Again.. why no skill based MM?

[Eckarbeiter]

I'm by far NOT the best player in World of Warships.  Not even close.

However, I am very VERY sick and tired of ending every single game as the #1 player on the losing team.

If you want to stat shame, go look at the boat that is causing me to reconsider even playing this S-show any longer.  The Ostergotland.

10 games.

1 win.

My damage/spotting/cap/gun/torp hits/everything on that boat is extremely good.  Yet in every single freaking match, my team is completely and utterly trash.  I'm talking FDGs ending games with 78 points.  3 afks in one game.  Meanwhile, most of the enemy team is in a division while my team is solo.  

What actually is up with your MM, wargaming?  Do you need help with understanding balance beyond just 12 on 1 side, 12 on the other?

IDK... 10 games in a row where my score beats my entire team, and when multiplied by 1.5 beats the entire enemy team.... but only 1 win... getting a little sick of it.

[Guest]

Look, if this is a actual basketball pickup game. Not all the team will work. And some teams, if you know who you're playing against, losing to them should not be a surprise.

Including myself, I used to think all match up should have equal chance of winning if you put effort into playing.

 

That is the wrong thinking, some matchup you just cant win.

You can try to balance ships, which isnt exactly WG's idea. But you can try.

But you cant balance players. Some are just wicked good, and strangers sometimes have great chemistry.

You cant predict what will happen, thats why in all its intention(i'm guessing), its called Random Battle.

 

edit: glad you liked it. we have talented students, workers, but not gamers? time to face the tunes. lols, i see some reaction to this post. i guess i'm right.

[Navalpride33]

27 minutes ago, Eckarbeiter said:

I'm by far NOT the best player in World of Warships.  Not even close.

However, I am very VERY sick and tired of ending every single game as the #1 player on the losing team.

If you want to stat shame, go look at the boat that is causing me to reconsider even playing this S-show any longer.  The Ostergotland.

10 games.

1 win.

My damage/spotting/cap/gun/torp hits/everything on that boat is extremely good.  Yet in every single freaking match, my team is completely and utterly trash.  I'm talking FDGs ending games with 78 points.  3 afks in one game.  Meanwhile, most of the enemy team is in a division while my team is solo.  

What actually is up with your MM, wargaming?  Do you need help with understanding balance beyond just 12 on 1 side, 12 on the other?

IDK... 10 games in a row where my score beats my entire team, and when multiplied by 1.5 beats the entire enemy team.... but only 1 win... getting a little sick of it.

Other then Random and Co-op... Skill based MM is already in the game...

[Ahskance]

30 minutes ago, Eckarbeiter said:

I'm by far NOT the best player in World of Warships.  Not even close.

However, I am very VERY sick and tired of ending every single game as the #1 player on the losing team.

If you want to stat shame, go look at the boat that is causing me to reconsider even playing this S-show any longer.  The Ostergotland.

10 games.

1 win.

My damage/spotting/cap/gun/torp hits/everything on that boat is extremely good.  Yet in every single freaking match, my team is completely and utterly trash.  I'm talking FDGs ending games with 78 points.  3 afks in one game.  Meanwhile, most of the enemy team is in a division while my team is solo.  

What actually is up with your MM, wargaming?  Do you need help with understanding balance beyond just 12 on 1 side, 12 on the other?

IDK... 10 games in a row where my score beats my entire team, and when multiplied by 1.5 beats the entire enemy team.... but only 1 win... getting a little sick of it.

Random Battles is... Random.  Literally.

While a variety of other games do use forms of Skill Based Matchmaking, there are upsides and downsides to that.  Ultimately the decision to stay truly Random favors preserving the long-term replayability of World of Warships, as every battle is so Random as to be remarkably Unique.  While some may disagree with this decision, it's worth noting that many players on these forums have THOUSANDS of battles, some in the TENS OF THOUSANDS.

---

There are other modes which are more delineated by skill, such as Clan Battles, some Brawls, and Ranked.  While some will decry Ranked as not providing "Highly Skilled" experiences, it DOES have a process which seperates out players according to interest in advancement.

---

Lastly, there is a very informative video which was released which details the inner workings of the Matchmaker.  Check it out!

Raw Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7PmOMVLgsE

[xXUglykidXx]

13 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Other than Scenarios, Ranked, Arms Race, Brawls, Random and Co-op... Skill based MM is already in the game...

Fixed it for you. 

[paradat]

 

[Navalpride33]

47 minutes ago, xXUglykidXx said:

Fixed it for you. Regardless. Skill-MM is already in the game other then Random and Co-op..Nothing you or I can do to change it... 

Thanks but there was nothing to be fixed...

Take care...

[IfYouSeeKhaos]

How can most of the eneny team (over 6 players) be in a division while your team is solo?

Lost me on that 1.

[vak_]

Skill based MM would either make queue times too long and/or lead to crazy queue dumps, or would constantly force good players to carry a bunch of bad ones.

Also, if you want skilled and coordinated teams then play competitive modes, not Randoms. 

[LunchCutter]

A tier 8 game yesterday on 2 Brothers half my team thought rushing in the middle was a good idea. Ignoring the fact there was 2 cvs on the enemy team... The enemy Fletcher and Shiriatsuyu thought it was Christmas...

 6 sunk for zero loss in the first 5 minutes. 3 of them were 55%+ WR players. Even the very best do dumb stuff sometimes.

 

 Also found very evenly matched games usually end with a roflstomp as losing 1 or 2 players in your team puts you at a huge disadvantage. In a mixed game the first one or 2 to die are usually rushing idiots who don't contribute to the team.

