Jump to content


Will wg ever fix the constant one sided battles on the NA server, or they do not care as normal

One sided Over powered russian bias rigged matches poor programming NOOBS EBRs poor quality

  • Please log in to reply
94 replies to this topic

Kliphie #21 Posted Jun 21 2020 - 15:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 41155 battles
  • 9,321
  • [GFLC] GFLC
  • Member since:
    07-20-2012
Bless the hero's supporting this poor, oppressed OP who makes the same message every night.  They're the real MVPs.  

NeatoMan #22 Posted Jun 21 2020 - 16:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 31605 battles
  • 25,180
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostKliphie, on Jun 21 2020 - 09:37, said:

Bless the hero's supporting this poor, oppressed OP who makes the same message every night.  They're the real MVPs.  

IKR.

 

They put their trolls on pedestals.  They honestly believe the OP is seeking help by posting the exact same rant 18 times in the last three months, and has never once solicited or taken advice in any of them.

 

The troll gets trolled and they all go running to comfort him. ...  poor baby



tigerajk #23 Posted Jun 21 2020 - 16:12

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 79058 battles
  • 131
  • [JUDG] JUDG
  • Member since:
    05-15-2011

View PostTreeburst, on Jun 21 2020 - 14:01, said:

The assumptions that underlie Lanchester’s laws don’t apply to WOT.

and yet, it seems to apply very well here



SemanticChicanery #24 Posted Jun 21 2020 - 16:16

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 17009 battles
  • 536
  • [B_N_E] B_N_E
  • Member since:
    01-25-2015

View Postyruputin, on Jun 21 2020 - 09:07, said:

toxic waste:honoring: love this community . they are so rational, supportive and informative. the usual rude creatures are flying in with claws exposed. laws were created and easily manipulated like a roulette wheel controlled by the house. In other words the rotten crotched scum give no advice worth retaining. omg I am doing the same thing to them as they did to you. not good:(

 

you're worse than he is: no one cares about your opinions



Treeburst #25 Posted Jun 21 2020 - 16:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 41264 battles
  • 3,346
  • [SNPAI] SNPAI
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View Posttigerajk, on Jun 21 2020 - 10:12, said:

and yet, it seems to apply very well here

 

Yea, and the game "seems" rigged.

 

So I guess the lesson is that what you think seems applicable isn't always applicable.



ArmorStorm #26 Posted Jun 21 2020 - 16:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 42603 battles
  • 10,301
  • [F__R] F__R
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

Will OP ever fix his constant crying on the NA forum, because we do not care as normal



Woland #27 Posted Jun 21 2020 - 16:31

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 26672 battles
  • 655
  • [SC0PE] SC0PE
  • Member since:
    06-04-2011

View PostTreeburst, on Jun 21 2020 - 08:01, said:

The assumptions that underlie Lanchester’s laws don’t apply to WOT.

Why not? 

Seriously asking your opinion or if that was sarcasm.

Thanks in advance



Kliphie #28 Posted Jun 21 2020 - 16:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 41155 battles
  • 9,321
  • [GFLC] GFLC
  • Member since:
    07-20-2012

View PostWoland, on Jun 21 2020 - 10:31, said:

Why not? 

Seriously asking your opinion or if that was sarcasm.

Thanks in advance

 

Most of the detractors will say it doesn't count because the 30 players are rarely within range to exchange volleys as the model was originally devised.  This can be countered as saying the model works in the microenvironment most engagements take place in (i.e. the brawling zones.)

 

 

 

 



Burhead06 #29 Posted Jun 21 2020 - 16:47

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13533 battles
  • 953
  • Member since:
    05-24-2013
chances are you get more one sided battles than an average player because you are a detriment to your team , your team by default starts at -1 tank, so by default one of your flanks starts by default at a bare minimum of -1 tank (or more based on where people go) you know what happens when 3 tanks push on 2 tanks right? more guns win. starts a snowball. get better you might see less snowballs by not being useless to your team.

alternatively its just the regular snowballs everybody see's and your just remembering them more than the wins so you cry, you get 3 wins and 1 snowball , you remember the snowball and not the 3 wins or 3 other losses.

Treeburst #30 Posted Jun 21 2020 - 16:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 41264 battles
  • 3,346
  • [SNPAI] SNPAI
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

The Lanchester's squared laws were designed to model large scale combat (think WW1 massed human wave attacks, not that they called them that).

 

One of the assumptions in the model is that every "unit" is constantly actively engaged in combat. That is obviously not the case in WOT. It has been a while since. One of the other assumptions is that the units are homogenous, which is also not the case in WOT.

