Jump to content


Top tier MM is F'ed ( I knoooow another MM rant </3 )

WG Devs trash mm

  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

Nixeldon #61 Posted Mar 09 2020 - 14:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 63397 battles
  • 2,464
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostOnprobation, on Mar 09 2020 - 07:43, said:

So yes it has been tested. 

There are two potential problems with forcing players of "equal" skill to compete against one another:

a) Assuming all other matchmaking parameters remain the same, the queue time for matches would rise to 15-20 minutes per battle, even during peak hours.

b) If tier limitations and balance weight are cast aside, queue times lower to the 2-5 minutes range. However, Tier V heavy tanks would then be asked to engage Tier X Tank destroyers, and other similar situations.

Both solutions to the issue were found, in our own testing and closed testing, to be widely unsuitable and heavily criticized by players. As a result, skill-based matchmaking was only implemented in the Team Battles mode.

If you need any additional assistance, please let us know.

Best Regards,

Daniel Hewitt

Which part of widely unsuitable and heavily criticized by players was "proven to work very well"?

 

Also, the testing was done internally and developer discussions were mentioned on FTR.



Onprobation #62 Posted Mar 09 2020 - 14:16

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 1520 battles
  • 498
  • Member since:
    03-11-2013

View PostNixeldon, on Mar 09 2020 - 06:11, said:

Which part of widely unsuitable and heavily criticized by players was "proven to work very well"?

 

Also, the testing was done internally and developer discussions were mentioned on FTR.


Could not tell you this. Never given a clear and open reason/statement. 



Kiaser_Sosay #63 Posted Mar 09 2020 - 17:50

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 25077 battles
  • 110
  • [-_-] -_-
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostPipinghot, on Mar 06 2020 - 19:47, said:

The reason it would not be a benefit is that it would not make a significant difference in blowout rates, and it would not make a difference in battle duration, but it would make a significant difference in win rate which would require completely reworking the rewards system. Which is to say that changing to SBMM would cause a lot of work without actually solving the "problems" people complain about that aren't really problems.

* People who complain about Random MM often think that SBMM would significantly change blowouts. It wouldn't. So if the primary goal is to reduce blowouts then changing to SBMM is pointless.

* People who complain about Random MM often think that SBMM would significantly change battle times. It wouldn't. So if the primary goal is to reduce blowouts then changing to SBMM is pointless.

 

This whole idea of having better skill balancing at the beginning of a battles is based on false beliefs about how it would change the end of the battles.

* Battles with 50/50 odds still have a lot of blowouts, "team balance" simply doesn't affect that much.

* Battles with 50/50 odds still have a lot of 3-4 minute battles, "team balance" simply doesn't affect that much.

Having evenly matched teams doesn't "fix" these things, because the very idea that these things are broken wrong to begin with, it's based on the false belief that the MM causes them. Blowouts and fast battles are not problems, they are not "broken", they are simply how a single-death works.

 

Single-death games are not the same as respawn games, and that means you have to let go of logic, beliefs and feelings that are based on respawn games.

They would rise a whole lot less under SBMM, that's just math.

 

Yes, better players would still have higher win rates than worse players, but by a lot less. Under Random MM the range of win rates goes from about 40% up to 65% or 70%, depending whether you consider the players from 65%-70% to be outliers. Some people (like Neatoman) describes the range of Win Rates as going from 40%-65%, I like to describe that range as 40%-70%. Either way it's a fairly small range, and the reason it's that small is because this game has large teams. With 15 players per team it's practically impossible to have less than a 40% WR or more than a 70% WR.

 

If the game used SBMM then bad players would have even better win rates than they already do, and good players would have lower win rates than they already do. The range of win rates would be more like 47%-51% for the great majority of players with only a small number of players having win rates lower or higher than that average range in the middle.

