Jump to content


How team balance (win chance) affects your battles

XVM SBMM blowout roflstomp

  • Please log in to reply
221 replies to this topic

2MOEJOE #21 Posted Jun 02 2019 - 22:07

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 4349 battles
  • 706
  • Member since:
    11-28-2017

View PostPotatoLegend99, on Jun 02 2019 - 13:12, said:

I don't put much stock in PR these days...lots of people that have climbed their way up to "good" PR numbers just through playing tens of thousands of battles...like me! I sometimes divide a person's PR number by their total battles played for funsies and sometimes take an extra step and multiply the resulting ratio by their win rate at low, mid, or high tiers.

 

Players dont have good PRs because  they play many battles this has to be the dumbest myth in this game besides  aimbot.Jeez dude if that were the case some of these baddies on this server would have  13000 PRs ffs.

Edited by 2MOEJOE, Jun 02 2019 - 22:10.


NeatoMan #22 Posted Jun 02 2019 - 22:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 28209 battles
  • 20,777
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostRides_with_Death, on Jun 02 2019 - 15:06, said:

Xvm should just programed in 60% chance  at the start of ever game and not used the real chance values.. and not told anyone just so people would stop [edited] 

+1

 

I like this idea!  but maybe vary it from 49 to 60 so it doesn't look so suspicious.



Flarvin #23 Posted Jun 02 2019 - 22:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 54888 battles
  • 17,053
  • Member since:
    03-29-2013

View PostRides_with_Death, on Jun 02 2019 - 15:06, said:

Xvm should just programed in 60% chance  at the start of ever game and not used the real chance values.. and not told anyone just so people would stop [edited] 

 

Or go with 98%. The chance at least one of the two teams will win, which is an actual win chance. 



da_Rock002 #24 Posted Jun 02 2019 - 23:32

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 9749 battles
  • 3,820
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

Some would probably call that pretty work.  It is.

 

It's a pity it misses the point for individual players.   Like newbies.  Or the class WoT players whose WR has been padded as long as random is allowed to control each battle as it comes along for each player.  When newbies play this game, they have found themselves on teams that are both overpowering and that suck.   It happens randomly, but unfortunately, the point isn't that they equal out.    When top players play this game, they have found themselves on teams that are overpowering and suck too.   The point for them is different than the newbies however.


 

When random is what drives something like a matchmaker that ignores it, extremes happen somewhat equally.    The matchups that are of concern happen more often for newbies.   They contain roughly 3 times as many newbs as top players.   It's simple.  Who sees more extreme matchups?    


 

Now, what does WoT mechanics do to those "equally occurring" unbalanced MMs?     Skilled kill unskilled.    The WoTSignature matchups that spill out of the MM naturally happen to benefit the tops when the extreme groups them on team A, as well as when the opposite extreme groups them on team B.    So the tops almost always see wins.   Both extremes favor the side with the concentration of tops.  One could say the tops benefit from both sides of the bell curve.    Unfortunately, the newbs wind up getting screwed just as often.     The one possible bright side for the newbs is they are more often populating the weak team, but roughly 1/3 the time, they do benefit by luck.   They aren't always on the anemic team.  

 

Neato, it really looks pretty, all those charts.  It's interesting how far you go to blow smoke.   It's a shame they miss the real issue.     Newbies see battles over time one at a time.   Neato, your entire smoke cloud is built from a formula that ignores individuals.    Individual tops see battles over time, one at a time.  Your formula doesn't show anything pertinent for the string of battles a newb sees, nor the battles a player sees after he has worked his way to "gud".


 

You've actually provided a pretty good picture show.   One that shows how badly the present MM handles teams.   You've not come close to picturing the WoT newbies see from day to day to month to month.    You've just blown smoke that doesn't picture the WoT "guds" see from day to day.


 

Are you working on a degree in psyche?    "Newscasting/Propaganda"   And this is a lab experiment to show your ability to push an ideal that is detrimental to the population?



da_Rock002 #25 Posted Jun 03 2019 - 00:18

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 9749 battles
  • 3,820
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

I'm coming up on 3 years here.   It's been neat.  It's also sucked.   No news there.

The first year I figured I was a newbie.   Nowadays I'd say I was a newbie for maybe a year and a half.  Nowadays I'd say my 2nd year I was a player learning the game who had a lot to learn.


 

anyway….   All that time I've kept score.   Looking at that data showed me something interesting early on.    The number of blowouts I was getting seemed to be a lot higher number than a lot of posters said was what everyone should get.   That was somewhat vague so I kept looking at my scorekeeping to see if I could at least figure out when and how I helped my team.


 

I noticed from researching the blowouts there were lots of them with a repeating picture.    One side had most of the gud players while the other have very few.   At the same time, one side often had a bunch of weak players.   Two things had the same effect.     But I also noticed not all blowouts had the skewed matchups.    It was clear that blowout didn't mean skewing, nor that skewing guaranteed a blowout.    But since I was researching battles whether they were blowouts or not, I could tell that skewing sucked.    

 

Over about the first 2 years there were months where blowouts were pushing 50% of the battles.   What was annoying was the fact a high percentage of the skewed matchups were losses.   What was further annoying was the fact I was increasing my DMG production etc etc.    


