Jump to content


Math and Matchmaking

Match-Making Matchmaking MM Balance rework Tier Random-Battles Random Random battles Un-even

  • Please log in to reply
103 replies to this topic

The_Big_M #21 Posted 11 September 2020 - 12:16 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta-Tester
  • 69684 battles
  • 51
  • [TKSA] TKSA
  • Member since:
    09-28-2012

View PostMagicalFlyingFox, on 11 September 2020 - 02:08 PM, said:

The real reason is that making MM have to work harder will lead to more 5 minute timeouts the further to the edges you go of the skill curve.

 

 

WG have enough issues with MM, no need to make it more complicated for them. Especially on our small server.

 

The proposal I saw which would be very workable is to have the same MM as now - so no extra time/complication. At that point do individual pair swaps to improve the balance. That can be done in milliseconds so would add no noticeable time nor have any detrimental server impact, regardless of server as it's not a massive overhaul of MM.



Puggsley #22 Posted 11 September 2020 - 12:47 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 76080 battles
  • 2,171
  • [FIDDY] FIDDY
  • Member since:
    04-03-2014

The main issue for me is that at the moment almost everyone gets the same team over a few hundred battles. This can be thrown out by platooning but that is another issue and not huge, its rare to have more than one platoon in a game and often there is none.

 

The benefit of this system is that your efforts are rewarded. You put in effort and time to learn and improve, and you get the benefits with a higher win rate, more credits and more xp. People who don't put in effort and time to learn and improve get a lower reward. Everyone has equal opportunity to be in a good team.

 

Moving to a SBMM system means that if you don't put in effort and time to learn and improve you will get handed a better team than someone who has put in effort. Better players will get put onto the weaker side more often in an attempt to balance up the teams. This is trying to get equal outcome, a great way to punish better players and elevate weaker players.

 

 

 

 



Ezz #23 Posted 11 September 2020 - 01:10 PM

    How many flipping posts do I need to get past Major?

  • Beta-Tester
  • 74444 battles
  • 36,903
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    07-17-2012

View PostThe_Big_M, on 11 September 2020 - 02:06 PM, said:

 

That's what I was referring to with stats. I'm not sure that that's the case, and even if it were, that isn't why people play a game. In which case, people would rebase the stats, and use other more appropriate ones.

To use your frame of reference, why would players care about how much they win given the game as it stands?


Who the [edited] are you? Get Spoofed! "wouldn't be a proper WG balance change if they didn't [edited] something up after all "

>9000 cynicism brought to you by P2W, Balance TM and the Cartoon Connection

R. Pubbie: "why are all PBKAC players so rude, arrogant and nasty? and why do Mods favor them?"


Ezz #24 Posted 11 September 2020 - 01:16 PM

    How many flipping posts do I need to get past Major?

  • Beta-Tester
  • 74444 battles
  • 36,903
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    07-17-2012

The other underlying assertion that undermines a lot of the sbmm concept is that teams matched in skill level will lead to more enjoyable battles. This view is easily understood, i mean it should mean battles are more even right? However at this stage the most glaring rebuttal to this point is how ranked plays out. SBMM via the ranked progression doesn't stop landslides. It doesn't stop boring battles. It doesn't stop toxic play. If anything it increases these factors. Naturally this is by one method of achieving sbmm, but it's still stands as a big warning to those who feel sbmm would fix all the mm's woes.

 

And just because i think M genuinely isn't just trying to be lazy - i too couldn't be arsed re reading it all either - another issue with sbmm is how it interplays with the game's reward / incentive system. Presently we are encouraged to improve so we get better rewards. Winning more means faster progression, more xp, more credits, more missions done. To do this most effectively a player needs to get better. That's how you win more. That's what makes most (if not all - too lazy to research them all) competitive games what they are. Getting good means you do better.

 

Under a sbmm, a shitty bot level player is going to win basically the same as the best players. It reduces if not removes entirely the incentive to improve. That to me is intrinsically wrong. In fact i have already suggested the existing xp system be tweaked to slow the progress of the perpetual bottom 5 xp players and bots. To go AFK, happen to be on the winning team and get more xp than most of the losers who were having a crack just plain sucks. Under an sbmm that would just become worse.

