Jump to content


Introducing Balanced games


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

duijm #61 Posted 10 July 2018 - 02:25 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 44764 battles
  • 2,045
  • [RANGX] RANGX
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View PostEnforcer1975, on 10 July 2018 - 01:12 PM, said:

 

Because you use mods aka hacks, camp redline and always leave your teammates to die alone on a flank...but mainly because of hacks...it has nothing to do with skill. 

 

Lol....which hack do you use?  Or dont you want the rest to become good too? :playing:

 

View PostKAOS8989, on 10 July 2018 - 01:22 PM, said:

 

not at all.. it really depends on the hours you play...tanks...also I do not have same experience like you... probably at  47k battles I will have ~same stats...or better :trollface:

 

Maybe you do. But not if you get balanced teams. 50% will be max
 

LordMuffin #62 Posted 10 July 2018 - 03:35 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 48529 battles
  • 11,268
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View PostKAOS8989, on 10 July 2018 - 02:22 PM, said:

 

not at all.. it really depends on the hours you play...tanks...also I do not have same experience like you... probably at  47k battles I will have ~same stats...or better :trollface:

Maybe you will, but in order to get my stats, you have to always think about what you did wrong and find out what you could have done differently to potentially win.

Don't blame team mates for a loss, always first look at your own non-perfect game.

 

I only play at prime time.

 

View PostEnforcer1975, on 10 July 2018 - 02:12 PM, said:

 

Because you use mods aka hacks, camp redline and always leave your teammates to die alone on a flank...but mainly because of hacks...it has nothing to do with skill. 

I haxx evri game.


 

Enforcer1975 #63 Posted 10 July 2018 - 04:28 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 20973 battles
  • 10,922
  • [D0NG] D0NG
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014

View Postduijm, on 10 July 2018 - 02:25 PM, said:

 

Lol....which hack do you use?  Or dont you want the rest to become good too? :playing:

 

 

Maybe you do. But not if you get balanced teams. 50% will be max
 

 

We are always using Dingers Fort Knox. 

m1x_angelico #64 Posted 11 July 2018 - 07:04 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 23153 battles
  • 878
  • [-VETO] -VETO
  • Member since:
    01-04-2015

View Postcroki974, on 08 July 2018 - 10:49 AM, said:

Hello All;

 

Instead of trying to find the ultimate matchmaking , developpers can create a new game where balanced actions are intoduced by WOT server.

Server can introduce a " Random " counterbalance when score come to 10/15 -- and some time we can see an avalanche effect that end with 0/10-15 score : totally boring --

The Server choose the 5 most powerful actors and add "Handicap" to couterbalance the game.

The form of Handycap could be : scope reduced to x2 / no more radios / blind minimap / Hydraulics sterring troubles / motor defficience and so on.

If the unbalance of game is not reduced, server add more actors with handycap. An extra money/EXP could be of course awarded to " Handycaped gamer "

Could be helpful ?

Regards

Croki

 

Or they could just introduce skill based MM, and solve the issue?

Isharial #65 Posted 11 July 2018 - 07:15 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 20441 battles
  • 2,406
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-19-2015

View Postm1x_angelico, on 11 July 2018 - 07:04 PM, said:

 

Or they could just introduce skill based MM, and solve the issue?

 

it doesn't solve the issue, only makes it worse....

 

eventually everyone would be 50% overall, as SBMM wouldn't allow any difference, essentially making "skills" meaningless.. if that's the "skill based match making" you ask for then god knows why you'd want it

 

after that, once everyone's hit 50% again, or within the set threshold, the games would return to what we have now with lemmings, steamrolls and people not doing anything. the only difference would be that the 43 wn8 bot would have 50% winrate not 44%



duijm #66 Posted 12 July 2018 - 07:17 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 44764 battles
  • 2,045
  • [RANGX] RANGX
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View Postm1x_angelico, on 11 July 2018 - 06:04 PM, said:

 

Or they could just introduce skill based MM, and solve the issue?

 

Yes lets punish players for being better and actively rig MM. Smart idea.

