Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Squarebasher54

win rate and MM

30 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[SHAFT]
Players
9,809 posts
8,982 battles

Never?

Hows it supposed to work out... Make a match with only <50% players: they will move towards 50%. Make a match with only >50% players, they will also move towards 50%. In the end, everyone has 50% WR.

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
26,701 posts
14,317 battles
Just now, Squarebasher54 said:

So WG when is win rate going to be part of MM?

Probably never.

And incorporating WR into MM would change the WR and therefore the inflcuence of WR on the MM. Such a method would deactivate itself...

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
103 posts
13,038 battles

But there are better and worse players and the worse players will always have a worse win rate and  vice versa for the best regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
502 posts
1,580 battles

But, if bad teams play bad teams then statistics say they will end up at 50% win rate.

and if good teams play good teams then statistics say they will end up at 50% win rate.

Only by having Random MM where less skilled can compete against higher skilled can you get a spread of win rates.

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MIAU]
[MIAU]
Players
4,046 posts
43 minutes ago, Squarebasher54 said:

So WG when is win rate going to be part of MM?

Hopefully never.

 

For matchmaking discussions please consult this thread:

 

/thread

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,428 posts
10,725 battles
11 minutes ago, Squarebasher54 said:

Having just looked at ColonelPete and DFens_666 profiles oddly enough they both have better than 50% win rates, probably why they don;t like the idea.

 

Stat-Bashing ! I demand consequences ! and dont dare to look at my stats!!11

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
26,701 posts
14,317 battles
1 hour ago, Squarebasher54 said:

But there are better and worse players and the worse players will always have a worse win rate and  vice versa for the best regardless.

If the MM seeks to make both teams equally strong, then the WR of all players moves towards 50%. 

In turn this will make it for the MM extremly difficult to setup equally strong teams, because there is nothing to judge players on.

1 hour ago, Squarebasher54 said:

Having just looked at ColonelPete and DFens_666 profiles oddly enough they both have better than 50% win rates, probably why they don;t like the idea.

That is not odd. We know the game and know the consequences of this idea.

Good players would get punished with bad teammates and bad players would get rewarded for playing badly with strong teammates.

In the end WR would stop working as a metric for MM and matches would not look much different from now, but everyone has an average WR...

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
103 posts
13,038 battles
23 minutes ago, Bear_Necessities said:

Whine thread. Needs some cheese to be added I think.

It is not a whine thread, it is there to talk constructively about MM, and until it is tried no one knows what will happen.

 

Also if this is taken on a ship by ship basis, rather than a players overall WR then it might work.

  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
26,701 posts
14,317 battles
Just now, Squarebasher54 said:

It is not a whine thread, it is there to talk constructively about MM, and until it is tried no one knows what will happen.

We told you what will happen...

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TACHA]
Players
1,421 posts
15,841 battles

Would not want this to happen. When I started, I was pretty bad. I lost playing Co-Op. However gradually (very in my case) by playing with players better than me and being given constructive criticism, I got better. I am never going to be as good as these two esteemed players but I do carry on occasions and win slightly more often than I lose. If I had been put with nothing but other inexperienced and not that good players, I would have even more bad habits than I do now and would have probably given up the game.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,371 posts
14,090 battles
7 minutes ago, Squarebasher54 said:

It is not a whine thread, it is there to talk constructively about MM, and until it is tried no one knows what will happen.

 

Also if this is taken on a ship by ship basis, rather than a players overall WR then it might work.

This is EASILY the MILLIONTH thread along these lines. Guess what. WG have they will NOT implement this form of MM as it DOES NOT WORK. 

 

Please. Feel free to find me a similar game where it does. Hundreds have tried but I’m SURE you will be the 1st to succeed.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
9,809 posts
8,982 battles
1 hour ago, Squarebasher54 said:

But there are better and worse players and the worse players will always have a worse win rate and  vice versa for the best regardless.

10 minutes ago, Squarebasher54 said:

Also if this is taken on a ship by ship basis, rather than a players overall WR then it might work. 

 

Then how about elaborate exactly what you want? Because if only bad players play amongst each other, most of them will win more often. Same for Unicums playing amongst each other, which results in more losses.

The other option is, if a high WR player gets into the game, he gets a potato as balancing... which is just horrible.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,893 posts

There's a cadre of players that will crucify this question, but it seems it just won't die haha.

 

Probably because you can't silence the majority(?) in a free(?) forum. There's no way to bring every player to 50%, because the 'best' players will always win the game so the WR reflects a player's ability faithfully if given enough games -according to the many posts made in previous threads, made when try to justify a similar but slightly different request (not 'random' mm creates streaks and other weird stuff in games -Games with radar imbalance, games played imbalance, captain's skills imbalance, yes skill level imbalance etc- Imbalance means it will favor heavily and deliberately one side to create roflstomps if possible).

 

Anyway back to topic. Why? Very simple. Cuz they carry teams to victory. That is fair. And just. So they will go above 50% or remain easily at their previous stats WHATEVER opposition they face. Their skill is reflected by their WR faithfully. So Nothing will change.

 

Not my argument. Theirs.

