87 replies to this topic

[EmperorJuliusCaesar]

SoTrue, on Jul 10 2018 - 22:46, said:

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...

 

EXACTLY....but as one "skilled" player stated.....

 

"fair fights arent always fun

i dont want every match to be a slug fest"

 

I.E. they don't want an actual challenge.....that fears them. 

[NeatoMan]

EmperorJuliusCaesar, on Jul 10 2018 - 10:56, said:

 

"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.

 

You're basically saying that a player's own skill isn't allowed to let him win more games.

 

Nobody gets better team mates or opponents than anybody else from the current MM.  You are complaining because good players make their teams better.  You think that is a bad thing.

 

A bad player is more likely to end up on a bad team because he is bad.  That badness follows him everywhere he goes, like soiled underpants.  That's not the MM's fault.  He can either man up and change his pants, and learn to use the toilet, or not, and continue stinking up everywhere he goes.  Again, that's not the MM's fault that he soils his own pants.  If he didn't soil his pants so much then he wouldn't get more bad teams than everyone else.

 

Block Quote

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.

You make it seem as if those slots are preassigned and the MM simply fills them with good players when they find them.  That's not how it works.  If you are not a good player then there is one less good "slot" on your team.  Being good only guarantees 1 less average or bad "slot" on your team.  That's it.  Every other "slot" averages out the same for everyone over the long run.  You get them filled with the same kinds of players that I do.

 

[EmperorJuliusCaesar]

24cups, on Jul 10 2018 - 22:47, said:

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

 

And something else would just show up in it's place or it would adapt as everything does, it might require ONE additional click.

Being blind of the problem doesn't fix the problem, not does it make all blind to the problem.  There are MANY that don't run XVM but still complain about the current "random"(TRASH) MM we currently have.

[EmperorJuliusCaesar]

NeatoMan, on Jul 10 2018 - 22:54, said:

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.

"They get saddled with the same mix of team mates as everyone else."

 

WRONG, given the number of unbalanced battles we have and the ratio of skilled players on one team(auto-win) vs the other team(auto-loss) it is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE.

 

 

[NeatoMan]

EmperorJuliusCaesar, on Jul 10 2018 - 11:15, said:

"They get saddled with the same mix of team mates as everyone else."

 

WRONG, given the number of unbalanced battles we have and the ratio of skilled players on one team(auto-win) vs the other team(auto-loss) it is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE.

So if you had unicum stats instead of tomato stats you would have gotten a different set of team mates in all your battles?

[EmperorJuliusCaesar]

NeatoMan, on Jul 10 2018 - 23:02, said:

EmperorJuliusCaesar, on Jul 10 2018 - 10:56, said:

 

"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.

 

You're basically saying that a player's own skill isn't allowed to let him win more games.

 

Nobody gets better team mates or opponents than anybody else from the current MM.  You are complaining because good players make their teams better.  You think that is a bad thing.

 

A bad player is more likely to end up on a bad team because he is bad.  That badness follows him everywhere he goes, like soiled underpants.  That's not the MM's fault.  He can either man up and change his pants, and learn to use the toilet, or not, and continue stinking up everywhere he goes.  Again, that's not the MM's fault that he soils his own pants.  If he didn't soil his pants so much then he wouldn't get more bad teams than everyone else.

 

Block Quote

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.

You make it seem as if those slots are preassigned and the MM simply fills them with good players when they find them.  That's not how it works.  If you are not a good player then there is one less good "slot" on your team.  Being good only guarantees 1 less average or bad "slot" on your team.  That's it.  Every other "slot" averages out the same for everyone over the long run.  You get them filled with the same kinds of players that I do.

 

"You're basically saying that a player's own skill isn't allowed to let him win more games."

 

Nope, never said anything close to that.  Skilled players will win more games.  That's NOT the matter of contention.  The problem is......the LARGE amount of VERY UNBALANCED matches we currently have that is running players away from the game. 

 

"Nobody gets better team mates or opponents than anybody else from the current MM."

 

Again, WRONG, given the number of VERY IMBALANCED battles we currently get, where 2/3rds of one team is very good vs one team of 2/3rds average or worse......the skilled players are TWICE as likely to land on the skilled side.  This results in MANY free wins for them.  Very clear to see given the number of slots on either team.

 

I never said it was predetermined......it's simple mathematics that anyone can see. 

" Every other "slot" averages out the same for everyone over the long run."

NOT true, in fact, mathematically IMPOSSIBLE as in these stacked matches there are TWICE as many slots on the stacked side(auto-win) than on the auto-loss side.

[EmperorJuliusCaesar]

NeatoMan, on Jul 10 2018 - 23:20, said:

EmperorJuliusCaesar, on Jul 10 2018 - 11:15, said:

"They get saddled with the same mix of team mates as everyone else."

 

WRONG, given the number of unbalanced battles we have and the ratio of skilled players on one team(auto-win) vs the other team(auto-loss) it is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE.

