Jump to content


Should skill based matchmaking be put in place outside of ranked


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

LeoJudah #1 Posted 03 June 2020 - 01:13 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 6562 battles
  • 4
  • Member since:
    12-24-2012
I always have bad teams and even though I'm a ok player my teemates always let me down eg:camping on malenovka

Kdingo #2 Posted 03 June 2020 - 01:17 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 33292 battles
  • 8,814
  • Member since:
    07-05-2011
This topic has been argued to death over the years, it would be bad for various reasons and won't change the outcome of battles at all.

Isharial #3 Posted 03 June 2020 - 01:22 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 26621 battles
  • 2,764
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-19-2015

View PostLeoJudah, on 03 June 2020 - 01:13 PM, said:

I always have bad teams and even though I'm a ok player my teemates always let me down eg:camping on malenovka


can I just point out that everyone has the same teams? SBMM wont help you, you'll still be clubbed hard by others, and how do you stop people who are terrible in higher tiers, but not in lower tiers? they might have the same overall as you do (45%) yet play at 50% or higher levels at lower?. its been discussed to death as the poster above said and its never been a good idea, and never will be

 

your not "a ok player", your not even "bad", your worse than that. your most played is the Cromwell at T6, which you do just 300 damage per game. *that* is your issue, not "I always have bad teams". you need to do more to have impact on how often you win.

 

I don't want to come across as "toxic", but that is the harsh reality. your just not doing your bit in battle, and others are having to do what you should have been.

if we take the Cromwell, its a fast active medium with a decent gun and good viewrange. you'll want to be using that mobility and that viewrange to find the enemy and keep that gun firing. its a very potent medium, and you should be getting closer to the 1k damage per game mark. if you get it up to that, you'll be doing your bit and the wins will come with that. 

 

 



boboiscool #4 Posted 03 June 2020 - 01:24 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 2282 battles
  • 83
  • Member since:
    10-02-2013

Actually, Ranked is not skill based at all, it is purely based on chevrons/ranks. The more skilled player wil earn chevrons faster and get higher in the gold league but i have seen enough persistent sub par players reaching gold league just by playing alot. (Ranked is still 15 vs 15 where you win 45-60% of the games). 

For myself I cant stand the try hard ranked mode and barely can force myself to do the qualification battles.  



Private_Miros #5 Posted 03 June 2020 - 01:30 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29728 battles
  • 11,837
  • [EMU87] EMU87
  • Member since:
    07-09-2011

View PostLeoJudah, on 03 June 2020 - 12:13 PM, said:

I always have bad teams and even though I'm a ok player my teemates always let me down eg:camping on malenovka

 

You don't have bad teams. You have the same teams as everyone else.

 

Your performance clearly shows that you are the one consistently letting your teams down. This results in more losses than an average player would get in the same teams.



GodTank2 #6 Posted 03 June 2020 - 01:31 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 11341 battles
  • 927
  • [RDDT] RDDT
  • Member since:
    12-14-2012

View Postboboiscool, on 03 June 2020 - 02:24 PM, said:

Actually, Ranked is not skill based at all, it is purely based on chevrons/ranks. The more skilled player wil earn chevrons faster and get higher in the gold league but i have seen enough persistent sub par players reaching gold league just by playing alot. (Ranked is still 15 vs 15 where you win 45-60% of the games). 

For myself I cant stand the try hard ranked mode and barely can force myself to do the qualification battles.  

 

Playing a lot of ranked doesnt get you to gold league. To get gold you need to have a 100% chevron gain which means that in every game you must at least earn 1 chevron whether its a win or a loss. You can play 1k games in ranked but if you dont earn 1k chevron in those 1k games you wont reach gold.



Gixxer66 #7 Posted 03 June 2020 - 01:43 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20948 battles
  • 909
  • [-AWF-] -AWF-
  • Member since:
    01-11-2013

Not sure where you'd position your self in skill based MM, but currently  you'd sit in one of the lower leagues, if not the lowest league. SBMM is bad for everyone, forget it and work on increasing your influence on games, you'll win more that way

 

We all have sessions where you get teams that melt inside 3 minutes, where what ever you do will have little impact on the battle, but your personal contribution will always in the long term determine your win rate.

