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

SoTrue #1441 Posted Feb 28 2018 - 03:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 32928 battles
  • 3,302
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011

View Postscyorkie, on Feb 21 2018 - 15:37, said:

 

Do not mistake the graph as proof that MM is rigging your games though. Win chance has a correlation with your win rate, but so does your personal skill level. The latter is what directly affects win chance, not MM. Focus on what you can change.

 

What is this dramatic drop you speak of? I saw 26k+ players online just last week. Surely you are not going simply going off holiday-period activity vs post-holiday activity?

 

MM is rigging your games.  How do you not know this?   No matter what your skill level, MM PICKS THE TEAMS.   So you can be a unicum and get 15 tomatoes, while the enemy gets 3 uniucms, 10 greens, and 2 yellows.  That is 100% mm rigging that battle.

View PostJer1413, on Feb 21 2018 - 15:38, said:

 

 

You are confusing cause and effect.

 

Players who win more (better players) are the ones who increase their average win chance just because they are on their team. They don't get better teammates (or worse opponents) than anybody else. They actually make their teams better (for the life of me, I can't understand how some people don't get this), so of course they increase the chance to win in every game they play.

 

Players like me and you, we don't see the upward (or downward) skew to our win chance bell curve so much. We just don't influence the matches one way or the other on a regular basis like either a unicum or a tomato would.

 

 

Sure, better players skew their own bell curve.  BUT No matter what your skill level, MM PICKS THE TEAMS.   So you can be a unicum and get 15 tomatoes, while the enemy gets 3 uniucms, 10 greens, and 2 yellows.  That is 100% mm rigging that battle.

View Postkruppw, on Feb 22 2018 - 04:22, said:

Wow Page 71 and counting.

​Let me guess. Page 72 will be the same:

​" I don't care if proof refuting it was shown 5 pages ago, a fair MM would increase que times"

​" The current MM is random, my word is law"

​" Blowouts are not common, I don't care if the statistics showing they are have been posted over 2 dozen times"

​" You can't make an argument without XVM herr deee derrr"

am I missing something?

 

+2 just for the herr deee derr comment...

_Tsavo_ #1442 Posted Feb 28 2018 - 04:13

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 45843 battles
  • 19,510
  • [BRVE] BRVE
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

I see someone's taken the Trump lesson on speaking.  Repeat, repeat, repeat.

 

MM doesn't give two bums about someone's WN8.  



EmperorJuliusCaesar #1443 Posted Feb 28 2018 - 04:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 37050 battles
  • 5,741
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View Post_Tsavo, on Feb 27 2018 - 19:13, said:

I see someone's taken the Trump lesson on speaking.  Repeat, repeat, repeat.

 

MM doesn't give two bums about someone's WN8.  

 

That's exactly the problem, it doesn't care, so it makes 40% minimum of crap battles, ones that are decided before they even start.  THAT is driving people away from the game, especially newer players.  The forum posts about it are clear evidence.

StiffWind #1444 Posted Feb 28 2018 - 08:12

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17744 battles
  • 2,074
  • [MOV] MOV
  • Member since:
    03-15-2017

View Post_Tsavo, on Feb 28 2018 - 04:13, said:

I see someone's taken the Trump lesson on speaking.  Repeat, repeat, repeat.

 

MM doesn't give two bums about someone's WN8.

 

It does your win rate.

 



Nixeldon #1445 Posted Feb 28 2018 - 09:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 60827 battles
  • 2,121
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostSoTrue, on Feb 27 2018 - 21:50, said:

You gave away the game with this one.  "it was fair because every single player in that match was treated impartially by a random player selection".   This is what you don't understand.  You are not separating 'player selection' and 'fair play'.  It is completely 'fair' that current random mm puts us through the same process for team selection.  WHAT IS NOT FAIR, is the teams it creates.  A dog takes a dump on the sidewalk.  We are all walking on the sidewalk.  We all have an equal chance not to see it and step in it.  That doesn't make it enjoyable to step in.  Random mm generates crap battles, we all have the same opportunity to get a crap battle. That doesn't make playing a crap battle any fun.

Fair is not an absolute concept and you can't define match quality without XVM.

 

View PostSoTrue, on Feb 27 2018 - 21:50, said

Sbmm is better than random mm because 100% of the battles would be competitive.  With random, only 60% of the battles are competitive.  I've provide data to show this.  Neato has provided data to show this.

Neither you, NeatoMan nor anyone else has provided any data to support this statement.

