Jump to content


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


  • Please log in to reply
1967 replies to this topic

SoTrue #1821 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 06:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 33331 battles
  • 3,302
  • [ATTOP] ATTOP
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011

View PostJer1413, on Mar 14 2018 - 03:03, said:

 

You're the one who stated "all things being equal". I was just clarifying that obviously they aren't. Some players are better than others and naturally give their team an advantage.

 

Balancing teams artificially just allows poor players to win as much as good players. How is that fair?

 

When things like tier, tank type and maps are balanced it is an attempt to take these out of the equation as far as one team having an advantage over the other.

 

When you balance skill, you also remove it from the equation so it is now meaningless as to the outcome. So your skill has no bearing on whether you win or lose. Who wants to play a game like that? I strive to get better at the game so I can win more, it's as simple as that.

 

 

They only 'give their team an advantage' when random mm allows them to do so.  If both teams are balanced, no one player give his team an advantage/disadvantage.

View Post_Tsavo, on Mar 14 2018 - 04:17, said:

Our understanding of fair is an equal starting position, Jer1413.

 

Theirs is an understanding of fair to be an equal result.

 

 

That's the fundamental reason for most of the bickering back and forth here.

 

Yeah, but 'fair at the start' is the key to good gameplay.

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 14 2018 - 04:51, said:

 

If they weren't "rigged" then you more than likely wouldn't have won with 0 damage, if you were put on an AWFULLY imbalanced team, you wouldn't have done 6k and still lost, with a balanced team, the others would have gotten enough for a win.  So they are rigged for auto-win and auto-loss, you just don't want to accept it.  Not out of malice, out of bad programming.

He just showed you that wn% wasn't affected, yet you still laughingly deny it.  Wow....

 

The "effects" of fair matches are easy to calculate, many people will not keep leaving, newer players will stick around instead of being driven away by a CRAP slot machine MM that we have now.  Once words spreads or people check back in with the game to see any improvements, many will come back to enjoy fair battles and not the CRAP slot machine MM they remember.

As for how it relates to society.  Just wow, yeah, it's soooooo bad for all of us to invest in the education of others in our country.  It would be so bad to educated people for today's jobs and have them become tax payers instead of a drain on the economy.  It would be so bad to invest in people instead of in the Prison Industrial Complex.  People don't turn to crime because they want to, they do so because they have no hope of anything else, or the jobs that are available, don't pay enough to even afford a place to rent to live, so they turn to crime to make up the difference.  Not unlike the US does, can't pay it's bills.....oh, just attack this country and use it's resources to help make up the difference.  The others, attack legally for doing the same thing you do, hack in and steal what they've researched.  Oh, and instead of educating your own, bring in foreigners that will work for less so the greedy can have even more.

 

I know right, I SHOWED him physical proof that win rates aren't forced to 50% - still denies it - sad.

View PostKliphie, on Mar 14 2018 - 04:59, said:

 

George Will had a famous quote on baseball that applies to WoT very well.

 

 

 

 

YEah but pro baseball only lets pros play.  Has salary caps.  And only survives as a 'product' if the league is competitive.  WG does none of that.  It allows players who've never played a single game to buy a tier 8 premium and throws them in with people who've played 20k battles.   And then, often enough, puts all of them on one team vs. a team of veteran players.

View PostStaz211, on Mar 14 2018 - 05:14, said:

 

I typically avoid insults in my responses, but this is just about one of the most patently idiotic things I have read on these forums, and that's saying something.

 

I would not win a 0 damage game because the MM rigged the match, I would win because there were 14 other individuals who contributed enough to win the match. This may be hard to comprehend, but it's not all about you. Shocker, I know, but the MM doesn't care about you; your team doesn't care about you; the opposing team doesn't care about you. You are just one of thirty players competing for damage, kills, position, and ultimately the win. Sometimes a few of those faceless individuals will work together in a manner somehwat resembling teamwork, and often times those moments account for  your blow out.

 

As for the rest of your asinine post; thank you for giving me exactly what I wanted. I have now confirmed the exact type of person I am dealing with, and your inability to comprehend the fundamental difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome makes perfect sense.

 

So predictable.

 

Yes you can win a rigged match with zero damage.  BECAUSE mm put all the skill on your team, and little-to-none on the enemy.  I see this all the time, it's usually some poor good player in a really slow tank.  He can't even get a shot off because the enemy evaporates so quickly.

