Jump to content


We need skill based matchmaking

matchmaking skill servers personal rating

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

Poll: We need skill based matchmaking (129 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battle in order to participate this poll.

Do you want a skill based matchmaking system?

  1. Yes (40 votes [31.01%])

    Percentage of vote: 31.01%

  2. No (state why in the comments) (89 votes [68.99%])

    Percentage of vote: 68.99%

Vote Hide poll

LethalWalou #221 Posted 31 August 2020 - 02:35 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 36564 battles
  • 4,170
  • Member since:
    09-17-2012

View PostZlatanArKung, on 31 August 2020 - 01:31 PM, said:

Personally I wouldn't mind.

But this is more of an actual issue that should somehow be adressed, or at least thought about. Compared to the 'now I will only won 49% +/-3% compared to my earlier 55%'.

 

One way would be to add a 'credit and xp' multiplier based on your rating. Another one would be to make it a separate mode with 0 xp gain and 0 credit income and expense (with some additional rules).

 

Yes, as I said in answer to Miros' answer to you, the economy problem can be worked through. But the question is, is it really worth the trouble? Would the gains of SBMM actually be worth of all the consequences of it? Based on what I've seen so far, the answer is a no.


Edited by LethalWalou, 31 August 2020 - 02:36 PM.


ZlatanArKung #222 Posted 31 August 2020 - 02:38 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 1537 battles
  • 6,555
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostPrivate_Miros, on 31 August 2020 - 10:31 AM, said:

 

While I advocate for a separate competitive mode with smaller teams and only elited, non-premium tanks, I don't think SBMM in randoms would be a good idea for reasons I already posted earlier in the thread.

 

Two comments on your post though:

1. As Walou says, the economy would need an overhaul.

2. Would this in any way fix the "issues" that the people asking for SBMM have? Would it give them more enjoyment "being free" from either "being hampered by lesser players" or "being farmed by better players"?

1: Yes economy needs a check here, and wether it should be an optional mode outside of game economy  (like the steelhunt was) or take game economy in has to be clearly thought through. I think there are pro's and con's with both ways. And mode just have to be a separate one I think.

 

2: Would it fix issues players have with current MM, as less steamrolls, longer battles, more "fun" battles. No, I don't think so. At least my to a degree that is measurable.

I don't think the issues players have with MM (steam rolls etc) can be fixed with SBMM, I think other things needs to be looked, like: Map design, tank balance, shell mechanics (pay more for more pen, and very small to no disadvantage) etc.

13:42 Added after 4 minute

View Postduijm, on 31 August 2020 - 10:38 AM, said:

Do you have problems reading?

 

I said this:

So with the later the objective would change from winning to doing damage (more camping). 

And again why would any good player make an risky agressive move if it does nothing for your winrate? 

 

So it's not about a shinny skill measurement. It is about incentive to win and destroying gameplay.

 

 

Your objective might change, the objective put out by WG will not. 

 

And if you introduce a rating that is only dependent on wether you win or not, and that becomes the main measurement tool of skill. Players will not favour damage over wins. Instead, players will go for a win, and more so then than now.

 

Incentives to win now are rather lackluster though. If you win, you get a higher score on your total WR.

You also get a higher credit and xp income.

But ask players, do they try to win to get a bit more xp and credits after battle, or do they try to win because it is the goal of the game?



totallynotqsr #223 Posted 31 August 2020 - 02:43 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 38616 battles
  • 453
  • [MEME] MEME
  • Member since:
    08-18-2014

I 100% agree that WG should change their game completely because one guy won a game of Fortnite and the other guy played countless games on his "alt account" in SBMM modes that he didn't like.

 

 If those aren't compelling arguments I don't know what is.



Spurtung #224 Posted 31 August 2020 - 02:48 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 84806 battles
  • 8,601
  • [USSRX] USSRX
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View Posttotallynotqsr, on 31 August 2020 - 02:43 PM, said:

I 100% agree that WG should change their game completely because one guy won a game of Fortnite and the other guy played countless games on his "alt account" in SBMM modes that he didn't like.

 

 If those aren't compelling arguments I don't know what is.

 

This is gold.



Steeleye_Spam #225 Posted 31 August 2020 - 02:52 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 39765 battles
  • 548
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    08-31-2014

OMFG THIS AGAIN. NO, WE DON'T.



