Jump to content


Dice Roll on Sign-In


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

ShadowDancer27 #21 Posted Jan 05 2017 - 14:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 26170 battles
  • 3,509
  • [_SOS_] _SOS_
  • Member since:
    07-26-2013
I do think it is confirmation bias.  It does seem like you have matches where you have one of the more accurate guns in the game (e.g. Centurian 7/1 @3.2) and fully aimed shots are all at the edges and meanwhile some long range snap shot from an enemy on the move takes out your ammo rack...and so it goes for the night.

Patonb #22 Posted Jan 05 2017 - 17:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 26170 battles
  • 4,460
  • Member since:
    06-05-2012

View Postdeadizdead, on Jan 04 2017 - 18:39, said:

RNG it is random as advertised, one day last week i played and couldn't win for nothing, and i know it wasn't just me playing bad as i was in the top 3 on my teams almost every [edited]time, but i only won 32% of my games that day. The very next day i won 62% of my games, i wasn't do anything different, just my teams decided dying within the first 2 minutes was a bad idea that day...

 

This is why I always say it isn't rigged against me or anyone, as it swings both ways and will even out to YOUR particular skill level.

 

I WOULD love things to be more consistent as I really should be having 60%+ days as my ability isn't a 60%er.

I shouldn't have days of sub 800 wn8 and 35% either... But that happens!



FrozenKemp #23 Posted Jan 05 2017 - 18:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 38236 battles
  • 2,703
  • [27PZR] 27PZR
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View Postda_Rock002, on Jan 05 2017 - 08:37, said:

Those statistics aren't statistically probable.   

 

With the statistically small number of games people play each day, I don't agree. 



Nunya_000 #24 Posted Jan 05 2017 - 18:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 20252 battles
  • 7,947
  • [PACNW] PACNW
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

View Postslantytank, on Jan 01 2017 - 18:04, said:

I observed this a couple of years ago about how your session will go.

 

On sign-in, the algos roll for you, you either will have a good day or a bad one.

There's nothing else that can explain why there are sessions with 80% win rates and other with 80% losing streaks.

 

Another reason why I hate this game more and more.

 

I feel the same thing when I walk into a casino.  Some days I will win 80% of the Blackjack hands that are dealt to me and other days I will only win 20% of the hands.  Damn casino must be assigning a roll for me as soon as I walk through the door.

dominator_98 #25 Posted Jan 05 2017 - 23:07

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 8678 battles
  • 364
  • [COGG] COGG
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014

The patent on Wargaming's matchmaker states that if a player is on a losing streak, it puts the player on the team with the better chance to win so the player doesn't get discouraged and uninstall. Also another reason winrates are generally close to 50% for most.

 

Saw this quoted in a post by Gomez_Adams so if you want the source material ask him.



da_Rock002 #26 Posted Jan 06 2017 - 00:31

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 2472 battles
  • 674
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

View Postdominator_98, on Jan 05 2017 - 17:07, said:

The patent on Wargaming's matchmaker states that if a player is on a losing streak, it puts the player on the team with the better chance to win so the player doesn't get discouraged and uninstall. Also another reason winrates are generally close to 50% for most.

 

Saw this quoted in a post by Gomez_Adams so if you want the source material ask him.

 

 

Puts the player on the "team with the better chance to win".......... 

 

Wow, that means they are trying to influence outcomes.    That's news.    BTW, isn't it a known fact the average winrate is below 50%.  

 

I wonder if they have looked at how successful that is at breaking the streak.   It would be a clue whether their estimation of win probability is accurate.



Ironclad73 #27 Posted Jan 06 2017 - 00:42

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 15526 battles
  • 2,914
  • [DHO6] DHO6
  • Member since:
    07-26-2014

View Postdominator_98, on Jan 05 2017 - 14:07, said:

The patent on Wargaming's matchmaker states that if a player is on a losing streak, it puts the player on the team with the better chance to win so the player doesn't get discouraged and uninstall. Also another reason winrates are generally close to 50% for most.

 

Saw this quoted in a post by Gomez_Adams so if you want the source material ask him.

