Jump to content


'Rigged MM', proven, explained, beaten


  • Please log in to reply
941 replies to this topic

Firemoth #21 Posted Jul 24 2016 - 10:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 38104 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011

what i dont get is if MM is rigged, how does it determine that a 55% wins roughly 50-60% and then resets you down to that level. why wouldnt it just reset you down to the server average? if it did somehow want to reset you down to a long term average how do you even get to 55%? you would have had to at some stage beat the system in the 1st place because nobodies average just goes from 0% to 55% unless you reroll.

 

also how long does it take to determine if you are a winner or loser? how long would this hypothetical data be stored? how much room would this data take up, because each player would be tracked for some X amount of time. when you take into consideration how big the russian pop is, how much data would you be keeping around? and couldnt you just beat the system by winning a few days, then stopping until this hypothetical data got flushed from the server and then go back to winning a few more days?

 

the real questions are why would WG code this? What do WG gain from doing this? why have such a complex system in place?
 

i get that you can see the same platoon a few times in a row, but i find this is only true at tier 8+. there usually isnt alot of people to fill out battle tier 10/11. its not outside the realm of possibility that if you play tier9/10 alot you will see the same people again and again, particularly seeing as how your tanks all come out of battle and join the queue again at more or less the same time. if you want to avoid them, just wait a few mins so that they start their battle and you join the queue at a separate time.


Edited by Firemoth, Jul 24 2016 - 10:56.


Gurdy2383 #22 Posted Jul 24 2016 - 11:24

    Captain

  • Players
  • 50638 battles
  • 1,126
  • Member since:
    11-05-2012

View Postbikebudha1, on Jul 23 2016 - 23:32, said:

DAY 1: 51% overall average chance to win. = So I'm right in there where I 'should be'.
 
Day 5 Sub-01 50% overall average chance to win = What happened was, MM saw that I was winning entirely too much and started to give me much worse teams.
 

 

You have a conclusion in your head, and then you are taking some evidence and trying to support your conclusion with it. That is not how the scientific method works.

 

If you didn't have a predetermined conclusion already you wouldn't look at day 5 Sub 1 which had a 50% chance to win, and say that somehow that means the MM had you in the "loser" bucket for that day.

 

If I wanted to make a post stating that MM isn't rigged I could track my matches for a couple of weeks, and draw biased conclusions from that evidence to support my conclusion too.

Gurdy2383 #23 Posted Jul 24 2016 - 11:30

    Captain

  • Players
  • 50638 battles
  • 1,126
  • Member since:
    11-05-2012

View Postbikebudha1, on Jul 23 2016 - 23:32, said:

Note:  There is a quick and easy solution for this.  Skill based MM.  Simply select the 30 tanks with the current MM, then shuffle a few players between teams to bring the chance to win into the 45-55% range.

 

My previously posted thoughts on SBMM (Skill Based Match Making):

 

1.) First of all, I would argue that a Skill Based MM system would be largely ineffective to solve the so-called problems that people want solved in the first place. This

     system would rarely result in balanced teams. Things that would throw it off are:

 

*  3 man unicum platoon on one side, vs. a 3 man tomato platoon on the other team.

*  The unicums on one team are high tier, while the unicums on the other team are bottom tier.

*  If based on lifetime stats: One team gets a bunch of yellows that have recent blue stats, while the other team gets a bunch of yellows with recent yellow stats.

*  If based on recent stats: One team gets a a bunch of blues who have green recent stats because they've been grinding things that bring their stats down, while the other side
   gets a bunch of true greens.

 

Re-rolls vs. true lifetime stats, good players in Chi-ri's vs. good players in T-54's, players that have good stats but are just starting to play higher tiers, stock tanks, etc. would also add to the unlikelihood that this system would result in balanced teams.
 
2.) Putting any type of skill based MM into a game that has tech tree progression doesn't jive. That's even if it's a simple extra sorting of teams once the players have been
     chosen. The status quo is purely random therefore fair. Any messing with the randomness will inherently lead to some unfair distribution of credits and experience in many
     situations.

 

Example: The MM pulls 30 players 3 of which are purple, 4 green, 5 yellow, and 18 reds. Whatever metric the system uses to sort the players, it would always have to value purples way higher than even greens, because the gap between a purple and a green is much greater than the gap between a green and a yellow, etc. So:

Team 1 could expect a team that consists of 2 purple, 0 green, 2 yellow, & 11 reds.

