Jump to content


how come you don't take skill/win rate into account in matchmaking


  • Please log in to reply
1958 replies to this topic

caspertoo #1 Posted Jan 23 2018 - 22:29

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 20204 battles
  • 132
  • Member since:
    06-27-2011

The new matchmaking has some serious flaws.  One of which is it's inability to take skill level into account when making teams.  Wargaming has some programmers that are capable of tying their own shoes, I hope, so why are there so many games that are so heavily uneven?  When you have 4 blue players, 2 purple players, and a ton of green players vs 3 green players and the red yellow and below, it is indicative of a serious problem with this game and it makes the game seriously not fun at all.  

 

I have no expectation of wargaming paying attention to what we the player base care about, i mean the entire community said the bonds idea for reward tanks was an idiotic idea, but you trudged ahead with it anyways.  



HisNameWasSethRich #2 Posted Jan 23 2018 - 22:31

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 14549 battles
  • 556
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
Skill based MM does not work. This has been argued already.

gamagrass #3 Posted Jan 23 2018 - 22:34

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 10470 battles
  • 361
  • Member since:
    07-03-2015

Beating on a dead horse, somethings get tiring. 

 


Edited by gamagrass, Jan 23 2018 - 22:35.


Tyrantzz #4 Posted Jan 23 2018 - 22:35

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 24015 battles
  • 325
  • Member since:
    03-05-2016
They want to keep mm "random" and doing that to the na server right now would increase que time which they don't want

TDRHooRaH #5 Posted Jan 23 2018 - 22:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 23792 battles
  • 4,531
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostHisNameWasSethRich, on Jan 23 2018 - 16:31, said:

Skill based MM does not work. This has been argued already.

 

How does it not work?

 

Just curious..

 

Wouldn't it better to have some equally skilled players on each team rather a team of blue/green/yellow vs. all potatoes? 


Edited by TDRHooRaH, Jan 23 2018 - 23:44.


dominator_98 #6 Posted Jan 23 2018 - 22:35

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 21789 battles
  • 3,762
  • [DEVON] DEVON
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014
Want skill based MM? That's what ranked was supposed to be for, and they managed to turn it into a massive grindfest.

Warbaby_Da_Oneshot #7 Posted Jan 23 2018 - 22:36

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 17959 battles
  • 531
  • [RS] RS
  • Member since:
    10-19-2011

They’re called “random battles” for a reason. 

 

If you want skill based MM go play Armoured Warfare- oh wait, nobody plays that anymore because skill based MM doesnt work. 



Hellsfog #8 Posted Jan 23 2018 - 22:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 37612 battles
  • 6,122
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011
Do a forum search for the other 4,593,584,701,584, thread on the topic. 

HisNameWasSethRich #9 Posted Jan 23 2018 - 22:38

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 14549 battles
  • 556
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostTDRHooRaH, on Jan 23 2018 - 16:35, said:

 

How does it not work?

 

Just curious?

 

Wouldn't it better to have some equally skilled players on each team rather a team of blue/green/yellow vs. all potatoes? 

 

The average WR on the NA server is 48%. People who are at high 50% and in the 60% range would get poor mm times. There are just not enough people for this to work and keep the 15v15 format AND have the mm skill based. 

"Wouldn't it better to have some equally skilled players on each team" On paper, yes, in practice, the skilled players can just avoid each other and farm the weaker players. Even if they do face off, the one that wins still gets to stomp the other team. 

holdmecloserTonyDanza #10 Posted Jan 23 2018 - 22:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 67304 battles
  • 6,846
  • [HSOLO] HSOLO
  • Member since:
    08-21-2011

View PostHisNameWasSethRich, on Jan 23 2018 - 15:31, said:

Skill based MM does not work. This has been argued already.

 

based on what? because people say so?  how the [edited]could it be any worse than the [edited]that goes on in pubs everyday?  not saying it's the answer, but I love all these people that scream from the rooftops "IT CAN"T WORK" with absolutely zero proof of what could happen because it's never been tried...same as the the "just because they have the patent doesn't mean they use it" crowd

 

it's no wonder this company is worth a billion dollars, this player base would literally swallow anything they get fed



DrOoLeR_In_Da_HoUsE #11 Posted Jan 23 2018 - 22:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 41360 battles
  • 3,592
  • [SUX] SUX
  • Member since:
    10-09-2011

View PostHisNameWasSethRich, on Jan 23 2018 - 15:38, said:

 

The average WR on the NA server is 48%. People who are at high 50% and in the 60% range would get poor mm times. There are just not enough people for this to work and keep the 15v15 format AND have the mm skill based. 

"Wouldn't it better to have some equally skilled players on each team" On paper, yes, in practice, the skilled players can just avoid each other and farm the weaker players. Even if they do face off, the one that wins still gets to stomp the other team. 

 

you don't base it off win rate.. you base it off PR.. once MM selects the 30 players (no effect on query time), it can then move the players back and forth so that the total PR of both teams falls within +/- 1000 - 2000k PR.. this way each team gets a little sugar and spice, and then you can throw some tomato paste on the side.. :P

its not skill based in the sense that people are thinking where u put all 60% players on both teams, that's just stupid... I am talking balanced, which it totally different.

 

and please don't compare this game to AW.. AW failed for more reason then MM... it was the fact everybody was playing PVE or whatever, and nobody was playing PVP so a lot of people got tired of 10 minute waits for other players.. and bailed.

