Jump to content


Random MM is broken...


  • Please log in to reply
234 replies to this topic

SimplyPzB2 #1 Posted Jan 05 2020 - 09:00

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 106 battles
  • 801
  • Member since:
    05-26-2016

So I've been using xvm for years now.  What I've noticed is the player base is getting redder and redder.  This is having a big impact on team skill balance.  As just so much of the teams are red, it's really putting a burden on the better players to have to carry larger and larger loads.  So when "Random MM" randomly puts most/all of the skill on one team - it's a terrible situation. 

-

So the following battles are all from one night.  Some of them were back to back. 

-

To be clear, I think it's terrible no matter what side of equation you are on.  It's pointless and frustrating to be a good player on a very bad team (facing a much better team).  And it's just so boring when you are the stacked team facing a flock of seals.

-

And it just doesn't matter that you will get (over time) the same number of 'teams in your favor' as you'll get 'teams not in your favor'.  As I just said, both suck.

-

MM is a game mechanic, and it's broken.  Look at all the effort WG puts into balancing team hp, team tank types, tiers, and just (trying) to make all the tanks balanced.  It's obvious balanced battles are exceptionally important to them.  Yet they refuse to address the single most important balancing factor in the game.  Team skill balance.

-

There will lots of 'random fanboy trolls' who come out and poo poo all over this post.  But you will not hear a single one of them defend any of the following battles, other than a few of them might say 'sometimes you are the bug, sometimes you are the windshield - we all get both ends of it'.  See my text above, both ends suck.  None of us should ever ever have to play these garbage battles.

-

-

Battle 01:

Team balance analysis:

skill level    team 1   team 2

purple           0           0

blue              0            0

green           5            3         (fyi, i consider all anon users to be green)

yellow           5            0         massive imbalance 

orange         5            4

red               0            8         I mean, come on, we don't have ANY reds - over HALF their team IS RED...

This was a total farm fest.   Total snooze fest.   This battle never should have happened.   There is no reason at all why a couple of yellows on our team couldn't have been swapped for a couple of reds from their team.  At least to the point where each team had some of both.

I mean NINE (0) damage enemies...  Definitely NOT fun for the whole family.

-

-

Battle 02:

Team balance analysis:

skill level    team 1   team 2

purple           0           0

blue              2            0

green           6            0         (fyi, I consider all anon users to be green)

yellow           1            6         massive imbalance 

orange         3            5

red               3            4       

We had EIGHT green/blue skilled players, they had NONE...  Come on, even a blind person can see this is the definition of 'rigging the outcome'.

3:30 and it's all over but the crying...  and...

I mean 13 players who didn't break 600 damage....  This battle should have never happened.  SBMM could have easily put the su-130 and projetto on the other team.  Now THAT would have a challenge...

-

-

Battle 03:

Team balance analysis:

skill level    team 1   team 2

purple           0           0

blue              0            0

green           5            0      (fyi, i consider all anon users to be green)

yellow           5            0        

orange         5            10     massive imbalance 

red               0            5       massive imbalance 

Just come on, even the 'random fanboys' can see the enemy team had ZERO skilled players.  Sbmm could have easily balanced out the yellow/orange/red players between the two teams.  (yeah, nothing it could have done to balance the green, and they were all in one toon - but that DOESN'T mean the effort to balance what could be balanced shouldn't happen).

I took the west flank, (with the help of a couple other non-toon mates).  I got a whopping 189 damage.  Oh joy!!  Boriiiiiiing.

-

-

Battle 04:

Team balance analysis:

skill level    team 1   team 2

purple           0           0

blue              0            1

green           4            3      (fyi, i consider all anon users to be green)

yellow           4            2       

orange         7            4     

red               0            5       massive imbalance 

Yet another 'all the reds on one side' battle. But hey, they have a blue unicum in an op Skorp G - I'm sure he'll pull this out. It won't be difficult at all, barely an inconvenience...   I mean that enemy skorp is blue, he's "got good" right?  He'll pull it out with ease, isn't that what all the 'get good fanboys' always say?  And...

