Jump to content


How to fix Match Maker!


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

Awestryker #21 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 22:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 25154 battles
  • 2,665
  • Member since:
    01-15-2013

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.

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.

 

MM is fine...at most they should perhaps make 5/10 prefered over 3/5/7 in tier 8+ matches...also, they should perhaps stop putting low armor heavies against super heavies, and high armor meds against low armor meds, and perhaps make auot loaders even per team...

 

Sorry to be blunt here, but your loss problems are due to you and how much damage you do...

You need to change your tactics to do more damage...

 

Here is why I am saying that...

Look at your 60-day stats...768 battles with average damage of 1188 per game at tier 8...bring that up to 1600 to 1700 average damage per game, which is just 2 or 3 hits more per game, and guess what, you will have more winning streaks...

 

Three of your most played tanks are artys...You have 5500 games in just one arty...stop playing arties...its tough to really help carry in an arty...playing arty is like asking your team to carry you all the time...

 


Edited by Awestryker, Apr 06 2018 - 23:05.


Buttknuckle #22 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 22:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 44948 battles
  • 2,223
  • [GOONZ] GOONZ
  • Member since:
    03-19-2013

1st off OP, you challenge people to "prove" that some sort of skill balanced MM would not improve the game, than go on to state that you "believe" it would. Thats not how intelegent discussions work. You should "prove" that it would drastically improve the game, and then provide the data and interpretation on how you came to the conclusion for peer review.


 

2nd. Do you remember the XVM%win chance? It basically gave the probability of a teams likleyhood to win based on the individual skill level of every player on the team (using Wn8 as the measure of skill). Every graph of I've seen of large data sets of %win chance have shown that the games made by randon MM plot as a fairly gaussian curve around the 50% mark, with the majority of games filled having a chance to win in the 40 - 60% range. So you are already getting fairly skill ballanced games most of the time. Why bother implementing a new MM for the same results for most of your games?


 

3rd. If you start with the premise that good players should win more in random games, which is something WG has stated as a core belief, than implementing a skill balanced MM isnt possible. Eliminating those outlier games (compressing the bell curve) decreases the individual players ability to impact the outcome. Ultimately it would cause everyones win rate to migrate closer to 50%. For example, take 2 teams with 2 players each; one 60% player and one 40% player. Have them play against each other for 100 games. It is mathematically impossible that all of these players will maintain their win rates across the 100 game trial.


 

4th. There is no good metric to judge a players skill that doesnt include win rate. You are wrong in your assumption that win rate is not considered in PR. Using PR would only be a short term solution because as win rates migrate toward 50% the ranges of players PR would also narrow. So we'd need to come up with a metric that doesnt include win rate. Good luck thinking of one that cant be padded or manipulated based on the stats that are tracked currently in game. For example, I can practically hear people scoffing at your assertion that the number of games a player has should in any way be an indication of how good that player is.


 

In short, all a skill balance MM would do is compress ranges in win rate and PR to the point that there could be a noticible actual skill disparity between two players with similar stats, and thus you'd eventually end up with games that appear "balanced" based on your weighting system but wherein the actual skill of the players on opposing teams is similar to what we have with random MM. So why bother. All you've done is make it so better players no longer win more games.


 


 


 


 



Kamahl1234 #23 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 23:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 18390 battles
  • 10,078
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 20:37, said:

 

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.

 

Because you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink.

 

# of games played is no indicator of skill at all. 



Gunadie #24 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 23:03

    Major

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

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 06 2018 - 13:26, 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".

According to the amount of posts and treads on and out of game many would disagree with this statement!


 

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. Obviously they do as they have already changed the MM several times

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.

There is no information to prove this will not works as SBMM has never been implemented.

Taking stats from non-sbmm games is applying statistics that are invalid to prove the validity


 

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.

Once again, trying to apply irrelevant data to reason away something else

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.

Once again, method certainly does matter! You cannot refute something just because you think you are attempting to act intellectually superior and state "simple math" explains this away...It does not!

 

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.

