Jump to content


could you please rig the game more?

rigged game

  • Please log in to reply
166 replies to this topic

spud_tuber #121 Posted Apr 19 2019 - 16:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 56795 battles
  • 7,720
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostKliphie, on Apr 19 2019 - 09:21, said:

 

So you want WG to rig game to help poor players, yet you also want to reduce 'unearned wins.'  Aren't those in conflict?

DaRock is very good at conflicting points of view. For instance:

 

DaRock - MM ignores skill

DaRock - good players get gifted wins by being on teams with other good players more often.

 

These 2 are incapable views, of course, but daRock doesn't understand that.



spud_tuber #122 Posted Apr 19 2019 - 16:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 56795 battles
  • 7,720
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View Postda_Rock002, on Apr 19 2019 - 08:40, said:

 

 

Jeezzz.….


 

'...all it will do is redistribute wins/losses....'


 

:ohmy:    ?????  REDISTRIBUTE WINS/LOSSES   ???????  :ohmy:


 

Is that all...………   :D


 

That's exactly the plan.


 

Yeah, reduce the number of WR padding rolfstomps the top players get from the WoT Signature matchups.

We can almost hear the trembling in your voice.


 

The most important outcome hoped for is to reduce the number of "unearned wins" that happen naturally when the team with the top players rolfstomps a team of newbies/less-skilled.

Ok, let's try to reason with you again. Because MM ignores skill, it results in a solo palyer's teammate and opponent skill in the long run being averaging out to the server average for the tier* he played.  Further, the distribution of this skill is the same across both teammates and opponents and the server at the average tier* the player played at(ie, they'd form the same bell curve if plotted).

 

As such, good players are no more often carried to wins by their teammates than bad players. 

 

If you wish to claim that good players have more unearned wins, then there are only a few options that could logically explain that view point.   Please select from below which you believe applies:

 

A) MM does not in fact ignore skill, and deliberately lumps good players on the same team more often than bad players get good teammates. 

 

B) an "unearned win" doesn't mean a win in which the player would have won if he was afk, but rather a win in which MM matched him against a weaker opponent.   IE, if tanks were a 1v1 game, matching a (currently) 65%er vs a (,currently) 45%er would be an unearned win for the 65%er in your definition of the term.

 

C) some other definition of "unearned win" that fits your narrative.  If this one,  please share what that definition is.  

 

D) you really do live up to your name and/or are one of the best trolls on the forums.  Note, this is the default answer.   Failure to answer one of the above options or attempts to dodge or deliberately misunderstand the question will be interpreted as if you selected this option. 

 

*

Spoiler

 



pafman #123 Posted Apr 19 2019 - 17:01

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 36129 battles
  • 527
  • [-_-] -_-
  • Member since:
    05-30-2011

View PostBayouPhantom, on Apr 15 2019 - 00:35, said:

 

Not quite.  There are 14 other players in every match that help determine a win or loss.  The better you play, maybe the better the odds overall, but you, or me or any other player will never be solely responsible for the overall win/loss percentage of their account.

 

real account or it didn't happen

Nixeldon #124 Posted Apr 19 2019 - 17:08

    Captain

  • Players
  • 59702 battles
  • 1,959
  • [PRTSN] PRTSN
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011
Logic takes a back seat to emotional manipulation.

NeatoMan #125 Posted Apr 19 2019 - 17:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 27740 battles
  • 19,676
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View Postda_Rock002, on Apr 19 2019 - 09:40, said:

The most important outcome hoped for is to reduce the number of "unearned wins" that happen naturally when the team with the top players rolfstomps a team of newbies/less-skilled.

How many wins does a player who does nothing "earn"?



Jer1413 #126 Posted Apr 19 2019 - 17:44

    Captain

  • Players
  • 46754 battles
  • 1,280
  • [RR13] RR13
  • Member since:
    02-24-2013

View PostNeatoMan, on Apr 19 2019 - 16:38, said:

How many wins does a player who does nothing "earn"?

 

Even more in Rock's utopia.

