Дата: 28.07.2021 03:23:04
LT_Moon, on Jul 27 2021 - 16:17, said: Measuring skills is one of the trickiest things in the human world.
How will you define the skill in WoT? Which indicators will you
use? Where is the evidence that the indicators you picked are
indeed valid indicators of "skills"? Also, human performance is
dynamic, which requires a long-term measure. Then how long do you
need to observe a player's performance? "Skills" assume individual
differences. Then for a game company, will they want to keep only
elite players, which are a necessarily minority? If the game puts
players in different skill tiers, will players in lower skill tiers
stay in the game? It is easy to say to have a skill-based MM
but almost impossible to make it work. Also, the game company needs
to keep a larger player base. That's my answer from a bit
academic point of view. Practically, limiting access to
higher-tier games based on the number of games played would be
better. The game cannot punish players with lower skills even
after playing the game for a while. But, requiring some experience
in lower-level games will populate the lower-tier games and prepare
players for higher-tier games. I believe very few would oppose to
the concept of skilled MM itself but to how it can be done.
DeviouslyCursed: Win Rate per tank is one of the most accurate statistics in
the game. Period. Tanks and tiers aren't equal, that is why when
looking at the overall Win Rate, what tanks they played to get that
Win Rate is extremely important. If you could sort out platoons,
then there would be no reason to ever consider anything
else. Limiting higher tiers to "better" players is stupid.
What happens when only 55%+ players are playing at tier 10. 50% of
them still lose. Guess what happens to their Win Rate. Yes, the
same thing will happen to all their stats. You can't have 30
players in each match doing more than their tank's HP in damage.
People making this suggestion simply aren't thinking it through. Or
are possibly incapable of it. That might seem harsh but this is
ridiculously easy to see the issues with this type of
restriction.
Mojo_Riesing, on Jul 27 2021 - 16:44, said: Sure, i see what you are saying. Ok fine, prevent by
artificial means "lower skill" players from contaminating the
"higher skill" Tiers (not that this was ever prevented at all, but
for sake of argument let's say it was). To my mind, that
right there IS a form of "skill based" match-making, at least for
those unspecified higher Tiers. I don't know how you
compensate all the players who spent real world cash to play at
those soon to be exclusive levels but set that aside for the
moment. I'll tell you right now if they "exclusionary" zone
starts at Tier VIII you will see severe problems for Wargaming even
litigation. So, say your idea would work and if
so, just to keep it even, EXCLUDE the "higher skill" players
from any lower Tier play. I have a feeling that would be just
as unpopular and both unworkable and litigious as your suggestion
(made by others as well) but what the heck what's another
unworkable concept added to an equally unworkable concept?
DeviouslyCursed: Taking time and battles to reach the higher tiers is
effectively the restriction. The fact that some people can't or
won't learn is not WG's fault. Nor can they do anything about it.
At least not if the game was to be successful. As fun as EverQuest
and Ultima Online were because of their brutal difficulty and
severe punishing of mistakes, companies figured out pretty quick
you got more players if you made it so everyone could reach end
game content. And yes Mojo has it right: changing WoT to that
now isn't possible, even if it was a good idea (it's not though).