Jump to content


Why Is Matchmaking So One Sided

Matchmaking

  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

Poll: matchmaking (102 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 100 battle in order to participate this poll.

who thinks matchmaking makes one team much better than the other?

  1. yes (58 votes [56.31%])

    Percentage of vote: 56.31%

  2. NO (45 votes [43.69%])

    Percentage of vote: 43.69%

Vote Hide poll

Vulcan_Spectre #21 Posted Sep 04 2019 - 18:07

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 6093 battles
  • 1,681
  • [TCM] TCM
  • Member since:
    12-25-2017

View PostArmorStorm, on Sep 03 2019 - 20:40, said:

It's RAAAAAAAAANDOM.  It HAS to be lopsided because the only way to make it reliably even would be to fix the matches.  The principle is called "Perfect IMbalance" as shown in the video below.

 

You can certainly disagree with WG's use and implementation of the principle, but given the HUGE number of players with 35000, 50000 battles or more (much more!) I think that they have pretty much proven that the times a player is favored is balanced by the times a player is disadvantaged and leads to people staying with the game.  

I really liked that video, found it interesting. +1



Das_Junka #22 Posted Sep 04 2019 - 21:57

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 22039 battles
  • 1,410
  • [ALERT] ALERT
  • Member since:
    02-21-2014
If the playerbase stops being terrible there won't be blowouts.

umkhulu #23 Posted Sep 04 2019 - 22:20

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 124 battles
  • 797
  • Member since:
    07-15-2017

View PostMrBitcoin, on Sep 04 2019 - 02:33, said:

Why is matchmaking so one sided, there is no skill needed in playing this game. at the start of the game I can tell if my team is going to win or loss.

the matchmaking has started favoring the more skilled player, I see no other reason why they are mostly on one team.

9 out 10 game are one sided. I have come to this after 3 months of playing over 3000 premium games(mostly tri 8 - 10).. this is my thoughts.

I see there has been no new talk about Matchmaking since apr 2019

I want to know how many other people are in the same boat, looking for your thought?

 

No matter what the forum schills may say, you are correct.

65% of the games can be predicted simply by looking at team balance as shown by Aslain. Random it may be, but for the most part, MM decides who wins and who loses.

 

 

 

 



spud_tuber #24 Posted Sep 05 2019 - 02:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 59805 battles
  • 9,087
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostJunkaTheAdmirable, on Sep 04 2019 - 14:57, said:

If the playerbase stops being terrible there won't be blowouts.

Or, blowouts will increase because everyone would know how to exploit the advantages of winning a local overmatch.  *shrug*  I don't know how many battles I've been in that should have been blowouts if it weren't for bad players throwing away a hard fought advantage, sometimes even to the point of throwing the whole battle, other times making the battle a closer result than it should have been. 



NeatoMan #25 Posted Sep 05 2019 - 02:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 28253 battles
  • 20,896
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View Postumkhulu, on Sep 04 2019 - 16:20, said:

No matter what the forum schills may say, you are correct.

65% of the games can be predicted simply by looking at team balance as shown by Aslain. Random it may be, but for the most part, MM decides who wins and who loses.

That's nothing special.  all you gotta do is guess "favored team wins" and you should get around 65% correct just by playing the odds..



SporkBoy #26 Posted Sep 05 2019 - 03:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 49748 battles
  • 2,894
  • [PZB] PZB
  • Member since:
    02-06-2014
Well, today I had several games with large mismatches but managed to win anyway despite being on the weaker team.

InfinityGamer #27 Posted Sep 05 2019 - 04:13

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 34956 battles
  • 271
  • [GIVUP] GIVUP
  • Member since:
    03-29-2013

View Postda_Rock002, on Sep 04 2019 - 21:42, said:

So what happens in both of the "equally occurring" situations? The same thing happens. The results of both cases rewards one class of player and not the other. Hey wait..... One class of player gets rewards in BOTH CASES. 

