166 replies to this topic

[kapri25]

UnturnedLeaf, on Apr 15 2019 - 08:49, said:

same stats? same WR? same player?

 

it matters not; 500 battles or 26K battles. same algorithm? same RESULTS.

 

You cannot base everything off of stats and expect humans, whether good or bad, to perform exactly the same. Unless players are purposely playing bad, not only are they going to have good and bad games (whichever spectrum they may fill) but as they go along they will learn and improve their gameplay. Some may become good at the game early and some later than others and some not at all. You cannot sit there and call someone forever bad because of their stats at the moment. That's a bit ignorant. It's the coin flip experiment. The coin has two sides and people assume 100 flips will be 50/50...and yet it never does...

[Tao_Te_Tomato]

DrWho_, on Apr 15 2019 - 00:43, said:

 

You do realize that if one team loses the other team wins right ?

 

But I'm never ON the other team.....whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine....

[GeoMonster]

Insanefriend, on Apr 14 2019 - 16:07, said:

I don't get the rigging complaints, why would they bother to single out your account to make you suffer?

 

They are NOT singling out a SINGLE account. 

[Blackstone]

Chippy67, on Apr 14 2019 - 17:01, 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

 

READ: "I'm a sub-par player and I'm going to shift the blame to WG because 1. I don't know the game mechanics 2. I play above my level of expertise 3. I'm lazy"

[GeoMonster]

BlackFive, on Apr 14 2019 - 22:43, said:

 

.

...and, why, if the game is rigged - as they believe - why do they keep playing?

 

They don't all keep playing.  That is part of the reason why the player base is rapidly shrinking ... if you hadn't noticed.

[FearTheBadger]

Chippy67, on Apr 14 2019 - 16:01, 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

 

Look man the game is not rigged.  

[I_QQ_4_U]

GeoMonster, on Apr 15 2019 - 16:20, said:

 

They don't all keep playing.  That is part of the reason why the player base is rapidly shrinking ... if you hadn't noticed.

 

You do realize that the vast majority of gamers are casuals and they quit games because they get bored of them or move on to the 'next best thing'. Every single game loses players over time and most online games start seriously bleeding players in a year or two. They may live on for much longer but with a massively reduced playerbase.

[GeoMonster]

I_QQ_4_U, on Apr 15 2019 - 09:36, said:

 

You do realize that the vast majority of gamers are casuals and they quit games because they get bored of them or move on to the 'next best thing'. Every single game loses players over time and most online games start seriously bleeding players in a year or two. They may live on for much longer but with a massively reduced playerbase.

 

I agree ... but I guess you haven't been looking at the recent stats that show a recent RAPID decrease in the player base.

 

WOT will live on for quite a while, but the player base loss acceleration is concerning.

[Deputy276]

GeoMonster, on Apr 15 2019 - 09:39, said:

 

I agree ... but I guess you haven't been looking at the recent stats that show a recent RAPID decrease in the player base.

 

WOT will live on for quite a while, but the player base loss acceleration is concerning.

 

Not really, considering how long WOT has been around. I hear this "rapid decrease" excuse almost all the time. Yet WOT is still around and still making plenty of $$$. And I don't wait more than 30 seconds, often only 1-2 seconds, to get into a battle. I am not the least bit concerned with player numbers. And i don't think WG is either. "The sky is falling" mantra has been around longer than I have and WOT is still here. Go figure. 

Edited by Deputy276, Apr 15 2019 - 17:02.

[Tao_Te_Tomato]

Deputy276, on Apr 15 2019 - 17:01, said:

 

Not really, considering how long WOT has been around. I hear this "rapid decrease" excuse almost all the time. Yet WOT is still around and still making plenty of $$$. And I don't wait more than 30 seconds, often only 1-2 seconds, to get into a battle. I am not the least bit concerned with player numbers. And i don't think WG is either. "The sky is falling" mantra has been around longer than I have and WOT is still here. Go figure. 

 

I suspect that "the game is declining and it sucks which is why it's declining" is the mantra of those who are not having a good time playing - but refuse to go away.  They really resent the fact that other people are happy and satisfied with the game, and their envy is so transparent.

 

[DrWho_]

GeoMonster, on Apr 15 2019 - 16:20, said:

 

They don't all keep playing.  That is part of the reason why the player base is rapidly shrinking ... if you hadn't noticed.

