Jump to content


Skill based Match Making needed!


  • Please log in to reply
138 replies to this topic

catatpillar #1 Posted 11 October 2017 - 05:26 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20149 battles
  • 628
  • Member since:
    06-09-2014

Is it so hard to make the match maker calculate the personal rating of the player base or WN7 or WN8 or whatever you feel is best, to put some equality in this game? Simple example is to pick your personal rating (you don't need mod to see your personal record) and put you in a team "A" with a total of 75000 personal rating (which averages 5000 personal rating per player) vs team "B" with similar 75k rating plus/minus 2-3k. That will even most of the games in my opinion. Not like it is now you got team with total of 45000 personal rating vs team with 80000 or more. Correct me if i'm wrong.

And another thing i thought WG will introduce with the new match maker - equal tanks in both teams and not having LT vs 2500hp+ HT on a heavy tanks map, or Type 5 Heavy vs LT or MT while playing Malinovka and you got 1 to 3 tier X's in the game being sad tier 8 that cannot change the outcome easily. Sadly they "forgot" to do that.

We are not always making 200 games per day so we can easily forget the bad ones, sometimes i enter to make few games and end up with 9 games losing streak.

 

Here some results from my last 6 consecutive battles with Object 140 (512 battles with it, 51% win rate, average potato player). 

 

- 1st game result 5-15:

Damage: 632

Blocked: 830

Assisted: 1770

Tier 8 and 9 with less than 100 armor magically bouncing 7-8 shots i was wtf. AMX 50-120 middle armor hull down too stronK for 264 pen. Alright, let's proceed, craphappens.

 

- 2nd game result 5-15:

Damage: 617

Blocked: 0

Assisted: 71

Fail.

 

- 3rd game result 5-15:

Damage: 3005 (top dmg done from our team)

Blocked: 170

Assisted: 1765

*top dmg included not to brag with such poor result, but to show how "good" my allies performed

 

- 4th game result 10-15:

Damage: 3869 (top dmg done from our team)

Blocked: 1750

Assisted: 3493

This game was clutch braking because i was standing and spotting heavies (behind some bushes, using cupola and shooting when i can) at Westfield while our heavy tanks lane fall down or half of them decided to camp (WZ 5A and E5) instead fighting toe to toe with enemy heavies (a Maus and IS-7),  but our team simply refused to shoot spotted enemies. One of the reasons i hate playing LT, you can spot but your teammates can simply wave the white flag and save ammo. #Peace #MakeLoveNotWar 

 

- 5th game result 12-15:

Damage: 5675 (high caliber)

Blocked: 2300

Assisted: 420

 

- 6th game result 15-11:

Damage: 3887 (top dmg done from our team)

Blocked: 490

Assisted: 538

 

Finally a win, after 5 games that half of the team finished doing 0 damage or one shot at best.

 

So what those numbers show us - doesn't matter if your gameplay improves, you cannot help a helpless team to win the game. Or you have to perform a bit better. Much better. But you can't do 9k+ dmg every single game, even so you can still lose (seen that).

All of the games were tomato team vs green, blue or unicum players (except the last battle). First 2 games were literally disastrous, we've been steamrolled and i didn't knew what's happening. But improving my game wasn't enough to win us some games. Until the match-maker finally decided to split the good and bad players across both teams.

 

P.s. I am sitting around 52.34% win ratio since i was 5800 personal ratinig, now i'm close to 6300. This was november 2016, and a little bit above 2000 battles played for that time if i remember correctly.



Slyspy #2 Posted 11 October 2017 - 05:40 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 14202 battles
  • 16,734
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View Postcatatpillar, on 11 October 2017 - 05:26 PM, said:

 

So what those numbers show us - doesn't matter if your gameplay improves, you cannot help a helpless team to win the game. Or you have to perform a bit better. Much better. But you can't do 9k+ dmg every single game, even so you can still lose (seen that).

All of the games were tomato team vs green, blue or unicum players (except the last battle). First 2 games were literally disastrous, we've been steamrolled and i didn't knew what's happening. But improving my game wasn't enough to win us some games. Until the match-maker finally decided to split the good and bad players across both teams.