 

Negative.   WG does not use XVM doesn't try to predict which is the better team or has the best chance to win. That's from mods they don't control.

I believe that if you keep getting bottom tier battles it will put you as top tier if possible.

Its called r-a-n-d-o-m and even confirmation bias.

Also, you are really in trouble if you are listening to Gomez and quoting him.


Edited by Ironclad73, Jan 06 2017 - 00:55.


Nunya_000 #28 Posted Jan 06 2017 - 00:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 20252 battles
  • 7,947
  • [PACNW] PACNW
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

View Postdominator_98, on Jan 05 2017 - 14:07, said:

The patent on Wargaming's matchmaker states that if a player is on a losing streak, it puts the player on the team with the better chance to win so the player doesn't get discouraged and uninstall. Also another reason winrates are generally close to 50% for most.

 

Saw this quoted in a post by Gomez_Adams so if you want the source material ask him.

 

Except the patent does not say anything even close to that.

 

What it does state is that a player may have a higher chance of being low tier ( "more of a challenge" ) if they are winning in a specific tank too much.  And that they have a higher chance of being high tier ( "easier" ) if they are losing in a specific tank too much.  Being low tier or high tier does not change a persons likelihood of winning or losing, though it might change the individual contribution they may be able to provide in that battles.

 

Block Quote

According to another aspect, the matchmaking server may store a win/loss percentage for each user (or vehicle) at a given battle level. As the player's win/loss ratio decreases, the player becomes more likely to be placed in battles having battle levels at the lower end of the allowable range, whereas as the player's win/loss ration increases, the player becomes more likely to be placed in battles having battle levels at the upper end of the allowable range. Thus, when a player has been repeatedly put into too many difficult battles, the balancing is done in favor of easier battle sessions, thereby encouraging the player by providing an easier game environment. Similarly, when the player has been repeatedly put into too many easy battles, the balancing is done in favor of harder battle sessions, thereby keeping the player challenged instead of letting the player become bored with easy games. 

 

 

However, a poor player in a top tier tank could actually hurt their team's chance to win and a good player in a low tier tank could increase their team's chance to win.  

 

p.s. Gomez's idea of providing source material is to just say "Google it".



manimal79 #29 Posted Jan 12 2017 - 08:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 32389 battles
  • 2,823
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013

 

 

26/28 games played.

Practically the same performance on both days. However one day had terrible team after terrible team while the other had good team after good team.



TankFullOfBourbon #30 Posted Jan 12 2017 - 09:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 18839 battles
  • 4,022
  • [DHO6] DHO6
  • Member since:
    08-10-2013
Your own inconsistency is not worth considering then?

zed2204 #31 Posted Jan 12 2017 - 10:16

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 31413 battles
  • 1,567
  • [LIO] LIO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2014
It seems completely pointless for the game to intentionally make loosing streaks, nothing will make people stop playing better than that, every one will primarily remember a horrible session over a mediocre or even a good one amounting to an overall bad experience in the game
Still, loosing streaks happen, and when you have to power through them because of daily missions it may make you think that
No matter the reasons we all see it is happening, and whatever mechanism WG uses to manage that is ineffective because it allows stacking of bad games in a row instead of spreading them evenly

LordPorky #32 Posted Jan 12 2017 - 10:32

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 2849 battles
  • 87
  • Member since:
    11-20-2016

View Postzed2204, on Jan 12 2017 - 04:16, said:

It seems completely pointless for the game to intentionally make loosing streaks, nothing will make people stop playing better than that, every one will primarily remember a horrible session over a mediocre or even a good one amounting to an overall bad experience in the game
Still, loosing streaks happen, and when you have to power through them because of daily missions it may make you think that
No matter the reasons we all see it is happening, and whatever mechanism WG uses to manage that is ineffective because it allows stacking of bad games in a row instead of spreading them evenly

 

It would not be pointless if the aim was to try and induce people to buy more stuff to compensate.



TankFullOfBourbon #33 Posted Jan 12 2017 - 11:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 18839 battles
  • 4,022
  • [DHO6] DHO6
  • Member since:
    08-10-2013

View PostLordPorky, on Jan 12 2017 - 10:32, said:

 

It would not be pointless if the aim was to try and induce people to buy more stuff to compensate.