Elefantas #226 Posted 31 August 2020 - 04:53 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 63732 battles
  • 402
  • Member since:
    05-02-2011
they failed to make ranked battles be really ranked you expect them to make skill based randoms ?

RaxipIx #227 Posted 31 August 2020 - 05:31 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 36398 battles
  • 1,715
  • [TFUK] TFUK
  • Member since:
    02-22-2016

View PostDwigt, on 31 August 2020 - 01:34 PM, said:

Hello everyone,

 

I voted no and my answer is based on my personal opinion.

How to measure skill in WoT? Should we have a medium tank rating, super heavy tank rating or maybe by tiers? Because the current matchmaking is based on tiers, types and weight and we can not remove this from the equation. 

In almost every competitive game including WoT, you have a quick play (random battles) and a ranked mode. You want to try a new tank you can try it in randoms, get used to it before going to ranked. You're a new player, you play in random before heading to ranked. If there is no random or normal battles mode your rank and the MM will be impacted by these reasons as well. 

In my opinion I would improve the ranked mode in WoT. You may say it's not balanced. We're testing some options and the first one was removing reward tanks. I would love to see more ranked seasons in WoT. 

 

Regarding the OP example, high rating (and low rating) players will have to wait to find a battle. You're right but your suggestion isn't. Imagine a 1000 rating player playing against a 3000 rating player. He's most probably going to lose and the 14 other players have a higher chance to lose rating as well. Same goes if a 7000 rating player is playing against lower rating players.

 

That's just my honest personal opinion but let's see how the next ranked season will go.

Cheers!

Can i get a job at WG. Hats of for you saying this. I did base my opinions on the same reasosn. Can i get a texas grilled brisket:)?

 

And i will admit the part  that i agreed with letal. I am 100% sure  people who ask for sbmm don't fully grasp it's consequences.

 

 

 

 


Edited by RaxipIx, 31 August 2020 - 05:35 PM.


zin #228 Posted 31 August 2020 - 05:46 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 10567 battles
  • 27
  • [BEGE] BEGE
  • Member since:
    04-17-2011

Going to address as many comments as possible. Didn't expect the thread to blow up. Even if there's great disapproval of SBMM, it does provide insight into the many issues it could bring, as well as the general attitude and immaturity of some of the users. I'll address those too.

 

View Post_LongRangeSniper_, on 29 August 2020 - 10:06 PM, said:

View Postzin, on 29 August 2020 - 06:24 PM, said:

Edit: Personal rating is not the most optimal system. Was just an ideal idea though. I still think a skill based system is needed to improve matches. It could also be separate from normal random battles to see if it gains traction.

 

History would tell us that the chances of you returning to this thread are low. But just in case.

 

http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/590565-skill-based-matchmaking-a-proposal/page__hl__%20skill#topmost

 

Knock yourself out.

Ok?

View PostPowJay, on 30 August 2020 - 06:00 AM, said:

I voted NO, and the reasons are as follows.

 

WoT is WoT. It is based on the concept of RANDOM matchmaking (to a tier/type formula) and if you don't like it- go and play something else.

 

SBMM will not improve a poor player's stats to anything meaningful. A poor player will get matched with a whole team of poor players against another team of poor players and all we will see is pathetic battles timing out because they are all red-line camping or too afraid to actually move more than 10m to the nearest rock in case they get shot. Sure, I will be rid of these people on my teams, but I am sure these individuals will get fed up very quickly.

 

Yes, SBMM will match players more equally and this will be bad for those who can stand out. Unicums in unicum leagues will all start to get much closer to 50% WR. Why should they? They have proven their abilities in battle and deserve their stats. If YOU (whoever you are) don't like their stats and don't like to see them on the enemy team in randoms, then either you can try to be as good as them, or quit- or simply accept that the next battle the unicum platoon is on YOUR team, because the MM is- oh what is the word? RANDOM!

 

Anyone who thinks that MM needs to be skill based because they are an idiot with average damage of 200 HP in tier X tanks needs to have a long, hard look at themselves and ask if WoT really is a game that they want to play. If you (whoever you are) don't like the system as it is- GO AWAY.


BTW, we know MM can be flawed and we all recognise that the 3/5/7 MM was not the dream setup it was meant to be, but I don't need, or want SBMM.

"WoT is WoT. It is based on the concept of RANDOM matchmaking (to a tier/type formula) and if you don't like it- go and play something else."

