Jump to content


How to fix Match Maker!


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

Gunadie #1 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 21:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 39841 battles
  • 4,503
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

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, (straight across) 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 (which should be minimal) until 10% is achieved.

This would obviously create an issue if 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 using just a players games and PR, I believe there would be an immediate benefit to this games match balance.

> I think its a realistic possible solution that would require minimal effort on War Gaming part and could be tested IRL with the NA server as a trial.



_Tsavo_ #2 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 21:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 40592 battles
  • 16,506
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

So, one of the many forms of skill based MM that would shrink the bell curve?  Blowouts will still exist simply due to the single-death, no-HP-regeneration setup that lets an advantage continue to build to obscene levels.

 

No, thanks.



Gunadie #3 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 21:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 39841 battles
  • 4,503
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View Post_Tsavo, on Apr 06 2018 - 12:30, said:

So, one of the many forms of skill based MM that would shrink the bell curve?  Blowouts will still exist simply due to the single-death, no-HP-regeneration setup that lets an advantage continue to build to obscene levels.

 

No, thanks.

 

Expain how this shinks the bell curve as it is a mix of players that vary in

# of games played which is the single most significant number and cant shrink the curve easily.

If you are basing a SBMM with only a WR applied it would, but not if the players W/R is not even factored into it!.

And as for this SD, no reg.nonsense, what does this have to do with what I proposed?

All three factors that determine a players number have no bearing on Win rate. (marginally applies to PR)

PR is performance based and games played and games played by the player in their selected tank are individual and unaffected by wins or loses!



hikerjon1 #4 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 21:47

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 32949 battles
  • 263
  • Member since:
    04-28-2013

The issue is not with player performance overall, but with performance of the top three players in the current template. The matchmaker, in it's current form, can assign three top-tier tanks to each team--which obviously will have the most potential to impact the game. If the three players are very strong--or better yet, are in a platoon--they can absolutely dominate the game. Likewise, three top-tier tanks that are weaker players leave the rest of their team to take up the slack--in low tier tanks that are meant to support and not carry games. 

 

They should open up the matchmaker and let go of the current template system. Sure, there will be the occasional blowout, but the variety will produce more dynamic play and keep teams from relying so much on who's driving the top three tanks on a team. 

 

Tsavo is right about this being a one-death game. The randomness, including player skill, is actually the game's strength. Every game is new, different, and challenging in its own way. Skill-based matchmaking would make games far more predictable and boring.



Gunadie #5 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 21:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 39841 battles
  • 4,503
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

Do you really think that having one player that dies and upsets the advantage is going to be better or worse when the teams are more balanced

Or does one ignore the fact that there could be several players that will yolo to death when the lessor team has more yolo experts on it?

You cant fix what an inexperienced player or dumb bell will do at any given point but what it will do is balance the number of yolo queens possibilities on each side so that they are equal.

To do nothing because of something that no on can control is foolish and ignorant.



LintinPocket #6 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 21:58

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 455 battles
  • 410
  • Member since:
    06-29-2015

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 14:37, said:

 

 

And as for this SD, no reg.nonsense, what does this have to do with what I proposed?

No matter what form of MM is used to determine initial pairings a single death throws whatever form of MM statistically out the window. It isn't rocket science its less HP pool and less DPM. With each death the odds/ranking/PR number/Win rate number whatever you are basing it on changes.

 

What it has to do with your initial statement is that it will reduce blowouts. Which in every game its been applied to that is not the case. Early deaths...create blowouts. As each one occurs its snowballs until no matter how good the remaining players are they get overwhelmed by superior numbers/HP pool and firepower.



Gunadie #7 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 22:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 39841 battles
  • 4,503
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View Posthikerjon1, on Apr 06 2018 - 12:47, said:

The issue is not with player performance overall, but with performance of the top three players in the current template. The matchmaker, in it's current form, can assign three top-tier tanks to each team--which obviously will have the most potential to impact the game. If the three players are very strong--or better yet, are in a platoon--they can absolutely dominate the game. Likewise, three top-tier tanks that are weaker players leave the rest of their team to take up the slack--in low tier tanks that are meant to support and not carry games.

