Jump to content


Hiding Statistics

hiding statistics WN8 hiding names fair and balanced game Toxic game XVM Stats statistics team killing

  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

Monarchco #41 Posted Apr 09 2019 - 10:00

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13279 battles
  • 430
  • [Y0L0] Y0L0
  • Member since:
    05-24-2011

View Postthe_dude_76, on Feb 09 2019 - 15:54, said:

 

How is it an "unfair" advantage when both parties, as you admit, CHOSE which way they want to play?? 

 

It's unfair because I get treated differently, focused as a threat, etc. Idk what could possible be more unfair than going, "Ya know, the defender is a threat, but XVM tells me the IS-3 is a way better player so I'll focus him instead"

This is why I haven't rerolled in my 8+ years. Because XVM(afaik) only shows overalls. Not recents. 

 

Furthermore, XVM is a mod. Not default in the game. It is NOT PART OF THE GAME. So as much as it is a "choice," it simply isn't. 

 

Frankly, if I could, hypothetically, I'd buy an account with 50,000 battles, and a 500 wn8 overall. That way my recents couldn't impact the overall hardly at all, and then XVM users would go, "Oh wow that IS-3 is a /bad/ player. I'll completely ignore him because he's not a threat according to XVM." But that is against the TOS so I won't do it. 

 

If I hypothetically did, then I'd be the one with the advantage over XVM users(instead of the other way around). And that'd be pretty fun.


Edited by Monarchco, Apr 09 2019 - 10:02.


Exiledcrow #42 Posted Apr 09 2019 - 11:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 50387 battles
  • 2,534
  • [GURUS] GURUS
  • Member since:
    11-26-2011

Hide them, don't hide them, the good players will still be evident as will the clueless scrubs.

 

Those who are f-ing stupid enough will STILL believe they are having teams "stacked" against them.



Guido1212 #43 Posted Apr 09 2019 - 12:20

    Community Contributor

  • Players
  • 81987 battles
  • 8,930
  • [GFLC] GFLC
  • Member since:
    06-11-2011
It’s silly.  It’s only “hiding” them in match from a third party mod used by maybe 30-40 percent of players.  It’s unlikely to accomplish any of the various wonders hiding them is supposed to miraculously cause.

I await the rapturous crlebrations from Unicums about how they’re no longer plagued by XVM “focus” and how their experience and stats have both increased (with appropriate data of course).

I also await the happy noises from those who feel bullied about how they are no longer called out and put down.

Really, I hope it happens.  But it’s quite unlikely to do any of that.  What it will accomplish is remove one more interesting option for the adults who understand this is pixel tanks.

_Tsavo_ #44 Posted Apr 09 2019 - 15:32

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 46508 battles
  • 19,880
  • [RELIC] RELIC
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

View PostMonarchco, on Apr 09 2019 - 03:52, said:

If they're simply a "representation of one's tanks adventure" then why do we need them plastered on players in battle?

Not only does WG already provide in games stats for everything from your winrate to what your armor efficiency rating is, but they provide it with simple 2 click access in game. Why do you want all this info plastered on team panels in battle. Not a single other game does this. There isn't even an XVM equivalent for WoWS. Yet sites still have access and provide a generated Warships Today Rating(WTR), and other types of PR. None of these are available IN BATTLE.

 

In battle stats should be hidden, my no was in reference to the in-game stats profile.

grandthefttankV #45 Posted Apr 09 2019 - 15:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 35943 battles
  • 2,610
  • [_EOS_] _EOS_
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

View Post11Tec11, on Feb 09 2019 - 20:46, said:

post your opinions on hiding statistics 

 

Ban xvm



grandthefttankV #46 Posted Apr 09 2019 - 15:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 35943 battles
  • 2,610
  • [_EOS_] _EOS_
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

View PostGeoMonster, on Feb 09 2019 - 20:52, said:

Opinion ... all these super good players LOVE to post their stats in the forum as part of their signature ... super good playesr WANT everyone to know they are unicoms, or near-unicoms ... super good player want everyone to know they are in ELITE clans with SUPER high ratings .... so many players re-roll to SHOW OFF their inflated stats ... so many players SEAL CLUB to inflate their stats ... 

 

... BUT ...

 

these same players DON'T want their stats to be shown DURING BATTLES!

 

Would anyone who brags about owning a mercedes want to show it off by driving through a rough neighbourhood? I think not. 



24cups #47 Posted Apr 09 2019 - 15:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 24607 battles
  • 4,283
  • [D-DAY] D-DAY
  • Member since:
    01-25-2013

View Post_Tsavo_, on Apr 09 2019 - 09:32, said:

 

In battle stats should be hidden, my no was in reference to the in-game stats profile.

Question.  If WG hid ingame stats,  with absolutely no way to check,  could they not secretly implement SBMM ?

Careful what you wish for. 

 

Question is not specifically for you Tsavo.  Just throwing it out there. 

