Why do Some Argue Against Skill Based MM?

Mojo_Riesing, on Aug 04 2021 - 00:38, said:
What am saying is that either way, many players assess that to be an imbalance in THAT match.  Some players feel they see that often, too often.  What i take you to say is that over time, thousands of matches it all evens out because the math tells you so.  I believe you sincerely mean that but what you don't understand is that while that might be how you are wired...many others are not. That's why all your graphs and number fail to convince that group of people.  Its like two different languages are being spoken.
 


DeviouslyCursed, on Jul 29 2021 - 23:39, said:   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 already.    EDIT: Streaks, something players also complain about. Random has streaks. Many games implement pseudo-random number generator because of this (it prevents streaks of high or low results). Players tend to not be able to handle actual random when they miss that 95% chance to hit attack two times in a row. SBMM won't fix streaks either.   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 will 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. If there is an incentive to do something else, say most damage on your team, or most xp, etc, then you bring in the same toxic gameplay that Ranked battles have, where no one gives a s*** about winning and just wants to farm so they can get top, or top 3 or whatever the cutoffs are.    SBMM will cause you to lose your ability to affect your win rate yourself. It will be a meaningless stat.   I like how under Random MM, my stats are mine. I earned them. The MM gave me nothing. I get to make something out of what everyone else is given. If the really good players get to win 1 more game out of 10 than I do, I am okay with that. They deserve it. If the superbads win one less game than me out of 10, I'm okay with that too. They also deserve it.       Neato has presented his data, told how he got it, advised others how they could do the same. There is your methodology. Other's have submitted their data too, and the results were the same. There's your peer review. Anyone and everyone is welcome to try it as well. No scientist is ever absent of personal belief or benefit/gain. Ever. Thinking researchers don't have a lot on the line when they are conducting their studies is naive at best.   As far as Neato's comments. Well, which response has the correct answer to 2 + 2?   A. The answer is 4 B. The answer is 4, you prick.   They both do. Adding an insult does not make the answer any less correct. It is still the right answer. The truth of his answers does not change. The accuracy of his data does not change. Yes, I know; those of simple minds get triggered and can't separate out the facts from the jibes when there's been an insult. It's part of why they can't arrive at the correct conclusion anyway; they're easily distracted. But that's really not our problem. Yes, I also know about the whole "but you can convince people if you use nice words!" position some try to bring up. That might work when people are on the fence, or in a different medium. But on internet forums, I think I may have seen about 5 people be convinced after an argument since about the year 2000.    This isn't a courtroom, where "truth" is what you can convince people it is and a person's life is then affected. Your position about how people perceive things, and emotional arguments matter there. But we're talking about actual reality. Reality doesn't care if you believe it, it is still true. Reality doesn't care if you like it, it is still true. Reality doesn't care if someone insulted you and hurt your little feelings, it is still reality.   People are crying about things they think are real; "The MM is rigged!" or "The MM cause blowouts!" It doesn't matter if these are emotional positions. The only way to refute delusions is with data. It doesn't matter if data won't convince them. That is their failure, not ours. It's not our fault they don't understand how reality works. It's not our fault they don't understand how the nature of evidence works.    When someone presents empirical data (you know, actual evidence) the only thing that can refute that is other empirical data. Feels ain't gonna cut it. Anecdotes aren't going to cut it either. Cherry picked data isn't going to do it either (lookin' at you, SimplySimple!). Many of those on the forum here don't understand that.   I've also said this before. But I guess I have to say it again. After a time, when it has become clear that a person does not care about facts, logic, reason, the nature of evidence, and they absolutely refuse to participate in an honest discussion, the only thing left is ridicule.