Stat Based MM

[Dragnorak]

1 minute ago, mtm78 said:

 

So... you want to reward farming dmg? That's how you get your purple PR, do moar dmg in the ship as X% of other players. Sad to, because it creates this ''we're unicum, we need to do our dmg to keep our unicum status so if we can do A and win the game, or B and farm lots more dmg but increase chances of loosing'. Effective dmg matters a lot more, and guess what this effectiveness is already shown in the winrate itself. Therefore PR weighting of dmg vs wr is imo off the mark. 

 

 

Wait, since when is this about ranked?

 

I don't want anything apart from to discuss if there is a better system than what we have.  Stop putting words into my mouth. Jeez what is it with these forums.

 

It's not about ranked but you must agree that your chance of being on the useless team side has increased and happens now with more frequency. Which got me thinking is there a better way to 

 

A: Either educate all these terrible players

 

B: Have a better MM so you actually don't meet them as often

 

 

 

 

[Allied_Winter]

4 minutes ago, Dragnorak said:

But what we have at the moment is totally random

... it's fair.

 

If all players get the same chances of getting in one team or another, to me that is fair. Even if this means that sometimes (depending on the luck of each participant) one team consists of two triple unicum divisions whereas the other team is stuck with one player above 50% WR.

 

Or in short: Treat everybody equal and let the player sort it out by themselves.

[Dragnorak]

1 minute ago, __Helmut_Kohl__ said:

 

And the solution is to not make it random and instead forcing good players into bad teams?

 

 

No as that would not be a solution. 

 

A possible solution is for MM to match up players based on skill WR/PR etc where possible so teams are more even. More even teams possibly means better battles.

[Allied_Winter]

6 minutes ago, Dragnorak said:

More even teams possibly means better battles.

How do you get to that assumption? The only thing a ... let's call it 'Pro Server' would guarantee that you meet more people of your own skill level (and let's assume also there is a way to determine accuratly a players skill in this game).

 

But would it be better? Closer? I doubt that. Imagine: Barcelona vs. Man United, but each time one team scores, the other team has to get rid of one player on the pitch. I'm sure it would be a very cautious 45 minutes followed by a swift tilt to one side as soon as one team loses two or three players.

 

And to speak from my personal perspective: I don't want to play every game against my own kind, so I rather take the random chaos over predictableness (and tedious work).

[Xevious_Red]

1 hour ago, Pikkozoikum said:

 

A unicorm has 1800 pr

average as 1500

and bad player with 1200

=  4500 PR total

 

the other team has only average players but no unicums

1550

1550

1400

=4500 PR total

 

The match would be some how balanced without having only unicums in on team and only bad players in the other team

 

Now imagine you're a super unicum with 2500-3000. Every game the MM has to find the worst of the worst players to go on your team so you meet the 4500. So literally every game your team will be bots, afk and face rollers.

 

Armoured Warfare (tank game like world of tanks) tried this MM. Its widely considered to be the thing that killed the game, because the better you get, literally the worse your team.

[mtm78]

4 minutes ago, Dragnorak said:

More even teams possibly means better battles.

 

No it won't.You think it will, but you're not listening to arguments. This whole discussion is age old and has been had time and time again. 

 

If you involve any 'skill' ( leave out how to judge ) you end up with the really good players being paired with the drooling part of the playerbase, while bad players will have it a little bit easier as there is always a super unicum to try and carry them. That or you split it into different brackets, but then you get problems with people migrating, and new people coming in bottom bracket never actually being able to learn how it's done right because no one in their bracket has the skill to show them. 

 

 

[Pikkozoikum]

18 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

 

PR puts to much weight in damage. Yes you can disagree, that's ok. 

 

And no this idea been dismissed before, it would mean good people always have to carry bad people, indirectly bad people still getting carried by good people, so nothing is solved. No more fully good team vs fully good team out of random luck, no because every good players is being pulled in matches where they have to compensate for the rest of their team. Doesn't sound that much fun to me.

 

 

I'm not sure, how the PR is calculated on wow-numbers, it seems also kills and other stuff goes into it

 

The point is, random matched means you have now

 

5 players with 2000 PR (lets call them A class players)

15 players with 1500 PR (B class)

4 players with 1000 PR (C class)

 

Now you get randomly matched

 Team 1

5x A class

7x B class

 

Team 2

8x B class

4x C class

 

That is fun for you? :D

 

with the PR matching it would swap some A class players with the C class players.

