Jump to content


Armored Warfare Matchmaking


  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

John_Preston #81 Posted 09 March 2015 - 03:34 PM

    Lieutenant General

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

View PostelFred, on 09 March 2015 - 03:09 PM, said:

 

IMO your football analogy fall flat because the teams are not built randomly in football.

Well, i was talking about the balance issues. Football teams are not balanced either. Some still enjoy watching it.

 

View PostelFred, on 09 March 2015 - 03:09 PM, said:

The point is more FFA where if the 5 best players are top tier in one side but bottom tier in the other the outcome is very predictable.

But then again, the opposite can and will happen in an other battle. You have to look at the big picture.

You guys are still talking about individual battles. I'm still talking about the fact that random selecting guarantees that after thousands of battles the only constant in your battles is you and what you see in your stats purely comes from your performance.

Good or bad teams doesn't affect your personal stats in any way.

 

I still think that the possibility of having any kind of team composition gives us a much more diverse gameplay.

Steamrolls can happen sometimes, your team can fail big time, but those are the kind of games that can turn into to epic last stands and miracle comebacks.



elFred #82 Posted 09 March 2015 - 03:56 PM

    Brigadier

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

View PostJohn_Preston, on 09 March 2015 - 03:34 PM, said:

Well, i was talking about the balance issues. Football teams are not balanced either. Some still enjoy watching it.

 

But then again, the opposite can and will happen in an other battle. You have to look at the big picture.

You guys are still talking about individual battles. I'm still talking about the fact that random selecting guarantees that after thousands of battles the only constant in your battles is you and what you see in your stats purely comes from your performance.

Good or bad teams doesn't affect your personal stats in any way.

 

I still think that the possibility of having any kind of team composition gives us a much more diverse gameplay.

Steamrolls can happen sometimes, your team can fail big time, but those are the kind of games that can turn into to epic last stands and miracle comebacks.

 

Cannot disagree completely otherwise I would already have quit this game :)

 

BTW I'm pretty sure the AW community will find a e-peen meter of its own.

 

And even if the skill MM make AW players WR tend to 50% it will probably make a 51% player equivalent to a 60% WR WoT player

IMO it will just narrow the spread.

 

 



John_Preston #83 Posted 09 March 2015 - 04:32 PM

    Lieutenant General

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

View PostelFred, on 09 March 2015 - 03:56 PM, said:

 

Cannot disagree completely otherwise I would already have quit this game :)

 

BTW I'm pretty sure the AW community will find a e-peen meter of its own.

 

And even if the skill MM make AW players WR tend to 50% it will probably make a 51% player equivalent to a 60% WR WoT player

IMO it will just narrow the spread.

Their average damage/kill/whatever stats still going to be better. Having another good players on the enemy team doesn't really stop a great player from farming damage on all the bad ones and people will still complain about their team/mm.

I don't think it's going to be too much different from what we have here.



jabster #84 Posted 10 March 2015 - 08:21 AM

    Field Marshal

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

View Postjinx_uk, on 09 March 2015 - 10:30 AM, said:

I don't understand why it's such a bad thing to have team balancing. Is it not more fair to have two teams reasonably balanced in terms of overall team skill, i.e. tomatoes, good players, etc. in more or less equal numbers on both teams? Why is this so negatively regarded by people here? Is it to protect our individual win rates? Is that really all it is?

 

Indirectly yes, win-rates are one of the problems as better players will end-up with worse win-rates than they currently have so the argument put forward is that they're "punished" as either they have worse teams mates or face better teams than they do now. I believe describing it as "punishment"  is somewhat stretching it but that doesn't mean I don't think it's a valid point even if I don't completely agree with it.

 

As for fair, what does that mean in a game of pixel tanks? It's far easier just to talk about outcomes as I'm really not sure how you describe it as fair or unfair.

 

My personal view is that the MM shouldn't try to create balanced matches but instead shouldn't create horribly unbalanced matches. To simplify it all matches should be say, 50/50 +/-15.

 

View PostelFred, on 09 March 2015 - 10:36 AM, said:

 

We will see ,in my interpretation of skill based MM it's more about removing steamroll games to promote more fighting and more entertainment.

 

Is having more 50% win rate really more important than the fight ?

