38 replies to this topic

[Markd73]

Lapdog1, on Nov 18 2019 - 23:39, said:

Content Moderated by HeadlockMvnky

 

You sound really angry. My suggestion would be to take a break from the game and/or forum for a bit and go for a walk.

 

 

 

 

Edited by HeadlockMvnky, Nov 20 2019 - 11:29.

[VooDooKobra]

umkhulu, on Nov 17 2019 - 14:56, said:

I thought I would resume this discussion in a new thread, since the original one seems to be dedicated to trolls, ganging up on one poor individual. Anyway, you can refer back here for more background on this.

http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/614966-editedthis-commie-game/page__pid__12313605#entry12313605

 

I promised Kobra a response to his query and have produced the results for 10,000 simulated battle for each or three winrate categories.

 

 

 

The results show that players are going to experience losing streaks no matter how skilled they are and it also shows that in the case of balanced teams, losing streaks are pretty much offsett by winning streaks which is what I said, but of course, proof is always demanded even when things seem obvious.

 

Just to mention the graphs....

• each bracket creates a pretty decent bell curve offset from the mean according to winrate.
• for clarity, I have chosen to show only streaks above 6.
• I have split them into winning and losing streaks, losing being denoted as negative for technical reasons.
• the rest, I think, is self explanatory.

 

I don't think one can account for 'human randomness' - one can only hope that it is random and will balance out.

 

i appreciate the response.

 

please allow me to paraphrase (not putting words in your mouth) to make sure i get what you are trying to get across.

 

going mathamatically there still will be streaks but overall in the long run they will start to balance out.  now i am assuming you are not saying a guy gets 5 losses and gets 5 wins fast, but that this balancing os over a larger number of battles.  as well the way the human mind/brain works will always be a wildcard to these streaks.

 

am i close?

[umkhulu]

VooDooKobra, on Nov 19 2019 - 02:49, said:

i appreciate the response.

 

please allow me to paraphrase (not putting words in your mouth) to make sure i get what you are trying to get across.

 

going mathamatically there still will be streaks but overall in the long run they will start to balance out.  now i am assuming you are not saying a guy gets 5 losses and gets 5 wins fast, but that this balancing os over a larger number of battles.  as well the way the human mind/brain works will always be a wildcard to these streaks.

 

am i close?

 

That's it, but don't forget the teams would need to be balanced.

 

I ran this simulation many times and although there are variations in each bracket, balanced teams show some long losing streaks, but these are balanced by winning streak. Only way to test the human factor would be to implement balanced matchmaking and find out.

[FearTheBadger]

mohawkdriver, on Nov 17 2019 - 16:02, said:

Now my hair hurts.

 

It's a game.

 

That is all.

I totally agree with u

[spud_tuber]

umkhulu, on Nov 19 2019 - 07:42, said:

 

That's it, but don't forget the teams would need to be balanced.

 

I ran this simulation many times and although there are variations in each bracket, balanced teams show some long losing streaks, but these are balanced by winning streak. Only way to test the human factor would be to implement balanced matchmaking and find out.

So, it isn't about gameplay and it isn't about streaks, and is instead about balancing out wins and losses?

 

How is that fair in a progression game that rewards winning?  Good players would get less rewards for their skill, and bad players more rewards for their lack of skill.  Bots would get rewarded more, and progress faster.  Yolo grinding would become more effective.   None of this sounds like it would improve gameplay, but would rather be harmful to gameplay. 

 

TL;DR:  You want to redistribute wins and the associated rewards from good players to bad at the cost of gameplay quality.

[umkhulu]

mohawkdriver, on Nov 17 2019 - 16:02, said:

Now my hair hurts.

It's a game.

That is all.

 

FearTheBadger, on Nov 19 2019 - 16:30, said:

I totally agree with u

 

And exactly because it IS a game we ALL want to enjoy it and have fun rather than treat it like a competition where skilled players have an an advantage in every respect.

