Jump to content
Treeburst

So if the games are not rigged...

Recommended Posts

I don't think the MM is rigged at all, but has priorities wrong. WG states that they want to get people into matches quickly, instead of fairly, just using vehicles MM weight. I also agree that the actual pool of players being drawn from is much, much small than the people on the server, the 30-100 numbers seems about right.

I do think the confrontation is a little off, had one with Germany against the USA, they had 5 t29s and 6 Hellcats, we only had 3 heavies (Tigers) and extra 3002Ms to make up difference, that didn't pan out to well. Had one as USA vs Russians, I thought we were ok until I saw the 6 152 and 122-44's, mixed in with the usual IS and Kv3 on Ruinberg. However, most matches have been fair, its just that Confrontation highlights the sometimes extreme differences between tanks in certain tiers.

Are the matches in EU and Russians servers the same? They have a much bigger server population, maybe with the game on consoles the NA population will grow and smooth some of the differences.

I do think the MM should monitor Platoons better, outright reject fail platoons for certain tiers, and also look at average skill levels for platoons to keep one side from getting two very good platoons and the other side not getting same. We all have been in games where you see 2 purple or blue platoons on one side with the other getting 2 red platoons.

I understand these things even out in the long run, but outright white washes are not fun from either side.

If the vehicle weights are balanced, how is that not "fair", exactly?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the vehicle weights are not balanced, some tanks of the same tier and type and equal mm weights are very much better than others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the vehicle weights are not balanced, some tanks of the same tier and type and equal mm weights are very much better than others.

 

I tend to disagree.  Excluding Tiers 1-3, there are only a handful of tanks I consider flatly OP or UP.

 

The AMX 40 is UP...but only slightly so, I think, given that it would probably only take small buffs to pen and horsepower to make it fairly competitive.  It does have very good armor and a top speed, and the alpha is certainly decent for Tier 4.  Give it better ability to apply that alpha with better pen, and better ability to hit top speed with a bit better horsepower, and you've got a solid tank.

 

Some Tier 8+ TDs were and possibly still are overpowered.  Some Foch drivers are still bitching about the nerfs, but if it's still armored enough to be invulnerable to lower tier tanks, AND has a gun that is autopen against lower tier AND is fast enough to chase down most lower tier tanks...that's potentially a bit OP.

 

The IS-6 is possibly a bit OP when you factor in the fact that it's a premium and has preferred MM.  It isn't better than the regular Tier 8 non-prems, but it's their peer, which it really shouldn't be as a premium with pref MM.  Same thing with the Type, with the added annoyance that the Type 59 is like the Foch was and possibly still is: too armored to be penned most of the time by lower tier tanks (at least nearly frontally invulnerable) plus has sufficient pen to nearly auto-pen lower tier AND has enough speed that it can't be escaped from...all in a premium tank with pref MM.  I'm sorry, but if the thing is so popular that selling it again would make it take over the matchmaker, that's a solid indication it's overpowered.

 

The T-54 is potentially overpowered too.  Armored better than an M103 plus excellent mobility...yeah.  That probably needs looking at.  Some say the SU-122-44 is OP based on the DPM and mobility combination, but given that it's fairly easily penned from the front I'm on the fence about it.

 

Then there's the new line of German TDs, which still have mega-boomsticks and turrets.

 

Other than that I don't generally see a widespread problem.  Giving a different weight to each and every tank would be a nightmare.  It would simply involve extremely subjective opinions about exactly how much better tank A is than tank B, leading to a constant series of demands to increase tank A's weight or decrease tank B's weight or both or the other way around or whatever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just a coin toss what you get on any given game/day, but it can still be discouraging to see 23 out of 25 teams basically doomed to fail in a day of tanks. Sure there are exceptions. My teams won a 24% and a 32% tonight. We also lost a pair of 60% games.

 

But overall, XVM seems quite accurate for the long haul. My personal challenge now is to get so much better that I personally start to skew the results. That would be nice. I'm really tired of so many sub 40% games.

