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

Nunya_000 #41 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 01:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 21138 battles
  • 13,772
  • [PACNW] PACNW
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

View PostPhilthyOne1, on Jan 15 2019 - 15:13, said:

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.

 

 

If they can "heavily influence" battles to the extent where they feel it is profitable to go to the expense to write the programming, I would think that they would intentionally avoid streaks.....i.e. win a battle, rigged to lose the next one....lose a battle, rigged to win the next one.  This way they would reach their objective to keep everybody at a 50% WR and their "heavy influence" would be less susceptible to abnormalities that night work against their rigging.  The would also better disguise the fact that it might be rigged.  In other words, if a player is suppose to lose in their 2nd battle, but somehow wins, they would just be rigged to lose the next one.  Streaks would only happen where their influence did not work on consecutive battles. .

 

Block Quote

By creating imbalances and getting the games to end faster, you are going to be burning through your credits faster.

 

That  absolutely does not hold water.  I can easily make credits at tier 7 an below (with no premium account/tanks).  It is only at tier 8-9 where I am up and down and tier 10 where I have to play well to make a profit.  I only "burn" credits when buying a new tech tree tank and/or modules.....which has nothing to do with length of battles.  

 

 

 



SquishySupreme #42 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 02:01

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 3657 battles
  • 713
  • Member since:
    10-29-2018

The MM needs to be based on two main factors:
- Pen

- View range

I've noticed that in every "blowout", the team with the best pen and view range simply pummels the other side.  Win rate or type of tank has nothing to do with it.  When you are out-spotted and every one of your shells bounces while theirs sail through you like butter, it's all but decided when the match starts.  Rating is garbage now if your team repeatedly fails as one tank can't win the game.  Today, as usual, I had a 8 loss to 1 win streak.  I was consistently in the upper 50% by score, but it made no difference as 3 tanks vs 1 = you dead.   When their side is 50 better pen and 50m better view range on average, you are done barring really stupid gameplay.  They hit you harder, bounce less, and do more damage because it pens you for full damage every time.  Often before you can see them.

All the rest - yes, conspiracy theories.  The current MM uses HP and Type and a few other factors, none of which address how heavily pen and view range factor into actually winning.


Edited by SquishySupreme, Jan 16 2019 - 02:01.


dunniteowl #43 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 02:21

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 31326 battles
  • 8,050
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

Someone does NOT understand how random and statistical probabilities operate.  I won't name any names, OP.

 

 

OvO



NeatoMan #44 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 03:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 28180 battles
  • 20,539
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostPhilthyOne1, on Jan 15 2019 - 17:08, said:

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.

But nothing you posted earlier utilized a large number of samples.  less than 50 samples is far from a large number of samples.   Those averages tell you nothing about streaks or sequences.   You simply assumed that they have to be short sequences in order to be random.  That is not how random behaves.  Streaks are expected in random systems



ATruk #45 Posted Jan 19 2019 - 22:04

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 56961 battles
  • 135
  • Member since:
    03-16-2013

I also notice more blowouts currently than in my recollection of all battles past.

It certainly feels like something has changed. Win and lose, I notice more of them now. 



CaptColdplay #46 Posted Jan 20 2019 - 07:22

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 10168 battles
  • 5
  • [XAAX] XAAX
  • Member since:
    03-05-2016
Totally agree with what you said.My win loss ration today is more losses than wins. It's funny reading how people say your game play is not good. Well stats for each person are derived from game play. If your always losing because of poor mm then stats mean nothing now do they. I read an article that WoT is fixing the mm. Obviously if they are fixing it there is an issue. Here is a question. For all the lopsided wins and loses from a bad mm code, how is a players rating fixed due to this bad mm set up?

Schnrd #47 Posted Jan 20 2019 - 10:04

    Private

  • Players
  • 30458 battles
  • 8
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostPhilthyOne1, on Jan 06 2019 - 08:03, said:

So I've been playing for over five years now and I feel it's time to quit.  Spent a few $'s here and there on the game and do not believe spending $'s gives you any advantage in being put on better teams to win more.  My concern is over some statistical anomalies and a feel for the game and I feel something isn't quite right about it anymore.

