Why do Some Argue Against Skill Based MM?

DeviouslyCursed:  Ok, this is much better. I don't use data to determine whether Random MM is "fair" or not, that's used mostly to go against the "it's rigged" nutters. Fair is a subjective thing. As I have pointed out multiple times, both Random MM and SBMM are each fair in the own way, and also unfair in their own way. Someone stating one is fair is an idiot if he doesn't expect the other side to come back with the opposing statement. You won't get anywhere because it is subjective. So because both are fair and also unfair, what should be discussed is the positives and negatives each side comes with, and whether it is worth changing the MM. This is where I have an issue with the SBMM fans. Most of them think it will fix steamroll/blowout/landslide battles. It will not. This is where the data comes in to play. This is where science and statistics matter, and "feels" should get thrown into the garbage. I don't care how hard one thinks steamrolls are caused by skill disparity, I don't care if they "feelz it in their bones" that it is true. It simply is not true. No changes to MM will fix this issue. Period. The other thing that is brought up is the skill mismatch games. Here again the SBMM argue in a dishonest fashion, calling them "certain wins/losses" when all data shows that they are not. The underdogs win some of the fights. Quite a few of them, actually. If you argue you want a challenge, nothing is more challenging than getting a team that's supposed to lose a victory. The SBMM fans then say that the matches are not fun. This is Neato's specialty as he has the data, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, but his data indicates the games basically play out the same, regardless of the skill levels of the teams, whether similar or mismatched. This is why he says the only way someone knows if they are having fun or not is if xvm tells them it is okay to have fun in this battle. You are basically telling us that data isn't going to fix the issues these players have presented. The problem is, SBMM won't fix it either. You are asking us to address a situation that simply is not real. Reality doesn't care if they think it's true. Reality doesn't care if they "know" it's true. Reality cares about what actually is true. The Random MM is not causing most of the issues they are complaining about.  The one valid argument against Random MM, is Win Rate differences. Good players win more under Random MM. This is true. But again, it is only a matter of opinion on whether there is anything wrong with that. Once it is pointed out that good players are not GIVEN and advantage, but create their own advantage by playing well, the SBMM proponent then inevitably goes back to one of the above arguments because they know stating a player doesn't deserve to win if they are playing well is kind of a prick thing to say. Also, they argue this despite the relatively tight win rate spread this game has.  SBMM will cause issues. As I have pointed out, players will be more likely to play their best tanks, or as that one purple player pointed out, that means an increase in the most OP tanks in the game. SBMM will cause win rates to tighten or go all the way to 50% (probably 49% if draws still count as losses) SBMM ill cause WG to have to reevaluate incentives for winning, because SBMM will allow you to literally do nothing and still get approx 50% win rate. SBMM will cause you to lose your ability to affect your win rate yourself. It will be a meaningless stat. 

DeviouslyCursed:   Still working on this, have to go back to work....