Jump to content


Armored Warfare Matchmaking


  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

Asghaad #41 Posted 06 March 2015 - 09:52 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 14067 battles
  • 3,103
  • [PPDCZ] PPDCZ
  • Member since:
    01-23-2013

View PostHomer_J, on 05 March 2015 - 11:35 PM, said:

 

One makes sure the enemy team has a chance to beat you, the other makes sure the enemy has a chance to beat you.

 

The big difference is the WG one doesn't exist, or at least if it does it works very very badly.

 

If the proposed AW system works then everyone will be forced to a 50% win rate.  Then bad players can claim the reason they do little damage and get little kills is because they concentrate on awesome tactics like taking one for the team.

 

1. no the WG one (hypothetically) makes sure you will lose 9 out of 10 battles it puts you in, the seconds makes sure you have +- 50% chance to win

2. as i sayd im NOT going to debate if it exists or not

3. no its not, in 15 v 15 games, assuring that ballanced teams will win 50% of the time is impossible, thats the beauty of it - the strategy, awareness and yes even luck matters the same and team that utilizes its assets better at better place will win. Its still in the hands of the players, only thing that this MM would achieve is that at the START of the battle, both teams have equal equal enough chances to be victorious.

 

things you criticize are the pure "league" based MM systems that dont allow people of different skill to face each other and thus becoming stale and boring. They are also systems focusing at small scale MOBA games which is very different setup than 15 vs 15 tank battle ...



John_Preston #42 Posted 06 March 2015 - 10:15 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 17436 battles
  • 6,373
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012

View PostAsghaad, on 06 March 2015 - 09:52 AM, said:

 

1. no the WG one (hypothetically) makes sure you will lose 9 out of 10 battles it puts you in

How does this even remotely make sense?

View PostAsghaad, on 06 March 2015 - 09:52 AM, said:

 

 the seconds makes sure you have +- 50% chance to win

Actually selecting players randomly does the same.

Maybe not on a small scale, but after a thousand battles you pretty much had the same amount of good/bad/balanced games as everyone else.

But total randomness makes the battles much more diverse.



Schmeksiman #43 Posted 06 March 2015 - 10:20 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 16670 battles
  • 6,606
  • [INC] INC
  • Member since:
    03-10-2012

View PostAsghaad, on 06 March 2015 - 09:52 AM, said:

1. no the WG one (hypothetically) makes sure you will lose 9 out of 10 battles it puts you in, the seconds makes sure you have +- 50% chance to win

2. as i sayd im NOT going to debate if it exists or not

3. no its not, in 15 v 15 games, assuring that ballanced teams will win 50% of the time is impossible, thats the beauty of it - the strategy, awareness and yes even luck matters the same and team that utilizes its assets better at better place will win. Its still in the hands of the players, only thing that this MM would achieve is that at the START of the battle, both teams have equal equal enough chances to be victorious.

 

things you criticize are the pure "league" based MM systems that dont allow people of different skill to face each other and thus becoming stale and boring. They are also systems focusing at small scale MOBA games which is very different setup than 15 vs 15 tank battle ...

 

  1. Again you're posting nonsense as it has been clearly proven that your chance to win on average corresponds to your overall win rate. 9/10 is purely your impression (even your signature proves you wrong)
  2. Then don't mention it as an argument, it was proven multiple times no rigging happens but some players just can't accept how random matchmaking works
  3. Oh it is possible, the more you parameters you add to the system the closer it gets to 50%. See how most people in WoT are between 45% and 55% win rate? It's because balancing works and the difference is mostly your skill. If you eliminate skill difference by always making two teams of the same skill (think of it as -1+1=0) your win rate will be decided by what's left - deviation from your overall and recent stats which the system can't track presumably. So if AW has that kind of system you can expect to have about 50% win rate, up to 51% depending on how strict the rules are. That means you'll be losing more than in WoT currently because of skill based matchmaking. And that without guarantee that overall quality of games will be any better


Shade1982 #44 Posted 06 March 2015 - 10:27 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20500 battles
  • 907
  • [QSF-L] QSF-L
  • Member since:
    11-07-2011
I wonder why people keep insisting one game is the death of another. You do realise people are capable of playing more than one game, right? I play both WoT and WT and I really don't favor one. If anything, I favor WoT because I invested more time in that. When AW comes, I will play it, but that really doesn't mean I will stop playing WoT, why would it? They're two different games...

