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

You keep insisting that being better means you will have worse teammates. That's simply untrue. Being better than average means that you have a higher odds of facing off against someone who is equally better than average. It doesn't mean you'll get more scrubs than you already do, it just means you now have the opportunity to always face someone who can challenge you, if you bump into each other in battle.

Want to maintain a +50% win rate? Constantly improve your gameplay. If you consistently play better than you're rated, you'll consistently have a higher than 50% win rate.

Furthermore, why are you so certain that you'll have a 50% win rate anyway? There will be battles where your counterpart is in a tank that is the paper to your scissors. There will be battles where you're a T95 in Dragon Ridge (well, not really, but you get the idea). There's still a randomness inherent to battles that will be unavoidable. You just don't want to have to face off against people who can be an actual challenge, because you like to roflstomp pubbies.

You want to roflstomp? Play another game mode. Play CW with -G-, if you think you are good enough for it. Some of us would rather see a matchmaker without predetermined odds, thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been improving my WR and WN8 the past 15K games .... I don't need a handicap just more trigger time.

If I can improve so can anyone if they apply themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep insisting that being better means you will have worse teammates. That's simply untrue. Being better than average means that you have a higher odds of facing off against someone who is equally better than average. It doesn't mean you'll get more scrubs than you already do, it just means you now have the opportunity to always face someone who can challenge you, if you bump into each other in battle.

Want to maintain a +50% win rate? Constantly improve your gameplay. If you consistently play better than you're rated, you'll consistently have a higher than 50% win rate.

Furthermore, why are you so certain that you'll have a 50% win rate anyway? There will be battles where your counterpart is in a tank that is the paper to your scissors. There will be battles where you're a T95 in Dragon Ridge (well, not really, but you get the idea). There's still a randomness inherent to battles that will be unavoidable. You just don't want to have to face off against people who can be an actual challenge, because you like to roflstomp pubbies.

You want to roflstomp? Play another game mode. Play CW with -G-, if you think you are good enough for it. Some of us would rather see a matchmaker without predetermined odds, thanks.

 

No no no.  This is simple math:

  1. If the teams are balanced skill-wise, then both teams have an equal chance to win - 50% chance to win if you discount draws.
  2. If the teams both have a 50% chance to win, every individual in the match has a 50% chance to win, and it doesn't matter whether they individually are good or bad.
  3. If a person has a 50% chance to win each and every match, given a large sample size, they WILL have a 50% win rate.
  4. To the degree that there is any variation from that 50%, it can only be attributed to natural randomness...which diminishes as the sample size grows.

It's that simple.

 

As for "wanting to roflstomp", I want it so that getting better makes me more likely to win.  I find it objectionable for any game to attempt to make sure everybody wins at the same rate, regardless of skill.  That is not a game, that is an exercise in PRETENDING to compete.  If I and a terribad and a unicum are all equally likely to win, what the fuck is the point of playing in the first place?  I don't want handicaps.  I don't want better players getting weaker teammates and weaker players getting better teammates, just to ensure every team is equally likely to win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just ask yourself one simple question: You really want the guys who came up with this (80K players on the server)

 

 

 

work on a skill-MM?

 

SirCuntFlapTheDestroyed......   Epic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your WN8 improvement won't change. You'll still do more damage. You'll still get more kills.

No other game bothers to worry about win rate. No other system gives a damn about the "average" approaching 50% (which I'm not sold on). By your logic your teams should have equally good odds of being better or worse, yet your average is 54%, not 50.

You play well, you win. You play poorly, you lose. It's no different than the roulette you currently partake in, except you'll have opportunities to actually play someone who doesn't suck at the game. You want to play games where skill is all that matters, and you can win or lose by your talent alone, there are Team Battles, Clan Wars, Strongholds, Tournaments. Play a mode where it is literally the skill of you and your teammates, and no random factors beyond RNG. The modes you want already exist in-game.

But other than "Waaaaaaah, my win rate will suffer (and nothing else, at all, will suffer except my win rate) and therefore it's not good for the game!" you haven't provided a single argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have no basis to prove skill based MM will work better than the current system as it is non existant, only theories and conjecture.

 

Over a period of time the current system evens out anyways between good and bad teams over an average sample size.  Why muck it up? 

 

Even though the whining like "OMG the other team is two Unicorn platoons we're doomed" will still persist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have no proof it doesn't. Why continue to use a broken system based on theories and conjecture?