 

I work on these assumptions - you will lose 35% of games no matter what. You will win 44% of games no matter what, The other 21% of games you will have a direct influence on the outcome good or bad.

 

 



_Anarchistic_ #8 Posted 03 June 2020 - 02:10 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 49501 battles
  • 1,287
  • Member since:
    01-07-2015

this has been proposed for years and would solve all the problems of bad teams

 

its so easy

 

players 50% and over in 1 match

players under 50% in another

 

like every other issue with the game instead of just doing the simple thing that solves the problem WG find a complicated answer that says go xxxx yourselves



Hungarian_Patriot #9 Posted 03 June 2020 - 02:13 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 13994 battles
  • 808
  • Member since:
    12-25-2012

View PostLeoJudah, on 03 June 2020 - 12:13 PM, said:

I always have bad teams and even though I'm a ok player my teemates always let me down eg:camping on malenovka

But Leo, Wargaming has patented "skill-based" MM. Aren't you happy with it? OFC you are not, because it is really, totally not used. Wargaming says so so it must be true. :trollface: The fact that the patent describes exactly what the MM has been accused of doing by hundreds of players since the beta is irrelevant.

 

"According to another aspect, the matchmaking server may store a win/loss percentage for each user (or vehicle) at a given battle level. As the player's win/loss ratio decreases, the player becomes more likely to be placed in battles having battle levels at the lower end of the allowable range, whereas as the player's win/loss ration increases, the player becomes more likely to be placed in battles having battle levels at the upper end of the allowable range. Thus, when a player has been repeatedly put into too many difficult battles, the balancing is done in favor of easier battle sessions, thereby encouraging the player by providing an easier game environment. Similarly, when the player has been repeatedly put into too many easy battles, the balancing is done in favor of harder battle sessions, thereby keeping the player challenged instead of letting the player become bored with easy games." -https://patents.google.com/patent/US8425330?oq=8%2c425%2c330


Edited by Hungarian_Patriot, 03 June 2020 - 11:03 PM.


DangerMouse #10 Posted 03 June 2020 - 03:13 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 31890 battles
  • 1,452
  • [FLOG] FLOG
  • Member since:
    10-28-2010
maybe look at the pinned MM discussion thread, chance of something new being discussed in this one = 0

Inappropriate_noob #11 Posted 03 June 2020 - 03:14 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 18999 battles
  • 5,786
  • [KV1] KV1
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011

We all get those teams, had one this morning, the whole team swamped in just under 4 minutes, I think i got one shot off before the reds got me ,that was the quickest game ever on Redshire.

This thing where you cant blame the team, sorry but you can, it is just another means for the purists to put down others, if you and been with me in those battles you would know, but then you all know right?

 

Fjords just now, me in a TD, the LT's and meds gone in every direction but to the central hill, all rushing over the back to the south spawn, while heavies got surrounded and swamped, relocated and was about to set up (was in a Swedish TD) then was pounced upon by one of those lovely EBR's wasn't anything I could do after that, ho hum.



Balc0ra #12 Posted 03 June 2020 - 03:21 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 77815 battles
  • 23,604
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

Ranked showed that playing with people of "equal" skill won't fix everything. Most of your team still play solo, most of your team still have their goals to care what you do. Camping and lemming fails was equally common there as in Randoms to name some. And on the other side of it... that "other game" died 6 weeks after they added it. Why? Bad mostly only played with bad and left, high WR players could not roll over bad anymore as easy and their WR dropped like a rock. The only one that did not care or notice was average Joe.

 

Randoms are just that, random. And it should remain as such IMO.



Gixxer66 #13 Posted 03 June 2020 - 03:52 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20948 battles
  • 909
  • [-AWF-] -AWF-
  • Member since:
    01-11-2013

View PostInappropriate_noob, on 03 June 2020 - 02:14 PM, said:

We all get those teams, had one this morning, the whole team swamped in just under 4 minutes, I think i got one shot off before the reds got me ,that was the quickest game ever on Redshire.

