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

dunniteowl #81 Posted Mar 13 2019 - 00:00

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 29743 battles
  • 7,429
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

View PostPhilthyOne1, on Mar 12 2019 - 15:45, said:

I applaud your effort.  You are missing many, many variables though.  For the coin, air temperature, humidity, temperature of the coin, temperature of the ground, barometric pressure, local gravity, how many atoms fly off the coin after you flip it as each flip it will lose some material due to abrasion.  Then there are the players, type of PC, mouse, internet connection, monitor size, mouse surface, keyboard reaction time, and another million variables.  All of these will affect the outcome - agreed. 

 

I was not trying to compare the game and coin flipping.  My point in comparing the two is in only stating that the goal is to have 50/50 outcomes, outcomes that are evenly balanced.  If you played 30,000 games and have a 50% win rate, that means, on average, you win 50% of your games.  If you flip a coin 30,000 times and it lands on heads 15,000 times, it's a reliable coin.  Based on the number of games played, 50% is a pretty reliable percentage for outcomes.  So if you win 10 games in a row, that's as if you flipped a coin 10 times and it landed on heads each time.  The odds of that happening are 2^10 or 1:1024.  Not saying it can't happen, just that it's not as likely as a string of 2-3 wins in a row followed by a few losses in a row.

 

No, No, and NO, not agreed.  Atoms, air temperature, etc, are not going to change WHILE you're flipping that very same coin, so NO, NO, NO.  We are not agreed.

 

Now you're attempting to purposely complicate a process that is inordinately simple in mechanics so that you can claim that you're still right about this stuff.  You're not right.  All those other things you mention on coin tosses are, at the very BEST, so negligible as to be (wait for it) Statistically Insignificant in the outcomes.

 

Get that part?  Statistically Insignificant.  Look, I used to have to examine computer chips on the silicon wafers upon which they were made.  I examined these things under very strong Optical Microscopes and even Stronger Scanning Electron Microscopes.  We're talking LOOKING at 10 Angstroms difference on a surface you cannot imagine with the naked eye.  You just can't.  It looks like a flat, shiny surface with circuitry printed on it until you magnify it over 250 times.  At that point, it starts to look sort of like a city from an airplane.  Using a SEM, it starts to look like ancient ruins at the bottom of the ocean.

 

At THAT point, atoms going one way instead of another might make a difference, however, unless there is something WRONG with your design and circuit they are -- guess what -- statistically insignificant.  And THOSE things (microchips) are certainly more subject to anomalous changes at those levels than ANY coin will ever be.

 

All that stuff you mention with regard to the coins is nothing more than a dodge in order to 'solidify' your poor position for using it in the first place.

 

The real point -- and you know it -- is that comparing the game's outcomes on the same level and order of a coin toss is foolish.  It literally disqualifies ANY person so making the comparison in terms of validity in making their points as they are too simplistically applied, showing a level of ignorance of the differences to any person capable of making those distinctions.

 

Such as all of us disagreeing with you.  

 

 

Look, I get it.  No-one LIKES to be wrong *(although I admit in some cases, I have been very happy to have been wrong, like when I said, "We're all going to die," and we didn't even get hurt), however, part of the process of learning new things, taking in data that is unfamiliar and ADAPTING to NEW SITUATIONS is all about being able to be wrong, incorporate that new information we didn't know was true and then moving forward from there by scrapping our old wrong ideas and notions such that we don't repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

 

I have been wrong on these very forums.  I don't like it when i'm wrong so what I do is: Scrap my wrong beliefs, notions and ideas.  Then I REFLECT on the new information and apply it in other situations that apply and see where I can avoid being wrong in subsequent interactions.  And when I am wrong, I will admit it.  I don't like being wrong, but I also don't mind finding out when I am.  It's important to know where I am mistaken and what the correct information is so that I don't continue to make poor decisions based on faulty knowledge.

 

 

And you're NOT doing this.  You keep twisting the argument so you can be right.  Can you say, "Epicycles?"  Yeah, look that up.

 

The argument you're making is this:  WG needs to do more to balance things so that we don't have these streaks and they aren't doing it.

 

Well, the truth is this.  Neither WG, nor any other development company of software of any kind can do this without RIGGING the thing.  Which was my whole point about using a machine coin flipper.  With those sorts of controls, you can only do so much.  IN a human environment such as we play in this game, you cannot do this without purposely and overtly RIGGING the game that would piss off any player capable of spotting it.