 

Tautologies are not arguments. I also don't have to play something else if I'm unsatisfied with aspects of a game. I am free just as everybody else to open a discourse and comment on how I think things should be. If you can't handle that then maybe you shouldn't browse the forums. All you're doing is displaying your inability to make a reasonable argument. People don't have to appease by quitting at your request just because you're incapable of hearing people complain about something you like, as well as being incapable of handling feedback and criticism like a reasonable individual.

 

"SBMM will not improve a poor player's stats to anything meaningful. A poor player will get matched with a whole team of poor players against another team of poor players and all we will see is pathetic battles timing out because they are all red-line camping or too afraid to actually move more than 10m to the nearest rock in case they get shot. Sure, I will be rid of these people on my teams, but I am sure these individuals will get fed up very quickly."

 

SBMM is not about improving stats, it's about improving overall quality of matches by being able to play against equally skilled players.

 

I also took the freedom to cross out the irrelevant ranting.

View PostPowJay, on 30 August 2020 - 07:26 AM, said:

At one time, you. YOU! You know who you are, decided to download a game called World of Tanks.

 

This game has a specific set up around RANDOM matchmaking based ONLY on a tier and type system. 

 

YOU played that game for long enough to decide that you didn't like this matchmaking.

 

And all YOU have ever done since is moan and moan about it.

 

Simple answer- GO AND PLAY ANOTHER GAME! :facepalm:

I am allowed to comment, leave feed back and even complain just as everybody else. I don't have to appease you or anyone else just because you seem to have an inability to handle criticism. Criticism that's aimed at the game, not you. If you don't have anything of value to contribute with to this thread, then maybe don't comment.

View Postmalachi6, on 30 August 2020 - 08:13 AM, said:

Using the term "we" describes the informal logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum.  Where a point is asserted to be correct because a lot of people believe it to be so,  Example, getting caught speeding and saying everybody else does it, is not going to stop you getting a ticket.

 

As to the MM.  Given the random nature of the MM and enough games, the MM is balanced overall.  I feel that some people want a so-called skilled MM because they believe the game owes them something along the lines of less chaos or more wins.  It's not so much the MM rather the feeling of having more control.  Humans as pattern-seeking creatures dislike disorder.

Who are you addressing?

View Postduijm, on 30 August 2020 - 01:00 PM, said:

View PostYaccay, on 30 August 2020 - 06:21 AM, said:

Skill based MM means games will be more balanced.

Skill based MM means will be less landslide victory/loss.

Some stat-whore player fears of losing their stat.

Yes, winrate will lose its meaning, as winrate will tend to be 50%.

But Wn8, wgr, eff will be still relevant. So they will be able to feed their ego on those stats.

1 your wrong

2 your wrong

3 your wrong

4 still wrong

 

I see you haven't got a clue

13:01 Added after 1 minute

View PostBlack_Coyote, on 30 August 2020 - 11:36 AM, said:

Why many of as want no? Becouse you are affraid to play with others on the same level? 

 

No because we wanted to be treated the same as you or any other player.

You've not made an argument to why he's wrong though. Stating that he is wrong is a position, not an argument. Also, what do you mean by wanting to be treated the same as any other player? The goal of SBMM would be to make matches more even and therefor more enjoyable. This would be fair to the majority of players. The issue of very high skilled and poorly skilled/new players having high waiting times is about the only issue that will affect some negatively.

 

Off-topic: There's a slight irony in telling someone that they're clueless while using "your" in place of "you're". "Your" is possessive(as in your bike), while "you're" is the contraction of "you are".

View PostBordhaw, on 30 August 2020 - 04:14 PM, said:

View Postzin, on 29 August 2020 - 05:57 PM, said:

Seriously, it's annoying as hell to keep losing round after round because of disproportionately skilled teams. Either you steamroll the other team or you get steamrolled. Maybe one in twenty matches are somewhat even. I

Sincerely,

zin


Player matchmaking should and could be achieved but it should not necessarily be based on "skill". 

How do you suppose we measure it if not in individual performance?

View PostRaxipIx, on 30 August 2020 - 04:33 PM, said:

How will the MM find games for the very low skilled, and the very high skilled players? In case you missed my post.

In my idea above, to tackle this issue, one would jump down a tier. Or jump up one if in the lowest tier. My idea is far from optimal though since personal rating is probably not the best indicator of skill, but it's the only one we have at the moment. A trial run could be made to see if it gains traction, and if it doesn't, then evaluate what will work and then try that. If that doesn't work, then I guess it's not something for WoT.

