Jump to content
Bullroarerr

Shitters ruin the game

Recommended Posts

I posted the below over on the WoT Suggestions/Feedback forums, repeating here for the heck of it. I kept it specifically Statistically simple since most don't have the math skills anyways.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I came up with a simple metric to measure impact bad players have on teams.

 

Metric = (Number of bad players on my team) - (Number of bad players on other team)

 

I decided to define bad players as WN8 450 or lower, regardless of number of games played

 

So a Metric of 2 means my team had two more bad players then other team ( could 4 to 2, 2 to 0, 5 to 3...) it is a relative metric purely.

 

Likewise a metric of 0 only means both teams had = number of bad players. After 624 matches tracked the numbers are compelling

xqi0t0.jpg

The take away are:

 

A.  +1,0, or -1 relative bad player counts lead to relatively competitive games from the point of view that your win % remains statistically stable stable.

 

B. +2 and -2 or above the force of team mortality created by the extra bad players lead to large statistical deviations ( approaching certainty at +4/-4 or more) in your global win rate

 

C. About 65% of game are +1,0,-1 category of metric, which is fine

 

D. 35% of games +2/-2 or greater and heavily( to near certain) disadvantaged against the team 2 or more really bad players

 

E. Bad players have more impact on result of game then any other factor 

 

~~~~~~~~Suggestion~~~~~

Simple realistic solution would be for MatchMaker to add one extra step and look at number of players with 46.99% global win rate or lower and if one team is +3 or grater, just move one bad player from +3 or greater team to the other team. This one simple change would drastically improve game win rate stability from 65% of matches being competitive to more in line of 85%

 

~~~~~~

I did my undergraduate work in applied math and graduate work in statistics. I work as an Actuary and model all sorts of human events for a living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ezz said:

So being shit isn't bad any more? Where's the incentive to improve?

You read his suggestion, right? All it does is try to reduce overwhelming defeats as a result of stacked teams, teams are kept within +/-3 of each other. 

If you're shit, you're still going to be losing a lot more than you win, this isn't eliminating skill, not even remotely. All it does is try to make your games more consistently longer, less 2 minute matches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cunicularius said:

You read his suggestion, right? All it does is try to reduce overwhelming defeats as a result of stacked teams, teams are kept within +/-3 of each other. 

If you're shit, you're still going to be losing a lot more than you win, this isn't eliminating skill, not even remotely. All it does is try to make your games more consistently longer, less 2 minute matches.

Ok then, consider if they did the same for goods. Ie balancing the number of goods per team. (assuming no other compensation) Would you expect that the incentive to improve be increased or decreased?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ezz said:

Ok then, consider if they did the same for goods. Ie balancing the number of goods per team. (assuming no other compensation) Would you expect that the incentive to improve be increased or decreased?

That's not the suggestion being made. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.  IMO WG could do at least 5 more important change on the mm to make the game better for everyone.

2. The skill gap between very good and very bad players is amazingly big. What should be the filter WR? For example: objectively I am bad in this game, but still better than the vast majority.

3. Bad players have bad impact on the win chance, that is true. But the shape of your curve represent your impact on the game also.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cunicularius said:

That's not the suggestion being made. 

It's the same idea - whether we are talking about incentives to be good, or incentives to not be shit. Skill based MM reduces those (unless you fiddle with the battle rewards). Gameplay benefits aside, the existing economy is built on the idea that winning gets the beans. Hence one of the reasons skill based MM is not all good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ezz said:

It's the same idea - whether we are talking about incentives to be good, or incentives to not be shit. Skill based MM reduces those (unless you fiddle with the battle rewards). Gameplay benefits aside, the existing economy is built on the idea that winning gets the beans. Hence one of the reasons skill based MM is not all good.

You really think its going to be of any significance? What's the worst case? We see a shift in the overall performance of the player base, most people play slightly less attentively expecting to have an easier time. Then what? Hardly anything changes besides potentially less one-sided matches in exchange. Wouldn't you and I be slated to benefit? Everyone is playing slightly less seriously, matches on average last a bit longer so less time wasted and more damage done on average, no infuriating 2-minute matches..

I realize that you're trying to argue on the principle of it, but this isn't exactly skilled match making, its just a very slight adjustment. It shouldn't adversely affect anything.

Edited by Cunicularius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will mean rather than being a 45%er, they'll shift closer to being just another 49%er. In other words bads would be winning more, not because they improved, but because of MM. Personally i want bads to be punished more for being bad, not less.

As to the benefit of more balanced gameplay vs rewards - i suspect it's highly subjective. I personally don't mind one sided games. At times they happen regardless of how even a battle we get. Plus as that separate discussion topic covered, they are somewhat inevitable given battle momentum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's actually a pretty interesting idea because it passes the "no one would really be pissed" test. Even if it had the impact of increasing abysmal players' win rates slightly it would only be taking a sliver of wins from every one else across the board. In exchange you'd see a drop in pointlessly one sided games which are basically a waste of 4 minutes. The spike of frustration from shitty games easily outweighs some 0.02% change in win rates for the average player, so it would probably just make the game a little less frustrating overall.