View PostStaz211, on Mar 14 2018 - 05:21, said:

 

The MM is completely random. There is literally no better definition of equality of opportunity.

 

This isn't about stopping the loss of players; there is a whole host of other chronic fixed that WG could do to fix that. This is about wanting to be rewarded with wins that you did not earn; this is about the fundamental inability for some people to take ownership of their own actions, behaviour, and skill level. This is about demanding something you did not earn at the expense of others.

 

WEqual opportunity 'TO GET BAD MATCHUPS' is the only thing 'equal' about random mm.  No one should be the only good player on their team.

View PostNeatoMan, on Mar 14 2018 - 06:17, said:

If they all follow the same logic and understanding of XVM that budha displays, then they are no more believable than he is.   It's like asking for advice on how to play a tank.  I'm not going to believe the hordes of tomatoes who have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding on how to properly use that tank.   SBMM won't make anything "right" other than redistributing wins and losses.

 

There will be no 'redistribution'  of wins.  sbmm will only guarantee every win is against an equally skilled opponent.

View PostNixeldon, on Mar 14 2018 - 07:20, said:

I know. You can't seem to explain what it would do, you just "believe" it would be an obvious improvement.  EJC said that blowouts were obviously what was meant by crap matches none of you objected to his definition. Not one person has explained what a crap match is except for EJC. Even though his assertions are 100% incorrect, at least he offered that much.

 

Stop using the straw man allegation. You clearly don't know what it means.

 

It is precisely the point! Everyone, except for you, is claiming that SBMM will make the game play better. Short matches and blowouts are frequently recurring complaints that are attributed to a dislike of a random mm and those exact attributes are what are claimed to be alleviated by skill balancing, except by you.

 

No. We all don't know what you mean by this. I spent the past few days reviewing my last 500 matches and installed XVM for reference. None of them fit your 6 tanks/4k hp within two minutes. I had a total of two matches that ended under 4 minutes. Using WN8 as the prediction(slightly better than win rate alone), we lost a 61% CTW to being capped at 11:34 and won a 54% CTW by 15-3 at 11:12.

 

A match is over when it is over and the rest of what you stated is garbage.

 

I never implied the MM picked any or all winners and losers. That is the domain of you, Stiffy, Shadora, eteam, et al.

 

I have tracked matches, I have seen various data types and none of it supports what you are claiming.

 

You first have to understand what is fact. Your tracking did nothing but demonstrate the accuracy of the Chance To Win calculation. Instead of attempting to understand why the prediction was off by almost 6% you jumped to a conclusion you hadn't tested. 6% is quite significant as far as player win rate distribution is concerned.

 

1) XVM was underrating your team weight based on your account when you started tracking. You had a lower xTE rating in the M6 and a lower win rate. You had a low average tier and a lower account WN8. Assuming your performance normalized with enough remaining battles to allow for random factors and stat correction, then XVM CTW was very inaccurate in the range it should have been most accurate.

 

Yes. I have a record and I have screen shots. There is no correlation in my data to anything you have ever posted.

 

So much wrong here...  Blowouts are bad.  But, as I've stated numerous times before, there are two types.  Snowball, the traditional kind where one team gets an advantage and it 'snowballs' into a blowout.  These are fine, as BOTH teams have the SAME opportunity to get an early advantage.  The other kind of blowout is the Steamroll.  This happens when a greatly more skilled team steamrolls over a much weaker team.  These are not fine, as one team never had a chance.  This comes down to the 'does it matter how you got there if you get to the same place' line of thought.  It does matter.  Your kid dies.  No matter how he dies, he's dead, ends up in exactly the same spot.  But, if he dies in his sleep of old age that's one thing, if he's run over in the street at age 6 - well that's different now isn't it.  AND IT MATTERS 'HOW' he dies.  Same with blowouts.  It DOES MATTER which kind of blowout it is.

-

You don't know what the straw man argument is.

-

SBMM will make EVERY BATTLE fair, at least at the start.  That alone with make gameplay better.  You ever play game where you know you'll lose before you start?  No, on one does this.  Same for knowing you'll win.  It's boring.