 

Had a good streak the last couple of days though which has kind of offset the awful streak of days prior. Also got a couple of shiny new tier 6 tanks to play with and seem to be doing slightly better in them than with my tier 5s (knock wood).

 

No. Skill based MM just seems like it would slow queue times down and force everyone to a middle ground. At least with the frustration of streaks of terrible teams, I occasionally get streaks of good ones too.

 

I think I'd rather have that. It's the carrot that keeps me coming back. "Ok, tonight is going to be my night."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how it's currently implemented, but I wouldn't mind fail platoons if:

  • The low tiers of a fail platoon allowed more higher tier tanks on the team kinda like 7/42. This might already be taken in consideration in the current MM implementation. I haven't looked into it. Obviously, a T1 in a TX game shouldn't mean one side gets 9 TXs and the other gets 9 T9s.
  • Your maximum experience multiplier was up two tiers. You should get the same experience if you're fail platooning as you would getting winning the low-tier lottery solo. The difference being you can't really contribute damage (lolpen) so your actual XP gains in a fail platoon will be probably be awful unless you managed to contribute to your team's victory.
  • They actually banned chronic AFKers and botters.
 

That's a really good idea. As a side effect this might encourage unicums to solopub more often.

 

Could you explain this?  I assume fail platooning is just two or more bad players in one platoon, but I don't understand the paragraph's point.

 

Sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you explain this?  I assume fail platooning is just two or more bad players in one platoon, but I don't understand the paragraph's point.

 

Sorry.

 

Sure. "Fail platooning" refers to the situation where people select tanks to fight in a platoon that would not ordinarily fight together (e.g. a tier 3 with a tier 7). Under current conditions, the tier 3 guy would land in a tier 7 or higher battle and has just wasted one of the 15 slots on his team because MM will not choose an unlucky tier 3 guy to fill a slot on the other team. This currently creates lopsided matches, vehicle-wise, and many people will just TK the tier 3 dude for not understanding how battle tiers work.

 

My suggestions would do three things:

  • 7/42-style suggestion: It would alleviate the "wasted slot" part. This suggestion would be difficult to balance because of the aforementioned 9 extra tier 10 tanks problem.
  • maximum XP multiplier suggestion: If I understand it correctly, the tier 3 tank in our fail platoon will get XP commensurate to the tier 7 they wind up fighting in in the current system. Thus, if the tier 3 tank manages to do anything and his team wins he gets a shitload of XP that he wouldn't get otherwise. This suggestion would make his XP commensurate with getting into a tier 5 battle, reducing the reward for fail platooning intentionally (gaming the XP system and not because they don't understand how battle tiers work).
  • afk/botter suggestion: Even if you set a maximum XP multiplier to two tiers up and our tier 3 gets tier 5 XP every battle, this system can still be gamed by botters and it might be even more easily gamed now that your fail platoon will win more often due to the 7/42 suggestion. You gotta actively ban botters and AFKers so fail platoons aren't abused for XP gainz.
Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Skill based MM just seems like it would slow queue times down and force everyone to a middle ground. At least with the frustration of streaks of terrible teams, I occasionally get streaks of good ones too.

Streaks happen in every system. Skill based mm doesn't prevent streaks. And skill based mm doesn't force everyone to middle ground either.

 

I think I'd rather have that. It's the carrot that keeps me coming back. "Ok, tonight is going to be my night."

That same carrot exists in skill based mm too.

In a well designed skill based mm the system tries to eliminate the extremely disproportional match setups. On average in skill based mm and in wot mm we get average win ratio for all players to be 48.3% or whatever it is. But in skill based mm the win chance variance goes from 35% to 65% while in current mm it goes from 1% to 99%. If you like to get 34% of your matches to be stick just so you can get 34% more carrot then I'd imagine the system works for you. Personally I think it would be better if every match had little stick and carrot.

You'd still get streaks. Even in current system afkers get win streaks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every skill based MM I played has improved gameplay. Once the padded stats normalize players get challenging but not unwinnable fights. This is not only more fun but the tomatoes often begin to evolve as they live longer and have to carry more weight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be reasonable to assume 90/10, so if you told me 90% of all players were under 50% win rate I probably wouldn't be as suspicious. But in reality something like 60% are.