 

View PostSoTrue, on Feb 27 2018 - 21:50, said:

"how would we know if skill balancing is in effect if we had no access to player stats".  This is a straw man argument.  I can turn xvm off right now, and guess what, the current random mm will still produce grossly imbalanced battles.  The thing is, we CAN see stats, so we CAN see when teams are unbalanced.  If your wife was cheating on you but you didn't know it would you care?  I bet you would.  Ignorance is not a winning argument here.

Learn your fallacies. There is no misrepresentation on my part. You don't know one match from another without XVM telling you. Your circular reasoning is not a winning argument. 

 

View PostSoTrue, on Feb 27 2018 - 21:50, said:

And as I've proven before, the current win ration of the player base (40% for the very worst, 60% for the very best) will be maintained under sbmm.  There will be no real shift in win rates.  BUT, no one will ever have to suffer through a 34% chance to win loss, or be bored to death in a 69% chance to win victory. 

If there is no effect on win rates, you haven't affected the chance to win.



EmperorJuliusCaesar #1446 Posted Feb 28 2018 - 09:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 37050 battles
  • 5,741
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostNixeldon, on Feb 28 2018 - 00:00, said:

Fair is not an absolute concept and you can't define match quality without XVM.

 

Neither you, NeatoMan nor anyone else has provided any data to support this statement.

 

Learn your fallacies. There is no misrepresentation on my part. You don't know one match from another without XVM telling you. Your circular reasoning is not a winning argument. 

 

If there is no effect on win rates, you haven't affected the chance to win.

 

If you can't tell a mismatched battle without XVM, something is wrong with you.

Nixeldon #1447 Posted Feb 28 2018 - 10:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 60827 battles
  • 2,121
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Feb 28 2018 - 03:58, said:

If you can't tell a mismatched battle without XVM, something is wrong with you.

You can't. Budha can't. 

 

That is assuming your "mismatch" means the teams do not conform to Budha's color code.


Edited by Nixeldon, Feb 28 2018 - 10:22.


EmperorJuliusCaesar #1448 Posted Feb 28 2018 - 11:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 37050 battles
  • 5,741
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostNixeldon, on Feb 28 2018 - 01:17, said:

You can't. Budha can't. 

 

That is assuming your "mismatch" means the teams do not conform to Budha's color code.

 

You're of course free to lie to yourself all you want, but no one is buying it.  We know better, it's far too easy to see.

Nixeldon #1449 Posted Feb 28 2018 - 11:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 60827 battles
  • 2,121
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Feb 28 2018 - 05:26, said:

 

You're of course free to lie to yourself all you want, but no one is buying it.  We know better, it's far too easy to see.

I have no reason to lie about anything.

 

How do you know a mismatch?

 



_Gungrave_ #1450 Posted Feb 28 2018 - 13:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 45444 battles
  • 16,299
  • [-SRP-] -SRP-
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View Post_Tsavo, on Feb 28 2018 - 04:13, said:

I see someone's taken the Trump lesson on speaking.  Repeat, repeat, repeat.

 

MM doesn't give two bums about someone's WN8.  

 

If I could see him doing hand gestures for every syllable then it would be Trump's style of speaking.

 

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Feb 28 2018 - 11:26, said:

 

You're of course free to lie to yourself all you want, but no one is buying it.  We know better, it's far too easy to see.

 

If you knew better then you wouldn't have such a low winrate and could actually influence the outcome of your matches. Instead of that you resort to blaming the MM or worshipping a strawman argument seal clubber who hardly plays high tiers if any at all.

Edited by _Gungrave_, Feb 28 2018 - 13:09.


Jer1413 #1451 Posted Feb 28 2018 - 13:14

    Captain

  • Players
  • 47331 battles
  • 1,507
  • [RR13] RR13
  • Member since:
    02-24-2013

View PostSoTrue, on Feb 28 2018 - 02:55, said:

 

 

Sure, better players skew their own bell curve.  BUT No matter what your skill level, MM PICKS THE TEAMS.   So you can be a unicum and get 15 tomatoes, while the enemy gets 3 uniucms, 10 greens, and 2 yellows.  That is 100% mm rigging that battle.

 

 

 

You're arguing based on an extreme example that almost never happens. And if it does, I deal with the battle as it plays out and move on to the next one. I don't curl up in a little ball, murmuring "no fair, no fair".

