87 replies to this topic

[Knagar]

EmperorJuliusCaesar, on Jul 10 2018 - 04:44, said:

 

That's what they usually claim.  SBMM means everyone gets fair, fun, and challenging battles and no one gets free wins.

 

 

It's not the claim, the bad part of SBMM is the number of players per class. You've got far more tomatoes than you do unicums. Unicums would be waiting in queue for a long time for 30 people. Even good and average people would be stuck. 

 

Depending on the spread you'll still have good players in with lesser players. Those lesser players will lose, then cry that teams are stacked and MM is out to to get them.

 

Thier is no perfect MM, their never will be an MM that people won't find some reason to complain about.

[Mfezi]

Siege_Engine, on Jul 10 2018 - 02:56, said:

I put on my headphones.  I log in.  I pour a brew.  I'm happy to be playing.  I'm all smiles and optimism.  

 

Here it is.  THE final answer.  

 

During the first 3 or 4 battles, if I'm on a losing "random" team where 5 people do ZERO damage, and it's a stupid rofl-stomp, then I'm done.  

 

No.  I'm not going to pay to shoot more gold shells.  I'm not going to pay to run more consumables.  I'm not going to grind endless hours to earn bonds.  I'm not going to pay someone for lessons.  I'm not going to keep playing until I get a "statistical sample of games".  Most importantly of all; I'm not going to 'get gud'.  

 

I'm going to log out and wait until the next day.  I'm going to wait for realistically balanced teams.  Teams that matter.  And, I'll try again.  Because I like the game.  Mehhhh, I can't find anything better.  That's it.  I can't find anything better.  

 

So I'll wait for the next day.  I'll try again.  

 

+1

 

[ColonelShakes]

Siege_Engine, on Jul 10 2018 - 01:56, said:

So I'll wait for the next day.  I'll try again.  

 

Waiting to be carried to wins is no way to go through life.  

 

The players on your teams do not carry you so you log off.  Sad.  I hope you never land on my team.  I'll AFK if I see you.  Help speed your log off.

[EmperorJuliusCaesar]

Knagar, on Jul 10 2018 - 02:31, said:

EmperorJuliusCaesar, on Jul 10 2018 - 04:44, said:

 

That's what they usually claim.  SBMM means everyone gets fair, fun, and challenging battles and no one gets free wins.

 

 

It's not the claim, the bad part of SBMM is the number of players per class. You've got far more tomatoes than you do unicums. Unicums would be waiting in queue for a long time for 30 people. Even good and average people would be stuck. 

 

Depending on the spread you'll still have good players in with lesser players. Those lesser players will lose, then cry that teams are stacked and MM is out to to get them.

 

Thier is no perfect MM, their never will be an MM that people won't find some reason to complain about.

 

Yes, we don't have the numbers to have SBMM for our playerbase, but we could do Swap MM and swap a few players before start to make for much more competitive battles instead of all the walkover wins/losses we have now.

[Albinosmurfs]

EmperorJuliusCaesar, on Jul 10 2018 - 10:44, said:

 

That's what they usually claim.  SBMM means everyone gets fair, fun, and challenging battles and no one gets free wins.

 

Anyone not wanting fair and challenging battles is clearly not wanting a challenge.  They want to have "good stats" in a 13+ video GAME.

So skill based matchmaking isn't fair in any way though. It actually punishes good players making it harder for them to win than worse players. You seem to be laboring under some false information.

[EmperorJuliusCaesar]

Albinosmurfs, on Jul 10 2018 - 03:52, said:

So skill based matchmaking isn't fair in any way though. It actually punishes good players making it harder for them to win than worse players. You seem to be laboring under some false information.

 

It makes every game fair to every player, you have to then work for every win instead of landing on a good team and getting a free win. 

[NeatoMan]

EmperorJuliusCaesar, on Jul 10 2018 - 07:04, said:

It makes every game fair to every player, you have to then work for every win instead of landing on a good team and getting a free win. 

correction:  it only makes every game fair from an overall team perspective, but from an individual player's perspective it doesn't treat everyone the same.