:facepalm:

Slyspy #67 Posted 12 July 2018 - 08:19 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 14205 battles
  • 16,757
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View Postm1x_angelico, on 11 July 2018 - 07:04 PM, said:

 

Or they could just introduce skill based MM, and solve the issue?

 

How would that prevent 0/15 results? 



Simeon85 #68 Posted 12 July 2018 - 09:52 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 3,618
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View Postm1x_angelico, on 11 July 2018 - 07:04 PM, said:

 

Or they could just introduce skill based MM, and solve the issue?

 

Very doubtful it would solve an issues, likely it would just make the game worse.

 

For a start you punish anyone with above a 50% win rate as any skill based MM would drag everyone towards 50% as you are basically trying to 'rig' a balanced game.

 

Secondly it is unlikely to solve one sided games. Armoured Warfare introduced SBMM and the number of fast games went up so they removed it IIRC. Also CWs between 'on paper' similar clans can end in quick one sided results.

 

If you think that the majority of players are red/orange then the make up of two 'balanced' teams is likely to be 10-12 red and orange players on each side with a handful of yellow/greens and maybe 1 blue/unicum on each team.

 

Basically it would look like a football team where -

 

  • 7 players were Sunday league amateurs,
  • 2 were semi-pros from non-league,
  • 1 played in the Championship, 
  • 1 was a top premier league player.

 

And both teams were about the same. 

 

What would you reckon would happen if the PL player on one team got injured? The other team would have a huge advantage and probably win quite quickly.

 

In WOTs terms, all your teams power in a 'skill balanced' teams would be in a handful of players, if they got bad rng, or made a big mistake then it's quite likely that the other team, still with their top player would win quite quickly and chances are you'd have a quick one sided game. 



DangerMouse #69 Posted 12 July 2018 - 01:15 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 27142 battles
  • 687
  • [FLOG] FLOG
  • Member since:
    10-28-2010

View PostSimeon85, on 12 July 2018 - 08:52 AM, said:

 

Very doubtful it would solve an issues, likely it would just make the game worse.

 

For a start you punish anyone with above a 50% win rate as any skill based MM would drag everyone towards 50% as you are basically trying to 'rig' a balanced game.

 

Secondly it is unlikely to solve one sided games. Armoured Warfare introduced SBMM and the number of fast games went up so they removed it IIRC. Also CWs between 'on paper' similar clans can end in quick one sided results.

 

If you think that the majority of players are red/orange then the make up of two 'balanced' teams is likely to be 10-12 red and orange players on each side with a handful of yellow/greens and maybe 1 blue/unicum on each team.

 

Basically it would look like a football team where -

 

  • 7 players were Sunday league amateurs,
  • 2 were semi-pros from non-league,
  • 1 played in the Championship, 
  • 1 was a top premier league player.

 

And both teams were about the same. 

 

What would you reckon would happen if the PL player on one team got injured? The other team would have a huge advantage and probably win quite quickly.

 

In WOTs terms, all your teams power in a 'skill balanced' teams would be in a handful of players, if they got bad rng, or made a big mistake then it's quite likely that the other team, still with their top player would win quite quickly and chances are you'd have a quick one sided game. 

 

It could be even worse, their best player might be in a TVP VTU and yours only has a Defender  :hiding:

 

DM



Thuis001 #70 Posted 12 July 2018 - 02:15 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5981 battles
  • 466
  • [-SBN-] -SBN-
  • Member since:
    05-29-2015

View PostSimeon85, on 12 July 2018 - 09:52 AM, said:

 

Very doubtful it would solve an issues, likely it would just make the game worse.

 

For a start you punish anyone with above a 50% win rate as any skill based MM would drag everyone towards 50% as you are basically trying to 'rig' a balanced game.

 

Secondly it is unlikely to solve one sided games. Armoured Warfare introduced SBMM and the number of fast games went up so they removed it IIRC. Also CWs between 'on paper' similar clans can end in quick one sided results.

 

If you think that the majority of players are red/orange then the make up of two 'balanced' teams is likely to be 10-12 red and orange players on each side with a handful of yellow/greens and maybe 1 blue/unicum on each team.