Whoopsies, apparently someone who 'got good' can't save a red team... Who knew? Oh that's right. Everyone knows that (except maybe the random fanboys)....  This battle was so boring my toonmate and I tried to kill the T71 by launching off the cliff and landing on him (we both missed fyi...). 

-

-

-

And I really really need you all to see just how much red/orange is happening.  So much of the playerbase is new/casual.  It's having a dramatic impact on gameplay.  Certainly putting a huge burden of carry on better players - ESPECIALLY when those good players are the small minority on a bad team.

-

Skill Balanced MM would go a long ways towards eliminating grossly unbalanced battles like this. In every single battle above, sbmm could have easily made the teams much closer in skill level.  Note, NO ONE IS ASKING FOR PERFECT BALANCE.  So the fact that the teams can't be balanced 'perfectly' is a straw man argument. 

-

-

This isn't the first post like this I've made.  Rest assured EVERY night a high percentage of my battles look like these do.  My dream is that WG wakes up and smells the imbalance.  At least on the NA server, it's slowly killing the game.  Or at least making it a very unhealthy place to game....

-

-

(Note:  I should also point out I have no bad feelings for red skill/tomato/new/casual players.  BUT I DO HAVE AN ISSUE when the MM puts most/all of them on one team.  I love the red skill/tomato/new/casual players, as they keep the game afloat just as much as the very best unicum does.  In fact, posts like this help them out, as balanced gameplay is better for all players).

 

 



Treeburst #2 Posted Jan 05 2020 - 09:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 34058 battles
  • 2,246
  • [SNPAI] SNPAI
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011
Now imagine just how much fun that Skorpion player would have if every battle he played was like that.

FastForward7 #3 Posted Jan 05 2020 - 09:08

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 11931 battles
  • 699
  • Member since:
    03-31-2011

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Jan 05 2020 - 00:00, said:

(Note:  I should also point out I have no bad feelings for red skill/tomato/new/casual players.  BUT I DO HAVE AN ISSUE when the MM puts most/all of them on one team.  I love the red skill/tomato/new/casual players, as they keep the game afloat just as much as the very best unicum does.  In fact, posts like this help them out, as balanced gameplay is better for all players).

 

 


Agree completely Well written post. That said, WG doesn't care about anything they can't make money off of. This problem will never change.



SimplyPzB2 #4 Posted Jan 05 2020 - 09:23

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 106 battles
  • 801
  • Member since:
    05-26-2016

View PostTreeburst, on Jan 05 2020 - 09:06, said:

Now imagine just how much fun that Skorpion player would have if every battle he played was like that.


I don't get how you don't understand sbmm.  Under sbmm, that skorp would NEVER have a team like that.  The "b" in sbmm means "Balance".  I.e. in EVERY battle, BOTH teams would have about EQUAL skill levels.  (I think you think sbmm means a mm that puts purple/reds on one team and everyone else on the other team.  That's not how it would work.  Both team get the same number of all skill levels).



SimplyPzB2 #5 Posted Jan 05 2020 - 09:25

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 106 battles
  • 801
  • Member since:
    05-26-2016

View PostFastForward7, on Jan 05 2020 - 09:08, said:


Agree completely Well written post. That said, WG doesn't care about anything they can't make money off of. This problem will never change.


But sbmm would make the gameplay better, more fun, less punshing - THUS KEEPING MORE PLAYERS PLAYING - thus make WG MORE MONEY...



Wanderjar #6 Posted Jan 05 2020 - 09:32

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 29898 battles
  • 447
  • [SHIRE] SHIRE
  • Member since:
    08-05-2013
we've argued for sbMM for years with stats and evidence and its gotten us nowhere. i'm mostly convinced the only WG folks that read this are the CMs and thats about it. NA is secondary to RU for pretty much everything

FastForward7 #7 Posted Jan 05 2020 - 09:35

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 11931 battles
  • 699
  • Member since:
    03-31-2011

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Jan 05 2020 - 00:25, said:


But sbmm would make the gameplay better, more fun, less punshing - THUS KEEPING MORE PLAYERS PLAYING - thus make WG MORE MONEY...

