Jump to content


"Get Good" and other LIES....


  • Please log in to reply
3592 replies to this topic

Nixeldon #3481 Posted Nov 28 2019 - 06:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 62566 battles
  • 2,443
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View Post8_Hussars, on Nov 28 2019 - 00:20, said:

You are correct here, please to define the concept of fair play and what a “good” game is.  (Note: It's been asked for before)

Good luck to you on getting a straight answer from him.

 

View Post8_Hussars, on Nov 28 2019 - 00:20, said:

Most will agree that WoT is a game of both skill and luck.  But where does the actual seperation happen?

Budha doesn't understand the relationship and defines them with unrelated terms.

 

View Post8_Hussars, on Nov 28 2019 - 00:20, said:

Not quite sure what the SBMM proponents actually want other than the nebulous and undefined "fair play".

That is about as far as it goes.



SimplyPzB2 #3482 Posted Nov 28 2019 - 08:09

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 106 battles
  • 849
  • Member since:
    05-26-2016

View Post8_Hussars, on Nov 28 2019 - 06:20, said:

 

 

You are correct here, please to define the concept of fair play and what a “good” game is.  (Note: It's been asked for before)
 

 

This paradox is at the root of the most SBMM proponents and SBMM detractor argumentsCurrent based MM provides more skill based outcomes and SBMM provides more luck based outcomes.  It’s easy to see how each system seems to favor one group more that the other.  Obviously, skilled players want a system where skill matters.  Not quite sure what the SBMM propoents actually want other than the nebulous and undefined "fair play".

Everyone knows what fair play is.  It's a level playing field at the START of a battle.  If one team has 5 good players, the enemy team should have 4-6 good players so that the team skill is roughly balanced.  Just like we all know that a battle if very unbalanced when one team has 8 good players, and the enemy team has 2 good players.  sbmm would ensure that every single battle occurs between similarly skilled teams (not perfectly matched, no one is asking for perfect balance). 

-

You are dead wrong when you say "current based mm provides more skill based outcomes and sbmm provides more luck based outcomes".

-

Here is why.  Under the current random mm, you can have this: (taken from a real battle)

 

                  Team 1        Team 2

Purple            0                 0

Blue               0                 1

Green            2                 0

Yellow            6                 2         Team 1 has (8) 'skilled' players, while Team 2 only has (3) 'skilled' players.

Orange          3                 9

Red               4                 3         Team 1 has (7) 'unskilled' players, while Team two has (12) 'unskilled'

 

Team 1 had a 5 skilled player advantage.  That's huge.  This is essentially "Team Sealclubbing".  Which is to say Team 1 has such a built in advantage they don't really have to work that hard for the win.  So individual skill is meaningless.  1-2 of the good players on Team 1 could be afk and they'd still win.

-

Now let's look at what sbmm would do:

 

                  Team 1        Team 2

Purple            0                 0

Blue               0                 1

Green            2                 0

Yellow            4                 4         Team 1 has (6) 'skilled' players, while Team 2 has (5) 'skilled' players.

Orange          5                 7

Red               4                 3         Team 1 has (9) 'unskilled' players, while Team two has (10) 'unskilled'

 

Note the teams have NOT been balanced 'exactly', but Team 2 now has a reasonable chance to win.  As they are only short 1 skilled  player, and only have to carry 1 extra unskilled player.  So in this battle it is critical that every player on Team 1 (and Team 2) plays there best, as any minor mistake has the potential to blow up and lose the battle.  In this, sbmm, every single player needs to carry their weight for the win.

-

So random allows for battles that are so lopsided people don't have to play their best and they still win. 

So sbmm requires every player (both teams) to play their best or risk losing.

 

 

 



Nixeldon #3483 Posted Nov 28 2019 - 08:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 62566 battles
  • 2,443
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostNixeldon, on Nov 28 2019 - 00:36, said:

Budha doesn't understand the relationship and defines them with unrelated terms.

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Nov 28 2019 - 02:09, said:

Which is to say Team 1 has such a built in advantage they don't really have to work that hard for the win.  So individual skill is meaningless.  

 

 



Master_Beater #3484 Posted Nov 28 2019 - 11:37

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 43904 battles
  • 315
  • [ANASS] ANASS
  • Member since:
    12-23-2010
You can't get good when fully aimed shots miss consistently. It seems that not all accounts created are created equally. If you have a bad account, maybe try to open another account, you might get a better rolled account.

Master_Beater #3485 Posted Nov 28 2019 - 11:38

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 43904 battles
  • 315
  • [ANASS] ANASS
  • Member since:
    12-23-2010
Also, winning and losing in this game is solely a function of MM. You can only try to farm damage to push your wn8 up.