 

 

 



NeatoMan #1452 Posted Feb 28 2018 - 14:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 28180 battles
  • 20,405
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostSoTrue, on Feb 27 2018 - 21:50, said:

Sbmm is better than random mm because 100% of the battles would be competitive.  With random, only 60% of the battles are competitive.  I've provide data to show this.  Neato has provided data to show this.

No I haven't.  That's something you and your arbitrary fixation with numbers came up with all by yourself.

 

View PostSoTrue, on Feb 27 2018 - 21:50, said:

 no one will ever have to suffer through a 34% chance to win loss, or be bored to death in a 69% chance to win victory. 

The only suffering is the mental anguish you put yourself through with your unhealthy obsession with XVM.   Battles in those ranges are just as competitive and hard fought as any of the battles with "acceptable" win chances.

 

 They come down to the wire as often as balanced games.  They last just as long as balanced games.  There are not many more blowouts than balanced games, and in your test you couldn't tell battles in this range apart from the balanced games.   You just don't like the numbers 34 and 69 for some idiotic reason.  Your dislike of these battles is not based on any rational measures.



Kliphie #1453 Posted Feb 28 2018 - 15:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 32679 battles
  • 5,055
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    07-20-2012

View PostSoTrue, on Feb 27 2018 - 20:50, said:

 BUT, no one will ever have to suffer through a 34% chance to win loss, 

 

34% could get ya about 20 mil a year in the MLB.  



frontflip2cool #1454 Posted Feb 28 2018 - 15:06

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 13314 battles
  • 288
  • [HAPPY] HAPPY
  • Member since:
    12-13-2014

OMFG this thread is still going. It SHOULD HAVE died about as fast as the others.

Just face the fact that WG will NEVER put skill based mm into the game.

You want skill based mm go play a game like CoD.



TerrorJoe #1455 Posted Feb 28 2018 - 15:41

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 20114 battles
  • 38
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011

View PostNixeldon, on Feb 28 2018 - 08:00, said:

Fair is not an absolute concept and you can't define match quality without XVM.

 

Neither you, NeatoMan nor anyone else has provided any data to support this statement.

 

Learn your fallacies. There is no misrepresentation on my part. You don't know one match from another without XVM telling you. Your circular reasoning is not a winning argument. 

 

If there is no effect on win rates, you haven't affected the chance to win.

 


​1. You can define fair. The difference is XVM gives you predetermination. Where as without XVM nor any way to view someone stats prior to match starting, the fairness of the matchup would not be seen till after the match has already begun. Again, XVM does not pick the teams, MM does. Is that hard to understand?

​2. Here we are again. Looks like I called it again. "Even though the data has been presented over half a dozen times in earlier pages refuting my argument, it is not on this page so it doesn't exist".

​3. Actually you did commit a Straw man, the only thing he failed to do was catch the appeal to the stone, proof by assertion, and Red herring fallacies you also committed.


​I mean, this is not Rocket Science.

​XVM does not pick the matchup. It simply reads and displays each players "grade" based on their actual stats. If XVM is not there, that player's stats do not simply go away nor do they become meaningless.

​If I make a football team and 75% of that football team consists of the best players in the league in each of their respective positions. If you are somehow unable to ascertain their value prior to having a match against my football team, does that suddenly make my team less stacked? Being unable to know their statistical value prior to the start of a match against my team suddenly changes their statistical value versus your own? Are you really arguing this? <insert definition of troll here>

if there is a gameshow with two contestants and the host gave one of the contestants most of the answers prior to the game starting, albeit behind closed doors. Does the fact that you did not "see" the host give the answers mean that the act itself is meaningless?

​.........lol

Edited by kruppw, Feb 28 2018 - 15:41.


_Gungrave_ #1456 Posted Feb 28 2018 - 15:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 45444 battles
  • 16,299
  • [-SRP-] -SRP-
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View Postfrontflip2cool, on Feb 28 2018 - 15:06, said:

OMFG this thread is still going. It SHOULD HAVE died about as fast as the others.

Just face the fact that WG will NEVER put skill based mm into the game.

You want skill based mm go play a game like CoD.

 

Unfortunately the Skill MM trio(SoTrue, StiffWind, and Emperor) is never going to shut up so its highly unlikely that this thread will ever die.

Nunya_000 #1457 Posted Feb 28 2018 - 15:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 21138 battles
  • 13,771
  • [PACNW] PACNW
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

View Post_Gungrave_, on Feb 28 2018 - 06:43, said:

 

Unfortunately the Skill MM trio(SoTrue, StiffWind, and Emperor) is never going to shut up so its highly unlikely that this thread will ever die.

