Jump to content


How team balance (win chance) affects your battles

XVM SBMM blowout roflstomp

  • Please log in to reply
176 replies to this topic

NeatoMan #161 Posted Jul 17 2019 - 05:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 28089 battles
  • 20,222
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Jul 16 2019 - 23:45, said:

So that 21% is total of all battles?  Or just the mid range battles you were looking at?

total means total....  all battles

 

It means 21% of all battles were won/lost when going tomato or having a great game was overshadowed by a stacked team



Copacetic #162 Posted Jul 17 2019 - 18:10

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 46150 battles
  • 1,297
  • [ZEUS] ZEUS
  • Member since:
    02-04-2014

View PostNeatoMan, on Jun 12 2019 - 22:13, said:

well, if you like that, this will kick your ovaries into overdrive:

 

I narrowed the win chance increments to 2% brackets.  The correlation widens at the ends where sample sizes are lower, but it's still looking pretty damn good

 

 

mmm... oh yeah...

don't give your equation to xvm neat. idiots will give up automatically at the start of every game even more than they do.



bgmp14 #163 Posted Jul 17 2019 - 18:18

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 26952 battles
  • 123
  • [MAZUT] MAZUT
  • Member since:
    01-31-2016

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Jun 02 2019 - 19:50, said:

If you look at just the 35,40,45,50, 55, 60, and 65 columns - THIS IS SBMM.  The teams are roughly balanced based on team skill.  You have a REASONABLE CHANCE to WIN EVERY BATTLE.  There are no guaranteed wins/losses in these columns.  Which is the definition of FAIR.  And because BOTH teams have a chance to win, that makes 100% of these battles competitive, which is more fun and more engaging.

 

 

On the other hand this would effectively push everybody toward 50% win percentage regardless of skill. And since winning offers same "tangible" benefits (more xp, credits) it would penalize better players, which is not the definition of fair.



spud_tuber #164 Posted Jul 17 2019 - 18:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 57807 battles
  • 8,143
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View Postbgmp14, on Jul 17 2019 - 11:18, said:

 

On the other hand this would effectively push everybody toward 50% win percentage regardless of skill. And since winning offers same "tangible" benefits (more xp, credits) it would penalize better players, which is not the definition of fair.

Yeah, don't expect Simply to acknowledge that, regardless of how often it is explained tov him.   He's not interested in any definition or interpretation of fair but the one that helps him make his argument. 



SimplyPzB2 #165 Posted Jul 18 2019 - 04:42

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 105 battles
  • 406
  • Member since:
    05-26-2016

View Postspud_tuber, on Jul 17 2019 - 18:29, said:

Yeah, don't expect Simply to acknowledge that, regardless of how often it is explained tov him.   He's not interested in any definition or interpretation of fair but the one that helps him make his argument. 


It's been proven that balanced games DON'T force people to 50%.  By DATA.  To bad you don't have any...   (But really the reason is there is never 'perfect balance'.  When xvm win chance was up and running you almost never saw 50% 'exactly'.   The general consensus was 40-ish to 60-ish chance to win was 'reasonably balanced'.  Which means there was 'wiggle room' to do better or worse in this 'balanced range'.  If every single battles had a 40-60% chance to win, better players would gravitate towards 60% and bad players would gravitate towards 40%.  Just like they do now.  The difference would be NO battle would be a 15% or and 83% chance to win crap battle).



Jer1413 #166 Posted Jul 18 2019 - 13:16

    Captain

  • Players
  • 47128 battles
  • 1,463
  • [RR13] RR13
  • Member since:
    02-24-2013

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Jul 17 2019 - 23:42, said:


It's been proven that balanced games DON'T force people to 50%.  By DATA.  To bad you don't have any...   (But really the reason is there is never 'perfect balance'.  When xvm win chance was up and running you almost never saw 50% 'exactly'.   The general consensus was 40-ish to 60-ish chance to win was 'reasonably balanced'.  Which means there was 'wiggle room' to do better or worse in this 'balanced range'.  If every single battles had a 40-60% chance to win, better players would gravitate towards 60% and bad players would gravitate towards 40%.  Just like they do now.  The difference would be NO battle would be a 15% or and 83% chance to win crap battle).

 

 

^^ BuddhaMath

 

I'm sorry, but any DATA that has been posted proves the exact opposite of what you're saying.

 

So when a 60% WR player has virtually HALF of his games "balanced" down from +60% win-chance to the 40-60% slot his WR won't suffer at all?

 

What an interesting world you must live in.



NeatoMan #167 Posted Jul 18 2019 - 15:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 28089 battles
  • 20,222
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Jul 17 2019 - 22:42, said:

It's been proven that balanced games DON'T force people to 50%.  By DATA.  To bad you don't have any... 