Instead of having everything "even out" over a period of time, we can have it more even every time.

 

Your arguments are not valid arguments, as they're just as viable for me to use as you. At least my theories result in something that would be less broken on a match-by-match case, done properly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore, why are you so certain that you'll have a 50% win rate anyway? There will be battles where your counterpart is in a tank that is the paper to your scissors. There will be battles where you're a T95 in Dragon Ridge (well, not really, but you get the idea). There's still a randomness inherent to battles that will be unavoidable. 

Exactly – randomness. So the outcome of the game will be random and the average result over the long run will be a win rate of 50% (minus draws). But we do not want random outcome. We want skill-dependent outcome.

 

Some of us would rather see a matchmaker without predetermined odds, thanks.

So why are you asking for a matchmaker with predetermined odds of 50%? :)
 
Link to post
Share on other sites

You haven't even definitively proven that the odds are 50%. You argue that randomness results in 50% win rates, and yet right now, the game is as random a matchup as you can possibly make (without going overboard). By your logic, everyone should be approaching average winrates, yet somehow the unicums don't.

Hmmmmm. I think your theories might be just a little flawed.
 

At least my randomness comes from human decision making. Random decision to play my heavy instead of my TD. Random map choice means I will play my tank according to how I think it should be played, encountering a random set of opponents based on what they decided to play when MM randomly chose them. How well I do against the enemies I face will determine how my part of the battle goes: how the other 14 players handle their conflicts determines their part. The game cannot control for that. The results will be that the team who plays it more skillfully will win.

You claim you want skill to be the deciding factor, yet argue against anything that allows skill to be the only deciding factor. Logic much?

EDIT: Because I maybe haven't been clear, the game won't select players for a battle based on their skill. In an ideal MM situation, it will draw 30 players doing its best to balance Tiers, Types, and Platoons first (in that order). After making selections, it will do what it can to swap players around (based on tier and type and platoons) to balance the team skills. You'll still have just as many tomatoes and just as many unicums in a battle. There may be battles where there's only the one platoon of unicums, a dozen blues, and the rest tomatoes. In my vision, it wouldn't pit all of the blues against the unicums and tomatoes. It would pit the top three blues against the unicums, then balance the other 7 blues and all the tomatoes between the teams. Is it a truly fair battle? No. Is it more fair than the battles where it's the unicum platoon and half the blues against mostly tomatoes? Yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You argue that randomness results in 50% win rates, and yet right now, the game is as random a matchup as you can possibly make (without going overboard). By your logic, everyone should be approaching average winrates, yet somehow the unicums don't.

Yes. Because unicums have single non-random factor, which determines their above-average results: their skill. By introducing skill-based MM skill will become a random factor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

See my performance for the last 7 days, particularly yesterday.

 

Win rate is at least partially luck. I rage quit last night after seeing yet another team of total tomatoes with just my tiny little bit of green as a garnish against packs of rampaging berries of various shades.

 

For the last several weeks, I've been on the other end of the scale a bit. For the last several months I've been on the receiving end of the "you're not good enough to carry" e-cock run by MM.

 

I still don't think skill based MM is a good idea. It may help level out matches (HUGE maybe) but it doesn't actually do what I think we all want: make the player base get better.

 

Nothing will do that unless it tells them they're bad and rewards them for getting better.

 

I've thought this through a lot as a recently reforming tomato. I didn't learn much of anything in this game until I came here. And even then, knowing what I was doing right or wrong was nearly impossible in the heat of battle.

 

The fundamental problem with the matchmaker is not the matchmaker. It's the player base.

 

IMO this conversation is - or at least should be - dead.

 

Improve the player base and MM sorts itself out. Hmmm. That might need to be in a signature line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no way to objectively measure absolute skill in this game, only relative skill. If (current) purples only played other purples, their stats would have to decline, and it doesn't which stat you look at - kills, damage, whatever. Not everybody on a team of 15 purples can get 5 kills, after all.

 

All of the ratings systems assume you are looking at a single random distribution of players, and measure performance relatve to that.

 

In short, SBMM is not just a bad idea, it is not possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The debate is dead, but not because MM is not viable. People just refuse to admit that their win rate is more important to them than a matchup where you might actually be challenged on a regular basis, instead of only randomly.

