Jump to content


Shall we play a game? What type of blowout was this? (RESULTS!)


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

Poll: Shall we play a game? What type of blowout was this? (RESULTS!) (40 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 100 battle in order to participate this poll.

What type of Blowout was this?

  1. Snowball (7 votes [17.50%])

    Percentage of vote: 17.50%

  2. Steamroll (33 votes [82.50%])

    Percentage of vote: 82.50%

Vote Hide poll

Copacetic #41 Posted Oct 19 2019 - 21:11

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 48667 battles
  • 1,722
  • [ZEUS] ZEUS
  • Member since:
    02-04-2014

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Oct 19 2019 - 21:07, said:


This comment is 100% off topic.  It's 100% an insult to other players.  How is this type of comment allowed???

cry to your mom



Tiikmet_Iidamm #42 Posted Oct 19 2019 - 21:23

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 31258 battles
  • 26
  • [COOD] COOD
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Oct 18 2019 - 23:33, said:


Actually, I find spouting off has ZERO effect.  Why?  Because when MM is bending me over, and I tell my team "I've lost the last 5/6, you all stink", sometimes we win that battle, and sometimes we lose that battle.  Because what I 'SAY' has no impact, but the composition of the skill of both teams dictates most of the outcomes.  I can be as negative as possible, but if my team has way more skilled players than the enemy, then we'll still win.  I can be all unicorns and dolphins at the start, but if my team is as red as the sunset versus a very good team, we'll still lose.

-

Team skill composition is the single biggest factor for winning/losing.  Period.

 

So do you agree that you have an equal chances to be on my team or to not be on my team?

 

Are you saying somehow, I am placed on winning teams (with a better composition) more often than you are?

 

I have gotten games where we were told our chances were crap, but I argued that no game is hopeless.  There is always a chance to win.  And we've pulled wins on those games.   Not every time.  Not even 50% of the time.  But some of the time. 

 

Every game has the potential to be winnable.  Your job is to figure out what moves, or series of moves, you can make to move the game into a favorable outcome.

Saying the game is a loss, and sitting at base refusing to move... well that's not going to help you.

Moving to a flank you always move to, when your team isn't going there, so you are alone, and deciding to stay there... and die... well that isn't helping you win either.

When 75% of the enemy team is unspotted... deciding that you don't want to camp (even though there are 12 minutes left in the battle) so you insist on push down your flank... well that isn't wise either, you are going to get killed, and that isn't helping you win.

Becoming indignant that the light tank isn't allowed to spot passively, because to you that is camping, and ranting and raving, shooting them, to make them move actively, when there is still 11 minutes left, and the other team is quite happy being passive and waiting... so they move, get spotted, and die, leaving your team without vision... well guess what, that isn't helping you win either.

Running out and doing what you do, getting killed in 63.5 seconds, then screaming at your team that they suck, well that isn't getting you wins either.

 

Maybe the problem you are having winning is YOU.

 

Winning is a strategic mix of analyzing, taking action, re-evaluating, and being flexible.

Also, RNG, you know it's kind of random.



NeatoMan #43 Posted Oct 20 2019 - 02:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 28212 battles
  • 20,844
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Oct 19 2019 - 14:48, said:


You know a lot of people really buy into neato and all his data and charts.  But it's posts like this that really show just how unscientific neato really is. 

-

Neato states: "That would mean a snowball should take longer than a steamroll, because pressing 'w" surely must be quicker than having to fight through an equally skilled opponent."  Key word in this sentence is "should".  How scientific of him.  Well you know, I feel that Snowball blowout "should" take longer, so you know, because I feel that's how it "should" be, then that's how it must be.  Just wow.  So scientific.  Worst part is how he throws 'data' on top of his opinion to justify his opinion.  His data shows that battle duration don't really differ between Snowball blowouts and Steamroll blowouts.  But he never bothers to explain how that matters at all.