 

I have a 54% win rate in most tanks and in the last year I've have these frequent runs of 7-8 losses in a row, one win, then another 5-6 losses in a row.  Same for wins, several in a row, then a loss, then several more wins in a row.  Statistically I find it very hard to believe that should happen very frequently at all.  In fact, with 30k battles now, statistically speaking, that would happen maybe once in every 140 games or so.  But these strings of wins and losses are constant.

Not only are they constant, but they are blowout wins or losses.  Rarely do I see a close game, a real thriller.  It's blowout after blowout after blowout.  There is absolutely nothing fun about a blowout win and crazy frustrating for a blowout loss.  Close games are the ones we all remember and enjoy.  Blowouts are not memorable either way, win or lose.

 

My frustration has peaked with the purchase of a Jagdpanzer E100 with 40 battles now and a 37% win rate.  I was really looking forward to this tank too.  However, not one of those games has been anything near a close game.  What prompted me to get on this forum and complain, is that in the last three games, I couldn't even get that slow TD to the front lines to make a difference.  The line would collapse before I could get in position and then I'm surrounded and killed instantly.

 

It was then that I started thinking I really don't like the game anymore because after 30k games you have a feel for it and I've started to realize something isn't quite right.  The match making is really bad, I mean seriously broken bad and I think there is a reason for it.  I feel like WoT tries to get games over quickly to get players back in the queue so they don't have to wait for a game too long.  So they throw imbalance into the equation more often than not.  These strings of wins and losses statistically should not happen with this frequency.  It tells me that WoT is playing around with RNG or team balance.  My guess is that RNG is being played around with because in blowout games, my shots will miss or bounce or not pen much more frequently, or they will be perfect, on target, and pen constantly.  I play arty a lot, and blowout loss games will have misses that are WELL outside the target cross and land on the border of the ring and sometimes even outside of the ring.  Blowout wins have my arty hitting everything.

So I'm almost never on these forums.  I've spent some time reading about Matchmaking and the key I see are these blowout games 15-3 wins/losses with several tanks making zero damage.  Those games are no fun and fun is the key to keeping players.  Unfortunately, something has happened in this last year that has taken the fun out of the game...  So I guess I'm leaving to find a fun game...

 

 

 

I agree to some extent with what you're saying.  Statistically it should be impossible to be on the losing team 75% to 90% of the time for days in a row.  Match making IMO works fine when balancing teams for tank types for one team vs the other.  However, the problem is Wargaming needs to pull their collective heads out of their posteriors and understand that balancing teams needs to include player PRs as part of the match making process.  It's great the teams are balance by tank type and number of tank types per team, that doesn't mean crap if you end up on a team of relatively weak PR players vs a team made up of players with PRs that are on average 3k higher than the opposing team.  It makes the game frustratingly irritating and not much fun to play.  Seriously...what's the point of playing the match if there's no chance in Hell of winning because of the line up.

Schnrd #48 Posted Jan 20 2019 - 10:36

    Private

  • Players
  • 30458 battles
  • 8
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013
First part of fixing mm is to remove the WR as part of the calculation of PR as WR is a statistic that measures a team of 15 individuals ability in random battles to win.  It is not a reflection of the individuals' skill to play the game, but a measure of the skill of everyone on the team collectively to win the match. PR should be made up of an individuals' stats that are a result of their skill to play any given tank in the game such as  hit ratio, kill to death ratio, average damage per game, average xp per game, survival ratio, use of armor, and other such statistics which all are based on the individuals' ability to play the various tanks in the game.  Not one of these stats can be influence by another player other than the individual where as the WR can be influenced by the other players on the team by how well they do or don't play on the team.  You can be the most skilled player on a team and carry the team with the most damage done and most kills in the match and still lose the match.  So the logic of carry harder is a mute point.  WR is really only relevant in team battles and clan skirmishes.  Once they remove WR from the PR calculations they can then include PR as part of the mm process and teams will become more balanced.  You won't end up with these huge swings in win vs loss streaks.  That's just my opinion on how to fix mm.  Hell if they just included PR as part of the mm process without removing the WR as part of the calculation this would still make a huge difference in more balanced teams.