 

P.s. I am sitting around 52.34% win ratio since i was 5800 personal ratinig, now i'm close to 6300. This was november 2016, and a little bit above 2000 battles played for that time if i remember correctly.

 

If the game used SBMM then you would likely win fewer games than you do now. 



Junglist_ #3 Posted 11 October 2017 - 05:41 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37409 battles
  • 1,352
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013
No it's not

Aikl #4 Posted 11 October 2017 - 05:45 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25694 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011
WoT's been going well for six years straight, and while it's not very fun to have 'roflstomps', the solution isn't to equalize skill between teams. That would make matches either more boring or fix jack. Equalizing classes hasn't done much for it, why would skill-based MM do anything?

resheph73 #5 Posted 11 October 2017 - 05:52 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 27578 battles
  • 54
  • Member since:
    12-03-2012

View Postcatatpillar, on 11 October 2017 - 04:26 PM, said:

Is it so hard to make the match maker calculate the personal rating of the player base or WN7 or WN8 or whatever you feel is best, to put some equality in this game? Simple example is to 

 

No it is not. They already have personal rating calculated for all players, they just need to set the match exactly as it is done now then perform team swaps until the sum of the personal scores is the closest possible ... it's algorithms 101, it will add a few microseconds to match setup time and albeit not perfect it will definitely remove those cases where all bots or all unicorns are in the same team. It is NOT fun to win or lose 5-15, and it happens way too often with a completely random match making being way but way more frustrating than being clipped by a WT-100 or oneshotted by artillery so really can't understand why this is not done already. 

 

 



Coldspell #6 Posted 11 October 2017 - 05:53 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 19487 battles
  • 2,126
  • Member since:
    08-12-2013
I read "put some equality in this game" and naturaly assumed the remainder of your wall of text would be at best facile at worst an SJW propaganda leaflet.

JakeRoook #7 Posted 11 October 2017 - 05:56 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 260 battles
  • 271
  • Member since:
    04-20-2013
But first you need skill based rating, ok

Homer_J #8 Posted 11 October 2017 - 05:58 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 28992 battles
  • 30,516
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postcatatpillar, on 11 October 2017 - 05:26 PM, said:

Is it so hard to make the match maker calculate the personal rating of the player base or WN7 or WN8 or whatever you feel is best, to put some equality in this game?

 

What do you think will happen to those personal ratings if you always play against equal teams?

catatpillar #9 Posted 11 October 2017 - 06:01 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20149 battles
  • 628
  • Member since:
    06-09-2014

View PostAikl, on 11 October 2017 - 04:45 PM, said:

WoT's been going well for six years straight, and while it's not very fun to have 'roflstomps', the solution isn't to equalize skill between teams. That would make matches either more boring or fix jack. Equalizing classes hasn't done much for it, why would skill-based MM do anything?

The most fun to play matches for me were those separated by inch. I mean equal match where you have to "shine" or do extra effort to win the game. Doing extra efforts in 5-15 or 15-5 matches ain't fun.

 

View PostColdspell, on 11 October 2017 - 04:53 PM, said:

I read "put some equality in this game" and naturaly assumed the remainder of your wall of text would be at best facile at worst an SJW propaganda leaflet.

It is propaganda, do not read it, i repeat DO NOT read it, go bury your head into the sand again.



Balc0ra #10 Posted 11 October 2017 - 06:01 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 66525 battles
  • 16,563
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

Considering skilled based MM is one of the 3 things that killed off AW rather fast. Is it such a good idea? As there it worked to well.

 

People with 60% WR dropped rapidly and lost more, since they faced more "equally skilled" players, and did not steam roll as often vs bad players. So they raged. People with a bad WR went up, as they did not get steam rolled all the time, and faced equally" bad" players more often. It basically forced the good players to leave, as they did not get the WR they did feel they did deserve.... did fix the steam rolls tho... so there is that. By the time they removed it, they lost to many.

 

For all we know. Same thing might happen here. Oddly enough a majority of those that left AW for it, were the same people that left WOT for not having it.


Edited by Balc0ra, 11 October 2017 - 06:02 PM.


