Jump to content


Understand One-Sided Games - Stop Ranting


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

flowerpower210 #1 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 17:20

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 19196 battles
  • 389
  • [TUF] TUF
  • Member since:
    02-25-2011

One-sided games are natural. Let me explain this in simple terms - it's called the snowball effect.

 

A snowball rolling on a snow-covered hillside will pick up more snow as it rolls. It will get larger and larger.

 

​Once a team starts losing, they are at a disadvantage. First they are short one tank. Soon, they are short two... three or four tanks. A small snowball is easy to stop. If a team fails to react, it quickly becomes too late.

 

A winning team has an increasing:

  • Firepower advantage
  • Hit point advantage
  • Map control (angles to shoot you) 

 

​Why would anyone expect games not to become one-sided?

 

Some teams are competent. They will take strong positions, preserve their hit point & abuse of the mistakes made by the winning team. These make for interesting games as they can reverse/delay a landslide. I love when both teams consist of a mix of green & blue players (Over 9000 Wn8 unicum platoons are game breaking). Those players are not great, but they understand the game.

 


Edited by flowerpower210, Sep 12 2017 - 17:34.


PD_Banana_Fish #2 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 17:28

    Captain

  • Players
  • 19255 battles
  • 1,444
  • Member since:
    06-22-2013

View Postflowerpower210, on Sep 12 2017 - 17:20, said:

A snowball rolling on a snow-covered hillside will pick up more snow as it rolls. It will get larger and larger.

 

 

Not sure if you are serious or drunk or whatever.   Snow physics and battle outcome have nothing in common.  The problem is there is no skill-based MM.

Edited by PD_Banana_Fish, Sep 12 2017 - 17:29.


moogleslam #3 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 17:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 29271 battles
  • 2,899
  • [REL-A] REL-A
  • Member since:
    12-20-2013
It's a simple concept, yet some people still won't get it. Here's the first ^

Edited by moogleslam, Sep 12 2017 - 17:30.


Viper69 #4 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 17:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 7454 battles
  • 4,219
  • [D-DAY] D-DAY
  • Member since:
    04-25-2011

I call it a cascade failure or domino effect. The loss of a tank who is holding a corner solo while the rest of his lemming team fights 1 or 3 tanks and gets owned one by one instead of steam rolling them. Once that one or two tanks falls and it's a flood gate opening and soon all the lemmings are surrounded.

 

map awareness is the biggest killer of teams not some boogie man side stacking algorithm.



galspanic #5 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 17:36

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 23709 battles
  • 3,445
  • [GUNS3] GUNS3
  • Member since:
    01-06-2016

View PostPD_Banana_Fish, on Sep 12 2017 - 08:28, said:

 

Not sure if you are serious or drunk or whatever.   Snow physics and battle outcome have nothing in common.  The problem is there is no skill-based MM.

 

Wow.

CavScout19D #6 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 17:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 24143 battles
  • 4,579
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View PostPD_Banana_Fish, on Sep 12 2017 - 11:28, said:

 

Not sure if you are serious or drunk or whatever.   Snow physics and battle outcome have nothing in common.  The problem is there is no skill-based MM.

 

If there was a skill-based system, you'd like get no battles.

CrazzyStreaker #7 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 17:38

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 5780 battles
  • 364
  • Member since:
    05-27-2016

  I don't understand why blowouts are such a big deal in this game, they happen in all Single life games.

I play several , rainbow six siege is one example , it is common for total blowouts to happen , often with one player taking out an entire squad due to simple luck.

I don't see nearly as many complaints in the siege forums as i see here, Skill based MM would not help that much, Ranked battles in all tiers would give SBMM but blowouts still happen in Ranked Battles.


Edited by CrazzyStreaker, Sep 12 2017 - 19:42.


Komitadjie #8 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 17:39

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 1240 battles
  • 1,098
  • [HHOUR] HHOUR
  • Member since:
    11-10-2011
I think the problem is more than that, though. The snowball effect, definitely, given more or less even teams in play. But also when you end up with a match that favors one team heavily either in tank type for the map (especially if it's your top tiers in a 3-5-7), or in number of highly skilled players, you can easily end up inducing one regardless. In that case, it's just a matter of how many tanks you get lucky and whittle down before you get rolled.

galspanic #9 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 17:39

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 23709 battles
  • 3,445
  • [GUNS3] GUNS3
  • Member since:
    01-06-2016

View PostCavScout19D, on Sep 12 2017 - 08:36, said:

 

If there was a skill-based system, you'd like get no battles.