 

enough with the 6th grand special ed football team vs the New England Patriots



diego999 #12 Posted Jan 23 2018 - 22:45

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 34564 battles
  • 5,120
  • [ACA-T] ACA-T
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostTDRHooRaH, on Jan 23 2018 - 18:35, said:

 

How does it not work?

 

Just curious?

 

Wouldn't it better to have some equally skilled players on each team rather a team of blue/green/yellow vs. all potatoes? 

 

Armored Warfare tried SBMM and it didn't reduce uneven matches or blowouts. 

 

https://aw.my.com/us...maker-and-skill

 

It's been mentioned in the 233957585 threads about it.



HisNameWasSethRich #13 Posted Jan 23 2018 - 22:46

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 14549 battles
  • 556
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostholdmecloserTonyDanza, on Jan 23 2018 - 16:43, said:

 

based on what? because people say so?  how the [edited]could it be any worse than the [edited]that goes on in pubs everyday?  not saying it's the answer, but I love all these people that scream from the rooftops "IT CAN"T WORK" with absolutely zero proof of what could happen because it's never been tried...same as the the "just because they have the patent doesn't mean they use it" crowd

 

it's no wonder this company is worth a billion dollars, this player base would literally swallow anything they get fed


Based on this cool thing called 'Ranked Battles'
I can work, but not with such a small player base. A player base with an average of 48% WR that is... 
It has been tried...

Either you just saw my response and started slapping your keyboard or you just didn't care about my other response. 



Flarvin #14 Posted Jan 23 2018 - 22:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 53805 battles
  • 15,142
  • Member since:
    03-29-2013

View PostTDRHooRaH, on Jan 23 2018 - 16:35, said:

 

How does it not work?

 

Just curious?

 

Wouldn't it better to have some equally skilled players on each team rather a team of blue/green/yellow vs. all potatoes? 

 

So you believe some players deserve better teams than others? 

 

Because that is what skill balanced MM would do in WoT pub matches. 

 

Good players would get worse teammates to average out the skill of that player. While bad players would get better teammates. Heck, it would seriously help bots. A bot’s team would be stacked with better players to overcome the negative affect the bot has on their teams. 



HisNameWasSethRich #15 Posted Jan 23 2018 - 22:48

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 14549 battles
  • 556
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostSir_Tomato_DroolsAlot, on Jan 23 2018 - 16:44, said:

 

you don't base it off win rate.. you base it off PR.. once MM selects the 30 players (no effect on query time), it can then move the players back and forth so that the total PR of both teams falls within +/- 1000 - 2000k PR.. this way each team gets a little sugar and spice, and then you can throw some tomato paste on the side.. :P

its not skill based in the snese that people are thinking where u put all 60% players on both teams, that's just stupid... I am talking balanced.

 

I wasn't saying that it would be based off WR. Just that the player base is bad and that most players are as well. 

...Yes, again I addressed that here ""Wouldn't it better to have some equally skilled players on each team" On paper, yes, in practice, the skilled players can just avoid each other and farm the weaker players. Even if they do face off, the one that wins still gets to stomp the other team."  

Please read the entire post before you quote it :) 


holdmecloserTonyDanza #16 Posted Jan 23 2018 - 22:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 67304 battles
  • 6,846
  • [HSOLO] HSOLO
  • Member since:
    08-21-2011

View PostHisNameWasSethRich, on Jan 23 2018 - 15:46, said:


Based on this cool thing called 'Ranked Battles'
I can work, but not with such a small player base. A player base with an average of 48% WR that is... 
It has been tried...

Either you just saw my response and started slapping your keyboard or you just didn't care about my other response. 

 

ranked?  that's not sbmm..what?  I've seen 47% players who played them enough to advance ranks

DrOoLeR_In_Da_HoUsE #17 Posted Jan 23 2018 - 22:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 41360 battles
  • 3,592
  • [SUX] SUX
  • Member since:
    10-09-2011

View PostHisNameWasSethRich, on Jan 23 2018 - 15:48, said:

 

I wasn't saying that it would be based off WR. Just that the player base is bad and that most players are as well. 

...Yes, again I addressed that here ""Wouldn't it better to have some equally skilled players on each team" On paper, yes, in practice, the skilled players can just avoid each other and farm the weaker players. Even if they do face off, the one that wins still gets to stomp the other team."  

Please read the entire post before you quote it :) 

 

I know what you said, I was just referring to the WR aspect of MM not working, and why imo

HisNameWasSethRich #18 Posted Jan 23 2018 - 22:52

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 14549 battles
  • 556
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostholdmecloserTonyDanza, on Jan 23 2018 - 16:48, said:

 

ranked?  that's not sbmm..what?  I've seen 47% players who played them enough to advance ranks

 

(((Personally, I have not played in ranked))) 

Again, as my good friend Dominator_98 mentioned, They turned the mode into just a grind fest over it being a skill based ranking system.  

The issue with basing any type of SBMM off PR is that PR is an easily padded stat. 

_Gungrave_ #19 Posted Jan 23 2018 - 22:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 43752 battles
  • 16,299
  • [-SRP-] -SRP-
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostHisNameWasSethRich, on Jan 23 2018 - 22:31, said:

Skill based MM does not work. This has been argued killed by WG already.

 

Fixed

HisNameWasSethRich #20 Posted Jan 23 2018 - 22:53

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 14549 battles
  • 556
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostSir_Tomato_DroolsAlot, on Jan 23 2018 - 16:51, said:

 

I know what you said, I was just referring to the WR aspect of MM not working, and why imo

 
PR is an easily padded stat, and WR is a bit harder to pad with higher tiers. 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users