Jump to content


how come you don't take skill/win rate into account in matchmaking


  • Please log in to reply
1962 replies to this topic

EmperorJuliusCaesar #1681 Posted Mar 11 2018 - 08:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 37050 battles
  • 5,741
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostNeatoMan, on Mar 10 2018 - 05:44, said:

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 10 2018 - 00:37, said:

 

So you're openly admitting that you don't want fair fights, you want it to always be in your favor, we got it.  You don't want actual competition, you want it as easy as possible.  That's why players are leaving the game, especially newer ones. 

I'd rather have skill separation, and have said so for years. Skill balance is the worst solution, IMO. 

 

As far as random, I get the same opportunities as everyone else.  What I do with it is up to me. I don't mind the variety.  I'll take the occasional unbalanced game in exchange for that. I am not jealous of other people who can do better than me.

 

 

 

Skill separation would be great, but we no longer have the player base numbers for that.  

People are sick and tired, and leaving the game because 40% of battles are pointless and over before they even start.

People aren't jealous, they are just tired of crap battles that are over before they start.



Zeedox #1682 Posted Mar 11 2018 - 10:31

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 16654 battles
  • 729
  • [TESTE] TESTE
  • Member since:
    10-09-2011

View PostGeorgePreddy, on Mar 10 2018 - 09:56, said:

 

Actually the majority of players who care about the game more than needing rigged by SBMM teams to carry them up to a 49% winrate... are against SBMM in pub matches.

 

Some folks however, believe that if they say the majority wants SBMM often enough, some other folks will begin to believe them.

 

View PostZeedox, on Mar 10 2018 - 10:02, said:

 

Accredited sources?  

 

 

 

Come on ...

 

Where are those accredited sources, preddy?



EmperorJuliusCaesar #1683 Posted Mar 11 2018 - 10:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 37050 battles
  • 5,741
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View Post_Gungrave_, on Mar 10 2018 - 07:32, said:

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 10 2018 - 08:09, said:

 

Pretending a fair fight isn't fair to some.  Fair is fair. Gift wins and gift losses aren't fair.

 

Wins/losses aren't gifted

 

They're the result of your own gameplay whether you play in a skilled manner using proper game knowledge and awarness to get a win or going full pubbie and blaming everything for your losses.

 

The falsest and most easily proven false statement I've every seen.  Anyone with a brain knows that MANY battles are over before they start and the stats and math CLEARLY show that 40% are over before they even start, and that's during main hours, in off hours, it's even higher. 

Even people without XVM know.......KNOW....that things are off, hence the threads/posts about it. 

Only a cheater and riggers/gamers of the current system favor it.  The system that is driving away players and keeping newer player from staying.  They aren't dumb, they can see the slot machine MM for what it is.  Sorry if you can't, or chose not to, but those that have a brain can see it for what it is.



EmperorJuliusCaesar #1684 Posted Mar 11 2018 - 10:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 37050 battles
  • 5,741
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View Post_Tsavo, on Mar 10 2018 - 15:24, said:

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 10 2018 - 00:37, said:

 

So you're openly admitting that you don't want fair fights, you want it to always be in your favor, we got it.  You don't want actual competition, you want it as easy as possible.  That's why players are leaving the game, especially newer ones. 

 

He's not admitting that at all.

 

Nor is anyone else who is against SBMM as presented.

 

Variety is the spice of life, some matches will be boss fights, others farms.  If every game was a boss fight, it'd be bothersome and unpleasant, just like if every game was an easy-peasy farm-fest.

 

I don't know what enemies I'll face, I don't know what team I will have.  It's, personally, more fun that way.  You have to sink or swim on your own merits here.

 

 

As a counter opinion to that, I see those who support SBMM was wanting an easier time bringing their win rates up.

 

Nice that you defend his statement, I'm happy to know you have that "special" relationship. 

It's not sink or swim when 40% of the battles are decided for you, as the math has clearly shown.

