Jump to content


Skill based MM


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

dave_highfive79 #1 Posted 08 April 2019 - 07:04 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 1598 battles
  • 20
  • Member since:
    09-09-2012

Can someone please explain why Skill Based MM would be so bad for this game?  With actual evidence?

 

 I mean pretty much all of the games are one sided, boring one way or another.  This game needs more even match-ups.  I'd happily wait longer for a better quality game.


Edited by dave_highfive79, 08 April 2019 - 07:06 PM.


BravelyRanAway #2 Posted 08 April 2019 - 07:08 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 23426 battles
  • 10,744
  • [H_I_T] H_I_T
  • Member since:
    12-29-2010
SBMM is good for those who want to hide among their peers as they can't cope with what they see in the mirror.

PanzerFever #3 Posted 08 April 2019 - 07:08 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 25354 battles
  • 34
  • [FP-EU] FP-EU
  • Member since:
    04-23-2015
What would be the advantage? With evidence please...

Sfinski #4 Posted 08 April 2019 - 07:11 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 34159 battles
  • 3,154
  • [-PJ-] -PJ-
  • Member since:
    09-26-2013
There's onesided matches in ranked, when fe. good players are fighting against each other. There are onesided matches in CW with same conditions. The player skill has nothing to do with it. 

kubawt112 #5 Posted 08 April 2019 - 07:13 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 3378 battles
  • 533
  • [-UM] -UM
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

I happen to have some copypasta handy for you people. Feel free to spend an utter minimum amount of effort debating any of the points below. Thanks in advance.

 

View Postkubawt112, on 26 March 2019 - 06:44 PM, said:

 

View Postkubawt112, on 31 January 2019 - 12:53 PM, said:

I'd love to see SBMM happen - because it's gonna be an utter trainwreck.

 

I'm very much prepared:

If they start using global stats, I'll swap accounts with a friend. He has 47% winrate and ~700 WN8 over 20k games. My account is on the opposite end of the spectrum. Should last me for a good five years before I can get up to even 50% winrate.

If they resort to using 'recents', I'll figure out a tank with high expectations and routinely throw away games in it. Every third game or so should do. I even have a second laptop that can run WoT when I want to work. Not my fault that work happens when I decide to play.

 

Anyway, SBMM is basically 'debunked'. I'll repeat a post I made not even three days ago:
 

X

 

Y on 28 January 2019 - 09:24 PM, said:

 

Tell me, is it so hard to implement skill based mm?

 

Well, depends a bit on your definition of skill-based MM. My guess is that you want to play with/against other players around your 'skill level', or even better ones (I 'got gud decent-ish' at CS:S this way) - as opposed to making sure that the distribution of player skill is equivalent. The latter is the more commonly used definition. Both are kind of good ideas at a glance, but have a few issues.

I'll give you a few off the cuff:

  1. Measuring the skill of a player "correctly" is hard.
  2. It is impossible to prevent a player from 'faking' stats - by means of using another account with better/worse stats or purposefully throwing away games to nuke his own stats.
  3. The increased reliance on other things than the player itself, both RNG and the equipment. Playing a mediocre tank can be fun if the enemy's equivalent isn't guaranteed to be good; likewise the 'duel' between you will be more about luck, tank and ammo usage.
  4. Uncertainty of actually solving anything: Previous attempts to 'balance' teams by class/subclass don't seem to have solved much, aside from things 'looking fair' (which according to Wargaming is actually important). Going from player skill as a main parameter to RNG/vehicles/ammo/circumstance may not have any real effect towards improving gameplay.
  5. Depending on parameters, the top cut of players might have a hard time finding proper 'matchups' - and hence 'break' the system when the 60% "tryhard" meets the 55% platoon padder.
  6. Debatable effect on the playerbase. Facing proper competition might be something one player finds fun, others may enjoy their 'right to club' (which is apparently a core WoT value according to WG themselves).

