Wargaming Interested in Skill MM Opinion

Thanks to all of you guys, who sent me this survey.

Wargaming is all of a sudden interested in skill MM – to that end, they provided some players with a survey link over their e-mail :)

This is how it looks, so you have an idea:

wut

The list of questions is:

- Vehicles of what tiers you used most in random battles in WoT for past 3 months?
- Do you have XVM stat-mod for viewing player statistics installed?
- How often did you play randoms in a platoon in last 3 months?
- With whom did you platoon?
- What prevents you from playing WoT when you have spare time? (options are: travelling with no internet, bugs, other hobbies, household chores, being tired, latest changes, family member occupying laptop, no internet, too many losses, spending time with friends/family, other)
- Do you evaluate the strength of your team in WoT? If yes, when? (before, during, after battle, not at all)
- To what purpose do you evaluate the strength of your team? (to estimate winning chance, to compare both teams, to work out strategy, to guess which my teammate is reliable)
- Based on which criteria do you evaluate your team during the battle? (the way they move, how they are active, running score, their rationality)
- Based on your experience, teammates of what skill level do you usually meet in randoms? (more skilled, less skilled, equal, different for each battle)
- How satisfied are you that you meet less-skillful teammates? (here they ask for elaboration)
- Do you evaluate the strength of your enemies in WoT? If yes, when?
- To what purpose do you evaluate the strength of your enemies?
- Based on which criteria do you evaluate your enemies during the battle?
- Based on your experience, how do players on both teams stack up against each other in terms of skill in randoms? (your team is often more skilled, your team is often less skilled, both teams equal, different for each battle, can’t say)
- How satisfied are you that in random battles, teams stack up against each other differently in terms of skill in each new battle?
- What criteria are the most important to you when estimating the chance of winning in random?
- Players of what skill would you want on your team (equal to me, lower, higher, various)
- What statistics reflect the player skill the best in your opinion? (damage, winrate etc.)
- Against enemies of what skill is it enjoyable to play? (lower, higher, equal, different each time)
- Would you like a special mode in random battles, in which you would play against opponents of skill equal to yours?
- Why do you think that would be interesting?
- Have you ever selected a server manually? (EU1, EU2, EU3 mentioned here as well, strange)
- If yes, how often do you do that?
- If yes, why do you do that?
- Is it important to you, on which server are you playing?
- How old are you?

And that’s all, folks :) Interesting survey.

86 thoughts on “Wargaming Interested in Skill MM Opinion

  1. Skilled MM. Let it happen. Wait till you see everyones stats start mirroring each other. No carrying equals less exp and silver.

    • The thing is, people who want skills based MM always think their numbers will improve. Or they want a system they can easily game.

      • No, I don’t care about either. What I want is to be in games that are decided by the “lottery” of who has the fewest tomatoes on their team, which is often what happens now. Sick of watching tomatoes blow games away. And NO, I don’t take great pleasure in winning 15-2 either.

        • This.

          Skilled MM does *not* mean only equals in the matchup. It means each team gets an equal share of unicums *and* bots/tomatos. Unicums will still carry, bots will still fail, tomatos will still suck, but the lottery is history.

          • this is so full of fail…

            -You say skill MM would make matches less of a lottery.
            -Then you state that it would give equal amounts of bads/goods/unica per team.
            -This would mean each team would have 50% chance of winning(because both are as good, right?)
            -Currently the more skilled team has more chance to win(unicum team beats tomato team, 15-2 stomps etc.).

            So your conclusion is that each team winning 50% of the time is less of a lottery than the better team being more likely to win? WHAT LOGIC IS THAT?

            • No logic, if both teams has 50% chance of winning then it is a fucking lottery who wins because “both teams are as good”. WOT is too noob friendly, dont make noobs automaticly get 50% WR by doing nothing. Its not fair.

          • No that would be silly. Then you would probably have something like 3 unicums (in a platoon) vs 10 yellow players or something ridiculous.
            Putting aside the more blatant issue that angry banana has put up.

          • Equal share of unicums and bots/tomatoes.