Those wanting SBMM don't want higher win rates, we want 90%+ fair and fun battles, and stop this crap MM that we have now deciding 40%of the battles.



EmperorJuliusCaesar #1685 Posted Mar 11 2018 - 10:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 37050 battles
  • 5,741
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostStiffWind, on Mar 10 2018 - 19:51, said:

View PostNeatoMan, on Mar 11 2018 - 01:51, said:

Not even close.

 

Almost spot on.  Your own data says so.  Face it...you're in denial.

 

 

You know it, I know it, he knows it, we all know it.  They don't care, they are THAT afraid of a fair fight.  They WANT easy mode.  They're that desperate to look special in a 13+ GAME. 



Nixeldon #1686 Posted Mar 11 2018 - 12:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 60827 battles
  • 2,122
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 09 2018 - 23:55, said:

You're purposefully ignoring/misrepresenting what was stated. Of course people always try to get damage, but when it's an auto-win, people are even more aggressive because they are trying to get some damage in what they know will be a very short 3-4 min game.  It's not about normal play styles, it's about play styles being changed when people know it's an auto-win or auto-loss.  If you can't see it, it's on you.....MOST other people can clearly and easily see it, Sorry that you somehow don't have that ability.  Maybe open your eyes a bit more. 

I never drive straight across and die, I generally pull up and sidescrape, but nice try to attempt to demean my posts by attempting to belittle my ability to play.  Green recent WN8, while driving new and stock tanks since I"m shooting up 2 lines isn't bad at all, but again, nice attempt to demean what I say. 

You want to stick to the current riggable/gameable system we have now, the one that drives players, especially new ones away, we all see that clearly.  You're deathly afraid of fair matches, that is clear for all to see.  You don't want actual competition, you want to be able to game the system.

I am not misrepresenting you, I am criticizing players who don't try to win when they play "normally", whatever that is. I am also doubting your claims because, like everyone else in this thread supporting SBMM, evidence to support anything you say is conveniently missing. Can you please provide evidence that you can predict automatic wins and losses?

 

Which one is it, are you side-scraping or leading a charge?

If you and I were to face each other 1 vs 1 in WOT, what would we have to do to make it a fair fight? Is it fair if we use the same tank?

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 10 2018 - 00:53, said:

There's a reason no one pays to see pro teams vs non pro teams, it's a waste of money when you know the outcome.  People don't want to play, let alone play a game when 40% of matches are decided before they even start, that's why NA has lost so many players and driven off newer players.  It is especially prevalent in the low tiers with seal clubbing, the battle is over before it starts and many stop playing because of it.  If you're so selfish, so concerned with your stats, so concerned with a sense of accomplishment in a 13+ GAME, then by all means keep sailing towards the rocks.

Again, please provide evidence to support your claims that 40% of matches are predetermined and you know people's motivations.

 

This is a PVP game, not a charity. I play based on my own self-interests. If I play poorly and my team loses as a result, I apologize. If we win, well thanks!

If I play well and my team wins as a result, you're welcome. If we lose, I at least gave an effort.



NeatoMan #1687 Posted Mar 11 2018 - 15:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 28180 battles
  • 20,422
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostStiffWind, on Mar 10 2018 - 22:51, said:

Almost spot on.  Your own data says so.  Face it...you're in denial.

LoL....  The guy who doesn't have XVM, the guy who can't be bothered to keep track of anything, the guy who doesn't even know how win chance is calculated, the guy who has no idea how much team imbalance is required to give a certain win chance is telling us how win chance and team imbalance are related in my data......    priceless.



eteam #1688 Posted Mar 11 2018 - 18:40

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 73138 battles
  • 229
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013

View PostNixeldon, on Mar 11 2018 - 11:22, said:

I am not misrepresenting you, I am criticizing players who don't try to win when they play "normally", whatever that is. I am also doubting your claims because, like everyone else in this thread supporting SBMM, evidence to support anything you say is conveniently missing. Can you please provide evidence that you can predict automatic wins and losses?