 

In fact, that lack of homogeneity is what makes that model not really applicable to WOT. If you "random"ly get 3 top tier bots in a 3/5/7 you are going to lose that game. You aren't just down three tanks. 

 

 



NeatoMan #31 Posted Jun 21 2020 - 17:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 31605 battles
  • 25,180
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostTreeburst, on Jun 21 2020 - 10:50, said:

One of the assumptions in the model is that every "unit" is constantly actively engaged in combat. That is obviously not the case in WOT. It has been a while since.

It only means that the units facing off are actively engaged the whole time and not being reinforced by reserves at later points during the battle.  You can't apply it to the whole battle if half the troops joined combat halfway through the battle.  You could theoretically apply it at the beginning, and reset the calculation at each point reinforcements join in.

 

In WoT this would mean breaking down the engagement into the local skirmishes.   The law would still apply, but wouldn't proceed as one continual calculation.  It would proceed in steps.



Treeburst #32 Posted Jun 21 2020 - 17:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 41264 battles
  • 3,346
  • [SNPAI] SNPAI
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostNeatoMan, on Jun 21 2020 - 11:03, said:

It only means that the units facing off are actively engaged the whole time and not being reinforced by reserves at later points during the battle.  You can't apply it to the whole battle if half the troops joined combat halfway through the battle.  You could theoretically apply it at the beginning, and reset the calculation at each point reinforcements join in.

 

In WoT this would mean breaking down the engagement into the local skirmishes.   The law would still apply, but wouldn't proceed as one continual calculation.  It would proceed in steps.

 

Sheesh, I didn't realize I had stopped and started a thought in there. Left a sentence fragment that makes no sense.

 

Anyway, I know you can model it with reinforcements. I've written a simple Excel macro to model LL, with reinforcements. The point is LL wasn't made to model small engagements. Is 3 IS-3s vs 3 IS-3s a different fight from 3 IS-3s vs 3 M26s? Yes. Who has the advantage? Well, it depends on what the terrain is, which players know how to use their tanks better, etc.

 

LL takes no other factors into account. Its just numbers and a given "chance to kill" value.


Edited by Treeburst, Jun 21 2020 - 17:19.


Woland #33 Posted Jun 21 2020 - 17:19

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 26672 battles
  • 655
  • [SC0PE] SC0PE
  • Member since:
    06-04-2011

View PostKliphie, on Jun 21 2020 - 09:37, said:

 

Most of the detractors will say it doesn't count because the 30 players are rarely within range to exchange volleys as the model was originally devised.  This can be countered as saying the model works in the microenvironment most engagements take place in (i.e. the brawling zones.)

 

 

 

 

 

I see where the latter position makes more sense, especially when picturing how heavies generally go to one flank and meds another. As one side collapses, theoretically and in a good game, that side then becomes flankers.

View PostTreeburst, on Jun 21 2020 - 09:50, said:

The Lanchester's squared laws were designed to model large scale combat (think WW1 massed human wave attacks, not that they called them that).

 

One of the assumptions in the model is that every "unit" is constantly actively engaged in combat. That is obviously not the case in WOT. It has been a while since. One of the other assumptions is that the units are homogenous, which is also not the case in WOT.

 

In fact, that lack of homogeneity is what makes that model not really applicable to WOT. If you "random"ly get 3 top tier bots in a 3/5/7 you are going to lose that game. You aren't just down three tanks. 

 

 

Thanks.

Definitely not homogenous, but...

aren't they kind of homogenous? Like in my example above.

Take Westfield for example. 

Heavies/TDs generally go west to duke it out.

Meds/lights usually east. 

Over the past 10 years, we have set our own rules for engagement...sort of... and tactics facing like against like. It's in new maps like Berlin (or when people don't follow our established rules for where tanks belong) that things seem to get less predictable. 

 

Just my thoughts and seeking the opinions of both of you, as you clearly know more than I about Lanchester's.

 



Badkarma #34 Posted Jun 21 2020 - 17:43

    Captain

  • Players
  • 32290 battles
  • 1,864
  • [GFLC] GFLC
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

View Postmarc_2018, on Jun 21 2020 - 06:45, said:

Another 63 matches down for the day and all but 4 of the matches were complete one sided matches.

How do you get (0-15) and (1-15) at Tier X?  It's bad enough at lower tiers but shouldn't the last tier

all be balanced and fair to play?

 

Ever since December the game has been on the downhill slide as far as play ability.

