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

Steps are being made - Matchmaking !!! Still needs work.

79 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[WGP2W]
Players
22 posts
7,650 battles

Hello there, Captains!

 

With update 0.7.4 the "matchmaking issue" is getting a bit of polish, and that is really good news! I really think this is a big step towards making the game more enjoyable by balance, yet there is a just as important thing that I hope is lurking in World of Warships developers minds: SKILL-BASED MATCHMAKING!

I am also glad that one of my hopes is becoming reality, sending bad players (in any way "bad players" can be described) into forced Co-Op games, to chill their nipples or learn the basics!

 

Question: would you guys mind if Wargaming made the MM more "skills" related?

I personally wouldn't mind waiting for a couple of minutes to get players closer to my level, be it good or bad, than play with 3/4 un-carriable, suicidal, useless potatoes (or in the other case, players that wreck me with little to no effort). They can play and have more fun in their black-stats-league, at the bottom of the pit, that's the only way they can climb up... because placing them higher than what their little minds can handle... they just get 1shoted fast, ruin a game, get flamed/reported, claim the game is crap, make others claim the game is crap because of getting such creatures on their team. (just watch 1hr of decent steamers and you will be convinced for life).

 

Skill-based matchmaking - using average XP/battle as the main differential (please don't use damage again, it's dumb) would make a huge impact on the quality and feel of this game. Being able to somehow-rely on one of your random team-mates is crucial in a tactical game like this. CRUCIAL!  Just looking at the MM monitor, some players instantly realize they need to 1v23 for victory... and that is unfair after a few games where they are the only victory hope/condition.

I think this will just improve the community as well, lower toxicity, by gathering players of similar skills closer, as they meet each other more often and so they can develop friendships and rivalries. Working examples are all over the online gaming world!

 

It is discouraging and shameful to promote the game as anything else but a mediocre arcade game, as long as you can find crap and gold mixed in the same bowl and presented as a "working recipe of success and continuity".

 

The games that are having the biggest success are those that combine multiplayer tactics with personal skill and... THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF GROWTH! 

Take Riot Gaming's League of Legends for example: players are separated into leagues, have an "MMR" that defines their skill and whenever they play PVP modes, they are set against players of similar MMR. The only chance of a Silver player to be placed against a Diamond player, while playing random matches, is if he or one of his team-mates of similar MMR is in a premade party with a Diamond player or two Platinum players etc. so that, in the end, the average MMR of both teams is almost equal. It should be the same in World of Warships, with the AVERAGE XP/GAME numbers.

 

SOLUTION TO MAKE THIS CHANGE FASTER: This kinda' goes out to everyone that plays the game, we need to put a little bit of effort ourselves. Wargaming promotes the game as best as we can, but in the end, it's the players' community that draws most of the new members. Help expand the player base, help to guide new players into enjoying the game, give constant feedback about the game (good or bad, it will only improve the game overall), recruit friends that have lost their "gaming way" and need a new challenge. Anything that you can think of, in the end, it's a new game (2yrs only makes it fresh a.f.) that you should play with friends, in a fun or competitive environment, whatever rocks your boat!  A bigger player base means more options when it comes to improving the quality of play.

 

PS: If this change happens it doesn't mean I wouldn't flame a bad play, but at least I know that guy made a once-in-100-games-mistake and that's not his real level, inclining more towards irony than disgust and losing the will to play the game, like it happens when all my DDs are 30% WR/5k avg dmg in 1000 games and die in the first 2 minutes without any logical reason but complete lack of care or pure stupidity, or my top tier BBs are of my T1 ships average dmg and camp the edges of the map shooting HE from max range not to get their paint scratched by looking like a real threat to the enemy. I also bet that flaming somebody that understands their mistake and even accepts the critic is so much different that flaming a guy that has no clue what the game is about and gets back to you with some dumb offensive line or just... dumb, just because he has no clue what went wrong, he was doing so fine rushing the enemy team in his destroyer, guns blazing. 

(These situations happen too often for a decent player to really enjoy the game... and as the focus on the game is still on "DAMAGE = points and $, everything else is less rewarding", I don't see it improving as long as bad players can just shoot some shells at something and can "secure" a defeat with their bad play, but they get compensated, even in their utter uselessness.)

PS2 (some older note I made on toxicity and the reason why it's so much a part of the game): 

The toxicity in WoWs in not that high compared to other online games and to be honest, it's mostly justified. 99% of the "flaming" cases I've witnessed or been a part of were justified by the actions of the player getting flamed. 