Edited by Schnrd, Jan 20 2019 - 10:39.


astragale #49 Posted Jan 20 2019 - 20:10

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 9372 battles
  • 5
  • [ISWC] ISWC
  • Member since:
    08-21-2018

View PostSchnrd, on Jan 20 2019 - 01:04, said:

 

I agree to some extent with what you're saying.  Statistically it should be impossible to be on the losing team 75% to 90% of the time for days in a row.  Match making IMO works fine when balancing teams for tank types for one team vs the other.  However, the problem is Wargaming needs to pull their collective heads out of their posteriors and understand that balancing teams needs to include player PRs as part of the match making process.  It's great the teams are balance by tank type and number of tank types per team, that doesn't mean crap if you end up on a team of relatively weak PR players vs a team made up of players with PRs that are on average 3k higher than the opposing team.  It makes the game frustratingly irritating and not much fun to play.  Seriously...what's the point of playing the match if there's no chance in Hell of winning because of the line up.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with this, and it should be an easy fix.

 

Based on XVM, I have been in Random Battles that had as high as a 5,000 Wargaming rating delta (using lifetime skill rating), and not surprisingly, the disadvantaged team lost quickly.

 

This is not strictly related to my actual individual performance, which was average (being a new, average player) and on par with my rating. Overall the individual performance has little impact on such unbalanced games, especially if you are in bottom tier, which is often.

 

I agree with other posters that the WG rating system is not ideal, but it is a start; using more advanced rating systems (wn8) would be even better, or even better still, a multi-regression of all rating systems.  

 

Once the pool of 30 players is selected, and split into opposing teams with similar tank types/platoons/tiers,etc. why is there not another pass to balance players based on their rating?  There is no reason why this could not happen; the computing necessary to do this is insignificant and it would have no impact on the overall team composition (i.e. no need to change any of the 30 tanks locked in that battle, so no impact on the MM engine); just a reassignment of a few tanks with their equivalent counterparts on the other team so that the wargaming rating delta would be below a certain threshold.

 

Going into games where the expected winrate (based on XVM and using the standard, lifetime wargaming rating) is around 30% for one team because the delta of overall rating is > 5,000 is not excusable, and makes for an un-enjoyable one-sided battle for both sides.  


Edited by astragale, Jan 20 2019 - 20:11.


astragale #50 Posted Jan 20 2019 - 20:25

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 9372 battles
  • 5
  • [ISWC] ISWC
  • Member since:
    08-21-2018

View PostSchnrd, on Jan 20 2019 - 01:36, said:

First part of fixing mm is to remove the WR as part of the calculation of PR as WR is a statistic that measures a team of 15 individuals ability in random battles to win.  It is not a reflection of the individuals' skill to play the game, but a measure of the skill of everyone on the team collectively to win the match. PR should be made up of an individuals' stats that are a result of their skill to play any given tank in the game such as  hit ratio, kill to death ratio, average damage per game, average xp per game, survival ratio, use of armor, and other such statistics which all are based on the individuals' ability to play the various tanks in the game.  Not one of these stats can be influence by another player other than the individual where as the WR can be influenced by the other players on the team by how well they do or don't play on the team.  You can be the most skilled player on a team and carry the team with the most damage done and most kills in the match and still lose the match.  So the logic of carry harder is a mute point.  WR is really only relevant in team battles and clan skirmishes.  Once they remove WR from the PR calculations they can then include PR as part of the mm process and teams will become more balanced.  You won't end up with these huge swings in win vs loss streaks.  That's just my opinion on how to fix mm.  Hell if they just included PR as part of the mm process without removing the WR as part of the calculation this would still make a huge difference in more balanced teams.

I think that WR is a valuable metric for the skill of players, which is why it is at the heart of wn8. Of course you can have a game where you get whacked off in the beginning and not contribute much and still win, but then that is offset by your low damage, kills, etc. Conversely, you can be a high tier TD, hide near the redline and farm damage after your team gets decimated and have a decent damage and kill score, but be a significant contribution to the loss.

 

WR is as valuable in random as in team battles; the difference between the two is that coordination of teams will influence WR more in team battles, but that is not to say it is irrelevant in random battles.

 

Regardless, we both agree that not taking into account PR in balancing the teams in random battles is broken and could be easily fixed.



Copacetic #51 Posted Jan 21 2019 - 03:10

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 47224 battles
  • 1,661
  • [ZEUS] ZEUS
  • Member since:
    02-04-2014

View PostATruk, on Jan 19 2019 - 22:04, said:

I also notice more blowouts currently than in my recollection of all battles past.