 



Copacetic #127 Posted Apr 19 2019 - 17:56

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 44286 battles
  • 881
  • [ZEUS] ZEUS
  • Member since:
    02-04-2014

View PostJer1413, on Apr 19 2019 - 17:44, said:

 

Even more in Rock's utopia.

 

 

lmbo

dunniteowl #128 Posted Apr 19 2019 - 18:47

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 29232 battles
  • 7,241
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

If nothing else, I can come to the forums and get my laughter quota filled.  Holy cow, this stuff couldn't be written up and given a Stand Up venue on purpose for comedic value.  Yet, here it is, on full display, pretty much every day by people who take it as gospel.

 

Thanks!

 

OvO



Exiledcrow #129 Posted Apr 20 2019 - 00:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 48893 battles
  • 2,390
  • [GURUS] GURUS
  • Member since:
    11-26-2011

View Postda_Rock002, on Apr 18 2019 - 20:25, said:

 

 

I've said it over and over.....

WoT Signature battles ruin the game for newbies and less-skilled.

I've been researching the two teams in my battles since joining.

It's clear that the majority of the battles I've been in that resulted in hugely one-sided scores had hugely one-sided matchups.

The one-sided matchups had a strong team with most of the top players while the other not only had few top players but the majority of less-skilled and newbies.

During the first couple of years the percentage of those lopsided flusterclucks often pushed close to half my battles during the time being studied.

My thoughts then were to lobby for WG to clean up that mess as it made the game less attractive to the very people WG needed to hang around and grow the population.

More recently the percentage of those have slacked somewhat.   Funny how that works.   I'm seeing less just like top players say they don't see them much at all.  OK it's not funny how that works if you're just learning the game. 

I've mentioned more than once the game doesn't need to help unicums and most certainly does not need to treat newbies like seal pups.


 

As usual, you're putting a stupid spin on something you don't like.   Funny how often that happens.  What I believe isn't the point obviously, because I believe WoT is worth improving and the most needed improvement is to filter out and correct the WoT Signature matchups to make it better @ keeping newbies.    That obviously isn't the point most of you have, which really looks to be focused on protecting something that is easily fixed because it clearly benefits your precious WR.     What is clear is that those lopsided matchups benefit no one other than the top players whose WR gets padded by almost every one they are gifted.   


 

 

All this crap would lead one to believe that you have DATA, hard, quantifiable DATA. So anytime you want to produce your methods and results, please do, otherwise I'm just going to keep on thinking you're full of crap.

DV_Currie_VC #130 Posted Apr 20 2019 - 01:12

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 58530 battles
  • 2,245
  • [RS] RS
  • Member since:
    08-04-2010

View PostChippy67, on Apr 14 2019 - 15:01, said:

So there is still a small chance to win a game.  You need to take that away so the last remaining holdouts of this game will leave. Your player base is shrinking at such a rate that you have to add bots to keep the games going.  I find it interesting that all my stats are going up but one. can you guess which one that is? waiting for the day this game dies.

 

thanks

 Just leave then, FFS. No need to whine your crapout in the forum. 



Urabouttudie #131 Posted Apr 20 2019 - 13:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 21913 battles
  • 2,006
  • Member since:
    11-11-2013

View PostUrabouttudie, on Apr 19 2019 - 04:52, said:

 

and...again...the gigantic, glaring point you seem to knowingly side-step...one which da_rock has rubbed your nose in over the course of multiple threads...

 

Wargaming should do something about it instead of updating graphics, adding game modes they dont have a clue how to improve, or  adding new tanks and wheeled whatevers that no one asked for...

 

but you and your cute little cheerleading squad keep stomping your feet screaming the phrase 'GIT GUD" over and over like it's the only answer...

 

sure, maybe...no one cares about win rate...we all just want some fun...even if it's less than "random" fun.

 

View PostNeatoMan, on Apr 19 2019 - 05:38, said:

Yes they should, but Skill Balance will not solve any of those problems.  Nothing will change with skill balanced teams except to redistribute wins/losses, and for those prone to staring at the XVM WN8 colors

 

View Postda_Rock002, on Apr 19 2019 - 06:40, said:

Jeezzz.….