This is little more than speculation and conjecture on your part and has no weight here.

I am not solely concerned about removing or even reducing blow outs as you seem to emphasis with such narrow minded determination,

Its more about the over all game quality that, imo, has suffered significantly.

Many players have appear to have left and the remaining players are diluted amongst a group of lessor experienced players in higher tier tanks than their skill levels would have allowed in the years past due to easy credit harvesting with premium tanks and account.

This may be good for WG pockets but is at the expense of the game..and yes this Is My Opinion.

But it is also the opinion of many who are disappointed with what the game is reduced too

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

Once again, I disagree. Say we know the answers is not proof and without and for of SBMM in the form I put forth to you, there is no proof!

 



Gunadie #25 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 23:06

    Major

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

View PostKamahl1234, on Apr 06 2018 - 14:00, said:

Because you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink.

 

# of games played is no indicator of skill at all.

 

Exactly, and I never said it was!

But it is an indicator of experienced and therefor a good factor to use in providing a balanced game match maker!



Gunadie #26 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 23:10

    Major

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

View PostAwestryker, on Apr 06 2018 - 13:58, said:

 

MM is fine...at most they should perhaps make 5/10 prefered over 3/5/7 in tier 8+ matches...also, they should perhaps stop putting low armor heavies against super heavies, and high armor meds against low armor meds, and perhaps make auot loaders even per team...

 

Sorry to be blunt here, but your loss problems are due to you and how much damage you do...

You need to change your tactics to do more damage...

 

Here is why I am saying that...

Look at your 60-day stats...768 battles with average damage of 1188 per game at tier 8...bring that up to 1600 to 1700 average damage per game, which is just 2 or 3 hits more per game, and guess what, you will have more winning streaks...

 

Three of your most played tanks are artys...You have 5500 games in just one arty...stop playing arties...its tough to really help carry in an arty...playing arty is like asking your team to carry you all the time...

 

 

Great! Now your changing the subject from MM to my stats

please stay on topic and stop telling me what tanks I should play.

Do I tell you to stop playing a tank you enjoys for one reason or another?



GeorgePreddy #27 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 23:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 14345 battles
  • 9,035
  • [L_LEG] L_LEG
  • Member since:
    04-11-2013

Hey... Gunadie;

 

Yesterday you said you were done with WoT and intimated that you were leaving.

 

What changed your mind ?



Panman69 #28 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 23:25

    Captain

  • Players
  • 33527 battles
  • 1,092
  • Member since:
    05-30-2012

So I wonder, will skill-based MM also take into account the skills of the players that bought their accounts?

Or, the re-rolls?

Or, those accounts being paid to have someone else make it better?

 

I'm not saying that any of those situations are actually viable and/or occur. I've only heard rumors of them and was curious how they could be handled if they did exist.



Gunadie #29 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 23:50

    Major

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

View PostButtknuckle, on Apr 06 2018 - 13:59, said:

1st off OP, you challenge people to "prove" that some sort of skill balanced MM would not improve the game, than go on to state that you "believe" it would. Thats not how intelegent discussions work. You should "prove" that it would drastically improve the game, and then provide the data and interpretation on how you came to the conclusion for peer review.

You're absolutely right I have no proof that a "balanced MM would improve the games.

What I see now is a lot of unhappy players tired of lop-sided games that are not very fun for them and numerous comments to this.

What I brought forth was a possible solution to elicit discussion


 

2nd. Do you remember the XVM%win chance? It basically gave the probability of a teams likleyhood to win based on the individual skill level of every player on the team (using Wn8 as the measure of skill). Every graph of I've seen of large data sets of %win chance have shown that the games made by randon MM plot as a fairly gaussian curve around the 50% mark, with the majority of games filled having a chance to win in the 40 - 60% range. So you are already getting fairly skill ballanced games most of the time. Why bother implementing a new MM for the same results for most of your games?

What I recall of XVM is a lot of unbalanced games produced by the MM and it wasn't exactly accurate.