-

Let me explain 'when a game is really over'.  Time expired, or last tank is killed IS NOT when a battle is over.  Yet that's all Neato tracks.  And that's why his data/opinion are wrong.  We've all been in the battle where you are down 6 tanks or 5k hit point within the first 2-3 minutes.  THAT'S WHEN THE BATTLE IS REALLY OVER.  Now it may take a few more minutes to clean up the stragglers, but the game was over at the 2-3 minute mark.  That's the stat that needs to be tracked.

-

If you've tracked the data, as you claim, post it or shut up.  Heck, give it to Neato in raw format, he'll graph and chart it for you.

-

My tracking of actual battles is fact.  Those battles happened, those are the results.  That's as 'fact' as 'fact' can be.  And the 6% bullcrud.  You are trying to put 'theory' over fact.  Facts win.  Always.  There was no 'jumping to conclusion'.  There was simply tracking 'reality', and looking at the results.

-

Neato tried the 'xvm was underrating you at the start' bullcrud as well.  I had originally tracked 1200 battles.  Neato claimed I was being underestimated.  So I tracked 800 more. NO CHANGE IN THE RESULT AT ALL.  Now maybe in the first 100-300 battles I was being 'underrating, but not after 800, not after 1200, not after 2000.  Fail argument.

-

Again, you claim screenshots and data. Let's see it.  Put up, or quit making it up.

 



spud_tuber #1822 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 06:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 59030 battles
  • 8,648
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostSoTrue, on Mar 14 2018 - 23:19, said:

 

*snip*
Wow, the actual data does not confirm my opinion, so he asks 'can you adjust the data?'.  Sad.  That's the problem with both these guys.  Actual data proves sbmm WILL NOT force a player to 50% - AND THEY STILL TRY TO SAY IT WILL.  Sad.

 

*snip*

I'm telling you that your data is corrupted and that it might be salvageable with an adjustment.  If you had a program whose predicted the freezing points of salt water at various concentrations averaged 2° higher than what you actually measured with a thermometer you knew was accurate, would you?  Or any data based on those predictions?

 

Similarly, any data based on a predicted chance to win that differs significantly from actual win rate is highly suspect.  I'm not even entirely sure such an adjustment is acceptable, or if the entire dataset is permanently corrupted.  But even if it were adjuated, I've no clue what it might show.  Would at least be interesting to see.  You're still within the 40/60 range with your own win rate either way, so the effect of cutting off games outside that window won't be as strong on you as it might be on others. 

 

OTOH, someone with a 65% win rate is going to have his win chance curve peak right at 65%, well outside your hypothetical 40-60 range.  Even some one right at 60% is going to have half his win chance curve above your cutoff.  You can't in good faith claim it won't have a serious effect on the games they see, and still pretend to understand statistics.  

 



EmperorJuliusCaesar #1823 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 08:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 37052 battles
  • 5,741
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostNeatoMan, on Mar 14 2018 - 08:18, said:

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 14 2018 - 10:54, said:

I tracked them via pen and paper because that's easier than tabbing out of the game and risk a client crash.  My results were between 41-42%, slightly more than 40%.

He's shown you his data and it clearly shows that 40% are crap pointless battles that are driving people away from the game.

How did you ascertain "crap" and "pointless"?   Without knowing your methodology or logic I can only guess as to what you mean by "crap". Without being able to compare our data we might as well be comparing apples and oranges.   I don't platoon, seal club, gold spam, or pad my stats.  I simply play the game, and I don't seem to get as many crap games as you do.

 

Block Quote

As for crap matches they are the ones where the skill balance is very skewed and as a result the MM has more influence on the outcome.  (As demonstrated by Neatoman`s graph)

 The problem is everyone who picks that 40% value has absolutely no idea what kind of team imbalance leads to those win chances.  "very skewed" is not a 60% win chance, or 65% or even 70%.   Every example given of heavily skewed teams are examples of games that are 80% win chances or worse.  I agree, those are stacked teams, but those are also rare.

 

Wow, I'm not sure how many times I have to explain the same thing, but I will.  When the match is a steamroll from the start and in 3 mins it's 15-2 or 3, it was a clear crap battle for all involved.  Most hate those matches even when their on the winning side as many openly state.  It's boring, it's pointless....it was decided before the match even started.  So we're wasting 40% of our matches and a significant amount of time playing in battles that don't matter, that aren't even fun. 