 

You would also get just as many blow outs because it's not about perfectly even skill so much as creating unfair fights - and whichever team killed the first tank would typically win... if 100% even.

CavScout19D #10 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 17:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 24143 battles
  • 4,579
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View Postgalspanic, on Sep 12 2017 - 11:39, said:

 

You would also get just as many blow outs because it's not about perfectly even skill so much as creating unfair fights - and whichever team killed the first tank would typically win... if 100% even.

 

You missed the sarcasm I think. My post wasn't about wait times of the MM.....

flowerpower210 #11 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 17:47

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 19196 battles
  • 389
  • [TUF] TUF
  • Member since:
    02-25-2011

View Postgalspanic, on Sep 12 2017 - 11:39, said:

 

You would also get just as many blow outs because it's not about perfectly even skill so much as creating unfair fights - and whichever team killed the first tank would typically win... if 100% even.

 

​I think a competent teams are not as hopeless as window licking teams. That being said, the cascade failure is still relevant.

 

And of course... if your top tier have 145 Wn8 and theirs have 2000+, you are in trouble. Skill distribution is random. In most games, the teams are comparable. 



NL_Celt #12 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 17:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 25283 battles
  • 5,351
  • Member since:
    10-05-2012
My experience and data in the game is that blowouts comprise about 11% of battles. That's not a big deal.

Fulcrous #13 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 17:53

    Major

  • WGLNA Gold League Player
  • 28910 battles
  • 4,246
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    07-27-2012

View PostPD_Banana_Fish, on Sep 12 2017 - 08:28, said:

 

Not sure if you are serious or drunk or whatever.   Snow physics and battle outcome have nothing in common.  The problem is there is no skill-based MM.

 

The snowball effect clearly eludes you.

galspanic #14 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 17:56

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 23709 battles
  • 3,445
  • [GUNS3] GUNS3
  • Member since:
    01-06-2016

View Postflowerpower210, on Sep 12 2017 - 08:47, said:

 

​I think a competent teams are not as hopeless as window licking teams. That being said, the cascade failure is still relevant.

 

And of course... if your top tier have 145 Wn8 and theirs have 2000+, you are in trouble. Skill distribution is random. In most games, the teams are comparable. 

 

And that is a big part of it - the game isn't 1 battle.  MM sucks/isn't fair in a lot of individual games, but with enough iteration things tend to work out - good players have higher win rates and bad players who make excuses for their bad play (aka Scrubs) have low win rates.  Of course if it was a 1 on 1 game those good players would have win rates in the 90%s and the bads would be in the teens... hence a lot of good players getting occasionally screwed by tomatoes and tomatoes winning most of the time off the backs of their allies.

Devildog8 #15 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 18:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 9329 battles
  • 3,715
  • [XILES] XILES
  • Member since:
    12-26-2011

View PostCavScout19D, on Sep 12 2017 - 10:36, said:

 

If there was a skill-based system, you'd like get no battles.

 

if there was a skill base system there would still be just as many blowouts as now, people need to stop kidding themselves

Komitadjie #16 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 18:12

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 1240 battles
  • 1,098
  • [HHOUR] HHOUR
  • Member since:
    11-10-2011

View Postgalspanic, on Sep 12 2017 - 17:56, said:

 

And that is a big part of it - the game isn't 1 battle.  MM sucks/isn't fair in a lot of individual games, but with enough iteration things tend to work out - good players have higher win rates and bad players who make excuses for their bad play (aka Scrubs) have low win rates.  Of course if it was a 1 on 1 game those good players would have win rates in the 90%s and the bads would be in the teens... hence a lot of good players getting occasionally screwed by tomatoes and tomatoes winning most of the time off the backs of their allies.

 

Otherwise known as "learning on the job", since the tiers don't really separate skill, and there's no way to learn but sucking a lot for a lot of battles. Lol



GeorgePreddy #17 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 18:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 14291 battles
  • 6,286
  • [L_LEG] L_LEG
  • Member since:
    04-11-2013

View PostCavScout19D, on Sep 12 2017 - 13:36, said:

 

If there was a skill-based system, you'd like get no battles.