Homer_J #11 Posted 11 October 2017 - 06:07 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 28992 battles
  • 30,516
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postcatatpillar, on 11 October 2017 - 06:01 PM, said:

The most fun to play matches for me were those separated by inch. I mean equal match where you have to "shine" or do extra effort to win the game. Doing extra efforts in 5-15 or 15-5 matches ain't fun.

 

I believe that other tank game found that skill based mm doesn't lead to less one sided games.

ApocalypseSquad #12 Posted 11 October 2017 - 06:08 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 26547 battles
  • 2,043
  • Member since:
    07-31-2011

And, once again, this tread....

 

It won't work, it can't work and it's been proven not to work.  How much more do you want?


Edited by ApocalypseSquad, 11 October 2017 - 06:09 PM.


Gremlin182 #13 Posted 11 October 2017 - 06:10 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 49170 battles
  • 8,229
  • Member since:
    04-18-2012

I used to think it was a good idea to balance the teams 50% is3 player in team 1 should be matched with a similar player and tank in team 2.

It seemed logical after all if one IS3 player is a good player and his opposite number who is tasked with fighting him is a 45% player well he might still win but the odds are against it.

There is also the idea that players entering games see the supposed mismatch and just give up come on here and complain about it.

However it would mean all games would me much harder no more experienced players to fight but no more experienced help on your team either.

 

Instead I logged all my games for a year and found the odds balanced out over times, yes I had days where I played 20 games and lost 15 of them.

Also had days where I won 15 or rather was on the winning side 15 times that's probably more accurate.

 

I think the game should have a game mode where the players are balanced against similar opponents but not in randoms, leave them alone and give players who want it a game mode.

Maybe test it out on a sandbox.

They could remove the stats from random games so no one knows how many battles someone has played and their ratings.

Thats not allowing players to hide them just removing them completely.

Maybe they could show up in the after battle report but that's is.



Slyspy #14 Posted 11 October 2017 - 06:11 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 14202 battles
  • 16,734
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostBalc0ra, on 11 October 2017 - 06:01 PM, said:

.... did fix the steam rolls tho... so there is that. 

 

I'm fairly certain that in fact the SBMM in AW did not fix the steamroll results. I have heard that it made things worse. All anecdotal of course. 



catatpillar #15 Posted 11 October 2017 - 06:15 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20149 battles
  • 628
  • Member since:
    06-09-2014

View PostHomer_J, on 11 October 2017 - 04:58 PM, said:

 

What do you think will happen to those personal ratings if you always play against equal teams?

The same happening right now, mate. Personal rating already increase super slow with the number of battles growing up. You think it will be harder for you if you play in 45% vs 55% or 50-50 game instead of 18% against 82%??? I don't get you at all. Do you like going into casino knowing your chance to win is 30% vs 70% in favor of the casino in long term? People with 10k+ battles play here long term as well. Nobody likes being more often into the losing side.

Look at my last year of battles - doesn't matter if i improve my personal rating, my win ratio didn't moved an inch. So with the current system i am winning and losing exactly at 50%. And i think i perform a bit better than 50%, let's say 52-53%, just not to be greedy.

 

P.s. And if this ain't good example for you, my last platoon with a mate we had 12 consecutive games with 18 to 22% chance EACH. We won half of them, but in the rest simply we failed to do much. I forgot playing platoons...

 

View PostBalc0ra, on 11 October 2017 - 05:01 PM, said:

Considering skilled based MM is one of the 3 things that killed off AW rather fast. Is it such a good idea? As there it worked to well.

 

People with 60% WR dropped rapidly and lost more, since they faced more "equally skilled" players, and did not steam roll as often vs bad players. So they raged. People with a bad WR went up, as they did not get steam rolled all the time, and faced equally" bad" players more often. It basically forced the good players to leave, as they did not get the WR they did feel they did deserve.... did fix the steam rolls tho... so there is that. By the time they removed it, they lost to many.

 

For all we know. Same thing might happen here. Oddly enough a majority of those that left AW for it, were the same people that left WOT for not having it.

Oooh, facing equal opponents is a problem for some people i see. You can call your mates and go 10vs1 in a street fight next time then.

Personally i don't have a problem facing unicums. But with a team full of red players to cover my back? Seriosly? That's like going into a shooting with a knife.