It certainly feels like something has changed. Win and lose, I notice more of them now. 

Your recollection isn't worth 2 chits



ATruk #52 Posted Jan 22 2019 - 14:26

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 56961 battles
  • 135
  • Member since:
    03-16-2013

View PostCopacetic, on Jan 20 2019 - 19:10, said:

Your recollection isn't worth 2 chits

 

I would not make decisions based on my recollection or feels either. 

Only thing I can figure is that I’m surviving longer now and get to see the end of the battles more often. 

Live long and damage. 



AJABOOBOO #53 Posted Jan 22 2019 - 23:28

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 7139 battles
  • 119
  • [74TH] 74TH
  • Member since:
    08-13-2011

To say WG rigs WoT MM would be an understatement and has been proven by multiple players gathering data from thousands of games over time. Not one has had results anywhere near the stated MM rates nor did they average together as close. The MM is rigged 100% for sure and has been proven so enough of the fan bois, community moderator sock puppet accounts trolling which is a thing and from a leaked WG document on being a com mod on forums and anyone else who tries to defend MM with nothing but empty "well WG stated its" or the trollish "git gud" nonsense used by wallet warriors

WG has admitted this before in a manner of speaking. A while ago they stated an i am paraphrasing: We have designed the MM to encourage quick match turnovers to reduce wait times in battle ques

their words not mine and i will let you all figure that out for yourselves.

 

with the law in Europe passed known as the GDPR or General Data Protection Regulation and more and more people releasing what other companies with mirror business models to that of WG have found is:

Companies such as WG keep data not only on every purchase but your play habits, styles, likes and dislikes along with classifying people as "freebies" to "spenders". The only reason to keep data and classify a person as a spender is because they are getting special treatment and focus. That is just basic logic and data manipulation techniques used by the entire greedy industry.

 

The rigging goes farther than just simple MM because after all, you can stack one team full of the op tanks but it doesnt mean they will play with any brains.

 

The second extent of the rigging is in game, live rigging of shell pen rates, trajectories, damage roles, detection values and even tank speeds in some cases. ever notice when an odd bounce off an enemy occurs that should have 100% penned the server seems to hiccup?

or when aiming then shooting at a stationary enemy whos broadise if facing you begins to move forward or backward the shell will fire out of the barrel diagonally following the tank movement?

that second part is important because it happens a lot in this game.

How about ghost shells?

Those are constant in this game and even when viewing recording where the "server side" is what is being shown, you can see 3 to 4 per game easily. Ghost shells for those who dont know are shells that fly straight threw the enemy tank not registering as a hit or bounce striking the ground or obstacle behind them.

 

Now some will say no way its BS there is no way to live time rig nor would there be any reason to.

To that i say there is and there is.

The way is simple. Using predictive and preset limits usinge algorithms during each shot. Also these programs are patented by WG. The RNG as its called is designed as a smoke screen if you will. A cover for the real work in game of live time rigging.

 

The second is it makes more money. designating players as payers or freebies not only allows for the better manipulation and control of the predictive coding it also allows WG to attempt to aggressively market to payers while giving them better in game results most of the time while punishing free players accordingly. The drive is to make people feel under powered or jealous of a payers vehicle or performance so they open up their wallets.

 

The proof?

Its in the numbers. WoT has lost 40% of its player base in the past few years as shown by Quickbaby on youtube. Multiple people from laymen to those in the f2p industry have stated that this game is clearly rigged. WG own admittance of this game being rigged via press statements about MM patches, The encourage fast match turnover part is just one example. The extreme pay to win and aggressively and stupidly catering to a smaller and smaller, spender player base which is nothing but a death spiral. E-Sports even stated that the reason WoT is not allowed entry is because of blatant and game outcome altering P2W and rigging in both MM and In game

 

 

to the "its all just random" honest crowd.

Check those peoples accounts

they are either premium tanks or time or both buyers otherwise classified as spenders or payers internally in WG. They dont see the rigging because they are usually directly benefiting from it. I have roughly 23years of online gaming experience in multiple games and game types. I have never come across a game that is so blatantly and constantly being manipulated by the owner company such as WG with WoT.

