Jump to content


Low win rate question


  • Please log in to reply
118 replies to this topic

Boghie #41 Posted Dec 27 2017 - 16:21

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 5494 battles
  • 536
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    04-10-2016

Concur with both Chalybos and Nixeldon - to some extent.

 

A Bot takes a teams WR to the early 30%s.  A 43%er, by definition, takes a teams WR to 43%.  Carrying that 43%er is much easier than carrying a 31%er.

 

On the other hand, if I end up on your team you will see me as a bit below average at 47%.  But, unlike a Bot I increased that WR from an ungodly Botlike 43% over the past year to that 47% and my last 1,000 games are at about 50%.  If you found me earlier this month I would show up ruddy red with a WR of 46% - but my recents were more like 52%.  So, maybe that 43%er in your opening panels is playing at a real 48% and won't make all the mistakes you are attributing to him.

 

Conversely, I've had recent games where I thought we had a skill edge and adjusted my strategy to either fill a potential hole or help the skilled player exploit a strength.  I ain't Rommel, Patton, or Guderion but I can see that a good player is in a good medium so maybe I play his side or the other.  Only to see that he 'gambled real big' with what looked to anyone on the field a suiscout or he bolted right by me to the red line and chai sniped.  I, at 47%, have a real difficult time adjusting to the best player(s) on the team attempting a mountain goat on the back line.  That is, turning himself into a chai sniping Bot.  You, at 54%+ might be able to deal with it and exploit it.

 

I hear the frustration and I feel it as well.  Nothing is worse than entering a game with 42%ers with Win8s of 17 in the top tier HT or MT.  I really don't know how someone holds those stats for thousands of games.  Why play if you are that bad for that length of time.  Likewise with the Self Professed Super Heroes that win 60% of their 27 total games in Tiers I - V and jump into their new Christmas Gift Tier VI/VIII Premium expecting to kill all and take names.  A cursory review of the entry panels presenting a valiant Purple player could easily change decisions I make on how I play.  Only to find the chap is a future Tin Foil Hatter on this forum - at best.

 

This game is hard.  That is why I like it.  Happy Hunting...



Nixeldon #42 Posted Dec 27 2017 - 16:38

    Captain

  • Players
  • 56781 battles
  • 1,565
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostBoghie, on Dec 27 2017 - 10:21, said:

Concur with both Chalybos and Nixeldon - to some extent.

 

A Bot takes a teams WR to the early 30%s.  A 43%er, by definition, takes a teams WR to 43%.  Carrying that 43%er is much easier than carrying a 31%er.

 

On the other hand, if I end up on your team you will see me as a bit below average at 47%.  But, unlike a Bot I increased that WR from an ungodly Botlike 43% over the past year to that 47% and my last 1,000 games are at about 50%.  If you found me earlier this month I would show up ruddy red with a WR of 46% - but my recents were more like 52%.  So, maybe that 43%er in your opening panels is playing at a real 48% and won't make all the mistakes you are attributing to him.

 

Conversely, I've had recent games where I thought we had a skill edge and adjusted my strategy to either fill a potential hole or help the skilled player exploit a strength.  I ain't Rommel, Patton, or Guderion but I can see that a good player is in a good medium so maybe I play his side or the other.  Only to see that he 'gambled real big' with what looked to anyone on the field a suiscout or he bolted right by me to the red line and chai sniped.  I, at 47%, have a real difficult time adjusting to the best player(s) on the team attempting a mountain goat on the back line.  That is, turning himself into a chai sniping Bot.  You, at 54%+ might be able to deal with it and exploit it.

 

I hear the frustration and I feel it as well.  Nothing is worse than entering a game with 42%ers with Win8s of 17 in the top tier HT or MT.  I really don't know how someone holds those stats for thousands of games.  Why play if you are that bad for that length of time.  Likewise with the Self Professed Super Heroes that win 60% of their 27 total games in Tiers I - V and jump into their new Christmas Gift Tier VI/VIII Premium expecting to kill all and take names.  A cursory review of the entry panels presenting a valiant Purple player could easily change decisions I make on how I play.  Only to find the chap is a future Tin Foil Hatter on this forum - at best.

