Jump to content


FIX MATCHMAKER

Matchmaker

  • Please log in to reply
79 replies to this topic

Pipinghot #41 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 19:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,597
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostSon_of_the_South, on Apr 06 2018 - 06:12, said:

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 04 2018 - 20:47, said:

What you say is completely true, and yet is completely out of context has nothing to do with the points being discussed, so grats on that I guess.

 

LoL has SBMM and yet that does not prevent endless volumes of complaining about the MM they use, so clearly SBMM does not "fix" anything, and it especially doesn't fix the tendency of people to blame the game for their losses.

 

And as an addendum, if you think you scored a witty point with "It is not number 1" you didn't. Viktor Kislyi was the third ever video game billionaire and WG is the first game company to ever buy a bank, so clearly WG "must be doing something right" too, regardless of your misguided ideas about SBMM.

​The use of the word "misguided" is your opinion and is nothing more than a subjective statement just as my opinion about SBMM is an opinion

The difference is that we have tons and tons of existing evidence (Clan Wars, Skirmishes & other single-death games) that single-death is by far the single greatest cause of steam rolls and that they have next-to-nothing to do with the MM. We have over 6 years of evidence from Clan Wars, and however many years of evidence from skirmishes, all of which shows just how common steamrolls are even when the teams are evenly matched. So where my opinion has tons of existing evidence for it, your opinion has tons of evidence against it. If you want to continue believing that SBMM is the holy grail for WoT that's your choice, but you're thinking is exactly like the people who believe the earth is flat of that the moon landings are a hoax, all of the evidence is against your opinion, but you continue to cling to it anyway.

 

And that means my view is much more than merely subjective, there is objective evidence showing that matchmaking based on skill has only a tiny affect on the number of steamrolls, whereas your view has no evidence to support it, that's a real difference and it actually matters.

View PostSon_of_the_South, on Apr 06 2018 - 06:12, said:

however I have the facts of reality to support my ideas. You have nothing but theory because SBMM does not exist in WOT.

You're contradicting yourself. If "SBMM does not exist in WOT" it cannot be possible for you to have "facts of reality" to support your idea. You're creating your own oxymoron.

View PostSon_of_the_South, on Apr 06 2018 - 06:12, said:

SBMM from other games does not translate to WOT as Gungrave has so eloquently pointed out.

That's because, as Pipinghot has so eloquently pointed out, those games have respawn battles, whereas WoT is a single-death game. You cannot use the math or logic from a respawn game and assume that the math and logic will work the same in a single-death game, that is a failure to understand how powerful the force of single-death is on how a game is played and how the battle results differ from respawn games.

View PostSon_of_the_South, on Apr 06 2018 - 06:12, said:

One can't translate the art of a "Power G Patriot" play from the football to basketball and call it a failure, ergo one does simply not translate SBMM from one game to another and say it does not work and vice versa.

One cannot translate SBMM from any respawn game to WoT, because that is a failure to understand how important single-death is. The attempts of many people to translate SBMM from respawn games into WoT is an ongoing failure of logic that we have not been able to eradicate from these forums.

View PostSon_of_the_South, on Apr 06 2018 - 06:12, said:

I for one like to play with people who know as much about the game as I do. I don't like playing with those who are superior or those who are inferior to me.

That's understandable, and legit. it is a good description of the type of games you prefer to play, and no one is stopping you from doing that.

 

You, on the other hand, joined a game that was already build and designed with a specific philosophy, and which has millions of players around the world, and yet you're arguing that the game should be completely rewired to match your personal preference. That seems rather self important. Why would you expect a game company to radically rework their game to suit your personal preferences and to ignore the fact that they've made many hundreds of millions of dollars over the years with their current system.

View PostSon_of_the_South, on Apr 06 2018 - 06:12, said:

Playing with an entire team of inferior is the worst part. If I am the best person on the team, in my opinion MM has screwed up royally.