 

Also, wouldn't surprise me if the campers were all sorts of players. It can be remarkably effective, especially since the spotting system works the way it does - rendering you practically invisible with minimum effort or thinking involved (lest the enemy sends in a suiscout).

 

I won't expect a point-by-point rebuttal, but I'd be more than happy to see someone address what I think are obvious issues.

 

 



dave_highfive79 #6 Posted 08 April 2019 - 07:15 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 1598 battles
  • 20
  • Member since:
    09-09-2012

View PostPanzerFever, on 08 April 2019 - 07:08 PM, said:

What would be the advantage? With evidence please...

 

Im asking for some feedback, as a lot of opinions floating about seem to think its a terrible idea...

 

Is this because 'skilled' players will have to play equally 'skilled' players all of the time? and not be able to pad their stats as much?

18:20 Added after 4 minutes

View Postkubawt112, on 08 April 2019 - 07:13 PM, said:

I happen to have some copypasta handy for you people. Feel free to spend an utter minimum amount of effort debating any of the points below. Thanks in advance.

 

 

 

So the gist I got from that is that its just going to annoy the 'better' players

BravelyRanAway #7 Posted 08 April 2019 - 07:20 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 23426 battles
  • 10,744
  • [H_I_T] H_I_T
  • Member since:
    12-29-2010

View Postdave_highfive79, on 08 April 2019 - 06:15 PM, said:

 

Is this because 'skilled' players will have to play equally 'skilled' players all of the time? and not be able to pad their stats as much?

No...it's because you would be punishing some players just for being good, while rewarding other players for being bad. It would kill the incentive to get better, why bother if everyone's going to have a 50% WR regardless of how they perform....plus what kubawt112 posted above^^.



Linkowich #8 Posted 08 April 2019 - 07:21 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 60676 battles
  • 56
  • [_VH_] _VH_
  • Member since:
    07-04-2011

View PostPanzerFever, on 08 April 2019 - 06:08 PM, said:

What would be the advantage? With evidence please...

 

View PostPanzerFever, on 08 April 2019 - 06:08 PM, said:

What would be the advantage? With evidence please...

 

The advantage would be more close fun games where u dont have 10 yellow and 5 purples in team vs 10 reds and and 5 orange player in the other, getting roflstomped in under 5 min.

But dont worry.....skillbased MM will NEVER happen. Not because it isnt possible but because Wargaming said it was a bad idea 5 year ago and if they suddenly agreed it was a good idea they would "lose face". So we are stuck with this piss-poor MM until game gets forgotten.



kubawt112 #9 Posted 08 April 2019 - 07:26 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 3378 battles
  • 533
  • [-UM] -UM
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View Postdave_highfive79, on 08 April 2019 - 07:15 PM, said:

 

(...)
So the gist I got from that is that its just going to annoy the 'better' players

 

In the interest of avoiding a warning point for something that over the course of 15 minutes has proven worthless I'll refrain from stating my actual opinion. I will however admit that the text may have been typed up in a way to make it very obvious if you haven't actually read it properly.

18:32 Added after 5 minutes

View PostLinkowich, on 08 April 2019 - 07:21 PM, said:

 

 

The advantage would be more close fun games where u dont have 10 yellow and 5 purples in team vs 10 reds and and 5 orange player in the other, getting roflstomped in under 5 min.

But dont worry.....skillbased MM will NEVER happen. Not because it isnt possible but because Wargaming said it was a bad idea 5 year ago and if they suddenly agreed it was a good idea they would "lose face". So we are stuck with this piss-poor MM until game gets forgotten.

 

Do feel free to try to address the points I make above. For the sake of clarity, I'll paste them below.

Any kind of counter-argument would do, unless you can manage to argue on your own how it could work and not how you want it to work. Of course, that would run the risk of someone running into an argument that they, from previous experience, seem to think they are going to lose.