 

Right now, that looks like every detractor of your OP and none of those who are 100% on your side.  I would, under any other circumstances consider you one of the "Some of the People" in Abraham Lincoln's adage about being fooled.  Stop fooling yourself.

 

OvO



BayouPhantom #82 Posted Mar 13 2019 - 01:59

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 21 battles
  • 56
  • Member since:
    02-25-2019

View Postixovera, on Mar 11 2019 - 13:39, said:

I saw you do statistically better in T4/5/6 games than T7/8/9/10 games.

My suggestion is to find out what makes you good in the lower tier games, then find (and play) higher tier tanks that fit that profile. For me, I do better in highly mobile tanks (LTs, some MTs, and some HTs). I don't do well in most tanks that are slow. Another responder mentioned that if half your team drops the ball and dies early, it's pretty difficult to recover--and that's just the way it is (queue song). Perhaps that is why I do better in (and prefer) highly mobile tanks. They can switch flanks, retreat, recover, and take advantage of opportunities much more easily than slower tanks. That's what works for me. It may also work for you if you are finding the JPEG hard to win in. (The Type 5 is an exception because everyone is scared of getting derped in the face with a 50/50 chance of penning their shot.)

So, again, if you really enjoy playing (and are good in) tanks like the Cromwell or Hellcat or M41 LT, well those are highly mobile tanks and perhaps that is where you shine. If you are killer in something like the T-150 or the O-I, then hmm, work on angling more? A lot of times I experiment in games to get a good feel for a tank's strengths and weaknesses. Like, I intentionally take a hit at certain angles to see if I get penned or not so that I know how to angle that tank in future battles.
 
Anyway, just some thoughts. I hope it helps.

 

Very well put and respective of the OP.  A rarity in the forums.  Thank you.

Zildura #83 Posted Mar 13 2019 - 09:53

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 27192 battles
  • 16
  • Member since:
    11-10-2011

When you get 10 games in a row where whole team just goes up middle or right of map or left and

 no where else you just help but . have bad games or

mm puts in matches where  all your heavy tanks are 1 or 2 tirs lower and are heavys   are tin cans

and theres  really have armour on  maps you need them to hold points on map and

there td s have heavy armour  with good guns and yours have pop guns plus are tin cans. Ive dropped

from 53% to 48%  in 1 day  from this crap. did not matter what I played td med or heavy,light,arty.

when this happens this much there. is a pattern. mm sets the pattern and this is not random!

and the player can not do any thing. play stile means jack, when all shots . go high or low ,dont  pin,

Ive fired 5 rounds at light tank 2 tirs lower  fro+m a heavy 2 of them gold front side , and rear.whole game was this way. even rammed him all no damage.



Nunya_000 #84 Posted Mar 13 2019 - 15:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 21138 battles
  • 13,768
  • [PACNW] PACNW
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

View PostPhilthyOne1, on Mar 12 2019 - 14:23, said:

Actually, you are quite wrong.  If both events have a 50% chance of happening over a large sample set (30,000 samples in this case), then they are equally likely to occur.  If you played 30,000 games and had a 50% win rate, would you say your odds of winning a single game are 50/50.  Let's just agree on that - can we?  

 

No, we can not agree.  You are conflating the chance of something happening with the chance to win each battle....which is a completely wrong approach.  Say a player wins 10 battles and then loses 10 battles.....and this pattern repeats for 20k battles.  He still has a 50% WR, but that does not correlate that there is a 50% chance that the 20,001 battle would be a win and a 50% chance that it would be a loss.

 

Example: Lets say a sports team has a lifetime win % of 50.0%.  Based on your theory, it would be unlikely that they could have 20% WR in one season.....and if they did, they would likely have a 80% WR season the next year.  It does not work like that.



george68 #85 Posted Mar 13 2019 - 18:26

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 80182 battles
  • 69
  • [RAI] RAI
  • Member since:
    02-14-2012
is too much shi..t in this game  i hope sttoped

PhilthyOne1 #86 Posted Mar 13 2019 - 20:54

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 33749 battles
  • 27
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013

View PostNunya_000, on Mar 13 2019 - 14:15, said:

 

No, we can not agree.  You are conflating the chance of something happening with the chance to win each battle....which is a completely wrong approach.  Say a player wins 10 battles and then loses 10 battles.....and this pattern repeats for 20k battles.  He still has a 50% WR, but that does not correlate that there is a 50% chance that the 20,001 battle would be a win and a 50% chance that it would be a loss.

