Jump to content


Thank you WG for resisting MM by PR, win rate, or WIN-whatever


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

GeorgePreddy #21 Posted Jan 02 2018 - 02:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 14345 battles
  • 9,035
  • [L_LEG] L_LEG
  • Member since:
    04-11-2013

Thank you WG for resisting MM by PR, win rate, or WIN-whatever



StiffWind #22 Posted Jan 02 2018 - 05:00

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 13778 battles
  • 2,054
  • Member since:
    03-15-2017

It's all about making the games end as fast as possible....and as long as WoT controls things, it will remain so.  I hope they sell the game.

 



StiffWind #23 Posted Jan 02 2018 - 05:01

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 13778 battles
  • 2,054
  • Member since:
    03-15-2017

View PostGeorgePreddy, on Jan 02 2018 - 02:45, said:

Thank you WG for resisting MM by PR, win rate, or WIN-whatever

 

LOL!  Just....LOL!

 



Godzilla_99 #24 Posted Jan 02 2018 - 05:19

    Private

  • Players
  • 10678 battles
  • 6
  • [FUNGI] FUNGI
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013
MM is not random and will never be random.  They may match tanks based on "weight" or what ever they decide is the formula of the day.  WOT doesn't take player level into account so that sides can be stacked for whatever reason yet it's considered a balanced match since the tanks are balanced.  It is very rare anymore to see a battle won by less than 5 or less surviving tanks.  Like it or not, player ability in similar tanks does matter a lot.  This will always be the flaw of the game.  Players who pay will always be catered to and those who don't, won't.

SoTrue #25 Posted Jan 02 2018 - 05:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 27592 battles
  • 3,283
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011

View PostRevoc_cn, on Jan 01 2018 - 15:47, said:

Had a wonderful week in WoT with red tomatoes pushing or shooting teammates or doing anything but helping the team to win. And I think this is the worst time I have experienced since I started to play WoT in 2012.

WG just can not face the facts that all the fancy MM system they imaged is a SH*T. In a 357 MM if the three top-tier are red tomatoes then the game is over, and magically most of the time you have all 3 [edited]or all 3 purple re-rolls and the enemies have the opposite. So in the new MM, the bottom tier facing the situation that if your top tiers are [edited], there is no space for you to do anything while in the old MM time, bottom tiers can at least do something because having 10 red tomatoes top tiers is impossible at that time.(it is possible now). And in the new 357 MM, bottom tiers get less exp because they have no chance to earn them from higher tiers and top tiers are getting less cause there are fewer hit points available. red tomatoes are crying about re-rolls(I can't get why people always crying about re-roll, a re-roller get a higher penetration or RoF or what? If a re-roller is a true noob and you are not why you care about whether he rolls)

And after all the years, WG cannot face the fact that win rate is the only parameter to judge a player and at least they should give players chance to compete with players of the same level. The rank battle is the hugest joke in the history of rank systems that in the second season I have seen the second rank is full of 47% win rate players. red tomatoes are angry about everyone because they are always crushed by the enemies and they can never face the fact that win rate lower than 50% can only be the result of their lack of skills, experience, and ability to learn. "re-rollers" are seeking for data rather than a win when finding out the top-tiers are overwhelmed by the opponents. What makes MM by win rate so hateful to WG?

I love this game but I'm sure WG is trying to cheap out in making the game better and they are trying the get the last coin from it. I do not know how long this game can last

 

Happy new years guys. it is just a game but I hope it can better than now

 

+1 for at least recognizing lack of skill balance is THE problem with this game.  Come on WG, you know it's needed, BALANCE the skill between teams....

VooDooKobra #26 Posted Jan 02 2018 - 06:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 8118 battles
  • 3,510
  • [MOVE] MOVE
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011

View PostGodzilla_99, on Jan 01 2018 - 21:19, said:

MM is not random and will never be random.  They may match tanks based on "weight" or what ever they decide is the formula of the day.  WOT doesn't take player level into account so that sides can be stacked for whatever reason yet it's considered a balanced match since the tanks are balanced.  It is very rare anymore to see a battle won by less than 5 or less surviving tanks.  Like it or not, player ability in similar tanks does matter a lot.  This will always be the flaw of the game.  Players who pay will always be catered to and those who don't, won't.

 

ROFL people who pay are catered to, so far you are in the lead for funniest thing said on the forums 2018 edition

 


Edited by VooDooKobra, Jan 02 2018 - 06:24.


