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

EmperorJuliusCaesar #1841 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 12:59

    Major

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

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

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?

 

How many times must it be explained to you, yes blowouts happen, but 3 min STEAMROLL blowouts are what need to be done away with completely. 



EmperorJuliusCaesar #1842 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 13:01

    Major

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

View PostJer1413, on Mar 15 2018 - 03:37, said:

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.

 

It was, there were so many complaints about it from those sitting back farming damage(and making their teams lose) and posting pictures of their amazing damage games yet losing and getting less XP than the bottom guy on the winning team that they changed it.  Since then, teamplay has gotten FAR worse and many play for stats only.  HUGE MISTAKE imo.



NeatoMan #1843 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 13:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 28180 battles
  • 20,556
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 15 2018 - 06:59, said:

How many times must it be explained to you, yes blowouts happen, but 3 min STEAMROLL blowouts are what need to be done away with completely. 

You'll still get those just as often with SBMM.  You are only tinkering around the edges when it comes to blowouts and balancing teams .



Staz211 #1844 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 13:13

    Major

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

View PostSoTrue, on Mar 15 2018 - 00:19, said:

 

wow, shown obvious proof and still denies it.  Sad.  I totally proved it's possible.  Where is your data? Oh that's right, all you have is your opinion.  Which means nothing.

 

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.

 

Toons are something that would need to be worked out.  Making them a 'block' and taking the average skill is one way.  Another would be to take the highest player, and make the whole toon have that skill level.  Or you could still average them individually.  It would have to be tested to see which ends up being the best way to factor them into balanced teams.

 

And you still don't get it.  That there is an imbalance is the only reason any player can 'shift' anything.  If every battle was between balanced teams, there would be no shift.  Every battle would be fair.  That there are imbalanced teams is a loophole that allows players to shift their bell curve.  It shouldn't be possible.

 

View PostSoTrue, on Mar 15 2018 - 00:43, 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

 

You are mind blowingly hopeless. 

Edited by Staz211, Mar 15 2018 - 13:14.


Jer1413 #1845 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 13:19

    Captain

  • Players
  • 47660 battles
  • 1,530
  • [RR13] RR13
  • Member since:
    02-24-2013

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 15 2018 - 12:01, said:

 

It was, there were so many complaints about it from those sitting back farming damage(and making their teams lose) and posting pictures of their amazing damage games yet losing and getting less XP than the bottom guy on the winning team that they changed it.  Since then, teamplay has gotten FAR worse and many play for stats only.  HUGE MISTAKE imo.

 

Can you reference a patch number? Because I still call BS.

 

How do you think it would play out in a SBMM system then, when everybody is pretty well guaranteed 50% wins anyways. Why even try to win? Why would people bother getting better if the system won't allow them to win more, and if they do get better, it would simply be to pad their stats as the system wouldn't allow them to win more?

 

Win-rate socialism is all it is. No matter how much or how little you contribute, you still get to win half of your battles so you don't feel too bad about sucking at the game.

 



Staz211 #1846 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 13:26

    Major

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

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 15 2018 - 06:59, said:

 

How many times must it be explained to you, yes blowouts happen, but 3 min STEAMROLL blowouts are what need to be done away with completely. 

 

I finally took a second to actually go an check your profile and take a peek at your WR.

 

All the nonsensical garbage you've been posting makes perfect sense now. 

 

The average DPG in your tier 10s alone explains why you might think games are rigged. Every time you load up in a tier 10 vehicle, you are depriving your team of a top tier vehicle that can even do close to its' own HP in damage. 


Edited by Staz211, Mar 15 2018 - 13:29.


Kliphie #1847 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 13:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 32838 battles
  • 5,395
  • [GFLC] GFLC
  • Member since:
    07-20-2012

View PostStaz211, on Mar 15 2018 - 07:26, said:

 

I finally took a second to actually go an check your profile and take a peek at your WR.

 

All the nonsensical garbage you've been posting makes perfect sense now. 

 

The average DPG in your tier 10s alone explains why you might think games are rigged. Every time you load up in a tier 10 vehicle, you are depriving your team of a top tier vehicle that can even do close to its' own HP in damage. 

