Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

[ColonelPete]

3 minutes ago, SEA_TRAKTOR said:

Of course. Enjoy your gratuitous "wins". I mean why not, it's like a lottery. Suckers suck and winners celebrate. 

Yeah, it is clearly sacrilegious to think that ones own teams are better when oneself is better.

[SV_Kompresor]

16 minutes ago, SEA_TRAKTOR said:

"Basically if you flip a coin 10 times the chances it lands on the same side 10 times in a row is 1-1034 and yet people go on these sort of losing or winning streaks daily surly the odds of them losing 10 games in a row are extremely rare "

 

Now try tossing that coin a hundred thousand times.

 

17 minutes ago, SEA_TRAKTOR said:

Yes, MM is so random..

Judging by what you said, it would appear so.

[anonym_ntfKigmJ0k9e]

If you put Messi or Modric in a soccer team with 10 very sub-standard co-players, his team will lose every game vs team of average or better quality.

 

In every game it's all about players stats, but no, here the MM is misteriously "random". People lose or win 30 battles in a row and it's random... Yeah, very convincing lol 

 

 

[RuruushuVuiBuritania]

1 minute ago, SEA_TRAKTOR said:

If you put Messi or Modric in a soccer team with 10 very sub-standard co-players, his team will lose every game vs team of average or better quality.

 

In every game it's all about players stats, but no, here the MM is misteriously "random". People lose or win 30 battles in a row and it's random... Yeah, very convincing lol 

 

 

Please provide proof of people losing and winning 30 times in a row. Otherwise we cannot hope to take this claim seriously.

[SV_Kompresor]

4 minutes ago, SEA_TRAKTOR said:

If you put Messi or Modric in a soccer team with 10 very sub-standard co-players, his team will lose every game vs team of average or better quality.

 

In every game it's all about players stats, but no, here the MM is misteriously "random". People lose or win 30 battles in a row and it's random... Yeah, very convincing lol 

 

 

When everyone gets cheating matchmaking, nobody does.

[anonym_ntfKigmJ0k9e]

It's random like releasing the big fart in the early morning and forgetting to change smelly brown socks before I drink my first rakija.

[anonym_ntfKigmJ0k9e]

1 minute ago, RuruushuVuiBuritania said:

Please provide proof of people losing and winning 30 times in a row. Otherwise we cannot hope to take this claim seriously.

It happened to me first time when I played Ranked battles, on my old account, some 2 years ago. It was 29 lost - 1 win. Monitor showed potato teams every single battle. After that I never played Ranked again. I don't care if you believe or not.

[ColonelPete]

35 minutes ago, SEA_TRAKTOR said:

If you put Messi or Modric in a soccer team with 10 very sub-standard co-players, his team will lose every game vs team of average or better quality.

 

In every game it's all about players stats, but no, here the MM is misteriously "random". People lose or win 30 battles in a row and it's random... Yeah, very convincing lol

I have seen soccer matches where one player runs rings around ALL 11 enemy players. Messi would be a HUGE boost for a substandard team.

I know of no game where the MM is not random, unless you are allowed to select players yourself. Games can only provide players that are waiting in the queue. Games cannot control who is waiting in the queue.

33 minutes ago, SEA_TRAKTOR said:

It happened to me first time when I played Ranked battles, on my old account, some 2 years ago. It was 29 lost - 1 win. Monitor showed potato teams every single battle. After that I never played Ranked again. I don't care if you believe or not.

And yes, when one plays very badly, the results are not so random.

[RuruushuVuiBuritania]

55 minutes ago, SEA_TRAKTOR said:

It happened to me first time when I played Ranked battles, on my old account, some 2 years ago. It was 29 lost - 1 win. Monitor showed potato teams every single battle. After that I never played Ranked again. I don't care if you believe or not.

Without proof, it will remain nothing more than a opinion. You should not present opinions as facts. You can come back to contribute by 1) abandoning the claim or 2) bringing visual proof that it happened.
The sad part is, you are only marginally better than the people you complain about, but on the right path. Put more energy into improving instead of complaining.

[MacFergus]

1 hour ago, RuruushuVuiBuritania said:

Please provide proof of people losing and winning 30 times in a row. Otherwise we cannot hope to take this claim seriously.

Please refer to post 6324 and the 21 wins in a row and an 89% WR.

 

If you flip a coin a million times, you have a 38% chance of seeing 20 heads in a row.

