Jump to content


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


  • Please log in to reply
628 replies to this topic

Copacetic #621 Posted Sep 08 2019 - 21:31

    Captain

  • Players
  • 59944 battles
  • 1,722
  • [SGATH] SGATH
  • Member since:
    02-04-2014

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Sep 08 2019 - 05:52, said:

neato freely admits random mm BUILDS IN ADVANTAGES for good players.  Got it...

that's what you got out of that statement? lmbodamn you're dumb



Nixeldon #622 Posted Sep 08 2019 - 21:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 68878 battles
  • 3,056
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Sep 08 2019 - 15:14, said:

 Good players don't deserve/haven't earned a built in advantage.  No one does.  Every battle should be between (roughly) equal teams.  Every battle should start on a level playing field.

 

OK. Remove OP tanks, and either remove platoons or weight them accordingly. Create brackets that balance as close to 50/50 win chances as possible and relax skill and tier restrictions as time necessitates. Do this plus losing players sacrifice a portion of their gold, credits, bonds, etc. and I am on board. Double payout if the win is a blowout.

 

This destroys the MMO progression concept but at least your colors match. The game structure will have to be revamped and require a different monetizing scheme. Low tiers will have to exclude experiences players and have a pool of its own. Eventually the game would resemble a different genre.

 

If you want good skill balance, argue for good skill balance. Stop with this ridiculous XVM garbage that is nothing but win rate welfare.

 

Edit: I forgot a major component. Cut team sizes in half and drop the RNG for crew and module damage, shot dispersion, penetration and damage.


Edited by Nixeldon, Sep 08 2019 - 23:15.


Copacetic #623 Posted Sep 08 2019 - 21:37

    Captain

  • Players
  • 59944 battles
  • 1,722
  • [SGATH] SGATH
  • Member since:
    02-04-2014

you're arguing for rigging

we are calling your [edited]out



Nixeldon #624 Posted Sep 08 2019 - 21:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 68878 battles
  • 3,056
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostCopacetic, on Sep 08 2019 - 15:37, said:

you're arguing for rigging

we are calling your [edited]out

If he wants meaningful, sweaty try-hard matches, I want the payouts to be there. He wants to remove the fun of match variety, the progression aspects and allowing skill to be apparent, I want his stuff from his garage for sucking the casual fun out of the game for being better than average. 



spud_tuber #625 Posted Sep 08 2019 - 21:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 69509 battles
  • 11,333
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Sep 08 2019 - 14:14, said:


There is no mischaracterization on my part.  Either the teams are balanced or they are not.  Random does not factor in skill.  Random allows for very unbalanced battles to exist.  Better player benefit from this loophole.  That is the absolute truth.  Good players don't deserve/haven't earned a built in advantage.  No one does.  Every battle should be between (roughly) equal teams.  Every battle should start on a level playing field.

-

You are arguing FOR the following battle:

Which is a terrible thing to argue for.  Look at all the newer players on the enemy team.  How much fun do you think they really had getting curbstomped like this?  (None, the answer is none).  So what incentive do they have to keep putting time into a game that allows battles like this to happen?  No look at all the skilled player on Team 1.  How much fun do you think they had simply pressing the 'w' key for the 'win' (if we can even call it that)?  (None, the answer is none).  It's pretty obvious veteran players are leaving this game.  So many boring battles like this.  What incentive do veteran players have to stick around if so many battles are just going to be handed to them on a silver platter?

-

And I'm calling you out for blatantly ignoring this battle, as it was in the comment you were talking about.   Tell us why this battle should exist, why you think it's good for the game, why it's balanced?

You want to call someone out for ignoring stuff? That's your thing. 

 

As far as that battle goes, I've told you before that such battles are the price we pay for having a fair MM, ie one that is impartial.  Every MM scheme has costs and benefits, after all.  Speaking of ignoring stuff,  you continue to ignore the cost of SBalancedMM and the benefits of random MM.  You've ignored or misinterpreted again the part where I explained why the MM doesn't give good players an advantage, it simply provides all players with equal opportunity to make their own advantage through putting in the effort to get good.   You also continue to ignore my request that you clarify your definition of "earned win"...  

