Jump to content


Finally a proper MM...enjoy..:)


  • Please log in to reply
206 replies to this topic

MhUser #41 Posted 21 March 2015 - 03:04 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 31682 battles
  • 636
  • Member since:
    07-15-2011

View PostmaDNauseam, on 21 March 2015 - 03:00 PM, said:

 

Tell me how you outplay 5 enemies of the same skill as you?

 

Let's think about that for a moment...

 

the MM puts players with various skill range into a game so you can outplay 5 noobs

its also possible to outplay 5 players with same skill as yours

 

what this MM does - you are not forced to carry all games and can die early in the game by playing risky or agressive; if you dont pad your stats will be lower then your actuall skill and you can play more relaxed games while still owning most of the enemyies


Edited by MhUser, 21 March 2015 - 03:08 PM.


SovietBias #42 Posted 21 March 2015 - 03:12 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37407 battles
  • 1,345
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013

View PostMhUser, on 21 March 2015 - 03:04 PM, said:

its also possible to outplay 5 players with same skill as yours

 

If you consistently outplay 5 players they are not the same skill as you, are they ?

 

If you think that will happen with this MM setup you are dead wrong.



Slahbarat #43 Posted 21 March 2015 - 03:13 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 9511 battles
  • 319
  • Member since:
    10-03-2011

View Postmokosha, on 21 March 2015 - 08:45 AM, said:

Hello all,

 

Here it is the MM we have been dreaming of.

 

http://aw.my.com/us/news/general/matchmaking-armored-warfare-0

 

Thanks.

 

 

Then go and play this game you ******.

I play more than one game at a time. I can't believe people can be that handicapped.

If you really were into a challenge you would get a good clan and then start playing in leagues. But judging by your stats, ehhhhh nope.



thoso1973 #44 Posted 21 March 2015 - 03:33 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 46187 battles
  • 440
  • [TEC] TEC
  • Member since:
    03-07-2013
It's kind of funny how some players arguing against skillbased mm, have become so institutionalized by playing under the terms of the current broken mm, that they perceive it as a 'punishment' if they were ever matched against equally skilled players at a consistent rate. :) 

Element6 #45 Posted 21 March 2015 - 03:34 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30854 battles
  • 11,118
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostLegioCenturion, on 21 March 2015 - 02:24 PM, said:

 

That's what matchmaking does: matchup teams. What WOT tries to do is match-up results, by consistently aligning-up uneven teams.

 

With regards to matchmaking Armored Warfare's concept is evidently better than WOT's.

This of course doesn't mean that it will be a better game as only after going public we'll be able to determine that. 

 

I was thinking more about what the 15 players decide to do once the battle starts. Just because the MM is more balanced for stats/tanks etc, people will still behave like 15 solo players on the same side. There is nothing in the AW MM that will suddenly have them coordinate themselves as a team. That is only possible if they start to communicate prior to the start of the battle. That is an option we have in WoT, and some players attempt to coordinate the team during the 30 second countdown, cudos to them, but it very seldom works out.

 

A perfect lineup will easily be made unperfect the instant a player that has a support role from the back of the battlefield is the one that rushes to the frontlines, and dies. The MM, no matter how sophisticaed you make it, cannot make up for that.



Vestrick64 #46 Posted 21 March 2015 - 03:43 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 11490 battles
  • 6,210
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013

View PostMhUser, on 21 March 2015 - 03:04 PM, said:

 

the MM puts players with various skill range into a game so you can outplay 5 noobs

its also possible to outplay 5 players with same skill as yours

 

No, it's not possible in the long run, when WR is concerned.

Play 100000 games vs. same skill opponent and you'll end up with 50% WR.

 

View PostMhUser, on 21 March 2015 - 02:57 PM, said:

great MM

i hope that most players will leave wot when AW will be released -> whis will force WG to make a proper MM finally

 

this system punishes stat padders - the more you pad (artifically increase your stats over your skill level) the tougher it will get; it will reward 'playing for fun' which will mean you can rush 5 enemy tanks alone and have fun outplaying them all; not like the wot meta: 1 vs 29, have to camp and use my allies as meatshields to GRIND damage for WN8, use  situational awareness and map awareness to deny my own team damage and xp so I can GET MOREEEEEEE

 

"pad"? it punishes you for playing the tank you enjoy, directly punishes getting better. Appeases to mediocrity.



