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

NeatoMan #81 Posted Jun 07 2019 - 12:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 28209 battles
  • 20,772
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostDeviouslyCursed, on Jun 06 2019 - 23:09, said:

The sign of intelligence is that one is not bored when given a large amount of free time. I've seen so often people try to retire and then go back to work because they "couldn't stand having nothing to do." I've never understood this. If I never had to work again for the rest of my life, I would still have something to do every day till the day I died.

 

It doesn't surprise me at all that Neatoman is in the same category.

 

only boring people get bored



BurglarOfBanff_ff #82 Posted Jun 07 2019 - 13:08

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 29400 battles
  • 1,565
  • [DHO4] DHO4
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014
Rather than SBMM, just let us opt out of playing with platoons.  A really good or really bad platoon is going to usually determine the outcome of the battle.  Remove platoons, remove a lot of blow outs.

da_Rock002 #83 Posted Jun 07 2019 - 14:10

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 9744 battles
  • 3,807
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

View PostBurglarOfBanff_ff, on Jun 07 2019 - 07:08, said:

Rather than SBMM, just let us opt out of playing with platoons.  A really good or really bad platoon is going to usually determine the outcome of the battle.  Remove platoons, remove a lot of blow outs.

 

 

Removing blowouts isn't the issue for most..    Removing the broken matchups is.


Edited by da_Rock002, Jun 07 2019 - 14:19.


NeatoMan #84 Posted Jun 07 2019 - 16:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 28209 battles
  • 20,772
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View Postda_Rock002, on Jun 07 2019 - 08:10, said:

Removing blowouts isn't the issue for most..    Removing the broken matchups is.

what happens when those "broken" matches are removed?  Lets see a list of exactly what you think is going to happen... don't leave anything out.



spud_tuber #85 Posted Jun 07 2019 - 16:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 59346 battles
  • 8,864
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostNeatoMan, on Jun 07 2019 - 09:44, said:

what happens when those "broken" matches are removed?  Lets see a list of exactly what you think is going to happen... don't leave anything out.

Good luck with that.  Every time I've tried to get a list, they've evaded or given a single item...



NeutronRaptor #86 Posted Jun 07 2019 - 17:11

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 30917 battles
  • 963
  • Member since:
    08-08-2013

View Postez_money, on Jun 05 2019 - 11:40, said:

SBMM would help close the gap and reduce the "streakiness" of the game by putting roughly equal teams against each other...the 3000's playing each other and the 6000's each other separately and/or an equal balance of both on each team (the latter would be preferable, otherwise the 3000's will likely never get any better). The 300's will hopefully get better, and the 6000's will have to play up to their ratings (or better) against an equally matched opposing team, and everybody can rise with the tide.

 

Since I am over 9k PR I should always be matched up with other players over 9k to even out a match? What happens when I want to grind out a tank or am playing a criminally bad one like a T110E5? Do you really think it is an even match if I am in an E5 and have to face off against another 9k player in say a Chieftain, 5A, or S.Conq? No, it would just be another blowout and would lead to grinds in the game being absolutely awful. If you were good you would be forced to basically free XP every little thing in the game and in most instances never play a non meta tank just to be remotely competitive against your own matchmaking weight. 

 

This is why SBMM will absolutely never work in this game. There are too many variables in it to actually have legit 50/50 balance on top of having no respawns. Want to increase your win chance? Get better at the game and watch how you have over 50% chance in most of your battles by simply being on your team.......



buckschott #87 Posted Jun 07 2019 - 17:34

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 19717 battles
  • 646
  • [NOBA] NOBA
  • Member since:
    06-15-2011

View PostBezzell, on Jun 06 2019 - 00:49, said:

Waiting for the tick-box to make my stats anonymous.  Blocking XVM will solve a lot of problems. 

 

Lots of people play so differently when the probable outcome is good/bad.  It's more pronounced when it looks like a loss.  People will sit back, not push or take any chances, and farm as much as they can. Some just yolo out as fast as possible to get what they can and get out.

 

Everything they are doing to try and get the most out of a loss is just cementing the loss and promoting a blow out.

 

Blocking stats should improve overall gameplay, inho.

 

My 2cents



da_Rock002 #88 Posted Jun 07 2019 - 22:29

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 9744 battles
  • 3,807
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

View PostNeatoMan, on Jun 07 2019 - 10:44, said:

what happens when those "broken" matches are removed?  Lets see a list of exactly what you think is going to happen... don't leave anything out.

 

 

Currently the unbroken matches do a pretty good job providing decently fun battles. 

Simply adjusting the WoT Signature matches to have the same range of matchups that currently happen today from the unbroken ones is going to produce the same range of results.


 

What happens when unbalanced matches are made as balanced as the MM already produces currently?     Jeez, what do you think? 