 

WG doesn't think like that. I completely agree with you, but they just don't. If they did, they'd put a little effort into the new player experience instead of making it such a hell hole. It's unfortunate, but things are the way they are, and they're not going to change.



Nixeldon #8 Posted Jan 05 2020 - 09:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 61878 battles
  • 2,420
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011
You manipulate the teams in your favor then pretend to complain the teams weren't color-coded to your liking to spread your budhaMath/LogicTM to the ignorant masses.

Silvers_ #9 Posted Jan 05 2020 - 14:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 50579 battles
  • 5,531
  • [REL-A] REL-A
  • Member since:
    06-12-2012

Confirmation bias. I can easily show you matches where I've had teams of blues/purples get steam rolled by teams of reds/oranges. I've also had plenty of games where the teams were fairly even just as I've had teams where we had the "better" players.

 

Problem is the "good players" have left the game or only play during campaigns for the shiny CW reward tanks. Now most of the player base is P4F types who couldn't give a care if they win or lose.



Kliphie #10 Posted Jan 05 2020 - 14:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 33674 battles
  • 6,068
  • [GFLC] GFLC
  • Member since:
    07-20-2012
I just want fair games, so here's an example of my triple E-25 platoon ...

ChaseR392 #11 Posted Jan 05 2020 - 14:53

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 9821 battles
  • 870
  • Member since:
    04-20-2018

View PostNixeldon, on Jan 05 2020 - 09:38, said:

You manipulate the teams in your favor then pretend to complain the teams weren't color-coded to your liking to spread your budhaMath/LogicTM to the ignorant masses.


This.



cthulhu_hunter #12 Posted Jan 05 2020 - 15:01

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 39086 battles
  • 361
  • Member since:
    08-04-2013

Well written and well thought out post. SBMM would definitely fix this broken game, but this will never happen. Why? Game is based on imbalance. Anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge of statistics will realize that this game is NOT random. The amount of losses in a row is not statistically possible. 4 losses in a row would happen (assuming 50/50 battle) 6.25% of the time. 8 losses in a row would happen 0.39% of the time. Years ago it would be extremely rare to see a complete blowout battle (0-15), yet now it is not uncommon. Most battles now are 4 or 5 minute slaughterfests. Sure game is still fun, but all the crew skills, tactics, strategies, etc do not matter when a great team of players is battling a team of poorer players. SBMM would be easy to implement. If your victory rate is above 50%, you are in group A. If your rate is below 50%, you are in group B. Then, both teams are made up of players from ONLY group A, or group B. But, again, this will never happen because game is based on imbalance. MM intentionally puts a team of better players vs a team of poorer players to make battles as short as possible. Short battles means players players use more consumables, more apcr shells, etc. This in turn means players spend more $ on game. Sure, I will get the "git gud, you suck, take off the tin foil hat, carry more, you're 48%, what a noob"......blah, blah, blah. I challenge those that think this game is random to seriously sit down with a calculator, pencil, paper and compile a sheet of data from wins/losses. Then use statistics to make sense of those numbers. You will find (like I did numerous times), that the numbers make no sense. The only conclusion is that this game is NOT random. It is simply based on imbalance. Take care, and be safe out there. 

CH

gg MM

 



jst2gr8 #13 Posted Jan 05 2020 - 15:30

    Captain

  • Players
  • 67949 battles
  • 1,423
  • [CRZY] CRZY
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Jan 05 2020 - 01:23, said:


I don't get how you don't understand sbmm.  Under sbmm, that skorp would NEVER have a team like that.  The "b" in sbmm means "Balance".  I.e. in EVERY battle, BOTH teams would have about EQUAL skill levels.  (I think you think sbmm means a mm that puts purple/reds on one team and everyone else on the other team.  That's not how it would work.  Both team get the same number of all skill levels).

And under SBMM most players will be easily placed in a match while others are waiting forever to get in one. Making them tired of waiting all the time and leaving the game. Making the game even less populated and WG finally just gets rid of the NA server. There is not enough people on the NA server to even consider SBMM. 