Sorry but I haven't played with XVM in years (3 or more)

Obviously WG and many players have though MM wasn't very balanced as they have revamped it several times and players continue to be unhappy with it.

(and yes I know some are)


 

3rd. If you start with the premise that good players should win more in random games, which is something WG has stated as a core belief, than implementing a skill balanced MM isnt possible. Eliminating those outlier games (compressing the bell curve) decreases the individual players ability to impact the outcome. Ultimately it would cause everyones win rate to migrate closer to 50%. For example, take 2 teams with 2 players each; one 60% player and one 40% player. Have them play against each other for 100 games. It is mathematically impossible that all of these players will maintain their win rates across the 100 game trial.

I fail to see how you believe that a MM based on PR, games played and games played in a given tier will compress the BC to mid point to a point that it will effect the quality of games.

The only ones that care about W/R to that extent are being vain. quality of individual match is the reason I suggest change, not to boost stats.


 

4th. There is no good metric to judge a players skill that doesnt include win rate. You are wrong in your assumption that win rate is not considered in PR. Using PR would only be a short term solution because as win rates migrate toward 50% the ranges of players PR would also narrow. So we'd need to come up with a metric that doesnt include win rate. Good luck thinking of one that cant be padded or manipulated based on the stats that are tracked currently in game. For example, I can practically hear people scoffing at your assertion that the number of games a player has should in any way be an indication of how good that player is.

I believe a player ability to contribute to a good game is directly related to his or her # of games played. which relates to map familiarity, initial positioning and sequential direction, game tactics, command of tank plus a whole host of other skills that players with few games played could not acquire.

Do you want to tell me you do not hone your skill with each game that passes?

So therefore I believe it is a very valuable factor to use as something to balanced players in teams


 

In short, all a skill balance MM would do is compress ranges in win rate and PR to the point that there could be a noticible actual skill disparity between two players with similar stats, and thus you'd eventually end up with games that appear "balanced" based on your weighting system but wherein the actual skill of the players on opposing teams is similar to what we have with random MM. So why bother. All you've done is make it so better players no longer win more games.

You are discounting the variable that are random and that is the maps,  tanks and tiers selected, who you are paired up with and against, familiarity of tank a player is using, his load out,

his crew skills and perks which change with ever draw or push of a player start button.

I am less concerned with a compression of a bell curve which would so gradual that it would have minimal impact in this game compared to player being placed in battles with 10 ripe tomatoes

on their team against half a dozen blues and some greens.

Looks to me like some players are nervous of a bit of completion and a reduction of easy stat harvesting for bragging rights and false egos

This just in the forums >

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/81nov293ej90ss3/Nothing%20Wrong.jpg?dl=0
 


 


 


 

 



Gunadie #30 Posted Apr 07 2018 - 00:08

    Major

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

View PostGeorgePreddy, on Apr 06 2018 - 14:11, said:

Hey... Gunadie;

 

Yesterday you said you were done with WoT and intimated that you were leaving.

 

What changed your mind ?

 

For someone who spend so much time in the forums I'm surprised your reading and comprehension level is so low.

When you are ready to step up and man up (or woman up) the rest of us are up here above tier 5 !

The topic is about Match maker Goe.

But I guess you wouldn't know about a number of issues at the upper tiers where it's a somewhat more prevalent issue for many players.



Pipinghot #31 Posted Apr 07 2018 - 00:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,394
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 17:03, said:

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 06 2018 - 13:26, 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".

According to the amount of posts and treads on and out of game many would disagree with this statement!

Then you don't understand how forums work. In every game, the majority of people who post on the forums go to the forums to begin with because they wanted to complain about something. Some of them stay and participate further, but complaining about the game is the #1 activity on every forum for every game. You absolutely cannot use the ratio of good/bad forums posts as a way to explain whether or not the game needs to be "fixed", that's just bad thinking.