-

Here's what he's NOT doing.  While he's looking at the time each type of battle takes, he's NOT factoring in:

  • Map size:  Larger maps take longer to driver across thus impacting battle duration.
  • Team composition in terms of tank types.  Are the teams mostly fast mediums and lights, or are the teams mostly tank destroyers and heavy tanks?  That will affect battle duration.
  • Team deployment:  Certain types of deployment can impact battle duration.  Such as camping (common 'tactic' for less skilled team, as they are afraid to get shot).  If a team camps on a large map, it takes the more skilled team just that much more time to drive all the way across the map.  And some maps it can be hard to 'dig out' entrenched enemies, even if they are less skilled.  Think north spawn on Mannerheim line. 
  • Tier:  Higher tiers have more hit points and better armor.  It can take much longer to whittle that down than in low tiers.
  • Etc Etc Etc  so many variable go into battle duration.  Neato accounts for non of them.  But you know, he "feels" like Snobwall blowouts "should" take longer...

 

-

I did a whole topic on the fact that battle duration has no impact on blowouts:

http://forum.worldof...__fromsearch__1

-

In that topic I post pics from a replay where a very unskilled team was just camping and dug in.  And a very experience team new better than to just yolo into them.  The experienced team took their time and did dig them out, and did Steamroll them.  But it clearly shows that battle duration is not a factor in Steamroll blowouts.


idiotic budhaLogic™ strikes again.   A steam roll is supposedly as easy as pressing 'w' but apparently steamrolls only happen on big maps, with tanks that have lots of hp that always turtle so they take longer than usual.   Snowballs only happen on small maps, with tanks that have few hp, that always yolo, so they are over faster than usual.  It all works out in such a way that there is no measurable difference in game duration between the too types of blowouts, even though one is supposed to be WAAAY easier than the other.  Upset blowouts only happen on specific maps with specific tank compositions and never anywhere else.

 

and you say I'm the unscientific one.  :facepalm:.  

 

If you claim all those individual items have an effect over large sample sizes, then they also have an effect on every individual player's results.   None of the skill indicators are any good, because all those metrics based on those individual circumstances are just as useless.   You claims of skill imbalance are completely bogus due to everything you just listed.  It will also be impossible to balance games due to everything you just listed.   

 

Even you should be able to recognize how ridiculous that all is.   You can't pick and choose when those items average out and when they don't.  Either they do, or they don't for a given sample size.


Edited by NeatoMan, Oct 20 2019 - 05:30.


Sgt_Bash999 #44 Posted Oct 20 2019 - 04:31

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 11476 battles
  • 20
  • [MMAD] MMAD
  • Member since:
    09-04-2017

View PostTiikmet_Iidamm, on Oct 18 2019 - 10:06, said:

No, I'll tell you exactly what happened.  I would wager, one or both of the two XVM users on the enemy team, told the team how bad they sucked, that the game was a loss, and demoralized & belittled the team before the 30 second countdown timer was over.  Based on the 0 Dmg done, I'd say it was the Obj 252U for certain.

 

Negativity at the beginning of battles DOOMS the team.  I see it happen much more often than I would like.  

 

As an experiment I started chatting one of the following at the start of battles:

  • My statistical analysis of this team says, "We can win". Play your tank: scout, snipe, flank, brawl, or spg the heck out of them. gl hf ty
  • Hey! Remember, this team CAN win! Play your tank the best you can: scout, snipe, flank, brawl, or spg the heck out of them. Be a TEAM. glhf
  • Remember, this is a game! We are here to have fun!  Scout, snipe, flank, brawl, or spg the heck out of them! Be a TEAM! Work together! glhf

[Side note:  all of those messages fit inside the 140 character limit of in-game chat,  I copy one Ctrl-C, and Ctrl-V it back into game chat]

 

My WoT Hall of Fame Winrate Statistics:

