Elgerino

Yeah, for some reason you don't want to point out a flaw in how I interpreted the patent but you will spend a paragraph and then some justifying why you won't. Something stinks. What do we call it when you suck with every ship besides one, then use it to laud over other players as if you're a badass? A terribad with a big ego, I remember now. That is an inconvenience for you isn't it? Because to get past it you actually have to prove something. But why should you have to? You and OP are an authority. Your personal experience should be enough, everyone should be bowing down before you and your immense wisdom. Piss artists. If you want people to believe something than do better than ''I believe it so it's true.'' or shut up about it.

Sounds like someone simply doesn't want to address the argument. You're a gentlemen with a rather large (unwarranted) ego and I suspect that had I misinterpreted the ''plain English'' so blatantly, you wouldn't have been able to resist rubbing it in my face. When Tubit asked for evidence that he was below the statistical average, you didn't hesitate there after all. The reason discussions like this fail is because people like you consider their personal experience proof of a larger trend. It's called anecdotal evidence. You just did it again. Don't remember telling you that you don't know how to play. Naskoni might be a person I'd say that to but I can tell you aren't, so that was never a possibility I entertained. Anyhow, you didn't present me with reality, you presented your own perspective, one with no real evidence to back it up. I can't take this sort of claim seriously. Besides the patent, there's no evidence this is the case. That's just a patent that puts a claim on that sort of system, it doesn't mean it's in effect here and it doesn't meant it actually works even if it is, such a system can't work. You'll realise soon enough, because the new ranked match system goes by winning streaks, I guarantee there'll be plenty of donkeys in the top bracket because there's just too many wayward elements to bring together for MM to ever properly predict the likelihood of winning or losing, whether the patented system is in effect or not. Anyone can get a win streak, which is why such a ranked system is so stupid and why a win-rate based equaliser in the matchmaker is inherently flawed, to the point that it would generate random results in any case. There's even less evidence that streamers are being treated favourably, unless you can point me to it. It's conspiracy theorist nonsense, are you going to tell me jet fuel can't melt steel beams next? Where are my loss streaks? Am I a WG advertising lackey too? News to me.

In OP's case it should have broken them, that's the point. The only way a good player would universally lose so often (and I've seen no evidence of it in my case, despite a slow decline in win-rate which has another explanation), is if the system takes the total win percentage into account, but that's not what the patent says. It says that it takes win percentage for battle-tier and/or vehicle into account, but OP's tier 5 performance is average, 52% rounded up win rate across all tier fives. At this point he should not be expecting long loss streaks, should he? So it should be breaking his loss streaks. What I find most ridiculous about this supposed system that drags us all irrevocably towards fifty percent is how selective it seems to be in which ships it targets in OP's possession. I wonder when it will get around to [edited]him as he plays his Gremyashchy or Minekaze. Seems the system is happy to let him continue his win streaks there. Could it be that it isn't selective, but merely inconsistent due to the random nature of the information it uses to set about it's task? Or that it isn't even in effect at all? How many ships will OP need to have 70% win rate in before he's satisfied that the game isn't out to get him? You will probably say, ''Well his loss streaks balance out his win streaks, clearly rigged.'' But I ask you to tell me the difference between that and a random system. Different ships aren't being favoured, just randomly selected by chance, either by a system intended to be random or a system intended to be ordered but ends up being random just through the chaotic nature of the information it draws on. If it looks random, smells random and your win rates suggest nothing else, it's random.

But they would work randomly, even if that isn't the intent. And as I've already said, such a system is not what OP and others have suggested is actually there. If it is there, it seems to do little to stop win/loss streaks.

It would be hard to lose more than fifty percent of the time no matter how bad you are in a completely random system, seeing as the makeup of the players would be randomly decided, as would therefore the outcome. Only games on a smaller scale can produce significantly different win rates, fifteen versus fifteen randomly placed players is just way too much chance for personal ability or ineptness to over-ride in any huge way. Which is just as good an explanation as the system being rigged. Assuming this is the case for the current system, in a 15 v 15 game the above results in a practically random outcome anyway, first of all. If we're to call it rigged, then we must say that the information it bases the decision on accurately represents the players skill. It patently does not. Especially at this early stage, it seems to draw a distinction between tiers and possibly ships, which means for the vast majority of people the win rate is in constant flux between favourable and unfavourable. Where peoples win rate is especially on ships they're only going to play for 5-50 games (Everything up to tier 8), has very little to do with their skill level and all to do with a string random circumstances leading up to that point. This is especially true in OP's case, claiming MM hates him when all he has on his ship are losses. That wouldn't make sense if the above system was in place, he would be given favourable games immediately. Which just goes to show, the above system is bollocks and amounts to random outcomes anyway or it isn't in effect.