(Hint: It's not a good argument for a case to state the problem you want to solve. It's strictly speaking not good manners to paste a list I made months ago, either, but that's the amount of effort most of us are willing to put into this.)

 


 

 

  1.     Measuring the skill of a player "correctly" is hard.
  2.     It is impossible to prevent a player from 'faking' stats - by means of using another account with better/worse stats or purposefully throwing away games to nuke his own stats.
  3.     The increased reliance on other things than the player itself, both RNG and the equipment. Playing a mediocre tank can be fun if the enemy's equivalent isn't guaranteed to be good; likewise the 'duel' between you will be more about luck, tank and ammo usage.
  4.     Uncertainty of actually solving anything: Previous attempts to 'balance' teams by class/subclass don't seem to have solved much, aside from things 'looking fair' (which according to Wargaming is actually important). Going from player skill as a main parameter to RNG/vehicles/ammo/circumstance may not have any real effect towards improving gameplay.
  5.     Depending on parameters, the top cut of players might have a hard time finding proper 'matchups' - and hence 'break' the system when the 60% "tryhard" meets the 55% platoon padder.
  6.     Debatable effect on the playerbase. Facing proper competition might be something one player finds fun, others may enjoy their 'right to club' (which is apparently a core WoT value according to WG themselves).


dave_highfive79 #10 Posted 08 April 2019 - 07:32 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 1598 battles
  • 20
  • Member since:
    09-09-2012

View Postkubawt112, on 08 April 2019 - 07:26 PM, said:

 

In the interest of avoiding a warning point for something that over the course of 15 minutes has proven worthless I'll refrain from stating my actual opinion. I will however admit that the text may have been typed up in a way to make it very obvious if you haven't actually read it properly.

18:32 Added after 5 minutes

 

Do feel free to try to address the points I make above. For the sake of clarity, I'll paste them below.

Any kind of counter-argument would do, unless you can manage to argue on your own how it could work and not how you want it to work. Of course, that would run the risk of someone running into an argument that they, from previous experience, seem to think they are going to lose.

(Hint: It's not a good argument for a case to state the problem you want to solve. It's strictly speaking not good manners to paste a list I made months ago, either, but that's the amount of effort most of us are willing to put into this.)

 


 

 

  1.     Measuring the skill of a player "correctly" is hard.
  2.     It is impossible to prevent a player from 'faking' stats - by means of using another account with better/worse stats or purposefully throwing away games to nuke his own stats.
  3.     The increased reliance on other things than the player itself, both RNG and the equipment. Playing a mediocre tank can be fun if the enemy's equivalent isn't guaranteed to be good; likewise the 'duel' between you will be more about luck, tank and ammo usage.
  4.     Uncertainty of actually solving anything: Previous attempts to 'balance' teams by class/subclass don't seem to have solved much, aside from things 'looking fair' (which according to Wargaming is actually important). Going from player skill as a main parameter to RNG/vehicles/ammo/circumstance may not have any real effect towards improving gameplay.
  5.     Depending on parameters, the top cut of players might have a hard time finding proper 'matchups' - and hence 'break' the system when the 60% "tryhard" meets the 55% platoon padder.
  6.     Debatable effect on the playerbase. Facing proper competition might be something one player finds fun, others may enjoy their 'right to club' (which is apparently a core WoT value according to WG themselves).

 

Praise ye hallelujah
18:33 Added after 0 minutes

View PostBravelyRanAway, on 08 April 2019 - 07:20 PM, said:

No...it's because you would be punishing some players just for being good, while rewarding other players for being bad. It would kill the incentive to get better, why bother if everyone's going to have a 50% WR regardless of how they perform....plus what kubawt112 posted above^^.

 

So how would you be punishing good players by making them match up against other good players?  People need to stay away from stats and concentrate on more balanced games.

Edited by dave_highfive79, 08 April 2019 - 07:37 PM.