Now that's a great example of a subjective opinion. You say the "MM has screwed up royally" but that's not true, it hasn't screwed up at all because it's working as intended. What you really mean is that it's not doing what you would design it to do if this was your game. The MM works exactly as WG intends it to, including the fact that sometimes you are best person on your team, this game is supposed to have a "roller coaster" affect with some games being very hard, some very easy and he great majority of them in between, and that's exactly what you get. Since the MM creates battles that give a variety of team combinations like it's supposed to, and it gives a "roller coaster" affect providing a variety of difficulties like it's supposed to you can't honestly say that it "screwed up" at all, the simple truth is that WG didn't design the game that you want it to be designed.


Edited by Pipinghot, Apr 06 2018 - 19:39.


Gunadie #42 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 19:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 40691 battles
  • 4,787
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View Postnasfan, on Apr 02 2018 - 14:16, said:

nothing wrong with the matchmaker

 

spoken like a true man asfan..:trollface:

are you a shill for War Gaming or just playing a different game than 99% of us?

Oh, maybe your playing Blitz!



Gunadie #43 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 19:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 40691 battles
  • 4,787
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View Postslnt_svc, on Apr 02 2018 - 14:07, said:

That's it, fix the damn matchmaker. This game no longer has the appeal it once did. Just stop with the gimmicks and put your effort into making a matchmaker that actually works. Constant games of steamrolling is just no fun and makes the game unappealing. Fix it or lose yet another long time player, this game is no longer fun to play. Or, maybe you have a special membership where one pays to get on the decent teams?

 

Its not a MM issue its an issue with the players in the tanks that MM selects that are not balanced in any way shape or form

from one side to the other that's really the BIG issue!

All due to premium ammo, premium accounts and premium tanks for any and all to scurry up the ladder to what ever tier they can afford,

as skill has no relevance as to what tier any player can partake in.



Gunadie #44 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 20:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 40691 battles
  • 4,787
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 06 2018 - 10:36, said:

Please show us this evidence where SBMM doesn't have any effect in WOT!

You cannot because there never has need any form of SBMM in Wot.

Unless you account for all the top teams kick the [edited]out of bottom ranked teams where the highly weighted skillset elevates them to the top.

The biggest single issue with this game is bad Match Making because it doesn't account for any sort of experience difference between the teams.

I challenge you to prove that some sort of match making system that is balanced in some form would not significantly improve this game and reduce blowouts.

I'm not talking about having 30 players with similar stats, I'm taking about 2 teams of 15 players, good, bad and or middle of the road, that all their combined averages in PR and experience balance from one team to the other...

This approach has never been applied or tried in Public MM and so therefore neither proved or disproved!

I am a believer that this would DRASTICALLY improve this game

I think this could be accomplished by assigning a simple numeric score to a players P/R , Games played over all, and games played in a specific tier.

Then MM could move these players with the tanks from one team to the other until the points were within 10% of each other.

ie, tank matches are selected as they are now with the current MM and then MM moves players from one side to the other until

the player points were balanced from side to side with in 10%

Player 1-  P/R 5734 = 5.7, total games played in Wot 31579 = 31.6 points (rounded up or down to the closest), player 1's tank tier selected - 9, #1's total battles in all tier 9's 3,168 = 3.2

Player 1-  total points 5.7 + 31.6 + 3.2 = 40.5 points

This is done to all players and MM moves players from one side to the other, until the total points are balanced out with in 10 %

If this cannot be achieved with the first group, players are substituted in and out until 10% is achieved.

This would obviously create an issue is server stats are low at which point the spread could be increased to 15 or even 20% 

If this was done right now as it sits with just a players games and PR I believe there would be an immediate benefit to this games match balance

> I think its a possible solution.

 

 



Kiaser_Sosay #45 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 22:23

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 20396 battles
  • 97
  • [-_-] -_-
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011
I have not thought this thru 100% but why not 1 up or down MM . not 2 up or down. ( tier 8 only see 9s and 7s ) something like that. Seem to me that would be a better way to do it. May lead to longer ques but at least you would be pared up with something you can Pen .