 

Seriously, next time the bs bounce occurs or the next ghost shell happens keep track of the server lag and hiccups. Its not a coincidence its manipulation.

 

 

 


Edited by AJABOOBOO, Jan 22 2019 - 23:38.


Copacetic #54 Posted Jan 22 2019 - 23:33

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 47224 battles
  • 1,661
  • [ZEUS] ZEUS
  • Member since:
    02-04-2014

View PostATruk, on Jan 22 2019 - 14:26, said:

 

I would not make decisions based on my recollection or feels either. 

Only thing I can figure is that I’m surviving longer now and get to see the end of the battles more often. 

Live long and damage. 

 

33% isn't bad survival rate...but you should try to get it to 40 or more. And stop playing friggin arty

AJABOOBOO #55 Posted Jan 22 2019 - 23:35

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 7139 battles
  • 119
  • [74TH] 74TH
  • Member since:
    08-13-2011

View PostCopacetic, on Jan 22 2019 - 22:33, said:

 

33% isn't bad survival rate...but you should try to get it to 40 or more. And stop playing friggin arty

 

stats mean nothing in a rigged system. When the game is live time rigging along with MM rigging stats are about as accurate as throwing the bones.

Copacetic #56 Posted Jan 22 2019 - 23:44

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 47224 battles
  • 1,661
  • [ZEUS] ZEUS
  • Member since:
    02-04-2014
System isn't rigged and stats show who you are.

Smooky_Le_chien_husky #57 Posted Jan 23 2019 - 01:08

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 24680 battles
  • 903
  • [LMFR] LMFR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2012

I can told . t6 into 8 when you cant not pen nothing side front  and behind . you just there for be a candy to be dead for tier 7 and 8 

 



NeatoMan #58 Posted Jan 23 2019 - 01:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 28180 battles
  • 20,539
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostAJABOOBOO, on Jan 22 2019 - 17:28, said:

.... and has been proven by multiple players gathering data from thousands of games over time. Not one has had results anywhere near the stated MM rates nor did they average together as close.

Fake news.  post one such result... I dare you.

 

I guarantee it is just a bunch of pseudo statistics, and tin foil....   and if you post that lightquick blog then we know you are completely full of it.



Dragon6actual #59 Posted Feb 10 2019 - 22:35

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 15229 battles
  • 48
  • [PRIC] PRIC
  • Member since:
    03-01-2011

IMO... I don't see the real issue as the match-maker but the proliferation of premium tanks.  Take WoTs 3-5-7 match-maker formula for example.  If tier 8 is the top tier and there were no premium tanks both sides would probably be fairly balanced.  But introduce premium tanks and one team could have new or inexperienced players playing the top tier's three tanks and the other team experienced players... probably going to be a blowout.  A brand new player could theoretically buy a tier 8 tank having played not one game.  This doesn't happen often enough to have a adverse impact on the outcome of many games but if the top three tier 8 tanks of one team have significantly less experience then the other teams top three, that game will in all probability end in a blowout.  I have suggested to WoTs several times about instead of trying to find a solution to a perceived MM issue, find some way to balance teams based on player experience.

 

For those of you who like to have some type of statistical analysis to back up opinions.  I did a 1869 game analysis and player experience (no surprise here) or specifically player inexperience in the top tier tank killing tanks has a great deal of influence on the game outcome. admittedly there are other factors that could influence the outcome of a game but WoTs have ALL the data not just 1869 games played by one average at best player.  I think they (WoTs developers) need to think outside of the box...outside of THEIR box!.  I worked in IT for 35 years and the worst thing a developer can do is assume.

 

I did find one wrinkle... in games with three artillery on each side.  The team with the more experienced artillery players produced slightly higher winning percentages.  

 

 


Edited by Dragon6actual, Feb 10 2019 - 22:38.


OneTimeAtBandCamp #60 Posted Feb 10 2019 - 23:15

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 2713 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    02-13-2017
More needs to be done to match players with similar abilities...I experience one good close game out of every 15 to 20 games...this is not acceptable with the siftware that is available today. I additionally would like to see a limit of TWO clan members per random game. I have seen as many as FIVE playing together in random matches. That is hugely unfair to the remaining " random " players. I won't even get started on the 95 mph wheeled vehicles...what a huge mistake!




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users