 

This is a fair point. We can discuss until the universe implodes about how many players who leave because of this but it adds to those who leave for other reasons. Not sure what can be done about it because people love to believe in conspiracies, and it's a growing thing among younger people apparently so we're going to se more of it everywhere, which is sad because there are enough real conspiracies around to not having to make up obvious ones

[dunniteowl]

OP is whining about not winning and all his recent stats show green, which is improvement, not decline.

 

Sounds legit.

 

 

OvO

[zalrod]

ZombieTanker007, on Apr 15 2019 - 12:32, said:

 

Actually it doesn't wash out.  Just take a look at the thread about loosing streaks and tell me that everything washes out.  A 20+ game loosing streak is not washing out, so your argument is invalid.

 

And NO your win rate is not determined solely on the individual; the individual is responsible for 0.033% of the outcome for a MM game.  To simplify it, there are 30 players between both teams, which means 1 person is statistically responsible for 0.033% of the potential outcome.  When you factor in individual player skill and rating then that number either goes up or down.  Same goes for determining how much a persons responsible for their 15 tank team, which is roughly 0.067%.  Win % is one of the few stats in the game that a player has almost zero ability to control.  They can be the #1 player on their team every single game, but if they are constantly put on the weaker team then their chances of winning drop drastically.

I don't know how anyone could even try to argue this.

 

You put your decimal in the wrong place. You carry 6.5% of your teams hp pool (give or take based on tier and class of you vs your 14 teammates.) You vs all opfor and teammates is 3.3%. Your team weight is your tanks hp. You need to do at least that. Doing more means you’re covering the teammates who don’t do their hp.

 

[ArmorStorm]

ZombieTanker007, on Apr 15 2019 - 05:32, said:

 

Actually it doesn't wash out.  Just take a look at the thread about loosing streaks and tell me that everything washes out.  A 20+ game loosing streak is not washing out, so your argument is invalid.

 

And NO your win rate is not determined solely on the individual; the individual is responsible for 0.033% of the outcome for a MM game.  To simplify it, there are 30 players between both teams, which means 1 person is statistically responsible for 0.033% of the potential outcome.  When you factor in individual player skill and rating then that number either goes up or down.  Same goes for determining how much a persons responsible for their 15 tank team, which is roughly 0.067%.  Win % is one of the few stats in the game that a player has almost zero ability to control.  They can be the #1 player on their team every single game, but if they are constantly put on the weaker team then their chances of winning drop drastically.

I don't know how anyone could even try to argue this.

 

In addition to being a coward hiding behind a forum account you are incredibly misguided if you believe that nonsense.  I have NEVER had a 20 game losing streak, and possibly not even a 10-game streak.  Believe what you will, wrong as it is. 

[da_Rock002]

Exiledcrow, on Apr 15 2019 - 06:17, said:

OP, why would they bother doing ANYTHING to you except take your money? If for some unknown reason they have something against you …. well, they still wouldn't bother because it looks like you rig things hard enough against your team by just entering battle.

 

There is no rigging, there never was. Grow up, and learn to play.

 

 

They probably don't rig the matchups against anyone specifically, but if the ignore skill like they say, they are the cause of the ridiculously unbalanced battles that so many constantly complain about.    When something is ignored, it will range from one extreme to the other.   In WoT, that results in "team1" ranging from being filled with most of the top players of the 30 to being mostly newbies.   But WoT isn't that simple.   While that happens, the other team "team2" is doing the same.    So sometimes top players are against newbs and vice versa.     And we see the crap matchups because WoT doesn't bother.   They're ignoring skill, right.   

 

So no, WoT probably doesn't rig the matchups, but they wind up being royally lousy a lot.    Everyone who pays attention knows how that has worked for them. 

 

WoT needs to pay just enough attention to short-circuit those crappy matchups.   But it doesn't look like they mind what everyone gets.   And not everyone gets screwed.   Look at the posters on these forums who're bleating their minds out telling everyone their WR is their fault, that blowouts aren't happening much or are the MM's fault etc etc etc...    Top players WRs get pumped by those rolfstomps.   Just like platooning in the bottom tiers does. 

 

nah.... they aren't targeting you specifically.

[NeatoMan]

da_Rock002, on Apr 15 2019 - 16:41, said:

They probably don't rig the matchups against anyone specifically, but if the ignore skill like they say, they are the cause of the ridiculously unbalanced battles that so many constantly complain about.    When something is ignored, it will range from one extreme to the other.   In WoT, that results in "team1" ranging from being filled with most of the top players of the 30 to being mostly newbies.   But WoT isn't that simple.   While that happens, the other team "team2" is doing the same.    So sometimes top players are against newbs and vice versa.     And we see the crap matchups because WoT doesn't bother.   They're ignoring skill, right.  

