Jump to content


TIL at the KRZYBooP learning center so you tank more better.

KRZY Hot topic Blow outs

  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

KRZYBooP #1 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 17:56

    Community Coordinator

  • Administrator
  • 3975 battles
  • 223
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    08-10-2015

Howdy Boom Jockeys!

 

As apart of the this gaming community and answering this question on stream about twice a week every week. I would like to share information on how/ why blow outs happen in our game. It does have a little to do with skill and not Yoloing, but for the most part can be mitigated by a well informed team. 

 

Blow outs are not caused by MM. Its caused by Mathematically proven law. 

 

The theory is called Lanchester's Law and the TLDR is that when a side loses a person the balance tips towards the side with the most guns since they have more guns/ troops/ players. The more one side looses the bigger the affect is seen in battle. 

Countering this in WoT is usually done with spotter's/ Arty/ TD's blasting the opposing side without being seen while Heavies try to stall the enemies on each flank. Now when Spotter's are no longer around it allows the enemy to advance without taking fire, and this mantle should be picked up by Mediums/ TD's since they have the next Highest spotting range and awesome camo values, but the temptation to fire at enemy and farm damage can be too great and cause them to die while trying to tip the scales back in their favor. 

 

World of Tanks is a tactical game with many factors involved including Tank classes with specific jobs. Spotting is a huge job and in games with only 1 or 2 lights, someone should be taking up that mantle for Arty (while you hate it) does damage from an angle that's hard to avoid. This also makes the enemy burn a Med kit or deal with massive debuff's allowing for the allies to take advantage. Blow outs also happen in Clan war's, and many other High skill games, so it's not MM issue.

 

For more crazy information about the law, math formulas and algorithms click the links Below.

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a225484.pdf

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_laws

 

 



GeorgePreddy #2 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 18:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 14680 battles
  • 13,520
  • Member since:
    04-11-2013

Thanks for the enlightenment, KRZY.

 

Some folks might come along shortly and try to claim that neither Lanchester's Linear or Square Laws apply in WoT, when in fact it's only true that they don't apply perfectly.

 

As Laws, they do require very strict positive constants in order to predict outcomes of attrition extremely accurately, but even when some of the positive constants are not strictly in place, the Laws still can predict very well the outcome and are therefore well applied in a game such as WoT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Dhizi #3 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 18:16

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 5193 battles
  • 1,402
  • Member since:
    01-21-2016

Scouts are by-far the most heavily impacting class early and late game, although their value if they misuse their mobility and concealment drops drastically mid-game (If they, for example, sacrifice all or most their hitpoints trying to rush a strong position without fire support). If a scout can survive until late-game, they're a force to be very afraid of because of the lack of eyes on the field to counter their impressive concealment and view range. Scouts need to value their hitpoints as a utility to CONTROL vital areas and to retreat when outnumbered, but not to trade hits with opposing lights or more agile mediums.

 

Always look at your teams positioning on the map (more importantly for scouts, where your Tank Destroyers position) and be certain to position in the front of all your units to provide vision for the tanks in the back that rely on others to identify targets. But bear in mind that if your team positions poorly, all you can do is try to flex around the map into better positions to perform the role of a damage dealer or distraction to gently nudge by coercion (or in WoT terms, being a paper target thats easy to penetrate) the enemies into positions that give firing lines to your allies. Being able to bait-and-switch the opposing team because they become impatient and greedy is a very important tactic for light tanks -- in these situations, they should best use their guns to immobilize targets in the firing lines of their allies.

 

As any forces ratio decreases in number, the opposing side gains tremendous advantage early and mid-game to control vital positions on the map that gives them more sight-lines on opponents. Early-game positioning is INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT for mediums, heavies, and lights -- TDs to a lesser degree (they just need to be in position to shoot things and to not get located). Artillery is a nullifier of positional advantage and fear-factor, and even though I very-much despise artillery, they serve a purpose (even though it's an annoying one). They pressure high value points with fire and can nix out targets ability to retreat or advance when used correctly (not just shooting everything they see without thought of the teams condition on the field and where fire support is needed most).

 

This game is more tactical than most typically will assume at the earliest glance, but taking time to learn the maps, tanks, and parameters of each unit on the field and knowing key positions can quickly change that understanding.



H0D0R_ #4 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 18:23

    Captain

  • Players
  • 17376 battles
  • 1,907
  • [MAHOU] MAHOU
  • Member since:
    09-30-2013
In short matches snowball. The more lights you can get on the enemy, that causes them to lose HP or die, the faster the match goes.

