Jump to content
CAMN

Where do you stand on the skill MM idea?

Skill MM  

203 members have voted

  1. 1. Should it happen?



Recommended Posts

Doesn't have to be a medal. Could just be a pop up in game. Something like "stronk angling, comrade" "try aiming for weak spots" "good shot"

Shit like that.

 

This is more what I had in mind. And if you still need that shit by tier 10, the punishment phase wasn't strong enough.

 

And I'm speaking as one of the ones who would be punished because I did dip my feet into tier 9/10 and have promptly sucked horribly at it. Thus I've dropped back down (again) and trying to apply what I learned (SLOW THE FUCK DOWN) in my horribad top tier battles.

 

I'm hyper aggressive and impatient, but it took me ~7k battles to finally get it through my thick skull. If I'd had a "You're a fucking idiot" pop up every time I died from it, I could have gotten it in just a couple thousand games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't have to be a medal. Could just be a pop up in game. Something like "stronk angling, comrade" "try aiming for weak spots" "good shot"

Shit like that.

That's a pretty good idea. Perhaps there could be an "advisor mode" for the crew voices that would include some dynamic recommendations based on what the player is doing, so he gets "Try aiming for weak spots, that armor is too thick!" when he bounces, "Our flank is exposed, take cover!" when he gets hit in the sides, and so on. This could probably help a lot of people, especially those who are just starting out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would give anything to make pubs actually fun and engaging somehow. However, short of forcing every player to take a class on game mechanics, tank characteristics, and combat tactics, it's just never going to happen. Tweaking the MM is never going to be able to make the players any better. And picking different combinations of the same shit players is just going to result in the same shit battles. Really, the reason CW, team battles, strongholds, etc, are fun has less to do with the balance of individuals' skills and more to do with actually being *team* based.

Random concept for a drastic overhaul that might actually make things fun: NO change to MM, the "best"(by whatever metric) player on each team is designated the battle caller, they can voice chat to all players on their team, and those players are expected to play by those orders, use the existing (non)functional report system to (not) punish or reward those who disobey orders or perform exceptionally.

Pub matches are NOT 15 v 15, they are 1 v 29.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is more what I had in mind. And if you still need that shit by tier 10, the punishment phase wasn't strong enough.

 

And I'm speaking as one of the ones who would be punished because I did dip my feet into tier 9/10 and have promptly sucked horribly at it. Thus I've dropped back down (again) and trying to apply what I learned (SLOW THE FUCK DOWN) in my horribad top tier battles.

 

I'm hyper aggressive and impatient, but it took me ~7k battles to finally get it through my thick skull. If I'd had a "You're a fucking idiot" pop up every time I died from it, I could have gotten it in just a couple thousand games.

 

I like your ideas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm opposed to the idea and think it would be an unmitigated disaster.

As far as I can see the main people calling for it are saying "I can't beat X, I want to be protected from playing against X". They don't understand that over enough games a properly random MM will give them an even number of good and bad teams.

They are also the ones who tend to yell loudest about being unable to do anything when they are bottom tier.

@Generalfault: how many times as top tier have you tried to suggest a good strategy at the beginning of a random battle (like "heavies with me to town" on Lakeville ) only to have some shitlord tell you to play your own game?

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that many topics of skill based matchmaking skip over is getting rid of the landslide/steamroll battles and the battle with predetermined outcomes due to very large skill differences.

 

In an analysis of over 2,000 solo pub battles, this is what i found:

  • Players lose less than 3% of the battles with a greater than 60% XVM chance to win.
  • Players win less than 3% of the battles with a less than 40% XVM chance to win.
  • The battles outside of the 40-60% chance to win range account for about 30% of the average player’s battles.

 

So basically 30% of the average player’s battles have a predetermined result due to the difference in skill between the teams.

 

If we could get rid of the battles outside of the XVM 40-60% chance to win range the game play would be more dependent on layer skill and teamwork. Yet it wouldn't force everyone to have the same win rate.

 

I'm sure the above mentioned stats are probably different for "purple"players, but are true for Green and below players.

As a non-platooning solo-pubber, all I fucking ask is get the chance between 45% and 55%, don't think that is too much to ask

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm opposed to the idea and think it would be an unmitigated disaster.

As far as I can see the main people calling for it are saying "I can't beat X, I want to be protected from playing against X". They don't understand that over enough games a properly random MM will give them an even number of good and bad teams.

They are also the ones who tend to yell loudest about being unable to do anything when they are bottom tier.

@Generalfault: how many times as top tier have you tried to suggest a good strategy at the beginning of a random battle (like "heavies with me to town" on Lakeville ) only to have some shitlord tell you to play your own game?