Since December 2014:  52.58

Month WinRate%
Jan 2019 56.71
Feb 2019

55.45 *1

Mar 2019 48.58
Apr 2019 51.21
May 2019 52.03
Jun 2019 52.67
Jul 2019 50.73
Aug 2019 56.79 *2
Sep 2019 54.28 *3
Oct 2019 54.05 *3

(Notes:  *1 - Wheeled vehicles were introduced, since I play other light tanks, my performance was negatively impacted; *2 -  Positive messages typed in every game played for the entire month, about 99% of all battles; *3 - Positive messages typed when someone starts spouting off negativity about game being a loss OR when my win rate (for the day) dropped below 50%)

 

What I would suggest is the following:

  • If you have XVM or believe you are a fortune-teller, keep it to yourself.  Face it, if you were that good at predicting results you'd have won billions of dollars in a lottery.
  • Try giving your team positive messages.  Every team can win the game.  Because everyone has the capability to rise up and exceed their "statistical average" play.  If they couldn't, no one's stats would increase, ever.
  • The enemy team, if they have the same fortune-tellers, and they do, could become complacent believing they don't have to play hard to win.  That gives the "underdog" team an opening, and an advantage.  Don't shoot your team in the foot by telling them "it's impossible" because it is NEVER impossible.  This game uses RNG!

 

Anyway, it's a game.  If you get knocked down, just get up again.


XVM needs to be banned if its making people smear and bail on their teams. That just CREATES blowouts.:facepalm:


Edited by Sgt_Bash999, Oct 20 2019 - 04:34.


bennyjw98 #45 Posted Oct 20 2019 - 04:44

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10396 battles
  • 100
  • [WAFFE] WAFFE
  • Member since:
    07-17-2011
Imagine using XVM and relying on it in place of self-skill and intuition.

SimplyPzB2 #46 Posted Oct 20 2019 - 08:47

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 106 battles
  • 669
  • Member since:
    05-26-2016

View Postbennyjw98, on Oct 20 2019 - 04:44, said:

Imagine using XVM and relying on it in place of self-skill and intuition.


I play without xvm frequently, pretty much every time there is a patch.  I've found my win rate doesn't change one bit.  xvm is just the tool we use to verify that very unbalanced battles exist.  xvm doesn't affect the game in the slightest.  But very unbalanced gameplay does.  It's frustrating for all players.  People on the stacked team are presented with very boring gameplay, people on the unskilled team are presented with very frustrating gameplay. 



SimplyPzB2 #47 Posted Oct 20 2019 - 08:53

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 106 battles
  • 669
  • Member since:
    05-26-2016

View PostNeatoMan, on Oct 20 2019 - 02:13, said:


idiotic budhaLogic™ strikes again.   A steam roll is supposedly as easy as pressing 'w' but apparently steamrolls only happen on big maps, with tanks that have lots of hp that always turtle so they take longer than usual.   Snowballs only happen on small maps, with tanks that have few hp, that always yolo, so they are over faster than usual.  It all works out in such a way that there is no measurable difference in game duration between the too types of blowouts, even though one is supposed to be WAAAY easier than the other.  Upset blowouts only happen on specific maps with specific tank compositions and never anywhere else.

 

and you say I'm the unscientific one.  :facepalm:.  

 

If you claim all those individual items have an effect over large sample sizes, then they also have an effect on every individual player's results.   None of the skill indicators are any good, because all those metrics based on those individual circumstances are just as useless.   You claims of skill imbalance are completely bogus due to everything you just listed.  It will also be impossible to balance games due to everything you just listed.   

 

Even you should be able to recognize how ridiculous that all is.   You can't pick and choose when those items average out and when they don't.  Either they do, or they don't for a given sample size.


Here he goes again.  It was clearly pointed out that neato was using his 'feelings' as support for his notion that battle duration is related to types of blowouts.  When pressed to give more than his 'feellings', he couldn't.  So he dives into some other slightly related tangent. 