 

Basically it would look like a football team where -

 

  • 7 players were Sunday league amateurs,
  • 2 were semi-pros from non-league,
  • 1 played in the Championship, 
  • 1 was a top premier league player.

 

And both teams were about the same. 

 

What would you reckon would happen if the PL player on one team got injured? The other team would have a huge advantage and probably win quite quickly.

 

In WOTs terms, all your teams power in a 'skill balanced' teams would be in a handful of players, if they got bad rng, or made a big mistake then it's quite likely that the other team, still with their top player would win quite quickly and chances are you'd have a quick one sided game. 

to be fair, that's the same issue you have currently with 3/5/7mm and the current skill spread.

Now you can have a team of amateurs with 1 or 2 players from the semi or Championship vs a team with multiple people from the PL and Champ. and some semi's. The only difference is that with the skill spread out more fairly it would probably mean that games get more interesting as it isn't basicly predestined to be won by one side due to them getting lucky with getting the better players. Same issue with 3/5/7 btw. If your top tiers (or in your analogy the PL players) are out of the game, while the oposing team still has them then you are generally going to loose no matter what the rest do. And this get's worse if your PL players are still bad players where as the oposing team has actually capable players as their top tiers.



duijm #71 Posted 12 July 2018 - 04:53 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 44764 battles
  • 2,045
  • [RANGX] RANGX
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View PostThuis001, on 12 July 2018 - 01:15 PM, said:

to be fair, that's the same issue you have currently with 3/5/7mm and the current skill spread.

Now you can have a team of amateurs with 1 or 2 players from the semi or Championship vs a team with multiple people from the PL and Champ. and some semi's. The only difference is that with the skill spread out more fairly it would probably mean that games get more interesting as it isn't basicly predestined to be won by one side due to them getting lucky with getting the better players. Same issue with 3/5/7 btw. If your top tiers (or in your analogy the PL players) are out of the game, while the oposing team still has them then you are generally going to loose no matter what the rest do. And this get's worse if your PL players are still bad players where as the oposing team has actually capable players as their top tiers.

 

Yes but it still is something completely different. 

Because the first is random and you want to rig MM.



m1x_angelico #72 Posted 13 July 2018 - 07:31 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 23153 battles
  • 878
  • [-VETO] -VETO
  • Member since:
    01-04-2015

Err, I really have no idea what you are talking about. Rigging MM, by making teams more equal? Holy sheet, than every sports league in the world is rigged!

 

Why is "forcing" players to play in the most equal teams as possible in the moment of match creation punishing good players? If this is the case, why not make MM even worse and rig it so all the bad players are on the one side, and all the good ones on the other. This way we will reward the good players, right? As long as they are happy...

 

If e.g. you have 2 teams where 1/3rd of players in each team has WN8 2000, 1/3rd has WN8 1500 and 1/3rd has WN8 1000 each, the teams would be equal. Sometimes this would not be possible, or dis-balance will occur due to improper tank/class/tier distribution (e.g. 1/3rd of WN82000 on one team has higher tier or "OP" tanks and the other 1/3rd group on the opposing team has low tier tanks etc.). So, if you are a good player, you can still kill low WN8 players just as before, but this time you will have to be more careful because the other good WN8 are on the hunt as well.


Edited by m1x_angelico, 13 July 2018 - 07:32 PM.


duijm #73 Posted 13 July 2018 - 07:45 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 44764 battles
  • 2,045
  • [RANGX] RANGX
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

It is not about killing noobs.

If bad and good always get same teams and opponents get teams with same bad and good players then winrate will alway end in 50%.  So why try to be good if you will never win more? 

 

Sports is different because there is always a league system. And players can go up or down. Or do you know a sport were we mix up all players?  Do we give Barca 5 noobs wenn they win, do we let Vettel drive with 3 wheels or do they give Froome 10 kg extra because he wins to much? So why should we give good players extra noobs to make it more difficult?