In this game you take the good with the bad. Some days are great while others make me want to tear walls down. It happens in every game. 

So you are saying the game is broken while playing in a platoon of op E-25's? I can see the issue with this, can you?


Edited by jst2gr8, Jan 05 2020 - 15:32.


GeorgePreddy #14 Posted Jan 05 2020 - 15:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 14680 battles
  • 14,188
  • Member since:
    04-11-2013

MM is not "broken" at all. It is working exactly as designed to work by WG.

 

Battles with skill levels outside of the 40 to 60% win chance range are a minor percentage of all battles, but there are enough to make the game more interesting, thank goodness. Below, you can read WG's very current thoughts on this issue:

 

You have reached Wargaming Customer Support.

 

Thank you for sharing to us your concern. We are always here to aid you.

 

The addition of skill-based conditions to the matchmaking equation would disrupt the very idea behind Random Battles. Although the mode has rules, there is an element of randomness to each battle, and the thrill that comes with it is what we all love about Random Battles. Everyone gets a chance to become a hero, to prove their worth playing against people with different battle histories. It wouldn’t be possible with skill-based matchmaking.

 

If you have any other concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us.

 

For more information please visit our Player Support Page.

 

Have a great day!

 

That's right, WG is the ultimate arbiter in this matter, therefore... you lose, and the rest of us whom like a more interesting and rewarding game... win.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Lapdog1 #15 Posted Jan 05 2020 - 15:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 9047 battles
  • 2,539
  • Member since:
    11-24-2013

Not such an interesting game when the play base has fled and the whales are fighting PVE and don't even know it. lol

Add a sorting algorithm for a total increase in queue times of 2ms. 

 

That's it. Close the thread.


Edited by Lapdog1, Jan 05 2020 - 15:40.


Silvers_ #16 Posted Jan 05 2020 - 15:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 50579 battles
  • 5,531
  • [REL-A] REL-A
  • Member since:
    06-12-2012
SB MM wouldn't do anything. You think you want skill based MM but  you'd still find a reason to complain about it. In a skill based MM there will always be someone in the bottom bracket. You'll have instances of lesser skilled players in top tier tanks and better players in the low tier tank. NOTHING would change just a different way of setting up random teams.

F0R_M07H3R_RU5514 #17 Posted Jan 05 2020 - 15:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 52919 battles
  • 6,421
  • [ALERT] ALERT
  • Member since:
    07-25-2012
I've felt, to a degree, MM may have design features to work this way, because 2, 3 and 4 minute battles serve the mindset of many players.  Sure, the clock allows for up to 15 minutes, but the attention span of I venture, a vast majority of players, is no more than six minutes.

AESOP_Retired #18 Posted Jan 05 2020 - 15:56

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 33523 battles
  • 723
  • [GFLC] GFLC
  • Member since:
    02-22-2011
Rainbow six siege went to a Ranked MM and their player base grew dramatically, but agree with may others WG has no interest in changing there  system, as long as the $$ flows all is well. Just keep introducing new better premium tanks and keep the meta moving higher means more $$....that's the WG business model.

InquisitorSomme #19 Posted Jan 05 2020 - 16:24

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 3248 battles
  • 533
  • Member since:
    06-16-2016

View PostKliphie, on Jan 05 2020 - 14:22, said:

I just want fair games, so here's an example of my triple E-25 platoon ...


Exactly. Why whine about MM when you platoon in one of the most broken tanks in the game? And who cares about Skorpions--they're the easiest premiums to play? 



NeatoMan #20 Posted Jan 05 2020 - 19:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 28785 battles
  • 21,272
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

Block Quote

I consider all anon players to be green

 lol.  same old budha.  "If I don't know, I'll just make up whatever I want so it proves my point.

 

Why don't you ever use the real numbers instead of those idiotic color codes?  "Because I can make it look much worse when I do it this way"

 

Your statistical accumen is terrible.  You'd think after years at it you would have learned how to do it right.  Obviously, doing it the right way doesn't give you the results you want.  It's why you cling to your idiotic budhaMath™ so much.   Much easier for you to manipulate.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users