 

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/profile/529966534-garrusbrutus/ Is a really good player but I think even he will probably admit to be surprised by the lack of quality he faces on a daily basis , Their was a similar complaint by Flambass that the game was to easy and no challenge.

 

Obviously these are good players but even so the Win Streaks or Losing streaks are not normal and something is happing in the background 

 

 

[ColonelPete]

2 minutes ago, MacFergus said:

Please refer to post 6324 and the 21 wins in a row and an 89% WR.

 

If you flip a coin a million times, you have a 38% chance of seeing 20 heads in a row.

89% WR is not a coin flip...

[RuruushuVuiBuritania]

8 minutes ago, MacFergus said:

Please refer to post 6324 and the 21 wins in a row and an 89% WR.

 

If you flip a coin a million times, you have a 38% chance of seeing 20 heads in a row.

 

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/profile/529966534-garrusbrutus/ Is a really good player but I think even he will probably admit to be surprised by the lack of quality he faces on a daily basis , Their was a similar complaint by Flambass that the game was to easy and no challenge.

 

Obviously these are good players but even so the Win Streaks or Losing streaks are not normal and something is happing in the background 

 

 

I know he is a good player and every single good player will underwrite the lack of quality in the playerbase. But you cannot just say ''30 loss or 30 win streaks are common'' like he did. Your post in itself is confusing. 38% is relatively high for a percentage of chance, but you still describe them as not normal. I would say these streaks are rare if almost non-existent, but a 70%+ winrate is doable in long streaks, with good play and a good division mainly. So I contest the ''30 in a row'', but I ascribe the high winrate streaks.

The matchmaker is random, but machine intelligence cannot create true, unexpected randomness in our definition of being utterly random. It simply mashes the classes and tiers together where they roughly belong.

[MacFergus]

8 minutes ago, RuruushuVuiBuritania said:

our post in itself is confusing. 38% is relatively high for a percentage of chance, but you still describe them as not normal.

It is confusing ill try to explain although I'm no maths genius.

 

Basically if you flip a coin 1 million times you have a 38% chance of seeing 1x 20 heads in a row so that's 1 sequence in 1 million flips.

 

Given the fact that MM is random the sequences do not add up , Sure if MM was truly random you should have a 50/50 chance and then a players ability should kick in , But this is not the case what were seeing is unnatural or against the odds win or lose streaks.

 

An average player like myself would expect to be carried in order to break the sequence's at some point , A few days ago I went through an 8 game losing streak  out of those 8 games I would expect a good player to carry me to break the sequence because the odds of me losing 8 times in a row of very rare this happens on a regualr basis where i can win 5 in a row and then lose 5 in a row and that is in mathematical terms unnatural.

[RuruushuVuiBuritania]

11 minutes ago, MacFergus said:

It is confusing ill try to explain although I'm no maths genius.

 

Basically if you flip a coin 1 million times you have a 38% chance of seeing 1x 20 heads in a row so that's 1 sequence in 1 million flips.

 

Given the fact that MM is random the sequences do not add up , Sure if MM was truly random you should have a 50/50 chance and then a players ability should kick in , But this is not the case what were seeing is unnatural or against the odds win or lose streaks.

 

An average player like myself would expect to be carried in order to break the sequence's at some point , A few days ago I went through an 8 game losing streak  out of those 8 games I would expect a good player to carry me to break the sequence because the odds of me losing 8 times in a row of very rare this happens on a regualr basis where i can win 5 in a row and then lose 5 in a row and that is in mathematical terms unnatural.

The thing is, if MM was truly random, it would not account for player skill. Which it does not. But because of how machine intelligence works, it can never create true randomness, but can approach that. It does not take skill into account. Also twenty in a set of a million is a very small streak, so naturally the chance is much higher than if you were to flip it a hundred times. Chance scales with size. If we say the average WoWs game is 10 minutes, that means six matches in a hour, occupying the time of 6 x 24 = 144 players. That would also be 144 matches in a day with, assuming all of them are unique, 3456 players. Of course the average playerbase on at any time is more in the direction of 20k. So your numbers might start to look different depending on the size of your sample. For WG spreadsheets and similar statistical tools, the saying goes: ''Numbers don't lie, but liars know how to count'.

[ColonelPete]

19 minutes ago, MacFergus said:

An average player like myself would expect to be carried in order to break the sequence's at some point , A few days ago I went through an 8 game losing streak  out of those 8 games I would expect a good player to carry me to break the sequence because the odds of me losing 8 times in a row of very rare this happens on a regualr basis where i can win 5 in a row and then lose 5 in a row and that is in mathematical terms unnatural.