 

Example: Lets say a sports team has a lifetime win % of 50.0%.  Based on your theory, it would be unlikely that they could have 20% WR in one season.....and if they did, they would likely have a 80% WR season the next year.  It does not work like that.

If a pattern of 10 wins and 10 losses repeated like that for 20k battles, you are correct, they would not have a 50% chance for a win on the 20,001st battle because of the consistency of the pattern.  There would be no randomness to it, it would be a pattern.  I would then say the chance for a win on the 20,001st battle would be 100% because the pattern established would indicate the next game would be the first win in the next series of 10 wins.

If you were to tell me that the series of 10 wins and 10 losses for 20k battles happened purely by chance, I'd call you a liar.  But, if you were able to prove it by showing me the data that it really happened by pure chance, then I'd say the odds of the next game is 50/50.  If you flipped a coin 10 times in a row and each flip it ended up heads, the odds of the next flip being heads is 50/50.  Past results do not influence future performance so to say.  But the odds of flipping a coin 11 times in a row and it landing heads each time is 1:2048.  So yes, if a team had a 50% lifetime win rate, it would be unlikely they would have a 20% season.  That bad season would lower their overall lifetime win % to something below 50%, and lower their odds of having a 50% season the next year.  I would have no expectation that they would have an 80% win rate the next season.

Going back to my example of coin flipping and the game - which I know you don't understand, but keep thinking about it.  If we were betting on coin flips and you kept winning each toss by calling heads.  Maybe the first 6-7 flips I'd be like, "just bad luck for me", but by the 10th flip, I'd be asking to take a look at that coin.  And after 20 flips and you still winning, I'd figure you were cheating me somehow because the odds of that happening are over a million to one.  If I'm playing a game and my lifetime win% is 54%, then that means I usually win 54% of the time.  Over 30,000 games, that is a pretty strong average and one we could bank on.  If I lose 4-5 games in a row, I consider that bad luck.  If I lose 10 games in a row, that's really bad luck.  If a pattern was to start win 10 wins and 10 losses and 10 wins, knowing this was supposed to be a random outcome, I'd really doubt the randomness of it.  And that's all I'm saying.  I've tracked wins and losses, especially blowout wins and losses, and the odds of these things happening purely by chance are questionable.  I'm not saying it's impossible, but they certainly are well outside the bell curve.



PhilthyOne1 #87 Posted Mar 13 2019 - 21:09

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 33749 battles
  • 27
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013

View Postdunniteowl, on Mar 12 2019 - 23:00, said:

 

No, No, and NO, not agreed.  Atoms, air temperature, etc, are not going to change WHILE you're flipping that very same coin, so NO, NO, NO.  We are not agreed.

 

Now you're attempting to purposely complicate a process that is inordinately simple in mechanics so that you can claim that you're still right about this stuff.  You're not right.  All those other things you mention on coin tosses are, at the very BEST, so negligible as to be (wait for it) Statistically Insignificant in the outcomes.

 

Get that part?  Statistically Insignificant.  Look, I used to have to examine computer chips on the silicon wafers upon which they were made.  I examined these things under very strong Optical Microscopes and even Stronger Scanning Electron Microscopes.  We're talking LOOKING at 10 Angstroms difference on a surface you cannot imagine with the naked eye.  You just can't.  It looks like a flat, shiny surface with circuitry printed on it until you magnify it over 250 times.  At that point, it starts to look sort of like a city from an airplane.  Using a SEM, it starts to look like ancient ruins at the bottom of the ocean.

 

At THAT point, atoms going one way instead of another might make a difference, however, unless there is something WRONG with your design and circuit they are -- guess what -- statistically insignificant.  And THOSE things (microchips) are certainly more subject to anomalous changes at those levels than ANY coin will ever be.

 

All that stuff you mention with regard to the coins is nothing more than a dodge in order to 'solidify' your poor position for using it in the first place.

 

The real point -- and you know it -- is that comparing the game's outcomes on the same level and order of a coin toss is foolish.  It literally disqualifies ANY person so making the comparison in terms of validity in making their points as they are too simplistically applied, showing a level of ignorance of the differences to any person capable of making those distinctions.

 

Such as all of us disagreeing with you.  