 

(so yeah, what puggs said above (lazy again :P )


Edited by Ezz, 11 September 2020 - 01:24 PM.

Who the [edited] are you? Get Spoofed! "wouldn't be a proper WG balance change if they didn't [edited] something up after all "

>9000 cynicism brought to you by P2W, Balance TM and the Cartoon Connection

R. Pubbie: "why are all PBKAC players so rude, arrogant and nasty? and why do Mods favor them?"


Puggsley #25 Posted 11 September 2020 - 01:28 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 76080 battles
  • 2,171
  • [FIDDY] FIDDY
  • Member since:
    04-03-2014

Stop blowouts by making randoms 1v1, and have this as a game mode you can nominate to be a part of.

 

And I have no idea how you can use SBMM to overcome really stupid play.

 

We had a guy who complains bitterly about MM put up a replay which showed him pfaffing about for several minutes at the start of the game, drive to a position get shot there by an unspotted enemy. Then he got one shot of damage in before driving out to the same spot he got shot previously and died there.

 

That is totally stupid play, yet he should get put onto team with better players to carry him?

 

SBMM needs a mechanism to encourage players to get better.

 

Say the top 5 players by XP got a "black mark" to put against a player on their team. Tier 6 the multiplier is 1, T7 is 2, T8 is 3, T9 is 4, TX is 5.

 

Get 40 black marks and you get an hours holiday.



MagicalFlyingFox #26 Posted 11 September 2020 - 01:50 PM

    Destroyer of Tier 6 CW

  • Beta-Tester
  • 35498 battles
  • 13,849
  • [ATLUS] ATLUS
  • Member since:
    10-03-2012

View PostThe_Big_M, on 11 September 2020 - 02:16 PM, said:

 

The proposal I saw which would be very workable is to have the same MM as now - so no extra time/complication. At that point do individual pair swaps to improve the balance. That can be done in milliseconds so would add no noticeable time nor have any detrimental server impact, regardless of server as it's not a massive overhaul of MM.


And add in the tank they are in, the map that is being played, etc etc. Its going to be just as random and just as pointless.

 

Imagine matching a unicum TVP tier 8 against a unicum 703 II.

Or a Unicum Chieftain against a Unicum RHM Panzerwagon.

 

You can't just ignore the tank class balancing WG have baked into the MM for one thing.

 

Another is just the disparity in relative strengths of tanks, like anything tech tree against a chieftain or bourrasque or Prog 46.

 


At which point this all just becomes a complete crapshoot, even worse than randoms are now. Unicums cant grind shit because they will be up against other unicums in OP shit assuming tank classes are still balanced, which brings upon the other problem of balancing tank classes on top of balancing player skill while still adhering to template MM.

 

Of course, not just unicums. Any player with a clue can't grind anything without getting shat on by MM. At least a skilled player can somewhat get something to work, despite losing a lot because the other side having an OP prem.


Edited by MagicalFlyingFox, 11 September 2020 - 01:53 PM.

http://www.theuselessweb.com/

 A. Guy on 02 June 2018 - 12:40 AM, said:

Destroyer of Tier 6 CW... says it all about you.


FramFramson #27 Posted 11 September 2020 - 02:58 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 50209 battles
  • 3,679
  • [FLEX] FLEX
  • Member since:
    02-22-2015

View PostPuggsley, on 11 September 2020 - 12:28 AM, said:

Say the top 5 players by XP got a "black mark" to put against a player on their team. Tier 6 the multiplier is 1, T7 is 2, T8 is 3, T9 is 4, TX is 5.

 

Get 40 black marks and you get an hours holiday.

 

No offence Puggs, but this is The Worst [edited] Idea.


LT-playing masochist. It's too much fun to be a mosquito.


Puggsley #28 Posted 11 September 2020 - 03:05 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 76080 battles
  • 2,171
  • [FIDDY] FIDDY
  • Member since:
    04-03-2014

^^^

 

yep i tried to make it as bad as I could. Highlight the shitfight which comes with trying to balance outcomes.

 

Takes away any incentive to improve.


Edited by Puggsley, 11 September 2020 - 03:05 PM.


