Jump to content


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


  • Please log in to reply
1967 replies to this topic

TDRHooRaH #41 Posted Jan 23 2018 - 23:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 23998 battles
  • 4,633
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostFlarvin, on Jan 23 2018 - 16:47, said:

 

So you believe some players deserve better teams than others? 

 

 

Why do you put words in my mouth and make assumptions?

 

Cool Strawman...

 

I was asking a question.

 

 


Edited by TDRHooRaH, Jan 23 2018 - 23:45.


HisNameWasSethRich #42 Posted Jan 23 2018 - 23:48

    First lieutenant

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

View PostRake, on Jan 23 2018 - 17:41, said:

 

Except it wouldn't need to be 60%ers playing 60%ers.  The argument is that instead of having the better players randomly placed on one team, intentionally try to split the teams up so they have about the same number of purples, about the same number of blues, etc.  I don't believe most people calling for skill based mm want all 45%ers playing each other.

 

Frankly, I don't believe WG has programmers talented enough to do this, given they can't create a single patch that doesn't screw up something in the program completely unrelated to the fix.

 

Sigh. Yet again, I explained this in the post that you quoted....... Please learn to read, but i'll post it again for you
 

""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. "

No, WG has a very talented group of developers and programmers, they just don't really see theses things as issues or are just not told to fix them. They can easily do something like this, but if their manager doesn't want to do it, it doesn't get done. 



the_dude_76 #43 Posted Jan 23 2018 - 23:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 34176 battles
  • 5,153
  • [GSRM] GSRM
  • Member since:
    12-27-2011

View PostHisNameWasSethRich, on Jan 23 2018 - 21:31, said:

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

 

Except that it doesn't need to be skill "based". Let MM pick the 30 players just like it does now, if there is a large discrepancy in the totaled personal ratings between the teams swap one or 2 players on each team. It doesn't need to be an even match, it just needs to not be ridiculously lopsided. 

HisNameWasSethRich #44 Posted Jan 23 2018 - 23:51

    First lieutenant

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

View Postthe_dude_76, on Jan 23 2018 - 17:49, said:

 

Except that it doesn't need to be skill "based". Let MM pick the 30 players just like it does now, if there is a large discrepancy in the totaled personal ratings between the teams swap one or 2 players on each team. It doesn't need to be an even match, it just needs to not be ridiculously lopsided. 

 

Yet another one. Here, i'll post it again for everyone in the back. 

"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. 

route99 #45 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 00:02

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 53712 battles
  • 66
  • [DS] DS
  • Member since:
    05-27-2011
How cute, there are still innocent-ones who still believe this game is skill based,,,

_Tsavo_ #46 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 00:02

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 46260 battles
  • 19,718
  • [BRVE] BRVE
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011
I am against compression of the win rate spread, this is why I am against most forms of SBMM that are proposed.

__WarChild__ #47 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 00:05

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 32680 battles
  • 5,916
  • [OPIC] OPIC
  • Member since:
    06-03-2017

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

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

 

I have posted on this subject more than once.  Check out my "Unwinnable Rate" posts - people love them.

 

View Post_War_Baby_, on Jan 23 2018 - 15:36, said:

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. 

 

There is very little "random" in my MM.  If there was "random," then I would have strings of 5 and 6 game win streaks every now and then.

 

View PostRake, on Jan 23 2018 - 16:41, said:

Except it wouldn't need to be 60%ers playing 60%ers.  The argument is that instead of having the better players randomly placed on one team, intentionally try to split the teams up so they have about the same number of purples, about the same number of blues, etc.  I don't believe most people calling for skill based mm want all 45%ers playing each other.

 

Frankly, I don't believe WG has programmers talented enough to do this, given they can't create a single patch that doesn't screw up something in the program completely unrelated to the fix.

 

Rake, you dirty rascal!  Just when I'd written you off as complete _____, you make all kinds of sense and I have +1 you.  Please don't do this again as my mind is on the verge of being blown.  ;)

 

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Raise your hand if you believe that ALL games are winnable.  (Someone please take notes, so we can keep a list of these folks.  If a medication for delusion comes on the market, we will need them to get the first dose).

 

Contrary to popular belief, we do not all get the same MM.  It might seem the same b/c it's generally bad, but that's like saying that if I flip a coin 100 times it'll land on heads 50 times.  There may be some "random" components to MM, but that's actually impossible - especially when the program is trying to match the # of tank types against the same # of tank types.  The MM program focuses on the type of tank first, and then computes team composition based off something else.  Whatever WG has for my algorithm, it is clear that I am to be placed with the majority of red/poor players.  I choose to believe that they think highly of me, but it's probably b/c I belong on that side.  Either way, I would care more about winning if I had an equal chance to win every battle and NOT do what I see happen all the time which is put ALL 4 purple players on the red team and 0 on green - or 3 on red, and 1 on green but he's playing artillery (3 times in the last 3 days this has happened).

 

I honestly don't know how to make it more even, but I like the idea of PR matching if that's possible.  The rest of the stats don't seem like accurate measures, but maybe I'm wrong there.

