Jump to content


Skill 'BASED' match maker - versus - Skill 'Balanced' match maker...


  • Please log in to reply
628 replies to this topic

SimplyPzB2 #1 Posted May 11 2019 - 09:37

    Captain

  • Players
  • 106 battles
  • 1,590
  • Member since:
    05-26-2016

So there have been a LOT of 'skill' based/balanced MM comments lately.  I'm finding their is a HUGE misunderstanding of what the terms 'skill based' and 'skill balanced' means in terms of how mm would function.   So this post is to clarify the difference between the two.  This post is NOT discussing if either is a good idea.  So please limit your comments on the way I've defined these two terms, and please DON'T muddy the discussion by chiming in on whether you think either is a good/bad idea.

-

DEFINITIONS:

-

Skill BASED match maker:  This type of MM would break up the player base into 'sub groups' based on skill.  So players with 'x' skill would only play other players with 'x' skill.  They would not play players with 'y' skill. 

-

Skill BALANCED match maker:  This type of MM would not break up the player base into 'sub groups'.  Instead, this type of MM would keep a 'mix' of player skill and address 'team skill' by balancing skill between two teams. 

-

ISSUES:

-

Skill BASED match maker:  At least on the NA server, this type of match maker is not possible.  The player base is simply too small.  You can't isolate the unicums simply because there aren't enough of them on at the same time.  Additionally, this type of match maker has great difficulty with keeping players separated/tracking skill.  If a current 65% win rate unicum played nothing but other 65% win rate unicums, their win rates would trend down towards 50%.  Which means at some point, they'd get bumped back down to a lower skill bracket, thus defeating the system.  This would also be epicly hard to program on WG's end.

-

Skill BALANCED match maker:  There are not substantial issues with this type of match maker.  Since this match maker allows for a mix of skill, the current matchmaker could be used AS-IS to create the initial two teams of 15 players.  All this match maker requires to work is a simple 'second step'.  Whereby the match makers looks at the 15 players on each team, calculates team skill, IF there is a 'significant' difference in team skill, the matchmaker would horizontally swap a few players between teams, then battle starts.  It's key to emphasize 'horizontal' swaps.  In that horizontal swaps preserver the balance of tier/tank type/etc.  I.e., you could only swap the top tank with the top tank of the enemy team.  Or, you could only swap the 7th tank down the team list with the enemies 7th tank down the team list.  (Thus it would always be a 'same tier' and 'same tank class' swap). 

-

-

Again, this post is NOT intended to say whether either of the above match makers should be incorporated.  It's simply to get people talking the same language when talking about changing the current match maker. 



SwollenOstrich #2 Posted May 11 2019 - 10:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 31176 battles
  • 3,326
  • [-EV-] -EV-
  • Member since:
    02-28-2014

You accurately describe the differences. 

 

However, this has been a point of confusion for years and many posts have been made about this, and yet the confusion continues. 



ChaseR392 #3 Posted May 11 2019 - 10:10

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14079 battles
  • 1,076
  • Member since:
    04-20-2018

While honoring your wish to NOT discuss the relative merit of this... only the terminology... my thoughts are this.

 

They are the exact same thing in two different wrappers....

 

It doesn't matter what fancy catch phrase you come up with... the ultimate goal is the same... to segregate players based on skill level. Its doesn't matter if you take the reds, oranges, yellows, greens, blues and purples and put them in separate rooms or only allow 2 of each in one room. Not debating the merit of this.... simply stating a fact.

 

Replacing "Based" with "Balanced" sounds suspiciously like politicians replacing the word "Control" with "Safety"...... 



RenamedUser__1000614853 #4 Posted May 11 2019 - 11:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 80387 battles
  • 2,110
  • [SKULH] SKULH
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

If you are "X" shilled only playing against "X" skilled players how do you improve to get to the "Y" skilled level? It is like you are playing against yourself and can never get better. 

 

The "MM" whining has been dug so deep into the ground that it is a lost subject. MM is not broken, the players are. Just because you don't win all the time doesn't mean it is someone else's fault. 



sparky_49 #5 Posted May 11 2019 - 11:13

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 12444 battles
  • 763
  • Member since:
    07-18-2018
You can use different terms, and even define them in great detail to show the difference, but that doesn't change anything. It would still manipulate team makeup based on skill, and that's not random,  That's why it's never going to happen

DeviouslyCursed #6 Posted May 11 2019 - 11:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 11384 battles
  • 2,740
  • [5M0K3] 5M0K3
  • Member since:
    12-13-2018

No offense, but you don't understand Skill Balanced, as it has the EXACT SAME PROBLEM as the Skill Based in that the top players will still end up with close to a 50% win rate. If you don't think so, you don't understand what you are talking about.