 

Skill balanced MM makes you play against your own average.  It's essentially like a handicap in bowling.    If your average is low then you don't have to do as much to win.  If that average is high, then you have to keep playing above that high level to beat it.  Good players' and bad players' bar for success will be very different.

 

"Bowling handicaps are meant to level the playing field, by adjusting your score based on your average. This allows lower level bowlers in a league to be competitive against much better bowlers"

[SoTrue]

Siege_Engine, on Jul 09 2018 - 16:56, said:

I put on my headphones.  I log in.  I pour a brew.  I'm happy to be playing.  I'm all smiles and optimism. 

 

Here it is.  THE final answer. 

 

During the first 3 or 4 battles, if I'm on a losing "random" team where 5 people do ZERO damage, and it's a stupid rofl-stomp, then I'm done. 

 

No.  I'm not going to pay to shoot more gold shells.  I'm not going to pay to run more consumables.  I'm not going to grind endless hours to earn bonds.  I'm not going to pay someone for lessons.  I'm not going to keep playing until I get a "statistical sample of games".  Most importantly of all; I'm not going to 'get gud'. 

 

I'm going to log out and wait until the next day.  I'm going to wait for realistically balanced teams.  Teams that matter.  And, I'll try again.  Because I like the game.  Mehhhh, I can't find anything better.  That's it.  I can't find anything better. 

 

So I'll wait for the next day.  I'll try again. 

 

Sad isn't it?  That so many players do this exact same thing.  The mm is so broken, people who love the game will STOP PLAYING when they see the mm isn't balancing battles.  And that's exactly what is happening,  mm does not balance teams based on skill.  To my knowledge, it's the only (for lack of a better term) sport that doesn't.  Will continue to frustrate and drive players away until they fix it.

[dunniteowl]

EmperorJuliusCaesar, on Jul 10 2018 - 03:42, said:

 

Balanced by having skill on both sides roughly the same, but be willfully ignorant if you want.

 

Again, it's not about making someone better, it's not about "winning more" as many claim those of us wanting balanced matches want.  We want better quality battles.  Not auto-wins and auto-losses that are over in 3-4 mins.   Those matches happen far too often and are driving away our playerbase.

 

It would result in closer and more fun games because that's what happens when teams are balanced.  Most sports leagues etc do this.  It's even done in bowling etc because if you're not on the same skill level, it's not enjoyable to most.  There's just no point, you know the winner before it starts.  Same with our game WoT.  Far too often you know who's going to win before it starts.  Many find those games to worse than not enjoyable, they find them to be a waste of a time and want to play a diff game where their time isn't wasted by crap battles.

 

You realize that 'balancing' the skill is going to have troubles.  See, it's like this, on one day, a really good player has a really bad day.  His skill level is static according to MM in your SBMM.  So if a really skilled player on one team has to go AFK, is having a bad day or just isn't up to par that day, it's going to make the SBMM fart it's brains out, because it won't actually be balanced anymore.  And this will apply to lower skilled players who are that day on fire; or who have had their 'epiphany moment' of game mechanics comprehension just a moment before and explode into performance.

 

Nothing will really change, because the variables that really change to make a crap team or a super team are not sortable.  Bad weather affecting communications, new computers, old computers, sudden distractions -- none of those things can be accounted for and they will happen in a SBMM as often as they do in the current setup.  And that will pretty much "bork" the system.

 

Though, let's say it does work out and all that can be sorted.  You're still having to deal with a good player having a bad day and bad players having good days and the single death per match concept leads to a snowballing effect no matter what kind of MM you use.  You'll see ROFL stomps just as regularly, because those variables are internl to the player.

 

Personally, I'd be in favor of an honest test for about a month just to see.  I'm willing to say I was wrong if it turned out I was.  Would any of you be willing to admit you were wrong if it turned out you were?  Or would you find some other excuse?

 

 

OvO

[_Gungrave_]

Here we go with this skill MM bull███ again.

 

As if we haven't already had three 50+ page threads that tore it apart.