 

In before ad hominem claim :popcorn: 

Staz211 #1848 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 14:00

    Major

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

View PostKliphie, on Mar 15 2018 - 07:43, said:

 

In before ad hominem claim :popcorn: 

 

Stats are not ad hominem. 

 

Simple example using tier 10s, since they are always top tier. I average over 3000 dpg in my E100, he averages less than 1500 dpg in his E100. On average, based on raw damage alone, I do enough damage to remove one and a half tier 10 tanks worth of HP from the match; on average, he can remove just over half of a tier 10s tanks worth of HP from the match. That is extremely significant, and will have significant results in terms of wins. 

 

Without me even diving into KPG, survivability, etc, that raw DPG difference means that I will, on average, remove one enemy top tier gun from each match and severely damage another. That is a significant net positive on my teams chance to win, even if I die. On average, he will not even remove one enemy top tier gun from the match. That's a top tier gun that can keep firing, keep damaging, and keep killing. 

 

MM doesn't account for such a stark difference. "Rigged" matches don't produce such a varried result. Individual skill is the only thing impacting those averages. Such a significant difference in the ability to put damage down range and remove enemy guns from the fight translates to a measurable difference in matches won. 

 

It makes sense, to some warped degree, that a player coming from his position would believe and argue things that are so proveably wrong. It's hard to accept that you may be your own problem. 



Kliphie #1849 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 14:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 32838 battles
  • 5,395
  • [GFLC] GFLC
  • Member since:
    07-20-2012

View PostStaz211, on Mar 15 2018 - 08:00, said:

 

Stats are not ad hominem. 

 

Simple example using tier 10s, since they are always top tier. I average over 3000 dpg in my E100, he averages less than 1500 dpg in his E100. On average, based on raw damage alone, I do enough damage to remove one and a half tier 10 tanks worth of HP from the match; on average, he can remove just over half of a tier 10s tanks worth of HP from the match. That is extremely significant, and will have significant results in terms of wins. 

 

Without me even diving into KPG, survivability, etc, that raw DPG difference means that I will, on average, remove one enemy top tier gun from each match and severely damage another. That is a significant net positive on my teams chance to win, even if I die. On average, he will not even remove one enemy top tier gun from the match. That's a top tier gun that can keep firing, keep damaging, and keep killing. 

 

MM doesn't account for such a stark difference. "Rugged" matches don't produce such a carried result. Individual skill is the only thing impacting those averages. Such a significant difference in the ability to put damage down range and remove enemy guns from the fight translates to a measurable difference in matches won. 

 

It's make, to some warped degree, sense that a player coming from his position would believe and argue things that are so proveably wrong. It's hard to accept that you may be your own problem. 

 

Didn't say it was true, just said it was coming (hence the popcorn)

Staz211 #1850 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 14:04

    Major

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

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

 

Didn't say it was true, just said it was coming (hence the popcorn)

 

Ah, well yes, I suppose you're right. Oh well, let's see what happens :popcorn:

Nixeldon #1851 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 15:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 60879 battles
  • 2,218
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

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.  

You keep positing 40% of matches are "crap" even saying they are predetermined. You said you could predict automatic wins and losses before the match even started.

I asked multiple times for someone to explain what a "crap" match was, and all I got was circular replies.

 

Everyone kept saying,"Look at the chart!" Well, I don't have a chart in my matches. Budha said it was 25% or worse win chances. So I show him 25% or less win chances where the underdog steamrolls the living hell out of the enemy team. 

 

When pressed on what a crap match is and how you know without charts, you said:

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Feb 28 2018 - 03:58, said:

If you can't tell a mismatched battle without XVM, something is wrong with you.

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Feb 28 2018 - 05:26, said:

You're of course free to lie to yourself all you want, but no one is buying it.  We know better, it's far too easy to see.

You were basically saying a crap match is a mismatch and that mismatch is obvious without XVM. I asked how do you know a mismatch(without XVM). You said:

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Feb 28 2018 - 21:01, said:

When it's a sub 4 min steamroll, it's unbalanced.  When you see a Type 5 platoon that waited in queue long enough for MM to "loosen" the MM rules, it's unbalanced.  Some prefer to keep their head in the sand, I understand.

Mismatch became unbalanced which you stated as a sub 4 minute steamroll.

When asked again by NeatoMan what a crap match was:

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. 

You should declare a definition and stick to it. Your goalposts move more than TrueBudha's and that is already difficult to track.

