Jump to content


Fixing the Matchmaker


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
23 replies to this topic

cheapbooks_USA #1 Posted 29 December 2018 - 11:10 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 250 battles
  • 18
  • Member since:
    10-12-2016

I am a computer programmer so I came up with an algorithm to fix the matchmaker. My algorithm creates a matchmaker based on a scoring system of the technical specifications of each tank, and I think is the most fair matchmaking system as compared to the current tier based system.

 



BravelyRanAway #2 Posted 29 December 2018 - 11:45 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 23167 battles
  • 10,115
  • [H_I_T] H_I_T
  • Member since:
    12-29-2010

I understand what you're trying to do, which is make a fair MM.

You mention that two versions of the same tank can be different because of stock guns, engines etc, so therefore your system would take this into account and reduce that weaker tanks value and place it in an easier MM.

It sounds great......but......WoT is a business and a F2P one at that. In F2P games if a company wants to open wallets(usually they do), they build in something that will make the player (who may have little patience) open their wallet to skip a module or tank.......that is the reason for stock modules and intermediate ones.

Do you not think that your system would take away the incentive for players to open their wallets? I'm not against your system, but looking at it from a business point of view it would reduce income and when a company like WG has many overheads with staff and offices around the world they may not like your idea.....and I could understand why.

You're coming at it from a strictly players point of view to make a fair MM and not a business one. So, how do you square that circle? 



Homer_J #3 Posted 29 December 2018 - 11:45 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 30191 battles
  • 32,332
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postcheapbooks_USA, on 29 December 2018 - 10:10 AM, said:

I am a computer programmer so I came up with an algorithm to fix the matchmaker. My algorithm creates a matchmaker based on a scoring system of the technical specifications of each tank, and I think is the most fair matchmaking system as compared to the current tier based system.

 

 

We had this before.  You just create endless arguments about why your rating is wrong for tanks x, y and z.

 

We also had matchmaking which took modules into account.  It was not well liked, especially when your fully upgraded tier VIII would be matched against a tier IX because he hadn't upgraded the engine and radio.

10:49 Added after 3 minutes

View PostBravelyRanAway, on 29 December 2018 - 10:45 AM, said:

 

Do you not think that your system would take away the incentive for players to open their wallets? 

When we had module based mm before it did create an incentive not to upgrade your tank.


Edited by Homer_J, 29 December 2018 - 11:47 AM.


BravelyRanAway #4 Posted 29 December 2018 - 11:57 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 23167 battles
  • 10,115
  • [H_I_T] H_I_T
  • Member since:
    12-29-2010

View PostHomer_J, on 29 December 2018 - 10:45 AM, said:

When we had module based mm before it did create an incentive not to upgrade your tank.

Yes....I just wanted to hear the OP's opinion and how he would fix it.

He must also take into consideration that WG are trying to diversify their business as they have all their eggs as a company in one basket....which is WoT.

WoWS's is small but keeping it's head above water, WoWP's I believe is being kept afloat by cash injections from WoT and TWA has just folded.

So, every change to the MM has a big effect on what is, a big one egg business with lots of offices and staff.



monthey_ #5 Posted 29 December 2018 - 12:56 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 37168 battles
  • 703
  • [MAROC] MAROC
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

Good effort OP but you forgot the most important part which will negate everything you come up with: the player whether he is a 47%, 51%, 55% or 65% player, makes a whole lot of difference.

 

Have a read:  https://aw.my.com/us...maker-and-skill

 


Edited by monthey_, 29 December 2018 - 12:58 PM.


wsatnutter #6 Posted 29 December 2018 - 12:59 PM

    General

  • Beta Tester
  • 25670 battles
  • 8,388
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    08-25-2010
nice try OP but its not a business model for profit nor is it fair as explained above

Homer_J #7 Posted 29 December 2018 - 01:57 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 30191 battles
  • 32,332
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postmonthey_, on 29 December 2018 - 11:56 AM, said:

Good effort OP but you forgot the most important part which will negate everything you come up with: the player whether he is a 47%, 51%, 55% or 65% player, makes a whole lot of difference.

 

Have a read:  https://aw.my.com/us...maker-and-skill

 

 

LOL, have a read of AW's failed skill based mm.  Nice one.

 

How long do you think you can use win rates to divide players between teams for before everyone has a 50% win rate?