I just hope players wake up and put the credit cards away as things just are not improving.

 

winrate is a bad statistic, especially with all the one sided matches going on.

Damage done and spotting might be good to go by, but there is the EBR's to skew that.

 

What else can wg do to ruin the game?

 

Anyway, I wish if they didn't want players to enjoy the game, they would just say so.

It's probably not the russian way though.  They will just let the game fester like a potato

in a shipping container.

 

Wish they would grow some pride in their product and take care of the issues,

but that is too much to ask of wg, let alone the greedy misers in charge.

 

Truly a substandard gaming experience.  NO $ for you wg.  Your too shameful with

your greed and support for the players.

 

Seems that a lot of folks are experiencing the one sided matches in the game when I ask.

Maybe everyone is drunk or stoned who plays..... That would explain the muppet teams,

but not the other stuff the game does, especially with russian and German tanks. (OP vs UP)

 

Anyway, enjoy you cliff divers and drowner's......somewhere there was once fun in this game,

but it's been loss by wg greed.  Shameful wg

What makes you think it's just the NA server? I've been playing this game a long time and there don't seem to be any more blowouts than there were when I started. By the way you are also part of these "muppet teams" of which you speak and with a sub 50% win rate you're also a muppet. Hell, i'm a muppet for that matter but I don't complaint about others being bad at this game when i'm bad at this game. Look in the mirror friend..you're just as much a part of the blowout loss problem as myself and many others are.

 



NeatoMan #35 Posted Jun 21 2020 - 18:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 31605 battles
  • 25,180
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostBadkarma, on Jun 21 2020 - 11:43, said:

What makes you think it's just the NA server? I've been playing this game a long time and there don't seem to be any more blowouts than there were when I started. By the way you are also part of these "muppet teams" of which you speak and with a sub 50% win rate you're also a muppet. Hell, i'm a muppet for that matter but I don't complaint about others being bad at this game when i'm bad at this game. Look in the mirror friend..you're just as much a part of the blowout loss problem as myself and many others are.

I will concede that game play has gotten worse.  I often go to the typical forward engagement spots and lately I see fewer and fewer tanks willing to go there.  They are either too damn timid, or just want to sit back and farm.   The team that does send more to these spots ends up gaining map control and ends up with a clear advantage.  Whether they capitalize on it is another story.  If they are muppets then they just keep yoloing ahead into the campers, and melt away, or at least are severely decimated.  If they have some players who know how to leverage that advantage it's a clear win.   In either case it's horrible deployment followed by horrible game play.

 

I have lots of trouble dealing with campers on my teams, so it's really negatively impacting my play.  I prefer the yoloers.  At least they are actively trying to do something.  Getting the campers to help is like pulling teeth.


Edited by NeatoMan, Jun 21 2020 - 18:08.


tigerajk #36 Posted Jun 21 2020 - 18:15

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 79058 battles
  • 131
  • [JUDG] JUDG
  • Member since:
    05-15-2011

View PostTreeburst, on Jun 21 2020 - 15:25, said:

 

Yea, and the game "seems" rigged.

 

So I guess the lesson is that what you think seems applicable isn't always applicable.

the game is far from rigged, learn to play better and this will go better.....it took my 50000 games to do that

 


Edited by tigerajk, Jun 21 2020 - 18:16.


SemanticChicanery #37 Posted Jun 21 2020 - 18:38

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 17009 battles
  • 536
  • [B_N_E] B_N_E
  • Member since:
    01-25-2015

View Posttigerajk, on Jun 21 2020 - 12:15, said:

the game is far from rigged, learn to play better and this will go better.....it took my 50000 games to do that

 

 

underrated comment. very good



dunniteowl #38 Posted Jun 21 2020 - 18:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 38925 battles
  • 13,240
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

This Thread Is Spam.

 

 

 

OvO



SemanticChicanery #39 Posted Jun 21 2020 - 23:42

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 17009 battles
  • 536
  • [B_N_E] B_N_E
  • Member since:
    01-25-2015

so then how do we get him banned from the forum is the question

 

I wonder if there's a time when they'll just lock the forums out from people doing the same thread over and over and over



Maniac57c #40 Posted Jun 22 2020 - 00:02

    Captain

  • Players
  • 3072 battles
  • 1,993
  • [FUBU] FUBU
  • Member since:
    02-24-2016

Oh look. Another in the endless series of thread where all the "cool kids" crap all over anyone who dislikes the gameplay

Manners are no longer a thing apparently.

All these keyboard etoughs need a nice fat lip to teach them to be respectful

 






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users