 

They should open up the matchmaker and let go of the current template system. Sure, there will be the occasional blowout, but the variety will produce more dynamic play and keep teams from relying so much on who's driving the top three tanks on a team.

 

Tsavo is right about this being a one-death game. The randomness, including player skill, is actually the game's strength. Every game is new, different, and challenging in its own way. Skill-based matchmaking would make games far more predictable and boring.

 

Not all games are 3,5,7 some are 15/15,  5/10 etc etc.

And if 3 top players are strong on one side and weak on the other its an automatic blow out unless the mids and low tiers are balanced.

No one ever complains that the game was balanced and it was a bad game..

If anything it just the opposite!

I also believe you are dead wrong that the randomness is any sort of game strength because the only players that like this are the ones with high skill and it allows them to stay on the top of the garbage heap.

Otherwise there wouldn't be such opposition as we have now to this MM and the high amount of bad games that are not exciting even for the winning team

No challenge in a blow out against a team of less than mediocre newbies.. its just a feeding some stats not the games over quality for everyone.



Gunadie #8 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 22:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 39841 battles
  • 4,503
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostLintinPocket, on Apr 06 2018 - 12:58, said:

No matter what form of MM is used to determine initial pairings a single death throws whatever form of MM statistically out the window. It isn't rocket science its less HP pool and less DPM. With each death the odds/ranking/PR number/Win rate number whatever you are basing it on changes.

 

What it has to do with your initial statement is that it will reduce blowouts. Which in every game its been applied to that is not the case. Early deaths...create blowouts. As each one occurs its snowballs until no matter how good the remaining players are they get overwhelmed by superior numbers/HP pool and firepower.

 

One death reduces one sides chances but can easily be offset by a kill from the other side.

Using this as an example as a reason to not provide initial balance to the teams and is stupid and narrow minded!



LintinPocket #9 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 22:03

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 455 battles
  • 410
  • Member since:
    06-29-2015

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 14:51, said:

Do you really think that having one player that dies and upsets the advantage is going to be better or worse when the teams are more balanced

Or does one ignore the fact that there could be several players that will yolo to death when the lessor team has more yolo experts on it?

You cant fix what an inexperienced player or dumb bell will do at any given point but what it will do is balance the number of yolo queens possibilities on each side so that they are equal.

To do nothing because of something that no on can control is foolish and ignorant.

 

Personally except for the idea that has been floated out there at times of segregation by skills I don't care what kind of MM they use. On EU the current one works for us fine because of the population pool.  Yes there are objectors and yes there are blow outs. But they are not excessive. I don't think you can convince WG to rewrite a basic program that has been the basis of their game for a minority of the total games population that NA represents.

LintinPocket #10 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 22:10

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 455 battles
  • 410
  • Member since:
    06-29-2015

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 15:03, said:

 

One death reduces one sides chances but can easily be offset by a kill from the other side.

Using this as an example as a reason to not provide initial balance to the teams and is stupid and narrow minded!

 

Nothing stupid or narrow minded about it. It is a fact. As each death occurs on a blowout the odds of that team actually balancing out the match with a kill is dramatically reduced. No point was made as this was a reason not to change you possibly need to not read into a statement. You are so geared up for negativity lashing out and not reading doesn't help your argument.

 

Your proposal wont cure blowouts. Your proposal might create matches that are more fun but the number of snowball matches wont change. Like I said it doesn't matter to me what form of MM they use. I do not think its a major issue at least not on EU. Population has a lot to do with the possible issues you think you see on NA.



Gunadie #11 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 22:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 39841 battles
  • 4,503
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostLintinPocket, on Apr 06 2018 - 13:03, said:

 

Personally except for the idea that has been floated out there at times of segregation by skills I don't care what kind of MM they use. On EU the current one works for us fine because of the population pool.  Yes there are objectors and yes there are blow outs. But they are not excessive. I don't think you can convince WG to rewrite a basic program that has been the basis of their game for a minority of the total games population that NA represents.

 

War gaming has rewritten the MM already and not because of just the NA server!

I have no idea if the RU or any of the other servers have the same sort of blow out problem but I doubt its as problematic with hi pop stats servers.

I'm not playing on them. so my concerns are only with the NA server.

If you play on the EU server why come here and discourage a solution for change to have better games on this NA server?