Yup, and those shitlordes are the entire reason that pubs will forever be torture to play. God what I wouldn't give for the ability to just straight up buy free XP. I might never have to play a fucking pub match again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted no, but not because I'm against SBMM in general, but rather against the window lickers who work for WarGaming coming up with a system that even remotely approaches competent.

I've made a few posts on the official forums, but I'll echo what I said here: WoT programmers need to fix their other shit before they even consider tackling something as complex as SBMM. I would love to see teams that are better balanced (not isolated to certain tiers of players) if for no reason other than it's bullshit to see one side full of reds. It's boring as fuck to play against them, and it's frustrating as hell to play with them. The only people I see crying about such a system are unicums who cry "My win rate will go down!" So what? Your others stats won't/don't have to drop because of it, only your win rate. Your WN8/9/10/11/Infinity* will still be higher, because you're better than the red scrubs at the bottom.

Anyway, that's a bit off-track. What I want to see from WG, in order of what I think is the best composition of easy to implement/biggest impact on gameplay/least likely to fuck up:
 

  1. Fix team tank composition. That means the same number of top, middle, and bottom tiers. That means BAN THE RETARDS WHO FAIL PLATOON. *cough* Sorry, the red mist settled in for a moment there. Ideally, make it impossible to fail platoon (XBox 360 does it?). It would literally take no effort to ensure teams were balanced in tiers.
  2. Balance the number of each class per tier. Platoons fuck with this a bit, but it doesn't have to be perfect, just better than "Hey, 10 TDs for you, and 10 Heavies for you, annnnnd go!"
  3. Balance the number of platooned players per team. Again, doesn't have to be perfect, but it would be nice for it to be close. It usually isn't too bad, but being in games where one side has three full platoons of unicums and the other has at most one of tomatoes gets old, regardless of what side you're on.
  4. Better maps.
  5. Better tank balancing.
  6. Better game engine.
  7. ????
  8. Profit.
  9. The real question of this thread: SBMM. I don't advocate pitting players of equal skill against only players of equal skill. The population is too small, and having to wait more than two minutes to play a random match is a fast way to get me to quit. However, there is no reason to not try and have the teams balanced, except the unicums who cry over lost win percentage. Not because it will prevent blowouts (although I think they will at least take longer to occur), but because it's more fair.

Now, that being said, I intentionally put SBMM below not only things I want to see first, but some things that are irrelevant (but good and needed!) and some things that are irrelevant (and...yeah, irrelevant). SBMM requires something more than just win rate. It also requires something more than just damage per game, spotting per game, kills per game, number of games. ELO is perhaps an option, but as win rates approach 50%, ELO will also approach average. I think we can all agree that the in-game PR is a terrible balance. I think we can all agree than WN8 isn't particularly great either. Both systems are flawed for certain playstyles (looking at you, light tanks and artillery). Perhaps a database of a rating system that tracks performance in individual tanks, with first-game tanks being ranked at account average, until after X number of games.

There's a few perks to that:

  • Non-elited tanks will get lower-than-elited rating on the simple case of nobody is as good with a stock tank as they are with an elite tank.
  • If you're crap at light tanks but amazing at heavies, you can't just "camoflauge" your rating by sucking in one category to hide your true value as a player.
  • Conversely, you cannot camoflauge your rating by being amazing in one category, but sucking at the other.
  • Teams will be closer to the 50% chance to win mark more regularly.

Now, I don't advocate any system that increases queue time. I hate queues, especially when I can SEE that there are thousands of players online waiting to play at my tier of tank and it still takes two minutes to get into battle. Therefore, MM could do something like the following:
 

  1. Place platoons into each team. Balance number of platooned players to within 2. Do best to keep tiers somewhat equally platooned, but it's not super-critical. If by some strange twist of fate the exact number of platoons online at the battle tier is 1, oh well. Shit happens, the other team will just not have a platoon.
  2. Fill in with solopubbers. Balance Tier composition with solopubbers. Balance Tank composition with solopubbers.
  3. Quickly look through the teams with whatever SBMM method is being used. Shift players around to balance teams as best as possible.

That's it. No additional queue times, the teams are more balanced than they currently are, and everyone can find something to actually complain about.