 

Which one is it, are you side-scraping or leading a charge?

If you and I were to face each other 1 vs 1 in WOT, what would we have to do to make it a fair fight? Is it fair if we use the same tank?

Again, please provide evidence to support your claims that 40% of matches are predetermined and you know people's motivations.

 

This is a PVP game, not a charity. I play based on my own self-interests. If I play poorly and my team loses as a result, I apologize. If we win, well thanks!

If I play well and my team wins as a result, you're welcome. If we lose, I at least gave an effort.

 

​I do not have evidence that we can predict wins and losses.  However again if you look at Neatoman's graph related to %win chance it clearly demonstrates a win loss relationship based on percent chance to win.

Given that relationship it is not hard to predict an outcome where games are heavily weighted and be correct most of the time.

Simply put the random MM heavily influences the game result in a percentage of games.  And that has been illustrated by Neatoman's graph which for me provides evidence.



Nixeldon #1689 Posted Mar 11 2018 - 19:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 60827 battles
  • 2,122
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View Posteteam, on Mar 11 2018 - 12:40, said:

​I do not have evidence that we can predict wins and losses.  However again if you look at Neatoman's graph related to %win chance it clearly demonstrates a win loss relationship based on percent chance to win.

Given that relationship it is not hard to predict an outcome where games are heavily weighted and be correct most of the time.

Simply put the random MM heavily influences the game result in a percentage of games.  And that has been illustrated by Neatoman's graph which for me provides evidence.

But that is a given. No one is disputing that a player's individual performance influence's outcomes. The issue is even though stronger teams should win more often, there is no evidence that the matches play any different. In the matches I tracked, the slightly imbalanced matches(60-70% win chance) actually played slightly closer. The exremely imbalanced matches are not only very rare, but the blowout rate isn't much higher and the underdog teams sometimes win by a landslide.

 

If the match outcomes are predictable and obvious, and there is a strong correlation for skill disparity to produce landslides, where is the proof? There shouldn't be landslide upsets and I collected many screenshots from the matches I tracked. AW should have had data that skill balancing reduced blowouts and provided closer matches. Their developers wouldn't have concluded SIMM was a wasted effort and that a random MM was the fairest method.  

 

https://aw.my.com/us/news/general/developer-diary-matchmaking-20

https://aw.my.com/us/news/general/developer-diary-matchmaker-and-skill

https://aw.my.com/us/news/general/myths-about-matchmaker-part-2-losing-streaks

 

The MM is random, so the players are influencing the outcomes or the metrics that track player performance are irrelevant and the argument for skill balancing is then baseless and pointless. If the MM is determining outcomes, then your argument is no different than Stiffy's; there are no good or bad players as MM picks the winners and losers. You didn't earn those purple or red stats, MM built them for you. 



EmperorJuliusCaesar #1690 Posted Mar 12 2018 - 03:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 37050 battles
  • 5,741
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostNixeldon, on Mar 11 2018 - 03:22, said:

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 09 2018 - 23:55, said:

You're purposefully ignoring/misrepresenting what was stated. Of course people always try to get damage, but when it's an auto-win, people are even more aggressive because they are trying to get some damage in what they know will be a very short 3-4 min game.  It's not about normal play styles, it's about play styles being changed when people know it's an auto-win or auto-loss.  If you can't see it, it's on you.....MOST other people can clearly and easily see it, Sorry that you somehow don't have that ability.  Maybe open your eyes a bit more. 

I never drive straight across and die, I generally pull up and sidescrape, but nice try to attempt to demean my posts by attempting to belittle my ability to play.  Green recent WN8, while driving new and stock tanks since I"m shooting up 2 lines isn't bad at all, but again, nice attempt to demean what I say. 

You want to stick to the current riggable/gameable system we have now, the one that drives players, especially new ones away, we all see that clearly.  You're deathly afraid of fair matches, that is clear for all to see.  You don't want actual competition, you want to be able to game the system.

