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 #61 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 00:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 31802 battles
  • 3,302
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011

View Post_Tsavo, on Jan 23 2018 - 15:02, said:

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

 

Prove it will happen.  Show me your data for 'all' your battles, and for 'just' the battles between 40-60% (SBMM).  I bet they are exactly the same.  I know mine were.

_Tsavo_ #62 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 00:56

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 44885 battles
  • 19,100
  • [TSAVO] TSAVO
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

SBMM will by the very nature described punish better players and reward worse players with a compressed MM spread.  IE: the better you do, the harder the game becomes.

 

This is WoT, not dark souls.



SoTrue #63 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 00:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 31802 battles
  • 3,302
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011

View Post_Tsavo, on Jan 23 2018 - 15:54, said:

 

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

 

Because it will make every game winnable or losable.  There will be no more 10 good/5 bad vs. 5 good/10 bad.  Those battles are a waste of time.

SoTrue #64 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 00:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 31802 battles
  • 3,302
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011

View Post_Tsavo, on Jan 23 2018 - 15:56, said:

SBMM will by the very nature described punish better players and reward worse players with a compressed MM spread.  IE: the better you do, the harder the game becomes.

 

This is WoT, not dark souls.

 

Why do you continue to lie.  You've seen my mutant data.  Overal winrate 56%(ish), win rate between 40-60% (what sbmm would be) 56%(ish).  There was no difference.

_Tsavo_ #65 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 00:57

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 44885 battles
  • 19,100
  • [TSAVO] TSAVO
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

View PostSoTrue, on Jan 23 2018 - 18:56, said:

 

Because it will make every game winnable or losable.  There will be no more 10 good/5 bad vs. 5 good/10 bad.  Those battles are a waste of time.

 

It'll have no impact but it'll have an impact?

 

Okay.



_Gungrave_ #66 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 00:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 43752 battles
  • 16,299
  • [-SRP-] -SRP-
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011
Well SoTrue I'm still waiting on the proof you talked about...

SoTrue #67 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 00:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 31802 battles
  • 3,302
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011

View Post_Tsavo, on Jan 23 2018 - 15:57, said:

 

It'll have no impact but it'll have an impact?

 

Okay.

 

It's not flipping a coin.  It's not black and white.  Tank type, map, crew skills, new tanks, back from a long break, time of day, playing for mission vs. playing for win, and on and on and on.  So many variables that better players will do better than worse players over time.  Your win rate won't change.  BUT, you won't have to suffer through carrying 10 bads on your team.

ISNomads #68 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 01:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 38710 battles
  • 2,440
  • [WHAMO] WHAMO
  • Member since:
    11-30-2013

View PostHisNameWasSethRich, on Jan 23 2018 - 14:51, said:

 

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. 

 

Yes, posting the same thing over and over make it true.

 

In reality, the majority of the player base is not going to be doing that because they are not that skilled, don't use XVM, or play the map rather than the players. I am not one of the best players but I am fairly skilled, and I do not attempt to farm based on skill level.

 

Even if you use your argument that skilled players would farm unskilled players, at least each team would have an equal number of skilled players farming tomatoes. Nothing will ever end blowouts, but at least skill could be used to make it more fair from the beginning. Looking at changes to MM, WG is trying to ensure a fairer balance at the start of matches.

 

 



SoTrue #69 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 01:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 31802 battles
  • 3,302
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011

View Post_Gungrave_, on Jan 23 2018 - 15:59, said:

Well SoTrue I'm still waiting on the proof you talked about...

 

Boom.  Here it is.  2000 battles tracked.  Overall win rate was 56.3%.  SBMM would only allow battle to occur between 40-59%.  My win rate for that bracket was... drumroll please... (1,142 battles/650 wins= ) 56.9%.  Yeah, that's right.  If I hand not played a single crap 32% battle, nor had I been handed a 'free' win/72% battle - MY WIN RATE WOULD BE THE SAME.

-

SMBB will not affect your win rate.  Better players will still do over 50% win rate.

-

Don't believe the haters and trolls. 



_Gungrave_ #70 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 01:11

    Major

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

View PostSoTrue, on Jan 24 2018 - 01:08, said:

 

Boom.  Here it is.  2000 battles tracked.  Overall win rate was 56.3%.  SBMM would only allow battle to occur between 40-59%.  My win rate for that bracket was... drumroll please... (1,142 battles/650 wins= ) 56.9%.  Yeah, that's right.  If I hand not played a single crap 32% battle, nor had I been handed a 'free' win/72% battle - MY WIN RATE WOULD BE THE SAME.

-

SMBB will not affect your win rate.  Better players will still do over 50% win rate.

-

Don't believe the haters and trolls. 

 

When I asked for proof I'm talking about citing your source.

 

Regardless I'd rather believe the haters and the trolls because they're not stat padding. Hell a lot of unicums are even against the idea of SBMM because bad players would remain bad and good players would be forced in drastically longer que times.



SoTrue #71 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 01:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 31802 battles
  • 3,302
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011

View Post_Gungrave_, on Jan 23 2018 - 16:11, said:

 

When I asked for proof I'm talking about citing your source.

 

Regardless I'd rather believe the haters and the trolls because they're not stat padding. Hell a lot of unicums are even against the idea of SBMM because bad players would remain bad and good players would be forced in drastically longer que times.

 

More lies.  OPEN YOU EARS MAN!.  Those 2,000 battles  I tracked were under the CURRENT MM.   The 40-60%ers took no longer to que than any other battles types.  SBMM will not add any noticeable time to MM.  Oh, and typical troll response, gloss over the hard DATA because it proves you wrong.

SoTrue #72 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 01:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 31802 battles
  • 3,302
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011
Neato chimes in 5...  4...  3...  2...  1...