 

Exactly... case in point, AW went with SBMM and they ended up with... no battles.

moon111 #18 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 18:35

    Captain

  • Players
  • 27726 battles
  • 1,912
  • [IXGD] IXGD
  • Member since:
    06-29-2013

One-sided battles was already something I was predicting as a result of nerfing arty.  

 

Pre-Nerf:  3 heavy tanks... one is a window licker.  3 Arty.   Outcome?  16.6% of the big guns in the game are not going to contribute.

 

Post-Nerf:  3 heavy tanks... one is a winder licker.  Doesn't matter how many arty because they're irrelevant.  33% of the big guns are not going to contribute.

 

Unlike a TD-clicker, arty had the ability to step in where needed.  When those two heavy tanks were out-numbered because the third heavy

numb numb was hiding somewhere, arty noticed.  Helped even the odds.  Countless times you'd see a teammate in a Mexican stand-off with

a 2nd enemy starting to think about joining.  They could easily drive forward and win.  But smack that 3rd wheel to the party and he's either dead or

backs off.  Despite the fact in the 20 seconds you're reloading, they could easily push and win.  Nobody noticed their own arty's contributions.

 

 



OLDIRTYBOMBER #19 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 18:36

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 7548 battles
  • 969
  • [E-T-D] E-T-D
  • Member since:
    09-05-2016

View Postflowerpower210, on Sep 12 2017 - 17:20, said:

One-sided games are natural. Let me explain this in simple terms - it's called the snowball effect.

 

A snowball rolling on a snow-covered hillside will pick up more snow as it rolls. It will get larger and larger.

 

​Once a team starts losing, they are at a disadvantage. First they are short one tank. Soon, they are short two... three or four tanks. A small snowball is easy to stop. If a team fails to react, it quickly becomes too late.

 

A winning team has an increasing:

  • Firepower advantage
  • Hit point advantage
  • Map control (angles to shoot you) 

 

​Why would anyone expect games not to become one-sided?

 

Some teams are competent. They will take strong positions, preserve their hit point & abuse of the mistakes made by the winning team. These make for interesting games as they can reverse/delay a landslide. I love when both teams consist of a mix of green & blue players (Over 9000 Wn8 unicum platoons are game breaking). Those players are not great, but they understand the game.

 

 

 

View PostFulcrous, on Sep 12 2017 - 17:53, said:

 

The snowball effect clearly eludes you.

 

 

 

1 Cause of 'snow ball effect' : Un-equal balance of skilled players on teams

Team with the better players : Take good positions early, poke without taking damage, wait 6 seconds before poking again after being spotted / reposition, only poking after enemy has fired / turret turned etc

Team with worse players: Slow or not taking good positions, bad aim, sit in the open while spotted, bad at poking, stay in 1 spot all game, etc 

When vast skill differences are given by the 'MM' a snowball is more likely :great:


Edited by OLDIRTYBOMBER, Sep 12 2017 - 18:37.


BillT #20 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 18:38

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 24484 battles
  • 1,877
  • [FADES] FADES
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View PostPD_Banana_Fish, on Sep 12 2017 - 11:28, said:

Snow physics and battle outcome have nothing in common. 

 

Yes, they do.

 

When a snowball starts rolling down the hill, it's barely heavy enough to overcome friction.  If it were just a little smaller it would just sit there.  But once it starts moving, it picks up more snow and becomes heavier, so it rolls even easier.  It's an out-of-control situation, where the faster it goes, the faster it wants to go.

 

Just so for a WOT battle.  It starts out 15 vs 15 and could go either way.  But when one side loses the first tank, the battle is now 15 vs 14.  The smaller side is more likely to lose the next tank, because they're outnumbered.  So then it's 15 vs 13 and it's even more likely the weak side will lose the next tank.  The greater the difference between team strengths, the faster the weaker team wants to lose. Another out-of-control situation.

 

And as both sides take casualties this is amplified.  A 15 to 12 difference is big but not insurmountable, a 25% advantage. 10 to 7  is a 30% advantage even though it's still just a 3-tank margin.  At 8 to 5 the advantage is 60%, and at 5 to 2 the side with 3 more tanks has s a 150% advantage.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users