I am not misrepresenting you, I am criticizing players who don't try to win when they play "normally", whatever that is. I am also doubting your claims because, like everyone else in this thread supporting SBMM, evidence to support anything you say is conveniently missing. Can you please provide evidence that you can predict automatic wins and losses?

 

Which one is it, are you side-scraping or leading a charge?

If you and I were to face each other 1 vs 1 in WOT, what would we have to do to make it a fair fight? Is it fair if we use the same tank?

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 10 2018 - 00:53, said:

There's a reason no one pays to see pro teams vs non pro teams, it's a waste of money when you know the outcome.  People don't want to play, let alone play a game when 40% of matches are decided before they even start, that's why NA has lost so many players and driven off newer players.  It is especially prevalent in the low tiers with seal clubbing, the battle is over before it starts and many stop playing because of it.  If you're so selfish, so concerned with your stats, so concerned with a sense of accomplishment in a 13+ GAME, then by all means keep sailing towards the rocks.

Again, please provide evidence to support your claims that 40% of matches are predetermined and you know people's motivations.

 

This is a PVP game, not a charity. I play based on my own self-interests. If I play poorly and my team loses as a result, I apologize. If we win, well thanks!

If I play well and my team wins as a result, you're welcome. If we lose, I at least gave an effort.

It's easy to make a sheet and put a mark in columns when the countdown timer is counting down.  When you can easily determine 40% of them, there's an issue.....Far too many are over before they even start.  That is why people, especially newer players, are leaving the game. 

Not every map plays the same, some you have to face off sidecraped to wear them down before just yolo'ing in like some do.  Sometimes I see that they are low enough to push and finish them off, other times someone else thinks it's go time, when they go, so do I. If I'm in a 10, I try to be at the front, if I'm in an 8, I will be behind them in a supporting position, but close enough to do damage. 

 



eteam #1691 Posted Mar 12 2018 - 04:03

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 73138 battles
  • 229
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013

View PostNixeldon, on Mar 11 2018 - 18:53, said:

But that is a given. No one is disputing that a player's individual performance influence's outcomes. The issue is even though stronger teams should win more often, there is no evidence that the matches play any different. In the matches I tracked, the slightly imbalanced matches(60-70% win chance) actually played slightly closer. The exremely imbalanced matches are not only very rare, but the blowout rate isn't much higher and the underdog teams sometimes win by a landslide.

 

If the match outcomes are predictable and obvious, and there is a strong correlation for skill disparity to produce landslides, where is the proof? There shouldn't be landslide upsets and I collected many screenshots from the matches I tracked. AW should have had data that skill balancing reduced blowouts and provided closer matches. Their developers wouldn't have concluded SIMM was a wasted effort and that a random MM was the fairest method.  

 

https://aw.my.com/us/news/general/developer-diary-matchmaking-20

https://aw.my.com/us/news/general/developer-diary-matchmaker-and-skill

https://aw.my.com/us/news/general/myths-about-matchmaker-part-2-losing-streaks

 

The MM is random, so the players are influencing the outcomes or the metrics that track player performance are irrelevant and the argument for skill balancing is then baseless and pointless. If the MM is determining outcomes, then your argument is no different than Stiffy's; there are no good or bad players as MM picks the winners and losers. You didn't earn those purple or red stats, MM built them for you. 

 

​Nowhere in my post have I suggested SBMM would reduce blowouts.  And yes underdog teams do win some games and if I was to take a rough guess in an 80-20 split I would expect the underdog team to win 20% of the games.  No real surprize there.  In my experience unbalanced matches are quite common.  What constitutes an unbalanced match is subjective and we all probably have differing opinions on that point.