I think maybe part of the reason you may get more balanced matches, might be due to play times.  I live in Asia and often have to play with drunken people from NA because of the hours that I play.  But, there's plenty of people that play during main hours that say the same thing, 40% of battles are just wasted, pointless.  It is making people leave the game, and that's sad.  Between my premium tanks, my wifes'(she quit playing after arty nerf) and running two clans with event prizes etc, I've got well over $4k in this game.  I'd hate to see it fail because they can't balance teams a bit to make more of our games fun, instead of so many walkover wins and walkover losses.



EmperorJuliusCaesar #1824 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 08:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 37052 battles
  • 5,741
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostRolling_Pig, on Mar 14 2018 - 09:11, said:

These fn idiots at WOT wont do it.  I quit 5 years ago because of the bs mm not being based on skill.  I have not won one time today and all blow-out losses.   Ready to quit again and everyone in my clan 5000-6500 plus ratings for most say the same thing... getting to the point where its not fun and worthless to play anymore when a team has no chance to win....  Server was down to12000 the other day.  When I used to play it never went below 35000.... when its down to 2000 then maybe they will do something but it will be too late.....

 

You and MANY MANY others sadly.  It's a sick joke at this point really.  The skill discrepancies are too great to ignore.  Do we have players in higher tiers that prob shouldn't be there yet?  Yes, but that is what WG makes you do with the +2 MM, so many lower and mid tiers get such awful MM that you want to race up the line so you're not out-tiered.  Many, including myself, had no idea what all this game consisted of because we were just trying to race up to not be out-tiered.  Meaning many, including myself, didn't start learning the game very much until I had 2 or 3 tier 10s.  It really doesn't help that WG limits clans to 100 people.  In most games, guilds/clans are where people learn, and not many clans have good enough people to teach, yet enough room for newer players to be and learn, that's why I made sub clans, I want to be a part of the solution.  But WG has to do it's part and solve this with skill matching MM or swap MM whatever you wanna call it.  Until then people will keep leaving to play other games where 40% of their time isn't wasted in matches where the outcome was decided before it started.



EmperorJuliusCaesar #1825 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 08:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 37052 battles
  • 5,741
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View Posteteam, on Mar 14 2018 - 09:44, said:

View PostNixeldon, on Mar 14 2018 - 17:20, said:

You are putting your cart before the horse. This isn't a reason "we want". Several are saying win rates won't be affected, which is a contradictory statement. Why didn't you say from the start you wanted to equalize win rates? SBMM will easily contract win rates.

 

 

 

 

 

I understand that SBMM will contract win rates.

That is not the motivation for wanting some form of skill balancing.  My motivation for some form of skill balancing is to simply eliminate those games that have a huge skill disparity. In my opinion these games result in an increase in bots, yolo's, drownings, and camping etc.  These for me are some to the attributes that lessen the game experience and I believe have an influence on players leaving the game.

 

 

 

BINGO!!!!!!!!



EmperorJuliusCaesar #1826 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 09:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 37052 battles
  • 5,741
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostNixeldon, on Mar 14 2018 - 14:48, said:

View Posteteam, on Mar 14 2018 - 12:44, said:

I understand that SBMM will contract win rates.

That is not the motivation for wanting some form of skill balancing.  My motivation for some form of skill balancing is to simply eliminate those games that have a huge skill disparity. In my opinion these games result in an increase in bots, yolo's, drownings, and camping etc.  These for me are some to the attributes that lessen the game experience and I believe have an influence on players leaving the game.

But several others claim it won't affect win rates, which is an issue. If not for the emphasis on winning matches, the rare moments of team cooperation would be nonexistent in WOT.

 

Some bot programs are better than the average player, many players grief, etc. and do so regardless of their teams. There is no evidence that would change. All SBMM would do is incentivize more of that same behavior. Wouldn't a more logical approach be to address the pernicious teammates?

 

The key aspect to consider from AW is they attempted a tighter MM than is being proposed in these threads, even addressing platoons before they scrapped it altogether and their SIMM made little difference.  Aside from super platoons running MBTs(terrible balancing), the win rate smoothing was successful and that was all that was accomplished.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"If not for the emphasis on winning matches, the rare moments of team cooperation would be nonexistent in WOT."

 

Ummm, emphasis?  Were you here before they changed the XP/credit earning system via wins/losses??

Since then the team cooperation has went down, WAY down and many play for stats now instead of wins because of this change.  The emphasis is MUCH lower now than it used to be.  Before, even if you were top damage on the losing team, you got less XP than the bottom guy on the winning team.  That was a better system, it made people play to win, instead of stat padding.