View Postvasilinhorulezz, on 30 August 2020 - 04:39 PM, said:

Skill based MM is just the bad player's excuse, so he can still suck at the game, but having wins handed to him without any effort. Then go to the forums and complain, how bad his teams are, and/or everyone is shooting gold.

If you're not willing to improve your gameplay, learn game mechanics and maps/positioning, you don't deserve to win more, or getting the same rewards with the ones that do. End of story.

Skill based MM will not help the game, or the players, in a 15 vs 15 environment, it will still remain at least as chaotic as it is right now, if not even more.

Also, we do have skill based MM, it's called Ranked/Clan Wars etc.

I don't see the logic in your argument that it's a "bad player's excuse". Sounds like a cop-out to me. People aren't going to be handed wins "without any effort", as you put it. People will simply be matched up with equally skilled players, which makes matches far more balanced.

 

This has never been about winrate, even if I did complain about losing. It's about the symptom of players not being equally skilled, not the outcome which in this case is a loss. Losing badly is typically a result of poor teamplay in combination with lack of experience. The goal is to try to eliminate as many of these matches as possibly by making matches more even in skill. While personal rating is not a definite indication of skill, it is a somewhat OK measurement. It's the best we got ATM. If you get to play with players who have several thousand PR below you, then you can't really expect much from them. Or if you play with players several thousand above you, then they can't expect you to play as well as they do. Nobody wins in this scenario when the skill difference is very large.

 

"If you're not willing to improve your gameplay, learn game mechanics and maps/positioning, you don't deserve to win more, or getting the same rewards with the ones that do. End of story."

 

This is also not about me, even if I am affected. This is still not strictly about winning. I've never stated that I'm unwilling to improve myself. I've only stated my desire for a skill based matchmaking system.

 

"Also, we do have skill based MM, it's called Ranked/Clan Wars etc."

 

Not everyone can play skirmishes or ranked. They have both their own restrictions. The random battle mode have none, which is why it's the most optimal game mode to introduce SBMM to. It could be introduced as a trial period to see if it gains traction, and then go from there.

View PostDzirlo, on 30 August 2020 - 05:05 PM, said:

View PostGremlin182, on 30 August 2020 - 05:53 PM, said:

Wasn't there an argument put forward a while back that a skill based MM would lead to everyone gravitating towards 49%.

The better rated player would not get weaker players to kill and the weaker player would never face anyone better than him.

So one gets tougher games and win rate drops the other gets easier games and win rate rises.

There is also the problem that there are far fewer highly rated players so the MM probably would not function.

 


why dont you people read? in sbmm you dont have to play against equals, lets say people with wn+/- 800, but the teams should be equal. for example, both teams will have wn8 around 15000. unicums and tomatoes together.

Having both "tomatoes" and "unicums" together creates issues, such as the better players taking up a large part of the wn8 that makes up their team, which means most of the players in their team will be vastly less experienced than them. It means they have to carry more than usual since they really can't rely on their teammates to do what they consider the most basic things, such as spotting, proper angling of armor, proper positioning, when to retreat, when to push, when to cap, when to not cap etc. Or simply put how do their role effectively.

View PostSirebellus, on 30 August 2020 - 05:12 PM, said:

My main reason for being against skill based matchmaking is that it can't work when you have so many different options for vehicles in the game... and the 'skill' you need to play the Maus is worlds apart from the 'skill' you need to play the ELC Even 90.... Someone who has excellent skill working a ridgeline with a good gun depression medium tank could be absolutely hopeless when given a casemate TD with no depression on the gun... and you have many professional seal clubbers who are unicorn level when playing in their Tier 4 platoons, but would be complete noobs playing solo in a high tier game...


 

You have a valid point. One way I think, would be to categorize skill based on the vehicle type. So you'd get into different machmaking tiers based on the vehicle type you choose, as well as your skill with that type. This way even if you're with the current system at +7k rating in heavies, you may be placed lower with say lights because you're not as good with them. So you'd get to play in a lower tier with in this case light tanks until you improve yourself enough to jump up a tier. Matchmaking times could be an issue.

View Posttotallynotqsr, on 30 August 2020 - 06:27 PM, said:

I find it curious that the players Dzirlo, Pitulusu and Zin (all which claim that SBMM is great and amazing) don't play the SBMM game modes that are available to them at all (skirmishes, ranked).

