Jump to content


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


  • Please log in to reply
1958 replies to this topic

Jer1413 #1881 Posted Mar 16 2018 - 01:04

    Captain

  • Players
  • 47325 battles
  • 1,507
  • [RR13] RR13
  • Member since:
    02-24-2013

View PostStaz211, on Mar 15 2018 - 23:52, said:

 

You want skill based MM, but ruled out skill in order to make your argument. 

 

I couldn't make this up if I tried. 

 

It's obviously much to complicated for simpletons like us to understand.

SoTrue #1882 Posted Mar 16 2018 - 03:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 32915 battles
  • 3,302
  • [A-O-G] A-O-G
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011

View Postspud_tuber, on Mar 15 2018 - 10:27, said:

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.

 

Yeah, I'm sure the other 50 times they've been crushed are a distant memory...

SoTrue #1883 Posted Mar 16 2018 - 03:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 32915 battles
  • 3,302
  • [A-O-G] A-O-G
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011

View PostNeatoMan, on Mar 15 2018 - 10:48, said:

What's the difference between a blowout like the one above and one with a balanced team if they both unfold the same way? You and ejc and keep saying the unbalanced ones are faster. Now you are not. If they aren't faster, then your only distinguishing feature is XVM.

You keep going back and forth. "It's about blowouts... No, it's about XVM... No wait..."

So if your 40% of games doesn't cause many more blowouts, and the blowouts aren't any faster then what are you left with?  "XVM told me so"

 

How many times must you be told.  HOW is just as important, if not more important the END RESULT.   If a team has NO CHANCE to win, and gets rolled, THAT'S COMPLETELY different than having a chance and blowing it.

View PostStiffWind, on Mar 15 2018 - 12:16, said:

 

My point is they start out with an advantage already, regardless of skill, due to the nature of the way WoT "arranges" this game.  Stick to the point, instead of trying to deflect into a tangent...it will help with your apparent lack of understanding.

 

Exactly.

View PostNixeldon, on Mar 15 2018 - 12:30, said:

Getting steamrolled in 4 minutes is fine as long as the teams fit your idea of balanced, as you interpret it from XVM color matching. Steamrolls are bad if a stronger team does it outside of your idea of balanced, as you interpret it from XVM color matching. If a team is a heavy underdog and steamrolls a team, we should ignore it.

 

TrueBudha,"The only thing that matters is color-coded matches."

 

 

Sad.  Attempting to deflect the truth with nonsense.  The 'xvm colors', are accurate measures of individual skill, and thus a teams skill when looked as a whole.  When random mm puts WAY  more skill on one team, random mm has 'rigged' that battle.  Color is not the issue, stacking actual players skill on one team is.

View PostStaz211, on Mar 15 2018 - 13:11, said:

 

1) Repeatedly claims that matches end in 2-3 minutes. Calls others idiots or liars for not believing him.

2) Posts a video of a match ending in 5 minutes.

3) Asserts that a match ending in 5 minutes proves his point that matches end in 2-3 minutes.

 

Somehow, I'm not even surprised.

 

Additionally I will, once again, post a link to this thread so that you can better understand how and why "blowouts" happen, and why the tide can turn so quickly in a battle: http://forum-console...ss-math-of-wot/

 

dumbest response of this whole 95 page saga.  Is shown a video with the sole purpose of showing that a battle 'can be over' before the last tank is killed.  It's spelled out minute by minute - AND HE STILL DOESN'T GET IT.   Sad.  Go back and watch that video and let me know if there was any way the enemy team was going to pull back a win after the 13 minute mark.

View PostNeatoMan, on Mar 15 2018 - 14:48, said:

So we've narrowed crap games down to blowouts caused by the MM (i.e. unbalanced teams).

 

Using budha's 40-60% win chance range as balanced games, I only get 10% of my games as "crap".    Even if I go by daRock's exaggerated 8-15 margin for blowouts, combined with budha's 40-60% balanced range, I still only get 18% of my games as "crap".

 

So where are the my other 22% crap games coming from?

 

Thanks for proving us right once again.  You freely admit 20% of your battles are crap.  The other 20% come at the other end of the bell curve.  Gifted wins are as boring as guaranteed losses are frustrating.  Case in point, the vid I posted just above this post.  I literally drove forward, hit the fire button, repeat.  There was no skill involved in that battle.  BORING.  That's where the full 40% come from.

 



NeatoMan #1884 Posted Mar 16 2018 - 03:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 28180 battles
  • 20,403
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

Block Quote

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

 This is complete hogwash.