Edited by Kiaser_Sosay, Apr 06 2018 - 22:24.


Pipinghot #46 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 22:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,597
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 14:25, said:

 

You screwed up the quoting somehow, I was not the one who said all of that stuff in purple text, you were quoting yourself from another thread, where I answered you in detail. You're working from a bunch of false assumptions.



Gunadie #47 Posted Apr 07 2018 - 00:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 40691 battles
  • 4,787
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 06 2018 - 13:53, said:

You screwed up the quoting somehow, I was not the one who said all of that stuff in purple text, you were quoting yourself from another thread, where I answered you in detail. You're working from a bunch of false assumptions.

 

No, I just decided to make a topic out of it!

Pipinghot #48 Posted Apr 07 2018 - 15:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,597
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 18:28, said:

No, I just decided to make a topic out of it!

No, you screwed up quoting because you put all of your purple text under my name, when you're the one who said it. You did both, you created another topic and you still screwed up quoting in this thread.



Gunadie #49 Posted Apr 07 2018 - 20:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 40691 battles
  • 4,787
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 07 2018 - 06:23, said:

No, you screwed up quoting because you put all of your purple text under my name, when you're the one who said it. You did both, you created another topic and you still screwed up quoting in this thread.

 

Wow your not to bright are you?

All I did was delete your text and put my reply under your name in the box

You accuse me without checking the facts that are right in front of you!

Facts like the time stamp on each that cant be altered

Once again you are wrong, but that nothing new with you is it!

You certainly are in the right clan though.

                                                        #44 Posted Yesterday, 11:25 AM

But go ahead and have fun with your small minded endeavors.

 



Pipinghot #50 Posted Apr 07 2018 - 22:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,597
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostGunadie, on Apr 07 2018 - 14:06, said:

Wow your not to bright are you?

All I did was delete your text and put my reply under your name in the box

So you admit you screwed your reply. Apology accepted.

Son_of_the_South #51 Posted Apr 07 2018 - 22:24

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 14657 battles
  • 621
  • [PJ] PJ
  • Member since:
    12-11-2014

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 14:25, said:

 

 

​SBMM does not exist in WOT and any theory stating it will not work is just a theory until actually proven in a random 15-15 match in WOT. It is a ethereal as cold fusion. We know what happens now and that is fact, SBMM in WOT is a only a theory not proven. But hey, if a subpopulation of WOT does not want to improve a system, by all means leave it just as it is. The game will die off because in business if you are not growing, you are dying. If you do what you have always done, you get what you have always gotten. Right now, majority of games are steam rolls. Things stay as they are, that is what you will always get, steam rolls.

Pipinghot #52 Posted Apr 07 2018 - 23:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,597
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostSon_of_the_South, on Apr 07 2018 - 16:24, said:

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 14:25, said:

 

​SBMM does not exist in WOT and any theory stating it will not work is just a theory until actually proven

Nope. It has been documented using data from WOT. All you have to do is look at the already existing battles with odds from 40/60 to 50/50 to 60/40 and the answer is plain as day. It is not theory, it is real data that already exists.



Son_of_the_South #53 Posted Apr 07 2018 - 23:37

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 14657 battles
  • 621
  • [PJ] PJ
  • Member since:
    12-11-2014

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 07 2018 - 17:04, said:

Nope. It has been documented using data from WOT. All you have to do is look at the already existing battles with odds from 40/60 to 50/50 to 60/40 and the answer is plain as day. It is not theory, it is real data that already exists.

 

​So you are saying that WOT has done full on testing with SBMM and has proven that it is a failure.

Pipinghot #54 Posted Apr 08 2018 - 03:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,597
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostSon_of_the_South, on Apr 07 2018 - 17:37, said:

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 07 2018 - 17:04, said:

Nope. It has been documented using data from WOT. All you have to do is look at the already existing battles with odds from 40/60 to 50/50 to 60/40 and the answer is plain as day. It is not theory, it is real data that already exists.