So if you had unicum stats instead of tomato stats you would have gotten a different set of team mates in all your battles?

 

When it comes to the VERY IMBALANCED matches.......yes.  I would be more likely to be on the other side more often than not.

Unicums from time to time come to our TeamSpeak to play with us, and they said something that I didn't understand until recently. 

"Tomato MatchMaking'.....i.e......Tomato MM, you're much more likely to fall on the wrong side of the stacked battles than not.

Sadly, it took a long time to understand what they actually meant, and now, I do, and they were/are correct.

In the stacked battles, as a average player, you are FAR more likely to wind up on the auto-loss side than you are to wind up on the auto-win side......2-1 in fact if you track them.

[NeatoMan]

EmperorJuliusCaesar, on Jul 10 2018 - 11:26, said:

 

When it comes to the VERY IMBALANCED matches.......yes.  I would be more likely to be on the other side more often than not.

Unicums from time to time come to our TeamSpeak to play with us, and they said something that I didn't understand until recently. 

"Tomato MatchMaking'.....i.e......Tomato MM, you're much more likely to fall on the wrong side of the stacked battles than not.

Sadly, it took a long time to understand what they actually meant, and now, I do, and they were/are correct.

In the stacked battles, as a average player, you are FAR more likely to wind up on the auto-loss side than you are to wind up on the auto-win side......2-1 in fact if you track them.

You dodged the question.  I'm talking about your team mates, not the team as a whole.  You keep including yourself when the MM isn't responsible for your skill.... you are.  

 

From your answer it appears that you think if you had better stats, then your team mates in all your games would have been different.  Is that what you think?

[ThatOddMan]

After 5 games on consecutive defeat; I just play Warships and do a co-op mode against bots. Then log back in at Tanks and try to play again. If still the same, then log off and do some other things in life.

Edited by ThatOddMan, Jul 10 2018 - 18:49.

[owlgator]

EmperorJuliusCaesar, on Jul 10 2018 - 10:22, said:

Again, WRONG, given the number of VERY IMBALANCED battles we currently get, where 2/3rds of one team is very good vs one team of 2/3rds average or worse......the skilled players are TWICE as likely to land on the skilled side.  This results in MANY free wins for them.  Very clear to see given the number of slots on either team.

 

If this were the case wouldn't we have a bimodal distribution for W/R as opposed to a normal one?  For what you're saying, out of 1000 battles the skilled player should end up on the skilled side 667 times, whereas the less skilled would be on the less skilled side 667 times.  This is far from what is actually occuring, as the W/R peak is right about where it should be if everyone had the same chance of winning over the course of thousands of battles.

[Hurk]

EmperorJuliusCaesar, on Jul 09 2018 - 21:45, said:

 

Sadly many are against balanced matches, where wins are actually earned.

 

A quote from one:

""fair fights arent always fun"

"i dont want every match to be a slug fest"

 

I.E. The skilled players don't want fair battles because they don't want an actual challenge, only stats so they look good.

They're too selfish to see how bad it is for the game and how many players are ran off because of how many unbalanced battles we have.

if you are going to quote me, quote me completely. 

taking what i said out of context is complete horse crap. 

 

http://forum.worldof...5#entry11722325

Block Quote

 fair fights arent always fun. they can be very grinding. especially when you are a good player. verity is what makes a game, not strict play matching. 

I've played plenty of games with SBMM. it did not add to most of them. especially games that already had anti snowball mechanics built in. 

the few games it helped the most were those with long match times... 45 minutes of fail in DOTA 2 is not fun. even with anti-snowball, its rare to actually recover from a good team. 

 

but then there was hearthstone... its a card game... i love card based games. i alpha and beta tested dozens of them including magic the gathering, legend of the five rings, star trek, etc.  here is this game that i absolutely love the mechanics, but HATE the skilled based matching. 

 

because in that game my "skill" with a all stock deck was high enough, i was eventually placed against people using 10+ legendary cards in their decks. its absolutely no fun at all to play against someone with a ~2 to 1 advantage in cards over you. its flattering, but its also insulting. i did not see it as a challenge to be risen up to, but rather as a failure of the system to find me a "real" challenger. .

 

Now, that said, its not the same in wot... you cannot pay to win, but you can suck and force a player like me to have to carry you in an attempt to "balance" the teams when there arent enough people of my skill level available to form a match. also matches with a lot of green/blue on both teams tend to either be very fast or very campy. because everyone doesnt screw up a lot. and when someone does make a mistake, its usually punished severely. 

 

no. i dont want every match to be a slug fest. neither do i want every match to be a cake walk. i do want variety though. 

 

 

[Siege_Engine]

 

Here are my first couple games, today.  Both ridiculous losses.  I'll try again, later.  

 

Edited by Siege_Engine, Jul 11 2018 - 14:43.