[EmperorJuliusCaesar]

NeatoMan, on Jul 10 2018 - 06:59, said:

EmperorJuliusCaesar, on Jul 10 2018 - 07:04, said:

It makes every game fair to every player, you have to then work for every win instead of landing on a good team and getting a free win. 

correction:  it only makes every game fair from an overall team perspective, but from an individual player's perspective it doesn't treat everyone the same.

 

Skill balanced MM makes you play against your own average.  It's essentially like a handicap in bowling.    If your average is low then you don't have to do as much to win.  If that average is high, then you have to keep playing above that high level to beat it.  Good players' and bad players' bar for success will be very different.

 

"Bowling handicaps are meant to level the playing field, by adjusting your score based on your average. This allows lower level bowlers in a league to be competitive against much better bowlers"

 

It's not the same as a handicap, however, it does allow for everyone to have a fun and competitive game.  Those that don't want this are pathetically obsessed with stats in a 13+ VIDEO GAME.

 

Not having balance in battles is why so many have left the game.  They don't want to play a game where 30-40% of their battles.....and their time is wasted when they can get a MUCH higher enjoyment/entertainment/fun level elsewhere.  That's why we've lost so many......THAT, and the pathetic seal clubbers ruining low tier battles has ran off newcomers to the game. 

 

Then the same trash pathetic seal clubbers, after ruining low tier matches, have the nerve to be so pathetic to talk trash to new players that buy tier 8 prems to get away from the seal clubbing.

 

NA playerbase has many with a VERY low character, that is the big problem, but then again, it's not surprising.  Many with money move away from there.  It's a pretty horrible place.

[NeatoMan]

dunniteowl, on Jul 10 2018 - 10:19, said:

Though, let's say it does work out and all that can be sorted.  You're still having to deal with a good player having a bad day and bad players having good days and the single death per match concept leads to a snowballing effect no matter what kind of MM you use.  You'll see ROFL stomps just as regularly, because those variables are internl to the player.

Actually in SBMM if a bad player has a performance that is average for the server he will win more than the server average.  If a good player has a performance that is average for the server he will lose more than the server average.   In the current MM both players would win as much as the server average for an average performance.

 

EmperorJuliusCaesar, on Jul 10 2018 - 10:26, said:

It's not the same as a handicap, however, it does allow for everyone to have a fun and competitive game.  Those that don't want this are pathetically obsessed with stats in a 13+ VIDEO GAME.

Yes it is because in order to win more games you no longer are competing against the server average, but against a player with similar stats as yours who is put on the other team to balance you.  Just like a bowling handicap, you only need to outperform your own stats (i.e.his stats) in order to win more in SBMM.

Edited by NeatoMan, Jul 10 2018 - 16:33.

[SoTrue]

NeatoMan, on Jul 10 2018 - 06:59, said:

correction:  it only makes every game fair from an overall team perspective, but from an individual player's perspective it doesn't treat everyone the same.

 

Skill balanced MM makes you play against your own average.  It's essentially like a handicap in bowling.    If your average is low then you don't have to do as much to win.  If that average is high, then you have to keep playing above that high level to beat it.  Good players' and bad players' bar for success will be very different.

 

"Bowling handicaps are meant to level the playing field, by adjusting your score based on your average. This allows lower level bowlers in a league to be competitive against much better bowlers"

 

Wrong.  Sbmm is fair to everyone BY DEFINITION.  Every single player gets put on a team that has a chance to win against a correspondingly similarly skilled team.  You can't be more fair than that.  What shills, like neato, need are for the random mm to generate unbalanced matches that give them wins. They can't stand the thought of fair play, or a level playing field. Which is just sad.  Just look at his stupid bowling analogy.  It has nothing to do with how tanks are playerd.   Creating equal teams does not make a bad player better, nor does it make a good player worse (effectively what a 'handicap' does).   All sbmm does is ensure both teams have about the same number of skilled/unskilled players.

-

This will not effect the win rate of skilled or unskilled players at all.  The reason is  pretty simple.  There would still be 3 types of battles.