The point is that the random MM does influence the outcome of the game in particular when there is large discrepancies in team skill.  So it doesn't pick winners and losers it just influences the outcome just as player skill influences the outcome.



eteam #1692 Posted Mar 12 2018 - 04:16

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 73138 battles
  • 229
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013

View PostNixeldon, on Mar 11 2018 - 18:53, said:

But that is a given. No one is disputing that a player's individual performance influence's outcomes. The issue is even though stronger teams should win more often, there is no evidence that the matches play any different. In the matches I tracked, the slightly imbalanced matches(60-70% win chance) actually played slightly closer. The exremely imbalanced matches are not only very rare, but the blowout rate isn't much higher and the underdog teams sometimes win by a landslide.

 

If the match outcomes are predictable and obvious, and there is a strong correlation for skill disparity to produce landslides, where is the proof? There shouldn't be landslide upsets and I collected many screenshots from the matches I tracked. AW should have had data that skill balancing reduced blowouts and provided closer matches. Their developers wouldn't have concluded SIMM was a wasted effort and that a random MM was the fairest method.  

 

https://aw.my.com/us/news/general/developer-diary-matchmaking-20

https://aw.my.com/us/news/general/developer-diary-matchmaker-and-skill

https://aw.my.com/us/news/general/myths-about-matchmaker-part-2-losing-streaks

 

The MM is random, so the players are influencing the outcomes or the metrics that track player performance are irrelevant and the argument for skill balancing is then baseless and pointless. If the MM is determining outcomes, then your argument is no different than Stiffy's; there are no good or bad players as MM picks the winners and losers. You didn't earn those purple or red stats, MM built them for you. 

 

​Excellent links by the way.  Thanks.

SoTrue #1693 Posted Mar 12 2018 - 06:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 32942 battles
  • 3,302
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 10 2018 - 23:31, said:

 

Skill separation would be great, but we no longer have the player base numbers for that. 

People are sick and tired, and leaving the game because 40% of battles are pointless and over before they even start.

People aren't jealous, they are just tired of crap battles that are over before they start.

 

So much this ^

View Posteteam, on Mar 11 2018 - 09:40, said:

 

​I do not have evidence that we can predict wins and losses.  However again if you look at Neatoman's graph related to %win chance it clearly demonstrates a win loss relationship based on percent chance to win.

Given that relationship it is not hard to predict an outcome where games are heavily weighted and be correct most of the time.

Simply put the random MM heavily influences the game result in a percentage of games.  And that has been illustrated by Neatoman's graph which for me provides evidence.

 

Yes it does.  So has every other persons data who's posted it.  'x' percentage of games, under random, are fixed before they even start.  This group needs to be eliminated.  All games should be winnable/loseable.

View PostNixeldon, on Mar 11 2018 - 10:53, said:

But that is a given. No one is disputing that a player's individual performance influence's outcomes. The issue is even though stronger teams should win more often, there is no evidence that the matches play any different. In the matches I tracked, the slightly imbalanced matches(60-70% win chance) actually played slightly closer. The exremely imbalanced matches are not only very rare, but the blowout rate isn't much higher and the underdog teams sometimes win by a landslide.

 

If the match outcomes are predictable and obvious, and there is a strong correlation for skill disparity to produce landslides, where is the proof? There shouldn't be landslide upsets and I collected many screenshots from the matches I tracked. AW should have had data that skill balancing reduced blowouts and provided closer matches. Their developers wouldn't have concluded SIMM was a wasted effort and that a random MM was the fairest method. 

 

https://aw.my.com/us/news/general/developer-diary-matchmaking-20

https://aw.my.com/us/news/general/developer-diary-matchmaker-and-skill

https://aw.my.com/us/news/general/myths-about-matchmaker-part-2-losing-streaks

 

The MM is random, so the players are influencing the outcomes or the metrics that track player performance are irrelevant and the argument for skill balancing is then baseless and pointless. If the MM is determining outcomes, then your argument is no different than Stiffy's; there are no good or bad players as MM picks the winners and losers. You didn't earn those purple or red stats, MM built them for you.