 

Why would a team that is so stacked that it "wins" the game by the 2 or 3 min mark suddenly take twice as long as usual to finish off a team?

 

Do you realize how ridiculous your idea is that it must be due to bigger maps?   Are you seriously trying to say most unbalanced blowouts happen on bigger maps, and balanced blowouts mainly occur on smaller maps?   You do know that I also tracked which map I was on for every battle?  I can check that claim if you like.  Do you want me to check tier too?   I know you're going to fumble around for some other excuse when your idiotic map idea doesn't pan out

 

Block Quote

Thanks for proving us right once again.  You freely admit 20% of your battles are crap.  The other 20% come at the other end of the bell curve.  Gifted wins are as boring as guaranteed losses are frustrating.  Case in point, the vid I posted just above this post.  I literally drove forward, hit the fire button, repeat.  There was no skill involved in that battle.  BORING.  That's where the full 40% come from.

 Nope, once again you fail. 

 

First of all,  those are ALL of my blowouts from both ends of the curve; both wins and losses.  There are no more additional games you can squeeze in there; everything is already accounted for.   Second it shows just how badly you need to resort to exaggeration in order to make your point.    I just threw out daRock's expanded blowout range to illustrate that even with lax standards it still comes to less than half of what you all claim.    Basically 18% is the absolute worst it can possibly get for me under the most egregiously lax standards.   I'll only admit to 10% "crap" games using the standards that most everyone else uses.


Edited by NeatoMan, Mar 16 2018 - 04:42.


EmperorJuliusCaesar #1885 Posted Mar 16 2018 - 03:40

    Major

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

View PostStaz211, on Mar 15 2018 - 04:26, said:

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. 

 

Ah, the old "I can't counter your argument, I don't really know much", so you go with the ad hominem attack"

 

Not only does that show that you don't understand the conversation being had, nor have you read up on the many pages of statistical analysis that's been done, but it shows you are dishonest as well.  You bothered to look up my stats, saw that my recents were green and have a recent wr of server average, but chose to use my overall WR to try to discredit me.  How shamefully desperate you are to put down an argument that you don't like.  The character of many on NA is so lacking. 

Given that my recents are green, I clearly do my own damage most of the time.  Some 10s I haven't played in YEARS.  Some I've only played once, so again, great analysis you did there.  Oh, played it once, had a bad game, wow, low average DPG, you can use that to ATTEMPT to discredit my argument since you have NOTHING that pertains to the argument at hand.  Which, since you clearly don't know is about how 40% of battles are so imbalanced they are over from the start and how it is driving players from the game in droves, especially newer players.  It's not rigged out of malice, it's rigged out of bad programming.



EmperorJuliusCaesar #1886 Posted Mar 16 2018 - 03:45

    Major

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

View PostJer1413, on Mar 15 2018 - 04:19, said:

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.

 

 

Considering I don't remember which year it happened in, no, I'm not going to read through a year or so of patch notes.  You can call BS all you want, but many remember it, and miss it, and it forced people to play for the win or get jack-all for XP.

When the game is fair and balanced, it will be much more exciting.  People will know that as long as they work together and do their best, they have a real chance of winning that match.  Instead of what we have currently.  Try as hard as you can, get 5k damage and lose because you had a bunch of reds/oranges and the enemy had mostly green and blue.  Or, try hard and only get 1k because you got deathstar'd but your team still wins 15-2 because it was so imbalanced.

If you play well and work with your team, you can win in SBMM, if you're a loner that likes to farm, your stats will prob suffer a bit.   Only the people afraid of a fair fight are the ones that complain about SBMM.  Funny how some are the same ones crying about other "balancing" issues yet don't want the main balancing issue fixed.



EmperorJuliusCaesar #1887 Posted Mar 16 2018 - 03:49

    Major

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

View PostStaz211, on Mar 15 2018 - 05:00, said:

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. 

 

And that tank has been gathering dust in my garage for how many years now?  My newer 10s, the ones that have more than 5 battles, clearly show that I've developed as a player.  Nice that you chose the one with the lowest stats, we all know why.  Green recents clearly show I'm pulling my own weight.



EmperorJuliusCaesar #1888 Posted Mar 16 2018 - 05:47

    Major

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

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

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.

