Jump to content


"Get Good" and other LIES....


  • Please log in to reply
3430 replies to this topic

dunniteowl #3421 Posted Nov 15 2019 - 22:40

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 31544 battles
  • 8,420
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

Your friends, all members of the SBMM Team Numbskull.  Please, come on in, the water's fine.

 

 

OvO



1Bourbon1Scotch1Beer #3422 Posted Nov 15 2019 - 23:09

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 20143 battles
  • 80
  • Member since:
    02-14-2012

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but the current release in the Call of Duty series has implemented 'hidden' SBMM and provides an excellent case study in the effects we might see in wot if such a system were implemented.

 

Just a few comments from a recent reddit thread that I found quite telling:

 

"Reverse boosting gets gold guns fast. Hate me all you want, but I'm just playing their game how they designed it." - Think it sucks now when good players go low tier and beat up on new players? Imagine if that good player was able to intentionally tank his rating and guarantee he will be placed against a collection of all bad/new players.

 

"It's also frustrating because you can't use any off meta weapons and do well. I'm trying to work on the AK47 and FAL but all anyone else is using is the M4. It's so boring and I get outplayed 9/10 times and die to the M4." - Should high rated players be forced into playing the small subset of highly competitive tanks in order to enjoy games against others of similar skill level? And the logical consequence of this: "You CAN use off-meta weapons and do well. You just have to keep doing it until the game assumes you're a lower-skill player and matches you against people who are worse enough than you that you go even playing off-meta."

 

"My MW experience has basically boiled down to doing well in one or two matches, then having the rest of the night [edited]ruined by people playing like [edited]with meta loadouts." Promoting passive gameplay is, in my opinion, the exact opposite direction WOT needs to go. We already have enough 3 arty games having this effect.  

 

"The first multiplayer game my brother gets really into for the first time in about 10 years, and I can't even play games with him because he gets stomped at my skill level. Why does Infinity Ward hate family bonding and friendship?"  Obviously an over-dramatic post, but given the declining population any disincentive to an enjoyable new player experience is very detrimental. 

 

"I've found the best way to endure the sbmm is by having no skill to begin with. My K/D is 1.08 and that's the highest it's been over all CODs. FaZe here I come."

"I'd much rather get completely stomped as a noob, and realize "wow, i'm a noob. i need to get better". Rather than actually getting better and suddenly getting stomped even worse. That feels terrible."

Herein lies the worst result of SBMM, I could post a mountain of comments similar to this. Promoting poor play to get to an eventual enjoyable experience is horrible for a naturally competitive game. When you take away a player's tangible feeling of their own improvement relative to the next player it naturally results in a) players intentionally reducing rating,using only the most competitive tanks, etc. in an attempt to feel that difference or b) an increasingly frustrating static experience of coin-toss games where an individual player's influence on the match is minimized  



Nixeldon #3423 Posted Nov 15 2019 - 23:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 60881 battles
  • 2,303
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View Postumkhulu, on Nov 15 2019 - 16:22, said:

So this is where all the trolls are hanging out - who are we hitting on today guys?....

Budha called everyone who disagrees with him trolls in the OP, so I'm surprised Match.com didn't bring you here sooner. You won't be lonely here either. There are so many people on the BudhaLogicTM sock puppets, they can't keep track of what each other are saying.



NeatoMan #3424 Posted Nov 15 2019 - 23:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 28204 battles
  • 20,753
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

Block Quote

And your problem regarding the use of statistics is at least twofold, you don't really know how to effectively use the methods so that data reveals the thing of interest, and your interpretation of what ever you do get the data to show is often baseless and full of holes. Another problem you seem to have is reading comprehension. This is what I posted to elicit your response above;

 Your analysis is not revealing what you think it is.  You think shuffling the numbers around until you get something you want is all that's needed.  You picked the worst possible presentation of the data from which to figure out team skill distribution, instead of taking the direct approach, and then proceeded to make quite a few erroneous assumptions in the process to arrive at your conclusion. 

 

If there was ever any doubt that you are a budha alt, you just completely removed it.   Once again you have totally botched the interpretation of one of my charts, glommed onto some numbers that don't represent what you think they do, and won't let go of it.   That's classic budhaLogic™

 

Block Quote

It was a simple set of questions Neato. If low wc teams see more red/orange players, and high wc teams see more green/blue players, and lower PR players see a higher percentage of low wc teams compared to higher PR players, what do you base your notion on that everyone sees the same teams?

