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

SimplyPzB2 #61 Posted Oct 21 2019 - 07:51

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 106 battles
  • 795
  • Member since:
    05-26-2016

View Postgolruul, on Oct 21 2019 - 02:38, 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.

Dude, you can't argue with cold hard proof.  The defender in this battle got 0 xp, yet...

-

3 minutes in: You can clearly see the defender driving around mid map.  He wasn't spotting, I don't believe he hit anything with any of his shots.  But he was in the battle, he was active for over 3 minutes and he got 0 xp.   Deal with it...

-



SimplyPzB2 #62 Posted Oct 21 2019 - 07:54

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 106 battles
  • 795
  • Member since:
    05-26-2016

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

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.


So before I dive into this, I'd like you to clarify what you are showing.

-

Let's just look at one map for clarity.  Ensk would be a good example.  The chart appears to show 27 battles where the favored team won in an average of 4:58.  While only showing 1 battle where the unfavored team won in 4:46.  Am I reading this correctly?



Nixeldon #63 Posted Oct 21 2019 - 09:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 61771 battles
  • 2,416
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Oct 21 2019 - 01:42, said:

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.

I said nothing about the "skill" of each team. My match sentiments are not dependent on player colors.

 

That was my point. 

 

XVM defines your match experience for you.

 



NeatoMan #64 Posted Oct 21 2019 - 12:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 28756 battles
  • 21,249
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Oct 21 2019 - 01:54, said:

So before I dive into this, I'd like you to clarify what you are showing.

-

Let's just look at one map for clarity.  Ensk would be a good example.  The chart appears to show 27 battles where the favored team won in an average of 4:58.  While only showing 1 battle where the unfavored team won in 4:46.  Am I reading this correctly?

yes, These are only battles with a 10-25% win chance (very unbalanced battles) that ended in a blowout.  

 

And before you start picking out the maps with only 1 battle as "proof", the point here is to sort these into large/medium/small maps so we can get more meaningful sample sizes.  I know you hate the idea of sample size, but it is necessary in all of these types of analyses.  Ignoring sample size is like choosing the one game where a tomato scored a top gun to assess his skill and then claiming he is a unicum.

 

here is the same analysis for battles in the 30-40% range:  It has a much better sample size to draw from, and it shows absolutely no difference when the underdog wins vs favored team; shown with avg tier to confirm that it isn't just a tier difference either

 

 



NeatoMan #65 Posted Oct 21 2019 - 12:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 28756 battles
  • 21,249
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Oct 21 2019 - 01:51, said:

Dude, you can't argue with cold hard proof.  The defender in this battle got 0 xp, yet...

-

3 minutes in: You can clearly see the defender driving around mid map.  He wasn't spotting, I don't believe he hit anything with any of his shots.  But he was in the battle, he was active for over 3 minutes and he got 0 xp.   Deal with it...

The fact that he got zero xp means he exited to garage before he died.  Why can't you ever post a replay?  Why do you always have something to hide?



golruul #66 Posted Oct 21 2019 - 22:30

    Captain

  • Players
  • 22333 battles
  • 1,864
  • Member since:
    11-05-2011

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Oct 21 2019 - 00:51, said:

Dude, you can't argue with cold hard proof.  The defender in this battle got 0 xp, yet...

-

3 minutes in: You can clearly see the defender driving around mid map.  He wasn't spotting, I don't believe he hit anything with any of his shots.  But he was in the battle, he was active for over 3 minutes and he got 0 xp.   Deal with it...

 

Boy you sure do post garbage.

 

What exactly are you trying to prove with "cold hard proof"? 

 

I'm claiming 4 enemies exited the battle early (for whatever reason) and did 0 damage.  Proof is in the screenshot.  Post the replay if you want even more proof.  I'm claiming that using a battle where almost 1/3 of the enemy team exits early to prove ANYTHING is an absolutely stupid thing to do.  Only a fool would use this battle as an example to push their agenda.

 

Are you saying that you have cold hard proof that you're a fool?  Well then, I'm sure everyone on this forum can unite behind that and finally agree with you for once.



