Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
PbKavarovsky

Matchmaking based on skills

24 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
40 posts
3,160 battles

I know there have been threads before in forum of another realm talking about skill-based matchmaking, such as this.

First and foremost, I am not trying to shame anyone, and hence I hide the player names in the following photo, but unfortunately the clan names are not censored.

MM.thumb.PNG.6a5e53e26127d048a534732df8f0ed29.PNG

I know that some people are against the use of programs like this which shows statistics of both teams, because this could discourage team play with incompetent players; I don't wish to argue on this issue for now, but this match has demonstrated how the matchmaking can do better with player skill consideration.

If you compare both team's cruisers and destroyers, I guess you can already predict the game result. Yes this game is a defeat, with battleships and the carrier on my team occupying the top half of the scoreboard.

WarGaming might argue that skill-based matchmaking would cost more time to produce a match, but in fact if you simply swap half of the battleships and cruisers on my team with half of the battleships and cruisers on the enemy team (maybe Jean Bart with Iowa, Edinburgh with Cleveland, Hipper with Charles Martel), this game would at least be more balanced in terms of player skills, and still balanced in terms of tier, not to mention that the number of radars on both teams was not balanced (and now it is). I'm not saying that skilled players should never play against less-competent players, but I believe that the MM should endeavor to balance out players of both teams as much as it could after 24 players are grouped into a game, especially if players are not playing in a division.

What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
761 posts
15,993 battles

At last, someone else has commented on this issue. Are you sure this is not a trap to lure me into commenting about how skill-based matchmaking is sorely needed?

The chart is a bit complicated buuutt from what I can observe:

1) Just looking at the number of clan based players AND the clans they are from in the other team, I can already say your hopes have already taken a beating.
2) Looking at the long-term starts (I take it those are what the last columns are), your team playing a set of players that have more veterancy.
3) It looks like 4 of your team are carrying the other players while the other team shows more teamwork with the damage more spread around.

If blizzard can do it with their Starcraft Matchmaking, I don't see why it cannot be implemented here. Basically you move "between skill tiers" based on your record, play well, you get into a more difficult tier.

The downside to this is what I think why no one is interested: The too good ones cannot easily club poor players but instead have to deal with players with equivalent skills.

Edited by dejiko_nyo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
40 posts
3,160 battles
2 hours ago, dejiko_nyo said:

At last, someone else has commented on this issue. Are you sure this is not a trap to lure me into commenting about how skill-based matchmaking is sorely needed?

The chart is a bit complicated buuutt from what I can observe:

1) Just looking at the number of clan based players AND the clans they are from in the other team, I can already say your hopes have already taken a beating.
2) Looking at the long-term starts (I take it those are what the last columns are), your team playing a set of players that have more veterancy.
3) It looks like 4 of your team are carrying the other players while the other team shows more teamwork with the damage more spread around.

If blizzard can do it with their Starcraft Matchmaking, I don't see why it cannot be implemented here. Basically you move "between skill tiers" based on your record, play well, you get into a more difficult tier.

The downside to this is what I think why no one is interested: The too good ones cannot easily club poor players but instead have to deal with players with equivalent skills.

I guess losing because the enemy is strong is better than losing because your team potatoed, especially when you cannot carry.

It might not be "they cannot implement this", but they did not bother to. But WG does update their game content base on player feedback, so I raise this issue and see what other players think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
40 posts
3,160 battles
50 minutes ago, AntifoulAwl said:

With the skill variation displayed at weekends and holidays, this has the potential to make MM crash. :Smile_trollface:

Skill variation is what makes such system important, if all players have the same skill level this would not even be an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,789 posts

Do you ACTUALLY KNOW, how many times this type of MM skill basing thread has cropped up in the past, including by me??

 

 

Wallace&Grommit.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
761 posts
15,993 battles
19 minutes ago, Ordrazz said:

Do you ACTUALLY KNOW, how many times this type of MM skill basing thread has cropped up in the past, including by me??