There's really no argument to be "correct" either way. Personally, I hope they implement everything in my list in the order it's seen, but knowing WG, they're going to try and implement SBMM, screw it up, and everyone will say "See? It was a terrible idea."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your WN8 improvement won't change. You'll still do more damage. You'll still get more kills.

No other game bothers to worry about win rate. No other system gives a damn about the "average" approaching 50% (which I'm not sold on). By your logic your teams should have equally good odds of being better or worse, yet your average is 54%, not 50.

You play well, you win. You play poorly, you lose. It's no different than the roulette you currently partake in, except you'll have opportunities to actually play someone who doesn't suck at the game. You want to play games where skill is all that matters, and you can win or lose by your talent alone, there are Team Battles, Clan Wars, Strongholds, Tournaments. Play a mode where it is literally the skill of you and your teammates, and no random factors beyond RNG. The modes you want already exist in-game.

But other than "Waaaaaaah, my win rate will suffer (and nothing else, at all, will suffer except my win rate) and therefore it's not good for the game!" you haven't provided a single argument.

"No other game." Are you seriously claiming this is the only game where good players win more than bad players?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have no proof it doesn't. Why continue to use a broken system based on theories and conjecture?

Instead of having everything "even out" over a period of time, we can have it more even every time.

Your arguments are not valid arguments, as they're just as viable for me to use as you. At least my theories result in something that would be less broken on a match-by-match case, done properly.

No, it wouldn't. There's nothing at all "broken" about the current setup. Good players being more likely to win than bad players is not "broken", it's how games are supposed to be.

You haven't even definitively proven that the odds are 50%. You argue that randomness results in 50% win rates, and yet right now, the game is as random a matchup as you can possibly make (without going overboard). By your logic, everyone should be approaching average winrates, yet somehow the unicums don't.

Hmmmmm. I think your theories might be just a little flawed.

At least my randomness comes from human decision making. Random decision to play my heavy instead of my TD. Random map choice means I will play my tank according to how I think it should be played, encountering a random set of opponents based on what they decided to play when MM randomly chose them. How well I do against the enemies I face will determine how my part of the battle goes: how the other 14 players handle their conflicts determines their part. The game cannot control for that. The results will be that the team who plays it more skillfully will win.

You claim you want skill to be the deciding factor, yet argue against anything that allows skill to be the only deciding factor. Logic much?

EDIT: Because I maybe haven't been clear, the game won't select players for a battle based on their skill. In an ideal MM situation, it will draw 30 players doing its best to balance Tiers, Types, and Platoons first (in that order). After making selections, it will do what it can to swap players around (based on tier and type and platoons) to balance the team skills. You'll still have just as many tomatoes and just as many unicums in a battle. There may be battles where there's only the one platoon of unicums, a dozen blues, and the rest tomatoes. In my vision, it wouldn't pit all of the blues against the unicums and tomatoes. It would pit the top three blues against the unicums, then balance the other 7 blues and all the tomatoes between the teams. Is it a truly fair battle? No. Is it more fair than the battles where it's the unicum platoon and half the blues against mostly tomatoes? Yes.

I'm beginning to think you're just having trouble following the math. Nobody said randomness makes everybody equal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear about randomness - we want the team and enemy selection to be random. This means that teammates and enemies will over time be at the mean for performance and therefore eliminated as a factor in your rate of winning. If everybody gets (in the long run) the same teammates and the same enemies, the better or worse you are, the more or less you will win.

What you are asking for is for our teammates to not all be the same - your method very specifically gives better teammates to bad players than to good players, because that is the only way you can arrange for teams to be even.

To put it most simply - we are arguing for equality of opportunity, which is what we have now; you are arguing that the MM needs to be rigged to produce an equality of result, and that is a terrible idea which is not going to come to pass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few quick points:

• 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.

It is not watered down version of skill based mm just like current mm with 2 tier spread is not watered down version of the old 4-5 tier spread mm.

Once again I'm explaining to you just try to listen, try to understand. Skill based mm can have many purposes, many ways to chieve that goal and many ways to fail it. Just like any other kind of mm. Sbm can focus on reducing the variance or it can focus on totally removing any variance of skill difference between two teams. Just like rng mm can just take 15 random tank from the queue and make two teams it can also aim to make the tier spread of both teams somewhat similar. Even if the current wg mm fails even that very basic goal it at least is designed around that principle.