-

But even his tangent is wrong.  I listed several other factors that affect battle duration, and clearly show that a Steamroll blowout doesn't necessarily happen any faster than a Snowball blowout.  Every bit of my point was comparing the relationship of battle duration to type of blowout.  So what does neato do?  He takes those factors I listed that affect battle duration and tries to apply them to "results".  Tangent confirmed.  While the factors listed clearly affect battle duration, when applying them to "results", they play a much smaller role.  take larger maps.  Larger maps take longer to drive across, thus can impact battle duration (hurp durr of course).  But map size has very little impact on whether a good player can do well on the map.

-

:facepalm: indeed....



Gunn_Fyter #48 Posted Oct 20 2019 - 08:55

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 472 battles
  • 166
  • Member since:
    09-10-2015

Considering that the highest xp awarded on the enemy team was only 174, I would say the other team had no skilled players at all. It was a steamroll. 

 

The ones with zero XP were players that were either suffering lag so bad that they remained AFK the entire game, or they quit after XVM told them it was going to be a blowout. 



SimplyPzB2 #49 Posted Oct 20 2019 - 08:57

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 106 battles
  • 669
  • Member since:
    05-26-2016

View PostTiikmet_Iidamm, on Oct 19 2019 - 21:23, said:

 

So do you agree that you have an equal chances to be on my team or to not be on my team?

 

Are you saying somehow, I am placed on winning teams (with a better composition) more often than you are?

 

I have gotten games where we were told our chances were crap, but I argued that no game is hopeless.  There is always a chance to win.  And we've pulled wins on those games.   Not every time.  Not even 50% of the time.  But some of the time. 

 

Every game has the potential to be winnable.  Your job is to figure out what moves, or series of moves, you can make to move the game into a favorable outcome.

Saying the game is a loss, and sitting at base refusing to move... well that's not going to help you.

Moving to a flank you always move to, when your team isn't going there, so you are alone, and deciding to stay there... and die... well that isn't helping you win either.

When 75% of the enemy team is unspotted... deciding that you don't want to camp (even though there are 12 minutes left in the battle) so you insist on push down your flank... well that isn't wise either, you are going to get killed, and that isn't helping you win.

Becoming indignant that the light tank isn't allowed to spot passively, because to you that is camping, and ranting and raving, shooting them, to make them move actively, when there is still 11 minutes left, and the other team is quite happy being passive and waiting... so they move, get spotted, and die, leaving your team without vision... well guess what, that isn't helping you win either.

Running out and doing what you do, getting killed in 63.5 seconds, then screaming at your team that they suck, well that isn't getting you wins either.

 

Maybe the problem you are having winning is YOU.

 

Winning is a strategic mix of analyzing, taking action, re-evaluating, and being flexible.

Also, RNG, you know it's kind of random.

You say "every game has the potential to be winnable".  So I'll put it on you to tell me what the losing team (in the sample battle I provided at the start of this topic) could have done to make that a win instead of a loss. 

-

If your position is right, you should easily be able to tell me what ANY ONE player could have done to turn that battle around.  Because you know, "Your job is to figure out what moves, or series of moves, you can make to move the game into a favorable outcome".

-

Or you can wake up and realize that the current mm routinely stackes all/most of the skill on one team - generating battles that have predetermined outcomes. 



SimplyPzB2 #50 Posted Oct 20 2019 - 09:00

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 106 battles
  • 669
  • Member since:
    05-26-2016

View PostGunn_Fyter, on Oct 20 2019 - 08:55, said:

Considering that the highest xp awarded on the enemy team was only 174, I would say the other team had no skilled players at all. It was a steamroll. 

 

The ones with zero XP were players that were either suffering lag so bad that they remained AFK the entire game, or they quit after XVM told them it was going to be a blowout. 


Look at the updated screenshots posted a few replys up.  Not a single enemy was AFK, nor did a single player quit.  They were just very unskilled.  Here's the thing, the winning team has some unskilled players as well.  They were just luckier to be put on the team with most of the skill.  No win/loss should be the result of 'luck of the draw' as to which team you get placed on.  Sbmm would guaranteed every battle was between two 'roughly' equal teams.  Guaranteeing battles like this never happen, guaranteeing more competitive gameplay, guaranteeing more fun...