 

Is it too simple for you to comprehend that no matter which team benefits from having more skilled players, allies or enemy, only one class of player is rewarded in both cases.  

How exactly am I rewarded by having an entire enemy team stacked against me? You've repeatedly claimed that I benefit in 'both cases', but I see no justification for this. The fact is, I don't benefit when an enemy team is stacked against me, but due to my own skill I force my team to be the 'stacked team' more often than not.

 

View Postda_Rock002, on Sep 04 2019 - 21:42, said:

You're ignoring how WoT mechanics rewards skill and does not reward unskilled. 

Yes, being skilled at a game rewards you. This comes as a surprise to absolutely nobody. If I'm getting more damage, more kills, more spotting etc, naturally I'm going to get more wins. It's got nothing to do with biased team distributions.



da_Rock002 #28 Posted Sep 05 2019 - 18:27

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 9849 battles
  • 3,864
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

View PostInfinityGamer, on Sep 04 2019 - 22:13, said:

How exactly am I rewarded by having an entire enemy team stacked against me?

 

How is anyone rewarded when the entire enemy team is stacked against "you".      Say what?   You've just described one very extreme case that noone else has described.   You may not have noticed that not a soul has specified that ridiculous situation, where one entire team is "stacked" more than "you" (or against any single player for that matter).    Or you thought it was time to try a diversion. 


 

Sorry but you don't seem to be following any of this discussion.   Your first sentence shows that clearly.


 

Don't hold your breath waiting for me to answer something you pulled out of your.



GRINCH7777 #29 Posted Sep 13 2019 - 03:09

    Captain

  • Players
  • 48455 battles
  • 1,052
  • [SHUSH] SHUSH
  • Member since:
    10-02-2011

View PostKliphie, on Sep 04 2019 - 09:24, said:

 

Six of the top ten most tanks are SPGs, no games played in a wheelie.  Checks out.  

 

Not sure what that has to do with MM though.  

really....where do you see that?....not in this WG site and not tanks.com....



SimplyPzB2 #30 Posted Sep 13 2019 - 03:29

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 106 battles
  • 679
  • Member since:
    05-26-2016

View PostMrBitcoin, on Sep 04 2019 - 02:33, said:

Why is matchmaking so one sided, there is no skill needed in playing this game. at the start of the game I can tell if my team is going to win or loss.

the matchmaking has started favoring the more skilled player, I see no other reason why they are mostly on one team.

9 out 10 game are one sided. I have come to this after 3 months of playing over 3000 premium games(mostly tri 8 - 10).. this is my thoughts.

I see there has been no new talk about Matchmaking since apr 2019

I want to know how many other people are in the same boat, looking for your thought?


Yeah, it's been well documented by those who've actually tracked the data.  About 40% of all battles occur between very unbalanced teams (in terms of skill).  It's a massive problem.  WG most likely won't address it because they tend to over complicate everything.  I'm SURE wg thinks to balance team skill they need to factor in player skill BEFORE the teams are selected.  That's impossibly complicated.  (Thus why they choose not to address it).  But as many many players have pointed out, there is a simple fix.  Skill BALANCED mm.  All this means is the current mm picks two teams, exactly like it does now.  Then before the battle starts it swaps a few players between teams until the team skill is 'roughly' equal.  In the range of 40-60% chance to win.  Would be simple to program.  Would only add 1-2 seconds to the pre-battle wait.  Would ensure every battle starts on a roughly level playing field.



SimplyPzB2 #31 Posted Sep 13 2019 - 03:31

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 106 battles
  • 679
  • Member since:
    05-26-2016

View PostLeaveIT2Beaver, on Sep 04 2019 - 02:45, said:

In order for your statement to be true, WG would have had to devise an algorithm to use skill levels as well as vehicle and tier levels.  In order to "stack games" in favor of "better players", the wait times would be off the charts. 