The sanest and simplest solution to a lot of balancing issues is often ignored for pointless other stuff. Sad isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,034 posts
5,681 battles
3 minutes ago, dejiko_nyo said:

The sanest and simplest solution to a lot of balancing issues is often ignored for pointless other stuff. Sad isn't it?

Players: "What about +1/-1 MM?"

WG: "We are gonna give you destructible bergs of ice"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
838 posts
7,263 battles
2 minutes ago, Paladinum said:

Players: "What about +1/-1 MM?"

WG: "We are gonna give you destructible bergs of ice"

Or “we have +1/-1 MM available for WoWS Legends on console”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
40 posts
3,160 battles
29 minutes ago, Ordrazz said:

Do you ACTUALLY KNOW, how many times this type of MM skill basing thread has cropped up in the past, including by me??

 

 

Wallace&Grommit.gif

As I mentioned in the very first sentence in this thread, yes I do. But what do you mean? Are you against it? Or shall we cease the discussion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
761 posts
15,993 battles
45 minutes ago, PbKavarovsky said:

I guess losing because the enemy is strong is better than losing because your team potatoed, especially when you cannot carry.

It might not be "they cannot implement this", but they did not bother to. But WG does update their game content base on player feedback, so I raise this issue and see what other players think. 

This is tricky to reply since poor ratings does not mean potatoness. It's more like an indication of how many potatoes on each team affects the outcome. Yes, more experience on a team is better but does not necessarily mean you can win if there is no support from the rest of your team. In your example, both side have very good players but the distribution of veterancy makes we worry that the team cannot handle themselves. The good players cannot be everywhere at once to fill in gaps in the strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
40 posts
3,160 battles
Just now, dejiko_nyo said:

This is tricky to reply since poor ratings does not mean potatoness. It's more like an indication of how many potatoes on each team affects the outcome. Yes, more experience on a team is better but does not necessarily mean you can win if there is no support from the rest of your team. In your example, both side have very good players but the distribution of veterancy makes we worry that the team cannot handle themselves. The good players cannot be everywhere at once to fill in gaps in the strategy.

You do have a point, but being a veteran does not make you a good player, if you do not learn from your mistakes... After all, there are many mediocre players who played more than ten thousand matches. Due to the disagreement between WG and the Chinese wows certified reproducer, the Chinese server are no longer receiving updates from WG, and hence many veteran players did joined the Asia server as a new player, now rookies ain't rookies either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,034 posts
5,681 battles
13 minutes ago, Grygus_Triss said:

Or “we have +1/-1 MM available for WoWS Legends on console”

Depression level over 8000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
665 posts
8,656 battles

Wont work, SEA doesnt have the population for it. Good idea if it was possible.

Id be happy with a points based ladder season. Like ranked but you climb or fall on the ladder based on your MMR.

 

Edited by dieselhead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
838 posts
7,263 battles
1 hour ago, dejiko_nyo said:

You mean 9000. >_>

Apparently, in the Japanese version, it was 8000. It was apparently changed to 9000 for the English dub because it fit better or something.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
61 posts
4,345 battles

They can do it if they wish to. They put that much resource into everything else that is near useless or if its not going to make them money. Skill based MM and W/L ratio should be implemented for a balanced game at start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
761 posts
7,693 battles
8 hours ago, AxEyBoI said:

They can do it if they wish to.

 

16 hours ago, PbKavarovsky said:

It might not be "they cannot implement this", but they did not bother to.

They don't wish to, that's why they haven't done it.

 

19 hours ago, PbKavarovsky said:

WarGaming might argue that skill-based matchmaking would cost more time to produce a match

They would argue that, since having short queue times seem to be an extremely high priority for them - they reference it constantly.

What benefits will skill based MM actually bring to the game?  How will it make the game more fun?  If you're a good player your experience will be worse with skill based MM, since your win rate will go down significantly - basically the less capable the players that are in your battles, the more likely you are to win.  If you're a poor player then your win rate will improve, but you lose any incentive to improve.