 

but I see, you missunderstood me. It's not about to "pull out" good players to get a fair matching. it's about "sorting" the already matched Team.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LemonadeWarriorITA]

The problem with the current match making is that you put 2 different kind of players in the same game. Players who like to do pew pew and players who like to win the game. My suggestion would be to give team buffs for capturing areas, so that the guys who like to do pew pew also contribute to the game.

[Pikkozoikum]

5 minutes ago, Xevious_Red said:

Now imagine you're a super unicum with 2500-3000. Every game the MM has to find the worst of the worst players to go on your team so you meet the 4500. So literally every game your team will be bots, afk and face rollers.

 

Armoured Warfare (tank game like world of tanks) tried this MM. Its widely considered to be the thing that killed the game, because the better you get, literally the worse your team.

Nooooo, it's not about finding a perfect match....................................

 

It's about sorting an existing team to get close to a good matching

 

you get your match of 6 players

 

3000

2000

2000

1500

1250

1000

 

 

Right now it could happen, that you get all 3 unicums in one team against 3 worse players, but it'S about to match with teamrates

3000+2000+2000 =7000

1500+1250+1000= 3750

(super unfair)

 

the system looks at the rates and tries to get a balance to avoide total stomps

3000+1250+1000=5250

2000+2000+1500=5500

 

 

[Dragnorak]

4 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

 

No it won't.You think it will, but you're not listening to arguments. This whole discussion is age old and has been had time and time again. 

 

If you involve any 'skill' ( leave out how to judge ) you end up with the really good players being paired with the drooling part of the playerbase, while bad players will have it a little bit easier as there is always a super unicum to try and carry them. That or you split it into different brackets, but then you get problems with people migrating, and new people coming in bottom bracket never actually being able to learn how it's done right because no one in their bracket has the skill to show them. 

 

 

 

There you go again "but you're not listening to arguments."

 

Do you struggle with English or just the concept of debate>?

 

I'm listening to all points, that's the point of debate or "Forum"

 

I am NOT arguing for anything. 

 

I am interested if there are any better ideas out there which again is the point of "Forum"

 

Why do you Wrongly assume I am of a particular leaning?

[MAD_3R_Marauder]

Measurement of player quality: Base XP (maybe somewhat modified to better reflect team-play, i.e. more weight for spotting/caps/...) within a class

Average Player: Player's Average Base-XP = Average Player-Base Base-XP in class +/-20% (or whatever)

Good Player: Player's Average Base-XP in class > 120% (or whatever) Average Player-Base Base-XP in class.

Bad Player: Player's Average Base-XP in class < 80% (or whatever) Average Player-Base Base-XP in class.

 

Average players fight average players, good players fight good players, bad players fight bad players.

Essentially, each player would be put into a "tier" of 1 to 3 for each class and only face equal tiered players.

 

Yes, good player's win-rate would go down, but that wouldn't influence the tier you're playing in, since the tier-rating isn't based on win-rate - and to be totally honest, win-rate as a stat could be done away with completely with such a system, since you're success would be measured in your tier (with a large enough player-base there could, of course, be more than 3, say, instead of -20%, average, and +20% with 3 tiers, have -20, -10, average, +10 and +20 in 5 tiers)

 

Of course, that will never be implemented, but if I had to introduce stat-based MM, that's (roughly) how I'd go about it

 

P.s. all numbers are obviously pulled out of my backside.

[mtm78]

 

5 minutes ago, Dragnorak said:

 

There you go again "but you're not listening to arguments."

 

Do you struggle with English or just the concept of debate>?

 

I'm listening to all points, that's the point of debate or "Forum"

 

I am NOT arguing for anything. 

 

I am interested if there are any better ideas out there which again is the point of "Forum"

 

Why do you Wrongly assume I am of a particular leaning?

 

You seem to not understand you need to use new arguments as all your current one's are already addressed. I am terribly sorry this goes over your head, and will therefore try and use small words and shorter sentences just like you, to make it easier.

 

Wait, did you not read that as being positive? Maybe read your own reactions back, the last few been quite passive aggressive. 

 

10 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

That is fun for you? :D

 

It was fun for at least 5k games. The last 100 or so haven't been fun, but I'm blaming myself ;)

 

2 minutes ago, MAD_3R_Marauder said:

Average players fight average players, good players fight good players, bad players fight bad players.

 

And how does average player become a good player? Watching flamu on twitch? He can't see good players in his bracket showing how it's done, I see this as going to prevent a lot of players to actually GIT GUD and learn the game. They will be content in their little bracket below, and I dread the new player who comes in and thinks that gameplay is what he should copy

 

 

 

[Dragnorak]

27 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

 

 

You seem to not understand you need to use new arguments as all your current one's are already addressed. I am terribly sorry this goes over your head, and will therefore try and use small words and shorter sentences just like you, to make it easier.