The_Big_M #29 Posted 11 September 2020 - 03:06 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta-Tester
  • 69684 battles
  • 51
  • [TKSA] TKSA
  • Member since:
    09-28-2012

View PostPuggsley, on 11 September 2020 - 02:47 PM, said:

The main issue for me is that at the moment almost everyone gets the same team over a few hundred battles. This can be thrown out by platooning but that is another issue and not huge, its rare to have more than one platoon in a game and often there is none.

 

The benefit of this system is that your efforts are rewarded. You put in effort and time to learn and improve, and you get the benefits with a higher win rate, more credits and more xp. People who don't put in effort and time to learn and improve get a lower reward. Everyone has equal opportunity to be in a good team.

 

Moving to a SBMM system means that if you don't put in effort and time to learn and improve you will get handed a better team than someone who has put in effort. Better players will get put onto the weaker side more often in an attempt to balance up the teams. This is trying to get equal outcome, a great way to punish better players and elevate weaker players.

 

 

I just don't see that the conclusion is true. Overall  the teams will be balanced, so you won't have a better team than the other side. That's the point. All that happens is that the teams are formed based on your expected abilities so there's a rougly even number of numpties and pros. Yes, it's different in that currently you don't try to get an equal outcome. So you can wind up with a bunch of numpties and it doesn't matter what you do but no reward (per your prev paragraph). Or you don't do much and stil get rewarded, hence it's the guy with effort on the other side who loses out.

 

And as with the current system your efforts will still be rewarded. Put the effort in and win, and you'll get the same rewards. Don't and risk loss in which case you don't.



The_Big_M #30 Posted 11 September 2020 - 03:09 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta-Tester
  • 69684 battles
  • 51
  • [TKSA] TKSA
  • Member since:
    09-28-2012

View PostEzz, on 11 September 2020 - 03:10 PM, said:

To use your frame of reference, why would players care about how much they win given the game as it stands?

 

I'm not sure what you mean here. I think you might be referring to where I said they "don't play a game for stats." If so, I'm suggesting that most choose to play it for enjoyment. Certainly you don't see stats on the website nor in marketing encouraging people to join, hence why I don't believe it's the reason they play.

 

You use stats to see how you go, but I'd say most aren't logging in because they don't enjoy it but only because they want to improve stats. Which are meaningless outside the game. That's why I said, that stats flow from the game, and if there was any impact to them, they'd be rebased, or you'd choose different metrics, just as WN has progressed over time as one example (and still is far from perfect).



The_Big_M #31 Posted 11 September 2020 - 03:26 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta-Tester
  • 69684 battles
  • 51
  • [TKSA] TKSA
  • Member since:
    09-28-2012

View PostEzz, on 11 September 2020 - 03:16 PM, said:

The other underlying assertion that undermines a lot of the sbmm concept is that teams matched in skill level will lead to more enjoyable battles. This view is easily understood, i mean it should mean battles are more even right? However at this stage the most glaring rebuttal to this point is how ranked plays out. SBMM via the ranked progression doesn't stop landslides. It doesn't stop boring battles. It doesn't stop toxic play. If anything it increases these factors. Naturally this is by one method of achieving sbmm, but it's still stands as a big warning to those who feel sbmm would fix all the mm's woes.

 

And just because i think M genuinely isn't just trying to be lazy - i too couldn't be arsed re reading it all either - another issue with sbmm is how it interplays with the game's reward / incentive system. Presently we are encouraged to improve so we get better rewards. Winning more means faster progression, more xp, more credits, more missions done. To do this most effectively a player needs to get better. That's how you win more. That's what makes most (if not all - too lazy to research them all) competitive games what they are. Getting good means you do better.

 

Under a sbmm, a shitty bot level player is going to win basically the same as the best players. It reduces if not removes entirely the incentive to improve. That to me is intrinsically wrong. In fact i have already suggested the existing xp system be tweaked to slow the progress of the perpetual bottom 5 xp players and bots. To go AFK, happen to be on the winning team and get more xp than most of the losers who were having a crack just plain sucks. Under an sbmm that would just become worse.

 

(so yeah, what puggs said above (lazy again :P )

 

Regarding the ranked rebuttal, I see that as being far from SBMM.