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 17:03, said:

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 06 2018 - 13:26, said:

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. Obviously they do as they have already changed the MM several times

Ok, thats a fair point so I'll phrase this differently. WG does not agree that the MM needs to have skill based matchmaking, and they don't agree that SBMM would be an improvement, which they have demonstrated plenty of times by saying they're not going to add it and they don't think it would be an improvement. WG has made changes to the MM that they believe are improvements, and does not believe that SBMM would be an improvement which is why they're not going to do it.

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 17:03, said:

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 06 2018 - 13:26, said:

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.

There is no information to prove this will not works as SBMM has never been implemented.

Taking stats from non-sbmm games is applying statistics that are invalid to prove the validity

Yes, as I've already stated there is evidence that SBMM would not prevent blowouts or even significantly reduce them. That evidence is "taken from" three different sources inside of WoT - Clan Wars, Skirmishes and the studies that Neatoman has published on these forums. The fact that you don't want to admit that the evidence exists is meaningless, it exists whether you like it or not.

 

You, on the other hand, have offered absolutely zero evidence about how SBMM might or might not change the game, all you have is your unsupported "belief". You indulge of expecting other people to "prove" that you're wrong but you don't even bother to provide the slightest evidence that you're right.

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 17:03, said:

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 06 2018 - 13:26, said:

 

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.

Once again, trying to apply irrelevant data to reason away something else

Once again, it is entirely relevant data gather from this very game.

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 17:03, said:

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 06 2018 - 13:26, said:

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.

Once again, method certainly does matter! You cannot refute something just because you think you are attempting to act intellectually superior and state "simple math" explains this away...It does not!

No, the method of SBMM doesn't, and the fact that you think it does merely proves that you don't understand the math for how it works. Any method of balancing the skills between the two teams will have the same results. It doesn't matter whether you pre-select people based on their stats, or whether you swap people between the two teams based on their stats after the MM selects them, the net result is the same. Any method that balances the skills between the two teams leads to the same results.

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 17:03, said:

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 06 2018 - 13:26, said:

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.

This is little more than speculation and conjecture on your part and has no weight here.

False. It's base on valid evidence that has been reviewed and vetted many times here on the forums. It doesn't have any "weight" with you personally, because you don't like it when valid evidence disagrees with you. You want your feelings to be more important than real evidence, and that's just not going to happen.

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 17:03, said:

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 06 2018 - 13:26, said:

 

I am not solely concerned about removing or even reducing blow outs as you seem to emphasis with such narrow minded determination,

Its more about the over all game quality that, imo, has suffered significantly.

The two types of "quality" you have talked about are a) team balance and b) blowouts.

a) WG doesn't agree with your personal preference, they don't think the teams need to be balanced every battle the way you want them to.

b) SBMM would not significantly reduce blowouts, so that kind of "quality" simply would not change.

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 17:03, said:

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 06 2018 - 13:26, said:

Many players have appear to have left and the remaining players are diluted amongst a group of lessor experienced players in higher tier tanks than their skill levels would have allowed in the years past due to easy credit harvesting with premium tanks and account.

This may be good for WG pockets but is at the expense of the game..and yes this Is My Opinion.

But it is also the opinion of many who are disappointed with what the game is reduced too

Well "many players" leave every game that has ever existed, so that by itself is meaningless, it doesn't prove anything about whether WG is doing a good job with the game.

 

And there have always been complaints about "lessor experienced" players in higher tier tanks. It doesn't matter whether there is only one Tier VIII premium tank in the game or 100 of them, this game has always had a constant stream of complaints based on the single fact that brand new players can purchase Tier VIII tanks. These complaints about the quality of the player base have been exactly the same since the days when the Type 59 was the king of Tier VIII premiums. People have always complained bitterly and often about "Tier VIII noobs", there's nothing new about it.

 

Now here's a funny thing - I agree that the constant stream of new Tier VIII tanks is a blatant money grab, it's a crass pattern of behavior by WG. But I dispute anyone who says that it's causing a net loss in the overall player quality in the game, that's another complaint that you see on the forums of every online game. The player base always "used to be better", which is always a bunch of nonsense.

