Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
XxUnbarmherzigxX

I just want to know

67 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
5,385 posts
9,321 battles
1 minute ago, Lord_Holland_of_Wessex said:

 

 

Im sure, within 3 mins you had the time not only to read my post but also the full patent, Wargaming has on matchmaking. And understanding it. Oh yeah, and looking for funny pictures. Way to go dude...

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
2,076 posts
5,212 battles
8 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

Then again - in the training room these mechanics might be deactivated ;) Some of the things, we see, you wont see in the training room since you pick the players. What we see in the queue, when waiting for a game, might be tempered aswell. I think it was @El2aZeR saying, he saw different numbers at the same time on screen next to each other on gamescom.

 

Thing is (im saying this in general now, not specifically to you, Xevious): in a game with the structure like we have - it makes perfect sense for WG to implement these mechanics. And there is evidence, that it exists. Hard facts. Like patents on matchmaker. Now you can deny that these things exists, but thats all you then. https://patents.google.com/patent/US8425330B1/en

Since you have obviously read it, quote me the statement in that patent that proves that wargaming tampers with the mm and rng based on player skill. I must say im very intrigued 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,385 posts
9,321 battles
2 minutes ago, thiextar said:

Since you have obviously read it, quote me the statement in that patent that proves that wargaming tampers with the mm and rng based on player skill. I must say im very intrigued 

 

Quote

When performing matchmaking for a game session, a matchmaking server may use a battle level table defining permissible tiers of each type of vehicle allowed within a particular battle level, and may also limit the number of a specific type of vehicle allowed in any one game session. The battle table may provide an advantage to premium vehicles by limiting the tiers of other vehicles against which a similarly tiered premium vehicle may compete. Battle level difficulty may be adjusted by adjusting the ranges of permissible vehicles in each battle level.

Quote

In one specific aspect, the calculating may be performed by determining a current maximum permissible battle level C based on the following: For B<N: C=L+(B−1)((M−L−1)/N); For B≧N: C=M, where L represents a lowest battle level defined the battle level table for the vehicle type and vehicle tier of the vehicle, M represents the maximum battle level defined the battle level table for the vehicle type and vehicle tier of the vehicle, B represents the number of battles previously played using the vehicle, rounding to a nearest integer value.

Quote

Thus, in a first battle with a particular vehicle, a player might only be placed in the lowest battle level of the allowed range. Each successive battle session with that vehicle, the sub-range of available battle levels may increase by (number of battle levels in full range −1)/N, until the full range defined in FIG. 8 is encompassed. For example, again using tier 4 SPG vehicles as an example, Table 1 illustrates, for each battle session that a player uses a particular tier 4 SPG, the available range of battle levels into which that vehicle may be placed.

TABLE 1
 
Sample Battle Level Increments for Tier 4 SPG
  Battle Min. Battle Current. Max. Calc. Max. Battle
  No. (B) Lvl. (L) Battle Lvl. (C) Lvl. (before rounding)
   
  1 6 6 6
  2 6 7 6.5
  3 6 7 7
  4 6 8 7.5
  5 6 8 8
  6 6 9 8.5
  7 6 9 9
  8 (N) 6 10 9.5
  >N 6 10 10
Quote

The number of battle sessions in which a player has used a particular vehicle may be stored in a data structure or object associated with the vehicle, e.g., as an attribute in instance 551 ( FIG. 5B ). Once the sub-range is calculated, matchmaking server 106 randomly (or otherwise) selects a battle level within the sub-range for that player/vehicle, and may add the player/vehicle to the battle session in step 909 ( FIG. 9 ).

Quote

..., each vehicle may be one of a standard vehicle and a premium vehicle, where a first premium vehicle is associated with a lower range of battle levels than a first standard vehicle of a same tier and/or type as the first premium vehicle.

Quote

As players progress and advance in experience, the player (or vehicle) will gradually be moved into higher battle levels based on the experience, attributes, and capabilities of each player's characters and/or vehicles.

 

So: matchmaking does take into account, how many battles you have played and calulates accordingly. Also, premium ships (may) have favourable matchmaking. And players attributes and capabilites are taken into account. Now - It does ofc say nowhere "a player with 40% WR gets favourable RNG" or something like that. But: What else is this complex system there for? The calculation takes into account: games played, your ship, games played in that ship, your attributes and capabilities. So what does it do with the result?

 

And just to hint that screenshot that Ive posted earlier: Check the date of the screen, check when I registered.