 

Or perhaps they won't fare so good, since everyone will drop to 50% as THEY answer/declare to justify another similar but slightly different question like the one asked by the OP. Hmm, it does create some type of a conundrum though this argument. Will the better players stop being better when faced with similar or improved opposition? Or will they rise above and deliver as they have done in the past? What is stopping them from winning more facing better players? They are still better than them. No? Their WR says so. Or perhaps it doesn't and it is just a frozen instance, a moment artificially created that, when faced with different opposition will melt away and evaporate. 

 

This doesn't seem right. Something has to give here. 

 

In my opinion... I think they will be fine.

 

Or maybe I'm wrong.

 

Btw this topic will never be fully solved or answered in a satisfactory manner. It is in the game's best interest to have different casts of players so it can create interest. It is my opinion since the start, haven't seen anything to change it.  

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
9,809 posts
8,982 battles
4 minutes ago, lossi_2018 said:

*snip*

 

Lets take 24 players. All of them have 100 battles played and 65% WR. Added together, out of 2400 combined battles, they won 1560.

They play another 100 battles only facing each other (this is basicly what some people suggest, i.e. unicums playing against other Unicums)

Now those 24 players have a total of 4800 battles played, each of them 200. While 12 players win, the other 12 will inevtiably lose.

 

If everyone would get an equal share of the wins, everyone would drop down to 57,5% WR.  (100 games with 65% WR + 100 games with 50% WR gives us 115 wins out of 200 games played or 57,5% WR)

Ofc you will say, thats not reasonable, why should they all get 50% WR? Ofc not. but its to show, that the system AUTOMATICALLY will drag people towads 50% WR. Because for a player with ABOVE 50% WR, there will be one or more with LESS than 50% WR. The total sum of 50% WR cant be broken, if you put players into a closed system.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7,032 posts
245 battles
2 hours ago, Molly_Delaney said:

But, if bad teams play bad teams then statistics say they will end up at 50% win rate.

and if good teams play good teams then statistics say they will end up at 50% win rate.

Only by having Random MM where less skilled can compete against higher skilled can you get a spread of win rates.

 

They tried it in AW, i did climb up in winrate. But they removed it in the end (mainly due to not enough peeps and not many peeps liking it).

 

Although my winrate dropped afterwards and eventually started to climb back up, but i can't be bothered with the game as balance has gone down the toilet with miss object 940 running around delievering 1,1k shots of love to every poor sod it meets (thats 2 shots for almost all tier 8's most tier 9's and some tier 10's.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LEEUW]
Players
2,318 posts
10,110 battles
30 minutes ago, lossi_2018 said:

What is stopping them from winning more facing better players? They are still better than them. No? Their WR says so. Or perhaps it doesn't and it is just a frozen instance, a moment artificially created that, when faced with different opposition will melt away and evaporate. 

What on earth are you smoking? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AAO]
Players
1,546 posts
20,788 battles
36 minutes ago, lossi_2018 said:

Cuz they carry teams to victory. That is fair. And just. So they will go above 50% or remain easily at their previous stats WHATEVER opposition they face. Their skill is reflected by their WR faithfully. So Nothing will change.

HOW do they carry their teams to victory ? Because they consistently make better decisions and contribute more to their team than their respective counterpart on the enemy team.

Their WR thus reflects their skill relative to the level of teams and opposition they face.

37 minutes ago, lossi_2018 said:

Not my argument. Theirs.

Someone can be good at a game and still be rubbish at relatively basic logic.

Also source please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
1,337 posts
10,376 battles
1 hour ago, Squarebasher54 said:

until it is tried no one knows what will happen

There is one thing called math. 

It makes absolute predictions.

 

No need to try it we know what will happen because math predicts so. 

 

If WG implements your proposal then you will end up with everybody having 50%

 

Its math. All the rest is horse excrement.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
372 posts
5,716 battles
5 minutes ago, Saltface said:

There is one thing called math. 

It makes absolute predictions.

 

No need to try it we know what will happen because math predicts so. 

 

If WG implements your proposal then you will end up with everybody having 50%

 

Its math. All the rest is horse excrement.

It’s not even a prediction tbh, it’s almost a rule of certainty. Eventually that is what would happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
3,910 posts
16,107 battles

There is some element of success based MM out there (for example.... I find myself being lowtiered more often after I've played Co-op or Ops for a while, having higher average damage than I do if I play Randoms). But the whole 50% thing is just silly and no guarantee of quality. I wouldn't mind it if people got turned pink after 30 games in a ship and were restricted to Co-op for having a win rate below 30%, though. Take the hint, people.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,834 posts
20,186 battles
45 minutes ago, Saltface said:

There is one thing called math. 

It makes absolute predictions.

 

No need to try it we know what will happen because math predicts so. 

 

If WG implements your proposal then you will end up with everybody having 50%

 

Its math. All the rest is horse excrement.

Considering that with the current system the better players are supposed to meet their equals on a regular base too, shouldn't - by pure maths - even the current system work out to everyone having a 50% winrate?

 

And what would maths do, if teams were set up so the sum of win % is equal between the teams? This would mean that teams that are supposed to be "about equally strong" would face each other, instead of the now often happening "10 60% players facing 10 45% players on the other team" battles we all love so dearly...

 

And queue times could be handled by making teams smaller. Easy solution... would be more fun anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×