Jump to content
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Ruffnecks

Match making with Winrate

22 comments in this topic

Question

[U-F-G]
Players
49 posts
16,129 battles

Hello fellow captians, 

 

i wonderd why doesnt WG make the MM with just only the Winrate perameters of everybody so the both teams goth the same winrate guys. I know they have complicated system know and some find it oke some find it bad. They will also make laugh of this but why. 

 

Ruffnecks

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 5
[CATS]
Players
32,413 posts
16,212 battles
40 minutes ago, Ruffnecks said:

Hello fellow captians, 

 

i wonderd why doesnt WG make the MM with just only the Winrate perameters of everybody so the both teams goth the same winrate guys. I know they have complicated system know and some find it oke some find it bad. They will also make laugh of this but why. 

 

Ruffnecks

Because such a system would remove winrate as an usuable parameter, as all winrates would start to move towards 50% and then everything is random again.

And good players do not want to get punished for their performance by being equalized by bad players.

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1
[VIBES]
Players
1,200 posts
22,829 battles
1 hour ago, Ruffnecks said:

so the both teams goth the same winrate guys

This would quickly lead to teams being of equal skill, which would increase or drop everyone's winrate to 50%.

 

Then winrate would be meaningless and they'd have to go with some other parameter (PR, xp, damage or some such).

 

Then everyone would keep winning exactly half their games forever (with some fluctuation, but not more so than a fair coin has fluctuations), which equates to an economic reward, in terms of xp and credits, for the bad players, and a punishment for the good ones.

 

Then the good players would justifiably leave, as the game would be punishing them for being good, that is for being better than the average opponent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1
[ENUF]
[ENUF]
Players
703 posts
27,948 battles

Exactly... What the seals are doing in hightier matches? I remember a guy who blamed us for playing T8... We were to good, we are only allowed to play T10. Told him ok... Then please take care that all bad players leaving T10, so only the good players stay there. And please, refund me all my money I spend for premiumships below T10.

 

Never got an answer again, wondering why.... 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
[U-F-G]
Players
49 posts
16,129 battles

I disagree a bit, true what all will come much more together but people can learn from it if better players are with them and also players of same skill against them now its or lost in 3 min or win in 3 min. But i know youre heading protecting the 10% base execcelnt player. 

 

Because now they come across players of their skill 2 so it makes sense for both i think to fight each other. These days its simple if you got good platoon with desecent or good players on youre side most of time you will win easily nobody learn from this yes the good players because their win rate stays. 

 

I Think this will be the best mm, no one will be protected anymore and everybody had to do his skill to win. 

 

also for players with very low win rate its better if yhey play aginst same so they can have also fun and nog being destroyed in 1 shot by making a mistake.

 

Btw this is how i see it and i know everybody have and other idea of mm

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
[VIBES]
Players
1,200 posts
22,829 battles
Just now, Ruffnecks said:

No i dont think so if youre good you will progress ans stay on the top

What? How will you "progress"? Progress where?

 

If you're good, this balanced system you're proposing would put you in a worse-than-average team to compensate, and your WR would go down, inevitably.

 

Good players are good because on average they play against an average player, and they're better than him/her. But if you make sure the teams have the same average winrate (or something like that), there's no way good players would "stay on top", winrate-wise. It would increase the odds that it would be the losing team they'd be on top of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
[CATS]
Players
32,413 posts
16,212 battles
1 hour ago, Ruffnecks said:

I disagree a bit, true what all will come much more together but people can learn from it if better players are with them and also players of same skill against them now its or lost in 3 min or win in 3 min. But i know youre heading protecting the 10% base execcelnt player. 

 

Because now they come across players of their skill 2 so it makes sense for both i think to fight each other. These days its simple if you got good platoon with desecent or good players on youre side most of time you will win easily nobody learn from this yes the good players because their win rate stays. 

 

I Think this will be the best mm, no one will be protected anymore and everybody had to do his skill to win. 