            That’s what I want. This way there will be less stompfests where you bulldoze the opposing team and less beatdowns where they do it to you. We will have a higher frequency of hotly contested battles. I think that’s when the game is the most fun.

            Sure, all winrates will begin to approach 50%…but who evaluates their performance based solely on winrate? Not anyone who uses XVM, that’s for sure. Better players will still out damage worse players (as long as the matchmaker isn’t balancing according to win rate).

            • This.

              Whoever evaluates a player on WinRating clearly hasn’t understood how the game works.

              I couldn’t care less if we all had 50% WR. Damage, HitRate, k/d, etc. is what matters and that won’t magically go up by teams with equal amounts of tomatos, because they still won’t hit shit and die first. Sure, they’ll survive a bit longer here and there, but to suddenly make them turn yellow or even higher? That’s wishful thinking, nothing else.

    • skilled MM will make the game harder but overall it sounds like fun. they will have to separated skilled MM stats from random battles stats.

    • I would like to see the random battles work like a ladder system. That way you would more or less over time get to a point where you faced equally skilled players and where pushed into a 49% winrate.

      However, this should be for each tank. My own win rate vary a lot with what tank I’m using. T62 is my own worst enemy, the obj704 make me a 70% player…

  2. I was just actually hoping for a minimal form of skill MM that tries to shorten the gap in those matches we all have that are literally just a waste of time because you lose outright. I guess they’re keeping it as a form of credit sink.

    • Maybe after 3 – 4 year we will get Skill MM . Same as 2 EPIC game mods Nation vs Nation cock sucking and historical cock sucking .

    • I can see why skill MM in randoms can be bad idea (no more sealclubbing). But if it was separate mode it would be flop on the scale of HB.

      • HB are entirely different from skilled MM battles. they shouldn’t be compared to guess on how successful skilled MM battles would be. The smaller battles is probably what killed it anyways. It made them too simple and easy.

    • probably years for somebody to care enough about it to even give it a good chance of happening.

  3. MM doesn’t have to be skill only , purple vs only purple would not be fun , mm just has to be balanced during splitting team members so both sides get same number of good players and same number of tomatoes. win chance shoud always be 45-55 % but when i enter battle and i play with 14 tomatoes and 35 % and other side has like 10 purple/blue/green that is horrible , its a pre fixed game with no chance to win no matter how good you play.

    • No, it does have to be purple vs purple and tomato vs tomato. Or you’ll just have the two purples farm the rest of the players before trying to kill each other at the end.

      • So? Better players should win, that is how pretty much every normal game works. Even though I have around 3k WN8 (super unicum) in the last 1000 battles while solo pubing, I don’t mind playing with or against tomatoes. However, what I do mind is that there are 10 tomatoes in my team with the rest being someone decent, while the enemy team consists almost exclusively of skilled players with less than 5 tomatoes. When that happens, I know I am in trouble and have minimal chance of winning.

        TL;DR: unicums playing with tomatoes is fine, but you need the same amount of unicums and same amount of tomatoes in each team. The overall skill level of the entire team must be equal to overall skill level of the other team. If this fails, we have a stomp, which is not enjoyable for anyone, even the winners.

      • If the skill mm will set unicums against unicums and tomatoes against tomatoes, sooner or later every player will reach an “average” status…both in win rate and stats…

        A reason why I don’t want skill mm.
        If I am an unicum, then let me pwn FFS!
        If you’re a tomato either improve, either shut the fuck up and suck it…or just leave if you can’t any of the above.

        And for those crying about <35% wc games, learn to carry…you can't win all the games, but if you try hard you can achieve some cool wins…that's what defines a good player…

        • Random should be fucking random, that is why one question in the survey was “Would you like a special mode in random battles, in which you would play against opponents of skill equal to yours?”

          Who the fuck would want to play againt equal players all time, that would decrease their stats sooner or later not to mentuion one would have to work harder to make dmg. How is that any fun? People play better than evrage and get better stats, that is how it works. And those who have finaly become better, dont they deserve their reward to use that advantage over others?

          I wonder who would want to play skill MM, if that mean you will meet players of same skill all time. Randoms are fun in its own way because you never know what will happen, a very important feature in public random games opposed to skill based game modes.