​So you are saying that WOT has done full on testing with SBMM and has proven that it is a failure.

I didn't say that at all, so don't try to twist my words into something I didn't mean. Your transparent attempt to frame the discussion so that only "full on testing" can provide the answers we need is a failed argument, anyone who knows anything about data analysis knows that there are other ways to arrive at a valid answer.

 

1) We have an existing body of data collected from WoT using proper methods of data gathering (from and by Neatoman).

2) That data provides a sufficient sample size, and the methods of data collection were good, which means data analysis is possible and can give the answers needed.

3) Analysis of his data shows that SBMM would not provide the results that advocates of SBMM claim it would.

* In addition to this internal evidence, probability theory and statistics are both things that exist even though you apparently don't understand them, and they have been used repeatedly to show how SBMM would affect the game and just as importantly they show how SBMM would not affect the game, despite what SBMM advocates hope for. This simple truth is that we never needed Neatoman's data, anyone who understands the mathematical concepts could tell you how SBMM would (and would not) affect the game, analysis of his data merely served to validate the mathematical evidence that already existed.

 

Just because you wish things were different doesn't make it so. We all know that in your heart of hearts you wish that SBMM would "fix" the things that you dislike about WoT, but wishful thinking doesn't change reality. The truth does not agree with what you wish would happen.


Edited by Pipinghot, Apr 08 2018 - 17:38.


archer0142 #55 Posted Apr 08 2018 - 17:07

    Private

  • Players
  • 26765 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    08-18-2012
I agree, mm is [edited]. There should never be more than a two tier spread, regardless of what type of tank your playing. Myself, I never play a match if there's two tiers above me, I just go back to the garage and play a different tank. I'd play every match, with only a two tier spread. The game has so many different tanks, that we pick to play cause of their abilities,(speed versus armor) it sucks when your matched tier8 to tier10.

Gunadie #56 Posted Apr 08 2018 - 22:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 40691 battles
  • 4,787
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 07 2018 - 14:04, said:

Nope. It has been documented using data from WOT. All you have to do is look at the already existing battles with odds from 40/60 to 50/50 to 60/40 and the answer is plain as day. It is not theory, it is real data that already exists.

 

Once again you are wrong!

No data for SBMM, exists as it hasn't and cant been tracked.

Using XVM with 40/60, 50/50 and 60/40 is not using SBMM factual data, its using projected data from a players stats and is subject to so many variables

that its accuracy is invalid attempting to apply it to SBMM.

But once again you are using stats that don't include a players games played or number of games in each tier which is why any statistical data lacks validity when applied to the solution I have proposed.

You are attempting to disprove it by using projected theory of validity by something Neatoman has done to prove/disprove SBMM and its effects on the game.

What I have suggested only uses a players stats collected into their PR and it would probably be the second most weighted factor of the three I proposed and very close to the last.

The only way around this is re-rolls.

You are nothing but negative and think you have some unwarranted intellect that makes you believe any other viewpoint or opinion that opposes you is invalid.

Just as you have when I pointed out how wrong you were regarding the green thread posted above.

Wrong, arrogant and narrow-minded and cant accept that a balanced MM is to the benefit of the game and not intended to rob "better" players of the ability to perform

but to let all players have even odds to win and not have the chance stacked against them from the onset!

A SBMM would have 15 players all with similar stats playing against 15 players with similar stats to those.

All I have suggested is that one side of the battle doesn't have an over weighted amount off NHL caliber players vs one that's heavily weighted with Pee wee players

Shifting them across the playing field until each side has an equal share of NHL and pee wee players.

All you have done is show how close minded you are and how guarded you are to any change that makes it fair for all players to be on equal footing regardless of which team they are on.


 



Pipinghot #57 Posted Apr 09 2018 - 00:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,597
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostGunadie, on Apr 08 2018 - 16:49, said:

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 07 2018 - 14:04, said:

Nope. It has been documented using data from WOT. All you have to do is look at the already existing battles with odds from 40/60 to 50/50 to 60/40 and the answer is plain as day. It is not theory, it is real data that already exists.