LintinPocket #12 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 22:15

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 455 battles
  • 410
  • Member since:
    06-29-2015

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 15:11, said:

 

War gaming has rewritten the MM already and not because of just the NA server!

I have no idea if the RU or any of the other servers have the same sort of blow out problem but I doubt its as problematic with hi pop stats servers.

I'm not playing on them. so my concerns are only with the NA server.

If you play on the EU server why come here and discourage a solution for change to have better games on this NA server?

 

Where do you see a discouragement of a change? Matter of fact if you were not geared up to fight you may of noticed i said twice it doesn't matter to me. Simply said one of your initial statements was it would help blow outs it wont. Did you post this to create arguments or discussion?

Edited by LintinPocket, Apr 06 2018 - 22:16.


Gunadie #13 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 22:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 39841 battles
  • 4,503
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostLintinPocket, on Apr 06 2018 - 13:10, said:

 

Nothing stupid or narrow minded about it. It is a fact. As each death occurs on a blowout the odds of that team actually balancing out the match with a kill is dramatically reduced. No point was made as this was a reason not to change you possibly need to not read into a statement. You are so geared up for negativity lashing out and not reading doesn't help your argument.

 

Your proposal wont cure blowouts. Your proposal might create matches that are more fun but the number of snowball matches wont change. Like I said it doesn't matter to me what form of MM they use. I do not think its a major issue at least not on EU. Population has a lot to do with the possible issues you think you see on NA.

 

I never said it would cure "blowouts" !

I said it would reduce the number of them and improve game quality

Calling a statement stupid and narrow minded is not lashing out (its just stating facts as you like to put it, without any modicum of proof behind it)



GWyatt #14 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 22:18

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 2718 battles
  • 52
  • [VAN] VAN
  • Member since:
    11-23-2015

To make this work, would you not have to balance not just the team's overall score but also have to balance between slots? Such as in a 3/5/7 you would have to balance the 3, then the 5, then the 7 between teams, otherwise you could have top players at top tier on one team, and top players bottom tier on the other. The teams would be balanced total score but not balanced in gameplay.

 

Then would you not have to also balance who is in what class tank. You could have all your top players on one team in lights, and heavies on the other or in TDs or whatever. If that happens then the teams could still be unbalanced in gameplay. Seems to be a bit more complicated than simply moving players from one side or the other to balance the overall team PR value.



LintinPocket #15 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 22:22

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 455 battles
  • 410
  • Member since:
    06-29-2015

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 15:17, said:

 

I never said it would cure "blowouts" !

I said it would reduce the number of them and improve game quality

Calling a statement stupid and narrow minded is not lashing out (its just stating facts as you like to put it, without any modicum of proof behind it)

 

I guess similar to saying it would reduce blowouts with no proof? OK enjoy your personal conversation with yourself. If this actually comes about I know where it came from but wont hold my breath waiting. Enjoy.

Gunadie #16 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 22:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 39841 battles
  • 4,503
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostLintinPocket, on Apr 06 2018 - 13:15, said:

 

Where do you see a discouragement of a change? Matter of fact if you were not geared up to fight you may of noticed i said twice it doesn't matter to me. Simply said one of your initial statements was it would help blow outs it wont. Did you post this to create arguments or discussion?

 

Because you come here and state without proof that it will not reduce blowouts and also that you do not care so what is your point!

to me it appears to be nothing but refuting a statement with no proof and therefore discouraging change.

It looks like you are the one who came to trade barbs in my eyes.



Pipinghot #17 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 22:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,395
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 15:24, said:

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.

That's not an "issue", it's a deliberate design choice by WG. There's nothing wrong with how the MM works, you just don't like WG's choice in how they want their game to work.

 

You absolutely have the right to prefer a different design for the MM, but in no way is that an "issue" and nothing needs to be "fixed".

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 15:24, said:

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

Well that depends on what you mean by "improve". WG thinks it doesn't need improving, and they have millions of people around the globe who agree with them. It's mostly in NA that people talk about this so much.

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 15:24, said:

and reduce blowouts.

That's already been done.

