Suggestion for skill-based MM

[SolanumTuberosumRex]

It occurred to me that I had not seen this suggestion before. What about a system analogous to a football leage, i.e. a premier league and a secondary division? Divide the playerbase roughly in half (according to WR) and let them play amongst each other. Every so often - say three or six months - there is a promotion and a relegation. The matchmaker keeps the two leagues separate.

I would likely end up in the secondary, and I'd be fine with that knowing most others there are equally potatoes like me. 😂 I'd feel courageous enough to try Mino again!

[Aethervoxx]

A more balanced & somehow skill based MM is obviously what this game requires.

For example, if a 40% WR player goes on one team then the other team automatically gets a 40%WR player, etc  until both teams have an exact mirror of WRs (if WR is the determinant).

However, the downside to this fairness & balance will be much longer wait times in the battle queue.

Telling how the longer waits &, in general, longer battles were more the rule than the exception in the early years of WoWS. Now it is exactly the opposite.

All due to WG, imo, only interested in fast play and not caring at all about the game experience.

[tocqueville8]

Just now, Aethervoxx said:

However, the downside to this fairness & balance will be much longer wait times in the battle queue.

 

Imho it doesn't necessarily have to be that accurate to make the games more balanced.

 

A 48% and a 52% player together are probably worth about as much as two 50% players. It depends on the tier, the ship, the mood, the hours of sleep they've had, and a bunch of other things, anyway. 

 

Maybe it's different for 45% vs 55% and so on.

One might have to look at the xp earnings to get a more readable metric of a player's average contribution to the team: someone who averages 600 xp might have a very similar (bad) WR as someone who averages 400, but he's still being 50% more useful, in some way.

 

But whatever the system, what I'm saying is that the MM could be a bit more elastic than to try to create two teams that perfectly mirror one another, and the result would still be more balanced than what we have.

 

As an above-average player, balanced MM would make me win fewer games, so I would like to see the winning bonus diminish and the xp be higher than now for a loss, as to some extent I would be playing against myself, statistically.

 

Still, I'd welcome the change, as it would lead to more balanced games. Steamrolls are no fun whichever side you're on.

 

[lameoll]

2 hours ago, PsychoClownfish said:

It occurred to me that I had not seen this suggestion before

this made me laugh :D it has been suggested tons of times :P

 

altho i would LOVE to get some descent players in my team for once instead of stoned monkeys

it will never happen as that would lose WG money also their usual comment is idd the queue times

 

 

[HMS_Kilinowski]

2 hours ago, PsychoClownfish said:

It occurred to me that I had not seen this suggestion before. What about a system analogous to a football leage, i.e. a premier league and a secondary division? Divide the playerbase roughly in half (according to WR) and let them play amongst each other. Every so often - say three or six months - there is a promotion and a relegation. The matchmaker keeps the two leagues separate.

I would likely end up in the secondary, and I'd be fine with that knowing most others there are equally potatoes like me. 😂 I'd feel courageous enough to try Mino again!

 

Don't kill the messenger, but the idea has been discussed over and over in the forum over the years.

 

There are some flaws to it.

1. Friends want to play together. If one sucks and the other is great, they would be separated in different leagues.

2. You'd need more leagues to differentiate skill, since several percentage points difference in winrate already mean a huge difference in quality. The more leagues, the more separate waiting queues you'd get and the longer the waiting time would be.

3. My favorite argument: What's the incentive to face better opponents? The higher league would need to yield higher baseXP earnings to make it worthwhile.

[SolanumTuberosumRex]

Well I said I hadn't seen it before, I did not claim it hadn't been suggested before. I also searched but didn't find anything like I had in mind, I would love to know the objections.

[Echo_519]

There's serveral flaws with this.

First of all, winrate is not a way to measure skill.

A players winrate does not have anything to do with a players current skill.

Why should battle from 5 years ago still count? So you would need very limited number of battles to take into consideration. But then you have the problem that on short periods your winrate is not at all based on your skill, it's how lucky you got with matchmaking. 

 

On top of all that, winrate does not work for skillbased matchmaking anyways. If you blanace teams, no matter how, all players will converge to 50%.

So first of all, even IF Wg wanted to introduce skillbased matchmaking, we would need a statistik/wy to actually put skill into a number that works....

[SV_Kompresor]

No

[BLUB__BLUB]

16 hours ago, tocqueville8 said:

As an above-average player, balanced MM would make me win fewer games, so I would like to see the winning bonus diminish and the xp be higher than now for a loss, as to some extent I would be playing against myself, statistically.

I think you'd get more XP anyway, since it will prevent ROFLSTOMP games... 