 

also for players with very low win rate its better if yhey play aginst same so they can have also fun and nog being destroyed in 1 shot by making a mistake.

 

Btw this is how i see it and i know everybody have and other idea of mm

 

  • I never have won or lost matches in three minutens.
  • No, bad players do not need skill to win with this system. They will win 50% of the time, the same as good players.
  • And if you make players only play against players of the same winrating, then the few good players have waiting times of 10+ minutes
31 minutes ago, Ruffnecks said:

No i dont think so if youre good you will progress ans stay on the top, And i know youre all afraid of youre win rate but who is good will stay good only they have to work for it now. And who is bad stays bad and some will improve and get better and some will lower then they needed to be. but this would be a more spreaded mm then what its now

When a good player stays on top, the teams are not of equal strength. You cannot have 55% winrating in a system that is supposed to make teams of equal strength.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
[U-F-G]
Players
49 posts
16,129 battles
1 minute ago, ColonelPete said:

You cannot have 55% winrating in a system that is supposed to make teams of equal strength.

dont know why not, 

 

If you give every team 1 player with 60+ win rate, 1 or 2 players with 55-60% winrate, then the most like 6 of them round 50+, and the others below 50, or maybe 1 player above 50% wirate and all the rest between 45% and 50%. on both teams then it would be better ballanced and skilled. no you got a team who got all or nothing these days

 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
[CATS]
Players
32,413 posts
16,212 battles
5 minutes ago, Ruffnecks said:

dont know why not,

Because then the teams are not equal. Equal teams means everyone wins 50% of the time. If that is not the case, then the teams are not equal.

And then the question is why to change the MM in the first place.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
[U-F-G]
Players
49 posts
16,129 battles
7 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Because then the teams are not equal. Equal teams means everyone wins 50% of the time. If that is not the case, then the teams are not equal.

And then the question is why to change the MM in the first place.

 

Oke so the thing you say now means everyone who does not has a winrate of 50% played in not equall teames! 

so all who are not 50% is not Skilled that diff?

 

And why to change the mm, Because a lot of people rather play against or with a team who is same skilled like them or better then them to get better and to learn and not to play 80% of the times with or against a team who are very poor skilled. They should play their own MM and get better their instead of being punished by every hit. And grind Up slowly. 

 

But yes the seal clubber who dont whant this because of his win rate. But if youre good you also win also against same skilled opponents

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
[CATS]
Players
32,413 posts
16,212 battles
10 minutes ago, Ruffnecks said:

 

Oke so the thing you say now means everyone who does not has a winrate of 50% played in not equall teames! 

so all who are not 50% is not Skilled that diff?

I am talking about your proposal, not the current MM.

11 minutes ago, Ruffnecks said:

And why to change the mm, Because a lot of people rather play against or with a team who is same skilled like them or better then them to get better and to learn and not to play 80% of the times with or against a team who are very poor skilled. They should play their own MM and get better their instead of being punished by every hit. And grind Up slowly. 

 

But yes the seal clubber who dont whant this because of his win rate. But if youre good you also win also against same skilled opponents

When playing Tier VIII+ is sealclubbing, then maybe the seals should think about where they are hanging out.

Most player perform MUCH better when playing Tier V and VI. If someone has trouble at Tier VIII+, why does one not stay at V and VI?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
[AAO]
Players
1,597 posts
21,623 battles
On 1/10/2021 at 7:55 PM, Ruffnecks said:

dont know why not, 

 

If you give every team 1 player with 60+ win rate, 1 or 2 players with 55-60% winrate, then the most like 6 of them round 50+, and the others below 50, or maybe 1 player above 50% wirate and all the rest between 45% and 50%. on both teams then it would be better ballanced and skilled. no you got a team who got all or nothing these days

Some numbers on why that's not a workable idea:
60%+ players are less than 1.5% of the player base, 55-60% players make up another ~5% At the same time 1 player is ~8.3% of the team.