NeatoMan #3486 Posted Nov 28 2019 - 13:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 29142 battles
  • 21,530
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Nov 28 2019 - 02:09, said:

So random allows for battles that are so lopsided people don't have to play their best and they still win. 

So sbmm requires every player (both teams) to play their best or risk losing.

In randoms somebody has to have a good game in order for their team to win.  You're just mad that it's usually good players who do it.  Your win rate is a function of how you stack up against everyone around you. The more you do, the more you win. Everyone is expected to carry the same weight.  You start out at 40% for doing nothing, and go up from there the more you contribute 

 

some people's "best" is far below other players' best.  In SBMM a purple and red players' win rate is now a function of how they stack up against their own average.  So a tomato is only expected to carry as much as a tomato, while a good player is expected to carry far more for the same result.  You start at 50% for doing nothing,  and pretty much stay there even though you contribute more. 

 

SBMM forces good players to constantly play on hard mode, while tomatoes get coddled with easy mode.  Imo, a 40% win rate for doing nothing is enough coddling already.  Get gud if you want to win more.  If they want to help newbs assimilate quicker, then give them 100% crews, crew xp boosts, and free 6th sense, to help them out vs veterans. 

 

All sbmm does is give tomatoes a false sense of accomplishment for a below average performance.  Then when they actually do improve they will wonder why they aren't winning more.



spud_tuber #3487 Posted Nov 28 2019 - 15:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 61265 battles
  • 9,545
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Nov 28 2019 - 01:09, said:

Everyone knows what fair play is.  It's a level playing field at the START of a battle.  *snip*

 

 

With regards to skill distribution, the only way to give individual players a level playing field at the start of every battle is to institute very narrow skill brackets.  Otherwise, some players will have better teammates and/or worse opponents than others. 

 

Reminder- teammates does not include the individual player, you're not your own teammate, even if you are on your own team.

 

But this is your ongoing issue.  You conflate principles that apply to whole teams and principles that only apply to individuals or to those individuals teammates and/or opponents in a confusing jumble of nonsense.  I'm not sure if you're confusing them because you don't understand the differences, or because it is the only way to prop up some of your "arguments " for SBalancedMM and you hope gullible people won't see what you've done.



dunniteowl #3488 Posted Nov 28 2019 - 15:59

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 31544 battles
  • 9,528
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

Willfully Ignorant is not being ignorant.  In colloquial terms, it is, by definition Stupid.

 

Repeating the same thing over and over while expecting different results.

 

This is the very definition of the OPs insistent and consistently ignorant posting on this matter.

 

All the rest of us can do is to keep shining a light on this level of gross misrepresentation of facts and call him on it so that others who are smart enough to see past the smoke and mirrors can turn away before they are sucked into the black hole of SBMM lunacy.

 

 

OvO



TrevorsT112 #3489 Posted Feb 21 2020 - 05:01

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 12140 battles
  • 823
  • Member since:
    10-31-2017

After nearly 200 posts, it's probably best to just let it go, but the almost daily messages telling me I should drop down a couple tiers, or "that's why your 45%" has twisted my arm again. In terms of being random, I have yet to see anyone demonstrate how so in the true sense of the word. IMO, this game is about as random as Easter Sundays. But back to my original claim, I am quite certain that we are not all seeing the same type of teams. And so much for Neato's assertion that the only difference is the individual player him/herself.

 



NeatoMan #3490 Posted Feb 21 2020 - 06:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 29142 battles
  • 21,530
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostTrevorsT112, on Feb 20 2020 - 23:01, said:

After nearly 200 posts, it's probably best to just let it go, but the almost daily messages telling me I should drop down a couple tiers, or "that's why your 45%" has twisted my arm again. In terms of being random, I have yet to see anyone demonstrate how so in the true sense of the word. IMO, this game is about as random as Easter Sundays. But back to my original claim, I am quite certain that we are not all seeing the same type of teams. And so much for Neato's assertion that the only difference is the individual player him/herself.

They're baaaaaAAack.

 

If you truly wanted to figure it out you could have easily installed WoTnumbers and kept track for yourself.   But no, none of you ever do (except umkhulu, who never found anything to those claims).   Maybe you can explain why none of you ever take advantage of any of the stat tracking sites that can prove your point.  It's been mentioned a number of times in these various threads over the years....  and still nada, nothing, zippo.  What's the matter?  Don't have enough faith in your claims?