 

View PostApocalypseSquad, on 11 October 2017 - 05:08 PM, said:

And, once again, this tread....

 

It won't work, it can't work and it's been proven not to work.  How much more do you want?

Move along... Move along...

 

View PostSlyspy, on 11 October 2017 - 05:11 PM, said:

 

I'm fairly certain that in fact the SBMM in AW did not fix the steamroll results. I have heard that it made things worse. All anecdotal of course. 

Sorry i never played that, can't compare.


Edited by catatpillar, 11 October 2017 - 06:17 PM.


Bora_BOOM #16 Posted 11 October 2017 - 06:17 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 23000 battles
  • 3,011
  • [D0NG] D0NG
  • Member since:
    08-23-2014

Nope, it’s not needed. Its a bad idea.



catatpillar #17 Posted 11 October 2017 - 06:20 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20149 battles
  • 628
  • Member since:
    06-09-2014

View PostBora_BOOM, on 11 October 2017 - 05:17 PM, said:

Nope, it’s not needed. Its a bad idea.

 

Alright. Everybody has its own opinion. But to judge which is better you have to try both options, isn't it right?

Seems like a pool needed.

 

P.s. Arty change was for the better imo. A long waited change that made the game better. And there was more than discussion about that.


Edited by catatpillar, 11 October 2017 - 06:22 PM.


ogremage #18 Posted 11 October 2017 - 06:28 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 33732 battles
  • 1,419
  • [KAZNA] KAZNA
  • Member since:
    06-26-2011

Go play ranked.

 

I think ranked should be on all the time and whoever wants skill based MM could play it.

 

But randoms have to stay random.

Another idea is "number of battles based MM". That seems fair, just like age is being used in children's judo competitions.


Edited by ogremage, 11 October 2017 - 06:30 PM.


K_A #19 Posted 11 October 2017 - 06:40 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 13643 battles
  • 4,665
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    04-18-2013

View Postcatatpillar, on 11 October 2017 - 05:15 PM, said:

The same happening right now, mate. Personal rating already increase super slow with the number of battles growing up. You think it will be harder for you if you play in 45% vs 55% or 50-50 game instead of 18% against 82%??? I don't get you at all. Do you like going into casino knowing your chance to win is 30% vs 70% in favor of the casino in long term? People with 10k+ battles play here long term as well. Nobody likes being more often into the losing side.

Look at my last year of battles - doesn't matter if i improve my personal rating, my win ratio didn't moved an inch. So with the current system i am winning and losing exactly at 50%. And i think i perform a bit better than 50%, let's say 52-53%, just not to be greedy.

 

P.s. And if this ain't good example for you, my last platoon with a mate we had 12 consecutive games with 18 to 22% chance EACH. We won half of them, but in the rest simply we failed to do much. I forgot playing platoons...

 

 

Thing is, personal rating take into account things like average damage, average spots, survivability etc, which is fine when teams are random. Good players playing against and with worse players will get more damage because the enemies are idiots and their friendlies can't exploit it as well, and thus they will have higher pr/wn8/whatever, wg rating. But if Skill-based mm was a thing all your team mates would be equally good competing for that same damage, and all the enemies would be equally good and denying you that damage. So it wouldn't take long before everybody, and I mean everybody, would have near identical damage per game and everybody would have close to 50% winrate. Then how would you make pr-based teams, huh? The whole system would collapse on itself.


Edited by K_A, 11 October 2017 - 06:41 PM.


Balc0ra #20 Posted 11 October 2017 - 06:45 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 66525 battles
  • 16,563
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View PostSlyspy, on 11 October 2017 - 06:11 PM, said:

 

I'm fairly certain that in fact the SBMM in AW did not fix the steamroll results. I have heard that it made things worse. All anecdotal of course. 

 

Well I never did get to high tiers... or mid.  But on lower tiers people did not complain, and I did notice less of it. Atm all the mid tier tanks I have I got via the Humble bundle E3 bundle for $1 a year or two ago. I wanted the WOWS ship "Diana"... I got 1 tier 5 and 2 tier 6 prems inc for AW.

Edited by Balc0ra, 11 October 2017 - 06:47 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users