 

View PostSoTrue, on Mar 15 2018 - 00:43, said:

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

I have been providing them to you for two years. You ignore it and shift your premise. I provided a screenshot of a 50/50 XVM CTW(your infallible bible) match earlier in this thread and you proceeded to ignore what it implied and started rebalancing the colors!!! I showed you screenshots last year where XVM CTW weighted me ~30% of my team's weight and you glossed over it as though it didn't exist. I'll be the first to tell anyone I can't be expected to play at that level.

 

In one of your early "XVM is love, XVM is life" threads, I took the time to install XVM and pulled data from 79 matches, all through replays at that, and presented it. You ignored everything about it except that I was winning favored matches. We explained how better players shift their win chances so not everyone has the same win chance distribution, NeatoMan provided a chart and you still plugged your ears and screamed,"LIES!"

 

My primary reason for participating in these MM discussions is to counter your Chewbacca defense so, hopefully, other players will look at things less emotionally. It is all uphill though. It seems feels trump facts for the WOT player base.

 

Here you go with shifting your premise again:

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

 When you are down 6 tanks and 4k hp at the two minute mark, it's over.  

View PostSoTrue, on Mar 15 2018 - 00:43, said:

Let me explain 'when a game is really over...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.

Those matches are so rare, I can't find any in my past 800 matches. Then again, I don't play tier 2 that often.


Edited by Nixeldon, Mar 15 2018 - 16:08.


QuicksilverJPR #1852 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 15:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 27880 battles
  • 4,790
  • [RPG] RPG
  • Member since:
    01-17-2013

View PostNixeldon, on Mar 15 2018 - 09:30, said:

Those matches are so rare, I can't find any in my past 800 matches. Then again, I don't play tier 2 that often.

You're being completely disingenuous at this point.  If you played 30 tier 7-10 games a day, you would have 2-3 games EXACTLY like this.  I know I do.  Hell, I've won some of those games...



Nixeldon #1853 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 15:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 60879 battles
  • 2,218
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostQuicksilverJPR, on Mar 15 2018 - 09:48, said:

You're being completely disingenuous at this point.  If you played 30 tier 7-10 games a day, you would have 2-3 games EXACTLY like this.  I know I do.  Hell, I've won some of those games...

Reread exactly what he stated.

 

I have spent the past 4 days reviewing replays and screenshots. You are more than welcome to look at them yourself. 

 

EDIT: If you are referring to his second statement, yes. At the 3 minute mark, I have some matches where a team has a 6 tank or 5k HP deficit. But not at the 2 minute mark. According to Budha you didn't win any of those.


Edited by Nixeldon, Mar 15 2018 - 16:18.


NeatoMan #1854 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 16:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 28180 battles
  • 20,556
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostQuicksilverJPR, on Mar 15 2018 - 09:48, said:

You're being completely disingenuous at this point.  If you played 30 tier 7-10 games a day, you would have 2-3 games EXACTLY like this.  I know I do.  Hell, I've won some of those games...

25-30% blowout rate at tier 10 seems about right for me, however balance would only change it by a few%,  at best it will drop to 20-25%.   You wouldn't notice that kind of improvement unless you kept track for a while.

 

The problem is that budha and ejc look at the ends of the XVM distribution charts and immediately think "above 60% or below 40% equals blowout"  which is far from the truth.  Favored team does not = blowout.  They are conflating two separate issues, balance vs blowouts.  "Fixing" one does not solve the other.  And when you confront them on which they are trying to address, they keep going back and forth as if they are one and the same.



Nixeldon #1855 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 17:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 60879 battles
  • 2,218
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostNeatoMan, on Mar 15 2018 - 10:18, said:

25-30% blowout rate at tier 10 seems about right for me, however balance would only change it by a few%,  at best it will drop to 20-25%.   You wouldn't notice that kind of improvement unless you kept track for a while.

 

The problem is that budha and ejc look at the ends of the XVM distribution charts and immediately think "above 60% or below 40% equals blowout"  which is far from the truth.  Favored team does not = blowout.  They are conflating two separate issues, balance vs blowouts.  "Fixing" one does not solve the other.  And when you confront them on which they are trying to address, they keep going back and forth as if they are one and the same.