    • it’s funny to see if the “red” team wins in that case, though… ;) that happens, too… ;)

  4. Interesting that they’re at least considering the possibility.

    Personally, I’m relatively satisfied with what we have now. Over 15 people the skill level usually averages out.

    Would like if there was a mechanism that tried to balance platoons against equally strong players however. 3 unicums in T54′s vs 3 tomatoes in assorted meds makes the match a foregone conclusion, which isn’t fun for anyone.

    • I wish to keep the randomness of the players, except for tomatoes.
      Take the 20% most awful players with more than 4k battles and pack them together, apart from great, good, normal and weaker players. :P

  5. If they introduce skill MM then better players will play with other good players and thus their stats will most likely drop and then they will play with… less skilled players? The polar opposite happening with less skilled ones?
    Does that logic make sense, or not? xD

    • Yes, platoons aside, that’s what would happen. I don’t think alyone but statspadders would mind, though.

      • Playing effective and performing above average is not stats padding, that is simply playing good and then get good stats in return. Why take away that reward for players who have put time and money to become better? Only mediocre cunts would like skill MM because that would mean they would get 50% wr automaticly and hence more xp and credits, while players with above 50% wr would get a decrease in stats and decrease to former xp and credit income.

        • Okay, then let me elaborate:

          Only players who confuse their stats with the size of their dicks would mind those stats getting worse if they can get more entertaining games in return.

          Better?

          Which isn’t saying that I think ‘skill’-based MM would be a good idea – far from it. But what Askorti touched upon IMO is not a reason why it would be bad.

    • Yes, do it in 10 years, not now.

      Same people that have been asking for various nerfs of this and that are out there in force and now they are crying out loud: “WE WANT SKILL MM!!!oneoneone”

  6. People for the love of god!!! Don’t answer a survery for free!!! It’s Market Research and is QUITE valuable. Ask for something in exchange,in-game gold, silver, premium time, whatever! But don’t give them such valuable info for free.

  7. i’m not sure about skilled mm, but i want something like, if i’m over 10.000 battles i don’t want anyone with less battles playing in my team!

    of course that doesn’t exclude all the idiots!

  8. Need to be careful how we word this.
    What I do NOT want is team’s “balanced”, ie. both sides getting a mix of players, everything from tomatoes to unicums, but such that both sides are notionally equal. That’s a LOUSY idea as it forces better players to carry muppets.

    What I DO want is the introduction of leagues. Just two will do please, an upper and a lower.
    How can I get hold of one of these surveys…

  9. Those are some interesting questions, and I bet most of the ‘OMG noob team again’ whiners on the countdown have never asked themselves this kind of questions.
    I think the parameter that will define ‘skill’ will be ever disputed.
    So how to define skill?
    Win rate – statistically, it depends on the team more than on each player individually, thus, (again – statistically) is a bad measure.
    Damage – a pro camper does a lot of damage, but probably not always realy helps the team to win. Is he skilled?
    Efficiency – it combines damage and win rate, and other parameters together, as played tier, for example – are those relevant? And if so, how they indicate skill?
    If you read RU forums and comments to YouTube vids of Russian video makers, most of the people there think that bellow 54% win rate and 1600 efficiency is a total tomato – I believe most of the readers here will agree this is not true (at least on EU or US clusters).

    It will ever be subjective.

    • You raised an intelligent question: what will define player mmr (matchmaking rating) to find equally skilled players?

      If WG will use their shitty PR I’ll quit for sure. (Win team battle using t1s makes me lose points lel gg)

      Also worth noting that all stats that we know till now (eff WNx and even winrate) will have absolutely no validity in evaluating skill, as winning would require less effort in a “lower league”.

      PS Anything below 1600 wn8 and 54% w/r cannot be trusted reliably and if you don’t want to call it a tomato call it a potato :D

      • > Anything below 1600 wn8 and 54% w/r cannot be trusted reliably

        Yeah, as if above that it could be trusted “reliably”…

      • “PS Anything below 1600 wn8 and 54% w/r cannot be trusted reliably and if you don’t want to call it a tomato call it a potato :D”

        Please explain why is it not reliable (it is not that do not agree automatically, I just don’t understand the reason you imply).