EmperorJuliusCaesar #1827 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 09:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 37052 battles
  • 5,741
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostJer1413, on Mar 14 2018 - 14:59, said:

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 14 2018 - 15:54, said:

 

I tracked them via pen and paper because that's easier than tabbing out of the game and risk a client crash.  My results were between 41-42%, slightly more than 40%.

He's shown you his data and it clearly shows that 40% are crap pointless battles that are driving people away from the game. 

The CRAP slot machine MM is bad for everyone except those that admit to gaming the system to inflate their stats.  When it's admitted to, that says a lot, when people play lower tiers(seal clubbing) to pad their stats, they know what they are doing, they are gaming the system to inflate their stats and look "good" at a 13+ GAME.  It's no wonder why some don't want it change, they don't want a fair fight.

 

You do realize that your standard bearer for the SBMM cause is about the biggest seal clubber/stat padder in the game, right?

 

Ironic isn't it, but I like that he shows how blatantly bad this MM is for the ability to rig/game the system, and how pointless many battles are from the start.



EmperorJuliusCaesar #1828 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 09:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 37052 battles
  • 5,741
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostNeatoMan, on Mar 14 2018 - 15:15, said:

View Posteteam, on Mar 14 2018 - 12:23, said:

​Thanks for your response.  So at the risk of asking you to maybe repeat what you have already posted.  In your experience what percentage of games played would fall into the 2:1 odds category?

When I adjust for tier (which actually helps the SBMM proponents, by moving more games out to higher/lower win chance).  I get ~25% of all my games are greater than 2:1 odds (beyond 70/30% win chance).  However, my skill pushes a few more games beyond 2:1 odds when the curve is shifted higher.  For the average player it's ~20% of games that fall outside 2:1 odds.

 

I use 30/70% win chance because that's the range beyond which I start to see faster games and more blowouts.

 

It must be nice to only have 25% of crap battles, most of us get 40%.



Nixeldon #1829 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 09:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 60879 battles
  • 2,222
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 15 2018 - 02:40, said:

Wow, I'm not sure how many times I have to explain the same thing, but I will.  When the match is a steamroll from the start and in 3 mins it's 15-2 or 3, it was a clear crap battle for all involved.  Most hate those matches even when their on the winning side as many openly state.  It's boring, it's pointless....it was decided before the match even started.  So we're wasting 40% of our matches and a significant amount of time playing in battles that don't matter, that aren't even fun. 

I think maybe part of the reason you may get more balanced matches, might be due to play times.  I live in Asia and often have to play with drunken people from NA because of the hours that I play.  But, there's plenty of people that play during main hours that say the same thing, 40% of battles are just wasted, pointless.  It is making people leave the game, and that's sad.  Between my premium tanks, my wifes'(she quit playing after arty nerf) and running two clans with event prizes etc, I've got well over $4k in this game.  I'd hate to see it fail because they can't balance teams a bit to make more of our games fun, instead of so many walkover wins and walkover losses.

What are you doing to have these types of matches? I don't understand how it is even possible. A match ending in less than 4 minutes is extremely rare. If you are seeing 40% of your matches as 3 minute blowouts, I really want to know how you do it.

 

When I play WOT, it usually off-peak hours. I have seen you in some of my matches and none of them were 3 minute blowouts. 

 

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 15 2018 - 03:02, said:

"If not for the emphasis on winning matches, the rare moments of team cooperation would be nonexistent in WOT."

 

Ummm, emphasis?  Were you here before they changed the XP/credit earning system via wins/losses??

Since then the team cooperation has went down, WAY down and many play for stats now instead of wins because of this change.  The emphasis is MUCH lower now than it used to be.  Before, even if you were top damage on the losing team, you got less XP than the bottom guy on the winning team.  That was a better system, it made people play to win, instead of stat padding.

Where was I? When I started, there were 3 tech trees, no crew perks(like sixth sense), a wide tier spread, 15-16 artillery on a team, etc., etc. I don't remember any better cooperation outside of organized play.

 

Block Quote

  That was a better system, it made people play to win, instead of stat padding.

 You may want to consider seeking professional counseling for your pathological envy disorder.


Edited by Nixeldon, Mar 15 2018 - 09:51.