This thing where you cant blame the team, sorry but you can, it is just another means for the purists to put down others, if you and been with me in those battles you would know, but then you all know right?

 

Fjords just now, me in a TD, the LT's and meds gone in every direction but to the central hill, all rushing over the back to the south spawn, while heavies got surrounded and swamped, relocated and was about to set up (was in a Swedish TD) then was pounced upon by one of those lovely EBR's wasn't anything I could do after that, ho hum.

 

So that's 2 out 18.573 battles, what about the other 10354 you have lost - going to blame the rest of the team in those too? or was it WG stacking the odds against you ? ( bad rng / p2w / rigged ? )

 

You'll never convince me that you somehow magically have consistently worse teams than i do over an extended time period, or that anyone else does.



_Anarchistic_ #14 Posted 03 June 2020 - 04:02 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 49501 battles
  • 1,287
  • Member since:
    01-07-2015

View PostDangerMouse, on 03 June 2020 - 03:13 PM, said:

maybe look at the pinned MM discussion thread, chance of something new being discussed in this one = 0

 

the MM thread is merely a bin to dump all the threads and ignore them



Gruff_ #15 Posted 03 June 2020 - 04:20 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 26025 battles
  • 2,615
  • [W0WW] W0WW
  • Member since:
    09-22-2011

View PostLeoJudah, on 03 June 2020 - 01:13 PM, said:

I always have bad teams and even though I'm a ok player my teemates always let me down eg:camping on malenovka


Short answer nope.  Will stagnate things.



Spurtung #16 Posted 03 June 2020 - 04:45 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 82263 battles
  • 8,445
  • [USSRX] USSRX
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostLeoJudah, on 03 June 2020 - 12:13 PM, said:

I always have bad teams and even though I'm a ok player my teemates always let me down eg:camping on malenovka

 

Sorry, but you're in denial.



jabster #17 Posted 03 June 2020 - 05:24 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12855 battles
  • 28,105
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostGixxer66, on 03 June 2020 - 02:52 PM, said:

 

So that's 2 out 18.573 battles, what about the other 10354 you have lost - going to blame the rest of the team in those too? or was it WG stacking the odds against you ? ( bad rng / p2w / rigged ? )

 

You'll never convince me that you somehow magically have consistently worse teams than i do over an extended time period, or that anyone else does.


They do have consistently worse teams over an extended period because they are in it.



tajj7 #18 Posted 03 June 2020 - 05:33 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30196 battles
  • 18,155
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View Post_Anarchistic_, on 03 June 2020 - 01:10 PM, said:

this has been proposed for years and would solve all the problems of bad teams

 

its so easy

 

players 50% and over in 1 match

players under 50% in another

 

like every other issue with the game instead of just doing the simple thing that solves the problem WG find a complicated answer that says go xxxx yourselves

 

No it wouldn't, which is why it hasn't been done.

 

People for years have claimed its some magic quick fix, but every suggestion is complete nonsense and inherently flawed.

 

Like yours.

 

So you put all below 50% in one game and all above in another, so queues are ruined straight away for the higher group because there are less players, and you are using a metric from a non skill based matchmaking system to organise your SBMM system, but after you have done this for a while there will be loads of players who were competent who now have a WR below 50% because they are fighter loads of better players, so what are you going to relegate them to the lower group? And you've just given a load of bad players an easier game, so you are rewarding laziness and bad play, seems a good incentive to learn to the game, and some of those in the below 50% group would after a while start getting an above 50% win rate.

 

Completely nonsense, doesn't work and doesn't achieve anything. 

 

Other SBMM systems still have quick and one sided games, Armoured Warfare had it when they tried SBMM, it happens in ranked, it happens CWs and team modes. 

 

The easy, most logical and most fair system is the one we have, the one where you play well, learn the game and improve and you'll get more wins. 

 

And you just accept that streaks and bad losses are a consequence of a 15 v 15 multiplayer game with no re-spawns. 