Team 2 would then be 1 purple, 4 green, 3 yellow, & 7 reds.

 

Maybe it would be a little different, but the theme would always be the same: the team with the most unicums will have the most tomatoes as well. These unicums will be asked to carry their teams to victory more often than other players will. They will therefore earn less credits and experience if they don't carry. The MM will consistently place tankers based on their stats into the same situations which either benefit their progression through the tech trees, or hurt it. This example doesn't even start to talk about how unfair a unicum placed on a team of tomatoes in a low tier vehicle will be.

 

3.) This system will also encourage players to not improve. Whenever a player, for example, turns from green to blue they are instantly transformed into a player that has
      worse teammates with your system. There's no way around this. Improvement means that you will be responsible to carry your team more, and if you don't you won't make
      as many credits and experience as you used to. This is not a good way to encourage better play, and in fact is the opposite. This also ties into the fact that the fairness of
      the distribution of experience and credits is compromised in a in a tech tree progression style game when you add any skill based mm like you're suggesting.

 

4.) This system would also reduce the effect of one's own skill level on influencing their win rate. The status quo is purely random. This means that good players win more, while
      poor players win less. Average players will fall somewhere near 50% win rate. With your system the mm would always attempt to make the teams even. This way good
      players win about 50% of the time, poor players win about 50%, and average players will win 50% of the time. This is another side effect of your system that reduces the
      players' drive to improve their play. If they will win half of the time regardless of how good they are why care to improve? With your system if somebody starts winning more
      often than 50% of the time the mm will make sure to balance out that person's matches, and get them down to 50%. You're going from a random system that sometimes
      screws players out of winning to a structured system that is actually designed to constantly screw players over that start winning too much, and is designed to assist those
      who are winning too little.

 

Your system wouldn't really result in much greater balance in matches. Steamrolls would still exist with nearly the same frequency as before. The MM would be powerless to sort through all of the variables that make up this game and it's player base. There is no good way to compare players apples-to-apples since this is a tech-tree centered game where everyone has different vehicles, crews, gold usage, etc, etc, etc. Your system would, though, create some new problems that are pretty unfair, and don't really make sense with the core premise of the game. This is not a good trade-off, and your system will do more harm than good the way I see it.

 

It's not that WG isn't listening, don't care, are stubborn, or think it would be too hard to implement. It's just that they've thought about it a lot more that you have, and have decided that it's not a good idea.



BigTomka #24 Posted Jul 24 2016 - 11:59

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 57980 battles
  • 721
  • Member since:
    03-05-2011
Budha,  what you smoking ???

Sleepytime #25 Posted Jul 24 2016 - 12:02

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 30258 battles
  • 242
  • Member since:
    10-23-2012
Personally I do not think WG gives a rats behind what our stats or WR is and if there is any rigging going on it would be more inline with the psychology behind gambling like slot machines and what drives people to sit in a chair stuffing nickles into a slot machine hour after hour. Gotta tug on those emotions and nothing does that like win streaks and losing streaks.

heavymetal1967 #26 Posted Jul 24 2016 - 13:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 72607 battles
  • 22,009
  • [HSOLO] HSOLO
  • Member since:
    05-30-2012

Seen that wall of text thought it was Spam till I read just a little then I realized it's a poor man's spam - more like Potted Meat.

 

So full of tripe it needs a label.  :P

 

 

 

 

 



LightenUp2 #27 Posted Jul 24 2016 - 13:23

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 148 battles
  • 49
  • Member since:
    03-17-2015
 

"MM dictates the outcome (or at least heavily influences the outcome) of the battles we play"  The same as any slot machine in a casino.

 

"Skill based MM.  Simply select the 30 tanks with the current MM, then shuffle a few players between teams to bring the chance to win into the 45-55% range."

 

Right on both counts but 90% of the players use this game as an ego trip so they will never agree with you or consider your hypothesis. To do so would collapse their sense of self worth.

 

Re the second quote, over some four months I've watched outcomes change based on the balance of player WR. Vehicle balance and WR balance produce longer and more interesting games in better than 85% of the games. I don't play often but enough to understand that WOT is a game of chance.

 

Thanks for your effort.


Edited by LightenUp2, Jul 24 2016 - 13:25.