 

"they don't play much different" is a straw man argument.  If one team is going to win, it doesn't have to be by blowout to be a fixed loss.  Sometimes a large map can draw it out.  Sometimes the 1-2 good players on the bad team can draw it out.  Sometimes the really good team plays terrible and draws it out.  The issue is not 'how they play', the issue is they are 'fixed'.  Neato has tracked blowouts and battle length, but these aren't the correct items to track.  He really needs to track 'when it was really over'.  And we all know what I mean by this.  When you are down 6 tanks and 4k hp at the two minute mark, it's over.  Whether it's a blowout, or over quickly is not the point.  The point is, the better team is going to crush the less skilled team - and that part is fixed.

-

Also, MM does pick winners and loser.  Just no every battle as you incorrectly imply.  In about 40% of the battles, MM does pick the winner.  In about 60% of the battles, individual skill and effort push a players win rate over time.



Hurk #1694 Posted Mar 12 2018 - 06:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 55850 battles
  • 17,382
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

its never "over" until the match ends. 

i cannot tell you how many times i have out capped the winning team. i cannot tell you how many times i have caused a draw. i can tell you that i have fed 9 teams their own teeth because their 5+ to 1 lead was not a sure thing. 

 

how games usually go is all most people care about though. 

there are no "fixed" games. at all, ever. 

what there are... is games where the other 14 people on your team have more influence than you. games where the map picked works against your tank selection. games where RNG just totally wrecks you. games where you arent going to make up for the lack of skill of those other players because the other team isnt bad enough to allow it. 

 

these games are not "fixed". they are RANDOM

 

many years ago i had the same argument with older forum failures than you. they had the same bad idea that the game was somehow pre-determined/rigged/fixed/etc. its simply not true. 

what is true, is that YOU are only 3.33% of what goes into a match.  stop making the very stupid assumption that you are 100% in control of the match instead. 



StiffWind #1695 Posted Mar 12 2018 - 08:31

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17744 battles
  • 2,074
  • [MOV] MOV
  • Member since:
    03-15-2017

View PostHurk, on Mar 12 2018 - 06:38, said:

its never "over" until the match ends.

i cannot tell you how many times i have out capped the winning team. i cannot tell you how many times i have caused a draw. i can tell you that i have fed 9 teams their own teeth because their 5+ to 1 lead was not a sure thing.

 

how games usually go is all most people care about though.

there are no "fixed" games. at all, ever.

what there are... is games where the other 14 people on your team have more influence than you. games where the map picked works against your tank selection. games where RNG just totally wrecks you. games where you arent going to make up for the lack of skill of those other players because the other team isnt bad enough to allow it.

 

these games are not "fixed". they are RANDOM.

 

many years ago i had the same argument with older forum failures than you. they had the same bad idea that the game was somehow pre-determined/rigged/fixed/etc. its simply not true.

what is true, is that YOU are only 3.33% of what goes into a match.  stop making the very stupid assumption that you are 100% in control of the match instead.

 

Yeah...they are "random"...and you are either stupid or blind...maybe both.  When everyone sees it except the few, the few need to re-assess their possible motives for "not seeing it".  It's time to hang it up.

 



Staz211 #1696 Posted Mar 12 2018 - 08:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 27045 battles
  • 3,906
  • Member since:
    06-11-2012

View PostStiffWind, on Mar 12 2018 - 02:31, said:

 

Yeah...they are "random"...and you are either stupid or blind...maybe both.  When everyone sees it except the few, the few need to re-assess their possible motives for "not seeing it".  It's time to hang it up.

 

 

He presents a coherent stance supported by data. 

 

You throw insults and, essentially, assert "I'm right, you're wrong" as an argument. 

 

I'm with Hurk on this one. I've been playing this game since 2012. None if these topics are new; no ideas are original or ground breaking. The MM is not rigged. It is completely random, which is about as fair as it can get. 