 

Ranked is only about individual ranked progress. People change their gameplay to achieve progress on the chart so certain tanks and plays are typically used, differently to random. Many/most? also care about their personal ranking more than team resuts, with the result that has on gameplay. i.e. the objectives change. I don't recall hearing many people 'look forward to' ranked battles i.e. enjoy them, except for the rewards. Whereas obviously people play randoms because they enjoy them, as there's not much reason to play them otherwise. This isn't because of SBMM though, which is far from proposed. Aside from the different builds, and different playstyle and outcome, the model is also different. People are not matched based on their skill in game, e.g. based on PR or WTR, but based on the ranking. So you could and do get pros matched with newbs at multiple levels, just based on what 'rank' they are within the event. Thus it's not going to stop any of those other events you mention, nor be a model, aside from being different to random.

 

Regarding paras two and three, I'm just not sure it exists. Using the commonly discussed model, that 40% are walkovers, 40% are impossible, that leaves 20% - that are balanced - that you influence. But you would still have influence in the 100% balanced in this model? i.e. if you play sub par then you'll drag down the results. But if you play strongly you should also generally achieve better. The only difference is the teams are balanced for your ability, so it remains a challenge. Instead of just being a walkover. The only way I think your point is correct is if the pros want to have say 50% easy, 20% a challenge, and 30% a loss. Is that the case, to make it easier for the pros instead of remain challenging?



The_Big_M #32 Posted 11 September 2020 - 03:35 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta-Tester
  • 69684 battles
  • 51
  • [TKSA] TKSA
  • Member since:
    09-28-2012

View PostMagicalFlyingFox, on 11 September 2020 - 03:50 PM, said:


And add in the tank they are in, the map that is being played, etc etc. Its going to be just as random and just as pointless.

 

Imagine matching a unicum TVP tier 8 against a unicum 703 II.

Or a Unicum Chieftain against a Unicum RHM Panzerwagon.

 

You can't just ignore the tank class balancing WG have baked into the MM for one thing.

 

Another is just the disparity in relative strengths of tanks, like anything tech tree against a chieftain or bourrasque or Prog 46.

 


At which point this all just becomes a complete crapshoot, even worse than randoms are now. Unicums cant grind shit because they will be up against other unicums in OP shit assuming tank classes are still balanced, which brings upon the other problem of balancing tank classes on top of balancing player skill while still adhering to template MM.

 

Of course, not just unicums. Any player with a clue can't grind anything without getting shat on by MM. At least a skilled player can somewhat get something to work, despite losing a lot because the other side having an OP prem.

 

This isn't trying to guaranteeing perfection, and I'm not suggesting it should be perfectly 50/50. It could be put as a target of say 47/53 balanced, or some other level. As you mention there are other variations so this isn't the only aspect. However, I certainly didn't say to ignore the existing balancing. As said this was an additional layer, once the existing MM is done. Those weak comparisons you get already exist in the MM so this isn't going to make things worse. Remember, there are still 14 other players on the team and it's not as there are only 2 unicums in the game, so it's you v one another. And chieftains and all the rest do get taken down.

 

Also, this isn't about tanks, and you can have multiple variation across the 15 so this isn't modifying that. 

 

This is just to improve the boring and disappointing badly balanced matches. They're not fun to be quickly wiped out, and not much fun just charging through either.



The_Big_M #33 Posted 11 September 2020 - 03:37 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta-Tester
  • 69684 battles
  • 51
  • [TKSA] TKSA
  • Member since:
    09-28-2012

View PostPuggsley, on 11 September 2020 - 05:05 PM, said:

^^^

 

yep i tried to make it as bad as I could. Highlight the shitfight which comes with trying to balance outcomes.

 

Takes away any incentive to improve.

 

I haven't seen anybody say this is trying to balance _outcomes._

 

We're balancing the teams that go into them, just like the proverbial 20% of matches you influence now. That doesn't mean the outcome is predictable. Teams being balanced just means it relies more on your skill now rather than it being less relevant.



steeve_old #34 Posted 11 September 2020 - 05:12 PM

    Corporal

  • Member
  • 42471 battles
  • 47
  • Member since:
    11-27-2015

I love how this circular argument has been going on for years

i liked the old MM where you would get 5 HT on one team and 1 on the other and you still had no clue who was gunna win

MM by paint job i say then we really could have green v green



Ezz #35 Posted 11 September 2020 - 09:40 PM

    How many flipping posts do I need to get past Major?