[dunniteowl]

To all those who are asking for a SBMM:

 

I give up.  You will never see the light of reason.  You cannot understand that such a system won't work here and will only increase wait times.

 

You will continue to harangue and 'reason' your way to seeing it your way, no matter what.  You offer SBMM as if it's the cure to all ills WoT, which makes you all sound like skeevie snake oil salesmen hawking the next 'big thing.'  Good luck to you.

 

 

OvO

[QuicksilverJPR]

EmperorJuliusCaesar, on Jul 09 2018 - 23:45, said:

 

Sadly many are against balanced matches, where wins are actually earned.

 

A quote from one:

""fair fights arent always fun"

"i dont want every match to be a slug fest"

 

I.E. The skilled players don't want fair battles because they don't want an actual challenge, only stats so they look good.

They're too selfish to see how bad it is for the game and how many players are ran off because of how many unbalanced battles we have.

 

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.  Skilled players actually enjoy the challenge.  Padders, on the other hand, would blow a gasket...

[sleeper_agent]

i can relate to a lot of these sentiments.

 

Bottom line, need a thicker skin.

[WangOnTheLoose]

EmperorJuliusCaesar, on Jul 10 2018 - 11:26, said:

 

When it comes to the VERY IMBALANCED matches.......yes.  I would be more likely to be on the other side more often than not.

Unicums from time to time come to our TeamSpeak to play with us, and they said something that I didn't understand until recently.

"Tomato MatchMaking'.....i.e......Tomato MM, you're much more likely to fall on the wrong side of the stacked battles than not.

Sadly, it took a long time to understand what they actually meant, and now, I do, and they were/are correct.

In the stacked battles, as a average player, you are FAR more likely to wind up on the auto-loss side than you are to wind up on the auto-win side......2-1 in fact if you track them.

 

You need to learn to write less and comprehend what other people are saying much more.  Neato is absolutely correct here.  You end up on much worse teams because you are a terrible player and you end up on every team you are on, obviously.  Conversely I am an ok player so every team I am on has a better chance of being good, because I am on it instead of you.

[NARWL_Legend_Soviet]

Siege_Engine, on Jul 11 2018 - 08:43, said:

 

Here are my first couple games, today.  Both ridiculous losses.  I'll try again, later.  

 

 

Contribute more. 

 

Seriously its [edited]simple. You're in a tier 10 tank. If you don't contribute your team will lose. 

 

You EFF rating is [edited], meaning you farmed useless damage and got no kills. Its simple. Do more damage, kill more tanks=win more. Not win all the time, because there are times you just can't carry hard enough but you will win more. 

Also SBMM would literally be the nail in the coffin for this server, and probably game. We just need ranked seasons more frequently. 

 

 

[spud_tuber]

Speaking of ranked battles..

So, I went out and looked up some of the games the SBMM proponents were praising a while back.  You know what I found was the case for every one of those games I looked at?  Their "SBMM" was actually skill bracketed first, then doing skill balanced if it couldn't find enough within a bracket.

So, tries to make a battle with everyone same ranking first.  Failing that, tries to make a battle where both teams get the same number of players in each bracket.  Does this pattern remind you of anything?  Sounds a lot like ranked battles to me.

[Siege_Engine]

SovietMemeBear, on Jul 11 2018 - 20:13, said:

 

Contribute more. 

 

Seriously its [edited]simple. You're in a tier 10 tank. If you don't contribute your team will lose. 

 

You EFF rating is [edited], meaning you farmed useless damage and got no kills. Its simple. Do more damage, kill more tanks=win more. Not win all the time, because there are times you just can't carry hard enough but you will win more. 

Also SBMM would literally be the nail in the coffin for this server, and probably game. We just need ranked seasons more frequently. 

 

 

 

You don't get it.  

 

Did you open the image???   My EFF rating for these two battles was dark green [very good] according the stats.  My win8 was blue:  exceptional.  I did great for these two battles.  What are you missing?  Let's move on.  

 

Here's something to ruminate over.  Here a few days earlier my EFF rating [the stat you think is most important]  for 10 battles is yellow and stinks [LOWER], not even good at all. 

 

 

But my win rate was 70%.  Seventy Percent!  

 

You just don't get it.  

[NeatoMan]

Siege_Engine, on Jul 11 2018 - 20:04, said:

You don't get it.  

 

Did you open the image???   My EFF rating for these two battles was dark green [very good] according the stats.  My win8 was blue:  exceptional.  I did great for these two battles.  What are you missing?  Let's move on.  

 

Here's something to ruminate over.  Here a few days earlier my EFF rating [the stat you think is most important]  for 10 battles is yellow and stinks [LOWER], not even good at all. 

 

 

But my win rate was 70%.  Seventy Percent!  

 

You just don't get it.  

Two battles,... then a whole 10 battles.  Did you go to the Budha school of statistics?   If you want your personal performance to be directly involved in every victory then you need to find a 1 v 1 game.