__Worm__ #5 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 18:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 34924 battles
  • 4,718
  • Member since:
    04-29-2011

One thing I notice is that pub teams when they have gained an advantage and, have "taken" one side of the map or an strategic engagement , stop.

 

A lot of the times if the team would have kept up the momentum they would have been successful. Instead they stop after killing the last tank on that engagement  and camp.

All that does is give the defenders a chance to flex and they lose the advantage and get dispatched.

 

It is an public arena and you have Human nature and different levels of cognitive application.

 

Your post KRZY is very well put and offers a huge insight on battle mechanics.

 

The only problem is we have PBKAC to deal with being it takes all kinds to make the World Game go round.



Festung #6 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 18:50

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 36785 battles
  • 413
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011

Lanchester's Law applies all things being equal but runaway battles incorporate the unequal quality of the players. If both sides acted similarly there would be an observed reduction in forces on both sides. However, when three to five members of a team are eliminated in the first minute of a battle, the inequality of the skill of the players is demonstrated. WG should and must introduce the skill ranking of each player for MM to be more balanced relating the two sides. 

Another consideration is the armor of the opposing tanks; when tanks of unequal hit points (hp) meet, the tank with the larger hp will win the duel. This negates Lanchester's Law regarding 'all other things being equal' and the side losing weaker tanks becomes the victim of the Law. This may fall out of the balancing by MM as it relates more strongly to the 'perceive' battle arraignment of the team players.

Two thousand Marines and 100 Shermans were not sufficient to stop 10,00 Chinese infantry. How many Shermans did it take to kill a Tiger?

Let's look at player skill to adjust MM.



_Tsavo_ #7 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 19:25

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 46230 battles
  • 19,717
  • [BRVE] BRVE
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

View PostFestung, on Oct 11 2019 - 12:50, said:

Lanchester's Law applies all things being equal but runaway battles incorporate the unequal quality of the players. If both sides acted similarly there would be an observed reduction in forces on both sides. However, when three to five members of a team are eliminated in the first minute of a battle, the inequality of the skill of the players is demonstrated. WG should and must introduce the skill ranking of each player for MM to be more balanced relating the two sides. 

Another consideration is the armor of the opposing tanks; when tanks of unequal hit points (hp) meet, the tank with the larger hp will win the duel. This negates Lanchester's Law regarding 'all other things being equal' and the side losing weaker tanks becomes the victim of the Law. This may fall out of the balancing by MM as it relates more strongly to the 'perceive' battle arraignment of the team players.

Two thousand Marines and 100 Shermans were not sufficient to stop 10,00 Chinese infantry. How many Shermans did it take to kill a Tiger?

Let's look at player skill to adjust MM.

No. 



KRZYBooP #8 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 19:25

    Community Coordinator

  • Administrator
  • 3975 battles
  • 223
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    08-10-2015

View PostFestung, on Oct 11 2019 - 11:50, said:

Lanchester's Law applies all things being equal but runaway battles incorporate the unequal quality of the players. If both sides acted similarly there would be an observed reduction in forces on both sides. However, when three to five members of a team are eliminated in the first minute of a battle, the inequality of the skill of the players is demonstrated. WG should and must introduce the skill ranking of each player for MM to be more balanced relating the two sides. 

Another consideration is the armor of the opposing tanks; when tanks of unequal hit points (hp) meet, the tank with the larger hp will win the duel. This negates Lanchester's Law regarding 'all other things being equal' and the side losing weaker tanks becomes the victim of the Law. This may fall out of the balancing by MM as it relates more strongly to the 'perceive' battle arraignment of the team players.

Two thousand Marines and 100 Shermans were not sufficient to stop 10,00 Chinese infantry. How many Shermans did it take to kill a Tiger?

Let's look at player skill to adjust MM.

 

LL doesn't take the soldier's skill, just them as a number that can pull a trigger. It does stipulate that everything is the same and MM does try to set that up, but with different classes that's difficult since the tank classes don't just fire at their equivalent. I.e TD's only shoot at TD's, Heavies are only facing off against Heavies. Player skill won't stop LL since it even happens in skilled players only battles. 

 

The skill of the player/ team does come into play when dealing with the snowball which is why you can get some battles that are not very snowball. This is where both teams are trading tanks back and forth so the effect isn't as notable.   

 



Dhizi #9 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 19:51

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 5193 battles
  • 1,402
  • Member since:
    01-21-2016

View PostFestung, on Oct 11 2019 - 12:50, said:

Lanchester's Law applies all things being equal but runaway battles incorporate the unequal quality of the players. If both sides acted similarly there would be an observed reduction in forces on both sides. However, when three to five members of a team are eliminated in the first minute of a battle, the inequality of the skill of the players is demonstrated. WG should and must introduce the skill ranking of each player for MM to be more balanced relating the two sides. 