Why don't you ever post ALL your data from ALL your battles you recorded?  It's because the rest of it doesn't prove your point, or you would have posted it already.  That's the definition of cherry picking.



SimplyPzB2 #168 Posted Jul 18 2019 - 18:27

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 105 battles
  • 406
  • Member since:
    05-26-2016

View PostNeatoMan, on Jul 18 2019 - 15:19, said:

Why don't you ever post ALL your data from ALL your battles you recorded?  It's because the rest of it doesn't prove your point, or you would have posted it already.  That's the definition of cherry picking.


I don't have to post my data, your data has done a great job of proving my points.  Plus, using your data eliminates any concerns of 'fake data' accusations. 

-

-

View PostNeatoMan, on Jun 06 2019 - 21:47, said:

I hear a number of people say extreme win chance games are guaranteed wins and losses.    Well, not quite.  Here is individual game WN8s for our test group, broken down by win chance.  You can see the win rates they achieved for a certain level of performance in each win chance group

 

 

For the most part whenever they had a decent game (>1200 WN8) they outperformed the win chances.  Even in the lowest WC group they could double their chances by having a good game.  Only at the highest end does it seem the contribution, or lack of it, had little effect on the outcome.  I'll have to look to see how many of those very high win chances were generated by platoons.  That might explain the lack of WR movement vs individual contribution.   In most other ranges the win rates were swayed by 30% or more depending on the individual contribution. 

 

As with all the other analyses, this could use more data.  Some of the sample sizes are small, but the trends already seem to be in place.

 

bottom line is your contributions matter, so try to win even when the odds are against you.

 

Neato's data proving Neato wrong since 2011.  Neato swears you 'can't beat the statistics'.   Yet, here he posts examples of people doing just that.

-

Skill balanced mm would have the effect of just making 40-50% ctw and 50-60% ctw battles.  So to see what Sbmm would look like, and what peoples win rate would be under sbmm, all we have to do is just look at the results from these two brakets:

Player           SBMM      SBMM

Skill               Brkt-1       Brkt-2

                     40-50       50-60     Avg  (note, there were 1,023 40-50 and 1,243 50-60 - but I've just added and divided by two for the 'avg' wr/)

0-600             33%         39%       36%      (New/Casual players with low skill NOT pulled up to 50%)

600-1200       44%         56%       50%      (Average players get an average win rate)

1200-2000     43%         57%       50%      (Good players get an average win rate)

2000-3000     59%         67%       63%      (Very good player do NOT get pulled down to 50%)

3000+            67%         77%       72%      (Great players do NOT get pulled down to 50%)

-

LOOK AT THOSE RESULTS!!!!  According you Neato and the random mm fanboys - ALL PLAYER WILL BE FORCED TO 50% W/R UNDER SBMM.   That's the holy of holy statements.  Yet, really bad players stay well under 50%, as the 0-600 only average 36%.  THEY ARE NOT PULLED UP!   Average players (600-1200 and 1200-2000) amazingly have average results at 50%. Very good and great players have win rates of 63% and 72% - THEY ARE NOT PULLED DOWN!.   Amazing.  For the umpteeth thousandth time, the data clearly shows better player can and will do better than 50% under sbmm, and bad player will still do less than 50%. 

-

Thanks Neato, I will be using this data/post a lot.  It really clears up the issue....



SimplyPzB2 #169 Posted Jul 18 2019 - 18:29

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 105 battles
  • 406
  • Member since:
    05-26-2016

View PostJer1413, on Jul 18 2019 - 13:16, said:

 

 

^^ BuddhaMath

 

I'm sorry, but any DATA that has been posted proves the exact opposite of what you're saying.

 

So when a 60% WR player has virtually HALF of his games "balanced" down from +60% win-chance to the 40-60% slot his WR won't suffer at all?

 

What an interesting world you must live in.

 

I'm sorry did you say something about 'any data proves the exact opposite of what I'm saying'...???

 

View PostNeatoMan, on Jun 06 2019 - 21:47, said:

I hear a number of people say extreme win chance games are guaranteed wins and losses.    Well, not quite.  Here is individual game WN8s for our test group, broken down by win chance.  You can see the win rates they achieved for a certain level of performance in each win chance group

 

 

For the most part whenever they had a decent game (>1200 WN8) they outperformed the win chances.  Even in the lowest WC group they could double their chances by having a good game.  Only at the highest end does it seem the contribution, or lack of it, had little effect on the outcome.  I'll have to look to see how many of those very high win chances were generated by platoons.  That might explain the lack of WR movement vs individual contribution.   In most other ranges the win rates were swayed by 30% or more depending on the individual contribution. 