 

[Crucis]

1 hour ago, Ahskance said:

Random Battles is... Random.  Literally.

While a variety of other games do use forms of Skill Based Matchmaking, there are upsides and downsides to that.  Ultimately the decision to stay truly Random favors preserving the long-term replayability of World of Warships, as every battle is so Random as to be remarkably Unique.  While some may disagree with this decision, it's worth noting that many players on these forums have THOUSANDS of battles, some in the TENS OF THOUSANDS.

---

There are other modes which are more delineated by skill, such as Clan Battles, some Brawls, and Ranked.  While some will decry Ranked as not providing "Highly Skilled" experiences, it DOES have a process which seperates out players according to interest in advancement.

---

I don't mean to be rude to you, Ahskance, but the company line on this is a giant load of bovine fecal matter.  

[Snargfargle]

2 hours ago, Ahskance said:

Random favors preserving the long-term replayability

You are exactly right here. Every match is a new experience. With the variation in players, ships, builds, maps, and game modes, the odds of playing even a similar match twice are low.

[Noshiro_]

2 hours ago, xXUglykidXx said:

Fixed it for you. 

none of those modes require skill, only time

[DrSeadog]

In chess, player ratings are called ELO - and every single web based chess game out there has it and matches players based on it. And it works great. 
 

i think it would make those fun moments when someone makes a huge mistake and you punish them for it, more rare though. 

[Snargfargle]

52 minutes ago, Dr_Seadog said:

In chess, player ratings are called ELO - and every single web based chess game out there has it and matches players based on it. And it works great.

Actual it's the Elo rating as it's a guy's name, not an acronym. While Professor Elo's rating system works well for chess, it has problems when rating players in multiplayer games where players are assigned to random teams. With random teams, as we all know, even a very good player may experience a loss despite of his ability simply due to being placed on a poor team by chance.

 

[Impitoyable_5929_x]

I just hope Arms Race and other special event modes to be a normal (permanent) mode. 

[vikingno2]

6 hours ago, vak_ said:

Skill based MM would either make queue times too long and/or lead to crazy queue dumps, or would constantly force good players to carry a bunch of bad ones.

Also, if you want skilled and coordinated teams then play competitive modes, not Randoms. 

No, it wouldn't if implemented properly and it would be that hard.   The only difficult thing is what metric to use that gauge skill. The wait times being increase is just a smoke screen to do nothing 

[SKurj]

4 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

Actual it's the Elo rating as it's a guy's name, not an acronym. While Professor Elo's rating system works well for chess, it has problems when rating players in multiplayer games where players are assigned to random teams. With random teams, as we all know, even a very good player may experience a loss despite of his ability simply due to being placed on a poor team by chance.

 

and lets not forget, in these teams, it is unlikely  2 opponents would ever be sailing the same ships with the same capabilities and captain skills as well...

 

all this skill based mm crap is fine in a game like CS where there is no progression...

[SKurj]

Just now, vikingno2 said:

No, it wouldn't if implemented properly and it would be that hard.   The only difficult thing is what metric to use that gauge skill. The wait times being increase is just a smoke screen to do nothing 

as i asked you before about your method... how many combinations of those 24 players are there regardless of which metric you use?  This brings with it additional server overhead as well, so increased costs...

when you are having to do it for hundreds if not thousands of matches at the same time...

[vikingno2]

No, it doesn't you don't even factor in any filter until after the 24 ships are picked. Ship filters could be simple yes/no statements not hard

[_GreyBeard_]

If it is so simple then why don't you write it and then try selling it to the game developers.

[cmdr_bigdog]

Something should be done. Perhaps selecting the 24 then counting the -46% (pick a number) split them evenly and let the others fall randomly.  It still wouldn't be balanced but may be more even.  

Why 46% you ask? Because it still makes a difference without getting complicated. At some point above that you get into a difference and how you account for a persons WR due to  WR in a ship, a class, tiers, etc.  There are flaws with all of the methods so keep it simple. 

Also a more finely developed system probably leads to new problems that WG doesn't want to deal with including queue time, server load, etc. 

 

 

[Captain_Hook_NA]

5 hours ago, Dr_Seadog said:

In chess, player ratings are called ELO - 

Chess is a 1 vs 1 player strategy game.

____________________

I dont want to play together with worser teammates, the better my own performance on a certain ship is.

[Ahskance]

7 hours ago, Crucis said:

I don't mean to be rude to you, Ahskance, but the company line on this is a giant load of bovine fecal matter.  

I understand some folks might think it's a company line because it's said all the time, and there's a reason for that.

It's true.

I have played a few thousand games in League of Legends over the last 8 years.  I've done Ranked and 3v3s and all sorts over there.  Once I play the new season up to my skill level and 50%/50% out, I stop.  Compare this to World of Warships, where I had over 10,000 Battles in slightly more than 2 years time.

The difference between being put into a match where you are expected to win/lose evenly, and being put in a match where even the game has no idea who will win, is something that makes for a more varied experience.  It's purely down to what you bring to the table, and even then it's still going to be a wild ride.

---

We want World of Warships to live for decades.  We've got a solid audience, but we're not a 15 million player-a-day game because we're a bit more niche in our implementation and design.  So, it's very important that we allow the room to be as open and varied as possible to help it live a long and healthy life.

 

[vikingno2]

24 minutes ago, _GreyBeard_ said:

If it is so simple then why don't you write it and then try selling it to the game developers.

Because they have developers it's not hard, they know it. Heck anyone who has worked in software development knows it's not that hard. They just chose to work on other aspects of the game, the wait times increasing greatly is just [edited]