Basically for random battles, skill based MM would be a massive step backwards for the game.  For a competitive mode though it's a very good thing to have. This is what Clan Battles are.  It's also what ranked is supposed to be, and is to an extent, but they could definitely have a much better system for ensuring better skill matching in ranked, it needs a complete overhaul.  The intention is there though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
40 posts
3,160 battles
28 minutes ago, Moggytwo said:

They don't wish to, that's why they haven't done it.

 

They would argue that, since having short queue times seem to be an extremely high priority for them - they reference it constantly.

What benefits will skill based MM actually bring to the game?  How will it make the game more fun?  If you're a good player your experience will be worse with skill based MM, since your win rate will go down significantly - basically the less capable the players that are in your battles, the more likely you are to win.  If you're a poor player then your win rate will improve, but you lose any incentive to improve.

Basically for random battles, skill based MM would be a massive step backwards for the game.  For a competitive mode though it's a very good thing to have. This is what Clan Battles are.  It's also what ranked is supposed to be, and is to an extent, but they could definitely have a much better system for ensuring better skill matching in ranked, it needs a complete overhaul.  The intention is there though.

Finally some persuasive comment that is against the use of skill-based MM in random battles.

Now I have a better understanding why it is called random battle, but not something like casual mode... On second thought I do get your point, and I agree with you, but not to the fullest extent, given the number of mediocre "veteran" I have met, I perceive their incentive to improve is totally based on self-reflection. After all no player is strong if no player is mediocre, but losing with a potato team is just... meh 😕 guess I have to accept the fact that my fate of winning is controlled by the MM.:Smile_sad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
761 posts
15,993 battles
1 minute ago, PbKavarovsky said:

Finally some persuasive comment that is against the use of skill-based MM in random battles.

Now I have a better understanding why it is called random battle, but not something like casual mode... On second thought I do get your point, and I agree with you, but not to the fullest extent, given the number of mediocre "veteran" I have met, I perceive their incentive to improve is totally based on self-reflection. After all no player is strong if no player is mediocre, but losing with a potato team is just... meh 😕 guess I have to accept the fact that my fate of winning is controlled by the MM.:Smile_sad:

The issue with skilled based MM is that those with good WR will lose out. This group in particular represents a vocal minority. Google up skilled based matching making and see the uproar in other games. Frankly, all their arguments to me look like a vocal minority segment is just unhappy. Waiting times will increase but can be mitigated with proper algorithms. By the same logic, tier based matchmaking should be done away with; just like in the old days of T2 vs T10.

The key metric to use is not win rate, but rather a combination of various indicators to form a performance matrix, for example, WTR (which itself is not perfect, but let's say it works in this example). If you perform consistently well, you will be put into a group with similar abilities within a range, say 750-1000. This range should be dynamic, preferably using a normal distribution curve, and since wg is so enamoured with collecting and basing judgment on data, it can be easily refined and changed. The logic here is that if you want to seal club, you have to perform terribly to get into a seal hunting range and once you start clubbing seals, your rating will increase and you will be uptiered.

As a compromise, I would stick with +/- 2 ship tier matchmaking.

As reference to the best skilled matchmaking example, though some may point out better examples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_football_league_system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,092 posts
8,954 battles

Now matchmaking matches players from the queue according to their ship types and ship tiers only.

Coming up with an algorithm to calculate something like ‘skill points’ for each player should not be too hard. Just pick 3 or 4 figures and come up with some kind of formula.

To limit the number crunching, they could still select 24 players using ship types and ship tiers. Then they look up the necessary stats for these 24 players, calculate ‘skill points’ and distribute the players so that both teams have about the same number of points.

Skill points will never truly reflect player skills, so they don’t have to go overboard. But I think this is worthwhile, because everybody on this forum seems frustrated about the matchmaking.

In my case, I basically play ops these days, with a few Random battles when needed for particular campaign missions. My aim is enjoyment and not frustration and the current MM leads to a lot of frustration.

Actually, it should be easy for WG to incorporate this. When I still developed software I could have programmed something like that in an afternoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×