Linkowich #11 Posted 08 April 2019 - 07:40 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 60676 battles
  • 56
  • [_VH_] _VH_
  • Member since:
    07-04-2011
I cant see how detecting player skill would be so hard. Just use in game personal rating. Add it up in both teams and divide it by 15 in both teams. Then you have a rough idea how much skill you have spread out in both teams. It wouldnt be perfect but im pretty sure it would be better than what we have used for 8 years.

arthurwellsley #12 Posted 08 April 2019 - 07:43 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 53131 battles
  • 3,653
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View Postdave_highfive79, on 08 April 2019 - 06:04 PM, said:

Can someone please explain why Skill Based MM would be so bad for this game?  With actual evidence?

 

 I mean pretty much all of the games are one sided, boring one way or another.  This game needs more even match-ups.  I'd happily wait longer for a better quality game.

 

this yet again.

1. Skill based SMM appears in World of Tanks periodically, it is called Ranked Battles it comes in seasons. Play it for awhile and you will see why SBMM does not really work with WoT.

2. WG have changed Skirmish mode so that teams of equal skilled players are matched against one another in teams. There are several threads where players complain this takes the fun out of skirmish mode, and there are several on the forum with the signature "Make Strongholds Great Again" who are actively campaigning against SBMM in Skirmish mode.

3. SBMM also exists during "Advances" and frankly this is probably the only place that SBMM actually works in WoT.

 

So if you want evidence about SBMM in WoT play more seaons of Ranked, and at least one hundred games in both Skirmish and Advance and then come back to the forum when you see how SBMM works in different WOT modes and why it would fail horribly in random matches based on the experience of how it works in the other three modes.

 

Of course at the present moment from the 350 tanks available in WoT you have played 38. Your highest tech tree tank is tier VIII and most of the SBMM in WoT happens at tier X so you have no experience of that yet.



rejkov #13 Posted 08 April 2019 - 07:46 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 13931 battles
  • 134
  • Member since:
    10-18-2012

With skill based mm, I would kill my stats because with lower stats, i would face with less high skilled opponents at the enemy team. And not i am the only one, with this idea. For example, every match in low tier should be a suicide yolo rush.

 

So the stat based mm will lead to a more irritative, annoying gameplay, like we have now.  Wg knows that.

 

Team unbalance should be compensated by a maps, where the low skilled players can play more effectively against the high skilled players. There was much less 4 min, 15:2 battles on the old, more open maps. With more open maps, and bigger draw circle, the less skilled players would have more chanse to hit the skilled players. In this case, there will not be a tube effect, when 4-5 skilled players are going trough a tube, and killing everybody, who is trying to face them. This would be a good solution, not the skill based mm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



XxKuzkina_MatxX #14 Posted 08 April 2019 - 07:46 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 53200 battles
  • 3,331
  • [SPIKE] SPIKE
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

Just look at the current state of the game from economical point of view. Does it look like it need skill based MM?

 

  • People spent the last 2 years in that godawful MM yet they still bought premium time and every new premium tank WG threw at them.
  • Despite the horrible tank balance people still grind old and new lines and play thousands of battles.
  • Unbalanced maps and pathetic map design.
  • Dreadful new player experience yet tier 8 premiums, even the pathetic ones, sell like hot cakes for players with less than 1k battles.

 

What answer(s) did you expect when you opened this thread?

 

Every other MM will be equally bad with this player base and here on these forums we got a problem for every solution!!!



Balc0ra #15 Posted 08 April 2019 - 07:47 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 69705 battles
  • 18,740
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View Postdave_highfive79, on 08 April 2019 - 07:04 PM, said:

Can someone please explain why Skill Based MM would be so bad for this game?  With actual evidence?

 

 I mean pretty much all of the games are one sided, boring one way or another.  This game needs more even match-ups.  I'd happily wait longer for a better quality game.

