Jump to content


Bad Match Making, Too Many Blowout Games, Statistical Anomalies, And Quitting WoT


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

OlTanker #21 Posted Jan 07 2019 - 18:40

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 22730 battles
  • 465
  • Member since:
    01-17-2016

View Postda_Rock002, on Jan 06 2019 - 07:09, said:

 

 

Good measured description of your experiences. 

 

Numerous players have described seeing the same flip-flop stringing.   In fact, there are repeated threads that ask if other players quit after 3 losses like they do because they've discovered the losing strings don't seem to be random in length.     It appears a lot of players seriously doubt WG's random is working correctly. 


 

Good luck

 

Yes I stop playing after 3 blowouts in a row. Today it was the first three battles which has been the norm really since before the Christmas specials. I will come back after a while, usually at least an hour to see if it turns around. Far too often it's just done for the day after experiencing stacked teams game after game after game. It used to be that on a bad wot day (really damn frequent) I would go play boats (wows) for a while. I stopped playing boats entirely after getting consistent 6 day strings of never ending blowout losses followed by one day of decent close games. After 2 straight months of that crap I uninstalled the game. Wot is not getting to that point as well. I play the game to enjoy the game play, not to be a pinata for some kids birthday party.and wot seems to think that is the way to do things anymore. Far too often I see matchups with a 20% chance or less to win with one side almost all yellows greens and purples and the other side mostly reds and a few oranges. NO TEAMS involved as teams are rather infrequent during the daytime when I play. Just screwed up MM.


Edited by OlTanker, Jan 07 2019 - 18:41.


Double_O7 #22 Posted Jan 08 2019 - 02:26

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 6076 battles
  • 655
  • Member since:
    01-29-2012

View PostProject100, on Jan 06 2019 - 09:18, said:

 

Harsh? Maybe.

 

Tired of the daily "I'm quitting WoT and here's why" page-long essays? Hell, yes, we are.

 

Some of us move on with our lives, some of us offer a sympathetic reply, and some of us vent our thoughts back at the OP. Welcome to the jungle.

If you so sick of these posts, then why do you read then? Take a break from the forum 



Ich_bin_Hass #23 Posted Jan 08 2019 - 16:01

    Captain

  • Players
  • 78975 battles
  • 1,037
  • Member since:
    04-30-2011

View PostProject100, on Jan 06 2019 - 09:18, said:

 

Harsh? Maybe.

 

Tired of the daily "I'm quitting WoT and here's why" page-long essays? Hell, yes, we are.

 

Some of us move on with our lives, some of us offer a sympathetic reply, and some of us vent our thoughts back at the OP. Welcome to the jungle.

 

The one constant that can't be ignored is the HUGE DROP in the NA population. Now you can say this is just normal with a MMO. Or ! You can accept that there is a problem.  That players are leaving for a reason. Where I remember two servers having 20K on at once. Now you're lucky to get 10K.  Why WG's started the East server back up, is beyond me. It surly wasn't needed. What I believe is the most troubling aspect of WoT's is how toxic and elitist that these very same, so called GUUD players have gotten over the years. The mindless TK'ing, by these very same elitist snobs. Because someone parked in their favorite position. To outright throwing the battle. By YOLO'ing or suicide'ing, because XVM gives your team a low percentage of a victory.  The the normal blaming of the team, for elitist snob being nailed. It goes on and on.

Edited by Ich_bin_Hass, Jan 08 2019 - 16:05.


Copacetic #24 Posted Jan 08 2019 - 16:51

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 47994 battles
  • 1,722
  • [ZEUS] ZEUS
  • Member since:
    02-04-2014
Most players are leaving because most players don't have the mental aptitude to play this game. Unlike candy crush this is a very difficult game to succeed at.

Double_O7 #25 Posted Jan 08 2019 - 17:23

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 6076 battles
  • 655
  • Member since:
    01-29-2012

View PostCopacetic, on Jan 08 2019 - 09:51, said:

Most players are leaving because most players don't have the mental aptitude to play this game. Unlike candy crush this is a very difficult game to succeed at.

