Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

[Bear__Necessities]

1 hour ago, Smegger213 said:

A claim that cannot be proven, due to the reasons I set out above

We've already proven it. You just don't want to accept the evidence shows you are wrong. 

[ghostbuster_]

1 hour ago, Smegger213 said:

Who gives a S___

definitely not you. thats for sure. 

 

1 hour ago, Smegger213 said:

I was responding to the claim that 2% of the player base are unicoms. 

A claim that cannot be proven, due to the reasons I set out above. 

thats true. its proven that its actually lower. unicums are <2% of the playerbase. 

 

[ColonelPete]

1 hour ago, Smegger213 said:

I was responding to the claim that 2% of the player base are unicoms.

I said it was less than 2%...

1 hour ago, Smegger213 said:

A claim that cannot be proven, due to the reasons I set out above.

It helps to know what you are talking about. We showed you the data, so it is possible.

Feel free to look it up yourself:

https://developers.wargaming.net/reference/all/wows/account/statsbydate/?account_id=*&amp;r_realm=eu&amp;run=1

 

But you probably came to the conclusion that all the stats sites made up the data themselves and for some unforseen, lucky reason they guess your stats right...

 (and anybody else you look up)

1 hour ago, Smegger213 said:

A guy was complaining about being put in a team of tomatoes. When the enemy team was full of 55% and above win rate players.

He was not claiming that. Get your facts right for once. 

 

1 hour ago, Aethervoxx said:

Which, ofc, happens a lot. All to induce uninformed & unaware poor players to spend money .  

Yes, we know about the "great players" in high Tier with a few hundred battles and the port full of premiums and their "winning". Such a great theory of yours

1 hour ago, Aethervoxx said:

This is just one example of how the MM tries to effect a battle.

A T5 - T7 random (I was T6 btw) with one 2 player div on my team &  two 2 player divs on the other. 

My initial thought was great, they have the advantage (& they did & it almost got them the W).

Three caps map.

Surprisingly, my team captured all three while enemy team tried the 'camp' strategy.

Here's the kicker, the one div on the enemy team were these 2 NMs, both with 50%+ WRs - between them they sank 6 on my team (including me). Ofc, they were getting KSs whether they did all the damage or not.

Fortunately, we had one DD who survived & won it for us via the time running out.

....

*Plays normal game* --> Aethervoxx: "This is just one example of how the MM tries to effect a battle" 

But you are right, being mid-Tier and winning is a sure sign that WG wants you to lose

[Smegger213]

3 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

I said it was less than 2%...

It helps to know what you are talking about. We showed you the data, so it is possible.

Feel free to look it up yourself:

https://developers.wargaming.net/reference/all/wows/account/statsbydate/?account_id=*&amp;r_realm=eu&amp;run=1

 

But you probably came to the conclusion that all the stats sites made up the data themselves and for some unforseen, lucky reason they guess your stats right...

 (and anybody else you look up)

He was not claiming that. Get your facts right for once. 

 

Yes, we know about the "great players" in high Tier with a few hundred battles and the port full of premiums and their "winning". Such a great theory of yours

*Plays normal game* --> Aethervoxx: "This is just one example of how the MM tries to effect a battle" 

But you are right, being mid-Tier and winning is a sure sign that WG wants you to lose

Look pal, you can quote stupid tables till the cows come home.

Because the number of active players is changing all the time, You cannot possibly get a figure of how many of those players are in the top win rates.

The figure will be constantly changing.

If today there are 1000 active accounts, but yesterday there were 1500 active accounts.

They both cannot have 2% Unicums.

So do grow up and stop spouting facts that you cannot prove.

[Smegger213]

4 hours ago, Bear__Necessities said:

We've already proven it. You just don't want to accept the evidence shows you are wrong. 

Dear forum troll,

 

You have proved nothing, nowt, zilch.

 

You cannot prove beyond doubt the number of Unicums at any one time.

The number of active players is changing all the time.

See my above answer to Pete, mr forum troll.