Kenshin2kx #3491 Posted Feb 21 2020 - 06:54

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 20197 battles
  • 6,416
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View PostTrevorsT112, on Feb 20 2020 - 18:01, said:

After nearly 200 posts, it's probably best to just let it go, but the almost daily messages telling me I should drop down a couple tiers, or "that's why your 45%" has twisted my arm again. In terms of being random, I have yet to see anyone demonstrate how so in the true sense of the word. IMO, this game is about as random as Easter Sundays. But back to my original claim, I am quite certain that we are not all seeing the same type of teams. And so much for Neato's assertion that the only difference is the individual player him/herself.

 

I'm thinking that other factors are creating an appearance of subjective patterns in the short run ... take for example the modifier of when and where people play from?  The MM will have a more difficult time in team creation when the player base is low vs the same server at peak participation times. I'd think that there are other such variables as well - that contribute to a complicating overlap in terms of MM influence in timely team allocation.  Thus such variable modifiers can give situationally dependent differences that are more or less optimal based upon differing limiters or demographic filters.


Edited by Kenshin2kx, Feb 21 2020 - 06:58.


SimplyPzB2 #3492 Posted Feb 21 2020 - 06:57

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 106 battles
  • 849
  • Member since:
    05-26-2016

View PostNeatoMan, on Nov 28 2019 - 13:42, said:

In randoms somebody has to have a good game in order for their team to win.  You're just mad that it's usually good players who do it.  Your win rate is a function of how you stack up against everyone around you. The more you do, the more you win. Everyone is expected to carry the same weight.  You start out at 40% for doing nothing, and go up from there the more you contribute 

 

some people's "best" is far below other players' best.  In SBMM a purple and red players' win rate is now a function of how they stack up against their own average.  So a tomato is only expected to carry as much as a tomato, while a good player is expected to carry far more for the same result.  You start at 50% for doing nothing,  and pretty much stay there even though you contribute more. 

 

SBMM forces good players to constantly play on hard mode, while tomatoes get coddled with easy mode.  Imo, a 40% win rate for doing nothing is enough coddling already.  Get gud if you want to win more.  If they want to help newbs assimilate quicker, then give them 100% crews, crew xp boosts, and free 6th sense, to help them out vs veterans. 

 

All sbmm does is give tomatoes a false sense of accomplishment for a below average performance.  Then when they actually do improve they will wonder why they aren't winning more.

No, this doesn't have to be true.  When one team has 7 more skilled players, none of them have to have a 'good game'.  As the much weaker team folds so easily.  Very low, to no, skill required to 'team sealclub' a much weaker team.

-

Yes, no one expects a tomato to carry more than a tomato.  BUT, when one team has 7 more tomatoes, then you can't expect the 2-3 good players on that team to carry SO MUCH MORE TOMATO, than the 7-8 good players on the enemy team.

-

And here we have it.  The ADMISSION.  Neato thinks Sbmm/balanced battles are HARD MODE.  So right here in black and white he admits he needs the system to RIG 'x' percentage of battle to be 'easy mode'.  Sad.  Truly skilled players want 'hard mode' every single battle.  Truly skilled players find it terribly boring to roll over a much less skilled opponent. 

-

Wrong again.  All Sbmm does is provide a level playing field AT THE START, and for BOTH teams...



SimplyPzB2 #3493 Posted Feb 21 2020 - 07:01

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 106 battles
  • 849
  • Member since:
    05-26-2016

View Postspud_tuber, on Nov 28 2019 - 15:51, said:

With regards to skill distribution, the only way to give individual players a level playing field at the start of every battle is to institute very narrow skill brackets.  Otherwise, some players will have better teammates and/or worse opponents than others. 

 

Reminder- teammates does not include the individual player, you're not your own teammate, even if you are on your own team.

 

But this is your ongoing issue.  You conflate principles that apply to whole teams and principles that only apply to individuals or to those individuals teammates and/or opponents in a confusing jumble of nonsense.  I'm not sure if you're confusing them because you don't understand the differences, or because it is the only way to prop up some of your "arguments " for SBalancedMM and you hope gullible people won't see what you've done.


Wow, so wrong.  I mean just sooooo wrong.  You state "the only way to give individual players a level playing field at the start of every battle is to institute very narrow skill brackets".  What on earth are you talking about?   If there are 4 unicums, it's fair to all players if each team gets 2 of them.  If there are 20 tomatoes, it's fair to all players if each team gets 10 of them.

-

What's not fair is one team getting all 4 unicums.

What's not fair is one team getting 15 tomatoes, while the other team only gets 5.

 



SimplyPzB2 #3494 Posted Feb 21 2020 - 07:01

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 106 battles
  • 849
  • Member since:
    05-26-2016

View Postdunniteowl, on Nov 28 2019 - 15:59, said:

Willfully Ignorant is not being ignorant.  In colloquial terms, it is, by definition Stupid.