 

Here's a more interesting (in my mind) proposition: why not try and make it to where the top tier in a battle is limited to fewer tanks than the middle tier/bottom tier individually? As long as the team compositions are better balanced, it seems that would go a long way to making players not throw their hands up and say "Fuck it, I don't stand a chance" when they're the single tier 8 tank in a tier X match. The sole exception I would make is at Tier X, Tier X/IX battles would have whatever composition they got with no VIIIs. But that's another topic entirely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that skill balancing, where each team's skill total is balanced out, is not the same as skill segregation, where the teams are not balanced but the players in the match are of a given, restricted skill range; goods playing goods, bads playing bads, in betweens playing in betweens.

Skill balancing will inevitably (if you do it right) result in good players being saddled with worse teammates than bad players - the better you are, the worse you get - in an attempt to make sure both teams have an equal chance to win. Everybody's WR will of course be pushed to the median.

Skill segregation works like the current MM, except that players are sorted into groups according to skill level, and matches are built of players entirely from one group. So matches won't be 50/50 like in skill balancing, but you'll never have to play with radically worse players.

Problems with skill balancing:

• everybody wins equally

• natural reward for skill - victory - has to be replaced with more artificial rewards like XP, credits, "ranking" and so forth

• perverse incentives created - winning is gonna happen at a given rate regardless of your actions, so farming damage makes you look better than winning

Problems with skill segregation:

• people only get better from exposure to better players

• going from being best in one bracket to being little fish in the next bigger pool will be a shock

How much fun do you think people will have when they're among the best in the middle bracket (assuming three brackets) winning maybe 75% of their matches, then improve just a little, get bumped up to the "goods" bracket, and then suddenly they've gone from being best of the middles to worst of the goods...and now they're winning maybe a third of their matches because they're among the weakest players in their bracket?

Neither sounds like a good idea to me, really. Leave it as it is. Most of the complaining I see are from (1) bad players who want to be carried, and (2) good players who hate carrying. And yes, that second category is quite real.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Random selection of 30 then skill match up from there

I hate to be a monomaniac, but you do realize this will mean:

• all teams will have even odds to win, therefore

• everybody will win as often as they lose, therefore

• everybody will win equally often, therefore

• everybody will have the same winrate

How is this something that can be considered acceptable?

It has further consequences revolving around carrying, but I'm on the phone and trying to be brief. Suffice it to say, good players will still have to carry, it now bad players could be guaranteed they will be carried to a win as often as not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Skill balancing will inevitably (if you do it right) result in good players being saddled with worse teammates than bad players - the better you are, the worse you get -

I have no idea why you still only assume two versions of skill based mm exist. What you said is simply not true if the sbm for example only balances bad players for example. I have absolutely no idea why you have that idea that in sbm the full teams need to be balanced. You do not need to balance full teams, you can balance only parts of the teams for example.

 

Problems with skill balancing:

• everybody wins equally

• natural reward for skill - victory - has to be replaced with more artificial rewards like XP, credits, "ranking" and so forth

• perverse incentives created - winning is gonna happen at a given rate regardless of your actions, so farming damage makes you look better than winning

Equal amount of wins (in badly designed sbm) is not really a problem in itself. It is only a problem if its negative consequences are not balanced (reduced income for above average players, increased income for below averages).

2nd and 3rd points sound like typical stat denier stuff though. Your actions will always positively effect the game. Non-action always has negative effect. Always. Claiming anything else is statdenier nonsense.

 

Problems with skill segregation:

• people only get better from exposure to better players

• going from being best in one bracket to being little fish in the next bigger pool will be a shock

The first one is just an assumption. Good players are rare. Seeing good player is rare. And when a bad player sees a good player he doesn't even understand why the good player does certain things. People get better from putting effort into improving. Smashing the battle button and getting into match with good player you may never even see during the match teaches nothing.

Moving up from the ladder is not going to be a shock. You can divide the wot player base in trillion different ways and you still have majority of the people in the middle of the skill distribution. Going from one division to another is simply not possible to be statistically big difference. The brackets need to be certain size to work in the matchbreaker and as such the rarity of good players will always guarantee that the top slot of the ladder will start from somewhere 53-54 area so that there are enough players in it to even make it work without huge queues. So going from 49-53 division to 53+ is huge shock? Simply not true.

Those two points are also contradictory. If going up in the ladder is a shock then why doesn't the increased amount of good players in the higher skill ladder make you play better and make you learn to play better at expotential rate?

 

Neither sounds like a good idea to me, really. Leave it as it is. Most of the complaining I see are from (1) bad players who want to be carried, and (2) good players who hate carrying. And yes, that second category is quite real.

Good old anecdotal evidence! We agree with one thing though. Both of those sbms you mentioned are indeed shit.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea why you still only assume two versions of skill based mm exist. What you said is simply not true if the sbm for example only balances bad players for example. I have absolutely no idea why you have that idea that in sbm the full teams need to be balanced. You do not need to balance full teams, you can balance only parts of the teams for example.