Or because the game sucks right now. If you like it, great, but degrade people who don't. 



Double_O7 #26 Posted Jan 08 2019 - 17:24

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 6076 battles
  • 655
  • Member since:
    01-29-2012

View PostIch_bin_Hass, on Jan 08 2019 - 09:01, said:

 

The one constant that can't be ignored is the HUGE DROP in the NA population. Now you can say this is just normal with a MMO. Or ! You can accept that there is a problem.  That players are leaving for a reason. Where I remember two servers having 20K on at once. Now you're lucky to get 10K.  Why WG's started the East server back up, is beyond me. It surly wasn't needed. What I believe is the most troubling aspect of WoT's is how toxic and elitist that these very same, so called GUUD players have gotten over the years. The mindless TK'ing, by these very same elitist snobs. Because someone parked in their favorite position. To outright throwing the battle. By YOLO'ing or suicide'ing, because XVM gives your team a low percentage of a victory.  The the normal blaming of the team, for elitist snob being nailed. It goes on and on.

It has gotten really bad. I have to blacklist at least one player every battle now because they are being toxic. It just isn't possible for new players to join and stay longer than a month



Project100 #27 Posted Jan 08 2019 - 19:13

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 2972 battles
  • 1,146
  • [I-U-D] I-U-D
  • Member since:
    01-01-2016

View PostIch_bin_Hass, on Jan 08 2019 - 10:01, said:

 

The one constant that can't be ignored is the HUGE DROP in the NA population. Now you can say this is just normal with a MMO. Or ! You can accept that there is a problem.  That players are leaving for a reason. Where I remember two servers having 20K on at once. Now you're lucky to get 10K.  Why WG's started the East server back up, is beyond me. It surly wasn't needed. What I believe is the most troubling aspect of WoT's is how toxic and elitist that these very same, so called GUUD players have gotten over the years. The mindless TK'ing, by these very same elitist snobs. Because someone parked in their favorite position. To outright throwing the battle. By YOLO'ing or suicide'ing, because XVM gives your team a low percentage of a victory.  The the normal blaming of the team, for elitist snob being nailed. It goes on and on.

 

Who pulled your string, Chatty Cathy? Why you quoting me?

 

You hate the game? You hate the "rigged MM"? You hate the "elitist snobs"?

 

I've got a solution for you:

 

Leave. And do it quietly.

 

Nobody f*cking cares why anyone is leaving and most of us are tired of reading the same old BS threads about the same old tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories and whining candy-a$$es who won't own up to their own inadequacies.

 

I suck and I know it. I own it, I'm trying to get better, and in the meantime I'm not blaming anybody for my crap stats except the man in the mirror.

 

So take your pissing and moaning and GTFO if you hate the game so much.



Double_O7 #28 Posted Jan 08 2019 - 21:46

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 6076 battles
  • 655
  • Member since:
    01-29-2012

View PostProject100, on Jan 08 2019 - 12:13, said:

 

Who pulled your string, Chatty Cathy? Why you quoting me?

 

You hate the game? You hate the "rigged MM"? You hate the "elitist snobs"?

 

I've got a solution for you:

 

Leave. And do it quietly.

 

Nobody f*cking cares why anyone is leaving and most of us are tired of reading the same old BS threads about the same old tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories and whining candy-a$$es who won't own up to their own inadequacies.

 

I suck and I know it. I own it, I'm trying to get better, and in the meantime I'm not blaming anybody for my crap stats except the man in the mirror.

 

So take your pissing and moaning and GTFO if you hate the game so much.

Look. More toxicity. I'm shocked



Double_O7 #29 Posted Jan 08 2019 - 21:47

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 6076 battles
  • 655
  • Member since:
    01-29-2012

View PostProject100, on Jan 08 2019 - 12:13, said:

 

Who pulled your string, Chatty Cathy? Why you quoting me?