 

As with all the other analyses, this could use more data.  Some of the sample sizes are small, but the trends already seem to be in place.

 

bottom line is your contributions matter, so try to win even when the odds are against you.

 

Neato's data proving Neato wrong since 2011.  Neato swears you 'can't beat the statistics'.   Yet, here he posts examples of people doing just that.

-

Skill balanced mm would have the effect of just making 40-50% ctw and 50-60% ctw battles.  So to see what Sbmm would look like, and what peoples win rate would be under sbmm, all we have to do is just look at the results from these two brakets:

Player           SBMM      SBMM

Skill               Brkt-1       Brkt-2

                     40-50       50-60     Avg  (note, there were 1,023 40-50 and 1,243 50-60 - but I've just added and divided by two for the 'avg' wr/)

0-600             33%         39%       36%      (New/Casual players with low skill NOT pulled up to 50%)

600-1200       44%         56%       50%      (Average players get an average win rate)

1200-2000     43%         57%       50%      (Good players get an average win rate)

2000-3000     59%         67%       63%      (Very good player do NOT get pulled down to 50%)

3000+            67%         77%       72%      (Great players do NOT get pulled down to 50%)

-

LOOK AT THOSE RESULTS!!!!  According you Neato and the random mm fanboys - ALL PLAYER WILL BE FORCED TO 50% W/R UNDER SBMM.   That's the holy of holy statements.  Yet, really bad players stay well under 50%, as the 0-600 only average 36%.  THEY ARE NOT PULLED UP!   Average players (600-1200 and 1200-2000) amazingly have average results at 50%. Very good and great players have win rates of 63% and 72% - THEY ARE NOT PULLED DOWN!.   Amazing.  For the umpteeth thousandth time, the data clearly shows better player can and will do better than 50% under sbmm, and bad player will still do less than 50%. 

-

Thanks Neato, I will be using this data/post a lot.  It really clears up the issue....



NeatoMan #170 Posted Jul 18 2019 - 18:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 28089 battles
  • 20,222
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Jul 18 2019 - 12:29, said:

Neato's data proving Neato wrong since 2011.  Neato swears you 'can't beat the statistics'.   Yet, here he posts examples of people doing just that.

-

Skill balanced mm would have the effect of just making 40-50% ctw and 50-60% ctw battles.  So to see what Sbmm would look like, and what peoples win rate would be under sbmm, all we have to do is just look at the results from these two brakets:

Player           SBMM      SBMM

Skill               Brkt-1       Brkt-2

                     40-50       50-60     Avg  (note, there were 1,023 40-50 and 1,243 50-60 - but I've just added and divided by two for the 'avg' wr/)

0-600             33%         39%       36%      (New/Casual players with low skill NOT pulled up to 50%)

600-1200       44%         56%       50%      (Average players get an average win rate)

1200-2000     43%         57%       50%      (Good players get an average win rate)

2000-3000     59%         67%       63%      (Very good player do NOT get pulled down to 50%)

3000+            67%         77%       72%      (Great players do NOT get pulled down to 50%)

-

LOOK AT THOSE RESULTS!!!!  According you Neato and the random mm fanboys - ALL PLAYER WILL BE FORCED TO 50% W/R UNDER SBMM.   That's the holy of holy statements.  Yet, really bad players stay well under 50%, as the 0-600 only average 36%.  THEY ARE NOT PULLED UP!   Average players (600-1200 and 1200-2000) amazingly have average results at 50%. Very good and great players have win rates of 63% and 72% - THEY ARE NOT PULLED DOWN!.   Amazing.  For the umpteeth thousandth time, the data clearly shows better player can and will do better than 50% under sbmm, and bad player will still do less than 50%. 

-

Thanks Neato, I will be using this data/post a lot.  It really clears up the issue....

Wrong again.  Those are not individual player WN8s.  They are individual game WN8s.  It may not seem like any difference to you, but it completely changes everything.  It overlooks how often players earn those scores, which is the major factor in determining win rate.

 

This is another fine example of you picking and choosing numbers without any idea of their meaning or context.  The only way you can prove your point is to completely mangle the statistics and cherry pick results.

 

This was already pointed out to you earlier the first time you brought it up, yet you return with the same mistake. And you wonder why people ridicule you so much in every one of your threads.  You repeatedly ignore everything when your errors are pointed out, and keep making the same mistakes again and again, just like above.  That's the sign of a complete idiot, or a troll.