 

Also, anyone with any clue knows you would have to have a separate rating (based on wins/losses) that is used to balance teams, not win rate itself. The rating needs to be such that once you get to a recent 50% win rate, the rating neither increases nor decreases (hence keeping the player at that rating, which is where they belong).

 

It also would need to be a separate rating for each individual tank, otherwise it would screw the game up completely. This is my main argument against any type of MM that uses skill because I have yet to see a game company recognize that you have to keep the ratings separate for each tank/character/class, making you always have to play your top performing option or you gimp your team. In other words a person who gets a rating based on playing a T67 a lot, then tries to play a regular tank of any tier, and they are severely handicapping their team when they are matched against someone else of the same rating, who got their rating with non-OP tanks.

 

BTW, you can't have a discussion about "definitions only" and then throw an analysis of each ones strengths/issues.  You broke your own rules, so I have no issue breaking them also.


Edited by DeviouslyCursed, May 11 2019 - 11:29.


MagillaGuerilla #7 Posted May 11 2019 - 11:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 26762 battles
  • 5,356
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013
Whatever you call it doesn't matter because you have 30 players going for different objectives, no matter their skill level. Some are trying to complete various missions, some are trying to MOE a tank, some are grinding XP or credits, some are on their coffee break and sneaking in a quick battle, some are trying out their new premium or trying out different equipment and some are all worried about their stupid XVM rating. The game has never been balanced in any way and never will be.

TankFullOfBourbon #8 Posted May 11 2019 - 12:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 36221 battles
  • 7,176
  • [DHO6] DHO6
  • Member since:
    08-10-2013
Oh lord. This community dwells at rock bottom and mediocracy. Years of skilled based MM whine was replaced by 3-5-7 whine and now we’re back to skilled based MM whine. Please just carry a big sign saying ”CARRY ME”.

Mojo_Riesing #9 Posted May 11 2019 - 13:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 23527 battles
  • 2,729
  • [ACATS] ACATS
  • Member since:
    11-26-2011

View PostSimplyPzB2, on May 11 2019 - 00:37, said:

So there have been a LOT of 'skill' based/balanced MM comments lately.  I'm finding their is a HUGE misunderstanding of what the terms 'skill based' and 'skill balanced' means in terms of how mm would function.   So this post is to clarify the difference between the two.  This post is NOT discussing if either is a good idea.  So please limit your comments on the way I've defined these two terms, and please DON'T muddy the discussion by chiming in on whether you think either is a good/bad idea.

-

DEFINITIONS:

-

Skill BASED match maker:  This type of MM would break up the player base into 'sub groups' based on skill.  So players with 'x' skill would only play other players with 'x' skill.  They would not play players with 'y' skill. 

-

Skill BALANCED match maker:  This type of MM would not break up the player base into 'sub groups'.  Instead, this type of MM would keep a 'mix' of player skill and address 'team skill' by balancing skill between two teams. 

-

ISSUES:

-

Skill BASED match maker:  At least on the NA server, this type of match maker is not possible.  The player base is simply too small.  You can't isolate the unicums simply because there aren't enough of them on at the same time.  Additionally, this type of match maker has great difficulty with keeping players separated/tracking skill.  If a current 65% win rate unicum played nothing but other 65% win rate unicums, their win rates would trend down towards 50%.  Which means at some point, they'd get bumped back down to a lower skill bracket, thus defeating the system.  This would also be epicly hard to program on WG's end.

-

Skill BALANCED match maker:  There are not substantial issues with this type of match maker.  Since this match maker allows for a mix of skill, the current matchmaker could be used AS-IS to create the initial two teams of 15 players.  All this match maker requires to work is a simple 'second step'.  Whereby the match makers looks at the 15 players on each team, calculates team skill, IF there is a 'significant' difference in team skill, the matchmaker would horizontally swap a few players between teams, then battle starts.  It's key to emphasize 'horizontal' swaps.  In that horizontal swaps preserver the balance of tier/tank type/etc.  I.e., you could only swap the top tank with the top tank of the enemy team.  Or, you could only swap the 7th tank down the team list with the enemies 7th tank down the team list.  (Thus it would always be a 'same tier' and 'same tank class' swap). 

-

-

Again, this post is NOT intended to say whether either of the above match makers should be incorporated.  It's simply to get people talking the same language when talking about changing the current match maker. 

 

Actually a pretty decent post/explanation of terms.  

 

I've long thought a skills MM of some form would be an improvement but i accept that it would be very difficult to implement if it were even possible at all.  For now Tier based changes, basically decreasing the number of 3/5/7 matches is a big improvement though i'd love to see more single Tier matches.  As an mature adult should, i don't expect that every desire if have will be fulfilled, i just hope for enough to be happy.