Nixeldon #51 Posted Oct 20 2019 - 10:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 60993 battles
  • 2,330
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Oct 20 2019 - 02:47, said:

I play without xvm frequently, pretty much every time there is a patch.  I've found my win rate doesn't change one bit.  xvm is just the tool we use to verify that very unbalanced battles exist.  xvm doesn't affect the game in the slightest.  But very unbalanced gameplay does.  It's frustrating for all players.  People on the stacked team are presented with very boring gameplay, people on the unskilled team are presented with very frustrating gameplay. 

In other words, XVM defines the quality of the match. All that counts is if the players are color-coded properly.



ATruk #52 Posted Oct 20 2019 - 14:38

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 58746 battles
  • 183
  • Member since:
    03-16-2013

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Oct 20 2019 - 01:00, said:


Look at the updated screenshots posted a few replys up.  Not a single enemy was AFK, nor did a single player quit.  They were just very unskilled.  Here's the thing, the winning team has some unskilled players as well.  They were just luckier to be put on the team with most of the skill.  No win/loss should be the result of 'luck of the draw' as to which team you get placed on.  Sbmm would guaranteed every battle was between two 'roughly' equal teams.  Guaranteeing battles like this never happen, guaranteeing more competitive gameplay, guaranteeing more fun...


Using your data presented, which players would you switch to the other team to “guarantee” more fun? 



NeatoMan #53 Posted Oct 20 2019 - 14:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 28212 battles
  • 20,844
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Oct 20 2019 - 02:53, said:


Here he goes again.  It was clearly pointed out that neato was using his 'feelings' as support for his notion that battle duration is related to types of blowouts.  When pressed to give more than his 'feellings', he couldn't.  So he dives into some other slightly related tangent. 

-

But even his tangent is wrong.  I listed several other factors that affect battle duration, and clearly show that a Steamroll blowout doesn't necessarily happen any faster than a Snowball blowout.  Every bit of my point was comparing the relationship of battle duration to type of blowout.  So what does neato do?  He takes those factors I listed that affect battle duration and tries to apply them to "results".  Tangent confirmed.  While the factors listed clearly affect battle duration, when applying them to "results", they play a much smaller role.  take larger maps.  Larger maps take longer to drive across, thus can impact battle duration (hurp durr of course).  But map size has very little impact on whether a good player can do well on the map.

-

:facepalm: indeed....

So you are trying to tell us that underdog blowouts only happen on smaller maps. and favored team blowouts only happen on larger maps.  That would mean that certain maps favor the underdog team.  That means win/loss results are map dependent.  Your win/loss results and everyone else's are dependent on the specific maps everyone gets, and as a result so are your performance stats.

 

 

Block Quote

You say "every game has the potential to be winnable".  So I'll put it on you to tell me what the losing team (in the sample battle I provided at the start of this topic) could have done to make that a win instead of a loss. 

-

If your position is right, you should easily be able to tell me what ANY ONE player could have done to turn that battle around.  Because you know, "Your job is to figure out what moves, or series of moves, you can make to move the game into a favorable outcome".

-

Or you can wake up and realize that the current mm routinely stackes all/most of the skill on one team - generating battles that have predetermined outcomes.

 What you described is not exclusive to just unbalanced blowouts.   The exact same thing can be said of any game that leads to a blowout.  In the balanced battle replays I listed I bet you can't find anything ANY ONE player could have done to stop those blowouts either.   "b..b..but if he had a different color it would have scared the other team into submission". 