Once again you are wrong!

No data for SBMM, exists as it hasn't and cant been tracked.

Using XVM with 40/60, 50/50 and 60/40 is not using SBMM factual data, its using projected data from a players stats and is subject to so many variables that its accuracy is invalid attempting to apply it to SBMM.

It's obvious you are never going to understand, you clearly don't know how to extract information from a data set and use it to do data analysis on how SBMM would work. There is nothing wrong with not knowing things, everybody has tons of stuff they don't know including me, but there is something wrong with being willfully ignorant and sticking your fingers in your ears when people who do understand it tell you how it works. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it false, many things exist that you don't understand and may things are true that you don't understand, this is one of them.

 

The bottom line is that you don't know what you're talking about, but for some reason that doesn't stop you from talking.


Edited by Pipinghot, Apr 09 2018 - 00:17.


Gunadie #58 Posted Apr 09 2018 - 02:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 40691 battles
  • 4,787
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 08 2018 - 15:15, said:

It's obvious you are never going to understand, you clearly don't know how to extract information from a data set and use it to do data analysis on how SBMM would work. There is nothing wrong with not knowing things, everybody has tons of stuff they don't know including me, but there is something wrong with being willfully ignorant and sticking your fingers in your ears when people who do understand it tell you how it works. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it false, many things exist that you don't understand and may things are true that you don't understand, this is one of them.

 

The bottom line is that you don't know what you're talking about, but for some reason that doesn't stop you from talking.

 

Its one thing to stick ones fingers in ones ears but it a whole different thing to fail to see and read what's plainly in front of you!

You are still harping about SBMM and cant see anything else because you don't want to!


 

Maybe you cant read it unless its a different color from all the rest!

Maybe you just have an extremely low comprehension level

Or maybe you need someone else to say its ok to look at what has not been explained to you.

I somewhat understand and have some back ground in statistical analysis from mathematics.

I also understanding that my ability at deducing information isn't limited to what I was taught by others,

where as it appears that is not the case for you.

Because your still tracked on SBMM you will not understand or comprehend anything else that is put forth.

It appears you are no better at figuring out how someone creates another topic out of an existing post than you are at

understand how and why a balanced MM is important for everyone.

And please, no more replies about applied data to sbmm from neat-o-man because you are off track and it appears your ability

is limited, so its therefore pointless to go on.


 


 



DankoSlovak #59 Posted Apr 09 2018 - 02:16

    Private

  • Players
  • 22579 battles
  • 7
  • [CNUCK] CNUCK
  • Member since:
    04-01-2013
MM overall is tolerable.  But I will loudly disagree with ANYONE who says matchmaking doesn't need fixing.  I've been in too many lop-sided matches where, despite a fairly balanced tank distribution across teams, the enemy team (or mine, for that matter) is made up of mostly top-ranked players.  Instant steamroll.  Given that WG maintains a personal rating for each  player, why not incorporate that into the  MM algorithm? Seems to me it's doable, and would make for truly balanced matches.

Gunadie #60 Posted Apr 09 2018 - 03:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 40691 battles
  • 4,787
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostDankoSlovak, on Apr 08 2018 - 17:16, said:

MM overall is tolerable.  But I will loudly disagree with ANYONE who says matchmaking doesn't need fixing.  I've been in too many lop-sided matches where, despite a fairly balanced tank distribution across teams, the enemy team (or mine, for that matter) is made up of mostly top-ranked players.  Instant steamroll.  Given that WG maintains a personal rating for each  player, why not incorporate that into the  MM algorithm? Seems to me it's doable, and would make for truly balanced matches.

 

Because eventually everyone's win rate would blend together toward 50% until all winrates were close to the same.

and as one moved away plus or minus they would be put back there by the MM with the ones that strayed outside of it on the opposite side of the 50%.

MM would continually push all players toward draws.


 







Also tagged with Matchmaker

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users