When you're such a mentally impotent person that you're unable to follow the very few but important general rules of the game and ruin the experience for 23 other people for up to 20 minutes, I believe it's not enough to get flamed and put in your place, I would even take it up a notch and temporary ban that person from Random&Ranked games and only allow him Co-Op for a while, where he needs to have a certain score to get out of.  Some people can't even handle bots and you see them rocking their T10 ships (that they grinded for the past 2 years, 300xp/game, dozens of games/day, 30% win rate and 7k avg dmg) next to players and against players from the best clans out there, ruining their games, blocking them, ramming them, torpedoing them by "mistake"... You CANNOT NOT flame these guys, you're doing them a service and maybe you're pushing them towards wanting to improve and avoid getting verbally harassed! But when it happens, always the one to blame is... WARGAMING. Yes! Why? For not having matchmaking give a damn about players performance and mixing utter potato with super unicums just for the hell of it, for not punishing in any way players that are constantly reported for playing bad or unsportsmanlike, for not making a learning-curve-mandatory-tutorial and allow Random games only after you've proven to have more than 2 neurons, unfried. They don't have the resources fix these, yet. Resources = players.

     Everybody has a bad game or a bad day and I accept being insulted when I do something really stupid, but some guys have ONLY bad games and ONLY bad days, thousands of games in a row, but somehow, someway, through the power of not caring about this issue, they sometimes get to play alongside their man-crush Flarmu (just using him here cuz he looks good as an anime gurl), salute him, lavish him with fan-boy stuff, but during the actual game maybe ram him out of a good position, maybe hit him with some friendly torps or eat his torps and turn Flamu pink, as he's best suited.  That is the sad/happy life of a really bad player in WoWs, and there are thousands of them out here, every single day. 

     Can't hate on WG tho, not even a bit, the game is good even if it's a fresh game (2yrs online is fresh), the player base is quite small still and mostly mature because the game appeals mostly to this age. If they had a 35 mil. players/day like Riot's LoL they could do like they do: divide players according to skill in matchmaking, punish unskilled/trolls/intentionally suiciding, permaban utter toxicity and many more things to keep us happy.

     Even so, rude/ironic/toxic talk will and should never die! It's the spice of online gaming! If it's too spicy for you, chances are... you're a HUGE P***Y :etc_hide_turtle:

 

Sorry for the long post, here's a potato to... wait, I don't have any, you'll need to look in a mirror! :Smile_smile:

  • Cool 5
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
2,257 posts
7,335 battles

After this comparing stats makes even less sense than now, because everyone would have their own personal MM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,698 posts
13,142 battles

Average XP is a horrible stat to build skill based MM around as each ship has its own individual earning modifier.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WGP2W]
Players
22 posts
7,650 battles
5 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Average XP is a horrible stat to build skill based MM around as each ship has its own individual earning modifier.

I think you just need to acknowledge that you're basically implying that a "modification" cannot be removed from a calculus. It can, it's that easy. If a ship has an individual earning modifier, calculating the average XP for matchmaking will ignore that modifier. The "modification" applies to a base number. Use that base number. DONE!

 

5 hours ago, Kenliero said:

After this comparing stats makes even less sense than now, because everyone would have their own personal MM.

They can make it any way they like: your Average XP for each ship (I think this is just too much tho') or your Average XP for a class of ships DD/CA/BB/CV (this would be actually better - you can have a few bad games in a row when starting to play a ship, it doesn't mean you need to play in lower MMR games, as long you're doing great in ships of the same class) , or even Average XP for the past X months or past X games or even ALL GAMES IN ALL SHIPS / TYPES.

There are so many ways to do it right, dozens of other game developers are using it, we're not inventing hot water here. They just need to apply it the best way they see fit. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BONUS]
[BONUS]
Beta Tester
2,605 posts
6,667 battles

Op needs to learn something.  The word random in "random battles," means something.

 

"The best way they see fit," is not to do it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,698 posts
13,142 battles
1 hour ago, Hammerald said:

Use that base number.

 

But that defeats the purpose of the entire system, doesn't it? After all what will prevent me from simply farming my way to a "high rank" in cruisers by simply clubbing seals in a Black Swan? And on that same note surely you do not expect me to wait a ridiculously long time in queue just so I can play my Kongo just because I am pretty good at handling my NC? Or any of my CVs? Or put me in a high ranked match I have no place in with my Shimakaze because I'm good with a Gearing?