 

60% seems low to me. I'm at 52.83%, so not hugely above 50%. The Hall of Fame tells me that my win rate is better than 92.34% of all players. If that's true, and if the entire playing population were in the queue at once and the selection was random, I should expect to see about 2 people with better WR than me in any given game, one of which would be on my team. Given that bad players die faster and queue for randoms more than top players who, while they may pub a lot, do other things like clan wars, tank companies, and so on...well, my WR is going to be #1 or #2 in most battles I play. That's kind of depressing given that I'm just starting out myself and there's a lot I don't know.

 

We can check this even more closely if someone whose overall is almost right at 50% could check the HoF and see what it tells them.

 

Treeburst on the other hand with his 61.94% overall, is in the top 1000 of win rate. It shouldn't come as a surprise that he'd stand alone almost all the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

60% seems low to me. I'm at 52.83%, so not hugely above 50%. The Hall of Fame tells me that my win rate is better than 92.34% of all players.

 

 

60% smells about right to me.  I checked someone I know whose wr is about dead on 50% and it put him at about 375,000 by winrate.

 

There are about a million active accounts on EU, so saying that 60% of them are under 50% WR is totally not out of the ballpark.

 

(Bearing in mind that a scrubby blunicum 55.8% like me is top 2% by WR in the hall of fame)

 

Always remember the World of Tanks mantra:

 

"Think about how dumb the average person is, then realise half of 'em are dumber than that!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every skill based MM I played has improved gameplay. Once the padded stats normalize players get challenging but not unwinnable fights. This is not only more fun but the tomatoes often begin to evolve as they live longer and have to carry more weight.

Only way skill based mm would work (and I still think it's dumb) is ramping up rewards up compensation. Right now stats are the only thing that shows who is good and bad. If skill mm actually existed everyone would normalize toward 50% wr.

Taking away that distinguishing feature needs to be compensated. How? I don't know. Could be premium tanks, or special titles, or unique camos or something else. Maybe you make more credits/xp for fighting better opponents.

If you don't adress this issue all that happens for good players is they play harder, and get less for it. Why would I want this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my platoonmates the other night had a version of XVM, whose "Chance to win" percent would change as players died on either side.  Not sure where he got it actually.  Our platoon is slightly above average, so we could see some of the effects our deaths would have on the win percentage for our team.  What we noticed was:  When we were the low-tier platoon, the XVM win percentage would still count our stats the same as if we were the high tier platoon.  When one of us would die, as low tier, our win chance for the game would plummet considerably.

 

Apparently the win chance does not place much emphasis on the tier, armor, offensive capabilities of the tanks on each team, but focuses more on players' overall stats, when assessing win chances.  Three good medium tank players in a platoon, could easily be countered by 3 heavily amored +2 higher tier tanks or TDs, but I don't believe the XVM win chance takes this into account currently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my platoonmates the other night had a version of XVM, whose "Chance to win" percent would change as players died on either side.  Not sure where he got it actually.

 

You can enable this by enabling "Show chance to win only for live tanks" in the "Tab" tab of the XVM configuration editor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I flip a coin 14 times. It lands on heads 14 times. I say, man that's weird, the odds of that happening are pretty slim if this is an unbiased coin.

I flip a coin 14 times more times, it lands on heads 14 times again. What are the odds of THAT?

I flip it 14 MORE times, it comes up heads 14 more times.

At this point I've come to the conclusion it is not an unbiased coin. You insist that it is, and that I don't understand statistics.

That is a more accurate representation of what's going on here.

 

 

Guildenstern: Consider: One, probability is a factor which operates *within* natural forces. Two, probability is *not* operating as a factor. Three, we are now held within un-, sub- or super-natural forces. Discuss.

Rosencrantz: What?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only way skill based mm would work (and I still think it's dumb) is ramping up rewards up compensation. Right now stats are the only thing that shows who is good and bad. If skill mm actually existed everyone would normalize toward 50% wr.

Taking away that distinguishing feature needs to be compensated. How? I don't know. Could be premium tanks, or special titles, or unique camos or something else. Maybe you make more credits/xp for fighting better opponents.