        • I can’t give an exact number but my 10k+ battle experience taught that i can rarely trust anyone and almost NEVER anyone below 1600ish 1500ish wn8.

          I die and match is close with my team made of low-end greens / yellows? Ok is a loss, next match. You even stop watching how they fail after some time.

          People (most) in that range probably have an idea of mechanichs and basic tactics but they lack situational awereness and map reading to carry.

          Lemmings going cap is a prime example: you win one side? Only 1-2 tanks go back to defend base, most go suicide in a open cap area.

          Sure anyone can be lucky once or twice and pull out a win but be sure you can’t count on it.

          ( i am speaking of high tiers btw where wn8 is easier to as i dont play much <8)

          • I get your point. But I think amount of battles played is also a serious parameter in such situations.

            • everything above 2500 wn8 and 60% can also not really be trusted… those people just spam the gold in order for those stats… i find 1400 ~ 1900 wn8 player people better because they play to their strenghts… spamming gold is not.. its rather weak..

                • Not everyone No, but blue or purple stats + top clan = 90% gold spammers regarless the tank they are driving.. I bet most of them Never tried some tanks without gold shells..

  10. Pingback: Wargaming zjišťuje, jak by hráči reagovali na skill MM

  11. Skill MM is bullshit. It would merely shift the drama to the question of how skill is to be measured (and then add some).

    What might be interesting to try out, however, would be a separate server into which you may not log unless you have more than 5k battles and at least 50% winrate (or somesuch).

        • He has the right to “cry” for that…
          Lowering the stats of good players and increasing the stats of the tomatoes by that skilled MM will lead to an average…basically making stats irellevant.

          • Agree, I think most people who want skill MM are below average to average players, they dont suck totally but they are not great either. And because of that they believe they are more skilled than their stats show and blame their loss on the “nob tim” and bad luck. In realist is not like that, you play better you win more, simple. And to be fair average players or below average ones will get a huge benefit from skill MM, because their stats will levitate towards 50% for free anyways.

            I have invested time and money to develop my playstyle and that works good with the tanks I play and in randoms, why the fuck should I be punished for that by leveling out my stats and decrease my xp and credit income? And yes is is FUN as hell to kill lower tard players because it is fun to make damage and brawl. And NO I dont like playing againt better or equal players because that means I dont have any advantage any longer which is not that fun in randoms.

            All we dawgs impriove to get a advantage over enemies, not to constantly meet better ones as we improve and hence dont have any advantage any longer. Whats next, make all players have the same tanks and equipment and crew skills, because those are also “advantages” over the averages.

        • 1. I’m not crying, I’m expressing my opinion.
          2. I don’t think my stats will get worse, they are not very good anyway.
          3. The point of my comment was that introducing skill mm will not stop people complaining about mm – the subject of the complains will only change. Thus, creating a place where more experienced players can play, while being sure new players will not be able to, will create a ‘legit’ seperation between the two, thus leaving wg with an answer to most of the complains, even if it will not do any good.

  12. Skill-based matchmaking does NOT necessarily mean that you would only ever meet players of your own skill level.

    It would be just as easy to implement a system where player rating simply influences your tanks MM weight, so player skill would just become another factor the MM would take into consideration OVERALL, rather than a pre-condition ‘threshold’ in deciding which players meet whom, before adjusting for tank / tier / type of tank etc.

    Also do want must has survey for self plox.

  13. SS you wanna here some funny thing? On stronhold is bug where you cant go to hangar and dont get exp or credits!!!!!!!!!

  14. I won’t mind a skill MM only if it will be SEPARATE from the current one.
    Let the unicums pwn, they have the right to do it.

    • I agree, why the fuck should skilled players have to work harder just because they will meet more players that are as good? If you are better than average you have the right to use that advantage to kill those who are weaker. Its random fucking game.

  15. I actually enjoyed answering the questions, and most of them were pretty good and to the point.

    Good job WG !