 

You hate the game? You hate the "rigged MM"? You hate the "elitist snobs"?

 

I've got a solution for you:

 

Leave. And do it quietly.

 

Nobody f*cking cares why anyone is leaving and most of us are tired of reading the same old BS threads about the same old tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories and whining candy-a$$es who won't own up to their own inadequacies.

 

I suck and I know it. I own it, I'm trying to get better, and in the meantime I'm not blaming anybody for my crap stats except the man in the mirror.

 

So take your pissing and moaning and GTFO if you hate the game so much.

Look. More toxicity. I'm shocked



Project100 #30 Posted Jan 08 2019 - 22:27

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 2972 battles
  • 1,146
  • [I-U-D] I-U-D
  • Member since:
    01-01-2016

View PostDouble_O7, on Jan 08 2019 - 15:46, said:

Look. More toxicity. I'm shocked

 

I didn't quote him, he quoted me as a jumping off point for his tinfoil hat manifesto. I just told what he could do with it.

 

Don't start nothing, won't be nothing. 



PhilthyOne1 #31 Posted Jan 13 2019 - 09:11

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 35892 battles
  • 29
  • [PDJC] PDJC
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013

View PostProject100, on Jan 06 2019 - 15:18, said:

 

Harsh? Maybe.

 

Tired of the daily "I'm quitting WoT and here's why" page-long essays? Hell, yes, we are.

 

Some of us move on with our lives, some of us offer a sympathetic reply, and some of us vent our thoughts back at the OP. Welcome to the jungle.

 

So you read them and reply to them.  Pretty funny.  Seems to me you enjoy them but don't want to admit it.

PhilthyOne1 #32 Posted Jan 13 2019 - 09:49

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 35892 battles
  • 29
  • [PDJC] PDJC
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013

View PostPipinghot, on Jan 06 2019 - 11:37, said:

1) That can happen in any game.

2) You're not really using statistics, you're just describing your feelings and then falsely typing the word "statistically" in your sentence. Nothing you've said has any statistical validity.

No. Still not statistics, you're just describing your feelings, and your feelings are misleading you.

This is nothing new, it's how the game has always worked. For some reason you're noticing the more, but this game has always has more blowouts than most other games, and that's specifically because it's single-death-per-battle. SDPB is what causes blowouts, and it always has, there's nothing at all new about this. You're having a problem with confirmation bias.

So you haven't learned how to be good at this vehicle yet, that's neither a mystery nor a big deal. Slow vehicles have more trouble influencing battles which, again, has always been true. Mobility and flexing are a big deal, and that tank doesn't have them.

The data says that your feelings are incorrect. Battles are slightly shorter than they were when the game was new, in 2011, but that change happened a long time ago, when autoloaders were introduced.

No, there is no more imbalance in the game than there ever has been. You're just suffering from being burned out about the game and it's affecting your judgement.

That's still not statistics, it's just your feelings and wishful thinking. Strings of wins and losses should happen, you really need to stop thinking that anything you're saying is related to statistics, it's all just your feelings. One of the major reasons for real statistics needing to exist is that feelings cannot be trusted on many issues, and this is one of them.

No. You're suffering from burnout and misunderstanding how statistics and win/loss streaks really work.

No. Just no. You need to take a break, everything you're saying is nothing more than good old fashioned confirmation bias, having nothing at all to do with what's really happening.

If the game is less fun then you should play something else, that's just a normal, healthy decision. But don't think that you're confirmation bias, and your feelings resulting from burnout, have any relationship to statistics, because they don't. Take a break, have fun playing something else, and while you're doing it throw away your tinfoil hat and let go of nonsense like "RNG is being played around with", that's just silly.