 

This game is hard.  That is why I like it.  Happy Hunting...

 

Except bots aren't necessarily an active detriment to the team, and some of programs are better than many players. I have only seen one account below a 40% win rate after 10k matches. Pulling below a 40% win rate after thousands of matches requires significant effort. 15 man teams keep win rate distribution tight, usually low 40's-low 60's.

 



Chalybos #43 Posted Dec 27 2017 - 16:49

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22596 battles
  • 904
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

As I've said before, I've seen bad players (bad based solely on their stats) play well, and good players (again, solely based on numbers) play like garbage.  If I see someone with a 47% WR and orange numbers trying to do the right thing and failing, I'm certainly not going to blame them for trying and dying - at least they tried.  

 



Boghie #44 Posted Dec 27 2017 - 19:56

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 5494 battles
  • 536
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    04-10-2016

View PostChalybos, on Dec 27 2017 - 07:49, said:

As I've said before, I've seen bad players (bad based solely on their stats) play well, and good players (again, solely based on numbers) play like garbage.  If I see someone with a 47% WR and orange numbers trying to do the right thing and failing, I'm certainly not going to blame them for trying and dying - at least they tried.  

 

 

Definitely holler at me if I do something stupid, it is oftentimes the only way I learn;)

 



Chalybos #45 Posted Dec 27 2017 - 21:37

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22596 battles
  • 904
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

View PostBoghie, on Dec 27 2017 - 13:56, said:

 

Definitely holler at me if I do something stupid, it is oftentimes the only way I learn;)

 

 

Ha!  Well, if you see me type something along the lines of "Duuuuude" in chat, that's usually an indicator that I saw something that tripped the wth-ometer.

Edited by Chalybos, Dec 27 2017 - 21:37.


Desert_Faux #46 Posted Dec 28 2017 - 00:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 5083 battles
  • 3,050
  • [-DTOM] -DTOM
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013

View PostChalybos, on Dec 27 2017 - 15:49, said:

As I've said before, I've seen bad players (bad based solely on their stats) play well, and good players (again, solely based on numbers) play like garbage.  If I see someone with a 47% WR and orange numbers trying to do the right thing and failing, I'm certainly not going to blame them for trying and dying - at least they tried.  

 

 

I think this boils down to the old saying "Even a broken clock is correct twice a day". Just because someone is awful and horrible at something doesn't mean that they'll NEVER have a good game once in awhile. 

 

Also I think looking at a players stats solely can lead to issues too... player plays his first 3k matches so bad his WN8 is in single digits. Let's say he visits the forum and by some miracle starts suddenly playing good enough to get his Wn8 to where he's yellow or green... how many thousands of games would it take before his over all Wn8 to reflect his recent Wn8? I think some people need to keep in mind, just because his wn8 over 8,000 matches is horrible doesn't mean that his last 2,000 games he wasn't a unicum. 


Edited by Desert_Faux, Dec 28 2017 - 01:01.


Desert_Faux #47 Posted Dec 28 2017 - 01:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 5083 battles
  • 3,050
  • [-DTOM] -DTOM
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013

View PostChalybos, on Dec 27 2017 - 20:37, said:

 

Ha!  Well, if you see me type something along the lines of "Duuuuude" in chat, that's usually an indicator that I saw something that tripped the wth-ometer.

 

I usually don't mind being called a [edited]in chat as most times I probably did do something dumb. Most times I acknowledge my fault and admit I should of done like they said.

 

A few rare times though someone doesn't know how to handle self deprecation and will continue on and on pointlessly. Yes, I know I suck, you think I don't know, I am trying to approve but I am not gonna lie and say I don't suck and what is the point of abusing chat 20 something times to call me a [edited]. Ok, if you somehow do get your point across... then what? I often ask them that, I suck yes, you've said it several times and I agree... what else is there more worth saying, why keep repeating the same thing over and over...