   For people who claim that SBMM modes are the best thing ever, you sure avoid it like the plague :)

I've made no such claim that SBMM is "great and amazing". Don't put words in other people's mouths. I've only inferred that it'd be better than what we currently have. Not everyone can play skirmishes or ranked. They have both their own restrictions. The random battle mode have none, which is why it's the most optimal game mode to introduce SBMM to.

 

Also, my nickname is spelled in lowercase as is indicated by my username.

View PostSlyspy, on 31 August 2020 - 12:16 PM, said:

I reject the idea of SBMM because I do not see how it would fix any of the problems which people think it will . In the case of the OP he is frustrated at runs of poor results because of "disproportionately skilled teams". I'd like him to indicate how a SBMM in which the idea is to have the two teams as even as possible in terms of skill would prevent streaks of poor results (or good ones for that matter).

An SBMM system wouldn't prevent a losing or winning streak. Streaks either way isn't the issue though. While the desired outcome of every game is winning, it's IMO not the most important one. What's important is enjoying the game. I think SBMM would help provide this due to helping making matches more even, partly due to fewer streaks as a result of poor teamplay or disproportionately skilled teams. At least the higher up you go in skill. You'd still be able to have a losing or winning streak, but either won't feel too hard or too easy. Even if some games will be due to one team playing really good and the other really bad, at least you can sum it up to bad RNG and move on. And when you do lose even when you've done good in the game, you can still feel like your effort wasn't entirely wasted.

 

One issue I have with the game at the moment is that initiative isn't really rewarded as much as maybe it should be, partly due to your teammates not being as experienced at you. Or maybe you're the inexperienced one and a vastly more skilled player cannot rely on you. It goes both ways. IMO in the current state of the game you can't really rely on your teammates to back you up when it's needed, or to seize opportunities when they arrive. SBMM is likely to improve this.

 

 Overall I think SBMM would make the game more enjoyable. Did this answer your inquiry?

View PostDwigt, on 31 August 2020 - 12:34 PM, said:

Hello everyone,

 

I voted no and my answer is based on my personal opinion.

How to measure skill in WoT? Should we have a medium tank rating, super heavy tank rating or maybe by tiers? Because the current matchmaking is based on tiers, types and weight and we can not remove this from the equation. 

In almost every competitive game including WoT, you have a quick play (random battles) and a ranked mode. You want to try a new tank you can try it in randoms, get used to it before going to ranked. You're a new player, you play in random before heading to ranked. If there is no random or normal battles mode your rank and the MM will be impacted by these reasons as well. 

In my opinion I would improve the ranked mode in WoT. You may say it's not balanced. We're testing some options and the first one was removing reward tanks. I would love to see more ranked seasons in WoT. 

 

Regarding the OP example, high rating (and low rating) players will have to wait to find a battle. You're right but your suggestion isn't. Imagine a 1000 rating player playing against a 3000 rating player. He's most probably going to lose and the 14 other players have a higher chance to lose rating as well. Same goes if a 7000 rating player is playing against lower rating players.

 

That's just my honest personal opinion but let's see how the next ranked season will go.

Cheers!

One'd keep the tiers. Individual rating per its class could be an idea. So light, medium, heavy, TD and SPG's could have their own categories. It'd mean you'd not do your team a disservice with a matchmaking system based on skill, to have acquired your rating in say light tanks but still be matched just as high with say heavy tanks, even though you're not really as skilled with heavy tanks.

 

As for how to measure skill, that is the question isn't it. I don't have the solution but I still think it's something that is needed. I do recognize that there may be issue with matchmaking time. Especially when the player count is low. One way to combat this(probably not entirely) is to just stick to one server per region since it'd help increase the matchmaking pool. My suggestion is not ideal, I'm aware of this, though it was merely an example. Thanks for your input.



totallynotqsr #229 Posted 31 August 2020 - 06:08 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 38616 battles
  • 453
  • [MEME] MEME
  • Member since:
    08-18-2014

Long story short, some people want to change a key mechanic they don't understand, in a game they don't understand to something they don't know and don't understand but what they do know is that it will be better.

 

 Very cool.



PowJay #230 Posted 31 August 2020 - 06:08 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 44043 battles
  • 6,163
  • Member since:
    09-07-2012

Seeing as how you mentioned me personally, maybe I will reply.

 

1. "I also took the freedom to cross out the irrelevant ranting."