  • Beta-Tester
  • 74444 battles
  • 36,903
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    07-17-2012

View PostThe_Big_M, on 11 September 2020 - 05:09 PM, said:

View PostEzz, on 11 September 2020 - 03:10 PM, said:

To use your frame of reference, why would players care about how much they win given the game as it stands?

 

I'm not sure what you mean here. I think you might be referring to where I said they "don't play a game for stats." If so, I'm suggesting that most choose to play it for enjoyment. Certainly you don't see stats on the website nor in marketing encouraging people to join, hence why I don't believe it's the reason they play.

 

You use stats to see how you go, but I'd say most aren't logging in because they don't enjoy it but only because they want to improve stats. Which are meaningless outside the game. That's why I said, that stats flow from the game, and if there was any impact to them, they'd be rebased, or you'd choose different metrics, just as WN has progressed over time as one example (and still is far from perfect).

Your frame of reference as you'd mentioned above was 'who cares?' So, very simply i asked, why would people care how much they win / how well they perform? Apparently your answer to that is 'it's all a game'. Why then do you even care about the mm if it's just a game. Just focus on making your big boom boom go boom boom. Games are fun yay!



Ezz #36 Posted 11 September 2020 - 10:17 PM

    How many flipping posts do I need to get past Major?

  • Beta-Tester
  • 74444 battles
  • 36,903
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    07-17-2012

View PostThe_Big_M, on 11 September 2020 - 05:26 PM, said:

 

Regarding the ranked rebuttal, I see that as being far from SBMM.

 

Ranked is only about individual ranked progress. People change their gameplay to achieve progress on the chart so certain tanks and plays are typically used, differently to random. Many/most? also care about their personal ranking more than team resuts, with the result that has on gameplay. i.e. the objectives change. I don't recall hearing many people 'look forward to' ranked battles i.e. enjoy them, except for the rewards. Whereas obviously people play randoms because they enjoy them, as there's not much reason to play them otherwise. This isn't because of SBMM though, which is far from proposed. Aside from the different builds, and different playstyle and outcome, the model is also different. People are not matched based on their skill in game, e.g. based on PR or WTR, but based on the ranking. So you could and do get pros matched with newbs at multiple levels, just based on what 'rank' they are within the event. Thus it's not going to stop any of those other events you mention, nor be a model, aside from being different to random.

 

Regarding paras two and three, I'm just not sure it exists. Using the commonly discussed model, that 40% are walkovers, 40% are impossible, that leaves 20% - that are balanced - that you influence. But you would still have influence in the 100% balanced in this model? i.e. if you play sub par then you'll drag down the results. But if you play strongly you should also generally achieve better. The only difference is the teams are balanced for your ability, so it remains a challenge. Instead of just being a walkover. The only way I think your point is correct is if the pros want to have say 50% easy, 20% a challenge, and 30% a loss. Is that the case, to make it easier for the pros instead of remain challenging?

Ranked pits teams together based on how well players have performed. Ie their skill. It's what sbmm is all about. Defining a skill and matching people based on that skill.

 

Ranked, just as in randoms, heavily weighs on those that win. RB progression is by winning while doing well in your team. Not by being carried. Not by being the last loser alive. It's by contributing. It's a mode that some really suck at. And they don't progress. And of course, that's the point of a competitive mode. It's like a continual filtration process. As you go up the ranks it becomes harder to progress because there are more good players and fewer shitters. The best players progress. The bads flounder. Yet as per the overarching view of whether matching relatively equal teams together makes the game more fun? For many players it does not. So what has sbmm done for ranked? Made it less fun. Had ranked been more like randoms (but solo only), i'm sure it would have been more fun for the good players. But that would have made it a rather trivial exercise for many.

 

Now of course rb is one implementation of a sbmm. Another is a 'make sure there as many goods and bads on each team' approach. To this the most glaring issue is what wg gave us with 357. The outcome of the battle was down to how well a small portion of the team performed. Similarly in a sbmm, who wins or loses will come down to how well one team's goods perform vs how well the other team's goods perform (assuming equal tiers etc. - which yeah, see above posts about that). Beyond that lack of influence from the majority of teams, there is the issue of the fact that good players would win less as a result of sbmm, and bads would win more. It's literally the opposite of what a competitive game is about. Oh wait, it's just a game, let's all go boom boom shall we.