 

But as you said, most of the time any messages to me in match I usually glance at as many times they are actually helpful and constructive. 



g4143 #48 Posted Dec 28 2017 - 02:30

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 9198 battles
  • 413
  • Member since:
    04-24-2015

View PostDesert_Faux, on Dec 23 2017 - 20:08, said:

To have a low win rate don't you have to actively causing your team and self to lose most of the time? 

 

I am not that good of a player but last I checked if I win just over a dozen matches in a row it would put me at 51%, and I suck at this game. 

 

Last game I saw a player with a win rate of just over 43% after 2k battles... I was playing my 2nd battle ever in my T2 Light Tank and we had one player ping the map 5 times in a row. I and others asked him not to do that so much. A player on our team thought he be funny and ping the map over a dozen times (I ended up blocking him in the game). After the game I clicked on his stats and noticed he had 2k + games with a win rate of 43.82% 

 

Am I correct in assuming when you have a win rate that low you are actively causing your team to fail a few times if not most times in battle? 

 

I totally suck and yet my win rate is just over 50% which for as bad as a player I am is pretty good. True I had 2k more games than him but still... low win rates = actively causing their team to fail right? Is it safe to assume that? 

 

I've had a game where I scored the highest damage and highest KO's for both teams and still managed to lose the battle. That night I saw 40+ loses with 10+ loses in a row and a lot of those games I scored in the top five for my team. You are at the mercy of the MM.

Edited by g4143, Dec 28 2017 - 02:34.


uberdice #49 Posted Dec 28 2017 - 03:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 24804 battles
  • 9,874
  • Member since:
    01-14-2012

View Postg4143, on Dec 28 2017 - 11:30, said:

I've had a game where I scored the highest damage and highest KO's for both teams and still managed to lose the battle. That night I saw 40+ loses with 10+ loses in a row and a lot of those games I scored in the top five for my team. You are at the mercy of the MM.

 

You're only "at the mercy of the MM" in individual sessions.

 

Having a consistently positive contribution to your team's performance leads to a higher win rate over time. If you're consistently topping your teams but not winning, you need to consider that you might not actually be contributing in a meaningful way until the game has already been decided.



scharnhorst310 #50 Posted Dec 28 2017 - 03:50

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 24444 battles
  • 5,821
  • Member since:
    05-04-2011

View Postg4143, on Dec 27 2017 - 17:30, said:

 

I've had a game where I scored the highest damage and highest KO's for both teams and still managed to lose the battle. That night I saw 40+ loses with 10+ loses in a row and a lot of those games I scored in the top five for my team. You are at the mercy of the MM.

 

Uberdice is correct. I can't guarantee I will win my next game; i can guarantee I will win a lot more games than most people because I perform at a high level consistently. Key word is consistently, just because a bad player has a good game doesn't make him suddenly a good player, or vice versa... It is learning to play well over large numbers of matches that lead to you winning. 

 

Think of it this way, you play the amx 50-100; so do I. One of us averages 2,200 damage a game in it, the other 385; one of us wins 67.5% of the games he's played in it when while doing that much damage, the other has won 42% of his games. None of us control teams, but we do control how we play with the teams we get. 



Desert_Faux #51 Posted Dec 28 2017 - 09:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 5083 battles
  • 3,050
  • [-DTOM] -DTOM
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013

View Postg4143, on Dec 28 2017 - 01:30, said:

 

I've had a game where I scored the highest damage and highest KO's for both teams and still managed to lose the battle. That night I saw 40+ loses with 10+ loses in a row and a lot of those games I scored in the top five for my team. You are at the mercy of the MM.

 

Actually a little more detail would of been nice but I think your statement could be used to prove my original point. Just because you do top damage in a given tank doesn't mean you should/will automatically win. It depends on your tank you are using vs the other tanks on your team under-performing. 

 

Which goes back to my original post, if you got people in heavies, mediums etc... not contributing much and having low win rates it's kinda them that were bringing you down.

