Why do Some Argue Against Skill Based MM?

Mojo_Riesing, on May 30 2021 - 17:11, said:   I do accept many of the reasons why skills based MM would PROBABLY not work, enough at least that coupled with Wargamings clear stance on it, that it is not going to happen.  I do  think there may be options but frankly it's increasingly not worth the fight for. I think the solutions to the frustrations many consumers of this game have lie elsewhere. 

There are some really bad arguments though for example this one:  "Currently, you do win based on how well you play"  Well, that's just not true, not always. I'm always suspicious when folks talk as if absolutes were reality and they usually are not.  We ALL i'm sure have had great games with "good" play that don't give our side the "win" and in fact we lose.  Yes, i know Neato (and others) are talking about long term cumulative results.  That might be so, but frankly that's not how most people live, it's not how most view the game, or any game.  Mostly the folks who'd agree, do so because they have statistical evidence of their "skill"....even if they had to re-roll an account to get them.  Which most players aren't going to do.  


Mojo_Riesing, on May 30 2021 - 17:11, said:   To say "Skill balance is essentially a mathematical and statistical process" is only part of the story.  Over time all things may balance out, but that obscures the reality of day to day, match to match instances that themselves are out of balance.  The statistical basis that would be used is completely contextual to the dynamics of an inherently unbalanced game mode. In fact, setting aside win ratio, it's pretty clear that simply playing higher tiers where the numerical tag assigned to "damage" is inherently higher will give any player higher "numbers" without changes in skill.  Simply put, bad data leads to bad statistics or as they say in IT..."Garbage In, Garbage Out"