Another consideration is the armor of the opposing tanks; when tanks of unequal hit points (hp) meet, the tank with the larger hp will win the duel. This negates Lanchester's Law regarding 'all other things being equal' and the side losing weaker tanks becomes the victim of the Law. This may fall out of the balancing by MM as it relates more strongly to the 'perceive' battle arraignment of the team players.

Two thousand Marines and 100 Shermans were not sufficient to stop 10,00 Chinese infantry. How many Shermans did it take to kill a Tiger?

Let's look at player skill to adjust MM.


Forcing players to play against equal-skilled opponents will do more damage than good.

 

You negate the growth of player skill by subjecting them to playing only against their own equals. a person who maintains 45% winrate, will, continue to fight and remain at 45% winrate as they will not encounter challenges or obstacles to face. I don't know why it is that people keep preaching for skill-based matchmaking, that does not resolve anything but make a clearer disparity in player population being more than-absent in high-skill, and much more obtuse in low skill.

 

Better suggestion? Make resources such as informatics, tank knowledge, mechanics of the game, and player growth and understanding more easily obtainable and more wholly provided, provide introductory players with a more in-depth understanding of the games mechanics with an improved and sectioned (broken into smaller pieces) tutorial that highlights each tank class, mechanic, ammo type, etc. -- and encourage the viewing of higher experience community members, skilled players, high-end replays and community resources.

 

Stop chastising players for not being as good as others by trying to nudge a skill-based systematic on them. that's insulting on more levels than one, because I started OUT as a bad player. I LEARNED because I wanted to get better so I SOUGHT the tools available to me at the time (which have become MUCH more available and easier to access) to become as good as I am now. Encourage growth, not 'you're not good enough to face this player yet, so we're going to gimp your obstacles into facing players that are as bad as you are'!

 

Encourage growth. Not stagnation.



Carnage286 #10 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 20:03

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 146 battles
  • 4
  • Member since:
    08-05-2014
Yes and No 

Buttknuckle #11 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 20:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 51839 battles
  • 3,076
  • [GOONZ] GOONZ
  • Member since:
    03-19-2013
I'm only here to read the WOT flat earther equivalents posts attempting to ague the validity of applying Lanchester's Law to WOT.

Groogrux_Lite #12 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 20:40

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 28850 battles
  • 70
  • Member since:
    01-30-2012
By your description then, yolo scouts are the in fact cause of blow outs.

UvBeenTrumped #13 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 20:43

    Captain

  • Players
  • 65080 battles
  • 1,126
  • [CRZY] CRZY
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

View PostFestung, on Oct 11 2019 - 10:50, said:

Lanchester's Law applies all things being equal but runaway battles incorporate the unequal quality of the players. If both sides acted similarly there would be an observed reduction in forces on both sides. However, when three to five members of a team are eliminated in the first minute of a battle, the inequality of the skill of the players is demonstrated. WG should and must introduce the skill ranking of each player for MM to be more balanced relating the two sides. 

Another consideration is the armor of the opposing tanks; when tanks of unequal hit points (hp) meet, the tank with the larger hp will win the duel. This negates Lanchester's Law regarding 'all other things being equal' and the side losing weaker tanks becomes the victim of the Law. This may fall out of the balancing by MM as it relates more strongly to the 'perceive' battle arraignment of the team players.

Two thousand Marines and 100 Shermans were not sufficient to stop 10,00 Chinese infantry. How many Shermans did it take to kill a Tiger?

Let's look at player skill to adjust MM.

As said before, "NO"! That is a double "NO" from me. Do you actually read other threads or just chime in when you feel it is right? SBMM will not only NOT work but will make this game extinct. MM is not the failure it is you for thinking it.



The_Pink_Panther #14 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 20:52

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 86 battles
  • 144
  • Member since:
    02-15-2012

Ho hum, still just a theory:

http://www.sjsu.edu/...watkins/war.htm

 

I don't trust the other sources but, I do trust this guy.  Note the title says theory, not law.  The current MM is the root cause of the imbalance by way of how it is stacking teams which lead to these blow outs, just like the same problem before it was supposedly fixed a few patches ago.  Isn't it strange how it has suddenly begun cropping up again, after a few patches?  Time to check the RNG equations once more.



bake3020 #15 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 21:00

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 134 battles
  • 35
  • Member since:
    11-03-2011
In the end, we can defend a position all day long but I think War Gaming owes the player base and should investigate the claims for the good of all players.  Something is definitely fishy with MM for the last few patches and I don't personally believe even half of it can be contributed to a so called theory on force application in warfare.  MM is still bad and that's all there is to it so War Gaming needs to jump on this and fix it.