Would mean games last longer, so you can/must do more damage (and you will not be the first one to die, obviously).
In your case, theoretically suppose you were at 100%WR but all won in average 5 minutes - and now you'd get 15 minutes but 75% WR.

You'd do around 50% more damage. 

[BLUB__BLUB]

17 hours ago, Aethervoxx said:

For example, if a 40% WR player goes on one team then the other team automatically gets a 40%WR player, etc  until both teams have an exact mirror of WRs (if WR is the determinant).

It would be easier, just count the WR/damage per player and make sure each side has around the same total. 

If you'd have a mega-unicum with >80% (say, @El2aZeR in Enterprise) he'd get a few 40%ers to compensate... 

It would be interesting to see what happened anyway.

 

Though I still predict he'll clean up the whole team and farm even harder... 

[SolanumTuberosumRex]

The reason why I think it would be a good idea to separate good and great players from bad and awful players is that there is almost no room to learn for potatoes. All the ROFLSTOMPS point to this. If you had a league where all players were at least decent, it would look more like higher level competitive, and in the lower league, the potatoes would have more room to f*ck up but not immediately die, because there would be no unicum to fatally punish him. Compare with T4-T6 gameplay. Fewer steamrolls.

[tocqueville8]

42 minutes ago, Echo_519 said:

A players winrate does not have anything to do with a players current skill.

 

It's got plenty to do with it.

A good player is not going to have a 43% WR over the past 200 games (his "current skill"), for instance. No way.

 

Just because it's not a perfect measure, it doesn't mean it's worthless.

[Bear__Necessities]

No. To many variables. And frankly. I don't fancy waiting insane times to play a pointy click arcade game just because I decided to put in a little effort and get good. 

[Siagor]

"Skill based" mm is the dumbest idea ever, perpetually asked for in Tanks, Ships and Planes.

 

OK, WG listened to all your pleas and made a MM where only 55-80% WR players fight against each other... in a week all of them would be ~50% WR.

Same goes with the lower section, you bunch up 35-45% WRaters and in a week, all of them are ~50%.

[Ocsimano18]

I installed match making monitor today to see how it works. Basically it cannot reliably predict anything. Here is a typical ranked match as an example:

 

The red team was slightly favored, but it turned out to be a complete blowout for them.

[Redcap375]

5 hours ago, Ocsimano18 said:

I installed match making monitor today to see how it works. Basically it cannot reliably predict anything. Here is a typical ranked match as an example:

 

The red team was slightly favored, but it turned out to be a complete blowout for them.

 

Under 2% is a evenish game and your team was actually better in the ships. If all the games would be 2% max or under then I would be a happy man, but alas, that's not how this game rolls. 

 

In very rare cases, hidden profile players can be good and it doesn't take that into account. Normally they are really bad though, in my expeance. 

 

Looks like your moskva might be one such player. He would have jumped your WR stats to even stevens or even give you the edge. 

 

But have a random game or few and get back to us. See how you find the Wonderful MM and see first hand just how stupid it can get.

 

Like this one for example... Have fun 

[Ocsimano18]

8 hours ago, Redcap375 said:

 

Under 2% is a evenish game and your team was actually better in the ships. If all the games would be 2% max or under then I would be a happy man, but alas, that's not how this game rolls. 

 

In very rare cases, hidden profile players can be good and it doesn't take that into account. Normally they are really bad though, in my expeance. 

 

Looks like your moskva might be one such player. He would have jumped your WR stats to even stevens or even give you the edge. 

 

But have a random game or few and get back to us. See how you find the Wonderful MM and see first hand just how stupid it can get.

 

Like this one for example... Have fun 

This is 2 vs 2 division match making. Those are almost always unbalanced. Here you had a unicum Smaland in one of the red divisions.

[Margin_Walker]

That's a tough break matchmaking wise. Could have been worse too as your team's actually slightly above average as these things go. 

 

I'm generally okay with the matchmaking, but running MM there are definitely those games where you where there's a 5%+ difference in Random WR stats that tend to be a complete write off. Could perhaps do with some sort of rule baked in to prevent such a huge disparity.

[Ocsimano18]

8 hours ago, Redcap375 said:

But have a random game or few and get back to us. See how you find the Wonderful MM and see first hand just how stupid it can get.

 

Like this one for example... Have fun 

Well, yes, the monitor seems to be more fun than useful. Here, for example, the chances slightly favored the red team. But we had a black player called 'Warm Black Dingus' flying around in his Chkalov. You can imagine what happened...

Spoiler

 

 

[Redcap375]

10 minutes ago, Ocsimano18 said:

Well, yes, the monitor seems to be more fun than useful. Here, for example, the chances slightly favored the red team. But we had a black player called 'Warm Black Dingus' flying around in his Chkalov. You can imagine what happened...