 

If your top of the MM heavy tank (or Medium if MM hates you) has a win rate of 43% (or less) do you think he's gonna contribute much? and I know it's a team sport but certain class tanks must fulfill certain duties if you are gonna win. The heavy needs to brawl to keep the enemy team from gaining access to too much of the map. Your scouts need to light up targets in the distance, not sit next to the TD's on the map. 

 

If the other players don't contribute to their expected rolls then no matter how much damage you alone do will sway the outcome of the whole match. Cause as I questioned earlier, if you got a team mate on your team with a poor win rate it seems (I may be wrong) that they are often dragging their team down by neglecting key duties in their given tank.

 

I may be wrong, which is likely and someone will correct me in my assessment. 

 

 



Desert_Faux #52 Posted Dec 28 2017 - 09:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 5083 battles
  • 3,050
  • [-DTOM] -DTOM
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013

View Postg4143, on Dec 28 2017 - 01:30, said:

 

I've had a game where I scored the highest damage and highest KO's for both teams and still managed to lose the battle. That night I saw 40+ loses with 10+ loses in a row and a lot of those games I scored in the top five for my team. You are at the mercy of the MM.

 

Also keep in mind too certain tanks attract bad players. I've found in games, and in life, that people think that owning something good will automatically make them good. A great tank doesn't automatically mean you will be a great player cause you suddenly own one now. 

 

Used to happen more often when I played years ago, now it's not as bad, but I used to see a lot of horrible players play in OP tanks under what I could only assume the idea the tank will make them a better player. 

 

I actually fear lesser played tanks than one's I see often in matches like Kv-1's. You got kids who saw a Kv-1 or even an IS-6 in battle dominate and think I gotta own one of those. Majority of times, the more popular tanks and OP tanks are owned by players with horrible stats.

 

I am more afraid of players who play in obscure tanks or weird tank choices (Except the M3Lee, that tank sucks 99% of the time). The player chose that tank for a reason, they purposely decided to play that tank, which many times means they know it's intimately and know how to play it's strengths. I am talking about obscure tanks that nobody in their right mind would play and not be playing it to grind exp for the next tier tank. 



g4143 #53 Posted Dec 28 2017 - 10:58

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 9198 battles
  • 413
  • Member since:
    04-24-2015

View PostDesert_Faux, on Dec 28 2017 - 09:38, said:

 

 

 

Which goes back to my original post, if you got people in heavies, mediums etc... not contributing much and having low win rates it's kinda them that were bringing you down.

 

 

 

It goes deeper than that....

 

You have people hiding to the end of the battle and then magically appearing to get as much one-shot damage as they can get.

You have people trying to accomplish missions over the team's win.

You have people playing stock tanks with 50% crews.

You have people playing like [edited]. They just go out and harass  their teammates.

an so on...

 

Random battles is just this [edited] up mess of chaos. Its not WarGaming fault completely but they did create the situation(s) which promotes some of the problems.


Edited by g4143, Dec 28 2017 - 11:11.


Boghie #54 Posted Dec 28 2017 - 15:25

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 5494 battles
  • 536
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    04-10-2016

View Postg4143, on Dec 28 2017 - 01:58, said:

 

It goes deeper than that....

 

You have people hiding to the end of the battle and then magically appearing to get as much one-shot damage as they can get.

You have people trying to accomplish missions over the team's win.

You have people playing stock tanks with 50% crews.

You have people playing like [edited]. They just go out and harass  their teammates.

an so on...

 

Random battles is just this [edited] up mess of chaos. Its not WarGaming fault completely but they did create the situation(s) which promotes some of the problems.

 

Yes, all those things.  But, you know both teams either overcome or succumb to those issues.

 

Hopefully nobody gets all butt-hurt with a little data mining.  Doing this informed me that I am on a better track than a while back and that I obviously have things to work on.  I will use Scharnhorst, G4143, and myself.  I think this will demonstrate that MM really does NOT have much of a role in winning.  So here goes:

 

Player Scharnhorst Boghie G4143  
Destruction Ratio 2.62 0.52 0.47 This demonstrates a problem with picking targets to get them out of game
Damage Ratio 2.00 0.55 0.67 Die too early, micro skills, situational awareness
Base Defense 1.25 0.50 0.35

This demonstrates a lack of map and situation awareness.