Shadora #27 Posted Jan 02 2018 - 06:33

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 21100 battles
  • 1,023
  • Member since:
    02-10-2015

As the more seasoned player-base leaves and tomatoes grow, the MM becomes more exposed.  The 3/5/7 set up was created to make you face higher tier tanks more often so you have to use more gold rounds.  Tier X replacement tanks are being created to have better armor so the enemy has to fire more gold rounds at tier X.  Accurate guns with high pen are being replaced with less accurate guns so you fire more rounds (example, the replacement for the 263).

 

The objective is to make gold the standard round and for the standard round to become practically useless.

 

The new MM Is a disaster and is one of the reasons people have been going elsewhere.  At some point they will need to implement a skill-based MM system because the current system of rigging MM and RNG is too blatantly obvious to most people, with the exception of some flat earth believers and those long losing streaks are getting worse and worse.

 

It's driving people away and/or making them stay at lower tiers where they don't lose money each game.

 

 



VooDooKobra #28 Posted Jan 02 2018 - 07:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 8118 battles
  • 3,510
  • [MOVE] MOVE
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011

View PostShadora, on Jan 01 2018 - 22:33, said:

As the more seasoned player-base leaves and tomatoes grow, the MM becomes more exposed.  The 3/5/7 set up was created to make you face higher tier tanks more often so you have to use more gold rounds.  Tier X replacement tanks are being created to have better armor so the enemy has to fire more gold rounds at tier X.  Accurate guns with high pen are being replaced with less accurate guns so you fire more rounds (example, the replacement for the 263).

 

The objective is to make gold the standard round and for the standard round to become practically useless.

 

The new MM Is a disaster and is one of the reasons people have been going elsewhere.  At some point they will need to implement a skill-based MM system because the current system of rigging MM and RNG is too blatantly obvious to most people, with the exception of some flat earth believers and those long losing streaks are getting worse and worse.

 

It's driving people away and/or making them stay at lower tiers where they don't lose money each game.

 

 

 

you mean the fake rigging? or the top middle bottom tier % rigging as in the patent


Edited by VooDooKobra, Jan 02 2018 - 07:35.


R_Razor #29 Posted Jan 02 2018 - 08:40

    Captain

  • Players
  • 8016 battles
  • 1,686
  • [_DDM] _DDM
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013

View Postthe_dude_76, on Jan 01 2018 - 19:26, said:

 

And we're supposed to believe that you weren't a tomato before you re-rolled??? Yawn

 

Says the guy suggesting that WR be used to set matches. If I didn't read it myself I'd never imagine anyone could be so dense...

 

Oh there are dense people out there, like the people that look at re-rolls with great numbers, and despite the fact that they have great numbers, numbers that can only be earned by doing good in the game, assume they're not good players. News flash for ya genius, if the re-roll has good stats, the re-roll had to earn those stats through his game play. 

Edited by R_Razor, Jan 02 2018 - 08:43.


brianc53 #30 Posted Jan 02 2018 - 14:42

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 16333 battles
  • 331
  • Member since:
    11-27-2016

View PostFeargrim27, on Jan 02 2018 - 01:34, said:

... I cannot recall a game in which I did no damage and no spotting. 

I’ll admit I had one the other day. I was on Lakeville, south spawn, in a Tier 5 medium headed to the city. The enemy Scout pushed down the middle road, spotted me and I got 2 shot by two TD’s before I could get halfway to the city. (I should have stayed further south -oops). 

But...I expected to earn nothing (zero XP and lose credits for repairs), and instead got a few XP and earned some credits. That’s stupid. I agree that if you do nothing you should get nothing. 

 

More training on the way the game is really played should be required of newer players. 

And some limits - like not going above Tier 6 until you have a Mastery/ace tanker in a tank line or tank type - should be in place. 



NeatoMan #31 Posted Jan 02 2018 - 15:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 25574 battles
  • 17,118
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostShadora, on Jan 02 2018 - 00:33, said:

As the more seasoned player-base leaves and tomatoes grow, the MM becomes more exposed.  The 3/5/7 set up was created to make you face higher tier tanks more often so you have to use more gold rounds.

but we face about the same number of higher tier tanks as we did before.  The main change is that we see more same tier tanks at the expense of fewer lower tier tanks



Diomidis #32 Posted Jan 02 2018 - 17:26

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 29511 battles
  • 169
  • [F0CUS] F0CUS
  • Member since:
    09-24-2010

View PostFeargrim27, on Jan 02 2018 - 00:34, said:

 I cannot recall a game in which I did no damage and no spotting. It is incredibly easy to do SOMETHING.

