Jump to content


if xvm then include into mm


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

scharnhorst310 #21 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 19:30

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 24444 battles
  • 5,864
  • Member since:
    05-04-2011

View PostFineousOrlon, on Nov 09 2018 - 10:25, said:

 

Not true, 3 or 4 players enjoy each blowout, almost certainly, and only those 3 or 4, most of the time.

 

 

XVM delivers the skill levels of the players and a %win-chance prediction.  The skill level is fairly accurate, the % chance is just that, a % chance.  65% chance to win IS ~35% chance to lose [chance for draw unknown].  Obvious wins or losses still get played, with fairly, but not totally predictable results for a single instance..  Also, XVM seems to have a problem recently, it does not deal with the tier differences well, in my estimation, in that good players in top tier tanks seem to ~equal with good players inlower tier tanks, when, this is not necessarily a good evaluation.

 

 

Incorrect, lack of a SBMM DOES lead to blowouts, just not all of them, single death elimination is a big deal as well.  SBMM absolutely will help some of the problems mentioned.  A large factor frequently ignored in this sort of statement from SP is that skilled players are usually good at causing early deaths, or avoiding early deaths, early damage and deaths do not frequently just crop up from the ground in some mysterious, unknown manner.

Yes, blowouts occur in ranked battles and clan wars, etc., when one team is able to generate a local overmatch, while both teams know how to do that. 

 

Now, imagine if only ONE team had players, or had noticeably more players, that knew how to do just that.  Then add in the ability to do early damage and avoid early deaths.

 

Yeah.

 

Anything that can happen in a skill-more-or-less balanced situation can happen faster in a situation with a pronounced lack of skill balance.

 

MM is trash, and it favors good players, is relatively neutral for average players, and works against below-average players, in the long run.  This is because, while the enemy team is always random, your own team is only 14/15ths random.....

 

Player retention is a real business concern, or should be, of WG, and may point WG towards SBMM....., who knows what this MM rework will bring.

 

I do not have this sort of data on player retention, nor access to it.  I do consider the forums accurate when case studies are concerned, i.e., when a person comes in to post about why they are leaving.  I would be interested what large clan leaders have to say, because, if their clan is successful, their clan is full of [good] players who benefit from the random MM, and thus, I would predict that few of their players would leave because of the MM.  I think you would need a spread in ability of clan leaders, and a spread of clan successful-ness, to get  a better picture of how MM influences player retention from clan leaders.

 

I've been a part of, and running clans since day 1 of CW... and that isn't some random deadbeat clan, I'm talking about one of the best out there for years now. Good players don't like random MM because if this game was truly left up to skill of a player to determine the outcome; what kind of winrate you think i'd have? I'll gander something above 90%. But bad players on the other hand, would lose FAR more than 40-50%; they quit in a heartbeat if they only won 10- 20% of the time. They wouldn't be able to fail up the tiers; nobody I don't care how much they say otherwise wants to lose that much. 

 

Random MM places a ceiling for good players, and a solid ground for bad players. Who benefits more from that? At the same time the reason they don't want SBMM because it only takes a couple of minutes of thought to see the problems. I'd face tougher games every single time, while a deadbeat will get to win more because he gets to see easier matches. How cute for him. 


Edited by scharnhorst310, Nov 09 2018 - 19:32.


Nixeldon #22 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 19:43

    Captain

  • Players
  • 57241 battles
  • 1,578
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View Postscharnhorst310, on Nov 09 2018 - 13:30, said:

I'd face tougher games every single time, while a deadbeat will get to win more because he gets to see easier matches. How cute for him. 

 

^^^

.. not to mention WOT heavily rewards wins plus has a progression that helps monetize the game. 



FineousOrlon #23 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 19:47

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 20787 battles
  • 228
  • Member since:
    11-29-2014

View Postscharnhorst310, on Nov 09 2018 - 19:30, said:

 

I've been a part of, and running clans since day 1 of CW... and that isn't some random deadbeat clan, I'm talking about one of the best out there for years now. Good players don't like random MM because if this game was truly left up to skill of a player to determine the outcome; what kind of winrate you think i'd have? I'll gander something above 90%. But bad players on the other hand, would lose FAR more than 40-50%; they quit in a heartbeat if they only won 10- 20% of the time. They wouldn't be able to fail up the tiers; nobody I don't care how much they say otherwise wants to lose that much. 