DrWho_ #16 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 21:18

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 25177 battles
  • 3,096
  • [GFLC] GFLC
  • Member since:
    07-29-2017

View PostKRZYBooP, on Oct 11 2019 - 17:56, said:

Howdy Boom Jockeys!

 

 

Did you wake up today and told yourself "I bet I can make a 3000 posts thread and beat the one in General Discussion" ?

 

Here's a couple of suggestions for your next topics

"Why arty is actually good for the game"

 

"Why introducing wheeled vehicles into the game was a good idea"

 

Looking forward to them



UvBeenTrumped #17 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 23:45

    Captain

  • Players
  • 65080 battles
  • 1,126
  • [CRZY] CRZY
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

View PostDrWho_, on Oct 11 2019 - 13:18, said:

 

Did you wake up today and told TELL yourself "I bet I can make a 3000 posts thread and beat the one in General Discussion" ?

 

Here's a couple of suggestions for your next topics

"Why arty is actually good for the game"

 

"Why introducing wheeled vehicles into the game was a good idea"

 

Looking forward to them

Did you wake up today and tell yourself, "I am going to act like I know the game and try to put someone down today"?

 

But to answer your dumb message...

Arty is good for the game. it brings another element to the game. It isn't anybody's fault but your own to not know how to stay safe from it.

Wheeled vehicles are not the game fall tank of this game. Again, it isn't anybody's fault but your own if you are unable to kill them. 

 

~Troll on Troll-meister~



DrWho_ #18 Posted Oct 12 2019 - 01:14

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 25177 battles
  • 3,096
  • [GFLC] GFLC
  • Member since:
    07-29-2017

View PostUvBeenTrumped, on Oct 11 2019 - 23:45, said:

Did you wake up today and tell yourself, "I am going to act like I know the game and try to put someone down today"?

 

But to answer your dumb message...

Arty is good for the game. it brings another element to the game. It isn't anybody's fault but your own to not know how to stay safe from it.

Wheeled vehicles are not the game fall tank of this game. Again, it isn't anybody's fault but your own if you are unable to kill them. 

 

~Troll on Troll-meister~

 

So first of all, you resorted to correcting my grammar. You try writing something in my first language and we'll see how well you do. But that's unfair, how about you do it in one of the other languages I speak ?

 

Second, who pissed in your wheeties you sorry little ...... it was a friendly dig hinting at the umpteen number of threads on these topics in GD with the current one covering this topic now approaching 3k posts and guess what. *Nothing* has changed since the first post because nobody wants to listen to the other side.

 

Same goes with threads on arty and wheeled vehicles, I actually don't mind arty at all since I play mostly LTs these days and love the spotting damage they provide, not to mention that arty players, unlike many other players, actually appreciate you spotting for them. Wheeled vehicles I'd love to see go but you don't see me whining (much) about them when these threads pop up because I know it's of no use as thhey're obviously here to stay

 

But they, you got to spout off and I really don't mind providing you with an opportunity

 

 



HOTA_CHATON #19 Posted Oct 12 2019 - 04:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 13496 battles
  • 14,590
  • [MSG] MSG
  • Member since:
    09-28-2011

View PostGeorgePreddy, on Oct 11 2019 - 11:16, said:

As Laws, they do require very strict positive constants in order to predict outcomes of attrition extremely accurately, but even when some of the positive constants are not strictly in place, the Laws still can predict very well the outcome and are therefore well applied in a game such as WoT.

 

A very contradictory statement indeed.  It has to be one way or the other, it's can't be both.  It reminds me of "The Evolution Theory" of which has never been proven as fact yet so many take it as gospel and it isn't.  Matter of fact, it never will as even it's creator realized he had missed the mark and his theory had and still has so many holes in it that even the little Dutch boy can't find enough fingers to plug them all.  So it is with this combat theory.  No, MM is acting up and War Gaming needs to look into it and fix it again.



Festung #20 Posted Oct 12 2019 - 23:08

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 36785 battles
  • 413
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011

MM as it is is BS. I just played eight battles and only one win. In all the battles my team slowly lost players. There are good players and there are not good players; skilled players and not so skilled players; players that play a lot and players that find other things to do because of frustration. It depends on how many players WG wants to retain and keep playing that will incentivize them to improve the balance of the teams.

It's not that players would stagnate with those of lesser quality but would move up in selection to those with whom they could increase their skill.

Would not a technician that aligns modules be interested in one day designing them if they want to improve themselves?






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users