Doctr_Strange #28 Posted Jul 24 2016 - 13:23

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 30958 battles
  • 29
  • [BABNS] BABNS
  • Member since:
    01-29-2015
I agree with a  lot of what you said in your original post. In my opinion they are doing exactly what a business model would require them to do.  This may be a free to play game but it is not a non profit organization that runs it. Every for profit business sets a goal each quarter to increase earnings. There is a percentage of people that pay to play the game, lets say its 30% (random quess), and a percentage of people that will never pay to play the game (30% - again random).  This would leave 40% of the remaining players that are your targets.  Making a system that would keep the win rates at approximately 45%-55% would fall in line with the goals.  They want to entice you to spend money.  If the game were too easy it would be boring and cause a loss in profits. If it were too hard then frustrations sets in and people leave again causing a loss in revenue.  One example would be making an individual think that all one needs to do is start spamming gold because this will help elevate the win rate over that threshold. If that individual purchases the gold for cash then you have just succeeded.  Every time you see a micro patch in your game launcher think of that as a lure, the question then becomes are you going to take the bait.  Whenever you see nerfs or buffs of any kind the underlying reason for the decision will be - Is this going to increase our profits?  Not all business decisions are smart or profitable which is why we see so many changes.


LightenUp2 #29 Posted Jul 24 2016 - 13:28

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 148 battles
  • 49
  • Member since:
    03-17-2015
"Me thinks OP has an IQ and shoe size that are about the same number... " It's pin headed comments like this that simply show your IQ is lower.

Texz #30 Posted Jul 24 2016 - 13:33

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 11066 battles
  • 706
  • Member since:
    03-16-2012
There is no such thing as rigged MM :^)

Kamahl1234 #31 Posted Jul 24 2016 - 13:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 18395 battles
  • 10,078
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012

View Postbikebudha1, on Jul 24 2016 - 07:21, said:

 

+1 for an actual comment.  But I'll push you on it.  What would you consider a 'reasonable' sample size?  I had tracked roughly 1,200 battles (all in the same tank).  My opinion is that is a pretty decent amount.  If you could see the spreadsheet on those 1,200 battles, you would see the pattern shown in previous 5-days worth of battles.  Several days of 55% win rate - ish.  followed by a horrible day where I couldn't buy a win.  Rinse and repeat.  I know 'sample size' is a common talking point for the MM supporters.  But really, since most people only play 10-20 battles at a time.  Really any repeatable trend over that few battles is relevant because that is the scale people experience the game at.

 

Only that's not how statistics works in this case, nor MM "rigging". Can it be frustrating if you're wanting wins? Yes. But it's not really "right" to complain about lacking wins in low battle counts, as otherwise you're expecting an unreasonable chance to win your battles, especially if you're on a losing streak, as this implies that the player, while against MM being rigged, wants MM to be rigged in their favor to produce more wins for them. 

 

This is a large reason why many MM "rigging" threads/comments aren't really taken seriously, as most players demand a MM that is actually rigged, as a solution to "rigged" MM. You seem to even imply this with the "reset" days. This isn't a thing. You simply had bad days, as you're 1 of 15 players on your team, your influence (unless always top tier) isn't high enough to guarantee that your average win-rate will be achieved at all times. Shoot, you claim that you didn't see days of 70%, but even your data (though small sets per day) show a ~70% and a 75% day. 

 

 

Also, when you did your summary of the tracked battles with the separations for each day, did you use a weighted system, or did you use individual battles and omitted the fact you tracked per day?

 

One final note is that you want skill MM. You do realize you're winning above your WN8 average, right? Not trying to sound snarky, but this means that if what you suggest gets implemented you'll descend to ~51-52% WR. Shoot, our overall is rather similar, but on a WN8 scale, I'm almost 400 points above you in overall. 

 

I'm not trying to be mean, or disrespectful. But I feel you're entering this study of MM, with a goal of finding MM to be rigged, and not actually being impartial. This is really bad for statistical analysis, as you generally end up trying to prove your point, rather than be impartial and be satisfied with the results regardless as to them being clear "rigging" or clear "it's random as per name". Statistics collection seems good, but I feel you're misinterpreting the data set, especially given how MM is stated to work, and how things like a culmination of small data sets need to be handled. 



Spiley_Craw #32 Posted Jul 24 2016 - 14:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 24445 battles
  • 2,574
  • [NBL] NBL
  • Member since:
    03-19-2012

Quote

Explain what 'Rigged MM' really means (it's not what most of you think).

 

If you don't mean "rigged" then call it something else. Words have meanings, and those meanings are not user-defined.