EmperorJuliusCaesar #1830 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 10:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 37052 battles
  • 5,741
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostNixeldon, on Mar 15 2018 - 00:28, said:

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 15 2018 - 02:40, said:

Wow, I'm not sure how many times I have to explain the same thing, but I will.  When the match is a steamroll from the start and in 3 mins it's 15-2 or 3, it was a clear crap battle for all involved.  Most hate those matches even when their on the winning side as many openly state.  It's boring, it's pointless....it was decided before the match even started.  So we're wasting 40% of our matches and a significant amount of time playing in battles that don't matter, that aren't even fun. 

I think maybe part of the reason you may get more balanced matches, might be due to play times.  I live in Asia and often have to play with drunken people from NA because of the hours that I play.  But, there's plenty of people that play during main hours that say the same thing, 40% of battles are just wasted, pointless.  It is making people leave the game, and that's sad.  Between my premium tanks, my wifes'(she quit playing after arty nerf) and running two clans with event prizes etc, I've got well over $4k in this game.  I'd hate to see it fail because they can't balance teams a bit to make more of our games fun, instead of so many walkover wins and walkover losses.

What are you doing to have these types of matches? I don't understand how it is even possible. A match ending in less than 4 minutes is extremely rare. If you are seeing 40% of your matches as 3 minute blowouts, I really want to know how you do it.

 

When I play WOT, it usually off-peak hours. I have seen you in some of my matches and none of them were 3 minute blowouts. 

 

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 15 2018 - 03:02, said:

"If not for the emphasis on winning matches, the rare moments of team cooperation would be nonexistent in WOT."

 

Ummm, emphasis?  Were you here before they changed the XP/credit earning system via wins/losses??

Since then the team cooperation has went down, WAY down and many play for stats now instead of wins because of this change.  The emphasis is MUCH lower now than it used to be.  Before, even if you were top damage on the losing team, you got less XP than the bottom guy on the winning team.  That was a better system, it made people play to win, instead of stat padding.

Where was I? When I started, there were 3 tech trees, no crew perks(like sixth sense), a wide tier spread, 15-16 artillery on a team, etc., etc. I don't remember any better cooperation outside of organized play.

 

Block Quote

  That was a better system, it made people play to win, instead of stat padding.

 You may want to consider seeking professional counseling for your pathological envy disorder.

 

I'm doing nothing but playing.  What you just said(you not getting them or as many) is EXACTLY why people(not myself) claim that not everyone gets the same "random MM" as others.

When people got crap when they lost, there was more effort towards winning.  But the whining got it changed.  Mostly stat padders that weren't helping their team win were the angry ones.

Just because you don't like reality, doesn't mean I need help, you do.  I don't envy anyone, period. Definitely not in a 13+ video GAME. hahahaahahah



Nixeldon #1831 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 10:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 60879 battles
  • 2,222
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 15 2018 - 04:08, said:

 

I'm doing nothing but playing.  What you just said(you not getting them or as many) is EXACTLY why people(not myself) claim that not everyone gets the same "random MM" as others.

When people got crap when they lost, there was more effort towards winning.  But the whining got it changed.  Mostly stat padders that weren't helping their team win were the angry ones.

Just because you don't like reality, doesn't mean I need help, you do.  I don't envy anyone, period. Definitely not in a 13+ video GAME. hahahaahahah

You show proof of 40% of your matches being 3 minute blowouts, I will gladly eat crow and I'll lead the WOT IS RIGGED! charge. 

 

Not only do I not believe you, but if you can prove it, I would suspect you of rigging matches.



EmperorJuliusCaesar #1832 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 11:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 37052 battles
  • 5,741
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostNixeldon, on Mar 15 2018 - 01:19, said:

You show proof of 40% of your matches being 3 minute blowouts, I will gladly eat crow and I'll lead the WOT IS RIGGED! charge. 

 

Not only do I not believe you, but if you can prove it, I would suspect you of rigging matches.

 

Well, I did it via pen and paper, I'll gladly do it again, though I'm not certain of how I could send them to you???

NeatoMan #1833 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 11:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 28180 battles
  • 20,571
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 15 2018 - 03:05, said:

It must be nice to only have 25% of crap battles, most of us get 40%.

Maybe you need to reevaluate your notion of crap.  btw, I never said 25% were crap. i just said that's the amount of battles in the range where I notice the average duration and number of blowouts change.   There are some battles within that range that aren't quick blowouts, or the underdog team wins.  Those can't possibly be crap.  This is just more proof that your only focus is what XVM tells you, and who wins those games, not the game play.