 

'...all it will do is redistribute wins/losses....'


 

:ohmy:    ?????  REDISTRIBUTE WINS/LOSSES   ???????  :ohmy:


 

Is that all...………   :D


 

That's exactly the plan.


 

Yeah, reduce the number of WR padding rolfstomps the top players get from the WoT Signature matchups.

We can almost hear the trembling in your voice.


 

The most important outcome hoped for is to reduce the number of "unearned wins" that happen naturally when the team with the top players rolfstomps a team of newbies/less-skilled.

 

I'll add...

 

???? REDISTRIBUTE WINS/LOSSES ?????

 

The current system does exactly the same thing...it distributes wins/losses

 

In a manner that most people find objectionable...[but one Neato insist is an acceptable form of "random"]

 

Screw RANDOM!!!! I want FUN!! Why? So others will come to the game and have fun too!!

 

and here is the kicker...if they have fun they will stay!!! More people to play with....of course we'll all be sitting around  bemoaning the lack of "random" in the MM but I'm sure we'll all get over it eventually....even Neato.

 

*rolls eyes*



Urabouttudie #132 Posted Apr 20 2019 - 14:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 21913 battles
  • 2,006
  • Member since:
    11-11-2013

In a game that is admittedly NOT competitive, was even denied Esports status because of it's lack of competitiveness due to it's RNG...where the vast majority of players are casuals with no intent to actually play competitively...where competition is subjugated to other game modes like Clan Wars and such...

 

A game who's in-game tutorial consists of Crayola-grade comic book quality tutoring materials, not to mention a complete lack of in-game skill [tier]-separation and a strong financial model that relies VERY heavily on the same with premium tank offerings at high tiers...

 

in other words...a game where there is absolutely no "skill" in the RANDOM BATTLE player-base...

 

how is "Skill-based MM" going to reduce the amount of skilled players playing the game?

 

And if Win ratio does not matter...then why would it matter if a skill-based MM reduced everyone's win ratio to the mid. If WG took it out no one would even know....

 

Anyone want to discuss?

 

Note...I am absolutely not advocating for SBMM...I really don't care if they change it. I am only questioning the stupidity of the arguments in opposition to it.



dunniteowl #133 Posted Apr 20 2019 - 14:45

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 29232 battles
  • 7,241
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

You obviously require a Single Player Game.

 

 

If you think the arguments Against Skill Based Match Making are stupid, then re-read your own post about how this game is not considered "Competitive" by the ESports folks, then read one of my posts about what a Skill Based Match Maker REQUIRES at its base -- an actual Competitive Environment.

 

I defined a competitive environment based on my research into games, game design and game theory while designing my own games.  A random public matching system CAN NOT BE such an environment, just as the ESports position was.  Just as you realize and claim that randoms are.

 

Introducing a SBMM in such an environment is the most 'stupid' argument made by folks who simply do not understand what a SBMM is FOR.  It is FOR a Competitive Environment.  This ain't that.

 

If you don't care about stats, then you DO NOT WANT a SBMM.  If you just want to play for fun, then you DO NOT WANT a SBMM.  If you just want it more fair where you have a greater effect on the outcomes -- LEARN THE MECHANICS and learn to apply that knowledge to your play.

 

If you do not wish to do those things, then a single player game is what you see.  A game that you can save your progress achievements, repeat those sections you have a hard time completing and then, ultimately overcome them with no interference from other pesky humans getting in your way.

 

If you choose to keep playing THIS game, then your energy and attention is better spent LEARNING the game and HOW IT WORKS as opposed to whining, crying, complaining and moaning about the unfairness of it all.

 

We all get the same teams over time.  We all have the same opportunities and disadvantages over time.  We all have the same chance to figure stuff out, learn what is necessary to do better and to apply that to our playing.

 

If those things do not appeal to you (and this is a general Plural Universal YOU, not aimed at a specific Person) -- then QUIT PLAYING THIS GAME!  It is not for you.

 

 

 

GL, HF & HSYBF!
OvO



NeatoMan #134 Posted Apr 20 2019 - 17:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 27740 battles
  • 19,676
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostUrabouttudie, on Apr 20 2019 - 07:56, said:

I'll add...