Besides, it doesn't change the fact that average exp is primarily calculated with dumb damage farming, with everything else such as spotting giving extremely pitiful, thus negligible returns despite having much more potential impact on a match.

 

Face it, skill based MM doesn't work with WoWs due to extremely low player numbers and uneven distribution of the population in both numbers and skill across classes UNLESS you build in large tolerances, which makes skill based MM kinda redundant. For example if you make your system expand its search across ranks when a certain time has passed it'll inevitably match me against someone of inferior skill level in a CV, which has a large likelihood to happen nowadays anyway with the only difference being that I don't need to wait in queue for very long.

On the other hand if you hardcode it so as to make this impossible you're effectively preventing me from playing any CV or in low tiers since someone else of equal skill level queuing at the same time as me is going to be a rare occurrence to say the least, especially considering high ranked players will most likely not even bother to queue anymore as they do not want to waste their time, culling the available population even further.

And regardless of how you decide to implement it, what about divisions? If I queue up with two other high ranked players playing non-popular classes/tiers, the chances of meeting equally skilled players will be even lower as MM will already have trouble finding one other high ranked player, let alone three. So again you'll either give us a pretty effective means of ensuring that we will rarely meet equally skilled opposition or you'll just prevent us from playing entirely.

That doesn't even go to mention playing in a time of the day when the population is low. Or the differences in potential game impact of different nations within a class.

 

This is a concept bound for failure no matter how you twist it.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,179 posts
13,947 battles
2 hours ago, Hammerald said:

 

... to be honest, it's mostly justified. 99% of the "flaming" cases I've witnessed or been a part of were justified by the actions of the player getting flamed. 

My experience has been otherwise.  I just got flamed yesterday for three actions...

 

1.  A DD flamed me for when he noticed that Deep Water torpedoes passed harmlessly under his ship.  I wasn't actually aiming at him but at the BB farther behind him.

 

2. A BB player flamed me because I fired my torpedo at at target outside my range.  "That ship is too fu**ing far away idiot!"  The BB in question was moving towards me, and would be in range when the torpedoes intercepted their path.

 

3. A BB player flamed me, "Cap moron!" In a Standard battle, with limited time left, outnumbered two to one, I entered the opposition cap and stop their point progress long enough for us to have the point lead advantage.  I then took flight as them attempted to engage me.  Our point lead meant an automatic win as long as I wasn't sunk.

 

My opinion, if those who so easily spew toxin at other would do some constructive self examination... we would all be better.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,186 posts
4,658 battles
1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

Face it, skill based MM doesn't work with WoWs due to extremely low player numbers and uneven distribution of the population in both numbers and skill across classes UNLESS you build in large tolerances, which makes skill based MM kinda redundant. For example if you make your system expand its search across ranks when a certain time has passed it'll inevitably match me against someone of inferior skill level in a CV, which has a large likelihood to happen nowadays anyway with the only difference being that I don't need to wait in queue for very long.

On the other hand if you hardcode it so as to make this impossible you're effectively preventing me from playing any CV or in low tiers since someone else of equal skill level queuing at the same time as me is going to be a rare occurrence to say the least, especially considering high ranked players will most likely not even bother to queue anymore as they do not want to waste their time, culling the available population even further.

And regardless of how you decide to implement it, what about divisions? If I queue up with two other high ranked players playing non-popular classes/tiers, the chances of meeting equally skilled players will be even lower as MM will already have trouble finding one other high ranked player, let alone three. So again you'll either give us a pretty effective means of ensuring that we will rarely meet equally skilled opposition or you'll just prevent us from playing entirely.

That doesn't even go to mention playing in a time of the day when the population is low. Or the differences in potential game impact of different nations within a class.

 

This is a concept bound for failure no matter how you twist it.

I disagree. I think you're making this out to be more dramatic than it is because you're seeing it from the perspective of a CV player - which honestly says more about the state of CVs than it does of the effect of a skill based matchmaking system. That being said, I think SBMM would improve the quality of games for CV players as well - unless you're specifically looking to play against CV players that are a lot less skilled than yourself.