 

For instance, you play a game and it comes down to you vs a unicum at the end, and you end up losing.  I'd say it was a good game.  You and budha would argue that it depends on whether XVM told you it was a 50% win chance or a 70% win chance; never mind that you ended up in the same situation at the end of the game.

 

Block Quote

When the match is a steamroll from the start and in 3 mins it's 15-2 or 3, it was a clear crap battle for all involved.

 You must be doing something wrong for this to happen to you 40% of the time.  I don't get anywhere near 40% like that.

 

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 15 2018 - 05:32, said:

Well, I did it via pen and paper, I'll gladly do it again, though I'm not certain of how I could send them to you???

Excel is easy.  If you spent half the time plugging in the numbers that you did on the forums you could easily have it done.  Though, judging by your responses here and propensity for exaggerating numbers you'll probably need some method of verification before anybody believes you..



Nixeldon #1834 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 11:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 60879 battles
  • 2,222
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 15 2018 - 05:32, said:

Well, I did it via pen and paper, I'll gladly do it again, though I'm not certain of how I could send them to you???

View PostNeatoMan, on Mar 15 2018 - 05:36, said:

Excel is easy.  If you spent half the time plugging in the numbers that you did on the forums you could easily have it done.  Though, judging by your responses here and propensity for exaggerating numbers you'll probably need some method of verification before anybody believes you..

 

You could also screenshot the match results by date and we can verify the ratio through battle history. I would be surprised if 3 minute blowouts were even 10% of your matches let alone 40%.



EmperorJuliusCaesar #1835 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 11:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 37052 battles
  • 5,741
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostNeatoMan, on Mar 15 2018 - 02:36, said:

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 15 2018 - 03:05, said:

It must be nice to only have 25% of crap battles, most of us get 40%.

Maybe you need to reevaluate your notion of crap.  btw, I never said 25% were crap. i just said that's the amount of battles in the range where I notice the average duration and number of blowouts change.   There are some battles within that range that aren't quick blowouts, or the underdog team wins.  Those can't possibly be crap.  This is just more proof that your only focus is what XVM tells you, and who wins those games, not the game play.

 

For instance, you play a game and it comes down to you vs a unicum at the end, and you end up losing.  I'd say it was a good game.  You and budha would argue that it depends on whether XVM told you it was a 50% win chance or a 70% win chance; never mind that you ended up in the same situation at the end of the game.

 

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 15 2018 - 05:32, said:

Well, I did it via pen and paper, I'll gladly do it again, though I'm not certain of how I could send them to you???

Excel is easy.  If you spent half the time plugging in the numbers that you did on the forums you could easily have it done.  Though, judging by your responses here and propensity for exaggerating numbers you'll probably need some method of verification before anybody believes you..

If it comes down to me and him, heck yeah that's a GREAT game.  That's what we want, more close battles, less 3 min wipeouts, and/or fewer being essentially over in 3 mins and only stragglers and stat padders hanging back to farm damaging dragging it out to the still already decided loss. 

XVM isn't the problem, CRAP slot machine MM is, and it's driving people from the game.  XVM only tells you the WHY of WHY it happened. 

I don't have Excel on my gaming PC, it doesn't have anything other than Tanks and TeamSpeak.  I'm usually on the train, on my phone when I'm in the forums. Sometimes my tablet if the battery hasn't died.  I've been out of University for over a decade, I don't know how to use Excel and wouldn't waste time on learning it considering I'm already busy with language classes and tutoring.  Hopefully my 5th language will be my last. 

So what you're saying is, even if I do in on paper they wouldn't believe it?  ugh, well, there's that I guess.  Doesn't conform to your argument, "I don't believe it".



EmperorJuliusCaesar #1836 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 11:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 37052 battles
  • 5,741
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

O....M....G

So I'm on the train, I read the links that someone posted earlier about A/W's SBMM, only to find out they use WIN RATE to make the teams.....Just wow, about the dumbest thing you could possibly do.  No wonder it didn't work very well.  Glad I read it, now whenever someone uses it as an excuse to not use SBMM, I, and others can have a good laugh when I respond and tell all that it didn't work because the morons used win RATE to calculate teams. 