 

I see you're pointing out that it's not statistics, it's in my head and that simply isn't true.  I've sat here with pen and paper counting out the number of blow-out wins and losses with a variety of my tanks (I'm about 50% on most of them and have a high number of games in them, so I'm using good averages).  At a 50% win rate in a tank with 800 games, you'd expect to win about 50% of your games.  This is about a coin toss.  Each toss independent of the previous and all that, I get it, I understand statistics and statistical modeling.  Looking at from the perspective of 50/50 chance, I see long strings of wins and losses and it has happened a lot more than it should happen if games were truly random.  Yes, you will have strings of wins and losses, that's not improbable.  But to have multiple, consecutive strings of wins and losses, that becomes improbable and suspect for rigging.  And I'm only counting strings of BLOWOUT wins and losses, not just every win/loss.

 

If you flip a coin, you expect to see this:  H, T, H, H, T, T, H, T, T, T, H, T, H, H, T, T, T, H, H  right?

 

When you flip a coin and you see this:  H, H, H, H, H, T, T, T, T, T, H, T, T, T, T, H, T, H, T, H, H, H, H, H, T, T, T, T, T, T, H, T, H, H, T, T, T, H, H, H, H, H, H, T (that's my tracking btw) - you start to suspect something is seriously wrong with your coin.

 

The H/T do average out, but the string of H's and T's in a row -- that's very suspect.  1/32, 1/32, 1/2, 1/16, 1/2, 1/2, 1/2, 1/16, 1/64, 1/2, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/64, 1/2   So for 15 "strings" we see 1/64 come up three times, and 1/32 come up twice (which is a 1/1,024 chance)?  And again, I only started tracking this AFTER I felt like it didn't seem probable.  Yes, it can happen, I get that, but not likely and combined with errant or accurate shooting, I suspect RNG is being played with.  Can I prove it?  Probably if I really wanted to do a lot of sampling, but my gut tells me something is seriously broken in the game and the developers are messing with RNG to fix it or make sure you don't sit in the queue too long waiting for a game to start, or maybe they have done their own analysis and come to the conclusion that they get players to stay with the game longer and spend $'s if they give them strings of wins and losses.  Who knows, but if I owned a company like this and the goal was to make $'s, then I'd be running all the analytics I could to figure out the best formula to keep players playing and spending $'s and if I had to mess with RNG to do it, I'd do it.  Maybe they are testing a theory right now and causing this?  Certainly they can do that, it's their game, and it's not illegal for them to mess with RNG as they do not owe payers (not players, payers is the correct term) any fair play.  So my guess is they are experimenting with RNG to see how it impacts money flow.
 

Any game where there are more than 8 players on one team alive at game end is a blowout game per my definition.  To have six games won/loss in a row and all of them being blowout games, that's fishy.  Flipping heads six times in a row is 1/64 chance.  Now to have a string like that repeat after a break of 5-6 games three times?  I don't know the odds of that but it's pretty frigging high.  That's when I decided something was wrong.  At first it was a perception, then I started tracking it, then I concluded there's a problem and I offered a reason I suspected it was happening due to RNG tampering.  Yes, you get frustrated and emotional, but I'm in my 50's and I am able to disconnect that from that and deal with the facts.  I did not track errant shots, but I certainly started becoming aware of a perception of more/less accuracy or more/less penning during blowout wins and losses.  I actually started predicting mentally after my first 2-3 shots, based on accuracy that this would be another blowout win/loss.



Rumbaugh #33 Posted Jan 14 2019 - 12:19

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 6506 battles
  • 276
  • Member since:
    09-14-2010

I agree with this post.

I have checked out the games that I have won by 15 to 0,1,2 and the games I've lost 0,1,2 to 15. The is a common problem in all of these blowouts. One team has 8-10 players 50% wr or higher. The losing team has 2-3 player at 50% or higher. It would be a simple task to fix this. After 30 players are chosen the system then, in miliseconds, could even out by victory %. It's not ideal but it's a start. I honestly don't agree that % shows a player's skill since, like the original post, a person can be thrown into many lopsided matches and lose not because of being bad but just a messed up match. A few times it's been a imbalance of the tanks themselves. But I'm not sure how to correct that.