 

???? REDISTRIBUTE WINS/LOSSES ?????

 

The current system does exactly the same thing...it distributes wins/losses

 

In a manner that most people find objectionable...[but one Neato insist is an acceptable form of "random"]

 

Screw RANDOM!!!! I want FUN!! Why? So others will come to the game and have fun too!!

 

and here is the kicker...if they have fun they will stay!!! More people to play with....of course we'll all be sitting around  bemoaning the lack of "random" in the MM but I'm sure we'll all get over it eventually....even Neato.

 

*rolls eyes*

 

Yes, it distributes them in a random fashion (which starts everyone at a 50:50 split).  It is up to the individual to move it from there through his contributions.

 

what are you going to do when WG allows hiding of stats, and you no longer will have those pretty XVM colors telling you which games are fun?  You'll have to go by the standards normal players use (length of games, blowouts, etc), and every bit of data presented shows that those do not improve significantly when you skill balance teams.

 

The other point is about "deserved" wins and losses.  If you accept that the MM is random, then everyone gets the same number of teams where if they go afk they'd still win, or if they had a super game they'd still lose because one team was stacked so much.   Those "undeserved" games amount to ~30% of all games (~15% for, and 15% against).   Any wins or losses above and beyond that are entirely due to the individual's own contributions, not the MM giving it to them.

 

What you are suggesting is taking the extra wins/losses that players generate for themselves and transferring them to others so that everyone arrives at equal results, regardless of contribution.

 

Block Quote

And if Win ratio does not matter...then why would it matter if a skill-based MM reduced everyone's win ratio to the mid. If WG took it out no one would even know.

 except that winning provides 1.5x the xp.  Win more = earn more xp for tanks and crews.

 

Block Quote

Note...I am absolutely not advocating for SBMM...I really don't care if they change it. I am only questioning the stupidity of the arguments in opposition to it.

 

Based on the last two responses from you and daRock it is clear that this isn't about making games play out better.  It's all about wins and losses.   You both are capable of gathering data, since you've both done it before (or so daRock claims).   If you were so certain that balanced teams would result in better games you'd both contribute to finding out how much, yet both of you balk, ...every single time.  Either you really don't want to find out the truth, or you already know your claims are bullcrap, and this is nothing more than a vendetta against good players.

 

as an example of what can be determined with WoTnumbers data:  I keep hearing it's the skill unbalance in top tier players that causes rofstomps, but from what I can tell it makes no difference.  I looked at very unbalanced teams, and then compared the players in the top tier tanks.  It didn't matter if the players in top tier tanks were balanced or unbalanced, they got the same blowout rates (~33%).  It's the overall team skill balance that determines it, not who is playing the top tier tanks.


Edited by NeatoMan, Apr 20 2019 - 23:01.


Bear5639 #135 Posted Apr 21 2019 - 02:34

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 7 battles
  • 53
  • Member since:
    10-13-2018

View Postthe_Deadly_Bulb, on Apr 14 2019 - 23:09, said:

 

Time you got off the SA server, few bots here.

If you do run into a bot here they're pretty rare and distributed pretty even, should be no problem for you to vanquish.

 

If all your stats except for WR are going up then give it some time and see if it doesn't turn around.

If it doesn't turn around its a sign that you need to start doing damage that's good for the win rather than your wn8.

 

yeah really, there is NO wargaming bots on the NA server yet. Wargaming needs to just remove the SA server and none of the SA players actually play on it. Just bring back the East and have Central and East

da_Rock002 #136 Posted Apr 21 2019 - 10:57

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 8817 battles
  • 3,396
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

View PostNeatoMan, on Apr 19 2019 - 11:38, said:

How many wins does a player who does nothing "earn"?

 

 

He collects wins in every battle where his 15 player team beats the other 15 players.  


 

When there are 15 players on each team, it's pretty hard for just one player to be the reason his team wins, and even harder for just one player to be the reason his team loses.   


