Jump to content


FIX MM to include player capability

MM MATCHMAKER UNBALANCED FIXED RIGGED

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
92 replies to this topic

VooDooKobra #21 Posted Feb 03 2018 - 17:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 8091 battles
  • 3,399
  • [MOVE] MOVE
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011

View PostDionysus_Zagreus, on Feb 02 2018 - 18:26, said:

 

Huh?  How do you figure?

 

I'm not saying it'll eliminate blowouts, but it would reduce them.

 

there might be some reduction but i am not convinced that the end result would really be that dramatic, you would still have that one or 2 scouts that get tagged early to put their team down and then the snowball effect will still take over.  it wasnt that long ago where the lopsided games were blamed on one side having more heavies than the other, now thats fixed and we still have the same amount of blowouts.  

Edited by VooDooKobra, Feb 03 2018 - 17:57.


riff_ #22 Posted Feb 03 2018 - 18:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 26562 battles
  • 9,340
  • Member since:
    08-02-2013

View PostSlone, on Feb 03 2018 - 00:01, said:

 

It'll never happen because the better players want nothing to do with true competition, and WG caters to them. They don't want to fight each other in a balanced fight, they'd rather kick [edited]on the lesser players. Why do you think they avoid T10 Strongholds and instead play T8 and T6 SH? It's because they don't want a challenging game, they'd rather ROFLstomp the lesser clans. And look at CW, it's supposedly 'End Game Content', but the best clans don't fight each other. They each grab up a portion of the map away from each other and then do everything possible to squash the little guys trying to contend on the edges of the map. For all the big talk from the 'unicum' players, they are frightened to death of REAL competition, instead they spend their time seal clubbing the lesser players and berating them on the forums.

 

Now, that was priceless.

Uncle_Napalm #23 Posted Feb 03 2018 - 18:22

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 14763 battles
  • 174
  • [XFOL] XFOL
  • Member since:
    01-21-2014

View Posteccoh, on Feb 02 2018 - 20:08, said:

I use XVM.  I don't care if anyone likes it or not.  I like to see the player capability based on skill.  

 

I am really hoping WG gets it's head out of their 'you know what' and starts using something similar.  I grow very tired of having more than a bunch of matches where the team I am on is 36% to win... and I am just as pissed when it is 76% in my favour.  I prefer the nail biter games, down to the last two tanks... This MM is pathetic and IMHO, 'rigged' for super-clans.

 

This is my opinion! I don't really care if you share the same opinion but at very least respect mine!

 

This is not your first time on this forum. How did you manage to miss every other whine post about this topic?

 

And just to save you some time, they are not going to "fix" it. There are plenty of other things that need attention before this alleged problem is addressed.



VooDooKobra #24 Posted Feb 03 2018 - 18:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 8091 battles
  • 3,399
  • [MOVE] MOVE
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011

View Posteccoh, on Feb 02 2018 - 18:08, said:

I use XVM.  I don't care if anyone likes it or not.  I like to see the player capability based on skill.  

 

I am really hoping WG gets it's head out of their 'you know what' and starts using something similar.  I grow very tired of having more than a bunch of matches where the team I am on is 36% to win... and I am just as pissed when it is 76% in my favour.  I prefer the nail biter games, down to the last two tanks... This MM is pathetic and IMHO, 'rigged' for super-clans.

 

This is my opinion! I don't really care if you share the same opinion but at very least respect mine!

 

now when you say that are you talking balancing skill or having skill levels face each other?  

StiffWind #25 Posted Feb 03 2018 - 19:15

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 13456 battles
  • 2,054
  • Member since:
    03-15-2017

View PostTheGame_, on Feb 03 2018 - 04:26, said:

i wish the op had read the forums.

 

would have saved us this discussion for the second time this week.

 

dont like blowouts? cool. get good enough to carry your team, or thank the rest of us that you win any games at all.

 

sincerely,

everyone better than you.

 

ps. dont say "respect my opinion" when you make it clear you dont care about anyone elses. go to hell.