NeatoMan #73 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 01:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 27740 battles
  • 19,672
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostSoTrue, on Jan 23 2018 - 19:08, said:

 

Boom.  Here it is.  2000 battles tracked.  Overall win rate was 56.3%.  SBMM would only allow battle to occur between 40-59%.  My win rate for that bracket was... drumroll please... (1,142 battles/650 wins= ) 56.9%.  Yeah, that's right.  If I hand not played a single crap 32% battle, nor had I been handed a 'free' win/72% battle - MY WIN RATE WOULD BE THE SAME.

-

SMBB will not affect your win rate.  Better players will still do over 50% win rate.

-

Don't believe the haters and trolls. 

 

That's not what I got in my data from over 5 k games.  Nor does my data have a strangely shaped distribution to it, nor does it look like it's being pulled down at the ends.



SoTrue #74 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 01:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 31802 battles
  • 3,302
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011

View PostNeatoMan, on Jan 23 2018 - 16:18, said:

 

That's not what I got in my data from over 5 k games.  Nor does my data have a strangely shaped distribution to it, nor does it look like it's being pulled down at the ends.

 

Neato, do you have data from a single tier 6+ tank with 1,000+ battles?  I'd like to see your 'overall' vs. '40-49%' win rates for such a tank.  In fact, I'd like to see anyone's similar data.

HisNameWasSethRich #75 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 01:25

    First lieutenant

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

View PostISNomads, on Jan 23 2018 - 19:05, said:

 

Yes, posting the same thing over and over make it true.

 

In reality, the majority of the player base is not going to be doing that because they are not that skilled, don't use XVM, or play the map rather than the players. I am not one of the best players but I am fairly skilled, and I do not attempt to farm based on skill level.

 

Even if you use your argument that skilled players would farm unskilled players, at least each team would have an equal number of skilled players farming tomatoes. Nothing will ever end blowouts, but at least skill could be used to make it more fair from the beginning. Looking at changes to MM, WG is trying to ensure a fairer balance at the start of matches.

 

 

*facepalm*



the_dude_76 #76 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 01:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 33389 battles
  • 4,542
  • [GSRM] GSRM
  • Member since:
    12-27-2011

View PostHisNameWasSethRich, on Jan 23 2018 - 22:51, said:

 

 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. 

 

And that, for some mysterious reason, can't happen now??? Durrrrr

 

Seriously, this argument makes ZERO sense, the skilled players already Roflstomp a team that they grossly outmatch, so please do explain how it would be any different if the teams were slightly more equally matched. Cutting and pasting the same generic canned response over and over again isn't a viable defense for the status quo...



R_Razor #77 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 01:37

    Captain

  • Players
  • 8095 battles
  • 1,757
  • [_DDM] _DDM
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013

View PostSlim_Shadee, on Jan 23 2018 - 17:31, said:

 

Doesn't surprise me about you Razor like your statement proved a damn thing except your propensity for mouthing off with zero facts....but then we dont want another set of mod sending us stop and desist message so I will leave it alone this time.

 

Game is sitting at around 35k players across 3 server groups (Oceanic, EU, North America). Wait times will vary depending on if you are in primetime or otherwise with one of those zones. It also selects based upon: game mode you are joining (currently 2 options), the weight of the mech you bring (minor point, but matchmaker will select based on this), as well as if you are joining by yourself or in a group (matchmaker tries to select group v group, solo v solo).

All in all, you're looking at an average wait of 2-3 minutes for a game, with games lasting between 5-15minutes (Quick Play mode) or the larger Faction play mode (basically just you get 4 respawns) you may see significant wait times with games lasting around 30minutes.

Lots of information and jargon.

 

 

Proof enough for you sparky? Unlike your OPINION on the current status of MW:O, which is wrong, I prefer to KNOW what I'm talking about. You and the rest of the "whiners are us" crowd are the ones with a propensity for spouting off without knowing what the hell you're talking about. 



_Gungrave_ #78 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 01:37

    Major

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

View PostSoTrue, on Jan 24 2018 - 01:14, said:

 

More lies.  OPEN YOU EARS MAN!.  Those 2,000 battles  I tracked were under the CURRENT MM.   The 40-60%ers took no longer to que than any other battles types.  SBMM will not add any noticeable time to MM.  Oh, and typical troll response, gloss over the hard DATA because it proves you wrong.

 

Lemme get this straight...you tracked statistics for the current MM which isn't a skill based MM in order to support your argument that skill based MM is better?

 

Think on that for a bit.



HisNameWasSethRich #79 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 01:37

    First lieutenant

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

View Postthe_dude_76, on Jan 23 2018 - 19:29, said:

 

And that, for some mysterious reason, can't happen now??? Durrrrr

 

Seriously, this argument makes ZERO sense, the skilled players already Roflstomp a team that they grossly outmatch, so please do explain how it would be any different if the teams were slightly more equally matched. Cutting and pasting the same generic canned response over and over again isn't a viable defense for the status quo...

 

No, It can happen now. I'm just explaining how this does not fix the problem given by OP. 

I pasted the exact thing in response because, for one, I didn't want to type it again, and second, in three of the responses the question they were asking was countered by what I was saying the the post they quoted.... So I just posted it so that they could go back and read it again and hopefully clear up their question. 

anything else I need to clear up here? 

HisNameWasSethRich #80 Posted Jan 24 2018 - 01:39

    First lieutenant

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

View Post_Gungrave_, on Jan 23 2018 - 19:37, said:

 

Lemme get this straight...you tracked statistics for the current MM which isn't a skill based MM in order to support your argument that skill based MM is better?

 

Think on that for a bit.

 

But... There are obviously less players in the top 10% than the bottom 90%... so the top 10%, if being matched up with only other top 10% would either have less games or longer queue times...

these people must be insane...




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users