Having dropped from 47.33 to 47%, I see the difference in the skill levels of the teams. But then too, I have learned not to care.  I just pew-pew and CHAI snipe :trollface:

 

(and I will not be spending any more money)

 

 

 


Yeah, and you're not the only one who won't be spending any more money.  Lot's of people stop spending money.  Lots of people quit.  Which isn't good news for the size of the playerbase or WG's profit margin.  Which is part of the point.  Unbalanced battles drive players away.  Who wants to play a game where 40% of all battles are 'rigged'???



PJMC #32 Posted Sep 13 2019 - 03:48

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 27383 battles
  • 356
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013
Cascade failure and people playing by and for stats contribute just about as much as non skill based matchmaker. The players with high wn8 and terribad winrate setting up to farm wn8 from render range of where they know the fail will happen in a LT, MT or HT is what really bothers me. These are the same folks who come on here and say that winrate is not a reflection of skill...

ProfessionalFinn #33 Posted Sep 13 2019 - 06:03

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 26656 battles
  • 2,362
  • Member since:
    02-23-2016

View PostMrBitcoin, on Sep 03 2019 - 17:33, said:

Why is matchmaking so one sided, there is no skill needed in playing this game. at the start of the game I can tell if my team is going to win or loss.

the matchmaking has started favoring the more skilled player, I see no other reason why they are mostly on one team.

9 out 10 game are one sided. I have come to this after 3 months of playing over 3000 premium games(mostly tri 8 - 10).. this is my thoughts.

I see there has been no new talk about Matchmaking since apr 2019

I want to know how many other people are in the same boat, looking for your thought?

watch this entire video and your questions will be answered fully



WeSayNotToday #34 Posted Sep 13 2019 - 06:33

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 24095 battles
  • 1,213
  • Member since:
    04-08-2015

View PostArmorStorm, on Sep 04 2019 - 02:40, said:

It's RAAAAAAAAANDOM.  It HAS to be lopsided because the only way to make it reliably even would be to fix the matches.  The principle is called "Perfect IMbalance" as shown in the video below.

 

You can certainly disagree with WG's use and implementation of the principle, but given the HUGE number of players with 35000, 50000 battles or more (much more!) I think that they have pretty much proven that the times a player is favored is balanced by the times a player is disadvantaged and leads to people staying with the game.  

 

You are giving WG a lot of credit here.  I am pretty sure the MM is random because that was the least code intensive [and easiest to explain/excuse] from the get-go.  I am also pretty sure that least-intensive/ least-expensive/ easily-explained-or-excused still rules the roost on that as well.

 

Plus, the examples above are of OP characters in a 5-player team in LoL, and how that affects the meta. 

 

The MM is a mechanic, not a tank or a character.   Also, our teams are larger, with a dilution of the effect one player can have, and none of those players are the MM.

 

Also, your opening statement is bunk:

Block Quote

  It HAS to be lopsided because the only way to make it reliably even would be to fix the matches. 

 

No, that is a game design decision, a business decision.  They could pick any range of acceptable win rate sums/ PR sums/ whatever for each team to have, and it would be a design choice, not "fixing" [or "rigging"].  The matches are already somewhat "rigged" in this game in favor of the better players, because one's own team is not truly random, while the enemy team is, and their is no counterbalance to that.

 

Rigging [also, fixing] is just the wrong term. 

 

Rigging refers to designing something to yield an inauthentic outcome. 

  • If they told us the matches were random, and then they tried to balance the teams, THAT would be rigging. 
  • If they announce ahead of time that "all matches will be of 2 teams, neither with no more than a 58% chance to win, by our formulae," and then they balanced the teams to get them into that acceptable range, that would NOT be rigging, that would be delivering what is promised, an authentic outcome.

Edited by WeSayNotToday, Sep 13 2019 - 06:37.


Brody67 #35 Posted Sep 13 2019 - 07:01

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 13288 battles
  • 365
  • [M-M-E] M-M-E
  • Member since:
    07-04-2012
i always see we are going to lose this match before the battle started 90% of the time we win :D





Also tagged with Matchmaking

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users