-

13 skilled/ 2 unskilled vs.  13 skilled/ 2 unskilled:  This type of battle is one where most of BOTH teams are skilled.  The unskilled players won't have much of an effect, as you would expect.  But the skilled players will have to use skill to beat a skilled opponent.  But it's not, and can't be, EXACTLY balanced.   So if the best player on one team is a 63% win rate player and the best player on the enemy team is a 62% win rate player - the 63% win rate player will still win more of these than a 62% player.  And you can carry this logic down the ranks of the skill on each team.  Sometimes a 56% player will face off against a 57% player, and he'll lose just that little bit more.  Sometimes that same 56% player will face off against a 53% player, and he'll win just that bit more.  Hell, even between two 57% players, they aren't exactly 57% players, one of them will be 57.3% and the other will be 57.7%.

-

8 skilled/ 7 unskilled vs. 8 skilled/ 7 unskilled:  This type of battle really starts to show why better players will still have better win rates.  If we take the same top two players from above (the 63% and 62% players), their higher skill will have way more impact on this game than the above game - because they are so much more skilled than half the team.  So the 63% player will win even more of these than the 62% player - thus keeping his higher win rate.  Again, this trickles down the win rates as it does above.  The 56% and 57% players win rates will push even farther apart.

-

3 skilled/ 12 unskilled vs. 3 skilled/ 12 unskilled:  This type of battle is the most important for this point - AS THE CURRENT PLAYER BASE  IS TERRIBLE, and thus these are the most common types of battles.  It is crystal clear that now the 1% difference between the 63% and 62% players from above IS NOW SUPER IMPORTANT, since both players have to shoulder terrible teams.  The 63% player is just that bit more skilled, and thus will be able to carry more of these battles, thus maintaining his higher win rate.  And as in both examples above, this will work it's way down the skill levels.

-

But here's the thing: BECAUSE ALL OF THE BATTLES ABOVE ARE BETWEEN TWO EQUAL TEAMS - THE SLIGHTLY LESS SKILLED OPPONENT STILL HAS A CHANCE TO WIN.  The disparity between teams is there, but it's slight.

-

Or you could keep your head up your [edited]and say random mm is still great and live with battles like this:

3 skilled/ 12 unskilled vs.  8 skilled/ 7 unskilled.  Sucks to be the 3 skilled on the first team as you know you'll lose.  Sucks to be the 8 skilled on the second team, and it's going to be boring as hell.

[NeatoMan]

SoTrue, on Jul 10 2018 - 10:32, said:

3 skilled/ 12 unskilled vs. 3 skilled/ 12 unskilled:  This type of battle is the most important for this point - AS THE CURRENT PLAYER BASE  IS TERRIBLE, and thus these are the most common types of battles.  It is crystal clear that now the 1% difference between the 63% and 62% players from above IS NOW SUPER IMPORTANT, since both players have to shoulder terrible teams.  The 63% player is just that bit more skilled, and thus will be able to carry more of these battles, thus maintaining his higher win rate.  And as in both examples above, this will work it's way down the skill levels.

Thank you for finally admitting that good players will get saddled with worse team mates than everyone else in SBMM.   In the current MM they get the same mix of team mates as everyone else.  Everybody gets an equal number of turns playing alongside a unicum, regardless of your own skill (not counting platoons because the MM doesn't choose your platoon mates).  That won't happen in SBMM.   In SBMM every good player will get a worse mix of team mates than everyone else.

 

In all your scenarios the skilled players are matched against other skilled players, and therefore their success depends on outplaying that other skilled player.  Tomatoes OTOH only have to worry about outperforming the tomato on the other team.  Each players bar for success is different.  Tomatoes have to do much less in order to win as much as the skilled player.