Copacetic #67 Posted Oct 22 2019 - 01:05

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 49828 battles
  • 1,722
  • [ZEUS] ZEUS
  • Member since:
    02-04-2014
ahaha budha got owned

spud_tuber #68 Posted Oct 22 2019 - 01:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 60428 battles
  • 9,382
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Oct 21 2019 - 00:51, said:

Dude, you can't argue with cold hard proof.  The defender in this battle got 0 xp, yet...

-

3 minutes in: You can clearly see the defender driving around mid map.  He wasn't spotting, I don't believe he hit anything with any of his shots.  But he was in the battle, he was active for over 3 minutes and he got 0 xp.   Deal with it...

 

Once again, I offer my services in posting the replay in such a way you don't take the risk for name and shame, even though such risk is minimal at worst.  We know whose alt you are, so purpose in hiding that.  That pretty much covers all your objections you've previously made to sharing it.

 

Edit:  also, the screenshot doesn't show whether the defender is active or not.  It is possible he got there and discoed before the screenshot was taken.  This is why we keep asking for a replay.  It would answer many of these questions. 



spud_tuber #69 Posted Oct 22 2019 - 01:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 60428 battles
  • 9,382
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View Postgolruul, on Oct 21 2019 - 15:30, said:

 

Boy you sure do post garbage.

 

What exactly are you trying to prove with "cold hard proof"? 

 

I'm claiming 4 enemies exited the battle early (for whatever reason) and did 0 damage.  Proof is in the screenshot.  Post the replay if you want even more proof.  I'm claiming that using a battle where almost 1/3 of the enemy team exits early to prove ANYTHING is an absolutely stupid thing to do.  Only a fool would use this battle as an example to push their agenda.

 

Are you saying that you have cold hard proof that you're a fool?  Well then, I'm sure everyone on this forum can unite behind that and finally agree with you for once.

I'm suspicious that it may have been a mass disco.  Maybe an internet hub going down temporarily, what with 4 tanks involved. It would also explain the defender's position.   Trying to push across when the player was discoed, at a guess.   But of course, no replay, because SoTrue has to hide stuff, even when it might be to his benefit to share.



crossedarrows #70 Posted Oct 22 2019 - 03:52

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 30275 battles
  • 144
  • Member since:
    08-15-2015

Looks like someone got an early spot of the enemy's backline, based on two zero damage arty and a zero damage Hellcat.

 



golruul #71 Posted Oct 22 2019 - 04:24

    Captain

  • Players
  • 22333 battles
  • 1,864
  • Member since:
    11-05-2011

View Postspud_tuber, on Oct 21 2019 - 18:30, said:

I'm suspicious that it may have been a mass disco.  Maybe an internet hub going down temporarily, what with 4 tanks involved. It would also explain the defender's position.   Trying to push across when the player was discoed, at a guess.   But of course, no replay, because SoTrue has to hide stuff, even when it might be to his benefit to share.

 

Yeah it probably was a mass disconnect.  I think the odds of 4 people independently just deciding to leave the battle on one side is rather low.

 

For the sake of argument, let's assume those 4 players disconnected through no fault of their own.  Let's also assume the replay gets posted (ha!).  It won't matter; it still doesn't change the fact that this battle should NOT be used as an example for any agenda, unless that agenda is "WG's servers suck".  If anyone wants to showcase some example of "MM is rigged" or "SBMM because blah blah", do not showcase a battle where almost a third of the enemy team is not even in the battle.

 

At a very minimum, any example battle showcasing anything needs to have all 15 people on each side actually in the battle.  This should be obvious.  Budha obviously cherry picks all his battles to "prove" something, but this is too egregious of an example to invite anything but ridicule. 

 

Ridicule that was deserved and delivered.



SimplyPzB2 #72 Posted Oct 22 2019 - 06:53

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 106 battles
  • 795
  • Member since:
    05-26-2016

View PostNeatoMan, on Oct 21 2019 - 12:31, said:

yes, These are only battles with a 10-25% win chance (very unbalanced battles) that ended in a blowout.  

 

And before you start picking out the maps with only 1 battle as "proof", the point here is to sort these into large/medium/small maps so we can get more meaningful sample sizes.  I know you hate the idea of sample size, but it is necessary in all of these types of analyses.  Ignoring sample size is like choosing the one game where a tomato scored a top gun to assess his skill and then claiming he is a unicum.