 

So, as I said to open, you're the champion of blatantly ignoring things that don't fit your narrative. 



Trakks #626 Posted Sep 09 2019 - 08:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 6316 battles
  • 2,912
  • Member since:
    11-24-2011
If you want it to be as fair as possible, then you would also have to make sure that all tanks chosen for a match are as close as possible in stats otherwise even a single tank on your team that is either OP or weaksauce against everyone else throws off the balance again and then you'll be complaining about the other side having killer tanks or your team having useless ones even though the players behind them may have the same skill level. Attempting to add "balance" to a game can be more destructive than just leaving it alone.

NeatoMan #627 Posted Sep 09 2019 - 12:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 31711 battles
  • 25,319
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

SimplyPzB2 said:

View PostNeatoMan, on Sep 07 2019 - 07:16, said:

Suppose there are only two good players in battle, me and another 7k PR player.   I will never be able to team up with another 7k PR player. Both of us 7K players are treated differently than everyone else in battle.    Everyone else is guaranteed to have a 7k PR player as their team mate, while neither of us are.  So while they can all test their skills alongside a good player, we cannot.   We are required to have lesser skilled wingmen.

 

In the current MM I get to play alongside that other 7k PR player as often as everyone else does...  equal opportunity

I need to start with a funny thing about my response.  I read what neato wrote earlier in the day.  I logged in later in the day and played ONE battle, and that one battle will show just how wrong neato is.  I mean come on, the first/only battle I play today proves him wrong, what are the chances?!?!  (Actually, pretty good and these battles happen all the time).

-

So look closely at what neato is saying above.  He's used an example where there are only 2 (out of 30) good players in the battle.  He then argues that IT'S FAIR TO PUT BOTH OF THEM ON THE SAME TEAM SO HE CAN HAVE A BUILT IN ADVANTAGE FOR THAT BATTLE.  Sweet corn, I can't emphasize this enough..  NEATO IS ADVOCATING FOR THE MM TO RIG A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE BATTLES. 

 

Only if you focus on one battle, and ignore the fact that people play more than just one battle.  The current MM is like a round robin tournament.  Everybody gets to take a turn playing with and against every combination of skill level.     It's the same variety of random difficulties for everyone.  Where you end up after all that is entirely up to you.  If you find the competition too easy, or too hard at your tier then move up, or drop down some tiers where the population is more similar to yours

 

Apparently some people with certain irrational mental afflictions can't handle that variety.  They require consistency to soothe their troubled minds



Blackstone #628 Posted Sep 09 2019 - 19:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 29907 battles
  • 3,041
  • [GFLC] GFLC
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

WoT stats and matches should be viewed in the same way as baseball.

If you're batting .300, you're considered awesome.

In reality, you're hitting the ball 30% of the time. 7 out of 10.

When taken out of the context of the game, it seems very bad.

BUT within the context of the game, a player with a .300 batting average is considered among the best.

 

It's the same with WoT.

Keep the WIN% or WIN8 within the game's context.

People prattling on about SBMM aren't doing that.

By comparison, my stats (using baseball jargon) would be just above the Mendoza Line. ;)



Darth_Junka #629 Posted Sep 09 2019 - 19:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 24809 battles
  • 2,112
  • [4ORCE] 4ORCE
  • Member since:
    02-21-2014

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Sep 08 2019 - 21:14, said:

You are arguing FOR the following battle:

Which is a terrible thing to argue for.  

 

Why are you citing one blowout when large sample sizes reveal player performance? Everyone is just as likely to end up on a good team as they are a bad team; the difference is baddies are a detriment to every team they join regardless of win chance.

 

Even if we accepted that SBMM is a good idea, which it isn't, it still wouldn't work because of imbalances between individual tanks and classes. The logic end result of your argument will be matching every player with an opponent of equivalent skill/class/model, which would result in near infinite queue times.

 

Worst of all player stats would become a useless reference for clan recruiters, because individual player skill would no longer be the defining variable for recents.

 

So yeah I'd rather not be saddled with an equal number of bad players every game simply because SBMM wants to punish me for being good.


Edited by JunkaTheAdmirable, Sep 09 2019 - 19:38.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users