 

 

Block Quote

Wrong.  Sbmm is fair to everyone BY DEFINITION.  Every single player gets put on a team that has a chance to win against a correspondingly similarly skilled team.  You can't be more fair than that.  What shills, like neato, need are for the random mm to generate unbalanced matches that give them wins. They can't stand the thought of fair play, or a level playing field. Which is just sad.  Just look at his stupid bowling analogy.  It has nothing to do with how tanks are playerd.   Creating equal teams does not make a bad player better, nor does it make a good player worse (effectively what a 'handicap' does).   All sbmm does is ensure both teams have about the same number of skilled/unskilled players

 What complete bull [edited].  I played against the exact same mix of teams that you and everyone else on the forums did.  I didn't get any more help from it than you or anyone else did.

Edited by NeatoMan, Jul 10 2018 - 16:48.

[EmperorJuliusCaesar]

dunniteowl, on Jul 10 2018 - 22:19, said:

 

You realize that 'balancing' the skill is going to have troubles.  See, it's like this, on one day, a really good player has a really bad day.  His skill level is static according to MM in your SBMM.  So if a really skilled player on one team has to go AFK, is having a bad day or just isn't up to par that day, it's going to make the SBMM fart it's brains out, because it won't actually be balanced anymore.  And this will apply to lower skilled players who are that day on fire; or who have had their 'epiphany moment' of game mechanics comprehension just a moment before and explode into performance.

 

Nothing will really change, because the variables that really change to make a crap team or a super team are not sortable.  Bad weather affecting communications, new computers, old computers, sudden distractions -- none of those things can be accounted for and they will happen in a SBMM as often as they do in the current setup.  And that will pretty much "bork" the system.

 

Though, let's say it does work out and all that can be sorted.  You're still having to deal with a good player having a bad day and bad players having good days and the single death per match concept leads to a snowballing effect no matter what kind of MM you use.  You'll see ROFL stomps just as regularly, because those variables are internl to the player.

 

Personally, I'd be in favor of an honest test for about a month just to see.  I'm willing to say I was wrong if it turned out I was.  Would any of you be willing to admit you were wrong if it turned out you were?  Or would you find some other excuse?

 

 

OvO

 

It's quite simple, have it go by expected damage per tank.  If you average 4 shots of damage in many tanks(excluding auto-loaders) you're yellow.  It's very simple to use that metric to balance teams.

We're losing players quickly and it's because of the amount of unbalanced games we have.  I.E. trash MM.

[SoTrue]

NeatoMan, on Jul 10 2018 - 07:38, said:

Thank you for finally admitting that good players will get saddled with worse team mates than everyone else in SBMM.   In the current MM they get the same mix of team mates as everyone else.  Everybody gets an equal number of turns playing alongside a unicum, regardless of your own skill (not counting platoons because the MM doesn't choose your platoon mates).  That won't happen in SBMM.   In SBMM every good player will get a worse mix of team mates than everyone else.

 

  BUT GOOD PLAYERS GET SADDLED WITH BAD TEAM NOW.  Here is the important difference.   Below are teams by both matchmakers:

-

Random:

3 skilled/ 12 unskilled vs.  8 skilled/ 7 unskilled.

This is terrible unfair to the 3 skilled on the first team.  They have to carry 4 unskilled players each.  The 8 skilled players on the second team only have to carry 'less than 1' unskilled player.  So the random mm has 'built in' an advantage for the 8 skilled players.  Totally unfair.

-

SBMM

3 skilled/ 12 unskilled vs.  3 skilled/ 12 unskilled.

While the 3 skilled on the first team still have to carry 4 unskilled players, SO DO THE ENEMY 3 skilled players on the second team.

Totally fair for all 6 skilled players.

-

It's not hard to understand...

[24cups]

Or they could abolish XVM showing stats in game. Then no one would know who was good or bad.

[EmperorJuliusCaesar]

SoTrue, on Jul 10 2018 - 22:32, said:

NeatoMan, on Jul 10 2018 - 06:59, said:

correction:  it only makes every game fair from an overall team perspective, but from an individual player's perspective it doesn't treat everyone the same.

 

Skill balanced MM makes you play against your own average.  It's essentially like a handicap in bowling.    If your average is low then you don't have to do as much to win.  If that average is high, then you have to keep playing above that high level to beat it.  Good players' and bad players' bar for success will be very different.