 

The logic for SBMM is the same as the logic for coin tossing. Having a 50/50 chance to win in every battle is exactly the same as flipping a coin, and nearly every player in the game will inevitably have very close to an average win rate. Even if battles have a 40%-60% chance to win they will still end up averaging 50% and almost as many people will still have very close to an average win rate. With SBMM nearly every player in the game ends up with close to an average win rate with only a very few people being further away from the average than about +/-2%.

 

Under SBMM no one actually earns their win rate, it is forced on them no matter how good or bad they are. Under Random MM even the very worst players in the game are practically guaranteed at least a 40% Win Rate, but at least their win rate is low enough that it shows how little they contribute to their teams, and conversely the people that have 55%, 60%+ win rates actually have to earn them by playing well.

 

** On a side note, this doesn't include seal clubbers. Obviously someone who only has a high win rate because they constantly pick on new players hasn't earned anything. But for now let's just focus on the basic logic of how Random MM and SBMM are different. Seal clubbers don't exist because of Random MM, they exist because Wargaming doesn't want to get rid of them. It's entirely possible to have Random MM and still get rid of seal clubbers, they are two separate topics.

It's not fair to say that things are "broken" for that solo pub'er, and I say that as a player who has played the majority of his battles solo. It's somewhat harder to get a 55%+ Win Rate when playing solo than in a platoon, but it can still be done and plenty of players do it. Beyond that, there are plenty of platoons that are not made up of purple players, and which do not affect the win rate of people in their battles. Platoons don't cause blowouts and platoons don't cause battle times to be shorter, which are the two key elements that are usually discussed when talking about SBMM. If you want to have a conversation about platoons that's a legit topic for conversation, but they don't really belong in a conversation about Random MM vs. SBMM.

Im sorry ,But it seems to me you logic is flawed. This discussion was not started on protecting very good players win rates. some of the guys who are bad may benefit may not A tomato is a tomato . Some will catch on  one some will not . some blow outs will happen some will not . Just seems t me the arguments you lay out are geared to protecting very good to great players stats. I could be wrong. 

Look the last couple of days I re instituted my old rule of thumb . 2 to 3 losses in a row log off . Last couple of day I have been in 55% to 58% wins . But the song remains the same. most of the wins  and i bet im not to far off we  90% blowouts 15-3 15 -2  just steam rolls. both the wins and the losses . 

 

I just feel like if everyone actually tallied  up all the blowouts in pub matches ( their wins and their losses) They would find the one constant  is blowouts are the most consistent thing  here. If i was the only one experiencing this issues. This topic would not be all over the forums with people asking for changes in MM. 

I dont know , I am not trying to pick a fight here. Just being honest thru my experiences. In my experiences the balance between winning a close match , losing a close match and blowouts is currently out of balance and swung way over to BLOWOUT . 

 

Very good players really should not be affected If you are a blue or purple player based on your stats you will still be a blue or a purple player . Will very bad players get a bump in winrate? Maybe 1% 2% . Possibly . Will a bad player go from 46% to 55% 60 % . No way that will just not happen never has never will unless the light comes on and a player actually improves .  

Unicum and Super unicum's will still be . They can still carry a match is a platoon . If the concern is bumping sub par players win rate the same concern should be artificially inflating the unicum win rates buy playing substandard competition via the way MM currently works. 

its the 20-60-20 rule.  The top 20% will always be the bottom 20% will always be. Its the middle 60% that we are talking about . The players who cant always carry a match. The players who need there team to deploy correctly on the map and " do their job"  for the victory . 



Kiaser_Sosay #64 Posted Mar 09 2020 - 22:48

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 25077 battles
  • 110
  • [-_-] -_-
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

Pipinghot where did you get the 27 out of 100 data? If this was what actually was going on I would have never posted . Seems to me i need to tally the blowouts . Wins and losses me thinks it way more that roughly 25% of the time. Time to get a pencil and a piece of paper i guess. 