 

Quote

I am providing the spreadsheet again here simply to show that I'm not 'going off my gut' or my 'feelings'.

 

In addition to not understanding words, you also don't understand that putting numbers in a spreadsheet fails to bless

 your unfounded opinions with a magic aura of Holy Truth.

 

Garbage in, garbage out.

-Kle.



HOTA_CHATON #33 Posted Jul 24 2016 - 14:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 13498 battles
  • 14,598
  • [MSG] MSG
  • Member since:
    09-28-2011

View Postbikebudha1, on Jul 24 2016 - 00:32, said:

 

Hey all, it's time for another of the budha's 'MM is rigged' posts.

-

So in this post I'm going to:

Explain what 'Rigged MM' really means (it's not what most of you think).

Provide documentation as proof.

Explain how mm rigging works.

Show you how to beat it.

Here we go...

-

'Rigged MM'  simply means the way the MM program code has been written -  MM dictates the outcome (or at least heavily influences the outcome) of the battles we play.  Rigged does not mean MM hates any one player specifically (although it can really feel like it, and with the possible exception of me specifically - more on that later).  Are we clear then?  No conspiracies, no tinfoil hats, just the common understanding that software has been written that has the effect of dictating the outcome of battles in this game in a way meant to influence average player win ratios.

-

Now for the documentation.  I'll start with a data set that's not too old, from earlier this year.  Here it is:

Lv6Rpqd.jpg

You can see a much more detailed discussion of this data here: http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/496320-1-player-1-tank-1183-battles-stats-and-the-case-for-skill-based-mm/page__fromsearch__1  I am providing the spreadsheet again here simply to show that I'm not 'going off my gut' or my 'feelings'.  I have been tracking the data over an extended period of time to support my positions.

Between the data above and the data below there is a gap, but it's not important.  The data below is for the last 5 days I've played.  It's in these last 5 days that the MM has revealed itself to me (more on that after the data).  So here is the data:

DAY 1:  Day 1 is very important as it's the 'last day' in a series of days of regular play.  In other words, I was playing 3-4 days a week for several weeks in a row.  This is important because it means I was 'in the bucket system'.  MM had enough data to gauge whether I was winning or losing to much and then put me into the appropriate winner or loser bucket.

65 W

62 L

59 W

24 L

59 W

70 D

53 W

39 L

53 L

51 L

56 W

72 W

37 W

46 W

50 L

47 L

33 L

48 L

75 W

52 W

44 W

35 L

50 L

39 L

55 W

65 W

59 W

38 W

56 W

Results:  55% overall win rate; 51% overall average chance to win.  Note my overall average for the M6 is 54%.  So I'm right in there where I 'should be'.

DAY 2: Day 2 is very significant because it represents the first day back from two weeks off. This means MM had no current data to gauge whether I was winning or losing to much.  Thus it truly put me in random battles/put me in the 'new player/better chance to win' bucket.  It is very apparent because there are only 2 battles below 50% to win, whereas in Day 1 there were 11/29 or 37% of the battles were under 50% to win.  This 'new player/better chance to win' bucket is the same bucket new players are put in when they start the game, or when you get a new tank.  MM asses that newness and gives you break for the first 'x' number of games.  It's this software mechanism that is also used to put you into a winners or losers bucket based on how well you are doing.

64 W

67 W

59 L

56 W

69 W

61 W

57 W

48 L

47 L

57 W

Results: 70% overall win rate; 58% overall average chance to win.  I was actually going to write a whole separate post about this day.  I've never had such a high overall average chance to win.  Miracles do happen!  But you can see MM clearly was giving me an easy day.

DAY 3: Day 3 is the second day back from the two week break.  MM still doesn't have enough data to gauge whether I was winning or losing too much.  So I'm still in the 'new player/better chance to win' bucket.

51 L

55 W

67 W

41 W

Results: 75% overall win rate; 58% overall average chance to win. Again, another easier day.

DAY 4: Day 4 was a quickie day.

54 W

Results: 100% overall win rate; 54% overall average chance to win.

DAY 5: Day 5 it is key to note at this point that I've now played 3 days in close enough proximity that MM now DOES HAVE enough data to gauge whether I'm winning or losing to much.  And it was too much.  Over the past 3 days my overall average win rate was 11/15 or 73%.  Way to high above MM's 50% target. What you will see in the data below is MM's obvious attempt to bring my win rate back to normal.  I'm going to break this day down into 4 'sub-days'.  The first sub-day represents what MM does to me as a solo player who has been winning to much.  You will see I get much lower overall average chance to win for this sub-day.