 

 

[umkhulu]

spud_tuber, on Nov 19 2019 - 16:41, said:

So, it isn't about gameplay and it isn't about streaks, and is instead about balancing out wins and losses?

 

How is that fair in a progression game that rewards winning?  Good players would get less rewards for their skill, and bad players more rewards for their lack of skill.  Bots would get rewarded more, and progress faster.  Yolo grinding would become more effective.   None of this sounds like it would improve gameplay, but would rather be harmful to gameplay. 

 

TL;DR:  You want to redistribute wins and the associated rewards from good players to bad at the cost of gameplay quality.

 

Yes!!!

 

[spud_tuber]

umkhulu, on Nov 19 2019 - 09:42, said:

 

 

And exactly because it IS a game we ALL want to enjoy it and have fun rather than treat it like a competition where skilled players have an an advantage in every respect.

 

 

Games have winners and losers.  That, almost by definition, makes them a competition.   

[Markd73]

spud_tuber, on Nov 19 2019 - 15:41, said:

So, it isn't about gameplay and it isn't about streaks, and is instead about balancing out wins and losses?

 

How is that fair in a progression game that rewards winning?  Good players would get less rewards for their skill, and bad players more rewards for their lack of skill.  Bots would get rewarded more, and progress faster.  Yolo grinding would become more effective.   None of this sounds like it would improve gameplay, but would rather be harmful to gameplay. 

 

TL;DR:  You want to redistribute wins and the associated rewards from good players to bad at the cost of gameplay quality.

 

umkhulu, on Nov 19 2019 - 15:44, said:

 

Yes!!!

 

 

So you admit that you want to rig the game in favor of bad players?

 

I will give you credit for being honest about your terrible idea.

Edited by Markd73, Nov 19 2019 - 18:15.

[umkhulu]

Markd73, on Nov 19 2019 - 18:15, said:

 

 

So you admit that you want to rig the game in favor of bad players?

 

I will give you credit for being honest about your terrible idea.

 

I don't see them as bad players - I see them as "want to be good players" who are struggling to overcome the difficulties imposed by a system that favors only the good players. I see balanced teams as the only way of leveling the playing field. Recognize players who have performed well in battle and reward them accordingly. Award a bonus for winning. What could be simpler?

 

One of the things that really hurts about losing is seeing that the worst player on the winning team has been rewarded with more XP than your best player!.

 

[Nixeldon]

umkhulu, on Nov 19 2019 - 16:58, said:

I don't see them as bad players - I see them as "want to be good players" who are struggling to overcome the difficulties imposed by a system that favors only the good players.

See it however you want, but that doesn't change how things actually are. Not all bad players want to be good players. All of us play(ed) with the same system and it takes most players thousands of matches of play time before "good" is even an option. Some players, not mentioning names, ignore every bit of advice offered to them by better players and rush through lines to play at tier X and ask for the game to coddle them.

 

umkhulu, on Nov 19 2019 - 16:58, said:

I see balanced teams as the only way of leveling the playing field.

Teams are balanced, just not by your idea.

 

umkhulu, on Nov 19 2019 - 16:58, said:

Recognize players who have performed well in battle and reward them accordingly. Award a bonus for winning. What could be simpler?

That is currently how the system operates. However, if you balance skill, the wins are shifted from competent players to inept players and the bonuses are redistributed to match. 

 

umkhulu, on Nov 19 2019 - 16:58, said:

One of the things that really hurts about losing is seeing that the worst player on the winning team has been rewarded with more XP than your best player!.

That is not always true and nothing you have mentioned alleviates that. You literally just supported the win bonus then follow with a complaint about it.

 

Now, if you want to remove the win bonus, and reward players for their contributions, that is a different discussion. 

 

Edited by Nixeldon, Nov 20 2019 - 00:00.