 

 

Look, I get it.  No-one LIKES to be wrong *(although I admit in some cases, I have been very happy to have been wrong, like when I said, "We're all going to die," and we didn't even get hurt), however, part of the process of learning new things, taking in data that is unfamiliar and ADAPTING to NEW SITUATIONS is all about being able to be wrong, incorporate that new information we didn't know was true and then moving forward from there by scrapping our old wrong ideas and notions such that we don't repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

 

I have been wrong on these very forums.  I don't like it when i'm wrong so what I do is: Scrap my wrong beliefs, notions and ideas.  Then I REFLECT on the new information and apply it in other situations that apply and see where I can avoid being wrong in subsequent interactions.  And when I am wrong, I will admit it.  I don't like being wrong, but I also don't mind finding out when I am.  It's important to know where I am mistaken and what the correct information is so that I don't continue to make poor decisions based on faulty knowledge.

 

 

And you're NOT doing this.  You keep twisting the argument so you can be right.  Can you say, "Epicycles?"  Yeah, look that up.

 

The argument you're making is this:  WG needs to do more to balance things so that we don't have these streaks and they aren't doing it.

 

Well, the truth is this.  Neither WG, nor any other development company of software of any kind can do this without RIGGING the thing.  Which was my whole point about using a machine coin flipper.  With those sorts of controls, you can only do so much.  IN a human environment such as we play in this game, you cannot do this without purposely and overtly RIGGING the game that would piss off any player capable of spotting it.

 

Right now, that looks like every detractor of your OP and none of those who are 100% on your side.  I would, under any other circumstances consider you one of the "Some of the People" in Abraham Lincoln's adage about being fooled.  Stop fooling yourself.

 

OvO

Simple question:

If I have a 50% win rate over 30,000 games, and before the game starts, you have to place a $1.00 bet on if I win or lose the next game.  How will you place that bet?  After 100 games of betting $1.00 a game, how much money would you expect to have won and lost.

 

Now....

 

If I give you a dollar and I'm going to flip a coin, how will you place that bet?  After 100 flips, how much money would you expect to have won or lost.

 

I'll answer for you.  In each case, you should break just about even.  Maybe you win a few extra $'s or lose a few extra $'s, but the amount of money won/lost should be statistically insignificant.  That's the comparison.  I'm simply using a well established rate of return based on average game play.  Yes, there are all kinds of variables to consider, but at the end of the day, after 30,000 games, if I've won 54% of those games, then it's a good bet that I have a 54% chance of winning game 30,001 and if I had to bet my dollar, I'd bet on me winning.  And, after the next 100 games, I should have an extra $4.00 in my pocket.



dunniteowl #88 Posted Mar 13 2019 - 21:31

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 29743 battles
  • 7,429
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

With you?  I'd expect to have all your money in short order.  While you're busy flipping that coin, I'm going to roll out with a haymaker and clock you.  Then I'll grab all your cash, including that coin, which was tails, by the way.

 

You keep using this coin example and you keep coming back to it, trying to simplify it, then complexify it, back and forth.  I swear, arguing with you and expecting actual logic?  It's a coin toss either way.

 

 

OvO



PhilthyOne1 #89 Posted Mar 13 2019 - 23:03

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 33749 battles
  • 27
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013

View Postdunniteowl, on Mar 13 2019 - 20:31, said:

With you?  I'd expect to have all your money in short order.  While you're busy flipping that coin, I'm going to roll out with a haymaker and clock you.  Then I'll grab all your cash, including that coin, which was tails, by the way.

 

You keep using this coin example and you keep coming back to it, trying to simplify it, then complexify it, back and forth.  I swear, arguing with you and expecting actual logic?  It's a coin toss either way.

 

 

OvO

 

I suppose that's because you haven't presented any argument back why I'm wrong in my example.  Here's another:

 

If the weather man says there's a 50% chance of rain today, then it's equivalent to a coin toss right?  If he's tracked his predictions of weather patterns over 30,000 forecasts and found that 50% of the time when he predicts there is rain coming, rain actually comes, then he's accurate 50% of the time.  And he's got a LOT of previous data to back up his accuracy, so his 50% is reliable.  The more forecasts (data points) we have, the more reliable his estimate becomes.  I'm not bringing in complexity, I'm giving you examples of how these things relate.