Wait. Apparently I don't understand. Was budha stating the specifics of when a match is over and that was what should be tracked or was it about blowout rates? 

 

I have played several matches of various win chances where a team came back from a double HP deficit or several tanks down to win. I have seen heavy underdogs stomp teams 15-0 in under 5 minutes.

 

My comment was specific to a 6 tank/4k deficit at 2 minutes. In my experience, a team being down 6 tanks in two minutes or even losing 6 tanks in two minutes is very rare and I can't find a match like that from this year. Plus, there was an "and 4K HP" and a "or 5K HP" for some odd reason. This isn't about semantics either as pinning budha to a definitive claim is near impossible.



NeatoMan #1856 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 17:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 28180 battles
  • 20,556
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostNixeldon, on Mar 15 2018 - 11:26, said:

Wait. Apparently I don't understand. Was budha stating the specifics of when a match is over and that was what should be tracked or was it about blowout rates? 

 

I have played several matches of various win chances where a team came back from a double HP deficit or several tanks down to win. I have seen heavy underdogs stomp teams 15-0 in under 5 minutes.

 

My comment was specific to a 6 tank/4k deficit at 2 minutes. In my experience, a team being down 6 tanks in two minutes or even losing 6 tanks in two minutes is very rare and I can't find a match like that from this year. Plus, there was an "and 4K HP" and a "or 5K HP" for some odd reason. This isn't about semantics either as pinning budha to a definitive claim is near impossible.

They are talking about when the win becomes inevitable.  However even that isn't proven by the data.  If what they say is true then I should see faster games in those 40% of games they label "predetermined", but I simply do not see it.

 

They are trying to say that a team that is so much better than the other that it can create such a huge advantage in just 2 or 3 minutes is suddenly incapable of finishing off that team as fast as any regular team that generates a blowout.  If the crux of the battle is over 1 or 2 minutes earlier than in balanced games, then those games should be over at least 1 to 2 minutes faster than balanced games.    They're talking as if those teams suddenly become potato teams and take twice as long as usual to finish off the stragglers, therefore making the unbalanced blowouts indistinguishable from balanced blowouts based on battle duration.  That's complete hogwash.

 

 



Nixeldon #1857 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 18:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 60879 battles
  • 2,218
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostNeatoMan, on Mar 15 2018 - 11:31, said:

They are talking about when the win becomes inevitable.  However even that isn't proven by the data.  If what they say is true then I should see faster games in those 40% of games they label "predetermined", but I simply do not see it.

 

They are trying to say that a team that is so much better than the other that it can create such a huge advantage in just 2 or 3 minutes is suddenly incapable of finishing off that team as fast as any regular team that generates a blowout.  If the crux of the battle is over 1 or 2 minutes earlier than in balanced games, then those games should be over at least 1 to 2 minutes faster than balanced games.    They're talking as if those teams suddenly become potato teams and take twice as long as usual to finish off the stragglers, therefore making the unbalanced blowouts indistinguishable from balanced blowouts based on battle duration.  That's complete hogwash.

OK. Thanks for clarifying.

 

Last year when I tracked matches, I wasn't super concerned with battle duration. I was basically checking XVM accuracy, blowout rates and getting screenshots of peculiar looking win chance weights and blowouts. I may track a few hundred more soon to see how things changed since then, especially WN8 for a balance metric replacing XVM CTW. I have noticed the win chance spread(while not an ideal predictor) is closer to what AW stated for match biases. 

 

I did find a few sub 4 minute matches in my replays. One was a quick cap and the others were 48-54% win chances. I am guessing that even though they fit budha's and EJC's time frame criteria, they could have guessed the outcome from the countdown without XVM and known whether they were "steamrolls" or "blowouts".



Upan_Atom #1858 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 18:20

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 3881 battles
  • 85
  • [-LHN-] -LHN-
  • Member since:
    03-30-2015

View PostHellsfog, on Jan 23 2018 - 22:37, said:

Do a forum search for the other 4,593,584,701,584, thread on the topic. 

 

I've told you a million times to stop exaggerating. 

SoTrue #1859 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 19:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 33309 battles
  • 3,302
  • [ATTOP] ATTOP
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011

View PostNixeldon, on Mar 15 2018 - 06:56, said:

Reread exactly what he stated.

