Jump to content


XVM

how accurate is it?

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
94 replies to this topic

Stationary_Target #1 Posted Jun 04 2012 - 08:51

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 32973 battles
  • 960
  • [CIA] CIA
  • Member since:
    12-13-2011
I recently installed XVM, just to see what everyone has been bitching about. To me it seems to be pretty accurate, last 10 games my highest chance of winning was 28%, and guess what, we got stopmed 10 times in a row.  Don't say it was because of me seeing our chances and not trying, and I didn't say anything to the team until were down 11 to 2. Three were lemming rushes that were held up by 2 tanks, 4 involved our top 3 tanks camping base, 2 were their scouts getting behind our lines and raping arty, the TD's, then our heavies from behind, and the last was tier 7s running out front and getting slaughtered by the 2 enemy tier 9s giving them a 7-0 advantage.

All in all the mod is pretty depressing, I figured I'd see if I could remain positive about our chances of winning, but after getting 10 games in a row with less than a 1 in 3 predicted chance of a victory and then getting rolfstomped 10 times in a row I think it's time to uninstall the mod. Maybe it's time MM took into consideration player ability when setting up battles. When one team has 2 platoons with 1800+ effiency and the other team has someone at 1350 as their highest you just know it isn't going to turn out well. But that's just a dream, MM can't even match tiers correctly.

On the other hand, I could keep running the mod, and if we have less than a 40% chance I could just alt tab and look at porn, since that's probably what the rest of my team has been doing since they started playing WoT.

Ezz #2 Posted Jun 04 2012 - 08:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 13837 battles
  • 6,131
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011
I feel that player ability should play a role in the outcome of battles. Why balance it down to chance?

Shambo #3 Posted Jun 04 2012 - 09:08

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 15874 battles
  • 379
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011
Yeah same here. I started running it a few weeks ago and its depressing I have to say.

You still try hard but you do get pissed off watching the clock tick down sometimes.

Human nature I guess especially after you've been on the end of a few kickings.

I have seen a few 5% chance games won though so its not a given.

Im 47% with a 1030 eff and when XVM says im the best on the team thats pretty sad. lol.

Westwooda #4 Posted Jun 04 2012 - 09:16

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 2132 battles
  • 123
  • [TML] TML
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
My tin foil hat opinion

After using XVM for a bit I'm convinced that MM is working like this to keep people at 50%. I can't be totally sure though.
I feel that if you're higher in your win% from playing really well in platoons or CB you're going to meet a lot of those public matches with average around 20% win chance on XVM.
So when you get a 20% chance to win on XVM, it would be pretty much designated as your 'lose' game, unless there is some miracle. But going against that would only create more games on average that require those miracles.

It is the only way I can justify in my head the horrible horrible way that the MM system creates games. I would say that it is the population that can cause it but I've heard that higher pop servers are also seeing such games.

But I can believe it because I mean they can't have all the crap players losing all the time, right? That is bad for business.

Vonholtz #5 Posted Jun 04 2012 - 09:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 16055 battles
  • 4,203
  • Member since:
    09-25-2011
Han Solo said it best "never tell me the odds"

I want to have fun with the game and Mods like XVM take the fun out the game for me. I am not the best player thats for sure but I reather not know how the battles going to end. Even if XVM is right on ever time it a buzz kill to the point of a game TO HAVE FUN.

UncleKish #6 Posted Jun 04 2012 - 09:23

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 19375 battles
  • 420
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011
I guess my only problem with that is that I might be paying too much attention on who is who instead of playing as I see it.

Rubicant #7 Posted Jun 04 2012 - 09:35

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 10428 battles
  • 311
  • [GOON] GOON
  • Member since:
    02-13-2012
I don't look at it as the determining factor (if it says 5% for example)...instead I look at the odds to see how much harder I will have to concentrate/play in order to win. Of course, there is also the chance that RNG manipulates damage and pen in order to negate even your best efforts. Like another poster mentioned, gotta keep things interesting (meaning letting them win overwhelmingly) for those players that lose more often than not.

BCTiger #8 Posted Jun 04 2012 - 09:47

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 3808 battles
  • 765
  • [VPG-R] VPG-R
  • Member since:
    06-23-2010
for the xvm I usually look for the best player in a higher tier tank and try and damage them the most, best way to negate that win chance in your favour

EchoHntr #9 Posted Jun 04 2012 - 09:52

    Sergeant

  • Veteran Testers
  • 13881 battles
  • 117
  • [VPG] VPG
  • Member since:
    07-29-2011

View PostStationary_Target, on Jun 04 2012 - 08:51, said:

Maybe it's time MM took into consideration player ability when setting up battles.

Agree.  I've noted the same trend.  While everyone bitches about how mm is messed up because of tank pairing, in reality it's as much about player pairing to get a fair match.

Tolos #10 Posted Jun 04 2012 - 09:52

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 23817 battles
  • 11,391
  • [RELIC] RELIC
  • Member since:
    09-22-2010
I use it simply so I can tell which players are more likely to me an epically stupid mistake

Example 2 IS7's on your team

One with 44% win ratio and 800 efficiency from 6000 games
One with 60% win ratio and 1600 efficiency from 6000 games

I know which one im going to follow....