 

Skill based matchmaking can be designed to be scalable and dynamic, that means that even during low population hours, wait times will be kept to a minimum. You paint a scenario where a skill based matchmaker is some kind of static beast that will sit around and wait until it finds enough high ranked players. Sounds very dramatic, but it's also a poor and downright unrealistic way of designing an MM. What a skill based MM would actually do is to ensure that players of different skill ranks are spread evenly on each team. So there would be minimal waiting, while lessening the chance of ending up on a completely potato team that gets steamrolled. This also solves the supposed problem of having people of different skill ranks in the same division.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
430 posts
4,806 battles
4 hours ago, Hammerald said:

They can make it any way they like: your Average XP for each ship (I think this is just too much tho') or your Average XP for a class of ships DD/CA/BB/CV (this would be actually better - you can have a few bad games in a row when starting to play a ship, it doesn't mean you need to play in lower MMR games, as long you're doing great in ships of the same class) , or even Average XP for the past X months or past X games or even ALL GAMES IN ALL SHIPS / TYPES.

There are so many ways to do it right, dozens of other game developers are using it, we're not inventing hot water here. They just need to apply it the best way they see fit. 

 

Yup av.XP (PR) per class and than per tier ( or cluster of tier - 1-5, 6-8, 9-10 ) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
430 posts
4,806 battles
1 hour ago, Tubit101 said:

I disagree. I think you're making this out to be more dramatic than it is because you're seeing it from the perspective of a CV player - which honestly says more about the state of CVs than it does of the effect of a skill based matchmaking system. That being said, I think SBMM would improve the quality of games for CV players as well - unless you're specifically looking to play against CV players that are a lot less skilled than yourself.

 

Skill based matchmaking can be designed to be scalable and dynamic, that means that even during low population hours, wait times will be kept to a minimum. You paint a scenario where a skill based matchmaker is some kind of static beast that will sit around and wait until it finds enough high ranked players. Sounds very dramatic, but it's also a poor and downright unrealistic way of designing an MM. What a skill based MM would actually do is to ensure that players of different skill ranks are spread evenly on each team. So there would be minimal waiting, while lessening the chance of ending up on a completely potato team that gets steamrolled. This also solves the supposed problem of having people of different skill ranks in the same division.

 

 

ofc Wg can do good skill MM - look at clan wars, it is even far smaller base of players and it is best and only good mod/system in game atm ..

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
13,610 posts
10,385 battles
24 minutes ago, Cime said:

 

Yup av.dam per class and than per tier ( or cluster of tier - 1-5, 6-8, 9-10 ) 

So players using the correct ammo and not farming damage with HE get easier opponents? Great!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
430 posts
4,806 battles
9 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

So players using the correct ammo and not farming damage with HE get easier opponents? Great!!

 

i meant av-xp ( PR ) per class and than per tier ( or cluster of tier - 1-5, 6-8, 9-10 ) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-T-O-]
Alpha Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
1,964 posts
5,449 battles

Plus this kind of MM would bring a longer queue. No thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CSN]
Players
311 posts
2,770 battles

Its called "Random" for a reason :-)

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Beta Tester
1,234 posts
7,072 battles
1 hour ago, Cime said:

 

 

ofc Wg can do good skill MM - look at clan wars, it is even far smaller base of players and it is best and only good mod/system in game atm ..

Clanbattles only work because the MM is based on the clanrating. Basically the division is rated as one not the individual players like it would be the case in randoms.

And still it ends in a faceroll if one good clan fields the 2. or 3. reserveteam because all the other already have the flag while the other good clan is still fielding their best mainteam......

 

2 hours ago, Tubit101 said:

I disagree. I think you're making this out to be more dramatic than it is because you're seeing it from the perspective of a CV player - which honestly says more about the state of CVs than it does of the effect of a skill based matchmaking system. That being said, I think SBMM would improve the quality of games for CV players as well - unless you're specifically looking to play against CV players that are a lot less skilled than yourself.

 

Skill based matchmaking can be designed to be scalable and dynamic, that means that even during low population hours, wait times will be kept to a minimum. You paint a scenario where a skill based matchmaker is some kind of static beast that will sit around and wait until it finds enough high ranked players. Sounds very dramatic, but it's also a poor and downright unrealistic way of designing an MM. What a skill based MM would actually do is to ensure that players of different skill ranks are spread evenly on each team. So there would be minimal waiting, while lessening the chance of ending up on a completely potato team that gets steamrolled. This also solves the supposed problem of having people of different skill ranks in the same division.

Oh with skillbased MM you can easily reach the bad players! Just delibertly play like a bot really bad for several days and you are in for a clubbing ride!

Still doesn't fix the problem though of either high queuetimes due to being to restrictive or being pointless due to being less restrictive.

Also it has to be class dependant as you don't want me in one of my rare (really bad) CV games rated like I was playing DD.

Also there are differences in class too like IJN DD vs RU DD or IJN CA vs RN CL or IJN CV vs USN CV etc......

