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

NeatoMan #61 Posted Sep 15 2020 - 01:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 31605 battles
  • 25,168
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View Post2Fantastic, on Sep 14 2020 - 18:41, said:

george preddy:

 

Lanchester’s law is in play no doubt. It seems to me like the equation is derived from using rows of troops that in theory all fire in each other at the same time. Much like how Britain used to do warfare. The wider the front line firing than the opponent, the more bullets being fired than your opponent.

 

this law proves why a single bot on one side or the other can lower the chance to win by sometimes over 10%.

 

while I do believe this is a factor it seems a gross oversimplification of world of tanks.

 

To say that because there a even blow outs in clan matches because of this law and not differences in skill is the most perplexing assumption I’ve seen.

 

Im in a fairly casual clan and when I played we got rolled over quite a few times due to being outplayed.

 

in short not all clans are equally competitive....

 

Perhaps there are stats you have that show players of definitive equal skill have the same likelihood of blowouts as those randomly matched, If you do have them could you provide a link?

 

I believe those stats could definitively put an end to this discussion of imbalanced mm.

There is this:

http://forum.worldof...s-your-battles/

 

It shows how balanced teams fared vs overall random teams.  Balance in this case means overall team PR ratings, so it may not be an exact skill match player to player, but it is the most often cited method for balancing teams with SBMM.

 

Do you have any better rating or method of balance in mind?  If you want leagues or skill brackets, how narrow of a range do you think they could be, given the small NA server population?



2Fantastic #62 Posted Sep 15 2020 - 05:36

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 11238 battles
  • 919
  • Member since:
    12-15-2010

Neatoman:

 

I think I know this work!
 

overlordprime!?

 

I’m going to have to digest this data for a little bit. 
 

My main concern from this data, is that 16.9% percent of the time you have roughly 10% to 30% Chance of victory; or 17.6% of the time you have roughly 70% to 90% chance to win.

 

that is a 34.9% to have a game that will be not very fair. This does concern me.

 

From what I’m seeing, differences in player skill does indeed increase the likelihood of blowout matches, but hard to notice unless at extremes. And those extremes overall are unlikely in the broader scope. Thus making random vs sb mm only a 5% max higher likelihood of blow outs.

 

that is not bad considering the benefits of reduced wait times for randoms.

 

I’ve have speculated on forums that if we had three leagues of system of players with roughly 0-400, 401-800 and 801+ recent win8 or equivalent, tank specific. I would even be happy with only 2 leagues: 0-800, 801+. And... If there was not an immediate matching within the first approx 20 secs, the player would be bumped up to the next league. And... There would additionally have to be a minimum amount of players playing at certain tiers for this league system to activate. Then... Potentially this could help reduce bots at average skill games, and slightly protect new players. I do not dare go farther though due to complexity with tiers and lack of player base.

 

I am also aware that in its current state win8 or equivalent/better could not function in this speculated system. I unfortunately lack the knowledge to produce a formula that could address that. But I feel confident one could be made.

 

thank you neatoman for doing this work! I am truly humbled and honored. 

 

 


Edited by 2Fantastic, Sep 15 2020 - 06:06.


Korvick #63 Posted Sep 15 2020 - 06:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 6152 battles
  • 4,215
  • Member since:
    05-02-2013
So, out of curiousity, what constitutes a blowout game?   15-0?  14-1?  8-7?

golruul #64 Posted Sep 15 2020 - 06:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 26129 battles
  • 2,989
  • Member since:
    11-05-2011

View PostTiredOfWinning, on Sep 14 2020 - 16:31, said:

Is that what you did?

 

Hmm, an alt account with minimal games that last played 4 months ago making a stupid comment on a post of mine 3 months ago.  To top it off, it's only your fourth comment.

 

Why hello marc_2018's sock puppet account.  Still mad your main got banned?  Whole world still out to get you?

 

When I said uninstall and stop playing, that meant your alt accounts too as well as your forum accounts.



2Fantastic #65 Posted Sep 15 2020 - 08:41

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 11238 battles
  • 919
  • Member since:
    12-15-2010

Korvick: if you are asking me?

 

in neatoman’s link part of his data set was how many tanks were left at the end of a match. He used this data to in effect, understand how close games were.

 

He viewed 10+ tanks left as a “blowout match” which I agree would be a good statistical standard.

 

you should really do yourself a favor and check out the data he has collected, it’s professionally written with easy to understand diagrams.

 

I’m 99% sure NeatoMan is OverlordPrime.


Edited by 2Fantastic, Sep 15 2020 - 16:52.