 

Random MM places a ceiling for good players, and a solid ground for bad players. Who benefits more from that? At the same time the reason they don't want SBMM because it only takes a couple of minutes of thought to see the problems. I'd face tougher games every single time, while a deadbeat will get to win more because he gets to see easier matches. How cute for him. 

It seems like you are contradicting yourself.

 

In your first paragraph you seem to be saying good players do not like random MM.  In the second, you seem to be saying that good players prefer a random MM.

 

Good players SHOULD prefer a random MM, because it favors them, because, ONLY THE ENEMY is randomly made, any FRIENDLY TEAM always has that good player on it.  A random MM always skews, in the long run, to the skill of the individual player.  So, good players benefit.

 

Except, for game health and population, no players benefit.  A random MM drives away average players who are smart, that do not "love" the game, and below-average players when they figure it out or get tired of the crap MM.  This is also when they stop providing targets to be shot.

 

I would say, no, you would never win 90%+ of your games, in the long run, but still, this game heavily relies on skill.

 

The idea of a large number of games in a 15 player team format, randomly assigned, will give something like the baseball homily about a season of 162 games:  You will win 54 games, and lose 54 games, it is what you do with the other 54 games that matters. 

 

It is the 15 player format that provides a solid ground for below-average players, and a ceiling for good players.  Also, RNG, as it is applied throughout the game, does some of the same thing.

 

edit: for clarity

 

 BTW, the BoSox won those other 54 games, this year...


Edited by FineousOrlon, Nov 09 2018 - 21:11.


FearTheBadger #24 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 20:17

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 15074 battles
  • 93
  • [R_I_R] R_I_R
  • Member since:
    12-28-2015

With Tier 8 match making broken and being bottom tier way to often  is a concern of mine.  This  is a skill based game and learning how to play is required unless a player just enjoys riding around blowing up stuff then that is their business.

 

I watch players stream on twitch from EU.  Players in chat are complaining about the same things that players on NA complain about.

1. match making being  unfair to many blow outs

2. WG taking advantage players by charging way to much for tanks and bundles etc.

 

I believe another person on this thread may have stated that player retention should be key  at least on NA.  The current player base may no longer or will soon be unable to create random matches with out giving the impression that games are rigged.

 

With match making based on "tier, type of tanks, and tanks available in queue" it will be down to the luck of the draw.  Players will just have to learn to play better to survive or just leave the game.  SBMM is not the answer as it really doesn't provide incentive for bad to average players to get better.  On the other hand real good players are no longer challenged to up their game due to a lack of solid competition.



FineousOrlon #25 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 21:15

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 20787 battles
  • 228
  • Member since:
    11-29-2014

View Postscharnhorst310, on Nov 09 2018 - 19:30, said:

Random MM places a ceiling for good players, and a solid ground for bad players. Who benefits more from that? At the same time the reason they don't want SBMM because it only takes a couple of minutes of thought to see the problems. I'd face tougher games every single time, while a deadbeat will get to win more because he gets to see easier matches. How cute for him. 

 

All WG would have to do is emphasize how you do vs. other people, some kind of comparison.

 

For instance, your win rate might go down, but compared to other people, it should be about the same.  [For instance, if you win more than Joe, but less than Bob, that should remain the same, in most SBMMs, depending on the range of "balance" that the MM will accept before launching a match.]

 

 

Also, just adding one more decimal place to everyone's win rate would also show differences more easily in a SBMM, but the other might be a better format.

 

edited: for the example in [ ].


Edited by FineousOrlon, Nov 09 2018 - 22:09.


EmperorJuliusCaesar #26 Posted Nov 10 2018 - 03:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 30451 battles
  • 4,737
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostHellsfog, on Nov 10 2018 - 00:50, said:

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Nov 08 2018 - 21:04, said:

 

Any one the reads the forum, KNOWS that's it's a reason why many have quit the game.  Any leader of a large clan will be able to tell you they've lost many because of MM.  When 40% of your games are over before they start.....that's a lot of wasted time, and many people see it for what it is, TRASH MM.

 

 Later you will use the exact same allegation when complaining about premium, ammo, 3/5/7, vision mechanics, map design, arty and whatever else you're complaining about at the moment. 