 

"Bowling handicaps are meant to level the playing field, by adjusting your score based on your average. This allows lower level bowlers in a league to be competitive against much better bowlers"

 

Wrong.  Sbmm is fair to everyone BY DEFINITION.  Every single player gets put on a team that has a chance to win against a correspondingly similarly skilled team.  You can't be more fair than that.  What shills, like neato, need are for the random mm to generate unbalanced matches that give them wins. They can't stand the thought of fair play, or a level playing field. Which is just sad.  Just look at his stupid bowling analogy.  It has nothing to do with how tanks are playerd.   Creating equal teams does not make a bad player better, nor does it make a good player worse (effectively what a 'handicap' does).   All sbmm does is ensure both teams have about the same number of skilled/unskilled players.

-

This will not effect the win rate of skilled or unskilled players at all.  The reason is  pretty simple.  There would still be 3 types of battles.

-

13 skilled/ 2 unskilled vs.  13 skilled/ 2 unskilled:  This type of battle is one where most of BOTH teams are skilled.  The unskilled players won't have much of an effect, as you would expect.  But the skilled players will have to use skill to beat a skilled opponent.  But it's not, and can't be, EXACTLY balanced.   So if the best player on one team is a 63% win rate player and the best player on the enemy team is a 62% win rate player - the 63% win rate player will still win more of these than a 62% player.  And you can carry this logic down the ranks of the skill on each team.  Sometimes a 56% player will face off against a 57% player, and he'll lose just that little bit more.  Sometimes that same 56% player will face off against a 53% player, and he'll win just that bit more.  Hell, even between two 57% players, they aren't exactly 57% players, one of them will be 57.3% and the other will be 57.7%.

-

8 skilled/ 7 unskilled vs. 8 skilled/ 7 unskilled:  This type of battle really starts to show why better players will still have better win rates.  If we take the same top two players from above (the 63% and 62% players), their higher skill will have way more impact on this game than the above game - because they are so much more skilled than half the team.  So the 63% player will win even more of these than the 62% player - thus keeping his higher win rate.  Again, this trickles down the win rates as it does above.  The 56% and 57% players win rates will push even farther apart.

-

3 skilled/ 12 unskilled vs. 3 skilled/ 12 unskilled:  This type of battle is the most important for this point - AS THE CURRENT PLAYER BASE  IS TERRIBLE, and thus these are the most common types of battles.  It is crystal clear that now the 1% difference between the 63% and 62% players from above IS NOW SUPER IMPORTANT, since both players have to shoulder terrible teams.  The 63% player is just that bit more skilled, and thus will be able to carry more of these battles, thus maintaining his higher win rate.  And as in both examples above, this will work it's way down the skill levels.

-

But here's the thing: BECAUSE ALL OF THE BATTLES ABOVE ARE BETWEEN TWO EQUAL TEAMS - THE SLIGHTLY LESS SKILLED OPPONENT STILL HAS A CHANCE TO WIN.  The disparity between teams is there, but it's slight.

-

Or you could keep your head up your [edited]and say random mm is still great and live with battles like this:

3 skilled/ 12 unskilled vs.  8 skilled/ 7 unskilled.  Sucks to be the 3 skilled on the first team as you know you'll lose.  Sucks to be the 8 skilled on the second team, and it's going to be boring as hell.

 

Sad thing is.....they're not here to ENJOY the GAME.  They are here to have good stats in a 13+ video GAME and somehow feel special about that, lol.

[NeatoMan]

SoTrue, on Jul 10 2018 - 10:46, said:

 

  BUT GOOD PLAYERS GET SADDLED WITH BAD TEAM NOW.  Here is the important difference.   Below are teams by both matchmakers:

-

Random:

3 skilled/ 12 unskilled vs.  8 skilled/ 7 unskilled.

This is terrible unfair to the 3 skilled on the first team.  They have to carry 4 unskilled players each.  The 8 skilled players on the second team only have to carry 'less than 1' unskilled player.  So the random mm has 'built in' an advantage for the 8 skilled players.  Totally unfair.