SquiggyMcPew #66 Posted Sep 15 2020 - 09:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 91 battles
  • 3,976
  • Member since:
    10-28-2019
Just had a stretch of 23 losses and 4 wins all due to hilariously unbalanced teams as per xvm. Sometimes the mm tags you as 'it' and you get to enjoy the loss train. Now after another couple of additional sessions it's a total of 31 losses and 38 wins. Keep playing and it all evens out over time.

NeatoMan #67 Posted Sep 15 2020 - 12:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 31605 battles
  • 25,168
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View Post2Fantastic, on Sep 15 2020 - 02:41, said:

I’m 99% sure Neatoguy is OverlordPrime.

If I were, then it would be proof that russian bias exists, given how much worse I am doing on this mainly german tank account.



BoghieWanKanobie #68 Posted Sep 15 2020 - 12:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 11789 battles
  • 2,221
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    04-10-2016

I don't think this can be construed as Name & Shame because OP is performing well.  No shame in good gaming:

 

 

A few tidbits of information:

 

  • I haven't seen the daily PTW posts by OP recently. 
  • Or, the incisive commentary on how unbalanced the teams are. 
  • Or, how crappy the MatchMaker is.

Maybe OP is ashamed of sending Serb a couple of million dollars.  Come on man, fess up.  The only way to win this game is to pay!!!  :medal:



2Fantastic #69 Posted Sep 15 2020 - 16:50

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 11238 battles
  • 919
  • Member since:
    12-15-2010

Neatoman: 

 

Thats because this is your og account. You had not become overlordprime. Jk jk.

 

after looking at all your data I did notice that blowout matches occur higher at tier 10. Do you have definitive data to prove this is either the nature of tier 10 meta, or instead could it be a higher likelihood of imbalanced teams at that tier?



FrreeeBird #70 Posted Sep 15 2020 - 16:58

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 19256 battles
  • 292
  • [MARS-] MARS-
  • Member since:
    02-03-2012

View PostSquiggyMcPew, on Sep 15 2020 - 09:59, said:

Just had a stretch of 23 losses and 4 wins all due to hilariously unbalanced teams as per xvm. Sometimes the mm tags you as 'it' and you get to enjoy the loss train. Now after another couple of additional sessions it's a total of 31 losses and 38 wins. Keep playing and it all evens out over time.

 

You can always stop playing after a few consecutive losses instead of rewarding WG's "random" MM for screwing you over, just my $0.02 though.



ArmorStorm #71 Posted Sep 15 2020 - 17:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 42595 battles
  • 10,288
  • [F__R] F__R
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011


BoghieWanKanobie #72 Posted Sep 15 2020 - 18:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 11789 battles
  • 2,221
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    04-10-2016

The guy who started this thread whined for months about "random" MM screwing him over.

 

Look at his stats now.

 

No more crying.  He is just better.



SquiggyMcPew #73 Posted Sep 15 2020 - 18:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 91 battles
  • 3,976
  • Member since:
    10-28-2019

View PostFrreeeBird, on Sep 15 2020 - 16:58, said:

 

You can always stop playing after a few consecutive losses instead of rewarding WG's "random" MM for screwing you over, just my $0.02 though.

 

Sure but then I wouldn't be playing. I typically run boosters so even on horrible one sided losses I rack up xp and credits so mission accomplished. 



SteelRonin #74 Posted Sep 15 2020 - 18:43

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 26376 battles
  • 6,017
  • Member since:
    09-13-2010
I don't like losing 0-15, I don't like winning 15-0, but it is hard to "fix" this kind of battle where the principal factor is the players involved...

2Fantastic #75 Posted Sep 15 2020 - 23:43

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 11238 battles
  • 919
  • Member since:
    12-15-2010

I mean if there was an easy solution to make matches “closer” I firmly believe player base would be happier for it.

 

And normally for most gaming companies I would give them benefit of doubt...

 

but.... arty still exists in current state. And now they have to. I was watching fame vs mercy and 75% of the match is between insane unpennable hull down tanks simply bouncing each other from ridge lines while arty slowly kills them.

And I currently believe the biggest factor in why mercy won was because all their heavies has improved hardening.... which meant it took one more arty shot to finish them.

 

Arty in the open maps did an average of 4K damage Per arty.... Could this be the future of top tier game play in wot..,.?

 

like if wg can f*^k up tier 10 meta that bad why should I trust them on mm.

 

This is a gross oversimplification, and off topic, but tier 10 drives me nuts. And I am quite obviously bad.


Edited by 2Fantastic, Sep 16 2020 - 00:54.