Kliphie #171 Posted Jul 18 2019 - 19:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 32454 battles
  • 4,828
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    07-20-2012
I'm trying to admire this forest but these stupid trees keep getting the way

spud_tuber #172 Posted Jul 18 2019 - 19:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 57807 battles
  • 8,143
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostNeatoMan, on Jul 18 2019 - 11:47, said:

Wrong again.  Those are not individual player WN8s.  They are individual game WN8s.  It may not seem like any difference to you, but it completely changes everything.  It overlooks how often players earn those scores, which is the major factor in determining win rate.

 

This is another fine example of you picking and choosing numbers without any idea of their meaning or context.  The only way you can prove your point is to completely mangle the statistics and cherry pick results.

 

This was already pointed out to you earlier the first time you brought it up, yet you return with the same mistake. And you wonder why people ridicule you so much in every one of your threads.  You ignore everything when your errors are pointed out, and are incapable of learning anything.  That's the sign of a complete idiot, or a troll.

AKA BuhdaMath.   

 

For anyone wondering, the above bolded part is probably the simplest definition of BuhdaMath yet posted.

 

Neato, I don't know where you get the patience to deal with this guy as well as you do.



NeatoMan #173 Posted Jul 18 2019 - 20:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 28089 battles
  • 20,222
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View Postspud_tuber, on Jul 18 2019 - 13:50, said:

Neato, I don't know where you get the patience to deal with this guy as well as you do.

Repeatedly editing my posts before hitting reply.  The first iterations would never make it past the admins

 

Maybe it's my teaching experience.  There's always hope that you can get through, even to your worst students.   And if you can't you hope they'll have enough sense to drop the course



SimplyPzB2 #174 Posted Jul 18 2019 - 23:12

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 105 battles
  • 406
  • Member since:
    05-26-2016

View PostNeatoMan, on Jul 18 2019 - 18:47, said:

Wrong again.  Those are not individual player WN8s.  They are individual game WN8s.  It may not seem like any difference to you, but it completely changes everything.  It overlooks how often players earn those scores, which is the major factor in determining win rate.

 

This is another fine example of you picking and choosing numbers without any idea of their meaning or context.  The only way you can prove your point is to completely mangle the statistics and cherry pick results.

 

This was already pointed out to you earlier the first time you brought it up, yet you return with the same mistake. And you wonder why people ridicule you so much in every one of your threads.  You repeatedly ignore everything when your errors are pointed out, and keep making the same mistakes again and again, just like above.  That's the sign of a complete idiot, or a troll.


Individual, group, you clearly documented the results over the full range of possible chance to win battles.  0-9, 10-19, etc on up.  So by looking at jus the 40-50 and 50-60 we can see what would happen if those were the only brackets.  And your predictions were wrong.  Actually, that they were group numbers really kills your arguement. 



NeatoMan #175 Posted Jul 18 2019 - 23:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 28089 battles
  • 20,222
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Jul 18 2019 - 17:12, said:

Individual, group, you clearly documented the results over the full range of possible chance to win battles.  0-9, 10-19, etc on up.  So by looking at jus the 40-50 and 50-60 we can see what would happen if those were the only brackets.  And your predictions were wrong.  Actually, that they were group numbers really kills your arguement. 

It's your classification of the WN8s that's all messed up



Flarvin #176 Posted Jul 18 2019 - 23:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 54279 battles
  • 16,159
  • Member since:
    03-29-2013

View Postspud_tuber, on Jul 18 2019 - 13:50, said:

Neato, I don't know where you get the patience to deal with this guy as well as you do.

 

He definitely has to have a lot of patience, to deal with WoT forum’s version of flat earthers as he does. 

 

While I find them entertaining at times, eventually their blatant ignorance just gets annoying. That and I believe some just do it to troll. 



spud_tuber #177 Posted Jul 19 2019 - 00:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 57807 battles
  • 8,143
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostFlarvin, on Jul 18 2019 - 16:56, said:

 

He definitely has to have a lot of patience, to deal with WoT forum’s version of flat earthers as he does. 

 

While I find them entertaining at times, eventually their blatant ignorance just gets annoying. That and I believe some just do it to troll. 

Yeah. I'm pretty sure one of the 3 biggest is a full on troll going for people's feelz.  I think another has trouble with normal logic, math, and statistics so invented his own.  Finally, I think the 3rd is simply as dense as his name implies and spent too much time listening to the first two.  Which pretty well covers the 3 major types of flat earthers as well, by coincidence. 

 

Side note,  if I were someone who thought tin foil was a good fashion accessory, that last bit would be *tinfoil* material rather than assuming it is coincidence.







Also tagged with XVM, SBMM, blowout, roflstomp

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users