Asghaad #45 Posted 06 March 2015 - 10:51 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 14067 battles
  • 3,103
  • [PPDCZ] PPDCZ
  • Member since:
    01-23-2013

View PostSchmeksiman, on 06 March 2015 - 10:20 AM, said:

 

  1. Again you're posting nonsense as it has been clearly proven that your chance to win on average corresponds to your overall win rate. 9/10 is purely your impression (even your signature proves you wrong)
  2. Then don't mention it as an argument, it was proven multiple times no rigging happens but some players just can't accept how random matchmaking works
  3. Oh it is possible, the more you parameters you add to the system the closer it gets to 50%. See how most people in WoT are between 45% and 55% win rate? It's because balancing works and the difference is mostly your skill. If you eliminate skill difference by always making two teams of the same skill (think of it as -1+1=0) your win rate will be decided by what's left - deviation from your overall and recent stats which the system can't track presumably. So if AW has that kind of system you can expect to have about 50% win rate, up to 51% depending on how strict the rules are. That means you'll be losing more than in WoT currently because of skill based matchmaking. And that without guarantee that overall quality of games will be any better

 

1. again you fail to comprehend that i dont care if its real or not, YOU were the one who pulled that conspiracy out to compare it to AW planned system. So to deate that i have to use that conspiracy as a base whether i believe it real or not, if you want to blame someone, blame yourself for posting stupid argument in the first place :)

 

2. again YOU pulled it out trying to bash the AW with it, not me ...

 

3. what you try to imply would only be true in one vs one enviroment with set parameters that stay the same all the time. In this matter the 15 v 15, the changing team compositions, different map layout, the team cooperation and so many more variables enter the equation... even as simple thing as giving orders or advices at the start of the battle can turn the victory toward your team. the MM would ideally assure that both teams have the same "strenght" at the start of the battle and rest is up to WHOLE TEAM to play the battle out and see who wins. The magic here is to ballance the teams without using same machines on both sides while ballancing "skill" in a manner where its not -1+1=0 but  : (10+2+5+3+9+6+5+5+3+2)-(8+8+6+3+3+2+4+5+7+4)=0

 

4. i guess all the time i told you that in 15 v 15 enviroment assuring that 50% winrate is absolutely impossible just doesnt compute for you. You seem to firmly believe that when XVM predicts 5% winrate game that you truly have only 5% to win

 

5. try to comprehend what is truly being discussed rather than your MOBA enforced 50% WR anger ... this is no MOBA played on exactly same map with all the team members at the same "skill" facing each other... its chaotic 15 vs 15 with diverse team composition in both skill, vehicle class and tier facing on different maps in different battle modes ... ammount of variables ensures that while team strenghts might be ballanced, the outcome depends on which team utilizes its resources better depending on map, mode and team composition - which is something unpredictable and is how the damn game should be in the first place

 

6. my overall WR is 52% ... so if what you are telling is the truth i would loose whopping 1% battles more in exchange of ballanced teams ... i can live with that ... gladly



Asghaad #46 Posted 06 March 2015 - 10:56 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 14067 battles
  • 3,103
  • [PPDCZ] PPDCZ
  • Member since:
    01-23-2013

View PostShade1982, on 06 March 2015 - 10:27 AM, said:

I wonder why people keep insisting one game is the death of another. You do realise people are capable of playing more than one game, right? I play both WoT and WT and I really don't favor one. If anything, I favor WoT because I invested more time in that. When AW comes, I will play it, but that really doesn't mean I will stop playing WoT, why would it? They're two different games...

 

wishfull thinking ? I dont think AW will be death of WoT.

 

But as with WoW the competition did diminish it and taken away from it.

 

thing is, AW is clearly aimed at western audience with better computers (and therefore more money) and while it will not take away whole playerbase from WOT (physically impossible, russian abakuses couldnt run it ... :teethhappy: ) it will probably make a serious dent in WoTs income base in EU which hopefully will force WG to finally take things seriously and improve theyr game  to keep up.

 

in any way competition is good for consumers :)



jabster #47 Posted 06 March 2015 - 11:24 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12649 battles
  • 25,346
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostAsghaad, on 06 March 2015 - 08:52 AM, said:

 

1. no the WG one (hypothetically) makes sure you will lose 9 out of 10 battles it puts you in, the seconds makes sure you have +- 50% chance to win

2. as i sayd im NOT going to debate if it exists or not

3. no its not, in 15 v 15 games, assuring that ballanced teams will win 50% of the time is impossible, thats the beauty of it - the strategy, awareness and yes even luck matters the same and team that utilizes its assets better at better place will win. Its still in the hands of the players, only thing that this MM would achieve is that at the START of the battle, both teams have equal equal enough chances to be victorious.

 

A skill based MM by its very definition makes each player have a win-rate close to average otherwise what you've actually got is a system that is broken.

 

As far as I can tell what you're asking for is to have a system put in place that doesn't do what it's supposed to do, to replace a system that doesn't exist.

 

Exactly how do you think that makes any sense?