 

You go on to talk about my 40:40:20 model. Granted you probably weren't around when it started being used, but i put it there to help people understand the influence individuals have in the result, as evidenced by the observed win rate range. It was a simplified illustration because i like round numbers, but if people are mostly between 40% and 60% it means there's a 20% influence range. Under a sbmm, as pretty much everyone has said, that range will be far lower. Instead of a sample equating to good player vs average player, it will equate to good player vs good player. The individual influence will not be larger because teams are more equal, it will be smaller because teams are more equal. Or to put it another way, a good vs an average player may win 60% of the time. While a good vs a good will win 50% of the time. A roll of the dice.

 

Beyond that you start discussing how or why people enjoy the game. Personally i like winning. If i beat a shitter playing a tier 9 like a bot in doing so, that doesn't bother me.


Edited by Ezz, 11 September 2020 - 10:21 PM.

Who the [edited] are you? Get Spoofed! "wouldn't be a proper WG balance change if they didn't [edited] something up after all "

>9000 cynicism brought to you by P2W, Balance TM and the Cartoon Connection

R. Pubbie: "why are all PBKAC players so rude, arrogant and nasty? and why do Mods favor them?"


The_Big_M #37 Posted 11 September 2020 - 11:43 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta-Tester
  • 69684 battles
  • 51
  • [TKSA] TKSA
  • Member since:
    09-28-2012

View PostEzz, on 11 September 2020 - 11:40 PM, said:

Your frame of reference as you'd mentioned above was 'who cares?' So, very simply i asked, why would people care how much they win / how well they perform? Apparently your answer to that is 'it's all a game'. Why then do you even care about the mm if it's just a game. Just focus on making your big boom boom go boom boom. Games are fun yay!

 

The reference to 'who cares' was about the stats, not about the game. Not sure how you took it another way.

 

As for mm, it's a fundamental part of the game, so obviously intrinsic to the enjoyment.



The_Big_M #38 Posted 12 September 2020 - 12:04 AM

    Corporal

  • Beta-Tester
  • 69684 battles
  • 51
  • [TKSA] TKSA
  • Member since:
    09-28-2012

View PostEzz, on 12 September 2020 - 12:17 AM, said:

Ranked pits teams together based on how well players have performed. Ie their skill. It's what sbmm is all about. Defining a skill and matching people based on that skill.

 

Ranked, just as in randoms, heavily weighs on those that win. RB progression is by winning while doing well in your team. Not by being carried. Not by being the last loser alive. It's by contributing. It's a mode that some really suck at. And they don't progress. And of course, that's the point of a competitive mode. It's like a continual filtration process. As you go up the ranks it becomes harder to progress because there are more good players and fewer shitters. The best players progress. The bads flounder. Yet as per the overarching view of whether matching relatively equal teams together makes the game more fun? For many players it does not. So what has sbmm done for ranked? Made it less fun. Had ranked been more like randoms (but solo only), i'm sure it would have been more fun for the good players. But that would have made it a rather trivial exercise for many.

 

Now of course rb is one implementation of a sbmm. Another is a 'make sure there as many goods and bads on each team' approach. To this the most glaring issue is what wg gave us with 357. The outcome of the battle was down to how well a small portion of the team performed. Similarly in a sbmm, who wins or loses will come down to how well one team's goods perform vs how well the other team's goods perform (assuming equal tiers etc. - which yeah, see above posts about that). Beyond that lack of influence from the majority of teams, there is the issue of the fact that good players would win less as a result of sbmm, and bads would win more. It's literally the opposite of what a competitive game is about. Oh wait, it's just a game, let's all go boom boom shall we.

 

You go on to talk about my 40:40:20 model. Granted you probably weren't around when it started being used, but i put it there to help people understand the influence individuals have in the result, as evidenced by the observed win rate range. It was a simplified illustration because i like round numbers, but if people are mostly between 40% and 60% it means there's a 20% influence range. Under a sbmm, as pretty much everyone has said, that range will be far lower. Instead of a sample equating to good player vs average player, it will equate to good player vs good player. The individual influence will not be larger because teams are more equal, it will be smaller because teams are more equal. Or to put it another way, a good vs an average player may win 60% of the time. While a good vs a good will win 50% of the time. A roll of the dice.