 

I am a seasoned player of shorts, and I had games where I was practically 1-shot  / did NOTHING even recently, in a M18 if I recall. Doesn't pay to go to the "standard" locations with paper tanks. 

Markd73 #33 Posted Jan 02 2018 - 17:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 29408 battles
  • 4,219
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostStiffWind, on Jan 02 2018 - 04:00, said:

It's all about making the games end as fast as possible....and as long as WoT controls things, it will remain so.  I hope they sell the game.

 

 

View Postbikebudha1, on Jan 02 2018 - 04:38, said:

 

+1 for at least recognizing lack of skill balance is THE problem with this game.  Come on WG, you know it's needed, BALANCE the skill between teams....

 

View PostShadora, on Jan 02 2018 - 05:33, said:

As the more seasoned player-base leaves and tomatoes grow, the MM becomes more exposed.  The 3/5/7 set up was created to make you face higher tier tanks more often so you have to use more gold rounds.  Tier X replacement tanks are being created to have better armor so the enemy has to fire more gold rounds at tier X.  Accurate guns with high pen are being replaced with less accurate guns so you fire more rounds (example, the replacement for the 263).

 

The objective is to make gold the standard round and for the standard round to become practically useless.

 

The new MM Is a disaster and is one of the reasons people have been going elsewhere.  At some point they will need to implement a skill-based MM system because the current system of rigging MM and RNG is too blatantly obvious to most people, with the exception of some flat earth believers and those long losing streaks are getting worse and worse.

 

It's driving people away and/or making them stay at lower tiers where they don't lose money each game.

 

 

 

All three in one thread. This is the trifecta of the "skilled MM is best" crowd.

 

You should all feel honored.  /s



caeman #34 Posted Jan 02 2018 - 18:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 19568 battles
  • 3,387
  • Member since:
    12-07-2012
I had a great 7-day run while I was home for Xmas vacation: 118 battles and 61% WR.  Shockingly, I did well with my lights.  Light tanks have often vexed me, but under the new system with scout MM gone, I have finally begun to flourish with the speedy beasties.

spud_tuber #35 Posted Jan 02 2018 - 18:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 49171 battles
  • 5,801
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostMarkd73, on Jan 02 2018 - 10:49, said:

 

 

 

All three in one thread. This is the trifecta of the "skilled MM is best" crowd.

 

You should all feel honored.  /s

Something I find interesting is they aren't necessarily wrong about skilled MM is best.  They aren't necessarily right either, though.  To some extent, it's a matter of personal taste* and what one wants from individual battles and across multiple battles, as any option has trade offs.  WG has to decide what will work best for the most players, and still provide reasonable queue times and such.  Without some pretty strong evidence to convince them otherwise, they're probably going to keep judging the current system as best.

 

Another thing I find interesting is that they are all leading conspiracy theorists that the game is currently rigged, while if they got skill based MM, it actually would be.  I appreciate the irony.

 

*for full disclosure, my personal preference in order is:

Spoiler

 



Dirty_Camel #36 Posted Jan 02 2018 - 22:57

    Captain

  • Players
  • 51957 battles
  • 1,905
  • [F-3] F-3
  • Member since:
    11-29-2013

View PostKamahl1234, on Jan 02 2018 - 00:59, said:

LOL, stat based MM won't fix the problems, as you're just blaming scapegoats effectively. Players cause the bad MM we have, WG can't do anything about it. MM isn't set up to create blowouts, or lack of teamwork (directly related), players and selfish play (often stat oriented) cause this. 

 

It's why AW's skill-based/balanced MM had blowouts after blowouts. Win rate and any stat can be padded, win rate, for example is padded in platoons. 

 

Also win rate below 50% can still be above average, as average is ~48% due to draws. It's impossible for everyone to be "skilled" and win all the time. Among evenly bracketed skill players, win rates will normalize to ~48% or so. As with 15 players winning, there's 15 players losing, except for draws where everyone loses. 

 

 

 

Seriously, the best way to improve MM is to try to get as many players who want to improve, to do so, and teach them. You'll always have people who don't want or care to learn and improve, and you can't rely on tutorials in a game, as either they simply become too complex, convoluted and need constant updates, or players breeze through them as they view it as a barrier to their fun. No amount of MM taking any type of stats into account will solve a simply bad player-base who treats this game as 1 v 29. 