Edited by jabster, 06 March 2015 - 11:46 AM.


John_Preston #48 Posted 06 March 2015 - 11:51 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 17436 battles
  • 6,373
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012

View Postjabster, on 06 March 2015 - 11:24 AM, said:

 

A skill based MM by its very definition makes each player have a win-rate close to average otherwise what you've actually got is a system that is broken.

 

As far as I can tell what you're asking for is to have a system put in place that doesn't do what it's supposed to do, to replace a system that doesn't exist.

 

Exactly how do you think that makes any sense?

Magic? Or aliens. I bet it was aliens.



elFred #49 Posted 06 March 2015 - 12:12 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 24043 battles
  • 4,143
  • [BIMA] BIMA
  • Member since:
    06-11-2012

View Postjabster, on 06 March 2015 - 11:24 AM, said:

 

A skill based MM by its very definition makes each player have a win-rate close to average otherwise what you've actually got is a system that is broken.

 

As far as I can tell what you're asking for is to have a system put in place that doesn't do what it's supposed to do, to replace a system that doesn't exist.

 

Exactly how do you think that makes any sense?

 

I wonder how you come to that conclusion, any IRL example to back that ?

jabster #50 Posted 06 March 2015 - 01:10 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12649 battles
  • 25,346
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostelFred, on 06 March 2015 - 11:12 AM, said:

 

I wonder how you come to that conclusion, any IRL example to back that ?

 

Any bit in particular?

elFred #51 Posted 06 March 2015 - 01:17 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 24043 battles
  • 4,143
  • [BIMA] BIMA
  • Member since:
    06-11-2012

View Postjabster, on 06 March 2015 - 01:10 PM, said:

 

Any bit in particular?

 

I just question your sentence :

 

Block Quote

 A skill based MM by its very definition makes each player have a win-rate close to average

 

So reiterate ,have you any IRL example that back your assertion ?

 



Shaka_D #52 Posted 06 March 2015 - 01:18 PM

    Colonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 37657 battles
  • 3,761
  • Member since:
    10-18-2010

View PostShade1982, on 06 March 2015 - 10:27 AM, said:

I wonder why people keep insisting one game is the death of another. You do realise people are capable of playing more than one game, right? I play both WoT and WT and I really don't favor one. If anything, I favor WoT because I invested more time in that. When AW comes, I will play it, but that really doesn't mean I will stop playing WoT, why would it? They're two different games...

 

I agree, I can't really understand why people believe it'll be the death of Wot, nor can I believe that the naysayers will be 100% right. It'll be good to see the idea implemented on AW and see how it pans out. Perhaps all the speculation, both from those for and against, will end up meeting somewhere in the middle. Either way it's another game Ill try and if I like it I'll play it, I presume we all will.

 

They will no doubt be different games, but they are remarkably similar in many respects so perhaps the game will appeal to more players than WT did. Competition is good, but my inherent trust of human nature makes me not want to believe anyone on the forums just yet, nor what the developers promise, until I get to test it for myself. Perhaps all my whining will be justified, perhaps not. All I've seen so far are a lot of people arguing whether some form of skilled matchmaking will be good or bad, and some are naturally prejudiced toward the idea either way without being completely objective about it.

 

We all have our motivations. For the best players I could understand them not wanting it since they're at the top of their game and can basically own everyone, and the chances of them facing off against other 'pro' players is fairly rare given the fact there aren't that many of them compared to the overall playerbase. For someone like me playing in my tier 7 for example, I don't want my tier 9 top tier heavy platoon to be tomatoes while the enemy platoon are green / blue / purple players in their tier 9 heavies. We all know how that ends mostly. Let's be patient and see what transpires.

 



Lol_N00b #53 Posted 06 March 2015 - 01:19 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 8561 battles
  • 3,077
  • [BL33T] BL33T
  • Member since:
    09-03-2014

View PostHomer_J, on 05 March 2015 - 08:47 PM, said:

Noobie protection - this means noobies will be faced with almost empty battles, they learn nothing, and then when they hit whatever level it is decided they are no longer to be protected at they suddenly start getting their backsides handed to them and leave.  Long term it's a bad idea.

 

And if they get their backsides handed to them from battle #1 they will leave less. Stronk lokic there.



Asghaad #54 Posted 06 March 2015 - 01:28 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 14067 battles
  • 3,103
  • [PPDCZ] PPDCZ
  • Member since:
    01-23-2013

View Postjabster, on 06 March 2015 - 11:24 AM, said:

 

A skill based MM by its very definition makes each player have a win-rate close to average otherwise what you've actually got is a system that is broken.

 

As far as I can tell what you're asking for is to have a system put in place that doesn't do what it's supposed to do, to replace a system that doesn't exist.