 

"Skill based" mm is a long running joke, and that is all it ever will be.



m1x_angelico #8 Posted 29 December 2018 - 11:55 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 23701 battles
  • 1,080
  • [-VETO] -VETO
  • Member since:
    01-04-2015
So if someone is a better player, he would be placed (when and if possible) to play with equal team mates and matched against the same skilled opponents. This is supposed to be not fair for such player, because it would be harder for him to play matches as he would be "punished" for playing better? Well there's easy solution for this. You award such players more rewards for winning a match. WR is a meaningless stat. If the only reason for not introducing skilled based MM and improving the game experience is the fact that players wont have high WR, so what?

BravelyRanAway #9 Posted 30 December 2018 - 12:00 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 23167 battles
  • 10,115
  • [H_I_T] H_I_T
  • Member since:
    12-29-2010

View Postm1x_angelico, on 29 December 2018 - 10:55 PM, said:

So if someone is a better player, he would be placed (when and if possible) to play with equal team mates and matched against the same skilled opponents. 

No....it doesn't say that at all....at any point.



Alabamatick #10 Posted 30 December 2018 - 12:23 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 31849 battles
  • 3,185
  • Member since:
    04-11-2011
Not only is the mm made to incentivize impatient people to open their wallet, but also to give players (who have ground / paid their way to an elite tank) an advantage in battle and if this was taken away, it would become even more frustrating to play (especially for average and below players) for lessening their chance to stomp once in a while

m1x_angelico #11 Posted 30 December 2018 - 12:35 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 23701 battles
  • 1,080
  • [-VETO] -VETO
  • Member since:
    01-04-2015

View PostBravelyRanAway, on 30 December 2018 - 12:00 AM, said:

No....it doesn't say that at all....at any point.

 

it? wtf is it?
23:39 Added after 3 minutes

View PostAlabamatick, on 30 December 2018 - 12:23 AM, said:

Not only is the mm made to incentivize impatient people to open their wallet, but also to give players (who have ground / paid their way to an elite tank) an advantage in battle and if this was taken away, it would become even more frustrating to play (especially for average and below players) for lessening their chance to stomp once in a while

 

But, players who play for free are incentivized to play if they have fun playing (game experience). If they leave in sufficient numbers, so will other who pay. What is an incentive for players who play for free to (in long term) play in matches where they are either cannon fodder or passive observers? 

Bordhaw #12 Posted 30 December 2018 - 12:42 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 12885 battles
  • 3,051
  • Member since:
    01-29-2017

View Postcheapbooks_USA, on 29 December 2018 - 10:10 AM, said:

I am a computer programmer so I came up with an algorithm to fix the matchmaker. My algorithm creates a matchmaker based on a scoring system of the technical specifications of each tank, and I think is the most fair matchmaking system as compared to the current tier based system.

 

 

 

When you get a job with WG, come back and let us know....



Alabamatick #13 Posted 30 December 2018 - 12:47 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 31849 battles
  • 3,185
  • Member since:
    04-11-2011

View Postm1x_angelico, on 29 December 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:

 

it? wtf is it?
23:39 Added after 3 minutes

 

But, players who play for free are incentivized to play if they have fun playing (game experience). If they leave in sufficient numbers, so will other who pay. What is an incentive for players who play for free to (in long term) play in matches where they are either cannon fodder or passive observers? 

 

And yet there are many, many players who complain,*edited*and say they are going to uninstall for that reason and yet carry on playing regardless


Edited by NickMustaine, 30 December 2018 - 06:52 PM.
Inappropriate remarks


BravelyRanAway #14 Posted 30 December 2018 - 12:52 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 23167 battles
  • 10,115
  • [H_I_T] H_I_T
  • Member since:
    12-29-2010

View Postm1x_angelico, on 29 December 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:

 

it? wtf is it?

Perhaps try actually looking at the video that the OP posted instead guessing what the topic is about.



m1x_angelico #15 Posted 30 December 2018 - 04:51 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 23701 battles
  • 1,080
  • [-VETO] -VETO
  • Member since:
    01-04-2015

View PostAlabamatick, on 30 December 2018 - 12:47 AM, said:

 

And yet there are many, many players who complain *edited* and say they are going to uninstall for that reason and yet carry on playing regardless

 

That is correct. It can be also argued that many players dont do that and just leave, which the numbers of active players (including new players that started playing) seem to imply. Still, it may be for other reasons, i.e. not only MM.
 

