Jump to content


you want to blame skill based mm for blow outs?


  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

Copacetic #81 Posted Oct 13 2019 - 23:09

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 47944 battles
  • 1,722
  • [ZEUS] ZEUS
  • Member since:
    02-04-2014
wow someone dropped a pile of crapand the sbmm maggots flocked to it.

jst2gr8 #82 Posted Oct 13 2019 - 23:31

    Captain

  • Players
  • 65444 battles
  • 1,220
  • [CRZY] CRZY
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

View PostAllieOop2, on Oct 12 2019 - 23:35, said:


Tier exclusion would of killed this game long ago. Thank God your to poor as I am (I am not going to hit the billionaire rolls in this lifetime) to be on the board of directors or owner of WG otherwise we would not be posting here tonight.

Oh, but letting any 2k pr player into a tier X match isn't hurting the game?

I had a player(I use the word player very loosely) on my team the other day that had 173k battle and a whopping 2700 personal rating. He averaged 385 damage per battle. Please tell me how this is good for the game when this person is not only not helping the teams but making people want to stop playing because this happens way too often.


Edited by UvBeenTrumped, Oct 14 2019 - 02:34.


Nixeldon #83 Posted Oct 13 2019 - 23:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 60881 battles
  • 2,302
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostFineousOrlon, on Oct 13 2019 - 16:32, said:

Pfft, take the numbers I quoted, from the data AW provided, and show it to be wrong.

 

It is not.

Your conclusions are wrong, not the AW data.

 

View PostFineousOrlon, on Oct 13 2019 - 15:23, said:

Now, with this info, we find that 62% of all matches were fairly predictable [60% likely, or better, win chance for the better team], 5/8ths of all matches were fairly predictable.

The majority of matches(5/8) are not fairly predictable. That is especially true with no means prior to the match to calculate win chances. Unless you are presenting a 0 or 1 probability, there is room for varying outcomes.  A chance of winning or losing 10 matches in 100 from average is not "fairly predictable".

 

It could be argued the majority of matches are actually "fairly" balanced skill-wise. Most people on this forum are calling for a 40-60% CTW. That same article agrees that 2/3 of the random matches are close in rating. 

 

View PostFineousOrlon, on Oct 13 2019 - 16:35, said:

Yes, it might be a more challenging, less "welfare-for-the-elite," experience for the small minority of players that are elite, [although some of them might enjoy the challenge], while being a neutral or better experience for the vast majority of players.

 

I will concede this.

He said overall better experience for everyone. 

 

View PostFineousOrlon, on Oct 13 2019 - 17:05, said:

It would be more convincing with data.  As a counterpoint, I have never been asked, in a WG survey, if I like the random MM, so I am not even aware that such data exists.

The closest thing I have seen in the past of player opinion was a WGEU player feedback public poll. http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/555205-wot-feedback-poll-more-than-just-arta/

 

Skill MM didn't seem to be a priority at the time.

 

View PostFineousOrlon, on Oct 13 2019 - 16:54, said:

I find the orange bolded info, from AW data, to be telling, indicative of a real problem with a random MM.

Your preference does not infer a bad design.



FineousOrlon #84 Posted Oct 14 2019 - 03:39

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 21187 battles
  • 382
  • Member since:
    11-29-2014

No longer maintaining this thread as a SBMM discussion ground.  Sitting in the HOUSE PARTY thread that is "GET GOOD and other LIES."

 

As far as this specific thread is concerned, blowouts will not be eliminated if a SBMM were instituted, end of story.



leeuniverse #85 Posted Oct 14 2019 - 04:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 39856 battles
  • 8,122
  • [LAMP] LAMP
  • Member since:
    01-30-2013

View PostFineousOrlon, on Oct 13 2019 - 19:39, said:

As far as this specific thread is concerned, blowouts will not be eliminated if a SBMM were instituted, end of story.

 

You're right, they won't be "eliminated" because humans are involved and life is random.

However, while it's true SBMM would only provide a "minor" improvement, potentially 3% reduction in steamrolls, if other things are done that I list on the first page of this thread, they CAN be reduced anywhere from 30%-60%.

 

I find that to be a USEFUL "story"...



Yuri53 #86 Posted Oct 14 2019 - 07:43

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 28822 battles
  • 296
  • Member since:
    08-01-2012
Amusing...people think its skill or lack of that is what causes blowouts. I have seen the same thing on World of Warships with their AI ships fighting real players mixed in with other AI ships. They don't answer when you ask them a question either.

SpectreHD #87 Posted Oct 14 2019 - 09:25

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16954 battles
  • 17,344
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View Postleeuniverse, on Oct 14 2019 - 05:13, said:

 

Actually, I am...

 

AW didn't do SBMMthey did WinRate BMM.

Winrate is not skill-based, because many factors can influence it more than Player Rating would be affected by actions, such as types of tanks played, if you're into prematurely capping or not, on and on.

 

Take me for example, I play mostly Lights and and some select non-armored Mediums.