 

Beyond that you start discussing how or why people enjoy the game. Personally i like winning. If i beat a shitter playing a tier 9 like a bot in doing so, that doesn't bother me.

 

WG's 3:5:7 is still in place. So you see this SBMM as equivalent, which means there's nothing fundamentally wrong with it, just that you don't like it. Which is fair enough, but not an actual justification that it doesn't work.

 

As for the ratios, as given above that range will be 100% of influence now as they're evenly matched. It's not player vs player but team vs team - both having an equal chance. The 20% has now become the 100%. The expected contribution on the better player will be higher as a proportion of the team, but that keeps the challenge up rather than just making it a cake walk.  So you need to bring your A game each time, whatever type of player you are (though there are still all sorts of variables in the mix as at present, so it's not as dramatic a change as made out). 

 

Yes, because there is better balance, that means the challenge will regularly be tougher, rather than having so many cakewalks. If there is an implication on rewards that could be rebalanced to include draws if they became oversized as an outcome.

 

None of this means it shouldn't happen. It'd be nice to see it trialed... though of course I know this is hypothetical as WG neither monitor this nor have shown any inclination to change the game design for this over all this time. Doesn't mean it's a bad appoach though. Personally, i enjoy a challenge rather than a steam roll whichever side I'm on. If that upsets the apple cart of those who like steamrolls either way, so be it.



MagicalFlyingFox #39 Posted 12 September 2020 - 12:11 AM

    Destroyer of Tier 6 CW

  • Beta-Tester
  • 35498 battles
  • 13,849
  • [ATLUS] ATLUS
  • Member since:
    10-03-2012

View PostThe_Big_M, on 11 September 2020 - 05:35 PM, said:

 

This isn't trying to guaranteeing perfection, and I'm not suggesting it should be perfectly 50/50. It could be put as a target of say 47/53 balanced, or some other level. As you mention there are other variations so this isn't the only aspect. However, I certainly didn't say to ignore the existing balancing. As said this was an additional layer, once the existing MM is done. Those weak comparisons you get already exist in the MM so this isn't going to make things worse. Remember, there are still 14 other players on the team and it's not as there are only 2 unicums in the game, so it's you v one another. And chieftains and all the rest do get taken down.

 

Also, this isn't about tanks, and you can have multiple variation across the 15 so this isn't modifying that. 

 

This is just to improve the boring and disappointing badly balanced matches. They're not fun to be quickly wiped out, and not much fun just charging through either.


I'm not sure how its going to improve that at all. Its going to just be a different shade of shit that alienates players for no reason.

 

The shit players aren't going to notice a difference. The average players will barely notice a difference, but the decent players will start to, especially when they are grinding shit tanks. Its just unnecessary work for absolutely no gain. SBMM is not going to fix one sided games. Games will naturally snowball regardless of external factors in an elimination game, its just math.

 

 


http://www.theuselessweb.com/

 A. Guy on 02 June 2018 - 12:40 AM, said:

Destroyer of Tier 6 CW... says it all about you.


AlexTheKid72 #40 Posted 12 September 2020 - 05:46 AM

    Sergeant

  • Member
  • 28850 battles
  • 199
  • [SABRE] SABRE
  • Member since:
    05-28-2017
Why would queues be longer if the matchmaker first pick 30 tanks that are class-equal, then apply a bit of player stats to decide which heavies go on which team et al?
It's not going to be 45%ers vs 45%ers, but the skill levels would resemble TEAM balance.
Unicums and potatoes are still on the same team, but the mm does team pick-for-pick from best to worst stats. AFTER mm has put 30 people into a battle. Not choosing the 30 based on skill, just balancing total team skill.
If theres 4x60% high stat players, they don't end up on the same team because tank type is the only parameter. Each team gets 2. No extra queue time, just an extra quick math calculation before battle starts.

Edited by AlexTheKid72, 12 September 2020 - 05:51 AM.

signature.png




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users