View PostBravelyRanAway, on 30 December 2018 - 12:52 AM, said:

Perhaps try actually looking at the video that the OP posted instead guessing what the topic is about.

 

I was not directly commenting on his video. I was posting about one of the arguments posted on previous threads, why skilled based MM, even if it can be accomplished, would be bad. Which is following a train of posts (it would be bad for business, etc.). As previously discussed, we can do away with most of the changes in the game, because they are not profit oriented. Even though it is good to have this perspective, I think it is not our job to argue against some perceived benefit for the game and our in-game experience, because it would possibly make less profit for the company.
 

jabster #16 Posted 30 December 2018 - 08:38 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12614 battles
  • 24,539
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View Postm1x_angelico, on 30 December 2018 - 04:02 AM, said:

 

I was not directly commenting on his video. I was posting about one of the arguments posted on previous threads, why skilled based MM, even if it can be accomplished, would be bad. Which is following a train of posts (it would be bad for business, etc.). As previously discussed, we can do away with most of the changes in the game, because they are not profit oriented. Even though it is good to have this perspective, I think it is not our job to argue against some perceived benefit for the game and our in-game experience, because it would possibly make less profit for the company.

 

So you thought it was best to use this thread to reply to an argument made on another thread. Well it’s a novel approach I must say but to be honest I can’t see it catching on.

Jigabachi #17 Posted 30 December 2018 - 09:11 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17948 battles
  • 20,009
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011
Can't watch the video right now, but I guess the basic idea is to give the tanks a rating based on their strength (basic stats plus used parts plus equipment and crew) and to "balance" them into two teams.
Not a bad idea. It's actually a quite old idea. But is it really necessary? The main reason why it would make sense is the broken balance with OP and overperforming tanks everywhere. So why don't we fix that first? Fixing the MM right now would be like building a house on brittle ground. It would just be a workaround.
That said, the only thing I would fully support is a little more air to breathe for stock tanks. If they would get some softer MM until they reach a more competitive state... that would be awesome.
And something you always have to think about when messing around with that kind of thing: Would the balanced MM reduce variation and thus make the game more boring? I'm not talking about funny matches with 3 Type 5s on one and three weaker tanks on the other side, but about the "mix" in general...

Besides that, I'd prefer to see a certain kind of skillbased MM first. The impact of player skill (mostly the lack of) is much bigger than the one of the tanks.

seXikanac #18 Posted 30 December 2018 - 10:13 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 12351 battles
  • 513
  • [-YU-] -YU-
  • Member since:
    09-27-2012

View PostBravelyRanAway, on 29 December 2018 - 11:45 AM, said:

I understand what you're trying to do, which is make a fair MM.

You mention that two versions of the same tank can be different because of stock guns, engines etc, so therefore your system would take this into account and reduce that weaker tanks value and place it in an easier MM.

It sounds great......but......WoT is a business and a F2P one at that. In F2P games if a company wants to open wallets(usually they do), they build in something that will make the player (who may have little patience) open their wallet to skip a module or tank.......that is the reason for stock modules and intermediate ones.

Do you not think that your system would take away the incentive for players to open their wallets? I'm not against your system, but looking at it from a business point of view it would reduce income and when a company like WG has many overheads with staff and offices around the world they may not like your idea.....and I could understand why.

You're coming at it from a strictly players point of view to make a fair MM and not a business one. So, how do you square that circle? 

 

Why fair matchmaker would be bad for WG business??? I have no problem investing in F2P game like WoT and invested a lot, but with current matchmaking Im not eager to play much if to play at all so I stopped investing money until I enjoy the game again. And Im sure lot of other people feel the same

Tom_Deekanarry #19 Posted 30 December 2018 - 11:38 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8602 battles
  • 424
  • Member since:
    06-28-2012
just bin 3-5-7 and go 10-5, the rest is manageable!

Homer_J #20 Posted 30 December 2018 - 02:29 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 30191 battles
  • 32,332
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postm1x_angelico, on 29 December 2018 - 10:55 PM, said:

 You award such players more rewards for winning a match. WR is a meaningless stat.

 

It may be meaningless to you but to many people winning is the reward.

 

And if we are all going to be given a 50% win rate what is the point of even trying.  I can just afk the whole battle and eventually the mm will put me with players on afk bot level and I can watch yootoobe while I fail up the tech tree.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users