 

Wait, did you not read that as being positive? Maybe read your own reactions back, the last few been quite passive aggressive. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Passive Aggressive? Maybe I'm a Sado Masochist?

 

In all seriousness I'm not leaning in any direction apart from that the current system we have seems a bit meh to me and I wondered if there could possibly be a better system. 

[Pikkozoikum]

6 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

It was fun for at least 5k games. The last 100 or so haven't been fun, but I'm blaming myself ;)

I hate stomps, no matter which side is doing it. Super boring :-/

[mtm78]

5 minutes ago, Dragnorak said:

Passive Aggressive? Maybe I'm a Sado Masochist?

 

In all seriousness I'm not leaning in any direction apart from that the current system we have seems a bit meh to me and I wondered if there could possible be a better system. 

 

I do admit the steamrolls are no fun, even on the winning team, but they are still rare afaik. 

 

Any system which judges a person's skill, and uses this to 'level' teams is punishing better players and making it easier for worse players ( hey they win 50/50 so they must be ok, how would they know it's because the really good player keeps carrying him to victory ). Bad win rate / results should be a motivation for people to get better, don't take that away from them. 

[Allied_Winter]

2 minutes ago, Dragnorak said:

current system we have seems a bit meh to me and I wondered if there could possible be a better system

Well then it can be answered quickly: There have been countless discussions about various points surrounding any SBMM.

- Is it possible with the current player numbers? Answer: No

- Will SBMM battles be better? That depends heavily on the definition of better, but my personal assumption is no (and I seem to share that with quite a few forumites)

- What 'skill' should be used? Answer: It's not possible to measure accuratly what good player skill is (as in part there is no consens about what 'good' is)

- How to enable bad players to get up the ladder if they don't play against or play with good players to learn something? You can't.

 

Or in short: Been discussed over and over again, result is: Not possible (and certainly not unanimously wanted - even by good players).

[Hanse77SWE]

I think we're all missing the point that if you have bad WR then MM would let you face teams that have even worse WR just to get yours to rise.

It's not just about your team, the other teams would have to be "messed with" to get it to work.

 

No, just leave it as it is and ontop of that: WR isn't everything.

[Major_Damage225]

Make the MM mirror players by theyr W/R. 

In one team gets for example players with:

4 with 48% the other team gets 4 with 48% or 47/49%. 

Soo team lineup mirrored. 

"green team" lineup. 

4x 48%

4x 52%

2x 59% 

1x 64%

1x 42%

And the "reds" would get players of same w/r plus/minus 1%.

Just a thought. 

 

But yeah WG making any major changes to theyr famous MM, higley unlikley. 

[LemonadeWarriorITA]

I do think WG should create a Kiddie pool for those below 58% and <1800 PR with 3000 games. After that you get an achievement that unlocks a new gamemode. 

[Egoleter]

44 posts already and not a single new argument in sight.

[loppantorkel]

Dividing Random games in two pools to choose from would solve many issues. Players opt in for Competitive Random, otherwise they are pooled in Casual Random. No skill based MM, just players choosing their preferred competitive level and opposition.

[Merlin851526]

1 minute ago, loppantorkel said:

Dividing Random games in two pools to choose from would solve many issues. Players opt in for Competitive Random, otherwise they are pooled in Casual Random. No skill based MM, just players choosing their preferred competitive level and opposition.

That would not prevent seal clubbing. Actually it might increase the likelihood of said practise.

[loppantorkel]

2 minutes ago, Merlin851526 said:

That would not prevent seal clubbing. Actually it might increase the likelihood of said practise.

So? When did seal clubbing become an issue?

[250swb]

2 hours ago, Dragnorak said:

There have been a lot of discussions over the years re the quality of ones team and not forgetting of course the dirge of 40% Wr players.

 

So with a bit of thought would a stats based MM actually work do you think so that you are matched up more often with players of your skill level where available?

You have a 56% win ratio, how will you feel about it going down to 50%? This is the logical conclusion to players only playing against people of equal skill.

 

Eventually all players would end up with a 50% WR, from today's 65% players to the 40% players. Is that what you intend because if as you imply you've been following the discussions over the years this is always the conclusion if skill based MM mentioned. 

[Jethro_Grey]

42 minutes ago, Egoleter said:

44 posts already and not a single new argument in sight.

Well, you can beat a dead horse as much as you want ( not you Egoleter, figure of speech ), but no matter how hard you beat it, you won’t be able to teach it new tricks.