 

here is the same analysis for battles in the 30-40% range:  It has a much better sample size to draw from, and it shows absolutely no difference when the underdog wins vs favored team; shown with avg tier to confirm that it isn't just a tier difference either

 

 


Actually sample size was my issue.  In the first table you had the favored teams with 20-30 battles, while the unfavored only had 1-2 battles.  That's not enough of the unfavored to compare.

-

Again, Ensk had 27 favored battles to average, while only 1 unfavored battle.  It's hard to compare the average of 27 battles to just 1 battle.

-

So I don't think this data can be used based on the low sample size of the unfavored. 

-

I mean unless I'm reading it wrong.  Which is too bad, it would have been very interesting to see if map size had an impact on battle duration (and subsequently if map size had an impact on duration of blowouts).



SimplyPzB2 #73 Posted Oct 22 2019 - 06:55

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 106 battles
  • 795
  • Member since:
    05-26-2016

View PostNeatoMan, on Oct 21 2019 - 12:39, said:

The fact that he got zero xp means he exited to garage before he died.  Why can't you ever post a replay?  Why do you always have something to hide?

 

View Postgolruul, on Oct 21 2019 - 22:30, said:

 

Boy you sure do post garbage.

 

What exactly are you trying to prove with "cold hard proof"? 

 

I'm claiming 4 enemies exited the battle early (for whatever reason) and did 0 damage.  Proof is in the screenshot.  Post the replay if you want even more proof.  I'm claiming that using a battle where almost 1/3 of the enemy team exits early to prove ANYTHING is an absolutely stupid thing to do.  Only a fool would use this battle as an example to push their agenda.

 

Are you saying that you have cold hard proof that you're a fool?  Well then, I'm sure everyone on this forum can unite behind that and finally agree with you for once.


Dudes, I posted enough screenshots to clearly show the defender was moving around for several minutes before I killed him.  I mean, look at where I killed him, in the middle of the map, definitely not where he spawned in at the start of the game. 



SimplyPzB2 #74 Posted Oct 22 2019 - 07:34

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 106 battles
  • 795
  • Member since:
    05-26-2016

View Postspud_tuber, on Oct 22 2019 - 01:20, said:

Once again, I offer my services in posting the replay in such a way you don't take the risk for name and shame, even though such risk is minimal at worst.  We know whose alt you are, so purpose in hiding that.  That pretty much covers all your objections you've previously made to sharing it.

 

Edit:  also, the screenshot doesn't show whether the defender is active or not.  It is possible he got there and discoed before the screenshot was taken.  This is why we keep asking for a replay.  It would answer many of these questions. 

 

View Postspud_tuber, on Oct 22 2019 - 01:30, said:

I'm suspicious that it may have been a mass disco.  Maybe an internet hub going down temporarily, what with 4 tanks involved. It would also explain the defender's position.   Trying to push across when the player was discoed, at a guess.   But of course, no replay, because SoTrue has to hide stuff, even when it might be to his benefit to share.

 

View Postgolruul, on Oct 22 2019 - 04:24, said:

 

Yeah it probably was a mass disconnect.  I think the odds of 4 people independently just deciding to leave the battle on one side is rather low.

 

For the sake of argument, let's assume those 4 players disconnected through no fault of their own.  Let's also assume the replay gets posted (ha!).  It won't matter; it still doesn't change the fact that this battle should NOT be used as an example for any agenda, unless that agenda is "WG's servers suck".  If anyone wants to showcase some example of "MM is rigged" or "SBMM because blah blah", do not showcase a battle where almost a third of the enemy team is not even in the battle.

 

At a very minimum, any example battle showcasing anything needs to have all 15 people on each side actually in the battle.  This should be obvious.  Budha obviously cherry picks all his battles to "prove" something, but this is too egregious of an example to invite anything but ridicule. 

 

Ridicule that was deserved and delivered.


ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, that's funny stuff.  Talk about tinfoil hats.  Now it's a 'mass disconnect'.  ha ha ha ha.  Oh man, I'm glad I wasn't drinking when I read these, for sure it would have been liquid out the nose.

-

But you know how much I love proving you guys wrong, so yes you 'may have another'...