That's exactly the sort of innovative approach to problem solving which horrifies and offends WG to the very core of its being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ezz said:

It will mean rather than being a 45%er, they'll shift closer to being just another 49%er. In other words bads would be winning more, not because they improved, but because of MM. Personally i want bads to be punished more for being bad, not less.

Its not much different than inflation to WR through platoons.

Also, why does it matter what a baddie's WR is? If you really care about their stats, WN8 shouldn't change so you could go by that still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jesse_the_Scout said:

That's actually a pretty interesting idea because it passes the "no one would really be pissed" test. Even if it had the impact of increasing abysmal players' win rates slightly it would only be taking a sliver of wins from every one else across the board. In exchange you'd see a drop in pointlessly one sided games which are basically a waste of 4 minutes. The spike of frustration from shitty games easily outweighs some 0.02% change in win rates for the average player, so it would probably just make the game a little less frustrating overall.

That's exactly the sort of innovative approach to problem solving which horrifies and offends WG to the very core of its being.

I don't think it offends them, they're too stoned to care.

And by the way many pubbies i know ( heh social clans) refuse to accept the fact they suck. I'm not very good, but I can see areas where i need to improve, which I'm working towards. I can see pub rage because they are good at tanks, and shouldn't get helped. Pub logic best logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ezz said:

So being shit isn't bad any more? Where's the incentive to improve?

If you took a group of chess grandmasters that have similar winrates against each other and a group of chess novices that are also similarly matched to each other, do you find it impossible to tell which ones are shit and which aren't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure WG are trying to increase one sided games (fast games) and not decrease them. There are so many nuanced factors implemented into the game to make games one sided events. One of the easily spotted ones is almost all maps having an strong and weak side. Very few maps are balanced, if any? (maybe ghost town) and you would have think after 40 or so maps, this is a deliberate thing by WG.

I am pretty sure WG want matches to be as fast as possible from a monetary sense. The perfect game would probably last just long enough to not piss off everyone but short enough that everyone has fired their gold rounds and headed back to the garage to reload them. My guess is 5 min matches would seem perfect to them even though we as players would like long games. I remember reading on the SS blog or somewhere that it was leaked WG watch stats like gold rounds per minute per map and this is one of the tweaking points for maps. 

TL:DR Long drawn out matches are not in WG's monetary best interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kuroialty said:

If you took a group of chess grandmasters that have similar winrates against each other and a group of chess novices that are also similarly matched to each other, do you find it impossible to tell which ones are shit and which aren't?

Depends if you are using win rate or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TAdoo87 said:

For example: objectively I am bad in this game, but still better than the vast majority.

No you're not, was that included purely for false modesty purposes? Perhaps you mean that subjectively, you are bad, though I still doubt very many people truly believe you are because, as it turns out, being dumber than Einstein doesn't make you stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Kuroialty said:

I couldn't have thrown you an easier low ball.  Are you being retarded on purpose?

It's cool, people jump in mid thread on the main forums too. No drama. Get back to us when you are up to speed. Give you a tip tho, before you start bandying about the 'retarded cap', make sure you know what is being discussed lest you appear just another salty main forumite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cunicularius said:

If you're shit, you're still going to be losing a lot more than you win

Not particularly so. If youre dead weight, and a skill MM system makes sure youre matched up against other dead weight, then your negative impact on the team effectively disappears. Good players still get to influence the outcome, but it becomes that little bit harder for them, and your chances of being carried are about the same as your chances of being crushed.

Any form of skill MM tightens the WR band, and its more noticeable out towards the edges. Its not particularly a problem, as long as the rewards sytem takes that into account, and the MM changes arent MM breaking. 

3 hours ago, Kuroialty said:

If you took a group of chess grandmasters that have similar winrates against each other and a group of chess novices that are also similarly matched to each other, do you find it impossible to tell which ones are shit and which aren't?

Do novices play for the same payouts as grandmasters? Ezz's problem lies in the reward structure of the game currently being tied to WR. Artificially inflating bads WR would let them progress faster and shit up higher tiers more frequently, which kinda reduces one of the pressures to improve. And yes, telling people (even implicitly) that its ok to be shit at a team based game is not good for the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ezz said:

It's cool, people jump in mid thread on the main forums too. No drama. Get back to us when you are up to speed. Give you a tip tho, before you start bandying about the 'retarded cap', make sure you know what is being discussed lest you appear just another salty main forumite.

Sorry Ezz, you're being thick - his chess analogy was spot on, even though I actually agree that skill based MM is a can of worms we don't need opened.

OP, I have noticed exactly the same thing you did, I can generally count the reds and tell which way its going unless the side with all of the shit players has a strong platoon.  Often times the worst of the worst are playing on such high ping unstable platforms that they are essentially out of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Archaic_One said:

Sorry Ezz, you're being thick - his chess analogy was spot on,

Absolutely! Spot on if winning wasn't related to the topic. But as is it's just like all the other largely irrelevant analogies people love to raise. What's the other one, Messi on a team of 9yr olds?

These are topics that have been covered many times, with most of the usual arguments repeated ad nauseam, so my patience is limited. So apologies to kuroi if i came down hard, but honestly, missing context or skipping parts of a thread is main forum stuff.

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...