And the rigged mm. You did not say that. You look the more like stat denier the more words come out of your mouth. Rigged is derogatory term used by morons who don't understand basic statistics. Don't be that person and stop using that moronic word...

To put it most simply - we are arguing for equality of opportunity, which is what we have now; you are arguing that the MM needs to be rigged to produce an equality of result, and that is a terrible idea which is not going to come to pass.

More bullshit. We do not want equality of results. We want to reduce roflstomps and battles which are insanely skewed towards one team. Not all battles but just the most imbalanced ones.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not watered down version of skill based mm just like current mm with 2 tier spread is not watered down version of the old 4-5 tier spread mm.

Once again I'm explaining to you just try to listen, try to understand. Skill based mm can have many purposes, many ways to chieve that goal and many ways to fail it. Just like any other kind of mm. Sbm can focus on reducing the variance or it can focus on totally removing any variance of skill difference between two teams. Just like rng mm can just take 15 random tank from the queue and make two teams it can also aim to make the tier spread of both teams somewhat similar. Even if the current wg mm fails even that very basic goal it at least is designed around that principle.

And the rigged mm. You did not say that. You look the more like stat denier the more words come out of your mouth. Rigged is derogatory term used by morons who don't understand basic statistics. Don't be that person and stop using that moronic word...

More bullshit. We do not want equality of results. We want to reduce roflstomps and battles which are insanely skewed towards one team. Not all battles but just the most imbalanced ones.

If you want the skill evened out between the teams, then yes, math says you want equality of results.

And as I said earlier - asking for the skill difference between teams to be reduced (which is what asking for only the reds to be evenly spread is) certainly is a case of asking for the effects of skill to be reduced. Not eliminated - reduced. The bell curve if winrates will definitely be narrowed, possibly considerably if you define "bad players" broadly enough.

Also, enough with the "stat denier" comments. Using the word "rigged" is not "stat denying" when you are as a matter of plain fact asking for everybody to not get the same teammates. Skill balancing as a matter of objective fact DOES saddle better players with worse teammates than worse players get. If that isn't rigging, I don't know what is; skill balancing is a finger on the scale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not sure whether my reply will get tied into this or not, and I may be thinking of the wrong thing here, and just confused as to what OP is referring to, but here goes.

 

People say if youre bad you will be put on bad teams going against good teams, with that in mind how do people who are considered to be on the "good" end of the scale get there, because all people start out relatively the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you guys think a skill based MM would do to you? Do you think it will make the game more or less interesting/enjoyable for you?

 

If elo, I'm in.

 

If not elo, I'm out.

 

I'd rather have the chance to fight and claw my way up the W/R and WN8 scale against everyone else rather than being driven to an asymptotic 50% W/R.

 

And Atlas Shrugged

Link to post
Share on other sites

You haven't even definitively proven that the odds are 50%. You argue that randomness results in 50% win rates, and yet right now, the game is as random a matchup as you can possibly make (without going overboard). By your logic, everyone should be approaching average winrates, yet somehow the unicums don't.

Hmmmmm. I think your theories might be just a little flawed.

The entire point of skill based MM is to make the matches a toss up. You put equally skilled teams against each other, and let random events decide the outcome. Who has better RNG today?

The net result of skill based MM is coin flipping. Most of the enjoyment I derive from this game comes from my ego-inflating perception that I am somehow better than the poor fools I just roflstomped. If a skill-based MM got implemented, most of my enjoyment of this game would evaporate and I would quit.

Edit: When doing a statistical study, you conrol for as many variables as you can and allow one to influence the outcome of the experiments. This allows you to determine if what you are testing is random or having an actual effect.

If you then proceed to control for skill, what the fuck do you have left?

Essentially: Why fucking bother when anything you do is not at all likely to influence the outcome? Flip that coin, baddies. I'm sticking to my weighted D20.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an aside here: let's be clear with our terms. Skill BALANCING will drive everybody's WR to the median - 50%, or really 48% or so because of draws. Skill SEGREGATION - "league" or "skill tier" or "ladder" systems - have their own set of glaring problems, but every match having 50-50 odds is not one of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, the only thing that's come to mind for this not to be an unmitigated disaster is skill-rewarded MM, where skillwise, uphill battles that are pulled off would get some bonus if you win, and that's it. No less reward if the 'stacked' team wins, just scaled bonusi if there's really a massive slant. Though it'd reward the shit out of rerollers rip. 

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...