 

Did you ever play AW during open beta the week before PVP died out? That's why. Why? Well the people that were used to a 60% WR, now suddenly dropped WR like a rock facing more even people. So they left. Bad players left as playing vs bad all the time was no fun either. And lemming fails, camping fails and one sided games was still a thing... even then.

 

IMO if WG is sure they can't make it work 100%, but 90%. They should not even try.


Edited by Balc0ra, 08 April 2019 - 07:48 PM.


dave_highfive79 #16 Posted 08 April 2019 - 07:48 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 1598 battles
  • 20
  • Member since:
    09-09-2012

View Postarthurwellsley, on 08 April 2019 - 07:43 PM, said:

 

this yet again.

1. Skill based SMM appears in World of Tanks periodically, it is called Ranked Battles it comes in seasons. Play it for awhile and you will see why SBMM does not really work with WoT.

2. WG have changed Skirmish mode so that teams of equal skilled players are matched against one another in teams. There are several threads where players complain this takes the fun out of skirmish mode, and there are several on the forum with the signature "Make Strongholds Great Again" who are actively campaigning against SBMM in Skirmish mode.

3. SBMM also exists during "Advances" and frankly this is probably the only place that SBMM actually works in WoT.

 

So if you want evidence about SBMM in WoT play more seaons of Ranked, and at least one hundred games in both Skirmish and Advance and then come back to the forum when you see how SBMM works in different WOT modes and why it would fail horribly in random matches based on the experience of how it works in the other three modes.

 

Of course at the present moment from the 350 tanks available in WoT you have played 38. Your highest tech tree tank is tier VIII and most of the SBMM in WoT happens at tier X so you have no experience of that yet.

 

So what is it exactly that the players are complaining about?  Is it just the fact that they cant 'seal club' and are faced with equally placed players?

 

I have a US account BTW with 6 tier 10's :B



gunslingerXXX #17 Posted 08 April 2019 - 07:51 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 12028 battles
  • 2,737
  • [GUNSL] GUNSL
  • Member since:
    11-16-2014

View PostBravelyRanAway, on 08 April 2019 - 07:20 PM, said:

No...it's because you would be punishing some players just for being good, while rewarding other players for being bad. It would kill the incentive to get better, why bother if everyone's going to have a 50% WR regardless of how they perform....plus what kubawt112 posted above^^.

Not necessarily.

You can brag about being in a top league, also much harder to 'pad' than WR. Also for xp grinding for example a higher league could give higher multiplier. 

 



dave_highfive79 #18 Posted 08 April 2019 - 07:51 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 1598 battles
  • 20
  • Member since:
    09-09-2012

View PostBalc0ra, on 08 April 2019 - 07:47 PM, said:

 

Did you ever play AW during open beta the week before PVP died out? That's why. Why? Well the people that were used to a 60% WR, now suddenly dropped WR like a rock facing more even people. So they left. Bad players left as playing vs bad all the time was no fun either. And lemming fails, camping fails and one sided games was still a thing... even then.

 

IMO if WG is sure they can't make it work 100%, but 90%. They should not even try.

 

OK fair enough.  But this is all pointing to the better players crying (sorry) about their stats.

 

IMO better gameplay is better than stats.



Sfinski #19 Posted 08 April 2019 - 08:30 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 34159 battles
  • 3,154
  • [-PJ-] -PJ-
  • Member since:
    09-26-2013

View Postdave_highfive79, on 08 April 2019 - 08:51 PM, said:

 

OK fair enough.  But this is all pointing to the better players crying (sorry) about their stats.

 

IMO better gameplay is better than stats.

 

Yet there's multiple people already told you, that it would not bring any better gameplay. Like has been said, test it out in ranked first. Now all you have is your biased opinion that is not based in any kind of facts.

kubawt112 #20 Posted 08 April 2019 - 08:34 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 3378 battles
  • 533
  • [-UM] -UM
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

Come to think about it, I actually want SBMM.

 

 

...on the forums. Can someone come forth and play the devil's advocate, please?






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users