 Because that analysis you are doing only reveals what the composition of teams are at certain win chances.  Your extrapolation of that data into the conclusion that since bad players see more low win chances it means they have worse team mates is missing some steps.  You failed to consider exactly how many more low win chance battles they get.  What is the average win chance for red players vs good players?  Those are the numbers you need to be comparing, not the extreme high/low win chances. 

 

It's like you are trying to figure out your kpg from your damage ratios.  Sure it probably could be done, but it's a far more convoluted process; one in which you left out some of the necessary steps.

 

You need to tally the team compositions of ALL of the win chances they encounter, not just the high or low ones ones, as well as consider the frequency of each.  When you do that you will find that the only difference between what a good player sees and a bad player sees is going to be due to the individual.  That's what the math will show in all cases, when given a sufficient sample size.

 

or you could just compare the team1 compositions with the team2 compositions, and skip all those unnecessary extra steps you created.   Just like if you want to know your kpg, you look at your kpg, not your damage ratios

 

Block Quote

And you seem to be too stupid to realize that 15% is greater than 7%.

 That's entirely due to the individual's PR and nobody else's

 

Block Quote

BTW, here is a list of battles taken from your own 6696 data that represent good examples of low wc teams being overrun much like the OP was suggesting at the beginning of this thread. Notice how the low wc teams all have a higher number of zero scores? I only reviewed part of your data, but at least we can say the sample size increased. 

 Now compare how often that happens to how often it happens in battles that aren't low win chances.  See what happens when you replace those low win chance battles with balanced battles.  The improvement is minimal.



Markd73 #3425 Posted Nov 16 2019 - 00:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 32795 battles
  • 5,524
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View Postumkhulu, on Nov 15 2019 - 21:22, said:

So this is where all the trolls are hanging out - who are we hitting on today guys?....

 

Don't be so hard on yourself. I don't consider you a Troll.



Guarantee_Artae_Magnetus #3426 Posted Nov 16 2019 - 05:14

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 18635 battles
  • 49
  • [GIVUP] GIVUP
  • Member since:
    08-25-2015
Get good. 

WeSayNotToday #3427 Posted Nov 16 2019 - 07:01

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 23913 battles
  • 1,179
  • Member since:
    04-08-2015

View Postdunniteowl, on Nov 15 2019 - 22:40, said:

Your friends, all members of the SBMM Team Numbskull.  Please, come on in, the water's fine.

 

 

OvO

 

 

Has your posting personality changed recently?

 

View Post1Bourbon1Scotch1Beer, on Nov 15 2019 - 23:09, said:

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but the current release in the Call of Duty series has implemented 'hidden' SBMM and provides an excellent case study in the effects we might see in wot if such a system were implemented.

 

 

Is call of duty a 2 team, 15 players-per-team, 5-vehicle-class game with 10 tiers of vehicles that go through upgrade chains?  How much like WoT is CoD?  If I recall correctly, WoT is designed to be unlike CoD in many ways.  Certainly, when changes are proposed that make WoT more twitch-oriented, there are calls to "not make WoT more like CoD!"

 

Block Quote

 

Just a few comments from a recent reddit thread that I found quite telling:

 

 

I would find such comments more telling if you provided strong evidence that the Reddit community represented a broad spectrum of CoD players, and not just some of the players that are invested in the game, feeding off of, and being infected/ affected by each other's ideas, that have time beyond game-play to invest in CoD [in the Reddit], in other words, not a specific, non-representative sub-community of CoD players.  That is, if CoD were a lot like WoT.

 

Block Quote

 

"Reverse boosting gets gold guns fast. Hate me all you want, but I'm just playing their game how they designed it." - Think it sucks now when good players go low tier and beat up on new players? Imagine if that good player was able to intentionally tank his rating and guarantee he will be placed against a collection of all bad/new players.

 

  • Most of the SBMM requested would not be of the sort that segregates players into leagues or divisions, so, this does not apply.  I
  • It is difficult to radically change several aspects of one's statistics quickly due their accumulation of thousands of battles, so, this does not really apply. 
  • There has been some call for more of a league-type structure for low tiers, but someone tanking in low tiers to be in some "newb league" for tiers 1, 2, and 3 [or and 4], is weird, and not very rewarding, so this is not telling.  One does not earn much of what is important in this game at low tiers, so this still would not apply.
  • People will game any system that shows up.  The systems in place are being gamed as we speak, some of them are almost self-gaming.