MhUser #47 Posted 21 March 2015 - 03:44 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 31682 battles
  • 636
  • Member since:
    07-15-2011

View PostElement6, on 21 March 2015 - 03:34 PM, said:

I was thinking more about what the 15 players decide to do once the battle starts. Just because the MM is more balanced for stats/tanks etc, people will still behave like 15 solo players on the same side. There is nothing in the AW MM that will suddenly have them coordinate themselves as a team. That is only possible if they start to communicate prior to the start of the battle. That is an option we have in WoT, and some players attempt to coordinate the team during the 30 second countdown, cudos to them, but it very seldom works out.

 

A perfect lineup will easily be made unperfect the instant a player that has a support role from the back of the battlefield is the one that rushes to the frontlines, and dies. The MM, no matter how sophisticaed you make it, cannot make up for that.

 

thats why some abttles are lost and some are won but you always have fair chances to win

Slahbarat #48 Posted 21 March 2015 - 03:45 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 9511 battles
  • 319
  • Member since:
    10-03-2011

View Postthoso1973, on 21 March 2015 - 03:33 PM, said:

It's kind of funny how some players arguing against skillbased mm, have become so institutionalized by playing under the terms of the current broken mm, that they perceive it as a 'punishment' if they were ever matched against equally skilled players at a consistent rate. :) 

 

Go play Counter Strike, play on a public server. Nobody whines about "matchmaking". There is a good player in one team and the other team just gets destroyed. And who whines? Again, nobody. Maybe they call him a cheater.

If you want a challenge play clanwars. Play leagues, play campaign. I don't care. If everybody is a good player noone is and to be real if there would be ONLY ranked matchmaking EVERYBODY would whine due to BROKEN TANKS.

You cannot at any point in time satisfy EVERY customer at once.

You get that into your head? No? Then I am afraid I am unable to draw a picture for you as you wouldn't understand it no matter how.



Element6 #49 Posted 21 March 2015 - 03:50 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30854 battles
  • 11,118
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostMhUser, on 21 March 2015 - 03:44 PM, said:

 

thats why some abttles are lost and some are won but you always have fair chances to win

Well, at least WoT's mode is called Random Battles....probably for a reason :)



PanzerKFeldherrnhalle #50 Posted 21 March 2015 - 03:55 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 2724 battles
  • 816
  • Member since:
    09-14-2013

View PostElement6, on 21 March 2015 - 02:34 PM, said:

I was thinking more about what the 15 players decide to do once the battle starts. Just because the MM is more balanced for stats/tanks etc, people will still behave like 15 solo players on the same side. There is nothing in the AW MM that will suddenly have them coordinate themselves as a team. That is only possible if they start to communicate prior to the start of the battle. That is an option we have in WoT, and some players attempt to coordinate the team during the 30 second countdown, cudos to them, but it very seldom works out.

 

A perfect lineup will easily be made unperfect the instant a player that has a support role from the back of the battlefield is the one that rushes to the frontlines, and dies. The MM, no matter how sophisticaed you make it, cannot make up for that.

 

Yes and that's how it should be. The game is played by humans and its outcome is determined by their decisions and what they do it do in that particular game. It isn't a script. Therefore, balanced matchmaking isn't the equivalent of 50% WR to everyone. It only means that if in a group of 30 people we have 4 competent players in same weighted-tier tanks, 2 will go to one team and 2 will go to the opposite team. That's all it means.



Vestrick64 #51 Posted 21 March 2015 - 03:59 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 11490 battles
  • 6,210
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013

View PostLegioCenturion, on 21 March 2015 - 03:55 PM, said:

 

Therefore, balanced matchmaking isn't the equivalent of 50% WR to everyone.

 

Yes, it is.

Reason: maths.

 

If both sides are more or less equal, the WR will aim for 50% for infinite amount of attempts.

 

There is no way to go around this.



charns #52 Posted 21 March 2015 - 04:27 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 16607 battles
  • 873
  • Member since:
    07-12-2012
"These sorted groups are then distributed to both teams based on the player quality. An internal rating was developed, taking several elements into account – these do include player’s winrate, average XP per battle and several other indicators. The matchmaker then shifts the players around the teams so both teams end with roughly the same player rating. " This is quoted from AW webpage. So, yep, punishing good WR players by giving them bad WR player in order to level "skill" lead to narrowing WR toward 50% on the long run. Maybe there ll be some game modes allowing good players to maintain/raise their WR high enough despite this MM system though. But really AW is not appealing to good players compared to WOT regarding random gamemode. I am not following AW so I don't know how AW competitive modes ( if any ) compare to WOT ones.