 

Stop the elitist bullcrap.  You couldn't carry every lopsided game you play, and neither can anyone else.  Things are so bad, many games are uncarryable.

StiffWind #26 Posted Feb 03 2018 - 19:16

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 13456 battles
  • 2,054
  • Member since:
    03-15-2017

View PostFlarvin, on Feb 03 2018 - 02:15, said:

 

Blowouts happen due to the no respawn. Skill balanced matches would not noticeably reduce blowouts.

 

Two lines of BS in the same post.  Congratulations.

 



StiffWind #27 Posted Feb 03 2018 - 19:17

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 13456 battles
  • 2,054
  • Member since:
    03-15-2017

View PostGeorgePreddy, on Feb 03 2018 - 03:02, said:

SBMM in pubs is a terrible idea.

 

It's never a good idea to punish players for getting better.

 

LOL!  That's exactly what it does now!!

 



Nixeldon #28 Posted Feb 03 2018 - 19:26

    Captain

  • Players
  • 56474 battles
  • 1,563
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostStiffWind, on Feb 03 2018 - 13:16, said:

 

Two lines of BS in the same post.  Congratulations.

 

Flarvin is correct. 



HiBan #29 Posted Feb 03 2018 - 19:55

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 18996 battles
  • 486
  • Member since:
    01-08-2015

Since about 60% of the games are so unbalanced that the outcome is actually "rigged", why don't they just skip those games instead of making us play them?

 

I mean, they could code a new feature that detects if a match is too unbalanced, and instead of making you play those rigged games, they could just pop up a window which says something like:

 

RNDMM ERROR!

 

Oooops, our MM system just farted again! This is an automatic win for you no matter what you do.

To save you from the bad experience, we will skip this game as it's just pointless to play it.

Here, take some free credits and exp for the inconvenience.

 

Credits: 1000 cr.

Exp: 100 exp.

 

 

RNDMM ERROR!

Oooops, our MM system just farted again! This is an automatic loss for you no matter what you do.

To save you from the bad experience, we will skip this game as it's just pointless to play it.

Here, take some free credits and exp for the inconvenience.

 

Credits: 1000 cr.

Exp: 100 exp.

 

That way they could keep their broken random MM while at the same time saving us from the crap unbalance.


Edited by HiBan, Feb 03 2018 - 19:55.


Flarvin #30 Posted Feb 03 2018 - 20:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 50023 battles
  • 11,931
  • Member since:
    03-29-2013

View PostStiffWind, on Feb 03 2018 - 13:16, said:

 

Two lines of BS in the same post.  Congratulations.

 

 

Coming from a tin foil crack pot, I take that as a compliment. Thank you very much. 



spud_tuber #31 Posted Feb 03 2018 - 20:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 47792 battles
  • 5,431
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostHiBan, on Feb 03 2018 - 12:55, said:

Since about 60% of the games are so unbalanced that the outcome is actually "rigged", why don't they just skip those games instead of making us play them?

 

I mean, they could code a new feature that detects if a match is too unbalanced, and instead of making you play those rigged games, they could just pop up a window which says something like:

 

 

 

 

That way they could keep their broken random MM while at the same time saving us from the crap unbalance.

Because it isn't a guaranteed win or loss for everyone in the match, especially if we go with the "go afk and still win" or "play like a super unicum and still lose" definition of "decided by MM".  Someone, or someones, within that 15 on the winning team still has to carry the victory, and if they don't, it turns into a loss pretty easily. 

 

As an example, if you stuck a purple top tier on one team with a bunch of tomatoes, and put nothing but the tomatoes on the other team, you'd probably consider that MM decided that match for the team with the purple, right?  Any one, or possibly 2, tomatoes on the "guaranteed win" team could go afk and still win, so yes, MM did in a way decide the match for them.  But what if the purple goes afk?  Yeap, he loses, so MM did not decide the match for him, his skill and performance in that match do.