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 17:03, said:

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 06 2018 - 13:26, said:

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

Once again, I disagree. Say we know the answers is not proof and without and for of SBMM in the form I put forth to you, there is no proof!

And once again, the valid evidence exists, regardless of you not liking its existence.



Gunadie #32 Posted Apr 07 2018 - 00:17

    Major

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

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 06 2018 - 15:08, said:

Then you don't understand how forums work. In every game, the majority of people who post on the forums go to the forums to begin with because they wanted to complain about something. Some of them stay and participate further, but complaining about the game is the #1 activity on every forum for every game. You absolutely cannot use the ratio of good/bad forums posts as a way to explain whether or not the game needs to be "fixed", that's just bad thinking.

Ok, thats a fair point so I'll phrase this differently. WG does not agree that the MM needs to have skill based matchmaking, and they don't agree that SBMM would be an improvement, which they have demonstrated plenty of times by saying they're not going to add it and they don't think it would be an improvement. WG has made changes to the MM that they believe are improvements, and does not believe that SBMM would be an improvement which is why they're not going to do it.

Yes, as I've already stated there is evidence that SBMM would not prevent blowouts or even significantly reduce them. That evidence is "taken from" three different sources inside of WoT - Clan Wars, Skirmishes and the studies that Neatoman has published on these forums. The fact that you don't want to admit that the evidence exists is meaningless, it exists whether you like it or not.

 

You, on the other hand, have offered absolutely zero evidence about how SBMM might or might not change the game, all you have is your unsupported "belief". You indulge of expecting other people to "prove" that you're wrong but you don't even bother to provide the slightest evidence that you're right.

Once again, it is entirely relevant data gather from this very game.

No, the method of SBMM doesn't, and the fact that you think it does merely proves that you don't understand the math for how it works. Any method of balancing the skills between the two teams will have the same results. It doesn't matter whether you pre-select people based on their stats, or whether you swap people between the two teams based on their stats after the MM selects them, the net result is the same. Any method that balances the skills between the two teams leads to the same results.

False. It's base on valid evidence that has been reviewed and vetted many times here on the forums. It doesn't have any "weight" with you personally, because you don't like it when valid evidence disagrees with you. You want your feelings to be more important than real evidence, and that's just not going to happen.

The two types of "quality" you have talked about are a) team balance and b) blowouts.

a) WG doesn't agree with your personal preference, they don't think the teams need to be balanced every battle the way you want them to.

b) SBMM would not significantly reduce blowouts, so that kind of "quality" simply would not change.

Well "many players" leave every game that has ever existed, so that by itself is meaningless, it doesn't prove anything about whether WG is doing a good job with the game.

 

And there have always been complaints about "lessor experienced" players in higher tier tanks. It doesn't matter whether there is only one Tier VIII premium tank in the game or 100 of them, this game has always had a constant stream of complaints based on the single fact that brand new players can purchase Tier VIII tanks. These complaints about the quality of the player base have been exactly the same since the days when the Type 59 was the king of Tier VIII premiums. People have always complained bitterly and often about "Tier VIII noobs", there's nothing new about it.

 

Now here's a funny thing - I agree that the constant stream of new Tier VIII tanks is a blatant money grab, it's a crass pattern of behavior by WG. But I dispute anyone who says that it's causing a net loss in the overall player quality in the game, that's another complaint that you see on the forums of every online game. The player base always "used to be better", which is always a bunch of nonsense.

And once again, the valid evidence exists, regardless of you not liking its existence.

 

As I said you are using stats to refute a SBMM and what I am suggesting is not purely SBMM but a combination of PR, Games played and number of games a player has in their selected tier!