Nixeldon #89 Posted Jun 07 2019 - 22:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 60881 battles
  • 2,307
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View Postda_Rock002, on Jun 07 2019 - 16:29, said:

Simply adjusting the WoT Signature matches to have the same range of matchups that currently happen today from the unbroken ones is going to produce the same range of results.

It is going to produce the same results, but it needs to be changed because it needs to be changed?



NeatoMan #90 Posted Jun 07 2019 - 22:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 28209 battles
  • 20,772
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View Postda_Rock002, on Jun 07 2019 - 16:29, said:

What happens when unbalanced matches are made as balanced as the MM already produces currently?     Jeez, what do you think? 

Nothing aside from shifting wins from players who contribute more to battles to players who don't .

 

You don't like good players, that's fairly evident.   That's why you want skill balance. 



Treeburst #91 Posted Jun 08 2019 - 01:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 32898 battles
  • 2,074
  • [SNPAI] SNPAI
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011
Neatoman, how are you compiling the data? Manually or can you mine it from replays?

NeatoMan #92 Posted Jun 08 2019 - 01:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 28209 battles
  • 20,772
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostTreeburst, on Jun 07 2019 - 19:20, said:

Neatoman, how are you compiling the data? Manually or can you mine it from replays?

I'm running WoTNumbers in the background while playing.  It's kind of like vbaddict.  We can use the player info to get PR ratings off WoT's API.  Far better because we can verify the information, and it is consistent from player to player.  No more manual collection, or hiding of information like budha and daRock are notorious for doing.  

 

So far we have data from 5 players, and am always looking for more

Treeburst #93 Posted Jun 08 2019 - 02:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 32898 battles
  • 2,074
  • [SNPAI] SNPAI
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011
Ok, I’ll check it out tonight.

da_Rock002 #94 Posted Jun 08 2019 - 02:07

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 9744 battles
  • 3,807
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

View PostNixeldon, on Jun 07 2019 - 16:32, said:

It is going to produce the same results, but it needs to be changed because it needs to be changed?

 

 

Where do you get the idea that turning a pile of unevenly matched battles, with almost guaranteed outcomes, into evenly matched competitions "is going to produce the same results."


 

Really....    you do realize the WoT Signature matchups don't result in balanced battles, don't you?    They basically guarantee a handful of top players some WR buffing while f'ing over about 3 times as many newbs.   You do realize there are damn few WoT Signature matchups that are turned into upsets, don't you.


 

Removing the cancer isn't going to produce anything like the same results. 


Edited by da_Rock002, Jun 08 2019 - 02:32.


da_Rock002 #95 Posted Jun 08 2019 - 02:19

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 9744 battles
  • 3,807
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

View PostNeatoMan, on Jun 07 2019 - 16:49, said:

Nothing aside from shifting wins from players who contribute more to battles to players who don't .

 

You don't like good players, that's fairly evident.   That's why you want skill balance.

 

 

Woah....   so you admit the players benefitting from those almost fixed outcome matchups are the top players.


 

Good of you to finally admit it.    OH wait, you aren't admitting it, you just slipped up and said it while trying to downplay the need to fix the problem.


 

You're really showing your true colors recently.     OK, you're slipping up more often.


 

I don't want "skill balance" btw.     That's a halfash spin on what I've said over and over....    The thread title is about team balance.   I've said over and over that I want team balance.    Team makeup helps control how fair the competition is from the start.

 

The WoT Signature matchups piss off more players than they benefit.  And the only players who regularly benefit DON'T NEED THE HELP.    They are to be respected for their skills.   I like good players just as much as newbies.   It's a shame their WR is tainted from the gift that keeps on giving (for them) : WoT Signature matchups.   They don't need the help.     On the other hand, the players who regularly and repeatedly have their WR mashed down don't deserve their exposure to WG's inability to provide a fair battlefield.  


Edited by da_Rock002, Jun 08 2019 - 02:28.


spud_tuber #96 Posted Jun 08 2019 - 03:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 59346 battles
  • 8,864
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View Postda_Rock002, on Jun 07 2019 - 19:19, said:

 

 

Woah....   so you admit the players benefitting from those almost fixed outcome matchups are the top players.


 

Good of you to finally admit it.    OH wait, you aren't admitting it, you just slipped up and said it while trying to downplay the need to fix the problem.


 

You're really showing your true colors recently.     OK, you're slipping up more often.


 

I don't want "skill balance" btw.     That's a halfash spin on what I've said over and over....    The thread title is about team balance.   I've said over and over that I want team balance.    Team makeup helps control how fair the competition is from the start.

 

The WoT Signature matchups piss off more players than they benefit.  And the only players who regularly benefit DON'T NEED THE HELP.    They are to be respected for their skills.   I like good players just as much as newbies.   It's a shame their WR is tainted from the gift that keeps on giving (for them) : WoT Signature matchups.   They don't need the help.     On the other hand, the players who regularly and repeatedly have their WR mashed down don't deserve their exposure to WG's inability to provide a fair battlefield.  

