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

Hellsfog #81 Posted Feb 05 2018 - 18:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 32369 battles
  • 4,788
  • [_SF_] _SF_
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011

View PostHiBan, on Feb 05 2018 - 00:35, said:

 

Use "Per-Tank" stats. Those are the most accurate measure you'll ever get.

 

Which per tank stats? Overall on this imaginary stat or recent? How recent?  How do you handle somebody with few battles who did well in a tank? How do you handle somebody who played poorly in a tank for several hundred battles before they learned the game?

Also, answer the rest of the questions I raised.  I know you won't because none of you have ever thought how the entire system would work. 

 

 

 

 



Markd73 #82 Posted Feb 05 2018 - 23:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 29497 battles
  • 4,219
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostStiffWind, on Feb 03 2018 - 18:15, said:

 

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.

 

Nirvana fallacy

https://www.logicall...Nirvana-Fallacy

 

With a side order of Ad Hominem.

 


Edited by Markd73, Feb 05 2018 - 23:13.


Beta_Tester_2009 #83 Posted Feb 05 2018 - 23:29

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 12312 battles
  • 175
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010
to late. wargaming lose control in game

spud_tuber #84 Posted Feb 05 2018 - 23:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 49945 battles
  • 6,048
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostMarkd73, on Feb 05 2018 - 16:13, said:

 

Nirvana fallacy

https://www.logicall...Nirvana-Fallacy

 

With a side order of Ad Hominem.

 

As you appear to be the local fallacy expert, and because I'm lazy, what's the fallacy when one incorrectly accuses others of fallacies instead of addressing points?



Striker_70 #85 Posted Feb 06 2018 - 00:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 19521 battles
  • 6,374
  • Member since:
    04-02-2013

View PostHellsfog, on Feb 04 2018 - 20:57, said:

 

You have no idea how to do this and either does anyone else.  You burp it up since it sounds simple and easy.  It only seems that way because it so poorly thought out.  The people proposing never describe what the measure of skill would be. Whatever the measure of skill, you will never describe what level of difference will be tolerated.   It assumes that all players and all tanks are fungible across all maps and all tiers.  For example, another infamous whiner has very reasonable stats but gets them by playing tier 3. In tier 10 he is terrible. How will your system handle him in a tier 10 match.  How does the system handle platoons, nobody ever says.  

 

So please explain how the game can 'totally' address these issues. 

 

 

I know this wasn't addressed to me and I don't believe there is a total fix to anything.  However some quasi-skill based matching can address some issues. 

 

For instance, having one team with 3 great players top tier on one side and 3 bad players top tier on the other.  Just trade 1 great player for 1 bad player.  This will help balance.  It will reduce the chance that the team with the 3 bad top tier players will be completely steamrolled.

 

There are a lot of ways to measure skill and none are perfect, but more loosely accurate in general.  To determine skill as accurately as possible, it would have to rely on a conglomeration of statistics.  The player's performance in the tank they're playing should be one when available, along with more recent tier-weighted performances, and finally overall statistics.  The personal ratings found in the hall of fame can be used for this, as well as a conglomeration of WN8 and win rate. 

 

Yet that's not even necessary.  Even if they were to choose to weigh skill by nothing but overall personal rating, we'd still see improvements to balance.



EmperorJuliusCaesar #86 Posted Feb 06 2018 - 01:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 28133 battles
  • 4,067
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostRingZero, on Feb 02 2018 - 17:19, said:

Didn’t XVM Get rid of percent when Chance?

 

They did, but other mod makers have made one.



EmperorJuliusCaesar #87 Posted Feb 06 2018 - 01:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 28133 battles
  • 4,067
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostSlone, on Feb 02 2018 - 21:01, said:

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.  

 

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.

 

Well said, another thing, is watch how they purposefully avoid eachother in pubs so they don't have real competition and instead farm damage.  It's comical how hard they try to avoid one another.



EmperorJuliusCaesar #88 Posted Feb 06 2018 - 01:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 28133 battles
  • 4,067
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostVooDooKobra, on Feb 03 2018 - 09:29, said:

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?  

 

Either or would do a LOT to help with player retention.  The horribly balanced MM is the #1 reason people leave the game.



EmperorJuliusCaesar #89 Posted Feb 06 2018 - 01:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 28133 battles
  • 4,067
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostHiBan, on Feb 03 2018 - 10:55, 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:

 

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.

 

That would be great as there's little point in playing those matches.  So boring, win or lose.



NeatoMan #90 Posted Feb 06 2018 - 01:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 25597 battles
  • 17,379
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Feb 05 2018 - 19:03, said:

They did, but other mod makers have made one.

yes, but it isn't the same formula.  Who knows how good it is.



EmperorJuliusCaesar #91 Posted Feb 06 2018 - 01:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 28133 battles
  • 4,067
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View Postspud_tuber, on Feb 03 2018 - 12:06, said:

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.

 

Strong evidence is available to those that are paying attention.  I've been running 2 clans for years now and I can tell you that hands down, without a doubt, MM is BY FAR the #1 reason people leave the game.  And when newer players learn that it's a MM based slot machine game 60% of the time, they don't stick around.



EmperorJuliusCaesar #92 Posted Feb 06 2018 - 01:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 28133 battles
  • 4,067
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View Postcloudwalkr, on Feb 03 2018 - 16:39, said:

View PostSlone, on Feb 04 2018 - 01:10, said:

 

 

 

You said yourself that you felt you were as good as you were going to get and were ok with it.  lol  I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth.

 

By telling us all that you feel you're as good as you're going to get but yet still want a sbmm only says that you get upset when you see a team with high level players on it and want one of your own.  You brought up 2yr olds earlier, that's a 2yr old argument.  "you got a good player, i want one too" instead of taking responsibility and improving yourself.  lol Keep thinking that you want something different but in reality you just want a rigged mm system as a crutch. 

 

You want the game to be rigged in your favor.  Stop telling yourself otherwise.  That's what 2yr olds do. 

 

 

edit:  afraid of competition...LOL kid, you have no idea.  What a joke.

 

 

 

 

And yet, WG has acknowledged the issue and tried to make it better. With the 3/5/7, with balancing the tank types per team etc.  They know it's why their not retaining players and have stated they are going to keep working on it until they get it right.  They know this is why people leave bc when you  uninstall the game it asks you why etc and this is the feedback they've received.



QuicksilverJPR #93 Posted Feb 06 2018 - 01:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 24837 battles
  • 3,918
  • [RPG] RPG
  • Member since:
    01-17-2013

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!

 

You'll end up with a lot of good players on your team if they implement this...





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

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users