 

Simple, easy to see, irrefutable evidence, yet they will still find a way to deny it.  They don't realize that by denying that it happens as often as we see it happening, then they area REALLY hurting their case that random MM effects everyone the same.  I'm not saying the MM is different for everyone, I'm saying that given how they've been dishonest in other ways, that they are being dishonest in this way as well.   Their reasoning for doing so it quite obvious.



EmperorJuliusCaesar #1889 Posted Mar 16 2018 - 05:51

    Major

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

View PostNeatoMan, on Mar 15 2018 - 10:48, said:

What's the difference between a blowout like the one above and one with a balanced team if they both unfold the same way? You and ejc and keep saying the unbalanced ones are faster. Now you are not. If they aren't faster, then your only distinguishing feature is XVM.

You keep going back and forth. "It's about blowouts... No, it's about XVM... No wait..."

So if your 40% of games doesn't cause many more blowouts, and the blowouts aren't any faster then what are you left with?  "XVM told me so"

 

Nice attempt to confuse the issue when it is NOT complicated at all.  The only time it isn't over with quickly, is when you have the couple of "good" players on your auto-loss that stay in the back, farm damage and run away at the first sign of trouble so they can again snipe and keep their wn8 for the battle up.  They know it's a loss and just want to salvage their wn8.  EASY to see for anyone that isn't WILLFULLY BLIND.

 



Hurk #1890 Posted Mar 16 2018 - 06:03

    Major

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

there is nothing to deny. we simply disagree. 

i do not believe that you have a right to fair and balanced teams. i believe you have a right to random teams. 

 

i think if the NA server had more players, then some sort of bracketed/laddered play would be better than the current matching. 

i think that true SBMM as many have posed it here, is not a game i want to play... i have played those games before, and in team games, its too punishing to those that try to do well, to be saddled with those that do not.  (thats just how SBMM as proposed works out)

 

more importantly, i believe that snowball games (blowouts) are GOOD MATCHES. where the game is being played skillfully and the result should be a blowout in most cases once a team earns a lead. 

the game has always been about early damage. 



StiffWind #1891 Posted Mar 16 2018 - 08:56

    Major

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

View PostHurk, on Mar 16 2018 - 06:03, said:

there is nothing to deny. we simply disagree.

i do not believe that you have a right to fair and balanced teams. i believe you have a right to random teams.

 

i think if the NA server had more players, then some sort of bracketed/laddered play would be better than the current matching.

i think that true SBMM as many have posed it here, is not a game i want to play... i have played those games before, and in team games, its too punishing to those that try to do well, to be saddled with those that do not.  (thats just how SBMM as proposed works out)

 

more importantly, i believe that snowball games (blowouts) are GOOD MATCHES. where the game is being played skillfully and the result should be a blowout in most cases once a team earns a lead.

the game has always been about early damage.

 

We all have a right to random teams....that's why it's called a "Random Battle".  Problem is, we don't have that right now.  But it's funny...how you describe SBMM is exactly what we have right now about 40% of the time....only you put most of the bad players on one side, and most of the better players on the other.  Now, how is that fair?  Please explain.

 



SoTrue #1892 Posted Mar 16 2018 - 09:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 32915 battles
  • 3,302
  • [A-O-G] A-O-G
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011

View PostNeatoMan, on Mar 15 2018 - 18:31, said:

 This is complete hogwash.

 

Why would a team that is so stacked that it "wins" the game by the 2 or 3 min mark suddenly take twice as long as usual to finish off a team?

 

Do you realize how ridiculous your idea is that it must be due to bigger maps?   Are you seriously trying to say most unbalanced blowouts happen on bigger maps, and balanced blowouts mainly occur on smaller maps?   You do know that I also tracked which map I was on for every battle?  I can check that claim if you like.  Do you want me to check tier too?   I know you're going to fumble around for some other excuse when your idiotic map idea doesn't pan out

 

 Nope, once again you fail.

 

First of all,  those are ALL of my blowouts from both ends of the curve; both wins and losses.  There are no more additional games you can squeeze in there; everything is already accounted for.   Second it shows just how badly you need to resort to exaggeration in order to make your point.    I just threw out daRock's expanded blowout range to illustrate that even with lax standards it still comes to less than half of what you all claim.    Basically 18% is the absolute worst it can possibly get for me under the most egregiously lax standards.   I'll only admit to 10% "crap" games using the standards that most everyone else uses.

 

It's not hogwash.  That battle was over in about 2 minutes.  I certainly do not count 12 of us hunting down the last 3-4 tanks as 'game play'.  No one does.  At that point it's just farming damage.