EmperorJuliusCaesar #1837 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 12:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 37052 battles
  • 5,741
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostNixeldon, on Mar 15 2018 - 02:55, said:

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 15 2018 - 05:32, said:

Well, I did it via pen and paper, I'll gladly do it again, though I'm not certain of how I could send them to you???

View PostNeatoMan, on Mar 15 2018 - 05:36, said:

Excel is easy.  If you spent half the time plugging in the numbers that you did on the forums you could easily have it done.  Though, judging by your responses here and propensity for exaggerating numbers you'll probably need some method of verification before anybody believes you..

 

You could also screenshot the match results by date and we can verify the ratio through battle history. I would be surprised if 3 minute blowouts were even 10% of your matches let alone 40%.

 

Whoa, I didn't say that 40% were 3 min blowouts....I said 40% were over before they started.  Big difference.  Some get dragged out, but they were still over before they started.  



NeatoMan #1838 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 12:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 28180 battles
  • 20,571
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 15 2018 - 05:56, said:

If it comes down to me and him, heck yeah that's a GREAT game.  That's what we want, more close battles, less 3 min wipeouts, and/or fewer being essentially over in 3 mins and only stragglers and stat padders hanging back to farm damaging dragging it out to the still already decided loss.

If it's all about blowouts then you can do away with the idea that unbalanced MM is causing them.   Blowouts happen regardless of team balance, and most of them occur with balanced teams because that's what the MM gives most of the time.   You are trying to treat one "problem" by tinkering with something totally different.   Get rid of unbalanced matchups and you'll still get the same frequency of "crap" games where one team has a huge advantage after only a few minutes.

 

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 15 2018 - 06:00, said:

Whoa, I didn't say that 40% were 3 min blowouts....I said 40% were over before they started.  Big difference.  Some get dragged out, but they were still over before they started.  

Is this just another way for you to walk back from the idea that it's only blowouts you care about, and turn it into who wins or loses again?


Edited by NeatoMan, Mar 15 2018 - 12:04.


Nixeldon #1839 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 12:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 60879 battles
  • 2,222
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 15 2018 - 05:58, said:

O....M....G

So I'm on the train, I read the links that someone posted earlier about A/W's SBMM, only to find out they use WIN RATE to make the teams.....Just wow, about the dumbest thing you could possibly do.  No wonder it didn't work very well.  Glad I read it, now whenever someone uses it as an excuse to not use SBMM, I, and others can have a good laugh when I respond and tell all that it didn't work because the morons used win RATE to calculate teams. 

There are countless methods for balancing teams by weight. AW even explained why they chose to start win win rates. What would you use? PR? WN8? They are basically the same for this purpose as they are intended to correlate to win ratios. For WOT purposes, a per tank rating metric would be more than close enough.

 

You were all in favor of the "HiBan chart" for balancing which was essentially the same thing. 

 

 



Jer1413 #1840 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 12:37

    Captain

  • Players
  • 47695 battles
  • 1,531
  • [RR13] RR13
  • Member since:
    02-24-2013

View PostSoTrue, on Mar 15 2018 - 05:43, said:

 

They only 'give their team an advantage' when random mm allows them to do so.  If both teams are balanced, no one player give his team an advantage/disadvantage.

 

 

 Your kid dies.  No matter how he dies, he's dead, ends up in exactly the same spot.  But, if he dies in his sleep of old age that's one thing, if he's run over in the street at age 6 - well that's different now isn't it.  AND IT MATTERS 'HOW' he dies.  Same with blowouts.  It DOES MATTER which kind of blowout it is.

-

 

 

Again I ask, what is the point of getting better at a game if the system doesn't allow your increased skill the opportunity to improve your team?

 

As to the second point, did you seriously just go there? You bring up the death of a child as an analogy for a video game discussion? What kind of a sick bastard are you?

 

 

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 15 2018 - 08:02, said:

"If not for the emphasis on winning matches, the rare moments of team cooperation would be nonexistent in WOT."

 

Ummm, emphasis?  Were you here before they changed the XP/credit earning system via wins/losses??

Since then the team cooperation has went down, WAY down and many play for stats now instead of wins because of this change.  The emphasis is MUCH lower now than it used to be.  Before, even if you were top damage on the losing team, you got less XP than the bottom guy on the winning team.  That was a better system, it made people play to win, instead of stat padding.

 

I don't recall the XP/credit system ever being changed in regards to winning/losing.






3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users