 



Flarvin #48 Posted Apr 09 2019 - 15:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 54863 battles
  • 17,053
  • Member since:
    03-29-2013

View Post24cups, on Apr 09 2019 - 09:38, said:

Question.  If WG hid ingame stats,  with absolutely no way to check,  could they not secretly implement SBMM ?

Careful what you wish for. 

 

You can track match results to find out. 



_Tsavo_ #49 Posted Apr 09 2019 - 15:41

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 46508 battles
  • 19,880
  • [RELIC] RELIC
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

View Post24cups, on Apr 09 2019 - 09:38, said:

Question.  If WG hid ingame stats,  with absolutely no way to check,  could they not secretly implement SBMM ?

Careful what you wish for. 

 

Question is not specifically for you Tsavo.  Just throwing it out there. 

 

 

Gotcha, I'm all for not having enemy player names in battle and entirely against hiding stats outside of the battle.  If they implement SBMM with it, so be it, I'll still go punching the reds as much as I can.

24cups #50 Posted Apr 09 2019 - 15:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 24607 battles
  • 4,283
  • [D-DAY] D-DAY
  • Member since:
    01-25-2013

View PostFlarvin, on Apr 09 2019 - 09:40, said:

 

You can track match results to find out. 

True.  I  guess they would have to completely block all stat tracking,  which is not feasible nor desirable. 



SporkBoy #51 Posted Apr 09 2019 - 17:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 48893 battles
  • 2,865
  • [PZB] PZB
  • Member since:
    02-06-2014
Hiding stats, names and clan tags until battery results page shows ... yeah, that'll happen.

Slatherer #52 Posted Apr 09 2019 - 17:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 36866 battles
  • 3,585
  • Member since:
    01-21-2014
Stats that track the chaotic nature of RNG, spikey matchmaker, the influence of blatently overpowered and underpowered tanks on unbalanced maps....  

Stats don't mean much.  It's tracking garbage.  Who cares if you see them out not.

Armadaus_Baldwin #53 Posted Apr 09 2019 - 17:49

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 36438 battles
  • 265
  • [CLAWS] CLAWS
  • Member since:
    09-06-2011

View PostMonarchco, on Apr 09 2019 - 09:00, said:

 

It's unfair because I get treated differently, focused as a threat, etc. Idk what could possible be more unfair than going, "Ya know, the defender is a threat, but XVM tells me the IS-3 is a way better player so I'll focus him instead"

This is why I haven't rerolled in my 8+ years. Because XVM(afaik) only shows overalls. Not recents. 

 

Furthermore, XVM is a mod. Not default in the game. It is NOT PART OF THE GAME. So as much as it is a "choice," it simply isn't. 

 

Frankly, if I could, hypothetically, I'd buy an account with 50,000 battles, and a 500 wn8 overall. That way my recents couldn't impact the overall hardly at all, and then XVM users would go, "Oh wow that IS-3 is a /bad/ player. I'll completely ignore him because he's not a threat according to XVM." But that is against the TOS so I won't do it. 

 

If I hypothetically did, then I'd be the one with the advantage over XVM users(instead of the other way around). And that'd be pretty fun.

 And then you realize even talking about it, even as a hypothetical is against the TOS and they can (and have before) banned for that.



Monarchco #54 Posted Apr 09 2019 - 20:24

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13279 battles
  • 430
  • [Y0L0] Y0L0
  • Member since:
    05-24-2011

View Post_Tsavo_, on Apr 09 2019 - 07:32, said:

 

In battle stats should be hidden, my no was in reference to the in-game stats profile.

 

Fair enough I 100% agree with you then.

Monarchco #55 Posted Apr 09 2019 - 20:27

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13279 battles
  • 430
  • [Y0L0] Y0L0
  • Member since:
    05-24-2011

View Post24cups, on Apr 09 2019 - 07:38, said:

Question.  If WG hid ingame stats,  with absolutely no way to check,  could they not secretly implement SBMM ?

Careful what you wish for. 

 

Question is not specifically for you Tsavo.  Just throwing it out there. 

 

 

I've been a longtime advocate of SBMM. Everyone else has it. Even Call of Duty added SBMM a long time ago around Modern Warfare 2 and that's significantly more casual than WoT.

Both AW and WT have had SBMM for some time, and see SIGNIFICANTLY less blowouts than WoT.

 

Obviously its not a complete fix to blowouts, but it would significantly reduce them.



spud_tuber #56 Posted Apr 09 2019 - 20:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 59313 battles
  • 8,841
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013
I always find it interesting how some  really want public stats to show off how good they are(or to put down others, though I think most of those types have either learned to control themselves or gotten forum bans)... that is, everywhere but in battle, where they want it hidden from the other team.  All the things they find advantageous they want to keep and want the downsides gone, with no consideration for what is advantageous or a downside for other groups.  It's an interesting look inside human behavior.

spud_tuber #57 Posted Apr 09 2019 - 20:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 59313 battles
  • 8,841
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostMonarchco, on Apr 09 2019 - 13:27, said:

 

I've been a longtime advocate of SBMM. Everyone else has it. Even Call of Duty added SBMM a long time ago around Modern Warfare 2 and that's significantly more casual than WoT.