[Bear__Necessities]

29 minutes ago, Smegger213 said:

Dear forum troll,

 

You have proved nothing, nowt, zilch.

 

You cannot prove beyond doubt the number of Unicums at any one time.

The number of active players is changing all the time.

See my above answer to Pete, mr forum troll.

I've provided actual data sets. Reading hard huh? 

[ColonelPete]

6 hours ago, Smegger213 said:

Look pal, you can quote stupid tables till the cows come home.

Because the number of active players is changing all the time, You cannot possibly get a figure of how many of those players are in the top win rates.

The figure will be constantly changing.

If today there are 1000 active accounts, but yesterday there were 1500 active accounts.

They both cannot have 2% Unicums.

So do grow up and stop spouting facts that you cannot prove.

Which is why I did not say that there are 2% unicums....

Get your facts right for once. ...

 

Btw, one can look up the data daily...

 

 

[Nadrick]

Please refrain from personal insults. It is perfectly possible to argue and debate constructively, without the use of personal insults or provocation.

-Nadrick

[Smegger213]

10 hours ago, Bear__Necessities said:

I've provided actual data sets. Reading hard huh? 

What is the point in providing a table of data when it changes all the time?

 

There will NEVER be a set figure.

[ColonelPete]

11 minutes ago, Smegger213 said:

What is the point in providing a table of data when it changes all the time?

 

There will NEVER be a set figure.

It helps to know how much it changes, but since you claim that you do not have an opinion about that, you do not know and therefore cannot assess that.

 

If one follows your theory, people should not be able to tell their age, since it is not a set figure. Somehow people manage to do it anyway...

[Smegger213]

2 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

It helps to know how much it changes, but since you claim that you do not have an opinion about that, you do not know and therefore cannot assess that.

 

If one follows your theory, people should not be able to tell their age, since it is not a set figure. Somehow people manage to do it anyway...

See, you and the other troll, just cannot shut up.

You resort to provocation and or insults.

 

The point is, YOU claimed a set figure.

A figure that cannot possibly be right all the time.

But fine, you just keep your trolling agenda pal.

[ColonelPete]

Just now, Smegger213 said:

See, you and the other troll, just cannot shut up.

You resort to provocation and or insults.

 

The point is, YOU claimed a set figure.

A figure that cannot possibly be right all the time.

But fine, you just keep your trolling agenda pal.

I an not calling anyone names like some other person.

Where is the insult? Is it your ego?

 

I did not claim a SET figure, which I told you repeatedly. I gave you an approximation (<2%).

Please get your facts right for once...

[Smegger213]

On 8/1/2022 at 10:04 PM, ColonelPete said:

Yeah, the not thinking part is the problem.

 

If you do not care, why ask the question? 

And the number of unicums seemed to be relevant to you as you claimed to run into unicum enemy teams in random regularly...

So, turning round and saying I am not thinking, is not an insult or provocation?

Interesting.

[Smegger213]

5 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

I an not calling anyone names like some other person.

Where is the insult? Is it your ego?

 

I did not claim a SET figure, which I told you repeatedly. I gave you an approximation (<2%).

Please get your facts right for once...

There you go.

In the first sentence you claim to not call people names etc.

 

Then in the other sentences you slam me with the old ego statement and get your facts right crap.

[ColonelPete]

13 minutes ago, Smegger213 said:

So, turning round and saying I am not thinking, is not an insult or provocation?

Interesting.

That is something you wrote yourself...

11 minutes ago, Smegger213 said:

There you go.

In the first sentence you claim to not call people names etc.

 

Then in the other sentences you slam me with the old ego statement and get your facts right crap.

That was a question and the comment about facts is just something I copied from you...

[Bear__Necessities]

1 hour ago, Smegger213 said:

What is the point in providing a table of data when it changes all the time?

 

There will NEVER be a set figure.

You're right. It's actually LOWER than 2% my apologies. 

[Smegger213]

On 8/1/2022 at 1:02 PM, Bear__Necessities said:

Yes, you can prove that for the record. 