 

 

 

 



_Anarchistic_ #19 Posted 03 June 2020 - 06:26 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 49501 battles
  • 1,287
  • Member since:
    01-07-2015

View Posttajj7, on 03 June 2020 - 05:33 PM, said:

 

No it wouldn't, which is why it hasn't been done.

 

People for years have claimed its some magic quick fix, but every suggestion is complete nonsense and inherently flawed.

 

Like yours.

 

So you put all below 50% in one game and all above in another, so queues are ruined straight away for the higher group because there are less players, and you are using a metric from a non skill based matchmaking system to organise your SBMM system, but after you have done this for a while there will be loads of players who were competent who now have a WR below 50% because they are fighter loads of better players, so what are you going to relegate them to the lower group? And you've just given a load of bad players an easier game, so you are rewarding laziness and bad play, seems a good incentive to learn to the game, and some of those in the below 50% group would after a while start getting an above 50% win rate.

 

Completely nonsense, doesn't work and doesn't achieve anything. 

 

Other SBMM systems still have quick and one sided games, Armoured Warfare had it when they tried SBMM, it happens in ranked, it happens CWs and team modes. 

 

The easy, most logical and most fair system is the one we have, the one where you play well, learn the game and improve and you'll get more wins. 

 

And you just accept that streaks and bad losses are a consequence of a 15 v 15 multiplayer game with no re-spawns. 

 

 

 

 

 

a well reasoned reply as usual, always nice when you drop in so thanks

 

but

 

having played plenty of other games with SBMM i will disagree, likewise having played plenty of clan battles over the years the quality of the players is generally reflected in the results, although i accept that you can still get the odd roflstomp

 

as for the cut off that's easy, you simply get move from 1 MM to the other as your Wr% changes which would balance the player numbers easily, as for queues there are plenty of players in the game so i fail to see how that would be an issue except in cases of seal clubbers hanging out at low tiers, so if anything it might solve another issue in the game?

also as many of the best players play tier 10 and other high tiers it might actually help the mid tiers get more top tier games instead of so many bottom tier games which the MM is really suffering from around tiers 6 and 7.

 

i do accept that's its probably not as simple as i imply, but it is a better option to try than the ranked mode which is both a complicated solution that does not address the problem..  Certainly it might be worth a trial, perhaps use 1 server as a test bed so players can pick and choose what they want to play and WG can see the results?

 

i doubt it would ever happen, probably get more and more convoluted MM 'fixes' and more templates to make the system ever more complicated and pointless

 

if nothing else raising the idea is worth the debate, something else that's a good idea might come out of it

17:28 Added after 2 minute

View PostBalc0ra, on 03 June 2020 - 03:21 PM, said:

Ranked showed that playing with people of "equal" skill won't fix everything. Most of your team still play solo, most of your team still have their goals to care what you do. Camping and lemming fails was equally common there as in Randoms to name some. And on the other side of it... that "other game" died 6 weeks after they added it. Why? Bad mostly only played with bad and left, high WR players could not roll over bad anymore as easy and their WR dropped like a rock. The only one that did not care or notice was average Joe.

 

Randoms are just that, random. And it should remain as such IMO.

 

actually i enjoy ranked much more at the higher tiers when the players are better.  yes still get bad games but generally the higher the skill the better the gameplay

 

the 'other game' died that quickly because of SBMM?  it was dying anyway surely?


Edited by _Anarchistic_, 03 June 2020 - 06:29 PM.


_Signal_ #20 Posted 03 June 2020 - 06:29 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 49476 battles
  • 6,884
  • [S3AL] S3AL
  • Member since:
    07-14-2011

View Post_Anarchistic_, on 03 June 2020 - 01:10 PM, said:

this has been proposed for years and would solve all the problems of bad teams

 

its so easy

 

players 50% and over in 1 match

players under 50% in another

 

like every other issue with the game instead of just doing the simple thing that solves the problem WG find a complicated answer that says go xxxx yourselves

That wouldn't solve anything, plus as I half decent player I want bad players in the other team because that's the kind of player a player like me needs to then take advantage.


Edited by _Signal_, 03 June 2020 - 06:29 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users