 

Into my 2nd year I noticed I was very often in the top 3-5 on my team in DMG and XP.    And noticed the skewed matchups were usually about 50% instead of >50.  


 

For the last few months, I've noticed my blowout rate is way down.   I've noticed the percentage of skewed MMs is way down.  


 

I'm an individual.    The f'd up skewed matchups affect individuals differently.    They've certainly coming at a different rate.   I got no doubt a lot more newbs see a lot more screw jobs than guds see.


 

The screw jobs stink up the game for newbs.    What benefit do they serve for the population as a whole?     Neato, why are you so strong for keeping a flawed MM? 



NeatoMan #26 Posted Jun 03 2019 - 00:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 28209 battles
  • 20,777
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View Postda_Rock002, on Jun 02 2019 - 17:32, said:

Some would probably call that pretty work.  It is.

 

It's a pity it misses the point for individual players.  ...

 

Block Quote

Neato, why are you so strong for keeping a flawed MM? 

 

why don't we ever hear you advocating for skill separation then?  That addresses all of the issues you raised regarding newbs.  But no... all you ever go on and on about is skill balance.

 

Do you really think newbs are helped by putting a few good players on their teams to help carry them to more wins?   Why not gradually introduce them to better and better players, just like almost every competitive endeavor does with a league based system?

 

"nope, skill balance... mmm durrr"

 

The reason is obvious....  You don't give a crap about newbs.  You are jealous of good players, and are simply using newbs as an excuse to get back at them.

 

Block Quote

 I got no doubt a lot more newbs see a lot more screw jobs than guds see.

 They get about the same number as everyone else, the only difference is which side of the win or loss they come out on, but that's true of all games, including the close ones, and everything in between.  The 3000, 4450, 6700, and 8800 PR players who contributed data all had similar blowout rates.


Edited by NeatoMan, Jun 03 2019 - 00:37.


cavalry11 #27 Posted Jun 03 2019 - 00:29

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 49906 battles
  • 706
  • [11BAT] 11BAT
  • Member since:
    06-24-2013
I just look at it as a challenge.

spud_tuber #28 Posted Jun 03 2019 - 01:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 59355 battles
  • 8,871
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013
Neato, quick question.   Were the players used to generate this formula plateaued, or were they improving or regressing at the time the data was collected?

NeatoMan #29 Posted Jun 03 2019 - 01:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 28209 battles
  • 20,777
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View Postspud_tuber, on Jun 02 2019 - 19:17, said:

Neato, quick question. Were the players used to generate this formula plateaued, or were they improving or regressing at the time the data was collected?

That's a good question.  I'd say one was improving slightly, I was probably regressing when playing my RhmPzw, but steady in everything else (at least until today... frigging russian bias), and one other probably regressed.  The last was a mid-lower tier player, and probably doing a little bit of clubbing. 

 

I could probably figure out based on how each deviated from the average, but I need more data to know for sure.



grandthefttankV #30 Posted Jun 03 2019 - 06:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 35946 battles
  • 2,610
  • [_EOS_] _EOS_
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013
OP you need a hobby

BlaqWolf #31 Posted Jun 03 2019 - 12:28

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22262 battles
  • 521
  • [W--W] W--W
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011
No need for any sort of 'skill' based matchmaker.  Period, fullstop.

Balance the PR (the only metric used in the game itself) between teams and things would improve, overall.
Currently the MM puts all the skill to one side, leaving a *huge* gaping total PR between teams.  One side might have a total PR of, say, 50k.  The other team could have 80k or even more.  While PR is not the most accurate metric and can be manipulated it's at least a general indicator of a particular player's skill.  So, rather than just dumping 80k to one side, the difference between them and the 50k team should be spread out between them, bringing the 'weaker' team up to 65k and the 'stronger' team down to 65k (roughly), with a touch more weight given to platoons as they tend to be more coordinated.  No need to separate the tomatoes from the grapes, just balance them between both teams.

NeatoMan #32 Posted Jun 03 2019 - 13:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 28209 battles
  • 20,777
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostBlaqWolf, on Jun 03 2019 - 06:28, said:

Balance the PR (the only metric used in the game itself) between teams and things would improve, overall.

That's not what this shows.



Copacetic #33 Posted Jun 03 2019 - 14:57

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 48135 battles
  • 1,722
  • [ZEUS] ZEUS
  • Member since:
    02-04-2014

View PostNeatoMan, on Jun 03 2019 - 13:53, said:

That's not what this shows.

Yeah but these people are to daft to understand this.



__Happy #34 Posted Jun 03 2019 - 15:10

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 12208 battles
  • 255
  • Member since:
    04-03-2017

View PostNeatoMan, on Jun 02 2019 - 20:39, said:

So let's see the difference between this scenario and SBMM:  

 

random MM:  you get a rare 10:90 battle, you likely lose.   you are just as likely to get a rare 90:10 battle, you likely win   Played out a bunch of times they even out, so you split wins and losses.   You are far more likely to get a 50:50 battle, which according to the odds you are likely to split too.   From a game play perspective a 10:90 loss isn't much different than a 50:50 loss.