Edited by charns, 21 March 2015 - 04:29 PM.


thoso1973 #53 Posted 21 March 2015 - 04:34 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 46187 battles
  • 440
  • [TEC] TEC
  • Member since:
    03-07-2013

View PostYuri_Yslin, on 21 March 2015 - 02:59 PM, said:

 

Yes, it is.

Reason: maths.

 

If both sides are more or less equal, the WR will aim for 50% for infinite amount of attempts.

 

There is no way to go around this.

 

Probability distribution & statistics =/= applied math.

 

Besides, a WoT player that wins as many games as he/she loses, will have a WR at ~48.5 - 49%. Not 50%.

 

Maybe do some research before labeling something as fact when it actually isn't?



Vestrick64 #54 Posted 21 March 2015 - 04:35 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 11490 battles
  • 6,210
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013

View Postthoso1973, on 21 March 2015 - 04:34 PM, said:

 

Probability distribution & statistics =/= applied math.

 

Besides, a WoT player that wins as many games as he/she loses, will have a WR at ~48.5 - 49%. Not 50%.

 

Maybe do some research before labeling something as fact when it actually isn't?

 

I skip draws for simplicity. Don't try to act smart on simple things.

PanzerKFeldherrnhalle #55 Posted 21 March 2015 - 04:37 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 2724 battles
  • 816
  • Member since:
    09-14-2013

View PostYuri_Yslin, on 21 March 2015 - 02:59 PM, said:

 

Yes, it is.

Reason: maths.

 

If both sides are more or less equal, the WR will aim for 50% for infinite amount of attempts.

 

There is no way to go around this.

 

You're confusing winchance with winrate.

 

As follows: balanced matchmaking = balanced winchance = unpredictable result.



Vestrick64 #56 Posted 21 March 2015 - 04:42 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 11490 battles
  • 6,210
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013

View PostLegioCenturion, on 21 March 2015 - 04:37 PM, said:

 

You're confusing winchance with winrate.

 

As follows: balanced matchmaking = balanced winchance = unpredictable result.

 

You don't seem to understand that over big batches (10000+ or so attempts) there is little to none "unpredictability".

 

Yes, noobs may win vs. pros in a single match.

But let those teams play 1000 times against each other and check results.

 

It's exactly the opposite: it is you that confuse winchance with winrate.

 

Winchance determines 1 game. It can be pretty invalid.

Winrate is (for a statistically valid account) tens of thousands of games that are actually extremely precise in what they show.

 

And over those thousands of battles, you will have that 50% (or 49% if some smart@ss tries to point "errors" again) winrate with skill MM, unless you're so good that the game has extreme difficulty in finding anyone up to par (ie. Kewei or Luciquel).


Edited by Yuri_Yslin, 21 March 2015 - 04:45 PM.


thoso1973 #57 Posted 21 March 2015 - 04:44 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 46187 battles
  • 440
  • [TEC] TEC
  • Member since:
    03-07-2013

View PostYuri_Yslin, on 21 March 2015 - 03:35 PM, said:

 

I skip draws for simplicity. Don't try to act smart on simple things.

 

I'm not acting smart. I'm commenting something you wrote, presenting your argument as fact when it isn't.:)

_Grim_ #58 Posted 21 March 2015 - 04:45 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22990 battles
  • 1,431
  • [-DFA-] -DFA-
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostLegioCenturion, on 21 March 2015 - 05:37 PM, said:

 

You're confusing winchance with winrate.

 

As follows: balanced matchmaking = balanced winchance = unpredictable result.

 

And you fail at simple statistics.Given enough iterations,each with 50% win chance, will eventually result in win rates converging at 50% as well.

Vestrick64 #59 Posted 21 March 2015 - 04:46 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 11490 battles
  • 6,210
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013

View Post_Grim_, on 21 March 2015 - 04:45 PM, said:

 

And you fail at simple statistics.Given enough iterations,each with 50% win chance, will eventually result in win rates converging at 50% as well.

 

Exactly.

lord_chipmonk #60 Posted 21 March 2015 - 04:48 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 35729 battles
  • 10,279
  • [-HOW-] -HOW-
  • Member since:
    12-23-2012

View Postthoso1973, on 21 March 2015 - 04:44 PM, said:

 

I'm not acting smart. I'm commenting something you wrote, presenting your argument as fact when it isn't.:)

 

You really are, or at least that is how you come across. Your point doesn't change the thrust of Yuri's argument, which remains. Your comment, while correct, was pedantic and facile. Yuri remains fundamentally correct. 




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users