What I am suggesting is like recommending that 4 KV-2's are not put on one side but 2 on each team.



pepe_trueno #33 Posted Apr 07 2018 - 00:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 40285 battles
  • 6,185
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011

we can add docen rules that force the MM to consider players skill, platoons, etc.. but that will only increace the wait times aswell as increace the odds of MM going nuts when it cant fullfit those rules, and even if it manage to create balance teams in a reasonable time i doubt it will create good matchs since there are more things to onsider than just player skill, things like map being biased towards a certain type of tank or wild RNG 

 

anyway given the current state of the game i think the best aproach would be to:

 

first: reduce battles from 15 vs 15 to 10 vs 10 and give tanks +-1MM, +-1MM is a much needed improvment to reduce the effects of having bad players specialy as top tier, reducing the teams size will help speed up the MM proces not to mention that current maps are dam small and 15 vs 15 often feels like a can pf sardines (looking at you paris, abbey, dorf, etc.. where is not uncommon to see 10+ tanks in 1 chokepoint)  

 

second: make the exp/silver earning system based on the player performance vs their team performance, if someone did 30% of the total team damage, that player reward should as good as the guy who did 15-20% of the team damage  on the winning side and of course much higher than the guy who did next to nothing, current reward system discourage players from even trying once they see the match is decided not to mention its a godsend for botters since they dont need to do anything just hit the battle button and earn exp by landing on the winning side. 

 


Buttknuckle #34 Posted Apr 07 2018 - 01:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 44948 battles
  • 2,223
  • [GOONZ] GOONZ
  • Member since:
    03-19-2013
 

What I see now is a lot of unhappy players tired of lop-sided games that are not very fun for them and numerous comments to this.

We all see them too, and frankly I've been seeing them for as long as I've been playing. Also, I can completely understand why people think that skill balanced would be the solution. But the reality is that thinking its a solution is an easy first step. People who have the ability to think a little deeper on the topic realize that it wouldn't change the game in the way you think it would.

 

What I brought forth was a possible solution to elicit discussion

That's excellent, but you have to understand that some of the responses you get will disagree with your solution or point out the errors in your hypothesis, and you have to be open to the possibilty that people can convince you that your ideas are ill conceived.


What I recall of XVM is a lot of unbalanced games produced by the MM and it wasn't exactly accurate. Sorry but I haven't played with XVM in years (3 or more)

Your recollection of "a lot" is confirmation bias, as studies have shown that the those largely unbalanced games are outliers. People have a tendency to remember the odd stuff. Also, %win chance was reasonalby accurate.

Obviously WG and many players have though MM wasn't very balanced as they have revamped it several times and players continue to be unhappy with it.

(and yes I know some are).

Yes, some people are and always have been unhappy with it. And yes they have revamped MM but never to include a skill balance component because WG is able to see that it wouldnt be good for the game as they envision it.


I fail to see how you believe that a MM based on PR, games played and games played in a given tier will compress the BC to mid point to a point that it will effect the quality of games.

I thought I explained that pretty well in the following paragraphs: Compression of the range in PR wont effect the quality of games in the long run. My point was that ultimately we would have the same quality of games that we have now so why bother. All you're doing is making it so better players dont win more than bad players.

The only ones that care about W/R to that extent are being vain. quality of individual match is the reason I suggest change, not to boost stats.

Your personal bias is showing here. Caring about win rate doesn't necessarily equate to being vain. Win rate needs to be considered because better players should win more games.


I believe a player ability to contribute to a good game is directly related to his or her # of games played. which relates to map familiarity, initial positioning and sequential direction, game tactics, command of tank plus a whole host of other skills that players with few games played could not acquire.

Do you want to tell me you do not hone your skill with each game that passes?

So therefore I believe it is a very valuable factor to use as something to balanced players in teams

I'll concede that experience should matter, but you can't honestly be suggesting that a player with 2000 games in a tier 10 tank with an average damage of 500 is equivalent skill wise to a player with 2000 games in the same tank with an average damage of 2000. 


You are discounting the variable that are random and that is the maps,  tanks and tiers selected, who you are paired up with and against, familiarity of tank a player is using, his load out, his crew skills and perks which change with ever draw or push of a player start button.

I'm not sure how this is an argument against what I said. You're not considering any of those things either in the skill balance MM you proposed.


I am less concerned with a compression of a bell curve which would so gradual that it would have minimal impact in this game compared to player being placed in battles with 10 ripe tomatoes on their team against half a dozen blues and some greens.