 

SBMM:  you get put on 50:50 teams, or close to it, which according to the odds you should split roughly 50:50.  They play out much the same as the random battles.

 

the difference.  In a random MM if you are a good player you will shift the odds in your favor giving you fewer 10:90 games vs 90:10 games, and you win more games.  In SBMM you will always be balanced and if working properly will keep splitting your games.  

 

bottom line is in SBMM wins and losses get shifted, while game play doesn't improve noticeably.  If I don't know the odds all I notice is the shift in wins/losses.

 

 If they play out much like the other battles, why would they be any more or less boring?

 

Your obsession with the odds, without taking into account any of the background is what is causing all your distress.  You are a perfect example of why I put the disclaimer in the beginning.  It applies to people like you.  You DO NOT get any of this, and your misuse of these stats is a self-inflicted ruinous approach to your game.

 

I won't, specifically because of you.  People with OCD don't need any more "encouragement"

That's where we disagree Neato, see it doesn't matter if you win or lose the lopsided games, it's that they BOTH suck! If a simple player swap reduces the number of drastically lopsided games, wouldn't that improve the experience for everyone?



Kliphie #35 Posted Jun 03 2019 - 15:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 33060 battles
  • 5,635
  • [GFLC] GFLC
  • Member since:
    07-20-2012
Then the discussion would turn into WG rigging games because WG would be rigging the game.  

NeatoMan #36 Posted Jun 03 2019 - 15:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 28209 battles
  • 20,777
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View Post60_percnt_wrks_everytime, on Jun 03 2019 - 09:10, said:

That's where we disagree Neato, see it doesn't matter if you win or lose the lopsided games, it's that they BOTH suck! If a simple player swap reduces the number of drastically lopsided games, wouldn't that improve the experience for everyone?

They don't suck any worse than a 50:50 battle as far as I can tell.  If I don't use XVM then I can't tell them apart.  You are letting those stupid little numbers from XVM dictate the terms of your enjoyment, rather than how the actual battles unfold



__Happy #37 Posted Jun 03 2019 - 15:56

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 12208 battles
  • 255
  • Member since:
    04-03-2017

View PostNeatoMan, on Jun 03 2019 - 15:33, said:

They don't suck any worse than a 50:50 battle as far as I can tell.  If I don't use XVM then I can't tell them apart.  You are letting those stupid little numbers from XVM dictate the terms of your enjoyment, rather than how the actual battles unfold.

 

You are making uninformed and incorrect assumptions. I don't pre-determine anything, I try my best in every game I play. I determine if the game sucked or not AFTER the game not before. Once again, I personally don't enjoy steamrolls from either side, thus they both suck in my opinion and if an adjustment can be made to limit them, I'm all for it.

Arrowheadmen #38 Posted Jun 03 2019 - 16:00

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 23540 battles
  • 275
  • [XCAL] XCAL
  • Member since:
    07-25-2017

View Post60_percnt_wrks_everytime, on Jun 03 2019 - 15:56, said:

 

You are making uninformed and incorrect assumptions. I don't pre-determine anything, I try my best in every game I play. I determine if the game sucked or not AFTER the game not before. Once again, I personally don't enjoy steamrolls from either side, thus they both suck in my opinion and if an adjustment can be made to limit them, I'm all for it.

 

I agree, steamrolls suck regardless of the which side you are on, but being on the winning side makes you feel a little better.  :)

ethics_gradient #39 Posted Jun 03 2019 - 16:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 42028 battles
  • 2,385
  • [DHO-X] DHO-X
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

First, thanks, NeatoMan for putting in the thought and effort.


 

I've never put much stock in win chance, because it's just a predicted likelihood, not a guarantee.  Even if your team has a 60% chance of winning, you will lose 4 out of 10 identical matches.  People always forget that part.  I admit that I do a rough estimate of the balance of a battle by counting the number of orange and red players on each team during the countdown.  I will sometimes tailor how I play.  For example, if there are a lot of good players in light and medium tanks, I might try for a more aggressive initial position.  If most of the players are on the lower part of the curve, I might try to be more conservative.



spud_tuber #40 Posted Jun 03 2019 - 16:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 59355 battles
  • 8,871
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013
Folks,if you can't find a way to have fun in steamrolls, you're probably playing the wrong game. WoT has almost no anti-steamroll mechanics.  No respawns, no HP regen, no dpm boost for the team that's behind. The TD sniper nests that sorta used to do this were generally  considered unhealthy for gameplay and removed.  As such, even with perfectly balanced matches, steamrolls are going to happen at a noticable rate.  Indeed, based on the data Neato has collected, you probably wouldn't notice a difference in steamrolls even with skill balanced matches unless you kept records.

So, here's my method for enjoying steamrolls, at least on the winning side.  Get forward and help generate that local overmatch that leads to a steamroll.  Early engagements can be as intense as late game engagements, and there's a feeling of accomplishment when you see that you've succeeded and your team is taking advantage of the opportunity you created to roll the other team up.  





Also tagged with XVM, SBMM, blowout, roflstomp

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users