Edited by duijm, 13 July 2018 - 07:47 PM.


m1x_angelico #74 Posted 13 July 2018 - 10:20 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 23153 battles
  • 878
  • [-VETO] -VETO
  • Member since:
    01-04-2015

View Postduijm, on 13 July 2018 - 07:45 PM, said:

It is not about killing noobs.

If bad and good always get same teams and opponents get teams with same bad and good players then winrate will alway end in 50%.  So why try to be good if you will never win more? 

 

Sports is different because there is always a league system. And players can go up or down. Or do you know a sport were we mix up all players?  Do we give Barca 5 noobs wenn they win, do we let Vettel drive with 3 wheels or do they give Froome 10 kg extra because he wins to much? So why should we give good players extra noobs to make it more difficult?

 

I'm not sure I understand. So, we have certain group of people who play to have as high as possible winrate. So their purpose in the game is not to have an interesting and suspenseful match, but solely to win. If possible, they would like to have 100% winrate, this is like a wet dream to them.

 

So, we have to make the games uneven, so this group of people could have an attempt of having as high as winrate as possible, at the detriment of the remaining players who will have sheety matches? Sorry, but I don't really give a rats azz for their attempt to have high winrate if this causes me to have 10 matches in a row where I can sit and watch my team disintegrate into oblivion, thus not having fun at all. As you can see from the number of forum posts, many other players feel the same.

 

The reasons why in sports there is a league system, is because someone else was tired of playing and watching ridiculous matches we have in random. I'm sure that Messi would have to have 100% winrate. Is this a sufficient reason to have him play against John Smith from the little league?



HassenderZerhacker #75 Posted 13 July 2018 - 10:38 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 27771 battles
  • 2,467
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View Postcroki974, on 08 July 2018 - 10:49 AM, said:

Hello All;

 

Instead of trying to find the ultimate matchmaking , developpers can create a new game where balanced actions are intoduced by WOT server.

Server can introduce a " Random " counterbalance when score come to 10/15 -- and some time we can see an avalanche effect that end with 0/10-15 score : totally boring --

The Server choose the 5 most powerful actors and add "Handicap" to couterbalance the game.

The form of Handycap could be : scope reduced to x2 / no more radios / blind minimap / Hydraulics sterring troubles / motor defficience and so on.

If the unbalance of game is not reduced, server add more actors with handycap. An extra money/EXP could be of course awarded to " Handycaped gamer "

Could be helpful ?

Regards

Croki

 

this forum sees what I would call, ahem... "inadequate" proposals, but this one is by far the most useless one

Isharial #76 Posted 13 July 2018 - 11:05 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 20441 battles
  • 2,406
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-19-2015

View Postm1x_angelico, on 13 July 2018 - 10:20 PM, said:

 

I'm not sure I understand. So, we have certain group of people who play to have as high as possible winrate. So their purpose in the game is not to have an interesting and suspenseful match, but solely to win. If possible, they would like to have 100% winrate, this is like a wet dream to them.

 

So, we have to make the games uneven, so this group of people could have an attempt of having as high as winrate as possible, at the detriment of the remaining players who will have sheety matches? Sorry, but I don't really give a rats azz for their attempt to have high winrate if this causes me to have 10 matches in a row where I can sit and watch my team disintegrate into oblivion, thus not having fun at all. As you can see from the number of forum posts, many other players feel the same.

 

The reasons why in sports there is a league system, is because someone else was tired of playing and watching ridiculous matches we have in random. I'm sure that Messi would have to have 100% winrate. Is this a sufficient reason to have him play against John Smith from the little league?

 

so... what your saying is, because you end up with 10 games where you (you personally) have 10 games in a row (unlikely) lost while also trying your very best and ending up top of team for both damage and XP, Wg should change the MM entirely so that everyone with more than 50% winrate should suffer and have their efforts nullified?

honestly... this just screams "I suck so make MM easier for me" and not what you consistently try to fall back to: "noobs don't like it"

 

"So, we have to make the games uneven, so this group of people could have an attempt of having as high as winrate as possible, at the detriment of the remaining players who will have sheety matches? Sorry, but I don't really give a rats azz for their attempt to have high winrate if this causes me to have 10 matches in a row where I can sit and watch my team disintegrate into oblivion, thus not having fun at all. As you can see from the number of forum posts, many other players feel the same."