We all know that tanks that are more vulnerable are not going to generally affect the battle as well as armored due to often dying easier.

Thus, my Winrate isn't reflective of my actual "skill".

 

Thus, WinRate Based MM is a terrible way to do SBMM, which is exactly why AW's experiment failed.

It further failed because SBMM isn't the ONLY thing that's needed to properly balance games, as I've outlined in my post on the first page of this thread.

 

I've played AW before they announced MM 2.0. Yeah, basically there was already some sort of team balancing involved before they announced the second iteration and everyone was playing and having fun. I also disagree with the notion that their SBMM caused it to kill PvP. Pretty much the players were whining on how disadvantaged they would be despite having been playing with some form of team balancing all this while. So all the "punished" good players created so much whining the game never had a chance to even test the new MM.

 

"Because "Random" is the most fairest but let us platoon! Oh, solo players will be affected? Stop being awkward and get some friends!" That's what the solo players were told. So basically the few "good" players want to have "random" MM while still be able to platoon. The solo players, aka the majority of the players, were told to just deal with it. They wouldn't even entertain a compromised suggestion by Garbad himself. That's how selfish they are.

 

As for landslides and what not, I feel it is a combination of certain factors. Apart from player skill mismatch, I feel for this game a large factor has to be tanks that die too easily or much easier than it should. Heavies that are meant to hold the flank can be damage easier because of premium ammo. Chances for freak bounces or poorly aimed shots to bounce are reduced as well. There is just not enough time to relocate or flank. Other factors also would be bad tank balance, poor team composition e.g. one team with super heavies and the other with mediums/normal heavies or one side with wheeled vehicles, the other with traditional light tank, bad maps, RNG and so on.



pafman #88 Posted Oct 14 2019 - 17:33

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 37060 battles
  • 586
  • [-_-] -_-
  • Member since:
    05-30-2011

View Postbuckschott, on Oct 13 2019 - 16:42, said:

People don't want fair matches. They want easy wins.  

 

Low W/R players think that a SBMM will help them win more with no additional effort.  Higher W/R players are dead set against it because having to face equally skilled players every match will hurt their stats.

 

Change my mind.

 

 

 

did you read where i said i didn't want bad players to advance up the tiers. so how does that fit in with your statement?



24cups #89 Posted Oct 15 2019 - 02:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 24600 battles
  • 4,275
  • [D-DAY] D-DAY
  • Member since:
    01-25-2013

View Postleeuniverse, on Oct 13 2019 - 22:59, if other things are done that I list on the first page of this thread, they CAN be reduced anywhere from 30%-60%.

 

Pretty bold statement.....proof or just pulling numbers from your nether region ?



Wild_Bill_Kelso_41 #90 Posted Oct 27 2019 - 20:52

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 48586 battles
  • 63
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

   MM is still out of wack.. Has anyone ever tracked the # of "DRAW" results. Seems to me that the greater number of Draw results (or nearly full run of the game clock).  Game groups, for random games, in addition to the current mix of MM criteria, players should be sorted also by Marks of Achievement, and by Vehicle Mastery.  M/A and V/M should be leveled as, and in concert with, the current Tier Level MM structure.  This would ferret out seal clubbers and advance them to a more competitive grouping as their V/M-M/A improves.

 

  



LOL_i_CLICKED_u #91 Posted Oct 27 2019 - 21:47

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 30704 battles
  • 520
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013

View Postpafman, on Oct 13 2019 - 03:45, said:

"lack of skill based MM is not the only cause of blowouts"

 

fixed

 

*edit* i have said (for years) you should only be able to climb the tiers by competency, not time or $. you want that tier X? stop being a moron, learn the [edited]game.

 

This post isn't necessarily to you, just something I've been thinking about recently. It's not the players' fault WG keeps selling T7+ tanks to people who don't even know what color the enemy is on the map, let alone what the map even looks like.

 

The pollution of upper tiers by players with no clue how to play sits squarely on WG's shoulders. This company doesn't care that they are screwing over our games. They will continue to sell tanks to players with no idea how to play, until the game is void of any decent players anymore, and then they will sell more.

 

This company doesn't care about anything except their wallets. They'll run this game into the ground until people stop buying in their store.



SpectreHD #92 Posted Oct 28 2019 - 14:19

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16954 battles
  • 17,344
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostLOL_i_CLICKED_u, on Oct 28 2019 - 04:47, said:

 

This post isn't necessarily to you, just something I've been thinking about recently. It's not the players' fault WG keeps selling T7+ tanks to people who don't even know what color the enemy is on the map, let alone what the map even looks like.

 

The pollution of upper tiers by players with no clue how to play sits squarely on WG's shoulders. This company doesn't care that they are screwing over our games. They will continue to sell tanks to players with no idea how to play, until the game is void of any decent players anymore, and then they will sell more.

 

This company doesn't care about anything except their wallets. They'll run this game into the ground until people stop buying in their store.

 

Agreed. I have always thought that the root cause of many issues in the game is WG.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users