Equal amount of wins (in badly designed sbm) is not really a problem in itself. It is only a problem if its negative consequences are not balanced (reduced income for above average players, increased income for below averages).

2nd and 3rd points sound like typical stat denier stuff though. Your actions will always positively effect the game. Non-action always has negative effect. Always. Claiming anything else is statdenier nonsense.

The first one is just an assumption. Good players are rare. Seeing good player is rare. And when a bad player sees a good player he doesn't even understand why the good player does certain things. People get better from putting effort into improving. Smashing the battle button and getting into match with good player you may never even see during the match teaches nothing.

Moving up from the ladder is not going to be a shock. You can divide the wot player base in trillion different ways and you still have majority of the people in the middle of the skill distribution. Going from one division to another is simply not possible to be statistically big difference. The brackets need to be certain size to work in the matchbreaker and as such the rarity of good players will always guarantee that the top slot of the ladder will start from somewhere 53-54 area so that there are enough players in it to even make it work without huge queues. So going from 49-53 division to 53+ is huge shock? Simply not true.

Those two points are also contradictory. If going up in the ladder is a shock then why doesn't the increased amount of good players in the higher skill ladder make you play better and make you learn to play better at expotential rate?

Good old anecdotal evidence! We agree with one thing though. Both of those sbms you mentioned are indeed shit.

A few quick points:

• I'm not any sort of denier. If you use skill balancing, then yes your actions affect the outcome of that match - but no, in the long run your actions don't affect the rate at which you win because the balancing is based off your performance and always adjusts your teams to compensate. The better you perform the worse teammates you'll have in order to make sure you're no more likely to win than the other team. To deny this is to deny math.

• By saying "just balance the reds out, not the whole team" you're just asking for a lesser, watered-down version of skill balancing. In that case, the MM wouldn't push everybody to an equal winrate, but it would push them towards an equal winrate. This applies to all partial forms of skill balancing. If you want the MM to ensure nothing less than a 45% chance to win and nothing better than 55%, then the absolute worst player will have a 45% winrate and the absolute best possible winrate will be 55% because the MM will be rigged to ensure this...and yes, "rigged" is an applicable term here.

• Everybody being assured to win equally IS a fundamental problem, although in this case it's a matter of opinion and values, not math. In my view, the NATURAL reward of skill is victory; nobody wins all the time, but the better you are the more likely you are to win. This is how we experience improved skill in just about everything else in life; all other things being equal, the more skilled soldier is more likely to survive, the more skilled businessman is more likely to prosper, the more skilled athlete is more likely to win. The more skilled WoTer should be more likely to win. Skill balancing removed that possibility and asks people to be contented with some abstract "rating", which might well reward activities not conducive to winning (remember EFF?) plus extra "material" rewards, like XP, medals and credits. None of these, nice as they are, can take the place of winning.

The criticisms about skill segregation take more typing than I have time for at the moment. More later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FlorbFnarb, you claim that skill should be what gives someone a chance of winning. And I cannot say that I disagree with that.

However, this requires you completely ignore the fact that the current MM system makes it to where you either get teams that guarantee you lose, guarantee you win, or (very rarely) teams that are equally balanced.

The system already sets you up to succeed or fail in X number of matches...and you can't do shit about it!

 

Like I said before, the ONLY people that complain about balanced teams are those who cry "But my win raaaaaaate, noooooooooooo!" You will still earn more experience and money than everyone else, IF YOU OUTPLAY THEM. Your skill still influences the battle: if you play sub-optimally, you hurt your team's odds of winning. If you play above your norm, you help your team's odds of winning.

Oh, but it means you'll have a harder time just roflstomping pubbie teams that are all tomatoes? Cry me a river.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen plenty of teams dominated by green blue and purple players get rolled by a team of apparent scrubs in solo play.

 

A team which sticks together and cooperates has a better chance than one that has 15 individuals that do not.

 

Their are other factors ay play here like tank selection, maps, and tank tier.  You can't change one without affecting the others. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You've seen it, yes. We've all seen it. But you don't see it with regularity, and that's the key difference.

 

Read the rest there's more to it than just skill level. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And if you go back one page, you'll see that I advocate balancing other issues long before even considering SBMM for WoT ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

No skill MM, thanks. I like my games ROFLSTOMP.

 

Means I voted 'no'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WG isn't going to do all that, so its a moot point.

