Jump to content

Recommended Posts

http://ritastatusreport.blogspot.nl/2015/03/armored-warfare-will-have-skill.html?m=1

 

So AW is doing what players have been begging WG for 3 years now ...

 

For me, I don't really want skilled MM.  That is, I don't mind playing in battles crowded by pubbies/potatoes/...  Hell, I consider myself to be barely any better than most anyways.

 

However, what I do really dislike in WoT is the unbalanced MM.  So often I see teams of complete green-blue-purple against teams of red-orange-yellow.  Now I'm not saying I'm always in the worse team, that does balance out in the end.  But I don't understand how hard it would be to take the same 30 players and switch the teams around to spread the skill level (in other words: balanced MM).  Often this can be done even with the same tanks that are in the battle, but if not, let the MM have 5 seconds longer to fill the gaps ...

I'll try just as hard as in any battle, but in my opinion, it's not that fun.  Even if you are on the winning side.  Steam rolling the enemy team, barely doing any damage ...

 

*thoughts?*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. Skill-based MM tends to generate stale games, while also artificially pulling everyone's W/R to 50% (there will always be the occasional shitter at 45% or kewei at 60%+ though)

...

And as lunaughty pointed out, not making the skill-based MM as a "ranked" system a la ELO is going to be the main crippling factor.

I do agree that balanced MM is needed for less ROFLstomp games, but eh, I doubt WG is going to act on that until after AW release. I mean, the code for that is somewhat done for team battles...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends how they implement it as to whether or not I'll consider it a plus

 

One immediate bonus AW has over WoT in regards to this is a co-operative PvE mode where, one would imagine, you can unlock and level up tanks.  That means that good players won't be forced to have harsh MM to grind out tanks unless they choose to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another BS thread about "skilled MM", yet nobody ever fucking considers that there are vastly different implementations. The two most important goals you have to choose from are either balance or separation. Obsidian chose to go for balance. That's probably better than totally random BS like in WoT, but you will still have to deal with loads of mongos every single battle. Another important thing we don't know yet is their metric for player skill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another BS thread about "skilled MM", yet nobody ever fucking considers that there are vastly different implementations. The two most important goals you have to choose from are either balance or separation. Obsidian chose to go for balance. That's probably better than totally random BS like in WoT, but you will still have to deal with loads of mongos every single battle. Another important thing we don't know yet is their metric for player skill.

Rumours have it that they'll balance by personality rating

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great time for AW to experiment as it is in the early stages of the game. Hopefully someone wises up and figures out that a skill based Match Maker is one of the biggest things that people ask for, when they have no idea what effect it will have.

 

I was hoping that AW was not going to become as statistic driven (as WoT is) however with the release of this idea I think the game might be taking a few steps backwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obsidian chose to go for balance. That's probably better than totally random BS like in WoT, but you will still have to deal with loads of mongos every single battle. 

 

So you would also prefer some kind of balanced MM?

 

 

Another important thing we don't know yet is their metric for player skill.

 

Metrics don't matter.  If one would look at your WN5,WN6,WN7, ... or WG rating instead of WN8, would you rate lower than unicum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great time for AW to experiment as it is in the early stages of the game. Hopefully someone wises up and figures out that a skill based Match Maker is one of the biggest things that people ask for, when they have no idea what effect it will have.

 

I was hoping that AW was not going to become as statistic driven (as WoT is) however with the release of this idea I think the game might be taking a few steps backwards.

 

1. Please enlighten us.

2. WoT has no skillbased MM and is totally statsdriven. How do you draw the conclusion that it makes a significant difference at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This could work with AW.  It really depends on other aspects, though.

 

If I can level tanks outside of the skill based format, I think it has a chance.  One of my key issues with WoT trying to go skill based was the unavailability of any other mode.  If I can get my stock grinds done without having to be at my best, and only play the ranked mode when I'm ready to face equal competition, it will likely be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you would also prefer some kind of balanced MM?

 

Do you read? I would prefer separation by a huge margin.