 

 

 



eteam #48 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 00:13

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 73750 battles
  • 244
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013

View Post_Tsavo, on Jan 23 2018 - 23:02, said:

I am against compression of the win rate spread, this I am against most forms of SBMM that are proposed.

 

Others would agree with you.  Mostly above average players who would see there win rate drop.  There are however players like myself who don`t care about the compression of win rate spread and would like to see games that are better balanced.



Kamahl1234 #49 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 00:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 18395 battles
  • 10,078
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012

View PostholdmecloserTonyDanza, on Jan 23 2018 - 21:43, 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

 

Want proof? Look at AW. The MM queues for example suck amazingly. All because they refused to not have a non-skill MM system. As a result queues became longer and longer for the better players as MM struggled to find matches for them. 

 

The proof that the patent isn't used is simply player win-rates and that players can achieve 70%+, which that patent ardently would work against. 

 

The company is worth what it is because they actually made a freaking good game. Amazingly people seem to forget that, and forget that's the reason we're so passionate about it.



__WarChild__ #50 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 00:31

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 32680 battles
  • 5,916
  • [OPIC] OPIC
  • Member since:
    06-03-2017

View Posteteam, on Jan 23 2018 - 17:13, said:

There are however players like myself who don`t care about the compression of win rate spread and would like to see games that are better balanced.

 

^^^^ Exactly!

 

If you made great players play solo and give them 9-12 games in a row with mostly red players so that their teams get crushed and their winrates drop a bit - I think that would get every body closer to the same page. 



KanataKonoe #51 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 00:35

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 27176 battles
  • 2,314
  • [-L-L-] -L-L-
  • Member since:
    06-09-2015
"Random" MM.... It's called "Random" for a reason.... If you put in The player skill thing... it'll be called "Skilled" MM. 

Nixeldon #52 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 00:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 60879 battles
  • 2,218
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011
 

View Posteteam, on Jan 23 2018 - 18:13, said:

 

Others would agree with you.  Mostly above average players who would see there win rate drop.  There are however players like myself who don`t care about the compression of win rate spread and would like to see games that are better balanced.

 

There is nothing to indicate that swapping colors between teams would accomplish anything but win rate compression.



_Tsavo_ #53 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 00:50

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 46260 battles
  • 19,718
  • [BRVE] BRVE
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

View Posteteam, on Jan 23 2018 - 18:13, said:

 

Others would agree with you.  Mostly above average players who would see there win rate drop.  There are however players like myself who don`t care about the compression of win rate spread and would like to see games that are better balanced.

 

So does better balanced mean a more equal starting point or more equal result?  

SoTrue #54 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 00:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 33313 battles
  • 3,302
  • [ATTOP] ATTOP
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011

View Postcaspertoo, on Jan 23 2018 - 13:29, said:

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. 

 

Preach.  SBMM is the ONE thing this game needs more than anything.  Not new maps, not new tanks.  A level playing field is what is needed.  SBMM is a simple fix, and it works.

SoTrue #55 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 00:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 33313 battles
  • 3,302
  • [ATTOP] ATTOP
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011

View Post_Tsavo, on Jan 23 2018 - 15:50, said:

 

So does better balanced mean a more equal starting point or more equal result?

 

Equal starting point, period.

_Gungrave_ #56 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 00:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 45503 battles
  • 16,299
  • [-SRP-] -SRP-
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostSoTrue, on Jan 24 2018 - 00:51, said:

 

Preach.  SBMM is the ONE thing this game needs more than anything.  Not new maps, not new tanks.  A level playing field is what is needed.  SBMM is a simple fix, and it works.

 

Its always cute when seal clubbers talk of skill based MM.

SoTrue #57 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 00:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 33313 battles
  • 3,302
  • [ATTOP] ATTOP
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011

View Posteteam, on Jan 23 2018 - 15:13, said:

 

Others would agree with you.  Mostly above average players who would see there win rate drop.  There are however players like myself who don`t care about the compression of win rate spread and would like to see games that are better balanced.

 

It's been proven win rate will not drop with SBMM.

_Tsavo_ #58 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 00:54

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 46260 battles
  • 19,718
  • [BRVE] BRVE
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

View PostSoTrue, on Jan 23 2018 - 18:53, said:

 

It's been proven win rate will not drop with SBMM.

 

Then why have it if it'll have no impact?

_Gungrave_ #59 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 00:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 45503 battles
  • 16,299
  • [-SRP-] -SRP-
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostSoTrue, on Jan 24 2018 - 00:53, said:

 

It's been proven win rate will not drop with SBMM.

 

Please, do show us this proof.

ISNomads #60 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 00:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 39578 battles
  • 2,493
  • [WHAMO] WHAMO
  • Member since:
    11-30-2013

View PostHisNameWasSethRich, on Jan 23 2018 - 13:31, said:

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

 

Yes, it has never worked in the history of video gaming so there is no way elements of SBMM could be used in WoT to come closer to ensuring one team does not get all of the bad players.

 

Seems logical. :great:






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users