Enemy Vehicles Destroyed 1.58 0.41 0.34 This demonstrates a problem with picking targets to get them out of game
Enemy Vehicles Spotted 1.47 1.33 0.38 This demonstrates that one of us is not getting to the battle
Battles Survived 40% 22% 29% Situational awareness and patience

 

G4143 and I are fairly similar and our problems are not MM related.  Nor are we Bots.  I think that we lack micro skills that can be fixed with game play, situational awareness that can be fixed with coaching (live or or by watching talented players walk through decisions), and targeting decisions.  Additionally, a little more eyes and decisions based on the mini-map would help.  If you are neither spotting the other team nor resetting the cap than you are in no-man's land.  If you are spotting the enemy but not causing damage or destruction than you are leading with your face and getting into situations you cannot get out of.

 

Living is good - very good.  Two things affect living.

  1. Winning the game
  2. Destroying the enemy

If you lead with your face, but do not destroy the enemy (damaging obviously does not count) than you will die and inglorious death.  You benefit your team a bit, but only in a fleeting manner.  If you attempt to conserve your hit points by setting up in a fourth tier position only to get overwhelmed at the end of the game you have not supported the destruction of the enemy that is now targeting you.  You have not gotten your gun in the game.  Thus, living and winning are inseparable and the situational awareness that leads to them is a grey area that has to be worked out by each player.  My guess is that I still 'suiscout' a bit and G4143 moves to back office positions and waits for targets.

 

Base defense is important.  You lose if you lose the base.  One of the reasons I have brought my WR up a bit is base defense - you don't want to know what it was last year :-{.  It means that you don't necessarily advance into the enemiy's base kill zone when you have won your flank.  You look back.  How is your team doing on the other flank.  If they are so so to not good than you return to pick off juicy [edited]that roll into that kill zone.  This stat demonstrates that I have some control over my aggressive play now - but have lots to work on.

 

Good players destroy more enemy tanks than damage them.  Purple Chai-Snipers padding their Win8 mountain goat the red line with high view range tanks and pling this tank and that tank for some value, but really don't win.  They probably win in other games where they are playing seriously but counting on us ruddy reds to get the three damaging shots needed to kill the tank you wounded is not a good strategy.  Another type of Purple padder is that chap in a 9 - 11 game who decides to kill off AFK or Tomato Arty rather than get their gun in the game.  Conversely, G4143 and I shoot at healthy tanks we can neither destroy nor damage leaving guns in the game.  G4143 and I have to have the situational awareness in battle to focus fire wounded vehicles and not do a poor approximation of the supreme chai sniper.

 

Spotting is a proxy for 'gun in the game'.  You don't have to necessarily be the one to kill or damage the target to support a win.  This blends with the other stats.  If you are spotting well, but not winning well, than you might be leading with your face.  If you never spot anyone you are too far back and/or initially positioning yourself poorly.  Both are habits and both can be fixed.  You just have to know which one is your issue.  I have to learn that I don't have to be way ahead of my TDs and HTs to spot for them, G4143 probably has to learn that he has to play more forward to get a better field of fire.  If you are too far back your field of fire is a narrow arc that may not even be challenged by the enemy.

 

Oh, well...  Stream of thought...

 



scharnhorst310 #55 Posted Dec 28 2017 - 18:00

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 24444 battles
  • 5,821
  • Member since:
    05-04-2011

View PostBoghie, on Dec 28 2017 - 06:25, said:

snip

Very cool. I think you summed up those things quite nicely.



g4143 #56 Posted Dec 29 2017 - 02:53

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 9198 battles
  • 413
  • Member since:
    04-24-2015

View PostBoghie, on Dec 28 2017 - 15:25, said:

 

Yes, all those things.  But, you know both teams either overcome or succumb to those issues.