So while you might make this work with the 55-60% guys there's no way you have enough 60% ppl to fill even 20% of the matches (even disregarding tier and ship class).
(And now try to find opponents for a 3 man div with wr in the 60s, the queue times would be ludicrous)

 

As to why I think that idea is problematic: Currently the MM is fair in that it doesn't give a toss. You have an almost equal chance to be on team with on average better or worse players,

the only difference coming from how you yourself measure up against some random guy that would otherwise be in your place, i.e. your own skill.

Sure individual match ups might be very lopsided but usually both teams are on a more or less similar level stats-wise.

Your proposal (and any similar one I've seen so far) neither changes the fact that a good player will most likely dumpster you but make the MM actually biased,

in the sense that the worse you are the more good players will be allocated to your team to carry you and the better you are the more clueless people you have to drag to victory kicking and screaming.

Given the pool you have to pick from it makes little sense to actually make the teams actively worse for a bunch of people while not helping those that were supposed to benefit grow.

 

Not to mention Petes point that ofc winrates would start converging to 50% since you'd always get matched with someone of similar skill level your own skill level would mostly cancel out, because you'd always have an opponent that was as good or bad as you on the enemy team, the same being true for all players.

Even if you kept on winning in that system at time of change because you're god himself the MM would simply pick better and better opponents for you until you start loosing as often as you win,

same argument for those that still would keep loosing.

On 1/10/2021 at 8:18 PM, Ruffnecks said:

Oke so the thing you say now means everyone who does not has a winrate of 50% played in not equall teames!  

so all who are not 50% is not Skilled that diff? 

That's an easy straw man. Yes when you play both teams are on average not equal because you're in one them.

If you're a horrible player on average your team will be worse, if you're good on average your team will be the better team, it's as easy as that.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Players
2,971 posts
16,097 battles
4 hours ago, rnat said:

That's an easy straw man. Yes when you play both teams are on average not equal because you're in one them.

If you're a horrible player on average your team will be worse, if you're good on average your team will be the better team, it's as easy as that.

This.

In a long run you are the one that make teams not equal. How do you stack up against server average player in the same tiers and classes of ships should show in yours WR.

I know you hate short one sided games, but I can tell this.

I used Match making Monitor and even this 6 minute games do happen even with equal teams.

The problem is with game design where comeback is very hard unless enemy decides to throw and 1-2 early losses can be detrimental and ending in a domino effect.

Plus players without the clue, often with more euros then brain cells and WG willing to sell hight tier premiums t8, t9 and t10 to anyone without experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
[LSCA]
Players
2,002 posts
14,870 battles

 

On 1/10/2021 at 5:58 PM, ColonelPete said:

Because such a system would remove winrate as an usuable parameter, as all winrates would start to move towards 50%

 

 

that's is not true, users who play like potatoes  will stay at  potato league forever and they probably drop even more as there no brain people at there who can lead them to victory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
[CATS]
Players
32,413 posts
16,212 battles
35 minutes ago, gabberworld said:

 

 

that's is not true, users who play like potatoes  will stay at  potato league forever and they probably drop even more as there no brain people at there who can lead them to victory

How can potatos have less than 50% WR when the MM makes sure that all matches are between teams of equal strength? Think!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
[LSCA]
Players
2,002 posts
14,870 battles
2 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

How can potatos have less than 50% WR when the MM makes sure that all matches are between teams of equal strength? Think!

balance by winrate not fix anything anyway, they probably eat :cap_popcorn: at same time when reading topics like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
[CATS]
Players
32,413 posts
16,212 battles
3 minutes ago, gabberworld said:

balance by winrate not fix anything anyway, they probably eat :cap_popcorn: at same time when reading topics like this

Does not matter. The proposed MM will make sure that the enemy is as bad or the potato gets enough skilled teammates to compensate him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
[LSCA]
Players
2,002 posts
14,870 battles
10 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Does not matter. The proposed MM will make sure that the enemy is as bad or the potato gets enough skilled teammates to compensate him.

highest problem what i see atm in this current system is that skilled long time players with allot good premium ships steals winrates from beginners, then beginners either quit play game or they play only for fun and don't care anymore at all for try to win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
[WGP2W]
Beta Tester
1,643 posts
7,836 battles
On 1/10/2021 at 7:48 PM, ColonelPete said:
  • I never have won or lost matches in three minutens.