Ok, let's look at this claim that good players are being handed wins by WoT Singature matchups because they are on the winning side of them more.  There are basically only 2 ways in which this could be remotely considered an honest statement. 

 

A) You believe that good players get more games with good teammates than bad players.  IE, MM isn't random with the normal distribution that implies and instead gives good teammates a higher concentration of good teammates.

 

B) If WoT battles were 1v1, you would consider 1 good player vs 1 bad player a WoT signature match.

 

Which is it?



Boghie #97 Posted Jun 08 2019 - 03:29

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 8733 battles
  • 1,182
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    04-10-2016

Anyone watch the Clan War Battles on Twitch, The Fame/Mahou match, maybe Skirmishes, or better yet the Gold League tournaments.

 

Take the Gold League Tournament.  Guess what.  That is the ultimate in Skill Based Match Making.  Everybody was Purple.

 

And, lots of those individual games were complete blowouts.  In fact, I would say most were blowouts.

 

How do you fix the blowouts in Gold League - which by definition uses a Skill Based Match Making system?  Just asking...

 

 



Treeburst #98 Posted Jun 08 2019 - 03:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 32898 battles
  • 2,074
  • [SNPAI] SNPAI
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostNeatoMan, on Jun 06 2019 - 15:47, said:

I hear a number of people say extreme win chance games are guaranteed wins and losses.    Well, not quite.  Here is individual game WN8s for our test group, broken down by win chance.  You can see the win rates they achieved for a certain level of performance in each win chance group

 

 

For the most part whenever they had a decent game (>1200 WN8) they outperformed the win chances.  Even in the lowest WC group they could double their chances by having a good game.  Only at the highest end does it seem the contribution, or lack of it, had little effect on the outcome.  I'll have to look to see how many of those very high win chances were generated by platoons.  That might explain the lack of WR movement vs individual contribution.   In most other ranges the win rates were swayed by 30% or more depending on the individual contribution. 

 

As with all the other analyses, this could use more data.  Some of the sample sizes are small, but the trends already seem to be in place.

 

bottom line is your contributions matter, so try to win even when the odds are against you.

 

I’m mostly interested in this sort of comparison, since I generally find myself unable to “pull my weight” on a horrific team. 

 

I’m not sure I believe the “your contributions matter” - when it’s 1-2 vs 10-15 there generally isn’t a [edited]thing I’m going to be able to do to win that. What I’d really be interested in seeing (and what I think would finally settle the debate on rigging, at least in my eyes) is the average difference in (some metric, perhaps PR for you since that is what you are using as a predictor) between the teams. 

 

Say I have a PR of 9000, and the average player has a PR of 4000. I would think that if the matchmaking is truly random then my team should have an average advantage of 5000 total PR, and if it doesn’t I’d find that somewhat suspicious. 



NeatoMan #99 Posted Jun 08 2019 - 04:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 28209 battles
  • 20,772
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View Postda_Rock002, on Jun 07 2019 - 20:19, said:

Woah....   so you admit the players benefitting from those almost fixed outcome matchups are the top players.

NO.   any benefit that leads to more wins for them they create for themselves through their own contributions.  That's something you continue to deny, despite everything pointing to the fact that it is increased contributions by the individual that leads to more wins.    You will always be wrong on that point

 

Block Quote

I don't want "skill balance" btw.     That's a halfash spin on what I've said over and over....    The thread title is about team balance.   I've said over and over that I want team balance.    Team makeup helps control how fair the competition is from the start.

 are you not demanding team balance by skill?

 

Block Quote

The WoT Signature matchups piss off more players than they benefit.  And the only players who regularly benefit DON'T NEED THE HELP.    They are to be respected for their skills.   I like good players just as much as newbies.   It's a shame their WR is tainted from the gift that keeps on giving (for them) : WoT Signature matchups.   They don't need the help.     On the other hand, the players who regularly and repeatedly have their WR mashed down don't deserve their exposure to WG's inability to provide a fair battlefield.  

 Nobody's win rate is tainted by the MM.  They face the same opponents that everyone else faces.  They get the same level of team mates that everyone else gets.  It is their own contributions that make the difference.  It's their skill which leads to higher performance stats, which in turn leads to higher win chances.   You seem to think they get higher win chances first, which then leads to more wins and higher performance stats.  That's bass ackwards.



NeatoMan #100 Posted Jun 08 2019 - 04:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 28209 battles
  • 20,772
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostTreeburst, on Jun 07 2019 - 21:39, said:

Say I have a PR of 9000, and the average player has a PR of 4000. I would think that if the matchmaking is truly random then my team should have an average advantage of 5000 total PR, and if it doesn’t I’d find that somewhat suspicious. 

(4000*14 + 9000)/15 = 4333 PR avg.   Here you can get an idea what your PR does to your teams

https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

 

the distribution shown there are from actual teams.  The win chance is basically showing the average difference.







Also tagged with XVM, SBMM, blowout, roflstomp

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users