 

Using the definition of "blowout" to mean any battle with a margin of victory of 10 or more surviving tanks at the end of the battle (e.g. 10-0, 11-1, 12-1, 12-2, and so on up to 15-0, 15-1, 15-2, 15-3, 15-4, 15-5) then what follow is the difference between Random MM and SBMM.

* Under the current system of Random MM players see about 27 blowouts per 100 battles.

* Under SBMM players would see about 24 blowouts per 100 battles.



Pipinghot #65 Posted Mar 09 2020 - 23:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 11,487
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostKiaser_Sosay, on Mar 09 2020 - 11:50, said:

View PostPipinghot, on Mar 06 2020 - 19:47, said:

The reason it would not be a benefit is that it would not make a significant difference in blowout rates, and it would not make a difference in battle duration, but it would make a significant difference in win rate which would require completely reworking the rewards system. Which is to say that changing to SBMM would cause a lot of work without actually solving the "problems" people complain about that aren't really problems.

* People who complain about Random MM often think that SBMM would significantly change blowouts. It wouldn't. So if the primary goal is to reduce blowouts then changing to SBMM is pointless.

* People who complain about Random MM often think that SBMM would significantly change battle times. It wouldn't. So if the primary goal is to reduce blowouts then changing to SBMM is pointless.

 

This whole idea of having better skill balancing at the beginning of a battles is based on false beliefs about how it would change the end of the battles.

* Battles with 50/50 odds still have a lot of blowouts, "team balance" simply doesn't affect that much.

* Battles with 50/50 odds still have a lot of 3-4 minute battles, "team balance" simply doesn't affect that much.

Having evenly matched teams doesn't "fix" these things, because the very idea that these things are broken wrong to begin with, it's based on the false belief that the MM causes them. Blowouts and fast battles are not problems, they are not "broken", they are simply how a single-death works.

 

Single-death games are not the same as respawn games, and that means you have to let go of logic, beliefs and feelings that are based on respawn games.

They would rise a whole lot less under SBMM, that's just math.

 

Yes, better players would still have higher win rates than worse players, but by a lot less. Under Random MM the range of win rates goes from about 40% up to 65% or 70%, depending whether you consider the players from 65%-70% to be outliers. Some people (like Neatoman) describes the range of Win Rates as going from 40%-65%, I like to describe that range as 40%-70%. Either way it's a fairly small range, and the reason it's that small is because this game has large teams. With 15 players per team it's practically impossible to have less than a 40% WR or more than a 70% WR.

 

If the game used SBMM then bad players would have even better win rates than they already do, and good players would have lower win rates than they already do. The range of win rates would be more like 47%-51% for the great majority of players with only a small number of players having win rates lower or higher than that average range in the middle.

 

The logic for SBMM is the same as the logic for coin tossing. Having a 50/50 chance to win in every battle is exactly the same as flipping a coin, and nearly every player in the game will inevitably have very close to an average win rate. Even if battles have a 40%-60% chance to win they will still end up averaging 50% and almost as many people will still have very close to an average win rate. With SBMM nearly every player in the game ends up with close to an average win rate with only a very few people being further away from the average than about +/-2%.

 

Under SBMM no one actually earns their win rate, it is forced on them no matter how good or bad they are. Under Random MM even the very worst players in the game are practically guaranteed at least a 40% Win Rate, but at least their win rate is low enough that it shows how little they contribute to their teams, and conversely the people that have 55%, 60%+ win rates actually have to earn them by playing well.

 

** On a side note, this doesn't include seal clubbers. Obviously someone who only has a high win rate because they constantly pick on new players hasn't earned anything. But for now let's just focus on the basic logic of how Random MM and SBMM are different. Seal clubbers don't exist because of Random MM, they exist because Wargaming doesn't want to get rid of them. It's entirely possible to have Random MM and still get rid of seal clubbers, they are two separate topics.