 

However to justify any changes the MM because it adversely affects either the Tier X or "unicum" portions of the user base just don't cut it for me. These are fractions of the over all user base and while we need to consider what they need, we don't all have to jump thru hoops to ensure they get what they want.  I believe Tier VI-VIII and the mid skill level players ARE WarGaming's market audience and solutions should be based around what works best for them.

 



da_Rock002 #10 Posted May 11 2019 - 13:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 14120 battles
  • 4,597
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

View Postsparky_49, on May 11 2019 - 05:13, said:

You can use different terms, and even define them in great detail to show the difference, but that doesn't change anything. It would still manipulate team makeup based on skill, and that's not random,  That's why it's never going to happen

 

When the MM chooses from the queue, it is choosing more than just individual players.     Each player joined the queue with a tier he chose and a vehicle type.   Since the MM is actually making player choices based on tier and vehicle type, the choices from the queue are definitely NOT random choices.    Choices based on anything are not random.   anyway...…...

da_Rock002 #11 Posted May 11 2019 - 13:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 14120 battles
  • 4,597
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

View Postsparky_49, on May 11 2019 - 05:13, said:

You can use different terms, and even define them in great detail to show the difference, but that doesn't change anything. It would still manipulate team makeup based on skill, and that's not random,  That's why it's never going to happen

 

 

Since (team) Skill Balancing would take place AFTER the 30 players have been chosen from queue by tier and vehicle class simply switching a few player pairs by whatever criteria certainly isn't going to change which 30 players MM chose from the queues.   30 players were randomly chosen before the teams are balanced.


 

The OP got it right.     Skill Balancing isn't even close to Skill Based.      Only the teams are being balanced.   The player selections are not being affected or altered.   The random selections were not made with any concern with which team each player would be placed on.   His tier choice and vehicle are not being changed either.     Whatever random the MM actually executed isn't being altered in any way.


 

According to WG no player is chosen for one team or the other.   WG supposedly doesn't care.   So switching a few players does not go against WG's original logic.   You don't change something that doesn't exist.


 



da_Rock002 #12 Posted May 11 2019 - 13:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 14120 battles
  • 4,597
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

View PostMagillaGuerilla, on May 11 2019 - 05:43, said:

Whatever you call it doesn't matter because you have 30 players going for different objectives, no matter their skill level. Some are trying to complete various missions, some are trying to MOE a tank, some are grinding XP or credits, some are on their coffee break and sneaking in a quick battle, some are trying out their new premium or trying out different equipment and some are all worried about their stupid XVM rating. The game has never been balanced in any way and never will be.

 

 

The game already has balanced battles.  For most players probably a little over half are fairly evenly balanced.    And for some at least 2/3s are roughly balanced or better.


 

The game has had balanced battles since day one.    "never in any way" is wrong and has been since the beginning.



3bagsfull #13 Posted May 11 2019 - 13:56

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 2716 battles
  • 950
  • Member since:
    02-16-2014

While there is a distinction, you can have Skill Balanced MM that is still unbalanced as all get up.

Platoon of 3 unicums each team

the other 24 being tomatoes.

 

At some point you still have 75% of the players in the game that are simply getting farmed hard, which is the exact opposite of balance.



Caketime #14 Posted May 11 2019 - 13:57

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 2944 battles
  • 387
  • [-H-H] -H-H
  • Member since:
    05-06-2016

View PostSimplyPzB2, on May 11 2019 - 09:37, said:

 

Skill BASED match maker:  At least on the NA server, this type of match maker is not possible.  The player base is simply too small.  You can't isolate the unicums simply because there aren't enough of them on at the same time.  Additionally, this type of match maker has great difficulty with keeping players separated/tracking skill.  If a current 65% win rate unicum played nothing but other 65% win rate unicums, their win rates would trend down towards 50%.  Which means at some point, they'd get bumped back down to a lower skill bracket, thus defeating the system.  This would also be epicly hard to program on WG's end.

 

Are you assuming that winrate would be the only factor involved? If it were winrate only, how would it be epicly hard to program for a single variable? I would assume that there would be multiple factors at work, not just winrate. So falling below the skill threshold and into a lower bracket would be a little harder to do than just losing some games, one would have to play very poorly for a period of time before something like that happened.

 

Winrates would trend closer to 50% within a given bracket, and at the end of the day that's the main factor for opposition. The population argument is a misnomer, if this game was about competition people would come back to play. Until then it's going to stay a sandbox full of cat leavings and the fear of change.