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
2,076 posts
5,212 battles
11 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

 

So: matchmaking does take into account, how many battles you have played and calulates accordingly. Also, premium ships (may) have favourable matchmaking. And players attributes and capabilites are taken into account. Now - It does ofc say nowhere "a player with 40% WR gets favourable RNG" or something like that. But: What else is this complex system there for? The calculation takes into account: games played, your ship, games played in that ship, your attributes and capabilities. So what does it do with the result?

 

And just to hint that screenshot that Ive posted earlier: Check the date of the screen, check when I registered.

1. If you have just bought a new vehicle, the matchmaker tries to always put you into top tier matches for the first couple of battle in that vehicle, this is well known and not hidden in any way, the point of this system is to not ruin the players initial impression of a new ship/give them a chance to play it stock.

 

2. This patent is for both wows and wot, and in wot there are certain premiums which gets preferential matchmaking, which means that they can only ever be matched vs +1 tier tanks. In return, these tanks are generally weaker than a standard tank of the same tier.

 

3. (EDITED) This system is for new players, as you know, people that are completely new to the game, gets protected matchmaking in the beginning of their careers.

 

None of those qoutes specifys anything of relevence to taking player skill into account for mm and rng.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,385 posts
9,321 battles
6 minutes ago, thiextar said:

If you have just bought a new vehicle, the matchmaker tries to always put you into top tier matches for the first couple of battle in that vehicle, this is well known

This system is for new players, as you know, people that are completely new to the game, gets protected matchmaking in the beginning of their careers.

 

I dont think its well know. And its exactly what Ive said. So you write "im wrong" but you say "im right". allright. Seems you are projecting something, that someone else said, into my message? weird.

 

 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
2,076 posts
5,212 battles
2 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

I dont think its well know. And its exactly what Ive said. So you write "im wrong" but you say "im right". allright. Seems you are projecting something, that someone else said, into my message? weird.

 

 

Dude, this is a thing for around the 50 first games of a player... That doesnt mean taht you are right that the matchmaker punishes skilled players... this is only ever a thing in like tier 1-3. Dont twist my words

 

And the protected matchmaking that you get for around up to 10 battles after buying a new ship is just a small quality of life thing.

 

None of this proves your point in any way, and im pretty sure that most people on this forum has been aware of both of these things for atleast a year now.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,385 posts
9,321 battles
Just now, thiextar said:

That doesnt mean taht you are right that the matchmaker punishes skilled players

 

Again putting words into my mouth - what is it with you? Do you quote the wrong person?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
21,669 posts
13,042 battles
2 hours ago, VooDooZG_Nervozni_Purger said:

 

Now I'am not that astonished by poor intelligence playerbase of this game when I need to explain every word and sentence ....

 

I have said that players with low WR gets better dispersion or better RNG if you want - you know if game would give some 60% WR guy that dispersion / RNG than he would score 420.000 dam and have probably 200-250k av dam, player like that 43% Yamato  sit whole game on 26km and shoot all day long on any target he see and than after he miss 80% of his salvo by far because he even don't shoot on right spot he will get that one shoot (with all turrets for 20-30-40k in that salvo) he manage to target good because he had godlike despersion every time he shoot --- you know the one that some 55-60% player will get every 18th shoot - for example in Republique, you know, 7 time every shell will have her own postcode, but than one salvo from one turret will have all shells in one spot perfect dispersion that will make your tear to drop from joy of that special moment,, well lower you WR more those special salvo you will have ..

As you have posted yourself, he has 24,79% hitrating, not below 20%....

He cannot have perfect dispersion when he hits that often or he would do more damage... :fish_palm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,385 posts
9,321 battles
3 minutes ago, thiextar said:

Dude, this is a thing for around the 50 first games of a player

 

3 minutes ago, thiextar said:

this is only ever a thing in like tier 1-3.

 

Btw: Give us a source from Wargaming for these claims.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
2,076 posts
5,212 battles
Alle 9/22/2018 alle 21:21, ForlornSailor ha scritto:

 

 

Btw: Give us a source from Wargaming for these claims.

Account level also influences matchmaking. Through level 10, players in Tier I-IV matches are less likely to face highly experienced opponents.

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Account_Level

 

My mistake, its from tier 1-4, not 1-3.

 

Alle 9/22/2018 alle 21:21, ForlornSailor ha scritto:

 

 

Btw: Give us a source from Wargaming for these claims.