 

 



_Tsavo_ #1697 Posted Mar 12 2018 - 11:07

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 45843 battles
  • 19,520
  • [BRVE] BRVE
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

View PostStaz211, on Mar 12 2018 - 02:47, said:

 

He presents a coherent stance supported by data. 

 

You throw insults and, essentially, assert "I'm right, you're wrong" as an argument. 

 

I'm with Hurk on this one. I've been playing this game since 2012. None if these topics are new; no ideas are original or ground breaking. The MM is not rigged. It is completely random, which is about as fair as it can get. 

 

 

 

That's all stiff does, throw insults.



NeatoMan #1698 Posted Mar 12 2018 - 12:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 28180 battles
  • 20,422
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostSoTrue, on Mar 12 2018 - 00:11, said:

 

So much this ^

 

Yes it does.  So has every other persons data who's posted it.  'x' percentage of games, under random, are fixed before they even start.  This group needs to be eliminated.  All games should be winnable/loseable.

 

"they don't play much different" is a straw man argument.  If one team is going to win, it doesn't have to be by blowout to be a fixed loss.  Sometimes a large map can draw it out.  Sometimes the 1-2 good players on the bad team can draw it out.  Sometimes the really good team plays terrible and draws it out.  The issue is not 'how they play', the issue is they are 'fixed'.  Neato has tracked blowouts and battle length, but these aren't the correct items to track.  He really needs to track 'when it was really over'.  And we all know what I mean by this.  When you are down 6 tanks and 4k hp at the two minute mark, it's over.  Whether it's a blowout, or over quickly is not the point.  The point is, the better team is going to crush the less skilled team - and that part is fixed.

-

Also, MM does pick winners and loser.  Just no every battle as you incorrectly imply.  In about 40% of the battles, MM does pick the winner.  In about 60% of the battles, individual skill and effort push a players win rate over time.

Turn off XVM.   It's a completely self-inflicted wound, but since you obviously do not want to learn or change your mind. then I am glad WG has random MM.  Why?  because you deserve it.  You deserve every single "rigged" match.  You deserve every single game where the outcome is "pre-determined".  I will dance a dance of joy every time you make another one of these threads, for it means WG has stuck it to you again.  Your glass is half empty, so they might as well piss in it too. 



Jer1413 #1699 Posted Mar 12 2018 - 12:53

    Captain

  • Players
  • 47346 battles
  • 1,510
  • [RR13] RR13
  • Member since:
    02-24-2013

View PostSoTrue, on Mar 12 2018 - 05:11, said:

 

So much this ^

 

Yes it does.  So has every other persons data who's posted it.  'x' percentage of games, under random, are fixed before they even start.  This group needs to be eliminated.  All games should be winnable/loseable.

 

"they don't play much different" is a straw man argument.  If one team is going to win, it doesn't have to be by blowout to be a fixed loss.  Sometimes a large map can draw it out.  Sometimes the 1-2 good players on the bad team can draw it out.  Sometimes the really good team plays terrible and draws it out.  The issue is not 'how they play', the issue is they are 'fixed'.  Neato has tracked blowouts and battle length, but these aren't the correct items to track.  He really needs to track 'when it was really over'.  And we all know what I mean by this.  When you are down 6 tanks and 4k hp at the two minute mark, it's over.  Whether it's a blowout, or over quickly is not the point.  The point is, the better team is going to crush the less skilled team - and that part is fixed.

-

Also, MM does pick winners and loser.  Just no every battle as you incorrectly imply.  In about 40% of the battles, MM does pick the winner.  In about 60% of the battles, individual skill and effort push a players win rate over time.

 

 

As per the bolded text:

 

You've always made the point that it's not about wins and losses, it's about "gameplay". You seem to be contradicting yourself.

 

 



Urabouttudie #1700 Posted Mar 12 2018 - 13:50

    Major

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

there will come a day when the only active threads on this forum will be MM rigging and "where did everyone go?" threads...

 

Then it won't matter what patent WG has in use...






5 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users