Metrics don't matter.  If one would look at your WN5,WN6,WN7, ... or WG rating instead of WN8, would you rate lower than unicum?

 

They could come up with something really flawed like old ER. Or WG's personal rating. It's not so much about how good players perform according to the metrics, because they will be good anyway. What's more concerning is the fact that an inaccurate metric overrates complete scrublords. Besides, (solo) WR is way better than any other metric and doesn't encourage any form of retarded play. That cannot work in the regular queue for a number of reasons, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Metrics don't matter.  If one would look at your WN5,WN6,WN7, ... or WG rating instead of WN8, would you rate lower than unicum?

 

Metrics do matter a lot, though, since they affect playstyle: Look at how something completely unofficial and unsupported like XVM could shit up entire tiers of play because everyone wanted to pad their Hellcat, Pz1C, KV-1S and so on. The vehicles were always in the game but the real shitstorm didn't begin until you could get bigger numbers driving them. Now imagine if damage or kills or WR became the primary stat to pad: The in-game environment would be hilariously toxic in an instant because you'd be "stealing" from others, the random newbie can't carry the game or everyone CHAI snipes.

 

It matters a lot how Obsidian puts such a rating system together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh, I hate games with skill based MM.

 

The biggest flaw is the system gaming that happens.  For each time you YOLO twice, you can completely own worse players, thus giving yourself a large number of good games and screwing 100% of the players that you play with.  

 

If you think seal clubbing is bad at tier 2, imagine what happen in a system that enables (encourages?) seal clubbing in top tiers.  

 

Skill MM rewards the sandbaggers in a way that random MM never does.  

 

I feel it also punishes you for getting better by reducing the impact that you can have, and punishes you for wanting to play while tired, since you will have to face strong players no matter what your mental state is.

 

If it's not an ELO system, this will be the biggest mistake possible.

 

ELO is great for chess.  But it completely fails for other games.  It's useless for a similar strategy game: go.

What makes you think that a single player game rating will work for a team game?  

 

Imagine a match tier 4-6, with players of ratings 1400-1600, averaging 1500.  

I'm a 1600 player in a tier 4.  My team loses, how big a hit do I take?  I may have been the best player on my team, but its tough to carry from the bottom.  Should I be punished for losing in an insufficient tank?  

 

Will we give players an ELO rating for each class of tanks?  

Or will we punish players who gained a great rating in heavies every time they try to learn lights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ELO is great for chess.  But it completely fails for other games.  It's useless for a similar strategy game: go.

What makes you think that a single player game rating will work for a team game?  

 

seems to work for league of legends, dota 2 and cs:go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seems to work for league of legends, dota 2 and cs:go.

How weesh puts it gives me a completely different perspective now...,

In those games you mentioned, teams are limited in size (5 v 5 in LoL? 8 v 8 in CS:GO iirc)

Here in WoT and AW, its 15 vs 15, so the impact of any individual player is going to be significantly smaller compared to smaller team games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, what I do really dislike in WoT is the unbalanced MM.  So often I see teams of complete green-blue-purple against teams of red-orange-yellow.  Now I'm not saying I'm always in the worse team, that does balance out in the end.  But I don't understand how hard it would be to take the same 30 players and switch the teams around to spread the skill level (in other words: balanced MM).  Often this can be done even with the same tanks that are in the battle, but if not, let the MM have 5 seconds longer to fill the gaps ...

I'll try just as hard as in any battle, but in my opinion, it's not that fun.  Even if you are on the winning side.  Steam rolling the enemy team, barely doing any damage ...

 

*thoughts?*

I think balancing the teams to a smaller difference in average "skill" in WoT would only add a fraction of a second to wait times for most players. Usually it means swapping around a pair of platoons or a few players. When I looked at the unbalanced battles before, I noticed that often it would only take swapping a few players to turn a XVM 32% chance to win battle into an XVM 40% chance to win battle.