-

SBMM

3 skilled/ 12 unskilled vs.  3 skilled/ 12 unskilled.

While the 3 skilled on the first team still have to carry 4 unskilled players, SO DO THE ENEMY 3 skilled players on the second team.

Totally fair for all 6 skilled players.

-

It's not hard to understand...

They get saddled with the same mix of team mates as everyone else.  Everyone is competing against the server average to determine how much they win.  In your setup they must compete against their own skill every single game.  Skill is not equal for everyone, therefore SBMM isn't equal for everyone

 

 

Block Quote

Sad thing is.....they're not here to ENJOY the GAME.  They are here to have good stats in a 13+ video GAME and somehow feel special about that, lol.

 If WG didn't make progression/rewards dependent on winning then it wouldn't matter.

[EmperorJuliusCaesar]

NeatoMan, on Jul 10 2018 - 22:38, said:

SoTrue, on Jul 10 2018 - 10:32, said:

3 skilled/ 12 unskilled vs. 3 skilled/ 12 unskilled:  This type of battle is the most important for this point - AS THE CURRENT PLAYER BASE  IS TERRIBLE, and thus these are the most common types of battles.  It is crystal clear that now the 1% difference between the 63% and 62% players from above IS NOW SUPER IMPORTANT, since both players have to shoulder terrible teams.  The 63% player is just that bit more skilled, and thus will be able to carry more of these battles, thus maintaining his higher win rate.  And as in both examples above, this will work it's way down the skill levels.

Thank you for finally admitting that good players will get saddled with worse team mates than everyone else in SBMM.   In the current MM they get the same mix of team mates as everyone else.  Everybody gets an equal number of turns playing alongside a unicum, regardless of your own skill (not counting platoons because the MM doesn't choose your platoon mates).  That won't happen in SBMM.   In SBMM every good player will get a worse mix of team mates than everyone else.

 

In all your scenarios the skilled players are matched against other skilled players, and therefore their success depends on outplaying that other skilled player.  Tomatoes OTOH only have to worry about outperforming the tomato on the other team.  Each players bar for success is different.  Tomatoes have to do much less in order to win as much as the skilled player.

 

 

Block Quote

Wrong.  Sbmm is fair to everyone BY DEFINITION.  Every single player gets put on a team that has a chance to win against a correspondingly similarly skilled team.  You can't be more fair than that.  What shills, like neato, need are for the random mm to generate unbalanced matches that give them wins. They can't stand the thought of fair play, or a level playing field. Which is just sad.  Just look at his stupid bowling analogy.  It has nothing to do with how tanks are playerd.   Creating equal teams does not make a bad player better, nor does it make a good player worse (effectively what a 'handicap' does).   All sbmm does is ensure both teams have about the same number of skilled/unskilled players

 What complete bull [edited].  I played against the exact same mix of teams that you and everyone else on the forums did.  I didn't get any more help from it than you or anyone else did.

 

"In the current MM they get the same mix of team mates as everyone else."

 

Demonstrably and impossibly mathematically IMPOSSIBLE.  The current "random" MM creates a LARGE amount of imbalanced battles.  You yourself have admitted it's 15-30% of all battles.  Others, playing at different times and different tiers have tracked it to be closer to 40%.

That means that there's a LOT of battles that are over before they even start.  When there are 10 slots of skilled players that land on one side and only 5 slots on the other teams in these battles, the skilled players are MUCH more likely to land on the skilled side than not.

I've been tracking the ONLY stat that matters......the stacked battles, and it shows EXACTLY what one would expect an average player to suffer.......TWICE as many auto-losses as auto-wins.

 

" What complete bull [edited].  I played against the exact same mix of teams that you and everyone else on the forums did."

 

Wrong, read above, it's mathematically IMPOSSIBLE if you are green or above given the number of slots on the different teams in these stacked battles.  It's literally FREE wins for those green and above and that's why nothing is done about it.....for now. 

WG feels currently that skilled players should win more, regardless of the fact that MM stacks the game in their favor more often than not.  HOWEVER, as more and more players leave the game because of this very reason.....hopefully they will wake up.