Both AW and WT have had SBMM for some time, and see SIGNIFICANTLY less blowouts than WoT.

 

Obviously its not a complete fix to blowouts, but it would significantly reduce them.

No,  SBMM would not significantly reduce blowouts.   The TL;DR is that blowouts only increase in percentage at the very far edges of skill imbalanced battles, and those battles themselves aren't a large percentage of total battles.

 

For the longer version,  look through Neatoman's posting history. 



Monarchco #58 Posted Apr 09 2019 - 20:54

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13279 battles
  • 430
  • [Y0L0] Y0L0
  • Member since:
    05-24-2011

View Postspud_tuber, on Apr 09 2019 - 12:36, said:

No,  SBMM would not significantly reduce blowouts.   The TL;DR is that blowouts only increase in percentage at the very far edges of skill imbalanced battles, and those battles themselves aren't a large percentage of total battles.

 

If XVM can look at a match and go, "oh this team has a 95% chance to win" and be right most of the time, then that needs to not happen.

 

mhnnk?

 

Also, you claiming that blowouts aren't a large percentage of total battles is idiotic. I've seen no less than 60-70% of my battles be blowouts. if its 15>3 or 3<15. I don't care if its confirmation bias. It is why I left the game for 5 years straight. And I can guarantee the blowouts have caused more players than just me to leave the game.

 

You're welcome to argue that blowouts happen not because of skill, but because of where the tanks go. That simply isn't a realistic way to look at it. Why? Because SKILL determines where you go. Who is going to be playing their IS-7 on hill on Tundra? The good player. Whose going to be playing 1 line with their IS-7? The average or below average player, "because thats where the heavy tank fight is"

Skill determines where a team goes. If you've got a fast heavy platoon that is good, and they all go hill, while the enemy's fast heavy platoon goes 1 line and sits there. Hill will be wiped, while 1 line tries to push into TDs. Congratulations, you just got another blowout. ENTIRELY a result of skill. 


Edited by Monarchco, Apr 09 2019 - 21:00.


spud_tuber #59 Posted Apr 09 2019 - 21:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 59313 battles
  • 8,841
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostMonarchco, on Apr 09 2019 - 13:54, said:

 

If XVM can look at a match and go, "oh this team has a 95% chance to win" and be right most of the time, then that needs to not happen.

 

mhnnk?

 

Also, you claiming that blowouts aren't a large percentage of total battles is idiotic. I've seen no less than 60-70% of my battles be blowouts. if its 15>3 or 3<15. I don't care if its confirmation bias. It is why I left the game for 5 years straight. And I can guarantee the blowouts have caused more players than just me to leave the game.

I didn't say blowouts weren't a large percentage of battles.  Neither did I say they were a large percentage of battles.   What I said the ratio of blowouts to non blowouts doesn't change significantly until the games become very unbalanced skill wise, and games that are that unbalanced skill wise are a small percentage of the total battles.   

 

In other words, SBMM would reduce the number of blowouts, but not by a significant amount, and certainly would not remove them, as most aren't actually caused by skill imbalance, but rather the non HP regen, non respawn nature of WoT battles.  If you don't like blowouts, you either need to change the way you play so you're the one generating the snowball effect, or find a different game than WoT.



Flarvin #60 Posted Apr 09 2019 - 21:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 54863 battles
  • 17,053
  • Member since:
    03-29-2013

View PostMonarchco, on Apr 09 2019 - 14:54, said:

 

If XVM can look at a match and go, "oh this team has a 95% chance to win" and be right most of the time, then that needs to not happen.

 

mhnnk?

 

Also, you claiming that blowouts aren't a large percentage of total battles is idiotic. I've seen no less than 60-70% of my battles be blowouts. if its 15>3 or 3<15. I don't care if its confirmation bias. It is why I left the game for 5 years straight. And I can guarantee the blowouts have caused more players than just me to leave the game.

 

You're welcome to argue that blowouts happen not because of skill, but because of where the tanks go. That simply isn't a realistic way to look at it. Why? Because SKILL determines where you go. Who is going to be playing their IS-7 on hill on Tundra? The good player. Whose going to be playing 1 line with their IS-7? The average or below average player, "because thats where the heavy tank fight is"

Skill determines where a team goes. If you've got a fast heavy platoon that is good, and they all go hill, while the enemy's fast heavy platoon goes 1 line and sits there. Hill will be wiped, while 1 line tries to push into TDs. Congratulations, you just got another blowout. ENTIRELY a result of skill. 

 

Data shows that blowouts happen far less than your claimed 60-70%. 

 

You try could collect actual data to support your claim. 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users