The system doesn't need to be rigged to maintain a general 50% win rate, if it was a completely random system that would happen too. Where is the evidence the system is rigged?

That's not evidence of anything. Ask yourself if that sort of thing would happen even if the MM system wasn't deliberately trying to frame it that way. Unless you're copiously irrational, the only answer to that question is yes. Then the next question to answer is if it's possible when the MM system is random, is it also not possible that loss streaks can happen as chance dictates, like flipping a coin. The coin does not uniformly land on heads and tails in turn, it tends towards fifty/fifty but it can get there through any number of patterns, it could flip fifteen times on one side but that doesn't make that side more likely. Chance explains everything in this thread, hard evidence is required to refute it.

Interesting that when the same players get a string of wins in a row, we don't get a forum debacle about that. It's almost as if, spurred on by the rage of losing so many times, they begin to see correlations where none exist, in the same way one who is drunk sees pink elephants and blue mice, as it were. I'm a good player and even if I'm not, my stats suggest it. Why is the longest loss streak I remember shorter than my longest win streak? (Seven versus Eleven, if you're interested) There are only three explanations. One, I'm not a good player. But my performance is at least equal and in fact could be seen as better than OP, so no statistical analysis should state that I'm inferior and the MM system in that case, if rigged, would screw me just as hard as it screws him. Two, I'm an anomaly. But if I am, then the possibility that OP is an anomaly must also be entertained, even if he protests other-wise. In fact, I shouldn't have even entertained this because both his evidence and his protestations are completely anecdotal and there's no reason based on his testimony to believe it's anything but chance. Third and finally, the MM isn't actually rigged and OP simply doesn't understand the nature of chance. That isn't what it says. It says it manipulates the win chance to keep everyone even. It's not about [edited]over better players and no-where in there does it say that players who are regarded as better must have 1 good game for every 10 terrible ones, as you've suggested. In any case, the system is largely determined by chance. The game does not approximate skill, all it does is try to keep your win rate even based on your recent win rate, which in itself is plenty arbitrary and non-representative. That's even if this MM system conforms to the patent.

Good question, one I can't answer because it doesn't seem to list games lost, correct me if I'm wrong. All we can see is how many I've won, how many I've played, the rest (loss/draw) unquantified. EDIT: I'm an idiot. My current draw rate is 9.1%, expecting it to continue rising.

BB/OP weak af.

Are there that many people who play without premium? I feel like the first extra 50% is standard amongst the serious players. The flag? Not so much but if the exp gain is inflated it's easy to tell so from his performance with his ships.

That's why the best you can do is use it all to paint a picture about the player, including the ships he plays. No individual stat ever tells the entire story. High win-rate, high damage, high KDR, high experience, all without exploiting the super ships in Tier 6 and the carrier class too much, very hard to achieve that without being a good player in my opinion.

I like to consider myself a good player, whether I actually am outside my own conceited perspective is another question. I do believe these are great stats for someone who's played practically no carriers at all, though. This is majority Cruiser minority Battleship. Unfortunately my win ratio has been taking a bit of a hit lately, the ridiculous draw rate tier 8 and on has is eating into it I believe, it used to be 62%. This further complicates things, a good player who plays mainly Tier 6 is going to have a better win rate than an equally good player who plays mainly high tier.

I don't know about everyone else but submarines are the nightmare, not the dream.

Oh have we got to the point where you're pretending to be a troll as opposed to entrenched in a position you knew was dumb but doubled down in anyway? You know full well that of the ships we share in common in the class, I've performed badly in only one and you've performed badly in all but one.

There's too much focusing on the fires. They're not the problem, so much as combining that with the HE damage they do normally snowballs wildly. If the active HE damage is nerfed significantly, the fire damage is much more manageable and balance is restored to the force.