-

Oh, it 'can' be bigger maps.  It can also be 1-2 really good players making a last stand.  There are multiple reasons why games last several minutes longer than when 'they are over'.

-

Oh, so you were rounding down to 10% on each end.  Fine, you think the average joe can salvage a 25%er - that's your delusion.  Most competitively fair games DO happen between 40-60%.  Anything outside that range, one team starts to get STARTS TO GET a skill advantage.  Stop looking for the magical 'exact' delineation between balanced and unbalanced.  You will never find it.  There is a grey area.  As there should be.

View PostHurk, on Mar 15 2018 - 21:03, said:

there is nothing to deny. we simply disagree.

i do not believe that you have a right to fair and balanced teams. i believe you have a right to random teams.

 

i think if the NA server had more players, then some sort of bracketed/laddered play would be better than the current matching.

i think that true SBMM as many have posed it here, is not a game i want to play... i have played those games before, and in team games, its too punishing to those that try to do well, to be saddled with those that do not.  (thats just how SBMM as proposed works out)

 

more importantly, i believe that snowball games (blowouts) are GOOD MATCHES. where the game is being played skillfully and the result should be a blowout in most cases once a team earns a lead.

the game has always been about early damage.

 

The funny/sad part is YOU ARE PLAYING SBMM 60% of the time RIGHT NOW.  Shocking you don't seem to mind.

_Tsavo_ #1893 Posted Mar 16 2018 - 11:09

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 45843 battles
  • 19,509
  • [BRVE] BRVE
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

View PostStiffWind, on Mar 16 2018 - 02:56, said:

 

only you put most of the bad players on one side, and most of the better players on the other.  Now, how is that fair?  Please explain.

 

 

Because every game that G platoon is on my team, there's a game where they're on the enemy team.

 

Yeah, a single match may feel unfair, but it was assembled without malice or ill intent.  

 

A compressed win rate is no bueno, and not fair to the playerbase.



NeatoMan #1894 Posted Mar 16 2018 - 12:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 28180 battles
  • 20,403
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostSoTrue, on Mar 16 2018 - 03:16, said:

It's not hogwash.  That battle was over in about 2 minutes.  I certainly do not count 12 of us hunting down the last 3-4 tanks as 'game play'.  No one does.  At that point it's just farming damage.

-

Oh, it 'can' be bigger maps.  It can also be 1-2 really good players making a last stand.  There are multiple reasons why games last several minutes longer than when 'they are over'.

But why should finishing the battle at this point take any longer to accomplish compared to balanced games?   Once you reach a 8-10 tank advantage wouldn't a team that is stacked with the good players be able to accomplish this task just as fast or even faster than a team that isn't stacked?   What is it about good teams that makes you think they would take twice as long to finish off the stragglers once the same point in battle is reached?   You are really reaching here.

 

 

Block Quote

Oh, so you were rounding down to 10% on each end.  Fine, you think the average joe can salvage a 25%er - that's your delusion.  Most competitively fair games DO happen between 40-60%.  Anything outside that range, one team starts to get STARTS TO GET a skill advantage.  Stop looking for the magical 'exact' delineation between balanced and unbalanced.  You will never find it.  There is a grey area.  As there should be.

 Rounding down on each end?   Sorry to inform you but the numbers I got are not from only one end of the curve.  You can't just double that number, it already is "doubled".  That's as good as it's going to get.  I am simply looking at blowout games that were caused by the MM using your criteria for unbalanced games.  That's what seemed to be the agreed upon definition of a crap game.  Are you now changing your criteria for crap games again?  

 

Grey area?  even when I include as much grey area as possible (which should benefit your side of the argument) I still don't get anywhere near 40% crap games.  Every time we try to get you to explain what makes a crap game you say it's not just XVM;  it's supposed to be obvious from the game play.   Yet whenever we try to get you to explain what kind of game play you consider crap your fall back answer is always "because XVM"



Staz211 #1895 Posted Mar 16 2018 - 16:00

    Major

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

View PostSoTrue, on Mar 15 2018 - 21:18, said:

 

How many times must you be told.  HOW is just as important, if not more important the END RESULT.   If a team has NO CHANCE to win, and gets rolled, THAT'S COMPLETELY different than having a chance and blowing it.

 

Exactly.

 

Sad.  Attempting to deflect the truth with nonsense.  The 'xvm colors', are accurate measures of individual skill, and thus a teams skill when looked as a whole.  When random mm puts WAY  more skill on one team, random mm has 'rigged' that battle.  Color is not the issue, stacking actual players skill on one team is.

