Jump to content


THE Final Answer


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

Siege_Engine #61 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 02:20

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 9986 battles
  • 1,047
  • Member since:
    01-26-2015

View PostNeatoMan, on Jul 12 2018 - 02:14, said:

Two battles,... then a whole 10 battles.  Did you go to the Budha school of statistics?   If you want your personal performance to be directly involved in every victory then you need to find a 1 v 1 game.

 

I don't want to get a masters degree in statistics.  I don't want to play a statistically representative sample of 10,000 games. 

 

I'm here to play a frikking non-realistic online tank game.  

 

 



Hurk #62 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 02:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 50495 battles
  • 16,460
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

View PostSiege_Engine, on Jul 11 2018 - 18:20, said:

 

I don't want to get a masters degree in statistics.  I don't want to play a statistically representative sample of 10,000 games. 

 

I'm here to play a frikking non-realistic online tank game.  

 

 

 

100-500 games is enough to get a low margin of error, but should still be taken with a grain of salt. 

SovietMemeBear #63 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 02:27

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 23563 battles
  • 984
  • Member since:
    03-22-2012

View PostSiege_Engine, on Jul 11 2018 - 20:04, said:

 

You don't get it.  

 

Did you open the image???   My EFF rating for these two battles was dark green [very good] according the stats.  My win8 was blue:  exceptional.  I did great for these two battles.  What are you missing?  Let's move on.  

 

Here's something to ruminate over.  Here a few days earlier my EFF rating [the stat you think is most important]  for 10 battles is yellow and stinks [LOWER], not even good at all. 

 

lower-140.jpg

 

But my win rate was 70%.  Seventy Percent!  

 

You just don't get it.  

 

If you think dark green is good then you're just going to be mediocre forever

spud_tuber #64 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 02:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 49925 battles
  • 6,041
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostSiege_Engine, on Jul 11 2018 - 19:20, said:

 

I don't want to get a masters degree in statistics.  I don't want to play a statistically representative sample of 10,000 games. 

 

I'm here to play a frikking non-realistic online tank game.  

 

 

Then you've come to the wrong game.  WoTs is a marathon game conveniently broken into sprint size chunks.  While 10,000 is a bit large, there's a reason that stat sites started using 1000 battles to determine a player's "recents".  Learn to enjoy the individual battles for what they are and pay more attention to the marathon side of the game.  You'll be happier, and probably more successful at tanks as well.

 

What you're asking for is for WoT to become a game it isn't and has never been, and that fundamental a change is at least as likely to kill the game as it would be to save it.



Siege_Engine #65 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 02:38

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 9986 battles
  • 1,047
  • Member since:
    01-26-2015

View PostSovietMemeBear, on Jul 12 2018 - 02:27, said:

 

If you think dark green is good then you're just going to be mediocre forever

 

Well, it says "good"  so .... I was thinking it was "good"?  

 

Hey this is funny.  Check this out.  Just lost another tier 10 battle.  FOUR of my "team" did ZERO damage.  One of them did a TEAM KILL.  I'm saying that one of the FOUR who did ZERO damage actually TEAM KILLED.  "Random" battles working as intended.  Right?  

 

I know.  I know.  You could have carried that.  But, I could not.  I am unable to know where dark green score that s***?   Oh well.  

 

Thanks for your profound input.  



NeatoMan #66 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 04:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 25597 battles
  • 17,369
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

When half the players the MM has to choose from are crap what do you expect?   I don't understand why people think smearing that crap around evenly will make the crap smell any better?



samael75 #67 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 06:34

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 21107 battles
  • 308
  • [SEEL6] SEEL6
  • Member since:
    07-11-2013

View PostNeatoMan, on Jul 12 2018 - 03:50, said:

When half the players the MM has to choose from are crap what do you expect?   I don't understand why people think smearing that crap around evenly will make the crap smell any better?

 

Damn,this is actually signature worthy.

SoTrue #68 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 06:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 28169 battles
  • 3,302
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011

View Postspud_tuber, on Jul 11 2018 - 17:36, said:

Then you've come to the wrong game.  WoTs is a marathon game conveniently broken into sprint size chunks.  While 10,000 is a bit large, there's a reason that stat sites started using 1000 battles to determine a player's "recents".  Learn to enjoy the individual battles for what they are and pay more attention to the marathon side of the game.  You'll be happier, and probably more successful at tanks as well.

 

What you're asking for is for WoT to become a game it isn't and has never been, and that fundamental a change is at least as likely to kill the game as it would be to save it.