  16. Interesting.

    - Vehicles of what tiers you used most in random battles in WoT for past 3 months?
    tier IX tanks.
    - Do you have XVM stat-mod for viewing player statistics installed?
    No.
    - How often did you play randoms in a platoon in last 3 months?
    90% of the time.
    - With whom did you platoon?
    Friends.
    - What prevents you from playing WoT when you have spare time?
    travelling with no internet.
    - Do you evaluate the strength of your team in WoT? If yes, when? (before, during, after battle, not at all)
    Yes, before, during, and after the battle.
    - To what purpose do you evaluate the strength of your team? (to estimate winning chance, to compare both teams, to work out strategy, to guess which my teammate is reliable)
    I compare the number of vehicules class to the map i will play. I search for well known clan names in both teams.
    - Based on which criteria do you evaluate your team during the battle?
    Where they move, if they are aware of their environment, the way they adapt to the spotted enemy.
    - Based on your experience, teammates of what skill level do you usually meet in randoms? (more skilled, less skilled, equal, different for each battle)
    Less skilled 80% of the time.
    - How satisfied are you that you meet less-skillful teammates? (here they ask for elaboration) I’m not that disatified if both teams are equal in number of less-skillful teammates. But when there is a gap between the two teams it’s really annoying because the game won’t be fun.
    - Do you evaluate the strength of your enemies in WoT? If yes, when?
    At every moment i play. I observe the way the enemy move, i can tell if they use their tank properly really fast.
    - To what purpose do you evaluate the strength of your enemies?
    To adapt my gameplay to the enemy i’m facing.
    - Based on which criteria do you evaluate your enemies during the battle?
    The location they reach on the map, if they moves with wolf packs or alone, if they are playing aggressivly or passivly.
    - Based on your experience, how do players on both teams stack up against each other in terms of skill in randoms?
    Can’t tell. It’s rarely fair. One team often has the advantage on the other one.
    - How satisfied are you that in random battles, teams stack up against each other differently in terms of skill in each new battle?
    I deal with it.
    - What criteria are the most important to you when estimating the chance of winning in random?
    Balance of tiers and balance of tanks types.
    - Players of what skill would you want on your team (equal to me, lower, higher, various)
    Equal or higher. Some less skilled player don’t annoy me if they are not more than 30% of the team.
    - What statistics reflect the player skill the best in your opinion? (damage, winrate etc.)
    Average experience per battle.
    - Against enemies of what skill is it enjoyable to play?
    Different each time.
    - Would you like a special mode in random battles, in which you would play against opponents of skill equal to yours?
    Yes sure.
    - Why do you think that would be interesting?
    Because i could focus on improve my gameplay and not the gameplay of others.
    - Have you ever selected a server manually? (EU1, EU2, EU3 mentioned here as well, strange) EU1.
    - If yes, how often do you do that?
    Everytime i play.
    - If yes, why do you do that?
    Because EU1 has more player and so less chances to get a fucked up MM.
    - Is it important to you, on which server are you playing?
    Yes. I don’t like games with two tier X more in the enemy team and nothing i my team to counter that.
    - How old are you?
    26.

  17. I cna understand why players complain so much about teammates with low “skill/stats” but I think having a match with players with different skill levels is actually interesting

    think aboutthe satisfaction when you completely humiliate a enemy player who is supposed to have a superior level of skill than yours (it’s even more exciting when adding to that they also have superior tanks)

    funny is how they sent the survey when, according to the latest “storm q&a” translated here on FTR, Storm said they are working on integrating parts of the XVM mod in the game (only the names on the minimap and not the view/render range circles)

  18. Skilled MM? Great thing! It should look like this, in my opinion:
    - violet vs blue
    - green vs yellow
    - orange vs tomato

  19. Skill-balanced MM (read it as WN8 balanced MM) is pure bullshit. Only n00b players are asking for skill MM because they want the team to carry them. Period.
    Imbalance starts to show up in most cases when one team has many bots. One thing that can be added is that players on both teams have no more than 10k battles more than other team in total and vice versa. Even the worst players can annihilate someone with, for example, stock 80% crew.

  20. Not gonna happen and it’s not good for the game, but some sort of more fair MM balancing is what would be great(both teams get same amount of reds-greens-purples instead of stacking unicorns on one side against red army)

  21. Why the hell everyone is taking “Skill MM” as playing against enemies of equal skill?

    Why not simply put equal amount of skill into both teams? By this I mean for both teams to have some skilled and some “noob” players, so that the XVM tells us always, let’s say 45-55% win chance?