 

the word "entitled" comes to mind here, as if your "loss streaks" are solely down to WG's MM, and not your own ability at all... you are part of the team, and if you aren't trying to win the battle, then what do you think will happen? you'll lose.... its rather simple really.. you try, you win, you don't, you lose.. its not a hard system to grasp hold of.. the levels you have to try might change but if you don't try at all like you clearly don't judging by the way you've written this part, then why do you expect to win anything at all?

"where I can sit and watch my team disintegrate" hopefully this isn't true, or your problem is staring you in the face...…. (and its not the team or the MM) :amazed:

 

"The reasons why in sports there is a league system, is because someone else was tired of playing and watching ridiculous matches we have in random"

 

not true here.. Messi didn't start off being a good player from the get go. they worked up the system to where they are now. they learned and progressed from better players before them. 

without better players to school the lower leagues, no one would ever progress and everyone would stale at whatever their current intellect can provide. if they tried to do anything, they'd be batted up the backside as if they've done something wrong.

why try when you can get the same winrate doing nothing at all? SBMM would lead to that exact behaviour. you would win 1, lose 1. regardless of whether your a dunce or a player who's trying to play. why should effort go unrewarded?

 

a few questions for you that you should be able to understand:

 

1) why try when SBMM will simply win you 50% of your matches? (trying to win in the other 50% means nothing as you'll never win (as SBMM wont allow it)

2) why should effort go unrewarded? (your penalising good players by making their teams worse and worse the more they try to win)

3) why are you acting as if you are entitled to winning without doing anything?

 

 



m1x_angelico #77 Posted 13 July 2018 - 11:41 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 23153 battles
  • 878
  • [-VETO] -VETO
  • Member since:
    01-04-2015

View PostIsharial, on 13 July 2018 - 11:05 PM, said:

1) why try when SBMM will simply win you 50% of your matches? (trying to win in the other 50% means nothing as you'll never win (as SBMM wont allow it)

2) why should effort go unrewarded? (your penalising good players by making their teams worse and worse the more they try to win)

3) why are you acting as if you are entitled to winning without doing anything?

 

1) Because it is the path that matters as much as the goal. You will try to do your best, because you will have an amazing match and get to play with better and better players, at the end - if you are Messi, you will be playing against Ronaldo type players most of the time. 

2) I never said the effort should go unrewarded. I think you have a set picture in your mind of what you think I'm saying, although I'm not, and then analyzing flaws in these wrongly perceived parts of the picture.

3) Again, read point two above. 

 

I think that the main difference in our perception of the game and what it should be is that you seem to see winning and winrate as goals in themselves, where I do not. If I get into 100 battles in a row where I'm placed in a uber unicum team, allowing me to sip beer and still win all 100 matches, I think this is mega sheet. For you, I guess, this is heaven. But that's ok, because this is philosophical approach to the game. Maybe you are right, and we should all look at the matches as only a tool to realize our winrates and wins and derive our pleasure from a statistical number.



vasilinhorulezz #78 Posted 13 July 2018 - 11:41 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22813 battles
  • 1,109
  • Member since:
    09-26-2014

So, riggin MM it is...

good job OP, the facepalm prize goes to you!!!

Congratulations!!!!

:medal::medal::medal::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:



8GraySpaceBass #79 Posted 14 July 2018 - 01:14 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 1637 battles
  • 35
  • [_CRE_] _CRE_
  • Member since:
    11-05-2016
Like the BBC corporation in Great Britain, introducing communism

8GraySpaceBass #80 Posted 14 July 2018 - 01:16 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 1637 battles
  • 35
  • [_CRE_] _CRE_
  • Member since:
    11-05-2016
Edited

Edited by Asklepi0s, 14 July 2018 - 09:45 AM.
This post has been edited by the moderation team due to inappropriate remarks





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users