 

Anyone can view my post history to see this is 100% false allegation. 

 

I've never complained about premium, nor about ammo, nor about vision mechanics(in fact I love the way they work, and can play to them quite well).  Nor have I ever complained about map design, I love all the new maps, even liked Province that everyone complained about.  I post in support of arty all the time as in my opinion it adds extra fun, excitement, extra challenge and unpredictability.  I've said many times that without it the game is very dull, boring, and predictable.

 

Nice try attempting to talk about someone that you don't know at all.  I.E. Nice outright LIE that my post history proves as such.



scharnhorst310 #27 Posted Nov 10 2018 - 03:34

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 24444 battles
  • 5,864
  • Member since:
    05-04-2011

View PostFineousOrlon, on Nov 09 2018 - 10:47, said:

It seems like you are contradicting yourself.

 

In your first paragraph you seem to be saying good players do not like random MM.  In the second, you seem to be saying that good players prefer a random MM.

 

Good players SHOULD prefer a random MM, because it favors them, because, ONLY THE ENEMY is randomly made, any FRIENDLY TEAM always has that good player on it.  A random MM always skews, in the long run, to the skill of the individual player.  So, good players benefit.

 

Except, for game health and population, no players benefit.  A random MM drives away average players who are smart, that do not "love" the game, and below-average players when they figure it out or get tired of the crap MM.  This is also when they stop providing targets to be shot.

 

I would say, no, you would never win 90%+ of your games, in the long run, but still, this game heavily relies on skill.

 

The idea of a large number of games in a 15 player team format, randomly assigned, will give something like the baseball homily about a season of 162 games:  You will win 54 games, and lose 54 games, it is what you do with the other 54 games that matters. 

 

It is the 15 player format that provides a solid ground for below-average players, and a ceiling for good players.  Also, RNG, as it is applied throughout the game, does some of the same thing.

 

edit: for clarity

 

 BTW, the BoSox won those other 54 games, this year...

 

Sorry that didn't make sense what I wrote. Good players don't like random MM because we get saddled to bad teams sometimes. If skill were the only determinate on winning, good players would win far more than they do in a random MM like we have today. So it can be frustrating that regardless of my ability, regardless how I perform... sometimes you just get on a tough streak. 

 

The reason they know SBMM won't work is because it simply makes their lives harder. It doesn't solve blowout losses, it doesn't push bad players to learn the game, and doesn't incentive positive play....  Great, i bothered to learn this game so I could lose more, and bad players could win more. Yeah, terrific. That sounds so wonderful... 

 

Random mixing of teams and 15 players in a match are what give the floor and ceiling. Here i'll give you a chance, full flesh out what you think the ideal SBMM should be. Do you keep the rewards the same? To you sit there and try to pair good player to a bad player to even them out? What if they can't find someone of my skill, or hell someone at a botting skill level? How would you handle botting now that you made it easier to fail upwards? Speaking of failing upwards, would you adjust the xp requirements for each tier? Well maybe since game becomes more about individual performance rewards and less about winning; gameplay radically changes. You think you see lone pubstars now, wait till then; I dare you to find someone to go around the corner first, or take a shot for a teammate when winning matters less than ever. 

 

(and yes, if skill were the sole determinate and whether someone won or loss, i'd win 90%+. I already have this game ensuring that I can't carry some teams, and I still pull of 65%+ solo)

 

View PostFineousOrlon, on Nov 09 2018 - 12:15, said:

 

All WG would have to do is emphasize how you do vs. other people, some kind of comparison.

 

For instance, your win rate might go down, but compared to other people, it should be about the same.  [For instance, if you win more than Joe, but less than Bob, that should remain the same, in most SBMMs, depending on the range of "balance" that the MM will accept before launching a match.]

 

 

Also, just adding one more decimal place to everyone's win rate would also show differences more easily in a SBMM, but the other might be a better format.

 

edited: for the example in [ ].

 

I don't think you are getting this right. I don't play for stats, my stats reflect my play. This isn't about me measuring my stats; this is about me playing well so I can win because winning gives me 50% bonus. I care because my time has value, so the quicker I can unlock that next new shiny tank the better to me. Yeah its fun getting a ton of kills, but I play to win. 


Edited by scharnhorst310, Nov 10 2018 - 04:54.