It's not fair to say that things are "broken" for that solo pub'er, and I say that as a player who has played the majority of his battles solo. It's somewhat harder to get a 55%+ Win Rate when playing solo than in a platoon, but it can still be done and plenty of players do it. Beyond that, there are plenty of platoons that are not made up of purple players, and which do not affect the win rate of people in their battles. Platoons don't cause blowouts and platoons don't cause battle times to be shorter, which are the two key elements that are usually discussed when talking about SBMM. If you want to have a conversation about platoons that's a legit topic for conversation, but they don't really belong in a conversation about Random MM vs. SBMM.

Im sorry ,But it seems to me you logic is flawed. This discussion was not started on protecting very good players win rates.

And I wasn't talking about "protecting very good players win rates" either, if you think I was then you're interpretation is what's flawed. I'm not saying that in anger, or to poke you in the eye, I'm letting you know that you're interpreting my comments in the wrong way, more on this below.

View PostKiaser_Sosay, on Mar 09 2020 - 11:50, said:

some of the guys who are bad may benefit may not A tomato is a tomato . Some will catch on  one some will not.

Yes, a tomato is a tomato. But that doesn't change the fact that all forms of SBMM would have the same result. You're not seeing the forest because all of those trees are getting in the way.

 

This topic cannot be understood by trading opinions and feelings, it can only be understood by first understanding the math of how SBMM works. If every battle you play has a 50/50 chance of winning, then inevitably every player in the game will have an average win rate. This is something you need to understand, even if it doesn't feel intuitive to you. I'm not debating you here, I'm not arguing, I'm explaining. You can either accept that explanation or try to deny it, but it's simply a fact no matter how you feel about it.

 

This is almost as true if every battle you play varies between a 40%-60% chance to win. People won't be forced quite as hard to having average win rates as pure SBMM, but they will still be forced. If a modified SBMM was used that always guarantees a 40%-60% chance to win then win rates would be almost as narrow as pure SBMM. Again, that's not an argument, it's a fact that you need to believe, even if it doesn't feel intuitively right to you.

 

If you don't understand why this is true then say so, and we'll try to find ways to explain it that make sense to you, it's only fair that we try to help you understand it if you don't. But regardless of whether you want more explanations or not, the affects of SBMM are already known and understood, these not feelings & opinions, they are facts.

 

* Pure SBMM would force nearly every player in the game to have a win rate that is +/-2% from being average, with only a tiny number of players having win rate that are more than 2% away from the average.

* Modified SBMM would have almost as much affect, pushing everyone to within +/-3% (or maybe +/-4%) of the average, with only a tiny number of players being more than +/-3% or +/-4% from being average.

These are facts, it's up to you whether you allow yourself to learn these facts or keep resisting them.

View PostKiaser_Sosay, on Mar 09 2020 - 11:50, said:

some will not . some blow outs will happen some will not.

The large majority of blowouts would continue to happen.

* Under Random MM, the rate of blowouts in WoT is about 27/100

* Under pure SBMM, the rate of blowouts in WoT would be about 24/100.

 

If you want to be accurate and honest, the large majority of blowouts would continue to happen and a small portion of them would not. Your description that "some will" and "some will not" is not an accurate description of what would really happen, by saying that you're only fooling yourself. Even with that small reduction in blowouts neither you, nor any else, would ever be able to feel the difference.

* Let's say you log in and play 5 battles. The difference between 27/100 and 24/100 means nothing.

* Let's say you log in and play 30 battles. During that game session you would probably have 1 less blowout under SBMM than under Random MM, if you're being honest you have to admit that you would never be able to feel that difference, the game play would feel just the same under SBMM as under Random MM.

* It would only be after playing a large number of battles, and doing data analysis on those battles, that you would be able to see that SBMM has a small reduction in blowouts. But even then, while looking at that data, the game would still feel the same. Having 24/100 blowouts is not any more fun or satisfying than having 27/100 blowouts, it would not feel any different.

