short time, Player A's stats start to show that he is more effective than Player B. He misses less shots, he can afford full equipment for all of his tanks, he transfers crews from one vehicle to the next fully trained so he's starting to get some perks researched, he free xp's his way past stock modules, etc. Player A is now winning more than Player B. Then somebody tells Player A about the "skill based MM" in WoT. He sees that Player B is getting much easier matches than he is. Player A feels upset that he spent money to make the game harder for himself. Player A vows to never spend money on this game again.

 

Yeah, I can't see WG getting excited about that idea.



Horribad_At_Tanks #19 Posted Dec 09 2017 - 23:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 2268 battles
  • 6,263
  • Member since:
    11-07-2012

View PostComrade_XAM, on Dec 09 2017 - 16:48, said:

 

I completely agree with your logic, I would do the same thing (I don't run XVM though) ... Your comment proves that there is already a mechanism that is reminiscent of a skill based MM. 

 

Actually I do think they have initiated some form of skill balanced mm on the higher tiers. Playing tier 8~10 used to be a rough mix of skill levels but usually more bad than good but a patch or two back I started noticing a distinct increase in the amount of good players on both sides with there only being a few bads and averages on either side. There are still imbalanced games but not nearly as many as there used to be.

Dionysus_Zagreus #20 Posted Dec 09 2017 - 23:31

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 43645 battles
  • 960
  • Member since:
    10-04-2013

View PostGurdy2383, on Dec 09 2017 - 18:05, said:

 

My previously posted thoughts on SBMM (Skill Based Match Making): In this I'm referring to a system where the MM would picked 30 players first, and then balance the teams equally from there.

 

1.) First of all, I would argue that a Skill Based MM system would be largely ineffective to solve the so-called problems that people want solved in the first place. This

     system would rarely result in balanced teams. Things that would throw it off are:

 

*  3 man unicum platoon on one side, vs. a 3 man tomato platoon on the other team.

*  The unicums on one team are high tier, while the unicums on the other team are bottom tier.

*  If based on lifetime stats: One team gets a bunch of yellows that have recent blue stats, while the other team gets a bunch of yellows with recent yellow stats.

*  If based on recent stats: One team gets a a bunch of blues who have green recent stats because they've been grinding things that bring their stats down, while the other side
   gets a bunch of true greens.

 

Re-rolls vs. true lifetime stats, good players in Chi-ri's vs. good players in T-54's, players that have good stats but are just starting to play higher tiers, stock tanks, etc. would also add to the unlikelihood that this system would result in balanced teams.
 
2.) Putting any type of skill based MM into a game that has tech tree progression doesn't jive. That's even if it's a simple extra sorting of teams once the players have been
     chosen. The status quo is purely random therefore fair. Any messing with the randomness will inherently lead to some unfair distribution of credits and experience in many
     situations.

 

Example: The MM pulls 30 players 3 of which are purple, 4 green, 5 yellow, and 18 reds. Whatever metric the system uses to sort the players, it would always have to value purples way higher than even greens, because the gap between a purple and a green is much greater than the gap between a green and a yellow, etc. So:

Team 1 could expect a team that consists of 2 purple, 0 green, 2 yellow, & 11 reds.

Team 2 would then be 1 purple, 4 green, 3 yellow, & 7 reds.

 

Maybe it would be a little different, but the theme would always be the same: the team with the most unicums will have the most tomatoes as well. These unicums will be asked to carry their teams to victory more often than other players will. They will therefore earn less credits and experience if they don't carry. The MM will consistently place tankers based on their stats into the same situations which either benefit their progression through the tech trees, or hurt it. This example doesn't even start to talk about how unfair a unicum placed on a team of tomatoes in a low tier vehicle will be. Remember that progression through the tech trees is the part of this game that is monetized. SBMM creates a situation where the monetization of the game is uneven for all players.

 

3.) This system will also encourage players to not improve. Whenever a player, for example, turns from green to blue they are instantly transformed into a player that has

      worse teammates with SBMM. There's no way around this. Improvement means that you will be responsible to carry your team more, and if you don't you won't make
      as many credits and experience as you used to. This is not a good way to encourage better play, and in fact is the opposite. This also ties into the fact that the fairness of
      the distribution of experience and credits is compromised in a in a tech tree progression style game when you add any skill based mm. There would
      undoubtedly be sandbaggers with SBMM that would be a big negative to gameplay.

 

4.) This system would also reduce the effect of one's own skill level on influencing their win rate. The status quo is purely random. This means that good players win more, while
      poor players win less. Average players will fall somewhere near 50% win rate. With SBMM the mm would always attempt to make the teams even. This way good
      players win about 50% of the time, poor players win about 50%, and average players will win 50% of the time. This is another side effect of your system that reduces the
      players' drive to improve their play. If they will win half of the time regardless of how good they are why care to improve? With your system if somebody starts winning more
      often than 50% of the time the mm will make sure to balance out that person's matches, and get them down to 50%. You're going from a random system that sometimes
      screws players out of winning to a structured system that is actually designed to constantly screw players over that start winning too much, and is designed to assist those
      who are winning too little.

 

SBMM wouldn't really result in much greater balance in matches. Steamrolls would still exist with nearly the same frequency as before. The MM would be powerless to sort through all of the variables that make up this game and it's player base. There is no good way to compare players apples-to-apples since this is a tech-tree centered game where everyone has different vehicles, crews, gold usage, tiers played, etc, etc, etc. SBMM would, though, create some new problems that are pretty unfair, and don't really make sense with the core premise of the game. This is not a good trade-off, and SBMM will do more harm than good the way I see it.

 

It's not that WG isn't listening, don't care, are stubborn, or think it would be too hard to implement. It's just that they've thought about it a lot more than you and I have, and have decided that it's not a good idea.

 

Here's the main reason why Skill Based MM will never happen, though:

 

WG doesn't want to go to the "Pay more money to make the game harder for yourself" model? Think about it:

 

Take, for example, Player A and Player B. Lets assume that they both are the exact same person with the same skill, learning curve, etc. They are exactly the same, except Player A decides on day one to buy $50 worth of gold. Now player A is running in matches with a 100% trained crew while Player B is running with sub-100% trained crews. In a short time, Player A's stats start to show that he is more effective than Player B. He misses less shots, he can afford full equipment for all of his tanks, he transfers crews from one vehicle to the next fully trained so he's starting to get some perks researched, he free xp's his way past stock modules, etc. Player A is now winning more than Player B. Then somebody tells Player A about the "skill based MM" in WoT. He sees that Player B is getting much easier matches than he is. Player A feels upset that he spent money to make the game harder for himself. Player A vows to never spend money on this game again.

 

Yeah, I can't see WG getting excited about that idea.

 


Edited by Dionysus_Zagreus, Dec 11 2017 - 01:40.






Also tagged with Matchmaking

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users