Oh, but I have won or lost many matches within three minutes of the game. The combination of the team line-ups and the way your team spreads out will tell enough whether you are playing for a lost cause or not.

 

Example below wasn't won in 3, but in 4 minutes. Team quality difference was too big.

Spoiler

shot-20_12.31_11_20.26-0904.jpg.d450eb1e

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
[CHEFT]
Players
12,666 posts
9,841 battles
On 1/10/2021 at 8:11 PM, Ruffnecks said:

who is good will stay good only they have to work for it now.

 

So good players dont work for being good right now, gotcha :fish_palm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
[AAO]
Players
1,597 posts
21,623 battles
On 1/10/2021 at 7:11 PM, Ruffnecks said:

No i dont think so if youre good you will progress ans stay on the top, And i know youre all afraid of youre win rate but who is good will stay good only they have to work for it now. And who is bad stays bad and some will improve and get better and some will lower then they needed to be. but this would be a more spreaded mm then what its now

Are you deliberately ignoring the consequences of your proposal even when they've already been pointed out to you ?

Yes, going by pure skill if you're good you'll stay good and bad players won't magically become decent either. It will no longer be accurately reflected in the winrate.

A 60% WR guy will give his team an approximately 10% better chance to win over a random replacement because he's that much better than his counterpart on the other team (and the rest of that team).

If you always match 60% guys on either side they will cancel each other out because suddenly the guy that helps his team win by outplaying the opposition will be faced against someone about equally good at outplaying the other team so to keep winning he'd have to be significantly better than any other player with the same winrate which we can safely assume is quite rare.

And if that player was brilliant and kept winning anyways, as I've already noted he will then be matched against other players who kept on winning despite the odds, i.e. the cream of the cream.

At some point everyone will face players so good that it's essentially a draw between them and their win rate will approach 50%.

Same for any absolutely abysmal player. The game will keep on matching him against worse and worse opponents until in the end both are equally useless and his win rate will approach 50% as well no matter how bad he is.

Keep in mind that no matter how bad a player is with your proposed system he would see "improvement" in his stats (dmg/wr ect)

just because he will be matched against more and more useless enemies, giving an illusion of skill-progress and less incentive and opportunity to learn.

And ofc the same holds for any given win rate player, the game would match him against opponents of equal skill which makes the outcome statistically (since this happens for all players) a 50/50.

 

Unless you can give a cogent argument as to why this won't be the case in your system besides "it just won't be because reasons" or "you're all just elitists and afraid of challenge or change"

or an explanation why the benefits are worth both punishing skill, rewarding bad play (MM wise) and making wr (which you base the selection on) a useless metric stop pretending it would make things better.

Now please give such an argument and make all of us look foolish or admit that your proposal still needs some work to iron out those problems.
I'd hate to loose the illusion that people actually try to engage in good faith arguments and discussions on the internet.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -1
[U-F-G]
Players
49 posts
16,129 battles
14 minutes ago, tocqueville8 said:

This would quickly lead to teams being of equal skill, which would increase or drop everyone's winrate to 50%.

No i dont think so if youre good you will progress ans stay on the top, And i know youre all afraid of youre win rate but who is good will stay good only they have to work for it now. And who is bad stays bad and some will improve and get better and some will lower then they needed to be. but this would be a more spreaded mm then what its now

 

  • Funny 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×