Fireguard #11 Posted Jun 04 2012 - 09:53

    Captain

  • Players
  • 8330 battles
  • 1,963
  • Member since:
    06-24-2011
The prediction is descriptive, but by no means is it reliable enough to rage quit on seeing your team with a low chance of winning.

KiwiMark67 #12 Posted Jun 04 2012 - 09:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 38602 battles
  • 4,583
  • [ANVIL] ANVIL
  • Member since:
    08-24-2011

View PostStationary_Target, on Jun 04 2012 - 08:51, said:

On the other hand, I could keep running the mod, and if we have less than a 40% chance I could just alt tab and look at porn, since that's probably what the rest of my team has been doing since they started playing WoT.

I've had a 31% chance of winning, but won regardless - I doubt we would have won if I hadn't done my part.  I would suggest a game where you see what the worst odds of winning that you defy are.
The more good you do, the better your stats.
The more defeats you can turn into wins, the better your win rate.
Just do what you can in every battle and you might be surprised at how well you do sometimes.

Tolos #13 Posted Jun 04 2012 - 10:00

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 23817 battles
  • 11,391
  • [RELIC] RELIC
  • Member since:
    09-22-2010

View PostStationary_Target, on Jun 04 2012 - 08:51, said:

Maybe it's time MM took into consideration player ability when setting up battles.

View PostEchoHntr, on Jun 04 2012 - 09:52, said:

Agree.  I've noted the same trend.  While everyone bitches about how mm is messed up because of tank pairing, in reality it's as much about player pairing to get a fair match.

The problem here is from what I can see

Sooner or later using the idea you want, everyone will have a 50% win ratio etc, and then it all starts again

cfnz #14 Posted Jun 04 2012 - 10:12

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 1875 battles
  • 257
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012
You'd have to split the sever population into groups and then have periodic promation/relegation.

perlfreak #15 Posted Jun 04 2012 - 10:30

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 4983 battles
  • 3,999
  • Member since:
    09-15-2010
My most recent battle.

XVM said my team had 60% and 70% chance of winning.   This seemed a reasonable predictiion based on the win%'s of my teammates vs them.

Game starts, and this is what my team does:

http://img26.imagesh...849/shot029.png

And yes, there are 55% and 56% people among those in the forest.   I was in Type 59.

We lost like 15-4.

I freaking hate this side of the map. The freaking forrest is nothing but a noob trap.

Zardnaar #16 Posted Jun 04 2012 - 11:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 20352 battles
  • 2,642
  • Member since:
    07-02-2011
And thats the main reaosn I don't use it.

tread50 #17 Posted Jun 04 2012 - 12:21

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10284 battles
  • 229
  • Member since:
    06-24-2011
In a game the other day, one of my team must have had it. Started to moan on about why they 7 greens and we only had 2. Anyway we won that match and he had to eat his words.

Nasdaq #18 Posted Jun 04 2012 - 13:32

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10113 battles
  • 114
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011

View Postperlfreak, on Jun 04 2012 - 10:30, said:

My most recent battle.

XVM said my team had 60% and 70% chance of winning.   This seemed a reasonable predictiion based on the win%'s of my teammates vs them.

Game starts, and this is what my team does:

http://img26.imagesh...849/shot029.png

And yes, there are 55% and 56% people among those in the forest.   I was in Type 59.

We lost like 15-4.

I freaking hate this side of the map. The freaking forrest is nothing but a noob trap.

another idiot that doesn t understand probabilities.

FrodoTSolo #19 Posted Jun 04 2012 - 13:37

    Captain

  • Players
  • 27846 battles
  • 1,581
  • [PLSGO] PLSGO
  • Member since:
    06-02-2011

View PostTolos, on Jun 04 2012 - 09:52, said:

I use it simply so I can tell which players are more likely to me an epically stupid mistake

Example 2 IS7's on your team

One with 44% win ratio and 800 efficiency from 6000 games
One with 60% win ratio and 1600 efficiency from 6000 games

I know which one im going to follow....

The dumb IS7 because he is going to charge in there and die while I use his shot seaking hull as cover/distraction.

What is fun is to realize that people CAN and DO fail their way to the top of the lists.  I was in a game with a tier 8 arty that had a 42% win ratio and a sub 800 efficiency.  The ONLY shot I saw him take was hitting the last active tank on our side and annihilating him.  Even the opponents were screaming WTF.

Kilo69 #20 Posted Jun 04 2012 - 13:38

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 17283 battles
  • 117
  • [SHRUG] SHRUG
  • Member since:
    11-30-2011
I started using it...  Actually I surprised how many wins we pull off despite the low % chance to win...  and I loved the game we had 85% chance and lost!...  I guess it was to make up for the 5% one we won.  I still think it comes down to which players are in which tanks.  In general someone that is a good player is going to make the right moves, but there are many units in this game that have very unique roles.  Someone that is good in a maus might suck in an AMX...  or a good scout driving might not be the best arty.  XVM is just an interesting add-on but by no means are the matches set in stone by what you see.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users