Jer1413 #15 Posted May 11 2019 - 14:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 56894 battles
  • 2,789
  • [RR13] RR13
  • Member since:
    02-24-2013

View Postda_Rock002, on May 11 2019 - 08:29, said:

 

When the MM chooses from the queue, it is choosing more than just individual players.     Each player joined the queue with a tier he chose and a vehicle type.   Since the MM is actually making player choices based on tier and vehicle type, the choices from the queue are definitely NOT random choices.    Choices based on anything are not random.   anyway...…...

 

But if MM doesn't care if (and is in effect, blind to whether) it's you, me or Garbad playing that tank, it most definitely is random.

 

 

 



NeatoMan #16 Posted May 11 2019 - 14:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 31605 battles
  • 25,180
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostSimplyPzB2, on May 11 2019 - 03:37, said:

Again, this post is NOT intended to say whether either of the above match makers should be incorporated.  It's simply to get people talking the same language when talking about changing the current match maker. 

Except that you inserted your heavily weighted opinions into each description.

 

Block Quote

Skill BASED match maker:  At least on the NA server, this type of match maker is not possible.  The player base is simply too small.  You can't isolate the unicums simply because there aren't enough of them on at the same time.

Why make unicum only battles?   Just have an upper pool and a lower pool.  They had two NA servers for the longest time without a huge impact on wait times.  That would go a long way toward reducing skill disparity in games, as well as naturally create more balanced matchups.   Newbs and tomatoes don't get farmed heavily, and it takes care of seal clubbing.

 

IMO, a better idea would be to simply compare team PRs and only match teams within 25% 12% total team PR.  Keeps MM random, and takes care of all those "grossly imbalanced" matches you all are complaining about.  No need to swap players, and it uses already existing code.



Jer1413 #17 Posted May 11 2019 - 14:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 56894 battles
  • 2,789
  • [RR13] RR13
  • Member since:
    02-24-2013

View Postda_Rock002, on May 11 2019 - 08:50, said:

 

 

 


 

According to WG no player is chosen for one team or the other.   WG supposedly doesn't care.   So switching a few players does not go against WG's original logic.   You don't change something that doesn't exist.


 

 

 

But as soon as you switch a few players around, you've made a choice. They obviously do care, they've been very explicit that they want to maintain a random-skill MM.

 

 



_Tsavo_ #18 Posted May 11 2019 - 14:07

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 50663 battles
  • 22,414
  • [GPARD] GPARD
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

While there is a distinction in how they function, one being ladder and one being per-match, they both will drive win rates closer to 50, which is where a large amount of consternation  with it comes from. 

 

The ladder system, or skill based, would struggle with a small playerbase such as NA but might find success in a special mode, say a 5 v 5 or so.   

 

However, you've gotten it right on the differences between the two systems.   



Hellsfog #19 Posted May 11 2019 - 14:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 40834 battles
  • 6,872
  • [4ORCE] 4ORCE
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011

View Postda_Rock002, on May 11 2019 - 07:50, said:

 

 

Since (team) Skill Balancing would take place AFTER the 30 players have been chosen from queue by tier and vehicle class simply switching a few player pairs by whatever criteria certainly isn't going to change which 30 players MM chose from the queues.   30 players were randomly chosen before the teams are balanced.


 

The OP got it right.     Skill Balancing isn't even close to Skill Based.      Only the teams are being balanced.   The player selections are not being affected or altered.   The random selections were not made with any concern with which team each player would be placed on.   His tier choice and vehicle are not being changed either.     Whatever random the MM actually executed isn't being altered in any way.


 

According to WG no player is chosen for one team or the other.   WG supposedly doesn't care.   So switching a few players does not go against WG's original logic.   You don't change something that doesn't exist.


 

 

This isn't true. Your statements are based on the notion that 30 players are fungible, except for skill level, and they aren't. Since your "balancing" does account for tiers or platoons or even a reasonable metric, it is simply not viable. It is significantly more complex than simply switching a few players.

da_Rock002 #20 Posted May 11 2019 - 14:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 14120 battles
  • 4,597
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

View PostCaketime, on May 11 2019 - 07:57, said:

 

Are you assuming that winrate would be the only factor involved? If it were winrate only, how would it be epicly hard to program for a single variable? I would assume that there would be multiple factors at work, not just winrate. So falling below the skill threshold and into a lower bracket would be a little harder to do than just losing some games, one would have to play very poorly for a period of time before something like that happened.

 

Winrates would trend closer to 50% within a given bracket, and at the end of the day that's the main factor for opposition. The population argument is a misnomer, if this game was about competition people would come back to play. Until then it's going to stay a sandbox full of cat leavings and the fear of change.

 

 

He didn't assume anything.   In fact he didn't offer implementation details.

He did mention WR when describing a very skilled player.   It seems he's leaving out the implementation details, and truth is, they aren't needed.


Edited by da_Rock002, May 11 2019 - 14:20.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users