-

You can clearly see the hellcat, who got zero xp, is driving down towards mid, he's not disconnected at spawn.

-

You can clearly see the hellcat kept moving, he's not disconnected. Note he's not hidden by bush.

-

He's now hidden by bush, so still moving while I shoot him.

-

First arty gets spotted, notice he's not at a spawn position, He wasn't disconnected. (look at mini map)

-

The first arty just got spotted then evaporated by my team. 

-

Second arty was in almost same, not spawn, location.  Spotted at 12:14 time.

-

He was also evaporated, dead 9 seconds later... . Now you can see the defender, who got zero xp, is moving/facing towards mid as I start to shoot him. (He's to the right of the lightpole).

-

Now he's moved back (now behind the light pole) and gun pointed different direction. Definitely alive and well before/as I killed him.

-

I mean you guys are arguing what happened in a battle you didn't play with a guy who was in the battle and has the replay.  Man up, admit you are wrong and move on...

 

 

 

 



Jer1413 #75 Posted Oct 22 2019 - 12:37

    Captain

  • Players
  • 49043 battles
  • 1,642
  • [RR13] RR13
  • Member since:
    02-24-2013

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Oct 22 2019 - 02:34, said:

 

 

 are arguing what happened in a battle you didn't play with a guy who was in the battle and has the replay.  Man up, admit you are wrong and move on...

 

 

 

 

 

 

But for some unknown reason, refuses to share said replay...

 



Kliphie #76 Posted Oct 22 2019 - 13:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 33652 battles
  • 6,030
  • [GFLC] GFLC
  • Member since:
    07-20-2012

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Oct 22 2019 - 01:34, said:

I mean you guys are arguing what happened in a battle you didn't play with a guy who was in the battle and has the replay.  Man up, admit you are wrong and move on...

 

You know what would really show them how wrong they are?  Post the replay.  



Guido1212 #77 Posted Oct 22 2019 - 13:59

    Community Contributor

  • Players
  • 83047 battles
  • 9,093
  • [GFLC] GFLC
  • Member since:
    06-11-2011
Post the replay.  There’s no name and shame issue here.

NeatoMan #78 Posted Oct 22 2019 - 14:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 28756 battles
  • 21,249
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Oct 22 2019 - 00:53, said:

Actually sample size was my issue.  In the first table you had the favored teams with 20-30 battles, while the unfavored only had 1-2 battles.  That's not enough of the unfavored to compare.

-

Again, Ensk had 27 favored battles to average, while only 1 unfavored battle.  It's hard to compare the average of 27 battles to just 1 battle.

-

So I don't think this data can be used based on the low sample size of the unfavored.

oh, so now sample size matters?  Try applying that same logic to ALL your other analyses.... or does it only matter when the results don't agree with you?

 

Block Quote

I mean unless I'm reading it wrong.  Which is too bad, it would have been very interesting to see if map size had an impact on battle duration (and subsequently if map size had an impact on duration of blowouts).

 How about looking at the next set of data from battles in the 30-40% range that ended in blowouts?    Plenty to work with here.  At first glance it doesn't appear to be map size, but the type of engagement that dictates duration (i.e. some maps are just more stagnant/campy than others).

 

All I ask is that you sort these maps into large/medium/small so that we are on the same page as far as how you classify these maps.

 

 



Nixeldon #79 Posted Oct 22 2019 - 14:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 61771 battles
  • 2,416
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostNeatoMan, on Oct 22 2019 - 08:03, said:

oh, so now sample size matters.  Try applying that same logic to ALL your other analyses.... or does it only matter when the results don't agree with you?

 

 How about looking at the next set of data from battles in the 30-40% range that ended in a blowout?    Plenty to work with here

 

 

 

You know he can't use numbers. Incorporate screenshots and XVM colors so he can pretend to understand it.



spud_tuber #80 Posted Oct 22 2019 - 16:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 60428 battles
  • 9,382
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostSimplyPzB2, on Oct 22 2019 - 00:34, said:

 

*snip*

 

 

 

Share the replay, or it will continue to look like you've something to hide, and we're just taking guesses as to what it might be.  Hell, you can sit afk at cap and get more than 0 XP.  






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users