 

 

On Topic:

Another skillbased MM thread. :Smile_smile:

 

You seem like a good player so it must be a case of you not realizing the strain on the waiting times or the whole pointlessness of the system if you reduce the restricitons on a managable level. Either way the typical "didn't thought it through" like always in these Threads pro skill based MM.

Apart from the points @El2aZeR already pointed out there is still more comming:

 

- if you do skill based MM for a long sustained time the extremes (like you seem to be one of in the "good" direction) get drawn more to the norm. Meaning if you do this for long enough you will see all your so much hated potatoplayers again apart from the real extreme other side of the spectrum. Then what?

- like said above what to do about deliberate drops in rating to club seals? You can't have an automated system that will know if you are just having a bad streak, let someone else play or if you play bad on purpose.... If enough people are doing this (because they get bored to waiting in queue) it defeats the whole point of the system right?

- which indicator will you use? From all the ones you mentioned the class dependant still works most, but then what to do about class differences like IJN DDs vs RU DDs etc? Do you want to do a "per ship" rating? But then the player needs enough games in that ship for the rating to be reliable right?

- what about new players? Stick them with the rock bottom noobs where they learn nothing? Stick them with the average so they get farmed like usual? Stick them with the good if they dared to have a lucky good day while playing their new ship (see above)?

 

tldr: Won't work!

 

P.S. Also no 2 years is already rather old in the gaming industry. Just think of Evolve for example. That game was long dead by then. Or CoD... how many people do you think still play Black Ops 3? :cap_haloween:

It is even rather old if you only count the F2P/Online games that bring new content (for the same game) regularly to keep it fresh.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XODUS]
Beta Tester, Players
365 posts

Yay.

 

Hopefully we won't see any more of this crap:

 

lost.thumb.png.f6b8922b0cb6fdc79984cc2cb9d3f05b.png

 

Needless to say, it was a loss... lol.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GRKEN]
Beta Tester
3,552 posts
8,863 battles
5 hours ago, Hammerald said:

I think you just need to acknowledge that you're basically implying that a "modification" cannot be removed from a calculus. It can, it's that easy. If a ship has an individual earning modifier, calculating the average XP for matchmaking will ignore that modifier. The "modification" applies to a base number. Use that base number. DONE!

First of all XP is "contaminated" by premium time.

 

Also it's overall bad for rewarding team helping activity.

DD who smokes team and spots any enemy attempting to close ends up low in score board no matter how much he does that.

While he takes the risks in spotting enemy DDs etc.

And neither are BBs rewarded for drawing enemy fire to keep team mates alive.

How often do you see those battleships who went to map borders max distance from everything important and do something only when match is already lost get XP reflecting their team sabotaging gameplay?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
939 posts
4,998 battles

Like I've said before, no need for complex ideas like OP is throwing around. Keep it simple stupid.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueSkill

 

It works with great succes in teambased RTS games like Forged Alliance,. The beauty is that you can keep queuing up with the same pool of players but you get more balanced teams. If you get 5 potatoes, so does the enemy. If you want to play with only your peers / same skill people you have to stay in clanwars / comp. There's no way around that unless you want to radically divide the game into separate parts which is something LoL might be able to do but with 25k players online in WoWs this is something we cannot afford.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TENGO]
Players
1,457 posts
8,205 battles
13 minutes ago, TigerMoth said:

Yay.

 

Hopefully we won't see any more of this crap:

 

lost.thumb.png.f6b8922b0cb6fdc79984cc2cb9d3f05b.png

 

Needless to say, it was a loss... lol.

It is quite incredible that the current mm doesn't have any concern about not putting that enemy A & B div together...

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[_KTM_]
Beta Tester
95 posts
6,571 battles

I'm sorry from my perspective , skill based MM is a very bad idea :

From my understanding , doesn't matter on what stats it's set ( wr,pr,exp,dmg it's irelevant ) it will mean putting Unicorns vs Unicorns  , avg joe vs avg joe , and potatoes vs potatoes . 

Which in the grand scheme of things will lead to everyone going into the avg joe bracket  aka going back from where we started , ok ok u ask me now why is that :

Simple as a unicorn you cannot continuosly play like a rattlesnake on crystal meth and u have to do that to keep you stats and even so as u only play other unicorns things will reach a stale mate leading to the same wins/loss for all of you  and slowly but surely you will all drop to the avg joe bracket stat wise . 

Avg joe will stay where he is , because as he improves his stats he will go up meeting the uncorns that go down  leading to a to his downfall back to avg joe.