NeatoMan #54 Posted Oct 20 2019 - 16:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 28212 battles
  • 20,844
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

You threw out all those ideas thinking there is no data to test them, but alas there is.  here's an apples to apples comparison of unbalanced blowout victories by map.   See for yourself how much map size plays a role in all of this.   How about you sort the maps by size (small, medium, and large) so we can average results into more meaningful sample sizes, and have a look at your silly notion that all this blowout data is so heavily influenced by specific maps, even considering the limited sample sizes, which you so love to cling to (but only when they work to your favor).

 

 

or will you come up with some other one of your unproven  "scientific" explanations when this doesn't pan out to your liking?  Would you like me to sort the tank compositions to have a look at that as well?

 

You're whole approach to "science" is 1) come up with an idea (any idea) without regard to any of the fundamentals behind it, 2) sift through the numbers, without regard to the sample size or margin of error, just to find the ones that agree with you, 3) throw away all the other data that doesn't agree and 4) parade your limited sample sizes as definitive proof that you are correct.

 

You never view anything in totality either because you are too much of an idiot to do so, or it gives results you don't like, so you toss them into the "these numbers don't agree with me, therefore are irrelevant" category.   If your ideas were correct, they would apply across the board, not just the one or two situations that "prove" your point, yet they never do.


Edited by NeatoMan, Oct 21 2019 - 00:25.


Copacetic #55 Posted Oct 20 2019 - 19:42

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 48667 battles
  • 1,722
  • [ZEUS] ZEUS
  • Member since:
    02-04-2014

View PostNeatoMan, on Oct 20 2019 - 16:34, said:

here's an apples to apples comparison of blowouts by map.  See for yourself how much map size plays a role in all of this.   How about you sort the maps by size (small, average, and large) so we can average results into more meaningful sample sizes, and have a look at your silly notion that all this data is so heavily influenced by specific maps, even considering the limited sample sizes, which you so love to cling to (but only when they work to your favor)

 

 

or will you come up with some other one of your unproven  "scientific" explanations when this doesn't pan out to your liking?  Would you like me to sort the tank compositions to have a look at that as well?

noooo! don't post data showing budha's stupidity! it's not fair!



Tiikmet_Iidamm #56 Posted Oct 20 2019 - 20:26

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 31258 battles
  • 26
  • [COOD] COOD
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Oct 20 2019 - 02:57, said:

You say "every game has the potential to be winnable".  So I'll put it on you to tell me what the losing team (in the sample battle I provided at the start of this topic) could have done to make that a win instead of a loss. 

-

If your position is right, you should easily be able to tell me what ANY ONE player could have done to turn that battle around.  Because you know, "Your job is to figure out what moves, or series of moves, you can make to move the game into a favorable outcome".

-

Or you can wake up and realize that the current mm routinely stackes all/most of the skill on one team - generating battles that have predetermined outcomes. 

 

Without seeing the battle, in action, and the movements on the battlefield I can't know that due to lack of information.  I do know that no one, on either team, uploaded the battle publicly on wotreplays.com (because I searched by the mix of tanks and you left your platoonmate's name unredacted in one of the screenshots;)).  

 

At the beginning of every battle, when it is 0 to 0, regardless of the composition of the teams, it is possible for the game to be won by either team.  Each action, or inaction, each player makes as the game progresses changes the probability of a specific outcome.  You will never be able to say with 100% certainty at the beginning of the battle what the outcome must be.  That is why it is important that you try your best.


Edited by Tiikmet_Iidamm, Oct 20 2019 - 20:30.


golruul #57 Posted Oct 21 2019 - 02:38

    Captain

  • Players
  • 22183 battles
  • 1,783
  • Member since:
    11-05-2011

View Postdunniteowl, on Oct 18 2019 - 15:30, said:

 

                                     "Oh, they all bailed before the game started."

 

Seriously?  People get zero damage games ALL THE TIME while they're playing.  Some get exed out by a lucky blind shot.  Sometimes you get a steam rolling and you simply don't have time to do more than realize they're there and then FOCUS FIRE, you're gone.

 

That sort of stuff happens with a bit of regularity.  But no, your 'go to' logical response is, "They bailed on the team before the game started."