Then tell me very clearly and concisely what your theory is, as that is something you have failed to do so far.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,385 posts
9,321 battles
4 minutes ago, thiextar said:

Then tell me very clearly and concisely what your theory is, as that is something you have failed to do so far.

 

Just cuz you didnt see it or mixed it up with something, someone else said, doesnt mean, its not there.

 

But alright. Ive specifically pointed out, that new players get favoured/protected mm. And that WG has a patent on how to calculate this. My screenshot showed exactly this: me beeing favoured due to beeing as green as possible.

Not my fault nobody nowadays spends the time to read and understand, what people are saying, or want everything to be black or white. One specimen, who never reads, what a thread is about, is right above me.

 

Two additional things about the patent:

1) Its clearly not restricted to lower tiers or newer players. The formula can be used for players with 20k games, for that matter. It becomes clear, when you think about the battle-level-thing-

2) The part of " Through level 10, players in Tier I-IV matches are less likely to face highly experienced opponents. " doesnt necessary mean, these players are seperated from more experianced players playing low-tiers. Also, fact: if you look at the formula of the battle-level, it becomes clear, matchmaking might place the most experianced players togehter with the new players in one team and put all avaerage players in the other. Thus the statement "are less likely to face highly experiances players" is true. At the same time, another quote from the patent, points to this aswell:

 

Quote
dividing the second plurality of client devices into two teams of vehicles within the battle session, wherein a total weight of vehicles on each of the two teams is at least near equal.

 

Why dont we check, if we infact find hard evidence for this. Im not sure, if you have that opinionen, but from what I read, it might be? So do you think, a player with account level 15 can meet someone with, lets say, account level 5? in a game <=t4?

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
315 posts
10,288 battles
Alle 9/22/2018 alle 20:37, ForlornSailor ha scritto:

 

Im sure, within 3 mins you had the time not only to read my post but also the full patent, Wargaming has on matchmaking. And understanding it. Oh yeah, and looking for funny pictures. Way to go dude...

Image result for aint no body got time for thAT

 

Alle 9/22/2018 alle 21:40, ForlornSailor ha scritto:

So do you think, a player with account level 15 can meet someone with, lets say, account level 5? in a game <=t4?

Yes its called a division :cap_like:

  • Boring 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRN]
Players
504 posts
9,129 battles

It's really long time that I think WG is "balancing" bad and good players with RNG (fires and dispersion mostly). 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
21,669 posts
13,042 battles
1 minute ago, Krikkio82 said:

It's really long time that I think WG is "balancing" bad and good players with RNG (fires and dispersion mostly). 

*Looks at 70% and 40% players"

 

Yepp, that is working well.....

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
7,541 posts
8,139 battles
16 hours ago, Xevious_Red said:

Problem is this is self defeating. It only "feels" overwhelmingly bad when something happens like your previously mentioned 3 salvos at 8km against a broadside battleship.

 

When you check it's a bad/new player. Because a good player would never sit broadside at 8km for 3 whole salvos. So if you're only checking how good the player is when you miss against people sitting broadside then obviously you will only find bad players because good players would never be in that situation.

 

If you really wanted to test it you should start a training room battle (like they use for KOTS) and shoot at sat still broadside players of varying ability

 

 

Good players dont need 3 salvoes to die :Smile_Default: You can catch EVERYONE in a bad turn or in any other unexpected moment and they are far more likely to get citadelled. IF it would be that unlikely to get citadelled, i dont think any of us would need to angle. And i believe you dont need to be really good to lose that protection. But maybe you want to pay attention to premium hightier players, who seem to yolo in and not die instantly. Once you pay attention, this does happen quite often. Ofc its less likely to realize when it happens to someone on your team, but ive seen stuff which i questioned aswell. Why shouldnt WG protect someone with <100 battles who played his Alabama for the 2nd time (as an example)? So he goes in, dies from 1 salvo and quits the game? Nope, as i said earlier, it makes sense to protect them for a little while.

As for really bad players, i dont think they have the same level of "bonus" so to say. They just get more "help" in stray shells hitting you so that they can deal damage.

 

And the Alabama example is just one in many. Had to give SOME example had I? Also it was the first time i really noticed it. Here is another:

Had a Tirpitz (new player) and some other BB rushing into our spawn through C cap on North, i was at B i believe also in a BB. Shot the Tirpitz couple of times, basicly i didnt hit at all. Half our team focused him, he lived for several minutes. First salvo at the BB behind him (which ofc was not a new player) instantly 15k damage. (think it was also a german BB, so no Citadel but still). This guy died 4 times faster than the Tirpitz, once focused.