 

love it when people say 'stat based mm won't fix anything'. Because making teams literally balanced in terms of skill is sooooo ridiculous!  To start a match knowing the team's are balanced is just stupid for some reason. Is rather start a match knowing the team's are lopsided in skill and knowing the most probable result before the battle begins! Listen, I don't use mods, and I can predict most matches just on the deployment of tanks in the first 30 secs. I know if I'm on a tomato team just from deployment and can tell if I'm on a decent team the same. Skill owns this game, not matching up tank weights. if you think a tomato in a Maus is equal to a unicum in a Maus, you might need to look up the definition of "balance".

StiffWind #37 Posted Jan 03 2018 - 00:03

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 13778 battles
  • 2,054
  • Member since:
    03-15-2017

View Postspud_tuber, on Jan 02 2018 - 18:23, said:

Something I find interesting is they aren't necessarily wrong about skilled MM is best.  They aren't necessarily right either, though.  To some extent, it's a matter of personal taste* and what one wants from individual battles and across multiple battles, as any option has trade offs.  WG has to decide what will work best for the most players, and still provide reasonable queue times and such.  Without some pretty strong evidence to convince them otherwise, they're probably going to keep judging the current system as best.

 

Another thing I find interesting is that they are all leading conspiracy theorists that the game is currently rigged, while if they got skill based MM, it actually would be.  I appreciate the irony.

 

*for full disclosure, my personal preference in order is:

Spoiler

 

 

I don't want rigged games, which is what we have now.  Skill-based would just be another form of rigging...but with the idea of providing for a more fair and balanced game, as opposed to providing a dis-balanced game that ends as fast as possible (which is what we have now).  My vote is no rigging....make it truly random.  The only thing I'd like to see is a limit of +1/-1 in tier, with the tanks themselves balanced by type, regardless of skill.  But if you have 4 E25, don't put them ALL on the same team.  That's stupid.


 

 

And while you're at it, shut out XVM.


 

 


Edited by StiffWind, Jan 03 2018 - 00:17.


spud_tuber #38 Posted Jan 03 2018 - 00:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 49171 battles
  • 5,801
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostStiffWind, on Jan 02 2018 - 17:03, said:

 

I don't want rigged games, which is what we have now.  Skill-based would just be another form of rigging...but with the idea of providing for a more fair and balanced game, as opposed to providing a dis-balanced game that ends as fast as possible (which is what we have now).  My vote is no rigging....make it truly random.  The only thing I'd like to see is a limit of +1/-1 in tier, with the tanks themselves balanced, regardless of skill.  If you have 4 E25, don't put them ALL on the same team.  That's stupid.


 

 

And while you're at it, shut out XVM.


 

 

Then as far as skill goes, you have your wish already.  No one has even demonstrated a hit of rigging with real data.  Instead we get random anecdotes or a best very small sample sizes with some hit of correlation to any alleged triggers.  Meanwhile, several have instead recorded and presented evidence that indicates they at least experienced no rigging.  Logical conclusion therefore is that there is no rigging.



StiffWind #39 Posted Jan 03 2018 - 00:40

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 13778 battles
  • 2,054
  • Member since:
    03-15-2017

View Postspud_tuber, on Jan 03 2018 - 00:34, said:

Then as far as skill goes, you have your wish already.  No one has even demonstrated a hit of rigging with real data.  Instead we get random anecdotes or a best very small sample sizes with some hit of correlation to any alleged triggers.  Meanwhile, several have instead recorded and presented evidence that indicates they at least experienced no rigging.  Logical conclusion therefore is that there is no rigging.

 

The rigging is triggered by an upward or downward trend in stats, just as it's stated in the patent WoT has on the methodology.  If you don't have a change in stats that triggers the rigging, you're not going to see it.  As such, any "data" must be accompanied by a historical trend of WN8 and Win Rate in order to be considered valid.  I have yet to see that posted by anybody who says the game isn't rigged.


 


 

 



spud_tuber #40 Posted Jan 03 2018 - 00:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 49171 battles
  • 5,801
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostStiffWind, on Jan 02 2018 - 17:40, said:

 

The rigging is triggered by an upward or downward trend in stats, just as it's stated in the patent WoT has on the methodology.  If you don't have a change in stats that triggers the rigging, you're not going to see it.  As such, any "data" must be accompanied by a historical trend of WN8 and Win Rate in order to be considered valid.  I have yet to see that posted by anybody who says the game isn't rigged.


 


 

 

So, is that per tank, per tier, overall or what?  Edit, I mean the upward or downward trend.  Further, is it only WR, or are other stats considered it as well?






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users