View PostKiaser_Sosay, on Mar 09 2020 - 11:50, said:

Just seems t me the arguments you lay out are geared to protecting very good to great players stats. I could be wrong.

You are wrong. I'm not protecting anyone, including myself, what I'm interested in protecting is the fact that WoT is different from most other games, and I like that difference. I liked that WoT is different when I was brand new and getting my butt handed to me, and I liked that it was different when I was playing it a lot and getting pretty good, and I still like it even though nowadays I'm a casual player who only plays once in a while, usually during a special event, and my Recent stats are significantly worse than my Overall stats. I don't like WoT's system to protect my stats, or anyone else's, I like WoT's system because it's not the same as a million other games. WoT is  different, and I like that difference.

 

In every game that uses SBMM the game forces/gives you an average win rate no matter how good or bad you are. Horrible players have basically the same win rate as great players. Now that can be fun, depending on what game you're playing, but I like the fact that in WoT players actually have to earn their win rates, their win rates are higher or lower depending on how much they contribute to their teams, rather than just being handed to them no matter how good or bad they are.

 

So... if you've been reading my posts with the idea in mind that I'm trying to protect anyone's stats, go back and reread them now that you know what I'm really trying to do, it might change how you interpret my posts.

 

View PostKiaser_Sosay, on Mar 09 2020 - 11:50, said:

Look the last couple of days I re instituted my old rule of thumb . 2 to 3 losses in a row log off . Last couple of day I have been in 55% to 58% wins . But the song remains the same. most of the wins  and i bet im not to far off we  90% blowouts 15-3 15 -2  just steam rolls. both the wins and the losses .

Your thinking is being attacked by confirmation bias. You have decided that you don't like blowouts, and so you're much more likely to remember blowouts than non-blowouts, and this causes you to over-estimate the number of blowouts in your battles. There's nothing wrong with that, it happens to everyone (and I do mean everyone). Confirmation bias is a dangerous enemy that can attack anyone. This is why things like the scientific method, statistics and probability theory were invented, to help people fight back against confirmation bias and see things how they really are.

 

I can absolutely guarantee that you don't have 90% blowouts, and neither does anyone in the game. That is a false feeling that is caused by confirmation bias attacking you, and the only way to beat it is to fight back with knowledge of the facts.

 

I can't force you to believe me, so instead I'm going to offer you a (very friendly) challenge. Do what you're saying, keep track of your battles, every battle, and then look at the results after 100, 200, 500, 1,000 battles to show yourself what's actually happening. The more battles that you track the more you'll see how confirmation bias is attacking you and making you feel things that aren't true.

 

#1 - make sure that you decide on your definition of blowout before you start tracking your data, so that you can be consistent and honest with yourself. Personally I like to use the fairly common definition of blowouts as being any battle that ends with a margin of victory of +10 or more (so 15-5 is a blowout but 15-6 is not, 10-0 is a blowout, but 10-1 is not, and so on). But whatever definition you use, make sure you use that same definition beginning with the very first battle, so that all of the data you collect is consistent.

 

#2 - you have to track every battle, no matter what. It's really easy to start finding excuses to not include battles. "The opposing team speed-capped so it doesn't count", "I made a big mistake and died too quickly, so that battle doesn't count", it's really easy to start making excuses to avoid tracking battles, but that's just another way that confirmation bias attacks your thinking. You have to track every battle or you're not going to get honest answers.

 

#3 - share what you find. The more that people do a good job of tracking their data, the better that is for all of us. data. Too many people do a terrible job, and then they don't understand why their findings are wrong.

View PostKiaser_Sosay, on Mar 09 2020 - 11:50, said:

I just feel like if everyone actually tallied  up all the blowouts in pub matches ( their wins and their losses) They would find the one constant  is blowouts are the most consistent thing  here.

And I'm letting you know that your feelings are misleading you. There are times when you should trust your feeling and times you should not. If your feelings are telling you to climb a tree to get away from an angry moose, your feelings are right. But if your feelings tell you to climb a tree to get away from a jaguar, those feelings are wrong.