 

Hopefully nobody gets all butt-hurt with a little data mining.  Doing this informed me that I am on a better track than a while back and that I obviously have things to work on.  I will use Scharnhorst, G4143, and myself.  I think this will demonstrate that MM really does NOT have much of a role in winning.  So here goes:

 

Player Scharnhorst Boghie G4143  
Destruction Ratio 2.62 0.52 0.47 This demonstrates a problem with picking targets to get them out of game
Damage Ratio 2.00 0.55 0.67 Die too early, micro skills, situational awareness
Base Defense 1.25 0.50 0.35

This demonstrates a lack of map and situation awareness.

Enemy Vehicles Destroyed 1.58 0.41 0.34 This demonstrates a problem with picking targets to get them out of game
Enemy Vehicles Spotted 1.47 1.33 0.38 This demonstrates that one of us is not getting to the battle
Battles Survived 40% 22% 29% Situational awareness and patience

 

G4143 and I are fairly similar and our problems are not MM related.  Nor are we Bots.  I think that we lack micro skills that can be fixed with game play, situational awareness that can be fixed with coaching (live or or by watching talented players walk through decisions), and targeting decisions.  Additionally, a little more eyes and decisions based on the mini-map would help.  If you are neither spotting the other team nor resetting the cap than you are in no-man's land.  If you are spotting the enemy but not causing damage or destruction than you are leading with your face and getting into situations you cannot get out of.

 

Living is good - very good.  Two things affect living.

  1. Winning the game
  2. Destroying the enemy

If you lead with your face, but do not destroy the enemy (damaging obviously does not count) than you will die and inglorious death.  You benefit your team a bit, but only in a fleeting manner.  If you attempt to conserve your hit points by setting up in a fourth tier position only to get overwhelmed at the end of the game you have not supported the destruction of the enemy that is now targeting you.  You have not gotten your gun in the game.  Thus, living and winning are inseparable and the situational awareness that leads to them is a grey area that has to be worked out by each player.  My guess is that I still 'suiscout' a bit and G4143 moves to back office positions and waits for targets.

 

Base defense is important.  You lose if you lose the base.  One of the reasons I have brought my WR up a bit is base defense - you don't want to know what it was last year :-{.  It means that you don't necessarily advance into the enemiy's base kill zone when you have won your flank.  You look back.  How is your team doing on the other flank.  If they are so so to not good than you return to pick off juicy [edited]that roll into that kill zone.  This stat demonstrates that I have some control over my aggressive play now - but have lots to work on.

 

Good players destroy more enemy tanks than damage them.  Purple Chai-Snipers padding their Win8 mountain goat the red line with high view range tanks and pling this tank and that tank for some value, but really don't win.  They probably win in other games where they are playing seriously but counting on us ruddy reds to get the three damaging shots needed to kill the tank you wounded is not a good strategy.  Another type of Purple padder is that chap in a 9 - 11 game who decides to kill off AFK or Tomato Arty rather than get their gun in the game.  Conversely, G4143 and I shoot at healthy tanks we can neither destroy nor damage leaving guns in the game.  G4143 and I have to have the situational awareness in battle to focus fire wounded vehicles and not do a poor approximation of the supreme chai sniper.

 

Spotting is a proxy for 'gun in the game'.  You don't have to necessarily be the one to kill or damage the target to support a win.  This blends with the other stats.  If you are spotting well, but not winning well, than you might be leading with your face.  If you never spot anyone you are too far back and/or initially positioning yourself poorly.  Both are habits and both can be fixed.  You just have to know which one is your issue.  I have to learn that I don't have to be way ahead of my TDs and HTs to spot for them, G4143 probably has to learn that he has to play more forward to get a better field of fire.  If you are too far back your field of fire is a narrow arc that may not even be challenged by the enemy.

 

Oh, well...  Stream of thought...

 

 

So what picks the teams? Its a simple answer. And that answer picks teams that generally has lopsided results like 15 - 3. Now if you ask the forum members they will say its all my fault when I lose(not my team's fault but mine because I lack experience) and if we have a land-side win then is it my fault too and not the team's?

scharnhorst310 #57 Posted Dec 29 2017 - 03:09

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 24444 battles
  • 5,821
  • Member since:
    05-04-2011

View Postg4143, on Dec 28 2017 - 17:53, said:

 

So what picks the teams? Its a simple answer. And that answer picks teams that generally has lopsided results like 15 - 3. Now if you ask the forum members they will say its all my fault when I lose(not my team's fault but mine because I lack experience) and if we have a land-side win then is it my fault too and not the team's?