Here's another.  If after looking at 30,000 wafers, you found a failure rate of 50% of the 300 chips on each wafer (admittedly a high rate of failure), wouldn't you say that for each chip you look at, it's a strong of a 50/50 chance of it passing or failing and on average, you could expect to find 150 good chips per wafer?  This may be a bad example because I'm not familiar with what causes a failure on a silicone wafer.  Perhaps a string if failures is caused due to a manufacturing defect on the wafer that runs through several dozen chips in a row.  But again, if each chip was totally independent and had independent chances of being flawed, you could compare the pass/fail rate of chips to coin tosses.  If you put all 9,000,000 chips in a bag and started pulling them out one at a time, you'd have a 50/50 chance of pulling out one that works and one that doesn't.  What is the difference to that and tossing a coin?



dunniteowl #90 Posted Mar 14 2019 - 03:07

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 29743 battles
  • 7,429
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

I cite the concept that, as you have presented nothing further that changes your argument, as we have already thrown out the entire coin flipping concept as Ludicrous as a comparison in the first place, I need not argue the point other than to say, Your Argument Lacks Credible Teeth.  You made the point and you keep using incorrect analogies to make it, which, more than myself contend is riddled with a lack of understanding of what you're actually attempting to 'lay down' in this debate such that any further attempts on your part to 'be right' by changing the goal posts of your point is nothing more than sophistry.

 

Therefore I do not take you or your argument seriously at this point.  You need to provide some real, actual PROOF.  So far all you've been doing is talking out your backside as if you have a strong position.  In cards, we'd say you were bluffing with a pair of deuces.  I've got three Kings in my hand.  I call.

 

It's up to you to pony up the Call Amount or fold.  The Call Amount is Solid, data-driven PROOF of your point.  You do that and we have a chance to actually have a conversation.

 

 

GL, HF & HSYBF!
OvO



Zildura #91 Posted Mar 14 2019 - 05:27

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 27192 battles
  • 16
  • Member since:
    11-10-2011

 

you miss the point. when all 10 losses ,happen during bad mm s and gun only puts 1 shot in 8 on target,with some

in dirt sky or shots that go right on target and vanish.and not just me but happens to the entire team.this garbage

makes the game a stacked deck.

 

 

 

 



NeatoMan #92 Posted Mar 19 2019 - 04:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 27973 battles
  • 19,901
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostPhilthyOne1, on Mar 12 2019 - 16:45, said:

 So if you win 10 games in a row, that's as if you flipped a coin 10 times and it landed on heads each time.  The odds of that happening are 2^10 or 1:1024.  Not saying it can't happen, just that it's not as likely as a string of 2-3 wins in a row followed by a few losses in a row.

Those are the odds of getting 10 heads in 10 straight flips.  However you've played 30k+ games, so you have repeated a 10 game sequence over 30k times.  Assuming those 1:1024 odds are correct you should have experienced a random 10-game streak every thousand games or so, or roughly 30 times in your WoT career

 

btw, I'm still getting the same level of blowouts I have for years.


Edited by NeatoMan, Mar 19 2019 - 05:18.


Pipinghot #93 Posted Mar 19 2019 - 15:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 9,917
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostPhilthyOne1, on Mar 11 2019 - 16:16, said:

View PostPipinghot, on Jan 07 2019 - 04:33, said:

No, tinfoil hatted conspiracy theorists don't understand randomness and game play. Everyone who correctly understands how randomness works, and how win/loss strings work, also understand that the game is working just as it should. Players can either choose to take responsibility for their game play, or they can blame the game because their egos are too weak.

I have a very clear understanding of randomness.  You are ignoring quite a bit of my posting.

No, I'm sorry but that's incorrect, it's explicitly because of your posting that I say you don't have a proper understanding of randomness, statistics and probability theory. I don't want this to sound hostile, I'm not trying to make you feel bad or act superior or crap post you, this is a sincere, erstwhile attempt to help you.

 

You're not a fool, you're not ignorant, you just don't know quite enough. You understand just enough to shoot yourself in the foot, and you're resisting attempts to show you how and why you're hurting yourself with a lack of understanding.

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?

 

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.

This is a perfect example of just how you get it wrong. The answer to your question is "No, not right". Only people who don't properly understand randomness expect to see that, it's a perfect illustration of how you only know enough to cloud your ability to get it right. Again, I don't say that with any malice, you're simply offering an incorrect conclusion. And I'm not suggesting that you're ignorant, you've clearly done some work with randomness somewhere in a math class or two, but you have only learned enough to make you think that you understand it all, and you're ignoring answers from people who are trying to explain to you why your level of knowledge is not giving you the right answers.