  Hide contents

 

 

 

Lol, Yeah.  Looks like you had a good game  Joking, we all have them. Not played the Monaghan for ages!

 

That MM is pretty balanced player wise and I wish we could all get MM like that but in Randoms, anything under 2% is alright and all to play for.  Now like we all know, there are variables like the quality of DD and CV players which can alter games quite hard. 

 

52 minutes ago, Ocsimano18 said:

This is 2 vs 2 division match making. Those are almost always unbalanced. Here you had a unicum Smaland in one of the red divisions.

 

Extremely unbalanced and something I have ALWAYS harped on about.  There will never be a change to MM player wise, it's simply not good business for WG, but aiming lower like stopping death ball divs in the same team is more achievable MM goal. 

 

And yes the Smaland is OP.

 

MMM is a tool.  It tells you all sorts of useful information and information is power. But it's stats and like all stats you take them with a pinch of salt. You have to read between the lines and take everything into consideration. Great damage stat wise? Fantastic, but the DD doesn't cap for toffee and has poor XP so practically useless winning wise.  Completely awful in cruisers but stick him/her in a Bourg and he will shine (Look at my screenshot of "CaptainKio").  You have to take everything into consideration and not just the overall stats.

 

Best stats are the most all rounded ones, even if they are medium/low. 

 

[ReportSandoor94]

No. Just no.

[General_Alexus]

Has been discussed countless times. There is ELO system out there, trusted and proven. If we dont want that (I dont), than keep it as it is.

[SolanumTuberosumRex]

22 hours ago, Echo_519 said:

There's serveral flaws with this.

First of all, winrate is not a way to measure skill.

A players winrate does not have anything to do with a players current skill.

 

Bullsh1t. Statistcally, WR says everything you need to know.

 

 

Quote

Why should battle from 5 years ago still count? So you would need very limited number of battles to take into consideration. But then you have the problem that on short periods your winrate is not at all based on your skill, it's how lucky you got with matchmaking. 

You don't understand statistics. That's fine, it just disqualifies you from making arguments like this one.

 

Quote

 

On top of all that, winrate does not work for skillbased matchmaking anyways. If you blanace teams, no matter how, all players will converge to 50%.

So first of all, even IF Wg wanted to introduce skillbased matchmaking, we would need a statistik/wy to actually put skill into a number that works....

 

The only thing preventing skillrate converging to 50% - or rather, making all players roughly the same skill level - is the influx of new players. Given enough time, all players would get good, at least good enough to prevent stomps, and the collective WR would become 50%. 

So that's no reason not to try some form of skillbased MM.

 

[Ocsimano18]

6 hours ago, Redcap375 said:

 

Lol, Yeah.  Looks like you had a good game  Joking, we all have them. Not played the Monaghan for ages!

 

That MM is pretty balanced player wise and I wish we could all get MM like that but in Randoms, anything under 2% is alright and all to play for.  Now like we all know, there are variables like the quality of DD and CV players which can alter games quite hard. 

 

 

Extremely unbalanced and something I have ALWAYS harped on about.  There will never be a change to MM player wise, it's simply not good business for WG, but aiming lower like stopping death ball divs in the same team is more achievable MM goal. 

 

And yes the Smaland is OP.

 

MMM is a tool.  It tells you all sorts of useful information and information is power. But it's stats and like all stats you take them with a pinch of salt. You have to read between the lines and take everything into consideration. Great damage stat wise? Fantastic, but the DD doesn't cap for toffee and has poor XP so practically useless winning wise.  Completely awful in cruisers but stick him/her in a Bourg and he will shine (Look at my screenshot of "CaptainKio").  You have to take everything into consideration and not just the overall stats.

 

Best stats are the most all rounded ones, even if they are medium/low. 

 

I opened Monaghan today from a super container. This was my very first match in any American DD. Little did I know that they were used in the Apollo program and shooting their shells on Terrestial orbit. Also, I wanted to torp a Nelson with the reload booster, but pressing ‘U’ three times did nothing (the booster icon was available), so I got killed. I had similar issues in another match, where the torps were not launched on mouse click.

 

I don’t feel that the match making monitor would give much useful information. I could already estimate roughly the player skills based on their ships and moves. I let it run for a while to see if I can learn something. So far I haven’t really seen a vast amount of unbalanced matches.

[FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor]

Am 5.1.2022 um 22:44, PsychoClownfish sagte:

What about a system analogous to a football leage, i.e. a premier league and a secondary division?

Yeah WG is surely gonna get right on that because they are super interested in implementing better balance in matchmaking.

As evidenced by all the things they have done to improve it ever since launching the game and especially what they are doing with Ranked Battles!