If you don't adress this issue all that happens for good players is they play harder, and get less for it. Why would I want this?

Depends what kind of skill based mm you have. But it should be really easy for wg to balance the income with a multiplier based on your rating. If it is proven that higher rated players get lower rewards than lower rated players for the same thing then add an income multiplier that adjusts the rewards to be on the same level as before. The improved multiplier has its risks and one of them is that it does encourage playing only stat padding tanks. Playing only kv1s'asses and hellcats will pad that rating unless the rating is done by smart people. Which in wg's case is not really possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that any rating you can come up with will be pushed towards the middle.  Who's gonna do more damage - a red player on a team of reds facing a team of reds, or a purple on a team of purples facing a team of purples?

 

Answer: neither.  It's no easier for Garbad to kill Garbad's Evil Twin (cue the MLP with Evil Twin goatee Photoshopping) than it is for Venari7 to kill Venari7's Evil Twin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that any rating you can come up with will be pushed towards the middle.  Who's gonna do more damage - a red player on a team of reds facing a team of reds, or a purple on a team of purples facing a team of purples?

 

Answer: neither.  It's no easier for Garbad to kill Garbad's Evil Twin (cue the MLP with Evil Twin goatee Photoshopping) than it is for Venari7 to kill Venari7's Evil Twin.

 

I think the point though would be something like this: "Awesome! At least everybody gets a challenging game that way!". And there is a bit of a point there. I dislike steamrolls regardless of which side I'm on.

 

And "skill" COULDN'T be based on win rate in this fantasy world because - as you so rightly pointed out - everyone would gravitate toward 50%.

 

In fact, while it would still be a factor in people measuring their e-peens (Oh, yeah scrub! Well I'm 51.277% you're just a 51.243%!), many other factors could/would suddenly become The Metric.

 

Basically I think taking skill into account to narrow the range would be good for game play. Making a pure skill based MM is probably a bad idea.

 

Something like a calculation based on current MM (tanks being given 'points' and trying to match up the points first) with an added skill check of some kind (WNX as a baseline maybe) and if there is anything outside a range of w/l probability for one side... just swap a player to the other side if possible without breaking up platoons.

 

So standard MM. Quick check of XVMish thingy, 75/25 because of a blurple on one side? Bloop. He's on the other side. 65/35 now. That's close enough. Game on.

 

I just want to see the landslides reduced because they aren't enjoyable.

 

That's all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point though would be something like this: "Awesome! At least everybody gets a challenging game that way!". And there is a bit of a point there. I dislike steamrolls regardless of which side I'm on.

 

And "skill" COULDN'T be based on win rate in this fantasy world because - as you so rightly pointed out - everyone would gravitate toward 50%.

 

In fact, while it would still be a factor in people measuring their e-peens (Oh, yeah scrub! Well I'm 51.277% you're just a 51.243%!), many other factors could/would suddenly become The Metric.

 

Basically I think taking skill into account to narrow the range would be good for game play. Making a pure skill based MM is probably a bad idea.

 

Something like a calculation based on current MM (tanks being given 'points' and trying to match up the points first) with an added skill check of some kind (WNX as a baseline maybe) and if there is anything outside a range of w/l probability for one side... just swap a player to the other side if possible without breaking up platoons.

 

So standard MM. Quick check of XVMish thingy, 75/25 because of a blurple on one side? Bloop. He's on the other side. 65/35 now. That's close enough. Game on.

 

I just want to see the landslides reduced because they aren't enjoyable.

 

That's all.

Under your system, every game I loaded in I would get 14 retards against 15 greens.  I would play that for about 3 games and then start smurfing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under your system, every game I loaded in I would get 14 retards against 15 greens.  I would play that for about 3 games and then start smurfing.

I think he's thinking more along the lines of World of Warcraft's arena system.  In this model you generally move up quickly in rating ("skill") and then plateau off as you hit your skill ceiling.  Once you hit this rating threshold your winrate trends toward 50% because everyone you're playing is relatively equal in skill.