 

Conversely, the second example, that you find suspicious, looks a lot more like a good example of what you should be expecting. But somehow you think that looks sinister which, again, illustrates that you have a misguided understanding of how randomness works.

 

The problem is that the first example is how it feels like randomness should work, but sometimes feelings are wrong and this is one of those times. The second example is a lot closer to how it really works, and unfortunately that feels wrong to our minds, even though that's closer to real randomness. You cannot understand randomness with feelings, because randomness goes against everything we feel based on how the human mind works. The human mind is a pattern recognition engine, and that engine fails to understand randomness because the patterns we look for don't exist the way we want them to.

View PostPhilthyOne1, on Mar 11 2019 - 16:16, said:

I have a very clear understanding of randomness.  You are ignoring quite a bit of my posting.  So once again, while it is possible to flip a coin and have strings of heads and tails, such as HHHHHHTTTTTTHHHHHHHHTTTTTTTT, this "string" is not likely.  Yes, I could flip a coin 10 times in a row and each time it comes up heads.  The odds of it being heads again on the 11th flip is still 50/50.  But the odds of 11 heads in a row are 1 in 2,048.  So "strings" are not normal.

 

Strings are entirely normal, strings should happen, strings are exactly what you should expect, this is a point that you keep on ignoring or dismissing. You need to learn that strings are normal, and strings are to be expected, you have to learn that important point if you're ever going to understand randomness. The only real question is how large the strings should be and how often you should see them, and you're using the wrong logic and math when you look at strings.

 

For example, you are thinking of strings as being discrete blocks of battles, and that's wrong. Let's look at the your own example from above to talk about this concept.

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

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

I'm going to ask you a question based on the series of battles that you posted earlier. There are 44 battles in that series, if we're going to break that down that series into a collection of strings of 5 each, how many strings do we have?
 

Based on your posts you (like most people) break down that series in one of two ways.

 

1) First mental method, 8 discrete strings of 5 battles, with 4 left over, for a total of 9 discrete strings.

"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"

 

2) Second mental method, break it up into strings based on streaks, for a total of 16 discrete strings.

"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"

 

Now here's the catch - both of those are wrong. And I don't mean "we disagree on how to look at the series of battles", I mean that if you truly want to use probability theory and statistical analysis to look at winning streaks and losing streaks then both of those methods are objectively wrong. If you are thinking of randomness using either of those methods you're going to give yourself wrong answers.

 

Here's how it really should look.

 

Battles 1-5:  H, H, H, H, H,

Battles 2-6:  H, H, H, H, T

Battles 3-7:  H, H, H, T, T

Battles 4-8:  H, H, T, T, T

Battles 5-9:  H, T, T, T, T

Battles 6-10:  T, T, T, T, T

...and so on.

 

This is something you really need to understand - In that collection of 44 battles there are a total of forty (40) separate and discrete strings that have to be reviewed to see how many streaks you had of a given size or larger. Not 9 strings, not 16 strings, there are 40 separate and unique strings of 5 battles each.

 

If we want to ask, "How many streaks of at least 5 wins or 5 losses did you have in that collection of battles" the answer is, seven (7). If you look at every possible string of 5 battles there are 7 examples of having a win or loss streak of at least 5 battles - and based on your previous posting you think that answer is way to high. But it's not way too high, it's not surprising at all.

 

Now what if we ask, "How many streaks of at least 3 wins or 3 losses did you have in that collection of battles" the answer is eighteen (18).

 

Most people instantly respond by saying something like, "You can't have 18 streaks of 3 in only 44 battles, because 18*3 = 54. That kind of answer is a dead giveaway that someone does not have a proper understanding of how to analyze the information.

 

The problem with how you look at randomness and win/loss streaks is that you think in terms of discrete blocks of battles, you think something like "If I lose battle #1, #2, #3 & #4 then the chances of losing five in a row are (1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 0.03125) so clearly there are way too many streaks in WoT, so obviously the game is rigged" --- and that is dead wrong.

 

 

In the end, you're using the wrong logic to analyze your battle results, and that is giving you the wrong answers about the MM. If you really want to learn more, and understand it better, then you need to spend time studying probability theory and statistics more, because you're missing some of the concepts that are needed to properly understand the MM and randomness in general.