 

dumbest response of this whole 95 page saga.  Is shown a video with the sole purpose of showing that a battle 'can be over' before the last tank is killed.  It's spelled out minute by minute - AND HE STILL DOESN'T GET IT.   Sad.  Go back and watch that video and let me know if there was any way the enemy team was going to pull back a win after the 13 minute mark.

 

Thanks for proving us right once again.  You freely admit 20% of your battles are crap.  The other 20% come at the other end of the bell curve.  Gifted wins are as boring as guaranteed losses are frustrating.  Case in point, the vid I posted just above this post.  I literally drove forward, hit the fire button, repeat.  There was no skill involved in that battle.  BORING.  That's where the full 40% come from.

 

 

You cannot use "random" and "rigged" in the same argumentative sentence. Rigged denotes intent, random does not by default. Your argument isn't even an argument; it's straight gibberish and nonsense. 

 

 

Moderated by Volier_Zcit

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by Volier_Zcit, Mar 17 2018 - 02:45.


Nixeldon #1896 Posted Mar 16 2018 - 16:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 60821 battles
  • 2,118
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostSoTrue, on Mar 15 2018 - 21:18, said:

How many times must you be told.  HOW is just as important, if not more important the END RESULT.   If a team has NO CHANCE to win, and gets rolled, THAT'S COMPLETELY different than having a chance and blowing it.

You aren't concerned with the HOW, just the colors. In that same match you keep posting, if XVM had told you the teams were balanced, it would be a non-issue.  The only time you ever present a concern in any match, regardless of how it plays, is if the colors don't match. 

 

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 15 2018 - 23:47, said:

Simple, easy to see, irrefutable evidence, yet they will still find a way to deny it.  They don't realize that by denying that it happens as often as we see it happening, then they area REALLY hurting their case that random MM effects everyone the same.  I'm not saying the MM is different for everyone, I'm saying that given how they've been dishonest in other ways, that they are being dishonest in this way as well.   Their reasoning for doing so it quite obvious.

Irrefutable evidence of what? That colors didn't match?

 

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Mar 15 2018 - 23:51, said:

Nice attempt to confuse the issue when it is NOT complicated at all.  The only time it isn't over with quickly, is when you have the couple of "good" players on your auto-loss that stay in the back, farm damage and run away at the first sign of trouble so they can again snipe and keep their wn8 for the battle up.  They know it's a loss and just want to salvage their wn8.  EASY to see for anyone that isn't WILLFULLY BLIND.

Here you go with your "good" players vitriol again. 



Kliphie #1897 Posted Mar 16 2018 - 16:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 32679 battles
  • 5,055
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    07-20-2012

Since single point anecdotal evidence seems to be the currency of the day, I think I got a battle that would be the poster child for SBMM this morning.  

 

 

The colors line up nicely, and check out the sum of the WN8s!

 

 

The perfect game!  This should be a nail-biter!

 

 

15-2, 3 minutes 23 seconds.  

 

So what does all of this mean?  Absolutely nothing, it's a single game.  

 

 

 



NeatoMan #1898 Posted Mar 16 2018 - 16:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 28180 battles
  • 20,403
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011
I think their only mission now is to get this thread to 100 pages.  Then they'll use that as proof that it is a major issue that must be addressed.

Staz211 #1899 Posted Mar 16 2018 - 16:48

    Major

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

View PostKliphie, on Mar 16 2018 - 10:39, said:

Since single point anecdotal evidence seems to be the currency of the day, I think I got a battle that would be the poster child for SBMM this morning.  

 

 

The colors line up nicely, and check out the sum of the WN8s!

 

 

The perfect game!  This should be a nail-biter!

 

 

15-2, 3 minutes 23 seconds.  

 

So what does all of this mean?  Absolutely nothing, it's a single game.  

 

 

 

 

I cannot wait to see their response to this one. The spin is going to be fantastic. 

Nixeldon #1900 Posted Mar 16 2018 - 17:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 60821 battles
  • 2,118
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostStaz211, on Mar 16 2018 - 10:48, said:

I cannot wait to see their response to this one. The spin is going to be fantastic. 

I've posted dozens of underdog and balanced steamrolls in these threads.

 

1) Those are extremely rare.

2) It will be ignored because it doesn't fit the narrative.

3) Because the colors matched, at least the other team "had a chance".

4) This example is anecdotal, but the others aren't.

5) But what if MM had swapped X player for Y player.

6) etcetera 






7 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users