Day 5 Sub-01

59 L

46 L

42 L

49 L

66 W

50 W

57 L

42 L

63 L

46 W

27 L

56 L

66 W

44 L

66 W

46 L

36 W ACE

46 L SKUNK

49 W

54 W

Results: 40% overall win rate; 50% overall average chance to win.  Now this is my 5th day back, I'm not rusty at this point.  You can see I got an ace tanker in a 36% battle.  Definitely I'm playing well, yet I went from 73% win rate in 15 battle, to 40% win rate in 20 battles.  That's not me.  What happened was, MM saw that I was winning entirely too much and started to give me much worse teams.  10 or 50% of my battles were below 50%, compared to 3 or 20% in the previous 4 days.  The number of sub 50 battles is purely controlled by MM.  That it went from 20% to 50% is no accident.  At this point I'm going to DEFINE BUCKETS.  You've probably been scratching your head as you read the word 'buckets' above.  What are buckets?  It's my slang for 'server pool'.  And by that I mean the game server can't have everyone on one server.  There are many sub-servers.  And MM splits the player base up into chunks, and put them onto different sub-servers.  When it does this, it also breaks the player base up into smaller 'buckets', or pools of players.  These buckets are 'winner' buckets, for those that are new, or have been playing poorly.  And 'loser' buckets', for those who have been playing to well.  As proof these buckets exist, I ask you to think back to the last time you saw a unicum platoon.  Ever notice how they are always on your team/the enemy team if you see them multiple times?  Seeing these unicum platoons over and over verifies that sub-severs exist.  Otherwise, when 20,000 players are playing you should never ever see the same players twice.  The only way to see the same players in a 30 person battle is if those players are all in a smaller sub-server bucket.  Seeing these unicum platoons over and over on your team/the enemy team confirms the 'winner' and 'loser' buckets exist.  If the MM was truly random, you'd see them on your team equally as much as on the enemy team.  So when you see the unicum team on your team 4 out of 4 times (in 6-7 battles), you know you are in the same bucket.

Day 5 Sub-012 Sub-02 is an important break in Day 5.  In the last 54%er battle, I saw another M6 and asked if he wanted to platoon.  He did.  He was a very good player, xvm had him as green.

43 W PLATOON 1

47 L

37 W

51 W

57 W

38 W

30 L

42 W

63 W

33 L

37 L

67 L

50 W

57 W

42 L

Results: 60% overall win rate; 46% overall average chance to win.  Having the second M6 didn't seem to effect the MM from keeping me/us into the 'loser' bucket.  If anything MM punished us for platooning, as the overall average chance to win dropped from 50% down to 46%.  It is important to note that both of us were xvm green.  Which means that, in theory, we should actually increase our average chance to win since we are guaranteeing 2 higher win rates be factored into the xvm calculation.  Moving on, this is the point where I show you how to BEAT THE MM.  That's right, there is a way to beat the MM.  Even though MM made it even tougher to win by lowering the overall average chance to win, the win rate went up dramatically, from 40% to 60%.  Platooning between good players is enough to swing your results significantly.

Day 5 Sub-03  Sub-03 is an expansion of 'how to beat MM'.  In the last 42%er we noticed another M6 player, and he joined our platoon.

54 W PLATOON 2

62 W

66 W

63 W

51 W

61 W

73 W

55 W

57 L

Results: 88% overall win rate; 54% overall average chance to win.  It is important to note the impact of 3 good players on your team.  You can see the overall average chance to win jumped from 46% to 54%.  With 3 good players, you can actually bump the xvm calculation in your favor.  This is a big part of the secret to being a unicum.  Having 3 skilled players working together is the biggest advantage you can have in the game.  Especially considering the insane amount of tomatoes the current player base seems to be composed of.  (Note, the other part of being a unicum is actually being a good player, which requires practice and skill).  (Oh, to be clear, I'm not a unicum, I'm just OK).

Day 5 Sub-04  Back to the original 2 of us in the platoon

40 W PLATOON 1

45 W

40 W

81 W

67 W

Results:  100% overall win rate; overall average chance to win 54%.  So even with only 2 in the platoon, still much better than I was doing solo.

-

Whew, that was a lot to take in.  Thanks for making it this far.