Machisman #34 Posted Jan 15 2019 - 18:20

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 37000 battles
  • 122
  • Member since:
    10-27-2011

Since the server split Central and East, the MM has gone for worse. My winrate dropped from 53.7 to 53.4%. I am always made to fight atleast 3 or 4 real good players in enemy team, with a weak team. My last 7 days win rate has been 37%. Noobmeter will show my performance.

My winrate going down but my avg damage going up. I try to give my best during everybattle, however when your team dies within 3 mins of battle start you can only do so much. Sometimes this game tests your patience. Hope they remerge central and East and hope to see better battles.

 

I am just too weak to even say what is wrong and how to fix it. But going by the trend, this game is not enjoyable anymore.



NeatoMan #35 Posted Jan 15 2019 - 21:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 28204 battles
  • 20,744
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostPhilthyOne1, on Jan 13 2019 - 03:49, said:

If you flip a coin, you expect to see this:  H, T, H, H, T, T, H, T, T, T, H, T, H, H, T, T, T, H, H  right?  NO

 

When you flip a coin and you see this:  H, H, H, H, H, T, T, T, T, T, H, T, T, T, T, H, T, H, T, H, H, H, H, H, T, T, T, T, T, T, H, T, H, H, T, T, T, H, H, H, H, H, H, T (that's my tracking btw) - you start to suspect something is seriously wrong with your coin.

Not at all.  Your expectations are totally off base.  You expect random to be something it isn't.  You are expecting consistency.  Random is not consistent.

 

The problem here is that many don't understand what random actually is, and they confuse it with something it isn't.



PhilthyOne1 #36 Posted Jan 15 2019 - 23:08

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 35892 battles
  • 29
  • [PDJC] PDJC
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013

View PostNeatoMan, on Jan 15 2019 - 20:55, said:

Not at all.  Your expectations are totally off base.  You expect random to be something it isn't.  You are expecting consistency.  Random is not consistent.

 

The problem here is that many don't understand what random actually is, and they confuse it with something it isn't.

Your comment is confusing?  If you read my comment, it is very clear that I understand random and that my expectations are not off base, especially not "totally" off base.  Again, it's absolutely true that I could flip a coin six times and each time it would end up heads, but you would not expect that to happen with consistency.  It would be an unlikely outcome, precisely 1/64 of a chance of happening.  If that happened 3-4 times in a row, while you could chalk that up to "random", from a consistency perspective, that would be highly suspect.

Additionally, when you look at random from a statistical analysis and probability, random acts, over time, are consistent.  For example, if we flip a coin 100 times, we can be consistently accurate in saying that it will be within 3% of a 1/1 (50 heads and 50 tails).  If we flip that coin a million times, my consistency in accuracy will improve to 1% (probably within six sigma).  My analysis is not based on an individual game, it is based on highly improbable events happening with consistency.

So random is very consistent when we observe a large number of samples.

Don't get a job as a pit boss, because if you observed a blackjack player raking in cash over several hours and tell your supervisor the guy is just lucky, you'll get fired.



Nunya_000 #37 Posted Jan 15 2019 - 23:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 21138 battles
  • 13,780
  • [PACNW] PACNW
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

I often see the "coin-toss" analyse used to describe random battles and never thought it was a very good example.  A coin-toss does not have 30 people trying to influence the outcome and also does not have other factor like RNG involved.  In fact, if a person removed the variables of the coin toss (i.e. position of the coin, force of the flipping mechanism, air resistance, etc) is is quite possible to hit heads or tails multiple times in a row.

 

However, I have seen way too many battles where the final outcome in random battles could have been changed by just one or two shots to the point where predetermining the outcome would be very difficult.  I also believe that IF it was possible to predetermine the outcomes, that the "streaks" would not exist....or at least be very minimal  In my opinion, the existence of "streaks" is support that the battles are NOT predetermined in any fashion. 