 

I have spent the past 4 days reviewing replays and screenshots. You are more than welcome to look at them yourself.

 

EDIT: If you are referring to his second statement, yes. At the 3 minute mark, I have some matches where a team has a 6 tank or 5k HP deficit. But not at the 2 minute mark. According to Budha you didn't win any of those.

 

View PostNixeldon, on Mar 15 2018 - 08:26, said:

Wait. Apparently I don't understand. Was budha stating the specifics of when a match is over and that was what should be tracked or was it about blowout rates?

 

I have played several matches of various win chances where a team came back from a double HP deficit or several tanks down to win. I have seen heavy underdogs stomp teams 15-0 in under 5 minutes.

 

My comment was specific to a 6 tank/4k deficit at 2 minutes. In my experience, a team being down 6 tanks in two minutes or even losing 6 tanks in two minutes is very rare and I can't find a match like that from this year. Plus, there was an "and 4K HP" and a "or 5K HP" for some odd reason. This isn't about semantics either as pinning budha to a definitive claim is near impossible.

 

View PostNeatoMan, on Mar 15 2018 - 08:31, said:

They are talking about when the win becomes inevitable.  However even that isn't proven by the data.  If what they say is true then I should see faster games in those 40% of games they label "predetermined", but I simply do not see it.

 

They are trying to say that a team that is so much better than the other that it can create such a huge advantage in just 2 or 3 minutes is suddenly incapable of finishing off that team as fast as any regular team that generates a blowout.  If the crux of the battle is over 1 or 2 minutes earlier than in balanced games, then those games should be over at least 1 to 2 minutes faster than balanced games.    They're talking as if those teams suddenly become potato teams and take twice as long as usual to finish off the stragglers, therefore making the unbalanced blowouts indistinguishable from balanced blowouts based on battle duration.  That's complete hogwash.

 

 

 

You guys are daft.  Let me draw it out for you all 3rd grade style:

 

Watch this replay.

It takes 30 seconds for the tanks to actually get in position and spot the first enemy.

At 13:20 (1:40 in), we are up by 4k damage, and 2 kills.  The game is over right here.  They are not coming back from this.

At 13:00 (2 in), we are up by 6k damage, and 3 kills.

At  12:30 (2.5 in), we are up by 9k damage, and 6 kills.

At 10:40 final kill shot was taken.  So it took 1:40 to 'sweep up' the stragglers.

This is a classic STEAMROLL blowout.  They were greatly underskilled, and we just STEAMROLLED right over them.

I get a couple of battles like this every hour I play.  No matter the tier.  Technically this game was over before it started because random mm put 90%  of the skill on my team.  But this clearly illustrates my overall point.  This battle didn't 'end' at 10:40.  It ended at 13:20.  Had it been on a larger map, or had the enemy team had another skilled player - it might have taken a minute or two longer to 'sweep up'.  You can't judge when a battle is over just by when the last tank was killed.  So when Neato says "there is no difference in battle length between blowout and non-blowout' - he hasn't tracked the correct data.

-

There is no excuse for anyone to have to play this kind of bullcrap matchup.  There was no reason a sbmm couldn't have picked these exact 30 tanks, and then swapped a few players so that both teams were 'close to' even.  For all the cries of 'sbmm will punish good players', the random fan boys don't seen to have a problem with the one good player on the enemy team being saddled with a crap team.   This is the definition of punishing a good player.  Sbmm would eliminate this punishment.

-

-

Two other points.  There is no 'hard line' definition for when a battle is 'over'.  In earlier posts I said 2-3 minutes, 4-5k damage down.  It's a wide band of being down by 'x' damage in 'x' amount of time.  There is no need to have a hard definition.  You can recognize it when you see it.  Secondly, sure every once in a blue moon the less skilled team manages to bounce back from being way way down.  But just because you can bounce back 5 times out of a 100, does not justify the 95 crap battle you have to endure.



spud_tuber #1860 Posted Mar 15 2018 - 19:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 58960 battles
  • 8,630
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013
Those 5 battles wouldn't be memorable, and some of the most heart pumping excitement, if they weren't such upsets.  If troy university never played football against teams like LSU, they'd have never beaten a team like LSU, and what a memory that must be for the players.  Or even bigger example, these FCS teams that upset FBS teams.




4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users