Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
iAxX

Balanced matchmaking without splitting the userbase

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
4 posts
1,839 battles

I've had way too many games in the past few months get ruined by extremely bad players. 40% winrate players or players with hidden statistics, players who won't even listen to their team chat.

My proposal is for each player to have a hidden WTR or PR number made by WG, they already gather way more statistics that aren't available in the API and could make a way better system. Such as a cruiser using radar and that resulting into a kill.

That way when a match is found the game should add up the MMR or whatever they want to call it of all the players and try to balance the teams out based on that.

  • Funny 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,136 posts
6,385 battles

You will soon learn this is a free to play, with no discrimination on a players ability, Everyone in the pool.......

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,371
[FEM]
Members
2,064 posts
17,210 battles

This is just another version of skill based MM which would in theory eventually level everyone out and make the system ineffective again. 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
190 posts
5,024 battles

I'm all for a system that segregates players into teams based on their stats. Not so bad players can be carried by good ones, but so everyone gets matched with and against players of similar ability. It's not like it would take much to do. And you'd see a marked improvement in overall player satisfaction. I might even start buying stuff again. 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,719
[SALVO]
Members
25,433 posts
27,377 battles
2 minutes ago, Kebobstuzov said:

This is just another version of skill based MM which would in theory eventually level everyone out and make the system ineffective again. 

That's actually not true.  I might somewhat left out WR's, but it would NOT level out things like average damage per game or some sort of personal rating (depending on how much WR was valued in that PR).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
639
Members
1,170 posts
11,487 battles
29 minutes ago, Kebobstuzov said:

skill based MM which would in theory eventually level everyone out and make the system ineffective again.

Huh? Not true at all. Are you saying that because chess matches players by Elo, the Elo system levels everyone out and is ineffective? Wha??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4 posts
1,839 battles
53 minutes ago, Raven114 said:

You will soon learn this is a free to play, with no discrimination on a players ability, Everyone in the pool.......

I don't think this discriminates players in any way whatsoever. To the contrary, I think this gives both parts, bad and good players a fairer playing field and an overall more enjoyable experience.

38 minutes ago, Kebobstuzov said:

This is just another version of skill based MM which would in theory eventually level everyone out and make the system ineffective again. 

Incorrect. Maybe I didn't make my point clear enough so I should clarify it.
Obviously this would scale to the full team size but for this example let's say we have 4 players. Each with varying MMR. 1000, 1250, 1500, 2000. Now as it stands I don't think there's any form of matchmaking so it's quite possible for a game to happen where the 1000 and 1250 MMR players are on the same team. Odds are very much in the favor of the players with 1500 and 2000. But let's say the matchmaking system decides to put the 2000 mmr player with the 1000 mmr one and 1250 with 1500. Suddenly the game is way more balanced and the players that are worse at least have a chance at winning the game.

With that being said. I don't think we should IN ANY WAY impede the match finding time. All I'm saying is that before putting people into teams, if they're not in a div, the system should consider their MMR. I can see some games having 10000 MMR discrepancy, but what if the system did a calculation right before assigning teams that would get that discrepancy down to say 7500. That would be a win in my book because it's at least trying to form some sort of matchmaking, even if the game is heavily skewed in one team's favor at the last the other team has maybe 3-5% more chance to win.

 

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,371
[FEM]
Members
2,064 posts
17,210 battles

I guess I am saying that it would level winrates, which SHOULD be the main factor towards any rating system. As for using a hidden elo system I just don't think it has a place in "Random" battles in a casual game like warships.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
171
[BLHK]
Members
558 posts
44 minutes ago, Trowa03 said:

I'm all for a system that segregates players into teams based on their stats. Not so bad players can be carried by good ones, but so everyone gets matched with and against players of similar ability. It's not like it would take much to do. And you'd see a marked improvement in overall player satisfaction. I might even start buying stuff again. 

The downside is how does a player improve if the are constantly pitted against players at their own skill level. There is no need to explore tactics, get a deeper understanding of what the enemy might do because everyone is derping at the same rate.

I notice if I have a run of high tier games say working on grinding a tier X or something, then jump back down to T5 or T6 I almost feel like I am seal clubbing because of the lack of tactics and skill being put against me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,327
[KWF]
Members
4,894 posts
6,590 battles

The game is the only  public "pool" in the area. Sometimes there's piss in it. Sometimes everyone behaves and holds their water.

After a while you will have a period where everything is perfect, then another with piss in the pool. It's how f2p works in this game.

Besides im pretty sure if  the important elo factors were discovered people would start gaming the system. It already happens with PR/WTR , imagine the same but also affecting your MM.

Edited by warheart1992

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4 posts
1,839 battles
13 minutes ago, MG1962 said:

The downside is how does a player improve if the are constantly pitted against players at their own skill level. There is no need to explore tactics, get a deeper understanding of what the enemy might do because everyone is derping at the same rate.

I notice if I have a run of high tier games say working on grinding a tier X or something, then jump back down to T5 or T6 I almost feel like I am seal clubbing because of the lack of tactics and skill being put against me.

The beauty of my proposal is that you're not pitting the same low skill players against eachother. Because out of the pool of players you're not picking out the worst. You're doing what you've been doing this entire time, getting X number of people and putting them in a game. But you're moving them around a little so the game is more balanced after you've already found them.

In the end those low skilled players that need to learn from playing the game are still gonna be facing unicums. In a simple example where a game has 2 unicums, you just place them on different teams and the matchmaking is solved. You put them both on the same team and suddenly a team is learning nothing because their unicums are absolutely stomping and the other team is getting dev striked at 18:50

19 minutes ago, Kebobstuzov said:

I guess I am saying that it would level winrates, which SHOULD be the main factor towards any rating system. As for using a hidden elo system I just don't think it has a place in "Random" battles in a casual game like warships. 

You're not leveling winrates as much as you're giving players a little bit of an enjoyable experience, there's nothing fun about losing the game in the first 5 minutes because the enemy has a unicum Black that just killed 2 of your DDs alone. Teams Divving would especially not be affected by this because you can't split them up. So a Unicum div will still have a very very very high chance of winning, the only difference is the game won't end in the first 7-8 minutes it'll go maybe like 12-14 and give the enemy team's chances are improved by like 5%, yes this would improve the average player's winrate SLIGHTLY, but it wouldn't affect unicums in the slightest

Edited by iAxX
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
786
[TOG]
Members
4,213 posts
25,120 battles
20 minutes ago, MG1962 said:

The downside is how does a player improve if the are constantly pitted against players at their own skill level. There is no need to explore tactics, get a deeper understanding of what the enemy might do because everyone is derping at the same rate.

I notice if I have a run of high tier games say working on grinding a tier X or something, then jump back down to T5 or T6 I almost feel like I am seal clubbing because of the lack of tactics and skill being put against me.

 

Kindly note that you have bad players at all tiers who do not care to improve. Falling to T10 is a common phrase among CC's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,371
[FEM]
Members
2,064 posts
17,210 battles

It is not fun having to carry bad players as it is. This system would favor putting more bad players on my teams meaning I would have to tryhard to keep my winrate strong. It would negatively affect my experience in the game having to deal with people who are not very smart even more and it would make the game less rewarding. losing more while doing as good or better than i do now sounds terrible to me. The idealist in me says this idea is sound, the realist says it isn't. Comeptitive games have ranks, but this is not such a game. It is random battles and for a casual game, that is fine.

Share this post


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×