Now the funny bunch , the potatoes since they will fight only other potatoes things will go the same way it did with unicorns but instead of dropping they will rise to the avg joe lvl .

And so in 6 months -1 year things will go back to the randoms we all love but this time there will be no potatoes nor unicorns stat wise but everyone will be avg joe .

Ofc as the good players start meeting the bad ones they will start to rise up in stats but will swiftly fall back since they will start fighting eachother again  ( same goes for the potatoes that drop ) .

So apart from everyone loosing the bragging rights , Skill based MM wont do crap to improve the gameplay ( it will only increase the queue time for the unicorns for that first period of time  )  

 

That's my 2 cents after i just woke up , and i've yet to get coffee .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WGP2W]
Players
22 posts
7,650 battles
6 minutes ago, Spectre__ said:

I'm sorry from my perspective , skill based MM is a very bad idea :

From my understanding , doesn't matter on what stats it's set ( wr,pr,exp,dmg it's irelevant ) it will mean putting Unicorns vs Unicorns  , avg joe vs avg joe , and potatoes vs potatoes . 

Which in the grand scheme of things will lead to everyone going into the avg joe bracket  aka going back from where we started , ok ok u ask me now why is that :

Simple as a unicorn you cannot continuosly play like a rattlesnake on crystal meth and u have to do that to keep you stats and even so as u only play other unicorns things will reach a stale mate leading to the same wins/loss for all of you  and slowly but surely you will all drop to the avg joe bracket stat wise . 

Avg joe will stay where he is , because as he improves his stats he will go up meeting the uncorns that go down  leading to a to his downfall back to avg joe.

Now the funny bunch , the potatoes since they will fight only other potatoes things will go the same way it did with unicorns but instead of dropping they will rise to the avg joe lvl .

And so in 6 months -1 year things will go back to the randoms we all love but this time there will be no potatoes nor unicorns stat wise but everyone will be avg joe .

Ofc as the good players start meeting the bad ones they will start to rise up in stats but will swiftly fall back since they will start fighting eachother again  ( same goes for the potatoes that drop ) .

So apart from everyone loosing the bragging rights , Skill based MM wont do crap to improve the gameplay ( it will only increase the queue time for the unicorns for that first period of time  )  

 

That's my 2 cents after i just woke up , and i've yet to get coffee .

Wait... so you're saying everyone will be decent after 6 months - 1 year? What great news! If it were true, they should implement the system... yesterday! 

Dude, the system already works on hundreds of online games. They just have to find a set of stats to adapt it to. 

There will always be small fish and big fish, no chance that everyone will be average fish. Having a 51% winrate in high skill games means you're good. Right now, it's 70% WR versus potatoes and they still blame that 30 % loss on the potatoes in their team being worse than the enemy's potatoes. The worst thing: they're right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
13,610 posts
10,385 battles
1 hour ago, TigerMoth said:

Yay.

 

Hopefully we won't see any more of this crap:

 

lost.thumb.png.f6b8922b0cb6fdc79984cc2cb9d3f05b.png

 

Needless to say, it was a loss... lol.

If you play worse, that happens. Not the fault of the MM.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[_KTM_]
Beta Tester
95 posts
6,571 battles
9 minutes ago, Hammerald said:

Wait... so you're saying everyone will be decent after 6 months - 1 year? What great news! If it were true, they should implement the system... yesterday! 

Dude, the system already works on hundreds of online games. They just have to find a set of stats to adapt it to. 

There will always be small fish and big fish, no chance that everyone will be average fish. Having a 51% winrate in high skill games means you're good. Right now, it's 70% WR versus potatoes and they still blame that 30 % loss on the potatoes in their team being worse than the enemy's potatoes. The worst thing: they're right. 

No i'm not saying the skill lvl will improve or get worse it will somewhat remain the same , i'm saying the majority of people will reach the same stats  ( big difference ) 

Yes there will be , but the big fish will start fighting only eachother after a certain stat treshhold  , and as i previously said no matter how good u are , always fighting the best of the best and keeping your crap toghether will be very hard . Sure there will still be the unicorns , but reaching 70-80 % winrate will be extremely hard  ( not impossible ) 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CSN]
Players
311 posts
2,770 battles
1 hour ago, TigerMoth said:

Yay.

 

Hopefully we won't see any more of this crap:

 

lost.thumb.png.f6b8922b0cb6fdc79984cc2cb9d3f05b.png

 

Needless to say, it was a loss... lol.

Whats wrong with that MM ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×