 

So this- which you crossed out- is irrelevant ranting? WoT is WoT. It is based on the concept of RANDOM matchmaking (to a tier/type formula) and if you don't like it- go and play something else  I would say that two thirds of that is FACT. The rest is a suggestion.

 

I like the game as it is. So I AM PUTTING MY OPINION ACROSS. But, just because it differs from yours, it is irrelevant ranting? Interesting. You may notice- when you have been aroung long enough- that I never (or very rarely) complain about any of the central aspects of the game. The game changes, and I will admit to being frustrated by favourite tanks being changed or removed and maps being changed so that I am not sure what I am doing, but the fundamental concept of the game- even with all its changes- has kept me entertained for almost eight years. I don't want SBMM. SIMPLE!

 

2. "I am allowed to comment, leave feed back and even complain just as everybody else. I don't have to appease you or anyone else just because you seem to have an inability to handle criticism. Criticism that's aimed at the game, not you. If you don't have anything of value to contribute with to this thread, then maybe don't comment."


I thought that you wanted reasons why people don't want SBMM :confused: So I have offered my reasoning that you bought into a game that DOES NOT HAVE SBMM and you are now complaining that it doesn't have SBMM. There are other games out there that you can play.  2/3 of the players who have voted have voted against it. Most of the posts I have read against SBMM are from players who have proven their understanding of WoT time and time again, and I know why I don't want it. 

 

Most of those who are in favour of SBMM are those that have (mostly) proven that they don't have what it takes to win more than lose- ergo are failing to demonstrate their understanding of this game.

 

And I am not picking on you and your criticism. You don't mean enough to me to give a damn. If you are going to post on a public forum and ask for reasons, you will get reasons. They might not even be aimed at you, but the proverbial "YOU" who CHOOSES to play a game and then decides to do nothing but moan about it.



Alkovich #231 Posted 31 August 2020 - 08:17 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 644 battles
  • 55
  • Member since:
    08-07-2017


ZlatanArKung #232 Posted 01 September 2020 - 07:42 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 1537 battles
  • 6,555
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View Posttotallynotqsr, on 31 August 2020 - 02:43 PM, said:

I 100% agree that WG should change their game completely because one guy won a game of Fortnite and the other guy played countless games on his "alt account" in SBMM modes that he didn't like.

 

 If those aren't compelling arguments I don't know what is.

They are at least arguments, which can not be said about your post.


Edited by ZlatanArKung, 01 September 2020 - 07:42 AM.


Frongor #233 Posted 01 September 2020 - 08:07 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 517 battles
  • 18
  • Member since:
    03-21-2019
Current matchmaker is best possible. Predictable losses are annoying, but everyone gets their fair share of wins this way.

duijm #234 Posted 01 September 2020 - 09:36 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 53481 battles
  • 2,879
  • [RANGX] RANGX
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View PostZlatanArKung, on 31 August 2020 - 01:38 PM, said:

1: Yes economy needs a check here, and wether it should be an optional mode outside of game economy  (like the steelhunt was) or take game economy in has to be clearly thought through. I think there are pro's and con's with both ways. And mode just have to be a separate one I think.

 

2: Would it fix issues players have with current MM, as less steamrolls, longer battles, more "fun" battles. No, I don't think so. At least my to a degree that is measurable.

I don't think the issues players have with MM (steam rolls etc) can be fixed with SBMM, I think other things needs to be looked, like: Map design, tank balance, shell mechanics (pay more for more pen, and very small to no disadvantage) etc.

13:42 Added after 4 minute

Your objective might change, the objective put out by WG will not. 

 

And if you introduce a rating that is only dependent on wether you win or not, and that becomes the main measurement tool of skill. Players will not favour damage over wins. Instead, players will go for a win, and more so then than now.

 

Incentives to win now are rather lackluster though. If you win, you get a higher score on your total WR.

You also get a higher credit and xp income.

But ask players, do they try to win to get a bit more xp and credits after battle, or do they try to win because it is the goal of the game?

 

For me the last one.....so again my question.   What is the motivation if I only can get 49%?  There is no goal anymore if we all win 49%.  Is that so hard to understand?


Edited by duijm, 01 September 2020 - 09:40 AM.


Homer_J #235 Posted 01 September 2020 - 09:41 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Moderator
  • 34013 battles
  • 39,026
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010
I think this has lived long enough for OP to have got the results of their poll.  I suggest the discussion continues in the pinned mm thread.





Also tagged with matchmaking, skill, servers, personal rating

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users