 

I suspect that it might actually be a duo.

Kliphie #1458 Posted Feb 28 2018 - 16:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 32679 battles
  • 5,055
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    07-20-2012

View Postkruppw, on Feb 28 2018 - 08:41, said:

 


1. You can define fair. The difference is XVM gives you predetermination. Where as without XVM nor any way to view someone stats prior to match starting, the fairness of the matchup would not be seen till after the match has already begun. Again, XVM does not pick the teams, MM does. Is that hard to understand?

2. Here we are again. Looks like I called it again. "Even though the data has been presented over half a dozen times in earlier pages refuting my argument, it is not on this page so it doesn't exist".

3. Actually you did commit a Straw man, the only thing he failed to do was catch the appeal to the stone, proof by assertion, and Red herring fallacies you also committed.


I mean, this is not Rocket Science.

XVM does not pick the matchup. It simply reads and displays each players "grade" based on their actual stats. If XVM is not there, that player's stats do not simply go away nor do they become meaningless.

If I make a football team and 75% of that football team consists of the best players in the league in each of their respective positions. If you are somehow unable to ascertain their value prior to having a match against my football team, does that suddenly make my team less stacked? Being unable to know their statistical value prior to the start of a match against my team suddenly changes their statistical value versus your own? Are you really arguing this? <insert definition of troll here>

if there is a gameshow with two contestants and the host gave one of the contestants most of the answers prior to the game starting, albeit behind closed doors. Does the fact that you did not "see" the host give the answers mean that the act itself is meaningless?

.........lol

 

XVM said the Pat's had the Super Bowl in the bag.  Good thing they actually  played the game.  

NeatoMan #1459 Posted Feb 28 2018 - 16:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 28180 battles
  • 20,405
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View Postkruppw, on Feb 28 2018 - 09:41, said:

​If I make a football team and 75% of that football team consists of the best players in the league in each of their respective positions. If you are somehow unable to ascertain their value prior to having a match against my football team, does that suddenly make my team less stacked? Being unable to know their statistical value prior to the start of a match against my team suddenly changes their statistical value versus your own? Are you really arguing this? <insert definition of troll here>

If the teams are so obviously stacked then it should be no problem at all to tell them apart without the need for stats.  Yet when challenged to do so, budha did no better at picking out the stacked teams than flipping a coin.   The only way he could claim he could tell games apart is when he narrowed his criteria for balance beyond what even he claims is acceptable, and then guessing everything else was unbalanced (i.e. he stacked the criteria in his favor).  And this was only looking at blowouts, which he claimed should be the easiest to tell apart.   He never even attempted to look at the remaining 75%-80% of games that aren't blowouts to see if he could tell them apart.

 

In addition, these games that are so stacked that they lead to certain victory are in no way as common as he pretends.  You and him both present the extreme example as if it is the norm.  The examples you present are outliers even among the games classified as unacceptable by him.



Nixeldon #1460 Posted Feb 28 2018 - 16:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 60827 battles
  • 2,121
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View Postkruppw, on Feb 28 2018 - 09:41, said:

​1. You can define fair. The difference is XVM gives you predetermination. Where as without XVM nor any way to view someone stats prior to match starting, the fairness of the matchup would not be seen till after the match has already begun. Again, XVM does not pick the teams, MM does. Is that hard to understand?

 I never said fair couldn't be defined. I never said XVM picked teams.

 

View Postkruppw, on Feb 28 2018 - 09:41, said:

​2. Here we are again. Looks like I called it again. "Even though the data has been presented over half a dozen times in earlier pages refuting my argument, it is not on this page so it doesn't exist".

These discussions have been ongoing for years. Budha has never been able to define a match quality without XVM. 

 

View Postkruppw, on Feb 28 2018 - 09:41, said:

​3. Actually you did commit a Straw man, the only thing he failed to do was catch the appeal to the stone, proof by assertion, and Red herring fallacies you also committed.

I asked, and have asked repeatedly, for budha to explain how he would know if a match is balanced without using XVM. It is a simple question. If teams are stacked so heavily, we should be able to test it without seeing player stats. There is no fallacy on my part. Is there really no difference between SBMM and random MM other than color codes?

 

If there is such a serious balancing problem with the current MM that affects numerous people's ability to enjoy the matches and merits daily threads about it, there should be some game play indicator that any balancing scheme should be designed to correct. This statistic is how the balancing would be tested. 

 


Edited by Nixeldon, Feb 28 2018 - 17:09.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users