Hellsfog #28 Posted Nov 10 2018 - 03:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 34547 battles
  • 5,205
  • [_SF_] _SF_
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Nov 09 2018 - 21:05, said:

 

Anyone can view my post history to see this is 100% false allegation. 

 

I've never complained about premium, nor about ammo, nor about vision mechanics(in fact I love the way they work, and can play to them quite well).  Nor have I ever complained about map design, I love all the new maps, even liked Province that everyone complained about.  I post in support of arty all the time as in my opinion it adds extra fun, excitement, extra challenge and unpredictability.  I've said many times that without it the game is very dull, boring, and predictable.

 

Nice try attempting to talk about someone that you don't know at all.  I.E. Nice outright LIE that my post history proves as such.

 

It was 100% accurate. You are drawn to every complaint thread like a fly to poo and always with the same "give me free wins" posts.  

EmperorJuliusCaesar #29 Posted Nov 10 2018 - 05:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 30451 battles
  • 4,737
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostHellsfog, on Nov 10 2018 - 09:39, said:

 

It was 100% accurate. You are drawn to every complaint thread like a fly to poo and always with the same "give me free wins" posts.  

 

I post where I have the knowledge from.  You LIED and said I complained about things I never have.  My ONLY complaint about this game is the TRASH MM.  The SINGLE thing I post about in complaint.  So no, not accurate at all, a flat out lie.  I don't ask for free wins, I asked for balanced matches because I know from having 3 clans and reading the forum how many leave from very unbalanced MM.  People don't care that it's supposedly "balanced" in the long run.  Most will not waste their time when they know that 40% of their time is wasted because the match is too far out of balance.

scharnhorst310 #30 Posted Nov 10 2018 - 07:06

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 24444 battles
  • 5,864
  • Member since:
    05-04-2011

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Nov 09 2018 - 20:58, said:

 

I post where I have the knowledge from.  You LIED and said I complained about things I never have.  My ONLY complaint about this game is the TRASH MM.  The SINGLE thing I post about in complaint.  So no, not accurate at all, a flat out lie.  I don't ask for free wins, I asked for balanced matches because I know from having 3 clans and reading the forum how many leave from very unbalanced MM.  People don't care that it's supposedly "balanced" in the long run.  Most will not waste their time when they know that 40% of their time is wasted because the match is too far out of balance.

 

First off you have no idea which games are balanced or unbalanced except by using XVM, a third party mod... Second, no you don't know that "most will not waste their time". Hell that isn't even remotely true. Plenty of people "waste their time" according to right this very second, and for hundreds and thousands of hours of their lives.

 

You have 3 clans of what? Are they top dogs, cw players, tourney master? Hmm i didn't think so, so your scope of knowledge is actually pretty limited. Well I've started from the bottom, as a dirt clan back in the old Africa map, I put in the time, and I clawed to the top. I've trained hundreds, i've recruited bottom feeders all the way to the best players in this game, i've played alongside thousands, i've been to hundreds of teamspeaks servers for other clans, I've sent and been with 2 teams that have gone to Russia to represent the US... Don't throw around 3 clans filled with "accounts" as some form of evidence as to your knowledge about this game because your scope of experience is still limited. 

 

My question to you would be, say they put in an MM that took into account skill; they drop you into bottom ranks category of players; you win more. But now that they did that, you actually per your time get less rewards because your playing with the bots, and the special needs. Is that gratifying to you? Congrats you win more, does winning even mean anything at that point? Don't tell me you don't enjoy the opportunities you get to kill a better player; hell maybe those situations actually have people learn something from them. I know the first time I got smashed in the face by someone clearly better was a wake up call to me. 

 

What are we really solving with SBMM... oh xvm won't show 30% chance to win; except that just means if I had to play the same teams 10 times, i'd potentially only win 3. Ok but we only play once. I don't know to a certainty I can't win. 30% chance, 60% chance; you treat them all the same anyway because they can all be wins, or they can all be losses. 

 

edit: i actually once spoke to a wg dev and if anything, they actually have considered increasing rewards for winning. If you further incentive winning, I think a lot of positive gameplay changes would occur. Would create a stronger bond with your teammates to achieve a goal all would want. 


Edited by scharnhorst310, Nov 10 2018 - 07:23.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users