Too bad those extremes don't happen as often as you claim. 

 

Block Quote

WoT needs to pay just enough attention to short-circuit those crappy matchups.   But it doesn't look like they mind what everyone gets.   And not everyone gets screwed.   Look at the posters on these forums who're bleating their minds out telling everyone their WR is their fault, that blowouts aren't happening much or are the MM's fault etc etc etc...    Top players WRs get pumped by those rolfstomps.   Just like platooning in the bottom tiers does

 too bad the data doesn't support your claims.  Only 1 in 10 battles are extremely unbalanced enough to cause more roflstmps

 

. 

evenly balanced teams by PR end up as blowouts 20% of the time.   You don't get a significant increase in blowouts until the teams differ by ~1500 PR (that's average player PR), and even then they are not guaranteed roflstomps  (33% of those extreme games end roflstomps).

 

Look at the grand total at the bottom.  That's what the current MM is giving you.  Now compare that to the results you get when teams are balanced;  you can expect an "improvement" from 23% blowouts to 20% blowouts, or a whopping 3% improvement!   You'd never notice any difference unless you kept track for a long time like I did (and mfezi, who also contributed data).

 

If anyone else doubts these numbers please keep track with WoTNumbers and add to the data so we can begin this conversation from a standpoint of the truth rather than hyperbole and wishful thinking.

[SteelRonin]

the only rigged thing here is the Russian Number Generator

[StrachwitzPzGraf]

NeatoMan -- you know I loves me some numbers... but when you use the PR to do the math and PR is heavily influenced by WNR -- isn't that a rather circular argument?

 

Would have been nice and more meaningful (IMHO) if you had done this analysis on WN8 differences -- where WN8 is more an indicator of the amount of relative damage each player should bring to the matchup.  More damage- more dead, more dead-more wins.

 

I agree in general that "balance" (by whatever means/metric) does NOT, would NOT, will never -- eliminate the rollovers -- but it might make them less likely -- without the data we just don't know.

[NeatoMan]

StrachwitzPzGraf, on Apr 15 2019 - 18:08, said:

NeatoMan -- you know I loves me some numbers... but when you use the PR to do the math and PR is heavily influenced by WNR -- isn't that a rather circular argument?

 

Would have been nice and more meaningful (IMHO) if you had done this analysis on WN8 differences -- where WN8 is more an indicator of the amount of relative damage each player should bring to the matchup.  More damage- more dead, more dead-more wins.

Actually, it's not relevant to this particular analysis.  I'm not measuring how well PR relates to winning, just how much team balance relates to how much they win by.  As far as that type of analysis any metric will do.  ALL metrics pretty much end up giving the same results.   It's only the morons who "must pad ma stats" that claim that "this metric is better than that one".  The vast majority of players don't stat pad, and for them any one of the skill metrics will suffice.

 

I've done these analysis with the old XVM when efficiency was king, when they used WN(whatever number they were on), and when they used their own xte rating, per tank ratings vs overall ratings, as well as with overall player win rates, and now with PR.  They ALL give the same result, because most players are not stat padding morons.  Their overall stats and/or win rates are good enough skill indicators for most server wide studies.

 

I just put together a rather simple win chance formula using PR ratings, and so far it is more accurate than what XVM came up with using per tank rating, factoring tier of tank, seal clubbing, basically all the things stat padding morons claim it must account for. 

 

tl,dr:  it's as good if not better than any other available metric.

 

Block Quote

I agree in general that "balance" (by whatever means/metric) does NOT, would NOT, will never -- eliminate the rollovers -- but it might make them less likely -- without the data we just don't know.

 You can see above what the results are when teams are balanced by PR.  It's the same kind of results I've seen for years using a variety of skill metrics.

 

...and which skill metric do you suppose WG would use to balance teams?  Their own rating, or a third party one based only on partial stats?

Edited by NeatoMan, Apr 16 2019 - 02:12.

[Nixeldon]

NeatoMan, on Apr 15 2019 - 18:24, said:

tl,dr:  it's as good if not better than any other available metric.

If I remember correctly, Tsuker provided a rating analysis on WOTLABS that showed WGPR to be slightly more accurate vs other ratings a few years ago. It was something like ~3% better than pure win rate.