Urabouttudie, on Apr 30 2018 - 07:29, said:

Pipinghot, on Apr 29 2018 - 18:47, said:

Wow are you dishonest. I talk about the bell curve of win rates and then you reply with a bell curve of something *entirely different*, the chance to win curve for a single player.

I talk about *all* players, you respond with a *single* player.

I talk about *actual* win rates, you talk about *estimated* chance to win.

Seriously, you should be ashamed.

On top of being dishonest, you've just proved my point that you don't understand the bell curves even when you look at them.

This is a better than average player, so *of course* his average chance-to-win is above average, because he raises the chance-to-win for every team he's on. The average chance-to-win for each and every player in the game will be slightly different, because their individual skill directly affects their chance to win in every single battle they play. You have it completely backwards, his teams are not buffing his chance-to-win, he is buffing the chance-to-win for his teams.

this here is a fine example of WG's trolls...small sample size...how original...

I said nothing about sample size in that post, stop being dishonest. Everyone here can scroll up and see that I didn't discuss sample size at all, because sample size was not the problem with your post. One wonders why would say that when everyone here can simply scroll up and see that you're not telling the truth.

Urabouttudie, on Apr 30 2018 - 07:29, said:

See? They got nothing but "You're all just wrong"...they have no proof that you are wrong, no more than the rest of us, but they insist you are wrong.

If you can't understand basic logic and math, that's your own problem. The fact that you can't properly interpret the graphic that you yourself posted is just further evidence that you have no idea what you're talking about and you willfully refuse to learn even when things are explained to you, again, and again, and again.

Urabouttudie, on Apr 30 2018 - 07:29, said:

How could they have proof that the mechanics are "random"...unless they work for WG they can't have any more proof than anyone else.

I'll bet you have a lot of fun with your friends in the Flat Earth Society and the Moon Landing Deniers Club.

All of the valid evidence we have indicates that the MM is random. There is zero valid evidence that the MM is rigged. Therefore a reasonable person must assume that the MM is not rigged. That's pretty simple logic that even most children can follow.

Urabouttudie, on Apr 30 2018 - 07:29, said:

These trolls will spend days and days, page after page arguing that you are simply wrong...in every way you present, you are wrong and they are right.

Your lying eyes are wrong and they are right and you had just better believe them because they have days and days and day to keep shouting you down...

Well yes, that's what happens when you're wrong over and over and over again. Everyone who believes in the flat earth theory and everyone who denies the moon landings are also wrong over and over and over again, just like you. You have been given many opportunities to learn from valid information, and yet you refuse to learn because your ego just can't accept the reality that you're wrong. Bummer for you.

Urabouttudie, on Apr 30 2018 - 07:29, said:

I'm just going to leave this last little tidbit here

Block Quote

I talk about *all* players, you respond with a *single* player.

Ol' Neatoman has been presenting his single-player data as the MM bible of stats for literally years now...

...and none of you useless slugs have ever objected to the fact it represents only ONE player...

You're being dishonest, again. You're trying to twist the context of this conversation into something completely different.

There is nothing wrong with using the data of one person *if* the sample size is large enough and *if* the data is gathered using proper methods, and that is why Neatoman's data is useful and informative. He has used proper methods of data gathering, he has made his data available for peer review, and he has used proper statistical and logical methods of analyzing his data.

As we can all see, I didn't complain about the sample size in your graph, because the sample size was not the problem. The problem with your graph has already been explained, you tried to respond to the actual win rates of the all players as a group with a graph of the estimated chance to win of a single player, which has absolutely no bearing on the point you were responding to. They're both bell curves, but they are bell curves of entirely different subjects. Your graphic would have been just as invalid if you had posted the bell curve of win rates in War Thunder. Technically that is also a bell curve, but just like your image it is entirely unrelated to the point you were responding to.

Urabouttudie, on Apr 30 2018 - 07:29, said:

You little tools keep giving yourselves away...can't keep the story straight after all these years...

Our story has always been straight, it's your deliberate twisting of information and dishonest reframing of arguments that's crooked, and always has been.

**Edited by Pipinghot, Apr 30 2018 - 18:01.**