 

I think the consequence is more likely to be players leaving WOT rather than investing more money into it, which is loss for WG.

da_Rock002 #34 Posted Jan 12 2017 - 14:57

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 2472 battles
  • 674
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

Having looked at the skill ratings for both sides in recent stompings,  every one showed the winning side had the best 4-5 players of the 30 players on their side (who often make the majority of their 15 kills) while the losing side had 4-5 whose skills were below the least skill player on the winning side.    One team having the least skilled of 30 isn't the kiss of death, but having 4 or 5 of them?    One team having the highest skilled player isn't a guarantee, but having 4 or 5 better than the other team's best?


 

It takes a little effort to look for yourself.   I didn't put out the effort until a series of stompings came along.   There seems to be no way to look into past battles, there being no history once you log off (that I know of).   And I don't have any way of knowing whether these results happen all the time or not.  FWIW, I doubt I'll be collecting that kind of intel much longer. 



da_Rock002 #35 Posted Jan 12 2017 - 15:06

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 2472 battles
  • 674
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

View PostLordPorky, on Jan 12 2017 - 04:32, said:

 

It would not be pointless if the aim was to try and induce people to buy more stuff to compensate.

 

Except that is exactly what many obsessive people do. 

 

 

Smart businesses work very hard to measure customer response in order to tailor their product and marketing.   There is no reason to believe WG doesn't know what works for them in this market.    



Patonb #36 Posted Jan 12 2017 - 15:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 26170 battles
  • 4,460
  • Member since:
    06-05-2012

View PostLordPorky, on Jan 12 2017 - 04:32, said:

 

It would not be pointless if the aim was to try and induce people to buy more stuff to compensate.

 

This.

 

While aim isn't overcomable, pen is, and as we know the more you pen, the more you damage wghich means more you "usually" win.

^AKA fire more prem.


 

The players that see the effect more are the 49-53%er as while we are okay, we play in a manner that doesn't minimize the RNG for pen and to a small extent accuracy. While 53%+ play usually upclose and in ways that maximize shooting at squishy zones, and bad players just blame the team.


 

Again though, thestreaks usually balance out, but having me go 75% one day and 20% another is definitely not because of me.



LordPorky #37 Posted Jan 12 2017 - 19:30

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 2849 battles
  • 87
  • Member since:
    11-20-2016

View PostTankFullOfBourbon, on Jan 12 2017 - 05:03, said:

 

I think the consequence is more likely to be players leaving WOT rather than investing more money into it, which is loss for WG.

 

Indeed, that could be true, and they definitely factor that in.  Many modern gaming companies have 25% or more of their staff whose job is to figure out how to make people spend more money.  It's brutal, cold-hearted and manipulative, yet the same thing goes on with Facebook, etc. - they are always trying to make it more addictive, make people spend more time on it.  The game developers are in it for the money, and with the very large amounts we're talking about when considering World of Tanks, I am sure things are quite sophisticated behind the scenes.

 

Lots of massively-multiplayer games have run through their complete life cycles, and there has been a lot learned about how people react - as we're talking about, and how it relates to total income for the game, taking into account where in its "life" the game is.  Not that WoT is anywhere near this point - but there's a time when a game is in decline with a shrinking player base, and little confidence of being able to turn things around, when the developers may well say, in effect, "Screw it, let's squeeze this beast hard, try to milk out every last penny."

 

I realize the above is pretty tangential.  On the daily "dice roll" - I've seen nothing to support that, other than what actually is random chance.  From what I've read, I do think there is manipulation and player suppression - the blogosphere has good examples of statistical analysis and the reasoning that supports the idea that WoT's matchmaking is often not random at all, but that is over longer periods than just a day or two.


Edited by LordPorky, Jan 12 2017 - 19:31.


slantytank #38 Posted Feb 25 2017 - 03:28

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 22316 battles
  • 285
  • Member since:
    09-01-2013
This still happens, my theory is confirmed. I am right, WoT sucks.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users