 

Repeating the same thing over and over while expecting different results.

 

This is the very definition of the OPs insistent and consistently ignorant posting on this matter.

 

All the rest of us can do is to keep shining a light on this level of gross misrepresentation of facts and call him on it so that others who are smart enough to see past the smoke and mirrors can turn away before they are sucked into the black hole of SBMM lunacy.

 

 

OvO


Still...   No...   Data...



SimplyPzB2 #3495 Posted Feb 21 2020 - 07:08

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 106 battles
  • 849
  • Member since:
    05-26-2016

View PostNeatoMan, on Feb 21 2020 - 06:27, said:

They're baaaaaAAack.

 

If you truly wanted to figure it out you could have easily installed WoTnumbers and kept track for yourself.   But no, none of you ever do (except umkhulu, who never found anything to those claims).   Maybe you can explain why none of you ever take advantage of any of the stat tracking sites that can prove your point.  It's been mentioned a number of times in these various threads over the years....  and still nada, nothing, zippo.  What's the matter?  Don't have enough faith in your claims?


We don't need charts to make our point.  We have screenshots from actual battles that prove our point just fine.



SimplyPzB2 #3496 Posted Feb 21 2020 - 07:10

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 106 battles
  • 849
  • Member since:
    05-26-2016

View PostKenshin2kx, on Feb 21 2020 - 06:54, said:

I'm thinking that other factors are creating an appearance of subjective patterns in the short run ... take for example the modifier of when and where people play from?  The MM will have a more difficult time in team creation when the player base is low vs the same server at peak participation times. I'd think that there are other such variables as well - that contribute to a complicating overlap in terms of MM influence in timely team allocation.  Thus such variable modifiers can give situationally dependent differences that are more or less optimal based upon differing limiters or demographic filters.


You are onto something about server population.  But it's essentially a skill balance enhancer.  In that when there are fewer players, there tends to be a much lower percentage of good players.  So the teams are worse than normal.  Thus harder to carry than normal.  Thus more punishing than normal.   But it's still down to skill imbalance. 



dunniteowl #3497 Posted Feb 21 2020 - 09:12

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 31544 battles
  • 9,528
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Feb 21 2020 - 00:01, said:


Still...   No...   Data...

 

 

Still not required to refute that trash you blithely call 'data' you 'misrepresent' as 'proof.'

 

 

Duh.

 

OvO

 



uberdice #3498 Posted Feb 21 2020 - 09:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 27661 battles
  • 9,981
  • Member since:
    01-14-2012

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Feb 21 2020 - 16:08, said:


We don't need charts to make our point.  We have screenshots from actual battles that prove our point just fine.

 

Except you only take screenshots of battles that agree with your hypothesis, because you have never been interested in having an honest discussion.



Trakks #3499 Posted Feb 21 2020 - 13:26

    Captain

  • Players
  • 4093 battles
  • 1,061
  • Member since:
    11-24-2011

View PostTrevorsT112, on Feb 21 2020 - 04:01, said:

After nearly 200 posts, it's probably best to just let it go, but the almost daily messages telling me I should drop down a couple tiers, or "that's why your 45%" has twisted my arm again. In terms of being random, I have yet to see anyone demonstrate how so in the true sense of the word. IMO, this game is about as random as Easter Sundays. But back to my original claim, I am quite certain that we are not all seeing the same type of teams. And so much for Neato's assertion that the only difference is the individual player him/herself.

 

WHY did you start feeding the troll again?!?!



NeatoMan #3500 Posted Feb 21 2020 - 13:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 29142 battles
  • 21,530
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Feb 21 2020 - 01:08, said:

We don't need charts to make our point.  We have screenshots from actual battles that prove our point just fine.

IOW,  you know you are full of crap and the only way to maintain your arguments is to use inadequate methods of data analysis, and/or hide data that doesn't agree with you.

 

The data from WoTnumbers is from actual battles.   It is far superior to anything you get from those screenshots;  it's verifiable, is consistent from player to player, and can easily be shared in its entirety.   Those are all reasons why you refuse to use it.  Obviously, none of you want to find out the truth.  You know you can't back up any of your claims with an honest debate.

 

Who are the people who consistently refuse to share all their data, or use reliable and verifiable methods of obtaining data?   It's always you guys; the ones who know the only way to sustain their argument is with dishonest methods.   

 

View PostTrakks, on Feb 21 2020 - 07:26, said:

WHY did you start feeding the troll again?!?!

he is one of them






9 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 8 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Jer1413