I'm sure if Wargaming wanted to, they could use the WoT PR to limit the average skill difference between teams to 10-15% at most. That would keep most of the battles in the XVM 40-60% chance to win range which would get rid of the guaranteed losses and guaranteed wins for most players. When you get below an XVM chance to win of 40% most players win rates drop to 20-25% for those battles. It probably wold make the players happy to get rid of those guaranteed losses.

AW using a system that limits the skill difference between teams could also work well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://ritastatusreport.blogspot.nl/2015/03/armored-warfare-will-have-skill.html?m=1

So AW is doing what players have been begging WG for 3 years now ...

For me, I don't really want skilled MM. That is, I don't mind playing in battles crowded by pubbies/potatoes/... Hell, I consider myself to be barely any better than most anyways.

However, what I do really dislike in WoT is the unbalanced MM. So often I see teams of complete green-blue-purple against teams of red-orange-yellow. Now I'm not saying I'm always in the worse team, that does balance out in the end. But I don't understand how hard it would be to take the same 30 players and switch the teams around to spread the skill level (in other words: balanced MM). Often this can be done even with the same tanks that are in the battle, but if not, let the MM have 5 seconds longer to fill the gaps ...

I'll try just as hard as in any battle, but in my opinion, it's not that fun. Even if you are on the winning side. Steam rolling the enemy team, barely doing any damage ...

*thoughts?*

First, unless you are a true average player, you will be on one side of the win rate fence or the other simply because of the influence you have on the battle.

Second, I very much doubt that skill mm is as easy to balance as you think it would be. Even if it's an Elo system, how would you balance out individual players in random games playing a semi team dependent game? It's as if you wanted to rank all basketball players in the world based on local gym play with random teams that are together for one game only. It's difficult to measure your individual output. Damage/kills is a decent metric, akin to points and assists, but it is not all encompassing. In this example Kewei is Kobe in his prime.

Third, in your example you would rearrange the teams so that skill, let's use personality rating, would be roughly equivalent between both teams. In many top tier matches that's going to mean all the greens are on one team, and blunicums/oranges/reds/greys are on the other. This sounds terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seems to work for league of legends, dota 2 and cs:go.

 

In LoL, do you have an ELO rating for your whole account, or one per class/hero?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Please enlighten us.

2. WoT has no skillbased MM and is totally statsdriven. How do you draw the conclusion that it makes a significant difference at all?

 

I have no clue, which is why I said it is a great time (i.e, early alpha) for AW to experiment with this. From my experience a lot of players from WoT (that are usually statistically lower than the average) cry for a skill-based match maker thinking it will solve all the problems. I would be lying if I said I am not skeptical about it but I am keeping an open mind and willing to trying it out before making any real comments (be good or bad) about this new suggested Match-Maker.

 

WoT has no skill-based match maker, you are correct. I was referring to the community being very statistics driven and I am hoping that AW will be more relaxed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WoT has no skill-based match maker, you are correct. I was referring to the community being very statistics driven and I am hoping that AW will be more relaxed.

 

As a unicum player, do you think it seems more relaxing for all your random games to be filled with a cross section of players, or with 29 other unicums?

 

Woudln't the AW community be rating driven rather than stat driven?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seems to work for league of legends, dota 2 and cs:go.

 

 

Those games have smaller teams, nothing analogous to the tier system, (roughly) balanced classes, and respawns.

 

Not as familiar with dota and cs, but I know lol shows you what heroes each player is choosing before the match starts.  AW does not.  This leads to situations where one team might get better heavy players in a brawling map, or better scout players in a vision map, etc.  We could also see one team getting good players in the top tiers, while the other gets good players in lower tiers.

 

There's no way to know if the system will work, until we see more details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no way to know if the system will work, until we see more details.

 

Agreed.

I certainly don't think we can extol the merits of it this early when so much is unknown.  

 

Personally, AW has to not only be better than WoT, it has to be a LOT better.  After 11k battles, I'm pretty invested at this point.  It would feel bad to leave it all behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In LoL, do you have an ELO rating for your whole account, or one per class/hero?

whole account. it's also hidden behind a league system.

Share this post


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...