 

Exactly how do you think that makes any sense?

 

i answered all of those above... try to read WHOLE discussion before jumping in on something that is already in discussion ...

jabster #55 Posted 06 March 2015 - 03:14 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12649 battles
  • 25,346
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostelFred, on 06 March 2015 - 12:17 PM, said:

 

I just question your sentence :

 

 

So reiterate ,have you any IRL example that back your assertion ?

 

 

If you balance skill between the two teams then of course it means that average win rates are closer to the overall average. That's what the mechanism does by definition.

 

Why do you think it would do something else. To be honest I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make.



jabster #56 Posted 06 March 2015 - 03:18 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12649 battles
  • 25,346
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostAsghaad, on 06 March 2015 - 12:28 PM, said:

 

i answered all of those above... try to read WHOLE discussion before jumping in on something that is already in discussion ...

 

er, how about no. You pretty much didn't answer any question except with because it does and then the game is rigged but whether it is or not doesn't matter unless I think it does matter that the MM should be changed.



Asghaad #57 Posted 06 March 2015 - 03:25 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 14067 battles
  • 3,103
  • [PPDCZ] PPDCZ
  • Member since:
    01-23-2013

View Postjabster, on 06 March 2015 - 03:18 PM, said:

 

er, how about no. You pretty much didn't answer any question except with because it does and then the game is rigged but whether it is or not doesn't matter unless I think it does matter that the MM should be changed.

 

View PostAsghaad, on 06 March 2015 - 10:51 AM, said:

 

...

3. what you try to imply would only be true in one vs one enviroment with set parameters that stay the same all the time. In this matter the 15 v 15, the changing team compositions, different map layout, the team cooperation and so many more variables enter the equation... even as simple thing as giving orders or advices at the start of the battle can turn the victory toward your team. the MM would ideally assure that both teams have the same "strenght" at the start of the battle and rest is up to WHOLE TEAM to play the battle out and see who wins. The magic here is to ballance the teams without using same machines on both sides while ballancing "skill" in a manner where its not -1+1=0 but  : (10+2+5+3+9+6+5+5+3+2)-(8+8+6+3+3+2+4+5+7+4)=0

 

4. i guess all the time i told you that in 15 v 15 enviroment assuring that 50% winrate is absolutely impossible just doesnt compute for you. You seem to firmly believe that when XVM predicts 5% winrate game that you truly have only 5% to win

 

5. try to comprehend what is truly being discussed rather than your MOBA enforced 50% WR anger ... this is no MOBA played on exactly same map with all the team members at the same "skill" facing each other... its chaotic 15 vs 15 with diverse team composition in both skill, vehicle class and tier facing on different maps in different battle modes ... ammount of variables ensures that while team strenghts might be ballanced, the outcome depends on which team utilizes its resources better depending on map, mode and team composition - which is something unpredictable and is how the damn game should be in the first place

 

...

 

funny that i have to quote myself just for your failure to read the discussion as a whole ... sad, especially considering that this was just two posts above yours ...

Edited by Asghaad, 06 March 2015 - 03:25 PM.


elFred #58 Posted 06 March 2015 - 03:35 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 24043 battles
  • 4,143
  • [BIMA] BIMA
  • Member since:
    06-11-2012

View Postjabster, on 06 March 2015 - 03:14 PM, said:

View PostelFred, on 06 March 2015 - 12:17 PM, said:

 

I just question your sentence :

 

 

So reiterate ,have you any IRL example that back your assertion ?

 

 

If you balance skill between the two teams then of course it means that average win rates are closer to the overall average. That's what the mechanism does by definition.

 

Why do you think it would do something else. To be honest I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make.

 

My point simple (I think) you make an affirmation you may be right, you may be wrong, I don't know.

 

So can you back your statement by an IRL example ?



John_Preston #59 Posted 06 March 2015 - 03:43 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 17436 battles
  • 6,373
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012

View PostelFred, on 06 March 2015 - 03:35 PM, said:

 

My point simple (I think) you make an affirmation you may be right, you may be wrong, I don't know.

 

So can you back your statement by an IRL example ?

IRL example of skill-based matchmaking in MMOs?



jabster #60 Posted 06 March 2015 - 04:02 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12649 battles
  • 25,346
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostelFred, on 06 March 2015 - 02:35 PM, said:

 

My point simple (I think) you make an affirmation you may be right, you may be wrong, I don't know.

 

So can you back your statement by an IRL example ?

 

A real life example ... ok. The brakes on a car slow it down, do they not, as that's what they're designed to do. If they don't, they're not really brakes are they?

 

A skill based MM is designed to balance out matches so that each player has an equal chance of winning or losing.  If it doesn't it's not really a skill based MM is it?






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users