 

Block Quote

"It's also frustrating because you can't use any off meta weapons and do well. I'm trying to work on the AK47 and FAL but all anyone else is using is the M4. It's so boring and I get outplayed 9/10 times and die to the M4." - Should high rated players be forced into playing the small subset of highly competitive tanks in order to enjoy games against others of similar skill level? And the logical consequence of this: "You CAN use off-meta weapons and do well. You just have to keep doing it until the game assumes you're a lower-skill player and matches you against people who are worse enough than you that you go even playing off-meta."

 

 

High rated players already stick largely to meta tanks, and work hard to earn more of them, that only elite players can easily earn.  They are in no way forced into tank choices for pubbies, and would not be.

 

To be fair, good players are good in most of the tanks they play, many parts of being good at WoT apply across tank classes, and to less-meta tanks of the same class as the elite player prefers.

 

Additionally, the game already has a problem of OP premium tanks versus not-yet-elite tanks versus elite tanks with the additional add-ins of somewhat expensive equipment as well as premium consumables and ammo.

 

There are many stats that could be used for any balancing, from basic win-rate to WoT PR, to WN7 and WN8 or XTE.  Additionally, the granularity of any balancing could include that for any tank new for the player, the first 10 games or 20 games use one metric or adjusted metric, with a switch to overall rates after that until 50 or so battles when a rolling average in that tank gets used.

 

And even then, it is never tanker vs tanker, it is still team vs team, and reasonably-balanced teams under SBMM.

 

 

Block Quote

 

"My MW experience has basically boiled down to doing well in one or two matches, then having the rest of the night [edited]ruined by people playing like [edited]with meta loadouts." Promoting passive gameplay is, in my opinion, the exact opposite direction WOT needs to go. We already have enough 3 arty games having this effect.  

 

 

This is already something of a problem in WoT, in that newbs, and other below-average players are stuck on worse teams regularly because their own skill level drags the random team down.  So, they end up having one or two decent games, and then suffer a lot with superior players running meta loadouts.  SBMM would keep one team from being vastly better than the other team.

 

Block Quote

 

"The first multiplayer game my brother gets really into for the first time in about 10 years, and I can't even play games with him because he gets stomped at my skill level. Why does Infinity Ward hate family bonding and friendship?"  Obviously an over-dramatic post, but given the declining population any disincentive to an enjoyable new player experience is very detrimental. 

 

Platooning, with an experienced player helping a newb through lower tiers seems very doable to me, with or without SBMM in WoT.  SBMM would just prevent all the clubbers from being on one team.  This does not apply. 

 

Platooning at high tiers in SBMM would just activate some subroutine in the balancing code [as it would in any tier], so this complaint would not apply.

 

Yeah, platooning outside of pubbies would be different, but clan wars is a more controlled environment, this would not apply.

 

Also, the environment for new players in WoT right now  is counter-productive, ranged-SBMM is one proposed solution.


Edited by WeSayNotToday, Nov 16 2019 - 07:04.


dunniteowl #3428 Posted Nov 16 2019 - 16:25

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 31544 battles
  • 8,420
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

To WeSayNotToday:

 

No, my posting style hasn't changed.  I will admit to being a tad more cranky than usual because I can't play the game until I can find a method that allows me to since the WGC forces P2P only.

 

I do not lightly suffer fools.  If you just LOOK at all the data that has been presented JUST in this thread and not the dozens of others that are a complete waste of time, you can see that the things being asked for by SBMM folks are ALREADY here in the Random MM.  Thus, from a standpoint of attempting to point this out several times, quite politely at first and being completely ignored, laughed at, dismissed and then 'explained to' by people who clearly have no understanding of: statistics, math, logic or how to make a rational set of conclusions based on facts -- well -- they're FOOLS.

 

I am a nice guy, pretty much all the time.  That said, to entertain a fool with the notion that you actually are listening to their crap is not something I'm willing to even pretend to do.  Once I pointed all this out and got that response, then I have to choose:

 

Let them spew their crap without abatement, possibly drawing some other poor, ignorant of statistics person, into their web of false equivalencies, pretzel 'logic' and cherry picked data sets to show ONLY what they want and not the whole picture so as to confuse and conflate

 

    or

 

Speak out against such lunacy.

 


I choose the latter.  I will not just sit idly by and allow them to infect others with their foolishness, just because it comes wrapped in a lot of words and truthy sounding arguments that have no basis in facts.

 

 

Hope that clears that up for you.

 

 

OvO



WeSayNotToday #3429 Posted Nov 16 2019 - 17:14

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 23913 battles
  • 1,179
  • Member since:
    04-08-2015

View Postdunniteowl, on Nov 16 2019 - 16:25, said:

To WeSayNotToday:

 

No, my posting style hasn't changed.  I will admit to being a tad more cranky than usual because I can't play the game until I can find a method that allows me to since the WGC forces P2P only.