 

Please don't place onto others your own sort of rationalizing of why it happens as if you know what you mean.  That's just magical thinking there and has no basis in any sort of actual information to that effect.

 

Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance or incompetence.  Malice is a much smaller 'bugaboo' in the human psyche over, say, an over-inflated sense of one's own abilities for example.  Smaller still is malice than the human trait of just being stubborn and unwilling to try new things.  Even so, malice can not out rank that major human bugaboo supreme, confidence misplaced.  Malice has nothing on these things.

 

Hang in there and maybe try not to be so DOWN on your fellow gamers.  After all, aren't you out there, doing your best?  Why would anyone else be all that different?  If you attribute the worst to your fellow gamers, you will pretty much always play with a disgruntled mindset.  That CAN'T be good for your best level of efforts.

 

 

 

 

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Oct 18 2019 - 22:29, said:


No one left the battle early, sorry, try again...

 

If you don't believe me, this is trivially easy to test out.  Do good in a game and exit the match while you're still alive.  You'll get 0 xp.  Next, afk in a battle, don't do a damn thing (no damage, no assist, no spots), and you'll get more than 0 xp.  I know this because I have done this.

 

Try it out.



spud_tuber #58 Posted Oct 21 2019 - 02:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 59625 battles
  • 8,993
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View Postgolruul, on Oct 20 2019 - 19:38, said:

 

 

If you don't believe me, this is trivially easy to test out.  Do good in a game and exit the match while you're still alive.  You'll get 0 xp.  Next, afk in a battle, don't do a damn thing (no damage, no assist, no spots), and you'll get more than 0 xp.  I know this because I have done this.

 

Try it out.

This, combined with the OP's refusal to provide a replay, is how we know that something fishy is going on with the battle in question. 



SimplyPzB2 #59 Posted Oct 21 2019 - 07:42

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 106 battles
  • 669
  • Member since:
    05-26-2016

View PostNixeldon, on Oct 20 2019 - 10:25, said:

In other words, XVM defines the quality of the match. All that counts is if the players are color-coded properly.


No, xvm simply shows the actual skill of each team.  While you can usually tell by eyeballing the gameplay (not always, but often enough), xvm simply verifies without a doubt what the skill is for each team.



SimplyPzB2 #60 Posted Oct 21 2019 - 07:48

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 106 battles
  • 669
  • Member since:
    05-26-2016

View PostTiikmet_Iidamm, on Oct 20 2019 - 20:26, said:

 

Without seeing the battle, in action, and the movements on the battlefield I can't know that due to lack of information.  I do know that no one, on either team, uploaded the battle publicly on wotreplays.com (because I searched by the mix of tanks and you left your platoonmate's name unredacted in one of the screenshots;)).  

 

At the beginning of every battle, when it is 0 to 0, regardless of the composition of the teams, it is possible for the game to be won by either team.  Each action, or inaction, each player makes as the game progresses changes the probability of a specific outcome.  You will never be able to say with 100% certainty at the beginning of the battle what the outcome must be.  That is why it is important that you try your best.

Nope, there was no way the losing team was going to pull this one out.  I know it feels good to say "there's always a chance", but really, there wasn't.  Not with the vast differences in skill between players.  Not when the mm stacks most/all of the skill on one team.  I mean sure, half the winning team could have gotten disconnected or something, but that's reeeeally far fetched. 

-

I mean come on, the losing team sent 2 whole tanks to the 1 line, and the OTHER 13 camped the 9 line.  You could have swapped out the best player in wot for any one of the losing team and they wouldn't have been able to save this one. 

-

I see battles like this every night I play.  Just tonight, in one of my battles, my team had SIX more skilled players.  That's almost "half a teams worth" of better players.  And yes we crushed it.

-

And I've never said anyone should quit just because the mm has bent them over.  What I have said is no player should be bent over by the mm.  Stacked teams/Team Sealclubbing shouldn't exist...






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users