Bottom line is most players ie scrubs don't want to wait more than 20 or 30 secs for a battle to form up and changing all that would increase the que time.  Why? Because they're impatient.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want more than a 30 second wait either, doesn't mean you have to increase queue times to achieve balance. You'd still be drawing from the random solopubbers to fill positions around tier/tank class requirements, and I don't even recommend trying SBMM until someone comes up with a valid system that works across all tanks (or individually maintains a system tuned to each and every tank, which is a lot of work).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't see it happening, and with WG's attitude of either working as intended or we'll get to it when we get to it ... don't hold your breath.

Many of the tanks aren't even balanced, and in my mind that should come first and foremost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FlorbFnarb, you claim that skill should be what gives someone a chance of winning. And I cannot say that I disagree with that.

However, this requires you completely ignore the fact that the current MM system makes it to where you either get teams that guarantee you lose, guarantee you win, or (very rarely) teams that are equally balanced.

The system already sets you up to succeed or fail in X number of matches...and you can't do shit about it!

Like I said before, the ONLY people that complain about balanced teams are those who cry "But my win raaaaaaate, noooooooooooo!" You will still earn more experience and money than everyone else, IF YOU OUTPLAY THEM. Your skill still influences the battle: if you play sub-optimally, you hurt your team's odds of winning. If you play above your norm, you help your team's odds of winning.

Oh, but it means you'll have a harder time just roflstomping pubbie teams that are all tomatoes? Cry me a river.

No, if skill is balanced on both teams, good players will not win more than bad players. A 50% chance to win is a 50% chance to win for everybody on that team, good, bad, or in between. That's just math.

And as I said, it's absurd to say "it's okay that everybody wins and loses equally, because the good players get paid better". You're removing the NATURAL reward for skill - victory - and attempting to make people not care by giving them secondary rewards - credits, XP, and medals.

I don't play for medals.

I don't play for XP.

I don't play for credits.

I play to win.

Skill balancing means that how good or bad I play, I'm not gonna affect how often I win. If I start potatoing every match, the MM will give me better teammates. If I start improving, the MM will give me worse teammates.

And your initial comment about skill is off base. Yes, the presence of 15 man teams means skill is already partially diluted. Larger teams would increase this dilution, smaller teams would reduce it. I expect bad players will have phenomenally bad win rates in the Chaffee races, since they have three man teams.

But sure, there are matches you're unlikely to win, and some you're unlikely to lose. So what? The best player won't win 100% of his wins anyway, so that means we should accept a system that simply forces everybody to 50%, or 48%, or whatever the median is because of draws? No.

Besides, none of those matches are foregone conclusions. Those 25% matches people cry about - you still win those one time in four. That's definitely a chance worth taking. It is by no means something the entire game should be restructured to avoid. Most of an average player's matches are gonna be in the 45%-55% range that most people clamor for anyway. Even a very bad player still wins more than one match in three, and even the best players lose one match in four.

There are no forgone conclusions. All this commotion clamoring for some form of skill-based MM is based upon making a mountain out of a molehill: having to deal with a 25% or 74% chance to win once in a while is not something the WoT community needs to get its collective panties in a twist about.

But unfortunately, too many of us have, even here. What the hell ever happened to bragging about carrying? Are we really reduced to a point where people are seriously complaining that they had to carry? I mean, a little grousing about pubbies is fine, but come on. I understand the baddies complaining and wanting skill-based MM; they just wanna be carried to wins, because they're sick of losing. But good players? Blues, even purples? I don't get it. What the hell happened to second place is a set of steak knives?

Link to post
Share on other sites

-snip

Skill balancing means that how good or bad I play, I'm not gonna affect how often I win. If I start potatoing every match, the MM will give me better teammates. If I start improving, the MM will give me worse teammates.

 

 

This is it in a nutshell why it is bad.

 

Bad's are basically getting a handicap bonus and good players get handicapped.

 

WTF is this Common Core Math or a competetive game?

 

Dumbing shit down so the retards can win a few more matches is garbage.

 

Random is fair and better ... impartiality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which ultimately means that if this is what we're balancing for:

 

I don't play for medals.

I don't play for XP.

I don't play for credits.

I play to win.

 

the goal should NOT be about balancing the game so that teams are evenly matched but balancing the game so that one player of sufficient skill can turn the tide of battle against the entire squad of 15 opponents if necessary. To get to a position where you can close enough to always carry if you're good enough, and therefore own your personal win rate.

 

I think that's utterly ridiculous for a team game (and it's why I find it odd that WG puts win rate front and centre over a more sensible measure of personal performance), but in order to do that you'd have to introduce mechanics that would totally break the game in its current state.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...