 

 

I urge you to investigate the settings tab on the WGC.  I believe I have P2P eliminated in the settings I have chosen, with no pre-loading and no uploading.  Also, I have it set to turn off when I close it, if I remember that correctly.

 

Look for Guido's 4Tankers' thread on hacking the WGC launcher somewhere around here in General Discussion, also.

 

In regards to the part of your post on the debate, I have seen little to no data indicating that the current random MM limits or attempts to control seal clubbing at low tiers by distributing the clubbers to both teams, and that it provides, and declares that it provides, a 45 to 55% win chance for each side, publicly, so that each player knows that each battle is within his reach, every time.

 

As to the other part of your post, chill is also good, when achievable.

 

Thanks for taking the time to respond, Owl.

 

Edit: sorry, it was 4Tankers.... http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/613673-hacking-the-wot-game-center-launcher/

 

This might also help: http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/614856-disable-p2ptorrent/


Edited by WeSayNotToday, Nov 16 2019 - 17:19.


Lapdog1 #3430 Posted Nov 16 2019 - 17:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 8532 battles
  • 2,177
  • Member since:
    11-24-2013

View Post1Bourbon1Scotch1Beer, on Nov 15 2019 - 16:09, said:

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but the current release in the Call of Duty series has implemented 'hidden' SBMM and provides an excellent case study in the effects we might see in wot if such a system were implemented.

 

Just a few comments from a recent reddit thread that I found quite telling:

 

"Reverse boosting gets gold guns fast. Hate me all you want, but I'm just playing their game how they designed it." - Think it sucks now when good players go low tier and beat up on new players? Imagine if that good player was able to intentionally tank his rating and guarantee he will be placed against a collection of all bad/new players.

 

"It's also frustrating because you can't use any off meta weapons and do well. I'm trying to work on the AK47 and FAL but all anyone else is using is the M4. It's so boring and I get outplayed 9/10 times and die to the M4." - Should high rated players be forced into playing the small subset of highly competitive tanks in order to enjoy games against others of similar skill level? And the logical consequence of this: "You CAN use off-meta weapons and do well. You just have to keep doing it until the game assumes you're a lower-skill player and matches you against people who are worse enough than you that you go even playing off-meta."

 

"My MW experience has basically boiled down to doing well in one or two matches, then having the rest of the night [edited]ruined by people playing like [edited]with meta loadouts." Promoting passive gameplay is, in my opinion, the exact opposite direction WOT needs to go. We already have enough 3 arty games having this effect.  

 

"The first multiplayer game my brother gets really into for the first time in about 10 years, and I can't even play games with him because he gets stomped at my skill level. Why does Infinity Ward hate family bonding and friendship?"  Obviously an over-dramatic post, but given the declining population any disincentive to an enjoyable new player experience is very detrimental. 

 

"I've found the best way to endure the sbmm is by having no skill to begin with. My K/D is 1.08 and that's the highest it's been over all CODs. FaZe here I come."

"I'd much rather get completely stomped as a noob, and realize "wow, i'm a noob. i need to get better". Rather than actually getting better and suddenly getting stomped even worse. That feels terrible."

Herein lies the worst result of SBMM, I could post a mountain of comments similar to this. Promoting poor play to get to an eventual enjoyable experience is horrible for a naturally competitive game. When you take away a player's tangible feeling of their own improvement relative to the next player it naturally results in a) players intentionally reducing rating,using only the most competitive tanks, etc. in an attempt to feel that difference or b) an increasingly frustrating static experience of coin-toss games where an individual player's influence on the match is minimized  

Cherry Picking

 

(also known as: ignoring inconvenient data, suppressed evidence, fallacy of incomplete evidence, argument by selective observation, argument by half-truth, card stacking, fallacy of exclusion, ignoring the counter evidence, one-sided assessment, slanting, one-sidedness)

Description: When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld.  The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.



da_Rock002 #3431 Posted Nov 16 2019 - 17:48

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 9725 battles
  • 3,786
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

View Post1Bourbon1Scotch1Beer, on Nov 15 2019 - 17:09, said:

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but the current release in the Call of Duty series has implemented 'hidden' SBMM and provides an excellent case study in the effects we might see in wot if such a system were implemented.

 

 


Jeez,  about the only thing the two games have in common is they're not about a sport like baseball.






3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users