 

You cannot use feelings to find the correct answers here, you have to use good, accurate, honest data tracking and then the information you collect will teach you what the true answer is. Feelings are not facts, don't let your feelings tell you wrong answers, if you do the work of actually collecting your own data then the work you do will tell you what the facts really are.

View PostKiaser_Sosay, on Mar 09 2020 - 11:50, said:

If i was the only one experiencing this issues. This topic would not be all over the forums with people asking for changes in MM.

The problem with that argument is that every game has people "all over the forums" "asking for changes in MM". And, since it happens in every game, all that proves is that there are some people in every game who don't understand the MM or want the MM changed to benefit themselves. If we use your argument, then the fact that there are also people "all over the forums" who argue that the MM should not be changed is proof that the MM is perfect. Just because some people complain about something doesn't mean that it's true. Every game gets lots of complaints about their MM, including the games that use SBMM.

View PostKiaser_Sosay, on Mar 09 2020 - 11:50, said:

I dont know , I am not trying to pick a fight here. Just being honest thru my experiences. In my experiences the balance between winning a close match , losing a close match and blowouts is currently out of balance and swung way over to BLOWOUT.

I'm not trying to pick a fight either, I'm trying to help you understand that some of the things you believe are not true.

1) There are not nearly as many blowouts as you think there are, not by a long shot.

2) Even games that are perfectly balance 50/50 have a lot of blowouts, and that is because blowouts are not caused by the MM, they are caused by the fact that this is a single-death-per-battle.

View PostKiaser_Sosay, on Mar 09 2020 - 11:50, said:

Very good players really should not be affected If you are a blue or purple player based on your stats you will still be a blue or a purple player . Will very bad players get a bump in winrate? Maybe 1% 2% . Possibly . Will a bad player go from 46% to 55% 60 % . No way that will just not happen never has never will unless the light comes on and a player actually improves.

Sorry but no, math says that this is incorrect. The truth is that SBMM would have a major affect on win rates in the game, to the point where Win Rate would become meaningless and would require that the entire rewards system in the game get redesigned.

View PostKiaser_Sosay, on Mar 09 2020 - 11:50, said:

Unicum and Super unicum's will still be . They can still carry a match is a platoon . If the concern is bumping sub par players win rate the same concern should be artificially inflating the unicum win rates buy playing substandard competition via the way MM currently works.

The difference is that SBMM forces nearly every player in the game to have an average win rate, no matter how good or bad they are, whereas Random MM allows players to earn their win rate based on how much they contribute to their teams. Random MM doesn't "inflate" anyone's Win Rate, it allows them to earn their win rate.

View PostKiaser_Sosay, on Mar 09 2020 - 11:50, said:

its the 20-60-20 rule.  The top 20% will always be the bottom 20% will always be. Its the middle 60% that we are talking about.

But under SBMM even the top 20 and bottom 20 would have nearly an average win rate. It would be more like the bottom 2% and top 2% of players that would stand out, only a tiny portion of the player base that would be more than +/-2% from the average.

 


Edited by Pipinghot, Mar 09 2020 - 23:13.


Pipinghot #66 Posted Mar 10 2020 - 02:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 11,487
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostKiaser_Sosay, on Mar 09 2020 - 16:48, said:

Pipinghot where did you get the 27 out of 100 data? If this was what actually was going on I would have never posted . Seems to me i need to tally the blowouts . Wins and losses me thinks it way more that roughly 25% of the time. Time to get a pencil and a piece of paper i guess. 

 

Using the definition of "blowout" to mean any battle with a margin of victory of 10 or more surviving tanks at the end of the battle (e.g. 10-0, 11-1, 12-1, 12-2, and so on up to 15-0, 15-1, 15-2, 15-3, 15-4, 15-5) then what follow is the difference between Random MM and SBMM.