-

In summary, what the above represents is my explanation to explain the MM phenomenon as I've seen it play out over thousands of battles.  My general position is a 55% average player should average 50-60% win rate.  Some day a little higher, some days a little lower.  what my data has shown over thousands of battles is, a 55% player can have a few days at 50-60%, but then MM steps in and gives a 'reset' day, a day where a 55% player wins at 30-40%.  I've seen this pattern over and over and over again.  It's to consistent to be random.  And it's just not bad days, I've had days where I start the day playing 20 battles at a 30% win rate, then on the same day, I play 20 more battles and get my win rate for the day back up to 50%.  Now I could consider these 'reset' days to be part of the random nature of MM.  But here's the thing.  Over thousands of battles, I've never had a random day where I just can't lose and win 70% of my battles.  Never not once.  This means there is no bell curve of results.  And if there is no bell curve, it can not be random.  Thus MM is putting me into the 'loser' bucket every now and then to keep me from getting to high a win rate.

-

Note:  Yes yes I know, MM and xvm are too separate and independent programs that do not interact.  But xvm has been documents as being accurate as you move away from 50% chance to win.  (I.e.  40% chance to win prediction will be more accurate than a 48% chance to win,etc).

-

Note:  There is a quick and easy solution for this.  Skill based MM.  Simply select the 30 tanks with the current MM, then shuffle a few players between teams to bring the chance to win into the 45-55% range.

-

Note:  having xvm chance to win turned on does not mean I quit at a low chance to win game.  I bang my head on my desk, but I still play to win.  See the Ace tanker game for the 36% chance to win. Obviously I don't just quit.

-

Earlier I mentioned the MM may actually be out to get me personally.  I'll let you be the judge.  In the video below, I pull and ace tanker game out of a 36% crap basket.  It's important to realize I won the 'supposed to lose battle' on a night where MM was trying to reset me.  As punishment, look at what happened the very next game (second video).  Yes, the MM hates me personally.  In over 14,000 battles this was the first time I'd ever been on the losing end of a skunk.

-

Video One:  Provided to show I'm not a total noob, total noobs don't get ace tankers.  Provided to show I don't quit when xvm chance to win is crap.  Provide to show that it is worth using team chat to try and give the team direction.  Notice I tell them at the very beginning to play defensively.  They did, and it worked.

-

Vidoe Two:  Provided to show just how much MM hates me as a person.  Really, I felt like shooting myself.  14,000+ without a skunk was a great run.

-

Video three.  Provided to show the power of a platoon.  I can't imagine how easy this game is for purple platoons...  Provided to give cudos to my fellow mutant platoonmates.  They were a fun couple of guys.  I had a really good time battling with them.  It really was a night that showed how much fun this game can be, and how nice some of the player base can be.  FYI, these guys really knew how to work the M6.  They make me look very good in this battle.  While I did get the 6 kills, I did less than 1,500 damage.  Alpha got over 4,000 damage.  Alpha and Pai my hats off to you both!

-

-


 


 


 

 

Nice but you didn't have to go to all that trouble.  Anybody that has any since, knows it's rigged, just like stuff at the county fair.  Besides, War Gaming has already been taken to court, several years ago, over this.  In the court case, they had to divulge just how rigged it really is, and produce the algorithm(s) used in this game.  They will certainly try to deny this to protect their precious game so you either play the game or go find another one.

minim8greyhound #34 Posted Jul 24 2016 - 14:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 15065 battles
  • 2,448
  • [_SOC_] _SOC_
  • Member since:
    07-01-2011

Very interesting read.

I see you put a lot of work into this. +1



Doomslinger #35 Posted Jul 24 2016 - 15:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 72273 battles
  • 5,767
  • Member since:
    07-29-2012

View Postabandoned_spirit, on Jul 24 2016 - 03:36, said:

 

let me give a very simple situation where overalls mean nothing

My overall rates me at about borderline light purple/dark blue

XVM would rate me at the same level someone who has platued and played at borderline light purple/dark blue for long periods of time and has not improved past it. In an actual fight though, there is an excellent chance I will wipe the floor with the other players face without much issue. And even if that was taken into account. There is an endless amount of factors that aren't. XVM chance to win is essentially worthless. Of no more value than a quick glace at the players names for stupid names would be.

and I find your post hilarious because its meaningless drivel followed by claims of value. " 'Rigged MM', proven "

If I go pull a bunch of numbers out of the stock market, toss them on a graph and say "this proves global warming is a conspiracy" I would have about as much validity to my statement as the original post here does.