That's the thing, his stats aren't even decent. He's got an inflated KDR and a decent win-rate on his New Mexico and that's it. His performance everywhere else except St Louis is garbage. I don't know where his ego draws strength, but it can't be from his stats page. At the end of the day he's just some basic player who doesn't understand the difference between effective range and maximum range, nor does he understand Lanchester's laws.

Yeah but you make up for it by killing more and doing more damage, as we've established. Survival don't mean [edited] if you do [edited], which your stats demonstrate. Still hoping you learn something today, how about that.

Are you being intentionally dense? New Mexico is my statistical anomaly, sometimes you just get a bad run or two and I progressed out of it quickly enough that I didn't get enough games in to level it out. But if you look at the general performance, it's clear my doctrine is working better than yours. You claim I'm trading survival for damage, that's only true if you take my New Mexico performance by itself and draw a conclusion from there. If you look at the other ships we share in common, I survive just as well, cause a ridiculous amount more damage and kill more. But by all means, keep telling me how my tactics are the reason I'm playing poorly whilst I consistently out-do you.

Yeah, pointing out that I vastly outperform you in every other BB is an excuse. Okay buddy.

Yeah, this is actually pretty standard behaviour for a BB. A good one anyway.

Yeah, except with every other ship in the class where you lose by a country mile. As I said in an edit, my New Mexico run was statistically poor. It would balance out with more games and the stats would greatly improve way beyond what you can do with your half arsed extreme range tactics.

Is this the point where I point out that I'm an alpha tester with five hundred unlisted BB battles under my belt? Yes, this is that point. Yeah, you clutch this KDR stat for your life because without it, your ego has nothing to latch onto. Here's the problem. You've attained it not by being more effective, but by simply not dying. Spoiler Warning for the rest of this post, that isn't the same thing as being a better player. This is in fact typical of a player who sits at his max range and takes no risks, which we already established. I imagine you've developed a pathological need not to die, you'll even hide behind islands rather than fight when you see the battle isn't going your way, right? The rest of your stats show this is the case. Low hit-rates, low damage, poor exp and the ridiculous notion that sitting at max range is the best strategy against cruisers. Sorry bub, it's the best strategy for maintaining your inflated KDR, nothing else. The moment you progress beyond New Mexico or into the Jap line, that KDR is going to fizzle away. And this is all with a ship I had a statistically poor run in. You'll notice the 39% win ratio, indicating that I fought mostly on losing teams, if I played thirty or so more games my general performance would definitely increase. The difference between us is more clearly demonstrated by Warspite, for example.

You talk a lot of unsubstantiated crap, especially for someone who's clearly a below average player. Nitpicking that I said 18km rather than 17+km does not write off my far more significant experience with the class, nor does it write off the fact that you just aren't much good with them. You're playing the most effective BB's at destroying Cruisers and even then, no decent Omaha/Cleveland/Aoba player has anything to fear from you, despite your protestations you hit them fine. Your performance says otherwise. The fact you treat closing to more effective ranges for your guns as ''rushing in'' shows that your perspective on how the game works has not yet matured to a point that your opinion is any use. You're literally one of those people who just skirmish uselessly at long range the entire game, getting a few more last hits on average doesn't hide that fact, your damage and hit rate highlights it quite conspicuously however. You're clearly choosing the less effective range for your guns. Unless you're just a worse shot than I am, that's likely part of it. But then why would I be saying Cruisers aren't so easy to hit?

Your BB performance is hardly stellar Naskoni. When you claimed you had no problem hitting CA's at long range with your tier 6 BB's, I certainly wasn't surprised to find New Mexico your best ship. Let me educate you about the New Mexico. It's shells cover 18km in just under ten seconds. Do you even realise how fast that is? It has 12 14'' guns and it turns like a demon. No other BB in the game is as suited to killing cruisers, through volume of fire and ultra high muzzle velocity to reduce the targets time to dodge, New Mexico is probably the best BB in the game for destroying Cruisers at it's tier. Look at your exp earned. Are you noticing the yawning gap between New Mexico and your other BB's? Are you really surprised you're having less trouble than other players when you're drawing conclusions from the one BB in the game that has the tools it needs to kill opposing CL/CA? Wake up boy. The class on the whole versus cruisers is a god damned trainwreck, New Mexico doesn't make up for that.