[Jer1413]

umkhulu, on Nov 19 2019 - 17:58, said:

 

I don't see them as bad players - I see them as "want to be good players" who are struggling to overcome the difficulties imposed by a system that favors only the good players. I see balanced teams as the only way of leveling the playing field. Recognize players who have performed well in battle and reward them accordingly. Award a bonus for winning. What could be simpler?

 

One of the things that really hurts about losing is seeing that the worst player on the winning team has been rewarded with more XP than your best player!.

 

 

 

So, because they "want to be good players", they should be given free wins. Rather than actually become good players and earn their wins. OK I get it, you've been reading Marx.

 

 

Edited by Jer1413, Nov 19 2019 - 23:40.

[umkhulu]

Jer1413, on Nov 19 2019 - 23:39, said:

 

 

So, because they "want to be good players", they should be given free wins. Rather than actually become good players and earn their wins. OK I get it, you've been reading Marx.

 

 

 

Putting words in my mouth - straight from Trolling 101...

 

Unlike the current MM, there would be NO free wins. Every win would require a concerted team effort and the team that performs the best, gets the win.

[Markd73]

umkhulu, on Nov 19 2019 - 21:58, said:

 

I don't see them as bad players - I see them as "want to be good players" who are struggling to overcome the difficulties imposed by a system that favors only the good players.

What % of people are simple just shooting tanks having fun (perfectly acceptable imho) vs those who want to improve? Hard to make any sweeping statements about player intention.

 

 

I see balanced teams as the only way of leveling the playing field.

So equality of outcome via rigging. Got it.

 

Recognize players who have performed well in battle and reward them accordingly. Award a bonus for winning. What could be simpler?

 

One of the things that really hurts about losing is seeing that the worst player on the winning team has been rewarded with more XP than your best player!.

 

 

Kudos for being honest about these terrible ideas. 

[spud_tuber]

umkhulu, on Nov 19 2019 - 16:53, said:

 

Putting words in my mouth - straight from Trolling 101...

 

Unlike the current MM, there would be NO free wins. Every win would require a concerted team effort and the team that performs the best, gets the win.

Bots get 100% of their wins "free" now, and will continue to do so under a SBalancedMM.  The only difference will be that under the current MM they win ~40% of the time and under a SBalancedMM they would win ~49%(and lose about 49% and draw about 2% of the time)

[NeatoMan]

umkhulu, on Nov 19 2019 - 17:53, said:

Unlike the current MM, there would be NO free wins. Every win would require a concerted team effort and the team that performs the best, gets the win.

That already happens.  No team wins by just showing up.

 

umkhulu, on Nov 19 2019 - 16:58, said:

I don't see them as bad players - I see them as "want to be good players" who are struggling to overcome the difficulties imposed by a system that favors only the good players. I see balanced teams as the only way of leveling the playing field. Recognize players who have performed well in battle and reward them accordingly. Award a bonus for winning. What could be simpler?

 

One of the things that really hurts about losing is seeing that the worst player on the winning team has been rewarded with more XP than your best player!.

Why not modify the shared XP for the team, and make it more dependent on personal contribution?   Your solution rewards more of the players who routinely contribute little to the win.  You end up creating MORE of the scenarios where players who do nothing get rewarded more than players who did a lot for the losing team.

 

nice try, but what you propose does the opposite of what you say you want.  It's obvious you just want to give bad players more, without them ever having to lift a finger to improve.

 

[umkhulu]

There are two way of arguing with a troll - truth and logic......

 

Unfortunately, neither of them work!.

[Nixeldon]

umkhulu, on Nov 20 2019 - 08:04, said:

There are two way of arguing with a troll - truth and logic......

 

Unfortunately, neither of them work!.

We all realize you are immune to logic, yet we still argue with you.

[spud_tuber]

umkhulu, on Nov 20 2019 - 07:04, said:

There are two way of arguing with a troll - truth and logic......

 

Unfortunately, neither of them work!.

Yes, people like you, simply, da_rock, and the rest of the WoT flat earth club prove daily that you're immune to both truth and logic.