HiBan #32 Posted Feb 03 2018 - 20:33

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 18996 battles
  • 486
  • Member since:
    01-08-2015

View Postspud_tuber, on Feb 03 2018 - 20:21, said:

Because it isn't a guaranteed win or loss for everyone in the match, especially if we go with the "go afk and still win" or "play like a super unicum and still lose" definition of "decided by MM".  Someone, or someones, within that 15 on the winning team still has to carry the victory, and if they don't, it turns into a loss pretty easily. 

 

As an example, if you stuck a purple top tier on one team with a bunch of tomatoes, and put nothing but the tomatoes on the other team, you'd probably consider that MM decided that match for the team with the purple, right?  Any one, or possibly 2, tomatoes on the "guaranteed win" team could go afk and still win, so yes, MM did in a way decide the match for them.  But what if the purple goes afk?  Yeap, he loses, so MM did not decide the match for him, his skill and performance in that match do.

 

It isnt guaranteed 100% of the time, but it's still an extremely frustrating and crap experience. And it happens 60% of the games.

If i could just skip all those "guaranteed" (or pseudo-guaranteed) wins/losses, and only play the 40% balanced games, i'd do it in a heartbeat.

Nobody likes those unbalanced games, and they are the main reason why this game is losing its player population..


Edited by HiBan, Feb 03 2018 - 20:38.


cloudwalkr #33 Posted Feb 03 2018 - 20:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 53572 battles
  • 4,435
  • [SYNGZ] SYNGZ
  • Member since:
    04-05-2011

View PostSlone, on Feb 03 2018 - 06:01, said:

 

It'll never happen because the better players want nothing to do with true competition, and WG caters to them. They don't want to fight each other in a balanced fight, they'd rather kick [edited]on the lesser players. Why do you think they avoid T10 Strongholds and instead play T8 and T6 SH?

 

Few things real quick, you cow. 

 

Actual good players only want bad players to do one thing, grow up and stop blaming anything and everything under the sun for their ineptitude.  That's it.  Good players just want bad players to realize the same thing that those "good" players realized - "If i want a good player on my team, i need to be the good player" and then stop crying about others.  It's really not a hard concept.

 

Your point about strongholds is pretty funny as well.  Good clans play tier 6 when there isn't enough to fill a tier 8 online and they play tier 8 for easy credit grind.  We play clan wars (LOLOL Clan Wars....ikr, what a fking joke at this point) for high level competition.  We also play advances for that. 

 

You go on thinking you have a clue, you're so cute.  But that's the reality of it.  As for pub matches, a good player only wants the same level playing field as anyone else.  It's just sad that someone like you are generally the ones who completely miss this point and instead choose to try to impose to ridiculous false reality that you would rather live in. 

 

Pretty funny stuff, really.



cloudwalkr #34 Posted Feb 03 2018 - 20:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 53572 battles
  • 4,435
  • [SYNGZ] SYNGZ
  • Member since:
    04-05-2011

View PostStiffWind, on Feb 03 2018 - 19:17, said:

 

LOL!  That's exactly what it does now!!

 

 

I'm glad you admit that it would be worse under a skill based mm since you already feel it punishes players for learning the game.  You're a pretty smart guy, stiff.  Really...

Beta_Tester_2009 #35 Posted Feb 03 2018 - 20:57

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 12198 battles
  • 175
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010
wot countdown and devs and mods know that, so all here dying, no more enthusiast players

spud_tuber #36 Posted Feb 03 2018 - 21:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 47792 battles
  • 5,431
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostHiBan, on Feb 03 2018 - 13:33, said:

 

It isnt guaranteed 100% of the time, but it's still an extremely frustrating and crap experience. And it happens 60% of the games.

If i could just skip all those "guaranteed" (or pseudo-guaranteed) wins/losses, and only play the 40% balanced games, i'd do it in a heartbeat.

Nobody likes those unbalanced games, and they are the main reason why this game is losing its player population..

Don't go there without proof, or at least strong evidence.  Too many people make that claim about too many different things, usually the part of the game they personally dislike, with absolutely no evidence.  It makes your complaint look like a whine if you go there without evidence.