 

sbmm would save this game.  Imagine, every battle between 2 'roughly' equal teams.  There would be simply no room to say "it was the teams fault".  No one could cry "it's rigged".  That alone would be worth it.

View PostNeatoMan, on Jul 11 2018 - 19:50, said:

When half the players the MM has to choose from are crap what do you expect?   I don't understand why people think smearing that crap around evenly will make the crap smell any better?

 

3 types of games:

-

Your team is crap, the enemy is not.

Your team and the enemy team have the same level of crap.

Your team is good, enemy is crap.

-

The middle one is the only acceptable level of crap.  At the very least is you are the only decent player on your team (carrying 14 buckets of crap), you can at least take comfort that the enemy you face will have just one decent player having to shoulder the same 14 buckets of crap.

-

The only other way to look at this is if YOU NEED to BE HANDED a % of wins.  Which is just sad.  And I think that is what you are saying.  You are saying you are such a poor player, you NEED MM to give you 20% of all your battles.  Pathetic.

-

(Also, only 80 games in the last 60 days?  Maybe you should 'play more' and 'forum less', might just wean you off your need to be given wins)



SporkBoy #69 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 07:08

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 34282 battles
  • 356
  • [PZB] PZB
  • Member since:
    02-06-2014
All this is moot when one realizes it's all about each individual player. I had a game recently where in the first two minutes of the game my teams best player  (~10,000 rating) team killed two. No MM can deal with player variability.

spud_tuber #70 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 13:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 49925 battles
  • 6,041
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostSoTrue, on Jul 11 2018 - 23:50, said:

 

sbmm would save this game.  Imagine, every battle between 2 'roughly' equal teams.  There would be simply no room to say "it was the teams fault".  No one could cry "it's rigged".  That alone would be worth it.

Except, by its very nature, skill balanced MM is rigged against good players and for bad players.  I realize you don't understand this, though.  That's why we can't really have an honest discussion regarding SBMM that gets any further than arguing about the effects of SBMM.

 

BTW, a while back I went and looked up how the MM works in several of the games held up as examples of functional SBMM.  You know what I found?  Every one of them used some formula to rank the players.  They then tried to form teams in which all players were almost the same rank first, and failing that, only then created teams in which every player on team 1 was very closely mirrored by a similar rank player on team 2. Further, that rank was generated based only in play in that mode.  You know what this reminds me of?  That's right, WoT ranked battles.   

 

And I think everyone already knows those examples of pros vs high schoolers don't happen due to skill bracketing, not skill balancing.

 

So, this brings up a question.  Can you name one successful game that uses skill balanced rather than skill bracketed or skill random MM?



Rimrender #71 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 13:33

    Captain

  • Players
  • 7421 battles
  • 1,813
  • Member since:
    11-22-2011

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Jul 09 2018 - 23:45, said:

 

Sadly many are against balanced matches, where wins are actually earned.

 

A quote from one:

""fair fights arent always fun"

"i dont want every match to be a slug fest"

 

I.E. The skilled players don't want fair battles because they don't want an actual challenge, only stats so they look good.

They're too selfish to see how bad it is for the game and how many players are ran off because of how many unbalanced battles we have.

 

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Jul 10 2018 - 04:44, said:

 

That's what they usually claim.  SBMM means everyone gets fair, fun, and challenging battles and no one gets free wins.

 

Anyone not wanting fair and challenging battles is clearly not wanting a challenge.  They want to have "good stats" in a 13+ video GAME.

 

It is protectionism. With everyone possibly facing their actual peers on a regular basis, a lot of people would lose that precious color rating very quickly. Which makes me wonder why they aren't confident in their skills to hold onto that purple.



EmperorJuliusCaesar #72 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 14:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 28133 battles
  • 4,067
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View Postowlgator, on Jul 11 2018 - 01:04, said:

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Jul 10 2018 - 10:22, said:

Again, WRONG, given the number of VERY IMBALANCED battles we currently get, where 2/3rds of one team is very good vs one team of 2/3rds average or worse......the skilled players are TWICE as likely to land on the skilled side.  This results in MANY free wins for them.  Very clear to see given the number of slots on either team.

 

If this were the case wouldn't we have a bimodal distribution for W/R as opposed to a normal one?  For what you're saying, out of 1000 battles the skilled player should end up on the skilled side 667 times, whereas the less skilled would be on the less skilled side 667 times.  This is far from what is actually occuring, as the W/R peak is right about where it should be if everyone had the same chance of winning over the course of thousands of battles.