* Under the current system of Random MM players see about 27 blowouts per 100 battles.

* Under SBMM players would see about 24 blowouts per 100 battles.

Sorry for the delay, I just now noticed this post. You must have posted it while I was writing up what I posted just after you.

 

This thread is a good place to start:

http://forum.worldof...s-your-battles/

 

For our current conversation pay special attention to the information and the chart in the section "Margin of victory vs team balance (win chance)", let me know if you have any follow up questions.

 

p.s. I had other threads, but the links are no longer working. I have to assume that Wargaming made some change to the formatting of their URL's that broke my old links. I'm betting those old posts are still there, but I haven't been able to find them yet. I'll keep looking/searching to see if I can drag any of them up.



NeatoMan #67 Posted Mar 10 2020 - 03:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 30110 battles
  • 22,128
  • [ROXY] ROXY
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostKiaser_Sosay, on Mar 09 2020 - 16:48, said:

Pipinghot where did you get the 27 out of 100 data? If this was what actually was going on I would have never posted . Seems to me i need to tally the blowouts . Wins and losses me thinks it way more that roughly 25% of the time. Time to get a pencil and a piece of paper i guess. 

 

Using the definition of "blowout" to mean any battle with a margin of victory of 10 or more surviving tanks at the end of the battle (e.g. 10-0, 11-1, 12-1, 12-2, and so on up to 15-0, 15-1, 15-2, 15-3, 15-4, 15-5) then what follow is the difference between Random MM and SBMM.

* Under the current system of Random MM players see about 27 blowouts per 100 battles.

* Under SBMM players would see about 24 blowouts per 100 battles.


you can install WoTNumbers, run it in the background while you play, and it will keep track for you



lordsheen #68 Posted Mar 10 2020 - 07:15

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 67754 battles
  • 149
  • [SNPAI] SNPAI
  • Member since:
    07-22-2014

View PostZanarkand_C, on Mar 07 2020 - 17:02, said:

Maybe MM this way works better for you and your play style, LordSheen probably also likes MM this way. XD

I would like to have +5/-5 matchmaking where I'm always top tier. :popcorn:



Machisman #69 Posted Mar 10 2020 - 15:36

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 39464 battles
  • 173
  • Member since:
    10-27-2011

This topic still active? Alright. Looks like its a never ending argument. It is what it is. If WG isnt listening or you dont like the game? just quit playing or stop paying them and move on to other games. I might sound rude but WOT is not free to play and they are running a business and their decisions are always to make money.

Players complaining about MM, skill, tank characteristics, map design - You are basically the smaller group of people who have understood this game and like to have fun and be competitive. Good clans, very good players either get gold, premium time, reward tanks all for free by participating in several battle modes.

But atleast 70% of the NA player base fall under the very bad, bad and poor players category who dont even know anything about the game. They are the ones who spend a lot in this game. So WG is not going to do anything to cater to the minority.



cthulhu_hunter #70 Posted Mar 11 2020 - 00:51

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 40931 battles
  • 422
  • Member since:
    08-04-2013
Rigged is rigged. SBMM is the only thing that will fix this dying broken game, but that will never happen. Why? Game is based on imbalance and SBMM would go against WGing's policy of imbalance. Good team vs poor team = "rigged", and it IS INTENTIONAL. gg MM

Pipinghot #71 Posted Mar 11 2020 - 05:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 11,487
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View Postcthulhu_hunter, on Mar 10 2020 - 18:51, said:

Rigged is rigged. SBMM is the only thing that will fix this dying broken game, but that will never happen. Why? Game is based on imbalance and SBMM would go against WGing's policy of imbalance. Good team vs poor team = "rigged", and it IS INTENTIONAL. gg MM

And yet somehow you don't think that forcing every player in the game to have an average win rate, no matter how good or bad they are, is rigging. Interesting.