 

Yes you can say RNG, but this is an arguement to dismiss anything - which worksout perfectly for WG doesnt it :Smile_medal:

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
315 posts
10,288 battles
7 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Good players dont need 3 salvoes to die :Smile_Default: You can catch EVERYONE in a bad turn or in any other unexpected moment and they are far more likely to get citadelled. IF it would be that unlikely to get citadelled, i dont think any of us would need to angle. And i believe you dont need to be really good to lose that protection. But maybe you want to pay attention to premium hightier players, who seem to yolo in and not die instantly. Once you pay attention, this does happen quite often. Ofc its less likely to realize when it happens to someone on your team, but ive seen stuff which i questioned aswell. Why shouldnt WG protect someone with <100 battles who played his Alabama for the 2nd time (as an example)? So he goes in, dies from 1 salvo and quits the game? Nope, as i said earlier, it makes sense to protect them for a little while.

As for really bad players, i dont think they have the same level of "bonus" so to say. They just get more "help" in stray shells hitting you so that they can deal damage.

 

And the Alabama example is just one in many. Had to give SOME example had I? Also it was the first time i really noticed it. Here is another:

Had a Tirpitz (new player) and some other BB rushing into our spawn through C cap on North, i was at B i believe also in a BB. Shot the Tirpitz couple of times, basicly i didnt hit at all. Half our team focused him, he lived for several minutes. First salvo at the BB behind him (which ofc was not a new player) instantly 15k damage. (think it was also a german BB, so no Citadel but still). This guy died 4 times faster than the Tirpitz, once focused.

 

Yes you can say RNG, but this is an arguement to dismiss anything - which worksout perfectly for WG doesnt it :Smile_medal:

Image result for tin foil hat meme

  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,385 posts
9,321 battles
23 minutes ago, Lord_Holland_of_Wessex said:

 

 

Dude, you have shown and admitted - you dont even read and / or understand the discussion. All you can do is post silly pictures, totaly missing the point. Do you know, how foolish you look? Wait - you´re not going to understand, what im telling you, right? Well, I got something for you, that you should be able to comprehend:

 

Bildergebnis für the point gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
21,669 posts
13,042 battles

You are the one talking about supposed MM manipulation while the topic is about supposed dispersion manipulation...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
2,076 posts
5,212 battles

The underlying issue here is a complete lack of understanding of basic statistics, fueled by the ignorance of a person believing that he/she is somehow immune to some very well documented physiological facts about humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,385 posts
9,321 battles
1 hour ago, ColonelPete said:

You are the one talking about supposed MM manipulation while the topic is about supposed dispersion manipulation...

 

Nope, there are atleast three persons talking about that. But its ok coming from you, I know you dont take so much attention, you just slam your one-liners in every thread that can be boiled down to "Im awesome you are are wrong". You also missed the fact, that its not "supposed" since it stuff quoted from offical WG-sources. But yea. Again, paying attention n´stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
21,669 posts
13,042 battles
1 minute ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

Nope, there are atleast three persons talking about that. But its ok coming from you, I know you dont take so much attention, you just slam your one-liners in every thread that can be boiled down to "Im awesome you are are wrong". You also missed the fact, that its not "supposed" since it stuff quoted from offical WG-sources. But yea. Again, paying attention n´stuff.

Did not say you were the only one. So much for paying attention...

And no, you not being the only one does not make it better...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,385 posts
9,321 battles
3 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

And no, you not being the only one does not make it better...

 

It does not make it better, that im one of two persons in this thread, that is actually quoting hard facts from offical documents?

Understood. Obviously, you think, a discussion thrives on fast posts with zero content but stupid pictures, that have no other goal then to insult others and ricidule their posts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
21,669 posts
13,042 battles
1 minute ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

It does not make it better, that im one of two persons in this thread, that is actually quoting hard facts from offical documents?

Understood. Obviously, you think, a discussion thrives on fast posts with zero content but stupid pictures, that have no other goal then to insult others and ricidule their posts?

Yeah, you are right. Maybe I should post some hard facts about the ingredients of chocolate pudding to contribute to this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
315 posts
10,288 battles
1 hour ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

Dude, you have shown and admitted - you dont even read and / or understand the discussion. All you can do is post silly pictures, totaly missing the point. Do you know, how foolish you look? Wait - you´re not going to understand, what im telling you, right? Well, I got something for you, that you should be able to comprehend:

 

Bildergebnis für the point gif

Image result for the irony is strong in this one meme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×