PhilthyOne1 #38 Posted Jan 15 2019 - 23:24

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 35892 battles
  • 29
  • [PDJC] PDJC
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013

View PostRumbaugh, on Jan 14 2019 - 11:19, said:

I honestly don't agree that % shows a player's skill since, like the original post, a person can be thrown into many lopsided matches and lose not because of being bad but just a messed up match.

 

I believe that % does show a players skill because over time, a skilled player will turn the tides.  Good players should have a higher win rate than lower skilled players and over time, these imbalances will average out.  The problem is that there are so many blow-out games, it's making WoT a boring game.  Close games are fun and exciting and you'll sit around to see how it plays out.  Blowout games will take you back to the garage quickly because nobody wants to sit and watch the slaughter.  We all know this is true because in a close game, the in-game chat is loaded with comments.  Lots of people hanging around to see the outcome.  The problem I suspect is that WoT is trying to keep people in rotation so players aren't waiting in the game queue too long.  I think they are deliberately trying to throw games to get them to end quickly.



Nunya_000 #39 Posted Jan 15 2019 - 23:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 21138 battles
  • 13,780
  • [PACNW] PACNW
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

View PostPhilthyOne1, on Jan 15 2019 - 14:24, said:

 

The problem I suspect is that WoT is trying to keep people in rotation so players aren't waiting in the game queue too long.  I think they are deliberately trying to throw games to get them to end quickly.

 

That really does not make much sense.  This game is structured around the RU servers, where there is no shortage of players in queue.  With our 20,000 k population, the queue times are still very short.  I don't think that the few extra minutes in battles will impact queue times that much.

 

Also, blow-out games are to be expected in a game of numbers.  That is just the nature of the game.  If you team starts out at 7-10, what would be your prediction on how the battle will end?   I would say it is a very good chance that the team with 10 kills would likely win because they have more guns in play.  While it does happen, it is very hard to come back when your team is down just 3-4 guns.  If they become down 3-4 guns very early in the battle, chances are it will be a blow-out.



PhilthyOne1 #40 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 00:13

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 35892 battles
  • 29
  • [PDJC] PDJC
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013

View PostNunya_000, on Jan 15 2019 - 22:24, said:

I also believe that IF it was possible to predetermine the outcomes, that the "streaks" would not exist....or at least be very minimal  In my opinion, the existence of "streaks" is support that the battles are NOT predetermined in any fashion. 

Actually, you have this backwards.  The only way to create a streak of wins or losses is if you influence the outcome.  If games were matched completely at random, meaning every player was pulled from the queue completely randomly with the tanks they were driving being completely random as well, then you'd have completely random outcomes.


For example, if I have 30 players and 15 are experts and 15 are unskilled, and I put all the experts on the same team, then I'm going to create a string of wins for the experts correct?  Maybe the occasional loss due to luck and RNG, but for the most part, the experts are going to crush the unskilled players 95% of the time.  I can heavily influence the the outcome of the game by putting good players against bad players.  I can't guarantee that the skilled players will always win, but I can certainly stack the odds in their favor.  Now if I put 7 experts and 8 unskilled on one team and 8 experts and 7 unskilled on the other team, we're going to see outcomes closer to 50% win rates, but the team with the extra expert, over time, will win more games.  Not a lot more, but a few more.

You can't pre-determine the outcome, but it can be heavily influenced.  Hence, the only way to end up with streaks of wins and losses is if WoT was purposefully creating imbalance in the teams.  They may evenly balance how many times they put you on the winning or losing team, but the goal is to create imbalance so games end quickly and they get you back into the queue.

 

You know, I just had a thought here that explains this.  By creating imbalances and getting the games to end faster, you are going to be burning through your credits faster.  If you're a pay-to-play person, that means, the more games they can push through the system per hour, the more revenue they can generate.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users