 

This was the last capture for the Russian Server by MapleSyrup before the site went. As you can see, Unicums only make up 1.2% of that server. That's universal for all the other server by the way.

 

 

OK buddy.

You can say that back in Feb 2021 there were 1.2% players with 60% win rates.

But like I have said before. It depends on what you class as a very good player.

Me personally, I would class any player with a win rate of 55% or higher as a very good player.

 

Now if we look at your data. There are 1.27% 60% players, 1.77% 59%, 2.50% 58%, 3.58% 57%, 5.11% 56% and 7.24% of 55% win rate players.

Now if you add all those up, you get 21.47% of players that I would class as very good players.

That figure would be a bit higher if you factor in those players of above 60% win rate.

 

Maybe that is why you see games with a lot of 55% or higher players on one team, and a lot less on the other.

You may not see many 60% or above players, but quite a lot of 55% to 59% ones.

[ColonelPete]

8 minutes ago, Smegger213 said:

OK buddy.

You can say that back in Feb 2021 there were 1.2% players with 60% win rates.

But like I have said before. It depends on what you class as a very good player.

Me personally, I would class any player with a win rate of 55% or higher as a very good player.

But that was not the complaint. The complaint was about Unicums.

[Bear__Necessities]

11 minutes ago, Smegger213 said:

OK buddy.

You can say that back in Feb 2021 there were 1.2% players with 60% win rates.

But like I have said before. It depends on what you class as a very good player.

Me personally, I would class any player with a win rate of 55% or higher as a very good player.

 

Now if we look at your data. There are 1.27% 60% players, 1.77% 59%, 2.50% 58%, 3.58% 57%, 5.11% 56% and 7.24% of 55% win rate players.

Now if you add all those up, you get 21.47% of players that I would class as very good players.

That figure would be a bit higher if you factor in those players of above 60% win rate.

 

Maybe that is why you see games with a lot of 55% or higher players on one team, and a lot less on the other.

You may not see many 60% or above players, but quite a lot of 55% to 59% ones.

(Error on my part) 

[Smegger213]

25 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

But that was not the complaint. The complaint was about Unicums.

It depends on how you define a Unicum player.

If you look back through this thread, there are many complaints about enemy teams full of good players.

With a load of bad players on the friendly team.

 

They are not complaining of getting tons of 60% plus players on the enemy team.

They are complaining about mismatched teams due to skill and win rates.

[ColonelPete]

Just now, Smegger213 said:

It depends on how you define a Unicum player.

Unicum status starts at 60% winrate, but feel free to limit that definition further, it just makes the number of players even smaller.

[Smegger213]

2 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Unicum status starts at 60% winrate, but feel free to limit that definition further, it just makes the number of players even smaller.

Well, you can say that its 60%.

 

I will class anybody with 55% or above win rate as a Unicum.

Who decided its 60%? Probably some random player back in the days of the Closed Alpha.

Unless Wargaming themselves come out and state 60%, then its open to interpretation.

[ColonelPete]

Just now, Smegger213 said:

Well, you can say that its 60%.

 

I will class anybody with 55% or above win rate as a Unicum.

Who decided its 60%? Probably some random player back in the days of the Closed Alpha.

Unless Wargaming themselves come out and state 60%, then its open to interpretation.

I am not the one deciding that. That is a  community standard for years, probably since WoT. Feel free to make up new standards, but the community will not respect them.

[Smegger213]

1 minute ago, ColonelPete said:

I am not the one deciding that. That is a  community standard for years, probably since WoT. Feel free to make up new standards, but the community will not respect them.

Its up to me how I class a Unicum player.

So please do shut up about it.

We are trying to discuss the matchmaker.

[ColonelPete]

5 minutes ago, Smegger213 said:

Its up to me how I class a Unicum player.

So please do shut up about it.

We are trying to discuss the matchmaker.

Yes, do what you want, but do not expect other people to understand what you mean.

Feel free to start a thread and announce your definition.