 

Neatoman has published very good data on the percentage of blowouts at different odds of winning, broken down quite nicely. The short version is that all battles from 30/70 to 50/50 to 70/30 odds of winning have basically the same number of blowouts, it's only when you go beyond 30/70 or 70/30 that blowouts increase but those are only a tiny portion of the battles. The great majority of battles fall between 30/70 and 70/30. Even if all of those extreme battles were eliminated you would not be able to notice the difference, the actual change in the number of blowouts would be small enough that you would not be able to notice it simply by playing the game, the difference would only be detectable by data analysis. So, a skill-balanced MM could reduce blowouts only by a tiny bit, no one in their right mind would call it "significant", therefore SBMM would not 'significantly reduce blowouts'.

 

This information has been out there for quite a while now, it's nothing new.

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 15:24, said:

This approach has never been applied or tried in Public MM and so therefore neither proved or disproved!
It has been proved using existing data from the game. It is entirely unnecessary to 'try it in the public MM', we already have the data and the answer.

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 15:24, said:

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.

The method doesn't matter, all forms of skill balancing end up creating the same set of results - every player in the game would be pushed even closer to 50% WR than they already are, which would give wins to bad players that they haven't earned by robbing better players of wins they could have earned. Any form of SBMM leads to the same results, it's just simple math.

 

And, to make matters worse, it still wouldn't result in a noticeable reduction in blowouts, as a player you still wouldn't be able to tell the difference and people would complain about blowouts just as much as they do now.

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 15:24, said:

I think its a realistic possible solution that would require minimal effort on War Gaming part and could be tested IRL with the NA server as a trial.

Which is completely unnecessary, we already have the data and we already know the answers.


Edited by Pipinghot, Apr 06 2018 - 22:26.


P_A_N_Z_E_R #18 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 22:29

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 46285 battles
  • 327
  • [D-DAY] D-DAY
  • Member since:
    05-30-2013
I play mostly tier 8 and have no issues. Bad players on my team allow me to farm incredibke damage. Humiliating tier 10 bring a lot of satisfaction and xp. Why change?

LintinPocket #19 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 22:33

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 455 battles
  • 410
  • Member since:
    06-29-2015

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 06 2018 - 15:26, said:

That's not an "issue", it's a deliberate design choice by WG. There's nothing wrong with how the MM works, you just don't like WG's choice in how they want their game to work.

 

You absolutely have the right to prefer a different design for the MM, but in no way is that an "issue" and nothing needs to be "fixed".

Well that depends on what you mean by "improve". WG thinks it doesn't need improving, and they have millions of people around the globe who agree with them. It's mostly in NA that people talk about this so much.

That's already been done.

 

Neatoman has published very good data on the percentage of blowouts at different odds of winning, broken down quite nicely. The short version is that all battles from 30/70 to 50/50 to 70/30 odds of winning have basically the same number of blowouts, it's only when you go beyond 30/70 or 70/30 that blowouts increase but those are only a tiny portion of the battles. The great majority of battles fall between 30/70 and 70/30. Even if all of those extreme battles were eliminated you would not be able to notice the difference, the actual change in the number of blowouts would be small enough that you would not be able to notice it simply by playing the game, the difference would only be detectable by data analysis. So, a skill-balanced MM could reduce blowouts only by a tiny bit, no one in their right mind would call it "significant", therefore SBMM would not 'significantly reduce blowouts'.

 

This information has been out there for quite a while now, it's nothing new.

It has been proved using existing data from the game. It is entirely unnecessary to 'try it in the public MM', we already have the data and the answer.

The method doesn't matter, all forms of skill balancing end up creating the same set of results - every player in the game would be pushed even closer to 50% WR than they already are, which would give wins to bad players that they haven't earned by robbing better players of wins they could have earned. Any form of SBMM leads to the same results, it's just simple math.

 

And, to make matters worse, it still wouldn't result in a noticeable reduction in blowouts, as a player you still wouldn't be able to tell the difference and people would complain about blowouts just as much as they do now.

Which is completely unnecessary, we already have the data and we already know the answers.

 

Great answer but it wont cure deaf ears.

LintinPocket #20 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 22:37

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 455 battles
  • 410
  • Member since:
    06-29-2015

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 15:22, said:

 

 

It looks like you are the one who can to trade barbs in my eyes.

 

Of course it does.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users