 

1 of 30 is 3% 



NeatoMan #137 Posted Apr 21 2019 - 12:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 27740 battles
  • 19,676
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View Postda_Rock002, on Apr 21 2019 - 04:57, said:

He collects wins in every battle where his 15 player team beats the other 15 players.  


When there are 15 players on each team, it's pretty hard for just one player to be the reason his team wins, and even harder for just one player to be the reason his team loses.   


1 of 30 is 3%   physically, yes.  by percent contribution, NO

 

If it's so hard for one player to be the reason why a team wins, then why do you keep posting that chart showing that I get so many more favorable win chances?  If I have such a minimal impact, then how did I get so many favorable win chances?  Any favoritism I got must have come from the rest of the team.  That can only happen if I got better team mates than everyone else.

 

Your answer is proof that you do not believe the MM is random.  You truly believe that good players get better team mates than everyone else.   You won't openly admit it, because you know you'll be laughed off the forums, however every bit of your logic points in that direction



Urabouttudie #138 Posted Apr 21 2019 - 14:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 21913 battles
  • 2,006
  • Member since:
    11-11-2013

View PostNeatoMan, on Apr 20 2019 - 08:24, said:

 

Yes, it distributes them in a random fashion (which starts everyone at a 50:50 split).  It is up to the individual to move it from there through his contributions.

 

what are you going to do when WG allows hiding of stats, and you no longer will have those pretty XVM colors telling you which games are fun?  You'll have to go by the standards normal players use (length of games, blowouts, etc), and every bit of data presented shows that those do not improve significantly when you skill balance teams.

 

The other point is about "deserved" wins and losses.  If you accept that the MM is random, then everyone gets the same number of teams where if they go afk they'd still win, or if they had a super game they'd still lose because one team was stacked so much.   Those "undeserved" games amount to ~30% of all games (~15% for, and 15% against).   Any wins or losses above and beyond that are entirely due to the individual's own contributions, not the MM giving it to them.

 

What you are suggesting is taking the extra wins/losses that players generate for themselves and transferring them to others so that everyone arrives at equal results, regardless of contribution.

 

 except that winning provides 1.5x the xp.  Win more = earn more xp for tanks and crews.

 

 

Based on the last two responses from you and daRock it is clear that this isn't about making games play out better.  It's all about wins and losses.   You both are capable of gathering data, since you've both done it before (or so daRock claims).   If you were so certain that balanced teams would result in better games you'd both contribute to finding out how much, yet both of you balk, ...every single time.  Either you really don't want to find out the truth, or you already know your claims are bullcrap, and this is nothing more than a vendetta against good players.

 

as an example of what can be determined with WoTnumbers data:  I keep hearing it's the skill unbalance in top tier players that causes rofstomps, but from what I can tell it makes no difference.  I looked at very unbalanced teams, and then compared the players in the top tier tanks.  It didn't matter if the players in top tier tanks were balanced or unbalanced, they got the same blowout rates (~33%).  It's the overall team skill balance that determines it, not who is playing the top tier tanks.

 

I love it when you try to convince me....I don't actually read it...but I DO love it!

 

You seem to forget that I have been reading your repetitive word vomit for several years now.

 

That is a LOT of typing just to be ignored! ROFL

 

 

 



Jer1413 #139 Posted Apr 21 2019 - 14:36

    Captain

  • Players
  • 46754 battles
  • 1,280
  • [RR13] RR13
  • Member since:
    02-24-2013

View PostUrabouttudie, on Apr 21 2019 - 13:26, said:

 

I love it when you try to convince me....I don't actually read it...but I DO love it!

 

You seem to forget that I have been reading your repetitive word vomit for several years now.

 

That is a LOT of typing just to be ignored! ROFL

 

 

 

 

 

Only a narcissist would believe that Neato's typing is strictly for your benefit.

 



NeatoMan #140 Posted Apr 21 2019 - 14:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 27740 battles
  • 19,676
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostJer1413, on Apr 21 2019 - 08:36, said:

Only a narcissist would believe that Neato's typing is strictly for your benefit.

well, he does believe that WG changed the entire matchmaker because of some secret he discovered all by himself...







Also tagged with rigged game

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users