And you're missing the explanation that compression of the bell curve means that those tomatoes and blues will now all look like greens despite a disparity of actual skill. 


Looks to me like some players are nervous of a bit of completion and a reduction of easy stat harvesting for bragging rights and false egos

This just in the forums >

Again your bias is showing. Suggesting that players are opposed to a skill balance MM solely because of their egos is absurd. It is akin to me suggesting that the only reason you want skill balanced MM is so you can get more wins than you deserve and improve your self-esteem.

 


 edit: note to self, one of these days I'm going to have to learn how to do the multiquote thing like pipinghot.

 


Edited by Buttknuckle, Apr 07 2018 - 01:31.


Pipinghot #35 Posted Apr 07 2018 - 15:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,394
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 18:17, said:

As I said you are using stats to refute a SBMM and what I am suggesting is not purely SBMM but a combination of PR, Games played and number of games a player has in their selected tier!

That would still have the affects of SBMM, just not as quickly as pure-SBMM. Any form of matchmaking that uses skill as part of the match maker will have the same results, the only question is how quickly it will push those results. Any system that uses any form of SBMM, even if it's combined with other factors, will cause the game to rob good players of wins and give them to bad players, and yet somehow you think that's more fair than the current system.

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 18:17, said:

What I am suggesting is like recommending that 4 KV-2's are not put on one side but 2 on each team.

That would have zero affect on win rates and zero affect on steamrolls. It's a placebo, an illusion that doesn't actually accomplish anything.


Edited by Pipinghot, Apr 07 2018 - 22:04.


bockscar43 #36 Posted Apr 07 2018 - 16:27

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 28422 battles
  • 1,281
  • [PL1AR] PL1AR
  • Member since:
    01-01-2015
No worries folks, wots isn't interested in the current subject, when did wots take mm as a problem? All we have is an unhappy base, that is diminishing in size. Wots will see the error of not addressing this issue when the NA. cash cow dries up.....hope I'm wrong.

Gunadie #37 Posted Apr 11 2018 - 03:13

    Major

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

View PostPipinghot, on Apr 07 2018 - 06:22, said:

That would have zero affect on win rates and zero affect on steamrolls. It's a placebo, an illusion that doesn't actually accomplish anything

 

You are the one who is more concerned with your win rate instead of  having an initial balanced game at the start of each map.

You assertion there would be no change is once again incorrect as anyone with an ounce of common sense can easily see that the chances of one sided games

would be considerably reduced if the teams were reasonably even at the start as opposed to stacked in favor of one side.

To believe that this is false makes you look like you are lacking gray matter.

 



Shringo #38 Posted Apr 12 2018 - 19:36

    Private

  • Players
  • 4037 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    12-15-2013
I'm having all the issues with MM, I just finished playing today because I got really fed up with MM, I had 12 bottom tier games in a row and each one I was in, my team got DESTROYED. Ending matches with the score being 5-15, 2-15, 6-15, etc. I honestly just wish they would factor in player score or something like that in MM. Not to mention the fact that they ruin MM for you so you'll start seeing how well Premium tanks are doing and you'll think the only way to deal with the losing is to pay to win. That's how its been for YEARS. 

Edited by Shringo, Apr 12 2018 - 19:39.


EmperorJuliusCaesar #39 Posted Apr 14 2018 - 16:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 26933 battles
  • 3,923
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostGunadie, on Apr 06 2018 - 12:24, 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.

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.

 

MM is a HUGE issue and now even WG acknowledges it and has pledged to keep making changes until they get it right.  More people quit of MM than any other reason.  It's absolute slot-machine trash MM.  40% are decided before the battle even starts.



EmperorJuliusCaesar #40 Posted Apr 14 2018 - 16:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 26933 battles
  • 3,923
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

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.

 

MORE predictable?  40% are decided before they even start.  Anyone with half a brain can tell which team is going to win at the very start 40% of the time.  THAT'S predictable and boring.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users