 

 

This is something that almost no one seems to consider when talking about win chance. It uses overall and we know there are a lot of players, expecially ones with high battle counts that are playing at a much higher level than their overall would suggest. This would throw win chance way off. It really should be changed to use your recents instead of overall but then many would lose their xvm camo.

NeatoMan #36 Posted Jul 24 2016 - 15:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 28180 battles
  • 20,561
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

More troll garbage from Budha.  I have lost all respect for you.  The only thing you have shown is that you can collect data.

 

- Day by day win rates and avg win chances are useless. Even more so in your case because they aren't all consistent day to day sample sizes.  You end up giving a 4 game day average the same weight as a 20 game day average.  That's not right.  If you were doing proper statistics, those smaller sample size days would have large error bars associated with them.   Give it up.

- Do you have screen shots of you getting the same unicum platoon over and over again?  Never happened to me in the 7k games I tracked.  Maybe it's because I switch tanks and tiers, so I am much more likely to see all 20k players on line.  When you limit yourself to the same tank, you are going to get in queue with a much more limited set of players playing the same tanks.  Not to mention you are all coming out of battle at the same time.

- Never once in my data have I seen a relationship between win rate, mastery badges, XP, or team position with the following game.  "This one time, at band camp" is not proof.

- What's your M6 XTE rating?  do you think it accurately represents your skill?

 

 

I agree that the MM can be bad at shuffling the deck sometimes, but that's not the same as rigged.



Firemoth #37 Posted Jul 24 2016 - 15:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 38104 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011

View PostDoctr_Strange, on Jul 24 2016 - 22:23, said:

 One example would be making an individual think that all one needs to do is start spamming gold because this will help elevate the win rate over that threshold. If that individual purchases the gold for cash then you have just succeeded.

the real secret is to use silver to buy premium ammo.

 

infact, other than prem tanks and prem time, im not sure there is any reason to spend real money on the game because gold ammo/gold consumables/vehicle camo can all be purchased with ingame silver.


Edited by Firemoth, Jul 24 2016 - 15:53.


Urabouttudie #38 Posted Jul 24 2016 - 16:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 21913 battles
  • 2,073
  • Member since:
    11-11-2013

Fact #1: Shortly after I started playing In the Spring of 2014 WG released a video which described specifically how the MM system worked.

 

Fact #2 In this video the commentator specifically stated that the MM system does exactly as the OP is showing.

 

If you win too much yMM manipulates the games you play until you no longer win too much and inversely if you lose too much MM manipulates the games you play until you no longer lose too much.

 

This was referred to as a "challenge" feature

 

Fact #3 WG subsequently pulled this video within a few days to replace it with a video that DOES NOT state there is a "challenge" feature or to make any reference whatsoever to manipulating a players chance to win.

 

These are facts for which I have no proof, but I know what I saw happen with those videos.

 



WarStore #39 Posted Jul 24 2016 - 17:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 39528 battles
  • 13,516
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

Block Quote

 Results:  55% overall win rate; 51% overall average chance to win.  Note my overall average for the M6 is 54%.  So I'm right in there where I 'should be'.

 If the MM were really rigged, the "right there where I should be" would be 50% WR, not 54%, not 56%.

 

MM assigned you to random teams where you've won the majority of your battles above 50% win chance and lost a few with high chances of winning. So, when you lose a battle when you had a high win chance based on player skill, I don't see how this is rigged. Basically, you proved that a 55% WR will win 55% of the time, not 40%, not 65%. Now, this would be rigged. Congrats on stating the obvious.

 

Edit: It is interesting that in your battle with the Mutant, with 36% chance, when the enemy team was losing, one the guys said "tghe (sic) crapteam again". So, we have two opposing players thinking the MM is rigged. I wonder who is correct or if both are wrong, which is more likely to be correct.

 

 


Edited by WarStore, Jul 24 2016 - 17:58.


Buttknuckle #40 Posted Jul 24 2016 - 19:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 51853 battles
  • 3,076
  • [GOONZ] GOONZ
  • Member since:
    03-19-2013

View PostUrabouttudie, on Jul 24 2016 - 15:08, said:

These are facts for which I have no proof, but I know what I saw happen with those videos.

 

Without proof you cannot claim it is a "fact." 






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users