Dragon6actual #94 Posted Mar 19 2019 - 15:40

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 15229 battles
  • 48
  • [PRIC] PRIC
  • Member since:
    03-01-2011
Forget all of this coin toss material.   The matchmaker does not take in to account player ability to build evenly matched teams and therefore it is flawed.

Copacetic #95 Posted Mar 19 2019 - 16:19

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 45160 battles
  • 945
  • [ZEUS] ZEUS
  • Member since:
    02-04-2014

View PostDragon6actual, on Mar 19 2019 - 15:40, said:

Forget all of this coin toss material.   The matchmaker does not take in to account player ability to build evenly matched teams and therefore it is flawed.

 

it's not flawed...it is advertised as 'random' and that's What it does.

Pipinghot #96 Posted Mar 19 2019 - 19:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 9,917
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostDragon6actual, on Mar 19 2019 - 09:40, said:

Forget all of this coin toss material.   The matchmaker does not take in to account player ability to build evenly matched teams and therefore it is flawed.

What's flawed is your understanding of the game and the logic behind it. You want WG to treat you like a charity case and give you wins that you haven't earned, because winning is hard.

 

Play better, win more often, it's just that simple.



da_Rock002 #97 Posted Mar 19 2019 - 19:34

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 8962 battles
  • 3,441
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

View PostDragon6actual, on Mar 19 2019 - 09:40, said:

Forget all of this coin toss material.   The matchmaker does not take in to account player ability to build evenly matched teams and therefore it is flawed.

 

 

the coin toss crap is just that, crap to divert the argument away from what you just mentioned, the MM ignores player ability.   The teams happen however they happen.   And because good players influence battle outcomes much more than bad players, the teams with good players naturally stomp weaker teams.   That is exactly the flaw so many players have experienced.


 

The noise about coin tosses isn't there to clarify how the game works, it's smoke blown to hide a weak argument.


 

You hit the bullseye.   The MM does nothing to insure evenly matched teams and the result is a game that sucks much more than it should.    Have you noticed the smoke blowers are exactly the ones the flawed MM benefits the most?   If the MM quit permitting those lopsided matchups, who would no longer benefit?   Newbies?   Not at all.   Players still learning the game?  Not them either.  Many of them wouldn't even notice.    Those two groups aren't benefitting at all.  



dunniteowl #98 Posted Mar 19 2019 - 21:23

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 29743 battles
  • 7,429
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

Da_Rock, how is it a "flaw" that overall superior skill wins more than less skill?

 

According to my understanding of human nature, competition in general and Competitive Environments where Skill IS taken into account -- this is HOW IT WORKS.

 

 

So, how is that a "flaw?"  I'm dying to hear your explanation of Random Skill levels being a flaw in a Random Battle Environment that is, by its very design, NOT A COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT, when we get into the technical aspects of what equals a Competitive Environment versus the 'sandlot' that Random Public Matches are.

 

 

GL, HF & HSYBF!

OvO

(seriously hoping to hear your explanation -- the OP has already lost his marbles and can no longer place an ante of pearies, cat's eyes or steelies into the ring for continued play)



Dragon6actual #99 Posted Mar 19 2019 - 23:02

    Corporal

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

I don't expect to be on the winning team anymore than anyone else does.  What most of the people complaining about the matchmaker just want, is basically equal games.  Win some, lose some.   Picking equal or close to equal teams... how is that a bad thing?  I'm not saying the matchmaker is itself flawed because it picks random teams but what I am saying is the matchmaker is flawed because evenly matched teams is NOT a priority of the matchmaker.  Its boring to be on a side that wins 13,14,15 to 0.  Just as boring as being on the losing team.  The only difference is the cost!   It typically cost more to lose.   

 

IMO the knock on random teams is that random teams is probably the cause of blow out wins and loses.

 

I don't care if I win or lose, I play the game to have fun... to be entertained.  Good players don't care or complain because they win more.  I'm not looking for WoTs to hand me anything, especially to be on good teams... I just would like to see more evenly balanced teams.  PERIOD!

 

 



Dragon6actual #100 Posted Mar 19 2019 - 23:03

    Corporal

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

View PostPipinghot, on Mar 19 2019 - 13:14, said:

What's flawed is your understanding of the game and the logic behind it. You want WG to treat you like a charity case and give you wins that you haven't earned, because winning is hard.

 

Play better, win more often, it's just that simple.

 

You're an a$$hole!




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users