Pipinghot #72 Posted Mar 11 2020 - 05:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 11,487
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostKiaser_Sosay, on Mar 09 2020 - 16:48, said:

Pipinghot where did you get the 27 out of 100 data? If this was what actually was going on I would have never posted .

Actually you might, it's really easy to start believing wrong information based on perception, that was the whole point of discussing confirmation bias.

View PostKiaser_Sosay, on Mar 09 2020 - 16:48, said:

Seems to me i need to tally the blowouts . Wins and losses me thinks it way more that roughly 25% of the time. Time to get a pencil and a piece of paper i guess. 

Agreed. If you can honestly force yourself to record every battle you will start to see more and more that your perceptions are misleading you. This isn't about being right or wrong, it's about helping people see what's really happening in the game, I hope for your sake that you start doing that tracking or install WoTNumbers as Neatoman suggested.



ToxicRooster_Jack #73 Posted Apr 05 2020 - 03:35

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 4557 battles
  • 121
  • [VPR1] VPR1
  • Member since:
    08-04-2015

View PostAvalon304, on Mar 05 2020 - 21:07, said:

 

As has been discussed and proven before: basing MM on skil, balancing the teams by skill, will not stop the blow outs youre seeing. It will not change what you see on a day to day basis, and it will barely change it over the course of thousands of battles.

 

I missed that one when was that proved? Did they run test on common test on skill MM when I wasn't looking? Because I can't see how you would end up with these 15/1 games if you have totally equal skilled players on both sides. It may happen once in a while but it would be very rare. Seems you'd see more draws and very close games. 



ToxicRooster_Jack #74 Posted Apr 05 2020 - 03:46

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 4557 battles
  • 121
  • [VPR1] VPR1
  • Member since:
    08-04-2015

View PostPanzerkind, on Mar 05 2020 - 21:15, said:

Skill-based MM might lessen the occurrence of these sorts of blowout games, but there are more factors in play when it comes to these blowout games than just skill deficits. Early advantages as far as taking certain positions or picking off certain hugely influential tanks early, taking superior map control.... these sorts of things happen even when the teams are even, and sometimes it just comes down to a team's deployment early on being lucky and perfectly set up to counter the other team's just by sheer coincidence. Advantages like these snowball and the game is more or less decided in the first few minutes. 

You know this, being in RELIC, that it happens all the time in comp as well. You can have two top-level clans that are pretty evenly matched in player skill, and one caller tries a strat that just so happens to be perfectly countered by the enemy strat and you get a 15-3 or something blowout. It happens all the time. It's just a natural consequence of a 15v15 combat game with no respawning or HP regeneration. It's very hard to beat the team that takes the advantage and map control early on. 

I'm not saying some sort of skill-based MM wouldn't improve upon this somewhat, but I don't know how you would go about doing that or what sort of metrics you would use to quantify "skill" for MM, and even still it would never completely remedy the problem. 

 

 

So you are inferring that winning has nothing to do with skill and it's all luck? or positions? What? I thought you folks based your stats on WN8 win8s or win rates? You complain about having low skill player in the game messing up you stats. LSP losing the game for you. I saw someone tell someone on this forum nicely to stop playing tier 8 and play tier 5 because of his skill. 

Blue and purple players then green players easy to quantify "skill" for MM. I say lets try it and find out if it fixes the problem we can always go back after a year or so. 



cthulhu_hunter #75 Posted Apr 05 2020 - 13:22

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 40931 battles
  • 422
  • Member since:
    08-04-2013
Been saying for years now that game is rigged. Finally more and more are seeing it. Game is based on imbalance and to make battles as short as possible. It is so blatantly obvious, anyone with even a tiny bit of statistics knowledge can easily see it. Of course, die hard WOT players will never acknowledge this simple fact, even though they know it is true. SBMM would fix this broken game, but sadly, that will never happen for it will upset the intentional imbalance. Let the rigged battles begin! And, as always.....gg MM. 





Also tagged with WG, Devs, trash, mm

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users