That is rather normal.

Quote

1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2

https://www.random.org/integers/?num=100&min=1&max=2&col=100&base=10&format=html&rnd=new

 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2

First series: 2 streaks of 5 in one hundred attempts and many streaks of 4.

 

Second series starts with a streak of 8... and has one streak of 6 and 7 and two streaks of 5.

 

And that is a 50% chance. Take a guess how this looks like when the chances are different, because of a certain player behaviour.

[MacFergus]

10 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

That is rather normal.

First series: 2 streaks of 5 in one hundred attempts and many streaks of 4.

 

Second series starts with a streak of 8... and has one streak of 6 and 7 and two streaks of 5.

 

And that is a 50% chance. Take a guess how this looks like when the chances are different, because of a certain player behaviour.

You know what Pete this is a really good example of sequences at work although they are not the same as odds because they are unpredictable , I suppose you could say Randoms are unpredictable because of so many variables involved. 

[ColonelPete]

7 minutes ago, MacFergus said:

You know what Pete this is a really good example of sequences at work although they are not the same as odds because they are unpredictable , I suppose you could say Randoms are unpredictable because of so many variables involved. 

You were talking about randomness. That is unpredictable.

[Aethervoxx]

4 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

unless you are allowed to select players yourself

Which is exactly what the WG MM does. It selects the players. You can either believe that is truly random or not as your perception allows. My perception is the WG MM is not truly random, never was & never will be.

[Aethervoxx]

2 hours ago, MacFergus said:

You know what Pete this is a really good example of sequences at work although they are not the same as odds because they are unpredictable , I suppose you could say Randoms are unpredictable because of so many variables involved. 

Operative words: "Randoms are unpredictable because of so many variables involved". The question still remains as to whether the 'many variables' are truly random or truly not random.

Since, WG controls every single 'variable' no one can truly say but WG itself & when was WG really honest rather than outright lying & obfuscating?

Circumstantial evidence, the massive preponderance of the same, convicts WG (as in a civil trial, although what WG has done borders on the criminal, ethically).

[Aethervoxx]

2 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

You were talking about randomness. That is unpredictable.

Sure , with a properly balanced dice with equal area sides. That would be unpredictable randomness.

However, since WG controls completely all the software dice (as it were) do you believe WG consistently promotes unpredictable randomness? 

ROFL if you do & I have this golden oldie bridge in Brooklyn for sale - cheap - a 'special' price just for 'you'.

[ColonelPete]

7 minutes ago, Aethervoxx said:

Which is exactly what the WG MM does. It selects the players. You can either believe that is truly random or not as your perception allows. My perception is the WG MM is not truly random, never was & never will be.

Since when is you = WG?

 

And since you did not even supply one example of a good player with a bad solo winrate, you cannot even support your own claim.

[Aethervoxx]

1 minute ago, ColonelPete said:

you

'You' is the 'reader'. Please try to understand clear english syntax, Pete.

[ColonelPete]

3 minutes ago, Aethervoxx said:

'You' is the 'reader'. Please try to understand clear english syntax, Pete.

Excactly. Why do you claim it is WG then?

[Aethervoxx]

3 hours ago, RuruushuVuiBuritania said:

The thing is, if MM was truly random, it would not account for player skill.

Incorrect. WG could easily program the MM to account for player skill when compiling teams but everyone knows the MM does not do this.

 

3 hours ago, RuruushuVuiBuritania said:

how machine intelligence works, it can never create true randomness

Perhaps not, however, it could get close to true randomness. Again, this is whether WG programs their machine intelligence to do so. Hence, you either believe or not believe whether WG makes the MM 'random enough'.

 

3 hours ago, RuruushuVuiBuritania said:

''Numbers don't lie, but liars know how to count'.

You might have said, 'Numbers don't lie, but liars don't know how to count'.

 This appears to be the old computer adage (& statiticians retort) about data - "Garbage in = Garbage out".

[ColonelPete]

17 minutes ago, Aethervoxx said:

Sure , with a properly balanced dice with equal area sides. That would be unpredictable randomness.

However, since WG controls completely all the software dice (as it were) do you believe WG consistently promotes unpredictable randomness? 

ROFL if you do & I have this golden oldie bridge in Brooklyn for sale - cheap - a 'special' price just for 'you'.

WG does not need to roll dice for the MM.

The randomness come from the time players press the battle button.