    It would eliminate those games when you look at the teams and see 60%+ or 40%- win chance, just because the enemy/your team has more unicums and blue players.

    I don’t want to play just against equal skill enemies, I want all battles to be very balanced (win chance close to 50%), so that they’re all close wins/loses :)

  22. The problem with a skill based MMing system, based off overall win rates on the team, is that it will self-destruct short while. If you constantly balance the teams with equal tomatoes and purples, everyone will equalize out a 50% winrate, then the system breaks and you will have “rigged” games pop up randomly again because it will put 10 former purple players with now 50% winrates against 10 former tomatoes with now 50% win rates.

    It will be poison for the game and hugely remove any incentive to improve and become a better player. If you are worse then other people at something, learn and improve. FFS don’t blame the system and expect it to adjust to you.

    Separating the player base into different skill tiers and dividing up the matchmaking pool in a starcraft II style bronze/silver/gold format is a horrible idea too because it will lead to a small pool for matchmaking, and veterans will remember how the matchmaker was so derpy before the population expanded….

  23. ON the ASIAN server there already is a skill based MM , loaded heavily for asian players to beat the player IP’s out of Australia and NZ.
    The asian server is biased against Westerners as it is.

  24. Skilled MM wont change a damn thing you`ll still get the retarded mass of heavy tanks cowering behind a bush in the corner of the map somewhere, Or a scout who only knows how to scout your own arty. Nothing will ever change in this game until the majority of the playerbase actually start to learn tactics or there role in the match with there tank. Until then all will be the same with noobs just Huehuehue`ing there way to a tier X and learning fuck all along the way. So maybe the emphasis should be for WG do some sort of tutorial on each class of tank so newbies know what role to play in that tank. Either way i think the game will always be stat orientated and it will never change.

  25. ok how will you really get a balanced game when your tank has a gun with 175mm pen hit the side turret of a tank that has 37mm armor and the RNG say you don’t pen all you get is bounced…ricocheted…did not go through how will the new skilled MM take that into account? I laugh so much when in game some *deleted* says he paid for this game and he has the right to decide who plays and at what minimum lvl they have tobe to play; peopel who spent money that was your call to spend it no one put a gun to your head or a knife to your throat so to me if you don’t like how the game is going stop paying WG and make your own game and then you can make the rules for it.

  26. I will leave it as it is. Platoon of 3 players hardly able to make damage equal to two penetrating shots is annoying as well as having 5 meds against 5 heavily armored TDs (t110e3, t110e4, jgpze100) on map like Ensk. But chances of games that are nearly impossible to win are equal for everyone.
    XVM stats are overestimated and difference between 1100 and 1500wn8 is mix of damage dealing capability and consistency in surviving to farm end game damage. Players below 900wn are not much useful (but they can have good game), players above 1700 are generally good. I’ve seen too many green players scared to feed arty and losing games in horrible way so I believe that they are good only at bullying low tier tanks, sniping from safe distance, not sharing HP pool with others, and sometimes not taking ANY risk – including letting 100hp team mate to take hit first and letting game to end as draw. On the other hand yellow players are at least trying to carry and they can either contribute to victory or fail. It’s not a rule, but sometimes it seems that decent team (yellow-green with few orange players) has quite good chance against mostly green team that tends to be passive, arty safe and stalled in places where they have advantage – but no one wants to take a hit.
    I evaluate players by positioning and activity.
    Btw I’m not against lowering MM spread. At least from time to time. Fights like Patton vs Panther are not fun. Not even when I’m playing Patton. I have some (perhaps personal) issues with tiers 7-8. Gap between tiers 8-9 seems huge except of TDs where gap is between 7-8. If not lower MM spread I would like to spend more time as mid tier.

  27. The old problem… is curious how AW is going to use some kind of skill based MM and how they say something about RNG but in lower % compared with WOT… i think WG is doing more to “evolution” WOT based in specifications of unreleased games than in players suggestions/claims.