 

The problem with this is that "skill" is much harder to measure in WOT than it is for other games that use a skill based mm model.

 

This also leaves out the fact that super unicum level players would have ridiculously long queue times, whereas more average players like me would be flying through queues due to the larger available population.

 

In general the entire skill based mm idea is horribly flawed.  It's been pointed out numerous times before so I'm not sure why this is still cropping up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he's thinking more along the lines of World of Warcraft's arena system.  In this model you generally move up quickly in rating ("skill") and then plateau off as you hit your skill ceiling.  Once you hit this rating threshold your winrate trends toward 50% because everyone you're playing is relatively equal in skill.

 

The problem with this is that "skill" is much harder to measure in WOT than it is for other games that use a skill based mm model.

 

This also leaves out the fact that super unicum level players would have ridiculously long queue times, whereas more average players like me would be flying through queues due to the larger available population.

 

In general the entire skill based mm idea is horribly flawed.  It's been pointed out numerous times before so I'm not sure why this is still cropping up.

I played a game with ELO matchmaking (gw).  We were the #1 ranked team on the ladder, and we frequently had 30+ minutes in queue.  We would know who we were playing in advance just by looking at the MM.  This was obviously unacceptable, so we just smurfed 24/7, and teams constantly accused each other of having ringers every time they lost (whether they did or not).  Some few teams tried to "honoure" duel by never smurfing, so we just fought them in smurfs and dinged them with huge losses to "unranked" teams.

 

TL;DR -- Skill based MMing is a failure unless you give skilled players a reason not to smurf.  If I can get faster games, easier wins, and better stats from smurfing I will.  Likewise, if average players get better MMing for botting 100 games and playing 1, they will.  It just doesn't work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under your system, every game I loaded in I would get 14 retards against 15 greens.  I would play that for about 3 games and then start smurfing.

 

I've watched hundreds of your replays. That's kind of what you get now, except not much green on the other side.  :D

 

In all seriousness a thought and two questions.

 

Thought: You can't "balance" against an ICBM with 1940's technology. Compared to you the vast majority of the player base is shooting rubber bands at godzilla.

 

Question: How would YOU balance against you without cloning yourself and making sure your doppleganger was always on the other side?

 

Question: Do you like the current matchmaking?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've watched hundreds of your replays. That's kind of what you get now, except not much green on the other side.   :D

 

In all seriousness a thought and two questions.

 

Thought: You can't "balance" against an ICBM with 1940's technology. Compared to you the vast majority of the player base is shooting rubber bands at godzilla.

 

Question: How would YOU balance against you without cloning yourself and making sure your doppleganger was always on the other side?

 

Question: Do you like the current matchmaking?

Yes, but at least I can tell myself my teams are equal.  It sure feels like me and retards against greens every game though.  But everyone believes they get worse teams than average, but math don't lie.

 

And skill SHOULDN'T be balanced.  I win because I am better, not because my gun does 10% more damage per shot.  I should win more games, and not be punished for being skilled.

 

I could accept a league system, something like this:

 

Retard level:

- no bonuses or restrictions of any kind

- anyone can play at any time

- stats not recorded except to get into next level

- tier 6 is the max tier

 

Yellow level:

- In order to play, you must have at least 2 tier 6 tanks, at least 1k games, and at least a 47% win rate in retard level games

- Credits/exp increased by 50%

- stats not recorded publicly, but can be viewed by friends/guild

- tier 8 is the max tier, TC unlocked

- If you drop below 44% in yellow games, you are booted down

 

Green level:

- In order to play, you must have at least 2 level 8 tanks, at least 3k games played, and at least a 47% win rate in yellow level games

- Credits/exp increased by 100%

- stats publicly viewable (and thus, qualify for leaderboards, sigs, and other epeening)

- tier 10 max, clam wars unlocked

- If you drop below 44% in green games, you are booted down

 

Players would want to rise in rankings, and tier 7+ games would have vastly higher standards of competition.  The red retard tide would simply not be able to fail their way to tier 10, they would have to at least become average.  Good players could play retard/yellow games anytime, but they wouldn't count for stat padding.

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...