 

Do you take any responsibility for how you play? Or is it MM telling you to not do damage? Does it make you miss shots? How about controlling your tank and sending it to a bad spot thats MM for sure right? Does it make you not learn weakspots on tanks? Huh... yeah I thought so. I could always look up some replays with you in matches; yeah i'm sure i'll find nothing but MM holding your talent back. 

Edited by scharnhorst310, Dec 29 2017 - 03:15.


g4143 #58 Posted Dec 29 2017 - 03:27

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 9198 battles
  • 413
  • Member since:
    04-24-2015

View Postscharnhorst310, on Dec 29 2017 - 03:09, said:

 

Do you take any responsibility for how you play? Or is it MM telling you to not do damage? Does it make you miss shots? How about controlling your tank and sending it to a bad spot thats MM for sure right? Does it make you not learn weakspots on tanks? Huh... yeah I thought so. I could always look up some replays with you in matches; yeah i'm sure i'll find nothing but MM holding your talent back. 

 

God I love how people turn this back on the user. The problem is the MM can and does generate these incredible winning and losing streaks. A fair system won't be producing these incredible steaks and its not just me that has noticed these wild swings.

 

You would have the faintest of a point if I always had these losing streaks but I don't. I also have these incredible winning streaks too.


Edited by g4143, Dec 29 2017 - 03:30.


Peak_Bagger #59 Posted Dec 29 2017 - 03:39

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 16241 battles
  • 859
  • [W_T_F] W_T_F
  • Member since:
    03-16-2017

View Postg4143, on Dec 29 2017 - 03:27, said:

 

God I love how people turn this back on the user. The problem is the MM can and does generate these incredible winning and losing streaks. A fair system won't be producing these incredible steaks and its not just me that has noticed these wild swings.

 

You would have the faintest of a point if I always had these losing streaks but I don't. I also have these incredible winning streaks too.

 

This discussion is about win rate. Over the long term, a personal win rate has very little to do with short term winning streaks and losing streaks. It has to do with performing consistently over thousands of battles, not ten. Boghie has done a fabulous analysis. The implications are very clear, even to a casual observer. Boghie will continue to improve as he understands the implications.

 

G4143, MM is irrelevant to win rate over thousands of battles. Refusing to accept this is only hurting yourself.



scharnhorst310 #60 Posted Dec 29 2017 - 03:56

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 24444 battles
  • 5,821
  • Member since:
    05-04-2011

View Postg4143, on Dec 28 2017 - 18:27, said:

 

God I love how people turn this back on the user. The problem is the MM can and does generate these incredible winning and losing streaks. A fair system won't be producing these incredible steaks and its not just me that has noticed these wild swings.

 

You would have the faintest of a point if I always had these losing streaks but I don't. I also have these incredible winning streaks too.

 

Umm first off we're talking about not 1 match, not 10 matches; hundreds and thousands of matches. If you contribute to your teams, your impact will lead to more wins in the long run. Or if you don't well you can see the results for yourself. 

 

Second, random doesn't mean you can't have swings. I can flip a coin and get heads a bunch of times in a row, but the more i flip the greater the odds i'm going to see a close to 50/50 split. According to you that must mean i've rigged the coin toss, because swings can't happen in randomness. This is why we look at overall trends of players, not just 20 battles, but hundreds of battles. Funny how even with all those wild swings at the end of the day you not contributing much consistently leads to you losing more than you win. hmmm. Funny, i can look at players who consistently get a lot of damage, and a lot of kills; and they seem to win a lot over the long run. hmmm i guess these are just silly inconvenient truths. 

 

Why not put it to the test, start contributing to your teams consistently, see what happens.


Edited by scharnhorst310, Dec 29 2017 - 03:59.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users