 

 

WoT MM is already somewhat rigged if you enter a game as a scout on Sand river having as top tier 3 E-100 of the "1st incompetent noob division" facing 3 unimediums of one of the top clan you don't even have to be smart as Enstein to guess the outcome.

 

That may be you interpretation but that doesn't mean that by definition players should become far closer to average than currently. Removing landslide games, well a skill-based MM won't do that. It should reduce them as there we be less unbalanced teams but it certainly won't remove them and provide only close games. Unbalanced teams may cause landslides but landslides aren't only caused by unbalanced teams.

Edited by jabster, 10 March 2015 - 10:00 AM.


Homer_J #85 Posted 10 March 2015 - 08:37 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 31518 battles
  • 34,511
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postjabster, on 10 March 2015 - 07:21 AM, said:

 

Unbalanced teams may cause landslides but landslides aren't only caused by unbalanced teams.

 

I would suggest that unbalanced teams often prevent landslides.

 

With balanced teams if you lose one tank you are on your way to a pretty certain defeat.

 

With unbalanced teams, say 3 good players and 12 useless ones against 15 useless players the team with the 3 good players can afford to lose all the useless players and can still pull back and win.



jabster #86 Posted 10 March 2015 - 08:56 AM

    Field Marshal

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

View PostHomer_J, on 10 March 2015 - 07:37 AM, said:

 

I would suggest that unbalanced teams often prevent landslides.

 

With balanced teams if you lose one tank you are on your way to a pretty certain defeat.

 

With unbalanced teams, say 3 good players and 12 useless ones against 15 useless players the team with the 3 good players can afford to lose all the useless players and can still pull back and win.

 

 

That's just not true though is it as average players, like me, are highly inconsistent in how they play and are certainly prone to either making decisions that result in the loss of their tank or not taking advantage of mistakes on the enemy team.

 

Someone did look at this on the NA server and although the results aren't conclusive they do indicate that badly unbalanced teams are a lot more likely to produce land slides than more balanced ones.

 

Taking your example, what where the three good players doing while their twelve "unless" players died. Is your scenario really more likely than the three good players quickly make it say three good players and ten useless players vs. eight unless players?

 


Edited by jabster, 10 March 2015 - 09:28 AM.


Killer_Shadow #87 Posted 10 March 2015 - 10:35 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 26962 battles
  • 1,651
  • [ALIE] ALIE
  • Member since:
    04-30-2012

View PostJohn_Preston, on 05 March 2015 - 03:22 PM, said:

...

Unicorn in a Hellcat is not equal to a unicorn in a Churchill Gun carrier, even though they are both t6 tank destroyers.

So for perfect MM you should have players with same skill level in tanks with similar capabilities. Also mirror maps.

And that's how you totally cripple MM. You would have to wait minutes for a perfectly balanced battle and it still wouldn't be perfect, becuse people can have bad days, rng can screw you over, etc.

Perfection sux in multiple levels and it's also boring...

 

 

I feel like a hero now for reading all of those comments and replying to them...it took me a loooooooooooong time.

 

First of all, I do agree with you about it would take too long to start a battle with perfectly balanced teams. But personally, I'm not looking for "that much" perfection at all.

 

For example... What if:

 

+ max. 2 arty per team,

+ max. 3 td per team,

+ roughly skill balanced teams.

 

A unicum player in a tank doesn't mean a lot. For example; last night as a platoon in a random battle, we won the battle where our win chance was shown as 22%. But 3 of the best players (unicums) of the enemy team were driving arty and they couldn't affect the battle as much as XVM was thinking. And we won by 15-4. But this was a specific situation and it didn't refer the problem in general.

 

Imo, battles where a team is overpowered comparing to enemy team is not fun, even when I'm in that overpowered team. That's why roughly balanced / as balanced as possible teams would be much more better. Again; I'm not looking for 100% balanced teams, even slightly balanced teams would be fine.

 

The second thing is that I do not agree with the comparison of WoT with AW or WoT with WT. In the end, all of these 3 games have different concepts and gameplay. I personally don't care what AW or WT offers. But there's a truth that there are lots of people who will think the opposite (especially the players who are tired of ongoing concrete problems of WoT).

 

Edit: Spelling


Edited by Killer_Shadow, 10 March 2015 - 10:37 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users