 

Arty, tier spread, gold ammo, rng, lack of "end game" content, dumbing the game down, funnel maps, seal clubbers, etc have all been claimed as the reason the game is losing, or at least not gaining, population.

 

As to your position on skill balanced MM, I can understand your frustration with games where your contribution doesn't matter either way.  But WoT isn't built around every battle being fair, it's built around a large sample of battles being fair as a whole.  Skill balanced MM is an entirely different philosophy, in which each individual battle is "fair", but a large sample of battles are unfair.  If WoT were to go over to Skill balanced MM, there would need to be a significant rework of the XP and credit system, at the very least, as they are built on the assumed long term fairness of the MM.

 

RNG, btw, is in part another example of "forest" view.  Over the short run, it can be very unfair, but over a large sample it evens out.  Of course, RNG also serves a secondary purpose of shifting the skill in WoT from twitch to positioning and playing the odds well.

 

As are grinding tanks and crews, when you come down to it.



HiBan #37 Posted Feb 03 2018 - 21:19

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 18996 battles
  • 486
  • Member since:
    01-08-2015

View Postspud_tuber, on Feb 03 2018 - 21:06, said:

As to your position on skill balanced MM, I can understand your frustration with games where your contribution doesn't matter either way.  But WoT isn't built around every battle being fair, it's built around a large sample of battles being fair as a whole.  Skill balanced MM is an entirely different philosophy, in which each individual battle is "fair", but a large sample of battles are unfair.  If WoT were to go over to Skill balanced MM, there would need to be a significant rework of the XP and credit system, at the very least, as they are built on the assumed long term fairness of the MM.

 

The problem with WoT is that it epic fails at both points.

It fails at "every battle being fair" because the range of unbalance you usually get is huge, and it fails at "having a large sample of battles being fair as a whole" because when you track a large sample of battles, over 60% of them are unfair.

 

The result is a crap and frustrating experience which drives people away from playing the game.

 

 


Edited by HiBan, Feb 03 2018 - 21:24.


Beta_Tester_2009 #38 Posted Feb 03 2018 - 21:20

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 12198 battles
  • 175
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

if you don´t buy your account will be nerfed so, you only play to give fun players who put money, they put you with more professional enemies, shoot nerfed, sixth sense does not work or works sometimes, or if it works warns you with 4 seconds delay when being sighted. but not a problem really cause game is dying so wargaming close the door and go to WT to learn something


Edited by Beta_Tester_2009, Feb 03 2018 - 21:20.


spud_tuber #39 Posted Feb 03 2018 - 21:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 47792 battles
  • 5,431
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostHiBan, on Feb 03 2018 - 14:19, said:

 

The problem with WoT is that it epic fails at both points.

It fails at "every battle being fair" because the range of unbalance you usually get is huge, and it fails at "having a large sample of battles being fair as a whole" because when you track a large sample of battles, over 60% of them are unfair.

 

The result is a crap and frustrating experience which drives people away from playing the game.

 

 

*sigh*

You're still looking at the trees.  Pull back and look at the forest.  Sure, individual battles may be unfair, even a significant chuck of them, but over a large sample size the MM treats everyone the same, and is therefore fair in the long run.  It is this type of fairness that WoT is built around, not the short term fairness or lack thereof in a single battle.



HiBan #40 Posted Feb 03 2018 - 22:01

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 18996 battles
  • 486
  • Member since:
    01-08-2015

View Postspud_tuber, on Feb 03 2018 - 21:53, said:

*sigh*

You're still looking at the trees.  Pull back and look at the forest.  Sure, individual battles may be unfair, even a significant chuck of them, but over a large sample size the MM treats everyone the same, and is therefore fair in the long run.  It is this type of fairness that WoT is built around, not the short term fairness or lack thereof in a single battle.

 

Having everyone else in the room eat the same crap does not make the crap you eat less bad.

60% of crap is still 60% of crap.


Edited by HiBan, Feb 03 2018 - 22:03.






Also tagged with MM, MATCHMAKER, UNBALANCED, FIXED, RIGGED

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users