NeatoMan #76 Posted Sep 16 2020 - 00:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 31605 battles
  • 25,168
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View Post2Fantastic, on Sep 15 2020 - 10:50, said:

Neatoman: 

 

Thats because this is your og account. You had not become overlordprime. Jk jk.

I really hate grinding.  I don't think I would ever create another account.  I'd have to do the same grind all over again.  I'd quit before making another dedicated account.

 

Block Quote

after looking at all your data I did notice that blowout matches occur higher at tier 10. Do you have definitive data to prove this is either the nature of tier 10 meta, or instead could it be a higher likelihood of imbalanced teams at that tier?

 Imbalance doesn't change with tier.  It remains the same bell shaped curve distribution throughout the tiers. 

 

There could be a few possibilities. 

  • Tank balance is out of whack. 
  • The prevalence of high skill ceiling tanks exacerbates skill differences.  I don't really like the idea of high skill ceiling tanks for this reason.
  • Players are more experienced and are more capable of recognizing and exploiting advantages.
  • The dpm/hp is much lower at tier 10, making numerical advantages more important.  It's harder to stop the ball once it gets rolling. 
  • In the lower tiers noobs and newbs throw their tanks away all willy-nilly when they think they are winning.  It's easier to put a dent into a charging horde (especially when they feed themselves to you one by one)

 

Since the HP buffs to lower tiers I haven't gathered any new data.



2Fantastic #77 Posted Sep 16 2020 - 00:49

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 11238 battles
  • 919
  • Member since:
    12-15-2010

Neatoman: I do believe all of these are legit points.

 

Thanks again for this data! It’s super handy!



Markd73 #78 Posted Sep 16 2020 - 01:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 36671 battles
  • 9,905
  • [2M8TA] 2M8TA
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostBoghieWanKanobie, on Sep 15 2020 - 11:59, said:

I don't think this can be construed as Name & Shame because OP is performing well.  No shame in good gaming:

 

 

A few tidbits of information:

 

  • I haven't seen the daily PTW posts by OP recently. 
  • Or, the incisive commentary on how unbalanced the teams are. 
  • Or, how crappy the MatchMaker is.

Maybe OP is ashamed of sending Serb a couple of million dollars.  Come on man, fess up.  The only way to win this game is to pay!!!  :medal:

 

If look at his forum profile it is greyed out. That means he got enough strikes on the forum to get a permanent ban.

 

Play silly games and you win silly prizes.



RumRunner_Jobu #79 Posted Sep 16 2020 - 06:34

    Private

  • Players
  • 4817 battles
  • 8
  • [7DEV] 7DEV
  • Member since:
    07-17-2020

As a new player and game reviewer, wot seems very unbalanced in the tank tiers, tanks themselves and matches.

I can't honestly recommend this game for any awards or articles.  I've not made it past tier 8 so far, but the game play is so

one sided that I'm ready to toss in the towel.  Who would pay money to a company that doesn't improve the game

for the end consumers?

 

Maybe if I choke down another 1000 battles I'll understand, but the game seems so dismal.

I went for the Arty to get credits (from videos the m44 seemed the best and closest, Kv-2 next).

 

The game does seem to get worse the longer you play in one session.  Seems like some kind of

bait and hook tacit to get you to buy consumables.

 

Anyway, I enjoy the close matches (win / lose) but the let down is the one lopsidedness of the matches.

Seems like nothing has changed since the original posting if I compare what I've experienced, the original

post and the diversity of the responses.   Maybe it's because this is a pay to win Russian game and

regular players are just filler.. sort of like Tier VI tanks in a Tier VIII match up, where most of the lower

tier tanks don't have much of a chance.

 

It seems like a lot of posters are really only posting for demeaning purposes.  It would be good if

there were things wrong with a product that the players took a stand to effect changes. But that would

require teamwork and organization and I don't see much of that here (other to bash each other or the original

poster) or in the game.

 

However, my experience has been pretty Dismal, so on to the next product.  WOS might be worth a try,

but is again Russian.  I hear WOP is worse than WOT.

 

 

 

 



awildseaking #80 Posted Sep 16 2020 - 09:03

    Captain

  • Players
  • 20643 battles
  • 1,171
  • [BOTES] BOTES
  • Member since:
    08-05-2015

I know some of you don't like the fact that a bad player has a legitimate grievance with poor match quality (regardless of his argument about why it exists), but have you ever considered that when you want people like him to uninstall, you're telling players who make up more than 50% of the server to just quit?

 

If everyone currently below 50% quit today, MM wouldn't suddenly get better. You'll just see a lot more good players than you're used to. Same magnitude for difference in skill, just different start and end points.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users