 

I keep telling people, I'm not talking about ALL battles, only the STACKED BATTLES.  30-40% of games.



SovietMemeBear #73 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 14:27

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 23563 battles
  • 984
  • Member since:
    03-22-2012

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Jul 12 2018 - 08:08, said:

 

I keep telling people, I'm not talking about ALL battles, only the STACKED BATTLES.  30-40% of games.

 

There's no such thing as stacked battles. MM doesn't use WG's PR, WN7/WN8/WN9, WR or any other metric when putting teams together. It grabs 30 tanks that meet the match makers formula based on having an equal number of similar tanks. 

 

Outside of a template of tanks the MM is random. 

 

 

 

 



EmperorJuliusCaesar #74 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 15:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 28133 battles
  • 4,067
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostRimrender, on Jul 12 2018 - 19:33, said:

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Jul 09 2018 - 23:45, said:

 

Sadly many are against balanced matches, where wins are actually earned.

 

A quote from one:

""fair fights arent always fun"

"i dont want every match to be a slug fest"

 

I.E. The skilled players don't want fair battles because they don't want an actual challenge, only stats so they look good.

They're too selfish to see how bad it is for the game and how many players are ran off because of how many unbalanced battles we have.

 

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Jul 10 2018 - 04:44, said:

 

That's what they usually claim.  SBMM means everyone gets fair, fun, and challenging battles and no one gets free wins.

 

Anyone not wanting fair and challenging battles is clearly not wanting a challenge.  They want to have "good stats" in a 13+ video GAME.

 

It is protectionism. With everyone possibly facing their actual peers on a regular basis, a lot of people would lose that precious color rating very quickly. Which makes me wonder why they aren't confident in their skills to hold onto that purple.

 

Exactly why they don't want fair rights.



EmperorJuliusCaesar #75 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 15:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 28133 battles
  • 4,067
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostSovietMemeBear, on Jul 12 2018 - 20:27, said:

 

There's no such thing as stacked battles. MM doesn't use WG's PR, WN7/WN8/WN9, WR or any other metric when putting teams together. It grabs 30 tanks that meet the match makers formula based on having an equal number of similar tanks. 

 

Outside of a template of tanks the MM is random. 

 

 

 

 

 

Which is a problem when it results in so many stacked battles.  It doesn't matter whether or not it's intentional or not, the result is a bunch of stacked battles that people abhor to the point of leaving.

_Gungrave_ #76 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 15:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 41576 battles
  • 15,445
  • [X-OUT] X-OUT
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011
So far this thread has been one big dumpster fire and not the enjoyable kind that makes you grab a chair and some popcorn. :hiding:

maddogatc #77 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 15:43

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 29734 battles
  • 216
  • Member since:
    07-01-2011
I follow the same philosophy of the original poster. If I loose three battles in a row I log off for a few hours or the rest of the day. Usually when I log in again at a later time the MM/team balance seems better.

NeatoMan #78 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 16:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 25597 battles
  • 17,369
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Jul 12 2018 - 08:08, said:

I keep telling people, I'm not talking about ALL battles, only the STACKED BATTLES.  30-40% of games.

Still avoiding my question, are you?

 

Do you think you would have gotten a different set of team mates in all your battles if you had purple stats?



SovietMemeBear #79 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 17:20

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 23563 battles
  • 984
  • Member since:
    03-22-2012

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on Jul 12 2018 - 09:36, said:

 

Which is a problem when it results in so many stacked battles.  It doesn't matter whether or not it's intentional or not, the result is a bunch of stacked battles that people abhor to the point of leaving.

 

Its not stacked ITS [edited]RANDOM YOU MORON.

 

Do you just want every single [edited]battle to be the same. Every single person to have 50% WR. 

 

Some times the game is stacked in your favour. Sometimes against. Thats the nature of RANDOM Game play. Good players can tip the battle in their favour more often then trash players like you are able to. But its still completely [edited]random. 

 

 

 



spud_tuber #80 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 17:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 49925 battles
  • 6,041
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostSovietMemeBear, on Jul 12 2018 - 10:20, said:

 

Its not stacked ITS [edited]RANDOM YOU MORON.

 

Do you just want every single [edited]battle to be the same. Every single person to have 50% WR. 

 

Some times the game is stacked in your favour. Sometimes against. Thats the nature of RANDOM Game play. Good players can tip the battle in their favour more often then trash players like you are able to. But its still completely [edited]random. 

 

 

 

Welcome to the "banging your head against a brick wall club".  I think Neato sells shirts.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users